PARTES de PRENSA - QUIENES SOMOS - CORREO - EL LIBRO - ARTíCULOS - LINKS
AMAZONAS - CLIMA - ENERGÍA - ENGLISH VERSION - VERSION FRANÇAISE - PILOT NOTES










VALIDACIÓN DE SANTER et al., 2005
"Amplificación de las Tendencias de Temperaturas de Superficie y
Variabilidad en la Atmósfera Tropical"

Science Express

Publicado OnLine antes de prensa, Agosto, 11, 2005

He aquí una rara oportunidad para la gente común de ver la manera en que se conduce un debate científico cuando hay voluntad de hacerlo a fondo. Se puede uno enterar de aspectos del quehacer y la investigación científica en climatología que son ampliamente desconocidos porque ni siquiera los grandes medios de comunicación los saben, y tampoco les interesa conocerlos. Lo único que cuenta para los medios son las conclusiones que usarán para emitir sus alarmistas "partes de prensa". El "sacerdocio" del periodísmo no piensa tanto en la Religión de la Verdad como en el color del dólar que trae el aumento del tiraje o el ráting de la TV.

El debate científico comenzó el 11 de agosto en el sitio web Climatesceptics.com, cuando la revista Science puso "online" tres estudios "científicos" sobre presuntos errores que contendrían los registros de temperaturas confeccionados con datos obtenido mediante los satélites meteorológicos (MSU) y los globlos sondas estratosféricos. Los registros de estos instrumentos no concordobana con los registros de las estaciones de tierra (o de superficie), y mucho menos con las predicciones de los modelos computados. Esta severa discrepancia le restaba credibilidad a la teoría del calentamiento "catastrófico" de la Tierra.

Los medios de prensa tomaron los estudios de Science y distribuyerno partes de prensa y artículos cantando una victoria un tanto apresurada. Alborozados afirmaron que el debate sobre el calentamiento global había terminado. Los escpeticos habían admitido los errores y las tendencias al calentamiento eran mayores "que lo previamente estimado". Sin embargo, como se comenzó a leer en nuestro anterior artículo sobre el tema (Historia de Tres Estudios y Un Naufragio") el verdadero debate sobre el calentamiento recién comienza, y enter las cabezas que rodarán en la nueva contienda están la honestidad científica de muchos equipos de investigadores. El dinero de los subsidios gubernamentales de investigación son una tentación demasiado grande para resistirse.

Tenemos que recordar las palabras del fallecido científico y famoso vlcanólogo Francés Dr. Haroun Tazieff, cuando comentó el otorgamiento del Premio Nobel de Química 1995 a los autores del fraude del ozono, F. Sherwoof Rowland, Mario Molina, y Paul Crutzen: "Es muy lamentable la velocidad a la que está desapareciendo la honestidad científica."



From: “Timo Hameranta” <timo.hameranta@pp.inet.fi>
To: <climatesceptics@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Validation of Santer et al, Part I: Formal Considerations

Estimados todos (miembros y no-miembros),

ya hemos tenido varios comentarios sobre el estudio:

Santer et al., 2005. Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere. Science Express, publicado online antes de impresión el 11 de agosto, 2005

Ahora es el momento de movernos en dirección a la real validación de este estudio.

Esta Parte 1 consiste de las "Consideraciones Formales y Sugerencias":

1. Los Autoress
2. Teorías ensayadas
3. Información usada
4. Inspección del Modelo
5. Replicación

Los Ca`´itulos son como sigue:

1. Los Autores

En este estudios la lista de los autores es impresionante:

Benjamin D. Santer, Tom M. L. Wigley, Carl Mears, Frank J. Wentz, Stephen A. Klein, Dian J. Seidel, Karl E. Taylor, Peter W. Thorne, Michael F. Wehner, Peter J. Gleckler, Jim S. Boyle, W. D. Collins, Keith W. Dixon, Charles Doutriaux, Melissa Free, Qiang Fu, Jim E. Hansen, Gareth. S. Jones, Reto Ruedy, T. R. Karl, John R. Lanzante, Gerald A. Meehl, V. Ramaswamy, Gary Russell, and Gavin A. Schmidt.

I had understood that when scientists begin their shared research they have a lead author, and co-authors make the agreed part of the research. They usually make a joint application for funding, too. When the field research is finished the authors compile drafts of the paper due to publication. They may distribute the draft for comments to other colleagues, and in the final paper they address their acknowledgment to those ones.

When none in the climate science community masters everything, it's necessary to call special experts to the team. For example, dendrochronologists study tree-rings, and a statistician is needed to make the math. When math and statistical skills do not belong to the strengths among most of the dendrochronologists and they have to rely on statisticians, dear Michael E. Mann is one scientist dendrochronologists use, but the results are mixed. Better statisticians are needed.

Further, it is not customary to present the division of labor in the final paper, e.g. as follows: "Author contributions: I.Y.F., S.C.D., K.L., and J.J. designed research; I.Y.F., S.C.D., K.L., and J.J. performed research; I.Y.F., S.C.D., K.L., and J.J. analyzed data; and I.Y.F. and S.C.D. wrote the paper."

