Among the issues most commonly discussed are individuality, the rights of the individual, the limits of legitimate government, morality, history, economics, government policy, science, business, education, health care, energy, and man-made global warming evaluations. My posts are aimed at thinking, intelligent individuals, whose comments are very welcome.

"No matter how vast your knowledge or how modest, it is your own mind that has to acquire it." Ayn Rand

07 March 2010

House of Commons Investigates ClimateGate - Institute of Physics Comments

In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons is investigating the ClimateGate issues out of the CRU at the University of East Anglia and the use of unscientific sources for many claims made in the UN IPCC AR4 report of 2007. The Institute of Physics of the U.K. has submitted a memorandum to the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons Parliament on 5 March 2010. It reads:

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's inquiry, 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia'.

The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute's Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

  • those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
  • historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the
e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.

12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

How independent are the other two international data sets?

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

The Institute of Physics

February 2010

The Institute of Physics is clearly responding more rationally to events regarding the scientific conduct of many major proponents of catastrophic man-made global warming than is the American Physical Society. I am very disappointed yet in the American Physical Society's response to more than 250 present and past members of that society for a review of its thoughtless backing of catastrophic AGW back in 2007. I will be discussing this more in the future.


jjauregui said...

Question: What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming?

Answer: Infinitesimal

The IPCC agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP).

Much more will be revealed as Climategate revelations of fraud and misconduct continues to unfold.

Anonymous said...

At last someone reproduces the submission rather than cherry picking bits. Add their clarification
and you've got everything

Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D. said...

The IPCC AR4 report says the Global Warming Potential of CO2 coupled with the forcings they envision is substantial. But, the report also provides a table on the Global Warming Potential of CO2 and other greenhouse gases which lists the Radiative Efficiency of each and CO2's is a very low 1.4 x 10(-5) W/(m2 ppb) at a starting concentration of CO2 of 378 ppm. This value actually gets smaller for each additional ppm of CO2. This is what I believe you are referring to.

The whole key to their claim that CO2 increases will lead to a significant temperature increase rests on the idea that an increase of CO2 will be accompanied by a large increase in water vapor, which is always the really critical greenhouse gas. However, there are a number of studies that show that an increase in CO2 either causes a reduction in water vapor or it causes a much smaller increase than the IPCC AR4 report claimed it does. These reports are much more realistic than the claims of the IPCC AR4 report. The result is that CO2 at its present concentration has little potential to increase the temperature significantly.

Charles R. Anderson, Ph.D. said...

The key addition that Anonymous wants us to be aware of it this:

"We regret that our submission has been seized upon by some individuals to imply that IOP does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming.

IOP’s position on global warming is clear: the basic science is well established and there is no doubt that climate change is happening and that we should be taking action to address it now."

The rising concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere no doubt does contribute to global warming to some minor degree. The IOP clarification does not say the increase in temperature is sufficient in any way to have catastrophic impact. In fact, this statement does not actually say that IOP supports the claim that increasing CO2 does cause a temperature increase at all! It only says that IOP does not want anyone to conclude that they are denying that increases in CO2 cause some warming!

The statement that climate change is happening is an oxymoron. Of course it is. It always has and always will. The question is whether man's emissions of CO2 are causing significant and deleterious climate change, which IOP's clarification is taking no stand on at all! Finally, they say we should be taking action to address climate change now. Of course scientists want the science of climate change studied. Is that the action they want taken? Or do they mean that they want action taken to stop using coal to produce electric power? Who knows what this means? Why should we take action against coal as a fuel if the IOP will not even make a clear clarification statement saying that additional CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to cause a catastrophic warming?