Boulton and Glaciergate

In a Jan 29, 2008 speech, Boulton now -check reported that by 2050 “most of the Himalayan glaciers would be gone”:

The impacts are there already. These are representative images from Central Ladakh from ‘69, ‘79, ’89; they show the cover of snow and, in fact, glacier ice. The reason why that’s important is that during the dry season something like 80% of the flow of the rivers of the great north Indian plain, the Indus, the Ganges, the Brahmaputra, about eighty per cent of that dry season flow comes from snow and melting glaciers. Already in the last fifteen years we’ve seen dramatic reductions in dry season flow. Calculations by glaciologists now suggest that by 2050 most of the Himalayan glaciers will have gone and the impact on dry season flow of those great rivers will be dramatic in the extreme. They could be reduced between twenty and thirty per cent of their current dry season flow with devastating impacts on agriculture in both India and Pakistan and indeed, in Western China.

In his Oct 29, 2009 presentation, Boulton said that the 2050 forecast was for a 60-70% reduction in dry season flow of Ganges. A dig-here.

Royal Society of Edinburgh, Oct 29, 2009

The Muir Russell FAQ states:

Do any of the Review team members have a predetermined view on climate change and climate science?

No. Members of the research team come from a variety of scientific backgrounds. They were selected on the basis they have no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science and for the contribution they can make to the issues the Review is looking at.

In respect to Team member Geoffrey Boulton, General Secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, they say:

Professor Geoffrey Boulton has expertise in fields related to climate change and is therefore aware of the scientific approach, through not in the climate change field itself.

Boulton’s unawareness of the “scientific approach … in the climate change field itself” – a complaint that others have also made about Team climate science – has not prevented him from talking at considerable length about climate change.

In addition to Boulton presentations listed elsewhere e.g. here here , I draw readers attention to his presentation at the Royal Society of Edinburgh on the eve of Climategate (Oct 29, 2009) as part of a program entitled “The impact of climate change on Scotland.”

The three presenters were:

Professor Geoffrey Boulton OBE FRS FRSE, General Secretary, The Royal Society of Edinburgh, and Member PM’s Council for Science and Technology.
Professor John Mitchell OBE FRS, Director Climate Science, The Met Office.
Dr Andrew Dlugolecki, Visiting Fellow, Tyndall Centre, University of East Anglia and Chartered Insurance Institute

Boulton’s presentation was entitled Adapting to climate change: the space between science and politics ppt here. There is an online summary of Boulton’s remarks here:

PROFESSOR BOULTON summarized the present position. We have the evidence, we have a consensus on scientific interpretation, we have the investment, we know (Stern) that mitigation now rather than later is cheaper. But, we have not sorted out the politics and started to adapt behaviour to minimize risks. We cannot do this without public support. If we fail, we will be risking the consequences of catastrophic climate changes. The problem is that these consequences will not be felt at first in polluting countries, such as Scotland. The objectives of the RSE inquiry are to map out the ground between where we are now and where we need to get to in order to achieve the targeted Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reductions; and understand how to engage the public so as to enable politicians to make the right choices. Change is happening now – see the studies of water flow in the Ganges and the effects on agriculture. Kyoto failed to reduce atmospheric CO2; Copenhagen needs to do much better. But will it?

Surveys show only 33% of the public are concerned about climate change, and only 18% alarmist. The issue is lower in priority than other seeming threats. A problem for public understanding is that climate change science is complex – not simple cause and effect with self evident outcomes. We cannot fully explain the relationship between and the extent of natural and anthropogenic variations in the atmosphere. The public think that computational modelling which underlies projections is only a technical tool thought up for the occasion; they do not understand the universal use of modelling to project likely consequences. A mitigation strategy must seek to meet emission targets, minimize costs, and maximize energy security. The policies which would enable us to meet these aims should include economic incentives, freedom to use all technical means, and full transmission to the public of the need to stop the misuse of resources. But we must be positive about the future, not simply fearful and negative.

Speakers agreed that it was vital to get children to understand the issues in climate change and discuss the actions needed to meet objectives. The Inquiry certainly proposed to involve schools. Children could not only pressure parents but could themselves imagine how things might be done differently, and how actions might improve life, not threaten it. But we need to be careful about how they are taught and the basis of their understanding. We must not attempt to tell teachers how to teach, but they must be able to appreciate the scientific method, the analytical tools that are used and the importance of exploring unexpected relationships

The role of the media was also raised. How much time should be spent attempting to educate them and rebutting the inevitable publicity generated by sceptics? Was the BBC, with its remit of fair coverage, too lenient with sceptics? Sceptics must be answered, but politely. Rancour and exaggeration would backfire, and result in loss of confidence in arguments.

