Behind Closed Doors: “Perpetuating Rubbish”

The Yang Chinese composite, after the Mann PC1 and Yamal, had the third-largest hockey stick shape of the proxies illustrated in the IPCC AR4 spaghetti graph. I’d commented on this series on several occasions – see http://www.climateaudit.org/tag/yang

The new emails show that Bradley thought that this series was, to use the technical term preferred by climate scientists, “crap” and should not be used in multiproxy studies – an issue raised by Bradley in connection with Mann et al (EOS 2003) – their attack on Soon and Baliunas 2003.

Needless to say, Bradley did not publish a comment criticizing the use of this series. It has subsequently been used over and over again in IPCC multiproxy studies, commencing with Mann and Jones 2003.

In my post a few years ago, I observed that it was, in fact, “the most heavily-weighted contributor to Mann and Jones [2003] … The Yang composite and the North American PC1 (bristlecones) dominate the Mann and Jones [2003] reconstruction, making other series essentially irrelevant.” It was then used in Moberg et al [2005].

In my earlier post, I observed that “its contribution to Moberg is less marked, but it is one of only 3-4 series that provide a strong 20th century” (the other series include upside-down Bulloides.) Since then, it has been used in Osborn and Briffa 2006, the IPCC AR4 spaghetti graph (Box 6.4 Figure 1), Hegerl et al 2007, Juckes et al 2007, Ljungqvist 2010 and even Loehle and McCulloch 2010.

Here’s what Bradley and the Team said about the validity of this series behind closed doors. The exchange also has an interesting vignette on the speed of peer review when the Team is involved. Continue reading

A Somewhat Late Response to Schneider

(This post is by Ross.) Eight years ago, in October 2003, Stephen Schneider wrote email 0020.txt to Annie Petsonk of Environmental Defense, cc’ing to Mann, Hegerl, Overpeck, Briffa, Hughes, MacCracken, Jones, Bradley, Santer, Thompson, Mosley-Thompson, Crowley, Trenberth, Osborn, Wigley and a couple others.  The email stated, in part, the following ([sic] wherever appropriate).

 Hello all. Ah ha–the latest idiot–McKitrick–reenters the scene. He and another incompetent had a book signing party at the US Capitol–Mike MacCracken went and he can tell you about it–last summer. McKitrick also had an article–oped, highly refereed of course–in the Canadian National Post on June 4 this year. Here is the URL that worked back then: http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=045D5241-FD00-4773-B816-76222A771778

It was a scream. He argued there is no such thing as global temperature change, just local–all natural variablity mostly. To prove this he had a graph of temperature trends in Erie Pennsylvania for the past 50 years (this is from memory) which showed a cooling. THat alone proves nothing, but when reading the caption I noticed the trend was for temperature in October and November!! So one station for two months consitituted his “refutation” of global warming–another even dumber than Lomborg economist way out of depth and polemicizing. I showed it to a class of Stanford freshman, and one of them said: “I wonder how many records for various combinations of months they had to run through to find one with a cooling trend?” THe freshman was smarter than this bozo. It is improtant to get that op-ed to simply tell all reporters how unbelievably incompetent he is, and should not even be given the time of day over climate issues, for which his one “contribution” is laughably incompetent. By the way, the Henderson/Castles stuff he mentions is also mostly absurd, but that is a longer discussion you all don’t need to get into–check it out in the UCS response to earlier Inhofe polemics with answers I gave them on Henderson/Castles if you want to know more about their bad economics on top of their bad climate science

The op-ed I believe Schneider refers to is not at the Post website anymore, but it is online here. It was published in April 2003, not June. I didn’t publish an op-ed in June 2003, to the best of my recollection (and I have nothing in my files from then). Also, the print edition for the April 2003 op-ed shows the temperature graph for Erie Pennsylvania, and is the only one I’ve written that refers to that data. I encourage everyone to read my April 2003 op-ed, and then re-read Schneider’s email.

