Guest post by Patrick Michaels
When the battle is being lost, there is a tendency to try to raise a level of distraction to shift the attention away from the desperate situation at hand. Such is the noise being raised concerning my presentation of the results from a recent series of scientific findings and observations—that lend further support to notion of modest climate change. The apocalyptics and the gloom-and-doom crowd are losing both the science battle and the policy war.
Dana Nuccitelli (aka dana1981) over at the website Skeptical Science has recently written a screed purporting that I delete “inconvenient” data in order to make my points. In fact, what I have done is to highlight the major findings of the studies I have commented on—findings that have indeed strengthened the case that global warming in this century will be in the lower end of the range of projections issued by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Mr. Nuccitelli starts by digging up the dead horse of my 1998 testimony to Congress and my presentation of the global temperature projections made ten years earlier (in 1988) by NASA’s Jim Hansen. In my testimony before the Committee on Small Business of the U.S. House of Representatives in July 1998 (available here) I elected to focus on a comparison between the observed temperatures and those projected to have occurred under Hansen’s (in his words) “business-as-usual” (BAU) scenario. Remember, this was in 1998. There was no worldwide treaty reducing carbon dioxide emissions (indeed, there isn’t one now). The only change to BAU that took place in the 1988 to 1998 time period was the Montreal Protocol limiting the emissions of CFCs. Reductions in production began only in 1994 and the radiative effect of the Protocol by 1998 was infinitesimal. To me, BAU means BAU. One of the main points that I was making in my 1998 testimony was that observations indicated that the global temperature were rising much less than Hansen had forecast under BAU, which is what happened. That was true then, and it remains true today, as the amount of warming he overforecast in 1988 is painfully obvious.
Mr. Nuccitelli then criticizes my handling of the results of a pair of new scientific studies examining the earth’s climate sensitivity by Schmittner et al. (2011) and Gillett et al. (2012). Each of these research teams reported rather lowish estimates of the climate sensitivity. As in any scientific study, there is a lot of discussion concerning data and methods and results in these papers and caveats and uncertainties. In my summary of them, I focused on the major results much as the authors did in the papers’ abstracts. In both case I wrote positively about the findings. Not having obtained the actual raw data from the authors themselves to enable me to create charts directly illustrating the paper’s main points (a task that is commonly not altogether straightforward, timely, or even successful; see the Climategate emails for examples of the myriad of potential difficulties encountered in such an effort), I did the next best thing, which was to adapt the published figures to simplify and highlight the major results (and focus my accompanying text on the main findings).
For example, from Schmittner et al., I removed from one of the original figures some data pertaining to individual components (land and ocean) because the paper was about global temperature and I am concerned about global sensitivity. I showed the global results (and noted in the caption of the Figure I presented that it had been “adapted from Schmittner et al., 2011″). The finding that I showed was the same one which the authors focused on in their abstract which I reproduce here in full:
Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2–4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and non-zero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7–2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.
And the same is true for my encapsulation of the work of Gillett and colleagues. In this case, I simplified one of the original figures by removing some results that were derived using a shorter and incomplete (1851-2010 vs. 1901-2000) temperature record while retaining the same record that was preferred by the authors (and again noted in the caption to the Figure that I presented that it had been “adapted from Gillett et al., 2012″ and additionally added that “the original figure included additional data not relevant to this discussion”).
That one of the primary scientific advances of the paper was the result derived using the more complete temperature time series is demonstrated by the paper’s title “Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations.” Note the words “improved” and “160 years of temperature data” (the full record).
I invite you to compare the “before” and “after” images from these two papers as detailed by Dana Nuccitelli with the descriptions made in summary by the paper’s original authors and you’ll see that I was being true to their work. Further, read through my articles (here and here) spotlighting their results and you’ll see that I was also quite supportive of their findings.
Mr. Nuccitelli, as a contributor to Skeptical Science—a website dedicated to trying to bolster the alarmist claims of human-caused climate change—realizes that it is in his best interest to try to obliterate evidence which paints a less than alarming picture of our climate future. Anyone who both produces and synthesizes such findings will be his target. That’s just the way the game is played by alarmists like Dana and the ever-obnoxious Joe Romm (who probably has done more damage to his cause with his over-the-top vitriol than he can possibly imagine).
If evidence continues to accrue that the earth’s climate is not changing in a manner sufficient to inspire enough fear in the general populace to demand life-altering energy limitations, attacks will continue by those, to use Mr. Nuccitelli phrase “who simply don’t want to accept the scientific reality.”
To keep up with the latest scientific findings concerning climate change highlighting the modest nature of the expected changes—findings that which are unlikely to be highlighted in the general media—I invite you to drop in from time to time here at World Climate Report , my “Climate of Fear” column at Forbes, my “Current Wisdom” feature at Cato, or any of the other sites, such as Watts Up With That? or Junk Science, that occasionally highlight my writings.
And, as always, if you ever don’t believe what I have to say, or want to investigate the issue in more detail, I include a list of references of the papers that I am discussing. So, as Casey Stengel used to say, ‘you could look it up.’
References:
Gillett, N.P., et al., 2012. Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L01704, doi:10.1029/2011GL050226.
Schmittner, A., et al., 2011. Climate sensitivity estimated from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science, 334, 1385-1388
DOI: 10.1126/science.1203513
UPDATE: Shub Niggurath shows even more integrity issues at Skeptical Science.
As posted yesterday at “Climate Crocks”: That was the most idiotic post of the year on Skeptical Science. They should just keep quiet on inconvenient deletions.
And what if a graph is partially reproduced? As long as it’s appropriately referenced it doesn’t matter. That’s what Phil Jones said re hide the decline:
Of course, dana1981 immediately renounced to explain why Jones can do it, and Michaels can’t.
With evidence seemingly piling up upon evidence, does anyone know of any AGW skeptic who has looked at the evidence and data and decided it was wrong and become an AGW believer. There are plenty who have declared they have embraced the skeptic position, have there been sceptic deserters?
It continues to amaze me about how the regular twits at SkS, including dana1981, seem oblivious to the hypocrisy they practice at SkS, and the narrowness and lack of depth in their knowledge of the subject of climate, and weather, both which require a broad as well as deep understanding.
I just went over to Sks; Dana repeatedly, on various articles states that Hansen’s 1988 scenario B is the one closest to reality. For instance here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm
He also provides a table with the CO2 concentrations used in Hansen’s projections:
http://www.realclimate.org/data/H88_scenarios.dat
As one can see, for 2011 the scenario A concentration is 393 ppm, the scenario B concentration is 390 ppm, we are now at 392. So the difference isn’t that large, both A and B fit quite well concerning the CO2 concentration, but A fits better. Dana says B fits better; but I can’t see that.
Pat, you know most of us LOL @ SkS and Romm gets me to ROTFLOLPMP ………don’t worry about what those twits are saying. I do appreciate the update of what SkS is up to, but you should attempt some derisive humor while you’re doing so. It is long past the time to take those clowns seriously. They exist only to be mocked and ridiculed.
You are one of the few who were carrying the torch well before these blogs came into play. Anyone who cares to know, knows your metal. Any dross you may have had, has long since been removed. Stay at it! We’re getting there!
Having observed Dana’s comments on Michaels’ previous blog post here I have no interest in his opinions on anything.
A physicist says:
January 17, 2012 at 3:53 pm
That is a bad example as he has been on tape saying the dumbest things. As a retired naval officer myself he is somewhat embarrassing, but he is doing some of those things only to show relevance of a navy in the arctic. Ie. More funds.
Heck, even Hansen’s strongest supporters now say he got everything exactly right…except he overestimated the climate sensitivity.
Oh well…
Murray Grainger says: With evidence seemingly piling up upon evidence, does anyone know of any AGW skeptic who has looked at the evidence and data and decided it was wrong and become an AGW believer. There are plenty who have declared they have embraced the skeptic position, have there been sceptic deserters?
There is one, but he works for GE (I mean the Weather Channel):
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/08/15/206572/stu-ostro-weather-channel-global-warming/
“In fact, what I have done is to highlight the major findings of the studies I have commented on…”
And hide the inconvenient findings at the same time.
A physicist
You seem to not comprehend that the meaning of “dumbest things” has swung. These days, some of the dumbest things comes from the diehards who are incapable to coping with change of evidence. As an example, if I asked you what was the acceptably best record of global ocean level change in the last 18 months, you would probably chose a reference that contains a rise.
What Patrick Michaels has done is to simply delete the parts of the actual peer reviewed science that he doesn’t agree with. Unless he has the express permission of the scientists involved, it is, at a minimum, intellectual dishonesty, if not downright mis-reprentation. His removal of the Hansen line that most closely matched the ACTUAL emissions is most egregious (Hansen wasn’t predicting what emissions would be, rather what would happen GIVEN certain emissions – and he was very, very close in 1988 – more current work is even more likely to be dead on – and it is bad news for humans).
His altering of the Gillett graph is really puzzling – the paper is more friendly to skeptics than most, and he could have made hay with what the paper actually says, rather than trying to twist it into some sort of vindication for the skeptic view (the abstract isn’t, I haven’t read the whole paper).
As Willis Eschenbach is fond of requesting: citations? evidence?
Not evidence that Admiral Titley says (what you regard as) “the dumbest things”, but rather evidence to suggest that the Admiral is knowingly derelict in his duty to “call it as he sees it”, in service to our nation.
“That’s just the way the game is played by alarmists like Dana and the ever-obnoxious Joe Romm (who probably has done more damage to his cause with his over-the-top vitriol than he can possibly imagine).”
Indeed. I wonder if either of them realize how off-putting their antics have become to the general public, who increasingly view them and their ilk with a mixture of amusement and contempt. I’m torn between wishing they “keep up the good work” with continued self-immolation, or simply go away.
SkS: the same site that got upset when the “k” gets left out of their site abbreviation (despite no other site needing an additional letter).
SkS: the same site that has gained a reputation for “(1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting”.
Seems strange that the owner of SkS (John Cook) would purposely allow a member of his “team” to accuse others of willful deletions of the data. How do we know that dana1981’s article contents haven’t been altered after the fact? How do we know that comments haven’t been altered or simply deleted?
And if you really care to follow through the comments, you can see there isn’t a single comment saying anything against dana1981’s rant (and only 24 comments at that). Not a very active posting, I’d say).
Lots of crowing about where else his “screed” has been posted. Even there (Climate Progress, 33 comments; Planetsave, no comments; Climate Crocks, 30 comments; and Deltoid, 18 comments).
Some of the problem they’re seeing is 1) it allows others to see both charts and make up their own mind, and 2) they’re seeing that they can’t control the comments like they do at SkS.
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 17, 2012 at 5:13 pm
So I take it you are opposed to those who want to talk about “Hansen’s scenarios”, but don’t want to show Scenario C?
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 17, 2012 at 5:13 pm
“What Patrick Michaels has done is to simply delete the parts of the actual peer reviewed science that he doesn’t agree with.”
No he hasn’t, cant you read? He has deleted part which are not relevant to his discussion – there is no suggestion he doesn’t agree with the data he chose not to show, simply that it was not necessary to consider the main point of the paper. And to suggest scenario B is the closest match to actual is both contentious (I’d argue scenario A is closer, as does Michaels) and irrelevant, Hansen’s consistent over prediction of temperature rise remains.
Is that really the best you can think of to smear a competent scientist?
Dirk H – regarding Hansen 1988, it is clear that the ” scenario B” line is the most appropriate (but the most accurate would be to let Hansen speak for Hansen, something that Michaels did not allow).
Here is the logic behind “B”
“Total Scenario B greenhouse gas radiative forcing from 1984 to 2010 = 1.1 W/m2
The actual greenhouse gas forcing from 1984 to 2010 was approximately 1.06 W/m2 (NASA GISS). Thus the greenhouse gas radiative forcing in Scenario B was too high by about 5%.” (from your SkS link)
Scenario A is about 40% higher as of 2003 (eyeballing the 1st graph here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
Hansen has always said he considered scenario B the most likely (indeed, it is obvious from the real graph, which includes all 3 lines, that B was the most likely – one typically brackets the likely outcome with the reasonably likely worst and best case (recall that Michaels testified, to Congress, that scenario A was Hansen’s projection – not his worst case, unlikely project. BIG difference).
I appreciate the engaging and interesting article. I’ve always found SkS to be deeply unpleasant, particularly in the dishonest representation of their partisan bias.
The most striking part of the post was this – insisting that BAU means BAU. So simple, but so powerful. I think the IPCC 1990 FAR is worth looking at in exactly the same way as Hansen’s 1988 prediction. I think an article by Dr Michaels would be very valuable.
The IPCC FAR clearly defines BAU as a scenario where “Few or no steps are taken to limit greenhouse emissions”. They also say that because the reference scenario they use has much higher emissions, scenario A (BAU) “may be an underestimate”. With this in mind it is worth taking a look at the prediction of warming at a rate of 0.3C per decade [with an uncertainty of 0.2-0.5C].
The staggering thing to me is that the claim is made that 5 degrees per century warming is just as likely as 2 degrees, which can be clearly seen as utter garbage. Also quite prominently, the prediction of 0.3C per decade is about 100% too high.
My question would be why, after nearly two decades of observations, is the IPCC still making the same kind of nonsense estimates of future warming?
Patrick-
It was probably just the sort of thing you are writing about that Rudyard Kipling had in mind when he wrote in his poem “If”:
“If you bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools”
J Bowers says:
January 17, 2012 at 4:51 pm
‘In fact, what I have done is to highlight the major findings of the studies I have commented on…’
“And hide the inconvenient findings at the same time.”
Only if you are too stupid to look at the listed references
Sorry
Make that
“if you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken”
I had a long debate at Skep Sci on whether or not energy company executives are guilty of “crimes against humanity” (a al Hansen) when they fund institutes like CATO which has Pat Michaels on its staff. Unfortunately they extend their personal disagreements with Pat Michaels to agree with Hansen that
(Tom Curtis)
Later in the thread I pointed out a case where Pat Michaels did not mention some research that showed Greenland lost a lot of ice in the past when it was warmer, only mentioning that it was warmer. Although Pat Michaels tends to write opinion pieces that need not mention all the angles, but the reader should not pretend that they are scientific pieces.
17 Jan: ReadTheHook: Mann act: ‘Hockey stick’ scientist returns to UVA
by Hawes Spencer
“It’s not wrong to be wrong,” says Michael Mann, author of the famous “hockey stick graph,” the controversial image of a recent spike in global temperatures…
“While I’ve borne costs, I’ve also borne opportunities,” Mann said. “The best way I can get back at my detractors is being the most effective spokesperson I can be.”
During the Q&A period, Mann asserted that deniers of climate change have received “far too much prominence” in media reports and that nations such as the U.S. and Australia– perhaps due to their history of “contrarianism” and “the rugged individualist mindset”– have rejected limits on emissions eagerly accepted by European nations.
In keeping with willingness to be wrong, Mann told the crowd in UVA’s Clark Hall to remain open to new information.
“We should all be skeptics,” he said. “I’d like to think I’m a skeptic.”
http://www.readthehook.com/102682/mann-act-hockey-stick-scientist-returns-uva
Although the piece is very interesting, posting here is really only posting to like minded readers. Getting this refutation posted on SkS would be much more useful to the sceptic cause
John M – By all means – discuss Scenario C. And B. And A – that is the point – Michaels chose the most uncharitable (and scientifically furthest from reality) to present to the US Congress as a reason why those AGW folks were warmists and alarmists (not his words, I believe it was his intent – you can correct me IF I am wrong).
But the truth is, Scenario B is the one that both 1) matches the emissions and 2) most closely matches the current temperature (the discrepancy being due to Hansen’s use of 4.2 for sensitivity rather than 3.0).
This is really a notable misreprenstation of Hansen’s work (unless Michaels’ has Hansen’s permission) and efforts to hand wave it away say more about the waver than Hansen’s work, which was prescient in 1988 and still notable even now for how close he got to what we are experiencing (of course we know more, and Hansen himself has updated the work)
Eric (Skeptic) when Michaels was testifying in front of Congress was this the case:
“Although Pat Michaels tends to write opinion pieces that need not mention all the angles, but the reader should not pretend that they are scientific pieces.”?
Was he testifying as an expert upon whose testimony Congress could base policy for the largest CO2 emitter (at the time)? Or was he merely sharing with Congress his opinion, and therefor, in your world, entitled to gloss over the reality bits?
REPLY: Well at least when Michaels is before congress, he doesn’t resort to stagecraft. Funny how if the argument was so strong in 1988, why would they need to do this sort of BS?
This transcript excerpt is from PBS series Frontline which aired a special in April 2007. Here he admits his stagecraft in his own words:
TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.
DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.[Shot of witnesses at hearing]
Watch the Frontline video:
– Anthony
DirkH
“As one can see, for 2011 the scenario A concentration is 393 ppm, the scenario B concentration is 390 ppm, we are now at 392. So the difference isn’t that large, both A and B fit quite well concerning the CO2 concentration, but A fits better. Dana says B fits better; but I can’t see that.”
Well really when you take into account the decimal place Scenario A is 393.7, much closer to 394 than 393 and Scenario B is 390.99 which is essentially 391. I guess this puts scenario B closest to reality, but that again depends on the decimal place within the actual measurement, which I don’t know.
Ian – what refutation? Michaels is trying to justify his poor conduct on a very, very friendly site – and not getting all that far at that. SkS would ask questions like I have asked in regards to Congressional testimony that Michaels made. I am not aware of Michaels EVER having satisfactory answers to why he chose the wrong Scenario, and used it to make specious claims like “Hansen off by 400%” – it might play well to the true believers on WUWT – but in a crowd whose baseline is 1)very friendly to AGW AND 2) very logical and fact/logic based – this “refutation” (or repudiation if you prefer) – will not do well. Not unless Michaels comes up with an explanation or an apology. Without it – he looks like just another guy desperately hand waving to avoid the ample evidence that the world is warming, and man is to blame.
DirkH
It doesn’t matter. If the concentration in Hansen’ BAU (scenario A) is wrong, then that is another mistake he made as we clearly are on BAU policywise.
Reading over my comments now that they are posted, I hope it was obvious to everyone that I was referring to Patrick as the “you” and Nuccitelli as the “knave.”
DirkH
Also, the difference in the current error between reality and scenario A or B is now very small–both were massive flops.
Anteros,
It is interesting that you quote the IPCC 1990 as stating that their BAU might be an underestimate. Turning to Hansen 1998, while he did admit that by its construction, his Scenario A “since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality” but that its emissions growth rate “is less than the rate typical of the past century” and that the climate forcing in Scenario A “goes approximately through the middle of the range of likely climate forcing estimated for the year 2030 by Ramanathan et al. (1985)”. In other words, at the time of its creation, Hansen’s Scenario A well represented business-as-usual.
Despite all the protestation made after the fact (made louder by the fact that scenario A performed so poorly) I would guess that while Hansen wrote in 1988 that “Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases” that he meant over the long-term, and that over the shorter term (like, say, the following decade or so—a time period commensurate with Pat Michael’s testimony) that Hansen probably had a preference for Scenario A.
-Chip Knappenberger
World Climate Report
Ian says:
January 17, 2012 at 5:55 pm
“Although the piece is very interesting, posting here is really only posting to like minded readers. Getting this refutation posted on SkS would be much more useful to the sceptic cause”
Indeed. I suspect they know that too, which is why it wont be.
When someone writes a paper, with relevant graphs – they include the data in the graphs because they think it’s important, because it’s part of the results.
Michaels, in editing those graphs, is lying by omission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission), which is still lying. I have zero sympathy for Michael being called out on it.
“I elected to focus on….. ” Say no more.
Actually Thoughtful,
A=A.
BAU=BAU.
