Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[Ambrocious]

I don't care anymore. You guys are so fast asleep, you will never see whats coming. Enjoy.

 

[moniker]

I would like someone to explain to me how trace elements of CO2 in the atmosphere (400 - 600 parts per MILLION) can cause the "greenhouse" effect. If someone can explain this can they also say what an acceptable level is and how this figure was arrived at.

 

[andysayshi]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...n-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

That last link is the most damning. It includes direct quotes from the emails where the destruction of evidence, and manipulation of scientific data is explicitly discussed.

As has been stated by other posters above, NOTHING in these articles provides evidence of any impropriety. Out-of-context snippets of conversations are impossible to fully understand. Even out of context, much of the criticism in these articles show a complete lack of understanding of scientific process or statistical analysis.

 

[JB3]

If you do not have a background in science, scientific method, statistical analysis, and other fields relevant and necessary to properly understand the (already out-of-context) information presented in these e-mails and snippets thereof, then you should not be making such radical conclusions.

As a person with background in chemical engineering, atmospheric science, etc... I can tell you this: Based on the articles and snippets of e-mails presented therein (and within this thread), there is absolutely NO evidence to support Ambrocious' conspiracy theories.

The only thing these e-mails reveal is the politics involved between scientists, within a profession, etc. Nothing new, nothing special, nothing out of the ordinary.

Additionally, snippets referring to attempts at hiding, deleting and manipulating data - none of these are damning. The only thing that comes close to raising an eyebrow is the instruction to delete e-mails... which is absolutely out of context, as we do not know the full scope of said e-mails for deletion, nor the intent behind it.

As for the fact that there are climate dissenters? Of course there are. But the ratio of those who support anthropogenic climate change vs. those who don't... well, the tide is overwhelmingly in favour of the former. If we were to present their opinions too, then we should present it in proportion to their base of support: Therefore, if you were to present, say, a 100-paper compendium to illustrate the range of opinion on climate change, you'd have 99 (and a half) papers in support thereof, and half a paper against (ratio is not exact, of course, but it provides the gist of it).

Long story short, for you conspiracy theorists: Leave science and engineering to science and engineers, 'kay? Thanks.

Why should we trust the scientists when their field has become so politicized? There are scientists out there that have left their objectivity at the door and have become so politically involved in the issue that their judgement can no longer be trusted.

To be clear, I am not a conspiracy theorist like Ambrocious. I do believe man causes some global warming. But I don't buy Al Gore's shlock, and I seriously question the veracity of much of the data BECAUSE the process and the discussion has become so politicized.

 

[JB3]

As has been stated by other posters above, NOTHING in these articles provides evidence of any impropriety. Out-of-context snippets of conversations are impossible to fully understand. Even out of context, much of the criticism in these articles show a complete lack of understanding of scientific process or statistical analysis.

Please. There is evidence in those emails that scientists actively attempted to delete their 'paper trail' and used suspect methodology. If the process is corrupted, why should we trust anything that these 'scientists' are giving us?

 

[mike_n_herrin]

I would like someone to explain to me how trace elements of CO2 in the atmosphere (400 - 600 parts per MILLION) can cause the "greenhouse" effect. If someone can explain this can they also say what an acceptable level is and how this figure was arrived at.

Just because something is small doesn't mean it doesn't have a large impact. Keystone species are examples of species that may be very small and few in numbers but play a disproportionately large role in the environment. A predator can sometimes be viewed as a keystone species. Wolves for example. In the midwest US (Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio for example) the wolves used to prey on white tailed deer. Humans got rid of all the wolves in those states. So with nothing preying on the deer, the deer population exploded. Now there are more deer than the ecosystem can support, so they eat crops and cause millions (if not billions) of dollars worth of damage to agricultural crops each year. there were not that many wolves to begin with, but they played an enormous role in keeping the deer population down.

