Bishop Hill Thou shalt extrapolate
Jun 28, 2011 Climate: Surface John Cook, of Skeptical Science fame, has an article in The Age, in which he is very rude about Bob Carter:
A Yiddish proverb states ''a half truth is a whole lie''. By withholding vital information, it's possible to lead you towards the opposite conclusion to the one you would get from considering the full picture. In Bob Carter's opinion piece on this page yesterday, this technique of cherry-picking half-truths is on full display, with frequent examples of statements that distort climate science.
One bit of the article that stuck out at me was this:
[Carter] has long hung his hat on the proposition the climate has been cooling since 1998. But with 2005 and 2010 being the hottest years on record, he resorts to cherry-picking which dataset to use. Rather than use temperature records that cover the entire globe, he opts for datasets that do not include the Arctic region, where warming is the strongest. These temperature records underestimate recent warming and are the darling of those who wish to deny global warming is happening.
Now this is interesting. As readers here know, there are almost no temperature stations in the Arctic and the gaps are therefore infilled by extrapolation.
Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not sure that it is reasonable to get on one's high horse complaining about somebody who prefers to look at, you know, actual data rather than the outpourings of a mathematical model.
Certainly, to accuse them of half truths seems, well, extreme.
Reader Comments (226)
dana1981
Your first statement is incorrect. The RSS/UAH satellite TLT reconstructions show no significant trend 1998 - present. Nor does HADCRUT.
If you look carefully at the series, you can see that GISTEMP shows transients in 2002, 2007, 2008 and 2011 that take it higher than RSS, UAH and HADCRUT. Since the range of variation in TLT (per RSS and UAH) is actually higher than surface GATA, presumably as a response to the strong effects of ENSO at this altitude, this is very puzzling indeed.
GISTEMP, HADCRUT, UAH, RSS. 1998 – present; common 1981 – 2010 baseline; trend.
John Cook
"CO2 is beneficial to plants"
Is that debatable? I've worked in glasshouses where the stuff is pumped in to encourage growth, which not only works, but doesn't affect the human occupants at all.
Thank you for responding. It's much appreciated, even if my reading of the evidence seems rather different to yours.
BBD -
I made a point to say the trends since 1998 are not statistically significant. It's too short of a timeframe for statistical significance (although if you filter out short-term effects like ENSO and volcanoes, the warming trends do become statistically significant). However, the trends are all positive nonetheless. If you're going to deal in periods which will necessarily fail statistical significance (i.e. shorter than 15 years, again, unless you first filter out the noise), then you don't get to complain when we point out that those trends are positive despite not being statistically significant.James P -
It most certainly is debatable in the context of the global climate, which is the context we're discussing here.Great to see John Cook posting here. And did I read he is a cartoonist, well he must be okay then ;-)
Not quite sure how he could describe "CO2 is beneficial to plants" as a half truth, but it does give one an idea for a visual.
Thirdly, it's a fact that the Arctic is the fastest-warming region of the planet's surface, and it's excluded from the HadCRUT analysis.
Its only the fastest warming in Giss because they extrapolate from nearby stations, 2 different ways of coping with the fact there are so few actual readings being taken at the Artic. There aren't enough readings being taken so you cannot say 'Its a fact'.
Very funny using a full untruth to disparage an alleged half truth.
John Cook,
I appreciate you coming to Bishop Hill's place.
Do you intend, in the future, countering on an item-by-item basis all of Luboš Motl's critiques of 104 of your counter skeptic arguments?
I find very few of Luboš Motl's critiques to be out-of-line from a great many other blogger’s critical discussions of the type of arguments you put forth in your 104 counter skeptic arguments.
John
dana1981
Nor do many commenters get a free pass to misrepresent them as significant. Which is all I am saying.
And you know as well as I do that this happens. It's relevant to me not because I doubt AGW - I don't - but because I do not see convincing evidence that the estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is ~+3C.
