Relevant

26 Feb 2010: Much debate exists about if, in reality, the Earth's cloud cover is impacted by cosmic rays, to what extent, and how that may -- in turn -- impact the Earth's climate. Following are highlights of a post by Dr. Roy W. Spencer on the subject of "Geomagnetic Forcing of Earth's Cloud Cover During 2000-2008." Roy had been working with 9 years of global reflected sunlight data from the CERES instrument flying on NASA’s Terra satellite, he decided to take a deeper look at some data, ... and found results that were "at least a little intriguing." Roy's work took but a few hours and opened his mind to new possibilities...

________________

The following plots show detrended time series of monthly running 5-month averages of (top) CERES reflected shortwave deviations from the average seasonal cycle, and (bottom) monthly running geomagnetic Ap index values from the NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center. As I understand it, the Ap index is believed to be related to the level of cosmic ray activity reaching the Earth. [He addresse s the reason for detrending in his full article.)

Note that there is some similarity between the two plots. ...[A scatterplot of the data produces an average linear relationship of about 0.05 [Watts] per sq. meter increase in reflected sunlight per 1 unit decrease in Ap index.] This is at least qualitatively consistent with a decrease in solar activity corresponding to an increase in cloud cover.

At face value, ... the geomagnetic modulation of cloudiness has about 10 times the effect on the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth as does the solar cycle’s direct modulation of the sun’s output. It also rivals the level of forcing due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, but with way more variability from year to year and decade to decade. (Can anyone say, “natural climate variability”?)

Read more:

Dr Spencer's full article

(We will also soon provide a link on a subsequent article in which Roy presents a discussion and data plots that suggest clouds, not CO2, are dominating as a climate driver since 2000.)

23 Feb 2010 (mirror post): Following is the leading and concluding paragraphs of a post by Roy W Spencer that probably needs more attention that it has received.

________________

Despite the fact that the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming depends mostly upon the strength s of feedbacks in the climate system, there is no known way to actually measure those feedbacks from observational data.

The IPCC has admitted as much on p. 640 of the IPCC AR4 report, at the end of section 8.6, which is entitled “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”:

“A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”

This is a rather amazing admission....

But the central importance of feedbacks to projections of future climate makes them by far more important to policy debates than all of the ways in which model behavior might resemble the current climate system. So, why has it been so difficult to measure feedbacks in the climate system? This question is not answered in the IPCC reports because, as far as I can tell, no one has bothered to dig into the reasons.

To review, the feedback measurement we are after can be defined as the amount of global average radiative change caused by a temperature change. The main reason for the difficulty in diagnosing the true feedbacks operating in the climate system is that the above definition of feedback is NOT the same as what we can actually measure from satellites, which is the amount of radiative change accompanied by a temperature change.

The distinction is that in the real world, causation in the opposite direction as feedback also exists in the measurements. Thus, a change in measured radiative flux results from some unknown combination of (1) temperature causing radiative changes (feedback), and (2) unforced natural radiative changes causing a temperature change (internal forcing)....

...[The] IPCC can conveniently (and truthfully) claim that the behavior of their models is broadly “consistent with” the observed behavior of the real climate system. Unfortunately, this is then misinterpreted by the public, politicians, and policymakers as a claim that the amount of warming those models produce (a direct result of feedback) has been tested, which is not true.

As the IPCC has admitted, no one has yet figured out how to perform such a test. And until such a test is devised, the warming estimates produced by the IPCC’s twenty-something climate models are little more than educated guesses. It verges on scientific malpractice that politicians and the media continue to portray the models as accurate in this regard, without any objections from the scientists who should know better.

Read more…

Also see our earlier post on "Chicken and Egg Questions", and Roy's related paper available here in PDF form, and his paper "Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration," in PDF format published in the Journal of Climate.

19 Feb. 2010 (updated): Recently, the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit's director (now under investigation), Phil Jones, agreed to an extensive "Question and Answer" dialogue with the BBC reporter Roger Harrabin. For the moment, we offer the following links and a few quick notes...

This first link is to PJTV's interview with Steven Mosher, Author, "Climategate: The CRUtape Letters." (Length: 11 minutes) Mosher suggests that these questions were most likely orchestrated as part of an apparent media strategy to throw a few bones to "skeptics," avoid major discrepancies, and ultimately allow the CRU to return to normal operations.