Words have meaning.
I notice some bad science apologists are attempting to ride the BAU train. Just one problem – Hansen didn’t use the term – he DEFINED it. So in order for it to be BAU (in regards to Hansen’s 1988 paper) – it MUST be the BAU that Hansen defined in 1988 – basically a logarithmic rise in emissions. That was scenario A (note it was not titled “BAU”). Scenario B was the more likely linear rise in emissions (very close to what happened).
The appeal to some common usage of BAU appears to be an admission of failure on the science and ethics front. But by all means, carry on with your BAU!
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 17, 2012 at 5:56 pm
“…Hansen’s work, which was prescient in 1988 and still notable even now for how close he got to what we are experiencing”
So CO2 emissions have escalated unchecked, but warming has ceased. And Hansen, who predicted escalating temperature increases for similar CO2 increases, is prescient. OK.
As long as we redefine “prescient” to mean “doesn’t have a clue”
Chip, you’re 110% correct. Hansen’s way was to write multiple threads of logic that aren’t consistent but can be invoked to cover any mistakes. His way now is different, and some might say he has graduated from his inconsistency to irrationality.
Actually Thoughtful, not opinion in that case. He did not need to consider whether or not we were the biggest emitter, but to correctly point out that models were later adjusted to deliver less warming for the same CO2 (by adding aerosols). His choice of model runs to prove overestimation was a cherry pick like any other. I am not a big fan of his style because I believe it eventually backfires. But I don’t think it’s as bad as other pieces in 1998 on the other side.
@DirkH, I can see how Dana concludes scenario B is most relevant, it is based on the observation that the emission profile for scenario B has matched real world emissions up to now; so if Hansen’s original model was right then it’s the B line that should match the real world observation line (it doesn’t). No myth is being busted there, he actually agrees that scenario B overestimated warming due to using a bodgy CO2 sensitivity figure. Still makes the “Myth” list which supposedly forms a wall of skeptic debunking evidence.
Chris you wrote: “Despite all the protestation made after the fact (made louder by the fact that scenario A performed so poorly) I would guess that while Hansen wrote in 1988 that “Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases” that he meant over the long-term, and that over the shorter term (like, say, the following decade or so—a time period commensurate with Pat Michael’s testimony) that Hansen probably had a preference for Scenario A.”
Why?! You have Hansen saying AT THE TIME – “Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the 3 cases” – and yet you want to rewrite history and put your words in his mouth, that he ACTUALLY meant “A” – COME ON!
Why not let Hansen speak for Hansen (this would also mean presenting the entire graphic, and discussing the line where emissions most closely matched reality).
Actually Thoughtful,
When have I said that the world is not warming or that people do not have a role in it?
Citation, please.
Im sorry, but I don’t see how putting in the other lines back in changes anything. I have looked at the graphs with and without the missing lines….and it doesn’t change anything. This is trying to draw attention away from the actual point being made. They are just trying to draw public attention away from the real point being discussed.
KR says:
“Michaels, in editing those graphs, is lying by omission”
In that case, the world’s biggest liar by far is Michael Mann, of Hokey Stick and Tiljander infamy.
Wrestling MATCH! Pig in MUD! Such fun.
You know who likes it.
You know WHO GETS dirty! Surprise, YOU LOSE!
michaelspj – I am assuming you are Patrick Michaels (apologies in advance if I have this wrong).
You are at least consistent in your habit of misrepresenting people!
Upthread I wrote: “he {Michaels} looks like just another guy desperately hand waving to avoid the ample evidence that the world is warming, and man is to blame.”
You respond “When have I said that the world is not warming or that people do not have a role in it?”
?? You DO look like another guy desperately hand waiving to avoid the evidence. For example, when you purposefully choose Scenario A (high emissions) and explain to Congress this shows actual temp is “more than four times less than Hansen predicted.” and DON’T point out (to the United States Congress ie the stakes could NOT be higher) that scenario A does NOT match reality for emissions AND omit scenario B (which DOES match reality for emissions, and is the one Hansen SAID would match emissions and is very close on temperature*) – then, sir, you do indeed look like just another guy desperately hand waving to avoid the ample evidence that the world is warming, and man is to blame.
Here is your citation:
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-pm072998.html
{I believe you are familiar with the CATO institute}
*(the difference being that Hansen used 4.2 for climate sensitivity – as more EVIDENCE has accumulated, Hansen now uses 3 – this evolution is called science – surely any impartial reader can see the difference between updating your views based on new information VS misrepresenting (to Congress no less!) the work of a scientist)
KR, there are many examples of graphs omitting key information including at Skep Sci (although they are usually pretty good). One that comes to mind is the constantly displayed estimates of sensitivity (hand-drawn curves for the most part) without including the other part of the Knutti and Hegerl 2008 chart showing the uncertainty and inapplicability of (paleo) estimates to the current situation.
“Actually Thoughtful says:
January 17, 2012 at 6:10 pm
he looks like just another guy desperately hand waving to avoid the ample evidence that the world is warming”
What warming? Two of the major data sets show no warming for almost 15 years. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.08/plot/rss/from:1997.08/trend
Here’s the oft-posted skep sci version of Knutti and Hegerl: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Climate_Sensitivity_500.jpg
Here’s the paper with the full graphic: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf (fig 3) Notice what get edited out, and how is that different from Pat Michael’s editing?
Anthony in a REPLY above gets into a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand – Michaels willfully misrepresenting Hansen’s work to Congress.
Ask yourself this Anthony – as a student of human nature, would you schedule a global warming hearing on a hot day or a cold day (assuming you wanted a receptive hearing to the idea that the world is warming and man is to blame)?
For what it is worth, the thermostat/window stunt is unethical and I condemn it – just as I condemn Michaels for misrepresenting Hansen’s work, and by extension, the reality of climate change to the US Congress.
Will you join me in condemning both unethical acts?
Werner Brozak unless you can categorically claim you have never posted or said anything about climategate, other than to point out the HOAX was taking stolen emails out of context – it is a little disingenuous of you to rely on Hadcrut3 data – this is East Anglia! This is the heart of the whole MANUFACTURED DATA!
(They also happen to use ~1400 fewer measurement stations and miss the warming in the Arctic (strongest on the globe) and some of the warming in Africa).
I am sure you will speak out strongly in favor of Hadcrut4 data – on this very site, where many will fuss and fume that this is manufactured data! But not you – you will defend Hadcrut4 as the latest, and therefor best work of your favorite data set.
I look forward to it.
PS – may I have a slice of that Cherry pie you will no doubt make from all your cherry pickings?
Hansen relies on the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy”: shoot holes in a barn door, then draw a bullseye around them. Presto! He made an accurate prediction!
Not really.
And of course Hansen’s apologists try to ignore WAG A.
And since Hansen can’t predict himself out of a wet paper bag, he simply “adjusts” the record. Mendacious, no?
People here are complaining about Congressional testimony. Here is Hansen sniveling about how misunderstood he was, and explaining that Doomsday is right around the corner.
Michaels is a paragon of probity by comparison.
Eric (skeptic) – Can you identify where this occurred? I do recall several discussions of Knutti and Hegerl on SkS, and have read the paper – they find sensitivities to doubled CO2 to be between 3 and 3.5 K.. The graphs I have seen on SkS regarding K&H have been from other papers summarizing various sensitivity approaches – and those look to be reproduced in whole. If I’m mistaken, please point it out. And – point it out on SkS as well.
I will note, not incidentally, that J’accuse statements in no means excuse Michael’s execrable editing of other peoples graphs.
Smokey – Mann has presented all his data and methods. Perhaps he (and the dozen or so independent temperature reconstructions that generally agree since then (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png) are wrong (really, now…)? If so, argue on the evidence. But accusations of data editing and misrepresentation of others results? That’s libel, Smokey.
It seems this has become a SKS invitation.
However, I can not participate in said invitation to post because I am banned from posting at that site.
I would provide literature….only to see the post never appear.
I would provide temp data…..only to watch it try and be distorted.
I got tired of the moderators, they got tired of me I guess. I posted papers that showed the Arctic was as warm or MUCH warmer in the recent past…..but they didn’t like that.
That is just one example.
SKS does not practice sciencetific posting. A few think they do, but they omit more than they include.
The reality is that they still can’t explain the 1910-1945 warm period, amongst other items.
Mr. Michaels, you are not as pure as the driven snow, but your shirt load is a lot less than the group of prominent scientists that have become purely political. The quality of their papers has been going downhill for over a decade, gasping at straws, very poor understanding of stats and tree rings…..just to name a few.
Eric (Skeptic) – OK – I compared the two graphs – I see the SkS has omitted the vertical line at 3C (for sensitivity). I see that “expert elicitation” is not in SkS. And I see the original authors flagged some as being extreme (either high or low).
And if your point is you can’t call the kettle black if you have EVER changed any visual, ever, anywhere – I see what you are saying.
However, I fail to see how the changes have a material effect on how you view the data (except perhaps the vertical line at 3C – it makes the different lines of evidence pop out as having its “most likely” circle just touch 3C (rather than centered on it) – but that graph is closest to the scale, so it isn’t hard to see that (and in fact, as it is often used on SkS I had noticed just that in a prior viewing of it).
Oh – and there is the rest of the paper for context – I always worry, when reading an SkS summary (or anyone else’s) That the author can too quickly gloss over something I would consider fairly important.
Or am I missing the point here?
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 17, 2012 at 7:34 pm
“…the HOAX was taking stolen emails out of context ”
Now when you come to a site like this, where most are fully aware of the true context and extent of the unscientific behaviour revealed in the leaked emails, you are just being a TROLL.
Just claiming something is “out of context” is meaningless, unless you then explain how, and what the true context is. Of this we have seen none, from you or any of the team supporters. Nor will we, because the emails ARE the context, and the proof, of everything sceptics have been complaining of for years. They are what they are, and no amount of mealy mouthed excuses for appalling behaviour will change that.
Compared to the Team , Pat Michaels appears as pure as snow – especially when the context is taken into account.
This is my first serious attempt to post at WUWT – and based on tonight alone I appreciate the tone of the debate, the moderators letting me through and the small number of complete crank postings (given that the moderator is allowing comments through).
It is sad, though, to think the OP is on such an indefensible action – Michaels punking Congress with a bogus presentation, even as he represented himself as an expert.
We could have spent the evening vigorously debating the science, instead of one bad actor’s actions.
“Actually Thoughtful says:
January 17, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Werner Brozak unless you can categorically claim you have never posted or said anything about climategate, other than to point out the HOAX was taking stolen emails out of context – it is a little disingenuous of you to rely on Hadcrut3 data – this is East Anglia! This is the heart of the whole MANUFACTURED DATA!
(They also happen to use ~1400 fewer measurement stations and miss the warming in the Arctic (strongest on the globe) and some of the warming in Africa).
I am sure you will speak out strongly in favor of Hadcrut4 data – on this very site, where many will fuss and fume that this is manufactured data! But not you – you will defend Hadcrut4 as the latest, and therefor best work of your favorite data set.
I look forward to it.
PS – may I have a slice of that Cherry pie you will no doubt make from all your cherry pickings?”
If it is true that Hadcrut3 data is “MANUFACTURED DATA”, then my point is all the stronger that there has been no warming over almost 15 years. And if spots were missed, then it is amazing that RSS, which is satellite data, is in such close agreement with Hadcrut3. As for extreme warming in the Arctic, that is only a small fraction of the whole and does not make that much difference, only 1 part in 230. See my calculations.
1. The surface area of Earth is 5.1 x 10^8 km squared.
2. The RSS data is only good to 82.5 degrees.
3. It is almost exclusively the northern Arctic that is presumably way warmer and not Antarctica. For example, we always read about the northern ice melting and not what the southern areas are gaining in ice.
4. The circumference of Earth is 40,000 km.
5. I will assume the area between 82.5 degrees and 90 degrees can be assumed to be a flat circle so spherical trigonometry is not needed.
6. The area of a circle is pi r squared.
7. The distance between 82.5 degrees and 90.0 degrees is 40,000 x 7.5/360 = 830 km
8. The area in the north polar region above 82.5 degrees is 2.2 x 10^6 km squared.
9. The ratio of the area between the whole earth and the north polar region above 82.5 degrees is 5.1 x 10^8 km squared/2.2 x 10^6 km squared = 230.
As for Hadcrut4, I have not heard of it, and it is not on woodfortrees.org. Are you sure you are not confusing Hadcrut3 with GISS?
KR opines:
“Smokey – Mann has presented all his data and methods.”
As if.
When McIntyre and McKittrick state that Mann has provided full and complete transparency, I will accept that. But I won’t accept your baseless assumption until it’s verified by the people who are doing the asking.
As for “libel” …pf-f-f-ft.
A non issue. Says lots about SkepSci. character…
“We could have spent the evening vigorously debating the science, instead of one bad actor’s actions.”
We still could, but it is you who have chosen to concentrate on the (wholly imaginary) mote in Pat Michaels eye, while condoning the appalling behaviour of the worlds “leading climate scientists”. Pat Michaels evidence to Congress was not only not indefensible, it was accurate and ably defended by Michaels above. If you could get over your hangup on this trivial matter, maybe we could discuss matters of actual importance.
Peter Wilson – your argument is basically – it is OK if my guy does it because we are right!
Which is bogus.
I am not going to redo the ancient history of the stolen emails. I didn’t bring it up – apparently it is still a hot topic at WUWT. But you asked for context. I will do ONE and only ONE – the bit about the “hide the decline” was presented as the climate scientists were hiding the decline in temperature that is going on RIGHT NOW. Anyone alive today (and honest) knows the world is warming (even Michaels was quick to point out that he knows the world is warming – even he doesn’t want to be in the camp chanting there is no warming, there is no warming, there is no warming (do you really want to be associated with the repeat a big lie long enough and the people will believe? (do you know where that “trick” came from?)). And of course all the data shows the world is warming.
So how could the climate scientists be hiding a decline that isn’t there?
Well it turns out the quote was taken (get ready for this – maybe have a seat) OUT OF CONTEXT! What the climate scientists were saying was there was a decline in the PROXY record of temperature change in the instrumentation period. Whole different subject. It would be interesting to explore WHY the proxy data doesn’t show the warming that the instruments do. But that wasn’t what was EVER discussed – I see it even now on various sites on the internet “Why should we listen to the Climate Scientists? They are still hiding the decline in temperature”.
I chased down a bunch of them when this story was hot – the worst I found was Jones stonewalling on FOI requests (although I later learned about the harassment levels that triggered that).
It turned out to be email shorthand, some blowing off of steam and mostly, taking things out of context (like the whole “pal review” farce). Oh and the “Trick” as if it were nefarious – I mean come on – so far tonight that level of ignorance/crazy has not been the norm – don’t drag this thread down to that level.
And on and and on and on.
As I said elsewhere tonight – if people are talking about science, and you are sputtering about decade old emails – you probably can’t keep up with the adult conversation.
Actually Thoughtful,
Apparently you do not understand the “Hide the Decline” issue. It is the dishonest attaching of the instrumental record to proxy records, and hiding the result. When the actual records are included, the result shows exactly the opposite of what was claimed.
But you go on being a True Believer. It’s easier than thinking.
You won’t bring it up yet you repeatedly refer to the stolen emails. Not only do you not have ANY evidence of theft (certainly no more than I do of a leak), you are a hypocrite to boot. Still thoughtless, apparently.
Mark
Smokey,
Mr. Thoughtless demonstrated his lack of understanding of most of the science/math issues – particularly surrounding similar issues – over at TaV a while back. He is not equipped yet somehow musters enough arrogance to tell those of us that are that we are wrong… because someone else said so.
Mark
“This is my first serious attempt to post at WUWT – and based on tonight alone I appreciate the tone of the debate, the moderators letting me through and the small number of complete crank postings (given that the moderator is allowing comments through).”
Refreshing change isn’t it? Instead of having posts deleted, comments edited to make you look foolish and arguments avoided like on SkS.
GeoLurking — January 17, 2012 at 5:41 pm
“Only if you are too stupid to look at the listed references”
Oh that’s right. I was forgetting that all of the readers of Forbes have subscriptions to the scientific journals.
I googled more information about this Dana Nuccitelli and came up with his name appearing in lists containing scientologists. Does anyone know if these are the same person or just someone with a similar name?
Actually Thoughtful and KR, the graph presented in skepticalscience on numerous threads is the left half of 1/2 of figure 3 in K&H 08. The part that is missing is the right half with the red blocks that show, among other things, that the paleo sensitivity estimates do not apply to today’s climate conditions which are much wetter, no dust, no continental ice sheets etc. I asked about it once, but I can’t find that thread (will keep looking). The graph from figure 3 in K&H was edited to remove the blocks and posted here http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html in figure 3 where there was room to display the whole thing unedited, Since then it has been posted in the condensed form that I linked above. No room for the blocks anymore, but that is more than just a style choice.
It would be nice if one of you two could look at K&H fig 3 and see the right hand part of that figure and get back to me with a justification of why it was left out.
And Actually Thoughtful, please read Smokey’s post above and acknowledge that you understand what “hide the decline” in the CG1 emails referred to (proxies). It is not that you are expected to know every email, but that you should not uncritically repeat misinformation about that email.
Here’s a screenshot from this morning. On the left is skeptical science (link above), on the right is K&H08: http://i433.photobucket.com/albums/qq51/palmer2/skepsci-kh08.png Please explain why part b, the classification blocks, were left out at skepticalscience.
Actually thoughtful (why you feel a need to hide who you are is open to conjecture, none of it good). You owe Pat Michaels an apology. You lied about what he said. He never said what you claimed he said. Why did you then try a strawman to evade your responsibility in manning up and admitting you made a mistake? Doubling down on that mistake makes you appear to be a liar now.
from Tamino’s:
I. Jolliffe: “It seems crazy that the hockey
stick has been given such prominence and that
a group of influential climate scientists have
doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics”.
PhilJourdan (if that is indeed who you are) – you owe me an apology – I corresponded with michaelspj with respect and direct quotes. No lies. I did call him in misrepresenting Hansen. That is not opinion, that is just a plane fact. You appear to have misread the thread and then made rash accusations from that. READ & UNDERSTAND what michaelspj and I are talking about and then, if you are intellectually honest, apologize.
You are wrong. And you were rude about it to boot.
Actually Thoughtful says:
“PhilJourdan (if that is indeed who you are)…”
I see hypocrisy in that comment. Unless, of course, that is the given name of “Actually Thoughtful.”.
And all the false accusations against Pat Michaels are accurate representations of Michael Mann. If it were not for psychological projection, the alarmist crowd wouldn’t have much to say.
Eric (Skeptic) – thanks for clarify what you were looking for on Knutti and Hegert -I had terrible time seeing it in my browser as a single image – but you are of course correct (I think that is covered by my “rest of paper” bit – but it is a pretty direct comparison to the Gillett issue raised by SkS). It doesn’t provide ANY cover for misrepresenting Hansen to Congress. I shall ask at SkS what their explanation is.
On Proxies – I said proxies, the poster here said proxies. Can you clarify what it is you would like me to know about proxies? As I understand it the proxies decline during the instrumentation record and the “hide the decline” was using the instrumentation record and not the proxies. I further understand in some places that was clearly laid out, and in other derivative works the details of the graph were lost/omitted. As none of it was controversial (AT THAT TIME) – it seems at worst an innocent mistake, and at best a minor detail that, under normal circumstances, would have never even been noticed, or if noticed, a footnote (especially now that we know the world is indeed warming, and was during the so called “hide the decline” period).
Please tell me what you wish I understood from that.