And yes, I have read Knutti & Hegerl (2008) etc. And no I do not think that the interpretation of paleoclimate they summarise provides robust support for the modelled estimate (multi-model mean as referenced in AR4).
And yes, I wonder daily why the observations appear to confirm that the MMM is too high.
No model output can count as data. Data is collected in the real world using real instruments of measurement. If the Warmista want to discuss temperatures in a region then they must install thermometers there.
John Whitman - SkS has limited time and resources, and a lot of things we plan to do. Motl is not on that list. Frankly, he's not worth the effort. I did respond to Motl's criticisms of one of my posts on his own turf, and after a bit of backpedalling, he quickly banned me from commenting on his site, for literally no reason. Suffice it to say the scientific quality of his arguments is exceptionally poor.
BBD - I don't think anyone suggested the trend since 1998 is statistically significant (again, unless first filtering out the noise). Just that it's positive, and that 2005 and 2010 were hotter according to global datasets. I also disagree with your assertion that observations confirm model sensitivity is too high.
Mr. Cook, from your article...
"Labelling Carter's final ''scientific fact'' as a half-truth is giving it too much credence. According to Carter, it's a fact that "extra carbon dioxide helps to shrink the Sahara Desert, green the planet and feed the world. Ergo, carbon dioxide is neither a pollutant nor dangerous, but an environmental benefit."
Liu et al
“Results show that, over the past 26 years, LAI (Leaf Area Index) has generally increased at a rate of 0.0013 per year around the globe. The strongest increasing trend is around 0.0032 per year in the middle and northern high latitudes (north of 30°N). LAI has prominently increased in Europe, Siberia, Indian Peninsula, America and south Canada, South region of Sahara, southwest corner of Australia and Kgalagadi Basin..." (Kgalagadi Basin is in the Kalahari Desert of southern Africa.) (MIne added in brackets)
You were saying something about half truths giving too much credence? Can you point me to the research you used that gave you the impression the Sahara is not shrinking, it would be useful if the research also covered the South region of Sahara where Liu et al claim the Leaf Area Index has increased prominently?
Thanks for joining the debate.
After reading Dana's post @ Jun 28, 2011 at 7:12 PM
Some may want to read Tallbloke's experience of being censored at Sceptical Science:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/cooking-the-books-snip-snip-go-the-censors-scissors/
Tea pots, kettles and black comes to mind.
Jack Cowper - again, comments about SkS are completely irrelevant to this discussion. However, you will note that one of tallbloke's comments which contained the words "half-assed" was censored. The rest of his comment appears not to be relevant to the discussion topic, which is a violation of site policy (no off-topic comments). He was not banned from the site, unlike my experience at Motl's (total ban after 4 polite comments). There really is no comparison here. SkS is moderated very fairly, and comments which violate the site policy are moderated as necessary.
Now please, can we try to actually discuss the science here instead of engaging in attacks on John Cook or SkS?
dana1981
Lindzen's argument hinges on ignoring two critical effects on the global surface temperature: the thermal inertia of the oceans, and the cooling effects of aerosols.
Observational data confirming the interpretation you require of ocean thermal intertia, and the existence and origin of stratospheric sulphate aerosols do not exist. And your argument breaks unless the entire 0.8C warming is attributed to CO2, rather than sharing it between CO2 radiative forcing and natural variation.
It sounds plausible, but proves nothing about climate sensitivity to CO2.
Would this be the same Dr John Cook who seeks to seeks to rewrite the dictionary? He wrote an article last month for the Drum "Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?"
He says "Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views."
My Shorter OED (3rd edition) has 4 definitions of sceptic on page 1900. Definitions 1. (a Philosophy) and 3. (Related to Christian religion) are not relevant. The other two are.
2. One who doubts what claims to be knowledge in some particular department or enquiry. 4. (older definition) A seeker after truth: an enquirer who has not yet arrived at definite convictions.
