Back in February, I signed a www.number10.gov.uk petition to the Prime Minister concerning the scandal at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. This was set up by Mike Haseler and received 3296 signatures (or 3273 depending on which page on their site you look at).
“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body.”
The detailed version can be found here
On the 24th March, some six days before the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee published the findings of its very cursory inquiry into the goings on at CRU, Number 10 circulated its response to the petition:
The Government believes that all these allegations should be investigated transparently.
An independent review is currently examining the scientific conduct of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and is due to report its findings later in the spring. More information on the review can be found at: http://www.cce-review.org/. The University of East Anglia also recently announced that there will be a separate review to examine the CRU’s key scientific publications. The findings of both these reviews will be made public.
The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology is also investigating the matter. On 1 March the Select Committee heard evidence from a wide range of contributors, including Professor Jones, who has temporarily stepped down from his post as Director of CRU.
CRU’s analysis of temperature records is not funded by, prepared for, or published by the Government. The resulting outputs are not Government statistics.
Our confidence that the Earth is warming is taken from multiple sources of evidence and not only the HadCRUT temperature record, which CRU scientists contribute to. The same warming trend is seen in two independent analyses carried out in the United States, by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). These analyses draw on the same pool of temperature data as HadCRUT, but use different methodologies to produce analyses of temperature change through time. Further evidence of this warming is found in data from instruments on satellites, and in trends of declining arctic sea ice and rising sea levels.
Science is giving us an increasingly clear picture of the risks we face from climate change. With more research, we can better understand those risks, and how to manage them. That is why the Government funds a number of institutions, including the University of East Anglia, to carry out research into climate change science.
It is, no doubt, true to say that Phil Jones’ global temperature estimates are not, strictly speaking, government statistics, but they are certainly statistics that the government relies very heavily in formulating policy and in AGW propaganda. There also appears to be a blatant contradiction concerning government funding of the CRU:
CRU’s analysis of temperature records is not funded by ….. by the Government.
That is why the Government funds ….. the University of East Anglia, to carry out research into climate change science.
But perhaps most startling of all is the omission any reference to human caused global warming. One suspects that six months ago that would not have been the case.
The main thrust of the Downing Street response is that there is no need whatsoever to be concerned about the robustness of the CRU’s research into historic global mean temperatures. All must be well because Phil Jones’ findings are confirmed by other, similar research carried out at GISS and NOAA. This once again raises a question that has been puzzling me for some tim; the claim that the similarity of the findings published by CRU, GISS, and NOAA is proof that the quality of the CRU research is beyond question. I find this unconvincing.
The well worn argument, now being trotted out on an almost daily basis by high profile climate scientists and assorted politicians and activist, goes like this: all three institutions use the same data pool, but applying different methods for homogenisation, adjustment, and analysis, they reach much the same conclusion about what the global mean temperature is, or has been, in the past. This, we are told, satisfies the normal requirements of the scientific method, to confirm findings by independent replication. And of course the word ‘independent’ is very important here.
For anyone who has even scratched the surface of the complexities that are involved in attempting to identify a global temperature signal from large amounts of surface station data stretching back to the mid 19th century, there can be no doubt about the challenges this presents. That data pool that they are all using is a very muddy one indeed.
Problems concerning the siting and periodic relocation of weather stations abound, which are aggravated by changes in instrumentation, in recording regimes, the inevitable introduction of scribal errors, and an extremely inconsistent geographic distribution of data sources. Then there is the urban heat island effect and the influence on temperature measurements of changes in land use around weather stations. All these factors require adjustments to the raw temperature data.
Worse, there is the discontinuous nature of many records. Periods when no temperature measurements are available have to be infilled by processes of estimation.
All these problems have to be seen against a background of a data processing regime that relies on computer algorithms. Concerns have been expressed about the quality of the programming at both CRU and GISS.
In spite of all these complexities and uncertainties, we are told that three of the worlds leading climate research institutions can derive global temperature estimates accurate to within tenths of a degree centigrade, which more or less agree with each other. And that this is achieved independently, without collusion of any kind.
It would seem to me that inconsistency in the results from CRU, GISS and NOAA would be far less surprising.
Check the history of Millikan’s oil drop experiment
When they [scientists] got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong – and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard
There is “consistency”…there is “CONSISTENCY”… and (as Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote) there is “foolish consistency”
NCDC and GISS show “consistency” in their results. Their leaders (Karl/Hansen) are both strong and consistent believers in dangerous AGW. The two “grew up together” in the U.S. “dangerous AGW” climatology world.
