Foreword: For all of my readers, I can’t stress enough how important Dr. Herman’s message is. Please consider his requests for public comments. Something that most people don’t know is that you do not need to be a citizen of the USA to submit a comment. Time is of the essence, as comments close on August 14th, and there will not be another opportunity. For other bloggers and website operators, this post can be duplicated verbatim, and I encourage you to do so. Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony
A guest Post by Dr. Ben Herman
I recently received a NASA Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) preliminary report that I imagine many of you have also received, For those who may not have received it, I’ve included a link at the end of this comment. NASA is asking for responses to this report for those who have comments, suggestions, etc that they would like to pass on to the CCSP committee. I have read through the report personally and feel there is much in the report that requires additional clarification.
On pages 6 and 7 of the report there are several “bullets” which summarize the issues and findings. More detail on each of these points may be found in the report. It is my feeling that these bullets and the additional detail discussions contain much information that requires further input due to it being still controversial, incomplete, and in some instances very misleading.
This report will undoubtedly play an important role in future climate related research programs supported by both NASA and NOAA, and therefore it is very important that all issues identified as important in the report be clearly and completely explained, and where controversial, both sides of the issue be included. This is important to ensure all important aspects of future research are given equal opportunity for funding, which is the basic reason I am requesting your input. Instructions for submitting comments to the CCSP are in the link below.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Ben Herman
Instructions for submitting comments can be found in the following link:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/usp/public-review-draft/instructions.php
The complete CCSP report may be found in the following link.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/usp/public-review-draft/
Dr. Herman is past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona. See his list of publications here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony,
I’m not sure that the comments of a plumber would carry much weight.
Mike Bryant
Master Plumber
REPLY: To quote Seinfeld’s George Costanza: ‘its all pipes!’
AW, would it be OK to use this thread to help people sort out thoughts for the comments to be sent to CCSP?
If people could drop in a sentence or a paragraph of their best ideas, the rest of us might be able to generate more intelligent and complete comments much more efficiently. It would be most helpful if people cited a specific place in the report (page number, paragraph number, line number, caption, etc.) along with their comment so we could cross reference as we consider their input.
I ask for this kind of help in drafting a response because I want my comments to be as direct, informed, and clearly stated as I can make them. I don’t want to give the CCSP the opportunity to just brush off anyone’s comments because they are not crafted well enough.
REPLY: I discourage posting specific ideas for comments here, except in a very broad brush, because it would then be easy to argue that any verbiage found here was part of a “comment mill” and thus it becomes easy to rationalize disposing of a comment received that had such verbiage. This is why nationwide Letter to the Editor campaigns usually fail, because the editors know these aren’t original letters and simply discard them.
I encourage original thought on the issues and the submissions. For things you are unclear on, there are many topics on this blog you can search for here and on the net.
@Mike Bryant:
In the average pol’s office, an intern reads the incoming letters and just tallies one “for” or “against” on whatever issue it’s about. NASA may do better, indeed may even read the comments — but this report is so flagrantly biassed — it actually trots out the “hockey stick” with no hint that it’s known to be seriously flawed — that it would be valuable for the pols to realize that there is a substantial chunk of the population who understand someone is trying to hoodwink them.
see http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3384 (“Chucky” is the “hockey stick”)
I agree that posting specifics is a bad idea. But the “broad brush” idea is a good one. eg :
1) global temps falling since 1998
2) global sea ice increasing
3) polar bear numbers up
4) solar cycle link
5) hockey stick debunked
6) GISS caught out with dogdy data and procedures many times
7) famous names like Lindzen, Christy etc.
8) sea level falling now
9) potential future legal actions against those who knowingly mislead
etc
People on this forum should be smart enough to write up well reasearched reponses to these.
Shouldn’t the title be “Possible Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States”?
Dr. Herman says:
I will submit my input, but to assist anyone who would like suggestions, there are numerous items that are flagrantly wrong. They should be challenged.
The following examples can serve as a starting point; use only one, or two, that you feel you are knowledgeable in refuting, and confident to comment on. Pick any of the following very arguable assertions, or use another that you know something about.
And it wouldn’t hurt to mention that as a heavily taxed citizen, you know what’s going on here. In your own words, of course.
Some examples of opinion by NASA over fact:
It is stated as a fact that “the sea level will continue to rise” [even though the sea level has been falling].
