After a week of mostly stories of this flavor, “Scientist smacks down filthy climate change denier, film at 11“, this article in the Telegraph by Tom Chivers is refreshing and gets it close to 100% right.
Click image for the full report.
So many stories have been written this week with my name and words in them, and only two journalists contacted me in advance to ask me to comment. The first was Oliver Morton of The Economist, the second was Andrew Revkin of the NYT. I thank them.
Another new report worth having a look at is from AAAS here. Mr. Eli Kintisch was gracious enough to correct an error he made, and very quickly. He interviews Dr. Muller after the hearing, and it is well done.
This contrasts with the Salon.com reporter Andrew Leonard who not only left an error in place (conflating Willis Eschenbach with me) but refused to do anything about it, even when it was pointed out that many bloggers downstream were repeating the error without checking. Then without permission, Leonard published my complaint emails and that of Mr. Eschenbach in a second story. I’m truly disappointed in his lack of basic journalistic etiquette. I’m also disappointed that the salon.com editors have not responded at all to our early emails. Suffice it to say I won’t be talking to anyone at salon.com ever again.
I appreciate Mr. Chivers taking the time to read, understand, and present the situation in a thoughtful way.
The only thing I dispute, and it’s a minor point, is his characterization that I was blaming Professor Muller in my comment “post normal science political theater”. I’m not, and if anyone got that impression besides Mr. Chivers, I say that is why it is always best to ask. My comment is labeling of the event and the situation, not the person(s) involved. Muller was asked to testify, he didn’t go seeking it.
In fact, it may surprise many to learn that Dr. Pielke Sr. and I have been carrying on a constructive dialog with Dr. Muller via email this week. We’ve been in touch every day. Dr. Muller has shared some additional results with me, Dr. Pielke and I have pointed out what we feel are some errors, he’s countered, we are both looking at the issue. We are also both trying to understand the situation about station siting better. While it appears simple on the surface (no pun intended) it is a much more complex problem than I thought it to be when I started out. I hope to have more in a future post. For now I have more important duties, see the upcoming announcement at 3PM PST.
For another look at station siting analysis done entirely independently, I suggest this recent article on WUWT:
An investigation of USHCN station siting issues using a cleaned dataset
Mr. Gibbas (who did that study linked above) has agreed to provide more data, and in a post upcoming soon, the cleaned data he used will be made available online.
I say stick with it, Anthony. As long as you’re in there keeping them honest, we will at least have some reason to believe the BEST process to be that much more transparent than, say, the Hockey Team process which originally brought us all this brouhaha – and we’ll be getting reports from an honest (near-) insider. As for the integrity of any newspaper articles, I’m with Mark Twain: “If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed”.
Sean’s comment above is still valid too: as one or two of us have commented, until we get ready access to everything back to the raw data, so that we can all assess all the “adjustments” out in the light of day, they haven’t contributed much. What’s the point of yet another chunk of “predigested” figures? I want to see the body of this science, not just scry doom from its alleged entrails.
And, even should they ultimately produce a temperature graph wholly indistinguishable from the others, something very important remains to be shown: to whit, convincing evidence (a) that something unprecedented is happening to the world’s climatic system; (b) that this something is dangerous to humanity and (c) that it is caused by humanity. Having driven myself crosseyed staring at tables of figures and graphs for a fair few years now, I have yet to see anything which suggests that any of a, b and c is true. And that, surely, is why we’re all here discussing all these details.
There seems to me an underlying complacency in Chivers’ article – will Anthony Watts change his mind? Yes, if the evidence is there. Will Chivers? Ever? I doubt it.
I used to read the Telegraph every day for years. I don’t read it all any more but I read WUWT every day. There you go.
Chivers is not an even-handed journalist by any means. He recently wrote an article in which he sank to the level of making fun of Joe Bastardi’s name no less than four times. I agree with yaossx at 1:32am; he’s a jerk.
Thanks for this Anthony; I’m glad you felt it was a balanced piece, and I appreciate the thoughtful response. Also, interested to hear that you’ve had continued exchanges with Prof Muller.
All the best
Tom
Oh, and in response to Mike Fowle: it’s a valid point. If I’m asking Anthony to change his mind on the basis of the full evidence, am I willing to do so myself?
I’ve asked myself that, and while at this stage I don’t know enough about Prof Muller’s methods, it does sound like an extremely well set up study. If he comes back and says the world has not warmed, I will have to take it very seriously. (I’m aware I sound a bit pompous here, as though what I think matters to anyone, but you get my point.)
Tom
Peter D Tillman: “… because you don’t need a thermometer to tell you that the dandelions are out earlier than ever before.”
Here in South West France they came out in abundance in February in 2002, I remarked as it was my first Spring in France.
This year they have arrived in abundance this last week at the start of April.
Last year it was only a few in March and the year before hardly any and in May.
This proves…?
It would be interesting for Chivers to explore why he has labeled Muller a skeptic. Muller is not a skeptic about AGW, not sure what he thinks about CAGW, but the point of his criticism is that he agrees that the ruling climate elite has an ethical problem. Chivers should look to East Anglia and the British whitewashes for a little more insight.
Particularly so because he seems to have rare insight.
==================
Chivers wrote:
“… If I’m asking Anthony to change his mind on the basis of the full evidence, am I willing to do so myself?
I’ve asked myself that…”
Why is this even a question for you? You need to do a lot more than being concerned about coming off a “bit pompous” (no, you are not coming off sounding a bit pompous, you are a bit pompous). Oddly, self-illuminating writers suck at being self-deprecating. Chivers, you perhaps really need to do what a good many here have had to do in the last few years: understand their own biases in the face of the real scientific evidence. The truth is out there – the only question is, will we be ever be able to know it? Write science from the head, not from the pedestal.
Tom @ur momisugly 4:05
You are getting very close to understanding the skeptical point of view, but you are just a bit off. Few skeptics doubt the warming; it is the attribution of cause to the warming about which we are skeptical.
The historical record is unsubstantiated as yet; Muller will improve this. The question of the reason for the warming will not be settled by BEST’s work, only by astute examination of ongoing observations. And son, the jury is out.
===============
The problem with the surface instrumental record is it was never expected nor designed to determine a global average temperature at all to say nothing of determining it with accuracy and precision to a few hundredths of degrees.
The only instrument record we have capable of this feat is the satellite record beginning in 1979 and 30 years just isn’t enough to reach any firm conclusions about whether anything unique and anthropogenic in origin is happening. Fercrisakes the thermometer record is ridiculously sparse, there are no Stevensen screens at all measuring air temperature over the vast oceans, and the instruments themselves are not capable of tenth degree precision or accuracy.
The moral of the story is you can’t make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
Just for grins I went to the USHCN site and pulled the records for Pineville, WV. This is a tiny town (pop. 715 in the 2000 census) in the SW corner of the state. It was incorporated in 1917, but has had a weather station reporting uninterruptedly between 1895 and 2009 (I don’t know if the station was removed, or the records just aren’t up to date), and is probably not affected by any UHI effects.. If one plots the trend of annual average temperatures for the station, it is a gentle upwardly sloping line going from 53.8 F to 54.2 F. That’s a rise of only 0.4 F (~0.2 C) over 114 years; hardly a reason for panic. Perhaps after “correction” there was more of a rise.
Spell check…in the paragraph starting
“In fact, in may surprise many to learn that Dr. Pielke Sr”
should read perhaps
“In fact, it may surprise many to learn that Dr. Pielke Sr
[Thanx, fixed. ~dbs]
Tom Chivers is apparently unaware that the question is not whether the Earth has warmed. The question relates to the dominant mechanisms of planetary warming and cooling, and whether humans can control the dominant mechanisms in any significant way.
It is unfortunate when journalism is “dumbed down” to the level of dealing with vacuous inanities, rather than salient realities.
I think most, if not all, of us gave seen the graph comparing the number of stations used in the”official” temperature record. In 1990, the number dropped dramatically and the tempature increased just as dramatically! Cause any effect or coincidence?
I hope BEST addresses this issue specifically. The fall of the USSR is part of the drop in reporting stations, but is that the real reason that many more rural stations are no longer used in the “official” temperature database? I believe this is the smoking gun that will convict the AGW conspirators!
Bill Yarber
We have good records going back 35 years at most weather stations now.
I looked at data from weatherstations in Pretoria, in Marion Island (this is south of South Africa in the South Indian Ocean), in Spain and in La Paz (Bolivia) as well as northern Ireland. So far, over the past 35 years, I found very similar results everywhere, namely:
1) mean temps have stayed the same (0.00 degreesC change /annum)
2) max temps. rising at about 0.05 degrees C per annum (some places more)
3)min. temps decreasing at about 0.02 degrees C per annum (some places more)
My evalaution so far is on one line covering half the planet. The results are clear to me: there is no global warming. For some reason, heat content has stayed the same, as I donot see any significant change in mean temps. Though max. temps have been rising this appears to be counteracted by declining minimum temps that must have stayed for a longer period of time (than the increase in max. temps..
The other thing is: if there was any warming due an increase in to green house gases, it should have been minimum temps. that should be rising, at least as fast as, or even faster than maximum temps. What I see happening is exactly the opposite! So it cannot not be an increase in GHG’s that causes any (additional) warming.
From Marion Island I noted also that the mean humidity has been declining at a rate of about 0.12% per annum, taken on average. Total monthly rainfall there also declined by 1.27 mm per annum, taken on average. If Marion Island is a good (average) sample of earth’s climate, then I am a bit worried about these last two results.
In my opinion, it could point to the fact that we are entering a period of global cooling.
Peter D. Tillman says:
April 7, 2011 at 1:42 pm
“All you need to do is look at glaciers melting, crops ripening earlier, tender plants surviving further north than before, etc. etc.”
This is not what we see in Canada, the worlds second largest wheat exporter:
2009 – down 20% from 2008 – wet
2010 – down 17 % from 2009 – cold and wet
This has serious implications for world food prices and is consistent with what Herschel predicted in 1801. Sunspot numbers, not CO2 drives wheat production.
