Fyfe et al. 2016: stamp collecting vs informing and clarifying. Examining a failure to communicate

(edited March 21, 2017)
... and a question of perspective.

Alternately, Behold Seepage in Action.

In working on my review of Lamar Smith’s press release I distractedly glanced at Fyfe et al. 2016 a couple times.  Then given that John Bates’ singled it out in his ClimateEtc attack piece I took the time to read it carefully.  It was written by some of the foremost experts in the field, I’ve listened to their talks on YouTube, I’ve exchanged emails with some.  A couple have endured malicious and vicious attacks based on pure fabricated deception, yet they continue doing world class science.  These are the real deal, heck some are among my heroes.  I don't presume to second-guess such experts about their science.  

Yet, I was stunned reading their treatment of the so-called “global warming hiatus” - it’s not their facts I question, but their presentation.  Can’t help it, I take climate science communication very seriously and their wording knocked me right off my pins.  I've felt compelled to explain my reaction ever since, if only to myself.  I've been spending days wrestling with this and I admit I hope some of the authors and a few others will give me a chance to make my case - I've striven to keep my comments as concise as possible.  Give it a skim.  You decide if I succeed.

NATURE opinion & comment

Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf

Nature Climate Change | Vol 6 | March 2016 | Pages 224 to 228

www.nature.com/natureclimatechange © 2016 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

I am reprinting the full text of this paper by right of the Fair Use doctrine - 

for the purpose of doing the following detailed critique.

___________________________________________________________________

co-authors

John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka and Neil C. Swart

____________________________________________________________

The introduction:
It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming (b) slowdown or hiatus (a)(e), characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming (c), has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims (d).

_______________________________________________________

Why the labyrinthian phrasing?  Simplify wording. Clarify meaning.  

(a)  Creates a false equivalence between “slowdown” and “hiatus” - hiatus means STOPPED!  But, Global Warming never stopped!

(b)  Creates a false equivalence between “global warming” and “global mean surface warming.”  

(c)   Furthermore: “early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming” -  implies “surface” warming slowdown (or faux hiatus) is a symptom of a “global” warming slowdown.

(d)  “Evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”  Given the paragraph's convoluted wording one could easily conclude this is saying: the “hiatus” (that is global warming stopping) is not contradicted

… which is exactly what the contrarian PR machine was hoping they could twist any science into.  Why make it so easy?

(e)  Why even use the politically charged term “hiatus” beyond a footnote?  What possible purpose does it serve other than to fatally wound clarity and invite gross misinterpretation?

This paper seems a textbook example of “seepage” in action.  Or as I would phrase it, unconsciously adapting the contrarian’s script.  Please keep this in mind as you continue.

_______________________________________________________________________

¶1  A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5)1 — indicates that the so-called surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, 

Fyfe 2016, Global Warming Hiatus? Nope. Not even!

I've been spending the past couple days digesting Fyfe 2016 on account of John Bates, and his ClimateEtc hit-piece, which uses it to imply the global warming ‘hiatus’ was a real thing >>> Mind you “hiatus" = "A pause or gap in a sequence, series, or process.”:

J. Bates writes: "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 (hereafter referred to as the Karl study or K15), purporting to show no ‘hiatus’ in global warming in the 2000s (Federal scientists say there never was any global warming “pause”). The study drew criticism from other climate scientists, who disagreed with K15’s conclusion about the ‘hiatus.’ (Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown)" 

Link to a readable Fyfe et al. 2016: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf

When I read Fyfe 2016 I was stunned and appalled by how it was worded.  Yet, it’s co-authored by some of the foremost climate scientists in the world.  A couple having endured vicious and vile attacks fabricated out of pure lies at the hands of the Republican PR campaign of climate science deception.  Scientists whom I consider genuine heroes.  I am under no illusion.  I cannot dispute their facts, but it's the way their facts were presented that seems to me a prime example of the “Seepage” suffered by well meaning, but extremely conservative and cautious scientists, playing right into the Contrarian’s Script, rather than clarifying how our global heat and moisture distribution engine operates in a manner were it can “click” with non-sciencie citizens.

