Climategate (GW email leak)

[bascule]

An alternative explanation is that the global warming since that time is that the climate can be explained solely in terms of the PDO and AMO.

 

An alternative explanation is that Earth is the center of the universe and is enclosed in crystal spheres floating in the sky.

 

You are proposing that the anomalous warming we've experienced is caused solely by natural oscillations that have been going on since time immemorial? Whaaaaaaaaaaa?

 

And your general circulation model which is accurately able to reconstruct the historical record based around this hypothesis is... where? Oh wait, you don't have one, you just have a completely unsubstantiated hypothesis that makes absolutely no sense.

 

Can you please go post this crap in pseudoscience where it belongs?

[D H]

Did you really just suggest an equivalence between looking at only the last three years to suggest a trend and looking at the past 40 to show a trend... further suggesting an equivalence in "cherry-picking" when so doing?

The recent recovery in Arctic ice extent is consonant with the phase change of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So is the decline in ice extent while the PDO was in its warm phase.

 

Are you denying

• That the PDO has shifted from its warm phase to its cold phase?
  
• That Arctic ice extent is (after the fact) very highly correlated with the PDO?
  
• That the PDO and the Altantic Multidecadal Oscillation together do not explain almost all of the changes in the climate since 1900?
  
• That how our human activities impact these very recently discovered multidecadal oscillations is still a big unknown?

 

 

I am not arguing that climate science is not science. It most certainly is science. I am not arguing that human activities, including dumping massive amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere have not affected the climate. There are some who argue that climate science is not science or that CO₂ has no impact on the climate. These people are idiots. Just because there are idiots out there does not falsify the claims of the reasoned skeptics who question the magnitude of the predictions by the IPCC.

 

What I am arguing is that it is imprudent to be making economic and political decisions of the extreme magnitude being proposed to address global anthropogenic warming based on a science that is still in its infancy. I am arguing that those goals are unattainable. Emplacing unachievable goals that impoverish us all is, to put it nicely, not a particularly bright thing to do. You on the AGW side of the debate will not like the backlash. I won't like the backlash.

 

Making a goal of reducing our energy dependence is an achievable goal, and this will reduce our CO₂ output as a by-product. Making a goal of restoring the buffers around our waterways will mitigate some of the recent increase in flooding events, will mitigate biodiversity loss and will reduce some of the non-CO₂ impacts humans have had on climate. Making a goal of helping developing/underdeveloped countries maintain their rainforests will reduce that aspect of biodiversity loss.

 

There are plenty of attainable goals that will achieve some very desirable ends and will have as a by-product a reduction in the human impact on climate.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You are proposing that the anomalous warming we've experienced is caused solely by natural oscillations that have been going on since time immemorial? Whaaaaaaaaaaa?

Enough stupid histrionics, bascule. I did not say that. I said that the PDO and AMO together do an incredibly good job of explaining the climate. That leaves as an open question how/whether we have changed the behaviors of those multidecadal oscillations.

[bascule]

That Arctic ice extent is (after the fact) very highly correlated with the PDO?

 

No, it's not, as the graphs I posted above make clear. The PDO does affect sea ice extent in the Northern Pacific, but the Arctic as a whole is affected not only by other oscillations (e.g. the Arctic Oscillation) but also the combined effects of various radiative forcings.

 

Enough stupid histrionics, bascule. I did not say that. I said...

 

An alternative explanation is that the global warming since that time is that the climate can be explained solely in terms of the PDO and AMO.

 

This is patently incorrect. C'mon, you're a physicist here guy. You want to explain warming "solely in terms of" something?

 

More energy is entering Earth's climate system than leaving it. We can explain warming solely in terms of this simple fact. Earth exhibits a radiative imbalance that is trapping heat over time.

