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.
“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.