There's no police tape across Michael Mann's office doorway this morning. "Always a good start," he says, juggling a cup of coffee as he slides his key into the lock.
Mann, a paleoclimatologist, wears a sport coat over a turtleneck. As he takes a seat at his desk, a narrow sunbeam angles through the window, spotlighting a jumble of books, journals and correspondence. Behind him, a framed picture of his six-year-old daughter rests near a certificate for the Nobel Peace Prize he shared in 2007. Propped into a corner is a hockey stick, a post-lecture gift from Middlebury College, which Mann jokingly says he keeps "for self-defense."
Mann directs Penn State University's Earth System Science Center. Several months ago, he arrived at his office with an armload of mail. Sitting at his desk, he tore open a hand-addressed envelope and began to pull out a letter. He watched as a small mass of white powder cascaded out of the folds and onto his fingers. Mann jerked backward, letting the letter drop and holding his breath as a tiny plume of particles wafted up, sparkling in the sunlight. He rose quickly and left the office, pulling the door shut behind him. "I went down to the restroom and washed my hands," he says. "Then I called the police."
For someone describing an anthrax scare, Mann is surprisingly nonchalant. "I guess," he says, "it's so much a part of my life that I don't even realize how weird it is."
"Weird" is perhaps the mildest way to describe the growing number of threats and acts of intimidation that climate scientists face. A climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory answered a late-night knock to find a dead rat on his doorstep and a yellow Hummer speeding away. An MIT hurricane researcher found his inbox flooded daily for two weeks last January with hate mail and threats directed at him and his wife. And in Australia last year, officials relocated several climatologists to a secure facility after climate-change skeptics unleashed a barrage of vandalism, noose brandishing and threats of sexual attacks on the scientists' children.
Those crude acts of harassment often come alongside more-sophisticated legal and political attacks. Organizations routinely file nuisance lawsuits and onerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to disrupt the work of climate scientists. In 2005, before dragging Mann and other climate researchers into congressional hearings, Texas congressman Joe Barton ordered the scientists to submit voluminous details of working procedures, computer programs and past funding—essentially demanding that they reproduce and defend their entire life's work. In a move that hearkened back to darker times, Oklahoma senator James Inhofe, the ranking member of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, released a report in 2010 that named 17 prominent climate scientists, including Mann, who, he argued, may have engaged in "potentially criminal behavior." Inhofe outlined three laws and four regulations that he said the scientists may have violated, including the Federal False Statements Act—which, the report noted, could be punishable with imprisonment of up to five years.
It's late February when I visit Mann in his office, almost two years after Inhofe issued his "list of 17." Though it's still winter in central Pennsylvania, the temperature outside hangs in the upper 60s, crocus stems poke up from flower beds, and shopkeepers have thrown open their doors along College Avenue. Mann is home for three days between conferences in Milwaukee and Hawaii and West Coast stops on a promotional tour for his new book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.
In the late 1990s, Mann developed a graph that demonstrated a recent and dramatic uptick in global mean surface temperatures. The hockey-stick-shaped curve has become emblematic to both sides of the climate debate. To the vast majority of climate scientists, it represents evidence, corroborated by decades of peer-reviewed research, of global warming. To climate-change skeptics, the hockey stick is the most grievous of many illusions fabricated by thousands of conspiring scientists to support an iniquitous political agenda.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included Mann's graph in its Third Assessment Report in 2001. Al Gore and Davis Guggenheim then included it in their 2006 climate-change documentary An Inconvenient Truth. The film galvanized both the pro- and contra-climate-science camps, propelling the issue of human-caused global warming into the culture wars—and Mann along with it. "Since then, my life has been crazy," he says. "People have stolen my e-mails and bought billboards and newspaper ads to denounce me; they've staged bogus grassroots protests; they've threatened my family. I've been through eight investigations by everyone from the National Science Foundation to the British House of Commons. Every time, they find no evidence of fraud or misuse of information. Every time, they conclude that my methods are sound, my data replicable. And every time I'm exonerated, another investigation pops up."