Before I post my critique, which is far from finished, I want to share what Sou at HotWhopper has to say.  She was trained as a scientist so approaches this paper differently than I do, from my own street-level perspective, that of a high school grad (‘73) lay-person, albeit one that’s spent a lifetime paying attention to developing Earth Sciences and the evolving insights they’ve offered into Earth’s fantastical pageant and our place in that pageant.

Therefore I think it appropriate to first REPOST her article of February 25th.  She explains the scientific perspective in a way I never could.  I’m going to begin with her closing paragraph because that’s exactly what I’m struggling with.  I also a thank you Sou, for allowing me to repost your work.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Global surface warming continues without pause contrary to denier claims

Sou | Feb 25, 2016

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/02/global-surface-warming-continues.html

I want to start with Sou's closing paragraph since it echoes the thing that got under my skin and that my review is struggling to articulate.

   =====

This is a useful paper from a scientific perspective. 
From the perspective of informing the public, I would have preferred the authors were more constructive rather than making it appear there are disputes in scientific circles when there aren't.  

Deniers aren't going to read the paper. They aren't going to care that there was no change in the long term trend. They aren't going to care that the models differed from observations because the estimated forcings were wrong. All they are going to do is point to the paper falsely claiming it is "evidence" that scientists disagree, when on these issues there would be very little disagreement (if any) among climate scientists.  

Or they'll do as Anthony Watts {and also John Bates}  did, and point to the paper claiming there was a "hiatus" or stopping of global warming, when there isn't and hasn't been. 

_________________________________________

There's another new paper out in Nature Climate Change today that discusses the recent trends on global surface temperature. It's by a rash of notable authors: John C. Fyfe, Gerald A. Meehl, Matthew H. England, Michael E. Mann, Benjamin D. Santer, Gregory M. Flato, Ed Hawkins, Nathan P. Gillett, Shang-Ping Xie, Yu Kosaka, Neil C. Swart. Anthony Watts heralded the paper (archived here), which is unusual because he normally scoffs at the findings of most of these authors. He referred to an article in the Examiner newspaper, which claims that this paper contradicted "another study last June" that stated that the "the hiatus was just an artifact that “vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected.”

Well it doesn't contradict it. Needless to say Anthony and the Examiner was comparing apples and oranges.

Confirmed Lamar Smith Manipulated Bates (feb 5th) A Line by Line Review.

Been doing some reviewing and noticed I got carried away with my introduction to the examination of Lamar Smith's press release - "Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records" - probably lost readers before the main course began.  I'm correcting that with this post.  If you'd like some introduction visit previous posts - For the appendix link here.

(now including a complete list of committee members and contact info)

Incidentally, a 30 point complaint has been filed by Grantham Research Institute with the Independent Press Standards Organization for gross misrepresentation of the facts in the Mail's Feb 5th article written by David Rose.  It clearly disputes all of the claims and arguments Lamar makes in the following. http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Mail-on-Sunday-follow-up-February-2016.pdf

_____________________________________

Now to the Press Release that started everyone talking about the Bates Motel mystery.

Congressman Lamar Smith: 

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records  -  

Feb 5, 2017. -  Press Release

step inside >>>

WASHINGTON – U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology members today responded to reports about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2015 climate change study (“Karl Study”){I changed those to “Karl et al. 2015”}. According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, (Karl et al. 2015) was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus 

_________________________

{11}    PeterThorne:

… The 'whistle blower' is John Bates who was not involved in any aspect of the work. NOAA's process is very stove-piped such that beyond seminars there is little dissemination of information across groups. 

John Bates never participated in any of the numerous technical meetings on the land or marine data I have participated in at NOAA NCEI either in person or remotely. 

This shows in his reputed (I am taking the journalist at their word that these are directly attributable quotes) misrepresentation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases {Bates’} misrepresentations are publicly verifiable. …

_______________________________________

and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

________________________

All this begs the question:

Is Bates obsessed with forcing tedious drawn out archiving red tape for quality control standards?    Or, is Bates’ concerned with delaying release of scientific information as long as possible?

{4}  Scott K. Johnson:

“   Bates alleges that the Karl et al. 2015 was “rushed” for political reasons, but Peterson said the reality was that NOAA was well behind the times, waiting to include known improvements like additional recording stations in the rapidly warming Arctic. 

