Is this an exception in climate science or the rule?

Question

There is a new paper out called: Drought-Induced Reduction in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 2000 Through 2009. The abstract states the following:

"The past decade (2000 to 2009) has been the warmest since instrumental measurements began, which could imply continued increases in NPP; however, our estimates suggest a reduction in the global NPP of 0.55 petagrams of carbon."

This is described as a "science shocker" with the implication that global warming can actually reduce the biomass causing all sorts of trouble. This has been picked up by many media outlets.

However, I did find a fairly sober analysis of this study. It appears that this study is not statistically robust at all. There are no error bars nor any calculation of confidence levels. It appears that Science Magazine simply wanted to "get the message out". This is confirmed in emails from one of the authors:

"Because terrestrial carbon sink issues are of such high policy significance, we felt that this new global trend was an important message that could not wait longer to give a first look. And obviously Science magazine agreed. "

"Some research findings are so important that society really cannot afford to wait another 10+yr for 95% or 99% statistical confidence. "

My question is, do you think this is just an exception to the rule or do you feel that climate science has many instances (including perhaps many we don't know of) where the message is more important than verification of the accuracy?

Or more importantly, does this matter to you or do you also believe that the message doesn't need the accuracy of science to back it up nor the need to mention the lack of verification in the alarming reports on the study?

(Note: I will add links since my question didn't get through the censors the first time)

Answer 1

I thought it was a very interesting article and point.



It is sad when the preeminent (or former preeminent?) science magazine has decided that agenda trumps science. It is inexcusable to allow conclusions to be made on such inadequate data.



Dana has no problem because it is alarmist. He should be more concerned because maybe in 10 years the politicization of science might work against him. Science should be concerned with pushing the truth, not an agenda.



The second post contained a very informed and honest evaluation of the report. He certainly wasn't a "denier". He seemed he just wanted to argue truthfully. When he changed the start date just one year it went from being negative to positive.



Clearly this isn;t an isolated example where message trumps science.



I hope it is a trend that is stamped out soon and whoever runs that place should be looking for a job.





Portland suggests that suggestions that AIDS affects Gays and Blacks is political. AIDS affects gays far more for obvious reasons. Blacks have a higher death rate presumably due to greater Eurasian disease tolerance acquired when Eurasian ancestors survived similar diseases. I didn't realize it was politcal. I thought it was fairly straitforward.

Answer 2

I’m wondering if you’ve read the full paper, if you have access to Science you can read it here http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/329/5994/940



When you read the full article it's apparent that there is a great deal more uncertainty than is implied in the abstract and one of the biggest problems is that the 0.55 Pg C/y reduction that is referred to, is based more on a linear trend than an RA or poly trend.



In 2000 the NPP anomaly was +1.2Pg C/y, in 2009 the NPP value +0.3. However, if the range started in 2001 and not 2000 then there would be no change as the anomalous value for 2001 was also +0.3Pg C/y. If the start date was 2002 then it would show an upward trend, as the value for that year was -1.0Pg C/y.



The problem is that the period being studied is too short to draw conclusions, and as with anything to do with the climate, you can’t simply take a start point and an end point and compare the two.



As I stated in a similar question asked by Dana a few days ago “My feeling is that a lot more research needs to be conducted before we are in a position to state that there has been an overall decrease / increase in plant mass. The information is available to draw conclusions on a local basis but not yet on a global scale.”



The abstract clearly states that the findings are estimates, suggestions and implications. There is no intimation that the paper is accurate, more than anything, it appears to have been offered up for debate.



The notion of it being a ‘science shocker’ is of no relevance as this is a headline on a website and not part of the paper, unless you’re trying to introduce a bias to your question I’m not sure why you intimated otherwise.



If you want to make up your own mind regarding the presentation of climate science, then might I suggest you subscribe to one of the climatological journals and conduct your own evaluation. You will find that there is a lot more uncertainty then you are probably aware of and that on the whole the reporting is both fair and impartial.

Answer 3

Hi Jonathon. The arguments are very very thin and without any real evidence to support them. The reasons are financial and therefore political. That and laziness. Some governments don't want to admit to it, or at least don't want to take responsibility. Mainly because most economies are built upon the trading of the Fossil Fuels etc. And if they admit to it they have to stop trading in Fuels and move to green technologies which are expensive to set up and can cause political tensions with people they purchase e.g. oil from. Many PEOPLE don't want to believe in it because: a) it's actually quite a scary idea (that the actions of people could be endangering not just other plants and animals but our very own futures); b) it means people have to stop being lazy; and c) they have to change their lifestyles. For most this seems too difficult and so they would choose to disbelieve. For some it's simply hard to change long-held ideas. And even those who DO believe will often do nothing about it because they say 'it's not my responsibility', 'why should I care', or 'I'll die before it gets too bad'. The biggest problem currently is the media (with the exception of the BBC who are criticised for being too supporting of current climate change being a human cause). Many stories on Climate Change will try to sow the seeds of doubt. It was strange to see (as I just watched An Inconvenient Truth on Fox Movies as it's Earth Day) Al Gore demonstrate that in 2005(?) there were over 900 scientific studies published in journals on Climate Change where there was no doubt at all that human impact is leading to the current round of Global Warming, and yet of all the Media stories published in the same year on that topic, over 50% of them tried to cast doubt on the science. When all Scientific studies HAVE to be peer-reviewed (examined by other scientists) and all of them were found to show the same thing, it's interesting the media wasn't publishing info in the same way. People that talk about mass-conspiracies are fools as there are literally tens of thousands of scientists investigating some aspect of climate change and they almost all will say the same thing. As Trevor demonstrated, the arguments are childish, illogical, insubstantiated, and without any scientific evidence to support them. You have to make your own mind up where you stand on issues but please always bear this in mind: Do your own research, but research the SCIENCE - using science journals and magazines - and avoid the conspiracy theory sites as they will never provide the whole story - only results that support their biased views. Remember, a scientist as a person may be biased and try to be misleading in his reports, but scientists as a group are unbiased and are simply looking for the truth and for a report to be published other scientists have to review it and decide if it's a good study and carried out honestly.

