The indelible stain on climate science. Climategate: Another Anniversary (never forget ….) [Editor Note: It was during the Thanksgiving weekend 11 years ago that the Climategate’s unsettling oeuvre was first being disseminated and analyzed. This post summarizes some remembrances from that period.] Continue reading →
These pubs you mention don't even get listed among journals of science. Beyond that, papers published in the journals you mention never even get referenced. You can't claim that being published there has meaning if nobody in science is willing to cite ANYTHING published there and those who review the reviewers aren't even willing to mention the journal. Remember that that charge goes way beyond climatology. Your publications get no notice on ANY topic, nor are reviewers willing to credit the methodologies used by your journals. https://www.annualreviews.org/about/impact-factors https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?type=j https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_journals https://libguides.ioe.ac.uk/c.php?g=482311&p=3299102 There are many organizations that examine and rate scientific journals on factors of review methodology, on whether published papers are respected, etc. There is a story that comes to mind. It's said that a Ferrari was promised to the person who would become the 100th employee of Microsoft. When that 100th employee finally did get hired, the person got a matchbox model Ferrari. And THAT is what's going on here.
The concerns these accusers had have been soundly refuted. The primary problem was that the accusers did't understand what was being said.
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously observed, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. CiteScore: 7.3 Impact Factor: 4.448
I'm sorry you have chosen to associate yourself with that lie. Judith Curry “There was no exoneration [of Climategate] by any objective analysis of the various inquiries. Ross McKitrick lays all this out in his article Understanding the Climategate Inquiries.” “The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to ‘hide the decline.’ The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was ‘misleading.’ The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.” “The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.” “… academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.”. . . .
Mann's hockey stick issues were NOT the only issue with "climategate". There were several other charges. Focusing on Mann is not a fair representation of "climategate". But, that is meaningless anyway! The discussion here is about review. Dr. Curry points to what can happen without adequate review. In fact, adequate review did exist to uncover the problems she mentions. The only solution to Dr. Curry's concern is BETTER review, not no review. It requires GREATER exposure, not less exposure. It requires MORE verification, no less verification. It requires a BROADER process of review, not one that is narrowed. The UN process is what has made this possible. It's a process that is even more broad and open than what any journal can provide. We didn't kill anthropology because of Piltdown man. What we did was improve review. IMPROVE review, not eliminate review. And, what you are calling for is eliminating review. Limited review is what gave Mann the opportunity to use his biased algorithm without actually investigating that bias. Once broader level of review existed through the UN process on climate, his methods could get the review they needed. Science has to be open and it has to involve serious review. Science absolutely depends on that.
Actually, I'm calling for more review, freeing the process from the illegitimate exercise of prejudice and guild hall exclusivity that has blighted climate science. As for Mann, his destructive legacy lives on in ex post sample selection and the continued inclusion of stripbark chronologies in too much paleoclimate research, despite the National Research Council recommendation that they be avoided.
You've been calling for LESS review as well as advocating a process that is far more closed than exists today. The concerns of Curry would not have been exposed using your method. Open, serious review is not a one sided "tactic" - it's what is required. If you want a revolution in how climatology is addressed, you aren't going to get the required review and consensus that Kuhn points out is required if you depend on closed review, backwater publications, etc.
You will not find a single post of mine calling for less review. What you will find is advocacy for an end to narrow, prejudiced control of the review process that drives dissidents to go outside it. I seek inclusion. Your reference to "backwater publications" is both inaccurate and a little shrill. Your incomprehension of Kuhn remains complete, but that's another issue.
Which is presumably why you blankly refuse to study, review, respond to, or even read papers that can't be published in peer-reviewed climate journals because they disprove hysterical anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda Unless they are peer-reviewers for climate journals....? That's just false. The papers have been reviewed; they have been found to be inconvenient to the interests of anti-fossil fuel scaremongers; and they have accordingly been suppressed. No, to reconsider the logically tenuous claimed implications of their work. He's not asking you to believe. He's asking you not to accept unquestioningly the verdicts of political hacks purporting to be impartial peer reviewers for climate journals.
No. Not less review. Less corporate political control of review. Claim without evidence. Pal review at climate journals is neither open nor serious. It is political hackery.