“I had been arguing for years that we were putting out data that did not reflect our understanding of how the temperature was actually warming—[for] literally years we slowed down to try to account for some of these processing things that we had to do,” Peterson said. (At the time of the Karl paper, NOAA’s dataset showed less warming in recent years than other datasets, like NASA’s.) … ”

… Bates expected the same approach (as satellites) from his surface temperature counterparts, but Peterson explained that their work with weather station data was not nearly so high-stakes—problems could easily be fixed on the fly. The engineering-style process NOAA was using for endlessly double-checking the software for all dataset updates could drag on for quite a long time—years, in fact—and Bates opposed any attempt to speed this up. Peterson and other scientists were naturally anxious to incorporate changes they knew were scientifically important.

_______________________________________

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials. 

_________________________

OR was it self-serving opportunism?

{5}   Warren Cornwall:

Instead, the dispute appears to reflect long-standing tensions within NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), based in Asheville, North Carolina, over how new data sets are used for scientific research.

… Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and (Bates) never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.  …

Lamar Smith's baseless smears against NOAA scientists - HotWhopper Repost - Nov. 2015

Like I mentioned recently, trying to discuss serious science based topics with GOP representatives of climate science denial is worse that trying to explain serious things to kids, it's more akin to trying to get through to a profoundly autistic kid, with Lamar Smith of Texas being a prime example of a person so locked up within his ideology that no evidence from outside his faith-shackled mindset has any change of registering with the dude's brains.  Excuse the outburst, but it what comes from dealing with the GOP's filthy dishonesty up front and close up.

I have been asking myself what's the point of what I'm doing, why even care?  No one else seems to.  I find myself asking me that more and more.  But, for some reason I really do love and care for this planet I was born into.  Walking away from the GOP driven insanity and simply ignoring the willful stupidity - and the future that we are committing our children's lives and our miraculous planet's to - doesn't work for me either.

In any event, today I noticed Lamar Smith's hard-on against serious science has been mentioned over here previously.  Here is a reposting from a November 20, 2015 article written by Sou over at HotWhopper.com.

_________________________________

There are times I feel like setting up another blog simply to mirror Sou's steady flow of quality news regarding climate science contrarians.  Why?  In order to add some counterbalance to the phenomenal amount of right-wing astro-turfing going down on the internet these days.  But, I can't even keep up with what's on my plate, so it remains a vague notion.  Instead, I have to self-censor myself and keep my reposts of Hotwhopper's many informative articles to a minimum. 

The other day she wrote one that is a must addition to my collection looking at climate science contrarian dirty tricks.  With thanks to Sou for all the work she does at Hotwhopper.

Blistering letter from House Committee member to Lamar Smith about his baseless smear campaign against NOAA scientists

Sou | Hotwhopper.com | Friday, November 20, 2015

You may have read about US Congressman Lamar Smith's ongoing vindictive harassment and smear campaign against scientists at NOAA. You might have also read about his latest allegations of "whistleblowers". If you are wondering if there is anything behind this, other than a deranged attack on science, scientists and the NOAA, then wonder no more.

There is not.

To prove this point, just read the letter to Lamar Smith from Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, a member of the committee of which Lamar Smith is chair - the Committee on Space, Science and Technology.

I'll quote some segments damning the unconscionable actions of this vindictive, out-of-control, grandstanding US congressman, Lamar Smith. The bolding and some paragraph breaks are mine.

What exactly is Lamar Smith alleging? That the scientists are doing science!

GOP Leaders and Media Paint Exxon as Victim.(May 28, 2016-Peter Dykstra)

After a short break I got to working on John Bates Feb. 5th article at ClimateEtc., but the nasty one-sided thing is overwhelming and distasteful in the extreme, makes me want to run away.   Then researching questions adds another level of hopelessness.  Every google search for a climate related item seems to begin with a handful, if not a ton of, Astro-Turfed climate science contrarian crazy-making, YouTube is even worse - repetitive and transparently ignorant arguments that have been discussed and explained over and over and over - but no one is at home on 'the side' as they repeat the same deluded talking points and refuse any deeper self-examination.  

Like I mentioned recently, trying to discuss serious science based topics with GOP representatives of climate science denial is worse that trying to explain serious things to kids, it more akin to trying to get through to a profoundly autistic kid, when nothing at all connects because they are so thoroughly locked up within their own mindscapes that nothing from the outside can get in.  

