Climate Data Re-examined (updated)

An anonymous reader writes "An important paper that re-examines historical climate data was published on 28 October in the respected journal Energy & Environment. (The paper is also available here.) According to an article in Canada's National Post, the paper shows that a "pillar of the Kyoto Accord is based on false calculations, incorrect data and an overtly biased selection of climate records." (USA Today also has a story.) This paper will undoubtedly be controversial and should stir a vigourous data review." Update: 11/05 14:54 GMT by T : newyhouse points out a similarly contrarian 2001 Economist article by Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist .

National Post

[befletch]

In case it isn't obvious, the National Post is a very right wing paper, at least in Canadian terms. That doesn't mean they are wrong, but they have a history of taking any opportunity to attack the Kyoto Accord.

As a case in point, I offer the title, subtitle and byline for the article:

Kyoto debunked
A pillar of the Kyoto Accord is based on flawed calculations, incorrect data and an overtly biased selection of climate records, an important new paper reveals

Tim Patterson
Financial Post

I would say, for instance, that a more cautious interpretation would be that an important new paper suggests flaws in the research, not that it reveals it. Particularly if I were a writer for a business & economics paper, not a climate change researcher. And then there is the title itself...

To give credit where it is due, he does tend to use the phrase 'climate change' rather than the older 'global warming', which is a more accurate description of what the body of research underpinning Kyoto actually suggests. Usually you can spot biased participants in debates like this by their choice of language.

Personally, I have never taken sides over whether climate change is likely to be a reality or not. I don't need it as a justification for my environmental leanings. I think there are many national security and economic justifications for taking such actions as improving energy efficiency throughout society without relying on theories such as climate change that are far beyond my ability to competently analyze. So go ahead and tear Kyoto apart if you care to, but don't use that as an excuse to increase dependence on Middle East oil, for example.

And I haven't seen a big appetite for new nuclear or coal power plants in the US as of late either.

This is Microsoft Excel's fault

[MillionthMonkey]

You seem, however, to have left out your scientific criticism of their methodology and results.

The original 1998 paper by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes [virginia.edu] was not in error. McIntyre and McKitrick screwed up their data when they published this paper. Somebody exported the raw data in the original paper to Excel but somehow exported 159 columns of data into a 112 column spreadsheet. M&M did not compare the spreadsheet and produced a "correction" to the original paper that was based on nothing but errors, since the full paleoclimatic data series of 159 columns is required to properly audit the analysis done in the 1998 paper. More information here [davidappell.com] and here. [davidappell.com] The world really is melting.

The authors of the original paper have already published a rebuttal [virginia.edu] to this M&M paper with further details about how M&M faithfully replicated neither the data nor the procedures in their audit.

Yeah Right

[vandan]

An 'important' paper written by a scientist employed in the mining industry.

Oh yes and the university guy. Don't know exactly what financial links exist between the university and the people who don't like the news of global warming spreading.

Move along please. No global warming to be seen here.

Re:I see..

[Eivind]

The Briksdalen glacier, rigth ?

I know it. Rather well. I grew up about hundred kilometers further west, in Nordfjordeid.

Anyways, it is true like you say that the glacier went a lot further down in the valley in the middle 1800s. But here's the thing: For the last 30 years or so its been *growing* quite a lot, on the order of 3-5 meters a year.

The glacier is actually a lot *bigger* now than it was when I was small. Now this is not due to colder climate, but rather due to more snowfall in the winthers, but still, the briksdalen glacier is a very poor choise for examples of global warming and ice melting. :-)

This is not true. The rest of the story.

[rufusdufus]

If you follow the links provided in the parent post, you will find the rebuttal by the authros where they state:
We did not ask for an Excel spreadsheet nor did we receive one.
If you read the rest of their rebuttal, it becomes clear that Mann just made the excel error up! No really! Go read!

Re:Follow the money...

[Zocalo]

Actually, you have some factual errors too since displacement is relative to *mass* not to volume. Water is kind of funny in that the solid has more volume than the liquid for a given mass due to the chemical structures, so 1KG of ice has more volume than 1KG of water, as you state. But if you put some ice cubes in a glass, fill it to the brim with water and then let the ice melt, it will still be full to the brim with no overflow because the mass remains constant. And that's in an ideal world, before you account for the losses due to evaporation. The section of the ice sticking out of the water is the difference in *volume* between the mass of the water in the ice cube in its liquid and solid states.

People getting confused when relating this to the melting of the polar caps is due to the fact that while the northern cap is largely over water and they think of the ice cube in a glass thing. But that's not the end of the story. The bulk of the southern ice mass *is* over land, and a good chunk of ice in the north is too, plus the temperature rise necessary to melt the caps would almost certainly cause a rise in the snowline and meltage of other inland ice.

In a nutshell, ice mass supported by the oceans can melt without causing the seas to rise, but ice supported by land will cause the seas to rise. Note: I seem to recall that "supported by" is not the same as "directly over", but it's a *long* time since I did any geography.

Re:Paradoxically

[Eivind]

Perfectly true. This only illustrates the uncertanity around all this.

Some people say the glaciers are melting is a sign of global warming. The person I responded to seemed to think that the briksdalen glacier being smaller now than in the 1800s is an example in this category.

Then I point out that actually, the Briksdalen glacier is *growing* and has been for like 3 decades.

And you come along tell me that warmer air can carry more moisture, thus more snow, thus the glaciers grow.

So it would seem, if the glaciers grow, it's evidence for global warming. And if the glaciers shrink, it's also evidence for global warming.

I hope you see the problem with this line of reasoning :-)

Re:It's possible, after all

[RevMike]

Surely anyone who can remember more than the last 10 years knows that the temperature is rising?

Its so blatent, every year here in the UK we get more and more extreme weather. The "hottest day on record" has happened just about every summer for at least the past 5 years running, each time a little hotter.

Actually, the climate models that I have seen predict that Ireland, Great Britain, and Northern Europe will become much colder due to global warming. The reason is that Gulf Current currently pumps tremendous amounts of heat from the Carribean to Northern Europe. Global Warming actally "shuts off" this flow, making the climate there much more like the Canadian Maritime Provinces. Some scientists have claimed to see evidence of this occuring in prior hot cycles.

The more we study climate, the more we find evidence of cycles of various duration. The one year cycle of the seasons is most obvious, and the 7 year cycle of El Nino is well known, but there are also 20-30 year cycles, 60 year cycles, 100 year cycles, 500 year cycles, etc. Don't forget that in Tudor England, there were high quality vineyards. Then a cooling trend kicked in and drove that industry south. A thousand years ago Lief Ericson settled Greenland and explored some of the coast of North America, but a cooling trend destryed the farms he had settled and Europeans wouldn't be back until 1492.

Bias is a two way street:

[gowen]

Please note that the editor of "E&E" is one of the few environmental scientists who agreed with Bjorn Lomborg [spiked-online.com] "Skeptical Environmentalist", and a self-confessed environmental sceptic. [hull.ac.uk] As stated there, the journal itself has a "stance [that] is critical of conventional wisdom".

Now, I don't read E&E (I tend to read the mainstream geophysics journals: GAFD, JGR(Oceans) and GRL -- "E&E" is not a mainstream geophysics journal), but I am slightly concerned about work published in a journal with an agenda. One may also be concerned about the suitability of referees selected by an editor out to prove a point, rather than to publicise good science.

Re:It's possible, after all

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the real problems would be:
- accelerated desertification
- rising seas (lots of islands and low-lying countries are about to disappear, at least partially)
- plant life that dies off because it can't adapt fast enough (plants are sensitive to temperature changes, and if the weather moves faster than the plants, they die)
- the end of the gulf stream, resulting in a radical cooling down of western europe (again, leading to plant extinction, and it's cold enough in Belgium already thank you very much)
- the stored methane in oceans being released (which would result in accelerated climate heating)
- death of the rain forests (with matching disastrous consequences for biodiversity, since rain forests are the life stores of the planet)
- death of the reefs (in fact they're dying already, just look at the sorry state of the great barrier reef). Reefs are the oceanic equivalent of rain forests. Losing them would be disastrous, and not just because they look good.

and so on, and so on...

Now, did you actually try to find out about the consequences of global warming? Because I think that you didn't.

Anyway, for more information, read the IPCC [grida.no] or UNEP [unep.net] climate change documents. (Link to UNEP GEO3 [grida.no], which deals specifically with global climate change in the near future) They contain the current scientific view on what's happening and what the consequences will be.

The actual figures, if you care

[caitsith01]

"Except that China and India are the big polluters of the day."

Check out:
http://www.ioe.ucla.edu/publications/report0 1/Gree nhouse/Fig1P19.gif

Compare the population one with the energy use one, and the per capita one. The US is EASILY the biggest per capita AND net user of energy.

If you prefer a measure of straight pollution to energy use, try:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.ns f/cont ent/emissionsindividual.html
http://yosemite.epa. gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/cont ent/EmissionsInternational.html

USA totally dominates others in pretty much all respects. Try basing your posts on actual math next time.

Re:This is Mann's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

While 159 and 112 do not appear in the original paper there is this criticism from the rebuttal:
"(b) Incorrect representation of the MBH98 proxy data set.
MBH98 calculated PCs of proxy sub-networks separately for each interval in their stepwise
reconstruction. This is the only sensible approach, as it allows all data available over each sub-interval to
be used (i.e., first for 1400-1980, then separately for 1450-1980, 1500-1980, and so on). This requires 159
independent time series to represent all indicators required for reconstructions of all possible subintervals,
even though the maximum number ever used for a particular sub-interval is 112. By not
following this protocol, MM appear to have eliminated in the range of 100 proxy series used by MBH98
over the interval 1400-1600."

Thought of evaluating the data, not the biases?

[Tau Zero]

Now, I'm not a climate researcher. But I do know that there's a lot of spectacular evidence supporting the claim that global warming exists and is accelerating, and a pretty firm body of theory rooted in physics to show how it occurs. I don't see how you can dismiss things like the retreat of glaciers around much of the globe (to sizes unprecedented in history or the recent archaeological record) and claim that nothing is going on.

No, they have an agenda. They have a belief that they feel strongly about, and they want others to either believe it too, or at least be held to the constraints that those beliefs create.

That's like claiming that people who oppose promiscuity because it spreads AIDS are puritanical, or people who promote condoms to prevent AIDS are libertines because condoms make promiscuity relatively safe. Both arguments are fallacious.

The problem with your statement is that you're ignoring the fact that there is a gray area.

The problem with yours is that there are other costs to fossil fuels. Coal, for example, puts enough mercury into the environment that it's unsafe for people to eat fish steadily in my state. Becoming more efficient can often be done at a negative cost, completely aside from pollution or climate considerations. Then there is the net present value of the (uncertain and climbing) future cost of many fuels, including natural gas. If there is a gray area, it starts at a much lower level of energy consumption than we have today; the purely economic arguments for cutting back a good ways are solid without even thinking about climate change.

Funny you say that when the article mentions NOTHING about any business being involved in the contradicting studies.

University of Guelph. One of Canada's biggest exports is energy, mostly from the province of Alberta. The value of several large corporations could evaporate if e.g. the tar sands were regarded as too polluting to exploit. Corporations have lobbyists, their employees vote their personal interests. You do the math.

Re:Biased Bush administration energy whores?

[jmichaelg]

Why do people think environmentalists would be biased, anyway?

Possibly because they admit it?

In John McPhee's Encounters with the Archdruid [ecobooks.com], David Bower, the former director of the Sierra Club, admits he just made his numbers up. McPhee asks Bower where he found the data for the 'The U.S. has 6% of the world's population but consumes 40% of the world's resourcess' quote. Bower's response was it sounded about right.

Re:The actual figures, if you care

[lobsterGun]

That data is five years old. Do you have links to any more recent data?

Only half the argument

[horace]

A robust response from the authors of the original paper is here [virginia.edu]. In general a paper like hte one noted here should really be put in some kind of context.

FYI to our American Cousins

[JohnnyCannuk]

Just so all of you are aware of some things surrounding Kyoto and the National Post up here in Canada. They my help you access this information in context.

1. When Canada ratified the Kyoto agreement last year there was a huge controversy in the country about whether it was based on facts. This was led by the ultra-conservative Premier of Alberta ("Red Nose Ralphy") Ralph Klien. He was supported by many right wing, neo-conservative business people. They tried to claim Kyoto would cost Canadians jobs - it was also going to cost Alberta Oil and some big industies profit, but I'm sure they were more concerned about the jobs. These conservative elements in Canada trotted out a few "scientists" (not climatologists mind you, but a biologist, I beleive...the ones with the fake names on their online petitions) who claim there is no global warming, contrary to the opinion of most mainstream scientists, including most climatologists.

2. The National Post is NOT the populist pap that USA Today is. The National Post is a very conservative, right wing newspaper (formerly owned by Conrad Black, an ultra-conservative icon up here and now owned by Can-West Global, the media company of the late Issy Asper, another conservative icon). To say that the National Post might be supporting an anti-Kyoto agenda is an understatement. They are willing to latch onto anything that might cast doubt on global warming and claim a " pillar of the Kyoto Accord is based on false calculations, incorrect data and an overtly biased selection of climate records." - at the bidding of the bussiness and political interests that support them.

So given that, consider source of this story.

As for the scientific paper cited, well, it's been out for about a week. Why not let the scientific community do what it does best - review the facts and try to verify the data. Perhaps it is the study that contains the errors, not the original. Even if it's correct, it is only one of the hundreds of studies conducted by scientists for the past 20 years that support global warming.

Try a Google searh ans see how many more you can come up with whose evidnce is NOT based on extrapolated climate data from the 1400's....then decide if Kyoto is bogus.

"Pillar" indeed. Kyto is standing on a lot more scientific ground that this study, even if it is correct.

Corrections

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Melting ice in the arctic would have no effect on sea level, since that ice is floating. Read up on archimedes' principle (basic physics). For the same reason, an ice cube melting in a glass of water does not raise the water level in the glass.

2) Re-read the sites you linked to. Here's a blurb from the page regarding Tuvalu:

A recent reassessment of historical tide-gauge data in the central Pacific found no acceleration in the rise in sea levels.

And for Venice, the problem is the rise in relative sea level, primarily because it is the land that is sinking, not the sea rising. And then there is the mistaken assumption that sea levels are supposed to remain constant in the first place. Sea levels and shorelines have been constantly changing since the oceans have been in existence-- but this has only become an issue now that humans have started building structures by the shore.

"I'm sure there are dozens of readers out there that will right off this comment as yet more half-baked environmental doom-mongering.."

That is self-evident, based on items #1 and #2 above.

Re:Put the weight on the data, project from there

[linzeal]

Do you know how nasty photovaliac cells are to manufacture? I would presume it would cost more in resources to create the solar cells than you would ever get out of them in energy production.

Re:Interesting paper

[Anonymous Coward]

1. One thing I can tell you, the National Post is Canada's ultra-right wing business friendly newspaper. They would and do report anything that can help big industry regardless of it's worth. It's the canadian equivalent to Fox/Wall street.

Re:The actual figures, if you care

[cluge]

BTW the original debate was about the apparent fact that the original author of a study that showed global warming as a serious problem was wrong. In essence someone got their math wrong by accident, or perhaps ignored certain data to further their point (ie get funding for more research).

USA totally dominates others in pretty much all respects. Try basing your posts on actual math next time.

Actually, if the truth be told Indonesia has the largest per capita greenhouse emmision of any country (1997-2001). Yet the have a very low per capita energy use. Energy use doesn't necessarily mean greenhouse gas emitter - while the two ar related they are not inexorably tied. For example: Google (your favorite accurate research tool *cough*) France and her Nuclear power and compare it to Saudi Arabia.

It seems that natural occurences can still produce way more greenhouse gas than the little ole US can. Below is a select quote from new scientist. BTW, last I checked those peat bogs were still burning.

From New Scientist:
" ... Now a team of scientists from Britain, Germany and Indonesia has reported that as Indonesia's forests burned in 1997, the smouldering peat beneath released as much as 2.6 billion tonnes of carbon into the air.

That is equivalent to 40 percent of the global emissions from burning fossil fuels that year, and was the prime cause of the biggest annual increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since records began more than 40 years ago."

cluge

Re:The Political Climate...

[chrisbord]

Because they know there is no evidence supporting the idea of 'global warming' as a result of human activities. Politicians don't dare speak up against environmentalist dogma, but they are even more afraid of devastating their economies. So, they give Kyoto great lip service while making sure behind the scenes not enough countries will ever sign the treaty to cause it to go in effect.

This is a *dangerous* balancing act! Just a few weeks ago Russia, after claiming they supported and would sign Kyoto, decided to come clean claiming their climate scientists had strong doubts about the scientific basis of Kyoto and therefor Russian would not ratify Kyoto. Russia's signature would have pushed Kyoto over the threshold, putting Kyoto into effect.

