There is evidence that the authors of a recent paper may have gamed the peer review system to publish a biased climate science paper.

The Review Process: When a paper is submitted to a journal for publication, the editor removes the name of the author and sends the manuscript to several experts in the area, usually three, for review. The editor keeps the names of the reviewers confidential. If an error is found, the reviewer’s comments are returned to the author with suggestions for corrections. It is a good system for ensuring the quality of research publications, but even then papers are sometimes published that contains errors. The reviewers may miss an error, a biased editor may publish the paper in spite of flaws, or authors may exploit loopholes in a journal’s rules to get a paper published. Some journals allow the author to suggest names of reviewers and the editor often picks reviewers from the list. Most scientists submit names of reliable reviewers as it is an embarrassment to have errors found in their paper after publication. However, even if the papers are properly reviewed, the practice can bring accusations of “pal” review. Since reviewer’s names are kept confidential by the editor, it is difficult to know for sure whether that may have happened. However, there is evidence that the authors of a recent paper may have gamed the system by suggesting a set of reviewers that shared their bias. See what you think.

The paper: Last July 25th, Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell authored a paper in the rather specialized technical journal, Remote Sensing, titled “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance“.  The paper claimed “The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations.”  It seems that only an expert in climatology would know what that means or what its implications were, but in three days a sensationalized version of the paper appeared on internet sites, in major business magazines, and in news articles in major newspapers. Millions of people likely read about the paper.

The Publicity: The renewed public interest in science should have made climate scientists pleased; however, they were not. Beneath the technical language is a claim that the climate sensitivity to CO2 has been misinterpreted by climate scientists because of natural cloud variations. Were it true, it would mean that natural forces, not man, were responsible for much of the observed global warming. That idea had been examined before and found to be inconsistent with the evidence, but the idea is one that some climate skeptics have been promoting. And, they are part of a well-funded pipeline that carries misinformation about climate science to major news outlets before all the facts can be known.

Forbes: One main branch of the misinformation pipeline runs through the Heartland Institute, where James Taylor is listed as a senior fellow. James Taylor once wrote articles for the tobacco industry suggesting that secondhand smoke was not harmful, and he has now turned his talents to denying the ties between rising CO2 levels and global warming. Inexplicably, James Taylor has been hired by Forbes magazine to write on energy and environmental topics. James Taylor picked up on Spencer’s paper and wrote an article for Forbes titled, New NASA Data Blows Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism. Not only was the title inaccurate and misleading, but the article was clearly an opinion article, miscategorized as news.  The editors of Forbes might not have known that Spencer’s “NASA Data” was the same data that climate scientists use to reach a very different conclusion, but perhaps they should have noticed that no reasonable news story would describe climate scientists as “alarmists” 15 times. The business community considers legislation that would reduce our carbon emissions to be anti-business, and business newspapers such as Investors Business Daily, the Wall Street Journal, and Forbes often are biased toward the skeptic’s position. The bias shows up in story selection, opinions miscategorized as news, a disproportionate number of skeptics articles on opinion pages, and  in sensationalized headlines. From Forbes, the article was picked up as a news story by other business magazines, Yahoo! News, MSNBC, and skeptic’s blog sites, which had a field day with the article. It is sad that millions will have read the distorted article, but few will ever read the climate scientist’s rebuttal. The article will soon sink into obscurity,  but it will have accomplished it’s purpose, which was to spread doubt about climate change.

Reproducibility: Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is not the only requirement for a paper to become accepted as part of the science literature. The research must stand up to the scrutiny of other experts in the field and it must be reproducible by other scientists with comparable knowledge and skill. Spencer’s paper reached the news media before climate scientists had a chance to respond, but they soon found a number of obvious errors in the paper. Trenberth and Fasullo summed it up:”The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.”  Given time, A.E. Dessler analyzed Spencer’s paper in detail and published a rebuttal. The abstract in Geophysical Review Letters reports the key points of his paper:

• Clouds are not causing climate change;
• Observations are not in disagreement with models on this point;
• Previous work on this is flawed;  ( referring specifically to Spencer’s paper in Remote Sensing).

Clearly, Spencer’s paper had serious methodological flaws and was not reproducible. How did the paper get through Remote Sensing’s peer review process? The answer would likely not have been found, except for the publicity.