What's the point, why even care?  I find myself asking me that more and more.
 But, for some god awful reason, walking away from their insanity and simply ignoring the willful stupidity - and what it will commit our children's lives and our miraculous planet's future to - doesn't work for me either.

In any event, today I noticed Lamar Smith's hard-on against serious science has been mentioned over here before so I'll repost those today.
__________________________________
Seems to me this is important information to get out there, so I will take advantage of Daily Climate's CC license and repost most of Peter Dykistra's opinion piece in the DailyClimate and encourage you to help inform others.

It's another example of how the Republican PR machine is utterly dependent on misrepresenting science and other facts of record.  Their obstinate refusal to listen to serious experts and to learn about the issues divorced from their political self-interest will guarantee all our kids a bleak difficult future.

But hoping for some sober objectivity and enlightened self-interest seems like asking the impossible these days.  Here we are once again faced with a glaring example of what oil company lap dogs these Republican Representatives are.  All they seem to know is self-interest.  So tragic.

__________________________________

Opinion: In Meme-Moriam

By Peter Dykstra

May 28, 2016

The Daily Climate

http://www.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2016/may/in-meme-moriam-contrast-between-exxon2019s

...  The effort to cast Exxon as victim of a cabal between state Attorneys General, environmentalists, and other ne’er-do-wells followed reports by journalists from InsideClimate News, the Los Angeles Times, and the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism. They uncovered a howlingly hypocritical contrast between Exxon’s longtime internal embrace of climate science and its external support for climate denial.

Decades ago, Exxon began to ignore its own scientists’ warnings on the prospects for global disruption from climate change, opting instead to focus on climate change’s threat to the fossil fuel business model. Following the pattern set by tobacco, pesticide, asbestos and tetraethyl lead producers, Exxon circled the tankers and fought against progress on climate. ...

. . . When the American conservative media machine kicks into action, it is an awesome thing, taking no prisoners while apparently serving as a real job-killer for the fact-checking community. I (Peter Dykstra) found dozens of opinion pieces, editorials, and unbalanced news stories in the three-week period from March 31 to April 22, all embracing ExxonMobil’s trampled free speech rights in the face of investigative reports and meddlesome Attorneys General. 

Curiously, not a single one of these First Amendment themed tomes made mention of the years of harassment, threats, bottomless FOIA requests, and Congressional inquiries targeting actual climate scientists.

From “mainstream” sources like Bloomberg and USA Today to movement mouthpieces like the Washington Times and National Review to countless ideological blogs and websites, the message repeated as if it were spit out of a photocopier.  The Washington Post ran not one but two Exxon-victim pieces on April 22 (Happy Earth Day, y’all!)

Diary 2/24/17 - Personal Truths vs. Universal Truths.

Projects are never finished, we just meet deadlines and I'm out of time.  Little rough, but what else is new, still I want to get it out there, it’s an ongoing project and part of it is trying to convey some ideas that I believe are important and that deserve more attention.

Fundamental to my perspective is the appreciation that there is a profound difference between Personal Truths and Universal Truths.

Personal Truths govern matters of the human heart and soul.

Keep in mind that unless you believe in the notion that Earth was created in six days, six thousand years ago, you must realize that humanity’s presence on this Earth is but a minuscule flash in the history of our miraculous planet, which will continue long after we have extinguished ourselves.  

Holy Books are shadow plays.  They are tribal stories professing personal truths that concern the human condition and our own personal journeys as we proceed through our numbered years while grappling with our inescapable ultimate fate.  

Holy books with their colorful imaginations and big expectations are measured in centuries.  How can they possibly represent the God of Light and Time, Creation and Love, an entity who’s awareness spans thousands of millions of years and hundreds of thousands of generations of life on this planet? 

Human religions speak to the Human Condition.  They are real, they are valid, but they are also narcissistic and blind to the greater reality of the natural world that surrounds* us.  In fact, the world that created us.  (*Guess, not so much anymore, given the population explosion and mega-megalopolis where people are herded together into pens, far removed from the natural world that sustains all of us.  That is the biosphere that we are devouring at an unfathomable rate.)

That is the realm of Personal Truths.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Universal Truths 
have to do with physical reality.  

God’s stage so to speak.  

Universal Truths govern the geophysics and biology that made Earth the boundless cornucopia that humanity was born into not all that many generations ago. 