 

Climate scientists have meticulously constructed models of the general circulations throughout both the atmospheric and oceanic components of the climate system. This is a model of Earth's climate system, running inside a computer:

 

tbXwRP0CQNA

 

(This is UCAR's CCSM, developed right here in my hometown)

 

Using the following radiative forcing inputs, they have been able to successfully construct the historical record:

 

[iNow]

What I am arguing is that it is imprudent to be making economic and political decisions of the extreme magnitude being proposed to address global anthropogenic warming based on a science that is still in its infancy.

No, actually, it's not. I don't deny that we still have more to learn, and details to work through, but your claim about this being a research arena in its infancy is inaccurate.

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

 

 

 

I am arguing that those goals are unattainable.

I understand, and you may ultimately be correct due solely to a self-fulfilling prophecy. I (and obviously most others here) disagree with your suggestion that this is impossible. Difficult? Yes, absolutely... but it is most certainly achievable.

 

P1: Let's go to the moon within a decade.

P2: No, that's unattainable, and I'm going to keep arguing that it's unattainable.

P1: Okay. Buh bye... Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

[D H]

No, actually, it's not. I don't deny that we still have more to learn, and details to work through, but your claim about this being a research arena in its infancy is inaccurate.

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

So when did climatology start? In 1824 with James Fourier? Hardly. All he did was to show that the atmosphere must somehow keep the planet warmer than simple radiation models would suggest. Following the link in the timeline article to http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_M085

Not until the mid-20th century would scientists fully grasp, and calculate with some precision, just how the effect works. A rough explanation goes like this.

 

In the late 1800s with Arrhenius and Chamberlin? Maybe. That would make climate science about 100 years old: A rather young science. That is still a bit early, however. You missed this article, also from the American Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/climogy.htm (emphasis mine)

Climatology as a Profession

 

Through the first half of the 20th century, climatology was a nearly stagnant field. The prevailing view saw climate as a static average condition, pinned down by tedious statistics. The study of climate change (what to many climatologists seemed a contradiction in terms) was only an occasional interest of individuals who worked in divergent ways, and scarcely knew of one another's existence. The Second World War and Cold War promoted a rapid growth of meteorology and other fields of geophysics. But the dozens of scientific specialties that might have something to say about climate remained mostly isolated from one another.

In the 1960s, the rise of interdisciplinary institutions and large-scale international projects, combined with concerns about climate change, began to bring the diverse fields into contact. People interested in climate change kept their identification with their individual disciplines rather than forming a distinct community of their own, while communicating through various means that cut across disciplinary boundaries.

Around the start of the 21st century, the International Panel on Climate Change institutionalized an uprecedented process of workshops and exchanges, building a community of experts who forged a consensus on what could be reliably said about global warming (see the essay on International Cooperation.)

 

Climatology was more a glorified Farmer's Almanac than a science throughout the first half of the 20th century:

At the middle of the 20th century the study of climate was a scientific backwater. People who called themselves "climatologists" were mostly drudges who compiled statistics about weather conditions in regions of interest — the average temperatures, extremes of rainfall, and so forth. That could have offered a broad global perspective, but most climatologists set the planet as a whole aside and attended to regional problems. ... Typical was the situation at the U.S. Weather Bureau, where an advisory group reported in 1953 that climatology was "exclusively a data collection and tabulation business." Not much money or administrative attention was committed to such work, nor were the intellectual prospects enticing.

 

So when did climatology, and in particular, climate change, get its start?

I would place climatology as a serious discipline as starting in 1957-58 as an offshoot of the International Geophysical Year. Up until 1957 there wasn't much to it:

As for climatology at the Bureau, in 1957 another report described it as more than ever a mere passive "subsidiary to the task of forecasting."

 

Or maybe even as late as 1965.

The new thinking was displayed in full at a 1965 symposium held in Boulder, Colorado on "Causes of Climate Change." While the meeting made little special impression at the time, in retrospect it was a landmark.

 

Whether you want to say climatology (and in particular, climate change) started in 1897, 1957, or 1965 doesn't really matter. 1897 makes it a young science. Those latter dates make it a very young science. Furthermore, given that key climate drivers such as the ENSO, PDO, and AMO were not discovered until very recently, I stand by my claim that climatology is still in its infancy.