CO2 in the atmosphere is kinda like that. there isn't much of it but it plays a big role in our climate. CO2 makes up less than 1% of our atmosphere, but it reflects and absorbs infrared radiation. So it plays a large role in the Earth's surface temperature (but keep in mind CO2 is not the only "greenhouse gas" water vapor is one, methane, and ozone are too). A portion of solar radiation that passes through our atmosphere and reaches the surface is reflected back up. C02 then absorbs some of that and reflects some of it back down. As CO2 concentrations increase more and more infrared radiation is trapped in the atmosphere thus heating up the planet. If solar output also increases at the same time CO2 concentrations increase then the amount of infrared radiation that is trapped is going to increase even more. It's too difficult of a question to answer as to what an "acceptable" concentration is. All i can tell you is what the concentration was prior to the industrial revolution. Which was about 280 ppm. Now we are up to about 380 ppm or about a 30% increase.

...To be clear, I am not a conspiracy theorist like Ambrocious. I do believe man causes some global warming. But I don't buy Al Gore's shlock, and I seriously question the veracity of much of the data BECAUSE the process and the discussion has become so politicized.

I don't buy anything Al Gore says either and I am a biologist. He may present the over all ideas in the right light, but that stupid movie he made was full of errors. At one point he was showing pictures of the Aral Sea's dramatic shrinking, which by the way had nothing to do with climate change but was all about Russia putting in dams and diverting water.

 

[JB3]

I don't buy anything Al Gore says either and I am a biologist. He may present the over all ideas in the right light, but that stupid movie he made was full of errors. At one point he was showing pictures of the Aral Sea's dramatic shrinking, which by the way had nothing to do with climate change but was all about Russia putting in dams and diverting water.

It would be helpful if Gore would shut his damn mouth so that scientists can get to the bottom of what's going on without political pressure. He is creating an environment where people so desperately cling to the idea of global warming caused by man that scientists cannot voice their doubts without being called traitors and heretics. (religious terminology is entirely appropriate here, since Gore has created a cult of personality around the issue)

Here's an interesting take on some of the specific data uncovered, including the modeling programs in which data was manipulated.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html

 

[boogalee]

I view this as another example of manufactured outrage which serves to obfuscate the obvious dangers of doing nothing. Distraction.

The right wing is using the old truckers adage...

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bullshit.

Will we be overwhelmed to the point of inaction?

 

[Kulindahr]

I would like someone to explain to me how trace elements of CO2 in the atmosphere (400 - 600 parts per MILLION) can cause the "greenhouse" effect. If someone can explain this can they also say what an acceptable level is and how this figure was arrived at.

The standard figure for the atmosphere's carbon dioxide is about 0.038%.
From quite a variety of methods, it has been determined that the level in 1800 was 0.028%. Going back to 1700, the level was about 0.025%. That's a climb over three centuries in which the atmospheric content of CO2 approached doubling. By comparison, the content about fifteen thousand years ago was 180 parts per million, and the highest content found in the last 400,000 years was 300.

Looking at the record, the carbon dioxide content correlates will with the global temperature.


Now to CO2 itself: start with insolation, all that radiation the sun dumps on us unceasingly. It's made of all sorts of wavelengths, which are absorbed by things they hit. Except for what's soaked up by chlorophyll, the basic destiny of this radiation is that it turns into heat, and is radiated back into the atmosphere.

Gases also absorb radiation and re-emit it, but most of the gas in the atmosphere doesn't absorb the infrared that is given back by all the objects which absorbed the incoming solar radiation; it just lets it go. CO2, though, soaks up the infrared like a sponge, and radiates it back out. This keeps heat in the atmosphere because the IR that's absorbed is headed away from the earth, but when it's re-radiated, half is headed down again; it also results in the heating of the CO2, which in turn heats the rest of the atmosphere.

The result is similar to having a swimming pool with a constant temperature, and throwing in a million tiny heaters. No heater alone would make a serious difference, but all together they add up. With the CO2, these "heaters", the carbon dioxide molecules, are tiny, but they are also nearly perfect for the task of heating their neighbors. Every cubic meter of atmosphere has trillions of them (at least), and as with the swimming pool, no one molecule makes much of a difference, but together they do. And they're everywhere, and the sunlight is plentiful.

They produce a greenhouse effect, because they, like the windows on a good greenhouse, keep heat from leaving. It isn't as thought they're the only things turning sunlight into heat, but they're the barrier that stands between heat remaining or getting back to space.

As an illustration of their effect-- I drive near the beach frequently, and inevitably pick up a salt film on the windshield. It is usually something I can't even see with my naked eye, but when the sun hits it at the right angle, that stuff I can't even see turns my windshield into a blinding mirror. It may have a small presence, but it has a significant effect.


My brain feels kinda fried right now, so I can't tell if that really made sense or not.....

 

[Kulindahr]

Why should we trust the scientists when their field has become so politicized? There are scientists out there that have left their objectivity at the door and have become so politically involved in the issue that their judgement can no longer be trusted.

To be clear, I am not a conspiracy theorist like Ambrocious. I do believe man causes some global warming. But I don't buy Al Gore's shlock, and I seriously question the veracity of much of the data BECAUSE the process and the discussion has become so politicized.

Scientists as a whole can generally be trusted on this because there are so darned many of them doing research. When I was at OSU, every science department had its own section doing climate change research -- meteorology, geology, oceanography, botany. They argued with each other constantly, and argued even more with their colleagues at the other universities up and down I5. The competition keeps them honest.

Even when you get teams that are effectively sheltered from that kind of interplay, they can't be isolated from it completely, because they have to publish to have their results believed, and when they publish, others will inspect their data, methodology, and reasoning with predatory passion, just looking for something that doesn't fit or can be challenged -- because upon such challenges papers can be written, and upon papers careers are built. And when they find nothing to challenge, they will try to duplicate the results, or repeat the experiments to look for whatever might have gotten missed.

Please. There is evidence in those emails that scientists actively attempted to delete their 'paper trail' and used suspect methodology. If the process is corrupted, why should we trust anything that these 'scientists' are giving us?

Because, as a scientist at a different university somewhere in the world said about this, we're seeing the result of a rather insular intellectual environment, which is not how most of the scientific community works -- nor can it; there are just too many competing teams working in a culture to which one-upping the other guy is a cardinal virtue.

Think of it in terms of market forces; what we're seeing is the corruption of a tiny piece of the climate science 'marketplace', while the rest swirls on in open competition.

Just because something is small doesn't mean it doesn't have a large impact. Keystone species are examples of species that may be very small and few in numbers but play a disproportionately large role in the environment. A predator can sometimes be viewed as a keystone species. Wolves for example. In the midwest US (Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio for example) the wolves used to prey on white tailed deer. Humans got rid of all the wolves in those states. So with nothing preying on the deer, the deer population exploded. Now there are more deer than the ecosystem can support, so they eat crops and cause millions (if not billions) of dollars worth of damage to agricultural crops each year. there were not that many wolves to begin with, but they played an enormous role in keeping the deer population down.

As another illustration, there are flavors we can detect at parts per billion. For another, there are chemical solutions in which the addition of another chemical in a concentration of parts per trillion can alter the entire situation so the solution 'fails' and all those chemicals drop out and settle to the bottom.

For that matter, add a couple parts per million of the right stuff to the fuel for a nuclear reactor, and suddenly it can't sustain the fission reaction.

CO2 in the atmosphere is kinda like that. there isn't much of it but it plays a big role in our climate. CO2 makes up less than 1% of our atmosphere, but it reflects and absorbs infrared radiation. So it plays a large role in the Earth's surface temperature (but keep in mind CO2 is not the only "greenhouse gas" water vapor is one, methane, and ozone are too). A portion of solar radiation that passes through our atmosphere and reaches the surface is reflected back up. C02 then absorbs some of that and reflects some of it back down. As CO2 concentrations increase more and more infrared radiation is trapped in the atmosphere thus heating up the planet. If solar output also increases at the same time CO2 concentrations increase then the amount of infrared radiation that is trapped is going to increase even more. It's too difficult of a question to answer as to what an "acceptable" concentration is. All i can tell you is what the concentration was prior to the industrial revolution. Which was about 280 ppm. Now we are up to about 380 ppm or about a 30% increase.