Science is the self-critical system intelligent humans with a thirst for understanding the world around them established in order to keep themselves honest.  They have achieved incredible insights because Earth is no trickster, unlike so many of the gods humans obsess over.

The scientific community is composed of intelligent, all around skeptical, (that would include self-skepticism), critical-thinking, informed, competitive individuals spanning the globe and generations.  

UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science De Den

________________________________________________

Mr. Smith in contrast is the man with the following financial statement and a faith that maximizing profits and earnings is about all he’s concerned with.

Lamar Smith's constituents =

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00001811&cycle=2018

BatesMotel#4 - US Rep Lamar Smith - Feb 5th Press Release, his NOAA smear campaign dissected.

(now including a complete list of committee members and contact info)

Incidentally, a 30 point complaint has been filed by Grantham Research Institute with the Independent Press Standards Organization for gross misrepresentation of the facts in the Mail's Feb 5th article written by David Rose.  It clearly disputes all of the claims and arguments Lamar makes in the following. http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Mail-on-Sunday-follow-up-February-2016.pdf

I’ve taken the liberty of examining Congressman Lamar Smith’s Feb 5th press release about supposed scientific manipulation.  Though under the banner of the US House Science, Space and Technology Committee, the text reads more like a melodramatic PR stunt than any serious effort at understanding.  It’s goal being to hoist up Dr. John Bates as some national hero, while maliciously slandering Dr. Tom Karl and climate scientists’ good reputation.

Smith’s arguments stink of the self-certain prosecutor who refuses to acknowledge that anything exists outside of his bubble of reality.  Which is why I’ve decided to take on the role of defending advocate, so I can cross-examine and share comments with the Congressman, and then I will call up authoritative witnesses to share their story.

Hopefully it will help you better understand the malicious game being played by US Representative Lamar Smith, since they are playing for keeps.

In reading the following keep in mind Lamar’s new age Republican mindset.  Namely that Personal Truths and self-interest allows them to disconnect from recognizing fundamental Universal Truths, such as the geophysics that made Earth the boundless cornucopia that humanity discovered not all that many generations ago.  It’s spooky scary and too few dare call them on it.  More need to pitch in.  Can you help?

Admittedly I can imagine how easily Lamar’s self-certain slander and derision is embraced by people who are too preoccupied getting through their own day to days, scared people with little time or sympathy for worrying about what’s happening to the planet that we depend on for everything.  But that doesn’t make it right or honest or honorable.   Certainly doesn’t make it correct no matter how much they lie to themselves and others.

I did not change or rearrange any of his text, I simply inserted a paragraph break at every item of note.  Sometimes commenting but often simply sharing relevant quotes from a dozen authoritative sources.  

I’ve collected all of them in an appendix that includes long quotes and links.  Since the whole thing got unwieldy I’ve split it off into it’s own post so the two can be viewed side by side, an abbreviated appendix is listed at the end of this post.  I’ve also linked the author’s names to their stories.  Please think about what the GOP is trying to pull here.  

I’m just a working guy doing this in what scattered spare time I can manage.  It probably leaves a lot to be desired.  It is what it is, still look through it, bet you'll find some interesting thoughts. Please think about it because your future hangs in the balance. How successful Trump and the GOP are in the next weeks and months and year or two, will make all the difference in the world to your future.

If We The People keep allowing them to believe their fantasy, its hello Orwell like you never imagined.  Only hope is getting some of those self-certain imaginary bubbles to pop.

If you’re still reading think about how you can improve on this.  How could you better manage these sorts of gold mines worth of information.  I’m not concerned about attribution, my concern is trying to inspire some to do this a hell of a lot better and to figure out how to have an impact on people.  All this information I’ve collected in a few hours worth of effort, with reading and digesting taking another few, simple homework projects.  A sharp young student can do it in a fraction of that.  The evidence is out there! To be found everywhere for the critical thinking student - can you help confront the liars?

Feel free to copy, share, and use the following and please include attribution where appropriate.

{last edit midnight, Mtn. time, Feb 23}

_____________________________________

Now to the Press Release that started everyone talking about the Bates Motel mystery.

Congressman Lamar Smith: 

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records  -  

Feb 5, 2017. -  Press Release

step inside >>>