 

I am arguing that those goals are unattainable.

I understand, and you may ultimately be correct due solely to a self-fulfilling prophecy. I (and obviously most others here) disagree with your suggestion that this is impossible. Difficult? Yes, absolutely... but it is most certainly achievable.

 

P1: Let's go to the moon within a decade.

P2: No, that's unattainable, and I'm going to keep arguing that it's unattainable.

P1: Okay. Buh bye... Either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.

That is disingenuous, and that is putting it rather nicely. The proposal outlined in the SciAm article claims a 100 trillion dollar cost, and that is intentionally low-balled. The cost of the Apollo program: $145 billion in 2008 dollars. We aren't talking about an Apollo-style program here. We are talking about 1,000 Apollo-style programs. A better comparison would be sending people to Mars. The cost of such a mission has been estimated to be on the order of $1 trillion. That might be attainable in the eyes of a Mars Society member. It is not to a politician. That trillion dollar price tag is too high.

 

Going Cheney on the climate is akin to about 100 human-to-Mars missions (minimum).

[bascule]

So when did climatology, and in particular, climate change, get its start?

I would place climatology as a serious discipline as starting in 1957-58 as an offshoot of the International Geophysical Year. Up until 1957 there wasn't much to it

 

If that's your metric, computer science is also in its infancy. Maybe we shouldn't trust these computer things until they mature a little more.

[iNow]

I'll just restate the core of my point.

 

The age of a science has no impact on its validity, contrary to the suggestion DH has put forth above.

 

 

 

"It is the melancholy law of human societies to be compelled sometimes to choose a great evil in order to ward off a greater." -- Thomas Jefferson

 

"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." -- Albert Einstein

 

"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it. " -- Michelangelo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If that's your metric, computer science is also in its infancy. Maybe we shouldn't trust these computer things until they mature a little more.

 

We created computers. We did not create the climate.

[bascule]

We created computers. We did not create the climate.

 

Well, point being that the amount of time a scientific discipline has been around should not be used as a value judgment against the validity of their results.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well, point being that the amount of time a scientific discipline has been around should not be used as a value judgment against the validity of their results.

 

Not necessarily. In your example, computer science, we created the systems we study; we understand how they work exactly because we made them. With climate science, however, we are struggling to understand an incredibly complex system that has been around as long as the Earth has. We are at a sizable disadvantage.

[iNow]

I can't believe we're having this conversation. How much more ridiculous can we let ourselves get on this topic?

 

Unreal, people.

 

 

Show the flaws in specific studies, or show how the confluence of data is all mistaken.

However, as someone who entered this thread blasting against others for "poisoning the well," DH has been doing exactly that himself in these last several posts, and you Cap'n are now here supporting his approach.

[bascule]

In your example, computer science, we created the systems we study; we understand how they work exactly because we made them. With climate science, however, we are struggling to understand an incredibly complex system that has been around as long as the Earth has. We are at a sizable disadvantage.

 

None of these have anything to do with how long computer science or climate science have been around. Attacking a science because it's in "its infancy" is little more than an ad hominem.

 

If you'd like some examples of natural sciences which aren't much older than climate science, how about: quantum mechanics, relativity, and modern cosmology, all of which were also created in the 20th century?

 

Are these sciences in their infancy as well? Does the amount of time they've been around have any effect on their value? The answer to both questions is a resolute no.

[D H]

I can't believe we're having this conversation. How much more ridiculous can we let ourselves get on this topic?

I agree completely. In the last few posts we have seen comparisons of the costs of "going Cheney on the climate" to the costs of the Apollo program. We have seen comparisons of climate science to genetics, quantum mechanics, computer science, and ruby slippers. Lets look at these last comparisons.

 

 

Knockout mice and fruit flies (among others) allow geneticists to perform active experiments. While human have over 3 billion base pairs (not the most, by far), some viruses have but a few thousand base pairs. The underlying language is simple: ACGT. Genetics is a controllable, scalable science with a simple underlying language. Can the same be said for climatology?

