LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25583
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!

Post by thelivyjr » Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:40 p

Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inquiries and reports

Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce


In May 2010 Senator Jim Inhofe requested the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce to conduct an independent review of how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had dealt with the emails, and whether the emails showed any wrongdoing.

The report, issued on 18 February 2011, cleared the researchers and "did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures".


It noted that NOAA reviewed its climate change data as standard procedure, not in response to the controversy.

One email included a cartoon image showing Inhofe and others marooned on a melting ice floe, NOAA had taken this up as a conduct issue.

In response to questions raised, NOAA stated that its scientists had followed legal advice on FOIA requests for information which belonged to the IPCC and was made available by that panel.

In two instances funding had been awarded to CRU, NOAA stated that it was reviewing these cases and so far understood that the funds supported climate forecasting workshops in 2002 and 2003 assisting the governments of three countries.

TO BE CONTINUED ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25583
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!

Post by thelivyjr » Fri Nov 01, 2019 1:40 p

Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inquiries and reports

National Science Foundation


The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation closed an investigation on 15 August 2011 that exonerated Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University of charges of scientific misconduct.

It found no evidence of research misconduct, and confirmed the results of earlier inquiries.

The OIG reviewed the findings of the July 2010 Penn State panel, took further evidence from the university and Mann, and interviewed Mann.

The OIP findings confirmed the university panel's conclusions which cleared Mann of any wrongdoing, and it stated "Lacking any evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing the investigation with no further action."

TO BE CONTINUED ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25583
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!

Post by thelivyjr » Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:40 p

Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ICO decisions on Freedom of Information requests

In two cases, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) issued decisions on appeals of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests which had been turned down by the university.

David Holland, an electrical engineer from Northampton, made a 2008 FOI request for all emails to and from Keith Briffa about the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report; the university's information policy and compliance manager refused the request.

On 23 November 2009, after the start of the controversy, he wrote to the Commissioner explaining in detail the relevance of the alleged CRU emails to his case, with specific reference to a May 2008 email in which Phil Jones asked others to delete emails discussing AR4 with Briffa.


In January 2010 news reports highlighted that FOI legislation made it an offence to intentionally act to prevent the disclosure of requested information, but the statute of limitations meant that any prosecution had to be raised within 6 months of the alleged offence.

This was discussed by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee.

The ICO decision on Holland's requests published on 7 July 2010 concluded that the emails indicated prima facie evidence of an offence, but as prosecution was time-barred the Commissioner had been unable to investigate the alleged offence.

On the issue of the university failing to provide responses within the correct time, no further action was needed as Holland was content not to proceed with his complaint.

The Climatic Research Unit developed its gridded CRUTEM data set of land air temperature anomalies from instrumental temperature records held by National Meteorological Organisations around the world, often under formal or informal confidentiality agreements that restricted use of this raw data to academic purposes, and prevented it from being passed onto third parties.

Over 95% of the CRU climate data set had been available to the public for several years before July 2009, when the university received numerous FOI requests for raw data or details of the confidentiality agreements from Stephen McIntyre and readers of his Climate Audit blog.

Phil Jones of CRU announced that requests were being made to all the National Meteorological Organisations for their agreement to waive confidentiality, with the aim of publishing all the data jointly with the Met Office.

McIntyre complained that data denied to him had been sent to Jones's colleague Peter Webster at the Georgia Institute of Technology for work on a joint publication, and FOI requests for this data were made by Jonathan A. Jones of the University of Oxford and Don Keiller of Anglia Ruskin University.

Both requests were refused by the UEA by 11 September 2009.

Though some National Meteorological Organisations gave full or conditional agreement to waive confidentiality, others failed to respond, and the request was explicitly refused by Trinidad and Tobago and Poland.

In discussions with the ICO, the university argued that the data was publicly available from the Met organisations, and the lack of agreement exempted the remaining data.

In its decision released on 23 June 2011, the ICO stated that the data was not easily available, and required the university to release the data covered by the FOIA request.

On 27 July 2011 CRU announced that the raw instrumental data not already in the public domain had been released and was available for download, with the exception of Poland which was outside the area covered by the FOIA request.

The university remained concerned "that the forced release of material from a source which has explicitly refused to give permission for release could have some damaging consequences for the UK in international research collaborations."

In September 2011 the ICO issued new guidance to universities, taking into account issues raised in relation to the CRU information requests.

This describes exceptions and exemptions to protect research, including allowance for internal exchange of views between academics and researchers, leaving formulation of opinions on research free from external scrutiny.

It notes the benefits of actively disclosing information when it is in the public interest, and disclosure of personal email information related to public authority business.

TO BE CONTINUED ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25583
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!

Post by thelivyjr » Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:40 p

Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Media coverage

The initial story about the hacking originated in the blogosphere, with columnist James Delingpole picking up the term "Climategate" from an anonymous blogger on Watts Up With That?, a blog created by climate sceptic Anthony Watts.

The site was one of three blogs that received links to the leaked documents on 17 November 2009.

Delingpole first used the word "Climategate" in the title of his 20 November article for The Telegraph: "Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?"

A week later, his co-worker Christopher Booker gave Delingpole credit for coining the term.

Following the release of documents in the blogosphere, unproven allegations and personal attacks against scientists increased and made their way into the traditional media.

Physicist Mark Boslough of the University of New Mexico noted that many of the attacks on scientists came from "bloggers, editorial writers, Fox News pundits, and radio talk show hosts who have called them liars and vilified them as frauds".

According to Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum in their book Unscientific America (2010), the accusations originated in right-wing media and blogs, "especially on outlets like Fox News".

Journalist Suzanne Goldenberg of The Guardian reported that according to an analysis by Media Matters, "Fox had tried to delegitimise the work of climate scientists in its coverage of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia" and had "displayed a pattern of trying to skew coverage in favour of the fringe minority which doubts the existence of climate change".

The intense media coverage of the documents stolen from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia created public confusion about the scientific consensus on climate change, leading several publications to comment on the propagation of the controversy in the media in the wake of a series of investigations that cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing.

In an editorial, The New York Times described the coverage as a "manufactured controversy" and expressed hope that the investigations clearing the scientists "will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies".

Writing for Newsweek, journalist Sharon Begley called the controversy a "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal", noting that the public was unlikely to change their mind.


Regardless of the reports exonerating the scientists, Begley noted that "one of the strongest, most-repeated findings in the psychology of belief is that once people have been told X, especially if X is shocking, if they are later told, 'No, we were wrong about X,' most people still believe X."

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and science historian Naomi Oreskes said that the "attacks on climate science that were made ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit were 'organised' to undermine efforts to tackle global warming and mirror the earlier tactics of the tobacco industry".

Noting the media circus that occurred when the story first broke, Oreskes and Erik Conway writing about climate change denial, said that following the investigations "the vindication of the climate scientists has received very little coverage at all."

"Vindication is not as sexy as accusation, and many people are still suspicious."

"After all, some of those emails, taken out of context, sounded damning."

"But what they show is that climate scientists are frustrated, because for two decades they have been under attack."

Bill Royce, head of the European practice on energy, environment and climate change at the United States communications firm Burson-Marsteller, also described the incident as an organised effort to discredit climate science.

He said that it was not a single scandal, but "a sustained and coordinated campaign" aimed at undermining the credibility of the science.

Disproportionate reporting of the original story, "widely amplified by climate deniers", meant that the reports that cleared the scientists received far less coverage than the original allegations, he said.

Journalist Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review criticised newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels and said that "readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever".

CNN media critic Howard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.

TO BE CONTINUED ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25583
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!

Post by thelivyjr » Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:40 p

Climatic Research Unit email controversy, continued ...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Public opinion and political fallout

Jon Krosnick, professor of communication, political science and psychology at Stanford University, said that scientists were overreacting.

Referring to his own poll results of the American public, he said: "It's another funny instance of scientists ignoring science."

Krosnick found that "Very few professions enjoy the level of confidence from the public that scientists do, and those numbers haven't changed much in a decade."

"We don't see a lot of evidence that the general public in the United States is picking up on the (University of East Anglia) emails."

"It's too inside baseball."


