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.
Thought as much. Pity.
Camburn – Your assertion was made about the ‘1930’s’ (a decade), and the NOAA data. Decadal standard deviation over the last 115 years is ~0.5F, while the difference between the 1930’s and the 2000’s (first decade) is around 0.65F.
Statistics are statistics – by your criteria the 1930’s are over a standard deviation away from current temperatures.
Yes, there is uncertainty. But your claim simply does not hold up. Take the discussion from the 4% area of the contiguous US to the globe (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1850/mean:121/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/mean:121/plot/best/from:1850/mean:121/plot/rss/mean:121/plot/uah/mean:121/plot/wti/mean:121) and it’s rather silly.
Adam says:
January 19, 2012 at 23:41
Dana
“The slight misquote was unintentional.”
Dana please explain how you could have ‘unintentionally’ picked out select quotes from the article in question, and then put them together to make it sound like a single claim. The single phrase used in the SkS article, Pat Michaels clearly never stated. The full context of Pat Michael’s article makes it quite clear what he is saying, yet any reader would not know this from reading your website.
As shub pointed out
“Cook makes Michaels look like an ignorant stereotypical ‘denier’ who says that ice cannot melt because it is too cold to rain and craftily ignores the distinction between land ice and sea ice. Only he did nothing of the sort. ”
The SkS article in question clearly misrepresents Pat Michael argument.
And you still haven’t answered the fact that Pat Michael’s very clearly acknowledged a decrease in land ice, yet SkS makes no reference to this. In the ‘rebuttal’, John Cook just repeats a fact Pat Michaels has Never denied, yet makes it look as if he has been ‘refuted’.
Dana the SkS ‘rebuttal’ was obviously very misleading, and I can’t see how it could possibly have been unintentional. And I now see on the article in question you appear to have quietly got rid of Pat michaels article and referenced an entirely different one completely. Therefore there is now no way for readers to check Pat Michaels argument themselves, and see how you misrepresented it.
One other thing,as Shub pointed out several months ago, your blog has repeatedly removed, and edited comments, simply because of the fact that they were inconvenient
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
And I’ll note that your website has not responded to the article.
Care to explain it away?
Camburn – read the science – even though you are no longer allowed to post at SkS – that is a logical starting place as they list and link many papers, and explain some in laymans terms. One I would suggest to you is Knutti and Hegerl (2008) – I vaguely recall that paper has been updated.
I encourage you to not take my word for it, but go look at the actual papers. As a farmer you are no doubt blessed with (or have earned) A generous helping of common sense – read their methodologies – read their caveats. Does it appear to be robust? Are they honest in admitting where their technique has gaps?
While I hold the scientific process and scientists in high regard, it is no way exclusive such that WE THE PEOPLE can’t review their work. If you find something that doesn’t hang together – research it, write it and submit it to a journal. It is harder than you think to find an actual problem with their work, but not for the reasons usually bantered about – it is not pal review or the like – it is the fact that most papers are solid, tiny additions to the scientific cannon on the subject.
Do you know how many papers are written on climate change in a given year?
To clarify: I am using 11 years for averaging to minimize variance from the solar cycle. For a 10 year (rather than 11), the Std. Dev. is 0.52F (not 0.5F), with a difference between 1930-1940 and 2001-2011 of 0.65F.
Either way – Camburn’s assertion that “North America is now about as warm as during the 1930′s to early 1940′s” is unsupportable.
Neill – glad you accept the science. Maybe you can spread the Gospel (good news) here. I’m out
“quote doctoring is not really a surprise”
Is that as specious as graph mining?
Dear Pat,
You removed by erasing. You or someone in your employ, clearly copied the figure from Gillett et al, and then erased the inconvenient parts by erasing pixel by pixel
Further, you need to justify why the clearly more uncertain 1850-1900 part of the data set is more reliable. Some time ago Eli remembers a talk entitled, Who shall we trust before 1900, the data or the models, and yah know, there was no certain answer but the models won on points. Anyone who doubts this can go look at the uncertainties in the global temperature records.
Tom, and everyone else, please tell me whether displaying figure 3b alone, without figure 3a makes sense (from this document): http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf The point of 3b is to add important qualifiers to 3a, and those were removed at Sks. The explanation for their removal is that they would add too much width. There can be other valid reasons for their removal, but not your reason.
Displaying figure 3b alone makes no sense. The caption for 3b is “a partly subjective classification of the different lines of evidence for some important criteria”. Evidence of what? That is answered in the caption for 3a: “distributions and ranges for climate sensitivity from different lines of evidence”.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/17/a-response-to-skeptical-sciences-patrick-michaels-serial-deleter-of-inconvenient-data/#comment-868482
I hate it when people do not remember what they wrote – and cannot follow a thread. I quoted the part where you lied about what Michaels said. So quit playing the victim, apologize to Pat Michaels and act like a man. He was correct in his protestations and your link was a total non-sequitur.
KR@9:28
You make the classic mistake that a pot that maintains lets say 54F is warmer than a pot that had achieved 54.5F.
