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.
@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.