The Weekend Wonk: Response from a Libertarian LukeWarmer

January 24, 2016

reasonzom2

My newest video has sparked a number of spittle flecked seizures out in the climate denial blogosphere, activating not only the paranoid “Wake Up Sheeple” faction, but also pretend journalism publications like (Notso) BreitBart, and pretend science blogs like WattsUp – where His Magnificent Resplendency “Lord” Monckton avowed the piece was “monstrous”, and accused me of “wire fraud”.

Really.

After going thru the lot, I pointed my readers to what I thought was the sanest of the bunch, granting that was a bit like being the freshest corpse on “The Walking Dead”.

The piece was by Ronald Bailey, who is apparently a science correspondent for the Libertarian mag Reason, (immediately awakening my sympathies).

I included his piece, and a reaction, in a much longer post, which you should probably at least scan if you haven’t.

Now Ron says I have him all wrong, and has a further discussion – which I  post here uninterrupted in full – followed by my response.
==================

Peter:

Thanks for letting me know that you’ve posted my response to your video at your site. Fine by me.

Next, you’ll be amused, gratified, puzzled by the fact that my article, “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?” (URL: https://reason.com/archives/2015/04/03/what-evidence-would-persuade-you-that-ma) in April, cites and accepts all of the evidence for warming mentioned by your interviewees.

More troubling, you assert in your email that I have misrepresented Mears and RSS. In  what way? If you read through the article linked above you will see that I completely agree that all data needs to be taken into account when evaluating the effects of global warming. Let me quote the section in my post on Mears again:

In addition, another group, Remote Sensing Systems, established explicitly to independently evaluate the satellite temperature data finds the same overall temperature trend as the folks at the University of Alabama. See Christy’s version of the mismatch between model projections and satellite and weather balloon temperature trends below.

 

The embedded link in that section leads to a long description by RSS about how it derives its temperature data set from satellite instruments. What I should perhaps have better linked to is RSS’s analysis that also shows – and thus largely agrees with UAH – that the most climate models run hotter than the actual global temperature trend reported in their data. See RSS comparison with models and its data at URL: http://www.remss.com/research/climate and see highlighted excerpt from RSS below:

  • The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.

To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below.  Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008.  In each plot, the thick black line is the measured data from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures.  The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth’s Climate over the 20th Century.  For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output.  After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band.  For the first two plots (Fig. 1 and Fig 2), showing global averages and tropical averages, this is not the case.  Only for the far northern latitudes, as shown in Fig. 3, are the observations within the range of model predictions.


So I don’t think that I have misrepresented Mears and RSS data and their conclusions with regard to recent temperature trends and model projections.

May I also direct your attention to my longer article in February 2015 assessing global temperature trends? “Temperature Record Chicanery: An Overhyped Scandal” at URL: https://reason.com/blog/2015/02/11/temperature-record-chicanery-an-overhype

In that article, I discuss at some length the fact that all global temperature records are and must be adjusted for various factors.

At that time, I noted:

What do the main temperature datasets say about recent warming? The instrumental temperature records including the GISS dataset, the British HadCRUT4, and the NOAA NCDC find that average global temperature increased. GISS is the highest reporting a rate between 1951 and 2012 of 0.124 C° ± 0.020 per decade. NCDC finds the rate is 0.118 C° ± 0.021, and HadCRUT4 is lowest at 0.106 C° ± 0.027 per decade. The per decade trends for the period after 1979 is 0.161 C° ± 0.033 for GISS; 0.151 C° ± 0.037 for NCDC; and 0.155 C° ± 0.033 for HadCRUT4. The period after 1979 is relevant not only because global average temperatures seemed to have jumped in the 1970s, but because the instrumental record can be compared to the satellite temperature record. Two groups process the data (a.k.a. “adjusted”) from the NOAA satellites to produce separate records. As frequent Reason readers know I tend to follow the results from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. UAH climatologists who are quite skeptical of predictions of catastrophic climate change report that since 1979 the atmosphere has warmed at rate of 0.14 C° per decade. Using satellite data, the private research company Remote Sensing Systems finds that the atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.13 C° per decade. Interestingly, the RSS reports that the models most closely match the satellite temperature trends for the arctic region.

