UPDATE: 8/20/12 3:50 PM PDT The Governor’s office changes the page – see below.
I’ve been sitting on this one quietly for almost a week now, and nobody seems to have caught this glaring error in California Governor Jerry Brown’s new climate “denier slamming page” put together by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.
Like some government work I’ve seen, they didn’t seem to worry about quality control. My impetus for deciding to share the error today comes from Michael Tobis, of Planet 3.0, a warming advocate who I thought sure would have caught it. He writes:
Somebody working for Governor Jerry Brown (of whom, let me be quick to say, I am a fervent long-time admirer) has slapped together a page about climate denialism as part of an official State of California website about climate.
I would like to say that I think it gets the whole situation wrong and may do more harm than good by being polarizing and superficial.
Good for him. “Slapped together” and “wrong” pretty well sums up the governor’s effort. If I made a dumb mistake like this one below in a time series, Tamino and his Lord of the Flies followers would be all over me, pointing and jeering stoopid! Have a look:
Source: http://www.opr.ca.gov/s_scientificconsensus.php
Note the trend is 1.9°F/century ( 1.055°C/century) in the graph shown on Brown’s “consensus page”. That’s waaay too high. More on that in a bit.
The graph they show for the USA is for only one third of the US climate data, from January to April. WUWT?
It seems that if you follow the footnote on the graph that says: “Source: NOAA.”
…you discover that whoever put the web page together wasn’t smart enough to choose the entire year for the NCDC plotting page, or maybe they chose January-April for effect:
When you choose January and the Year to Date Average, you get the whole 12 months worth of data, as it should be presented in the context of global “consensus”:
Note the trend of 1.25°F/century or 0.694°C/century. While it is a US value only, it is fairly close to the generally agreed upon ~ 0.7°C/century trend for the globe as cited by the IPCC.
If the reverse had happened, such as some “denier” plotting just a few months of the surface record from 1895-2012 without a caveat as to why it was presented, perhaps showing a cooling, the alarmosphere would have a collective “denier” cow.
Laughably, nobody seemed to have noticed it when Moonbeam did it.
Further, since this was put together by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, you’d think they could have researched this given the IPCC references on that page. Clearly, they were using the IPCC as the authority for their argument.
For example:
Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
Direct Observations of Recent Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html
Eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature[9] (since 1850). The updated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C]. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.
But what the hell do I know? By pointing out such things, I’m just a “denier” according to Governor Brown.
I wonder how long it will take for them to fix that page, and if they dare give me credit for pointing it out? A better choice would have been a global graph, perhaps one from the IPCC, since they reference that so much. For example, here’s figure 2-3A from the IPCC Third Assessment Synthesis Report:
Or if they were trying to stick to the USA, since California is part of it (at least as of this writing) with a little research, they could have used this resource from NCDC:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Or if they wanted to focus on California, since that’s the state of Moonbeam’s influence, they could have shown this NCDC plot output:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/ca.html
Annual Temperature
California
Nah, not alarming enough, especially with 2011 being at the normal temperature line.
But, any of those alternate graphs I’ve shown, using the whole year, not just 4 months of data, would have been acceptable for Governor Brown’s “denier slamming page”.
I find it to be exquisite irony that a “denier” (by his definition) has to point this out.
Even though he didn’t spot the wonky graph, I’ll give Michael Tobis credit though. With incomplete misleading graphs like the one they used it sure does look “slapped together”.
UPDATE: Tamino agrees:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/climate-fail-california-governors-office/
UPDATE2: I have a response from the director of Governor’s office of Planning and research:
From: Ken Alex
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 9:08 AM
To: ‘Anthony Watts – TV Weather’
Subject: RE: Your page on climate has a glaring error
Thanks for the comment. We will check it out.
From: Anthony Watts – TV Weather
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 8:45 AM
To: Ken Alex
Cc: Web Master
Subject: Your page on climate has a glaring error
Dear Mr. Alex,
I want to bring this failure to properly research this page:
To your attention:
The graph only uses 1/3 of the yearly data, and exaggerates the trend. I’ve offered alternatives for you. Perhaps less focus on “denial” and more on the actual science would suit you better. The Orange County Register seems to think so.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Anthony Watts
============================================================
UPDATE3:
Dear Mr. Watts
Thanks again for reviewing our “Climate Change: Just the Facts” website. We followed up on the issue that you raised and discovered that, as you pointed out, one of the charts on our website shows only one scenario, while the tool we link to can provide a range of scenarios for data from 1885-2012. Rather than show one data set, we have instead decided to remove this chart and link directly to the resource. We hope people viewing our website will explore this resource to see wealth of climatic data that has been collected.
