Two remarkable documents were published on the BBC website on Friday night. One is a long interview with Phil Jones conducted by Roger Harrabin. This does not seem to have been the usual head to head affair, but written answers to written questions over a period of several days, some of them provided by sceptics. Therefore there is no scope for Jones to claim that he was panicked into hasty responses or that he has been misquoted:
The other is Harrabin’s shorter summary of the interview, although it does contain one revelation that is not in the other document:
Climate data ‘not well organised’
To say that these are explosive would be to wildly underestimate the potential impact of their content. Phil Jones, and his research, has had a huge effect on the IPCC process and the climate change community during a decade that spans two IPCC assessment reports. What he says matters.
Jones is not only one of the world’s most influential climate scientists, he is also a major opinion former within his field of research and beyond. This is a man whose word has carried great weight with journalists, activists, administrators and politicians as well as with other scientists.
So why is this interview so important?
If you try to identify the core scientific evidence on which current alarm about anthropogenic climate change depends, then it is possible to come up with the following short list:
- The greenhouse gas hypothesis; increased Co2 in the atmosphere causes warming.
- There has been an unprecedentedly rapid rise in global average temperature during the 20th century.
- Current temperatures have reached levels unprecedented during the last 1000 years at least.
The first item describes a mechanism by which human emissions of Co2 could cause the climate to change. The other two provide crucial evidence that is necessary to substantiate the green house gas hypothesis. Without them, it remains no more than a theoretical possibility, and just because something could happen, it doesn’t mean that it has happened, is happening, or will happen.
Whether you count in Pounds Stirling, Euros or US Dollars, hundreds of billions, perhaps more than a trillion, have already been invested an efforts to stave off this perceived catastrophe and to fund the science that has brought it to our attention. We really do need to know whether this research will stand up to scrutiny by people other than those who produced and promoted it; the climate science community and the IPCC. Up until now, public consent to measures that can and will effect all our lives has been achieved by claims that the science is settled, the debate is over for all rational people, and there is a consensus among scientists that global warming has occurred, and is occurring as a result of human Co2 emissions. We are told that we mus believe what we are told about global warming because the IPCC has assessed the research thoroughly, objectively and in a transparent process, to the extent that they can guarantee its quality.
Jones’ main expertise is the surface temperature record, the analysis of thousands of vast amounts of data from weather stations all over the world dating back to the mid-nineteenth century. These apparently tell us that rapid warming has occurred during the latter part of this period.
The Climategate emails released in November show all too clearly the lengths to which Jones and his colleagues at the University of East Anglis were prepared to go to in order to avoid releasing to sceptics the data on which Jones’ estimation’s of global temperatures are based. Ever since then, the IPCC and others who seek to ward off any criticism of the science of global warming, have repeatedly said that even if there is a problem with Jones’ data, there are two other institutions, NASA GISS and NCDC, that have reached the same conclusions, therefore there is nothing to be concerned about.
In Harrabin’s summary of the interview, he reports that Jones is no longer able to identify where all the data used in his research came from:
“We do have a trail of where the (weather) stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be,” he admitted.
“That’s similar with the American datasets. There were technical reasons for this, with changing data from different countries. There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.”
My emphasis
If the other two surface temperature records suffer from the same problem as the one that Jones compiles, then that means that there is not a single estimation of global surface temperatures for the last 150 years that can be validated from the original data that was used to construct it. In science, everything must be validated and nothing can be taken on trust. The most critical test of research findings is that others can replicate them. Without a full set of data this cannot be done convincingly.
In the second bullet point at the beginning of this post, I drew attention to the importance of knowing what has happened to surface temperatures during the last hundred years. It is not too much to say that the credibility of the last two IPCC assessment reports depends entirely on this research. Unless it can be shown that global temperatures have increased anomalously during a period when levels of Co2 in the atmosphere have increased, then it is not possible to determine that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have had any impact on global temperature.
In Question O of the BBC interview, Jones is quizzed about his career. He says that he has publishesd over 270 peer-reviewed papers on different aspects of climate research; a very impressive record. The peer review process does not usually involve the detailed inspection of data, and according to Harrabin’s report, Jones’ colleagues say that his record keeping is disorganised and they seem unsurprised about the problems with the surface temperature record data. A great many of these papers will have been relied on in the IPCC reports and elsewhere. One cannot help wondering if Jones, who has apparently failed to keep adequate records of in his most important field of research, instrumental surface temperatures, has also failed to keep proper record of other studies? How many of these other papers can be validated? This is not to suggest that they are worthless, only that it is necessary in science to be able to verify results by reference to the data.