In: Fung, Inez Y., Scott C. Doney, Keith Lindsay, and Jasmin John, 2005. Evolution of carbon sinks in a changing climate. PNAS published before print August 1, 2005, online <http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0504949102v1>

Now, it was some kind of a news to me when Ben Santer Aug 11 explained:

"The first draft of the Santer et al. paper was circulated to a limited distribution of potential co-authors on April 20th, 2005."

The paper was then revisited with Carl Mears and Frank Wentz April 26 - May 13.

As far as I can see, this circulation of the draft April 20th, 2005 means that any actual field research or replication of the results or a proper review by the potential co-authors, besides Carl Mears and Frank Wentz, and any mutual communication about possible discrepancies between all the authors were practically impossible when the paper was submitted to Science May 13, 2005.

     It seems evident that those other co-authors could have had only certain additions and corrections to the text, if any. These invited co-authors have done at best the job which normally belongs to the acknowledged colleagues, and after submission to editors and peer-reviewers.

Those invited co-authors should rather be called co-signers only. I do admit that the line between actual research workers and commentators is sometimes flickering, but in this case not.

The IPCC community uses similar method, and these actual authors have adopted it to this scientific paper. Editors, peer-reviewers, and readers are left uninformed about the division of labor. No good.

My question: the procedure by Ben and other actual authors with this paper, how common it is?

Dear scientists, editors and peer-reviewers, it seems to me that information about author contributions should be the praxis in every scientific journal.

2. Theories tested

Science is about ideas, hypothesis and finally specific theories the validity of which will become verified by comparisons to observational data with the aid of known physical processes and computerized model parameterizations. Thereafter all specific theories should be arranged in a hierarchy of theories, and finally include in an all-inclusive common theory.

About the theories tested here the abstract says:

"This amplification behavior is similar in a range of observations and climate model simulations, and is consistent with basic theory."

In the actual text we read:

"Our focus is on the amplification of surface temperature variability and trends in the free troposphere. We study this amplification behavior in several different ways...

Based on simple moist adiabatic lapse rate (MALR) theory (29), we expect scaling ratios in the deep tropics to increase with increasing height, and to peak at roughly 200 hPa. Comparison of the amplification factors estimated with T2LT and TFu data allows us to verify whether models and observations confirm this theoretical expectation…

Both model and satellite data indicate that variability in TS is amplified in the tropical troposphere (Fig. 1, B and C). Amplification of surface warming is a direct result of moist thermodynamic processes (29). We examine two different amplification metrics...

Figure 3A shows RS(z) values in models and radiosondes. The theoretically-expected profile is also displayed (32). In all cases, RS(z) increases above the boundary layer, with maximum amplification at roughly 200 hPa. Below roughly 400 hPa, there is close agreement between the scaling ratios in models, radiosondes and theory. Between 400 and 150 hPa, the theoretical scaling ratios are consistently larger than in either the radiosondes or the IPCC simulations. Such departures may be due to the fact that MALR theory is applicable to regions of the tropical ocean experiencing deep convection...

In the low- to mid-troposphere, model Râ(z) results are in good agreement with theoretical expectations. Model scaling ratios are therefore consistent with theory on both monthly and multi-decadal timescales, while the radiosonde data are only consistent with theory on monthly timescales…

The regression between the model s {TS} and s {T2LT} values has a slope of 1.3, in accord with the theoretically-expected scaling ratio at the peak of the T2LT weighting function....

In summary, we have demonstrated that all observed datasets and model results are remarkably consistent in terms of their relationship between monthly- and annual-timescale temperature variations at the surface and in the free troposphere. This is a strong verification of the model physics that governs the amplification of tropical surface temperature changes…

We have employed basic physical principles, as represented in current climate models, for interpreting and evaluating observational data. Our work illustrates that progress toward an improved understanding of the climate system can best be achieved by combined use of observations, theory, and models."

.............. End of copy .............

Well, as far as I can see, the following theories have been tested:

  • Theory of the amplification of surface temperature variability
  • Theory of trends in the free troposphere
  • Simple moist adiabatic lapse rate (MALR) theory
  • theory about profile of RS(z) values
  • Theory of scaling ratios

There is a proper reference to the MALR theory, but references to other theories fail.

Dear scientists, in the coming Parts of this Validation I'd like to learn your expert comments how well the authors have succeeded in the verification of these theories.

Finally, the 'obligatory' question:

What, if any, implications the results of this study have to the theory of the alleged human-caused 'enhanced' GH effect?

3. Data used

Reliable observational data is crucial in testing the validity of models. The authors have used the following data:

  • data from international modeling groups
  • The IPCC Data Archive
  • UAH MSU data

    Dear scientists, in the coming Parts of this Validation I'd like to learn your expert comments whether the data used is sufficient and reliable enough for the purposes intended?

    4. Model scrutiny

    It is possible to study climate phenomena only with the aid of computer models for the enormous amount of data needed.

    The following question arises inevitably:

    How we are able to verify the results generated by the models?

    Modelers know, of course, the capabilities and deficiencies of their own models, but what about independent, reliable verification about inputs, parameterizations, runs etc?

