So I’ve been reading the IPCC reports over the last few days.
In spite of the appearance that my bet with Chris having been settled by the admission that the raw climate data is pinned to its perch, I’m genuinely interested what the research has to say.
I’d like to crowdsource a small research project with the intent of putting together two things – an influence diagram and a checklist of datasets and models cited so that we can in turn explore the availability and state of them.
To do that, I needed a set of papers; I wanted to pick a sample, so I chose a chapter from the latest IPCC report –
– and pulled a set of papers that seemed relevant from it – 20 papers in total.
|
|
Full |
Short |
|
1 |
Barnett, T.P., et al., |
Barnett et al., 1999 |
|
2 |
Brohan P., et al., 2006: observed temperature |
Brohan et al., 2006 |
|
3 |
Francey, R.J., and G.D. |
Francey |
|
4 |
Hasselmann, K., 1997: |
Hasselmann, 1997 |
|
5 |
Hegerl, G.C., et al., change with an optimal fingerprint |
Hegerl et al., 1996 |
|
6 |
Hegerl, G.C., et al., |
Hegerl et al., 1997 |
|
7 |
Hegerl, G.C., et al., change: Sensitivity of |
Hegerl et al., 2000 |
|
8 |
Jones, P.D., et al., |
Jones et al., 1990 |
|
9 |
Keeling, C.D., 1961: The dioxide in rural and |
Keeling, |
|
10 |
Keeling, C.D., 1998: |
Keeling, |
|
11 |
Peterson, T.C., et al., |
Peterson et al., 1999 |
|
12 |
Petit, J.R., et al., |
Petit et al., 1999 |
|
13 |
Santer, B.D., et al., |
Santer et al., 1995 |
|
14 |
Santer, B.D., J.S. Boyle, |
Santer et al., 1996a |
|
15 |
Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Detection of climate Change 1995: The |
Santer et al., 1996b |
|
16 |
Santer, B.D., et al., |
Santer et al., 1996c |
|
17 |
Stanhill, G., 2001: The |
Stanhill, |
|
18 |
Stott, P.A., et al., 2000: |
Stott et al., 2000 |
|
19 |
Tett, S.F.B., et al.,
|
Tett et al., 1999 |
|
20 |
Stott, P.A., et al., |
Stott et al., 2000 |
|
21 |
Willett, H.C., 1950: |
Willett |
Take a look at the list and the chapter and tell me if you think I missed any of import.
Then I want to assemble a simple
in the hopes that people will pick a paper and fill out a datasheet on it.
Again, we are not trying to judge the quality of the papers or research – I won’t pretend to be qualified to do so.
But what I’d like to do is see what core data is used throughout, what models are used, and what root papers are cited. That way we can build an influence map of the people, papers, data and models. I’m not sure what – if anything – it’ll show. But I can’t help thinking it’ll be interesting.
–
The Wegman report did an analysis of the relationships between authors using citations and co-authoring, so that may be of interest here.
This from the Barnett paper:
_At present, it is debatable whether there is enough temperature proxy data to be representative of hemispheric, let alone global, climate changes given the lack of large spatial scale coherence in the data. *Yet the few good records that are available serve as strong checks on efforts to model natural climate variability (Jones et al. 1998)*_
Emphasis mine. I was under the impression that Jones’ work was one of many sources of historic temp data, not one of the few. And of course this particular paper uses Jones.
At first blush- there are clearly a fair number of climate models and certainly plenty of studies, but the actual _historic datasets_ that these models and studies are based on are few.
I’m in on the project AL, lets see just what percentage of the time these studies are using Jones compared to others.
# 8 is “likely fraudlent”:http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/05/allegations-of-fraud-at-albany-wang.html
“Doug Keenan chronology and evidence.”:http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm
“In spite of the appearance that my bet with Chris having been settled by the admission that the raw climate data is pinned to its perch…”
Shouldn’t that be ” “NAILED to its perch”:http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm ” ?
The authors’ remarks on page 107 peak my curiosity. First, the authors pay homage to the work of paleoclimatologists, admitting that their paleoclimate “proxy” observations indicate that there were rapid fluctuations in the climate in the past — but then the authors say “ignore the man behind the curtain” because 21st Century climate change will be different.
First the homage:
“The emerging picture of an unstable ocean-atmosphere system has opened the debate of whether human interference through greenhouse gases and aerosols could trigger such events (Broecker, 1997)”
And then the disconnect:
“The Working Group I (WGI) WGI FAR noted that past climates could provide analogues. Fifteen years of research since that assessment has identiï¬ed a range of variations and instabilities in the climate system that occurred during the last 2 Myr of glacial-interglacial cycles and in the super-warm period of 50 Ma. These past climates do not appear to be analogues of the immediate future, yet they do reveal a wide range of climate processes that need to be understood when projecting 21st-century climate change (see Chapter 6).”
I guess I have to read Chapter 6 to find out *why* “past climates do not appear to analogues of the immediate future.”
–beo