Statistical Certainty vs Geophysical Realities - communication challenges

Looks like Bates is on hold for a couple posts so I can look at a discussion at the blog …and Then There's Physics.  Though I'm prefacing it with an essay I wrote "Colorado Floods - statistical certainty vs geophysical realities" about the September 2013 televised release of the preliminary report on the torrential rain event that hit central Colorado a few weeks earlier. Given by the Western Water Assessment (WWA) together with Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES).  

All in all it was an excellent understandable detailed report, fact after fact after fact.  But when reporters asked scientists to tie those facts together, the messaging broke down into babble because the panel members were too ...?... to dare make Thee AGW connection.  

I'm prefacing my repost, with the kickoff comment at ATTP.  Some commenters are rather critical of what I've done, though some appreciate what I'm trying to convey and agree.  My unpolished style has taken a few hits.  No doubt I wish I had more time to focus on it, bet I could do much better, bit more schooling would have been lovely, alas that is not my fate, doing the best I can with what I got, I ask the reader's indulgence and focus on the issue being raised.

izen says:

March 26, 2017 at 4:13 pm

@-ATTP

I agree that the rate of warming, or the distribution between land, sea and air of the energy accumulating from a rising forcing is a matter of scientific interest. 

How that interest, and research is reported and framed has been shaped by seepage. The result is what can look like reasonable scientific language, but because of a carefully established misleading context that language can be parsed in general terms that confirm the misinformation.

¶2 A look behind the curtain of John Bates’ facade - The John Bates Affair

This is the second installment (paragraph 2) of this citizen's examination of the article at the heart of this season’s faux climate scandal.  For some background link here.  I’ve borrowed Bates’ subtitle since I’m exploring his wordsmithing in order to ponder his motivations.

Climate scientists versus climate data

by John Bates, posted on February 4, 2017 | ClimateEtc - J. Curry

“A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.”

For perspective, all this hubbub is over the difference between these two lines

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bates writes in ¶2:   ‘The most serious example of a climate scientist not archiving or documenting a critical climate dataset was the study of Tom Karl et al. 2015’ 

__________________________

If this is Bates’ “most serious example” - what’s the big deal?  If it was a big deal, why wasn’t Dr. Bates duty bound to formally raise concerns while in his position of responsibility at NOAA?

“Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.” (W. Cornwall, P. Voosen) 

Instead Bates retired and only then does he drag his personal dirty laundry over to Judith Curry for her make-over skills.  Then he releases his complaint to a public that has no technical understanding of the issues.

That’s not how serious scientists or competent administrators operate.  Smells more like vendetta ensnarled by political dirty tricks.

This begs the question, why doesn’t Bates take his own advice?

(Bates) cautioned scientists against advocating policy.

"You really have to provide the most objective view and let the policymakers decide from their role," Bates said. "I'm getting much more wary of scientists growing into too much advocacy. I think there is certainly a role there, and yet people have to really examine themselves for their own bias and be careful about that."(W. Cornwall, P. Voosen)

Elevator pitch to co-authors of Fyfe et al. 2016 - need for clarification

Dear Fyfe 2016 Co-Authors,

All of you by virtue of being experts of the highest caliber possess a nuanced understanding light-years beyond ordinary citizens, politicians and business leaders.  Belonging within that rarified world you risk being out of touch with how non-scientists, particularly those with hostile agendas, read your papers.  To us nonscientists Fyfe et al. 2016 offered up a muddled Rorschach test rather than the promised clarifications.

Please give this summary of my previous effort a moment to see if something resonates, or not.  I don’t need a response, all I'm hoping is for you to take it seriously, if only for a moment.

____________________________________________________________________________

¶10  Understanding of the recent slowdown also built upon prior research into the causes of the so-called big hiatus from the 1950s to the 1970s. During this period, increased cooling from anthropogenic sulfate aerosols roughly offset the warming from increasing GHGs (which were markedly lower than today).  This offsetting contributed to an approximately constant global mean surface temperature (GMST). Ice-core sulfate data from Greenland support this interpretation of GMST behaviour in the 1950s to 1970s, and provide compelling evidence of large temporal increases in atmospheric loadings of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols. The IPO was another contributory factor to the big hiatus¹³. 

________________________________

Clarify the process so people can 'appreciate' what you're talking about.

Sulfate aerosols reflected the sun’s energy back into space 

before it had the opportunity to be converted into the infrared energy 
that fuels our climate system.  

Thus a cooling trend in the GMST and the global system.

____________________________________________________________________________

¶11  Research motivated by the warming slowdown has also led to a fuller understanding of ocean heat uptake. … In summary, research into the causes of the slowdown has been enabled by a large body of prior research, and represents an important and continuing scientific effort to quantify the climate signals associated with internal decadal variability, natural external forcing and anthropogenic factors.

________________________________

Clarify the process …

The heat was moved into the oceans where ~90% of our climate system’s heat resides, thus it was absorbed into the global climate system - even if not registering in the GMST estimate.

Help people viscerally visualize the dynamics.            

____________________________________________________________________________

Claims and Counterclaims