    For example, editors and peer-reviewers are incapable of any verification of model performances.

    As far as I can see, not performed anywhere, and we are forced to rely on the assurances of the modelers only.

    But, Science is not about Trust. This problem with models is unsolved, but should not be.

    5. Replication

    The universal scientific rule is well defined as follows:

    "Materials described in a scientific paper should be shared in a way that permits other investigators to replicate the work described in the paper and to build on its findings."

    Ref: US National Research Council 2003: "Sharing publication-related data and materials"

    In other words ”Science is not about Trust, but about Replication."

    This basic scientific principle has become generally unnoticed within the climate community. We have now 100 000 scientists studying climatic issues, and they pour such enormous amounts of new scientific studies that in fact nobody is able to read them all through, and any replication or validation of them all is task impossible to everyone.

    Worse, several scientists do not even want their studies replicated, thus violating the normal scientific routine and prevailing rule. The scientific community has resigned to this situation. In fact, the scientific community developed a new formula:

    To create several research groups and wait for whether the independent groups reach the same results, or not.

    If the same or approximately the same result is achieved, all are happy: "This is the current scientific consensus!"

    Nobody ever tries to replicate other group's studies.

    Now, what if all have done the same mistakes?

    Who knows when no validation was ever conducted? In current circumstances we in reality deal with a Belief System only. Evidence and examples we have, plentifully. As I see it, the following current unhappy and unscientific state in Climatology continues:

    Everyone is able to believe in what he wants to believe in, arguments pro and con everything we have, plenty of.

    But, please do not try to argue that this has something to do with Science. "Children's exercise" as Dick Lindzen states. I strongly suggest that you, dear scientists, do begin to follow the basic scientific rules, viz.

    • To allow the replication of your own studies, and
    • to replicate others' studies before approval.
      "Trust is not Science, and there's no Science without Validation and Replication."

      This year we have had certain progress which have to continue.

      * * * * * * * * * *

      Dear all, more validation about the Santer et al study in Part(s) to come.

      About these Formal Considerations and Suggestions your comments are greatly appreciated.

      Best regards

      Timo Hämeranta

      Disclaimer: "I am private citizen and represent only myself, not any organization or interest group and I do not promote or lobby anyone's interests or receive funding from anybody. My only interest and ambition is the Search for Scientific Truth. In scientific issues I am a middleman of knowledge, in practical and political ones a stakeholder."

      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

      Timo Hämeranta, LL.M.
      Moderator, Climatesceptics
      Martinlaaksontie 42 B 9
      01620 Vantaa
      Finland, Member State of the European Union

      Moderator: <timohame@yahoo.co.uk>
      Private: <timo.hameranta@pp.inet.fi>

      Home page: <http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm>

      Moderator of the discussion group  "Sceptical Climate Science"
      <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics>

      "To dwell only on horror scenarios of the future
      shows only a lack of imagination".  (Kari Enqvist)

      "If the facts change, I'll change my opinion.
      What do you do, Sir" (John Maynard Keynes)

      "As long as we are unable to explain the evident inconsistencies
      that fly in the face of climate alarmism, attempts to associate
      scientific skepticism with Holocaust denial can only be regarded
      as political incitement."

      (Benny J. Peiser, CCNet January 30, 2003)

      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

      From: "Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen" <Sonja.B-C@hull.ac.uk>
      To: "Timo Hameranta" < timo.hameranta@pp.inet.fi>,
      CC: “Jarl Ahlbeck" <jarl.ahlbeck@abo.fi>
      Subject: Re: Science Esp - Santer et al II

      Dear all:

      Unless Jarl disagrees, I would like to publish these 'angry' word in a few months in E&E [Energy & Environment], May I? Any other words from other people?

      I would like to point out that all this emission trading was good fun and
      even profitable (in UK) when natural gas was cheap and you could easily
      switch from coal to gas for electricity generation, as the UK did. This era
      is over and the emission trading chickens are ...etc...

      It is difficult to get true figures for the cost of electricity from renewables,
      but all remain highly subsidised, meaning that this dedicated taxpayers'
      money (or consumers in form of higher charges), cannot be spent elsewhere.

      My 'agenda' is to persuade people that opposing Kyoto must become a 'Left'
      cause as well. It is already a Right wing one for more obvious reasons. If
      Left and Right (politically speaking) were to join on this issue, then the
      environmental ideologues would be isolated and bureaucracies would soon drop
      the emission trading issue - nopt technology .I guess temission trading may
      be gradually dropped here...but 'green ' taxes?? But energy security is becoming
      the real issue, which does mean becoming less dependent on fossil fuels.

      Sorry about intruding with politics/policy... but the real battle over Kyoto
      is on now, over what will happen after 2012?

      Sonja



      Vea el tiempo en Argentina



      Usted es el visitante No.:

      desde Enero de 2002

      FastCounter by bCentral

      Vea aquí otras interesantes
      estadísticas de la página

      ¿Desde qué países nos visitan?
      ¿Quiénes son los visitantes?


      No se enoje!
      Sólo díganos su opinión!

      Nombre:
      Email:
      Comentarios: