Ten of the Worst Climate Research Papers: A Note from Cohenite
Posted by Cohenite, September 18th, 2008 - under Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
As a layman reading the literature and arguments in support of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) three defining characteristics of those arguments have become apparent.
The first is the idea that the science is settled and that there is a consensus in favor of this science. This is wrong and the Oreskes thesis has been repudiated.
Secondly, the pro-AGW literature uses terms of apocalyptic consequence; we read about tipping points, rapid sea rises and extreme weather. Because of this, pro-AGW statements often take on a ghoulish, vulture-like quality with every bad climate event being hailed as proof of AGW. But again, there is no compelling evidence that the climate is becoming more extreme or worse than it has been.
The third and most striking characteristic are the computers, the General Circulation Models (GCMs), which are the basis of AGW science. They have informed the msm to the extent that nearly every report confirming AGW (are there any other kind?) begins with ‘computer modeling has shown’…etc.
The result of the dominance of GCM’s has seen a growth in what Aynsley Kellow, Professor and Head, School of Government, University of Tasmania, calls climate virtual reality where there is a persistent conflict between GCM evidence and empirical data.
What stands out for me in this debate is the clash between real data and AGW data and the repeated examples where data has been manipulated, adjusted, discarded or subject to arcane statistical methodology so it conforms with the GCM simulations.
All of the 10 papers, statements and articles I have selected as the worst of the pro-AGW support literature exhibit the above 3 qualities. Some of them have iconic status and others, while more obscure, present such glaring examples of this matrix science, or climate virtual reality, that they cannot be ignored.
1.Dr James Hansen’s 1988 Statement to the US Senate.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf
Hansen is the public face of AGW science. This statement establishes all 3 of the defining characteristics. He says “the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements.” Why then does GISS adjust their US data to stop the ‘30’s being the warmest decade? He says the greenhouse effect is proven; why then does IPCC have to invent the enhanced greenhouse? He takes pride in his “computer climate simulations”. Money for jam for Koutsoyiannis.
2. Dr James Hansen’s 2008 Anniversary speech before the US Congress.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798
After 20 years of climate zilch Hansen ups the apocalypse ante; tipping points are now “ominous”, AGW is a “time bomb”, and there is a need to “preserve our planet, and creation.” The public face of AGW is now Moses. Amidst the blatant untruths there is a resonant irony; “The fossil fuel industry maintains its stranglehold…via demagoguery.” Is Hansen the copper or the kettle?
3. Michael Mann et al (MBH): Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations. AGU GRL 1999
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html
The Hockey stick is the figurehead of the good ship AGW. If anyone says that it is not essential for AGW to prove that 20thC temperatures are higher than any other time in recent history they are dreaming. MBH do so using tree-rings and esoteric statistical analysis (Principle Component Analysis); they ignore discrepancies with instrument data and obfuscate about their sources. McIntyre eats them for breakfast.
4. Eugene R. Wahl and Caspar M. Ammann: Robustness of Mann, Bradley, Hughes; Reconstruction of Northern hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence.
http://www.cgd.vcar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange.2007.pdf
Before the Hockey stick could be used in AR4 it needed to be rehabilitated after McIntyre’s, and others’, demolition. Wahl et al said they had a new standard for Reduction of Error verification, i.e. zero=skill. McIntyre wanted proof. Wahl procrastinated until AR4 was published and then said the proof was that the new verification had been referred to in their paper. Fidus Achates writ large.
5. Mann et al (part 2): Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf
Rehabilitated, Mann threw out the tree-rings and used an even more esoteric form of statistical analysis (PCA) to produce data so robust it could withstand minimal correlation with instrument records and 2 confirming dates over a millennium in some of the proxy series. McIntyre couldn’t believe it, but Tamino, in praising Mann’s use of whatever form of PCA he used, is taken to task by Ian Jolliffe, the world’s leading expert on the method, whatever it is. Jolliffe is nonplussed and declares, “This is just plain wrong.”
6. Spencer Weart: A Saturated Gassy Argument.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
This is the user friendly version of AGW’s semi-infinite atmospheric model; this model ‘shows’ that vertical layers of CO2 trap and delay the rise of surface emitted IR. If it was right there would be a troposphere hotspot/fingerprint as unequivocally predicted in AR4 by FIG 9.1(c). The satellite and other data collectors show there is none.
7. Robert J. Allen, Steven C. Sherwood: Warming maximum in the tropical upper atmosphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geoscience 25 May 2008
http://lubos.mtol.gogglepages.com/sherwood-allen-ngeo-2008.pdf
Concerned that the instruments showed no troposphere hotspot, Allen & Sherwood repudiated the instrument data and developed a windshear model which showed if there was windshear there would be warming. Matrix science. Resonant irony; the instruments which were not good enough for temperature were used to establish windshear and model predicted temperature.