Given what we now know about Jones’ disorganised working methods, and the lengths that he has been prepared to go to in order to avoid scrutiny by critics, it is reasonable to expect that the IPCC would want to subject any papers authored by Jones that have been relied on in their assessment reports to detailed re-evaluation. This is only likely to happen if there are irresistible demands that they should do so.
Turning to the question of whether surface temperatures at present are higher than they have been during at least the last thousand years (third bullet point) we have to consider Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick graph that has probably done more to persuade people of the credibility of warnings about global warming than any other single piece of research. Many of the more sensational Climategate emails are devoted to the efforts of Jones, Mann, and other IPCC luminaries, to make sure that no research casting doubt on the validity of this graph should see the light of day or be given a fair hearing.
It is to the Hockey Stick graph that the IPCC turned for evidence that the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures may well have been higher than they are now, does not in fact exist or was merely a regional phenomenum of no importance. Although Jones was not directly involved in the original study, he has contributed to other palaeoclimate studies, so it is reasonable to expect him to provide a well informed and spirited defence of Mann’s work. In Question G he is asked about the significance of the Medieval Warm Period in determining whether recent temperatures are unprecedented. This only yields a discursive answer that avoids the main thrust of the question, but in so doing makes it clear that there is much uncertainty about this research.
Once again, this is a long way from the line taken by the IPCC, and the doubts that Jones appears to have are amplified in Question N:
When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
There is little that I can say about this other than it is breathtaking to hear such doubts from a leading climate scientist and IPCC functionary. They are at odds with whole thrust of the last two assessment reports, and the deluge of self-aggrandising propaganda that has emanated from that organisation and its supporters.
Another of the concerns that the Climategate emails raise is that Jones and his colleagues may have manipulated the peer review process in order to suppress research that might threaten their own findings and the case for anthropogenic climate change. In Question S, Jones reveals that, since 2005, he has reviewed some 43 papers and it is reasonable to suppose that these would not involve trivial matters of research. A scientist of Jones’ stature would [A.G.F1] not be expected to waste his time on such matters.
If Jones was at the centre of attempts to subvert the peer review process, and we will have to await the results of the two Climategate enquiries that are already under way before we know whether this is the case, there must be doubts about any reviews that he undertook. It is a requirement of the IPCC review process that the assessment reports should only rely on peer-reviewed research. In view of this, surely it is necessary that the IPCC should reconsider any papers of which Jones was a reviewer that have been used in their reports if he is found to have behaved improperly? But are they likely to do this?
There are a couple of other things in the interview that point to areas of concern that should now be investigated either by the IPCC or, more appropriately, by an independent body.
In answer to Question Q, which deals with the notorious ‘trick’ to ‘hide the decline that is mentioned in the Climategate emails, Jones confirms that this was to do with splicing instrumental temperature records on to palaeoclimate records. What is interesting is that he says that this was done at the request of the World Meteorological Organisation, a UN agency and, with UNEP, one of the parent bodies of the IPCC. It would be very interesting to know why they requested that this should be done? There is a tendency for palaeoclimate reconstructions to show declining temperatures at the end of the 20th century whereas the instrumental record shows a sharp increase. Given the ever-increasing suspicions about the IPCC’s methods, and the way in which climate research has been conducted over the last decade, surely this is a question that must be asked again and again until it receives a credible answer.
By this stage, it actually becomes difficult to believe your eyes as you read what Jones has to say. About eighteen months ago, Richard Lindzen suggested that there had been no statistically significant increase in global temperatures since 1995. The climate science community greeted this with derision. Now, in answer to Question B, Jones agrees that this is correct. What he does not say, and was not asked, is why the most recent IPCC report made no mention of global warming stalling in spite of their having more than a decade of data to work with at that time. All the talk in the report is of inexorably rising temperatures.
Lastly, here is Question L:
Can you confirm that the IPCC rules were changed so lead authors could add references to any scientific paper which did not meet the 16 December 2005 deadline but was in press on 24 July 2006, so long as it was published in 2006? If this is the case, who made the decision and why?
No answer. Question should be put to the IPCC.
This refers to the inclusion in the last assessment report of a deeply flawed paper by Wahl and Ammann, which claimed to replicate Mann’s Hockey Stick graph, and by so doing discredit MacIntyre and McKitrick’s criticisms. The labyrinthine events that lead up to this paper being cited are too complex to explain here but, given Jones role in the creation of the IPCC report, and the revelation in the Climategate emails of attempts to suppress criticism of the Hockey Stick, it is hard to believe that he did not know the answer to this question. It remains to be seen whether the IPCC will provide answers. If they do not do so, then their credibility will become even more damaged. This is not a matter that can be passed off as a minor mistake.
Over the last few weeks there have been a steady stream of revelations that claims made in the IPCC report are not backed up by scientific evidence. So far all these have related to the second section of the report compiled by Working Group II and entitled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”. This is where the most scary material about the supposed effects of climate change are to be found. Disappearing Himalayan glaciers and burning Amazon rain forests are newsworthy. But this section of the report only has meaning if it can be shown that there is robust scientific evidence that humans are,in fact, changing the climate. For this one must turn to the first section, “The Physical Science Basis”, compiled by Working Group I, of which Jones is an influential member. Although the recent criticisms of the WG I report are extremely damaging to the IPCC, these are as nothing compared to the likely impact if similar problems are identified in the WG I report.
Phil Jones’ interview with the BBC is therefore important because of what it reveals about uncertainties in the most fundamental science that underpins concern about global warming. In the immediate aftermath of Climategate, the Chairman of the IPCC said that he would launch an investigation, but later backtracked on this.
If there are now doubts about the integrity of all three of the surface temperature records, and from what Jones has that seems very likely, then the IPCC’s claim that there has been rapid warming during the last century has no credible foundation. If the palaeoclimate reconstructions of temperatures, which the IPCC rely on to show that it is warmer now than at any time in the last thousand years are fraught with uncertainty as Jones suggests, they cease to provide viable evidence that anthropogenic warming is happening. As I suggested at the beginning of this post, the greenhouse gas hypothesis will no longer be supported by the most compelling evidence that the IPCC has been able to present.
In the BBC interview we are seeing one of the pivotal figures in climate science making statements that would have been branded as ‘climate denial’ if they had been published just three months ago. The uncertainties that Jones is now prepared to admit to strike at the heart of all that the IPCC has been telling us with such apparent authority for the last decade.
There must now be grave doubts concerning what we have been told about the recent warming as recorded by weather stations and about our ability to compare current temperatures with other periods during the last thousand years. There is circumstantial evidence that there may have been malfeasance in order to include convenient research in the WG I report and that in Phil Jones view, the debate about climate change is not over, the science is not settled, and there is no consensus among scientists that anthropogenic global warming is real.
On the strength of this interview alone, it is hard to see how a full investigation of the IPCC can now be resisted.
Wow! I get top billing!
Do we get the free government handouts that comes with this Pete? If so, I can stop getting up at 4:45 in the morning and heading off to work……..just kick back, travel around on private jets to exotic locales, eat cavier wedges and collect speaking fees……..I guess I’d have to grow a beard and adhere a “peace” sign on the backside of my Prius (Parked next to the chauffer driven limousine in the garage).
Brute and Robin,
Brute wants to be “absolutely certain that the problem exists” whereas Robin quite adamantly asserts “proof is not the issue: science is not a matter of proof”.
There seems to be a little disagreement between you two here.
I agree that proof, or absolute certainty, is just about impossible given that we only have one Earth and shouldn’t test it to destruction.
So it is a question of what is reasonable evidence and of how high to set the bar , isn’t it?
Robin,
So, (surprise, surprise) the Evans paper gets a fail mark! Still I’m sure he’ll be pleased to know that it, at least, has been read and understood by one of the world’s climatic experts!
I was just wondering what words of wisdom you may be able to offer to our struggling climate scientist? Just what further work would he need to do to be able to justify his “effectively end the argument by skeptics” statement?
Please, we beseech you, do share your great wisdom with us all!
PeterM (#52):
Your point? Brute and I doubtless disagree on many things. Remember JZ Smith’s poll? It seems I’m a woolly liberal and he’s a tough conservative.
I’m waiting for your response the specific matters I put to you in #50. Thanks.
