It's the contrarian / rhetorical game-playing nature inside me, but other than being really surprised and impressed at the science and data, I wondered how certain, um, "interests" might try to discredit the information. I mean, I don't think there's a valid path. Maybe some comically bad ones, which would be entertaining in some ways.
Well first I would say, "7 centuries? It's only 572 years!" Then I would point out that it's actually only 332 years since a chunk of 240 years of the Japanese freeze data (ending at 1922-23) are considered invalid and therefore not used in the analysis. Then you can just fall back on not denying climate change but denying the man-made aspect of it, or pointing out what a tiny sample this is in relation to human existence.
OK, I'll bite. Did you look at the paper? I greatly appreciate that the article linked it. Check out Figure 1. It's the basis for their claim that "the trend in the freeze date in the earlier time period (1443–1683) was 0.19 days per decade and increased to 4.6 days per decade in the more recent time period (1923–2014; Fig. 1A)." The fit for the the recent period looks extremely suspect. The slope they fit is an artifact of considering the "did not freeze" dates as equivalent to Day 62. Change the day, and you get a different slope. Why did they choose 62? Because that was the latest that the lake ever was observed to freeze. Thus the precision of the exact slope conveys nothing other than "did not freeze" was more common over than last few decades than earlier.
OK, so probably the lake has been less likely to freeze in recent decades because the climate is warmer, caused by increased CO2 emissions over the last century. Or is there anything else that could change the lake's likelihood of freezing? There is that mention of "hot springs". Luckily, as mentioned in the linked National Geographic article, "It turns out that local factors, such as changes in land use, human population growth and even the installation of a floodgate and development of hot springs on Lake Suwa, had little influence on the patterns of change in ice freezing dates for the lake or ice break-up dates for the Torne River."
The river in Finland is even luckier. From the paper: "Torne is one of the largest unregulated rivers in Scandinavia, but is influenced by several local anthropogenic factors including urban development, bridge construction, hydropower development on a tributary of Torne, and demolition of constructed dams. For example, the population of central Tornio has increased from 1000 inhabitants in 1880 to 10,000 in 200919. In addition, several bridges were constructed including the railway bridge in 1910 and a highway bridge in the 1930s and 1970s. Three small hydroelectric power stations have been developed on one of Torne’s tributary rivers (Tengelionjoki) in 1954 (2.5 MW), 1955 (0.5 MW), and 1987 (10.5 MW). In the 20th century, 162 log-driving dams were constructed on Torne, but later demolished in the 1970s that may have sped up the runoff. Despite the number of anthropogenic factors on Torne, the human influence on Torne is small relative to the size of the river and no statistically significant consequences of local anthropogenic activities on ice breakup dates in Torne are apparent."[1]
Good thing these have no "statistically significant consequences", although it might be worth noting that "not statistically significant" absolutely does not mean "statistically non-significant". And it also doesn't consider that cloudiness and coal dust changing the albedo of the snow may have greater effect on the timing of spring melt than air temperature.
Anyway, that's probably the angle I'd take in discrediting this paper. Well, that and asking how the analysis would look if they didn't throw away all the 250 years of data in the middle. What's that? Well, for Lake Suwa, "We eliminated all data from 1682–1923 from the analyses to reduce the uncertainty in dates of ice freeze". What uncertainty? "Unfortunately, there are missing data in the midyears of the time series (1505–1515) and more importantly, data from 1682–83 to 1922–23 are considered unreliable for analysis ice cover freeze dates". I see. You had a couple years that were considered unreliable, so you did the obvious thing by throwing away all 250 years between those dates. I know it's probably just coincidence, and for all we know the case for catastrophic climate change would be even stronger if the unreliable data was included, but still, that seems odd.
For the record, I'm strongly environmentalist, believe that protecting the earth is more important than building the economy, believe that humans are affecting the climate, believe that the world is currently warming, and really hate bad science. And although I've only glanced at it, I'm pretty confident in saying that this is bad science.
[1] For an interesting contrast, where hydroelectric projects appear to have a large effect on climate, "People of a Feather" is a recent documentary centered around the effect of dams in Northern Canada on ice formation in Hudson Bay: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/people-of-a-feather...
Yes, they graph the data. What I was asking for was an analysis that includes that data. My guess is that it would produce a much flatter (although still increasing) line, and that it would be much harder (although still possible) to assert that the modern rate of change is dramatically higher.
Why do you think that "more importantly, data from 1682–83 to 1922–23 are considered unreliable for analysis ice cover freeze dates" means "a couple years that were considered unreliable" instead of "the entire range of these years are unreliable".
Because I was reading rapidly and got it wrong? In retrospect, your interpretation might make much more sense. I'll check the footnotes that they reference and see if you're right. It's still disturbing to remove data based on post-hoc qualitative judgement, but this would be less of a red flag.