The Catastrophe: The editor of Remote Sensing, who had been trying to build the reputation of the Journal, considered the publicity a catastrophe. The instructions in Remote Sensing asks authors to suggest five reviewers, and it is possible that Spencer could choose five skeptics.  The editor would not have to pick from those, but apparently in this case he did.  In the next issue of Remote Sensing, the editor, Dr. Wolfgang Wagner, resigned and issued a public apology for this article saying, “With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate skeptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements.” “The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extent also in the literature, a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. “ And he concluded, “But, as the case presents itself now, the editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors.”

© 2012 J.C. Moore

If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants. … Sir Isaac Newton

Biased Editors: The editors of journals published by major science organizations are chosen for their expertise in the area and for their fairness. However, any organization may publish a journal and claim their articles are peer-reviewed.  For example, a recent op Ed article in the Tulsa World claimed “Climate predictions must be science-backed“. That’s certainly true, but the author claimed his opinion was backed by a “a peer-reviewed article based on NOAA  data which proves that CO2 may not be the cause of global warming.”  However, no peer reviewed article reaching that conclusion could be found. When I contacted the author for his source, he referred me to an article by Ferenc Miskolczi published in Energy and Environment. Though Miskolczi’s article is based on NOAA’s data, it finds that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not change its spectroscopic properties – a conclusion violating the laws of physics. Miskolczi’s article was criticized by van Dorland and Forster, who wrote: “Miskolczi (2010) theorizes that atmospheric CO2 increases cannot be a cause of global warming. We show his theory to be incorrect both in its application of radiation theory and from direct atmospheric observations.” How did such a paper get published?

The editor of a journal is almost completely responsible for seeing that articles are properly reviewed and for deciding if they should be published. Sourcewatch says that Energy and Environment is a peer-reviewed social science journal published by Multi-Science and the editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who is described as a reader in geography. Many climate change skeptics such as Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, and  Steve McIntyre publish articles there that would not be accepted in major journals. Sourcewatch says the editor admits in an article published online that “the journal I edit has tried to keep this debate [climate scepticism] alive”. She also states “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway … But isn’t that the right of the editor?”

Not really, if you want to claim to be a peer reviewed science journal.

What will the weather be like in the future? Dr. Heidi Cullen, noted climatologists and author of the book, The Weather of the Future , gave a public talk in Tulsa explaining how global warming is causing the weather to be more extreme. She explained that our future holds an increasing number of extreme weather events unless we act to reduce our carbon emissions.  There was an article in the local Tulsa World newspaper announcing the talk; however,  there was no follow-up article describing the talk or her research on climate change. Tulsa Oklahoma was once considered the oil capital of the world and many of the local politicians and oil company executives that live there do not have a favorable opinion of climate change, so her message was one many Oklahomans needed to hear. To correct the newspaper’s oversight, the author sent the following letter to the editor, which outlined the main points of her talk. The letter generated some controvery and there were a number of comments on the letter.

In her talk, Dr. Cullen explained how global warming is changing our climate. Climate describes the average weather, and research shows the Earth’s average weather has been changing. It is difficult to recognize the pattern of change and only by analyzing millions of weather and temperature records is it possible to see the pattern. Over the last century, NASA’s temperature records show that the Earth’s temperature has increased by about 1°F. That has increased the energy in the atmosphere and the moisture in the air over the oceans. That combination is causing our weather to become more extreme, as you have probably noticed from the events that have happened lately.

Dr.Cullen explained that climate is complex, made up of both natural and man-made factors, and the scientific research has been directed toward identifying the contributions of each. Carbon dioxide was identified in the 19th century as one component of the atmosphere that helps warm the Earth. Our activities have increased the CO2 concentration in the air by 37% since then, and undoubtedly much of the recent warming has been caused by man. Detailed studies of extreme weather events have shown that global warming contributed to their severity. Although that may seem bad news, the upside of that is that if we are responsible for it, we can change it.

The first step in that process is to immediately begin to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel energy sources. Dr. Cullen outlined what our energy needs will be by 2050 and showed how we can reduce our carbon emissions and meet our energy needs by then with mostly renewable sources. She explained that building the infrastructure for renewable energy will create jobs and contribute to our economy. Rather than considering the cost of doing so a mortgage on future generations, we should consider reducing pollution and developing sustainable energy sources as an investment in our future.

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

 No one knows for sure why the solar panel manufacturing company, Solyndra, went bankrupt or what it means, but Congress is now investigating the matter. Though it will be useful to know what went wrong, bankruptcies in these tough economic times are not unusual. It is not clear why Congress is investigating the matter, but if the investigation is used for political purposes, it may delay our development of renewable energy resources. This could further hurt our economy and actually cause the loss of jobs.