 

Global Average Temperature Increase 1951-2012 per decade rate 1979-2012/14 per decade rate
GISS 0.124 C° 0.161 C°
NCDC 0.118 C° 0.151 C°
HadCRUT4 0.106 C° 0.155 C°
UAH   0.140 C°
RSS   0.130  C°

To recap: All of the global temperature records find that the atmosphere has warmed in recent decades. The difference between the high and the low trends in the datasets since 1979 is 0.03 C° per decade. Summed over the past 35 years, temperatures have increased by at most 0.56 C° and at least by 0.455 C°, that is to say, a difference of about one-tenth of a degree Celsius. Additionally, it appears that global average temperature jumped to a new higher level in the late 1990s and has more or less “paused” since then. This is why so many climatologists repeat the mantra that the hottest years in the instrumental record have all occurred after 1998. 

Nevertheless whatever suspect “adjustments” that may have been made they have barely changed the trend in any of the datasets.

I very much appreciate you sending along the link to the “Response to the Data or Dogma Hearing” by Santer and Mears. It certainly does show that there is some scientific back-and-forth over what the proper adjustments to the satellite data should be, specifically the recent Po-Chedley et al. articles. But it is certainly not the case that research has conclusively shown, as implied by your video, that the UAH dataset is less accurate than the surface datasets or the RSS dataset.

Interestingly, you will note when I wrote my Overhyped Scandal article cited above that the RSS satellite trend was actually lower than the UAH trend.

Subsequent to my Overhyped Scandal article, UAH announced a new version 6.0 of their dataset which LOWERED their global lower troposphere temperature trend from 0.14 C per decade to 0.11 per decade. See URL: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Version-61.pdf

This, of course, contradicts the implication by Admiral Titley in your video that UAH has had to repeatedly and only adjust its temperature data upward.

I will note that on the very day in 2005 that Science published the RSS critique of the UAH data (and two related articles), I wrote an article stating, “We’re All Global Warmers Now.” See URL: https://reason.com/archives/2005/08/11/were-all-global-warmers-now

Finally, in your video Dessler from Texas A&M states: “This goes to show you the amount of confirmation bias that is actually going on in this debate…[they accept the UAH data] uncritically because it tells them what they want to hear.”  This is a very astute observation that applies more broadly than either you or he intended.

In the interest of open discussion on this important topic, I hope that you will post, as you did my earlier Reason blogpost, this email response over at climatecrocks.com.

Regards,

Ron Bailey

——————-
My response, below:

Peter:

Thanks for letting me know that you’ve posted my response to your video at your site. Fine by me.

Next, you’ll be amused, gratified, puzzled by the fact that my article, “What Evidence Would Persuade You That Man-Made Climate Change Is Real?” (URL: https://reason.com/archives/2015/04/03/what-evidence-would-persuade-you-that-ma) in April, cites and accepts all of the evidence for warming mentioned by your interviewees.

I’m sure a terrible oversight, but I do not follow your work.

More troubling, you assert in your email that I have misrepresented Mears and RSS. In  what way? If you read through the article linked above you will see that I completely agree that all data needs to be taken into account when evaluating the effects of global warming. Let me quote the section in my post on Mears again:

This  is clear enough. You juxtapose Christy’s unpublished, unreviewed graph below  your discussion of RSS/Mears, leading the reader to associate the two groups as being completely on the same page, when it is clear that RSS/Mears does not buy the Christy position, and Mears has, in fact, been a leader in ferretting out Christy/Spencer’s reliable stream of goofups.

Christy’s graph, Santer points out,  while purporting to include calibrating balloon data,  does not include balloon data sets that do show warming in recent years.
The graph here shows NOAA “RATPAC” balloon data against the UAH temperatures:

Your insinuation that Christy’s graph represents Mear’s position, is misleading.  Moreover, you completely omit Mear’s explanation that the cherry picking of data only since 1998 is inappropriate – and you ignore my inclusion of the complete UAH record, which shows unequivocal warming when one looks at the whole record, which would have been an accurate representation of Mears/RSS position.

trenberth25001

UAH Data from Kevin Trenberth

You then say – ” If these researchers have any real arguments showing that the satellite data are wrong, the place to prove that is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature – not a propaganda video.”  —
ignoring, again, the unreviewed nature of Christy’s graph, but also the fact that Christy/Spencer have been found to be, not only wrong, but 180 degrees upside down, multiple times, in the peer reviewed literature, by Mears, among others.

You thereby represent that Christy’s unpublished graph as part of the literature, which it is not. It is the real propaganda, along with the (also unpublished and incomplete) graph that Cruz shows.
Yet you accuse me, and the scientists interviewed, of “denying (in the case of Mears, his own) data”?


The embedded link in that section leads to a long description by RSS about how it derives its temperature data set from satellite instruments. What I should perhaps have better linked to is RSS’s analysis that also shows – and thus largely agrees with UAH – that the most climate models run hotter than the actual global temperature trend reported in their data. See RSS comparison with models and its data at URL: http://www.remss.com/research/climate and see highlighted excerpt from RSS below:

  • The troposphere has not warmed as fast as almost all climate models predict.

To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below.  Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008.  In each plot, the thick black line is the measured data from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures.  The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth’s Climate over the 20th Century.  For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output.  After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band.  For the first two plots (Fig. 1 and Fig 2), showing global averages and tropical averages, this is not the case.  Only for the far northern latitudes, as shown in Fig. 3, are the observations within the range of model predictions.

 


So I don’t think that I have misrepresented Mears and RSS data and their conclusions with regard to recent temperature trends and model projections.

It is one thing to observe that model runs differ from datasets.  It is entirely another to imply, thru the use of words such as “sleazy” in your first paragraph, that such differences are obviously the result of dishonesty and intent to deceive.

There are many possible reasons why climate models and data sets may disagree, and I’ll point you to clips from the raw  interview with Santer that I’ve posted in recent days

 

as well as Dessler’s more complete discussion here

As Santer, Mears, Dessler, history, experience, and the literature, make clear, satellite measures are a work in progress, and have had to be re-adjusted many times over the last few decades, to account for satellite drift, orbital decay, miscalibration of sensors, and deficiencies of the  MODELS that Spencer/Christy/Mears have used to “infer”, “derive”, or “back out” their temperature estimates.

In an interview with AP this week, Mears stated that “his own satellite data has five times the margin of error of ground measurements.” – as shown here:

Moreover, no one would suspect from reading your piece that among all the satellite data sets, there are wide variations in temperature trends, as this table from Po-Chedley et al via John Abraham shows:

abrahamtable

 

No one reading your piece would have any inkling of this uncertainty.

Santer points out that although much is made of “adjustments” to surface
temperature  data, the adjustments to satellite data have historically been “far larger”, as Mears, Titley, and Dessler agree.

Again, not something anyone would suspect from reading your piece.

In addition, as Santer explains,  even a perfect model does not give accurate output if all assumptions are not included, for instance, the impact of a series of smaller volcanic eruptions in recent decades, or the relative dominance of La Nina over El Nino conditions since 2005.

A number of factors have been identified over the last 5 years that have artificially
suppressed temperature measures, including poor representation of the arctic, which
although not well covered by satellites or surface data, is known to be the area of
most rapid warming – something modellers predicted many years before it was observed..
In addition, the recent publication by Karl et al showed (among many things) that using buoy data, which is less subject to distortion than previously used ship-based engine room uptake valve data, causes surface temperatures to need adjustment.

In regard to the value of model predictions, I would point you to my interview with Mike MacCracken, who was director of the DOE’s climate change studies in the late 70s, early 80s – you can see from a 1982 lecture he gave just how much the scientists  already understood, and predicted at that time – the changes we are seeing today.

Here is Ken Caldeira talking about what models have shown us well in advance of actual observations:

The stunning parallels between early predictions and current observations
has been again underlined with the release of internal documents from Exxon Mobil,
showing how their scientists were on the same page as the mainstream in
warning of climate change in the late 70s and early 80s

In fact, 4 years ago, in piecing together my video on MacCracken, I despaired of ever getting clear copies of his carousel slides – but was stunned to find the similarities between MacCracken’s slides, from a 1982 lecture at Sandia Labs,  and the Exxon briefing documents, which you’ll see if you watch the vids.  MacCracken was, it turns out, co-author with Exxon scientists on several publications.

maccrack500

MacCracken lecture at Sandia, 1982

In coming days, I will post Dr. Mears complete remarks as well, in the hope that
you and others can benefit.

 May I also direct your attention to my longer article in February 2015 assessing global temperature trends? “Temperature Record Chicanery: An Overhyped Scandal” at URL: https://reason.com/blog/2015/02/11/temperature-record-chicanery-an-overhype
In that article, I discuss at some length the fact that all global temperature records are and must be adjusted for various factors.

Right. Here you cite right wing crank/tobacco apologist(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1556118/Christopher-Bookers-notebook.html) Christopher Booker and retired accountant/blogger Paul Homewood (http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/)(https://denierlist.wordpress.com/tag/paul-homewood-climate-change/) as if their expertise were worth consideration in the same discussion as the peer reviewed science literature.

To your credit, you don’t buy it. But why even pretend there is an issue, other than to continue the false balance nonsense that is a lifegiving nutrient to climate deniers?

 At that time, I noted:


What do the main temperature datasets say about recent warming? The instrumental temperature records including the GISS dataset, the British HadCRUT4, and the NOAA NCDC find that average global temperature increased. GISS is the highest reporting a rate between 1951 and 2012 of 0.124 C° ± 0.020 per decade. NCDC finds the rate is 0.118 C° ± 0.021, and HadCRUT4 is lowest at 0.106 C° ± 0.027 per decade. The per decade trends for the period after 1979 is 0.161 C° ± 0.033 for GISS; 0.151 C° ± 0.037 for NCDC; and 0.155 C° ± 0.033 for HadCRUT4. The period after 1979 is relevant not only because global average temperatures seemed to have jumped in the 1970s, but because the instrumental record can be compared to the satellite temperature record. Two groups process the data (a.k.a. “adjusted”) from the NOAA satellites to produce separate records. As frequent Reason readers know I tend to follow the results from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. UAH climatologists who are quite skeptical of predictions of catastrophic climate change report that since 1979 the atmosphere has warmed at rate of 0.14 C° per decade. Using satellite data, the private research company Remote Sensing Systems finds that the atmosphere has warmed at an average rate of about 0.13 C° per decade. Interestingly, the RSS reports that the models most closely match the satellite temperature trends for the arctic region.

Global Average Temperature Increase 1951-2012 per decade rate 1979-2012/14 per decade rate
GISS 0.124 C° 0.161 C°
NCDC 0.118 C° 0.151 C°
HadCRUT4 0.106 C° 0.155 C°
UAH   0.140 C°
RSS   0.130  C°

To recap: All of the global temperature records find that the atmosphere has warmed in recent decades. The difference between the high and the low trends in the datasets since 1979 is 0.03 C° per decade. Summed over the past 35 years, temperatures have increased by at most 0.56 C° and at least by 0.455 C°, that is to say, a difference of about one-tenth of a degree Celsius. Additionally, it appears that global average temperature jumped to a new higher level in the late 1990s and has more or less “paused” since then. This is why so many climatologists repeat the mantra that the hottest years in the instrumental record have all occurred after 1998. 

Nevertheless whatever suspect “adjustments” that may have been made they have barely changed the trend in any of the datasets.

I very much appreciate you sending along the link to the “Response to the Data or Dogma Hearing” by Santer and Mears. It certainly does show that there is some scientific back-and-forth over what the proper adjustments to the satellite data should be, specifically the recent Po-Chedley et al. articles. But it is certainly not the case that research has conclusively shown, as implied by your video, that the UAH dataset is less accurate than the surface datasets or the RSS dataset.

The research has most definitely shown that early iterations of the UAH dataset have not only been inaccurate, but exactly, 180 degrees backwards, showing cooling in the presence of unequivocal warming. I think 180 degree error for most of a decade qualifies as “less accurate”.

Yet you call the scientists who got it right all along “sleazy” for pointing this out.

In regard to RSS, remember that Mears was a leader in showing the deficiencies of the satellite “retrieval algorithm”, and he himself, as mentioned above, does not make anywhere near the claims that Spencer/Christy do in regard to his dataset.

Interestingly, you will note when I wrote my Overhyped Scandal article cited above that the RSS satellite trend was actually lower than the UAH trend.

Subsequent to my Overhyped Scandal article, UAH announced a new version 6.0 of their dataset which LOWERED their global lower troposphere temperature trend from 0.14 C per decade to 0.11 per decade. See URL: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Version-61.pdf

This, of course, contradicts the implication by Admiral Titley in your video that UAH has had to repeatedly and only adjust its temperature data upward.

The history of UAH does not provide strong reassurance that any adjustment to their data
is likely to be worthy of anything other than “hmmm,….. ok”.  Also, consider denio-sphere reactions to repeated Spencer/Christy adjustments with those from NASA/NOAA surface data.

 I will note that on the very day in 2005 that Science published the RSS critique of the UAH data (and two related articles), I wrote an article stating, “We’re All Global Warmers Now.” See URL: https://reason.com/archives/2005/08/11/were-all-global-warmers-now

Finally, in your video Dessler from Texas A&M states: “This goes to show you the amount of confirmation bias that is actually going on in this debate…[they accept the UAH data] uncritically because it tells them what they want to hear.”  This is a very astute observation that applies more broadly than either you or he intended.

Given that Dessler, Santer and Mears are looking at literally thousands of data sets that  – completely independently – provide evidence of a planet gaining heat, including loss of sea ice, peak flow of arctic rivers and mountain streams, the changes in spring snowfall,
changes in migratory patterns and range of species, northward migration of agricultural hardiness zones, earlier germination and blossoming of flowers and plants, retreat of mountain glaciers globally, irrefutable sea level rise that can only be explained by a warming planet – while Cruz et al rely on only one set of data, carefully  pick their starting date, and claim that it is the only possible representation of everything that is happening on  planet earth – I’m quite comfortable with Dessler’s formulation.

Finally, with the summary of 2015 temp data, the model/data comparison looks a bit different than what Christy would like – see Berkeley Earth’s graph here
berkeleymodeltempand this one from Gavin Schmidt.

schmidt_modelvsdata500

Indeed, if we look at updated surface temps from NOAA
noaa15tems_large

and NASA
giss15500we see what could be the beginning of a step-wise phase change in
global temperatures, an acceleration following on the giant El Nino event that
we are currently in – something that Kevin Trenberth discussed with me as far back as 2013, (at 8:55 here) – where he predicted “we may go up 2 or 3 tenths of a degree Celsius”
with a new el nino – a pattern which appears to be unfolding in front of us.

It’s a bit of a stunning prediction from a scientist whose understanding of the
global system climate deniers, and lukewarmers like yourself, completely discount.

In the interest of open discussion on this important topic, I hope that you will post, as you did my earlier Reason blogpost, this email response over at climatecrocks.com.

You got it.

I suspect it’s too much to imagine that, in the interest of a really open discussion, you’d post my response and videos on the Reason website, much less consider walking back your accusation of “sleazy”. I expect this from the Moncktonistas, but among Reason’s readers there is at least a pretense of intellectual curiosity and fairness, that might deserve better.

Finding the most respected scientists, those with the demonstrated record of at least getting the sign of the change right for Gods’s sake,  and giving them a platform to set a distorted record straight, is not sleazy, to my way of thinking.
It’s what good scientists, teachers, communicators, and journalists do.
It’s my job, and moreover, my responsibility to my children, and the next 10 thousand generations of human beings, which we all share, whether we know it or not.

Advertisements

14 Responses to “The Weekend Wonk: Response from a Libertarian LukeWarmer”

  1. Tom Bates Says:

    While your article is well written, it is simply wrong when it comes to the RSS data as your own graft shows no warming for almost twenty years. You ignore in the Giss and Hadcrut data sets the adjustments to the actual temperature and the plugs in places where they have no temperatures to adjust. I have looked at those adjustments in a few places and see no reason except religious dogma to make the adjustment. Hansen and his fellows have a belief, just like say Christians or Muslims. They act on that belief by adjusting the temperatures upward and refusing just like you to rethink when an independent source, the RSS data is refuting the adjustments to say nothing of increased ice in antarctica, Greenland and arctic ice essentially unchanged since 1958 unless of course 5 percent or so change up and down is the end of the world.

    While you go on and on about Watts up and others you refuse to acknowledge CO2 increased warming has actually been measured. The period measured indicated an increase of warming of .08F which is not very much, well within the error in global temperature measurements. Than you refuse to acknowledge past warmups higher than today found from Greenland ice cores and other sources, all without any CO2 doing the warming as well as the little ice age when we are still in the tail end if one assumes the medieval warm period was the normal. You refuse to acknowledge the models of earths tilt and orbit show warming for the next 25,000 years which means we are warming from increased solar gain as we sit here debating.

    You are a fine writer, the problem is the facts you present are one sided distortions.

    • ubrew12 Says:

      “Hansen and his fellows have a belief, just like say Christians or Muslims. They act on that belief by adjusting the temperatures upward” Hansen is retired, although somehow you’ll be blaming him for adjusted temperatures long after he’s in the grave. ALL measurements, of ANY kind, from ANY source, get adjusted. It’s simply bad science NOT to do so. This is a discussion of various adjustments from various datasets:
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/truth-about-temperature-data.html
      A quote: “The only adjustment that makes a damn bit of difference on the global mean surface temperature record is an adjustment to pre-1940 sea surface temperature data that actually raises the values, and therefore REDUCES THE [WARMING] TREND”.



    • You ignore in the Giss and Hadcrut data sets the adjustments to the actual temperature and the plugs in places where they have no temperatures to adjust.

      If you were a competent scientist (or even a competent “interested layman”) who has actually crunched the temperature data, you’d realize that your above statement is complete garbage.

      Average annual temperature anomalies are strongly correlated over *extremely long* distances; as a result, interpolating to grid-cells where there are no temperature stations is not problematic in the least.

      In fact, much of the Earth’s surface is massively spatially oversampled for the purpose of computing the long-term global temperature trend.

      So oversampled, in fact, that a selection of just 30 random stations out of the ~6,000 stations that NASA uses to compute its “meteorological stations” global-average temperature results will produce a warming trend very similar to the warming trend seen in those NASA results.

      I know that for a fact because I’ve done it myself — with both adjusted and *raw* GHCN data.

      Here are results I got when I ran data from just 30 random rural stations (scattered around the world) through a simple baselining/gridding/averaging program: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0pXYsr8qYS6Y3hyQ1ZnamxVMWM

      My “30 rural stations” raw and adjusted data results are plotted in green and blue, respectively. The NASA “meteorological stations” results (~6,000 stations) are plotted in red.

      Remember: that’s *rural* stations — so there goes your “UHI” talking-point.

      The bottom line is: the global temperature record is solid and robust. To confirm that the Earth is warming as much as NASA and NOAA says it is, you need only process a *tiny fraction* of the publicly-available temperature data.

      If you deniers were serious, you would have figured all this out *years* ago. But you aren’t, so you didn’t.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      so much wrong here not time enough to address. stay tuned for video on surface temp adjustments. for now, this:

  2. ubrew12 Says:

    Bailey: “If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band.” As you relate, Bailey has no idea whether they do or not, given the large uncertainties in the Satellite data he chose to gloss over. But, more importantly, people do not choose computer models because they want to, but because they have to. The uncertain future must be predicted, uncertainly if need be. Does Bailey advocate NOT predicting the future? Or perhaps using some of the other methods used in the past (crystal ball, chicken bones, tea leaves)? These people offer their criticism in a vacuum: what do they advocate as an alternative? Of course, when ‘DOUBT is your product’, offering an alternative is counterproductive.


  3. Just looked at the Wikipedia entry on John Bailey — my impression? A mighty thin science resume.

    And then there’s stuff like “In his 1993 book, Ecoscam, and other works, Bailey criticized claims that CFCs contribute to ozone depletion…”

    The guy’s a featherweight.


  4. The “Global (80S to 80N)” plot (the one with the 90% yellow band for the climate models ensemble) is grossly incomplete in one significant way: WHERE is the uncertainty cloud about the “measured data from RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperatures”. If someone claims that it is so small that the black line covers it, I say “Rubbish!”. I don’t mean the empirical range of uncertainty: I mean INCLUDING the systemic error (basically the posterior density) of coupling from instrument down through atmosphere and the temperature of interest, including uncertainties in corrections to be sure they are both measuring the same thing.

  5. indy222 Says:

    My sympathies, Peter…. it looks like the Agenda-driven forces of anti-reason have decided your fine site needs to have its communications by commandeering your time with patient explanations to the deliberately deaf. I expect that as the election ramps up, fine sites like this will be more and more filled with shrill mud-in-the-face obfuscating polysyllabic BS. I hope you can block some of this in the future.

    • indy222 Says:

      “communications derailed” I meant to type

    • greenman3610 Says:

      very entertaining

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Entertaining? Dealing with a complete flaming anal orifice like Adrian Vance was entertaining only to a point, and this isn’t much better. Did you notice that Adrian’s “all about him” thread got up to 340 comments before The Drunk either went away or you banned him? Those of us that fought that battle are likely to suffer from PTSD now that it’s over.

        Indy 222 is right on with his thoughts that Crock is under attack by the “forces of anti-reason”. Their Gish Gallops of mindless and “shrill mud-in-the-face obfuscating polysyllabic BS” (very nicely said) need to be answered strongly and in depth just as you did with this post. Pile Truth higher and deeper than their BS and hope that the less-well-informed readers listen to you rather than the deniers. And if the best the forces of anti-reason can send to the battle is morons like Bates and Bailey (B & B? Beavis and Butthead?), you can’t help but win.

        PS This post may be “ungodly long” to some eyes, but it is a terrific piece of work on many levels. Those who complain about reading it on the small screen need to backdate their technology (and I hope they weren’t reading it on their small screen while driving on the Interstate).

  6. shelama Says:

    Is it just me, or are other folks having a hard time picking up where Bailey leaves off and Peter picks up? Or are some Peter comments inserted to interrupt Bailey?

    Admittedly this is the most ungodly long, world record long Peter post, easy to get lost in, and I’m trying to read it on a small-screen phone.

  7. paulie200 Says:

    Long ramble, late at night/early AM: Summary up front: Considering error terms, Christy’s/UAH data doesn’t disagree much with other independent groups (even after his latest adjustment) it’s just the odd charts seemingly based on Christy’s graphs that show up in congress and the conclusions that he and others draw from them that are out-of-whack.

    Being a layperson (mostly) I wonder why results and interpretations (RAOBCORE and RICH-obs/tau) from The Vienna Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics are often left out of the debate over satellite and balloon observations. They are included in AR5 WG1 Section II, table 2.8 on page 197… or on page 39 of this (large-ish) .pdf

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

    The above table also lists NOAA’s STAR (also not mentioned very often) results for MT and LS. I count eight (seven?) independently arrived at calculations for TMT, and six for TLT

    At the time of AR5, before Christy adjusted his temp reanalysis, one could look at that table in AR5 and say there is strong agreement almost everywhere. (Eyeball-imetrically… the error terms overlap). One exception is at Temps MT, where UAH and RATPAC are half the value of five other analyses, and much lower than NOAA’s STAR data. Still, nothing jumps out as outside the realm of honest scientists doing good work. And even after any adjustments, UAH data isn’t THAT far out of line with everyone else, it’s just the odd short term charts.

    Considering error terms, Christy’s/UAH trend data doesn’t disagree much with other independent groups (even after his latest adjustment) it’s just the odd charts, that look a LOT like UAH graphs in style, that show up in congress, and the conclusions that Christy and others draw from them that are out-of-whack.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: