This just appeared on the PBS Blog, apparently the mere presence of my interview was enough to push NOAA into responding. It seems they are in full damage control mode.
CLIMATE — September 18, 2012 at 6:08 PM EDT
Climate Change From Different Perspectives
By: Spencer Michels
Anything dealing with climate change is bound to provoke an argument. And our story on Berkeley physicist Richard Muller’s recent conversion to a believer in man-made global warming, which he made in an op-ed in the New York Times, certainly stirred the pot. In addition to preparing a video story on the PBS NewsHour, I had written a blog that included extended remarks from Anthony Watts, a well-known blogger and prominent voice in the skeptic community. Watts — a former California TV weatherman who runs a company that provides weather data to TV stations — says he doesn’t completely discount global warming, but he says that much of the data recording temperatures are flawed because the stations are in areas like urban settings which retain heat and therefore read too high.
The idea of the online post — in part — was to let the audience hear more about the views of a prominent voice from the community of skeptics. In the past, we have on occasion provided a more expansive view from the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say climate change is real, an ever-growing problem and one that is getting significantly worse because of our own contribution to greenhouse gases. (In fact, my colleague Hari Sreenivasan posted links to some of that prior reporting earlier today.) We thought the online post with Watts would provide a chance for viewers to hear more about the skeptical perspective than we have done recently.
That said — and as many of you wrote us to complain — we should have not ONLY posted additional comments from Watts’ perspective. So we have more interviews and responses from the scientific community about climate change. Let’s start on the question of whether temperature data is flawed. That was raised by Watts, and his views on that are being heavily criticized on the web today.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote a response to us and stands by its record on temperature data. Here is what NOAA sent:
The American public can be confident in NOAA’s long-standing surface temperature record, one of the world’s most comprehensive, accurate and trusted data sets. This record has been constructed through many innovative methods to test the robustness of the climate data record developed and made openly available for all to inspect by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. Numerous peer-reviewed studies conclusively show that U.S. temperatures have risen and continue to rise with recent widespread record-setting temperatures in the USA. There is no doubt that NOAA’s temperature record is scientifically sound and reliable. To ensure accuracy of the record, scientists use peer-reviewed methods to account for all potential inaccuracies in the temperature readings such as changes in station location, instrumentation and replacement and urban heat effects.
Specifically, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center published a scientific peer-reviewed paper (Menne, et al., 2010) that compared trends from stations that were considered well-sited and stations that received lower ratings on siting conditions, which found that the U.S. average temperature trend is not inflated by poor station siting. A subsequent research study led by university and private sector scientists reached the same conclusion (Fall et al. 2011). Additionally, the Department of Commerce Inspector General reviewed the US Historical Climatology Network dataset in July 2010 and concluded that “the respondents to our inquiries about the use of and adjustments to the USHCN data generally expressed confidence in the [USHCN] Version 2 dataset.”
Looking ahead to the next century, NOAA has implemented the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) – with 114 stations across the contiguous United States located in pristine, well-sited areas. Comparing several years of trends from the well-sited USCRN stations with USHCN shows that the temperature trends closely correspond – again validating the accuracy of the USHCN U.S. temperature record.
NOAA also provides this link for those who want more information. [Note from Anthony, see what we found using a new method (not employed by NOAA but endorsed by WMO) in Watts et al 2012, here. Strange that they don’t mention the General Accounting office report on USHCN (what the erroneously refer to as the inspector general’s report) was due to my inquiry, not theirs.]
There are plenty of other links where you can find data and information about this question of temperature measurements. One of note that we are including here is the website, skepticalscience.com, which examines and pushes back on the critique from the skeptics’ community.
One point that we tried to make in the broadcast piece was that Richard Muller, in fact, had his own doubts in the past on temperature readings with some issues that were similar to Watts’ criticisms. But he and his daughter, mathematician Elizabeth Muller, told us they looked closely at climate data and now clearly believe that human-induced climate change is happening. Here’s more of what they told us:
You can read the full story here.
I’m surprised that in the body the story, they’d link to SkepticalScience given what has transpired there recently with the conspiracy mongering, secret forums, hate speech and all that.