My own belief is that a sceptic compares and contrasts the different positions. For instance, one thing that Prof. Carter presents very well is showing how there is nothing exceptional about current warming, in the context of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of years. He examines all the evidence. Alternatively, when examining temperature series, Dr Cook accepts figures without question. So he does not recognise bias in the data sets (The GISS data gives the nearest to the alarmist story, and is controlled by Dr James Hansen.) How do I know he does not check? Look at the table for the 1860-1880 series. The average (AMTI) of 1.01/1 comes out at 0.44.
Further, when he says that 2010 was the warmest year, perhaps like NASA he excludes the Hadcrut data.
References below for those sceptical enough.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2737050.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-1860-1880-and-1910-1940.htm
http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/nasa-excludes-an-inconvenient-figure-on-2010-temperatures/
dana1981
Apologies. Formatting bodge:
Observational data confirming the interpretation you require of ocean thermal intertia, and the existence and origin of stratospheric sulphate aerosols do not exist. And your argument breaks unless the entire 0.8C warming is attributed to CO2, rather than sharing it between CO2 radiative forcing and natural variation.
It sounds plausible, but proves nothing about climate sensitivity to CO2.
dana1981
One other thing. While I absolutely agree with you that commenters here should refrain from personal attacks on John (or yourself, or anyone else), I could not help but notice that you used the expression 'Christie Crocks' in your article at SkS.
As I understand it, this is shorthand for 'crock of shit'. Or am I mistaken?
Do you want to debate global warming or do you want to sit here and denigrate other bloggers?
I was glad to see Cook prepared to stick his neck out here. I'll be less inclined to engage if he's brought a pet troll with him.
Just in case anyone doesn't know - "dana1881" is Dana Nuccitelli - John Cook's number one sidekick at Skeptical Science (Dana is a bloke BTW).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Introducing-the-Skeptical-Science-team.html
He's employed by an environmental consultancy group called Trans Tech who do a lot of work for the US govt - so completely impartial on AGW issues, just like the IPCC.
He has been a pretty well full-time green activist blogger under various handles for years and specialises in hanging around at Amazon.com reviews where he routinely slags off sceptic books and gives rave reviews to "his masters voice":-
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3OP0JLQQKAQVZ/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R3OP0JLQQKAQVZ
Not a likely candidate for reasoned discussion IOW.
The topic of this thread is temperature records. Please restrict yourselves to that. If you want to discuss other areas use the discussion forum.
The Lubos Motl link is a good one, I had not seen that before, thanks. It is long but an easy read.
BBD -
I disagree. Ocean thermal inertia is effectively the same thing as ocean heat content, because the oceans and air interact at the surface. Lindzen admits this, he just argues that it's a relatively small effect. And we know there are large amounts of aerosols in the atmosphere, we just can't yet accurately quantify their cooling effect. That's a fair point, but still doesn't justify ignoring them, as Lindzen does. Anyway, my point is simply that recent warming is consistent with sensitivity of about 3°C for 2xCO2.As for 'Christy Crocks', we just like to use aliteration in our series titles. It's used like the term "what a crock", which may be derived from "crock of shit" - I don't really know which came first. It's not meant as a personal attack - if anything it's an attack on his comments, as in 'what he said was a crock', not 'he's a crock'.
Mike Jackson - Motl was mentioned in at least 2 or 3 comments before I said anything about him. My apologies for responding to those comments, I guess.
Speaking of apologies, I would appreciate one for your suggestion that I'm John's "pet troll". That is very insulting an totally uncalled for.
Thanks again for the (probably fruitless) attempt to keep this discussion on-topic, Bishop Hill. However, since Foxgoose made a number of incorrect claims about me, I feel obligated to set the record straight. I hope this is the end of discussions about my background, which once again, are totally irrelevant to this discussion.
I work for Tetra Tech, not "Trans Tech". Yes, we get a lot of government contracts, as do many private contractors. My particular office gets most of our contracts from the Army Corps of Engineers doing cleanups on former military sites. My work has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. We mainly clean up contaminated soil from various hazardous materials spills and leaks.