The Christian Science Monitor, in an article titled "Climate scientists exonerated in 'climategate' but public trust damaged", stated: "While public opinion had steadily moved away from belief in man-made global warming before the leaked CRU emails, that trend has only accelerated."

Paul Krugman, columnist for The New York Times, argued that this, along with all other incidents that called into question the scientific consensus on climate change, was "a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media".

But UK journalist Fred Pearce called the slow response of climate scientists "a case study in how not to respond to a crisis" and "a public relations disaster".

A. A. Leiserowitz, Director of the Yale University Project on Climate Change, and colleagues found in 2010 that:

Climategate had a significant effect on public beliefs in global warming and trust in scientists.

The loss of trust in scientists, however, was primarily among individuals with a strongly individualistic worldview or politically conservative ideology.

Nonetheless, Americans overall continue to trust scientists more than other sources of information about global warming.


In late 2011, Steven F. Hayward wrote that "Climategate did for the global warming controversy what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war 40 years ago: It changed the narrative decisively."

An editorial in Nature said that many in the media "were led by the nose, by those with a clear agenda, to a sizzling scandal that steadily defused as the true facts and context were made clear".

TO BE CONTINUED ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25583
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!

Post by thelivyjr » Sun Nov 03, 2019 1:40 p

Climatic Research Unit email controversy, concluded ...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Further release, 2011

On 22 November 2011, a second set of approximately 5,000 emails, apparently hacked from University of East Anglia servers at the same time as those in the 2009 release, was posted on a Russian server, with links distributed to the message boards on several climate-sceptic websites.

A message accompanying the emails quoted selective passages from them, highlighting many of the same issues raised following the original incident.

Juliette Jowit and Leo Hickman of The Guardian said that the new release was "an apparent attempt to undermine public support for international action to tackle climate change" with the start of the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference scheduled in Durban, South Africa, a week later.

Nature described the further release as a "poor sequel" and claimed that "it is hard for anyone except the most committed conspiracy theorist to see much of interest in the content of the released e-mails, even taken out of context".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_ ... ontroversy

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25583
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!

Post by thelivyjr » Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:40 p

Subboreal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Subboreal is a climatic period, immediately before the present one, of the Holocene.

It lasted from 3710 to 450 BCE.


Etymology

The composite scientific term Subboreal, meaning "below the Boreal," is derived from the Latin sub (below, under) and the Greek Βορέας, from Boreas, the god of the North Wind.

The word was first introduced in 1889 by Rutger Sernander to distinguish it from Axel Blytt's Boreal, which had been established in 1876.

History

The Subboreal followed the Atlantic and was followed by the Subatlantic.

The Subboreal is equivalent to W. H. Zagwijn's pollen zones IVa and IVb[3] and T. Litt's pollen zone VIII.

In the pollen scheme of Fritz Theodor Overbeck, it occupies pollen zone X.

In paleoclimatology, it is divided into an Older Subboreal and a Younger Subboreal.

Historically, the Subboreal is equivalent to most of the Neolithic and the entire Bronze Age, which started 4200 to 3800 years ago.


Dating

The Subboreal is usually defined as 3710 to 5660 years BP.

The lower limit is flexible, as some authors prefer to use 4400 BCE, or 6350 BP in northwestern Poland, even 4830 BC, or 6780 BP, and others use 5000 calendar years, or 3050 BCE.

The upper limit of the Subboreal and, therefore the beginning of the Subatlantic, is also flexible and can be attributed to 1170 to 830 BCE, but it is usually fixed at 450 BCE.

In varve years, the Subboreal corresponds to 5660 to 2750 years BP.

The boundary between the older and the younger Subboreal is considered to be 1350 BCE.

Climatic evolution

The climate was generally dryer and slightly cooler (by about 0.1°C) than in the preceding Atlantic but still warmer than today.

The temperatures were 0.7°C higher than during the following Subatlantic.


Consequently, in Scandinavia the lower limit of glaciers was 100 to 200 m higher than during the Subatlantic.

On the whole, the oscillating temperatures slightly receded in the course of the Subboreal by about 0.3°C.

In the Aegean, the beginning of the Subboreal was marked by a pronounced drought, centered around 5600 years BP.