 

Quantum mechanics in a sense is even easier than genetics. It is considerably more controllable, repeatable, and cleaner than is genetics. A key concern with genetics is relating the relativity simple and clean world of the genetic alphabet to the complex and messy biological world where viruses insert themselves into host cells, and genes interact and express themselves according to sometimes yet-to-be-determined influences. Relating the quantum world to the macro world is important, but this is not the driving influence in quantum mechanics. Getting ever and ever smaller is the driving influence in quantum mechanics.

 

The underlying rules of computer science were formulated over seventy years ago by Alan Turing. All computers built today are still Turing machines. That said, ascertaining the correctness of the complex computer systems we build nowadays remains an ongoing concern. Speaking of which, NASA requires that systems used to make billion dollar decisions go through incredibly intensive verification, validation, and accreditation exercises. Have the climate models used at NASA and NOAA undergone these efforts? (I don't know. It's a point of curiosity with me.)

 

Climatology is an incredibly complex endeavor compared to genetics, quantum mechanics, or computer science. I'll leave the comparison to ruby slippers up to you.

[CharonY]

Excuse me, but stating that genetics is controllable and scalable science is fairly inaccurate. Specifically due to all that we know today we start to appreciate how little we know. I would argue that modeling weather is easier in comparison to trying to model the genetics of a cell (quite specifically because it is not scalable) despite the fact that we got much much more detailed data on cells than on climate. We have, for instance much more predictive models for climate change than working models on cellular activity. The few of the latter we got are often more of a qualitative nature and really limited in scope.

[iNow]

Climatology is an incredibly complex endeavor...

Yes, it is, and yet we still do a fine job of offering evidence of our claims, filling gaps in our knowledge, and digging deeper into areas of concern or uncertainty to ensure our confidence is based on evidence and not on faith. We've known since at least the early 1990s that humans are the primary driver of the current warming trend. Now, two decades later, instead of acting like a mature species and accepting the validity of the science in the interest of safety and well-being (despite the possibility that such an acceptance could be mistaken), we are left delaying action and bickering with people for whom human induced global climate change just "doesn't feel right."

 

Well, you know what? Neither does relativity or QM, but we accept those based on the evidence. Why can't you do the same with climate science?

[D H]

Excuse me, but stating that genetics is controllable and scalable science is fairly inaccurate.

I was talking about the issue of decoding the genetic sequence. You left out the part where I specifically said that the difficulty in genetics lies in relating it to the messy, wet world of biology.

 

Specifically due to all that we know today we start to appreciate how little we know.

You are being honest here. Climate scientist could afford to be similarly honest. Things like the ENSO and the even longer term multi-decadal oscillations are very recent discoveries. They too are just starting to appreciate how little they know.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You heard it here first folks: climate science is too immature to trust it enough to take action! DH said so.

First off, this is a straw man. Secondly, I am far from alone. I have said many times (do I have to repeat myself again?) that prudent steps are justified. It is the $100 trillion dollar steps and the going back to the 19th century steps (80% reduction of CO₂ output is going back to the 19th century) that I do (and others) do not think are not justified.

 

Moreover, even if we did have to take such steps to avoid calamity, such steps are not economically or politically possible. One of the key concepts in various fields of engineering is the point of no return. Cross that point and you are effed, no bones about it. There is no escaping the collision. If the most dire predictions of climate science are true, we are truly effed. We have crossed that Rubicon.

 

That said, I don't think the science is sufficiently advanced to say that we have crossed that threshold. In fact, that spate of leaked emails gives me doubts about the veracity of the key scientists in that field.

 

 

Peak Oil Man, in your fervent hope that the worst predictions of peak oil and peak coal are correct you give the appearance of wanting humanity to suffer. Why is that?

 

You also forgot the bit about the great ammunition you've just given creationists!