We can say that an "acceptable level" lies between 180 and 300 ppm, because those are the high and low marks over the last 420,000 years.

And that means that the level now is about 25% higher than anything in the geological record. That's scary, because it puts us in territory where we don't know what it means for the climate, because there's nothing to compare it to. That's why we see some of these e-mails discussing paleo-gas levels, not just for that two-fifths of a million years we can figure from the very direct measurements of things in the geological record, but going beyond that into the millions of years.

I don't buy anything Al Gore says either and I am a biologist. He may present the over all ideas in the right light, but that stupid movie he made was full of errors. At one point he was showing pictures of the Aral Sea's dramatic shrinking, which by the way had nothing to do with climate change but was all about Russia putting in dams and diverting water.

Well, the Aral Sea's drop does have to do with climate change, but the other way around: lowering it serves as a driver for regional climate change, because it changes rain patterns and such. That's why there have been proposals to actually somehow pay the Russians to fill it back up.

 

[Kulindahr]

Here's an interesting take on some of the specific data uncovered, including the modeling programs in which data was manipulated.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html

Here's a paragraph from that which has a problem:

But here's what’s undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous, to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.

He's flat wrong. When you have a model which covers ninety percent of you data quite well, and then suddenly the data skews from the model, you don't throw out the model -- what you do is to ask what new factor entered the picture.

That's what we did when I was at OSU, in botany, and looking at this stuff: you conclude that since the model suddenly broke down, something new has happened, and you try to find other things that match the divergence.

Now, after that point, he's right on: they shouldn't have been trying to force that data to match the model, they should have been looking for something to account for the divergence. In essence, that's how man-driven global warming got discovered: all the other explanations for the climb in CO2 and temperature got ruled out, and since the CO2 from human activity matched the 'gap' quite well, the conclusion was "We're doing it". There was a divergence between the amount of CO2 from all natural sources and what was actually observed; they looked for what could fill that gap, and found it. Similarly, these guys should be not trying to cover over the divergence; they should be trying to refine it and make everyone aware of it so more heads can get in on trying to figure out what accounts for that 'wedge' on the graph.

They're doing very, very bad science. That's not just because they're fudging, either; it's very much because an awful lot of great discoveries come from investigating what's going on when observed data depart from a model that otherwise doesn't fail.

We jokingly proposed that the launching of Sputnik changed the way that trees grow. Plainly that's ludicrous, the sort of thing presented as a substitute way of saying "We have no idea", but it's better than these guys are doing with the divergence situation.


BTW, I'd totally forgotten about the divergence problem -- kinda nice to meet an old friend.

 

[Kulindahr]

This article at Reuters is pretty interesting. To me it validates the politicization of the issue. Note that the defenders are playing the usual political defense approach. Once politics got involved, this issue lost all credibility. I especially like the comment about how they use language they understand and those outside wouldn't necessarily. So now we're not only considered "the little people" by Congress, science has seen fit to relegate us as well. Screw them! There has been countless retorts by scientists over this issue. Even some of those quoted by Gore in his "movie" have come back to say, "Well...that's not exactly what we meant." Back to the lab and stop shopping for grant money by hyping up the politico.

Huh?

The language they use has nothing to do with "relegating" anyone. In botany class at OSU, we used lots of language "those outside" wouldn't understand; the same for chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, geography.... It's because each intellectual or scientific discipline ends up with its own specialty vocabulary as well as its own specialty definitions of a whole array of ordinary words.

Want a more mundane example? Look at various subcultures such as the gamer community -- emails between them, out of context, would be quite indecipherable to "those outside". For that matter, hang out with a dedicated group of hobbyist auto customizers....

 

[boogalee]

Nicely explained Kulindahr.

Oops..I was only at the bottom of page one...I have to catch up!

 

[JB3]

Here is an EXCELLENT op-ed that tears apart the idea being put forth here that you can't criticize what's going on if you aren't in the scientific community. (which is a bullshit argument to begin with)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The questions it asks are valid, especially so with the illustrative example of an outsider's fact-checking forcing one of the scientists in question to correct their work.

 

[Kulindahr]

Here is an EXCELLENT op-ed that tears apart the idea being put forth here that you can't criticize what's going on if you aren't in the scientific community. (which is a bullshit argument to begin with)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The questions it asks are valid, especially so with the illustrative example of an outsider's fact-checking forcing one of the scientists in question to correct their work.

I don't know who's putting forth that argument, and I'm not sure the article really addresses it except by accident.

But it is an excellent article, not relying on picking and choosing e-mails, but looking at the issues that spread over them all.


It's worth noting, though, that this isn't just a climate change thing, it's something that happens in science all the time, with or without politics. It's a byproduct of the corruption of science that comes from any money connected to an agenda... or for that matter, when there's lots of money involved. Competition for the money breeds the old kiss-ass syndrome, and the people who succeed at that get more research done because they have more money; more research means more publications, more publications puts you higher on the ladder of prestige, and high prestige gives you the clout to shape the way things are looked at -- so you can get more money, and funnel money to others who think your way.

I've read stacks of books by astrophysicists and cosmologists about the shenanigans there, and how brilliant people can get shut out of the ongoing conversation for the slightest unpopular view. In cosmology that's been mitigated by a couple of high-power 'demigods' of the community who will listen to anyone, anywhere (which is what brought string theory out of an obscurity where it was laughed at into light where it could be looked at), but the cliques function potently even so. In climate change, I'm not aware of any such gurus who follow the dictum of Richard Feynman and don't care what other people think.

A large dose of that attitude would help.

So would a broadening of the research, with more competition.

 

[southern fox]

Global warming because of US, is a lie. It is happening but they are taxing us saying that we are the cause, driving us into the ground with poverty and sickness and a near complete collapse of the US Dollar. We will all see soon enough what the truth is.

Take a fresh look through open eyes...

Would you like to download the proof that shows that man made global warming is false?

I’m interested in the psychology of ‘denialism’. I don’t fully understand it yet, but I have been trying to dig for answers. I suspect that it has a connection to the very same psychological pitfalls which induce conspiracy theories – namely, a woeful inability to critically understand and analyze real evidence, and an attachment to anchored ideas in one’s own head. How is it that ordinary people can convince themselves that something is untrue, in spite of abundant legitimate verification?

You will probably ignore all of this. You strike me as the type who likes to speak, must distains listening to anything that does not reinforce what you already think. But this is worth saying:

Climate change studies are based on decades of study and verification – the idea that it is a hoax is absurd. The idea that the United States has not played a leading role in producing emissions over the past century, and continues to do so, is equally preposterous. Consensus has been established that human-induced climate change is real. I suggest reading actual peer-reviewed scientific journals like Nature or Science if you want to formulate your own hypotheses about scientific phenomena. It is time-consuming, and requires a bit of training on how science works, but it is worth it. There is no better window into reality. The field of science is highly dynamic and open to fractious peer review, so long as it remains professional and evidence-based. So, you should expect disagreement and uncertainty until a series of experiments verify a concept.

That there may or not be heated disagreement on the details of climate change is no whopper of a revelation. That’s actually a good thing – that’s how peer-reviewed science works.

Climate science and greenhouse gas emissions are particularly complicated to understand too. Global warming goes beyond CO2 emissions (although rising emissions is a major component), and goes into CFCs (such as in coolants), Methane (such as from livestock emissions), and Nitrous Oxide (such as from fertilizer that we increasingly must use to support a growing human population).