****
Mindbuilder says:
April 7, 2011 at 4:43 pm
@David S – It’s not me, it’s Anthony Watts apparently claiming that the result of his own study was that there was no significant affect from UHI on average temperature trends. Amazingly, the urban influence seems to be keeping the thermometers cooler than the rural ones during the hottest parts of the day. Again, it’s not my conclusion, it’s Anthony’s.
****
That’s funny. I guess that’s why whenever temperature transects of city centers are done during the middle of the day, temps can be 5, 10, even 15F warmer in the city centers than the outskirts, depending on the city size & other factors (strong winds reduce the difference).
I seriously doubt what you say has been “concluded” by Anthony or anyone else. Plenty of evidence shows the exact opposite.
Paul Coppin says:
April 8, 2011 at 4:40 am
beng says:
April 8, 2011 at 8:16 am
****
Mindbuilder says:
April 7, 2011 at 4:43 pm
“@David S – It’s not me, it’s Anthony Watts apparently claiming that the result of his own study was that there was no significant affect from UHI on average temperature trends.”
There is a crucial equivocation on “average temperature trends.” Does it mean those created by the Warmista? If so, we all know they bear no relationship to reality. That makes Anthony’s reported statement trivially true. Does it mean the actual trend in the real world? If so, as measured by whom? Please report.
Someone or some group should with hast get to every tempature station world wide and check to see the insturments in the stations and make a record of them.
It being they lie about the CO2 and this warming scam, they will mess with the insturments soon to hide facts. Next they will alter the insturments to game the system for warming.
They cheat, keep your eyes on the cards.
Tom Chivers says:
April 8, 2011 at 4:05 am
“Oh, and in response to Mike Fowle: it’s a valid point. If I’m asking Anthony to change his mind on the basis of the full evidence, am I willing to do so myself?”
“I’ve asked myself that, and while at this stage I don’t know enough about Prof Muller’s methods, it does sound like an extremely well set up study. If he comes back and says the world has not warmed, I will have to take it very seriously.”
Then you have no interest in the science. A scientist would ask for an explanation of why he thinks the world has not warmed. Some novel statistical work will avail him nothing. Novel statistics will be turned over to McIntyre and McKitrick. We expect Muller to address our questions about station siting issues, UHI issues, and several similar issues. We demand physical hypotheses in explanation of those questions.
Claims to the effect that UHI does not matter because only trends but not changes in absolute temperatures matter is a sleight of hand that we have rejected long ago. Don’t bring that stuff around.
I hope you expect of yourself that you can judge Muller’s results on the basis of their quality as scientific explanations of phenomena such as the effects of UHI on temperature measurements. If you cannot, then what are you writing about?
Steve C says:
April 8, 2011 at 2:45 am
“Sean’s comment above is still valid too: as one or two of us have commented, until we get ready access to everything back to the raw data, so that we can all assess all the “adjustments” out in the light of day, they haven’t contributed much. What’s the point of yet another chunk of “predigested” figures? I want to see the body of this science, not just scry doom from its alleged entrails.”
Add one more item. We must be able to assess the quality of the instruments and data collectors who produced the “raw data.” In my opinion, the idea that existing historical data can be used to measure temperature to tenths of a degree per century is way beyond ridiculous. Of course, the Warmista do not care about such factual matters because they believe that all of us should rely on their novel statistical techniques. McIntyre and McKitrick should open a graduate school in the analysis and evaluation of novel statistical techniques.
Add one more item. At the time of Climategate, when the emails had just become public, it was widely discussed that the historical data back to 1850 is a product of Phil Jones. Fabulous! Yes, I know that there are various public data records now but I believe that the records actually used by the Big Three were all taken from Jones. I regret that I do not have the time to do the legwork to confirm this. Maybe McIntyre or McKitrick can.
Assume for a minute the warmer were right and global warming has occured it at the level suggested and was caused by mankind. The warming has been so benign for humanity, if we could reverse it easily, would anyone actually want to?
The big crash in species is related to other human activities Anyone found a single species lost to warming, and just warming and not any other human activity? There are lots lost due to pollution or lose of habitat, or hunting, and some were the WWF lists warming as a possible contributing factor.
Soljers chatting and dissing their ossifers? Cops ragging on the local pols who don’t “get” the street? Chambermaids swapping lurid tales about who they walked in on in their hotels?
Please elucidificate! I feel so uninformed.
😉
The problem with UHI is not “trends” as such. It’s the apparency of trends created by progressive expansion of urbanization to encompass previously rural stations. This produces a measured rise which is independent of the actual “climate”.
There is also the issue, btw, of the rapid “step change” in the late ’80s to early ’90s. IMO, there is an excellent chance, as others have suggested, that this is an artifact of station exclusion and other datebase fiddles. That change represents the lion’s share of the claimed “trend”. So the records from S.A. etc. and the CET are probably giving the lie to the entire enterprise.