So we should all shut up because some creationists will take advantage of discord amongst scientists? That is nonsense. Besides, the ones who have given greatest ammunition to creationists are the climate scientists who are circling the wagons and reusing the playbooks of Richard Nixon, Ken Lay, and Bernard Ebbers. Those tactics didn't work then, and they won't work now.

Edited December 21, 2009 by D H
Consecutive posts merged.

[iNow]

That said, I don't think the science is sufficiently advanced to say that we have crossed that threshold. In fact, that spate of leaked emails gives me doubts about the veracity of the key scientists in that field.

 

What specifically? Most of the comments were taken out of context, essentially quote mined, and when examined showed practically none of the nefarious intent which was implied by the deniosphere and Fox news types.

 

So, what specifically from those stolen emails is significant enough to cause someone as bright as you to still have "doubts about the veracity of key scientists in that field?" Again, please be specific. Since your decision has such a profound impact on your lack of acceptance of an entire science modality, you should at least be able to point to the specific bits which motivate and inform your rejection.

 

When you respond, it would be nice if you could also address my comments from post 225.

[D H]

So, what specifically from those stolen emails is significant enough to cause someone as bright as you to still have "doubts about the veracity of key scientists in that field?" Again, please be specific.

Where to start?

 

#1: Calling them stolen. You do not know that, and nor do the apologists at RealClimate. Let's start with RealClimate.

As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical.

That is a crock. Have these people never taken Corporate Ethics 101? The email messages one writes using corporate, or government, or academic computers *are not private*. I can't count how many times I have been told this very basic fact. What you write can and will be used against you. Email repositories have become one of the key weapons against corporate malfeasance, from Enron to WorldCom to countless others. Lay and Ebbers, and now Jones et al thought their email messages were private. They aren't.

 

Calling the email messages stolen presupposes a crime was committed. You do not know that. If this was the act of whistleblowers it might well not be a crime. If there was no crime they were not stolen. There is only one reason to call them stolen rather than leaked: To poison the well. Nixon tried to poison the well against Ellsberg. He sent plumbers after Ellsberg. The plumbers went to jail. Ellsberg did not.

 

 

#2: Deleting messages and data in rather than turn them over to a FOI request. Now this is a crime. Even suggesting it is a crime.

 

 

#3: "Redefining the peer reviewed literature".

 

 

As a start. That is bad stuff.

[iNow]

#1: Calling them stolen.

#2: Deleting messages and data in rather than turn them over to a FOI request.

#3: "Redefining the peer reviewed literature".

 

Okay. So let's recap your position here for clarity.

 

You dismiss climate science as invalid because:

 

1) Some of us are referring to the emails which were hacked by Russians as "stolen." You dismiss the entire science of global climate change because we are referring to emails which were obtained illegally (access was obtained in an involuntarily manner) with the descriptor "stolen."

 

2) You are dismissing the entire science of global climate change because, after emails were obtained via involuntary means, one or two scientists deleted messages instead of turning them over after and FOI request.

 

3) You dismiss the entire science of climate change as a result of some nebulous hand-wavey assertion about "redefining peer review."

 

 

Okay... Well, numbers one and two I think can be safely dismissed as irrelevant, and don't support your decision to dismiss the entire science of global climate change.

 

That leaves us with number 3, which was presented by you as some nebulous hand-wavey assertion. Let's focus there.

 

What do you mean by "Redefining the peer reviewed literature?" Be specific.

Edited December 21, 2009 by iNow

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't think "dismissing climate science as invalid" was his point. Look at the quote D H was answering.

 

But then this thread seems to be about sticking words in peoples' mouths...

[iNow]

Ah... So he's dismissing the veracity of key climate scientists, not the results of the science itself (but wait, isn't he?). I sure am glad you clarified that for all of us, Cap'n. Important distinction that was, especially considering it's outcome is largely the same.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Must you insist on pretending D H has made no other posts in this thread? You asked why D H had doubts about the veracity of key scientists in the field, he answered. D H never even insinuated that those were the reasons he dismissed climate science altogether. There are many reasons, which he has presented throughout this thread.