I will try to briefly explain the causes of the glacial-interglacial temperature shifts. Interglacial periods occur during periods of peak solar radiation incident on the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere during the summer. This causes sea ice and glaciers to melt which starts a positive feedback cycle with the Northern Hemisphere reflecting less and less sunlight away from the Earth and the Northern Hemisphere warming and melting more and more ice. The ocean warms, liberating more carbon dioxide, and the land surface releases increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and methane. The graphs below don't show methane but it generally follows carbon dioxide. The full range of temperature swings cannot be accounted for by changes in regional warming and albedo (reflectance). Changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide are needed and often account for about 1/2 of the temperature shift. The growth and decline of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere, triggered by changes in Northern Hemisphere summer insolation, affects the global mean temperature of the entire surface of the Earth and is the key to understanding glacial-interglacial temperature swings. The interglacial periods shown below occur following every 5 precessional cycles of the Earth's orbit. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-cl...=Yellow columns indicate interglacial periods. Why do glacial periods end abruptly? Notice the asymmetric shape of the Antarctic temperature record (black line), with abrupt warmings shown in yellow preceding more gradual coolings (Kawamura et al. 2007; Jouzel et al. 2007). Warming at the end of glacial periods tends to happen more abruptly than the increase in solar insolation. Several positive feedbacks are responsible for this. One is the ice-albedo feedback. A second feedback involves atmospheric CO2. Direct measurement of past CO2 trapped in ice core bubbles shows that the amount of atmospheric CO2 decreased during glacial periods (Kawamura et al. 2007; Siegenthaler et al. 2005; Bereiter et al. 2015), in part because the deep ocean stored more CO2 due to changes in either ocean mixing or biological activity. Lower CO2 levels weakened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and helped to maintain lower temperatures. Warming at the end of the glacial periods liberated CO2 from the ocean, which strengthened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and contributed to further warming. Solar radiation varies smoothly through time (top, orange line) with a strong cyclicity of ~23,000 years, as seen in this time series of July incoming solar radiation at 65°N (Berger and Loutre 1991). In contrast, glacial–interglacial cycles last ~100,000 years (middle, black line) and consist of stepwise cooling events followed by rapid warmings, as seen in this time series inferred from hydrogen isotopes in the Dome Fuji ice core from Antarctica (Kawamura et al. 2007). Atmospheric CO2 measured from bubbles in Dome Fuji ice (bottom, blue line) shows the same pattern as the temperature time series (Kawamura et al. 2007). Yellow columns indicate interglacial periods.
The amount of increased radiation forcing caused by increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases is well understood. There is no debate among climate scientists about the magnitude of radiation forcing that occurs when atmospheric carbon dioxide is doubled. It is 3.8 watts per square meter plus/minus 10% when the stratospheric adjustment is included. This radiation forcing occurs at the top of the atmosphere but there will also be an increased level of back-radiation from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. The troposphere will warm, more water will evaporate, and eventually the earth's surface will warm. As the earth's surface warms and emits more radiation, most of that radiation will be captured by greenhouse gases near the Earth's surface. . https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019RG000678 . 3.2 Process Understanding of CO2 Radiative Forcing and Noncloud Feedbacks 3.2.1 CO2 Radiative Forcing Increases in CO2 lead, all other things unchanged, to a decrease in LW emission to space (i.e., the CO2 “greenhouse effect”). This instantaneous radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2 can be obtained from very accurate line‐by‐line radiative transfer models (W. D. Collins et al., 2006; Etminan et al., 2016; Pincus et al., 2015); these are in very good agreement and provide a global mean estimate of 2.9 W m−2 at the TOA (Figure 3). The instantaneous CO2 radiative forcing varies with location due to variations in temperature, water vapor, clouds, and tropopause position (Huang, Tan, & Xia, 2016). The traditionally defined forcing also includes a contribution from the perturbed stratosphere because the stratosphere is dynamically isolated from the surface (Hansen et al., 1981). Within a few months, the stratosphere cools in response to increased CO2 causing an additional reduction in the emission to space of LW radiation. This “stratospheric adjustment” is well understood and is estimated to add 0.9 W m−2 at the TOA (Figure 3). Assessed values of the 2xCO2 effective radiative forcing (ERF) at the TOA. Orange bars represent stratospheric‐adjusted radiative forcing (SARF), tropospheric and surface albedo adjustments, and their sum (i.e., ERF). The error bar indicates the 5–95% ranges of the respective terms. Further decomposed components are presented for reference by blue bars based on Etminan et al. (2016) and Smith et al. (2018). The contribution from land surface warming has been excluded in the surface adjustmen
I.e., you will recite some sort of anti-CO2 hate propaganda. Well! So far so good. That is exactly what happens. Which have almost no effect on surface temperature because near the earth's surface the IR absorption spectrum is already saturated by water vapor and CO2. Yes, they can, as long as you don't ignore the facts that 1. Drier areas darken when increased vegetation results from the increased temperature and precipitation, and 2. Ocean water is much darker than the continental shelf areas being inundated by rising sea level. No, they are not needed, and never account for more than a derisory fraction of the temperature shift. All claims that CO2 has a major effect on temperature are based on false and absurd overestimates of water vapor feedback in GCMs, and on ignoring other effects such as those identified above. But the CO2 effect is much weaker because its IR absorption spectrum is already saturated near the earth's surface. But it's mainly due to the increased solubility of CO2 in cooler water. But this effect was very small, as explained above, and probably did not exceed the uncertainty in measurements. But had a very small effect on surface temperature, likely on the order of 0.1K, as explained above. No. That assumes the only change in solar radiation is the result of changes in the earth's orbit and axial tilt, and that the sun itself does not change. That assumption is known to be objectively false. Because as explained above (and carefully omitted from the author's "explanation"), cooler ocean water absorbs more CO2 from the atmosphere. There is ~50 times as much CO2 dissolved in the oceans as there is in the atmosphere.
Yes, and it is known that additional CO2 cannot significantly affect the earth's surface temperature because its absorption spectrum is already saturated by water vapor and natural CO2 near the earth's surface. But that back radiation is blocked by water vapor and CO2 in the upper troposphere, long before it reaches the surface, as soon as air temperature increases to near 0C and there is thus significant water vapor in the air. By some small fraction of 1C. As it already is. But all other things are not unchanged. The increase in CO2 shifts the upper atmosphere's temperature profile so that more radiation escapes to outer space from lower in the stratosphere, restoring the radiative equilibrium. If you ignore the effect of increased upper stratosphere temperature and the resulting increase in radiation escaping to space from lower altitudes. It is also radiatively isolated by the large water vapor content that begins in the upper troposphere. If you ignore the increased upper stratosphere radiation to outer space caused by the warming. As has the blocking of back radiation by water vapor in the upper troposphere and the increased radiation to outer space lower in the stratosphere caused by the increased temperature.
You say it by your actions. And, it's you that is clueless about Kuhn, obviously, as he pointed to the need for both review and consensus - neither of which can be approached by seeking light weight and secretive review by journals that nobody respects.
Papers on climatology get published in all sorts of high quality journals that focus on biology, physics, chemistry, oceanography, etc., etc. Climate includes a broad range of disciplines. That's one of the reasons that conspiracies in climatology are really just plain not possible. There would be no way to coordinate results from all these disciplines. I've pointed out that the papers in question have not been reviewed openly by serious scientsts or publish in journals that are seen as having the quality standards that mean something. Your fossil fuel comments are about POLITICS and POLICY - not about science Policy needs to be informed by science as well as factors from other disciplines - like economics, health, budget, etc. Trying to affect scinece in order to match your policy desires is a seriously BAD idea.
There is VERY clear evidence of how Curry's concerns came to light. It shows that the current process DOES work.
I think I'll just leave you to debate yourself since you don't want to debate me. There seems little point to my participation if you're just going to substitute your straw man version of my argument for what I actually said. At the risk of being tedious, I will post again (for the third time, I believe) this excerpt from Kuhn so you might grasp why he wrote of scientific revolutions. Revolutions, you see, are the antithesis of consensus. “Why should a change of paradigm be called a revolution? In the face of the vast and essential differences between political and scientific development, what parallelism can justify the metaphor that finds revolutions in both? One aspect of the parallelism must already be apparent. Political revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, often restricted to a segment of the political community, that existing institutions have ceased adequately to meet the problems posed by an environment that they have in part created. In much the same way, scientific revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense, again often restricted to a narrow subdivision of the scientific community, that an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature to which that paradigm itself had previously led the way. In both political and scientific development the sense of malfunction that can lead to crisis is prerequisite to revolution.” ― Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
I haven't missed your argument even slightly. I've consistently promoted the idea of strong open review and consensus as critical to movement in science - whether it is revolutionary or incremental. And, that IS the message of Kuhn. The issue is the "how". And schlock journals doing closed reviews, Bloggers posting to stuff that no reviewer ever even sees, publication in journals that have NO credibility - these are not methods of change. The reason Mann got nailed is NOT that there was some schlock journal. It was because there was serious open review that allowed people from all disciplines to see exactly what's going on. Surely you recognize that as a success. If you actually read what Curry says on this issue when talking specifically about process improvements, her direction is NOT to separate from the science of today. Her directionhas more to do with creating quality venues for serious review that is willing to look at ideas that are farther outside the mainstream. But, the catch is that the review has to be open and respected.
The peak has passed. UAH Global Temperature Update for November 2020: +0.53 deg. C December 1st, 2020 The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2020 was +0.53 deg. C, essentially unchanged from the October, 2020 value of +0.54 deg. C. The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land). For comparison, the CDAS global surface temperature anomaly for the last 30 days at Weatherbell.com was +0.52 deg. C. With La Nina in the Pacific now officially started, it will take several months for that surface cooling to be fully realized in the tropospheric temperatures. Typically, La Nina minimum temperatures (and El Nino maximum temperatures) show up around February, March, or April. The tropical (20N-20S) temperature anomaly for November was +0.29 deg. C, which is lower than it has been in over 2 years. In contrast, the Arctic saw the warmest November (1.38 deg. C) in the 42 year satellite record, exceeding the previous record of 1.22 deg. C in 1996. . . .
There's been some nonsense posted here about what Dr. Judith Curry's views are regarding Climategate. She can speak for herself. ". . . The broader institutions that support climate science have implemented some improvements post Climategate: The UN IAC review of the IPCC has resulted in some improvements to the IPCC practices of reviewing, conflicts of interest, uncertainty assessment Elite journals now require data to be made publicly available and also conflict of interest statements. On the downside: Politically correct and ‘woke’ universities have become hostile places for climate scientists that are not sufficiently ‘politically correct’ Professional societies have damaged their integrity by publishing policy statements advocating emissions reductions and marginalizing research that is not consistent with the ‘party line’ The gate-keeping by elite journals has gotten worse IMO, although the profusion of new journals makes it possible for anyone to get pretty much anything published somewhere. The main long-term impact of Climategate on climate scientists seems to have been to put a halo around Michael Mann’s head over his ‘victim’ status, giving him full reign to attack in a Trumpian manner anyone who disagrees with him. . . . " Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later Posted on November 12, 2019 by curryja | 387 comments by Judith Curry My reflections on Climategate 10 years later, and also reflections on my reflections of 5 years ago.
Perspective is important. New Archaeological Finds Show Earth Is Typically Warmer than Today CLIMATE RECORD DECEMBER 1, 2020 Archaeologists have published a new paper in New Scientist that confirms what previous research has shown: numerous periods during recent history have been as warm as or warmer than the present. The paper, “Climate change has revealed a huge haul of ancient arrows in Norway,” discusses the findings of researchers from the Universities of Cambridge, Oslo, and Bergen. The researchers discovered a “treasure trove” of arrows, arrowheads, clothing, and other artifacts, recently uncovered by a receding ice in a mountainous region of southern Norway. The oldest arrows and artifacts date from around 4100 BC. The youngest artifacts date from approximately AD 1300, at the end of the Medieval Warm Period. Because present temperatures are only now exposing some of the artifacts were deposited when no ice covered the ground, temperatures were clearly warmer during the many periods when artifacts were deposited. . . . More evidence for relative warm periods in recent history has recently been found half a world away in frozen Antarctica, where scientists report they have discovered perfectly preserved, 800-year-old penguin remains exposed by a patch of melting ice along the Antarctic coast. In an article published in the peer-reviewed journal Geology, scientists reported discovering what appeared to be the fresh remains of Adelie penguins in a region currently uninhabitable by penguins. . . . Also, in the December 3, 2019 edition of Geophysical Research Letters, scientists examining materials from three lakes on the Svalbard archipelago jutting into the Arctic Ocean found evidence that from 11,700 through 8,200 years BP, temperatures in the region often exceeded both currently recorded temperatures and those projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to occur even under its worst-case scenarios. Such ancient warmth existed for hundreds of years at a time. . . . Proxy data from tree rings, shell middens, and pollen trapped in peat, fossilized remains, and oral and written historical records all show not only that global temperatures have been as warm as or warmer than today, but also that all of these warm periods have been a boon for life, including the expansion of human communities. Indeed, history shows these warmer periods contributed to the rise of agricultural societies, human civilizations with large permanent settlements (which have recently morphed into megalopolises), and modern nation-states.
