Bishop Hill On entering the climate arena
Jun 16, 2014 Climate: Sceptics This is a guest post by "Lone Wolf", who is an academic at a UK university.
A few years ago, I was looking for something for a final year student project/dissertation where the student did some statistical modelling type work on a large dataset. I came across the CDIAC data for the Vostok Ice Core. I looked at it myself first, and decided there was enough there for the student to get their teeth into.
During the analysis, we noticed many interesting features, especially during the present interglacial, which seems to have a 'seasonality'. We estimated the seasonality and proceeded to remove it, using a technique I teach in their course, in order to find the underlying trend.
Having done this, we noted that not only was there underlying further seasonality and cycles, but that firstly the temperature according to the proxy record was considerably below its maximum and also secondly that the temperature was rapidly decreasing.
Next we looked at the carbon dioxide content. The CO2 data was quite sparse, and certainly not enough for a final year student to conduct any form of correlation with the temperature, which followed each other. On researching this correlation, we were surprised to learn that the change in CO2 lags the change in temperature by between 200 and 1000 years.
These findings were presented at a small conference at one of the major learned societies. You must remember that I am not a climatologist or bona fide weather expert, and approached this topic from a purely statistical point of view. I mentioned that according to the proxy record the temperature was considerably lower that it has been and that it is decreasing. I then proceeded to comment on the lag between temperature and carbon dioxide and explained that it seemed 'incorrect' to blame temperature rises on CO2 when clearly the CO2 rises lag temperature increases, also noting that you can't really develop a mathematical time-dependent model that allows CO2 to force temperature rise, when the temperature has stopped rising up to 1000 years prior to the CO2 rising. There must be something 'missing' that we don't understand.
During the question time that followed my talk, I was strongly criticised, with audience members suggesting that I didn't know what I was talking about. Afterwards, one audience member told me that I had actually insulted a 'scientific religion' and that I should expect further criticism. The following day, I had several polite emails pointing out what were claimed to be the errors in my work (but which actually had nothing to do with it).
Several months afterwards, the society's ‘newsletter’ was published. It contained a special section on the conference at which I had spoken, with a brief description of each talk, the work behind it, and with thanks offered to each speaker. I searched for my name – nothing. My presentation was ignored in its entirety.
"Disheartening" isn’t the term I would use, and I seriously considered giving up on the entire idea of academia, and getting a nice little 9-5 job. But, I am still here, still working on the problem, still uncovering, lets call them ‘anomalies’, in many areas, which the scientists involved have no clue how to explain, but about which they will hear no view other than their own.
I was told by a teacher of mine that science describes what is going on in the world, and that if a theory doesn't explain what we observe, then that theory is wrong. It is interesting to note that no one on the IPCC has any credible explanation for the 'pause' as they call it. We currently have no confirmed mechanisms for many climate phenomena, such as El Nino, the NAO, the Madden Julian Oscillation etc and of the 'pause'. Yes, we know what they are, but we have little or no idea how or why.
It baffles me how scientists can hold such faith in a model that disagrees so much with the actual phenomena it is supposed to be representing.
Reader Comments (108)
"Jun 18, 2014 at 3:36 AM David Appell
Without the positive feedback from CO2, the temperature difference between glacial and interglacial periods would only be about half what it was."
Whether that would have been true or not, it's not relevant to the point I was making about Gore's erroneous use of the graph as evidence for CO2's affect.
@lapogus
The Vostok data are here.
"Whether that would have been true or not, it's not relevant to the point I was making about Gore's erroneous use of the graph as evidence for CO2's affect."
It is evidence for CO2's effect. Without CO2, the temperature change would only be about half as much.
"Jun 18, 2014 at 4:36 PM David Appell
It is evidence for CO2's effect. Without CO2, the temperature change would only be about half as much."
But that is not what Al Gore said. He essentially said "look CO2 goes up then so does temperature", without pointing out the CO2 lag. ie CO2 rise is subsidiary to temperature rise not the other way round as Gore indicated.
Also please show me the evidence for your assertion that without CO2 the temperature would have gone up only half as much. As I read thing CO2 keeps rising after temperature starts falling and temperature rises before CO2 rises. That's what a lag is.
Easily seen here http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
Jun 16, 2014 at 8:45 PM | Stephen Richards
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm there, Stephen…? :-)
Regarding the comment about models, I don't see what his problem is. Climate models simulate CO2 rising in response to warming, as well as the other way round - the effects can happen in either direction, it's one example of a feedback in the system.
Regarding the post as a whole, I agree with Paul Matthews and others that we need to know what society this was and what the further details are in order for this to be credible. If LW really was the only speaker not to be mentioned in the newsletter writeupthen that would be poor behaviour by whichever society it was - if someone wants to stand up and raise points that have already been repeatedly raised and debunked, then that's up to them, and there's no reason to keep this out the public record. The newsletter editors could just as easily have mentioned the discussion afterwards if they wanted to maintain scientific credibility.
Interesting comparison with an example of the American Geophysical Union suppressing discussion on non-consensus science in its newspaper EOS. See discussion on the point at
http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/03/agu-enforcing-the-consensus/
Did anyone link to this Statistics Prof who gave his student a failing mark for using climate-version statistics in a class paper?
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18034/
Richard Betts (four days ago):
Only read this now but it's nice to see exactly the point from my perspective made from a different one! I don't assume the 'repeatedly raised and debunked' of course but I don't rule it out either. Thanks for connecting nail and hammer here.