Our second link is to the actual BBC article, in which there are a number of important acknowledgements:

• A comparison of the "rates of warming" trends for 1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998 and 1975-2009. According to Jones, they "are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other."
• The trend for the period 1995-2009 is, in Jones estimation, a positive trend, but not statistically significant.
• Jones confirms that "we would all accept that palaeoclimatic data are considerably less certain than the instrumental data." Jones does goes on, however, to say that he is convinced that the most controversial data (Briffa, et al.'s work involving "Yamal") is "sound."
• Also regarding uncertainties, Jones says: "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."
• The main factors Jones apparently relies on in his yet unwavering support for the AGW theory are that "we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing." Those are pretty limited natural factors to consider, especially when the IPCC acknowledges in its 2007 report (AR4) that before 1950 the sun explained over 50% of the temperature increase.
• Jones asserts that the main reason he does not believe the Medieval Warm Period was not global is the that "the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions." (emphasis added)
• Jones also notes, with regard to the assertions of "unprecedented" warming/warmth during the late-20th century, that "Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the [Nothern Hemisphere] and [Southern Hemisphere]) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented."

The last point would certainly seem to explain why the MWP could not possibly be considered global in extent, even though "The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia." The impression we get is that the MWP was local to only those areas for which there are records of it, and it quickly became "normal" everywhere else between those areas. Interestingly, Jones does admit there is much debate about if the MWP was a global event. (So much for consensus and the science being settled?)

We still don't seem to be seeing the American mainstream media dig into the issue beyond a few sound bites. Mosher believes that the "bunker mentality" adopted by the CRU leadership lead to an "erosion of scientific ethics and scientific practices."

An excellent article by Prof Tim Ball, that initially ties to Jones' "interview" with BBC reporter Harrabin, should also be read. It digs deeply into several critical aspects of both research and the application of research findings or developments into the GCM models that the IPCC relies upon so heavily. Included are comments about Earth tilt and orbit, and precession of the Equinox.

Finally, we highlight a guest post by Indur Goklany on the highly-rated science blog, WattsUpWithThat, which provides excerpts of the BBC "interview" with Jones with annotations by Goklany.

Links:

• http://www.pjtv.com/video/Specials/Climategate’s_Frost%7CNixon_Moment%3A_Steven_Mosher_Follows_The_FOIA/3100/
• BBC Q&A:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
• "IPCC Corruption Included Ignoring Facts and Science": http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20029
• http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/phil-jones-momentous-qa-with-bbc-reopens-the-science-is-settled-issues/#more-16418

15 Feb 2010: The general public is often lead to believe that the much-vaunted peer review process is THE "Golden Standard" in research. In speaking with members of the American public, the general impression appears to be something like this: Peer reviewed papers are subjected to such careful and thorough examination that all errors can be identified before a paper is accepted for publication, which implies that peer-reviewed research is without error.

A key point at which to start is to note that reviewers are generally volunteers; they receive no compensation and often little acknowledgement. They are also [supposed to be] anonymous to the author(s) of any paper they review. At the same time, the editorial staff and reviewers are supposed to keep submissions confidential. Because of these things, the rigor of a review is limited by the willingness or resources of the review to dig deep. Further, a reviewer may know the author(s) of the paper they are reviewing, and thus be biased one way or an other. Former professors and former students, former colleagues, competitors at other research institutions. Reviewers also often do not have access to the supporting data, computer code or other basic. That is, they often only have the paper documenting the research. If something is not present in the paper, the reviewer will be unlikely to know of its existence. Finally, reviewers may be given limits of what they can request of the author.

Remember too that more publications in a researcher's curriculum vita or resume, can enhance his or her reputation, leading to offers of tenure (which may bring better pay). Tenure is usually considered the equivalent of "job-for-life."

Of course, nothing stops anyone from citing literature that is not peer-reviewed while implying that it has been, or for even summarizing the research document correctly.

Unfortunately, we have much evidence that peer review is no longer so good (if it ever was), and the evidence continues to mount. It's evident in many fields, from genetics, to environment to medicine. Consider, for example, the case of Hwang Woo-Suk, the South Korean veterinarian who had claimed to have cloned embryonic human stem cells. His results had been published in the major scientific journal Science.

The recent Climategate incident, which made public selected emails, computer code and other documents (some of an advocacy nature) from the Climactic Reserch Unit at the University of East Anglia provides the means to see how, in the matter of climate science, the system can be twisted to benefit some, and erect barriers to others. That is, the system's value is overstated, and that the process in use by too many "professional journals" has become corrupted. Some may assert that there was concern that "bad science" might be published, but the perception of "good" and "bad" are subjective terms. What should matter most is if the work is based on good scientific observations and reproducible, and that it adds positively to the understanding of some phenomenon.