Mann has been called a "compulsive liar, a con man and an extraordinary psychological case." Some critics accuse him of masterminding a cabal of scientists that aims to establish a new world order. Still others compare him to Hitler, Stalin and Satan.
At the time of our meeting, Mann was juggling several FOIA requests and two lawsuits—one of which would be resolved the following week, when the Virginia Supreme Court rejected the state attorney general's demand that the University of Virginia (Mann's former employer) turn over the researcher's e-mails and other documents. The university spent nearly $600,000 to argue that releasing personal correspondence would chill academic research. "Yes, there's been a toll on me and my family," Mann says. "But it's bigger than that. Look what it's doing to science, when others see this and see what happens if they speak up about their research. These efforts to discredit science are well-organized. It's not just a bunch of crazy people."
RiHo08, Swanson & Tsonis do not propose a non-CO2 explanation for recent warming. Rather, they explore apparent short-term temp regimes on top of AGW: "Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing."
Again, Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) (behind a paywall, but discussion by one of the authors is here: tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-real-global-warming-signal/)
Dculton, you sound like an old-timer in this particcular rhetorical game, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Even if you are one of the paid, the lurkers may profit from discussion of the following scenario:
The following scenario is a hypothetical. Imagine that I wanted to hurt your reputation, Dculton. Somehow, I managed to find 5000+ of your work emails somewhere on the net. I did some work to verify that they were actually yours. Then I spent a few days combing over them, trying to find something damaging. I managed to find two short strings that could work, if radically recontextualized. One string was "I like to sleep with children." Another was "I like to cheat on my wife with children." I can find nothing else that remotely implies that you are a pedophile, but I have to work with what I've got. I blast the texts across the internet with the help of a few like-minded friends. Your locals explode. Law, police, and neighbors are called upon to remove you from the community. Your inbox is filled with hate mail and death threats. You try to explain yourself, giving the full contexts of the snippets: "Oh sure, I like to sleep with children, but when they stay up all night jumping on my head, eating my books, and soaking the mattress with 'accidents', I tend to be a little irritable in the morning," and "When we play UNO, I like to cheat on my wife with children in full complicity. She tends to think she's the UNO master, so we like to take her down a few notches." Six independent investigations clear you of any wrongdoing. Few believe it. Most think it's some sort of cover up. Others don't like to think they've been hoodwinked so easily. Your life is changed for the worse. I sit back and watch it all unfold, laughing. Am I a criminal?
Yes, the above hypothetical is analogous to the "climategate" email joke. Jones et al. were found not guilty of scientific misconduct. No data was faked. Indeed, one investigative body found that such fakery was impossible, given the process followed.
The suggestion that Jones et al. were suppressing publication (they desired it) was responded to by several investigative bodies, but no evidence was found that the suppression actually occurred. I concur with Jones: garbage should not be published just because it challenges the dominant theory. Science would move at a snail's pace if that were allowed (and now that we have pay-for-play, theory-as-commodity, and industry-supported faux journals, we may be entering that regime). If you can show me something significant that should have been published but was suppressed by "AGW believers," I may consider it.
I can't say why you fell for "climategate." Plenty of smart, well-intentioned people did. It was a piece of rhetorical genius, even if it did rely on theft and the luck required to find those bits of text that could be recontextualized. Non-experts should have fallen for it, because the news is filled with revelations of corruption in all areas of life. Still, once even the basic details were finally revealed, reason should have kicked in.
Apparently it still hasn't in some cases.
Snowman, I don't want to get tangled up with the argument over Drapela, but I will point out that universities do hire even while making budget-driven faculty cuts. Departments have to have profs who can teach the core classes for the majors. When one retires, that position is high priority fill, and it's actually a savings (the new hire will probably have a smaller salary to start). Other departments may have been waiting for a while to add a position. Other positions may be driven by long-term project/program or curricular change. Now, if four hires were made for the same position as Drapela, then he must really suck for some reason. Was he not a member of AAUP or an adjunct union?
DSL, I don't want to get into an argument either. But, can you explain why he would be cut before the end of the term, if it was a budget issue?
For all I know he was fired for something un-related to his stance on Global Warming. I just won't buy the "budget cuts" excuse.
It's not about the science, it's about the solutions.
If the proposed solution is to beat the crap out of Joe Blow, he will oppose the science, with an understandable sense of urgency. It doesn't take a computer to predict this.
If the proposed solution is to beat the crap out of everyone, expect a revolution.
Propose reasonable solutions (minimum disruption/maximum benefit) and then you can get back to nitpicking the science.
This is what constitutes debate in America these days. We and the media accept debates between scientist and PR firms, political ideological attack dog backers all funded by corporations with a vested interest in manipulating the debate. The debate should be between equal parties with similar basis of knowledge, experience and interests. The PR world is unleashed against science with special interest money. It is all just a subterfuge to create uncertainty and doubt. Why does the media participate and allow it? Tight deadlines and slick sound bites doesn't cut it. If you can't do the job of fulfilling the civil responsibilities of the forth estate, stop talking, don't make it worse.
"Why does the media participate and allow it?"
Follow the money: Special interest money > campaign funds > media advertising
The media gets the bribe money.
CO2 has radiative properties which may influence weather/climate. My description is: the trace gas radiative transfer model. CO2 influence in proportion to its atmospheric concentration. Trace. Its signal has yet to be discerned from the noise.
By far and away water is the dominant, greenhouse gas. Water in all its phases influences the incoming radiation as well as the outgoing. Clouds play important roles not at all described sufficiently to determine an overall positive or negative influence. Likely clouds play various roles depending upon latitude as well as altitude.
Swanson & Tsonis 2009 are important for their construct of oceanic and atmospheric pressure oscillations merging to transition points (phase state) resulting in abrupt climate changes. Anthropogenic Global Warming may influence a trend. Again its signal as separated from noise has not been observed.
Atmospheric pressures change is influenced by UV radiation upon ozone primarily in the Stratosphere at both poles. The Polar Vorticies and in particular their influences upon jet streams, blocking highs, etc are receiving the attention they deserve regarding weather and climate.
Current temperature trends are difficult at best as the raw data is being adjusted, sometimes invisibly which makes such adjustments suspicious, not necessarily wrong, just suspicious. If we see influences on temperature trends by PDO, ENSO, AMO, NAO, this would suggest that CO2 is a weak forcing. Again, the trace gas radiative transfer model.
Regarding Melles et al, the latest: From Russia with Love:
Is this core record a game changer? Time will tell. There is a lot of information in those cores yet to be uncovered.
In any case, there is a lot more to learn about weather/climate before estimates of future climate will have any substance.
RiHo08: "Again its signal as separated from noise has not been observed."
Yes, it has. Foster & Rahmstorf (2011). Abstract:
"We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010."
The signal became quite evident when insolation diverged sharply from temp about 30 years ago.
Greystone: "It's not about the science, it's about the solutions."
Agreed -- it should be, anyway. As far as solutions go, I change my opinion on a daily basis. I continue to try and do what I can on the personal scale, but my role in the democratic process needs a good plan to latch onto.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the mitigation/adaptation process will be slow slow slow until the environmental changes become impossible to ignore. That is where the problem is "about the science"--or at least the communication of the science and the antagonism of the misinformation industry.
If people don't understand the problem as a real problem, then democratic solutions will never get off the ground, and power will shift to smaller entities (of various political persuasions).