Doubtless the Evans paper is scholarly, well researched and first class. The problem (for you) is that it does not (nor is it intended to) deal with the two specific issues I set out at #50, item 2.
Try again – harder this time.
Peter Martin,
I posted this yesterday at the Continuation page. You must have mistakenly overlooked it. If you would humor me, I’d appreciate a response.
Possibly we really aren’t too far apart concerning this thing and it all boils down to a matter of semantics.
On other sites, the Warmists bristle at the term “global warming” as they feel that it is a misnomer preferring the phrase “climate change”.
Please, be a pal and respond. I seriously would like to hear (read) your views regarding the terminology difference.
Thank you.
Brute,
We’ve been through this before. The recommendation to change to the term “Climate Change” rather than “Global Warming” was first recommended to President Bush in the infamous Luntz memo
“”Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.
“Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”
The phrase “global warming” should be abandoned in favour of “climate change”, Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as “conservationist” instead of “environmentalist”, because “most people” think environmentalists are “extremists” who indulge in “some pretty bizarre behaviour… that turns off many voters”.
Robin,
If the Evans paper is “scholarly, well researched and first class”, this persumably means that you accept his statement that “This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming”.
That’s good. We can put that one to bed now.
PeterM
Luntz, schmuntz.
Climate has always changed.
The planet has generally warmed globally (if we believe the temperature records) since 1850, albeit in 30-year spurts followed by 30-year cooling cycles, with an underlying warming of around 0.65degC over the 150-year period.
Currently we have just ended a 30-year late 20th century warming cycle and appear to be in the beginning of an early 21st century cooling cycle.
CO2 in the atmosphere is theoretically supposed to cause global warming (not climate change), so anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the issue, not anthropogenic climate change.
If it stops warming for an extended period of time despite all-time record increase in CO2, then the anthropogenic global warming premise has been refuted, regardless of whether climate keeps changing.
I know the difference is subtle, but I believe you can understand the drift here, Peter.
Max
PeterM (#58):
Sigh – it seems that you never actually bother to read anything I post here. My #50 says clearly that “Max and I have never doubted that there is a “connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming”. What is there about that that you don’t understand? There’s nothing to “put to bed”.
Now perhaps you’d deal with the two specific issues I defined at #50 (yes, there again), item 2. I don’t suppose you read that either – so here it is again:
Please refer us empirical evidence that (a) man’s CO2 emissions were the main cause of late 20th century warming; and (b) [assuming you can provide (a)] that further such emissions will cause dangerous climate change.
Thanks.
PeterM
You wrote:
For shame!
You just can’t get away from your silly and childish “nitwit” comment.
Is this a sign of desperation because things aren’t going too well for the AGW cause right now?
I pointed out to you that there are well-known climate scientists who do not accept the premise that AGW is a serious threat (Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, for example).
These are not “nitwits who have managed to decide that AGW isn’t a problem, even though don’t understand any climate science at all” (as you put it).
They are simply climate scientists who are rationally skeptical of the AGW premise.
I am also rationally skeptical of that premise. Yet I am neither a “nitwit” nor a “climatologist”.
I would also not put you into either of those two categories. You are certainly no climatologist. But that doesn’t make you a “nitwit”, either.
Skip the stupid labels for those who happen to disagree with your own viewpoint.
As I pointed out to you, it just makes you look like a “nitwit”, yourself.
Max
PeterM
I noticed that you side-stepped the very specific and pertinent questions in Brute’s 56, preferring to waffle on about the origin of the name “climate change”.
I would recommend that you take a stab at answering his questions, since you would otherwise look a bit foolish.
Max
Max:
I don’t understand your “otherwise”. Doesn’t he “look a bit foolish” anyway?
But I agree with you. Brute (very politely) asked some good questions. Peter really should repay his courtesy and try to answer them.
Pete,
I don’t care who said it, what does it mean?
Robin,
“…such emissions will cause dangerous climate change.” ?
I’m sure you’ll have heard often repeated assertion on this site, and elsewhere, that the only evidence that “such emissions will cause dangerous climate change” comes from computer generated models. Or as you would say “GIGO computer models.”!
In the “well researched and first class” paper by Evans, you’ll have noticed that he’s actually empirically measured radiative forcing of 3.5W/m^2 compared with the computer modelled figure of 2.5W/m^2.
