Thursday, May 24, 2012
Climategate, the 2009 exposure of misconduct at the
University of East Anglia, was a terrible blow to the reputation of
climatology, and indeed to that of British and American science. Although that
story hasn’t been in the news in recent months, new evidence of similar
scientific wrongdoing continues to emerge, with a new scandal hitting the
climate blogosphere just a few days ago.
And central to the newest story is one of the Climategate
scientists: Keith Briffa, an expert in reconstructing historical temperature
records from tree rings. More particularly, the recent scandal involves a
tree-ring record Briffa prepared for a remote area of northern Russia called
Yamal.
For many years, scientists have used tree-ring data to
try to measure temperatures from the distant past, but the idea is problematic
in and of itself. Why? Because tree-ring data reflect many variables besides
temperature. Russian tree growth, like that of trees around the world, also
reflects changes in humidity, precipitation, soil nutrients, competition for
resources from other trees and plants, animal behavior, erosion, cloudiness,
and on and on. But let’s pretend, if only for the sake of argument, that we can
reliably determine the mean temperature 1,000 years ago or more using tree
cores from a remote part of Russia. The central issue that emerges is: How do
you choose the trees?
It was the way Briffa picked the trees to include in his
analysis that piqued the interest of Steve McIntyre, a maverick amateur
climatologist from Canada. The Climategate e-mails make it clear that McIntyre
earned the public scorn of the most powerful U.N. climatologists, including
James Hansen, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones, while simultaneously earning their
fear and respect in private.
McIntyre noticed a few problems with the way Briffa chose
the sampling of Russian trees, and he wrote to Briffa requesting the data
Briffa used in a published tree-ring paper. Briffa declined. And so began a
four-year saga involving multiple peer-reviewed journals, behind-the-scenes
maneuvering by Briffa and his closest confidants, and a Freedom of Information
Act request on the part of McIntyre that appears to be on the verge of being
granted. Even without the final set of data, however, McIntyre has shown beyond
the shadow of doubt that Briffa may have committed one of the worst sins, if
not the worst, in climatology — that of cherry-picking data — when he assembled
his data sample, which his clique of like-minded and very powerful peers have
also used in paper after paper.
It was already known that the Yamal series contained a preposterously small amount of data. This by itself raised many questions: Why did Briffa include only half the number of cores covering the balmy interval known as the Medieval Warm Period that another scientist, one with whom he was acquainted, had reported for Yamal? And why were there so few cores in Briffa’s 20th century? By 1988, there were only twelve cores used in a year, an amazingly small number from the period that should have provided the easiest data. By 1990, the count was only ten, and it dropped to just five in 1995. Without an explanation of how the strange sampling of the available data had been performed, the suspicion of cherry-picking became overwhelming, particularly since the sharp 20th-century uptick in the series was almost entirely due to a single tree.
The intrigue deepened when one of the Climategate e-mails
revealed that, as far back as 2006, Briffa had prepared a much more broadly
based, and therefore more reliable, tree-ring record of the Yamal area. But
strangely, he had decided to set this aside in favor of the much narrower
record he eventually used.
The question of Yamal had rightly come up when Briffa was
questioned by Climategate investigators. He told them that he had never
considered including a wider sample than the one he went with in the end, and
hadn’t had enough time to include a wider one. However, the specific issue of
the suppressed record appears to have largely been passed over by the panel,
and Briffa’s explanation, like so many others given to the Climategate
inquiries, appears to have been accepted without question.
But the ruse has now been shot to pieces, by the recent
decision from the U.K.’s information commissioner that Briffa can no longer
withhold the list of sites he used in his suppressed regional record for the
Yamal area. The disclosure of these sites has allowed McIntyre to calculate
what the broad series would have looked like if Briffa had chosen to publish
it. He has shown that it has no hint of the hockey-stick shape that Briffa’s
cherry-picked data indicated. Briffa’s decision to publish an alarming but
unreliable version of the Yamal series — instead of a more reliable and
thoroughly unremarkable one — has been the talk of the climate blogosphere,
with many prominent commentators openly speaking of dishonesty.
Two and a half years after the initial revelation of the
Climategate e-mails, new controversies, on the part of the scientists and the
investigators involved, continue to emerge. Many of the players involved are
desperate to sweep the scandal under the rug. However, their machinations have
only succeeded in bringing renewed attention to their questionable science and
ugly behind-the-scenes shenanigans, reigniting hope that more complete and more
independent investigations — on both sides of the Atlantic — will yet be
performed.
No comments:
Post a Comment