Tuesday 24 November 2009

Trenberth on Travesty

Before I start let me make it clear why I am not using the word "skeptic" to describe the manmade global warming skeptics who using these emails to push accusations of fraud. It's because their behavior is anything but. They feign skepticism and claim to be analyzing the emails, but what they are really doing is quote mining them. I will simply refer to them below as the accusers. 

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1048&filename=1255352257.txt

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't."

This is often the only quote accusers will pull from that email. A quote mine if I have ever seen one. Quote mining is the practice of pulling juicy quotes out context of the larger body they reside in and then presenting those out of context quotes as an argument. It is not a new trick (!) by any means. As wikipedia explains on the subject, "Scientists and their supporters used the term quote mining as early as the mid-1990s in newsgroup posts to describe quoting practices of certain creationists"

Well guys, here we go again.

Lets look at the context in the rest of the email. The most damning thing against the accusers is that a good part of the context is found right before that quote, in a reference to a paper of Trenberths. In fact from my reading, this paper is central to Trenberth's email.

Here it is:

An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final.pdf

The abstract:

"Planned adaptation to climate change requires information about what is happening and why. While a long-term trend is for global warming, short-term periods of cooling can occur and have physical causes associated with natural variability. However, such natural variability means that energy is rearranged or changed within the climate system, and should be traceable. An assessment is given of our ability to track changes in reservoirs and flows of energy within the climate system. Arguments are given that developing the ability to do this is important, as it affects interpretations of global and especially regional climate change, and prospects for the future."

Immediately you start to get a feeling that Trenberth's quote has been taken out of context somewhat. But wait until you see the part immediately following the quotemined phrase:

"The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate."

The context is now clear. Trenberth is talking about the travesty of the observation system and our inability to see where the heat is going from year to year. It is well known and public that there are problems in recent years with the global climate observation system (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page5.php). Problems are more of a rule in any complex field of science rather than an exception.

The accusers cherrypicked a phrase from Trenberth's email thinking they had found some hidden truth, when in fact Trenberth had already published about this. These kind of accusers will analyze only until they get an argument they want. The quotemine above provided them with the argument so they looked no further.

The accusers exploit the private nature of these emails to claim these emails represent the uncovered real thoughts of the scientists. This cuts both ways, if you are going to exploit the privacy of the emails to claim "this is what the scientists really think!" then you are forced to accept the emails contain what the scientists really think. 

So what do accusers make of the bulk of the email material which runs counter to their views? In the Trenberth exchange for example, what do accusers make of the fact that even behind closed doors the scientists are saying long term warming signal exists and short term cooling is noise? I would have thought the accusers would have been quite interested in learning this as it contradicts their beliefs that this was just some excuse that scientists couldn't possibly believe. But no they aren't interested in that kind of "what scientists really think".

Overall I think the emails are inconvenient revelations for the accusers, although unfortunately quote-mining is a particularly effective method of propaganda and no easy counter exists.

10 comments:

  1. Thanks for putting it in more context, but I think that makes the opposite case -- the new data didn't match the existing data, which showed warming, so he blamed the observing system rather than the current model. He has a foregone conclusion, and when new data didn't match up to it, he was ready to toss the data rather than reevaluate the theory.

    No?

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.desmogblog.com/another-look-stolen-emails

    A great video that debunks Climate Gate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not a great video, Professor Mandia.

    It's a heavily-produced piece (especially toward the end) that cherry-picks the very commentators (non-scientific talking heads) that cherry-picked a few quotes fromt he emails that have indeed been explained.

    Climategate is not the emails themselves, nor the tone or doubts of the CRU scientists, nor even the messy code and programmer's comments.

    Climategate IS the clear revelation that at least some of the graphs and conclusions of the CRU team are suspect because they intentionally tried to hide the raw data from those requesting it under Freedom of Information. Do you dispute this? Why did they do this? Climategate is about asking 'why did they tried to hide the raw and processed data and processing techniques from the public?'

    The emails reveal that they were motivated to do so, and the code reveals some clues as to why. It is unclear that anyone will be able to reconstruct their results to either affirm or deny their conclusions. And considering that their conclusions directly result in changes in government policy and the expense of billions or trillions of dollars in an already difficult economic period, the question is worth asking.

