by Judith Curry
On Lucia Liljegren’s Blackboard (commonly categorized as a “lukewarmer” site), Zeke has a post titled “Agreeing.” Zeke’s motivation for this is:
My personal pet peeve in the climate debate is how much time is wasted on arguments that are largely spurious, while more substantive and interesting subjects receive short shrift. While I’m sure a number of folks will disagree with me on what is spurious vs. substantive, I think it would be useful to outline which parts of the debate I feel are relatively certain, are somewhat uncertain, and quite uncertain.
I attempted something similar on an earlier thread “What we know with confidence,” which was based on the conclusions of the IPCC FAR, which have been out there long enough to have stood the test of time (or not). I also attempted to put to rest debate about whether or not the greenhouse effect exists, on the Slaying the Sky Dragon threads.
Zeke puts forth a list that is pretty consistent with the IPCC AR4, and he doesn’t get much push back from the comments (which are well worth reading). A very different response from the earlier confidence thread here.
So lets try this again, with Zeke’s statements, and i will append my own comments, as a spring board for discussion.
Zeke’s assessment
What is extremely likely [>95% probability]
- The greenhouse effect is real, albeit poorly named. While reams of comments have been written on this subject (witness the whole Sky Dragon debacle over at Judy’s blog, or Science of Doom’s heroic efforts to explain every facet of the issue), I’d hope that readers here won’t argue with this one. JC: OK
- Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. JC: OK
- Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing. Folks like Beck notwithstanding, there is no serious challenge to Keeling’s measurements, especially as they have been verified by hundreds of additional methods in the subsequent decades. JC: OK
- Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing. We have reasonably good data on the consumption of carbon-heavy fossil fuels over the past few centuries. JC: OK
- The majority of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations since pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. This is confirmed both by the isotopic signature of the carbon and the fact that concentrations rise proportionate to emissions. JC: OK
What I think is very likely [>90% probability]
- A doubling of carbon dioxide, holding everything else equal, would lead to a global average surface temperature increase of about 1 C. This follows from a basic derivation of forcing from changes to absorption bands, though it is complicated by the inherent difficulty of defining what exactly a no-feedback system is. JC: I have a problem with the way this is formulated, but agree that more CO2 will warm the surface.
- Stocks of atmospheric carbon have a relatively long lifetime. While any individual molecule of atmospheric carbon remains in the atmosphere for only a few years on average, the growth limitations of sinks means that the stock will not decline quickly should emissions stop increasing. As a corollary, arguments that 95 percent of annual CO2 emissions are natural rather miss the point. JC comment: the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is debated, so as a qualitative statement this is ok.
- Water vapor primarily acts as a feedback rather than a forcing in the climate system due to its short atmospheric residence time and the limitation to absolute humidity at a given temperature for saturated air. Science of Doomcovers this rather well. Pointing out that water vapor is Earth’s dominant greenhouse gas does not minimize the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide. JC: OK
- As a corollary to 3., a warmer world will have an atmosphere with more water vapor. This will tend to enhance the greenhouse effect, though the situation is complicated by the difficulty in both projecting changes in cloud formation and determining the radiative forcing effect of clouds. JC: the coupled water vapor and cloud feedbacks are uncertain, doesnt belong in very likely IMO.
- Direct solar forcing has played a relatively minor role in the last four decades, as TSI has been flat-to-modestly-decreasing during that period. JC: this is still being debated, in terms of calibrations of the satellites, etc. I would bump this down to likely.
What I think is likely [>66% probability]
- Climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5 C and 4.5 C for a doubling of carbon dioxide, due to feedbacks (primarily water vapor) in the climate system. This is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including GCMs, paleoclimate evidence (including climate response to forcing during glacial periods as well as millennial proxies), the instrumental record, and the climate response to volcanic forcings among others. That said, this range is large enough that it could mean that climate change will be a moderate issue (1.5 C) or potentially quite dangerous (4.5 C). JC comment: I think we can bound this between 1 and 6C at a likely level, I don’t think we can justify narrowing this further.
- Land and ocean temperature measurements over the past century are largely accurate at a global level, though there are some regions that have limited data, especially toward the earlier part of the century. That said, factors like UHI, instrument change, siting issue, and other data quality issues could potentially change the global trend modestly. JC: I’m waiting to see the results of the Berkeley analysis (coming soon) before passing judgment. I have serious concerns about the ocean data.
- Indirect solar forcing is not particularly significant in recent decades. While the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation is interesting and deserving or more study, the lack of a trend and large uncertainty in modalities precludes it being a major player in modern warming. JC: even the IPCC AR4 did not have confidence on this one; it is at the knowledge frontier, border with ignorance.
What I think is more likely than not [>50% probability]
- Intrinsic (unforced) variability plays a relatively large role globally at an intra-decadal scale, but is relatively insignificant at multidecadal scales. In this view, the early 20th century warming was due primarily due to solar forcings and a volcanic lull. JC: I disagree with this one.