HadCRUT (run by Jones until the recent scandal broke) also shows “consistency”, for the same reason.
The real underlying “CONSISTENCY” here is that all three “leaders” are strong and vociferous believers in the paradigm that humans are causing dangerous warming, so they may be filtering the raw data in the desired direction with “consistency”.
Has there been overt collusion in order to guarantee “consistency” to support the AGW paradigm?
Or has this collusion been covert?
Or are the three simply supporting the same paradigm with “consistency” by filtering out or simply ignoring “non-consistent” data?
The “consistency” in the records is certainly not coincidental, so we basically have three explanations:
· The data are trustworthy and, therefore, proof that the earth is warming
· All three records are “manipulated” in an overt collusion to exaggerate warming
· All three records are “manipulated” in a covert collusion to exaggerate warming or simply to support the prevailing paradigm
It is virtually impossible (in my estimation) that the UK investigation will be able to conclusively rule out “manipulation” of the raw data to achieve a desired result.
If the UK investigation shows “manipulation” of HadCRUT (unlikely to be the “PC answer” arrived at by this political committee, in my estimation), then all records have been manipulated.
If the UK investigation is unable to show “manipulation” (i.e. is inconclusive), we are back to the three possible explanations.
Max
TonyN,
The agreement between all the temperature records is pretty good. Its not as if CRU is being any what you would call ‘alarmist’.
About Millikan:
The accepted modern figure for the charge on an electron is 1.602176487×10?19 C
Millikan’s figure? 1.5924 ×10?19 C
He claimed an accuracy of 0.2% whereas it has since turned out he was only within 0.6%!
Well that just goes to show that all these so called experts are just a bunch of crooks doesn’t it?
PeterM
You wrote:
Just a correction in your logic, Peter:
This conclusion can be logically deduced from the data; yours cannot.
Max
PS GISS is run by “uber-alarmist” Hansen; NCDC by his old pal and cohort in the scaremongering biz, Karl. We all know about Jones and the many MetOffice predictions of BBQ summers, record hot years, mild winters, etc., which all turned out to be false alarms.
So the underlying problem is that we have alarmists running a non-transparent, supposedly unbiased and impartial tax-payer funded climate service = a prescription for cooked books.
PeterM
As a corollary: would you (as a businessman) have known embezzlers running your financial controller’s department?
Max
PeterM
Here is an enhanced version of the graph you posted, showing the HadCRUT linear trends for the late 20th century warming and the early 21st century cooling.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/4522681949_3d7376298a_b.jpg
Max
PeterM
BTW all temp records agree that it has cooled after 2000. GISS shows the least cooling; HadCRUT is in the middle and UAH + RSS show slightly higher rates of cooling, with the average of the 4 records at 0.08C per decade
Max
Max,
You are just a waste of time for any rational person trying to discuss the AGW issue on any sort of scientific basis. Your credibility is totally shot by your early ‘Mad Max’ postings on the subject of AGW which didn’t include rational scientific arguments.
If, as you claim, your opinions were formed on the basis of doubtful science, why didn’t you include any? You couldn’t manage a single one!
Trying to argue that you don’t have very right wing opinions, at the same time as you’re cheering on the Tea Party supporters in the USA shows you are either being dishonest or you just don’t know the meaning of the term ‘right-wing.’
Even der Speigel calls you guys “right wing revolutionaries!”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,688782,00.html
Why not just admit that you don’t understand the science anywhere near well enough to contradict every University department and Science institute worldwide? Just face up to the simple fact that you are motivated by political ideology and not science.
PeterM
Your latest side-track is a perfect example of a polemic ramble, used to avoid a discussion of the flawed “science” supporting your premise of dangerous AGW.
Politically I do encourage “power to the people” (which we generally enjoy here in Switzerland). The lady blogger who wrote that she was protesting in the USA against “cap ‘n tax” got an encouraging post from me. I think these types of grass-roots protest movements can sway politicians to take the wishes of their electorates more seriously, especially in representative republics, where the public does not have easy access to direct referendum, as we have here. They can provide a “wake up call” to the more astute elected officials.
But that is not what our discussion is all about, Peter.
It is about the lack of empirical evidence based on actual physical observations to support the premise that the past warming has been caused principally by human CO2 emissions, and that this represents a serious potential threat.