The Scotsman today:

Prof Boulton said he had been open about having worked at the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA between 1968 and 1986.

“Since then, I have had no professional contact with the University of East Anglia or the Climatic Research Unit,” he said. He added tha that he had “declared my current view of the balance of evidence: that the earth is warming and that human activity is implicated. These remain the views of the vast majority of scientists who research on climate change in its different aspects”.

But he added: “As a sceptical scientist, I am prepared to change those views if the evidence merits it. They certainly do not prevent me from being heavily biased against poor scientific practice, wherever it arises.”

The second speaker at the session was John Mitchell of the Met Office, who has been the topic of much discussion at CA. His obstruction of FOI requests was covered by David Rose of the Daily Mail last Sunday. As CA readers know, Mitchell, of course, was the Review Editor of Briffa’s chapter in AR4. It was his Review Comments that were originally sought in David Holland’s FOI. Mitchell notified Phil Jones and Keith Briffa (and Susan Solomon) of Holland’s original pre-FOI inquiry in March 2006. On June 2, 2006, three days after Jones asked Briffa, Ammann, Mann and Wahl to delete correspondence pertaining to AR4, the Met Office said that Mitchell had deleted all his correspondence pertaining to AR4. It’s not unreasonable to wonder whether there might be a connection. However, the Russell inquiry did not include this in its “distillation” of questions.

The third speaker was Andrew Dlugolecki, Visiting Fellow, Tyndall Centre, University of East Anglia – the university with which Boulton has had “no professional contact” with since 1986.

Bishop Hill reported that Boulton’s office is three doors away from Gabi Hegerl. There’s a definite dig-here. Hegerl and her husband Tom Crowley were hired by the University of Edinburgh in 2007 at a very senior level. They are authors of a Hockey Stick study (one that is used in a Royal Society of Edinburgh briefing paper on Copenhagen dated December 2009) – more on this later. Crowley is mentioned 125 times in the Climategate Letters and Hegerl 41 times. It seems implausible that Boulton was not involved in the decision to invite and/or hire Crowley and Hegerl to the University of Edinburgh while he was a Professor in the very department to which they were hired.

Boulton is quite entitled to hold his present views on climate change and to ask government to adopt policies based on the views of institutions like various Royal Societies. (I’ve said, on numerous occasions, that, if I were a Minister of the Environment, I too would be guided by advice from accredited scientific institutions.)

But I do not agree that Muir Russell can then say that Boulton holds “no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science”. Boulton clearly believes that climate change is an important issue and that policy changes are urgent and important. He’s entitled to that belief.

Equally it’s not unreasonable for third parties to be concerned that someone holding such beliefs will have a considerable temptation to overlook or minimize any transgressions that may have committed by the (Hockey) Team.

There are thousands of people in the world who are qualified to serve on this inquiry who have never met Jones, Briffa and/or Mitchell; who haven’t worked for 18 years at the University of East Anglia and who aren’t currently active in climate change policy advocacy – people who meet Muir Russell’s criteria of having “no prejudicial interest in climate change and climate science”. Boulton isn’t one of them.

Boulton’s 18 Years at UEA

The Muir Russell website states of its panel:

None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations’ Independent Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). More information about each of the review team members can be found in the Biographies section.

An alert reader at Bishop Hill observes that Boulton spent 18 years at the University of East Anglia School of Environmental Sciences, before moving to the University of Edinburgh:

lectr then reader Sch of Environmental Science UEA 1968-86 … Univ of Edinburgh: regius prof of geology and mineralogy 1986-2008… gen sec RSE [Royal Society of Edinburgh] 2007-; contrib to numerous books and papers in glaciology, Polar science and global environmental change…

Muir Russell asked his listeners to accept that they were “independent” because – Muir Russell looking straight into the camera and saying “we are independent” and re-iterated on their webpage that “none have any links to the Climatic Research Unit”.

But the Inquiry bio left out Boulton’s 18 years of employment at the University of East Anglia.

I understand that climate scientists think that leaving out adverse information is a “good way to deal with a problem”, but people who aren’t climate scientists think that it’s a trick.

Update: Discussion of Boulton at The Scotsman here.

