An informed analysis of IPCC errors

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by chogan2

Needless to say, I disagree with pretty much all that you said.

To me, it looks far more like you misunderstand what to expect. If you expect global warming to slap you in the face, all the time, every year, right now, you're never going to see it. If that's your mental model of global warming, then, yeah, it ain'tt happening -- according to you.

But that's because your mental model is wrong.

Take the scorching summers thing. The best picture of what's happening in the US (about 2% of the earth's surface) is this, from a study by NOAA and others:




I mean, that's it. That's the data, deal with it. Uniformly scorching summers, uniformly mild winters? No. Higher likelihood of highs, lower likelihood of lows, yes. If somebody actually told you that, somehow, the weather would stop fluctuating right now, as a consequence of global warming, then they misled you. My earlier point was, if that happened, it wasn't the climate scientists who did it. And in particular, you didn't read that on realclimate.

More junk science, misinterpreted.

As climatologist Pat Michaels note:

Meehl et al. find that the reason more daily maximum temperature records are being set than daily minimum temperatures records is because there are fewer than expected daily lows records being set, not because there are more daily high records than expected.
In other words, our days are not becoming extremely hotter, but our nights are becoming less extremely cold....

While it is true that an enhanced greenhouse effect should warm nights more than days, so too does the processes of urbanization—something which has not been accounted for in the results of Meehl et al. (because it is virtually impossible to do so at a daily level), but something that is widely known to be occurring.

Nice try Chogan - but you should know better.

[chogan2]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

More junk science, misinterpreted.

As climatologist Pat Michaels note:

Meehl et al. find that the reason more daily maximum temperature records are being set than daily minimum temperatures records is because there are fewer than expected daily lows records being set, not because there are more daily high records than expected.
In other words, our days are not becoming extremely hotter, but our nights are becoming less extremely cold....

While it is true that an enhanced greenhouse effect should warm nights more than days, so too does the processes of urbanization—something which has not been accounted for in the results of Meehl et al. (because it is virtually impossible to do so at a daily level), but something that is widely known to be occurring.

Nice try Chogan - but you should know better.

Well, this is your usual style. You ignored why I showed the graph -- to show that the changes are not abrupt. Which I think this does very nicely.

But more to the point, your cite mis-quotes what the original research said, in a way that materially distorts what the researchers said, and is just plain at odds with the graph in front of your face.

Your cite says (emphasis mine):

"Meehl et al. find that the reason more daily maximum temperature records are being set than daily minimum temperatures records is because there are fewer than expected daily lows records being set, not because there are more daily high records than expected."

So, your cite says that the change occurred solely due to fewer lows, and not due to more highs.

What Meehl et al.'s press release actually said was this: (emphasis mine)

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across U.S. - News Release

"The study also found that the two-to-one ratio across the country as a whole could be attributed more to a comparatively small number of record lows than to a large number of record highs."

Just look at the !@#$ing graph, for crying out loud. The authors of the research were pointing out, text, that the blue block shrank more than the red block grew. But the red block, in fact, grew.

As to the urban heat island effect, these guys make the best adjustment that they know how to make for it. If you somehow know that they, who work with the data professionally, are incompetent in this regard, based on somebody who knows better, well, bully for you. But what I won't take at face value is that the guy who deliberately mis-quoted the authors to make his point is somehow tapped into a more accurate source of information than the authors of the study. If so, he should by all means present that to Geophysical Research Letters, where the study was published, and get them to retract it.

Since your source for the urban heat island thing is that well-known climate expert Anthony Watts, why don't you move the discussion along a bit by taking Watts' list of stations that he considers good or excellent, replicating the chart, and seeing whether things look any different? All the data are publicly available, and that would be useful. And anything else is speculation.

[ufourya]

Originally Posted by chogan2

I guess you could not possibly just point to an article, on Realclimate, with a link to that article, so that I can read it.

Nope, you've got to pull friggin' laundry lists off multiple websites and make me chase all that crap down. Typical.

OK, I'll do the first one on your list, sea level, to see who's got their facts straight and who doesn't. But that's as much time as I'm putting into this...

