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,
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.