So it looks like the empirically measured value may be 3.5/2.5= 1.4 or 40% more than computer models have indicated.
It looks like you guys may have had a point in saying that computer models were inaccurate. Except that the inaccuracy has had the opposite effect from the one that you were claiming.
U.N. Climate Chief Resigns
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/science/earth/19climate.html
Brute,
I don’t have a problem with either term. I would suggest that ‘climate change’ would include all climate parameters such as rainfall, storm intensities and frequencies etc whereas the term ‘global warming’ would only apply to temperature.
For more info:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/233/climate-change-and-global-warming-introduction#WhatisGlobalWarmingandClimateChange
Max,
For sure, if someone could spot a flaw in the scientific case on the relationship between CO2 and other GHG concentrations and publish a scientifically coherent set of reasons why we can happily burn all available fossil fuels without any possibility of significantly changing world climate they couldn’t possibly be termed a nitwit. They’d be a genius, fully deserving of a Nobel Prize.
However, if a person, knowing little or nothing about basic science, decides on the basis of what they read in something like the UK’s Daily Mail that AGW is not a problem……..
Thanks Pete.
One more question………
How will we know when we have resolved the “climate change” threat?
PeterM (:#65)
I wonder how long you can go on avoiding the request being put to you?
Here it is again:
Please refer us empirical evidence that (a) man’s CO2 emissions were the main cause of late 20th century warming; and (b) [assuming you can provide (a)] that further such emissions will cause dangerous climate change.
Does Wayne Evans address these questions? Er … no.
Perhaps you’ll do so. Thanks.
PeterM
You wrote (68):
With “the relationship between CO2 and other GHG concentrations” you presumably meant to add “and potentially dangerous global warming”.
You miss the point here, Peter. It is not up to “someone to spot a flaw in the scientific case, etc.”.
If someone could provide the empirical data based on actual physical observations supporting the “scientific case on the relationship between CO2 and other GHG concentrations” and potentially dangerous global warming “they’d be a genius, fully deserving of a Nobel Prize”.
But it hasn’t happened yet (as Robin has pointed out to you).
As far as burning “all available fossil fuels without any possibility of significantly changing world climate” goes, we have gone through all that once before.
There are not quite enough fossil fuels on our planet to reach 1000 ppmv atmospheric CO2 concentration.
We are now at around 390 ppmv.
The GH theory tells us that an increase from 390 to 1000ppmv CO2 would cause a theoretical increase in global temperature of 1.3°C (no net impact of feedbacks).
If we believe Lindzen, the net impact from feedbacks is negative, and this would be around 1°C.
I’m sure you’ll agree that neither of these could be termed “significantly changing world climate”.
Back in early 2007 IPCC still believed (based on model simulations) that the net impact of feedbacks was strongly positive. This has since been shown by physical observations to be wrong (Spencer et al. Lindzen and Choi), primarily due to the increase in outgoing SW radiation reflected from increased low-altitude clouds with warming. Back in 2007 IPCC conceded, “cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty”; that uncertainty has now been cleared up thanks to the work of Lindzen + Choi plus Spencer et al.
To paraphrase your last sentence:
“However, if a person, knowing little or nothing about basic science decides on the basis of what they read in something like the UK’s” Guardian or the IPCC report (or hear on BBC) that AGW is a serious problem…
Get the drift?
Max
Pete,
I followed your link @ post # 67 penned by World Renowned Climatologist Anup Shah……I did find some points that I would find questionable…
Has he published anything commercially on the topic to your knowledge?
Also, as a reminder………if you would be so kind as to answer my question directed specifically to your attention @ post # 69 to close the circle.
ALL: Re Post #34 from ‘Mannmade Disgusted’, and #35 from ‘Terrain Stomper‘, did anyone fully open the link in #34: f@cktards ?
If so, do you have top-grade internet security?
Just curious…. I priority Emailed TonyN pointing out that #34 & 35 appear to be by the same author given the similar unusually colourful language and style, and I wondered if the link was safe.
Is TonyN out of town maybe?
Maybe it’s just me, but I find this sort of creepy.
I’ve never thought much of Wikipedia, but as an “online Encyclopedia”, should they be advocates for (one side or the other)?
Bob_FJ
I suspect that the text editor just automatically tried to resolve that as a mail address on encountering the ampersand.
quick test, i’m not directly creating a link here:
a@a