

Now IPCC hurricane data is questioned - miked
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/

======
vannevar
The errors cited are absolutely trivial. They are in vague statements like
"there are suggestions that" and "it is more likely than not". The overall
conclusion of the IPCC was that "there is no clear trend in the annual numbers
of tropical cyclones." Far from contradicting the IPCC, the cited study
confirms its conclusion.

~~~
jonallanharper
_In 2005, the National Hurricane Center's chief scientist Chris Landsea
resigned his post in protest at the treatment of the subject by Trenberth.

"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I
view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically
unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions
and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no
longer participate in the IPCC AR4."_

Do you think that's absolutely trivial as well?

~~~
rauljara
Not to contradict your statement, but this is an often misinterpreted letter.
If you read the letter in its entirety, it is very clear that Landsea is
talking about the very specific issue of hurricanes and global warming. He
mentions global warming several times and never once questions the reality of
global warming. It certainly seems to me like he's just taking global warming
as a given. The reason he gives for resigning is:

"My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the
IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific
understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science
and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy."

In other words, he thinks global warming science should influence policy
debate. In this instance, he feels the IPCC made a statement it shouldn't
have, and it will hinder future efforts to affect policy.

------
mnemonicsloth
Statistically speaking, no one in the climate change debate has read the IPCC
reports and journal articles at issue. This is far from ideal, but totally
understandable if you've ever taken a look at the damn things.

People are obviously interested, though, and I can't believe anyone (again,
statistically speaking) actually thinks it's better for the debate to be
limited to purely symbolic posturing over cherry-picked details.

How hard could it be to write some software to (nucleate a community to) track
what's disputed and what's not, how much variance of opinion there is, etc?

~~~
KirinDave
Very hard. The infrastructure to do it simply doesn't exist. Some of the
station data and instrument runs are not actually connected to anything,
they're on a human retrieval basis.

~~~
anamax
Human retrieval adds a lot of noise. It's not just how well people do
readings, its when (during the day) they do them. No, they don't necessarily
read them the same time each day.

Moreover, even if we had automated retrieval at the correct time, there are
issues with the stations.

“The story is the same for each one. The popular data sets show a lot of
warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors
affecting the weather stations, such as land development."

That's from John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University
of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such
as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site
to site.

[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article702...](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece)

~~~
KirinDave
Just to be clear, you're not making the heat island argument, right?

There is definitely concern over absolute accuracy in the collection of this
data. However, it doesn't seem like these concerns have somehow debunked AGW,
and certainly haven't even put a dent in current estimated global climate
change. I get very frustrated when people see the sausage of science being
made and suddenly get angry. "What? Scientists are not right _all the time?_
Well then they must be right _none of the time!_ "

~~~
anamax
I'll repeat the quote "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the
apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the
weather stations, such as land development."

If the apparent temperature rise was actually due to other factors, what's the
basis for the claim that there is warming?

> certainly haven't even put a dent in current estimated global climate change

So what? It's an estimate, one that happens to be wrong. If the estimate and
the reality are different, why should we pay attention to the estimate?

As the leaked emails said, the models don't predict what's actually happening.
Why should we act as if they do?

~~~
KirinDave
The leaked emails did not say that. Please stop suggesting they actually had
any significant impact on the science in question, because they did not.

~~~
anamax
> The leaked emails did not say that.

You can keep saying that, but you're wrong. They did. They said that the
models' predictions didn't correspond to what they thought that they were
seeing from the measurements.

Christy's work appears to be post-leak and wasn't considered in the e-mails.
He says that the supposed temperature increases, which the e-mails admit were
less than what the models predicted, aren't real. What's your basis for
claiming that he's wrong about the actual measurments?

> Please stop suggesting they actually had any significant impact on the
> science in question, because they did not.

How about telling us what you'd take as a statement or evidence that AGW
wasn't happening?