I will report back what I find at SkS
Moderator – my responses to Mark T did not come through moderation. Was that a mistake? If you did it on purpose, that is of course your choice. I will certainly share my experiences either way with WUWT on SkS either way (I was very careful to match in tone and content what Mark T offered – so it will be clear that it is OK if your guy does it, but not OK if their guy does it)
[Reply: Your comment is not in the spam folder. Occasionally WordPress drops a comment. We do not censor comments that comply with site Policy. Please repost. ~dbs, mod.]
Moderator – thank you. I will take your word on it. I have decided that replying to Mark T is not worth my time – certainly not worth my time to do it twice.
I raised the issue that Eric (skeptic) raised regarding the graphic. You can find the responses here (the Knutti graphic comments start in the mid-50s)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=61&&n=1222#comments
It comes down to a judgement call (given that you can’t post the entire paper). SkS thinks the right half of the graph is covered in the error bars and explanation they provide. I am sure Michaels thinks he merely highlighted the “important” parts of the graphs he altered.
However SkS provides a direct link to the paper in their presentation (Michaels, on this blog, provides a non-hyperlinked library-style reference (he could easily link the abstract, the paper is pay-walled)). And of course he does not link to the actual, true graphic.
As I read Gillett’s abstract and the ACTUAL graph – I find Michaels’ changes the meaning of the work and glosses over some pretty important information about accurate temperature records, the fact that sensitivity is itself sensitive to which period of instrumentation period is used, etc. This is partially due to confirmation bias (I read Gillett looking for what can be honestly used to support MY hard-earned understanding of the science). I submit to you that part of that is an objective truth – that Michaels presents a kind of Gillett prime – close to what Gillett said, but not what he said (and passes it off as true Gillett).
As I read the Knutti paper, I don’t see that the b side of the graphic as presenting information that isn’t captured as SkS claims – in the error bars and where the sensitivity falls. But they clearly could have improved the presentation by 1) pointing out there is more to the graphic, and linking directly to the full graphic. Can you point out anything of significance that SkS leaves behind in their version of the graphic (given that the paleo data is called into suspicion in the SkS graphic through the error bars?
One could solve this by asking each author if the modified graphic is true to their original intent, or if the omission makes a material change from what they originally intended.
Actually Thoughtful, thanks for bringing up the discussion of the full graphic for K&H09 at SkS. I’ll respond over there later. The omission is not in the same category of Michaels leaving out parts of an existing graph. Also sometimes Michaels gives me heartburn over some of his statements and postings. I think a complete and open discussion is better in the long run even if it may seem less favorable in the short run.
Regarding “hide the decline”, it’s true that some sites have equated that with some sort of hiding of a drop in temperature. But this is a Michaels thread and he never said anything like that. For example, here http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11713 he says
As you can see he was quite accurate about the mechanism and context of “hide the decline” which is why I was wondering about your “OUT OF CONTEXT” in caps. I have not seen Michaels do that on that topic regardless of what he’s done on other topics. Thanks for your direct responses, much appreciated.
Eric (skeptic) – well I certainly agree climategate is off topic (I personally think it is off topic on any post except a “Why climategate itself was the HOAX” thread). I can see how you thought I was attributing the out of context and the whole bit to Michaels – that was my mistake in how I presented it. I should not have even responded to the climategate trolls at this late date. My fault.
I have, however, been quite clear that Michaels committed ethical lapses (being charitable to what he actually did) that greatly reduce his moral standing on climate issues (speaking in particular about misrepresenting Hansen’s work to Congress, and less so the other issues that Dana1981 points out in SkS.
I would like to answer my question above “how is that different from Pat Michael’s editing?” where “that” is this: http://i433.photobucket.com/albums/qq51/palmer2/skepsci-kh08.png First a brief background. My first post in this thread relates to the fact that I have been a Cato sponsor since the late 90’s (don’t remember exactly) and Tom Curtis, a smart and respected poster at SkepSci, stated that a sponsor could be “guilty of a crime against humanity” provided (1) they are sponsoring Cato to protect their financial interests and (2) they know that climate inaction will kill many people. Although neither of those conditions applies to me to any significant extent, it does raise questions about Cato (Tom says they are off the hook) and Pat Michaels who works for Cato. I also vigorously defend Cato sponsorship as a benefit to humanity by standing up for our individual rights.
The question I asked is whether the editing of the graphs by Pat Michaels is equivalent to what Skeptical Science did with Knutti and Hegerl 2008 figure 3. They removed part b which helped explain the applicability of the estimates in part a to today’s climate conditions. Specifically the paleo sensitivity estimates have red squares because the climate based state was different along with forcings and other factors.
What Pat Michaels did, IMO, is different. He took a chart from a particular paper and altered it from what the authors printed. He says that was in line with their intentions but it seems to me if those were their intentions they would have done that themselves. One could argue that all he did was leave off some data. But that would equate to SkS picking the curves with the highest sensitivty from K&H08 and omitting the rest, something which they did not do.
Personally, I find it disconcerting that Pat Michaels uses this style of argument because, as I said in previous comments, I think it eventually backfires. I am not in the class of expertise of Pat Michaels or many other posters here, but I have studied the basics enough to know that 1998 is not very good year to use for atmospheric temperature analysis inflection points (including the AGW-proponents who wrote papers shortly after 1998 about the acceleration of warming). There are many other examples I can give where Pat Michaels is cherry picking or leaving out facts to suit his interests. I don’t believe that strategy will be productive over the long run.
Actually Thoughtful But Wrong,
Your hypocrisy is amazing. Look at Hansen’s “ethical lapse” in falsifying the temperature record in an attempt to alarm the public:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
Under Hansen, GISS produced its own hockey stick by fudging the numbers. Here’s a blink gif showing more chicanery.Hansen constantly and mendaciously revises the numbers.
Here’s more Hansen shenanigans. And more. And more. And still more.
It is crystal clear that Hansen deliberately and mendaciously “adjusts” the past temperature record in order to create a false alarmist narrative. Instead of worrying about the mote in someone else’s eye, start worrying about the beam in your own eye.
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 17, 2012 at 7:28 pm
“Anthony in a REPLY above gets into a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand – Michaels willfully misrepresenting Hansen’s work to Congress.
Ask yourself this Anthony – as a student of human nature, would you schedule a global warming hearing on a hot day or a cold day (assuming you wanted a receptive hearing to the idea that the world is warming and man is to blame)?
For what it is worth, the thermostat/window stunt is unethical and I condemn it – just as I condemn Michaels for misrepresenting Hansen’s work, and by extension, the reality of climate change to the US Congress.
Will you join me in condemning both unethical acts?”
Actually Thoughtful reminds me of the late Dr. Schneider. “We all have to choose between being effective and being honest.”
I think he’s a climate scientist from the Team.
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 17, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Werner Brozak unless you can categorically claim you have never posted or said anything about climategate, other than to point out the HOAX was taking stolen emails out of context –
IF (unlikely) you have any EVIDENCE of anything being stolen I suggest you send it to the Norfolk (UK) Constabularywhich is the investigating authority. You well know that not only has there NOT been any criminal court finding of anything being stolen NOBODY has been accused of stealing the Climategate emails. Thus your comment is simply MENDACIOUS!
Actually, the funniest bit of this thread was Actually trying to educate people about the proper context of “hide the decline” only to be educated himself 🙂
Which is inexcusable since the truth has been out there ever since the term came to light in CG1. Since he hasn’t got it right it’s probably reasonable to conclude that Actually is connected to the team in some way.
Regards
Mailman
With regard to scientists let Gandhi have the end word…
You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty (Science/CAGW, my added), the ocean does not become dirty.
Gandhi : His Life and Message for the World (1954)
Actually Thoughtful,
The correct attribution would be to use the term “allegedly” as so far nothing has been proven to be stolen.
Unless of course, as David Jones says, you have evidence of theft which should then be immediately turned over to the Norfolk Constabulary because lord knows, they need as much help as possible!
Mailman
You’re being disingenuous; DirkH
Stephen Schneider was addressing the problem all scientists face trying to communicate complex, important issues without adequate time during media interviews. His words were not the twisted version you present, but rather; “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” My emphasis. For sources see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider
Please don’t reply trying to justify your distortion. I will not respond.
You can see how important this thread is, we have never seen so many new “defenders of the faith” on here.
They must be getting really really worried.
@Actually Thoughtful: I just wondered, when it comes to identities, are you known as ‘Actually Thoughtful’ over on SkS, or do you change names then? (FWIW: my nom-de-blog is consistent in EVERY blog I interact with – for consistency – and it is unique).
I just wondered because, when I come to read comments about your experiences on WUWT over at SkS, I shall be able to find your comments easily, especially where you tell your mates that WUWT ‘censored’ you (when WordPress dropped your comment and you refused to redo it after being offered to do so).
Son, if you were actually thoughtful you’d realize the earth is an ice age and most living things will benefit from whatever anthropogenic warming comes their way. You’d also realize that CO2 is plant food and 280ppm is close to the minimum they need in order to survive while very far from the 2000ppm where they cease to derive additional benefit from higher amounts. You’d also realize that plants use less water per unit of growth as CO2 concentration rises and you might also be aware there’s a crisis brewing with regard to inadequate supplies of fresh water for sanitation and irrigation.
Now run along and let the adults who can accept the facts on the ground while ignoring the dogma spouted by alarmists have an adult conversation about it. Maybe you too can someday be viewed as an adult but I wouldn’t bet on it because some kids just never grow up no matter how old they get.
This may help the conversation regarding Hansen’s scenarios a bit.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
JRWoodman,
Schneider advocated lying to acheive a desired result. There are no two ways around it.
Pete H:
Gandhi was clearly not up on the precautionary principle. 😉
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 17, 2012 at 8:38 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
You appear to be mistaken. That email has been extensively discussed on this site.
I suspect that all those who regularly read this site do not consider the email to which you refer to was commemting on a method of hiding a recent fall in current temperatures.
Readers of this site know that it is far more fundamental and relates to the use and reliability of paleo reconstructions. It in effect confirms that paleo reconstructions (of the type under discussion are flawed and effectively useless).
Readers well know that it relates to the divergence between assessments of temperatures based upon paleo records and current instrument data for said temperatures. It appears that the the paleo records were tuned on instrument data for the period ~1900 to 1950s and with this tuning there is a significant discrepancy between the continued use of the paleo reconstruction from 1960 to date (the date of the said email) and temperature based upon instrument data for that continued period. The paleo record showing significantly cooler temperature record post 1960.
This divergence is far more fundamental than you seek to suggest since it establishes:
1. The paleo record as tuned is unrelaible; or
2. The entire instrument record is unreliable; or
3. A combination of both.
The significance of this is fundamental to the LIA and MWP. If the paleo record diverged from temperatures for the periof post 1960 such that the paleo record was unreliable for the period post 1960, what confidence could there be in the accuracy of the paleo record for the periof prior to 1850?
If that paleo record appeared to depress flatten the LIA and MWP what confidence could there be in such a reconstruction when it was known as a fact that the reconstruction was unreliable post 1960?
It was the KNOWN UNRELIABILITY of the paleo record which the ‘scientists’ were trying to hide when they were seeking to ‘coceal’ the divergence problem and splice on the instrument record for the period post 1960 without showing the paleo reconstruction for the later period.
.
“I elected to focus on a comparison between the observed temperatures and those projected to have occurred under Hansen’s (in his words) “business-as-usual” (BAU) scenario”
It’s strange that you chose to focus on this one as in the section where the sernarios are described Hansen writes:
“Sernario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases”
Do you not think that you were misrepresenting Hansen by only presenting the Sernario A which Hansen refers to in the paper as “on the high side of reality”?
I would say you did.
@AC Osborn
You clearly haven’t seen the opposing thread on SkS; though — with only one exception — I note that the ‘sceptic’ posters on here don’t have the wherewithal to comment there.
[Reply: Skeptics are either deleted at SkS, or their comments are altered. Defend that, if you can. ~dbs, mod.]
Nice try at your own “victim” straw man. I owe you nothing. You just lied again. I never said you were “not respectful” to Pat Michaels – I said you lied about what he said – you did. Now you are lying about what I wrote. Trying to create a straw man to play the wounded victim when all I did was say you owed him an apology for lying. You still do.
I am Phil Jourdan (Phillip if you want to know the full name – 2 els). You are an anonymous liar.
p.s. I quoted what you parts where you lied. No big words in those few sentences. Stop playing the victim. It does not work on me or others here. And try manning up. Or continue to be the anonymous troll you appear to be portraying.
Let’s see: someone does a study with a new data set – they publish a graph that shows the conclusion of this new data set and include the old data set for comparison. Someone else wishes to highlight the conclusion of the new analysis but really could care less about the distracting and superseded old data so redacts that data from the graph on his discussion about the conclusions of the new analysis and clearly states that he did so in the caption of the graph and the text. People wedded to the conclusions drawn from the old data set throw a hissy fit about their pet data not making the chart of the discussion. I don’t see the problem – now if he had represented the graph as being the original from the paper, then there would be issues.
I was taught that graphics should only be used to illustrate an idea in a paper. As working aids for my analysis, I produce thousands of them but only put illustrative ones in the final product. They are there to support the prose, not to allow someone else to reproduce the work – that is what data files and procedure descriptions are for!
JRWoodman:
As I stated in a previous post on this thread, I am no longer welcome to post at SKS. In fact, I can’t log in at SKS.
I don’t know if I will ever be allowed to post there, that isn’t even important. Mr. Cook owns the site and that is his perogative to not allow scientifically based dissenting views. Just so that you know it is not possible for some of us to post, whether we desire to post or not.
Actually Thoughtful:
The tree ring based temp proxies prior to 1950 or so do not represent temperature. The error bars of those said proxies are so large that it might have been -15C…..ok….a bit of a stretch but the point is that the error bars do encompass all of the temperature metrics. What Dr. Mann showed in his tree ring proxy was essentially a flat temperature. This provides no information of value to anyone.
Was this the same Schneider along with Rasool who came out with a paper in 1971 predicting a new ice age? What I find really alarming is that they used Dr. James Hansen’s climate model to arrive at their findings. More recently we had 1988, Congress and Therrmageddon.
SteveE says “Do you not think that you were misrepresenting Hansen by only presenting the Sernario A which Hansen refers to in the paper as “on the high side of reality”?” Hansen’s paper clearly states why he thinks scenario A must eventually be on the high side of reality. Page 9345 2nd paragraph explains the reasons. The link was provided above.
[Reply: Skeptics are either deleted at SkS, or their comments are altered. Defend that, if you can. ~dbs, mod.]
My comments have been deleted from WUWT over on the Monckton responds to “potholer54”
article. It was first posted and then a day later replaced with:
SteveE says:
January 13, 2012 at 8:38 am
[snip]
My comment was along the lines of Monckton was a climate extremist by his own defination.
I couldn’t have put it better myself. By the way is this lying by omission?
@MOD
Skeptics are only deleted on SkS when they offend against the comments policy, which is there to produce civil and constructive discussion. So in summary…
No accusations of deception.
No ad hominem attacks
No politics.
No link or pic only.
No ALL CAPS.
No profanity or inflammatory tone.
No off topic comments.
No copying and pasting from other comments.
No cyber stalking.
More detail at: http://www.skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml
Anyone who repeatedly ignores one or other of these requirements will warned more than once before being banned. I’ve had comments on SkS both deleted and moderated, as have regular commenters. If you want to post there you need to be aware of the policy at all times. Perhaps worth a try on WUWT?
[Reply: In the past I posted a number of comments at SkS. Not one of them violated any posting guidelines, but they did – politely – contradict certain arguments being made. Not one ever made it out of moderation. ~dbs, mod.]
Jimbo says:
January 19, 2012 at 7:11 am
richard verney says:
January 19, 2012 at 4:45 am
………….
It was the KNOWN UNRELIABILITY of the paleo record which the ‘scientists’ were trying to hide when they were seeking to ‘coceal’ the divergence problem and splice on the instrument record for the period post 1960 without showing the paleo reconstruction for the later period.
I couldn’t have put it better myself. By the way is this lying by omission?
—
I guess if they’d done that it would be, numerous papers discuss the divergence between tree ring and temperature in high-latitude locations since 1995 though so I’d say they aren’t.
http://eas8001.eas.gatech.edu/papers/Briffa_et_al_PTRS_98.pdf
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/trl/downloads/Publications/%20cook2004.pdf
There’s lots of papers on it if you care to look.
The earth hasn’t warmed in the last 15 years, it has cooled slightly over the past 10, supporting Easterbrook’s 1998 prediction. The 1.0 F increase per decade prediction is the big FAIL.
JR Woodman@7:25
I am a polite poster. I do not use caps, and I do try and post published papers.
One of the reason’s I got banned is because I used NOAA temp data to show that the USA has not warmed in the past 100 years. There were those that didn’t like that at all, but it is fact. North America is now about as warm as during the 1930’s to early 1940’s. A rebound if you will.
SKS is a site that does not like dissent from their percieved climate data.
And they really don’t like error bars.
This site is much more informative scientifically than SKS as it is open to comment. A “thinking” persons site, rather than a dogmatic site.
steven says:
January 19, 2012 at 7:06 am
SteveE says “Do you not think that you were misrepresenting Hansen by only presenting the Sernario A which Hansen refers to in the paper as “on the high side of reality”?” Hansen’s paper clearly states why he thinks scenario A must eventually be on the high side of reality. Page 9345 2nd paragraph explains the reasons. The link was provided above.
—
I know, I was quoting from that paper incase you hadn’t noticed…
[snip – Dana, after the sort of stuff you pulled on Deltoid, such as not providing your own inciteful quotes to go with my admonishment of you (context), why should I give you a venue here anymore? You seem hell bent on hatred.
An explanation is needed – please reply.
Shub Niggurath shows even more integrity issues at Skeptical Science. Coming so soon after the comment editing fiasco there, quote doctoring is not really a surprise.- Anthony]
Camburn – “…it is fact. North America is now about as warm as during the 1930′s to early 1940′s.”
Seriously, Camburn? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:121/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/mean:121/plot/best/from:1850/mean:121
As I recall from several discussions, making things up (such as quotes) was one of the reasons you got a lot of moderation on SkS.
SteveE, you left out why scenario A must eventually be on the high side of reality. Don’t leave things out like the word eventually or the caveats. Leaving things out may cause people to start yelling liar you know.
KR:
I don’t have time this minute, but look for evidence in the next 24 hours that the USA has not warmed since the 1930’s and 1940’s……but gotten back to the temperatures at that time.
I don’t make things up sir. No need to do that as the theory of AGW has several flaws.
Kinda like the Strat is cooling, when it has been flat for over 15 years.
“However, due to increasing CO2, the CCMs simulate a continuous linear cooling by 1~K per decade over the entire 1979 to 2010 period. This is not consistent with the near-constant temperatures observed since the late 1980s.”
Conclusion of
Ozone and Temperature Trends in the Upper Stratosphere at Five Stations of the Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract
dana1981 says:
January 19, 2012 at 8:37 am
[snip – Dana, after the sort of stuff you pulled on Deltoid, such as not providing your own inciteful quotes to go with my admonishment of you, why should I give you a venue here anymore? You seem hell bent on hatred. – Anthony]
OK – so lets stop pretending this is a site that doesn’t ban/edit posts and posters.
You do. And it also appears you do so for personal reasons, as opposed to an objective policy, such as SkS (given that even an objective policy will, at some point be interpreted by a human being and therefore be applied unevenly at some level).
Let’s keep talking about Michaels and his indefensible manipulation of Hansen’s work before Congress. That is the subject of the OP and worthy of explanation. Will Michaels come forward and admit that what he did is wrong? Or is he too caught up in emotion to look objectively at his actions 15 years ago?
REPLY: Dana’s issue is that Michaels doesn’t show the entire context of a graph, then hypocritcally he does the same thing when talking about my responses over on the Deltoid thread…he leaves out the context of what caused me to respond to him in the first place – his own angry and hateful comments.