There is less heat content in the pot at 54 than the one at 54.5. It doesn’t make any difference if the pot stays at 54 for decades on end, it is still not warmer than the pot was at 54.5.
The amount of heat achieved is the amount of heat achieved.
The question becomes will that heat be exceeded by a substaintiated temperature.
Camburn – so, by your logic (at January 20, 2012 at 8:42 am), a single really hot summer day in the middle of an ice age proves that the ice age was warmer than the interglacials? That’s quite droll – for someone who claims to be familiar with statistics, you’re certainly not showing it.
Pull the other one – it’s got bells on it…
KR says:
January 19, 2012 at 4:18 pm
“Lars – I did reply to your comment; 1999 is not current. And going single year to single year is indicative of weather, not climate. “…” You really really need to take a running average to see what’s happening in the climate.”
Well, let me try to be more explicit so that you understand the point. 1999 is not current for 2012 but was the actual data for 1900-1999.
Historical data does not change.
So quit pushing that changed data down on my throat my stomach does not keep it. Find a data that can be trusted and use it.
For the reason mentioned I trust more RUTI which is a subset of rural unadjusted data. It is a way of removing urban heat – even if not perfect – but still better then any adjustment.
I also trust more satellite measurement, but these go only 30 years back.
What is interesting to see is that RUTI is better aligned with the old GISS values (from 1999). Very interesting. Also better alignment with satellite data.
This validates for me RUTI and the old GISS and raises a big question mark to the post 2000 adjustments of the old data.
Explain me a reasonable scientific reason what did happen in 2000+ which changed the temperature values of 1900+? Can you find a reasonable explanation? I cannot.
Therefore I use RUTI and satellite data and do not use the discredited ones.
Lars – Regarding rural/urban temperature influences, I would point to the following:
“The opposite‐signed differences in maximum and minimum temperature trends at poorly sited stations compared to well‐sited stations were of similar magnitude, so that average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes. For 30 year trends based on timeof‐ observation corrections, differences across classes were less than 0.05°C/decade, and the difference between the trend estimated using the full network and the trend estimated using the best‐sited stations was less than 0.01°C/decade.” (Fall et al 2011, emphasis added – http://tinyurl.com/7ug5hav)
—
At this point I consider Camburns claims regarding NOAA temperatures, the 1930’s, and temperatures over the last 100 years settled as incorrect on the basis of that NOAA data.
“When I am wrong, I will always readily admit that I am.” – Waiting…
Actually Thoughtful says:
January 19, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Lars P – what is CAGW? CAGW=Catastrophic AGW
“Regarding your question -the science is pretty clear that the world is warming and man is to blame. Being a person who follows the evidence, and not the emotion – I too understand that world is warming, and man is to blame.”
You repeat the same phrases without answering any question. Repeating does not make any of it true. You haven’t explained a single sentence of the science you praise, so I understand you actually thoughtfully avoid to debate the science.
“I grant you that there are a few areas that we don’t understand all the mechanisms, or that a best case scenario MIGHT come into play. But there is equal (if not more) chance that the a worst case scenario will come into play.”
The Earth had 10times+ more CO2 without temperatures hitting the roof. Where is the warming from this century? Satellite data pls. How much was it in the last 11 years+ of this century?
“Even someone who is a the mythical “lukewarmer” would choose to prevent global warming over trying to deal with the consequences – it is simply the prudent path. If you ask the average man on the street would you like to save money and prevent the worst of what global warming has to offer (AKA institute a carbon tax and therefor unleash* our potential to solve the problem) – the answer would be a resounding yes.”
Prudent? CO2 is increased vegetation and increased biosphere, what is prudent in cutting x% from it?
Carbon tax is not solving any problem and not unleashing any potential, open your eyes and look what it does.
“If you dress it up as “Would you like to be a communist and crater the economy and end our way of life and live in a yurt and have dirt floors and never see your Mom again (and have no realistic chance of preventing global warming anyways – IF it exists)” – the answer would be a resounding no.
That appears to be the big picture here.
* I take it as axiomatic that the strongest force in the universe is an American’s desire to (legally) avoid a tax”
Then don’t dress it up. Better a truth that hurts then a convenient lie. The truth is: there is currently no warning and very probably will be none or a very weak one. The absorbtion bands for CO2 allow for about 10 m visibility in the air. This means that the heat exchange through radiation between the solid ground and the air happens in the first 10 meters. With increased CO2 this interval will be reduced to 9 or 8 m – see Prevost heat exchange, this will not increase any temperature to create any catastrophal AGW.
The rest is conduction, convection and heat transfer through radiation and results in a much lower sensitivity then you seem to assume.
KR,
Would you readily admit that NOAA “adjusts” the temperature record, and that the adjustments usually end up showing more warming? – Waiting…
Smokey – What a lovely example of a loaded question, akin to “When did you stop beating your wife”. And a nice red herring from the previous claims based on the data.
I would point you to the same reference I noted to Lars: http://tinyurl.com/7ug5hav – if you disagree, take it up with Pielke and Watts, and their discussion of various adjustments. See also http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/references.html for details, and http://tinyurl.com/7sr6lsv for a top-level description.