Highly respected researchers David H. Douglass, Professor of Physics, University of Rochester, New York, and John R. Christy, Distinguished Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama at Huntsville, provide a discussion here and here about how a paper they co-authored with others was delayed from print publication for nearly a year by the Journal while a challenge could be mounted by another group. The challenging paper (the review, acceptance and publication of which was accelerated by Journal staff) was published as a separate paper. The normal route would have a civil exchange of comments and responses to the original paper.Why? Douglass, et al., would have probably been afforded the closing remarks in the exchange. An addendum submitted to the Journal by Douglass was apparently "lost" by editors at the Journal of Climatology system.

Transparency? Ethics? What are those???

Read More:

Climategate documents archive:  http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php">http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

Christy & Douglass:

• http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/21/gaming-the-peer-review-system-ipcc-scientists-behaving-badly/
• http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-Suk (Hwang Woo-Suk)

26 January 2010: In our previous (updated) post, we discussed the IPCC's use of "grey literature," the non-peer reviewed literature produced by think tanks, and environmental "conservation" and "advocacy" groups. IPCC Chairman Pachauri has insisted the recent revelations about use of a WWF pamphlet was due to proper procedures not being followed, and indicating that it is, in essence, an isolated case.

It's become clear that Pachauri is either incorrect or has been mislead; the IPCC has used such citations frequently, including in the AR4, or 4th Assessment Report published in 2007.

On the EUReferendum site, the headline is "Not one, but two ... and counting" in reference to an additional use of the very same WWF reference discussed in our prior post about the apparently inaccurate pending demise of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. The first use of the 2005 WWF document ("An overview of glaciers, glacial retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China" [emphasis added]) was in Chapter 10 of the Working Group II report on Asia. Now the very same WWF report is seen referenced in Chapter 8 on Human Health, authored by a different team. And the scope of the WWF report is also, apparently, much greater than its title as the Chapter 8 authors apply its findings to "the Himalayas, Greenland, the European Alps, the Andes, Cordillera and East Africa" as well. That appears to be a substantial increase in scope.

We thank Canadian blogger, Donna Laframboise. Her research has identified many instances where WWF reports are the solitary citations for various IPCC claims, including including several which they consider "an agenda for action." Ms Laframbroise has also scratched the surface on citations to Greenpeace reports.

We're certain many people provide donations to the WWF (also known as the World Wide Fund for Nature) intending for good things to be done for nature. But the WWF is, and always has been, an advocacy group (see "How We Do This" at http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/). The IPCC calls itself a "scientific body." Environmental activists and certain politically active individuals often claim that oil companies, for example, cannot be trusted to generate unbiased reports. Why the double standard?

18 Jan 2010: The IPCC relies on the best available science, right? It appears increasingly as not. In late 2009, it was discovered that a graph used in its latest report (2007) had come from … Wikipedia!

We now have new revelations that the IPCC’s 2007 report used statements promoted via a 2005 report by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an environmental advocacy group. The WWF statement was, in turn, based on a non-peer reviewed 1999 article in New Scientist. The WWF report also included a basic math error in which the total glacial loss value was divided by 21 years, instead of 121. The now admittedly speculative comment to a reporter from one scientist, Syed Hasnain, was the IPCC’s sole basis for its “very likely” conclusion that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035. The IPCC term “very likely” means a likelihood of greater than 90 per cent. One article, not peer reviewed, admittedly “speculative” equates to 90% likelihood? Some odds.

The coordinating lead author, the scientist having oversight of this IPCC report section, is one Professor Murari Lal who has reportedly admitted a significant lack of knowledge about the IPCC report section: "I am not an expert on glaciers and I have not visited the [Himalayan] region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist…” It's hard to think of one non-peer reviewed article by a Journalist as "credible published research," and Prof. Hasnain’s apparently agrees: "The magic number of 2035 has not [been] mentioned in any research papers written by me, as no peer-reviewed journal will accept speculative figures."

Professor Lal has now publicly admitted to the UK's Daily Mail that he knew the statements had not been verified, and that it had been included intentionally to ">In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

Despite the IPPC's statement of principles that its reports should be neutral with respect to policy," it appears IPCC authors like solitary statements on impending doom, including those in the so-called “grey literature” as opposed to the real scientific reports from multiple independent researchers. It is also now much more clear that demonstrated knowledge in a particular field is not needed to oversee preparation of IPCC report chapters.