Commentary
Scientists' e-mails don't undercut case for human role in climate change
by Mark Seeley, Minnesota Public RadioThe disclosure and dissection of the thousands of e-mail messages hacked from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit is an act of deplorable vandalism. Nevertheless, it exposes poor judgment and behavior on the part of some of the most visible and outspoken climate scientists.
The disclosed e-mails suggest that some scientists, in the United States as well as the United Kingdom, tried to suppress dissenting opinions about global warming and exaggerated data to support their view that human activity contributes to climate change.
This is seen as a black eye to many who work in the climate sciences, but it represents an extremely small fraction of those who work in climate science worldwide. It does not negate the hundreds, if not thousands, of published studies that document climate change and its significance.
Attempts to label or manipulate information about climate change for political purposes have been with us for decades.
The frequent public debates and discussions, especially in the popular media, have brought many scientists to the table as adversaries. And in some of the written and verbal exchanges there have been personal affronts, degrading remarks and outright anger. Such exchanges have existed in the science professions for centuries, though not often in such a public manner.
After all, science is about hypothesis testing, challenging the results and retesting until the truth is no longer disputable. In this public context, some individuals have found their personal integrity and pride shaken. Emotions rise to the surface. Certain words and actions that reflect bad judgment may come out.
In the context of the body of evidence used to conclude that climate change is happening and that the human fingerprint is upon it, "climategate" does not negate the science that has been done. As a statement from scientists in the United Kingdom points out, the science is too voluminous, diverse and significant to ignore.
I am a slow learner, and it took me a long time to be convinced of this. But there are three forms of evidence that I cannot dismiss:
Nearly all of the world's climate data, gathered and analyzed by many (not just those at University of East Anglia or Penn State University), shows significant climate change is going on, especially at mid to high latitude positions on Earth.
The climate models all more accurately mimic the measured climate attributes of Earth's system if they include human activity in their parameters. Driven only by physical and natural parameters that have affected the Earth's climate for over 4 billion years -- solar radiation, orbital features, ocean currents, arctic ice, etc. -- the models do not fit the measurements very well.
Observations of the physical and biological changes and consequences around us (lakes, terrestrial ecosystems, storm patterns, wildlife behaviors) are consistent with the measured and estimated climate changes that scientists have documented.
We have allowed our climate system to become broken. Individual human flaws and misjudgments should not dissuade us as a community from working to fix it.
Mark Seeley is a professor and extension climatologist/meteorologist at the University of Minnesota, as well as a frequent commentator for MPR.
Comments (14)
What exactly is that "Human Finger Print?" Please tell us.
And remember, evidence of climate change is not a human finger print.
"Nearly all of the world's climate data, gathered and analyzed by many (not just those at University of East Anglia or Penn State University), shows significant climate change is going on, especially at mid to high latitude positions on Earth.""
The problem is all theland temp. data sets in existance are copies of the cru. The only true data sets is the ocean data sets which show no temperature increase!
Human Finger Print = the change caused by human sources of atmospheric dynamic materials in three broad classes -particulate, radiant, chemical. It is possible to model those atmospheric disruptors that result from un-disturbed landscapes - effectively removing human input. The process involves measuring the outputs ( chem., radiant & particulate) from various undistrubed parcel types (desert; fallow grass land; temperate forests; jungles; swamp lands; etal) over several years (for best aggregate long term behavior) and then multiplying those outputs by the amount of land under each type if humans did not exist. That model generates for you the base-line "non-human" atmospheric impact for the three broad categories. Measure that against what is currently in the atmosphere now would give you the "measured Human Fingerprint". It's not as difficult a process as you would think.
... and the tooth fairy is real since observable evidence leads to such conclusion ... never mind that good parents of nice children homogenize the data on this issue and make the necessary "corrections" to ensure that the actually-observable data "verifies" what we "know" from our "models" of "reality".
There apparently is no shame left among dogmatics.
Nearly all the world's data came straight from the numbers generated by NASA and the CRU. Both of which are under such scrutiny that at this point any numbers released by them are to be considered arbitrary, meaning almost 90% of the wonderful data ye faithful brethren of the warming earth have collected is, as it is based solely on those numbers, arbitrary as well. (Quantity of evidence does not effect quality, contrary to what our Fearless Leaders say.)
Climate Models say what you tell them. And pretty much every Climate Model to date has been based on models of behavior based on the data released by guess who.