Let me just point to an article, on Climate Science, with a link, so you can read it.

Yup, it's Pielke again explainging how RealClimate (interesting that no one is questioning the scientific integrity of Dr. Pielke, while Mike Mann undergoes continuing inquiry) continues to mislead. Links to petrinent papers are included. It appears that Dr. Pielke has his facts straight and RealClimate insists on misleading.

Real Climate Permits The Continued Presentation Of Misinformation Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

and:

Real Climate Permits The Continued Presentation Of Misinformation Part II Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

PS. I looked into the 'DutchGate' thingy and found that the IPCC has admitted that it erred, so realclimate's elaborate spin seems a moot point. I withdraw my stipulation.

That's as much time as I'm putting into this, unless you need further assistance. Always happy to help people like you.

[ufourya]

A few more kudos (sarcasm alert, Icarus) for the only blog that has a
'real climate scientist' founder under investigation for scientific misconduct):

Atmospheric Physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, also critiqued RealClimate.org on June 24, 2008. Peden wrote, “'Real Climate' is a staged and contracted production, which wasn't created by 'scientists,' it was actually created by Environmental Media Services, a company which specializes in spreading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering.”
Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo also launched a sharply worded critique of RealClimate.org in January 2009 titled “Response to Gavin Schmidt – Global Data Base Issues Are Real.” “To Gavin [Schmidt] and the other alarmists, it appears, a piece that is fair and balanced can make no mention of any other opinion except that carbon dioxide is causing global warming and action is needed now and will deliver gain and no pain, something the one sided media coverage has gotten them used to over the years,” D'Aleo wrote on January 13, 2009. D'Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and served as chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv has also been critical. “The aim of RealClimate.org is not to engage a sincere scientific debate. Their aim is to post a reply full of a straw man so their supporters can claim that your point 'has been refuted by real scientists at RealClimate.org,'” Shaviv's website reported. Shaviv, who calls the website “Wishfulclimate.org,” noted that the “writers (at RealClimaet.org) try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.”

More Real Scientists Rebuke Real Climate:
'Scientist adjusts data -- presto, Antarctic cooling disappears' - December 21, 2008
Excerpt: The analysis concluded, “Looks like [study author] Steig 'got rid of' Antarctic cooling the same way [Michael] Mann got rid of medieval warming. Why not just look at the station data instead of 'adjusting' it (graph above)? It shows a 50-year cooling trend,” the analysis concluded.
Pielke Jr.: 'Gavin Schmidt admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre' – February 4, 2009 - Excerpt: This is not a hypothetical example, but a caricature of real goings on with our friends over at Real Climate ... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a “real scientist” of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a “real scientist” of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it. In his explanation why this is OK, Gavin explains that he did some work on his own after getting the idea from Steve's blog, and so it was OK to take full credit for the idea. [...] Gavin's outing is remarkable because it shows him not only stealing an idea, but stealing from someone who he and his colleagues routinely criticize as being wrong, corrupt, and a fraud. Does anyone wonder why skepticism flourishes? When evaluations of expertise hinge on trust, stealing someone's ideas and taking credit for them does not help.
Gavin Schmidt's Antics Prompts Laughter From Scientist '“How am I supposed to get any work done when I am laughing so hard?” - Feb. 2009 - Excerpt: Reaction By Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers.
'Is Gavin Schmidt The Best Thing Ever Happened To AGW Skeptics?'
Gavin's "Mystery Man" Revealed - by Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre on February 4th, 2009 –Gavin Schmidt demands Pielke Jr. Pull Critical Blog
Real Climate's Schmidt 'anti-science exposed' 'Using an image of Lake Powell to indicate anything about climate change is perverse' - June 4, 2009 - Excerpt: As with so many other products generated by the AGW industry, Schmidt's book Climate Change: Picturing the Science is part of an ongoing effort to frighten the credulous. Its messages include: weather will kill you; our moment on Earth is unique; and climate did not used to change. Had you wanted to fulfill the responsibilities of an objective and hard-hitting journalist, you might have asked Schmidt about the image of Lake Powell on his book's cover. [...] Were you aware, may I ask, of the controversial nature of the damming of the Colorado River that led to Lake Powell? Environmentalists were and are appalled by this particular dam. It has changed an important piece of the American natural landscape. [...] Group-think has affected many societies negatively, and it has not disappeared during our own time. The fact that neither Mr. Schmidt's editor, nor his publisher, nor you, nor the photographer, nor Mr. Schmidt himself would stop to reflect on the oddity of this cover is enough to give one pause.
Schmidt issues 'Correction and apology' for incorrectly claiming permafrost melt was cause of collapse - June 2, 2009 - Excerpt: the cause of the collapse was the 1964 Earthquake rather than permafrost melt. We take complete responsibility for the mix-up in captioning and the erroneous attribution and we'd like to fully apologize.
AP reporter Borenstein calls out 'Real Climate' activists' Mann and Schmidt for 'misrepresenting interviews he did with each of them'- June 15, 2009
Real Climate touted Steig et al 'Antarctica is warming' study 'falsified' - May 29, 2009
Excerpt: After reading this latest statistical analysis, I think it is fair to conclude that the paper's premise has been falsified. [...] It is my view that all Steig and Michael Mann have done with their application of RegEm to the station data is to smear the temperature around much like an artist would smear red and white paint on a pallete board to get a new color “pink” and then paint the entire continent with it. It is a lot like “spin art” you see at the county fair.
Scientists, Data Challenge Real Climate Touted Antarctic 'Warming' Study - 'It is hard to make data where none exist' - January 21, 2009
The Truth about RealClimate.org - July 6, 2009
Excerpt: Essentially the site exists to promote global warming alarm-ism and attack anyone who does not agree with their declaration of doomsday (proven of course by their own computer climate models) and the need for government intervention against the life supporting, atmospheric trace gas, carbon dioxide. Standard operating procedure is to post "rebuttals" to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn't matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys "ammunition" to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley's job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist "science" pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don't want you to know that.
Schmidt Admits Defeat in Climate Debate! Tough New York City crowd reverses view on man-made warming and converts to skepticism following debate featuring RealClimate.org's Schmidt– March 2007
RealClimate.org's Michael Mann incorrectly Cites Mt. Kilimanjaro as evidence of man-made global warming - Providence Journal - September 25, 2008
Reality Check: Mann's using years old Mt. Kilimanjaro talking points. Mann's “facts” on Kilimanjaro are outdated.
2008: Studies and scientists debunk Mann's 'new hockey stick' - Comprehensive report exposing Mann's research
UK Spectator: 'Hysterical' Real Climate's Michael Mann's Hockey Stick 'most discredited study in history of Science – February 7, 2009 – By Melanie Phillips
Pielke Jr.: Details RealClimate.org's & Others Engage in 'Character Assassination' of Skeptical Scientists'
Real Climate 'has clearly aligned itself squarely with one political position on climate change' - January 14, 2005 - Excerpt: The site's focus has been exclusively on attacking those who invoke science as the basis for their opposition to action on climate change, folks such as George Will, Senator James Inhofe, Michael Crichton, McIntyre and McKitrick, Fox News, and Myron Ebell. Whether intended or not, the site has clearly aligned itself squarely with one political position on climate change.
Real Climate's Schmidt attempts to 'explain why skeptics are simplistic' - June 1, 2009
Not again! Antarctic 'warming' author Steig claims Steve McIntyre has accused him of 'thinly-veiled accusations of scientific fraud' - June 3, 2009
Perhaps a Complex? Real Climate's Steig claimed Morano 'accuses him of scientific fraud'- Morano Responds - January 29, 2009
History of Real Cilmate's activism and funding - Newsbusters.org - June 28, 2008
UN IPCC Scientist Richard Courtney Rips Real Climate Touted Antarctic Study - January 29, 2009
Excerpt: I am not surprised at Steig's behaviour that attempts to deflect attention from his paper and its content. I have written a letter to Nature complaining that Steig's paper contains a flaw so severe that Steig's paper should not have been published, and I suspect that others have written complaints to Nature concerning other errors in that paper, too.

The above is a laundry list taken from the site of a known and stridcnt denialist.
Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for 'erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving' | Climate Depot

[ufourya]

Uh, oh. Another RealClimate co-founder and 'real climate scientist' falls under suspicion.

Pajamas Media Climategate 2.0 ? The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive ? Part One)

First of a four part series.
Opening snippet:
In August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (and RealClimate.org co-founder).
I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “hockey stick” graph — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S. temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.
NASA stonewalled my request for more than two years, until Climategate prompted me to offer notice of intent to sue if NASA did not comply immediately.
On New Year’s Eve, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with the documents I requested in August 2007.
The emails show the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and suspect data management and integrity of NASA, wildly spinning in defense of their enterprise...

[finman]

it's so easy to ignore the deniers. thanks!

[ufourya]

It's easy to ignore anything if one is incapable of paying attention.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by chogan2

Since your source for the urban heat island thing is that well-known climate expert Anthony Watts, why don't you move the discussion along a bit by taking Watts' list of stations that he considers good or excellent, replicating the chart, and seeing whether things look any different? All the data are publicly available, and that would be useful. And anything else is speculation.

Well since 90% of the US surface stations audited have been found to have upward temperature biases of more than 1 degree C, it might be difficult to find a sufficient number of good/excellent stations to conduct the analysis that you suggest. But it is an interesting question.

However, I doubt the more reliable stations are going to support the case for dramatic warming that you suppose. Poor siting of many temperature stations is well documented and "urban heat island" is real - it is not just Anthony Watts who has noticed. From the EPA:

The term "heat island" describes built up areas that are hotter than nearby rural areas. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C).
In addition...

Goodrich (1996) showed the importance of urbanization to temperatures in his study of California counties in 1996. He found for counties with a million or more population the warming from 1910 to 1995 was 4F, for counties with 100,000 to 1 million it was 1F and for counties with less than 100,000 there was no change (0.1F).

[chogan2]

Well, TimBikes/Ufourya, this is the same old crap.

To recap: You each offered up an article on why Realclimate was biased/propaganda/etc, or why my posting of a graph from a peer-reviewed journal was "junk science".

I took the time to show that each of your articles was in error, in serious substantive ways.

Your response: You ignore that ... and come back with an even bigger laundry list of stuff.

How many times have we seen that before, from you two?

I'll grant that you have very polished, even professional, rhetorical skills. Uniformly, your response to being proven wrong is never to mention your error again, but to try to bury it under an ever-large mound of additional materials. TimBikes is the old master fo that, Uforya the presumably new one. You all might be twins for all I can tell any difference in the way you post.

But I'm not going to respond to it. There's an infinite pile of crap out there from which you can cut-and-paste. You want to keep cutting and pasting from it, bravo.

The fact that you can find more stuff to post doesn't change the fact the the first items you posted were, in fact, wrong. Pielke simply misread the realclimate posting, and the commentary on the study of highs to lows mis-stated the authors' conclusions to make his point.

So, one final time, in this thread, in response to my request, you posted material that was clearly incorrect. I took the time to show that.

Yes, you can in fact post more stuff than I have the time or inclination to investigate. That's a wonderful and extremely professional rhetorical approach. But it's not even close to being a reasoned discussion of the facts.

In short, once you've proudly and, might I say, disdainfully posted materials that have turned out to be materially wrong, there's no more reason to pay attention to whatever additional laundry lists of materials you can dredge up.

[tochatihu]

I'd say there is a lot to be learned from the scientific studies referenced at both realclimate and pielkeclimatesci. It is unfortunate that disagreements persist between these two. Human nature I guess, and not susceptible to change.

For those willing to invest in reading the science and trying to understand it, some of those differences can be resolved (or at least better understood). Others will choose to get their science second- or third-hand, and then I'd say you are at the mercy of interpretations that have been made upstream.

Can't make that choice for anyone else though.