In spite of the fact that the Solyndra bankruptcy may have cost 1000 jobs, that is a small amount compared to the hundred thousand plus workers who now work in the solar energy business in United States. Solar energy is one of the fastest growing industries and the graph above from this article estimates that the use of solar energy will increase fivefold by 2020. If the United States does not invest in the production of solar panels, it is almost certain that other countries will. China has set aside $34 billion to be invested in the production of solar panels. The $500 million in loan guarantees to Solyndra is rather small compared to that amount.

 Unfortunately, the US investment in solar energy may be derailed by  Congress.  In spite of the other problems facing our nation, Congress has now launched a Congressional investigation into the Solyndra bankruptcy. It would seem that the investigation is politically motivated with the goal of embarrassing the Obama administration and derailing our efforts to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel. The Department of Energy has made a number of loan guarantees for investments in green energy projects and this is the only one which has had a serious problem. A number of large and savvy investors put over $1 billion into the Solyndra, so it cannot be claimed that it was was a bad investment from the beginning or that the company was suppoted entirely by the Department of Energy. Also, the political ramifications are not quite clear, as this timeline for the loan approval process for Solyndra shows it started in 2005 under the Bush administration.

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

Science is about using observation and reason to understand the physical world. Some people are suspicious of computer models and theories; so here is the basic data about global warming in pictures and graphs.

Ice Ages: In the past, the Earth’s temperature has varied from the Ice Ages to the much warmer temperatures of the interglacial periods.  Ice core data gives a good picture of what has happened to the Earth’s temperature in the last half million years, as shown by the blue line. The changing temperatures are attributed to the Milankovitch Cycles, small variations in the Earth’s orbit that cause the Earth to receive different amounts of sunlight. The Earth becomes slowly warmer during the periods where the solar energy increases. As the Earth begins to be warmed by sunlight, CO2 becomes less soluble in the ocean and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases, which further amplifies the warming since CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

As you can see in the graph, the red line shows how intricately the CO2 concentrations and temperatures are related. The CO2 concentration drops to about 180 ppm during the glacial periods and rises to about 290 ppm during the warmer interglacial periods. As the far right of the graph shows, we are now in an interglacial period that began about 6000 years ago. The Milankovitch Cycles predict that Earth should slowly cool for the next 20,000 years, but it is warming instead.  Please note that the concentration of CO2 did not rise above 300 ppm in any previous warmer periods but on the far right side of the graph, the red line indicating the CO2 concentration is now approaching 380 ppm. http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

 Current CO2 Levels: In the past, the warming oceans released the CO2 as a natural process. However, man is now putting about 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. Much of it stays there and the Keeling curve below shows how CO2 is building up in air. What might that mean for man? In 2011, the CO2 concentration reached 387 ppm, far higher than it has been for perhaps 15 million  years. 

 http://susty.com/image/keeling-curve-carbon-dioxide-parts-per-million-co2-summer-uptake-by-trees-plants-soils-graph-red-line-illustration-image.jpg 

This article explains what the Earth may have been like then: ”The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher , the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic, and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland.”

Earth’s Temperature: Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases that warm the Earth. NASA’s graph below shows how its increase is changing the Earth’s temperature. Though the Earth’s mean temperature varies widely from year to year, the graph on the right is a moving average that allows you to see the trend in the temperature much easier.

                                                           htp//data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/fig2.gif

  The effect of particulates, which cool the Earth, can be seen around 1991 when Mount Pinaturbo exploded. The flat place in the graph from about 1940 to 1970 is attributed to particulates generated by World War II, atmospheric atomic bomb testing, and postwar industrialization – before particulate emissions were regulated. Clearly, the Earth is getting warmer.

Effect on the Earth: Scientist tell us that the increasing CO2 concentration is leading to a warmer Earth, more extreme weather, melting glaciers and polar ice, crop failure, droughts, and wildfires. We have certainly experienced many of those things recently, which should make us think about what effect our activities are having on the Earth. Many of the changes in the Earth are subtle, but here are two of NASA’s pictures that clearly show how the Earth is changing. Between 1979 and 2003, about 30% of the Arctic ice has disappeared.

This has greatly affected the way of life of the native Inuit who live and hunt on the Polar ice.  While they may adapt, their way of life and culture which sustained them for centuries will be destroyed. The Polar bears, uniquely adapted to live in on the Polar ice, have been put on the threatened species list because their habitat is clearly declining.  As their habitat disappears, so will be the Polar bear. It is something man should think about – as our habitat is deteriorating, also.