Answer 4

Science denial recipe for reactionary demagogues:



Take one scientific study, pick out the bits that contradict the presupposition, repackage the remainder as a conclusion, sprinkle with sinister references, and serve up to the ill informed. Rebuff any criticism by spinning in rhetorical circles.



It's the sinister references that really irk.



Remember, scientists are not doing a public service, or really any sort of good. Their job is to support the global environmental socialist conspiracy that wants to raise the cost of gasoline and heating fuel when you are just trying to get to work and keep warm in the winter, raise your taxes, take away your freedoms, create a one world government and ship you to a concentration camp.



Deliberately misreading important studies and misrepresenting the contents is worse than just a mistake, it's lying and it's wrong.

Answer 5

No statistical significance, yet publication. Sounds like something that would not fly in journals I would read. It is funny that they get away with putting this BS out there, knowing that the abstract is poorly written and misrepresents the the findings of the study. This just give more fuel to those who would like to misrepresent climate science and the certainty of climate science and make further claims of certain gloom and doom. So, of course Dana does not have a problem with it. If it fails, they will just throw a new poorly done study into the hopper that is the scare-mongering greener movement.

Answer 6

If this so called global warming issue is truthful and basically has nothing to hide why censored those truthful information from the reading public? What's the point of lying?



And if someone refuse to buy the propaganda as the alarmist called it true science they brand you as a denier aka holocaust denier which has no connection at all.



Warming alarmist science is simply has no bases (junk science) yet they claim as highly educated expert on the field of science..



"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature."



What science say:



When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise.

Answer 7

I wish you would be more honest, though I understand when you're in denial, that's almost impossible.



This paper was not inaccurate, as you claim. The criticism that it didn't discuss the statistical significance of its results is a valid one. However, the results themselves were accurate, it's simply too early to know if the downward trend is a genuine one or just due to noise.



There's certainly no problem with publishing a paper analyzing the data now, despite the trend not being statistically significant. There was a clear upward trend in NPP over the past several decades, and it appears to now be flattening or declining, though it's too early to say for sure. That's how the data should have been presented, and it's fair to say the authors did a poor job at articulating that. The authors are correct that if NPP is genuinely declining, this is an important thing to know about for many reasons. But they should have been clearer in stating that the trend isn't statistically significant yet.



Note that (as gcnp discusses) when it comes to global temperature data, deniers should listen to your criticisms. We're constantly told that the planet hasn't warmed since 1998 or 2000 or 2002 or 2005 or pick some random date where there's not enough data to discern the signal clearly over the noise. But now suddenly you're critical about using 8 years worth of data because you don't like the conclusion? That's some major hypocrisy.



*edit* I don't even know why I bother with you Ottawa. You're a lost cause, ignorant and happy about it.

Answer 8

Clearly you are fine with this type of behavior. https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20100815115548AA6vXHH&show=7#profile-info-egqMe1m7aa

Answer 9

i wish i had time to realize the true diamensions.

Answer 10

It is the typical mindless garbage that passes for science by the pseudoscientific doomsday cult. As long as it is negative, error bars don't matter. The brainless manipulate the data and claim continued warming. It is rather surprising that they were allowed to admit that productivity increased from warming. The amount of CO2 increase isn't enough to make much difference in the last 10 years. It hasn't continued to warm so the increase in biomass shouldn't be expected to increase much. Frankly the study has zero credibility except for them admitting that warming increased biomass which is a good thing. They probably needed to add gloom to get funded. Them blaming it on CO2 shows that they are nothing but anti-science fools that have zero concept of cause and effect. Even the basic premise is beyond idiotic so I wouldn't give any credibility to what they are TRYING TO PROVE.

Answer 11

It seems that most people here lament that climate science is polluted by politics. This exception is not limited to climate science. Consider:



- Racial genetics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve_Debate_(book)

- Egyptian History: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2008/01/20/2008-01-20_egypts_black_pharaohs_ignored.html

- Economic Effects of Bailouts: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V8D-44PWPST-3&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1440670480&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=017a775e67742ce0c0105c893e6213d0

- Ritalin verses Amphetamines: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Ritalin+%2B+amphetamines&btnG=Search&as_sdt=400000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

- Gulf War Syndrome: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Gulf+War+Syndrome&btnG=Search&as_sdt=400000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

- Psychological effects of abortion: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2135377

- AIDS affecting Gays and Blacks more than others: http://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/retrieve/pii/S193131280800190X



That is hardly a complete list.



All of the above have official government lines, and thus, are political. In every case there is an asymmetric standard for publication. The proponents of the official theories rarely perceive any injustice in this. Meanwhile, those who do see the injustice, stop putting much confidence in the science being done, or anything that officials would have to say on the subject.



Edit @Dana:

Statistical significance is ordinarily a requirement for publication in a peer reviewed journal for non political subjects. Your dismissal of this requirement is just an example of the asymmetric publication requirements I mentioned above not seeming nefarious to official theory advocates.



Edit @Jim Z:

"Portland suggests that suggestions that AIDS affects Gays and Blacks is political."

On the contrary, the link shows strong evidence that one reason that AIDS affects descendants of Sub Sahara Africa is genetic. The politically correct theory is that AIDS is not a "homosexual disease", and it does not affect different races differently.

Answer 12

Suppose that were the temperature record showing cooling, would you accept it as being true?