It is stated as a fact that the planet’s temperature is rising.
It is stated that the planet’s temperature has risen 1.5 degrees [C or F? They don’t say, so it must be degrees F, which gives a bigger number] above “pre-industrial levels”, without saying how far they go back in pre-industrial times.
They state that if we stay on the current emissions course, the planet is heading for even larger warming than the highest projections from the UN/IPCC [which ‘projections’? They don’t say].
They state that “extreme events will become more common”. But no citations.
They refer to “changing precipitation patterns” — which always occur, and which have occurred continuously throughout geological history; they fail to admit that current changes are well within normal patterns.
They fail to acknowledge that no computer climate model has ever been able to replicate today’s climate, even after inputting all available past climate data.
They state that “Arctic sea ice is declining,” along with a scary hockey stick-style graph, without acknowledging that arctic sea ice is 1.05 million square kilometers above last summer’s coverage.
They state that “Warming is causing the sea level to rise as land-based ice melts and the oceans expand.” But this is refuted by empirical measurements.
They use propagandistic pictures of windmills, industrial smokestacks and traffic to subliminally convey their agenda.
Under the “warming influences” chart, CO2 is shown to be, by far, the largest cause of global warming — with no hint that water vapor, or the oceans, play any part at all.
They replicate the completely discredited “hockey stick” chart. If the original hockey stick was falsified, why is this chart any different? What data, algorithms and methodologies were uses to construct it? Was it peer reviewed?
They show methane skyrocketing straight up by using a chart that terminates in 2005; but since then, atmospheric methane has moderated considerably. Why don’t they mention that important fact?
They state flatly that human activities are responsible for “most” of the heating observed over the past 50 years, without any citations.
They use a flagrantly dishonest chart showing CO2 remaining below 300 ppmv over the past 800,000 years — then going in a straight up vertical line to 900 ppmv [this peer reviewed page shows that CO2 has routinely exceeded 2,000 ppmv during that time]. [click on the image to expand it]. Why are they deliberately misrepresenting factual geologic history?
I know what subjects I’m going to address. And I’m going to demand to know why this presentation is so one-sided, so obviously deceptive, and why no well-known skeptical climate scientists [Seitz, Ball, Lindzen, Coleman, Spencer, etc.], were apparently not invited to have any part in this production.
As Anthony says, pick something, and submit it in your own words. It’s a target-rich opportunity.
Also, it wouldn’t hurt to copy in your Senators and Congress: click [be polite].
Mr. Watts and Dr. Herman,
I understand where you’re coming from in motivating your readers to take action with regards to this paper, but I don’t think this action is appropriate. Let’s look at the facts:
The CCSP authors are inviting specific commentary pertaining to the language and clarity of the paper. No where do they suggest that this is an “open forum” for ideas on the state of climate science; no where do they suggest they they are looking for rebuttals to the claims stated in the paper. This is evidenced by the fact that they are asking that “comments should include the page number and page location of the text being addressed.” This request implies that they are asking for feedback on improving the language of the paper – not for guidance as to whether certain elements deemed as factual should be left out.
That the authors want contact information and specifically state that they may attempt to contact commenters to seek clarification further implies that what is going on here is more akin to an “open source” form of peer review; they are inviting review of the language of the paper from any interested party. I can’t stress this enough: the CCSP is very likely not looking for comments attempting to debunk the Mann reconstruction nor are they looking for feedback which are going to cite articles penned by well-knowned skeptics. That’s simply not what this process is for.
That the authors go further than contact information and request the affiliation of commenters also implies that it is not appropriate for “average joe skeptic” to attempt to refute the paper when they comment. The CCSP seems to be looking for legitimate criticism as to the language and clarity of the USP.
I really do understand where you all are coming from in urging your readers to take action. However, this is not an appropriate action to take. Let’s be realistic; many people will be motivated to write comments which ignore the suggested format, and will distract form the larger issue, which is attempting to create a clearly worded, unambiguous official document. I fear that your suggestion will prompt many superfluous, unnecessary, and inappropriate responses which will distract the authors from dealing with legitimate, important criticism about the product at hand.
Dr. Sherman’s sentiments clearly express what I’m saying: “I have read through the report personally and feel there is much in the report that requires additional clarification.” Please leave it at this; it would be highly appropriate to add a disclaimer that clarifies that this is the purpose of this open commenting process. If a deluge of comments attempting to refute AGW pour in to these authors, then I highly doubt you’ll get the chance to participate in a process such as this any time in the near future. However, if you instruct your readers to specifically stay within the guidelines provided by the CCSP, then perhaps the uncertainties intrinsic in the paper will be brought out more.
I don’t bring this up as an insult to your readers; I trust many of them will stay within the guidelines provided by the CCSP. But if the actions of the readers at many other blogs across the internet give any hint to what will happen, these poor authors will likely be buried under a mountain of superfluous and unnecessary comment.
REPLY: Thank you, I do see your points. But telling us we shouldn’t comment because some people may not follow the guidelines and generate ‘superfluous and unnecessary comment” is simply offbase, and in my opinion, wrongheaded. Much of the early comment period has slipped under the radar, with few in the public knowing that they could comment. We should not let this chance slip by simply because they may not like the kind of commentary.
The authors have solicited public comment, and they know well what pitfalls that may bring from people that don’t follow the guidelines. Democracy is a messy business. You should sit on a school board as I have or a city council and try telling citizens that they must adhere to specific format when commenting. You’ll get those who don’t, but do we dare throw them out for format? Never.
My concern is not for the editors, my concern is that the people of this country get a fair opportunity to comment. Often reports such as this get no significant public airing at all. This is one of them. So far it seems to be only known within the climate science community. This report will be cited in all sorts of public policy decisions, yet few in the public will have ever known about this and prior comment opprotunity.
And even the websites that ARE in the climate science community aren’t saying much about it. For example, the lead authors Karl and Peterson, at NCDC. Go to the NCDC page and try to find any mention of this report or of the public comment opportunity anywhere. It isn’t there.
Let’s do a check of a few websites that have an interest in AGW climate science to see how many are making this comment period known:
climatescience.gov – YES (originator)
ncdc.noaa.gov – NO
noaa.gov (main page) -NO
noaa.gov/newsarchive.html -NO
noaa.gov/climate.html – link only, no mention of public comment opportunity
cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ -NO
climate.noaa.gov/about_climate/ – two tiered link, no mention of public comment opportunity
RealClimate.org – NO
skepticalscience.com – NO
desmogblog.com – NO
climateprogress.org – NO
scienceblogs.com/stoat/ – NO
scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ – NO
gristmill.grist.org/ – NO
dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com -NO
climate.org – NO
sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/climate/ – NO
climateark.org – NO
epa.gov/climatechange/ – NO
arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ – NO
wecansolveit.org – NO (Gore’s site)
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ – NO (NASA GISTEMP)
columbia.edu/~jeh1/ – NO (James Hansen’s personal page)
ametsoc.org/ – NO (American Meteorological Society)
and 2 anonymous coward climate blogs that don’t deserve mention – NO
Given the silence these major climate sites have exhibted, I’d say that they really aren’t interested in advertising about the comment period at all.
So let’s see who on the skeptic is promoting the opportunity for public comment:
wattsupwith.com – YES
climatesci.org – YES (Pielke Sr.)
sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/ – YES (Pielke Jr.)
junkscience.com – YES
icecap.us -YES
climateaudit.org – YES
global-warming.accuweather.com – YES
climate-skeptic.com – NO
worldclimatereport.com – YES
motls.blogspot.com – NO
co2sceptics.com/news.php – YES
http://www.iceagenow.com/ – NO
READERS- If I’ve missed some, advise
It appears that the people that have the most interest in the outcome being in favor of their world view are the least interested in making sure the public knows about it.
So we’ll just keep on point here. so that the American public gets notice of the right to comment. – Anthony
Smokey, nice presentation (I’ll sign it).
I believe the peer reviewed graph you linked to shows 400 million years,
not 800,000 years. (It’s probably a reach if you have to go back more than 800kyr to find a higher CO2).
I agree with counters – a mass emailing is probably not the best idea.
A few focused peer reviews be would better. Anthony was taken serious enough to get a prompt and detailed response from Dr. Tan. Dr. Ben Hermans response should be taken seriously. Others? Steve Mc? Pielke?
I disagree with counters that they looking for PhD’s to review their language and clarity.
Tom in Texas (19:26:13) :
Tom, you’re right; I misstated the time as 400,000+ years. I hereby sentence myself to a disciplinary session with the ass-kicking machine.