There’s no mention of Castles and Henderson in it: I think Schneider must have mingled something else in his memory. As to the choice of Erie PA, As I explain in the op-ed, I was responding to a claim David Suzuki had made on TVOntario a few nights earlier, saying that when he grew up in London Ontario, winter used to set in by the end of October, but now the snow didn’t come until much later; this being evidence of the fearful progress of global warming (or words to that effect). So I looked up the weather records for London from the 1940s to the present to check. Since the Canadian data on the GISS archive only went up to 1990, I also looked up the Erie PA record, which was the nearest US city (just across Lake Erie from London) with a long temperature record for October and November continuing up to the (then) present. The slight cooling trend in those records contradicted Suzuki’s claim.

This is all explained in the op-ed. Contrary to Schneider’s claim, I was not using the October-November temperature trend from Erie PA as a measure of global climate, I was using it as a measure of the October-November temperature trend for Erie PA. Schneider was careless in his reading, remiss in his recollection, and obnoxious in broadcasting his opinion to his colleagues.

OK, some jerk sent an email. What does it matter?

10 years before that email was sent, I was a grad student in economics, planning to do my PhD on carbon taxes. When trying to learn about the physical science issues, one of the first things I read was a 1989 Scientific American article by Schneider. Probably many people first learned about the issue from Schneider’s writings, and over time he had an enormous influence on the way the scientific message was controlled and transmitted to the public and to policymakers. He edited a major journal, wrote UN climate reports, advised governments and generally spoke for his profession for several decades.

That he turns out to have been intensely biased, arrogant and careless with facts matters a great deal.

Tahiti

Just for fun – we’ve all noticed the many mentions of just going or returning from exotic destinations – when you notice an email discussing a trip to Tahiti or Hawaii or Nice etc, please jot down the email #, date, destination and traveller.

Private Expressions of Uncertainty

One of the main themes of the emails is scientists admitting problems privately that they did not clearly admit in public. Ross has emailed me a few starters. Again no editorializing, just listing.

Climate Audit Used for East Anglia Course

Maurizio (h/t Bishop Hill) spotted an email (2639 in 2009) describing extensive use of Climate Audit in a non-CRU East Anglia course:

Neil Adger has taken over the running of First Year course here in ENV. He asked Alan Kendall for the ppt for 2 lectures he gives. He sent them and 40 slides are taken from Climate Audit! A student asked Neil why Alan was saying things opposite to what Neil and Tim Osborn were saying!!!

Alan is retiring at the end of this year….thankfully.

Discussion of Reviews

When you notice an email discussing a review, could you jot down the email number, date, the reviewer, the reviewee. Please don’t editorialize, just note it for reference.

Phil Stumped at Calculating A Trend

Phil Jones spends much of his time looking down his nose at the heathen, but then confesses to Bob Ward that he is unable to calculate a trend on his own, as in this hilarious exchange at Bishop Hill:

I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.

Nor it seems in Matlab, R, ODL, Fortran or any other language. No wonder that he regarded someone who could calculate principal components (like Mann) as a sort of computational prodigy.

Last year, Phil was ranked one of England’s top 100 scientists. Just imagine the ranking that he could have achieved if he knew how to calculate a trend by himself.

Climategate II Tools

A searchable version of Climategate 2 is online at http://di2.nu/foia/foia.pl and at http://foia2011.org.

I’ve made a time-concordance of the new emails and placed it online at http://www.climateaudit.info/correspondence/climategate2/info.cg2.csv. {Note – I’ve updated this to include julian seconds to match to climategate1.)

For R-users, I’ve made an R-concordance of the 5349 emails as text files and placed it online at http://www.climateaudit.info/correspondence/climategate2/cru.tab. You can download to your own file location e.g. “d:/data/climategate2/cru.tab”

New Climategate Emails

New climategate dossier here. [Update – try here]

See notice from “FOIA” here and subsequent comments as well as discussion at Jeff Id here.

I’ll comment later after I have a chance to look at things.

[Update /Jean S : Searchable database here.  h/t phil]

Anderson Cooper on Penn State Secrecy

Anderson Cooper had a segment on Penn State secrecy last night, with his contributor Drew Griffin expressing extreme frustration at Penn State’s stonewalling of information that would be routine at other institutions. Several years ago, Penn State lobbied for (and got) an exemption from Pennsylvania FOI legislation. (Given the exemptions in the state FOI legislation, I’m not sure that simply removing Penn State’s exemption would accomplish everything that people think it would, but that’s another story.)

In a panel segment that was on air last night (not in the online clip), one of the contributors described Penn State as “arrogant”, “imperious”.