Note also the difference between statistically significant and scientifically
significant. Phil Jones is currently hanging his hat on the former and staying
very quiet about the latter. However, the latter is the hockey stick.

~~~
KirinDave
> You can keep saying that, but you're wrong. They did. They said that the
> models' predictions didn't correspond to what they thought that they were
> seeing from the measurements.

It didn't correspond to _tree-ring measurements_. Which is already an
unreliable and lossy sort of data, so they applied corrections for other
phenomenon. And if it were a primary line of evidence in the case for climate
change there might be a problem. But, as it stands, they were not and it was
not.

Further, at this point, all the work they did is replicable. The orignal data
was not lost, it simply wasn't kept at that facility (for a variety of
reasons). The IPCC is investigating any serious wrongdoing and having an
independent group check the results.

> How about telling us what you'd take as a statement or evidence that AGW
> wasn't happening?

Sort of like asking, "What you'd take as evidence that evolution isn't real."
At this point it'd need to be fairly extraordinary, since there is a LOT of
data (both observed and modeled) that supports the hypothesis.

So I dunno. Do you have anything better than, "One statistician disagrees with
Al Gore's movie from 4 years ago but agrees with the IPCC?" Or maybe, "These
people did something with data that I don't understand and called it a trick,
I _knew_ those guys were up to something!" Maybe something to counter the EIS
footage? Or perhaps data to argue against the basic tenants? Is there actually
much less CO2 in the air than claimed?

What evidence would you take that it is happening? Epochal records of CO2
content in the air? We have that. Clear evidence of sharp and sudden
environmental change in temperature sensitive areas? We have a ton of that;
some of it is incredibly dramatic. Decade-term data that still shows overall
warming trends? We've got that and its far more reliable than the extreme
longterm data. Clear chemistry explaining what should happen? The base science
backs this up.

Do we have absolutely conclusive proof yet? _No._ Do we have enough evidence
to start taking this seriously? _Yes, I believe my threshold is met._ Do post-
industrialized nations like America stand to gain a lot financially by
embracing this? I think we have much more to gain (and a lot to lose if we let
China continue to outpace us in renewable energy research and production). So
not only do I see a lot of science backing this notion, but I see a lot of
opportunity. That's enough for me.

~~~
anamax
> It didn't correspond to tree-ring measurements.

Wrong e-mail. I'm referring to the "it's embarrassing that we can't account
for the recent measurements" e-mail. They weren't talking about the tree
stuff, which has its own problems, but is not recent.

> Further, at this point, all the work they did is replicable.

Phil Jones disagrees.

> The orignal data was not lost

They can't produce it, so what definition of "not lost" are you using?

> Do you have anything better than

I have the person who did the IPCC's work on temperature measurement. You
found his work compelling when you agreed with it.

> Sort of like asking, "What you'd take as evidence that evolution isn't
> real."

Yes, exactly. There are many possible observations that would contradict
some/all of evolutionary theory. We don't see them, but they're very easy for
an honest scientist to imagine.

> At this point it'd need to be fairly extraordinary, since there is a LOT of
> data (both observed and modeled) that supports the hypothesis.

You're overstating things. The recent temperature data is broken and even then
contradicts the models. The "tree data is good when it supports the AGW but
not when it doesn't" argument is weak. Jones admits that the arguments for
ignoring the medieval warming period have problems. The hurricane stuff was
wrong. The glacier data is far from conclusive (and overstated anyway). Arctic
ice isn't behaving as predicted. And so on.

> Epochal records of CO2 content in the air? We have that.

Yup. It shows that with significantly higher CO2 concentrations (2-10x), we
didn't see significantly higher temperatures.

> Clear chemistry explaining what should happen?

Actually, CO2 chemistry, or rather its physical properties, doesn't predict
the magnitude of AGW. AGW requires feedback from other things.

> Clear evidence of sharp and sudden environmental change in temperature
> sensitive areas?

The AGW theory is that CO2 is causing climate change. Since climate changes
constantly anyway, it would be surprising if we couldn't find such things now.
The problem with using them for evidence of AGW is that we can find them from
pre AGW eras as well. In other words, they occur independently of AGW.

> I see a lot of opportunity. That's enough for me.

Good for you - spend your money. I hope that you get rich.

However, the current state of AGW research is no where near good enough to
impose those beliefs on anyone else.

~~~
KirinDave
> Wrong e-mail. I'm referring to the "it's embarrassing that we can't account
> for the recent measurements" e-mail. They weren't talking about the tree
> stuff, which has its own problems, but is not recent.

Please link this email then?

> They can't produce it, so what definition of "not lost" are you using?

They cannot personally produce it, but they can list where they got it and
then you can do those sources.

But here's the key thing to keep in mind: neither you nor I know the full
story there. There's not enough evidence to suggest fraud, only enough to
warrant an investigation. You'are acting as if the science is discredited, but
it seems to me like you _want_ it to be discredited so you're preemptively
declaring it so.

> I have the person who did the IPCC's work on temperature measurement. You
> found his work compelling when you agreed with it.

I found _the whole body of work_ compelling. Only a few individual pieces of
work are truly compelling on their own, and Phil's never was one. And by the
way, I was skeptical until about a year and a half ago. Now that physical
observations are starting to replace pure models and showing similar (if
somewhat less aggressive) temperature gains, I am less dismissive of it.

> You're overstating things. The recent temperature data is broken and even
> then contradicts the models. The "tree data is good when it supports the AGW
> but not when it doesn't" argument is weak. Jones admits that the arguments
> for ignoring the medieval warming period have problems. The hurricane stuff
> was wrong. The glacier data is far from conclusive (and overstated anyway).
> Arctic ice isn't behaving as predicted. And so on.

I'm pretty sure the glacier datais not "overstated", anymore than time lapse
photography with accurate scales and a simple chart of ice changes can be.
It's pretty obvious that several glaciers are retreating at what can
reasonably called a "surprising" rate.

> Good for you - spend your money. I hope that you get rich.

You know, I hope you're right. Because if I'm right the next 35 years are
going to be shitty for everyone.

