What would put the climate sciences on track to meet our public policy needs? Here’s my list of things that must be done, whatever the cost — although it would be trivial compared, for instance, to global military spending.
- Raise the standards when applying science research to public policy questions.
- Provide greater transparency of data and methods used in climate science research.
- Provide third party review of the data, analysis, and modeling is necessary.
- Improve the various global climate data collection and analysis systems – satellite, radiosonde, and surface.
- Rationally apply the precautionary principle.
Let’s take a quick look at each of these.
I. Findings from science require far higher standards of proof and reliability when used as a basis for public policy than for normal scientific or academic practice.
IMO the best available model here is testing of new drugs. While there may be an ample peer-reviewed literature for new treatment, the Food and Drug Administration has their own requirements — Approval requires meeting extensive criteria. These include double-blind testing and review by committees of multi-discilpinary experts. With careful consideration for conflicts of interest. Spending trillions of dollars to save the world should require equivalent standards.
II. Disclosure of data and methods is essential for normal science, and has too-often been missing from climate sciences
On paper there is an adequate set of standards for release of climate science data. Universities have regulations. So do most funding agencies, whether government, quasi-government, or non-profit. Most professional journals require release of supporting data at time of publication.
Despite all this, much of what we know about the data and methods of the pro-AGW case comes from the skeptics long fight to get vital information into the sunlight. Freedom of information act requests, pressure from Congress, requests to have professional journals enforce their requirements for disclosure of data support articles — all these and more were used in this long struggle. A dark one, since the mainstream media refuses to report its existence. It is especially sad, as much of this work was done either with public funds or by scientists working for institutions which require public disclosure of this material.
A clear example of the struggle to bring data in to public view is seen in these posts at Climate Audit: here and here. There are examples of top-quality practice by journals (here), and some that are less so (here).
Needless to say, this long campaign of concealment does not create confidence in the pro-AGW case — and prevents the normal routines of scientific progress from operating in climate science. One of the classic examples of this attitude of many (not all) climate scientists is this vignette.
In response to a request for supporting data, Philip Jones, a prominent researcher {University of East Anglia} said “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
– From the testimony of Stephen McIntyre before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (the July 2006 hearings which produced the Wegman Report).
There are even stories of retaliation against scientists publishing data critical of AGW. For example, the case of Dr. Lloyd D. Keigwin. He published a climate reconstruction based on analysis of Sargasso Sea mud in (”The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea”, Science, v274, 1996). The backlash was formidable, especially when Exxon ran an advertisement mentioning his work. Fortunately for his career and continued research funding, he wrote a public letter to Exxon rebuking them for using his work to criticize the AGW paradigm. (No word yet if upon mailing the letter he muttered that “The mud does not lie.”). For a brief description of this episode see this: “Exxon Mobil Uses Scientist’s Data As Evidence of Natural Warming“, Wall Street Journal, 22 March 2001 (subscription required).
For a briefing on this vital subject see “Data Archiving, Disclosure and Due Diligence” at the Climate Audit website.
III. Third party review of the data, analysis, and modeling is necessary.
Journal peer reviews are nowhere near sufficient as a basis to ensure accuracy for large-scale public policy. Worse, in many cases (e.g., many of Mann’s articles) the peer review did not include examination of the data or calculations — which were not available — making the “review” almost meaningless.
IV. We need to greatly improve the various global climate data collection and analysis systems — satellite, radiosonde, and surface.
The collection of US data is not even remotely close to the claimed “high quality” (except in a relative sense to that of the global data). Data from the rest of the world is far worse in coverage, comparability (both geographically and temporally), and accuracy. These systems are grossly underfunded vs the seriousness of the public policy issues.
To give one of many possible examples, the adjustments to the data appear largely ad hoc, and are larger than the effect they purport to measure.
- Land surface temperature records — Discussed here, here, and at Surfacestations.org.
- Ocean temperature records: Discussed here and here.
- Atmospheric temperature sensors (e.g., radiosonde data, inhomogeneous, ambiguous, and heavily adjusted. Discussed here, and here.
- Satellite data — An archive here. Esp note here, here, here, here, and here.
The proxy data for reconstruction of historical climate data is absurdly poorly funded, considering the importance of the conclusions. Again multi-disciplinary teams are needed — with third party reviews of sampling techniques (to avoid cherry-picking of samples or proxies), interpretation (e.g., is the signal from precipitation or temperature), and analysis (e.g., to avoid over-emphasis on certain geographical regions or samples — as has proven true of Mann’s analysis). Note: these are only indirect measures of temperature. Here is a large archive of discussions.
V. How to apply the precautionary principle
The precautionary principle is usually applied in an irrational manner to individual threats like global warming. There are many high impact – low probability scenarios (aka shockwaves), of which AGW is just one. Also, the US and world have many vital if more mundane needs that deserve funding. Since resources are finite, we must access their relative importance — which few of these special interest groups around each shockwave bother to do. I discuss this in greater length at this post; here is my suggestion:
Commission a group to collect as many shockwave scenarios as possible, with a brief analysis of each. Fortunately there are thousands of interest groups willing to pitch in and help! Then apply a common analytical framework to rate them on both dimensions: probability and impact. The results would prove quite interesting, and allow more rational public policy discussion about which to act upon.
Conclusion
As Steve McIntyre said (source; one of his countless statements like this):
Serious people believe that it {AGW} is an issue. There’s a lot of promotion and hype, but that doesn’t mean that, underneath it all, there isn’t a problem. No one’s shown that it’s not an issue. The hardest part for someone trying to understand the issue from first principles is locating a clear A-to-B exposition of how doubled CO2 produces a problem and I’m afraid that no one’s been able to give such a reference to me – the excuse is that such an exposition is too “routine” for climate scientists. That’s the first attitude than has to change.
Afterword
Please share your comments by posting below. Per the FM site’s Comment Policy, please make them brief (250 words max), civil, and relevant to this post. Or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).
For information about this site see the About page, at the top of the right-side menu bar.
For more information
To read other articles about these things, see the FM reference page on the right side menu bar. Of esp relevance to this topic:
Some posts on the FM site about climate change
- A look at the science and politics of global warming, 12 June 2008
- Global warming means more earthquakes!, 19 June 2008
- An article giving strong evidence of global warming, 30 June 2008
- Worrying about the Sun and climate change: cycle 24 is late, 10 July 2008
- More forecasts of a global cooling cycle, 15 July 2008
- Update: is Solar Cycle 24 late (a cooling cycle, with famines, etc)?, 15 july 2008
- Two valuable perspectives on global warming, 4 August 2008
- President Kennedy speaks to us about global warming and Climate Science, 7 August 2008
- Solar Cycle 24 is still late, perhaps signalling cool weather ahead, 2 September 2008
- Update on solar cycle 24 – and a possible period of global cooling, 1 October 2008
- Good news about global warming!, 21 October 2008
- One of the most interesting sources of news about science and nature!, 27 October 2008
- “Aliens cause global warming”: wise words from the late Michael Crichton, 15 November 2008
- A reply to comments on FM site about Global Warming, 17 November 2008
- Is anthropogenic global warming a scientific debate, or a matter of religious belief?, 22 November 2008
- Another pro-global warming comment, effective PR at work!, 1 December 2008
.
.