That this even has to be discussed is a tribute to how far back we have moved form enlightenment to a darker age ... very strange. Science was the one thing everyone could pretty much agree on, but the charlatans of the world see fit to turn lies and bad science into wedge issues with little care what damage may be done. Anyway, the sun experiences higher levels of activity (and "sun spots") every 12 years, but the effects on earth have much more to do with electromagnetic radio and electric interference (and auroras!!)than any global heating effect. High points in the sun's activity are very predictably cyclical. The demonstrably continuous and accelerating warming of the global climate does not track at all with the cyclical nature of increased solar activity. It does however coincide rather exactly with the exponential rise of "greenhouse gases" just as predicted by the VAST majority of serious climatologists for several decades now(Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding). Every estimate of the effects of warming have not only been on the right track, but have actually fallen somewhat short of the ACTUAL pace of events, which like glacial melts have been accellerating ever faster and more so than predicted. Don't expect natural gas to assist in this matter very much. While natural gas is "cleaner" than most other hydrocarbon fuels in terms of particulates and exotic byproducts, it still produces carbon dioxide "a mainline greenhouse gas" in great abundance as THE principle byproduct of burning it (check the formulas). People, religion and talk radio serve their purposes during these troubled times, but literally for GOD's sake, don't rely on them as your primary source of scientific truth! There's just too much at stake.
In an earlier post, I described the sequence of events, as I recall them, in the ozone depletion debacle.
I would offer that the original proposal of CFC phaseout at the manufacturing level was an example of a reasonable solution (minimum disruption/maximum effect), resulting in minimal opposition.
I would further offer that the betrayal of the refrigeration industry in breaking that agreement was a lesson not lost on other industries... and could possibly even mark the birth of opposition to environmentalism in general.
The clear message was: Environmentalists cannot be trusted.
I had suggested earlier for those interested in why a focus on solutions and not on the science is premature by looking at Woods Hole.
Woods Hole is a believer in Anthropogenic Climate Change and have a contract out to Liu and others at University of Wisconsin to use the Oakridge peta-speed computer. Now the data is not out but their rationale and prior work is known.
What is evident, that the current data and computer model simulations are not fit for purpose. There are significant gaps in modeling past climate. Concocting solutions to address inadequately modeled past climate seems hardly wise.
What ever the IPCC says in WG1, WG2, or WG3 should be taken with a large dose of skepticism as this is primarily a political body with a smidgen of science used as justification. There are other climate scientists who view sensitivity of a doubling of CO2 to be @ 1, in which case, there is likely to be a benefit to global warming and the catastrophe would have been the wasting of resources on CO2 mitigation.
RiHo08, 1C? Seriously? Have you read Knutti & Hegerl (2008)? Abstract: www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo337.html
Of course these personal attacks against Mr. Mann and other AGW proponents are not right. But it is a very emotional subject. Most arguments contain no or only little science. My overall impression is, from another forum, that the AGW crowd is quicker with personal attacks then the anti AGW crowd, and that on an internet forum, where they really know nothing about the person behind the comments. So if Mr. Mann gets a lot of flak, his disciples probably brought it onto him. This is not an excuse but maybe part of an explanation.
Would a sensitivity range of 0.8 to 1.2 be more accurate?
Nice, African Rover, but wrong. Spend some time in the comment streams at WUWT, ClimateAudit, and Curry's blog. Spend some time in the comment streams of any online news publication concerning AGW. Then compare that to the comment streams at SkepticalScience, Eli Rabett's blog, and Open Mind (tamino). Yes, Open Mind can be harsh on garbage, but it's a well-evidenced harshness.
RiHo08, are you talking straight CO2 forcing--no feedbacks? If not, I'd like to know who gave you the 1C.
Short answer: Forest et al 2006.
As you know a doubling of CO2 in 100 years would give a rise in Global Mean Temperature (GMT) of @ 1.2 C, per IPCC WG1 calculations. They already accounted for the logarithmic saturation of CO2 IR spectral absorption/emission so that every added molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere had less and less impact.
To get to 3.5 C rise in GMT the IPCC authors speculated that water vapor feedback would all be positive and no negative. There is no science data to support that conjecture. Its just a conjecture.
For AR 4 the climate sensitivity calculations relied upon were primarily those of Forest et al 2006. Forest et al 2006 came up with a climate sensitivity of 3. The problem with this calculation, it can't be reproduced. It seems that when requested, two data sets are provided (to two different researchers). One data set gives the climate sensitivity of 3 that you like. The other data set gives a climate sensitivity of 1 that I like. Which of us are correct? Well, gosh darn, we can't tell since the original raw data is lost and there is no way to go back and replicate either data sets, the infamous data adjustments.