~~~
anamax
> Please link this email then?

You're claiming familiarity yet are unaware of one of the passages quoted most
often?

Google is your friend. (I missed the phrasing a bit.)

[http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1128/as-
copenhage...](http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1128/as-copenhagen-
summit-nears-climategate-dogs-global-warming-debate)
<http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AP3NI20091126>

> > They can't produce it, so what definition of "not lost" are you using?

> They cannot personally produce it, but they can list where they got it and
> then you can do those sources.

You're backpedaling. Unfortunately for that position, they were the source of
their "adjustments" and they've admitted that they can't reproduce those. And,
it's not clear that the original sources still have the data.

> Now that physical observations are starting to replace pure models

You're rejecting them. In addition to rejecting the temperature data, you're
rejecting the hurricane data. <http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/>

> I'm pretty sure the glacier datais not "overstated", anymore than time lapse
> photography with accurate scales and a simple chart of ice changes can be.

The question isn't whether some glaciers are shrinking. It's whether glacier
changes as a whole are somehow different since 1934. They're not.

~~~
KirinDave
> You're claiming familiarity yet are unaware of one of the passages quoted
> most often?

No, I've actually read the leaked emails in their entirety. And I suppose
you're talking about the quote: "The fact is we can't account for the lack of
warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't." Because that's the
only quote from the email in either of your articles that caught my eye as
salient. If you were referring to something else, please clarify. Anyways,
that's not talking about the general temperature trends. Go read the email it
came from. Or you can read the summary with quotes from Trebeth that
MediaMatters researched so that you don't have to:

<http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010002>

And before you say MediaMatters is biased, their sources are listed and
verifiable. If you're gonna link CSM I think MM is at least fair game.

> You're backpedaling.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

> Unfortunately for that position, they were the source of their "adjustments"
> and they've admitted that they can't reproduce those. And, it's not clear
> that the original sources still have the data.

That's not the fault of the group you're claiming discarded the data. It's not
feasible for every project to keep every piece of data they've ever touched.
It might be approaching that in 2009-2010, but when the original work was
carried out (and historically, to account for bureaucratic lag) it was not.

You can argue it's bad, and I won't disagree that it's disappointing. It is
not damning, though. The endless cycle of claim/proof/verify is what science
is.

> The question isn't whether some glaciers are shrinking. It's whether glacier
> changes as a whole are somehow different since 1934. They're not.

That's absurd. Have you looked at the EIS data? There isn't enough glacier to
sustain that consistent and quick a decline for 34 years. Even lowballing the
observed decline in some areas that's _hundreds of miles of glacier_. Even
saying this suggests you haven't even looked at this footage. I encourage you
to. Even if you do not believe me or the data, the images presented are
beautiful.

------
ubernostrum
Soon, the British press will print the shocking revelation that there is no
such thing as "weather", and never has been.

Edit: ...and I'm at -2. Guess nobody else remembers that the same British
press hyping climate denialism now is the British press which hyped the
vaccine/autism link a few years ago? Science journalism in general is bad, but
the British papers make most others look like peer-reviewed journals by
comparison...

~~~
CWuestefeld
If you think an argument is wrong, present the logic and/or evidence to
support your side.

Meta-discussion doesn't go very far and specifically, _ad hominem_ arguments
like discrediting the messenger doesn't do anything to address the veracity of
a story -- at least not from the perspective of rhetoric and formal logic.

By way of example (and not to say that "two wrongs make a right"), an argument
always used by climate-change believers (is there a better term? I don't want
to say "supporters") is that they must be considered in the right because a
preponderance of scientists agree with them. Yet recently, we've seen that
those books were cooked, and that fewer scientists than they claimed were in
agreement. Now, does the fact that we now know they were acting unethically
mean that we should simply discard everything they've said? I think not; it
simply means that we must apply a greater degree of skepticism.

~~~
ubernostrum
Do not confuse source criticism with the _ad hominem_ fallacy; if certain
sources have, in the past, been inaccurate or unreliable, then it is relevant
and proper to point this out and to treat such sources with caution. In this
case, the criticism is that the sources -- a collection of popular British
papers -- have in the past been extremely unreliable in reporting on
scientific issues (example: the alleged link between childhood vaccination and
autism), and a humorous comment was used to drive home the point.

------
justin_hancock
It's extremely important to realise that the register is essentially on the
side of climate change denial. It isn't shy about it and will only ever
present articles that reinforce it's argument. It isn't balanced or reasonable
reporting.

~~~
anamax
> It's extremely important to realise that the register is essentially on the
> side of climate change denial. It isn't shy about it and will only ever
> present articles that reinforce it's argument. It isn't balanced or
> reasonable reporting.

The "fact" that the register will only report on papers that support a
particular view point does not tell us that those papers are wrong, or that
they're correct.

However, your assertion that it does tells us how you evaluate evidence.