The “science” comes first. The “politics” follow.
If there is no sound scientific justification for the political/policy/economic actions that are being proposed, they can and should be scrapped. This is what is apparently occurring now, as the cracks in the science supporting the AGW premise are beginning to become apparent to one and all (viz. Copenhagen) and only a few die-hard politicians and AGW-activists are still scrambling to keep world-wide carbon taxation alive.
Max
PS Your reference to “every University department and Science institute worldwide” is an “appeal to authority”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true
The provocative question posed by TonyN here is: “Can we really trust the historic global temperature record?”
The first “link in the chain” is the temperature measurement device, itself. Keeping in mind that the entire HadCRUT time period from 1850 to today has shown a net overall linear warming of around 0.7°C, it is important that the sensors can accurately measure the temperature to start off with.
The first problem with the “historical global temperature record” appears to be that the sensors are only accurate to somewhere between ±0.2 to ±0.33°C. This inaccuracy is significant, when we consider that we are looking at peak decadal warming rates of around 0.16°C/decade.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/09/accuracy-of-climate-station-electronic-sensors-not-the-best/
Sensor and Electronic Biases/Errors in Air Temperature Measurements in Common Weather Station Networks
X. LIN AND K. G. HUBBARD
A second problem has been pointed out by Anthony Watts. This involves poor siting of the measurement stations, resulting in spurious warming signals.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
These are caused by proximity to AC exhausts, asphalt parking lots, heated buildings, etc. The example is given for two nearby stations near Sacramento, California. Over the 70-year period 1937-2006 the poorly sited station showed a spurious warming signal of 0.2°C per decade or 1.4°C.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3379/3445494806_d4152f9509_b.jpg
A third problem was caused by the shutting down of two-thirds of the weather stations, many located in sub-Arctic and Arctic locations in Siberia. The total number of stations was reduced from around 15,000 to 5,000 in just a few years. Most of these shutdowns occurred around 1990, at exactly the same time as an apparent 1.2°C warming of the global temperature. How much of this apparent warming was caused by the station shutdowns?
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
A fourth problem was caused by the data manipulation by GISS and NOAA (and probably also by HadCRUT, although raw data are not available). In the study by Watts cited above it is pointed out that NOAA has added in an upward adjustment of 0.5°F (roughly 0.3°C) over the 20th century. This represents almost half of the reported linear warming over this period. GISS has “homogenized” the data by making older temperatures appear cooler than the raw data, so that the warming trend is made to look steeper.
In summary, we have four “weak links” in the chain, the latter three of which go into the direction of making warming look more significant than it really has been, and the first simply giving inaccurate data to start off with.
So to answer Tony’s question: “Can we really trust the historic global temperature record?”
The answer is quite obviously “No”!
Max
Max,
You say the science comes first and the politics follow. Of course that’s the way it should be.
So, how do you explain your posting history on the subject of AGW which has been the wrong way around?
You can dismiss all of established science on the basis that’s it’s an ‘argument from authority’. It may not be infallible, but what else would you suggest should take its place?
PeterM
You wrote:
I agree 100%, Peter, and that is the way it is with me.
The flawed “science” behind IPCC SPM 2007 has been a basic problem for me, since shortly after it was published in February 2007. There were just too many examples.
The more one digs into the details, the more errors and exaggerations one finds.
PaulM has done an excellent job of summarizing all these errors, exaggerations, omissions, etc. (I contributed a couple – it was on a now-defunct CA thread).
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc
As I entered the blogosphere, I saw that there were pro-AGW sites (like RealClimate or Grist) that defended the dangerous AGW paradigm against all perceived attacks and sites like ClimateAudit, Harmless Sky and WUWT that took a more skeptical stand. It was almost impossible to find a truly “neutral” site.
So you see, Peter, it has always been primarily about the “science” behind the IPCC claims for me.
The second part is directly related, as well. If the science behind the IPCC projections is flawed, then the projections are invalidated. In this case it is foolish to try to “mitigate” against human CO2 emissions.
Then I saw that the “mitigation” proposals were simply political statements and a proposed (direct or indirect) tax on carbon amounting to hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars burden on every man, woman and child in the developed world, without any real reduction in the projected global warming.
And, since it was all based on flawed “science”, I saw that the whole AGW scare was really a scam to get increased tax revenues and nothing else.