Question: what is the probability that two iconic IPCC WG1 assumptions were based upon raw data that now has been lost? Mann's Hockey Stick and Forest's climate sensitivity. Pretty ironic, huh?
Here is another statistical puzzle: what is the probability that Forest works for Mann? Weird, right? What a coincidence that two iconic pieces can't be reproduced because.... the dog ate my homework. But that's science, isn't it? at least climate science.
Frankly, most of the skeptics/naysayers either have a vested interest due to their financiers; or worse, are in denial about climate change and are unable to educate/unwilling to educate themselves out of their own ignorance. This coupled with the paid shills on most mainstream science/news sites, the TPP trade agreement, and the sheer power of century old oil interests do not bode well for our planet.
The fact is, phytoplankton populations have decreased 40% since 1950. There is only one reason one of the most prevalent and well adapted staples of the food chain is rapidly declining -- they cannot adapt to the temperature changes that are occurring so rapidly. Outside of major extinction events (Permian/Cretaceous/etc) phytoplankton have successfully withstood catastrophic environmental changes -- including all the Ice Ages and former Warming Periods. Why does this concern us?
They provide 50% of Earth's oxygen, and if temperatures continue to increase (which more than 90% of marine biologists believe will occur if nothing changes soon), we will lose a vital organ of Earth's current ecosystem.
I say this irregardless of my political views or any other preconceived notions, as one informed individual to others.
Speak to anyone with a degree in marine biology about the state of phytoplankton -- there is an overwhelming consensus that global warming is causing the mass die-offs. One of my closest friends has a doctorate in marine biology (specifically microorganisms) and he regularly loses sleep thinking about the near future.
Well, gosh darn, we can't tell since the original raw data is lost and there is no way to go back and replicate either data sets, the infamous data adjustments.
Can you tell us specifically what original raw data was supposedly lost, and what sort of published results depended on that raw data?
Please be specific. If it's the data that I think it is, I'll be able to provide some useful information about it.
No - say rather that the direct forcing component of CO2 will yield 1.2C. That 1.2 will never happen, because feedbacks will occur, and they will be net positive.
Conjecture? Here's the abstract from Held (2006):
"The climate feedbacks in coupled ocean–atmosphere models are compared using a coordinated set of twenty-first-century climate change experiments. Water vapor is found to provide the largest positive feedback in all models and its strength is consistent with that expected from constant relative humidity changes in the water vapor mixing ratio. The feedbacks from clouds and surface albedo are also found to be positive in all models, while the only stabilizing (negative) feedback comes from the temperature response. Large intermodel differences in the lapse rate feedback are observed and shown to be associated with differing regional patterns of surface warming. Consistent with previous studies, it is found that the vertical changes in temperature and water vapor are tightly coupled in all models and, importantly, demonstrate that intermodel differences in the sum of lapse rate and water vapor feedbacks are small. In contrast, intermodel differences in cloud feedback are found to provide the largest source of uncertainty in current predictions of climate sensitivity."
From AR4: "Progress since the TAR enables an assessment
that climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C."
IPCC modeling does not rely on one study of sensitivity, even if it is near the ensemble mean. A range of sensitivities are used. What you're saying appears to be a cheap way to try to connect the IPCC with something that sounds vaguely like scientific misconduct, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. And of course different sensitivity studies depend on the weighting of different data sets. There are scores of sensitivity studies, and each uses a slightly different methodology. What component do you think is being overweighted and why?
To scientists, RiHo08, those studies are not iconic. They are history. Science has moved on. Mann has moved on. Forest has moved on. Hockey sticks are now found in surface temp, CO2, ice mass loss (reversed), sea level rise, and ocean acidification. Whatever the data loss issues involved with those two studies (and I haven't encountered the details), they are irrelevant to current climate research except as historical notes.