Prof Boulton said he had been open about having worked at the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA between 1968 and 1986. “Since then, I have had no professional contact with the University of East Anglia or the Climatic Research Unit,” he said.

Phil Jones Interview

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm

h/t Bishop Hill

The Team That Can’t Shoot Straight

Minutes after the Team announced its members, with Team captain Muir Russell emphasizing their impartiality, a commenter at Bishop Hill posted up an interview between Team member Philip Campbell, editor of Nature, in which he told Chinese radio that there was nothing to see here and people should just move along.

INTERVIEWER: I think you must have heard of the Climategate scandal recently. Some renowned global warming proponents showed a conspiracy to produce fraudulent data to support the global warming scenario. How do you see this scandal? Some say that this breaking couldn’t come at a worse time because of the upcoming Copenhagen conference. What’s your opinion.

CAMPBELL: It’s true that it comes at a bad time but it is not true that it is a scandal. The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong. In fact the only problem there has been is some official restriction on their ability to disseminate their data. Otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.

INTERVIEWER: So you think there has been some misunderstanding between the scientists and the outsiders?

CAMPBELL: Absolutely, absolutely.

Campbell immediately resigned. Channel Four has video and commentary. BBC

Update: Nature blog reports that the Team defended their “independence”, even though Philip Campbell’s presence on the Team was already in question. I guess Nature didn’t get the memo yet.

Head of climate-gate inquiry defends independence – February 11, 2010

The team reviewing allegations of poor scientific practice at the University of East Anglia set out its stall today, and immediately faced questions about its own independence….

Review head Muir Russell staunchly defended the independent nature of the review when questioned about the fact that it is funded by the university itself. Russell, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow, also faced questions about the inclusion of Nature’s editor in chief Philip Campbell on the review team, as some of the questions to be answered concern research and researchers published in the journal.

“We are completely independent,” Russell told reporters. “We’re free to reach any conclusions that we wish. We are free to follow questions wherever they take us.”

Campbell added that he would be happy to excuse himself from any discussions that concern Nature. “Either you accept that the process is being as open as it can be, or you accuse us of covering up,” he added.

Russell’s ‘Independent Climate Change Email Review’ is now one of five separate inquiries into the climate-gate emails

Full disclosure: Daniel Cressey is an employee of Nature and is ultimately answerable to Philip Campbell.

Muir Russell and the Team

A webpage on the Muir Russell Inquiry materialized today here. I learned of this development from Bishop Hill’s blog here.

The work plan is described here, saying that they plan to operate “openly and transparently”. They didn’t mention whether they had interviewed Jones, Briffa, Osborn, but, from talking to an English reporter, it’s my understanding that they’ve already done so.

An Issues paper is here.

The Issues Paper demonstrates an amusingly tin ear to the context of the CRU controversy. Of all possible terms to describe themselves, the Muir Russell committee refers to themselves as “the Team”. 🙂

….. the Team stresses that it has formed no view on whether they are fair or justified. …. the Team is not adopting those issues as its own criticisms.
3. The Team‟s approach is to distill the questions and criticisms into the broad questions set out below. Using its own enquiries and experience, it has added questions about the handling and dissemination of data, including the response to FOI requests.
4. The Team will invite CRU and other parts of UEA to respond in writing to these questions, and will follow up those responses as required. The Team expect the CRU to provide original documentary evidence to support its responses.
5. The Team invites those with an interest in the matter to comment on this Issues paper. The Team stresses that its remit does not involve re-evaluation of the scientific conclusions of the CRU work, still less a reappraisal of the scientific debate about the existence and suggested causes of global warming.

Bishop Hill observes that, although the inquiry was formed on December 3, the public has eleven working days to make a submission. Early news reports: BBC Times

I’ve taken a first look at the Issues Paper, in which they say that they

distill the questions and criticisms into the broad questions set out below

The only information on the “distillation” process is that it was “using its own enquiries and experience”. One wonders exactly what those “enquiries and experience” consisted of. They haven’t talked to me (or sent me notice that they are seeking submissions.) Nor has anyone contacted me to say that “enquiries” had reached them. What were these “enquiries”?

The “distillation” in respect to “manipulation or suppression” of data is to four questions.

The first question is about the divergence problem. Having said that their “remit” doesn’t involve re-evaluation of the “scientific conclusions” of CRU work, the divergence questions are mainly scientific questions – some of them are ill-posed.