Or look at any of the other temperature records (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1850/mean:121/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/mean:121/plot/best/from:1850/mean:121/plot/rss/mean:121/plot/uah/mean:121/plot/wti/mean:121). Perhaps you prefer HadCRUT3 – although the HadCRUT4 update looks to show more warming, as it includes additional Russian and high latitude stations (more data!) not included in HadCRUT3.
Go chase your red herrings on your own.
To clarify my previous comment – recent discussions/disagreements were based upon claims made from NOAA data. Those claims about NOAA data (no warming in last 100 years, 1930’s as warm as current temperatures) were shown to be incorrect.
So now, having lost on that substantive point, Smokey attacks the data instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring – and that fish isn’t biting.
KR,
You had commented on NOAA upthread. So based on that, I you asked a simple, straightforward question. Your response was to squirm around and avoid answering the question.
I could ask the same question regarding GISS, instead: Would you readily admit that GISS “adjusts” the temperature record, and that the adjustments usually end up showing more warming?
Since psychological projection is the hallmark of the alarmist contingent, it doesn’t surprise me or bother me to be falsely accused of making red herring arguments. I simply asked a question. Go ballistic if you like, but the only reason I asked was because I can show that those organizations manipulate the past temperature record to show either higher current temperatures, and/or artificially lower past temperatures to deceptively show a more alarming rise.
The fact is that the [unusually mild] rise in global temperatures since the industrial revolution is proceeding along the same long term trend since the LIA. There has been no recent acceleration of global warming [as had been universally predicted by the always-wrong alarmist crowd]. There is also a clear disconnect between global warming and rising CO2.
So you can either answer my question, or continue to prevaricate.
KR says:
January 20, 2012 at 11:02 am
“Lars – Regarding rural/urban temperature influences, I would point to the following:
“The opposite‐signed differences in maximum and minimum temperature trends at poorly sited stations compared to well‐sited stations were of similar magnitude, so that average temperature trends were statistically indistinguishable across classes.”
Well I remember the question:
How does CO2 know where there are more people to warm mostly there?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/goodridge_1996_ca-uhi_county.jpg
No need to take it with Pielke and Watts, following your logic it means that RUTI shows the right values, especially as its data is unadjusted, isn’t it, the trend is the same, thanks for your confirmation.
KR:
I am not going to dispute NOAA temp metrics. That is why there are error bars.
You keep stating that the USA is warmer now than in the past.
I mentioned the 30’s….I didn’t remember which year was the hot year of the 30’s….but it appears it was 1934.
In your opinion, when has it been statistically hotter in the USA than 1934. We can confine this to measured temp and not include proxy temp data being we are talking the past century.
Actually Thoughtful:
I am still waiting for the validated model that shows 3.0C sensativity.
And I am still waiting for the values that other validated models show.
Of course, I would expect these models to be able to hind cast as well being the known parameters are in place.
PhilJordan – this becomes tiresome. I explained to Michaels in a post at this time/date: January 17, 2012 at 7:04 pm
exactly where and when he made the claims I stated he made. Thus I am not lying. In fact, he is proud of what he said I was able to pull it from his employers web site.
In fact – it is the MOST public of public records – the Congressional record!.
Michaels has not responded, and I draw the obvious conclusion that he accepts the truth about what I posted (what choice does he have – he was hoisted by his own petard!
Now you – you keep mumbling darkly about how all these lies were spoken – yet you have failed – twice now -to point out what YOU think is a lie. I can’t find a lie where there is none. So, either post something in the form of this quote (short quote so we can all see what you mean – in other words, tell us EXACTLY what you think the lie is – it would be not more than a sentence or two) from me is a lie (and why you think it is a lie -remember I quoted Michaels from his own CATO web site).
I am curious what it is you think is a lie given my source was the very, very VERY public testimony of one Patrick Michaels.
Once you fail at that I will be happy to graciously accept your apology – anyone can make a mistake. I will interpret your silence as just that admission.
Camburn -read Knuttie and Hegerl (2008) – if you have any questions – read the papers they reference.
Once you’ve done that I would be glad to answer any questions you have (to the best of my ability).
Lars P – so tell us when, given the cold PDO and the whole collection of fictions you live by – we will return to the temperature of the early 1980s (GISS – not playing the satellite game and of course HadCrut is verboten to any skeptic as climategate exists (I must note the only hoax is that emails are somehow cooling the earth – but I promise not to respond on climategate) – I have to point it out only to keep you honest – no fair claiming the Hadcrut data is cooked, then using it to support your obviously false claims).
And at what temperature will you give up the myth that the world is cooling, or holding steady, or whatever you are pushing and switch to the next fallback in the endless skeptic battle – no PROOF that it is CO2 (this is the next line after giving up, as hopeless, that you can convince people there is no warming when we all have access to the data). Then you can graduate to there is no such thing as man-made CO@ur momisugly and then you can tell us it is only 3% and on and on and on.