I’m still waiting for PBS to make the correction I asked for.
James says:
September 18, 2012 at 4:13 pm
You have touched a very sore nerve Anthony. Well done.
==============================================
This.
+1
Curious that peer reviewed papers supports the assertion that the surface temperature data set is contaminated due to the urban heat effect and hence shows more warming than the satellite data.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/r-345.pdf
An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere
[1] This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979 to 2008. Surface temperature data sets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems data sets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower-tropospheric satellite data sets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.
We find that there have, in general, been larger linear trends in surface temperature data sets such as the NCDC and HadCRUTv3 surface data sets when compared with the UAH and RSS lower-tropospheric data sets, especially over land areas. This variation in trends is also confirmed by the larger temperature anomalies that have been reported for near surface air temperatures [e.g., Zorita et al., 2008; Chase et al., 2006, 2008; Connolley, 2008]. The differences between surface and satellite data sets tend to be largest over land areas, indicating that there may still be some contamination because of various aspects of land surface change, atmospheric aerosols and the tendency of shallow boundary layers to warm at a greater rate [Esau, 2008; Christy et al., 2009]. Trends in minimum temperatures in northern polar areas are statistically significantly greater than the trends in maximum temperatures over northern polar areas during the boreal winter months.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf
Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends
[1] This paper documents various unresolved issues in using surface temperature trends as a metric for assessing global and regional climate change. A series of examples ranging from errors caused by temperature measurements at a monitoring station to the undocumented biases in the regionally and globally averaged time series are provided. The issues are poorly understood or documented and relate to micrometeorological impacts due to warm bias in nighttime minimum temperatures, poor siting of the instrumentation, effect of winds as well as surface atmospheric water vapor content on temperature trends, the quantification of uncertainties in the homogenization of surface temperature data, and the influence of land use/land cover (LULC) change on surface temperature trends. Because of the issues presented in this paper related to the analysis of multidecadal surface temperature we recommend that greater, more complete documentation and quantification of these issues be required for all observation stations that are intended to be used in such assessments. This is necessary for confidence in the actual observations of surface temperature variability and long-term trends.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/04/11/a-new-global-warming-alarmist-tactic-real-temperature-measurements-dont-matter/
A New Global Warming Alarmist Tactic: Real Temperature Measurements Don’t Matter
What do you do if you are a global warming alarmist and real-world temperatures do not warm as much as your climate model predicted? Here’s one answer: you claim that your model’s propensity to predict more warming than has actually occurred shouldn’t prejudice your faith in the same model’s future predictions. Thus, anyone who points out the truth that your climate model has failed its real-world test remains a “science denier.”
This, clearly, is the difference between “climate science” and “science deniers.” Those who adhere to “climate science” wisely realize that defining a set of real-world parameters or observations by which we can test and potentially falsify a global warming theory is irrelevant and so nineteenth century. Modern climate science has gloriously progressed far beyond such irrelevant annoyances as the Scientific Method.
http://hwnsurf.me/2012/06/08/pollution-never-has-been-earths-most-troubling-foe-marxism-has-brian-sussman/
On the PBS website I posted,
“One wonders why NOAA implemented the USCRN “…with 114 stations across the contiguous United States located in pristine, well-sited areas” given that there “…is no doubt that NOAA’s temperature record is scientifically sound and reliable.”
Technology and expectations evolve. Reading between the lines it becomes clear that NOAA and Mr. Watts agree that the existing network needed improvement. NOAA should thank Mr. Watts for publicly exposing and pushing the issue.”
The vehemence of the response questioning PBS for “permitting” your comments to be shown almost suggests a desire for censorship in reaction to blasphemy, as if someone had, ahem, dared call into question the agreed scriptures and dogma of a prophet in a video. Oh well, plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose…
I hope you don’t have any embassies, could get ugly.
Anthony take heart. Viewership of the Internet blog is likely less than 1% of the broadcast audience. The backpedaling simply appeases the impotent.
Those who scream the loudest usually have the most to hide or most to lose. By giving a public, highly-visible opinion that exposed the corruption of data, you touched a nerve. You threatened what the team values the most: money and influence.
I don’t care what anyone says, we have a long ways to go before science is fixed. Even when CAGW is long dead and buried, the team will just shift to some out pseudo-science and repeat the process. The people who tied their career to CAGW may be disgraced, but the eco-police will just find someone else to parrot their future line.
We warned you about PBS. I would expect a hit piece against you any time now.
Specifically, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center published a scientific peer-reviewed paper (Menne, et al., 2010) that compared trends from stations that were considered well-sited and stations that received lower ratings on siting conditions, which found that the U.S. average temperature trend is not inflated by poor station siting.
So, sites can be on top of buildings, over BBQs and at airports as the US average temperature trend ‘is not inflated by poor station siting.”.
If this is the case, why this?
Looking ahead to the next century, NOAA has implemented the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) – with 114 stations across the contiguous United States located in pristine, well-sited areas.
Could they not save money and make recording temps much easier by placing sites in their parking lots so they can conveniently check them as they arrive at work and again when they go home?
Forgot to mention: NOAA = Jane Lubchenco, for the past couple of years. Lubchenco, along with Obama science czar John Holdren, are only a degree or two separated from anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, the guy I’ve long described as the epicenter of the smear of skeptic climate scientists. I detailed the various connections here and in the articles I link to within it: “White House Involved in Warmist Smear Campaign” http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/white_house_involved_in_warmist_smear_campaign.html
I had posted this several hours ago at the PBS site. Still in “moderation”. I do not see how this comment is in violation of their policies.
I am amazed by the harshness of many comments here. There are problems with the old temperature measurement system due to the effects of urbanization and land use changes. The US has recently installed a new temperature monitoring system in response to the known problems with the old and Watts and others have been part of the discovery of those problems. It seems shortsighted to be critical of the search for accurate data
What did you expect from PBS? I was surprised that they would even consider something from the “skeptic” side. I was right, they didn’t.
Strange. I just read this article on the Tucson Citizen titled: “NOAA experiment shows US temperatures not as warm as reported”. It states in the article that NOAA found the USCRN showed temperatures 0.5C on average lower than the USHCN.
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/09/17/noaa-experiment-shows-us-temperatures-not-as-warm-as-reported/
As predicted, once the “journalist” returns to the echo-chamber, he is chastised and forced to recant.
PBS should be ashamed.
I second another commenter’s suggestion that this pandering-to-the-crowd piece by Michels deserves a point-by-point rebuttal. A rebuttal that is polite, professional, and objective. But clear and precise.
William says:
September 18, 2012 at 6:29 pm
An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere
[1] This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979 to 2008. Surface temperature data sets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems data sets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower-tropospheric satellite data sets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.
We find that there have, in general, been larger linear trends in surface temperature data sets such as the NCDC and HadCRUTv3 surface data sets when compared with the UAH and RSS lower-tropospheric data sets, especially over land areas. This variation in trends is also confirmed by the larger temperature anomalies that have been reported for near surface air temperatures [e.g., Zorita et al., 2008; Chase et al., 2006, 2008; Connolley, 2008]. The differences between surface and satellite data sets tend to be largest over land areas, indicating that there may still be some contamination because of various aspects of land surface change, atmospheric aerosols and the tendency of shallow boundary layers to warm at a greater rate [Esau, 2008; Christy et al., 2009]. Trends in minimum temperatures in northern polar areas are statistically significantly greater than the trends in maximum temperatures over northern polar areas during the boreal winter months.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf
Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends
OK.
1) So, assume, as has been proven, that every plant on earth is growing faster, greener (darker) and taller/wider/higher in the 60 years between 1950 and 2012.
2) A greater growth in plankton, coral, and the seaweeds will not substantially change the ocean’s albedo, the amount of energy absorbed from the sun, nor its reflectivity.
3) Higher in Arctic lands and tundra – but NOT in the Arctic Ocean itself – the darker land caused by higher plant growth will cause greater absorption of energy (during the summer) and more trees and plants sticking up through the snow in the winter. Both will increase energy absorption and thus Arctic (but not Antarctic) temperatures in the few places where there are reliable arctic temperatures between 65 degrees north and 70 north. (Note – there is NO Arctic sea ice at time of minimum extent in September lower than 80 north. Land temperatures for a region 600 miles south of the sea ice southernmost extents will not change sea ice melting.)