The second question focuses on an email of June 4, 2003 that’s barely made the Climate Audit radar screen – about “containing” the MWP, where the term is used in a quite different context than the Deming email. The third subquestion in this item looks scientific rather than conduct related.

The third question relates to the “trick” email. The questions show no evidence of having understood the context provided to the trick email by Jean S and myself.

The fourth question is about temperature data sets and whether they’ve been “selected preferentially”.

Question 5 is about peer review. They mention three blocking incidents out of all the possible incidents; they do not mention biased positive reviews.

Question 6 is about data access.

Question 7 is about keeping records of datasets, algorithms and software.

Question 8 is about FOI requests.

Update: UEA today announced another inquiry – this one into the scientific issues. Nothing was announced about who would be on this new inquiry, other than that the Royal Society will help them choose assessors.

Shoveling into the wind: Blizzards and global warming

Update:  Feb 14 2010:  Dana Milbank of the Washington Post provides his perspective: (emphasis mine)

As a scientific proposition, claiming that heavy snow in the mid-Atlantic debunks global warming theory is about as valid as claiming that the existence of John Edwards debunks the theory of evolution. In fact, warming theory suggests that you’d see trends toward heavier snows, because warmer air carries more moisture. This latest snowfall, though, is more likely the result of a strong El Niño cycle that has parked the jet stream right over the mid-Atlantic states.

Still, there’s some rough justice in the conservatives’ cheap shots. In Washington’s blizzards, the greens were hoist by their own petard.

For years, climate-change activists have argued by anecdote to make their case. Gore, in his famous slide shows, ties human-caused global warming to increasing hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought and the spread of mosquitoes, pine beetles and disease. It’s not that Gore is wrong about these things. The problem is that his storm stories have conditioned people to expect an endless worldwide heat wave, when in fact the changes so far are subtle.

Other environmentalists have undermined the cause with claims bordering on the outlandish; they’ve blamed global warming for shrinking sheep in Scotland, more shark and cougar attacks, genetic changes in squirrels, an increase in kidney stones and even the crash of Air France Flight 447. When climate activists make the dubious claim, as a Canadian environmental group did, that global warming is to blame for the lack of snow at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, then they invite similarly specious conclusions about Washington’s snow…

Al Gore, for one, seems to realize it’s time for a new tactic. New TV ads released during last week’s blizzards by Gore’s climate advocacy group say nothing about climate science. They show workers asking their senators for more jobs from clean energy.

Climate change questions on everyone’s mind:  Can the record snowfalls tallied in the winter of 2009-2010 be attributed to global warming?  Will this type of winter weather be more or less frequent in the future under a global warming scenario?  What is the evidence for and against — and what is the certainty of  the conclusions reached?

Among the many suggestions that the IPCC be cherished, tweaked, or scrapped by Nature in a recent opinion piece by 5-climatologists, one was by John Christy who proposed a Wikipedia-style assessment process or report.  Without providing any substantial details likely due to length restrictions, one has to take the current Wikipedia model and figure out how a complicated scientific assessment would be carried out in the public domain.  Well, why not give it a whirl here and see if/how a consensus can be built from scratch using all the available information and expertise already in the public domain?  Success is clearly not guaranteed and failure may actually provide some insight into the difficulties associated with Christy’s proposal.

So, here is the task for anyone that wants to participate:  do an audit of the winter of 2009-2010 including the blizzards over the United States and put it in context with the current understanding associated with global warming.  Tasks will include autopsying the weather/climate conditions responsible for the snow (or lackthereof) over the USA (or subregions), expertly assessing the peer-reviewed (or “not yet” or “grey”) literature on changes in winter cyclone behavior, and developing a consensus conclusion.  It would also be grand if a certainty could be put on that conclusion.  Obviously there are plenty of starting points with the IPCC, other US climate assessments, the mainstream media, blogs, newspapers and magazines.  Thus, the current spectrum of expertise on the topic ranges from climate scientists, meteorologists, television personalities, journalists, all the way to bloggers in their basement.  Seemingly, the various actors have different agendas at work.

If this task is set up like a court of law in which both sides are allowed to present evidence, then some modicum of balance should be achieved, and the outcome will not be predetermined.  One should not assume immediately that the current weather/climate conditions are inconsistent with what would be expected in the future under UN IPCC climate change scenarios, and I caution all to have an open mind.   The comment process here on WordPress, which necessarily nests conversations, is pretty good for accumulating knowledge on specific subtopics assuming clutter and chatter is kept to a minimum.