Of far greater importance was the coming to an end of the African Humid Period, reflected in the lakes of subtropical Africa (like Lake Chad) experiencing a rapid fall in their water levels.

During the interval 6200 to 5000 years BP, drier conditions were in southern Mesopotamia, causing great demographic changes and probably instigating the end of Uruk.

In Germany, a drastic climatic cooling can be observed around 5000 varve years BP in the maars of the Eifel.


In the preceding interval lasting from 8200 till 5000 varve years (Holocene Climatic Optimum), the July temperatures were on average still 1°C higher.

At the same time, the January temperatures were rising and the yearly precipitation increased.

In Northern Africa and in the Near East, the interval from 4700 to 4100 years BP had renewed and lasting dry conditions, as is indicated by lake level minima.

Between 4500 and 4100 years BP, monsoonal precipitations weakened, a possible cause for the upheavals that led to the end of the Old Kingdom of Egypt.

The Levant shows a similar climatic evolution.

The dry conditions prevailing in Mesopotamia around 4200 years BP probably resulted in the downfall of the Akkadian Empire.

Carbon dioxide

Levels of carbon dioxide had reached at the beginning of the Subboreal its Holocene minimal value of 260 ppm.

During the Subboreal, it started rising and reached 293 ppm at the end of the period.

As a comparison, today's value is over 400 ppm.

TO BE CONTINUED …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subboreal

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25583
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!

Post by thelivyjr » Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:40 p

Subboreal, concluded ...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vegetation history

In Scandinavia, the Atlantic/Subboreal boundary shows a distinct vegetational change.

That is less pronounced in Western Europe, but its typical mixed oak forest shows quite a fast decline in elm and linden.

The decline in linden is not fully understood and might be due to cooling or human interference.

The decline in elm is most likely due to elm disease, caused by the ascomycete Ceratocystis ulmi, but climatic changes and anthropogenic pressure on the forests certainly must be considered as well.

The decline in elm, with a recession from 20 to 4%, as observed in Eifel maar pollen, has been dated in Central and Northern Europe as from 4000 years BC, but it more likely was diachronous over the interval 4350 to 3780 BC.

Another important event was the immigration of European beech (Fagus sylvatica) and hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) from their retreats on the Balkan and south of the Apennines.

That happened also diachronously: beech pollen are found for the first time in the interval 4340 to 3540 BC, hornbeam pollen somewhat later between 3400 and 2900 BC.

With the start of the Younger Subboreal is the massive spreading of beech.

The establishment of beech and hornbeam was accompanied by indicator plants for human settlements and agriculture like cereals and plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and hazel was receding.

The relatively-dry climate during the subboreal furthered the spreading of heath plants (Ericaceae).

Sea level

Like in the Atlantic, the global sea level kept on rising during the Subboreal but at a much slower rate.

The increase amounted to about 1 m, which corresponds to a rate of 0.3 mm per year.

At the end of the Subboreal, the sea level was about 1 m below the current value.


Evolution in the Baltic

In the Baltic the Litorina Sea had already established itself before the onset of the Subboreal.

During the Older Subboreal the second Litorina transgression raised the sea level to 1 m below the actual value.

After an intermediate Post-litorine Regression the third Litorina transgression reached 60 cm below present and during the beginning Subatlantic, it reached today's value.

Evolution in the North Sea region

In the North Sea region, the Flandrian transgression of the Atlantic was followed by a slight regression or standstill at the beginning of the Subboreal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subboreal

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25583
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!

Post by thelivyjr » Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:40 p

Atlantic (period)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Atlantic in palaeoclimatology was the warmest and moistest Blytt-Sernander period, pollen zone and chronozone of Holocene northern Europe.

The climate was generally warmer than today.

It was preceded by the Boreal, with a climate similar to today's, and was followed by the Subboreal, a transition to the modern.

Because it was the warmest period of the Holocene, the Atlantic is often referenced more directly as the Holocene climatic optimum, or just climatic optimum.


Subdividing the Atlantic

The Atlantic is equivalent to Pollen Zone VII.

Sometimes a Pre-atlantic or early Atlantic is distinguished, on the basis of an early dividing cold snap.