So I ask you and I ask Dana, why should I allow him to comment here on issues of leaving out context when he turns around and does the same thing he’s complaining about that Michaels supposedly did? Yes some posters are banned here, who have violated site policy, or for thread bombing, or for sustained shape shifting, there’s no pretending about that except in your mind.
Dana1981 isn’t banned, he’s had no snips in the two years he’s been commenting here. I’m trying to get his attention and get him to act like an adult and explain why it is OK for him to leave out context while complaining about others. Be as upset as you wish.
Also, Shub Niggurath shows even more integrity issues at Skeptical Science. Coming so soon after the comment editing fiasco there, quote doctoring is not really a surprise.
– Anthony
Dirk H and Mailman”
“I think he’s a climate scientist from the Team.”
I am honored at the suggestion – but no, I am a mere mortal who values the evidence over the emotion. The evidence CLEARLY shows the world is warming, and man is to blame.
That Michaels has to doctor graphics and misrepresent the actual science to say anything other than my summary statement simply underscores that the world is warming and man is to blame.
Snotrocket: “I just wondered because, when I come to read comments about your experiences on WUWT over at SkS, I shall be able to find your comments easily, especially where you tell your mates that WUWT ‘censored’ you (when WordPress dropped your comment and you refused to redo it after being offered to do so).”
Just to be clear the above is your fanciful rendering of events. None of that has happened. I got a mulligan – I regret interacting with MarkT has he has proven, in the past, to be all show and no go. Due to a server error (according to the moderator) – I got a 2nd chance at ignoring that poster. I jumped at it. I have, so far, not spoken on the issue of moderation at WUWT, other than my first take upthread, where I complimented the moderator and fellow posters. (oh and I have a negative comment about moderation currently in moderation)
So why all the hate?
@Anthony.
Why do you censor what Dana 1981 has to say, without reason; other than you didn’t like what he wrote elsewhere. Aren’t your readers capable of judging the worth of what he writes for themselves, or could it be that you’d prefer them not to read the good point that he made?
PhilJourdan – why don’t you try identifying where I “lied”? If you are careful, in that process, you will realize you misread the quote thread and are making a false accusation. I will treat your silence as that admission (for bonus points you could admit it and all will be well (and you will instantly be a very, very rare poster on the internet – one who acknowledges and owns his mistakes – what I am asking Michaels to do on this very thread).
If you find where I lied, please be explicit – as you are still going on and on, yet you have not supported your claim.
Didn’t dana1981 say in the earlier thread that he emailed Gillett about Michael’s portrayal of his graph? If so has there been a reply?
I didn’t see in the sKs thread where dana mentions what Gillett had to say. Could it be that Gillett either didn’t care about the what Michaels had done and he and didn’t bother to reply or he replied such and dana didn’t want to say that
Camburn – “…I used NOAA temp data to show that the USA has not warmed in the past 100 years… North America is now about as warm as during the 1930′s to early 1940′s”
I’ll be very interested to see you support those statements. In the meantime, the data I’ve seen (including Karoly et all 2003, Fig. 4, observations http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~wittaya/journals/DetectofHumabInfluonNamerica.pdf) indicates NA temperatures ~1C above 1900, and about 0.2C above the 1940’s.
Camburn says:
January 19, 2012 at 8:02 am
///////////////////////
It is rather doubtful whether the USA is today as warm as it was in the 1930s unless there has been a significant increase in rainfall since if it were to be that warm there ought to be dustbowl conditions as witnessed in the 1930s.
As far as I amn aware, there are not dustbowl conditions similar to those observed in the 1930s, the absence of which suggest that it is probably cooler today than it was during much of the 1930s.
Actually Thoughtful,
You have no comprehension of what “evidence” means in a scientific context. Hint: It does not mean computer models.
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 19, 2012 at 10:32 am
“I am honored at the suggestion – but no, I am a mere mortal who values the evidence over the emotion. The evidence CLEARLY shows the world is warming, and man is to blame.”
A.T., no. The evidence does not clearly say the world is warming and even less that man is to blame. It is a long way to get there.
The evidence is that we live in a short warm spell as the MWP, roman warming, minoan warming. Also evidence is that since ca 8000 years it has slowly cooled.
There are some hints that it is partially solar driven (some 800-1000 years cycles, other cycles as well as local planetary cycles.
There is a lot more to learn about climate.
Falsifying the data, adjusting without information, hiding evidence, calling names is only making things more difficult to study. It is not science but a totally different thing.
“I think he’s a climate scientist from the Team.”
‘I am honored at the suggestion – but no, I am a mere mortal’
So then, Team members are Gods? (freudian slip there) Let the human sacrafices begin….
KR says:
January 19, 2012 at 11:01 am
“I’ll be very interested to see you support those statements. In the meantime, the data I’ve seen ”
KR if one simply takes GISStemp as it was published in 1999, keeping in mind that 1998 was the warmest year in the recent warm spell you have the support you look for – showing the 30-40 warmer then current temperature:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
You can even simply “splice” the 2000 – 2011 graph over the old one.
KR,
I see you used BEST data in your WFT graph. BEST data has been heavily manipulated. And of course, Hansen’s GISS “adjusts” the numbers [always showing either more current warming, or lowering historical temperatures in order to show a steeper, more alarming rise].
Time to get up to speed. Your link above is nine years old, and the record has since been corrected to show that temps in the 1930’s were, in fact, warmer than current U.S. temperatures.
Finally, there is not a shred of empirical evidence showing conclusively that human CO2 emissions are the cause of any warming. That is likely the case, but testable, verifiable evidence is lacking. That’s why AGW is a conjecture.
Anthony – I appreciate your letting my comment in, and your response – I have not ever been to Deltoid (or if I did I don’t recall it), so I don’t know the context of this particular issue. I have found Dana1981 to be passionate and thorough, and it is no surprise to anyone that in general I support and agree with his worldview in regards to global warming.
However your response to me is also honest, and I appreciate it.
I am asking SkS to change their moderation policy so that all can see the posts that are not allowed on the post they are submitted to (you might consider this as well – a junk pile were comments go that do not meet your standards – let others see for themselves you are simply following your policy and (this is important) – less time in blog wars and more time considering the science and the merits thereof).
Unless your only metric for success is long comment threads (I don’t accuse you of this, I am actually thinking more of SkS – as they usually just summarize science, it isn’t that controversial unless someone comes along and presents the skeptical view you often get short comment threads (and by the way -the skeptical view is welcomed at SkS – but you have to back up your claim – that is where things usually go south)
I don’t think my understanding of the issues of climate science are improved by knowing that you snipped a Dana1981 post, nor is it improved to know that SkS snipped a Camburn post, etc (and here I mean the endless arguing about who allows the opposing point of view). It is marginally improved when passionate people on the skeptic side challenge me on something I think I understand – I then go back and review what I thought I knew. So far I haven’t had an earth shattering revelation, but I would certainly be happier should that ever happen – AGW kind of sucks.
Presumably skeptics also don’t mind and/or enjoy reviewing their closely held understandings, to see if they still hold up in light of the most recent/BEST evidence.
PS – responding directly to your question: Why should you let Dana1981 to post after what he said on Deltoid? In my occasionally humble opinion – if you had let it in, and responded with “Dana this directly contradicts what you did at Deltoid” with a link – I think you could have claimed the high ground. You obviously are doing fine without my advice, but I thought the question deserved a response.
Lars, Smokey, etc.:
I would suggest looking at the current (and up to date) data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
In particular, look at mean temperature, annual data, contiguous US, with trends. I personally find that the “bar chart” is more useful for looking at trends. Individual years of course have large variations (weather), leading to entirely different ‘trends’ for direct lines between (for example) 1930-1998 and 1934-2008 – it’s well worth doing a running average to see what’s going on in the longer term.
Smokey – Do you prefer the CRUTEM3 data?
Here’s their NH data, land only: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem3vnh/mean:121
Lars P : “Falsifying the data, adjusting without information, hiding evidence, calling names is only making things more difficult to study. It is not science but a totally different thing”
Well – we certainly agree on this point -thus my repeated calls for Michaels to apologize for misrepresenting Hansen’s work in front of Congress (and, one presumes, under oath).
While the skeptics have succeeded in impugning science with some people (the EXACT same scientific method that led to the moon shot, the computer you are reading this on and, most likely the clothing you are wearing) – I am not in that crowd. Despite near-hysterical levels of effort -the scientific work of the climate changes scientists stands – and after the extreme level of attack its validity is even more secure, so the evidence to take down the scientific work must now be even more extraordinary.
Of course I don’t expect you to accept that. But I do think you should accept that.
If you pause, even for a moment at what I wrote above – ask yourself this:
Is there any theory which has been the subject of more scrutiny? Or any theory which has withstood the furious attack more unscathed (I am not talking about mickey mouse stuff like the debunked IPCC claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone very soon – I refer to the overwhelming body of evidence)? There are better counter-arguments to the theory of evolution than there are to AGW.
So indeed, less name calling and more acting on the knowledge science provides us: the world is warming, man is to blame.
Anthony, you’re censoring my comments because you don’t like what I said in the comments on a different site, and you think I’m the one who’s not acting like an adult? I suggest you take a step back and think about that.
If you think I misrepresented you at Deltoid (which I really don’t think I did), then go to Deltoid and set the record straight. Comparing my comments on the Deltoid blog to Pat Michaels’ distortion of graphics from three peer-reviewed studies is kind of ridiculous.
In case this comment goes through without censorship, my last (censored) comment was merely pointing out that Michaels is wrong that Scenario A was the appropriate comparison in 1998, and his “BAU” assumption is erroneous. I’ll have a post about this with details on SkS, probably on Monday.
REPLY: Oh please, you are the hot head here. Look at your original libelous comment that started this row. In retrospect I probably should have snipped that too. And yet you still haven’t addressed the central question – why is it OK for you to post partial comments about me, (taken from WUWT) leaving out the context above it, while at the same time complaining about highlighting a portion of a graph, but not showing the parts not discussed? Pot kettle and all that.
And – you have not addressed your latest gaffe at SkS: http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/skeptical-quote-surgery-pat-michaels/
You really are a hypocrite. Maybe that’s why you have so much time on your hands during the day now. – Anthony
KR,
You replied to Camburn’s comment on U.S. temperatures. I responded to your comment. Don’t move the goal posts now by changing it to N.H. data.
Even GISS admits the U.S. was warmer in the 1930’s:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/104812.html
• • •
A.T.: “…the world is warming, man is to blame.”
Thank you for the conjecture.
Anthony, your update is inaccurate. Shub shows that a (significant) error has occurred in one quotation at SkS. The issue of integrity resolves not on the making of errors, but on character, which is shown by the response to an error made. In this case I have very good reason to believe the error was inadvertent and is being corrected. That contrasts with Michaels case. In the case of his testimony regarding Hansen (and misrepresentation of Gillett et al, and Schmittner et al) he is clearly unwilling to correct the error. The reasonable supposition was that the errors where therefore not inadvertent.
Smokey – “on U.S. temperatures”
That’s why I pointed to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html – which shows contiguous US only. It also provides ranking of yearly temperatures. Looking at the trend for contiguous US from 1930 to 2011 shows a 0.1F/decade upward trend, despite a few warm years in the 1930’s.
Year Deg. F Rank
1998 55.08 117
2006 55.04 116
1934 54.83 115
1999 54.67 114
1921 54.53 113
2001 54.41 112
2007 54.38 111
2005 54.36 110
1990 54.29 109
1931 54.29 109
Average temps in 1930’s: 53.37F
Average temps in 2000’s: 53.98F
Trend 0.1F/decade
Trend 1901-2011 0.13F/decade
Care to amend your previous statements?
—
The mention of the CRUTEM3 data was in direct response to your (above) complaints about GISTEMP and BEST.
KR,
Apparently you neglected to view the GISS chart of the U.S. Argue with them if you like.
Smokey – apparently you neglected to look at the fact that the data in your link isn’t current, dating to Hansen et al August 1999. Not “current temperatures”.
Your statement that “…temps in the 1930′s were, in fact, warmer than current U.S. temperatures” is incorrect.
—
Enough for now – I will see what data Camburn has.
KR – regarding Camburn – enjoy the ride. You are about to see why SkS eventually (after months and month and months) gave up on getting a consistent answer. Good luck.
Thoughtful and woodman,
While I try hard not to form opinions about people (at least about their character) based on what they post on the internet, Dana1981 manages to stretch the bounds of my resolve with his arrogance. What you apparently see as passion comes across to me as a complete lack of respect for the opinions of others. Add to that the demonstrated editing that has occurred at SkS after the fact, and one is hard pressed to avoid a feeling of dishonesty, disrespect and slime when dealing with either Dana Nuccitelli or SkS.
Back on the original posting by Pat Michaels it seemed pretty clear that the point(s) he was highlighting in his post were basically the same as what was being stated by the authors in their abstract. If, when all is said and done, what difference does it make if the graphics used by Pat Michaels differed from what appeared in the paper when, a) they were indicated, with the originals referenced and b) did not contradict the points made in the paper by the authors? I (politely) asked Dana this. No response.
AT – Should be interesting. Camburn made two statements – “that the USA has not warmed in the past 100 years…North America is now about as warm as during the 1930′s to early 1940′s” – which are just not supported by the data I’ve seen.
Of course, he also claimed to be bumped from SkS for posting facts and papers – and having been in those discussions, I can’t agree with that either (http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1092#67380).
Anthony, I have just read your inline response to Actually Thoughtful. I note that your comments regarding a “comment editing fiasco” are unwarranted. Unwarranted because it was an inadvertent error, but doubly unwarranted because I have proof that you have done exactly the same thing. Specifically, you deleted a post, then made a false claim about my comments which was disproved by the deleted post, and refused to allow my to publish a correction in comments.
I am certainly happy to allow that that was an inadvertent error on your part, although inadvertancy is difficult to reconcile with the fact that your moderators, at least, new of the correction and failed to acknowledge the error. Regardless, claiming inadvertancy is not open as a defense by you in that you refuse to acknowledge that similar errors could be made inadvertently by John Cook. Judged by your own standard, you must be considered to have deliberately falsified the record and then made false claims about it.
That, of course, is not what I believe to have happened, but by your own measure you shall be judged.
REPLY: Judge away, hiring a firing squad too if you must for the verdict. I’m still waiting for an acknowledgement of your error, and an apology for making a threat because you can’t even comprehend the post. I ask the same question I asked of Dana, why should I bother to allow your comments when you can’t even solve your own integrity issues? I grow weary of being insulted by amateurs, when I’ve been insulted by professionals. Mann up. – Anthony
Tom Curtis Submitted on 2012/01/11 at 3:27 pm
Moderator, your response to my last post is deceptive either deliberately or from misinformation. If Anthony Watts does not publicly confirm that the graph was physically manipulated by deleting the data for the 1901-2000 transient response as I have claimed, I will publish a post proving the deletion and showing the original graph on my blog.
[Moderator’s Note: The following is from a subsequent comment which I have combined with this one. -REP]
slight addendum to my previous comment. As Patrick Michaels is the author of this blog, it is likely he rather than Anthony Watts responsible for doctoring the final graph, and the deceitful claim that the censored information was not relevant.
[REPLY: As you have already noted, Anthony posted this article as a guest post. Oddly enough, he has been criticized for posting “alarmist” articles without comment as well. You will also note, if you go through the comments, that Dr. Michaels, as well as other commenters, pro and con, have addressed the issues you’ve raised. No deception is intended and no one, skeptic or otherwise is deceived. -REP]
Anthony’s REPLY: My moderation team alerted me at work that Tom was going on a rampage, and I come back here dumbfounded how Tom could miss right at the top of the post these two important pieces of information
1. “by Dr. Pat Michaels”
2. The Link to World Climate report where the original essay was published, including the graph.
Further, the issue of the graph has been addressed in comments, by Michaels, Knappenberger, and others. You really should read all these before pronouncing me to be evil.
I think Tom owes an apology for his failure to read before pronouncing sentence and make threats to publish an “expose” rooted in confusion.
– Anthony Watts
KR says:
January 19, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Lars, Smokey, etc.:
I would suggest …
KR you have not answered to my post but avoided the point.
KR says:
“… apparently you neglected to look at the fact that the data in your link isn’t current, dating to Hansen et al August 1999. Not ‘current temperatures’.”
But KR was responding to Camburn who said, “…I used NOAA temp data to show that the USA has not warmed in the past 100 years…” I commented on that.
As GISS now admits, the 1930’s were warmer than “current” temperatures. Hansen tried to pull a fast one, but he got caught – as my link above shows. KR’s lame response is to nitpick the word ‘current’. Earth to KR: the 1930’s were still warmer than current temperatures. So where’s that scary CO2 ‘forcing’, eh? Hiding in Trenberth’s pipeline?☺
Anthony, you are on very thin ice there. As can be seen by the quoted record, I immediately corrected an error when I came across it. In contrast, Michaels and you are determined to die in the trenches rather than admit the blatant misrepresentation by Michaels of Hansens’ testimony to Congress. I am happy to further admit that I did not read the entirety of the comments before posting. Frankly I have better things to do with my time than to read the dross that passes for comments on your site. That has no bearing on the question as to whether or not the graph was deceptively manipulated (as it was).
Consequently, no apology is in order.
By all means, underline your hypocrisy yet again by banning me from your site if you feel so inclined. It will not be because of my integrity issues, however. I have no desire to lie to Congress, nor to support that lying to Congress, as (respectively) Michaels and you have done.
REPLY: Oh that’s funny, flame on dude. No scruples with you, clearly. Must be an SkS thing. And like you, I have better things to do with my time than worry about what you think. So let’s not engage further as clearly it is a waste of your time and mine. – Anthony
re: Tom Curtis
sorry, but it seems to me that doubling Mr Curtis’ intelligence/understanding level would still make him a halfwit…….FFS, which part of ‘guest post’ does he not understand??? Granted there are two words to be considered…and an authors name (!) …but still…….
Perhaps at this point it would be most constructive to the lay reader to forget all the unhelpful ‘he said/she said’, draw a line in the sand and get back to discussing the meat of this Pat Michaels post and Dana’s counterpart on the SkS site? I want to see a resolution.
Kev-in-UK, regardless of he authorship of the article, Anthony Watts published a doctored graph. It is his site. He is the pubisher, and therefore has a responsibility to ensure the integrity of whatever is published here. So while the specific authorship was an issue I should have picked up on, Anthony still bears responsibility for publishing the graph here. Given that the doctored nature of the graph was discussed in comments, he even had a responsibility to include one of his little updates stating that the graph had been significantly amended from the original in a way that excluded relevant information that tended to contradict the main argument of the post.
I am not able to make updates to posts at SkS. However, my immediate response on being presented with actual evidence of a problem was to post a comment acknowledging the problem:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1222&p=3#72219
I don’t believe in hiding errors. Honest people make them, dishonest people cover them up, or justify them after the fact and refuse to correct them. Anybody interested in knowing who are more honest, the team at SkS or that here under Anthony should look at the different responses at SkS (where the identified error has already been corrected, and a process instituted to ensure that any other like errors are corrected and that it does not happen again) and here, where Michaels is insisting that it is OK to present just one of three projections as being Hansen’s prediction, even though at the time of publication of the three projections, Hansen said one of the deleted (by Michaels) projections was more probable than the one he retained. And, of course, Anthony is doing all in his power to let Michaels get that false message out.
@Kev-in-UK
Your type of comment is what makes WUWT unreadable for those wishing to learn about the sceptic view of climate science. On second thoughts maybe it says it all one needs to know.
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm
“Well – we certainly agree on this point ”
Great. It is a first step. Would be interesting to see how do you react to graphs which change their past history, for instance the ones showed here:
http://www.real-science.com/new-giss-data-set-heating-arctic
How do you call this? Or the US temp data 1999 and the same later? You can see the posts from Smokey in the blog. How do you call it? Good science or not so good science?
“Despite near-hysterical levels of effort -the scientific work of the climate changes scientists stands – and after the extreme level of attack its validity is even more secure, so the evidence to take down the scientific work must now be even more extraordinary. ”
What particular part from CAGW stands? Actually I see just some sand corns lost in the desert that stand.
Hysterical efforts? Extreme level of attack?
Sorry, don’t project on the others what some from “CAGW” camp are doing. I see there a lot of hysterical efforts and extreme level of attack.
“Of course I don’t expect you to accept that. But I do think you should accept that.”
If you want we can discuss science and I will see if I accept your explanation but accept the gratuitous affirmation above? No I don’t. And I think you should ask yourself the question and really check what science stands and what not.
“If you pause, even for a moment at what I wrote above – ask yourself this:
Is there any theory which has been the subject of more scrutiny? Or any theory which has withstood the furious attack more unscathed (I am not talking about mickey mouse stuff like the debunked IPCC claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone very soon – I refer to the overwhelming body of evidence)? There are better counter-arguments to the theory of evolution than there are to AGW.”
Again please explain the theory of AGW that you support and we can discuss on it a few sentences should be enough.
“So indeed, less name calling and more acting on the knowledge science provides us: the world is warming, man is to blame.”
Less name calling – I agree, would be good if you would spread the word on CAGW sites it is there where people are insulted.
Be so kind and explain with your own words the CAGW theory that you believe so scrutined and lets see where is the urgency to do something and who is to blame. People can discuss about photons passing at the same time through 2 slides, we should be able to talk about weather and heat transfer.
KR says:
January 19, 2012 at 1:03 pm
“Lars, Smokey, etc.:
I would suggest looking at the current (and up to date) datal”
Better check RUTI – unadjusted rural data:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/north-america/usa-part-1.php
Smokey – So you define 1999 as “current”? Really?
Lars – I did reply to your comment; 1999 is not current. And going single year to single year is indicative of weather, not climate. You can look at the differences between 1930-1998 and 1934-2008 single year temperatures to see that (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html). You really really need to take a running average to see what’s happening in the climate.
—
Now, I will in kindness note that in the contiguous US the 1990’s are about as warm as the 1930’s. The 2000-2011 period, though, which I take to be more current, is distinctly warmer. Global temps show even more of a change (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1850/mean:121/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/mean:121/plot/best/from:1850/mean:121/plot/rss/mean:121/plot/uah/mean:121/plot/wti/mean:121 – anomalies not offset to a common baseline) – the contiguous US represents only about 4% of the Earth’s surface.
But given the record of (natural) forcings (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/), including solar input and volcanic aerosols, temperatures should be considerably cooler than the 1930’s. They are not. Hmmmm….
On Jan 10, dana1981 said:
“I have notified Dr. Gillett of Michaels’ post, and will gladly inform you of his reaction, if you would like.”
I would like to hear. Have we heard anything from Gillett? If not perhaps someone else should contact him to get his take on this. After all wouldn’t this clear things up?
Tom Curtis,
I have rarely seen anyone here as truly hypocritical as you are. Re-read my comment @January 18, 2012 at 6:43 pm above. There is no comparison between your wild-eyed nonstop threadjacking rant against Dr Michaels [over something Mann did in spades] and the documented mendacity of James Hansen. Hypocrite that you are, Hansen and Mann get free passes from you.
Run along back to Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science for some new talking points. You’ve said the same thing now every which way you can think of, Johnny One-Note [On the plus side, thanx for all the added site traffic.☺]
Lars – Rural data only? Tiny subsets of the data? Given that Camburn referred specifically to the NOAA data, I would like to consider apples and apples. Hence my linking to the actual NOAA data under discussion (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html).
Lars P – what is CAGW?
Regarding your question -the science is pretty clear that the world is warming and man is to blame. Being a person who follows the evidence, and not the emotion – I too understand that world is warming, and man is to blame.
I grant you that there are a few areas that we don’t understand all the mechanisms, or that a best case scenario MIGHT come into play. But there is equal (if not more) chance that the a worst case scenario will come into play.
Even someone who is a the mythical “lukewarmer” would choose to prevent global warming over trying to deal with the consequences – it is simply the prudent path. If you ask the average man on the street would you like to save money and prevent the worst of what global warming has to offer (AKA institute a carbon tax and therefor unleash* our potential to solve the problem) – the answer would be a resounding yes.
If you dress it up as “Would you like to be a communist and crater the economy and end our way of life and live in a yurt and have dirt floors and never see your Mom again (and have no realistic chance of preventing global warming anyways – IF it exists)” – the answer would be a resounding no.
That appears to be the big picture here.
* I take it as axiomatic that the strongest force in the universe is an American’s desire to (legally) avoid a tax
TimG56 – I am on record (read upthread) that Michaels doctoring of Gillette is merely overplaying his hand (albeit in an unethical way).
But his misrepresentation to Congress – under oath – of Hansen’s work is an example of an extreme lack of ethics. I am no lawyer, but I know that speeding is against the law, and stealing too. At that same level of intuitive understanding of the law, lying to Congress while under oath, about serious policy matters at that, is against the law.
If it isn’t – it is more evidence that our Congress is pretty messed up (moreso since the 2010 elections)
Actually Thoughtful says:
“…lying to Congress while under oath, about serious policy matters at that, is against the law.”
So do your civic duty, and have him arrested! Because, like, you couldn’t be wrong about him, could you?
REPLY: I second that, go ahead, write a complaint to file charges, we’ll post it here for you with your name attached since it will be a public document then. – Anthony
So in regards to the SkS misquote of Michaels – the article is now, apparently, rewritten. A search for “Michaels” yields no results on that antarctic ice page. Does this count as fixing the problem?
Or will it be counted as another case of “* Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.”
While I would prefer the article contained a note that says “on 1/19/2012 we learned the original article was based on an erroneous quote – this article is rewritten to correct that flaw” -or something of the like – I do give them credit for jumping on a problem.
What say the folks here?
REPLY: And there’s the point, they change things and they go down the memory hole. If it weren’t for other sites like Shub, we’d never have a record of these things. I’ve offered SkS to stop using the word deniers on regular basis, and if they do, I’ll happily change the category – they refuse. -Anthony
Smokey, it takes more to prove mendacity than simply noting a change in the data. The change in recording stations from “several hundred” in 1981 to (approx) eight thousand in 1987, for example, is probably a full and sufficient explanation of the difference between the 1981 graph (incorrectly labelled, I believe as 1980) and the 1987 graph. Increasing the number of stations used by a factor of ten may seem like mendacity to you, but to me it seems like good science.
The fact that you think you can simply show a graphic and then leap to a conclusion of mendacity without out any consideration of any reasons for any differences shows that your skepticism is strictly in name only (which explains a lot). If you ever want to put the research in, find the reasons for the alterations, link or cite to the original explanations of those reasons, and then show the reasons are invalid, by all means I would be interested in your making the case. But if you aren’t prepared to put that effort in, the reasonable conclusion is that you do not think that effort will validate your claims.
Anthony – I have posted a similar comment to their open thread on moderation (ie go for transparency). {In light of transparency – I don’t see a problem with using the word denier for those who deny the evidence. I would reserve skeptic to those who are skeptical of all claims until they are shown the claims are valid and THEN they accept the claim (until new evidence comes forward).}
Frankly I don’t see very much skepticism on either side of the debate, but I do accept the understanding of the issue as presented by the climate scientists, and backed up by observations.
I note no one accepted my challenge on your PDO thread to pick the date that the warming of the 80s, 90s and 2000s (GISS record) would be erased. This is what I mean by accepting observable reality.
REPLY: Denier is offensive, and is used to paint everyone with a broad ugly brush, and I find your support of it offensive as well. We disagree, move on. – Anthony
Tom Curtis, since honest people make errors and don’t cover them up, can you explain this error in your post 80 in the Serial Deleter thread at SkS: you stated there that “it is quite clear that the supposedly elided information by SkS is actually a distinct figure, ie, figure 3 b of Knutti and Hegerl, 2008.”
But 3b it is not a distinct figure. Figure 3b by itself is meaningless. The sole purpose of figure 3b is to add some information to figure 3a. There may be valid reasons to leave out figure 3b, but distinction is not one of them.
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 19, 2012 at 5:59 pm
“Lars P – what is CAGW?
Regarding your question -the science is pretty clear that the world is warming and man is to blame. Being a person who follows the evidence, and not the emotion – I too understand that world is warming, and man is to blame.”
The science is “pretty clear”? This is only a theory. Quantify — and prove — climate sensitivity to CO2, and then we’ll talk.
“I grant you that there are a few areas that we don’t understand all the mechanisms, or that a best case scenario MIGHT come into play. But there is equal (if not more) chance that the a worst case scenario will come into play.”
I’m not really sure about much of this, but I’m absolutely certain the odds are in my favor.
“Even someone who is a the mythical ‘lukewarmer’ would choose to prevent global warming over trying to deal with the consequences – it is simply the prudent path. If you ask the average man on the street would you like to save money and prevent the worst of what global warming has to offer (AKA institute a carbon tax and therefor unleash* our potential to solve the problem) – the answer would be a resounding yes.”
You can’t quantify any of this! Choose to prevent ‘global warming’ = $1 trillion (OR) $1 billion. Which one? Save money (??? — there’s only massive spending in your scenario, friend) andprevent what global warming has to offer = $1 trillion or $1 billion.
What if the damage is $1 billion, and the remediation effort is $1 trillion??? What then????? You have no frickin idea, cause you can’t quantify a thing. Cause all you want to do is shake down Mankind by scaring the crap out of ’em.
If you dress it up as “Would you like to be a communist and crater the economy and end our way of life and live in a yurt and have dirt floors and never see your Mom again (and have no realistic chance of preventing global warming anyways – IF it exists)” – the answer would be a resounding no.
One more time. Quantify something. Prove SOMETHING. QUANTIFY SENSITIVITY.
(apologies for the CAPS)
That appears to be the big picture here.
Neill – if you want to understand sensitivity, read Knutti and Hegerl 2008. Look up the subject on SkS – or you can have me spoon feed to you the fact that the figure all the scientific evidence points to is 3C of warming per doubling of CO2. There is some debate about how soon. And there are legitimate papers lower than 3C and lots for higher than 3C – but tons of evidence for about 3C.
So, those of us who follow the evidence, and not the emotion (note the lack of caps) – would answer 3C.
If you take it to the extreme, you don’t know the sun will rise tomorrow. I take it as a given. Science tells me so. But it is only a model, a prediction, if you will, of what will happen.
More big picture for you, as you seem to enjoy it.
Tom Curtis says:
“The change in recording stations from ‘several hundred’ in 1981 to (approx) eight thousand in 1987, for example, is probably a full and sufficient explanation of the difference between the 1981 graph (incorrectly labelled, I believe as 1980) and the 1987 graph. Increasing the number of stations used by a factor of ten may seem like mendacity to you, but to me it seems like good science.”
You only refer to the increase in stations, stopping in 1987, which is why your conclusion is wrong. In fact, most temperature recording stations had been eliminated by 2010. Since you weren’t aware of that [or you were, but you left out that pertinent fact and deliberately stopped at 1987], your argument has been falsified either way. We can easily see the correlation between the number of stations and the putative temperature.
You really need to get up to speed on the subject. I recommend reading the WUWT archives. After a few months you will probably know as much as the average WUWT reader.
• • •
Actually Thoughtful says:
“…the science is pretty clear that the world is warming and man is to blame.”
Hogwash. There is no empirical, testable evidence, per the scientific method, quantifying how much – or if – human CO2 emissions have raised temperatures. AGW is a conjecture, because it is not testable; a hypothesis must be testable. And keep in mind that computer models are not evidence.
If AGW was testable, it would be quantifiable, and if it was quantifiable, it would be measurable. If it were measurable, then the climate sensitivity number would be established and agreed upon. But as anyone can see, estimates of the climate sensitivity number range from negative [CO2 causes cooling], to zero sensitivity, to ≈0.5°C, to ≈1°C, and all the way up to the IPCC’s preposterous 3+°C and beyond. That wide range of opinions is due specifically to the fact that AGW is not empirically testable. It is a conjecture. [My own view is that 2xCO2 = +1°C, ±0.5°C].
The null hypothesis fully explains the ≈0.8°C rise in global temperatures since the start of the industrial revolution in the mid-1800’s, and the null hypothesis has never been falsified. Kevin Trenberth is so frustrated with the universal failure to falsify the null hypothesis that he now demands that it be redefined, putting the onus on scientific skeptics to prove a negative rather than where it belongs: on those putting forth the conjecture that human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming. When someone like Trenberth wants to jettison the scientific method because it does not support his beliefs, you know the AGW conjecture is in trouble.
Shub Niggurath says:
January 20, 2012 at 03:34
dana,
Your insertion of ellipsis only further betrays a casual attitude toward representing other peoples’ words.
[1] The ellipsis you threw in, makes things worse. It draws attention to the stringing together of bits and pieces of sentences, to create an impression that was not present in the original. Look at this image to see the parts that had to be pulled together to create the quote. Can you see how far apart they are? If anything, this illustrates the jaundiced vision with which you view what a skeptic would say
[2] It comes across as insincere. What text you have up on the page, still doesn’t exist in the original.
[3] Everyone may mangle a quote on occasion. Not everyone follows high standards of scholarly practice. But what Skepticalscience did with Michaels was to change the meaning of what he said, into its opposite.
[4] Why are you messing around with the quoted text? You didn’t write it in the first place.
[5] Many of your website’s so-called skeptical myths, similarly, don’t exist. Stop imagining them so you can make as though you are valiantly battling them. You are spreading confusion, creating false impressions, and slandering regular everyday people by doing so.
And lastly, do you have any idea of the number of problems that have been pointed out to you folk, just on the Antarctica thread alone?
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 19, 2012 at 7:45 pm
No.
Prove and quantify climate sensitivity. Here. Now.
Let’s hear your Elevator Speech.
KR@5:14
Thank you for providing the link to NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Ok……now use that link……and look at the annual mean temperature ratings.
You will see the following….picking the top 3:
1998 117 temp 55.08
2006 116 temp 55.04
1934 115 temp 54.83
Using standard deviation of 5%…..can you honestly tell me that any of these temperatures are higher or lower than each other?
NO…..they are not.
You can heat a pot in 1934 to 54.83F, and repeat the pot heating in 1998 or 2006.
The thing is, the pot is not statistically warmer or colder in any year of the top three.
You talk about warming in the 2000’s. Interesting.
Look at the numbers:
Annual mean 1998-2011 averagae = 54.09F
Annual 1998-2011 trend -0.87F/ decade.
I don’t know what your definition of warming is, but a severe negative trend since 1998 certainly is not warming to me.
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl
Neill – I presented the science. You reject it and pitch a fit. Your choice. If you were intellectually honest, you would point to science that casts doubt on the evidence I presented. But that appears to be too much effort.
So – my comment stands – the state of the science (evidence) is that climate sensitivity is 3C.
What else you got?
Eric (skeptic), you are incorrect. It is a standard though not universal convention when publishing multiple figures with identical axis to print the axis once only, and to then arrange alignment. In Knutti and Hegerl 2008, figure 3a shows the composite climate sensitivities and error bars for a variety of methods. Figure 3b shows the levels of scientific understanding, and other qualifications related to the different methods. Figure 3b cannot be understood without the axis from 3a, but is perfectly understandable with that axis even in the absence of figure 3a itself. Likewise, figure 3a is perfectly understandable without figure 3b. Hence they are distinct.
In contrast, the three projections from Hansen’s testimony all appear on the one graph. There is no conceivable way in which they are distinct. What is more, they are all relevant to the issue. If we consider Michael’s (and Knappenberger’s) three deletions, we have:
1) The deletion of two out of three ” projections” with the one remaining projection described as a prediction. His exact words were, “That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1).” Transparently, one of three projections is not a prediction in and of itself. On the contrary, each of the projections is a prediction of events conditional upon forcings following the trajectory described. Therefore, in describing just one of the projections as being Hansen’s prediction, Michaels told a plain untruth, an untruth that would have been immediately transparent but for his doctored graph. This is an open and shut case of either complete scientific incompetence or of deliberate scientific fraud (and hence deliberate lying to Congress).
It is irrelevant to this question as to which projection Hansen thought more likely. Clearly he considered all sufficiently probable (or desirable as a policy objective) to be worth presentation. Therefore, the issue as to which he thought more probable does not arise, and all three should have been included.
2) In deleting the land sensitivity PDF from Schmittner et al, Michaels deleted the ” big fat tail” which he says was no longer a feature of climate sensitivity analyses. More importantly he deleted clear evidence that the same methodology applied to different but concurrent data produced radically different results. If the method was robust, application to subsets of the data should produce essentially the same result. Clearly the method of Schmittner et al is not yet robust, and therefore does not categorically exclude higher climate sensitivities. That is exactly the reason the Ocean and Land PDFs where included in the figure, as Urban has indicated; and it is exactly the reason Michaels excluded them. He was making the case that, “However, as there are appearing more and more examples in the literature, of which Schmittner et al. is one of them, making a convincing case that the very high climate sensitivities are not defendable, there will be growing pressure on the IPCC in its Fifth Assessment Report to greatly shrink the fat tail of the probability distribution for the true climate sensitivity. ” Clearly, however, if Schmittner et al’s result is not robust, however intriguing and desirable the truth of its may claim may be (and it is both), it is not evidence that ” …very high climate sensitivities are not defendable”. (Note, it is evidence that the climate sensitivity is lower than the IPCC projections. It is not, however, evidence that the various recent papers showing high climate sensitivities that Michaels neglected to mention ” are not defendable” .
3) In deleting the 1901-2000 data from the Gillett et al figure, Michaels again deleted evidence that the method used by Gillett, and discussed by him is not robust. Again, that is very germane evidence, and describing that information as ” not relevant” to a discussion of the figure is a straight forward falsehood.
Smokey, I am referring to the number of stations available for the analysis from anytime in history, not the number available at a particular point in time. Clearly you have not even read the relevant papers, and yet you make accusations of fraud.
I will address this to KR, Dana1981, Tom, and Actually Thoughtful:
A skeptic looks at numbers, and then he looks at standard deviations, error bars etc.
I am an older man who has used my limited knowledge of stats for over 40 years.
My main use is with yield data and….yes…..temperature data. Ya see, I am a farmer.
When someone starts telling me that accuracy concerning temperatures is within the hundreds of a degree F….red flags rise to full mast.
The standard deviation for the mean temperature using 1895-2011 baseline is 2.64F.
The upper end of the mean could be 55.51 and the lower end could be 50.23
None of the temperatures, 1934, 1998 nor 2006 fall out of the standard deviation.
The warming trend that you think you see is not presented with error bars of the temperature mean. I know you are smart fellers and mean well.
I will stand by my comment that the USA has not warmed in the past 100 years.
I will stand by my comment that NA has not warmed in the past 100 years.
You will note that I admitted readily I made a mistake in citing AR3 rather than AR4 when I used to post at SkS.
When I am wrong, I will always readily admit that I am.
Actually Thoughtful@8:27
You state that sensativity is approx 3.0C.
Which model that has been verified shows this?
And how many other models come to a different conclusion?
Thank you for your kind response in advance.
Thought as much. Pity.
Camburn – Your assertion was made about the ‘1930’s’ (a decade), and the NOAA data. Decadal standard deviation over the last 115 years is ~0.5F, while the difference between the 1930’s and the 2000’s (first decade) is around 0.65F.
Statistics are statistics – by your criteria the 1930’s are over a standard deviation away from current temperatures.
Yes, there is uncertainty. But your claim simply does not hold up. Take the discussion from the 4% area of the contiguous US to the globe (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1850/mean:121/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/mean:121/plot/best/from:1850/mean:121/plot/rss/mean:121/plot/uah/mean:121/plot/wti/mean:121) and it’s rather silly.
Adam says:
January 19, 2012 at 23:41
Dana
“The slight misquote was unintentional.”
Dana please explain how you could have ‘unintentionally’ picked out select quotes from the article in question, and then put them together to make it sound like a single claim. The single phrase used in the SkS article, Pat Michaels clearly never stated. The full context of Pat Michael’s article makes it quite clear what he is saying, yet any reader would not know this from reading your website.
As shub pointed out
“Cook makes Michaels look like an ignorant stereotypical ‘denier’ who says that ice cannot melt because it is too cold to rain and craftily ignores the distinction between land ice and sea ice. Only he did nothing of the sort. ”
The SkS article in question clearly misrepresents Pat Michael argument.
And you still haven’t answered the fact that Pat Michael’s very clearly acknowledged a decrease in land ice, yet SkS makes no reference to this. In the ‘rebuttal’, John Cook just repeats a fact Pat Michaels has Never denied, yet makes it look as if he has been ‘refuted’.
Dana the SkS ‘rebuttal’ was obviously very misleading, and I can’t see how it could possibly have been unintentional. And I now see on the article in question you appear to have quietly got rid of Pat michaels article and referenced an entirely different one completely. Therefore there is now no way for readers to check Pat Michaels argument themselves, and see how you misrepresented it.
One other thing,as Shub pointed out several months ago, your blog has repeatedly removed, and edited comments, simply because of the fact that they were inconvenient
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
And I’ll note that your website has not responded to the article.
Care to explain it away?
Camburn – read the science – even though you are no longer allowed to post at SkS – that is a logical starting place as they list and link many papers, and explain some in laymans terms. One I would suggest to you is Knutti and Hegerl (2008) – I vaguely recall that paper has been updated.
I encourage you to not take my word for it, but go look at the actual papers. As a farmer you are no doubt blessed with (or have earned) A generous helping of common sense – read their methodologies – read their caveats. Does it appear to be robust? Are they honest in admitting where their technique has gaps?
While I hold the scientific process and scientists in high regard, it is no way exclusive such that WE THE PEOPLE can’t review their work. If you find something that doesn’t hang together – research it, write it and submit it to a journal. It is harder than you think to find an actual problem with their work, but not for the reasons usually bantered about – it is not pal review or the like – it is the fact that most papers are solid, tiny additions to the scientific cannon on the subject.
Do you know how many papers are written on climate change in a given year?
To clarify: I am using 11 years for averaging to minimize variance from the solar cycle. For a 10 year (rather than 11), the Std. Dev. is 0.52F (not 0.5F), with a difference between 1930-1940 and 2001-2011 of 0.65F.
Either way – Camburn’s assertion that “North America is now about as warm as during the 1930′s to early 1940′s” is unsupportable.
Neill – glad you accept the science. Maybe you can spread the Gospel (good news) here. I’m out
“quote doctoring is not really a surprise”
Is that as specious as graph mining?
Dear Pat,
You removed by erasing. You or someone in your employ, clearly copied the figure from Gillett et al, and then erased the inconvenient parts by erasing pixel by pixel
Further, you need to justify why the clearly more uncertain 1850-1900 part of the data set is more reliable. Some time ago Eli remembers a talk entitled, Who shall we trust before 1900, the data or the models, and yah know, there was no certain answer but the models won on points. Anyone who doubts this can go look at the uncertainties in the global temperature records.
Tom, and everyone else, please tell me whether displaying figure 3b alone, without figure 3a makes sense (from this document): http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf The point of 3b is to add important qualifiers to 3a, and those were removed at Sks. The explanation for their removal is that they would add too much width. There can be other valid reasons for their removal, but not your reason.
Displaying figure 3b alone makes no sense. The caption for 3b is “a partly subjective classification of the different lines of evidence for some important criteria”. Evidence of what? That is answered in the caption for 3a: “distributions and ranges for climate sensitivity from different lines of evidence”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/17/a-response-to-skeptical-sciences-patrick-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data/#comment-868482
I hate it when people do not remember what they wrote – and cannot follow a thread. I quoted the part where you lied about what Michaels said. So quit playing the victim, apologize to Pat Michaels and act like a man. He was correct in his protestations and your link was a total non-sequitur.
KR@9:28
You make the classic mistake that a pot that maintains lets say 54F is warmer than a pot that had achieved 54.5F.
There is less heat content in the pot at 54 than the one at 54.5. It doesn’t make any difference if the pot stays at 54 for decades on end, it is still not warmer than the pot was at 54.5.
The amount of heat achieved is the amount of heat achieved.
The question becomes will that heat be exceeded by a substaintiated temperature.
Camburn – so, by your logic (at January 20, 2012 at 8:42 am), a single really hot summer day in the middle of an ice age proves that the ice age was warmer than the interglacials? That’s quite droll – for someone who claims to be familiar with statistics, you’re certainly not showing it.
Pull the other one – it’s got bells on it…
KR says:
January 19, 2012 at 4:18 pm
“Lars – I did reply to your comment; 1999 is not current. And going single year to single year is indicative of weather, not climate. “…” You really really need to take a running average to see what’s happening in the climate.”
Well, let me try to be more explicit so that you understand the point. 1999 is not current for 2012 but was the actual data for 1900-1999.
Historical data does not change.
So quit pushing that changed data down on my throat my stomach does not keep it. Find a data that can be trusted and use it.
For the reason mentioned I trust more RUTI which is a subset of rural unadjusted data. It is a way of removing urban heat – even if not perfect – but still better then any adjustment.
I also trust more satellite measurement, but these go only 30 years back.
What is interesting to see is that RUTI is better aligned with the old GISS values (from 1999). Very interesting. Also better alignment with satellite data.
This validates for me RUTI and the old GISS and raises a big question mark to the post 2000 adjustments of the old data.
Explain me a reasonable scientific reason what did happen in 2000+ which changed the temperature values of 1900+? Can you find a reasonable explanation? I cannot.
Therefore I use RUTI and satellite data and do not use the discredited ones.
Lars – Regarding rural/urban temperature influences, I would point to the following:
“The opposite‐signed differences in maximum and minimum temperature trends at poorly sited stations compared to well‐sited stations were of similar magnitude, so that average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes. For 30 year trends based on timeof‐ observation corrections, differences across classes were less than 0.05°C/decade, and the difference between the trend estimated using the full network and the trend estimated using the best‐sited stations was less than 0.01°C/decade.” (Fall et al 2011, emphasis added – http://tinyurl.com/7ug5hav)
—
At this point I consider Camburns claims regarding NOAA temperatures, the 1930’s, and temperatures over the last 100 years settled as incorrect on the basis of that NOAA data.
“When I am wrong, I will always readily admit that I am.” – Waiting…
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 19, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Lars P – what is CAGW? CAGW=Catastrophic AGW
“Regarding your question -the science is pretty clear that the world is warming and man is to blame. Being a person who follows the evidence, and not the emotion – I too understand that world is warming, and man is to blame.”
You repeat the same phrases without answering any question. Repeating does not make any of it true. You haven’t explained a single sentence of the science you praise, so I understand you actually thoughtfully avoid to debate the science.
“I grant you that there are a few areas that we don’t understand all the mechanisms, or that a best case scenario MIGHT come into play. But there is equal (if not more) chance that the a worst case scenario will come into play.”
The Earth had 10times+ more CO2 without temperatures hitting the roof. Where is the warming from this century? Satellite data pls. How much was it in the last 11 years+ of this century?
“Even someone who is a the mythical “lukewarmer” would choose to prevent global warming over trying to deal with the consequences – it is simply the prudent path. If you ask the average man on the street would you like to save money and prevent the worst of what global warming has to offer (AKA institute a carbon tax and therefor unleash* our potential to solve the problem) – the answer would be a resounding yes.”
Prudent? CO2 is increased vegetation and increased biosphere, what is prudent in cutting x% from it?
Carbon tax is not solving any problem and not unleashing any potential, open your eyes and look what it does.
“If you dress it up as “Would you like to be a communist and crater the economy and end our way of life and live in a yurt and have dirt floors and never see your Mom again (and have no realistic chance of preventing global warming anyways – IF it exists)” – the answer would be a resounding no.
That appears to be the big picture here.
* I take it as axiomatic that the strongest force in the universe is an American’s desire to (legally) avoid a tax”
Then don’t dress it up. Better a truth that hurts then a convenient lie. The truth is: there is currently no warning and very probably will be none or a very weak one. The absorbtion bands for CO2 allow for about 10 m visibility in the air. This means that the heat exchange through radiation between the solid ground and the air happens in the first 10 meters. With increased CO2 this interval will be reduced to 9 or 8 m – see Prevost heat exchange, this will not increase any temperature to create any catastrophal AGW.
The rest is conduction, convection and heat transfer through radiation and results in a much lower sensitivity then you seem to assume.
KR,
Would you readily admit that NOAA “adjusts” the temperature record, and that the adjustments usually end up showing more warming? – Waiting…
Smokey – What a lovely example of a loaded question, akin to “When did you stop beating your wife”. And a nice red herring from the previous claims based on the data.
I would point you to the same reference I noted to Lars: http://tinyurl.com/7ug5hav – if you disagree, take it up with Pielke and Watts, and their discussion of various adjustments. See also http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/references.html for details, and http://tinyurl.com/7sr6lsv for a top-level description.
Or look at any of the other temperature records (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1850/mean:121/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/mean:121/plot/best/from:1850/mean:121/plot/rss/mean:121/plot/uah/mean:121/plot/wti/mean:121). Perhaps you prefer HadCRUT3 – although the HadCRUT4 update looks to show more warming, as it includes additional Russian and high latitude stations (more data!) not included in HadCRUT3.
Go chase your red herrings on your own.
To clarify my previous comment – recent discussions/disagreements were based upon claims made from NOAA data. Those claims about NOAA data (no warming in last 100 years, 1930’s as warm as current temperatures) were shown to be incorrect.
So now, having lost on that substantive point, Smokey attacks the data instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring – and that fish isn’t biting.
KR,
You had commented on NOAA upthread. So based on that, I you asked a simple, straightforward question. Your response was to squirm around and avoid answering the question.
I could ask the same question regarding GISS, instead: Would you readily admit that GISS “adjusts” the temperature record, and that the adjustments usually end up showing more warming?
Since psychological projection is the hallmark of the alarmist contingent, it doesn’t surprise me or bother me to be falsely accused of making red herring arguments. I simply asked a question. Go ballistic if you like, but the only reason I asked was because I can show that those organizations manipulate the past temperature record to show either higher current temperatures, and/or artificially lower past temperatures to deceptively show a more alarming rise.
The fact is that the [unusually mild] rise in global temperatures since the industrial revolution is proceeding along the same long term trend since the LIA. There has been no recent acceleration of global warming [as had been universally predicted by the always-wrong alarmist crowd]. There is also a clear disconnect between global warming and rising CO2.
So you can either answer my question, or continue to prevaricate.
KR says:
January 20, 2012 at 11:02 am
“Lars – Regarding rural/urban temperature influences, I would point to the following:
“The opposite‐signed differences in maximum and minimum temperature trends at poorly sited stations compared to well‐sited stations were of similar magnitude, so that average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes.”
Well I remember the question:
How does CO2 know where there are more people to warm mostly there?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/goodridge_1996_ca-uhi_county.jpg
No need to take it with Pielke and Watts, following your logic it means that RUTI shows the right values, especially as its data is unadjusted, isn’t it, the trend is the same, thanks for your confirmation.
KR:
I am not going to dispute NOAA temp metrics. That is why there are error bars.
You keep stating that the USA is warmer now than in the past.
I mentioned the 30’s….I didn’t remember which year was the hot year of the 30’s….but it appears it was 1934.
In your opinion, when has it been statistically hotter in the USA than 1934. We can confine this to measured temp and not include proxy temp data being we are talking the past century.
Actually Thoughtful:
I am still waiting for the validated model that shows 3.0C sensativity.
And I am still waiting for the values that other validated models show.
Of course, I would expect these models to be able to hind cast as well being the known parameters are in place.
PhilJordan – this becomes tiresome. I explained to Michaels in a post at this time/date: January 17, 2012 at 7:04 pm
exactly where and when he made the claims I stated he made. Thus I am not lying. In fact, he is proud of what he said I was able to pull it from his employers web site.
In fact – it is the MOST public of public records – the Congressional record!.
Michaels has not responded, and I draw the obvious conclusion that he accepts the truth about what I posted (what choice does he have – he was hoisted by his own petard!
Now you – you keep mumbling darkly about how all these lies were spoken – yet you have failed – twice now -to point out what YOU think is a lie. I can’t find a lie where there is none. So, either post something in the form of this quote (short quote so we can all see what you mean – in other words, tell us EXACTLY what you think the lie is – it would be not more than a sentence or two) from me is a lie (and why you think it is a lie -remember I quoted Michaels from his own CATO web site).
I am curious what it is you think is a lie given my source was the very, very VERY public testimony of one Patrick Michaels.
Once you fail at that I will be happy to graciously accept your apology – anyone can make a mistake. I will interpret your silence as just that admission.
Camburn -read Knuttie and Hegerl (2008) – if you have any questions – read the papers they reference.
Once you’ve done that I would be glad to answer any questions you have (to the best of my ability).
Lars P – so tell us when, given the cold PDO and the whole collection of fictions you live by – we will return to the temperature of the early 1980s (GISS – not playing the satellite game and of course HadCrut is verboten to any skeptic as climategate exists (I must note the only hoax is that emails are somehow cooling the earth – but I promise not to respond on climategate) – I have to point it out only to keep you honest – no fair claiming the Hadcrut data is cooked, then using it to support your obviously false claims).
And at what temperature will you give up the myth that the world is cooling, or holding steady, or whatever you are pushing and switch to the next fallback in the endless skeptic battle – no PROOF that it is CO2 (this is the next line after giving up, as hopeless, that you can convince people there is no warming when we all have access to the data). Then you can graduate to there is no such thing as man-made CO@ and then you can tell us it is only 3% and on and on and on.
Actually Thoughtful says:
“…at what temperature will you give up the myth that the world is cooling, or holding steady, or whatever you are pushing and switch to the next fallback in the endless skeptic battle – no PROOF that it is CO2 (this is the next line after giving up, as hopeless, that you can convince people there is no warming when we all have access to the data).”
I think you are misrepresenting what Lars wrote. His linked chart showed no rural warming or cooling. Depending on the time frame, that is a valid argument. But with a longer time frame, it is clear that the planet has been warming since the LIA. The problem with your belief system is that the warming has followed the same trend line since the LIA – since well before CO2 began it’s current rise.
Regarding your “PROOF” that CO2 is causing global warming, proof is non-existent. AGW is a conjecture. To be raised to the status of a hypothesis requires that AGW must be testable. As I have patiently explained to you, AGW is not empirically testable [I happen to accept that CO2 results in some mild warming, but it is so minor that it can be disregarded for all practical purposes]. But that does not mean that AGW is any more than a conjecture.
Smokey – My fingers were notably faster than my brain. I didn’t mean to misrepresent Lars. It appears Lars is making the case for no warming (based on the graphs he chose to link). To which I respond, how much warming will move you off that position?
As for your bizarre claim that physics has somehow failed us – I note that gravity it still holding my butt in the chair as I type this – so we are OK in the main. As for your particular issue – you might want to investigate Arhennius (1896) (not a typo – well over 100 years of established science). Indeed, to those who are aware of the physics of greenhouse gases it is very well known that the earth would be dramatically colder in the absence of greenhouse gases.
Also – you seem trapped in the typical skeptic dead end of obsessing over tiny minutia and ignoring the big picture. Check out a post or two at SkS on the subject of multiple lines of evidence – that is the core problem with the skeptic position – they have to overturn so much of everyday science in order for their fantasy version of reality to prevail. Thus the focus on minutia in the hopes people will be derailed from reality by the occasional contra-trend bit of evidence.
I am rooting for you at some level, as AGW kind of sucks – but I am too much of a realist to put much stock in you guys on the fringe of science.
Let me give you an example (of why your outside-of-science efforts are relatively pointless) – I happened upon a meeting today at my city hall (decent sized town in the southwest) – they were talking about committing the City to responding to the 27 issues they had identified based on their analysis of climate trends between now and 2100 – their scenario was 5-8F more warming – and a 5% drop in precipitation (which I think is hopelessly optimistic on the precipitation front).
My City -in a bright red state – is planning for the reality of a warmer world! They are not sitting around examining their navel and appealing to hail-mary theories like Cosmic rays or the invisible 60 year cycle or CO2 is saturated or any of the other psuedo-science that populates this site – they have a fiduciary duty to WE THE PEOPLE to anticipate and respond to climate reality -and they are.
I have to say -my optimism for the peoples of this planet was greatly enhanced today.
I am quite certain that this is happening all over the country, in states red and blue – people are forced to act because it is too important not to – even as there is this supposed huge debate (which, as you know, is about 80% trumped up by sites like this and the main stream media (aka FOX) which thrive on the “controversy”.
So – to bring this back around – my question for Lars is – where in the 8F rise will you drop the “world is not warming” bit and fall back to something even more inscrutable (in the vain hope that you can baffle with BS?) If you (Smokey) too believe the world is not warming, or man is not to blame – then the same question applies. I haven’t found your comments particularly helpful or constructive, but I am ever optimistic.
Actually thoughtful,
Your city leaders sound like fools. There is zero evidence that the planet is going to warm by 8°C, and even mentioning such an outlandish number borders on the lunacy of Algore.
I’m busy on something more important, so maybe I’ll deconstruct your rant tomorrow. That will be easy. In the mean time, Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science probably won’t tell you this, but Arrhenius recanted his 1896 paper in a new 1906 paper. You could look it up.
Smokey – are you a different avatar of PhilJordan? You too seem to have misread what I wrote (on purpose or not is unclear).
The letter C vs the letter F is fairly important when discussing global warming – one indicates nearly double (or half, depending on perspective) of the other. Read carefully – you might learn something.
My point is that City councils are doing this all over the country – you and the WUWT crazy crew should get on it and EXPOSE this radical/socialist/marxist prudent planning. Go out there and SHOW America what crazy really looks like. I don’t think the whole temperature recording stations sited on top of restaurant grills really showed what you can do – by all means go back to the well!
I know all about Arrhenius and the supposed 1906 revision – none-the-less his work stands. You should endeavor to really understand that – one of the the skeptics downfall is a complete misunderstanding of the scientific method – and the Arrhenius CO2 work is as good a case study as any.
Good luck with you project. As for fools -a mirror might be your shortest path to fool identification.
Funny you mention Al Gore – I have never seen a skeptic who invoked ALGORE ever be worth the time (there seems to be some sort of short circuit when a person with a lose relationship with science ponders that even a politician understands the science better than they do – not really sure what the reason is – but it has happened time and time again.)- will you prove or disprove that rule? Given your alphabet soup gaffe (and posts upthread), you will probably prove the ALGORE rule true yet again, but I remain ever optimistic.
“Actually Thoughtful says:
January 20, 2012 at 8:17 pm
They are not sitting around examining ……or the invisible 60 year cycle”
You challenged me to something on the other thread and I responded at 11:51 AM on that thread. Yet at 8:17 PM you challenge Smokey and mention the 60 year cycle that I talked about earlier but I have not seen you at that post.