Frankly it doesn't matter if I'm James Hansen or a rodeo clown. I expect my comments to be evaluated on their own merits, and not dismissed off-hand because you don't like the company I work for, or whatever other lame excuse you can come up with.
Now if we could follow Bishop Hill's request and stick to discussions of temperature records, and in particular dispense with the comments about myself, John Cook, and SkS, that would be much appreciated.
Thanks to John Cook for having the pluck to comment here. This is useful, as it enables us to see what John considers important reasons for his vigorous and effective promotion of the CAGW hypothesis. The work of Doran et al and Anderegg et al may be significant for John. Personally I found those two pieces of work rather less than convincing, so John's favourable reference to them if anything weakens his case. I'm sure he must have better arguments. Anyway I'd like to ask John what he considers the key scientific evidence supporting the position he takes. And what exactly is his position?
Jun 28, 2011 at 7:12 PM | dana1981 said,
""""SkS has limited time and resources, and a lot of things we plan to do. Motl is not on that list. Frankly, he's not worth the effort. I did respond to Motl's criticisms of one of my posts on his own turf, and after a bit of backpedalling, he quickly banned me from commenting on his site, for literally no reason. Suffice it to say the scientific quality of his arguments is exceptionally poor.'''''''
-----------------
dana1981,
Thank you for your reply.
It is unfortunate that John Cook (SKS) will not engage with Luboš Motl on John Cook's 104 so-called 'skeptical counter arguments against skeptics'. Unfortunate, for John Cook that is, if his goal is to increase interaction and openness in the climate science area. In my view Motl is a very keen mind and has a definite independent frame of mind. All of us could become better educated through such a more direct interaction between them.
John
dana1981
OHC reconstructions are a work in progress. Purported evidence of recent substantial warming of the upper ocean layer depend on studies which show an increase in OHC of about 8*10^22 J between 2003 and 2005 (NODC) or the same between 2002 and 2004 (Lyman et al. 2010).
This is the period when ARGO becomes dominant and expendable bathythermograph (XBT) data is phased out.
The step increase in OHC is physically implausible, which strongly suggests that further downward calibration of ARGO to XBT is required. Yet Hansen finds that OHC rise is less than sufficient to support current estimates of climate sensitivity, and is forced to invoke aerosols to compensate.
Of which you say:
I appreciate that we are not currently talking about Lindzen; rather the subject of constraining climate sensitivity.
As you assert, but do not have the observational data to confirm.
As for the etymology of CoS, it derives from the time of chamber pots, or crocks, so yes, the shit was there first.
Dana
I apologise for getting your employer's name wrong - it is, of course, Tetra Tech.
I hope the Bish will bear with me if I point out the climate change section of their R&D site:-
http://rd.tetratech.com/climatechange/
Quote:- The buildup of greenhouse gases (GHG) that affect the earth's climate are increasing at rates not previously anticipated. New environmental policies must address a range of issues including GHG emission targets, policies to price carbon, the implementation of new technologies to reduce emissions, and strategies to adapt to climate change. Quantitative information, based on the likelihood and consequences of climate change, is required to guide the development of these policies. Tetra Tech Research & Development Group efforts have focused on providing sound scientific approaches and practical solutions to address the potential effects of climate change and mitigation measures.
I'm not sure BBD needs to apologise for calling you Cook's "pet troll', bearing in mind your Amazon review of his book where you said :-
"....The discussion of denial in particular is very in-depth and interesting. I highly recommend the book."
Contrasting with your ealier review of Ian Plimer's book:-
"....Pilmer's book is full of lies like this one. George Monbiot recently agreed to debate Pilmer on the condition that Pilmer answer 11 simple questions pertaining to where he got various information in his book from. Pilmer accepted the conditions, but failed to produce the sources of information. The reason he failed was because they were non-existent. He just makes stuff up and expects people to believe him.
If you want to learn some climate science, get a book with real scientific data like "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas, "Heat" by George Monbiot, or "Hell and High Water" by Joseph Romm.
If you want to be brainwashed with lies that global warming is nothing to worry about, save your 20 bucks and just go turn on Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. "
Not much scientific discussion there - hmm.
I fully understand your desire to ".... dispense with the comments about myself'' however - trolls usually like to keep under the radar.
Foxgoose
That wasn't me.
Sorry BBD - got you mixed up with Mike jackson
Actually, foxgoose, it was me that referred to Dana as possibly being Cook's "pet troll". If he wants to discuss global warming rather than let fly at people he happens not to like then I will apologise and perhaps learn something, the characteristic of the sceptic being someone who is prepared to listen and perhaps be converted. I can't say that, so far, I'm impressed. I keep hearing assertions and speculation dressed up as fact but still a shortage of sound reasons as to why mankind has to uproot its entire lifestyle at great expense for some very dubious benefits.
Convince me.
BBD - I certainly also agree that measurements of OHC are currently problematic as well. That's why I didn't use OHC measurements in my calculations in the linked post. Actually I've done a few posts on the subject - once trying to use OHC, and then in this more recent version using the transient climate sensitivity parameter to show that the IPCC values are consistent with observations. However, despite the problematic measurements, we know that heat is going into the oceans from sea level rise (thermal inertia). Anyway, while it's difficult to quantify (if you read my post, there is a large band of possible climate sensitivity values), 3°C is the most likely sensitivity based on observational data.
Foxgoose - Tetra Tech is a huge company (over 10,000 employees last I heard) with offices around the world and many different divisions. While I certainly agree with the quote you provide there, I don't work for Tetra Tech R&D, and don't even know very much about what that division does (I should probably spend more time reading the company newsletters).
Mike Jackson - reducing GHG emissions will not require uprooting our entire lifestyle at great expense. However, I'm not going to try and convince you of that here, because it is quite clearly off topic, and I'm trying very hard to adhere to Bishop Hill's request that we stick to temperature discussions here. We're already going far enough off-topic in talking about climate sensitivity. Economics are way off subject.
Though I would like to respond to one off topic comment from Mike Jackson -
I though I was actually quite careful in not "letting fly" at Motl, which is why I think the personal insult was totally uncalled for, and my request for an apology stands.dana1981
As you continue to assert, acknowledging the high uncertainty, and without sufficient observational evidence to convince.
Dana
We're already going far enough off-topic in talking about climate sensitivity.
BH hasn't intervened, so I'm hoping that he regards this as a valid root topic in discussion of GATA. If not, no doubt he will let us know.
Dana/others
This is poor, even by my standards of tag-fluffing. Apologies to all.
BH hasn't intervened, so I'm hoping that he regards this as a valid root topic in discussion of GATA. If not, no doubt he will let us know.
Dana
"Ocean thermal inertia is effectively the same thing as ocean heat content"
Really? It's some time since I did Physics, but I didn't think it had changed that much.
"I expect my comments to be evaluated on their own merits"
QED
James P
I think Dana means they are sides of the same coin, although I should really let him clarify.
Dana1981
What is the observational data that makes 3c the most likely scenario?
I fully accept my own observational info to confirm a warming through the 90's, and if statisticians from both sides can't agree about the significance or not of any warming since, then my opinion is that it is not worth wrecking the world economy over, and I am relieved that some countries are starting to work this out. Unfortunately not the UK yet
I am sceptical
We're concerned with surface air temperature changes. Heat going into the oceans eventually interacts with the air. Hence increase in OHC (not OHC itself - my mistake earlier) is effectively the ocean 'thermal inertia'.
golf charley - here's the link again to answer your question based on recent observations. Here's a more detailed look at sensitivity evidence.
Dana
And we come up against the problems with the OHC reconstructions. I'm sure you are familiar with the arguments:
The step increase in OHC ~2002 – 2004 is clear in the NODC OHC reconstruction:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
To get an idea of where this comes from, see the GODAS data page:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/data_distribution.shtml
Ignore the Temperature Profiles pane. From the Temperature Profiles Numbers pane, pick
Ocean basin - global
Latitude 90S - 90N
Depth - 250m to 500m
XBT (green curve) trends down as actual observations decrease, and tethered buoy (red curve) data show no trend. The deployment of tethered buoys has increased since the 1990s and now monitors equatorial sub-surface sea temperatures across the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
Compare with ARGO (blue curve). Willis himself says that he is not happy with ARGO data prior to 2005, so it is reasonable to question the apparent step in OHC.
Which begs the question: are XBT and tethered buoy data biased cool (despite the apparent certainty that XBT at least was biased warm)? Or is ARGO now biased warm?
Whatever the case, the OHC reconstruction is clearly problematic. Others have pointed to the weakly positive trend in ARGO OHC estimates 2005 - 2010 as incompatible with the necessary degree of energetic transfer from the atmosphere to the 700m layer to account for the flat trend in GATA and TLT over the last decade.
But, as I have said before, claims of recent substantial warming of the upper ocean layer depend on a reconstruction which shows an increase in OHC of about 8*10^22 J between 2003 and 2005 (NODC) or the same between 2002 and 2004 (Lyman et al. 2010).
This is the period when ARGO becomes dominant and expendable bathythermograph (XBT) data are phased out.
Much rests on this. We should be cautious.
Dana1981
Thanks to the link, but could you be more helpful in pointing me to observational data? Like real data, not models and theories?
I have just deleted a lot of typing as I realised I was off topic
The Age survey asking if Aussies should make tackling climate change a priority is utterly useless as I have been able to vote 3 times now.
All such 'surveys' can be skewed by any dedicated group who wish to make multiple votes, either pro or con the question.
Of course, it will be loudly lauded by the 'winner' and decried by the 'loser', whichever way the results go.
BBD, that is exactly what I would have said if I understood what you were on about!
Where is the observational data to confirm 3c rising?
BBD - like I said earlier, I agree that OHC measurements are troublesome right now. But my calculations don't rely on OHC measurements.
golf charley - I'm not sure what else you're looking for. In the first link I went through the calculations showing that the observed temp increase and the observed forcings are consistent with 3°C sensitivity. That's your observational data.
BBD
"sides of the same coin"
For sure, but being careless with terminology while accusing other people of half-truths is just asking for trouble.
golf charley, you don't just go out with an instrument and measure the climate sensitivity directly in nature. At some point theory must come into the picture.
Dana1981. I can use google, and can guess you live in Sacremento California, and were born in 1981.
Whether I am right or not is irrelevent
The IPCC has made all sorts of claims about rising temperatures, sea level rise, tornadoes etc.
The science says that increasing CO2 will only lead to an increase of 1C, but other factors will lead to a total increase of 3C in global temperatures.
Global temperatures and sea levels have not risen in accordance with IPCC predictions
Why are you so confident in 3c being CO2 climate sensitivity, when there is no observational evidence to back up your point? What has happened in the last 10 years to make me concerned?
ps a further link to skeptical science is unlikely to impress those with significantly higher scientific qualifications than me
pax, we crossed, apologies.
Point taken, but how long do you assess nothing happening, before concluding nothing will?
Or alternatively, how long do you predict the end of the world is imminent, before concluding, oops!?
Dana
I would be interested in a more detailed response to 11:39pm. Also insight into why OHC is not what we are both talking about.
Re Jun 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM | GrantB
More illustrious qualifications:
“A cartoonist working from home in Brisbane, Australia, John is currently juggling the tasks of taking care of his daughter Gaby, drawing new Sev Space cartoons, continually developing and programming the Sev Wide Web, developing a new cartoon series Terrible Twos, posting regular updates in his cricket blog as well as obsession about past and future Ashes series, dabbling in screenwriting, programming for PaperWeb Design and consequently getting nothing done!”
http://wiki.sev.com.au/About-Us
Dana1081 and John Cook
Thank you both for engaging over here.
I hope that you have both been received with as much respect as you would provide at scepticalscience
bed time!
Goodnight/morning/afternoon where ever you may be