Other scientists place the Atlantic entirely after the cold snap, assigning the latter to the Boreal.

The period is still in the process of definition.

Beginning of the Atlantic period

It is a question of definition and the criteria: Beginning with the temperatures, as derivable from Greenland ice core data, it is possible to define an 'Early' or 'Pre-Atlantic' period at around 8040 BC, where the 18O isotope line remains above 33 ppm in the combined curve after Rasmussen et al. (2006), which then would end at the well-known 6.2 ka BC (8.2 ka calBP)-cold-event.

Or one single Atlantic period is defined, starting at that just mentioned cold-event.

After a lake-level criterion, Kul’kova and others define the Atlantic as running from 8000 to 5000 (cal?) BP.

Early Atlantic, or AT1, was a time of high lake levels, 8000–7000 BP; in Middle Atlantic, AT2, lakes were at a lower level, 7000–6500 BP; and in Late Atlantic I, 6500–6000 BP, and II, 6000–5700 BP, levels were on the rise.

Each period has its distinctive ratios of species.

End of the Atlantic period

According to the ice-core criterion it is extremely difficult to find a clear boundary, because the measurements still differ too much and alignments are still under construction.

Many find a decline of temperature significant enough after 4800 BC.

Another criterion comes from bio-stratigraphy: the elm-decline.

However, this appears in different regions between 4300 and 3100 BC.


TO BE CONTINUED …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_(period)

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25583
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE, PEOPLE!

Post by thelivyjr » Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:40 p

Atlantic (period), continued ...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Description

The Atlantic was a time of rising temperature and marine transgression on the islands of Denmark and elsewhere.

The sea rose to 3 m above its present level by the end of the period.


The oysters found there required lower salinity.

Tides of up to 1 m were present.

Inland, lake levels in all north Europe were generally higher, with fluctuations.

The temperature rise had the effect of extending southern climates northward in a relatively short period.

The treelines on northern mountains rose by 600 to 900 m (2000–3000 feet).

Thermophilous ("heat-loving") species migrated northward.

They did not replace the species that were there, but shifted the percentages in their favor.

Across middle Europe, the boreal forests were replaced by climax or "old growth" deciduous ones, which, though providing a denser canopy, were more open at the base.

The dense canopy theory, however, has been questioned recently by F. Vera.

Oak and hazel require more light than is allowed by the dense canopy.

Vera hypothesizes that the lowlands were more open and that the low frequency of grass pollen was caused by the browsing of large herbivores, such as Bos primigenius and Equus ferus.

Flora

During the Atlantic period the deciduous temperate zone forests of south and central Europe extended northward to replace the boreal mixed forest, which found refugia on the mountain slopes.

Mistletoe, Water Chestnut (Trapa natans) and Ivy (Hedera helix) were present in Denmark.

Grass pollen decreased.

Softwood forests were replaced by hardwood.

Quercus, Tilia, both cordata and platyphyllos, beech, oak, hazel, linden, Ulmus glabra, alder, and ash replaced Betula and Pinus, spreading to the north from further south.

The period is sometimes called "the alder-elm-lime period".

In northeast Europe, the Early Atlantic forest was but slightly affected by the rise in temperature.

The forest had been pine with an underbrush of hazel, alder, birch, and willow.

Only about 7% of the forest became broad-leaved deciduous, dropping to Boreal levels in the cooling of the Middle Atlantic.

In the warmer Late Atlantic, the broad-leaved trees became 34% of the forest.


Along the line of the Danube and the Rhine, extending northward in tributary drainage systems, a new factor entered the forest country: the Linear Pottery culture, clearing the arable land by slash and burn methods.

It flourished about 5500–4500 BC, falling entirely within the Atlantic.

By the end of the Atlantic, agricultural and pasture lands extended over much of Europe and the once virgin forests were contained within refugia.

The end of the Atlantic is signaled by the "Elm decline", a sharp drop in Elm pollen, thought to be the result of climate, disease or human food-producing activities.

In the subsequent cooler Sub-Boreal, forested country gave way to open range once more.


TO BE CONTINUED …

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_(period)

Post Reply