Here is a great place for science on the issue: http://www.nature.com/climate/index.html

I recommend avoiding the habit of picking up a dissenting voices and treating them as if it were powerful rebuttals or indications of evidence. Especially if those voices are dripping with conspiracy theory mentalities.

I’ve have never actually seen Al Gore’s film, and I’m neither enthusiastic nor opposed to doing so. However, I base my position on what scientific consensus says. I get the feeling from reading denialist statements that they are totally hung up on Al Gore, ‘the Left’, environmentalist hippies, and conspiracy theories about a heavy-handed Liberal Elite. They never actually try to understand the issue rationally. They are stuck within a Right-Left paradigm (or a generalized anti-government paradigm), and tend to rationalize that the whole matter as a hoax perpetrated by people desperate for an excuse to raise taxes and interfere with everyone’s lives.

I actually think that groups like Greenpeace are counterproductive at best, and infected by ideology. They push all manner of logical fallacies and excessive tactics that are not based in actually finding solutions.

There is a sensible, moderate, and intelligent position in this whole affair – and it involves accepting that we need to deal with greenhouse gas emissions in one way or another. As an international body, with the United States, China, and India taking leading roles.

The emails show a scientist trying to make his graph look more spiffy.

That there are individual scientists who fudge data is not a whopper either – it actually happens. Especially when there is money or other perks involved, or corporate interests backing research. I have not read into the matter in this case, so I can’t speak to this situation. I’m skeptical of the claim based on the determinist attitude of the presenter. In other words, you seem to wish to believe that global warming is a hoax, and you will inevitably conjure up supporting data to convince yourself and others, even if it means that you will totally miss the larger picture. But the deeds of one or another lab technician or scientist hardly invalidate an entire field built on decades of data and painfully gathered consensus.

 

[MindBlast]

Why should we trust the scientists when their field has become so politicized? There are scientists out there that have left their objectivity at the door and have become so politically involved in the issue that their judgement can no longer be trusted.

To be clear, I am not a conspiracy theorist like Ambrocious. I do believe man causes some global warming. But I don't buy Al Gore's shlock, and I seriously question the veracity of much of the data BECAUSE the process and the discussion has become so politicized.

Which field are you talking about? All of science?

That's why I like what I do. I'm a geophysicist, and geophysics is pretty free of politics. In fact, the science itself makes money (exploration, enviro cleanups).

 

[andysayshi]

I’m interested in the psychology of ‘denialism’. I don’t fully understand it yet, but I have been trying to dig for answers. I suspect that it has a connection to the very same psychological pitfalls which induce conspiracy theories – namely, a woeful inability to critically understand and analyze real evidence, and an attachment to anchored ideas in one’s own head. How is it that ordinary people can convince themselves that something is untrue, in spite of abundant legitimate verification?

-----

That there are individual scientists who fudge data is not a whopper either – it actually happens. Especially when there is money or other perks involved, or corporate interests backing research. I have not read into the matter in this case, so I can’t speak to this situation. I’m skeptical of the claim based on the determinist attitude of the presenter. In other words, you seem to wish to believe that global warming is a hoax, and you will inevitably conjure up supporting data to convince yourself and others, even if it means that you will totally miss the larger picture. But the deeds of one or another lab technician or scientist hardly invalidate an entire field built on decades of data and painfully gathered consensus.

An impressively balanced and coherent post! Thanks, I enjoyed reading it.

 

[JB3]

Which field are you talking about? All of science?

That's why I like what I do. I'm a geophysicist, and geophysics is pretty free of politics. In fact, the science itself makes money (exploration, enviro cleanups).

No, of course not. I'm speaking specifically of THESE scientists that deal only in climate change.

 

[MindBlast]

No, of course not. I'm speaking specifically of THESE scientists that deal only in climate change.

Alright, thanks for the clarification. I just get really rabid when people throw around the word scientists in an ambiguous sense without stating the type, but it was stated in the quote so it's cool.