The Mann-Forest connection conspiracy attempt is ridiculous. The buildup of Forest as a giant influence on IPCC projections is ridiculous and an insult to the thousands of other researchers who have taken part in the very large IPCC project. I'll look into the data loss issue, and I'll try to do it without any assumptions about your interpretation (or whoever's you found).
In addition to Exxon, the GM Foundation has withdrawn funding from the Heartland Institute. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/heartland-institute-future-staff-cash
So has beverage giant Diageo, the parent organziation to Guinness, Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker and Moet & Chandon, and automobile insurance company State Farm (Huffington Post)
Mann's Hockey Stick represent paleoclimate reconstructions using tree rings. There have been several tree ring temperature reconstructions one of which was Briffa. Briffa's reconstruction raw data is lost. Mann said that he never used Briffa until it was pointed out to him that he had.
The raw data that was used for Forest et al 2006 is similarly lost per Forest.
As I stated before, there is no data that there are any feedbacks which amplify the CO2 radiative transfer effect. They can, they might, they ought to, and certainly the models we build show they do; but...as for imperial observations..ah..let me get back to you on that.
I would like to point out that models are not data; we can input data, but they are not data. One can feed all sorts of information and its errors and assumptions into a computer model and results from running such a model may help point a direction in which to further investigate. BUT models are not experiments, this is a virtual world where any similarity to actual observations is purely coincidental.
Regarding history, I hope you have read Melles et al 2012 core assessments as the caveats at the end are telling: New models will need to be constructed; greenhouse gas forcings will have to be reassessed regarding their impact upon temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctica.
Regarding Mann & Forest; Forest has certainly moved on, he is now a lead author for AR5. Mann is still getting awards for his bad science.
RiHo08, I'll read Melles when you read Puckrin (2004) and when you accept that evaporation increases with warmer temps, and when you read out scienceofdoom.com/2011/06/05/water-vapor-trends-part-two/.
Since you've admitted that H2O is a GHG, you can't really deny that adding more of it to the atmosphere doesn't slow the rate of cooling.
Mann said that he never used Briffa until it was pointed out to him that he had.
That's just plain wrong. Mann said that he didn't use the *Yamal* chronology in his original hockey-stick. He never claimed not to have used Briffa data. Mann made no secret about using Briffa data -- the Briffa data is included (and clearly labeled as such) in the MBH99 supplementary information that Mann made available on-line *years* ago, as a cursory examination (Google is your friend here) will reveal.
I have to agree with you African Rover, it can get emotional especially after hot-button propaganda like http://youtu.be/CZ-4gnNz0vc gets distributed to millions of viewers. I like the message of hope and working together that a presentation like http://tarsandsblockade.org/ represents... it's much better to keep it friendly, maintain a sense of faith for your fellow citizens and an attitude of courage in the face of uncertainty and emerging danger.
PopSci, it is interesting to take a look at the personal side of this debate, although I think this article is a little one-sided and veers away a bit from what the core of the climate change debate should be: science.
Thank you SO MUCH to everyone who provides credible citations to their claims. This debate has suffered dramatically from both sides spouting off hearsay without investigating the facts. And from extremely melodramatic "arguments" used on either side.
I find it ironic that the anti-climate change side calls themselves the skeptics when skepticism is an inherent part of the scientific method. Both sides should be skeptical of results published or put forth by either side. That is supposed to be at least partially enforced by the process of peer review. If it is true that review boards are corrupt with scientists who reject papers simply because these papers disagree with their own work (without actual scrutiny of the results presented in the submission), then the scientific community has a very vexing problem. Scientists are human, they aren't perfect--all they can do is try their best to understand this EXTRAORDINARILY complex universe in which we live, and we should give them credit for doing just that.
RiHo08 says “I would like to point out that models are not data; we can input data, but they are not data.”
There are two types of climate models.
Type #1 - There are physics-based climate models that take in facts about our planet and the external forcings that affect its climate. Output is a climate realization – sometimes a projection, sometimes a hindcast (e.g. AOGCMs, EMICs).