8. Rolf Philipona et al: Radiative forcing-measured at Earth’s surface- corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 31 2004
Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase in Europe. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 32 2005
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023624.shtml
2 papers from Philipona who deals with increasing downward longwave (DLR). If the semi-infinite model is correct, as well as a troposphere hotspot, there will be increased clear-sky LDR. This is a crucial point but Philipona’s studies are flawed by statistical method, inadequate study period, selective use of insolation and temperature data and extrapolation from regionalized Stefan-Boltzman.
9. AR4, Chapter 2; Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing; Executive Summary; pp131-132.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report?Ar4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
The science is settled. The standard of scientific understanding in the Executive Summary ranges from “very high” to “very low”; the great majority of climate indices have “medium-low” to “very low” levels of scientific understanding; yet the Summary concludes that “humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate.” Diagnosis: scientific schizophrenia.
10. Keenlyside N S, Latif M, Jungclaus J, Kornblueh L, Roeckner E: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector. Nature 453, 84-88 May 2008
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
Both sides of the debate claimed this paper as proving/disproving AGW. The paper asserts that natural, contrary climate patterns can “temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.” To this layman that has a Claytons feel about it, but the kicker is Lucia’s 2001 and onwards temperature analysis; Lucia removed the ENSO and found a decline in post-2001 temperature trend. If there was an underlying warming it would have shown. How can anthropogenic warming be “temporarily offset” when it isn’t there?
These papers and articles and statements are the worst because they exhibit all three defining characteristics of AGW science. Some are indefensible, others don’t make sense.
*******
To read the ten best climate research papers according to Cohenite, click here .
Cohenite,
No it can’t be if it is true. In any case Luke has lost the argument, since it appears you have filliped his Phillipona.
Haven’t missed much while away hey
same old, same old…arguments and posters
Gavin,
Yes and the same old trite non-posts from you.
“There is no such thing as a scientific debate. Scientific facts are self evident from experiment.”
“I haven’t read Lucia’s post but volcanoes erupt as the result of a heat surge inside the earth’s interior. Given the mass of the earth and its thermal state, any variations in average temperature will be due to this heat source and not the inane CO2 fantasy.”
Where’s the experiment, Louis?
In other threads I have likened Hissink to a twit. He continues not to disappoint. So Sinkers tell us – can you explain what the radiometers are measuring.
Cohenite has done a runner – obviously not prepared to back up his nonsense.
luke; I have done a runner; trying to catch up with you running furiously from your challenges; I have put the following issues about Philipona’s papers to you;
1 A discrepancy in the DLR amount of +1.8(0.8)Wm2 in the 2004 paper, and +0.35(0.4)Wm2 in the 2005 paper; how does he reach these widely different conclusions?
2 Why does he restrict his measurements to the period 1995-2002? An extension of his temp trends, from HadCrut, to 2005, shows a markedly lower trend.
3 Why in fact did he use HadCrut temp records when he is measuring an atmospheric effect/ Why didn’t he use MSU satellite data, which is 38% less over the period?
4 How does he reconcile his claim that his measurement of DLR has isolated a clear-sky anthropogenic component, after removing Stefan-Boltzman and humidity, when insolation, according to PMOD, was not declining during the test period?
5 His estimate of the water vapor effect is based on a modelled estimate of vertically declining vapor. How does he reconcile that with layer inversions which are common over Europe, and which trap excess vapor at height?
6 Even if his use of the 1st derivative of Stefan-Boltzman to ascertain the temp based upward radiation is acceptable, how can you extrapolate from this pronounced regional effect to a wider area?
7 According to a 2008 paper, with Ruckstuhl, Philipona’s measurements of DLR is done during the day. Can you confirm that his measurements of DLR are in fact diurnal?
Graeme Bird said…”It may not be able to warm its source but what it can do perhaps is slow down the rate at which the source cools. And this could amount to a little bit because of the existence of day and night”.
While quoting Clausius, I wasn’t implying that the back radiation did not warm the surface. The AGW theory is claiming that the back radiation will warm the surface to the extent it will release more water vapour and the extra vapour is what is theorized to cause the excess warming. In other words, the surface will get warmer than the 100 watts it was heated to by the Sun initially.
I’m interpreting Clausius as saying you can’t get that extra warming to create an excess of vapour because it contravenes the 2nd Law. Think of the surface as the source of the heat and say for arguements sake it is 100 w/m.m. It radiates that 100 watts only in an ideal system…there should be losses. If the water vapour and CO2 absorb the 100 watts and re-radiate it perfectly, you have a perpetual motion machine.
We know that doesn’t happen since the back-radiation is only a fraction of the surface. Clausius is saying that 100 W supplied by the surface cannot be re-radiated to heat the surface beyond 100 watts.
The AGW theory is claiming that back-radiation adds to the incoming radiation from the Sun to warm the surface beyond 100 watts due to a balance of ‘net energy’. In the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, they claim that is wrong, that the AGW theory is confusing heat with energy.
