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.
I am surprised that among questions this one did not come out: The bandage on Muller’s head… did you rough him up Anthony? /sarc
RE : John Coleman says:
September 18, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Precisely, John.
Despite the fairness of Spencer Michaels report, which was even handed to a fault, they, the fanatical warmists, want to talk about bias at PBS. You’ve just shown how biased they are in the other direction.
I can’t believe my eyes. Skeptical Science is perhaps the worst science web site I have ever seen.
Can’t believe PBS would link to this!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
According to skeptical Science:
“Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate’s sensitivity to CO2. ”
Sound familiar? It’s exactly the same Red Herring Tactic used by Collins above. A quick glance through the article and you will find the words “internal variability”. But what does the article say about internal variability?
Here’s the quote: “When the Earth experiences positive radiative forcing, our climate accumulates heat and global temperature rises (not monotonically, of course, internal variability will add noise to the signal). ”
In the cargo cult science world, any “internal variability” is dismissed as noise. This shocking dismissive behavior is without foundation.
While a clear mechanism where internal variability can cause significant warming or cooling remains elusive, there is absolutely no grounds to dismiss its importance. Remember absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Of course, the word “internal variability” is hyperlinked, so maybe I’m being a bit harsh….better double check…..
Oops! Never mind, it links to here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm
The “internal variability” link, links to a page that does not even have the word sequence “internal variability”, only “internal variation” where it states again:
“This internal variation where heat is shuffled around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy signal.”
Mmmm, this is a PBS story in itself! Man that is some BAD ASS science! Maybe we’ll get an apology….
The Huffington Post is having a fit over Anthony being included in the PBS story. There are many nasty comments there. I just posted there as follows:
The theory is that the global warming crisis is the result of the greenhouse effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide from the exhaust of fossil fuel burning internal combustion engines. This theory has never been proven. Carbon Dioxide is essential to life of both plants and animals. It is not a pollutant. After 150 years of increased CO2 content via buring of fossil fuels, it remains a tiny trace gas in the atmoshpere and no one has proved that it is having a significant impact on temperatures. Computer models don’t prove the theory, they only show what the result will be if the theory is correct. Like it or not, significant man-made global warming is unproven and there is no crisis. Relax and enjoy our lives thanks to the electricty powered society we enjoy with smart phones and computers, A/C and heating, health care and increased food production and transportation all thanks to one of the greatest inventions in history, the fossil fuel powered internal combusion engine.
LOL
I don’t think it will get past review.
ROFLMAO! Skeptical Science? The cartoonist run website that censors all dissenting opinion because they do not want you to know they are all leftists who are a partnership with Al Gore and believe Al Jazeera to be unbiased.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-partnership-with-al.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-from-al-gore-to-al.html
Theodore White – you say “… though claiming what the climate will be like 50 years from now but they cannot forecast the climate/weather 50 DAYS from now. Does anyone find that curious? I sure do.”.
I’ve seen this argument used quite often, but I don’t think it is valid. The skills needed for decadal climate forecasting are largely different to those needed for daily weather forecasting.
I’m not saying that anyone can correctly predict climate 50 years out, just that the inability to predict weather 50 days out isn’t all that relevant.
And – sorry to be so negative – I don’t think AGW violates the laws of thermodynamics either. AGW is wrong, but for different reasons.
Kudos to PBS for inviting Mr. Watts to answer questions regarding his perspective/expertise on the climate change issue. Hopefully, judging by the reaction from the proponents of CAGW, we may yet see an honest and informative debate on a respected (by most folks) publicly funded broadcast. Maybe a special “Frontline” which, in my opinion, presents a balanced and in depth perspective on the controversial topics.of our time. Maybe, with viewer support, we could make this happen. One can only hope.
The level of vitriol is amazing at the various usual alarmists locations esp Romm world; though you should be careful Mr. Watts. The level of hate is smoking my laptop CPU through the web. I had been led to believe the progressives were tolerant people…
I thought the interview was very well done if a bit too polite on Anthony’s part. The best things that I have learned from this site are how to spot the warmist’s slants, cherry picking and outright fakery. It’s too bad that the “others” refuse to learn as well. Don’t think I’ve ever seen such vehemence from people who have their ears plugged and eyes closed while shouting “na-na-na, can’t hear you!” Quite a closed minded group.
For those wondering about the site’s rank:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com
Another vote of thanks to Anthony Watts (and Spencer Michels) for at least putting diversity in the AGW debate on national TV.
It is interesting to see how the topic was covered and how so many falsehoods seem to have been aired without any checking. I wonder if it is worth crowd sourcing a fact checking exercise against the whole report, including any errors Anthony may have made (if any). I just don’t understand how items such as the 97%, peer-review is just making a paper public, and humans are responsible exclusively for warming since 1793 can be portrayed without checking by the production team.