Even if such a Wiki-IPCC exists, it is still incumbent upon the consumer of the information to digest it and make policy recommendations, which is obviously well beyond what is being attempted here.  The shelf-life for such an experiment is pretty short (couple days) as blogs require continued sustenance to keep moving along.

The blizzards of winter 2009-2010 have been truly historic in terms of total snowfall across a large swathe of the Middle Atlantic and New England.  A few cities and their tallies:  NWS record report.

Philadelphia: “The National Weather Service reported that 14 inches of snow had fallen at Philadelphia International Airport by 7 last night. On top of the 28.5 inches recorded Friday and Saturday, that meant the winter of 2009-10 had surpassed by nearly 5 inches the 65.5-inch total set 14 years ago.”

Washington DC and Baltimore:  “As of 2 p.m. Wednesday, the snowfall total for the season in Washington had surpassed the 54.4-inch record set in 1899, and it rose to 55.6 inches by 4 p.m. It was even higher farther from the city, reaching seasonal totals of 72 inches in Baltimore and at Dulles International Airport.”

Vancouver, British Columbia: “Up at Whistler an unprecedented 9.88 metres (32.4 feet) of snow is on the ground, to the delight of Olympics organizers. The first alpine athletes started their training on designated training runs on February 5 and are scheduled to ski on the Olympic courses Wednesday.”

Deep snow at Whistler Blackcomb is not unusual, but reaching the average annual snowfall of 10.13 metres (33 feet) this early in the year is unique. Since snow reporting began in the 1979/80 season, this is the first time that Whistler Blackcomb has received this much snow by the end of January.

While the slopes at Whistler Mountain, where the Alpine and Nordic events will be held, are covered with deep snow, the lower elevation Cypress Mountain venues are not.  Snow is being trucked in and flown in to Cypress Mountain in West Vancouver to get the Olympic venue ready for the first event – the women’s moguls.

In an effort go get started, let’s see what various media outlets are saying about the linkages between global warming and the recent blizzards.  Do they mention El Nino?  Do they have the prerequisite equivocation that “no one weather event can be attributed to global warming” and “weather is not climate” except when it is?  Unfortunately this becomes a sobering task in judging the accuracy of science reporting by journalists who must rely on the experts whom they interview.  Without naming names, some do a better job than others.

New York Times — Feb 11, 2010 Climate Fight Is Heating Up in Deep Freeze

Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.

Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.

But some independent climate experts say the blizzards in the Northeast no more prove that the planet is cooling than the lack of snow in Vancouver or the downpours in Southern California prove that it is warming.

But climate scientists say that no single episode of severe weather can be blamed for global climate trends while noting evidence that such events will probably become more frequent as global temperatures rise.

Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who writes on the Weather Underground blog, said that the recent snows do not, by themselves, demonstrate anything about the long-term trajectory of the planet. Climate is, by definition, a measure of decades and centuries, not months or years.

But Dr. Masters also said that government and academic studies had consistently predicted an increasing frequency of just these kinds of record-setting storms because warmer air carries more moisture.

Time Magazine / CNN — Feb 10, 2010 Snowstorm:  East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change (Another Blizzard:  What Happened to Global Warming?)

Brace yourselves now — this may be a case of politicians twisting the facts. There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm. As the meteorologist Jeff Masters points out in his excellent blog at Weather Underground, the two major storms that hit Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., this winter — in December and during the first weekend of February — are already among the 10 heaviest snowfalls those cities have ever recorded. The chance of that happening in the same winter is incredibly unlikely.

A federal government report issued last year, intended to be the authoritative statement of known climate trends in the United States, pointed to the likelihood of more frequent snowstorms in the Northeast and less frequent snow in the South and Southeast as a result of long-term temperature and precipitation patterns. The Climate Impacts report, from the multiagency United States Global Change Research Program, also projected more intense drought in the Southwest and more powerful Gulf Coast hurricanes because of warming.

In other words, if the government scientists are correct, look for more snow.

This is one of the few technical discussions of the linkage between global warming and winter weather during the past week.  It is well worth quoting large sections for reference sake.
There are two requirements for a record snow storm:  1) A near-record amount of moisture in the air (or a very slow moving storm). 2) Temperatures cold enough for snow….According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the globe warmed 0.74°C (1.3°F) over the past 100 years. There will still be colder than average winters in a world that is experiencing warming, with plenty of opportunities for snow. The more difficult ingredient for producing a record snowstorm is the requirement of near-record levels of moisture. Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events–the ones most likely to cause flash flooding–will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. This extra moisture in the air will tend to produce heavier snowstorms, assuming it is cold enough to snow. Groisman et al. (2004) found a 14% increase in heavy (top 5%) and 20% increase in very heavy (top 1%) precipitation events in the U.S. over the past 100 years, though mainly in spring and summer. However, the authors did find a significant increase in winter heavy precipitation events have occurred in the Northeast U.S. This was echoed by Changnon et al. (2006), who found, “The temporal distribution of snowstorms exhibited wide fluctuations during 1901-2000, with downward 100-yr trends in the lower Midwest, South, and West Coast. Upward trends occurred in the upper Midwest, East, and Northeast, and the national trend for 1901-2000 was upward, corresponding to trends in strong cyclonic activity.”
In 2009, the USGCRP put out its excellent U.S. Climate Impacts Report, summarizing the observed and forecast impacts of climate change on the U.S. The report’s main conclusion about cold season storms was “ Cold-season storm tracks are shifting northward and the strongest storms are likely to become stronger and more frequent”. The report’s more detailed analysis: “Large-scale storm systems are the dominant weather phenomenon during the cold season in the United States. Although the analysis of these storms is complicated by a relatively short length of most observational records and by the highly variable nature of strong storms, some clear patterns have emerged (Kunkel et al., 2008).
Of course, both climate change contrarians and climate change scientists agree that no single weather event can be blamed on climate change. However, one can “load the dice” in favor of events that used to be rare–or unheard of–if the climate is changing to a new state. It is quite possible that the dice have been loaded in favor of more intense Nor’easters for the U.S. Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, thanks to the higher levels of moisture present in the air due to warmer global temperatures. It’s worth mentioning that heavy snow storms should be getting increasingly rare for the extreme southern portion of the U.S. in coming decades. There’s almost always high amounts of moisture available for a potential heavy snow in the South–just not enough cold air. With freezing temperatures expected to decrease and the jet stream and associated storm track expected to move northward, the extreme southern portion of the U.S. should see a reduction in both heavy and ordinary snow storms in the coming decades.
Bill Nye “The Science Guy” — MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show
Nye’s analysis conflates global warming with El Nino in a confusing way and invokes energy, turbulence thinking.
“[T]here’s more energy in the atmosphere and this is stirring things up,” Nye said. “If you want to get serious about it, these guys claiming that the snow in Washington disproves climate change are almost unpatriotic. It’s really, they’re denying science. So they’re very happy to have the weather forecast be accurate within a few hours, but they’re displeased or un-enchanted by predictions of the world getting warmer. It’s really, it shakes me up.”
“Well, the world, overall — the world’s getting warmer,” Nye said. “If you like – these phenomenon, by the way, this week, are just generally a result of El Niño, where the Pacific Ocean surface gets a little warmer and this affects the weather in North America like crazy and this is very well-documented, and you can go to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Web sites and you can look at this data. The sea surface is warmer, putting more energy in the atmosphere, and making things more turbulent.”

Climate Progress — Joe Romm reporting on MSNBC’s explanation by Dylan Ratigan

As Ratigan explains:

Here’s the problem – these ‘snowpocalypses’ that have been going through DC and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming.

Why is that? The thinking that warmer air temperatures on the earth, a higher air temperature, has a greater capacity to hold moisture at any temperature.  And then as winter comes in, that warm air cools full of water, and you get heavier precipitation on a more regular basis. In fact, you could argue these storms are not evidence of a lack of global warming, but are evidence of global warming – thus the 26 inches of snowfall in the DC area and the second giant storm this year.

I [Romm] tend to prefer “are consistent with human-caused global warming,” in place of the highlighted phrase, but the words “you could argue” gives Ratigan the necessary caveat for his statement.

Please provide links and quotes for analysis by scientists that I may have missed.  Keep editorial comments to a minimum and reserve judgment on the issue until a “consensus” is reached.  Consider this an opportunity to participate in your own IPCC.

The Mann Inquiry Report

As a starting point for today’s post, the Office of Research Integrity (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), like Penn State, has a two-stage inquiry-investigation procedure and states:

In general, absent full admissions, inquiries should not be used to make findings on whether research misconduct in fact occurred.

This seems at odds with what the Penn State Inquiry Committee has done or is perceived to have done. Today I’ll try to examine the difference between an “inquiry” and an “investigation” in academic misconduct cases and see what the Mann Inquiry Committee did or thinks that it did. Continue reading

What to do with the IPCC?

Update:  Feb 13, 2010 NY Times letter to the editor by Paul Epstein deserves a quotation here:

That fossil fuel industry-financed forces are continuing their campaign to undermine the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its chief scientists should not distract us from what we know about our climate.

Two physical findings stand out. In the last 50 years the world ocean has accumulated 22 times as much heat as has the atmosphere (data provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce). It is this repository of heat — through processes like evaporation and ocean overturning — that drives the changes in weather we are experiencing: heavier precipitation events, sequences of large storms, bitter cold spells and prolonged droughts in some regions.

The I.P.C.C. 2007 report also found that winds have changed — specifically circumpolar westerly winds (those blowing from the west) in both hemispheres. This ominous sign means that weather fronts and weather patterns are less stable.

Our society, security and the health of the global economy depend upon a stable climate. Getting off fossil fuels is the first, necessary step toward achieving climate stabilization.

Paul R. Epstein
Boston, Feb. 9, 2010

The writer, a doctor, is associate director at the Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School.

The AP is reporting on a Nature Opinion piece in the Feb 11, 2010 issue of the magazine. Headline: “Scientists seek better way to do climate report“.

Some climate scientists are calling for drastic changes in how future United Nations climate reports are done.

The proposals to reform the International Panel on Climate Change are published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature. The suggested changes come after four embarrassing but small errors have popped up recently in one of the panel’s four reports.

The Nature Opinion piece is located here:  IPCC:  cherish it, tweak it, or scrap it?

Five climatologists provide their opinions on what to do with the IPCC.  There recommendations are discussed below with quotations from the Nature Opinion piece.  None of the climatologists suggest scrapping the IPCC, so the Nature headline is a little misleading.

Mike Hulme:  Coordinating lead author, lead author, review editor (AR3), University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

“The IPCC needs a complete overhaul. The structure and process are past their sell-by dates.”My suggestion for radical reform is to dissolve the IPCC after the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014. The work would be split into three types of assessment and evaluation, each rather different to the three existing IPCC working groups.

The first group is called a Global Science Panel that would monitor the Earth system and put out a larger number of “smaller, sharply focused” reports on a rolling basis.  Hulme suggests that the reports would be short, on the order of 50 pages.  The second group would be made up of “Regional Evaluation Panels” and focus on the specific climate change effects on 5 to 10 areas of the world.  The third group is described as a Policy Analysis Panel — “a standing panel of expertise, global in reach, with interdisciplinary skills and a diverse analytical capacity.  Perhaps 50–100 strong, this panel would undertake focused and rapid (6–12 months) analyses of specific proposed policy options and measures that have global significance.”

This restructuring would allow clearer distinctions to be made in areas that have been troublesome for the IPCC: assessments of published knowledge versus policy analysis and evaluation; the globalized physical sciences versus more geographically and culturally nuanced knowledge; a one-size, top-down model of ownership and governance versus more inclusive, representative and regionally varying forms of governance. It would better serve the world, and its peoples, in understanding and responding to anthropogenic climate change.

Eduardo Zorita:  Contributing author (AR4), GKSS Research Center in Geesthacht, Germany.

The IPCC should be made stronger and independent. We do not need to reinvent the wheel; there are excellent examples of agencies that society has set up when credibility is of the utmost importance. The European Central Bank, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the International Energy Agency and the US Congressional Budget Office all independently navigate their way through strong political pressures, delivering valuable assessments, advice, reports and forecasts, tapping academic research when necessary. These agencies are accountable and respected.

Zorita proposes the creation of an international climate agency with a staff of 200 full-time scientists who would be “independent of government, industry, and academia”.  The scientists “who have a widely recognized credibility” would be chosen by scientific unions such as the AGU or EGU.

Such an agency should be resourced and empowered to do the following: issue streamlined biennial state-of-the-climate reports; be a repository and quality-controller of observational climate data; advise governments on regional assessments of climate impacts; and coordinate the suite of future-climate simulations by research institutes.

Thomas J. Stocker:  Co-chair IPCC Working Group I (AR5), coordinating lead author (AR3, AR4), University of Bern, Switzerland

Stocker proposes continuing the model of the IPCC and continue strict adherence to procedures and scientific rigour at all stages.

The basis of the IPCC is the voluntary contributions of thousands of dedicated scientists from all over the world. The Principles Governing IPCC Work (IPCC, 1998) provide a clear framework for an open, transparent and robust process. This bottom-up endeavour is a unique model of providing scientific information, mainly from the peer-reviewed scientific literature, for decision-making on a challenging problem. It has worked extremely successfully for the past 21 years.

In this field of different and divergent forces, confusion may arise. An honest broker therefore is an asset. From my perspective, the IPCC has fulfilled this role with remarkable rigour and integrity. This role is now at risk, as the stakes are higher than ever before. The requirement that assessments are policy relevant but never policy prescriptive, as formulated in the Principles Governing IPCC Work, is of paramount importance. Our task is to inform the policy-makers and the public strictly in a ‘what if’ mode. Any other approach must be left to NGOs, negotiators or individuals. Only with strict adherence to procedures and to scientific rigour at all stages will the IPCC continue to provide the best and most robust information that is needed so much.

Jeff Price:  Lead author (AR3, AR4), director, climate-change adaptation, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) United States

Price proposes more reports AND faster production along with changes to the peer-review requirements.  Furthermore, the selection process for Lead Author should be changed to get the “best experts” rather than adhere to the current diversity policy.

Currently, authors are selected to represent “a range of views, expertise, gender and geographical representation”. However, given the importance placed on these assessments, the most senior positions should be filled by the nominees most expert in their field, regardless of balance.

For topics of emerging importance or uncertainty, we need reports based on expert meetings and literature synthesis that undergo only a single round of extensive peer review with review-editor oversight before publication.

Finally, the current period between assessments is too long. One option would be for the IPCC, or another body, to produce an annual review, assessment and synthesis of the literature for policy-makers (for example, three annual review volumes with a synthesis chapter in each volume) prepared by experts in the field. Although the editors of the volumes should ideally be drawn from past IPCC authors and editors, the review articles could be submitted by any author, as they would for a journal, with appropriate peer review and assessment for publication.

John Christy:  Lead author (AR3), University of Alabama in Huntsville, USA

Christy is the most critical of the IPCC and proposes more open debate:  Wikipedia-style.   He also is critical of the selection process of lead-authors.

The IPCC selects lead authors from the pool of those nominated by individual governments. Over time, many governments nominated only authors who were aligned with stated policy. Indeed, the selections for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report represented a disturbing homogeneity of thought regarding humans and climate.

However, voluminous printed reports, issued every six years by government-nominated authors, cannot accommodate the rapid and chaotic development of scientific information today. An idea we pitched a few years ago that is now worth reviving was to establish a living, ‘Wikipedia-IPCC’. Groups of four to eight lead authors, chosen by learned societies, would serve in rotating, overlapping three-year terms to manage sections organized by science and policy questions (similar to the Fourth Assessment Report). The authors would strike a balance between the free-for-all of true science and the need for summary statements.

Richard Black at the BBC blogs about the suggested IPCC-refits, and similarly summarizes the positions of the 5 climatologists.

All food for thought; and though it appears likely that the IPCC will remain working roughly in the way it has done until the fifth assessment report (AR5) is complete, with minor tweaks to take account of Himalayan and other issues, it is entirely within the gift of governments to make whatever changes they see fit once that process is over.

Translation:  no changes are being made — at the moment.

The Guardian chimes in with some notable quotations from their own survey of scientists around the world:

Robert Muir Wood, head of the research group at Risk Management Solutions, said the current IPCC report system was “fossilised” and that the organisation needed to move into the 21st century by setting up Wikipedia-style rolling publishing, that could be updated each month. Others suggested changes almost as radical. [William] Connolley said the “useless” synthesis reports should be ditched, while [John] Robinson said: “There needs to be continuous review of what the timing and topics should be.”

Submission to UK Parliamentary Inquiry

Just sent in a submission to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry (cut-off noon Feb 10, 2010) see here . Given the limit of 3000 words – not that I wanted to spend a whole lot more time on something that will probably be disregarded anyway – I focused on paleoclimate rather than CRUTEM (presuming that others will talk about CRUTEM). I discussed bodging, cherry picking and deletion of adverse data (including the “trick”), trying to provide context rather than trying to drain the Climategate swamp. I’ll post it up if that is permitted under the rules, which I’ll check tomorrow.