Heat is a form of energy but energy is the amount of heat transfered in a time period. I’m not clear on this yet, but it seems the AGW theory is treating the system of heat flow to the atmosphere and back again as a time-based machine in which you could measure energy differences.
That’s not what appears to be happening, however. The heat engine is initiated by the surface, not the Sun. Once the Sun has heated the surface, it’s out of the equation. The surface now becomes the radiator and the heat flow is between it and the atmosphere. That’s where the 2nd Law comes in, it applies to the heat flow from the surface – atmosphere – surface only.
“While quoting Clausius, I wasn’t implying that the back radiation did not warm the surface. The AGW theory is claiming that the back radiation will warm the surface to the extent it will release more water vapour and the extra vapour is what is theorized to cause the excess warming.”
Crazytalk. Since it focuses on the warming of the air and forgets the oceans that must lose energy to turn the water into water vapour.
Its conjuring something out of nothing.
Luke,
A radiometer can quantify electromagnetic radiation intensity, but no one knows how and there is much scientific debate about this.
SJT,
You are the classic pseudoscience proselytiser- demanding one’s debating opponents to perform an impossible experiment to prove their argument.
I wrote a non sequitur in one of the posts above.
Which one.
:-)
“You are the classic pseudoscience proselytiser- demanding one’s debating opponents to perform an impossible experiment to prove their argument.”
So you’ll drop that claim you made since you can’t do an experiment in a lab to prove it?
I’ll be looking forward to your lab experiment that proves the earth is a homopolar generator. Better build a big lab for that experiment.
“In other words, the surface will get warmer than the 100 watts it was heated to by the Sun initially.”
If you are going to try to sort this out in your own mind, you really have to get sorted out what terms you are using. Are you talking about the rate of energy going into the system, that is, watts, the amount of energy, that is, joules, or the temperature that results, that is, Degrees C. You seem to be talking about a mix of all three as if they are interchangable.
Andrew Apel
I hope you see this. To answer your question there are models that predict the tides. In the past mechanical models were used to simulate the tides in a harbor. This is a complex problem and there are many factors. Friction, gravitation (of earth, moon, sea water and Sun), sea floor topography and earth rotation to name a few. Computer models do it better because then all known the factors involved can be calculated. Note that they do it better not perfectly. A GCM creates a virtual reality which attempts to predict conditions at finite points (less than 10000). The number of factors involved are infinite at least by the reckoning of two of the modelers. Principally thermodynamic calculations are used and this means mainly physicists are saying what the climate will be a hundred years in the future. If the GCMs can calculate enough of the infinite number factors to make an accurate prediction then we know what the 10000 points will be a hundred years in the future. These points are set at an average point a few metres above the surface which is about 510100000 sq. km in area. So we are making a prediction for a single point in every 51010 sq. km or to put it another way a square 226 Km on each side. All we then need is a guarantee that the transition is uniform from point to point. Personally I prefer an Ouija board the results are about the same.
SJT,
You don’t understand the scientific method – it is the proposer of an hypothesis who has to prove it, not the sceptics to disprove it.
If the earth’s rotation is not driven by a homopolar mechanism, then pray tell what does maintain it, short of a mechanical miracle.
“If the earth’s rotation is not driven by a homopolar mechanism, then pray tell what does maintain it, short of a mechanical miracle.
Do your experiment and prove it to me.
I have heard a whisper on the grapevine it is inertia and the lack of drag in a vacuum that keeps the earth spinning.
Louis Hissink.
Scientific hypotheses are not proved, they are supported. Or disproved.
There’s a big difference, and it has profound consequences for your statement. One of these is that the proposer, or any other scientist, only ever adds to the support base, and never truly ‘proves’ anything.
And one would suspect that anyone bothering to test an hypothesisis is, almost tautologically, a sceptic. Whether you subscribe to collusive science conspiracy theories or not, it is rather apparent that it is scepticism that usually drives disproof.
And I thought that this blog was peopled by Popperians.
“AGW is basically the theory that as the earth cools by radiating IR outwards, this is captured by CO2 which then reradiates it backwards to maintain the temperature.”
A “cool” CO2 molecule can’t RE-RADIATE back to earth.
This is a common error since CO2 can absorb some of the outgoing IR.But can only emit at a LOWER temperature.
Therefore what is emitted is COOLER than what it absorbed.
Therefore what is emitted is no longer IR.It is now a cooler wavelength.
CO2 can not RE-RADIATE! It can only emit at a lower temperature than it initially recieved.Otherwise there would be no emission at all.
How can it maintain atmospheric warmth when it is cooler than the surface?
Thus it can’t maintain anything warm that is warmer than itself.
CO2 or any molecules that emits will always be cooler than what it absorbed.
[...] READ THE REST HERE Categories : Myths and Facts [...]