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

Science is about using observation and reason to understand the physical world. Some people are suspicious of computer models and theories; so here is the basic data about global warming in pictures.

Ice core data gives a good picture of what has happened to the Earth in the last several ice ages. Please note that the concentration of CO2 did not rise above 300 ppm in the warmer interglacial periods but now the CO2 concentration is  387 ppm – much higher than any time in the ice core record:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

 CO2: Man is now putting about 30,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. Much of it stays there and you can see how it is building up in air:

http://susty.com/image/keeling-curve-carbon-dioxide-parts-per-million-co2-summer-uptake-by-trees-plants-soils-graph-red-line-illustration-image.jpg

 Temperature: CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases that warm the Earth and NASA’s graph shows how its increase is changing the Earth’s temperature:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/fig2.gif

 Changing Earth: Many of the changes in the Earth are subtle but here is one of NASA’s pictures that clearly shows  how the Earth is changing:

http://jcmooreonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Arctic-1.jpg

  The full article, with pictures,  is here: http://jcmooreonline.com/2011/09/01/global-warming-in-pictures/

(c) 2011  J.C. Moore

“Pictures of the polar region from 1979 and 2003 clearly show that about 30% of the Arctic  ice has melted. This has greatly affected the way of life of the native Inuit who live and hunt on the Polar ice.  While some may adapt, their way of life and culture, which sustained them for centuries, will be destroyed.”

Although arguments still rage about whether the Arctic sea ice is disappearing, the disappearance is a fact of life for those who live near the Arctic Ocean.   The photos clearly show that the Arctic Sea ice is disappearing. A recent TulsaWorld article described how the disappearance of the Arctic sea ice has affected the lives of the native Inuit people in Greenland. Ice which used to be 2 meters thick in the winter, now grows only a few centimeters thick, far too thin to allow dogsleds to go to the nearest town, 50 miles away across the bay. They can no longer venture onto the ice to hunt for seals or walrus, a mainstay of their diet,  nor can they go out on the ice to fish. The Polar bears they sometimes hunt have no fat, as the bears cannot swim to the ice packs to hunt, and they sometimes prowl the villages looking for food.

Drilling for oil has picked up in the area as the ices disappears, but so far little oil has been found. Exploration continues, and if oil is eventually found, it carries the possibility of  economic development. But it also carries  the possibility that an oil spill, almost impossible to clean up in the icy  environment, would destroy much of the ocean life the natives now depend on for food. The sad thing is that they are being forced to change a way of life that sustained them for centuries. While some may adapt, their way of life and culture will be destroyed, and many will likely end up among the poor and unemployed.

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

2011 Wildfire Terlton OK

In 1998, the US refused to ratify the Kyoto Treat which would have limited the release of greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, into the atmosphere. The refusal was based mainly on the highly inflated financial costs, without adequately considering the costs of inaction. On a per capita basis the US emits six times as much CO2 as any other country. Without our participation and leadership, the world has failed to stem the release of CO2 into the air, and scientists tell us that this is leading to a warmer Earth, more extreme weather, crop failure, droughts, and wildfires. We have  certainly experienced many of those things recently and it should make us think about what our failure to ratify the Kyoto Treaty may mean to us.

Three weeks ago the local Cleveland American’s front-page story was about the heat wave and the drought. Channel 6 Weather reported that this year Oklahoma set a record for highest temperatures of any state, ever. Recently, NASA reported this has been the hottest decade since records began in 1880, with 2010 and 2005 tied for the hottest years. A recent poll of climate scientists found that 97% of those active in research agree that the Earth is getting warmer and the main factor is man’s release of carbon dioxide into the air. The other 3% of the scientists get enough publicity to keep the public confused, especially since the climate scientists cannot claim certainty in their predictions, but only increased chances.

A recent paper from the University of Colorado predicted that global warming would cause higher probabilities of extreme weather, heat waves, droughts, crop failure, and wildfires. We’ve certainly seen all that happen this year. Last week, the Cleveland American’s front page story was on the devastating wildfires in the surrounding Pawnee County. Around 15,000 acres of our county burned, 40 homes when up in flames, one person died, and many were injured.  It stretched the resources of our emergency services to the limit and had it not been for the heroic efforts of our firefighters, many of them volunteers, the devastation would have been much worse.

Skeptical scientists, and many of our politicians, dispute the scientific evidence and claim there is not really a problem. They say that efforts to stop global warming will cause us too much inconvenience and expense. We might want to think about how inconvenient and expensive it is for us to lose our crops, homes, and in some cases our loved ones?