Type #2 - There are statistics-based climate models that take in temperature samples at many locations around our planet and attempt to stitch these incoherent measurements together and interpolate the missing values. Output is a climate realization - the one we think we experienced (e.g. HadCRUx, GISTemp, UAH).
It seems that RiHo08 puts all his faith in type #2 models, yet when there have been discrepancies, they more often in recent times have been resolved by finding and correcting errors in the type #2 models. This is especially true with type #2 models that use satellite data, which have been found to be erroneous due orbital drift, equipment changes, bad math, etc.
It even applies to type #2 models that use weather station data. Type #1 models tell us temperatures have been warming more in the 2000s and they tell us the 1940s temperature bump should not exist. Earlier this year the type #2 model called HadCRUT3 was replaced by HadCRUT4 and the new version agrees more closely with the type #1 models in these two respects (it went from coolest to warmest of the surface models, but just by a bit).
You are right that Mann used Briffa in his reconstructions wiping out the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice age, hence, giving a straight handle to the Hockey Stick. He then removed tree rings after 1960 because... anyway tree rings showed a decline. Origin of the Climategate emails "hide the decline" and "nature trick."
I can't not put my finger on where I read that Mann had said he did not use Briffa, it may have been the part after 1960. that he didn't use. In any case, my original point that Briffa's raw data has been lost and his reconstructions can no longer be reproduced is valid. There is pre-processed data, just not original.
I am not sure we are at the same place as regards to the data verses its interpretation.
When I say there is no data for the amplification process I am correct, there is no data. A mechanism of amplification is hypothesized to give the IPCC's assertion of a climate sensitivity range of 2 to 4 C. This range remains the same as 25 years ago precisely because there is no data. This is an assumption, otherwise the CO2 trace gas radiative transfer model does not work.
Yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Water in all its form including clouds, oceans, ice and snow are a more complex issue. The simple assertion that warm water evaporates just does not approximate what is going on re: water's role in climate. Ocean currents, transport of heat both in the atmosphere and oceans are just some of these issues. Arctic and Antarctic polar vortices, the influence of UV light on ozone in the stratosphere may play a bigger role in climate than currently accounted for in GCMs.
If you are not willing to read the several papers I have provided links to, that is your loss. These papers are current. In part, the more we know, the less we know. The more science we learn, the more climate demonstrates that it is dynamically complex, at least one of the reasons why Liu et al need much faster computers than those of the past. The equations are certainly not linear and any assumptions of linearity are incorrect, even as first approximations. The statistical treatment requires a rigor on a very high level. The grid cell to grid cell dynamics, particularly the infill, where there is no data is suspect and requires assumptions that have not been validated.
There are numerous other issues involved which have now been confounded by the loss of raw data; the homogenization and adjustments made to data that has not been articulated; the lack of archival data and computer code so that climate scientists research can be duplicated using their own data; and now the obvious issues of integrity of the individuals who have been involved in climate science, particularly as they have moved into their advocacy roles.
My statements stand: all models are wrong; the science surrounding climate science is not sufficiently mature to focus upon solutions; the integrity of some researchers, sentinel researchers is in question and needs resolution before preceding further.
I hope this helps.
Splunge, this article is focused on denial, not so much valid skepticism. Denial is cynical subterfuge, the deliberate muddying of science, instigation of anger and silencing of scientific debate using threats of violence, all to manipulate a political outcome and produce return on investment.
The issue of climate change is larger than the science, of course. Having a good understanding about the facts of the matter knowing the damage we're inflicting and an outline of risks we're magnifying, the issue evolves into developing a reasonable plan of action to respond to the problem. To do this, we must answer what it is that we truly value? What do we care about, what is important... what is the right thing to do and what is the wrong thing to do? These are fundamental climate change questions that need to be answered, but they're not scientific questions.
The denial strategy described in the Popular Science magazine is about hog-tying and strangling the science so it's impossible to progress to discussing values and responsible action, and it's refreshing to shine some sunlight on that facet of the scientific process.