Max
In testing drugs they use double blind testing where the various people experimenting & checking data don’t even know each other let alone talk. In this case, as the emails show, Mann & Jones spent considerable time discussing not only their results but good ways to prevent anybody else getting their results into peer review.
QED whatever has been done here it isn’t science.
PeterM
To your second question:
Empirical data based on actual physical observations, which provide evidence for the premise that AGW, caused primarily by human CO2 emissions, has been the principal cause for the past warming and that it represents a serious potential threat.
That’s what should take its place, Peter. And that is what is lacking so far.
Max
Max,
You say “I agree 100%, Peter, and that is the way it [science coming first] is with me.”
Don’t give me all that pony! What came first with you, as your postings show, was a concern that we were offending some higher beings by being too ‘arrogant’!
Or are you saying that your ‘mad Max’ postings weren’t your first words on the subject? If I’ve missed any earlier ones where you made any sort of scientific case at all, maybe you could direct me to them?
TonyN poses an interesting question in his headline.
The answer is an unequivocal No! Before Peter starts huffing and puffing I would point out I have done a great deal of work on the subject.
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
I have another 20 or so locations to add, and in addition I have obtained very rare records for such stations as Prague that date back to the 1690’s.
The idea that the global record is accurate (or meaningful) to fractions of a degree back to 1850 or 1880 is simply nonsense, as there are so many variables.
The basic fact is that Hansens original paper on setting up the grid cell for GISS(which can be found on my site above)was good detective work at the time, but events since have overtaken it.
However, it is still taken as gospel and the numerous flaws in the calculations and concept rarely get aired. Max with his post #11 enumerated some of the problems with the gobal record. In addition to this can be counted the reality that the stations move around (or disappear) with bewildering frequency. As a result we are rarely comparing like for like -the micro climate being measured in say 1790 bears no relation whatosover to the micro climate being measured today. It might be physically fifty miles away from its original location, the instruments will certainly have changed, the environs will be completely diferent (open field then, more likely than not an airport now)
To believe that the global record has any merit as an accurate reflection of the way the temperatures have changed over the centuries is to not understand the way in which the records are compiled.
Tonyb
Tonyb,
Going forward, is there any untainted/accurate global temperature network at this time?
I feel that the entire system has been corrupted with adjustments and biases from agenda driven scientists and political/monetary influences that no database can be trustworthy.
Your thoughts?
Does anyone know about official CO2 measurements? I assume they don’t only come from Mauna Loa, but a friend of mine who regularly measures CO2 (because he runs glasshouses that have extra CO2 piped in to encourage plant growth) reports that in the UK he has never measured more than 350ppm in clear air.
His equipment is sensitive enough to be affected by road traffic, so I must ask him if the sudden absence of aircraft has made a difference…
TonyB,
Can I just suggest that the phrase “it is still taken as gospel” might not be the best choice of phrase when presenting a scientific argument ;-)
This seems relevant to the temperature reporting, too:
http://tinyurl.com/yy9tnma
Time to start recording in K, perhaps!
PeterM
“Taken as gospel” might not really be too bad when discussing AGW-believers.
Think about it a bit, before you respond.
Max
PeterM
Re ur #16
Still waiting for you to produce empirical data based on actual physical observations, which provide evidence for the premise that AGW, caused primarily by human CO2 emissions, has been the principal cause for the past warming and that it represents a serious potential threat.
The ball is in your court, Peter.
Max
Brute
Creating a ‘global’ temperature is immensely complicated. It requires thousands of stations that are constant in their location and in their numbers,over the entire period being surveyed.
They need to use the same equipment,calibrated to the same scales, similarly trained operators who accurately take readings at the same time every day (obviously less relevant as automation became effective),who make no mistakes and make no ‘adjustments’ that are debatable.
The most important issue is that station surroundings shouldn’t change- in other words the micro climate being measured remains constant. Some stations move with surprising frequency, others have their surroundings utterly change. This can mean that a measurement taken in a rural field attached to a University observatory 200 years ago can over time move to a completely different location, such as an airport.
I wouldn’t want to claim that there is anything sinister in the way that the records are compiled, just that they are in no shape or form accurate to fractions of a degree over a hundred and fifty years because there are so many inconsistencies that are built into the whole concept of a global temperature.
Tonyb
Peter said;
“Can I just suggest that the phrase “it is still taken as gospel” might not be the best choice of phrase when presenting a scientific argument ;-) ”
Appropriate in this case Peter, as Hansens original paper is taken as a matter of faith by AGW adherents :)
tonyb