Russia may have dodged the bullet, but eventually enough other countries may sign on to get Kyoto right up to the brink, then it will be a matter of the right combination of 'financial aid,' official bribes, and political pressure on that last small country to push it over!

Re:Put the weight on the data, project from there

[linzeal]

A bit more nasty [bnl.gov] than you let on. I can't find the exact quote by I believe it is from Zubrin talking about the latest 18-20% eff Solar cells and how they cost more to manufacture in energy than they will ever produce.

I have nothing against PV solar cells in space where they face different problems and are more applicable solutions but on earth they are of limited practical use at the moment. Some of the stories about cheap flexible solar arrays being made soon are promising but until there are demonstrateable enviromental and economic advantages over nuclear power I am reluctant to consider them a panacea and more of a hinderance to the energy crisis. Perhaps one day though.

Re:Put the weight on the data, project from there

[Tau Zero]

A bit more nasty than you let on.

From your link: "The remainder, in gaseous form, can be collected by cold traps or similar devices." Also, "In contrast, material utilization rates for molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) deposition process are 40 to 70% mol% for Ga and 10 to 20 mol% for As."

I read that as saying that what's not left in the machine is typically brought out in recyclable form; you can distill condensed vapors and re-use them, and molecular beam technology can boost utilization if it matters that much. I can't see that you refuted anything I said.

I can't find the exact quote by I believe it is from Zubrin talking about the latest 18-20% eff Solar cells and how they cost more to manufacture in energy than they will ever produce.

Well, yeah. The bleeding edge is always expensive. Now if you're talking $4/watt amorphous silicon cells, if they cost more energy to produce than they'll make in 20 years each watt of cell would take... hmmm, need an envelope...

1 watt * 6 hours sun/day average * .8 derating factor * 365 days/year * 15 years = 26 kilowatt-hours. That's the energy equivalent of about 2/3 of a gallon of gasoline, or 3.3 gallons of gas if you consider the typical conversion efficiency of small to medium size engines. I find it doubtful that you could spend even a dollar on energy to make a cell that retails for four dollars, plus I've read that the payback time for the best panels these days is only a couple of years. I'll take better data when I can get it, but right now I don't think that the bleeding-edge economics applies to the stuff a consumer would buy.

Of course, not all solar is PV (see this [energyinnovations.com], they updated their site), and wind pays back very quickly in any kind of decent site.

Some of the stories about cheap flexible solar arrays being made soon are promising but until there are demonstrateable enviromental and economic advantages over nuclear power I am reluctant to consider them a panacea and more of a hinderance to the energy crisis.

Solar PV currently costs about $.25/KWH, but peak time-of-use electric rates in some areas are $.35/KWH and up. Solar PV is actually cheaper than the grid there while it's producing, or will be unless and until something flattens the demand curve. Solar PV has been cheaper than paying to extend electric service for well over a decade. Then there are breakthrough technologies such as have been discussed on Slashdot in the last couple of months, any one of which could throw a real curveball.

I've got nothing against nuclear, but its improvements are going to be incremental. Wind isn't bad, but barring tricks like gyromills it is going to move incrementally too. PV, photochemical, and other things are still improving on an exponential curve; those are the ones to watch.

Re:The actual figures, if you care

[penguin7of9]

" ... Now a team of scientists from Britain, Germany and Indonesia has reported that as Indonesia's forests burned in 1997, the smouldering peat beneath released as much as 2.6 billion tonnes of carbon into the air.

That is equivalent to 40 percent of the global emissions from burning fossil fuels that year, and was the prime cause of the biggest annual increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since records began more than 40 years ago."

And what is your point exactly? That because we already get lots of CO2 emissions one way, it's OK to dump even more into the air? Some people do their financial management that way, too: "well, we've already spent $21k on a new car, why not spend another $5k on a vacation, what harm can it do". They often end up bankrupt.

Besides, CO2 released from forest fires is obviously self-limiting and non-fossil: those peat bogs won't be able to burn again until the forest has recaptured the carbon from the atmosphere.

But fossil fuels represent a huge amount of stored carbon, possibly many times of what all organic material on land current contains. And that carbon has not been present in the atmosphere for a long time (if ever).