 

But I will allow D H to defend himself on this, since he best knows what he meant.

 

 

(You know, a year or so ago I made a post questioning the use of quote tags. I suggested that quote tags made it too easy to split an opponent's post into small pieces, each taken out of context with relation to the rest of the post, so each piece can be attacked individually. Because the pieces are out of context, strawman arguments become almost natural. Reasoned argument is thrown away, since simply objecting to every little detail is far easier.)

 

(Curiously, iNow agreed with me when I made that post.)

Edited December 21, 2009 by Cap'n Refsmmat

[iNow]

I find your suggestion that I am using quote tags to hyper-parse DH's posts to be both baseless and without merit, Cap'n. I fully agree with the sentiment you expressed in that thread last year, and explained why. Here, however, I have not done any such thing... I have not been over-parsing DHs posts, nor have I been taking his words out of context and attacking them one sentence at a time. As I should hope is clear to readers, I've been targeting both the tone and content of DHs posts, not minor issues of syntax or word choice.

 

I am not splicing his words to win some point, but am responding to their center and their core.

 

However, I won't belabor the point. My posts speak for themselves, and if I am alone in my sense that I am being misrepresented by you and targeted unnecessarily, then so be it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Damn. I was hoping you would at least quote my post for irony.

 

My point is that you are not "responding to their center and their core." You asked D H "what specifically .. is significant enough to cause someone ... to still have "doubts about the veracity of key scientists in that field?" He responded with evidence. You responded by reinterpreting his response to mean "I doubt climate science because of these three reasons, and only these three reasons."

 

Do you not see the non sequitur jump there? You chose to take one post of his and consider it in isolation, as though it were its own self-contained argument against climate science in its entirety. It was not.

[D H]

Okay. So let's recap your position here for clarity.

Nice (hah) recap. As a start, you intentionally left out the "as a start." Those leak emails and files dig very deep. Those first three reasons were the tip of the iceberg.

 

Okay... Well, numbers one and two I think can be safely dismissed as irrelevant, and don't support your decision to dismiss the entire science of global climate change.

Numbers 1 and 2 are anything but irrelevant. There is little point in discussing this if you can't see their relevance. Circling the wagons is what criminals and politicians do.

 

Number 3 is extremely relevant. One of the arguments used by the AGW crowd is that the skeptical views are not published in the peer reviewed literature. Now what we see in the email messages is that, behind the scenes, the scientific leadership of that movement appear to have worked fervently to keep such views out of the peer reviewed literature.

 

===============================

 

You're not thinking outside the box enough.

 

Which study are you quoting? SCIAM's? Was that 100 trillion for the worldwide transition to today's level of energy consumption from renewable energy sources?

That 100 trillion represents a reduction in energy output. It is one of the many ways the authors low-balled the cost. For example, the authors did not incorporate the costs of replacing our transportation system with electric vehicles into their estimate. They did not account for how law and demand will affect the price of the tens of millions of wind units and an unspecified "very large" number of solar systems. They did not account for the cost of building transmission lines to these wind and solar systems. I suspect their number is low by a factor of two, and maybe a factor of ten. Note however that I assumed their numbers are correct for the sake of argument.

 

We could cut at least half the energy required, maybe even down to a quarter, and I've heard some say 10% of today's energy, and live in modern, comfortable cities that simply require far less energy.

At least in the US, people are more likely to live in suburbs than in the city proper. Does this 10% energy Cloud Cuckoo Land even have suburbs? To those people who do the suburbs, their houses represent one of their largest investments. Do you really think people are going to give up those investments to move to this city, or do you think they would instead vote anyone out of office who insists they must do this?

 

How? Rezone with high LEED standards, and let natural attrition and the marketplace do the rest. It's that simple.

It's that simple in Cloud Cuckoo Land. It's not so simple in the real world where voters have a say in the zoning process and where voters can get rid of the foolish idealists who thought they could foist such nonsense on the rest of us.