When my servants cannot listen to me, “average joe”, there is a huge problem. I, and everyone else who works for a living, pay the salaries of these men and women.
Paying for Climate Nonsense,
Michael Bryant
Anthony:
Here’s two: http://co2sceptics.com/news.php
http://www.iceagenow.com/
Here’s some more Anthony if you want to add any more:
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
http://www.globalwarming.org/
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/
There are plenty more, these are just some of my favorites that I have listed or looked at multiple times.
I am not sure how much use comment from abroad may be. This is, after all, an internal US document, and the US (quite reasonably, in my opinion) does not have a strong track record of listening to other countries advising it what to do. You may recall a British newspaper conducting a letter writing campaign from the UK to US citizens encouraging them to vote against Bush in the last Presidential elections?
Perhaps that points to a possible tactic? I wonder how mid-western politicians would react if they had a flurry of letters saying:
“We believe that your manufacturing emissions are causing major climate impact. Please close down all your industry immediately.
Signed, The Chinese”
I am a strong believer in the dictum of “when in doubt, read the instructions”.
Here are the instructions for making comments:
In making comments:
* Provide complete contact information. The Climate Change Science Program Office (CCSPO) may wish to contact you seeking clarification.
* Provide specific language for suggested deletions, additions, and/or amendments. Do not use terminology such as “ditto” or “see above”.
* Do not use auto-formatting or embedded comments in tables.
* Provide focused comments directly linked, if possible, to specific page, paragraph and line numbers.
* Present comments in sequence from the front of the draft document to the back.
* Insert your name and affiliation after each comment.
Notice they are seeking suggestions for “deletions, additions, and/or amendments”.
It would appear from these instructions NASA is not looking for simple editing suggestions.
If you feel there are portions of the report in error, tell them so. Go to the page and line number and focus on what it is you disagree with.
For example, I strongly disagree with any use of the Mann diagram in any discussion regarding climate change. The chart has been thoroughly discredited. So any references to it in this document should be deleted, in my opinion.
And it is my opinion they are soliciting. The directions clearly indicate these are to be comments from the public. This is, after all, a PUBLIC REVIEW document.
Some in the public are very well educated, particularly in the sciences. Others are not. Both can express their views.
At first I was not going to bother. There are a lot of things demanding my attention at work. But it is always a good exercise to go over another’s thoughts and evaluate one’s reaction to them.
Who knows, perhaps some well reasoned comments may actually introduce at least some expression of dissenting opinions.
So make your views known.
Sorry, it’s NOAA looking for comments, not NASA.
Fair enough, Mr. Watts. I can’t rebut the huge lack of coverage coming from proponent sites. You see, that’s why I, a warmer/alarmist, regularly visit your site as well as other skeptical sites.
Anthony:
Aussie / Brit
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/A_Hot_Topic_Blog.html
US / Other
http://newsbusters.org/people/political-figures/al-gore
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderf/
Some German websites, they all know English well:
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/
http://www.oekologismus.de/
http://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.com/
http://climatereview.wordpress.com/
http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/
Global Warming Skeptics forum has answered your call to publicise the request for public comments on the draft report.
I posted your blog post in full as per your request.
Thanks for all that you do here and elsewhere.
[…] Via WattsUpWithThat: […]
[…] Climate Change Document August 7, 2008, 9:47 am Filed under: global warming Anthony Watts is hosting a call for the public to review and comment on the Unified Synthesis Product being produced by the NASA […]
I just can’t believe I’m being asked to write a letter asking the government to stop being stupid. I don’t have time for this circus.
Let these Stalinists take the power, screw everything up, and then the masses (us) will rise up and run them out of town.
I took a look at the report – what a depressing mess. The US government has gone looney.
I live in Germany now, and have gotten used to all the bs regulation. Most people here just ignore it.
I’ll bet they will be glad that they relied so heavily on AR4 when the word of the Ammann&Wahl misconduct gets widely distributed:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3393
You’ll all have to learn to do the same. Your freedom is about to bite the dust.
Unfortunately it’s going to take another 30 years and another Ronald Reagan to get out of the mess Gore has duped you guys into.
I’ve had it. I’ve got better things to do then to try to influence the biggest government in the world.
If someone wants to write me a form letter, then fine. I’ll sign it. But I’m not going to sit here and address this 200 page report point by point. (Unless someone pays me).