Thanks,
Ken
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just pick the 60-month average and no other picks make any difference. 12-month average clutters up the graph with more weather. Can’t see the forest for the trees and can’t see the climate for the weather samo samo.
The second mistake Brown’s office made is the team is no longer talking about the whole record. 1.25F per century? Who cares. That’s not a scary temperature rise by 2100. Not even by 2200. They need a 5F rise per century to get the scare going. They need a 0.5F/decade rise to meet Business As Usual projection in IPCC AR1. So the team tries to focus on 1980-2000 and cut it off as soon as possible after that because there hasn’t been any global warming AT ALL in the 21st century to date. That’s gotta hurt. They need 21st century climate to start warming and soon or there isn’t enough egg in Tyson Farms to cover all their faces.
I agree that the Jan-Apr selection is simply sloppiness in the Governor’s office.
I checked data for each month (ending in 2012 for May-July) and got these trends:
Had they used just Feb-Mar, they could report a NCDC trend of 2.68°F, they would not have used Sept-Oct, with a trend of merely 0.59°F.
Overall, no sign of blatant (or competent) cherry picking.
I have to get to work, so I’ll resist the temptation to check the California data.
Ah, c’mon peeps! Nothing new here: Plus ca change….
Anybody remember the Dead Kennedys song, “California Uber Alles”, from 1980? Still as relevant as ever:
“I am governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles and never frowns
Soon I will be pres-i-dent….
…I will be Fuhrer one day, I will control all of you…
Big Bro on the white horse is near
Hippies won’t come back, you say?
Mellow out or you will pay.”
Jello Biafra sure called it!
@Just the Facts
You are too kind. I don’t believe “erroneous” is an accurate descriptor for the website misinformation.
Ric Werme:
Your post at August 20, 2012 at 5:59 am is risible.
Choosing any set of specific months instead of annual data is ‘cherry picking’.
And a politician wanting to exaggerate does so to a plausible degree. Governor Brown – and his advisors – would not have used the immense Feb-Mar trend because the datum would have been blatantly wrong and, therefore, would have gained immediate ridicule.
Richard
pat says:
August 19, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Like most power plants in Germany, BoA burns lignite
============
The more politicians try and force companies to stop burning coal through economics, the more the price drops, the greater the incentive to use coal.
Why not simply pass a law outlawing coal in power plants? They did it for nuclear.
It fits well with projections of ridership for the high speed rail to nowhere and inversely fits with the cost revisions of the high speed rail to nowhere. Not to worry much longer though because Medicaid expansion also called free health care for the world will soon swamp the wealth system that underlies Moonbeam’s policy decadence. And yes I am coining a new term here–policy decadence defined as expensive, ill conceived policy reach based on a former base of wealth.
@ur momisugly richardcourtney I believe I can rephrase your position with a slightly altered quote from P.D. Ouspensky. “The study of human politics is the study of lying.”
🙂
Jason Calley:
I believe I can rephrase your quote to more accurately state my position.
“The study of human politicians lying is to observe their lips moving.”
(joke)
Richard
I’m amazed Californians elected this guy after what he said here:
Seriously, this is the guy elected, a self-confessed liar, a guy who admits he has no plan? I’m gobsmacked really.
Sort of leaves you nostalgic for Gov. Arnie. When will he be back?
Anthony, you complained that if you made the stupid mistakes that the Governor and his team made that the press would be all over you. What you fail to understand is that no one has high – or even mediocre – expectations of any government or government official. They are politicians.
You are not a politician, but rather a scientist and an expert on this subject, with a reputation for insight and keen analysis. I wouldn’t track this site if that weren’t true. People can throw poo at you and call you names, but they rarely attack the science and analysis. A good indicator that you’re on the right track: look at the quality of your core moderator team. They are quite impressive. Birds of a feather.
Go ahead and complain, but inside retain the smug satisfaction of competency Hansen, Mann and other non-military government personnel and organizations can’t hope to attain.
REPLY: Tamino is not the press, just a blogger. – Anthony
richardscourtney says:
August 20, 2012 at 6:36 am
Ric Werme:
Your post at August 20, 2012 at 5:59 am is risible.
> Choosing any set of specific months instead of annual data is ‘cherry picking’.
Only when done intentionally, at least in my book, YMYV. It’s pretty clear some staffer followed a link, the first graph he saw showed temperature rising, so he used it. He probably didn’t realize it was for 1/3 of the year or for 2% of the global temp, he just needed a graph with a rising trend. It appears no attempt was made to exaggerate the issue.
By now, I’ve probably spent more time looking at graphs than he did.
What’s you definition of “cherry picking?”
Polistra, the global mean surface temperature is very tightly coupled via energy conservation (in the physics sense, not the green sense) i.e., global radiation budget. Regions are also tightly coupled on the Rossby scale (about 2000 km.) The United States is not really a region in that sense, but the lower 48 is not a terrible aggregation of a few regions on a relatively small latitude band.
So national variability is much smaller than would result from independent local records, and global variability is very much smaller than would so result. You can easily check this yourself.
Ric Werme:
Your post at August 20, 2012 at 10:34 am asks me for my definition of ‘cherry picking’.
I answer, cherry picking is the selection a sub-set from a set of data when the sub-set provides stronger support for a view than is provided by the full set.
I assume you will say the disputed graph does not choose the sub-set which most strongly supports warming. It does not. But it indicates more warming than the annual data.
The graph is clear ‘cherry picking’ in that it selects the sub-set which most supports the Governor’s position while being credible (see my post you are answering).
Your hypothesis that an aid may have mistakenly posted the first graph of warming he found has no merit unless you can cite the source of the graph.
I remind that the graph is part of a political statement and is not a scientific presentation: it is on a site from a politician and not a scientist. And as I said earlier in this thread, selection of information to support a view (i.e. cherry picking) is normal practice for politicians promoting policies.
Simply, cherry picking is malpractice for scientists but is normal practice for politicians. And this is one of the several reasons why the practices of science and politics are mutually exclusive.
Richard
I’m a fervent and long time scorner of the gube, and long for the days when he was Oakland’s mayor and therefore limited in the damage he could do to the rest of.us in this once great state.
“Perhaps less focus on “denial” and more on the actual science would suit you better.”
*snork*
Or not, in their case ….
“an aid may have mistakenly posted the first graph of warming he found ”
Heh, I’ve seen a close variation of this excuse used in my own area when I found references in secondhand smoke research papers having nothing at all to do with the statements they’re supposed to be supporting. The defense? “The references were probably compiled by a lazy grad student.”
::sigh:: It’d be SOOOO nice to have “lazy grad students” (or even a “mistaken aide”) to blame for any mistakes I make.
These researchers are supposed to be professional scientists producing professional work for ungodly amounts of money. They have no excuse for not triple-checking their work, and merit no forgiveness when they try to pass their slop onto the shoulders of underlings.
– MJM
The Brown webpage is a huge embarassment. If the Berkeley BEST monthly mean surface temperature data(from their website) for “Los Angeles” is plotted….it gives a completely different picture….I have posted the graph here: http://drinkingwateradvisor.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/monthly-mean-temperature-los-angeles-california-1849-2011/
Is the Berkeley BEST data reliable?
michaeljmcfadden says:
August 20, 2012 at 5:11 pm
“an aid may have mistakenly posted the first graph of warming he found ”
…These researchers are supposed to be professional scientists producing professional work for ungodly amounts of money. They have no excuse for not triple-checking their work, and merit no forgiveness when they try to pass their slop onto the shoulders of underlings.
___________________________
AGREED
In Industry it is generally the manager/foreman who gets fired for sloppy work along with the sloppy worker. THAT is a manager’s job, to manage the workers and catch the sloppy work.
Gail Combs says:
August 20, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Yes, but … there’s a reason “close enough for gov’t work” is frequently uttered. It’s harder to get rid of these sloppy workers.
(Some exceptions exist.)
In Oz each of our states have a motto on the number plates of vehicles. These change with different administrations “the state of excitement” “the garden state” “the sunshine state” that sort of thing.
Looking from OZ your new state motto should be the “Mayhem state” or maybe the “Moon blessed state” Twenty or thirty years ago California was some thing to look up to, now not so much.
Thanks to twenty years of such nonsense California is in the condition it is.
Its only become worse with the senility shown by the present governer… this attempted deception being just a more recent example of the rot at the core of the state.
pat;
“the collapsing cost of carbon permits means there’s little penalty for burning coal.” OMG! Carbon credits work in spite of themselves!
Hi-flippin’-larious.
The Invisible Hand (that forces correct pricing of goods and services) flips Angela (and every other syncophantic warmist politician) the bird.