Phil Klotzbach's response to Citizenschallenge Examined - The Map vs. Territory Problem

Phil Klotzbach gave me his permission to share this email and I thank him.  I haven’t changed any of his words, I simply follow along and share my responses as I try fleshing out this Map vs. Territory Problem I'm trying to explain.  By that I mean the attitude that unless you can statistically prove it, it doesn't exist and should be dismissed, even though the physics dictates it must exist and had better be taken seriously.

There’s also the seepage issue, a sort of self-censorship where certain information is being withheld while other information is given inordinate weight - following the contrarian script rather than focusing on conveying the physical reality.

Dr. Klotzbach's words are in Georgia font, while mine are in Verdana.  

_____________________________________________________________

From: Phil Klotzbach
Date: Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: fyi, just posted "Surely you’re joking Dr. Klotzbach, no hurricane global warming connection"
To:  citizenschallenge @ gmail 

           Dr. Klotzbach:  Apologies for a delay, but it's been a very hectic past few days.  

No apology needed, considering your lead author of the Colorado State University Department of Atmospheric Science’s seasonal hurricane forecast, I imagine you’re probably running on four hours of sleep these past few weeks.  I was surprised to receive any response, let alone such a thoughtful one.  I don’t mind admitting I’m honored and thank you for your time and effort.

Explaining your position will allow me to explain mine, which I believe is compatible with the need for vigorous science in all it’s maddening details minutia and uncertainties.

______________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Klotzbach:  In answer to your questions, I have spent over 15 years working with historical hurricane data, primarily for the Atlantic but over the last several years with global data, so I do not make statements like I did on NPR and many other news outlets without having spent much time understanding the nuances of the technology going into the analyses.  

I acknowledge your expertise, in fact both Drs. Mann and Tobis made a point of telling me your professional reputation among experts is solid.  Me?  I’m a layperson and my hobby for the past 45 years has been learning about Earth sciences.  Evolution and our planet’s global heat and moisture distribution engine have been of particular fascination to me.  

My position is that while our actual living breathing climate engine is infinitely complex, it follows fundamental and well understood laws - which I believe are too often left behind in favor of obsessing over trying to explain uncertainties that in the end are more irrelevant than not, and only serve to sooth people into complacent disconnect from the changes happening underfoot.  This is what my Map vs. Territory Problem is all about, allow me to explain.

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

This is the third installment (paragraph 3) of this citizen's examination of the article at the heart of this season’s faux climate scandal media sensation the John Bates Affair.  For some background and introduction link here.  I’ve borrowed Bates’ subtitle since I’m exploring his wordsmithing in order to ponder his motivations and it seemed to fit well enough.

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.”

source: arstechnica.com
(Can you see the difference?)

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

Bates writes in ¶3:   In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. 

___________________________

This sounds like Mr. Bates the prosecuting attorney setting up a jury to convict.  Critical information like what?  

Technical infractions of documenting protocols?  Procedures that take years to satisfy and were the source of many contentious meetings between departments and Bates trying to iron out his fastidious (perhaps even obstructionist) red tape with real world needs.  Bates does not share that side of this story.

What’s galling with that sentence is that having read through all this a number of times I already know Bates provides nothing of the sort.  Not a hint of any slight or infraction against Chairman Smith by Dr. Karl.  The NOAA claim perhaps woven between the lines.  The Science Magazine claim amounts to nothing more than another creative and hostile insinuation.  I can’t help but wonder if this wasn’t Judith’s ghostwriting.

Bates ¶14   ... Did Karl et al. disclose to Science Magazine that they would not be following the NOAA archive policy, would not archive the data, and would only provide access to a non-machine readable version only on an FTP server?

Has Dr. Bates stopped beating his wife?  That sort of framing is gratuitous and only good for contriving prejudices.

¶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)