Therefore, increased CO2 “does” explain the noted land mass temperatures – due to greater plant growth and a darker land mass – but the greater land temperatures also can be explained simultaneously with the insignificant change in sea surface temperatures.
Government-paid “climate” models do not fare so well however. Tree ring proxies for temperature fare even worse, because at no point does Mann’s tree-ring calc’s include factors for a greater tree growth due to – not temperature, but greater CO2 amounts in the air the trees breathe.
Methinks NOAA doth protest far too much!
Reminds me very much of WWF putting out a Press Release a short time after Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager … was published. WWF made a highly risible attempt to paper over the irrefutable evidence – found in her book – of the blatant undeclared conflict of interest on the part of IPCC authors who were/are also involved in WWF’s so-called “Science Advisory Panel”.
But that aside ..
There may (or may not) be a hint of silver lining to be found here. Notwithstanding this backtrack (10:10 … no pressure, anyone?!) from Michels, Muller’s additional “airtime” granted in this piece is a mere 2:26 minutes. Anthony’s was 9:34 minutes as I recall.
We already know how much time (approx. three hours as I recall) the production team spent interviewing Anthony. What we don’t know is how much time they spent with Muller. Nor do we know what was not included from either of the interviews.
That being the case, I wonder if Michels/PBS would be willing to share their raw footage for both interviews. Obviously during an actual program one expects some filtering in order to convey their “storyline”: In this instance, Muller’s headline-seeking (non-) conversion which they seem to have learned about via the NYT Op Ed (without doing any further background research).
But surely PBS viewers are an intelligent bunch of people who are quite capable of making up their own minds about a contentious issue.
Providing raw-footage of both interviews would give PBS an opportunity to show how much they respect the intelligence of their viewers (even if the activist-scientists and their marauding army of acolytes and lesser-lights obviously do not!) And it would give them an opportunity to demonstrate how unslanted and “fair and balanced” PBS reportage really is, would it not?!
Of course, if they were to decline such an invitation … well, one would have to ask, why are they choosing not to disclose their raw footage of these two interviews?!
I have a theory….
PBS just wanted our IP addresses…..
They sucked up to Anthony, who herded us all to a hostile cite, PBS, so that
1) they get our IP addresses, and sniff our surfing histories
2) they can boost their hit numbers parasitically foraging off WUWT’s popularity
3) our computers will get infected with leftist stupid-ness
Russell Cook (@questionAGW) says:
September 18, 2012 at 7:12 pm
_____________________________________________
Interesting article Russell
Quite interesting if one starts putting the pieces of the pie together at a high level.
Is it really about climate in the end?
The successful implementation of the Montreal Protocol drives of some of the basic Agenda 21 initiatives ( called Smart Growth at a local level in the US) , through the CO2 tool used via Kyoto……..
I would say China’s reluctance of such adaptation has saved us from the full impact for the time being.
JMHO
Read it for yourselves……
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml
I neglected to include this item for reference purposes only.
Kinda limited list. Nothing since 2008?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers.shtml#.UFk0Pa5chcc
By the way I checked out a couple of Watts-Hate sites (I won’t serve their interests and provide a link) and holy smokes the interview of Watts “the odi-oh duffus” has them completely off the rails.
So either Watts is a genius and correct and HOW CAN THAT BE? he hasn’t the “credentials”
OR
Watts has pulled off the best orchestrated deception since Bernie Madoff… which makes him an evil genius
This is pretty entertaining..
Well done Anthony. Light blue touch paper and stand well clear.
One way to lob a grenade at a warmist is to ask them the question –
‘What caused the planet to suddenly warm some 60000 years ago that caused the end of the last ice age?’
We need more of this folks. If things are settled, there should be no problems making this happen..
Enjoy the debate! Our standard of living depends on it.
Of course they link to skeptical science. They are probably the ones behind the criticism of PBS for letting Watts on air.
Skeptical Science.
2011-02-10, John Cook, Discussing the Rapid Response Network:
How many independent complaints did PBS really receive?