(P.S. Smokey, it was up to 8 F not 8 C, but your point was still valid that 8 F (or 4.4 C) is still considered extremely unlikely. 🙂
So I will repeat my earlier post and point out the 60 year cycle is NOT invisible!
“Actually Thoughtful says:
January 19, 2012 at 11:19 pm
Werner Brozek – why is 10 years too long to ignore? Why have you cherry picked your dates so carefully?
Climate is defined as 30 years.”
I believe that both 10 years and 30 years are not correct. The real value should be 60 years since there seems to be a 60 year cycle as the following shows:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
Let me apply an analogy. Let us suppose that the day is warmest at 12 noon just for discussion sake. What the 30 year period does is take the trend from 2 A.M to 2 P.M. and says we are warming rapidly. What really should be considered is what happened from 2 A.M one day to 2 A.M the next day. So the 10 years of flatness in this analogy is from 10 A.M to 2 P.M. The way I see it is that in the big picture, the last 10 years of flatness merely confirms the 60 year cycle is still working and that we are now headed into a cooling mode. Under this scenario, we do not have to wait another 10 years to see 30 years of no temperature change, but we only need to wait 10 years. Using the clock analogy, when an hour passes to 3 P.M., you have to back to 9 A.M to get a straight line again. This is more or less what happened to RSS and HadCrut3 over the last month of cooling.
Then there is the other matter of us coming out of the LIA so there is a slight upward slope. How much of this slope is due to CO2 is a matter of debate, but I am convinced it is not enough to be the least bit concerned about.
Out of curiosity, it appeared that in the year 2010/11, a non trivial, one trillion dollars was invested in clean energy technology in just one year.
In Asia, both the wealthy Chinese and the South Koreans invested additional funds to double their previous peak production levels of silicon solar cells by December 2011, in order to meet projected sales demands for 2012/13, to the crowd of growing cynics and pragmatists. Perhaps, do these evil cynics and pragmatists, see something in climate change, we prefer not to see?
In September 2011, GE invested heavily in the Brazilian EBX solar cell facility to double it’s existing production level as well. GE, which is by way, one of North America’s largest producer of electric wind turbines, also owns and operates a thin film film solar cell production facility in Colorado. At the Colorado plant, plans are underway to double it’s existing level of production of solar cells, in order to meet current sales orders expected in 2012/13!
Sadly, it would seem, cashed up GE, along with wealthy US and overseas investors and the major players merchant bankers such as Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch/Bank of America, after seeing how the clean energy industry has grown since the humble primitive beginnings in 1977, are clearly not listening to the message Pat Michaels is telling us.
Qui beneficia.
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 20, 2012 at 7:11 pm
“Lars P – so tell us when, given the cold PDO and the whole collection of fictions you live by – we will return to the temperature of the early 1980s (GISS – not playing the satellite game and of course HadCrut is verboten to any skeptic as climategate exists (I must note the only hoax is that emails are somehow cooling the earth – but I promise not to respond on climategate) – I have to point it out only to keep you honest – no fair claiming the Hadcrut data is cooked, then using it to support your obviously false claims).
And at what temperature will you give up the myth that the world is cooling, or holding steady, or whatever you are pushing and switch to the next fallback in the endless skeptic battle – no PROOF that it is CO2 (this is the next line after giving up, as hopeless, that you can convince people there is no warming when we all have access to the data). Then you can graduate to there is no such thing as man-made CO@ and then you can tell us it is only 3% and on and on and on.”
I answered to your points per point. You do not answer to my points but raise new ones.
“Given the cold PDO” – since when is the PDO cold? When was it warm? What was the temperature increase by the warm PDO? Where was this taken into account?
Will really like to see your answer to this, but have no expectations.
“claiming the Hadcrut data is cooked” When did I made such claim? Where I have a problem with the “keepers of the temperature” I told it clearly: When their own data is not consistent with their own previous historic data. This raise a big question mark to the integrity of the data. If historical values change, the red light of “data fudging very probably” blinks. If the older relative positions to each other change it means either the older releases were totally garbage or the newer ones are. As the data is issued by the same people and there is no message telling “oh we did it wrong, there was a big error we corrected, see here is the error, we issue a new series with the correction, please see and double check”, if I see no such message no such correction just gradually fudging the data which magically comes closer to “the message” and “the cause” then I do not trust them at all and remove it from my references.
Even if I would see the previous message this would mean I would give them less credit as they already had a lousy control, maybe others are doing better job, but nevertheless keep an eye on their work, maybe they improve.
“GISS not playing the satellite game” – well this is indeed very interesting. The space exploration agency which is dedicated to space exploration does not use satellite data? Not even to double check and confirm the measured values? What for are they space agency? What for do they use money dedicated for space exploration? These are question that the persons who give the money should ask themselves and get answers.
“the whole collection of fictions you live by”
Which fictions? You have not addressed one point from what I said to show it is a fiction but suddenly call a whole collection? Show them to me. You may have other views on how science can and should be done. Ok, those are your views, I keep mine but then we agree to disagree. As the recent scandals showed in other domains such fudging of the data happen and are very dangerous causing much harm and waste and even human life lost so we must be very careful how we set our standards.
And again you keep pushing your faith but in 20 posts so far mentioned nothing about the science you support just some vague 3°C warming per doubling CO2. This is no faith discussion or should not be.
“I must note the only hoax is that emails are somehow cooling the earth – but I promise not to respond on climategate”
Which one are you addressing here? You do not understand what climategate shown? Then for “hiding the decline” please see it is clearly explained by Richard Verney above:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/17/a-response-to-skeptical-sciences-patrick-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data/#comment-869272
“It was the KNOWN UNRELIABILITY of the paleo record which the ‘scientists’ were trying to hide when they were seeking to ‘coceal’ the divergence problem and splice on the instrument record for the period post 1960 without showing the paleo reconstruction for the later period. ”
For the rest, you may want to read the discussions archived with an open mind.
“I have to point it out only to keep you honest ”
I don’t need you to keep me honest.
I look for it myself, would expect for you to do the same for yourself. I am not perfect, I might make errors and have to correct them. You have pointed to no evidence of my being dishonest to allow you that preposterous sentence. Others pointed to the need to keep you honest, so be honest to us and yourself:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/17/a-response-to-skeptical-sciences-patrick-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data/#comment-869341
“And at what temperature will you give up the myth that the world is cooling, or holding steady, or whatever you are pushing and switch to the next fallback in the endless skeptic battle ”
The world has changed and will change, we and also you have to learn and live with it there is no “steady state”. Yes we influence the environment and yes the environment influences us. We are living with that.
There has been warming since the little ice age. There has been CO2 increase since the 1950’s. We see that.
There has been no dramatic change and no imperious need to address that. The seas are not increasing at dramatic rates and the warming was very mild and could be explained by natural variations. The mild warming since the LIA was beneficial.
So we need to keep that under observation and address the most urgent issues that we have but this is a different story.
Actually Thoughtful:
Knuttie and Hegerl (2008) is behind a paywall. Do you have a reference to said paper in the open?
From their abstract tho:
“The quest to determine climate sensitivity has now been going on for decades, with disturbingly little progress in narrowing the large uncertainty range.”
I don’t know if their paper had any verifiable proof that would reduce the uncertainty range concerning sensativity.
If it does, which verified model showed a more definitive sensativity value?
Werner Brozek says:
“P.S. Smokey, it was up to 8 F not 8 C…”
My apologies for the mistake, Werner. As I indicated, I was in a hurry, and used the Centigrade convention that everyone uses. Only someone trying to make the number bigger and more alarming, Like A.T., would use °F.
You also commented: “Then there is the other matter of us coming out of the LIA so there is a slight upward slope. How much of this slope is due to CO2 is a matter of debate, but I am convinced it is not enough to be the least bit concerned about.”
I have not been able to find the ‘slight upward slope’ you referred to in any charts with a correct y-axis. The green trend line in this chart actually shows that the warming trend is gradually slowing. Your Akasofu link shows a steady upward trend line from the LIA, but it does not show any accelerated rise in temperature, therefore the ≈40% increase in CO2 does not appear to have had any measurable effect. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
• • •
Actually Thoughtful says:
“Go out there and SHOW America what crazy really looks like.”
No need for that, your comments are sufficient. And city councils that waste their taxpayers’ time and money by impotently tilting at windmills should instead be taking action filling pot holes in their city streets, and maintaining other infrastructure. Let us know when your city has no more pot holes in your streets. And wake me when you stop using products produced and created with fossil fuels, and when you stop driving, and when you stop heating your home, and when you stop using anything made of plastic, and when you stop buying food grown with manufactured fertilizer, etc., etc.
Finally, Arrhenius recanted his very high sensitivity estimate of 1896, and replaced it in his 1906 paper with ≈1.6°C, IIRC. That estimate is still too high, as current temperatures show. But even if it were accurate, that minor warming would be nothing to worry about. In fact, it would be welcome, because warmth is good; cold kills. There is nothing wrong with global warming, which is a net benefit to the biosphere [as is more CO2].
Run along now back to Pseudo-Skeptical Pseudo-Science, you need some new talking points.
• • •
Lars,
“Actually Thoughtful” is mendaciously trying to paint you into a corner, by dishonestly commenting as though you are denying that the planet is warming. In fact, it was Michael Mann who preposterously claimed that the temperature did not change until the Industrial Revolution, when it shot up. Mann’s claims have since been completely debunked, but his lemming-like followers still believe that the current warming is unusual. It is not, it is simply a continuation of the natural warming trend since the LIA.
Smokey:
The current warming is anything but unusual:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1945/trend:1.0/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/to:2011/trend:1.0
Note that both series are 35 years in duration. (I know…I know..17 years is the new time frame….but neglecting that)…..
Note that the RATE of warming in both periods is virtually identical.
However, we all know that the level of atmospheric co2 has risen during our current leg of warming.
With that said….why were the two rates of warming virtually identical?
A question yet to be answered.
I understand that Arrhenius originally estimated that doubling CO2 would lead to a temperature rise of 5–6 °C, but subsequently, in 1906 he revised this figure to a reduced value of 1.6C, and by including the effects of water vapour, 2.1C
So 100 years ago, in the early 20th century the estimated effects of doubling CO2 ranged from 1.6C-2.1C at the lower end, to 5-6C at the upper end.
A very recent publication “Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in earth’s energy balance”, Huber & Knutti, (Nature Geoscience Letters, 4 December 2011) states “the resulting distribution of climate sensitivity (1.7-6.5C), 5-95%, mean 3.6C) is also consistent with independent evidence derived from paeloclimatic archives.”
This particular publication derives its results from a CMIP3 Climate Model. It is stated in the text “The model results for 1950-2004 are shown in Fig 2c,d, and compare very well with recent observational estimates, partly as a result of calibrating the model to the observed total ocean and surface warming.” ….. “The near constant ocean temperature over the past five years are not simulated by the model and its causes remain unclear”.
One can interpret this two ways. First, Arrhenius, working entirely alone, showed remarkable foresight in identifying the range of uncertainty.
Alternatively, after 100 years, and 70-80 billion dollars spent, the range of uncertainty is exactly the same as that defined 100 years ago, while the explanation for the last 5 years constant ocean temperature remains unclear.
And so the science is settled. Makes you think ! And undoubtedly leads to long threads of debate.
Smokey says:
January 21, 2012 at 8:29 am
“Lars,
“Actually Thoughtful” is mendaciously trying to paint you into a corner, by dishonestly commenting as though you are denying that the planet is warming. In fact, it was Michael Mann who preposterously claimed that the temperature did not change until the Industrial Revolution, when it shot up. Mann’s claims have since been completely debunked, but his lemming-like followers still believe that the current warming is unusual. It is not, it is simply a continuation of the natural warming trend since the LIA.”
Thanks Smokey, you are right.
Camburn,
Even PhilJones admits the current warming trend has repeatedly occurred:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
Werner Brozek – I don’t buy the 60 year cycle, but I am glad we are now in the 2nd half of that mythical cycle, as when the warming continues (I believe GISS lists 2011 as 9th hottest on record) – those you using this bit of fiction as a crutch for your unwillingness to take simple action to end man made global warming will stumble badly as your crutch dissolves from the observable evidence (like all previous skeptic arguments have (those that were susceptible to reality in the first place).
BTW – 5F is 2.8C – well within the range of likely outcomes for my region. As is 8C. Remember this is global warming writ small – our City is acting locally due to global events. Yours is too – if not there will be some sad pandas in your neck of the woods (ooh I just love mixing metaphors!)
PS – sorry for getting your last name wrong on the other thread.
Werner Brozek: “How much of this slope is due to CO2 is a matter of debate, but I am convinced it is not enough to be the least bit concerned about.”
Are you intellectually honest enough to admit that regardless of your opinion, there is precious little science that supports your opinion?
As an opinion I am very willing to support you in having it. it is when you represent your opinions as what the science shows (when we all know it is not) that things get problematic. But if it is merely your opinion – we have no disagreement.
Smokey:
It is quite easy to see the cyclical nature of the temperature metrics. There does seem to appear an approx 60 year (+-10) cycle.
The last research of value concerning the sun’s output was presented by Dr. Svelgaard a few months ago. According to his research, the TSI has remained realtively constant for 100’s of years. He did not address the intensity of various light waves within the TSI, as that is an area that needs much more scientific investigation. It does seem that the UV spectrum varies considerably.
I have no doubt that the additional co2 that has been emitted increases temperature. I think your graph shows this very well. When looking at it, one can easily see that the increase in c02 in the past 50 years has resulted in approx .3C of warming. This is a broad statement, ignoring deforestation, ch4 etc etc.
OH wait, co2 may not be responsable for the whole of the 0.3C….dog gone it anyways. Just when I thought I had it all figured out…………oh well.
Back to the drawing board.
Actually Thoughtful says to Werner Brozak:
“Are you intellectually honest enough to admit that regardless of your opinion…”
Everything A.T. says is only an opinion. If it were not for psychological projection [imputing your own faults onto others], he wouldn’t have much to say.
Actually Thoughtful’s “8°C” [which has now mysteriously morphed from “8°F”] is risible lunacy. There is zero empirical evidence supporting that fantastic notion. To seriously claim that there is credible scientific support for believing that the planet will heat up by 8°C is nonsense. The most credible Authority – the planet itself – is falsifying his alarmist scare story [that same chart would have to be a lot higher in the x-axis if temperatures were to rise by a truly preposterous 8°C].
What A.T. is blustering and arm-waving about is nothing but the planet’s natural emergence from the LIA. Of course current temperatures are higher than past temperatures! The planet is naturally warming from the LIA. A.T.’s conjecture that CO2 has any measurable effect is missing one thing: verifiable measurements. Without testable, real world measurements, there is no way of knowing how much – or even if – CO2 affects temeperature. But based on the lack of correlation between temperature and CO2, the answer is: there is not much effect from CO2, if any.
Heystoopidone says:
January 21, 2012 at 12:35 am
Heystoopidone, is this what you mean by “investment”?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/20/stearns-destruction-solyndra-equipment-bonus-plan/
Smokey @10:23
Remember, correlation is not causeation.
OH wait….the correlation doesn’t even match as a causeation.
Dog GONE it….
OH well, back to the drawing board……again!
(MMMMM>…but is the last 40 years of co2 the new fangled version? I might have read somewhere that this new co2 will be in the atmosphere for 200 years instead of the previous 7-10 years the old co2 stayed in the atmosphere)
Lars – you, like me, may not believe everything that is posted on WUWT – but my PDO line come from this post -http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/global-temps-in-a-crash-as-agw-proponents-crash-the-economy/
I don’t think there is very much scientific evidence the PDO is going to save us. The scientific evidence says the world is warming AND man is to blame. You can see this visually by looking at the red and blue graph 1/3 of the way down the page at this link:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm
Lars asks: ““claiming the Hadcrut data is cooked” When did I made such claim?”
Lars then in the next sentence! makes EXACTLY that claim (and it goes on for the entire paragraph, but I am keeping it simple (Cue PhilJordon to declare me a liar again for telling the truth…)
Where I have a problem with the “keepers of the temperature” I told it clearly: When their own data is not consistent with their own previous historic data. This raise a big question mark to the integrity of the data.”
Lars – I don’t remember what you posted -I sometimes respond to the gestalt of a poster. But here above, upon your request, I have indeed directly responded – so the following, while possibly valid upthread (I haven’t done an extensive review of what you said, indeed of what I said in response to you – there are 95 invocations of “actually thoughtful” (er 96 now) on this page – two words not often used right next to each other except as my screen name):
““the whole collection of fictions you live by”
Which fictions? You have not addressed one point from what I said to show it is a fiction but suddenly call a whole collection?”
So – if you are unhappy with a certain thing I have said, please be specific, and I will respond to the specifics.
<>
On your honesty claim
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/17/a-response-to-skeptical-sciences-patrick-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data/#comment-869341
This is hilarious!! PhilJourdan making an unsupported claim about me “lying” becomes the truth for you! I have challenged PhilJourdan THREE times to explain where this mythical lie is. I gave him a face-saving out it my last attempt – that his silence would be accepted as admission that there was no lie – to date he has accepted that out.
YOU however, have just greatly devalued your efforts in persuading me that you are anything but a true believer. Do me a favor – stick to the science – and not the hysterical *and unfounded* claims of PhilJourdan.
Actually thoughtful: ““And at what temperature will you give up the myth that the world is cooling, or holding steady, or whatever you are pushing and switch to the next fallback in the endless skeptic battle ””
Lars {AVOIDING THE QUESTION and ENGAGING IN EXCESSIVE HAND WAVING!}
The world has changed and will change, we and also you have to learn and live with it there is no “steady state”. Yes we influence the environment and yes the environment influences us. We are living with that.
There has been warming since the little ice age. There has been CO2 increase since the 1950′s. We see that.
There has been no dramatic change and no imperious need to address that. The seas are not increasing at dramatic rates and the warming was very mild and could be explained by natural variations. The mild warming since the LIA was beneficial.”
You accused me of not answering your questions. Pot: Kettle.
Please step up your responses and include some science – this junior high “PhilJourdan said you were a LIAR” level stuff is really lame. You appear to not be a serious poster.
So we need to keep that under observation and address the most urgent issues that we have but this is a different story.”
Camburn – if you have the intellectual desire to learn (but perhaps are not familiar with how to acquire information the information age) – three relatively simple ways to get the Knutti and Hegerl paper
1. Go to SkS and drill down to the actual paper (this should be your goto response -afterall they always link to the real science). Indeed – this link http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
yields this link – which gets you to the ACTUAL paper(http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf) -which you claim was pay-walled. As I said SkS is useful because their work is a balanced presentation of the science – and they provide links to the actual science so you can verify that and or learn more
2. Paywall simply means you must pay to access the material. If you want to learn badly enough – pay. These guys gave up 8-12 years of their lives AND paid to get their educations (and of course, chose a lower lifetime income by staying in academia and not industry
3. Inter-library loan – don’t forget about your local library – the magic of knowledge is available through this very, very socialistic institution!
PS – be sure to catch Huber and Knutti (2011):http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/anthropogenic-and-natural-warming-inferred-from-changes-in-earths-energy-balance.pdf
Finally Camburn – why are you so dependent on me? The knowledge – hard earned – has been obtained by others, you must simply understand their work and then you have the knowledge. At this point one can only assume you don’t want to learn – more fun, perhaps, to constantly whine that you can’t FIND the science. I have listed and linked a few papers to start your journey. Where you go from here is your choice.
Smokey – you ask to be corrected for your error – with pleasure:
“Your Akasofu link shows a steady upward trend line from the LIA, but it does not show any accelerated rise in temperature, therefore the ≈40% increase in CO2 does not appear to have had any measurable effect. Please correct me if I’m wrong.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm
You are welcome.
But be warned – if you value internal consistency this may cause you problems. It superimposes the cherry picked “no warming” bits that are the bread and butter of sites like this upon the actual, unadulterated instrumentation record – you may see things that challenge your world view. I encourage you to view and understand the final, animated, graphic – if you dare.
Actually thoughtful:” I have never seen a skeptic who invoked ALGORE ever be worth the time (there seems to be some sort of short circuit when a person with a losoe relationship with science ponders that even a politician understands the science better than they do – not really sure what the reason is – but it has happened time and time again.)”
Let’s call that my hypothesis
Smokey:”And wake me when you stop using products produced and created with fossil fuels, and when you stop driving, and when you stop heating your home, and when you stop using anything made of plastic, and when you stop buying food grown with manufactured fertilizer, etc., etc.”
Smokey providing verification of my hypothesis.
Thanks Smokey! you are helping my little hypothesis grow up into a genuine theory! At this rate it is well on its way to becoming a natural law!
Hypothesis A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena
Camburn: “With that said….why were the two rates of warming virtually identical?
A question yet to be answered.”
Hmmm. Why don’t you look at solar activity for the two periods in question. DANGER you might learn something.
To be clear, because you and others don’t often track well – the question has been asked and answered countless times. In fact it has earned “Myth” status over at SkS – even though you have been banned for refusing to interact with the science – you can still read and learn at that site.
Malcolm S – well said. Although I think you are playing up the ocean bit. It is not surprising that we, as a land based species, are not as confident of ocean temperatures at depth as we are of land based.
It would be interesting to read the Knutti/Huber ocean bit in full context.
Smokey says: ““Actually Thoughtful” is mendaciously trying to paint you into a corner, by dishonestly commenting as though you are denying that the planet is warming. In fact, it was Michael Mann who preposterously claimed that the temperature did not change until the Industrial Revolution, when it shot up. Mann’s claims have since been completely debunked, but his lemming-like followers still believe that the current warming is unusual. It is not, it is simply a continuation of the natural warming trend since the LIA.”
Lars says:
“Thanks Smokey, you are right.”
__________
There is a tendency on the internet, after a poster has lost the intellectual battle – to institute name calling and questioning of motives – here we see Smokey questioning my integrity, and Lars eagerly signing on, instead of responding to the rather serious holes I have poked in their respective world views.
Predictable, but mildly entertaining in how closely it follows the script of: FAIL at the science, turn and fire at the messenger.
Sigh.
“Smokey says:
January 21, 2012 at 8:29 am
used the Centigrade convention that everyone uses”
As near as I can tell, he is from the United States where they still use F. I was wondering if “Actually Thoughtful” was actually “R. Gates” due to something both said, and with R. Gates being rather quiet on this thread, however from clues they left behind, they both live in the states, but not the same state.
“I have not been able to find the ‘slight upward slope’ you referred to in any charts with a correct y-axis.” You assumed correctly that all I was talking about was: “Your Akasofu link shows a steady upward trend line from the LIA”
Smokey: “Actually Thoughtful’s “8°C” [which has now mysteriously morphed from “8°F”] is risible lunacy.”
YOU ARE PHILJOURDAN!! Admit it. Look you are so for of moral rectitude – SHOW us where I made the *C claims. PLEASE – I beg you – go upthread and find “Actually thoughtful” talking about 8C.
You were quick to accuse me of mendacity – yet here is incontrovertible evidence of you DOING what you claim I do – oh so typical of right wing, Orwellian double speak. The whole point of listening to your accusations is to find out what it is you are actually doing (those very nefarious things you accuse others of doing)
Wow – you could be talking about those few areas where the science isn’t well understood – deep ocean temps; how quickly we will see the temperatures rise – maybe a few other things that aren’t fairly well understood by this point. You could obfuscate and cast doubt in those areas, and hope against hope that those not paying attention would assume there was doubt in other areas.
But instead your innate personality shines through and you engage in the actions I have highlighted above.
Should of pulled the plug at your first ALGORE
Actually Thoughtful:
Please indicate where I have “whined” that I can’t find the science.
I will use your link to SkS to get access to the paper, even tho I am not welcome there, as my thirst for knowledge overwhelmes my distaste for propoganda. I will disagree that they provide a balanced presentation of the science. I am very confident, over 95% that you are an honorable man. What you don’t know about why I got banned from SkS is my frustration of TRYING to post links to published papers that refuted some of the proclaimed published papers. Ever had a post rejected over 6 times because it disagreed with the findings of the moderators?
Anyways, I am not here to worry about Sks methods. I can only hope that you read more papers than the ones that get presented there.
I am very familiar with inter library loans as I use them all the time. I don’t know why you consider them socialist. Carnegie gave most of the money that present day libraries rely on. In fact, my wifes’ uncles built the library near me….and our local library is funded by donations from those who wish the library to be a central meeting point of our community.
As far as paywall, I have been burnt too many times thinking it was worthwile to pay and learn. It has been clearly demonstrated that just because something is in a journal does not mean that it has any value to knowledge.
I will read the Knutti and Hegerl paper with my normal skeptical eye and thought.
Thank you again for the link.
And I can only hope that you have 50% or more of my current knowledge.
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 21, 2012 at 11:58 am
“Hmmm. Why don’t you look at solar activity for the two periods in question. DANGER you might learn something.”
Please try and keep up with the current science Actually Thoughtful. TSI has been constant for the past 100 years, another of my failed posts at SkS concerns this.
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
Dr. Svalgaard has been at this for a long time and as far as I know, he is a pretty established scientist.
The tale of solar influence on the early 20th century warming is a myth…..I do hope that you educate yourself in this. SkS is just flat out wrong in their line of thinking on this period.
“Actually Thoughtful says:
January 21, 2012 at 9:55 am
I don’t buy the 60 year cycle”
It is just an observation from the last 130 years and the stall this decade gives no reason to assume it is still not going on.
“I believe GISS lists 2011 as 9th hottest on record”
That is correct. It is 9th according to GISS, as well as UAH. It is 12th according to both RSS and Hadcrut3.
“PS – sorry for getting your last name wrong on the other thread.” No problem!
“Actually Thoughtful says:
January 21, 2012 at 10:00 am
Werner Brozek: “How much of this slope is due to CO2 is a matter of debate, but I am convinced it is not enough to be the least bit concerned about.”
Are you intellectually honest enough to admit that regardless of your opinion, there is precious little science that supports your opinion?”
This is not my opinion. I am a retired physics teacher and I go where the evidence leads me. And the lack of a predicted tropospheric hot spot leads be to believe that CO2 has very little affect on the present warming. See:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238
From this site:
“The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.”
Oh man….red flags right out of the box concerning H&K. They referred to Domingues, C.M. et al 2008 and Lyman, J.M. et al 2010…..offffta.
Smokey – I found it. I said “As is 8C.” This is my fault, I meant 8F (what my City is projecting for this region) and committed a typo. I apologize.
Smokey – I responded, based on my (false) understanding that I hadn’t posted 8C – which I had. Inosar as it is possible – I apologize for the following and retract it:
________________________
YOU ARE PHILJOURDAN!! Admit it. Look you are so for of moral rectitude – SHOW us where I made the *C claims. PLEASE – I beg you – go upthread and find “Actually thoughtful” talking about 8C.
You were quick to accuse me of mendacity – yet here is incontrovertible evidence of you DOING what you claim I do – oh so typical of right wing, Orwellian double speak. The whole point of listening to your accusations is to find out what it is you are actually doing (those very nefarious things you accuse others of doing)
________________________
For what it is worth I am deeply embarrassed. Both for being wrong and then making such a big stink about it.
The thermal capacity of the ocean is huge in comparison with that of the land surface and atmosphere, and much of this ocean mass is actively “brought into play” by the ocean circulations. Moreover, storage of CO2 in the ocean is 50 times that of the atmosphere.
So inability to account for the recent near constant ocean temperature indicates a significant deficiency in the understanding of overall global heat content, with consequent impact on long-term temperature and CO2 exchange. I believe Trenberth has identified this as being of considerable concern.
Actually Thoughtful says:
“PLEASE – I beg you – go upthread and find ‘Actually Thoughtful’ talking about 8C.”
Begging is always nice. So OK, here’s what happened: “Always Thoughtful” [AT] referred to 8°F when he said that was his city’s “…scenario was 5-8F more warming…”. Then AT reminded me: “The letter C vs the letter F is fairly important when discussing global warming… Read carefully – you might learn something.”
So yes, AT was talking about 8°F. But later, AT wrote: “…5F is 2.8C – well within the range of likely outcomes for my region. As is 8C.” So there’s AT, ‘talking about’ 8°C. AT’s comments did, in fact, morph from °F to °C. See? Begging gets the right answer. But maybe not the answer AT wanted.
AT is still batting .000, but I’m sure that’s because he gets his misinformation from the always unreliable Skeptical Pseudo-Science blog. And regarding his fantasies about who’s who, not only am I not Phil Jourdan [and vice versa], but I’ve never met Phil Jourdan and don’t know him. He writes good posts, though. And they’re accurate… unlike *ahem* someone we know.☺
Camburn – if your worldview requires you to believe in cosmic rays – I can’t help you – it is your ideology, and not anything to do with scientific reality.
If you want to learn the science, enter the phrase “cosmic rays” into the search engine at SkS – you will find that cosmic rays have a HUGE number of problems to overcome to become the magic bullet to solve global warming. Not the least of which – why isn’t the CO2 warming the world, which has been accepted science since Arrhenius (1896).
“Actually Thoughtful says:
January 21, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Smokey: “Actually Thoughtful’s “8°C” [which has now mysteriously morphed from “8°F”] is risible lunacy.”
YOU ARE PHILJOURDAN!! Admit it. Look you are so for of moral rectitude – SHOW us where I made the *C claims. PLEASE – I beg you – go upthread and find “Actually thoughtful” talking about 8C.”
WHOA! Before this gets totally out of control, was that a typo on your part Actually Thoughtful in the post below where you wrote C and may have meant F?
“Actually Thoughtful says:
January 21, 2012 at 9:55 am
BTW – 5F is 2.8C – well within the range of likely outcomes for my region. As is 8C.”
Actually Thoughtful:
Where did I mention cosmic rays on this thread?
I did mention UV which is part of the TSI light spectrum. This has been found to vary considerably more than previously thought. This finding is new…..within the past 5 years.
Did you confuse Dr. Svalgaard with Dr. Svensmark?
I encourage you to read the open links of information at:
http://www.leif.org/research/
It is a true treasure trove of information.
What is really sad is that Glory 2 has not been launched. We are losing valuable time to study our sun and learn.
Actually Thoughtful:
I challenge you to find one post, anywhere on the net, where I state that co2 is not a greenhouse gas. I will save you the time…..you won’t.
As far as SkS. The only thing I have read there that is not only informative, but documented well, is the series they did on the lowering of ph in the oceans as a result of increased co2. I commend that site for that information.
Other topics are dealt with a heavy hand. Mr. Cook wants papers that support his position, and shuns papers that don’t. His call, his site.
I have to thank SkS for directing me to Mr. Watts site. I have learned more since I started reading his site frequently, than I learned when I was not banned at SkS. I am a skeptic and I certainly do not rely on someone elses interpretations of a paper to form an informed knowledge base.
You have yet to provide me with the model that is verfied that shows 3.0C sensativity. I will finish H&K tonight when I need a breather from other work. Maybe that magic bullet is in that paper?
A model that can replicate the early 20th century warming would be great to see. So far…none that I know off has.
Dr. Svalgaard has been trying to show for years that TSI has been flat for a longggg time. It goes against the grain…..just as the L&P research. Which, instead of seeing the light of day has gone unpublished as it goes against the “grain” of convention wisdom.
I still think you are an honorable person. You admitted your mistake concerning C and F above. Thank you. I was waiting for you to finally go check what you had typed instead of defending it. I was sure that at some point you would. I was almost to the point of copying your original comment as it pained me to watch your defense that I knew was wrong.
My experience with you at SkS showed you to be a person of character with a lot yet to learn.
Actually Thoughtful:
You may find this recent paper to be off interest:
http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf
“The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.”
Werner Brozek – this quote suffers from a serious problem of using a definite article where an indefinite article is required (The “The” should be an “A”) – that is before considering the claim.
What does the science say about it?
Apparently there is some concern over our ability to measure it (which sounds kind of lame – but there are lots and lots of ways to determine the fingerprints of the warming – this doesn’t seem like a profitable avenue for your line of thinking.)
[Note: You can explain your own point of view without constant links to an unreliable blog. ~dbs, mod.]
Camburn: “Did you confuse Dr. Svalgaard with Dr. Svensmark?”
Yes.
Thank you for your kind words.
I wish you luck tilting at your windmills. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to support the common-sense notion that injecting endless tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is having an effect on our climate.
I chased a few of your papers and ideas over at SkS before you were banned – I ended up agreeing with the moderators that there wasn’t much signal for the noise.
But it would be awesome if you were correct – AGW kind of sucks. But the vast preponderance of evidence supports just this: The world is warming, and man is to blame.
[Reply: Once a comment is deleted there is no way to get it back. That particular comment was clearly off-topic. Stay on topic and your comments will be posted. ~dbs, mod.]
Actually Thoughtful says:
“The world is warming, and man is to blame.”
Only the first part is correct. The second part is baseless opinion; zero S/N ratio. On Skeptical Pseudo-Science you would be banned. Here, you can have your say. See the difference?
I am leaving the thread – the moderators heavy hand is preventing a useful discussion.
Smokey -highly ironic time to be singing WUWT praises – they have just started editing my comments and blocking my posts. I will stick with SkS – which at least focuses on the science.
Actually Thoughtful:
The rational response would be to simply stay on topic. I would have loved to debate your true belief that “man is to blame”, since there is no verifiable evidence supporting that conjecture. So I suspect that you’re just grabbing at a convenient excuse to hide out.
Smokey:
It is truely a delightful experience posting on Mr. Watts site.
I am glad that Always Thoughtful at least looked at the papers I posted on another site. He found them distasteful it seems, but they passed the peer review test, but didn’t agree with his current thoughts.
No question co2 is a greenhouse gas. The emperical evidence doesn’t support some of its magical qualities tho. Which to a skeptic only creates more hunger for answers.
The sencond part of Always Thoughtful’s statement has some merit. Eventually, I am confident of this, he will understand how small the percentage is tho.
Camburn,
If you’re referring to “man is to blame”, you have to provide at least some testable evidence. [I’m not referring to land use changes, UHI, etc., but specifically to the claim that “carbon” causes global temperature change.]
Smokey:
The physics that shows H2O as the main greenhouse gas also shows that co2 is a greenhouse gas. There is no question about this. A doubling of co2, everything else being constant will raise temperatures by approx 1.0 C.
NOTE tho….the caveat….everything else being constant.
Climate is chaotic. What the AGW folks try to show is that every forcing is positive. It isn’t. That is why the question of VERIFIABLE models used to indicate sensitivity are important.
You will note that Always Thoughtful thinks that solar drove[] the early 20th Century warming. It didn’t , based on current TSI reconstructions. There are about 5 plausible theories that could explain the early 20th Century, but they contradict each other. So, in essence, we do not know why. Just as we do not know why there was a short burst in the later 18th century, and we don’t know why there was a short burst in the late 20th century. If anyone actually thinks it was from co2, I have a replicated bridge to sell them.
Part of the topic of this thread was SkS and the value of what they post. Once in a while they do post something of value. Throw a 1000 darts at a dart board and you are bound to get a bulls eye….right?
In the case of criticizing Mr. Michaels, they have missed the dart board by a mile.
In the case of actual discussed science, they miss the board most of the time because of the bias.
Note the very obvious two mistakes that Actually thoughtful did in this thread.
At least he was man enough to admit to them, altho I don’t think Dr. Svalgaard would be pleased to be called Dr. Svensmark, as they work on two different areas.
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 21, 2012 at 10:46 am
“Lars – you, like me, may not believe everything that is posted on WUWT – but my PDO line come from this post -http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/19/global-temps-in-a-crash-as-agw-proponents-crash-the-economy/
I don’t think there is very much scientific evidence the PDO is going to save us.”
As you seem to believe the cold PDO is keeping us from enjoying the true warming I would asume you would understand the same warm PDO would create some warming. So either do not mention the PDO to mask the warming in its cold phase or accept it as creating some warming in its warm phase. You can’t have it only one way.
Lars asks: ““claiming the Hadcrut data is cooked” When did I made such claim?”
Lars then in the next sentence! makes EXACTLY that claim (and it goes on for the entire paragraph, but I am keeping it simple (Cue PhilJordon to declare me a liar again for telling the truth…)
Where I have a problem with the “keepers of the temperature” I told it clearly: When their own data is not consistent with their own previous historic data. This raise a big question mark to the integrity of the data.”
Well I was talking about GISS and especially the post 1999 changes for the historical value. It was discussed in the thread above a couple of times.
Do you understand what I mean when I talk of inconsistency with their own historical data? Should I be more explicit on this?
I was not aware that Hadcrut would be also inconsistent with its own historical data, this is new news for me. Can you post a link that shows such?
Camburn,
There is nothing in your last comment that I disagree with. The entire issue is, and always has been, “carbon”. That is because of the ease of taxing CO2, not because CO2 is a problem.
If the government could tax atmospheric H2O, it would. But water is harder to demonize than “carbon”, because people are more familiar with water. One of my favorite questions to ask someone when the subject comes up is, “How much of the atmosphere is CO2?” Most are astonished when I say, “Only 0.00039.” I’ve been told it’s as much as 25%. I usually inform them that they are exhaling well over a thousand times more than that amount of “carbon” with each breath. Toxic polluters!☺
“Smokey says:
January 21, 2012 at 5:20 pm
I usually inform them that they are exhaling well over a thousand times more than that amount of “carbon” with each breath.”
Actually it is 100 times more from 0.039% to 4%. But the real interesting thing is that artificial respiration can actually save a person’s life when this “huge” concentration is breathed into them!
Sorry KR – you do not know what a loaded question is. A loaded question cannot be answered in such a way as to absolve the responder from all guilt. Smokey’s question can be answered that way – a simple NO suffices. You do not believe his premise.
No it is not. I read the entire transcript and your phantom quote is not in there. You can try to pull it and show us, but in order to do that you would have to lie. So again, are you man enough to admit you lied and apologize to Pat Michaels? He clearly did not state what you averred he stated. and the evidence is in your link and the congressional testimony.
Your pathetic attempt to impugn others due to either your out right lies, or simply your failure to communicate will not work. I have quoted EXACTLY what you said, and of course am unable to quote what Michaels said – since he DID NOT STATE IT – in the link you provided.
I am not Smokey, nor he me. When multiple people call you out on your lies, perhaps you should examine why you are such a poor communicator instead of trying to cast your aspersions on everyone else. As my grandfather was often heard to remark – just because you think the whole world is wrong does not make you right.
FYI, our response to Michaels’ response is up.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/michaels-continues-to-distort-hansen-1988-part-2.html
It demonstrates there is no question whatsoever that Michaels was wrong to focus on Scenario A, which was in fact the furthest from reality in 1998.
dana1981 says:
January 24, 2012 at 10:48 am
“It demonstrates there is no question whatsoever that Michaels was wrong to focus on Scenario A, which was in fact the furthest from reality in 1998.”
Even now after another 14 years the presentation and conclusions of Michaels work from 1998 are shown valid. The longer the time the bigger the divergence, both Scenarios A and B are invalidated through observations. Usually when such observations are done scientists used to check what they have done wrong in their models.
Instead of targeting the skeptics who highlight the issues we should focus on science, check where the models are diverging from reality, admit that there is a divergence and further need of study and correct the models which are shown to be based on wrong assumptions/parameters.