Yes, this footnote does say that all entire block of data from 1683 to 1923 is "rather unreliable", and thus your interpretation is correct. But their reasoning for this (only based on the first page) is that for many of the records "no dates of freeze are given". There is no implication that the dates that are given are unreliable, and hence no good reason I can see (from the first page) to eliminate them.
But reading farther, the "red flag" seems more like a "blazing conflagration". In the abstract, they explain that the reason that 1504 to 1515 is considered unreliable is because the written record says that lake didn't freeze for those that 8 consecutive winters. They argue in the abstract that since this is so statistically unlikely, it must be wrong. So this paper is eliminating data as unreliable because of non-freezes, and then concluding that the current string of non-freezes is unprecedented!
Further on the first page is the explicit statement, in complete contradiction to the current paper, that development has indeed affected the freezing of the lake: "In recent years the conditions for complete freezing of the lake have changed because of the increase in the output of the hot spring in the lake. This increase is the result of recreational developments" and "However, the Omiwatari dates are delayed as a result of the recent human intervention". For the new paper to cite this and say there is no evidence that development has affected the timing of the freezing seems (to say the least) disingenuous.
"But reading farther, the "red flag" seems more like a "blazing conflagration". In the abstract, they explain that the reason that 1504 to 1515 is considered unreliable is because the written record says that lake didn't freeze for those that 8 consecutive winters. They argue in the abstract that since this is so statistically unlikely, it must be wrong. So this paper is eliminating data as unreliable because of non-freezes, and then concluding that the current string of non-freezes is unprecedented!" That's hilarious. How on earth is that justifiable?
Perhaps I'm interpreting it wrong? Possibly one of the other references I didn't find online gives a more charitable interpretation. Or maybe this reference clarifies in the body of the paper. But on the surface, it does seem hilarious.
There is always a valid way. And by valid i mean a way that although may seem unlikely cannot be directly falsified. Alot of deniers say the sun is getting hotter and there is even data supporting this theory.
Well, seeing fellow citizens everywhere fail at critical thinking and accept what's presented by media or whoever as truth, I'll say it's not hard to influence people's opinions. Mob mentality, convenience of soaking up what one has been told, and just enjoying a comfortable non-critical life. I don't blame people who don't want to critically question things, but I do object to most people's tendency to take anything presented on TV or News as truth, while you or me telling them the same unbelievable story will be brushed off as insanity. We have to constantly fight for freedom of thought as well as expression, since many places time and again try to limit it, so I wouldn't want to silence liars in order to protect my right to tell the uncomfortable truth.
The Japanese are the gods of commitment. I recall reading the self-mummifying priests, and other stuff that I don't recall, and boy, thats cool and scary. 7 centuries of continuous recording of the same event.
do you trust their historical accounts? I mean if they're willing to white wash their WWII atrocities, to save face, why wouldn't they similarly exaggerate positives in their history?
Well, to be fair, the idea behind whitewashing is that there's some benefit to covering up the horrors of the past. It doesn't work out that way, especially when the truth eventually comes out. But what would be the benefit here? It's ice measurement data from seven centuries ago, long before climate skeptics started complaining that scientists were "fudging data for grant money" and other nonsense accusations. The monks would have had zero reason to fudge data.
In any case, you didn't really see the rise of Japanese militarism until after the Meiji Restoration in 1868. The atrocities that took place before and during WWII can't really be connected to a remote monastery and its priests who started recording this data seven centuries beforehand.
Exactly. Motives and intention matters. Read the freaking article, Duane. They were recording the data to forecast the harvest and rainfall for the coming year. It had nothing to do with whatever tinfoil hat motives you have flying around in your head.
I was not seriously suggesting the monks were manipulating the numbers; however, the lack of obvious motive does not imply an absolute lack of motive. It seems a little silly to attach any certainty to historical records without understanding the context, which may or may not be possible.
How can you trust what Feynman says about science when he was on the team that created the atrocious bomb that destroyed two cities and obliterated tends of thousands of lives in an instant?
This bomb also ended the war that was costing more civilian lives in conventional war methods (like fire bombing of Tokyo). If anything, in the context of WWII, _first_ bomb ended up actually saving lives.
The bomb enabled communism to take over most of East Asia.
The bomb is the reason why half the world lived under communist dictatorships.
The war could have ended via an armistice, if only America was willing to negotiate one, but no, they wanted to go all in.
After the war, Korea was worse off for decades. We think of "South Korea" as an advanced nation like Japan, but actually South Korea was ruled by a brutal military dictatorship not different from third world countries (there was a story about that just a few days ago).
A curse on all those monks who are trying to bury their World War II atrocities and variations in annual climate! Those guys are the real problem here.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep25061 (not pay-walled)