The CBC's Rex Murphy is the Maureen Dowd of the Great White North. Here is Murphy charging out the gate with his take on the 'climate science' that has been exposed by the leaked CRU e-mails. This is damning stuff:
I love it that the government television station has its star commentator, Rex Murphy, growling and chewing on the bone of contention otherwise known as 'climate science'. Fun stuff!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I wouldn't put too much stock in Rex Murphy's understanding of the issue. He has long been a global warming skeptic. However, in this particular exposes himself as nothing more than an opportunistic talking head with no more journalistic integrity than those found on FOX news.
The climate-gate emails have caused the accuracy of the climate models to come into question, and Rex uses this as a basis to attack the science behind global warming. He implies that climate scientists are alarmists and are exploiting public fears by making dire predictions of future warming. To quote him, "Climate-gate is evidence that the science has gone to bed with advocacy" and "Climate science has been shown to be a sub-branch of climate politics". I wonder if he realizes the irony of these statements?
If he had bothered to do his homework he would have realized that the computer models in question, and also the IPCC projections have historically underestimated rates of warming and sea level rise:
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007
The published literature on climate change has actually been conservative in its scope, and the only people misrepresenting it are the right wing hacks and denialists.
As for the rest of his sensationalist musings, such as his somewhat lazy usage of the catchphrase 'hide the decline' (again taken out of context), its obvious he himself did not read the emails, nor understand them if he did. Instead he goes on to reinforce doubt on the scientific consensus, which has long been the strategy of corporate interests in both the tobacco and oil & gas industries.
To draw parallels, the tobacco industry shamelessly flaunted the need for 'sound science' linking smoking to cancer. To do this they hired a handful of scientists to portray that uncertainty existed on the subject. Ironically, many of the same scientists who advocated that there was no connection between smoking and cancer are now advocates against anthropogenic global warming (e.g. Fred Singer). Further, most of the skeptics often cite each other and their (non-peer reviewed) studies to support their claims. If you look into their funding sources they are primarily from oil & gas or filtered through front organizations; all of whom advocate the need for 'sound science'. This strategy is well documented here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Are you starting to notice a pattern?
As per loss of the data, here is the original statement (which has also been 'cherry-picked' and misrepresented) for your perusal:
"Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."
Thus the original data has not been destroyed, but rather amended, compiled and updated. In fact, when discussing the 'adjustments for homogeneity issues', this included the 'weeding out' of sites affected by the 'urban heat island effect', long touted as a source of inaccuracy in the models by skeptics (hence the term 'quality controlled').
The original data has not been destroyed, in fact it is still available from various meteorological organizations. However, I assume climate skeptics will not bother to cross check the data because they are well aware that this would prove nothing more than that these issues are distractions designed to delay legislation and protect corporate profits. Their strategy is not to advocate the scientific method but rather to undermine and cast doubt upon it.
In short, Rex Murphy is an idiot...
You certainly have your viewpoint, and it is the one that dominates the media. I don't share it. I expect that over the next 10 to 20 years I will be shown to be right and you to be an alarmist.
You cite your "facts" but I have a real problem with them.
As to the data, it is clear from the Hadley CRU emails, there has been (1) a concerted effort to deny access to the raw data, (2) the convenient "losing" of data so that the adjustments cannot be understood or undone, and (3) a conspiracy to attack any data that differs from the "approved" global warming story.
For years I've been bothered that the IPCC does not keep a history of its "predictions". If you go to their web site, they only have the "current" projections. I have a clear memory of checking their original estimates of 1977 (or thereabouts) because I bought a house on a flood plain protected by dykes and was very concerned about "rising oceans". Their original projections were for something like a foot or more by the year 2000, so I was quite worried whether my house would be habitable for many years. I've noticed over the years that the "predicted doom" keeps drifting out into the future, i.e. the measured increase ends up being millimeters but the predictions call for a big rise a few decades in the future. But since the IPCC doesn't maintain historical records, I can't point you at any of these failed "predictions". I have to rely on my memory.
You've misunderstood the relevance of the Hadley CRU emails. These don't put the climate models into question. The emails put the integrity of the underlying science and especially the data into question. The data has been fudged. On top of that and separate from that is the issue of how accurate are climate models when the science required to accurately project climate decades into the future is uncertain. They simply don't understand clouds and water vapour and they don't include issues like solar dynamics and the new issue of cosmic ray influences on cloud formation. There is just too much uncertainty in the models. This I understand because I built models to predict computer performance, so I have first hand experience in the difficulty in building a validated and verified model.
Funny, you accuse those who are skeptical of being "in the pay" of big energy companies and point to a "study" that claims parallels with how tobacco companies frustrated those linking cancer with smoking. There is enough truth in this to make your account credible. Yes, I'm willing to accept that big energy companies are paying some scientists to work for them. But the most important work questioning IPCC is completely independent.
In short, you come across as "informed" but with a little analysis it is clear that you are not open-minded on this issue. You are a partisan of "global warming" and the purpose of your comment is simply to smear my posting. I went ahead and posted your comment despite this because I believe in open inquiry. But hopefully, most readers will see your "comments" for what they are: a one-sided rejection of inquiry and discussion.
You made the following statements:
(1) concerted effort to deny access to the raw data,
(2) convenient "losing" of data so that the adjustments cannot be understood or undone, and
(3) conspiracy to attack any data that differs from the "approved" global warming story.
The raw data is available from several sources which are listed at the bottom of this post.
As I stated earlier, the raw data has not been lost, but rather compiled, updated, and amended for quality control purposes. If in doubt, check for yourself.
"Their original projections were for something like a foot or more by the year 2000…the measured increase ends up being millimeters but the predictions call for a big rise a few decades in the future."
That statement is false. This link clearly shows that the predictions of sea level rise were on the order of mm/yr (not a foot).
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007
"There is just too much uncertainty in the models."
You insinuate that climate science has been alarmist. The fact is that the climate models have historically been underestimates, thus debating this is a moot point. Nevertheless, here is a link where you will find past IPCC projections and information re: the models and output from various scenarios.
http://www.ipcc-data.org/index.html
"The emails put the integrity of the underlying science and especially the data into question. The data has been fudged."
Please explain to me how thousands of independent studies in numerous scientific journals have conspired to ‘fudge data’ in a consistent manner. That is ludicrous.
Raw data & models:
GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
Antarctic weather stations
European weather stations (ECA)
Satellite feeds (AMSU, SORCE (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train)
Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab)
World Glacier Monitoring Service
Argo float data
International Comprehensive Ocean/Atmosphere Data Set (ICOADS) (Oceanic in situ observations)
AERONET Aerosol information
Climate data (processed)
Surface temperature anomalies (GISTEMP (see also Clear Climate Code), HadCRU, NOAA NCDC, JMA)
Satellite temperatures (MSU) (UAH, RSS)
Sea surface temperatures (Reynolds et al, OI)
Stratospheric temperature
Sea ice (Cryosphere Today, NSIDC, JAXA, Bremen, Arctic-Roos, DMI)
Radiosondes (RAOBCORE, HadAT, U. Wyoming, RATPAC, IUK, Sterin (CDIAC), Angell (CDIAC) )
Cloud and radiation products (ISCCP, CERES-ERBE)
Sea level (U. Colorado)
Aerosols (AEROCOM, GACP)
Greenhouse Gases (AGGI at NOAA, CO2 Mauna Loa, World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases, AIRS CO2 data (2003+))
AHVRR data as used in Steig et al (2009)
Snow Cover (Rutgers)
GLIMS glacier database
Ocean Heat Content (NODC)
GCOS Essential Climate Variables Index
Paleo-data
NOAA Paleoclimate
Pangaea
GRIP/NGRIP Ice cores (Denmark)
GISP2 (note that the age model has been updated)
National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC)
Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
Reconstructions index and data (NOAA)
Mann et al (2008) (also here, Mann et al (2009))
Kaufmann et al (2009)
Wahl and Ammann (2006)
Mann et al (1998/1999)
Model codes (GCMs)
GISS ModelE (AR4 version, current snapshot)
NCAR CCSM(Version 3.0, CCM3 (older vintage))
EdGCM Windows based version of an older GISS model.
Uni. Hamburg (SAM, PUMA and PLASIM)
NEMO Ocean Model
GFDL Models
MIT GCM
Master Repositories of Climate Data
Global Change Master Directory (GSFC)
PAGES data portal
NCDC (National Climate Data Center)
IPCC Data
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Lab: Atmospheric trace gas concentrations, historical carbon emissions, and more
CRU Data holdings
Hadley Centre Observational holdings
Nathan: You don't seem to be able to read what I write. Your "facts" are cherry picked from your favourite writers/sites. You are not interested in dialog. You simply want to bludgeon others with your "truth". You are an ideologue. This is the last comment by you that I will publish. You can go join the other true believers on some other site. I have no more time for you.
Post a Comment