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.
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.