    I would recommend that you focus less on the 'response to the responses' and more on the actual issue -- the data, and why it was hidden and trashed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I suggest that you use common sense and realize that emails do not cause climate to warm. If the folks involved in this controversy were never born, do you think the world would be cooler now?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Professor, you are missing the point. Ignore the videos, ignore the emails, ignore Climategate.

    How do you know that the Earth is warming?
    How do you know that the warming is accelerating?
    How do you know that the acceleration is caused by manmade greenhouse gases?

    The answer for all of us, no matter where we land on the issue, is 'because climate scientists have said so.' (unless we have made the measurements ourselves -- I have not. Have you?)

    Fine, so why do we believe the climate scientists? Because they have data that shows it. They have direct atmospheric, surface, and temperature measurements. They have a set of many proxies, including tree rings, ice core samples, and other pointers.

    So, we have a trust issue. We need to trust that the data was collected correctly, that it was processed correctly, and that the data is clear enough to show the warming. No problem -- we trust scientists in all other fields to have requisite due diligence to manage their data well.

    In this case, the scientists that so many people trusted, including the major policy makers of all the nations at IPCC, were revealed to be untrustworthy. They may still be right, but they need to be checked. Do you oppose that or are you completely comfortable with their data handling and conclusions even after seeing their emails and their messy code and data files?

    ReplyDelete
  6. In this case, the scientists that so many people trusted, including the major policy makers of all the nations at IPCC, were revealed to be untrustworthy.

    Really, I see no such thing and, of course, the investigation is still underway. Sound as if you know the conclusion already.

    Do people really believe that the scientists at CRU are able to squelch every scientist on the planet who tried to publish a landmark anti-AGW paper? Is there no sense of the low probability and the large scale of this conspiracy for this to be true?

    Do the plants and animals read these emails and decide to die off and/or change their migratory habits so that they can support the conspiracy?

    There are many scientists from many fields that have published data that show the effects of global warming and why humans are the primary drivers of this warming. These scientists include some of the obvious: climatologists, meteorologists, geologists, modelers, and oceanographers. Some less obvious include: biologists, marine biologists, zoologists, chemists, astrophysicists, economists, environmental politics reasearchers, and others. I am quite confident that MANY of these folks have NEVER spoken to the CRU folks nor emailed them.

    It is obvious that pre-Copenhagen, the tried and true method of “if one does not like the message then attack the messenger or redirect the conversation” practiced by Big Tobacco and now ExxonMobil and their front groups (Heartland Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc.) is alive and well.

    It never ceases to amaze me how gullible some people are and that is why these shameless front groups and their spokespersons (Singer, Michaels, Soon, etc.) have been so successful in fooling you and the others.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do people really believe that the scientists at CRU are able to squelch every scientist on the planet who tried to publish a landmark anti-AGW paper? Is there no sense of the low probability and the large scale of this conspiracy for this to be true?

    Not at all; it's more subtle than that, and less conspiritorial. When new scientists going into the field find that their graduate theses get approved and their funding increases when their conclusions match the will of the liberal environmental movement in academia, they will go that direction. Those who fear that years of work will be rejected by their community will not publish or go into the highly-politicized field, so the other, more skeptical viewpoint is not supported or looked into. Nothing dark and mysterious; just the way groups tend to become naturally insular. When you are reviewed by peers that all agree with you, your work has not really been checked.

    Do the plants and animals read these emails and decide to die off and/or change their migratory habits so that they can support the conspiracy?

    Not at all. Climate change happens. The Earth is warming, sure -- what else would it do after an Ice Age (Little though it may be)? The quickness with which the conclusion that humans have caused it and that it is accelerating, all within 20 years or less, is what's in question. Or should be questioned, anyway. The fact that you want to claim it as settled is remarkably unscientific. In the early 1900's, it was thought that physics was settled -- that was the consensus. We should all be glad that some scientists were still questioning, still skeptical, still able to have a doubt that we have it all figured out. Of the two of us, I'm taking the safe bet -- that it's possible that the warming is caused by something else.

    I have to ask: How quickly did you write off the Sun's impact? Did it take 1 paper? Dozens? Did you read any? Whose analysis do you trust?

    There are many scientists from many fields that have published data that show the effects of global warming and why humans are the primary drivers of this warming.

    With you on the first part, not with the second. All those 'less obvious' fields you mentioned certainly note the impact of smaller scale (smaller than global!) pollutants, deforestation, etc. When's the last time you heard a biologist invoke extra CO2 affecting his sample population?

    if one does not like the message then attack the messenger or redirect the conversation

    I am doing neither. I am not attacking you or the CRU scientists. I am asking questions. If you are focusing on those who *are* attacking (on both sides), you are focusing on the wrong thing. I am concerned with the data, how it was processed, and its availability.

    By bringing up Big Tobacco etc., who is redirecting the conversation?

    It never ceases to amaze me how gullible some people are and that is why these shameless front groups and their spokespersons (Singer, Michaels, Soon, etc.) have been so successful in fooling you and the others.

    I have been fooled? By what, exactly? It seems that you are the one here who believes in something very dogmatically and have given up your sense of skepticism, which is at the heart of all science. It seems that I am the one who is simply asking questions and wondering why data was not released, but hidden and then destroyed.

    So, I have responded to your comments directly -- where will you redirect the conversation next? Care to focus on the issue at hand?

    ReplyDelete
  8. hiro,

    I was not referring to you when I spoke of the well-oiled denial campaign. I was speaking to those that are likely behind this non-scandal as they have been behind all of the petitions, books, blogs, and TV/radio spots telling lies that they know are lies.

    The basic science of AGW IS settled although there are a few details to be filled in. I see this as comparable to evolution being settled.

    The debate should have shifted away from what is causing the warming to how do we best deal with it and how much warming is headed our way. If we wait for the 100% certainty of AGW it will be too late to do anything (it may already be in many respects).

    "What's the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we're willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?" -- Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland (referring then to ozone depletion)

    I believe that this whole AGW debate leads to three possible conclusions:


    (1) An overwhelming majority of international climate experts agree about much of the tenets of AGW and are honest.

    (2) An overwhelming majority of international climate experts are ignorant about their own expertise in a sudden and collective manner.

    (3) They have all agreed to conspire to delude the billions of folks on the planet and just a very tiny percentage of them (and mostly oil-funded and unpublished) are trying to save us all from this mass hoax.

    Common sense and a sense of probability should lead one to the likely correct choice (#1) above. The first person to show proof of what IS causing the modern day global warming and that it is not AGW is likely to be the next Nobel science winner. Don't you think scientists are motivated to be the next Galileo, Darwin, or Einstein? Nobody gets famous for AGREEING with everybody else!

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's nothing as dark and sinister as a 'grand conspiracy' -- it's more just about research and money. Scientists do their work via research grants, and research grants are given by various groups. Some of those groups (on both sides) have ulterior motives and a vested interest in a certain result.

    I'm sure you've seen this anecdote exchange from Paul Vaughan, a climate scientist, on Watts Up With That:

    … it is possible that this is just a big conspiracy by climate scientist around the world to boost their cause and make themselves more important. Though I find it hard to believe that thousands of scientists…all agreed to promote bogus science …Pretty hard to do without being discovered.

    To which Paul Vaughan responded as follows:

    Actually not so hard.

    Personal anecdote:
    Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:

    Successful candidates will:
    1) Demonstrate AGW.
    2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
    3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.

    Follow the money — perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.

    This confirms the stories that I’ve been hearing over the last few years.

    So it's not that one set of climate scientists are wrong, per se -- it's just that the other side, dissenting viewpoints, are not allowed to publish and whither on the vine.

    Go back and look at the emails -- there is ample evidence of data suppression to favor one view.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

    Yes, the data does not agree with our hypothesis, so we must be observing the wrong data. I think that's the very definition of the scientific method.

    1. Come up with a theory that is disprovable (or not)

    2. Devise a means to isolate the variables and test it.

    3. If the data is wrong, throw it out (or accidentally delete it) and start over until you find data that agrees with your hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete