A few months back, I posted a critique titled: Gavin Schmidt’s new climate picture book: Anti-Science?
I found it ironic that Dr. Schmidt used photos to depict climate change, while at the same time promoting open criticism of my surfacestations.org project on realclimate.org. That project also uses photography, combined with measurements and a NOAA sanctioned rating system, to gauge thermometer siting issues. Oddly, there seems to be no complaints from the usual suspects when Dr. Schmidt uses artistic composition photography to illustrate climate change issues.
It is only fair then that since Dr. Schmidt has responded to the original author of that critical piece, Harold Ambler, that I repost Dr. Schmidt’s response here. Harold has invited me to republish that piece here.
A note to readers, Harold is going through a rough patch financially while waiting for his new book, Don’t Sell Your Coat, is to be published in November 2009. Royalties from it won’t come in until mid-2010. So if anyone is so inclined, please visit his web page and give him a boost in the tip jar. – Anthony
Guest post by Harold Ambler
As most of my readers know, I posted a critique of Gavin Schmidt’s book, Climate Change: Picturing the Science, not quite three months ago. Dr. Schmidt has responded in the last few days:
The point of a photo is always the context in which it’s seen. Lake Powell is a long way below it’s 1990’s peak, and that is due to a combination of reductions in rainfall upstream and additional demands on it’s water downstream. The last two years have seen a small rise in water level, and as you state correctly, it is important not to read too much into a short term record.
However, the real point of the photo (and as we discuss in the chapter that uses it), is that climate change is really only an issue because of the impacts – whether on human society or ecosystems. Areas that are already under water stress, such as the American South West are very vulnerable to changes in rainfall regime. And in fact, there is some evidence that long-term trends in precipitation in this region are already being affected by ongoing changes.
We have a long discussion in the book about being careful with the problem of attribution in imagery and we try to make that clear in the captions.”
The science concurs:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0213/p25s05-usgn.html
“Last week, Dr. Barnett published additional work in the journal Science attributing 60 percent of the reduction in snowpack, rising temperatures, and reduced river flows over the past 50 years to global warming.
The latest work “not only shows that climate change is a real problem. It also shows it has direct implications for humans – and not just in the third world,” says Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, Calif.”
So yes, it’s a combination of things, as stated in the book (if you bother to read past the cover photo) and in the scientific literature.
My Response to Dr. Schmidt (Plus a Note to Readers):
I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and lived through a few droughts, including the very serious one of 1976 to 1978. Again and again, my family and I saw water levels in the local reservoirs (and others in the state) decline to worrisome levels before they were, thankfully, replenished. One perspective on the phenomenon of alternating drought and wet in the West is that it is terrifying, and should be brought to as many people’s consciousness as possible as a new menace, part of global warming, etc. Another, more like my own, would point out that the astonishing agricultural productivity and explosion of population throughout the Southwest are proofs of humanity’s ability to adapt to its natural surroundings in very effective ways.
=====
Please read the remainder of the story at Talking About the Weather and don’t forget the tip jar 😉 – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The million-dollar question: is Dr. Gavin Schmidt a climatologist? If not, what gives him the credibility on commenting on climate change? I say this because it is typical of AGW-proponents (particularly those know-it-all, snobbish anonymous bloggers) to question the skeptic’s credential in order to stifle (dodge?) an open debate. On that note, why should anyone listen to the likes of Schmidt, Hansen and Gore (of all people) instead of Spencer, Christy, Lindzen and Pielke Sr., who have devoted their lives to climatology and meteorology, is beyond me.
The point is made by several, and entirely dodged by Schmidt; sure the climate changes, but not by man’s effect through CO2. Take that bad assumption away, and the layers of standard authoritarian propaganda, and Schmidt’s got nuttin’. Nuttin’, I say, zip, zilch, nada, bupkus. And the sooner the journalists catch on the better, though they may yet be the last to know. It’s not as if we’re hiding the truth under a barrel here on the blogs.
===================================
Gavin Schmidt is in a new class of people who practice science in that they are 1/2 scientists, 1/2 politicians – I call them poly-scientists. They will never admit to be wrong and will spin faster than the dry cycle on my washing machine in order to advance their point of view regardless of the consequences. This is precisely why I don’t believe anything he says and he has no standing credibility in my world.
Pictures? What a bunch of hyporcitical nonsense.
These people dismiss as irrelevent weather any observations raised by skeptics yet they point to every imaginable observation as evidence of AGW.
Schmidt, Hansen, Lubchenco and many others make it up as they go and call it science.
The really funny part of this issue is that Lake Powell is a man made reservoir, roughly 24 Million Acre Feet -over 5 Trillion gallons.
Reservoir: a place or hollow vessel where fluid is kept in reserve, for later use.
So Lake Powell is doing precisely what it was created to do: Mitigate variability in water supply. The lake itself (and by extension, Gavin’s photo) is a testament to your very point Anthony: That man has adapted and will continue to adapt. It is an example, not of crisis, but of crisis averted.
Where was Global Warming in the 1840’s?
That was where the Columbia River basin in the “West” nearly dried up for 10 years. Flows in the Klamath and Trinity in place went underground. In the late 1860’s to late 1870’s another 10 year drought hit the “West” in California drying up the Mokolumne and Consumnes Rivers, taking the rest of the Sierra Runoff to record low levels, far exceeding the brief 1976-77 event. Where was Global Warming then?
Where was Global Warming in the SouthWest to Mexico when the MegaDroughts struck the area in the late 15th century?
The climate in the “West” has changed repeatedly, and shall surely change again, with absolutely no help needed. Despite any thing man might do or alarming warnings man might give. AGW, take a number and be seated.
If you live in the “West” and are bothered by drought and floods, heavy winter snows or summer freezes…. leave. We have those here, and they were here before we got here.
Does anyone else find it puzzling that Mr. Schmidt, excuse me, Dr. Schmidt, who seems to be able to generate pointed “debunkings” of virtually any piece of work he disagrees with in often startling short order, took almost three months to marshall this relatively lame defense of his own work. I’m sure the fact that it was offered at a point in time that coincides with Mann rising to reassert the correctness of his “hockey stick” is just one of those cosmic synchronicities the universe is so prone to present.
Regarding those widely proclaimed “debunkings”, I have evidently been operating under a mistaken interpretation of debunk, which I have assumed for years to be roughly synonymous with disprove. Obviously I’ve missed something since the meaning of debunk in the present environment seems much closer to dismiss than to disprove. Although I can’t claim a comprehensive review of all the articles and blogposts purported to debunk skeptical science, most of those I have taken the time to review seem to share a common form of argumentation. I would summarize that form in three steps:
1] We think you are wrong
2] Everyone here agrees with us
3][snip] go away.
In the West Walker River and Tenaya Lake are Ponderosa Pine stumps containing several hundred years of growth rings. Ponderosa Pines will neither sprout nor grow with their feet in water. Those stumps are a marker of the magnitude and duration of the 15th century Megadroughts.
Dave Wendt (16:20:32) : ” I’m sure the fact that it was offered at a point in time that coincides with Mann rising to reassert the correctness of his “hockey stick” is just one of those cosmic synchronicities the universe is so prone to present.”
With the new fiscal year approaching, it looks like it’s “grant me some more money” time.
I’m not sure why my use of the well known acronym for Speaking of This in the Future is Unwarranted merited a snip, but I will yield to your judgement.
REPLY: Thank you for your consideration. – A
In the sequel, published ten years from now, Dr Schmidt will feature a picture of the low water level in Milerton Lake here in the San Joaquin Valley to further show the effect of climate change. Millerton Lake, the man made lake behind Friant Dam, will be lower than it ever has been, guaranteed. He’ll blame the low levels on another drought, which is a common occurrence here in California. What he won’t tell you, is that the environmental lobby has won various lawsuits that, in order to restore the salmon that used to flourish in the now dry river bed, require that the dam release water so the San Joaquin River will has a permanent water flow, and thus draining Millerton Lake and causing a condition of permanent water shortage here in the Valley. Nobody knows if the salmon will come back, but hey, the river will be flowing full time, that is until the lake runs dry. The relief gates are to be turned on permanently in October, and much of the agricultural land will revert back to desert wasteland, a la the dust bowl of 1933, but the salmon will come back… maybe.
Answer: NO .. he is NOT a climatologist (unless you count self-proclaimed), he is a mathematician by training.
“He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London”
link
Oh, but he DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night (from what I hear)
rbateman (16:08:25) :
If you live in the “West” and are bothered by drought and floods, heavy winter snows or summer freezes…. leave. We have those here, and they were here before we got here.
I live in the East and Gavin’s predictions don’t work here. This year has been quite normal, ’til now. It’s raining here, as usual when El Niño is playing with its ball in the Pacific. 🙂
Of course changes in rainfall chage or reduction in icepack is caused by climate change, durr! But how can anyone prove humans had any involvement? With climate models? I dont think so!
Any claim that any change in climate is due to man is merely speculation. Some people may recall an ideal called “innocent until proven guilty”, but it seems many have thrown this to the wind as they now have some clever models.
The hydrological cycle does not loose water when the sea warms, “a warmer world is a less arid world” as stated in the IPCC 2007 report, which actually states a net benefit in water resources despite ignoring our ability to adapt and build new infrastructure.
Central antarctica is one if not the driest place on earth, is that due to the high temperatures???
Photography has an obvious and valid place in matters like astronomy, forensic pathology and the siting of weather stations. However, there has to be a mechanism to convince the reader that the photography is real and representative. Showing many examples of poor weather station siting and describing locations is one such way.
However, it is becoming childs’ play to modify photos to make fakes. Capa’s famous photo from the Spanish Civil War, of a bullet exiting the skull of a still-standing soldier, is still being debated as to authenticity.
In the final analysis, it becomes a matter of intent. Does the photographic author show his work with the intent to be accurate or with the intent to deceive? There will always be deceivers. The trick is to recognise and expose them (f8 at 1/250 will often work).
Squidly (17:42:12) :
HAHA, that’s a good one.
Slightly OT but at amazon.com this book was given three 5-star and one 4-star ratings. Obviously I hope Harold Ambler’s coming publication will beat this propaganda photo book by leaps and bounds in terms of sale volume.
REALLY OT but I am sure Dr. Ron Paul’s coming book “End the Fed” will be worth every penny one would pay…
What seems to allude some people is that its just plain old physics being applied to the climate. GHG’s are a well proven component of the climate that effect all of life on earth. Gavin Schmidt is a well thought out person that sits in the middle of data coming in from our instruments around the world. Co2 will be our undoing over time.
REPLY: No not really, see this graph;
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png
The response of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic. – A
“… (if you bother to read past the cover photo)…”
I think any time Gavin is feeling as arrogant, as he appears to have been when he wrote the above, then he should watch again his own performance on the I-squared debate against Michael Crichton and Professors Lindzen and Stott.
Mark Hugoson (11:02:15) :
Frankly the whole concept of “Picturing the Science” is ABSURD from the get go.
Now you know what the science of Gavin Who? is.
Douglas Taylor (13:11:29) : Cherry Picking Data(pictures) to promote an agenda:…I can Cherry Pick a similiar data set to reach an opposite conclusion.
Welcome to the ‘science’ of global warming where people like Gavin
Schmidt have begun, and sustain, a career by just such cherry picking.
Jeff (19:04:37) :
“What seems to allude some people..”
Shurely shome mishtake? I think you meant ‘elude’.
Geoff Sherington (18:32:29) :
Photography has an obvious and valid place in matters like astronomy, forensic pathology and the siting of weather stations. However, there has to be a mechanism to convince the reader that the photography is real and representative. Showing many examples of poor weather station siting and describing locations is one such way.
However, it is becoming childs’ play to modify photos to make fakes. Capa’s famous photo from the Spanish Civil War, of a bullet exiting the skull of a still-standing soldier, is still being debated as to authenticity.
In the final analysis, it becomes a matter of intent. Does the photographic author show his work with the intent to be accurate or with the intent to deceive? There will always be deceivers. The trick is to recognise and expose them (f8 at 1/250 will often work).
AGW propaganda is plenty of those pictures. See this photo published in a local newspaper this morning. The picture is of a 50 m x 30 m field intended for the construction of a corner store. The head of the news said: “Nature Suffers from Evil Incentives”:
http://www.biocab.org/Picture-Milenio.html
re: Jeff (19:04:37) :
jeff,
Either your post is a joke or your naivety is breathtaking. This kind of AGW post makes one yearn for Flanagan or good old Foinavon.
Gavin Schmidt is a well thought out person that sits in the middle of data coming in from our instruments around the world.
BAHAHAWAHAHAHAHAHA! Um, oops, so sorry. Now off to wash a keyboard.