Observations of Physical and Biological blah blah blah do NOT meet what scientists thought they would be. Take the whole "big plants will outgrow small plants in the Amazon, destabilizing the ecosystem and leading to a not loss of biomass," (i.e. more death than life will result.) Which hasn't happened. Of course, they made a bigger deal over how it MIGHT happen than about how it DIDN'T happen (since speculation is grander than truth.)
Oh, then there's the fact that the Polar Bears' population, regardless of any decline that might be there (I really have no clue if their population is shrinking, but I doubt it), is not caused by ice caps shrinking. The satellite data showing fluctuations in the extent of the ice caps underwent some of its OWN refinements under CRU and NASA.
I find it funny how we turn Science into Politics, and honesty into an excuse to lie.
Our civilization is emitting billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased dramatically over the past century, paralleling a rise in fossil fuel consumption.
Who is more dogmatice, the one who calls it a coincidence and ignores or the one who questions and investigates?
Mark, I'm sure this is a hoax. You are just trying to be so brilliant that you can out-think everyone else and outhink God, since he controls the weather. You should stop your foolishness and think this through. Look at global sea ice- flat, global temps-flat, no correlation between co2 and temp, not even logical because it already absorbs all radiation at 10 microns, there is no such thing as "radiative forcing", the models results are mere artifacts of the loser scientists who can't get a date. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting what in reality has never been anything but a genocidalist scam run by Maurice Strong at the UNEP.
I'm still waiting for that finger print. What you offered is at best a circular argument based on speculation. What of the many substantial variables like cloud variability? Sorry you have not offered evidence of a finger print at all.
I also have to assume you are aware of Earth's geologic temperature and CO2 history. If heat and CO2 are bad for life how do you explain the Cambrian explosion?
http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Back in the Mideval warming peroid, Sir Alouishes Gorrington singlehandedly stopped Global warming in it's tracks by curbing the consumption of beans to the clidesdales-(the SUV back then) and paved the way for civilization as we know it.
Can't you 'reporters' smell a scam?
This is an obvious reason to tax EVERYONE for something that is invisible, and will KILL YOU DEAD!!!! (even though co2 is what plants rely on to live...without plants....we will all die)
Don't get me wrong... I believe we have a great responsibility to keep our planet clean, and to give harsh, and FAIR punishment to polluters, and make them clean up the messes they make.
(I say fair, because of the old saying "Some are more equal than others")
Read the Copenhagen document linked through the guardian-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
As one nameless diplomat said "It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process,"
Why do you think they would do this in secret? So no SPOIL SPORTS got ahold of it and READ IT before it got jammed down the planet's collective throat?
No, that's just sillytalk-
They welcome questions....as long as it'a about the adorable snuggly polar bear and how the numbers are dwindling on this poor poor bear. Mention Climategate to them and an armed UN guard shows you the parking lot.
They welcome an open and fair debate on this subject.
Want to buy my fancy bridge? It's GREEN!
GE is a massive supporter of Cap and trade because they have billions to gain from the carbon market they have invested heavily in. Are these the people you want looking after the environment?
http://www.cleanupge.org/gemisdeeds.html
http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/en/haz/20090226/20090226_ge.html
"poor judgment and behavior"
That's it Mark...seriously? WTF?
MPR is ok with this sick methodology? Methodology means nothing in climatology?
And I guess this liberal rag hasn't looked at the problems with the program data... typical!
Do yourself a favor and hire some talented damage control artists... because your "nothing to see here.. move along" attempt is nothing short of lame.
Public radio is the same everywhere...
Keep up the phat work, Mark! LMFAO!
Nice attempt to spin this fraud Seeley, particulary you attempt to misrepresent this as some sort of isolated incident by an unimportant minority.
The work of the CRU is the underpinning of all the other global warming papers published - these frauds at the CRU and their conspirators, Dr Jones, Mann et al, have taint every piece of research that you point to as being independent.
Maybe if you had taken some statistics courses, and some programming courses, instead of geography, you would be able to read the source code and understand that the smoking gun is in the computer model these liars developed.
You sir, should be barred from teaching and broadcasting.
Nov. 23, 2009
It isn't necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policy makers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.
Dr Philip Lloyd Pr Eng - former Coordinating Lead Author, UN IPCC
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=87726
On Tuesday Dec. 15, 2009, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
It appears as if only the higher temperature urban sensors have been reported.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
