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
why, it is south texas and snow, that is more newsworthy right now.
I know you were compelled to address these issues, by your own ethical standards and WU bloggers demanding it...
HOWEVER, it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood, and a gal's gotta' do what a gal's gotta do to avoid blog strife --
GO SHOPPING!!
Silver Spring, Maryland (PWS)
Updated: 3 min 25 sec ago
59.1 °F
Clear
Record was 65,its now 68
As it is, they instead appear to be like New Orleans, below sea level while facing a large 'cane.
And because of this, they've made the people who defend them look foolish.
It does indeed seem to me that EA CRU has been involved in a cover-up, and so the 'Climategate' moniker seems very apt.
As a computer geek and general IT nerd, I think that this came about due to a 'whistleblower', possibly working in conjunction with a 'hacker'. Your typical black-hat hacker would not have bothered to parse the data; thus my suspicion that someone inside of/with insider access to/knowledge of the EA CRU 'data' and how it has been mishandled arranged for this leak.
Someone here linked Bishop Hill's blog about the tree cores and the data which was withheld and misused to support the 'hockey stick' theory, and I found that information to be particularly revealing.
If you want to see many, many more comments on this topic, lots of them from a scientific/geek viewpoint, check out the discussion of this at Slashdot a couple of days ago. Lots and lots of pertinent info there.
I do hope that this has all been for the best. I wish that the people who claim mankind is responsible for global climate change would take off their blinders and face the root cause if this is so, the root cause being *too many people* for the available resources. Maybe this means we need population control, or to get our human race into space quicker, I don't know the solution. I only see people who believe in man-created GW refuse to acknowledge that the cause of this, and instead of trying to cure the 'disease', they are simply attempting to ameliorate the symptoms.
That won't fix anything, and will only cost a lot in the failing.
Of course, YMMV.
HAND!
Sorry, I can't help myself ... used up duct tape.
The likelihood of snow in SE Texas, or potential for severe weather in Florida?
And for newsworthiness, consider there are two groups at play... the normal public... and everyone here on this blog (which is MUCH more heavily biased towards Florida, but has a strong representation in the SE TX area).
I agree. Thanks Dr. M. I think I'll listen to the PhD with decades of experience over some of the other so-called experts.
Its snowing in Northwest Texas right now. Look before you speak or at least use this: NWS
Thanks for the non-inflammatory opinion Doug. Although I don't agree 100% (I don't disagree 100% either), it's easy to respect your view when it's put in that way.
LOL!
agreed. it in no way discredits AGW ... but it is a good reminder that we do need to keep researching this stuff... after all the whole science community once believed the sun orbited us and the world was flat yadda yadda yadda ... we have been wrong why cant we be again? needs further study to be sure.
These are the types of posts that are so counter productive to healthy debate. This extremely dismissive viewpoint is what infuriates me. Talk about egotistical?!
Local weather events neither prove or disprove anything.
Snow on the River side.Dec 11th 2008,NOLA
Even if you account for the areas with no readings, you will still have a net increase of temps. (especially if you estimate in the areas with no readings, creating contours that match up to areas with readings).
Hi! I'm not picking a fight, really -- while I certainly think you make a case in the rest of your post, even though I don't fully agree -- why not act now? Which side would you like to err on? Why not at least do a few of the "do-able" green, job-creating things?
You know, plant a tree, look at alternative energy sources, change a few light bulbs, have a veggie meal once in a while, with locally-grown produce; no big deal, no sweat, little money. Just sayin' ...
Very long!!!
Temps dropping in Hades I hear too.
"Strange Days indeed,....most peculiar Momma"
then this..
289
fxus64 klix 031057
afdlix
Area forecast discussion
National Weather Service New Orleans la
457 am CST Thursday Dec 3 2009
Short term...
the upper trough that moves through to give US a light snow is
currently digging through Colorado and Wyoming this morning. This
is occurring inside a larger rossby wave already set up over 80%
of the Continental U.S.. the smaller upper trough is the one that is fcast to
sharpen as it digs southward and begin lifting out of the deep
south by Sat morning. But before that it will provide enough
height falls and layer lifting to cause some winter weather for the
area. Problem is obvious...moisture. There will be some strong
wind speeds moving through at jet level Friday night providing the
lifting mechanism which will squeeze any moisture from the
adjoining layers below. Problem with getting any strong snowfall
will be the disconnection of the surface low and the upper trough
while moving over our area. Without the connection to the surface
low...there can be little moisture brought into the middle levels of
the trough. Slantwise convection will be at a minimum until the
trough moves past. The thing we would look for to get a good
amount of snow is an upper low connected with a surface low over the
Gulf. The upper low would help bring moisture back into the lower
heights to the west where the air is colder. The slantwise
convection and upper low would wrap this unending moisture back
into this area and let it fall through those cold layers.
With the setup we are about to see...we would see the strong jet
level winds lifting and squeezing out what available moisture
there is in a linear pattern...simply causing snow streaks. If we
can see one of these streaks set up over any one area for about an
hour...we may see some accumulations in the half to inch range.
The going fcast looks good though and have changed a few things
mainly showing the different mixed wintry precipitation types and where
heights support their existance. The mix is not with US long and
to see it you will need to stay awake into the evening and
morning hours Friday night early Sat morning.
The biggest issues are going to be with elevated roadways. Even if
a mix of sleet and snow/rain is occurring...there will be the
potential for some of this to freeze on elevated roadways.
Detailing the area of greatest potential to see this will be
examined and transmitted later today or tonight.
Long term...
very progressive pattern setting up. Another disturbance races
through Sun night into Monday morning. Then another cold front moves
through on Tuesday. High pressure then settles in for the next several days.
&&
Aviation...
satellite shows the low clouds got a Big Hole and temporarily
cleared kbtr and kmcb...however...clouds are moving back into kmcb
and will likely move back into kbtr in the next few hours. Kmsy may
scattered out for a couple hours...but then MVFR ceilings are likely
again before clearing out this afternoon. Kgpt may keep the ceilings
around all day and possibly tonight as well. No visibilities restrictions
are expected. 22/dew point
&&
Marine...
building high pressure and a relaxing pressure gradient are causing
winds and seas to subside...and small craft exercise caution will be
allowed to expire before sunrise. The window of lower winds will be
short lived as high pressure starts to interact with developing low
pressure early Friday. Small craft exercise caution conditions over
the lakes...and Small Craft Advisory conditions are expected to
develop late tonight and especially Friday and Friday night as the
low pressure area moves across the northern/central Gulf of Mexico.
Sustained winds approaching 30 knots Friday night and Saturday
morning may produce wind gusts to gale force /34 knots/...but have
opted not to issue a gale watch at this time. Winds and seas will
lower below small craft criteria again Saturday afternoon with
lighter winds expected on Sunday. 22/dew point
&&
Preliminary point temps/pops...
mcb 57 36 50 31 / 0 10 30 60
btr 59 38 52 33 / 0 10 40 60
msy 58 44 54 37 / 0 10 30 60
gpt 60 39 54 35 / 0 10 20 60
&&
Lix watches/warnings/advisories...
la...none.
GM...none.
MS...none.
GM...none.
Time to go online and look for SURGE soda!
(Manly equivalent to shopping cure.) (G'morning!)
Amen sister AIM! I think this is a very well put post. We have nothing to lose by being friendly to our planet and environment. For all those so-called "Christians" out there: I think God / Jesus would want us to treat Mother Earth like you would any precious gift, not turn it into a cesspool. Being Green doesn't have to be expensive and if the fossil fuel energy companies would get a brain they'd invest some of their billions of windfall profits into alternative energy which will actually be more lucrative than their current products. DUH!
Is there any place I can get a print or card of that gorgeous pic. of the N.O. streetcar in the snow, circa 12/2008? TIA.
Regardless something is changing, I'm going to do everything in my power to limit my activities from harming the earth and encourage family and friends to do the same. At least in the end I'll feel better about myself knowing I tried. Besides that crack open a drink and watch what happens. Because in just a little guy in this world.
I agree 100%,
while I may not be convinced that climate change is all man-made, these minor changes in one's lifestyle arent that difficult to do, and it helps the environment. In my opinion, going green isnt necessarily all about "fixing" our climate, it is also about using our resources wisely. None of us should be against being good stewards of what we have here on planet Earth, and we should be glad to do what we can to ensure that our planet is a nice place to live for future generations.
anything wrong with that?
haha good idea (: g'morning to you as well!
Use this page to find and save one to ya puter.
Viewing: 1 - 51
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