And the vitriol on the PBS Newshour comments is just shocking. People would do well to pay attention to the comment that said something along the lines of do you really want a society where dissenting views are never aired. Please learn about intolerant societies from a historical perspective.
Anthony said about the interview: “On the plus side, he [Mr Michels] said something off camera that I thought was quite curious at the end of the interview: You don’t seem that extreme.”
*
Now he’s learning who the extremists really are. So are a few others. Anyone wondering what the fuss and objection is about will perhaps pop into WUWT to find out (it’s happened before and with good results – people get the blinkers whipped off in here). I am sure there were, or will be, plenty of support for you shown to PBS to balance the bias against you.
Anthony, hang in there, mate, this reaction from the alarmists show just how scared they are. The more rational out there will also not like being told what they should think or what they should include in a show. Whether you get equal or more pro-votes at PBS or not, you will have won quite a few more hearts and souls.
“What can a man do against such reckless hatred?”
“Ride out to meet them!” – J.R.R Tolkien
Nerd says:
September 18, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Wow. Warmists have gone crazy. This reminds me of good old days of debates over whether consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol really cause heart disease (they don’t at all) and lately at least for me on whether sun really causes skin cancers (a huge catch 22 considering vitamin D is very potent cancer fighter that can prevent all kinds of cancers considering that most people are deficient in vitamin D).
Things never change with these “liberal” people.
=====================================================
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ……..
those google algorithms are as random as ever. searched PBS+Anthony Watts, then clicked News, and got this top six grouping:
Media Matters
HuffPo
Desmog
PBS
PBS
PBS
underneath that group in “news” is
ThinkProgress
OnEarthMag
nothing more listed as “news” on the search.
altho many of the above were posted approx 12-13 hours ago, and this particular WUWT thread we’re on now is listed as being posted 6 hours ago, i have to go down the second page of initial results to find this thread.
go google! your algos r amazing.
I note that it is “O.K.” to publish pro-AGW, mainstream interviews and articles without including or following up with counterbalancing skeptical views being expressed. The opposite is seldom the accepted practice, as PBS just demonstrated.
That said, any mainstream public hearing at all for skeptical views on AGW is a vast improvement over the not-so-distant past. Good effort, guys!
John Coleman says:
September 18, 2012 at 9:09 pm
“The Huffington Post is having a fit over Anthony being included in the PBS story. ”
I tried to comment there ONCE. They let my first comment stand, then censored all the rest.
Anthony,
I have to ask. It seems you spent quite a bit of time with Spencer. I know in the role he was in that he is supposed to try and remain impartial, but he had to walk away from your house with a decent understanding of why the Skeptics remain so steadfast. Do you think that he may have walked away with just a bit more skepticism than when he arrived?
REPLY: I think he did, but I also think he put some of that into the report. He could see that I was rational and had a solid reason for everything I said. I just think the higher ups in DC had other things to say about it. – Anthony
Mr. Watts, there is one piece of context that I believe is missing from nearly every single discussion I have seen concerning “global warming” and here I will attempt to provide it. The Little Ice Age is recognized by most to have been ending at around the middle of the 19th century. Anywhere from 1850 to 1870 are commonly recognized times for the end of the LIA. This is at about the same time the thermometer was being widely deployed. The land surface record from, say, 1850 to 1930 records the recovery out of the LIA. The period from about 1912 to 1934 saw warming at about the same rate and of about the same magnitude as temperatures from 1975 to 2002. The recovery from the LIA so far as I can determine lasted until the 1930’s and after that period we had some normal variation where it cooled some until the mid-1970s and warmed again in the 2000’s to about the same as the 1930s were. We really have had no significant warming beyond the temperatures of the 1930s and the trend since 2004 has been one of cooling again.
I do not for a moment deny that temperature records from the middle to late 19th century into the early 20th century show warming. We also know that human CO2 emissions during that period could not have been of significant enough amount to have an impact on global temperatures. It seems clear to me that this is nothing more than natural recovery from the LIA and changes since that time have been normal expected variation in climate both cooler and warmer but not significantly exceeding the temperatures of 1933/1934. So far I have seen nothing to convince me that any human activity has caused any unusual change in climate.
As for atmospheric CO2: if human CO2 emissions were a significant component of atmospheric CO2 rise, when human emissions DROPPED in 2009, the rate of global atmospheric CO2 increase should have also declined. It didn’t. In fact, as human CO2 emissions have increased dramatically since the 1970’s to today as places such as India, China, and Brazil have industrialized, the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase has been rather linear. There is no evidence that this increase in human CO2 emissions since the 1970’s have had a great impact on the rate of global atmospheric CO2 increase. There is also another very likely cause for current atmospheric CO2 increase and that is again recovery from the LIA. If you consider that we went through a period of colder than normal temperatures for about 500 years, I believe this also cooled the abyssal ocean by some amount during that period (by how much I wouldn’t speculate). It is easy to cool a body of water from cooling the surface due to convection. Colder water is wont to sink. It takes about 800 years to completely “ventilate” the ocean, that is to completely circulate the ocean waters back into contact with the atmosphere. We experienced cool temperatures for nearly one complete ventilation cycle. We are only 160 years or so since the end of the LIA. As the oceans are ventilated in our slightly warmer climate, I would expect the ocean to be undergoing a net loss of CO2 as it gradually warms from the LIA recovery. I would expect this recovery to take several centuries to complete as the water last ventilated during the LIA is again exposed to the atmosphere for gas exchange. To expect this process to take some 500 or so years would not seem outrageous to me. Additionally there is the expected increase in CO2 production from increased summer thawing of various tundra and muskeg in the boreal continental land masses.
So what I am trying to say is that in the context of the recovery of the global climate from a very cold period that lasted some several centuries, both the temperature and CO2 rise really doesn’t surprise me. But in any case, I don’t see any evidence of humans having any significant impact on temperatures and global CO2 change does not seem to vary significantly with variations in human caused CO2 emissions.
Anthony,
You have my respect and support for appearing on a media outlet and putting forward a sensible and balanced argument in the face of an intransigent and agenda-driven cabal.
However, for what my opinion is worth, I think that the argument of UHI affected data is, although very possibly valid, a poor argument with which to present a sceptical case.
You will now get embroiled in a ‘my data is better than yours’ argument with a massive ‘peer-review is what it’s all about’ establishment group, and the media will almost certainly give more say to the establishment.
Sceptics should really be attacking the basic theory, not the data. The data – even the probably over-estimated ‘Team’ data – does not support the theory that CO2 can cause a catastrophic warming. Given the IPCC’s own words and data, a suitably robust argument could be made that the evidential observed data has effectively falsified that theory.
The ‘Team’ can argue all day about data collection and that debate will simply drain time and energy. It is s sideshow compared to showing Joe Public why the CO2=cAGW theory is just plain nonsense – and demonstrably so.
I’ll try to make my point with a few questions for the ‘Team’:
1. What is the contribution of CO2 to the Greenhouse Effect? (They say appx 25%)
2. What is the current level of CO2 and what is the current Greenhouse Effect?
3. What was the level of CO2 in 1850 (IPCC date) and what was the Greenhouse Effect then?
4. Can you explain the ensuing anomaly using real, empirical evidence (not models)? If so…please do.
A suitable argument against the theory:
a. Accepts that a single molecule of CO2 has radiative properties.
b. Does not make the huge assumption that those properties can in any way significantly apply to the atmosphere as a whole without making further, unproven, assumptions.
c. Invites the opponent to use his/her own empirical data (not models).
d. Invites the IPCC’s assertions to be discredited by facts.
e. Is based on logic, reason and the scientific method, not faith and assumption.
The bottom line is simple. If the data does not support the theory, revisit the theory, not the data.
Regards,
I have done a bit of research recently and I honestly think the Alarmist zealots are fewer in number than many think…. Sure there are the masses who just nod and agree with a stand point without even bothering to do any basic research ( about 95% probably ) but the actual engine stokers of the Alarmist campaign, those who inflate the findings of so-called scientist for their own propaganda are not that numerous. I think THAT is why they are really worried by the truth and freedom to speak. I think Anthony you are hated because you command a huge following of in-the-main reasonable open minded folk, academic and not I thinks its the frustration they are now feeling after seeing the death of the IPCCs credibility, the ridicule of Mann’s behaviour and his inability to re-visit his own work and the clear sea-change in public opinion with regards climate. They have abandoned weather-is-not-climate totally in desperation now and their shallow defence for why you are so wrong ( ie just look at the weather we had this year ) speak volumes. For me the interview and the responses were encouraging. I always knew I was batting for the right side but now hopefully maybe more others with witness this charade and switch teams.
Some warmists view their campaign as a “war”, I think in their mind you are getting to the equivalent of their ‘bunker’.
Hopefully when most people look at the vitriol of the comments made by the ‘rent a warmist’ and ‘hide the debate’ crowd in contrast to Anthony’s reasonable comments it may result in further interest. (Assuming Anthony survives the ‘bullet holes’).
Re the echo chamber linking to SkS, one link to Poptech’s list of peer-reviewed non-AGW-supporting papers would slay them all.
From the tone of Spencer Michels’ writing above, it looks like he is a reasonably honest dealer, as you said a couple of days ago. A rare characteristic, and one that needs encouraging.
[snip . . OT . . mod]
Posted at PBS, still in moderation:
The excess of heat over light in this controversy was foreseen back in Roman times:
“We are too much accustomed to attribute to a single cause that which is the product of several, and the majority of our controversies come from that.”
— Marcus Aurelius
Anthony is over the target.