- Recent warming is unprecedented over the past millennium. While there are plenty of problems with paleoclimate reconstructions, enough corroborating work has been done to at least elevate this to more likely than not in my personal judgment. Were there reconstructions clearly showing MWP temperatures comparable with, say, the running 50-year mean of the instrumental record I would be less certain. JC: I don’t think we know; the white part of the Italian flag is very big on this one.
Epistemic levels
When an individual is assessing these, the epistemic level of the assessor is relevant. I propose the following levels:
1. Research scientist publishing papers on relevant topics
2. Individual with a graduate degree in a technical subject that has investigated the relevant topics in detail.
3. Individual spending a substantial amount of time reading popular books on the subject and hanging out in the climate blogosphere
4. Individual who gets their climate information from talk radio
Note: personally, I would rate an epistemic level of 1 on some of the topics, and level 2 on others.
Moderation note: this is a technical thread, will be moderated for relevance.
As this is directly on topic here, I’d be curious to hear your source for confidence on <2° C climate sensitivity. The lower bound seems much more well-defined than the upper.
Judith, would you like all of the above translated into an online survey with demographics and organographics included? It would be fairly easy to do and we could set it to one-time responses only with analysis of IP addresses to avoid duplicate responses.
I personally would very much like to see what your readers agree with. The disagreements are pretty well documented.
well this could definitely be interesting. i think we would want to craft a survey fairly carefully to avoid bias
I agree. We should collaborate with people like Bart Verheggen and one of the gentler skeptics and produce an agreed version.
One key will be segmenting the participants accurately and fairly, not the questions themselves.
The other key will be structuring the responses so that they are both fair and measurable–two forces in polling that pull against each other.
Yep, all very good suggestions Tom, we need to use decent online polling far more in this area, at least so I’ve felt for a while. On how to segment participants, I’ve come to feel the only sensible way, with some precision, is through policy goals, as I tried to explain on William Briggs’ blog last month.
I don’t see what you mean by segmenting the participants, unless you mean segmenting the response choices, which requires that the questions be properly segmented. In that case be sure to distinguish “I don’t know” from “we don’t know” which most climate polls fail to do. “We don’t know” is the basic skeptical position. Given the complexity of the issues, with literally thousands of sub-issues, I don’t see useful polling as possible. Still it is always worth a try.
David, it is possible to do cross tabulations showing the responses by different population segments. If we ask someone if they like Bart Verheggen’s website and they say yes, we can look at all the answers to all the questions from people who said yes to that question.
Do you like cream cheese on bagel?
Bart fans: 68%
Everybody else: 79%
That kind of thing.
It’s exactly the correlations and contrasts that emerge from such stats that I think could be highly informative. One isn’t trying to put Gallup or Pew out of business with this – but there might be a lot to be learned all the same.
David, if you happen to stumble over this, could you email me at thomaswfuller at gmail dot com?
This discussion somehow got attached to my question. I’d be curious to hear your answer when time permits.
I apologize, PDA. That was my fault, trying to flag our hostess down early.
Well, that was my idea too. You succeeded and I failed. So it goes.
Who Wove This Web of Certainty ?
Climategate is only part of an official propaganda-laden, web of certainty that is falsified by experimental observations:
1. “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 69 (2009) pages 1847-1856.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509v3
2. “Earth’s heat source – the Sun,” Energy and Environment, 20 (2009) pages 131-144
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
3. “Neutron Repulsion,” The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011) 19 pages.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1
Yes, parts of the official propaganda web agree with reality. To be effective, propaganda usually contains some facts. E.g., the surface of the Sun is 91 % hydrogen; global temperatures increased.
More importantly: b>Who Wove This Web of Certainty ?
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Correction: Who Designed This Tangled Web ?
Many weavers have been identified working on different parts of the web.
The question is whether the design came with the public research funds.
The threat: Brave New World/1984 tyranny, not AGW
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bravenew/summary.html
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
Climategate exposed an international alliance manipulating and distorting science in the way former President Eisenhower warned might happen one day in his 1961 farewell address.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm
The participants include Al Gore and many world leaders, the UN’s IPCC, the US National Academy of Sciences, the International Alliance of National Academies of Science, the UK’s Royal Society, leading research journals (Science, Nature, PNAS, etc.), the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, public and private news media, etc.
There is little or no doubt: This group promoted an international web of deceit about AGW. Leaders of the Western scientific establishment were involved !
My experience from 50 years of research in a multidisciplinary area (nuclear geo-, cosmo-chemistry, stable isotope mass spectrometry, and space sciences) suggests the same pattern of deceit and data manipulation in many areas of science other than climatology:
Astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, nuclear and particle physics, solar and space studies.
The search for agreement diverts attention away from the central issue that threatens our society – misuse of science as a tool of propaganda – and directed it toward finding the elements of fact in the deceptive AGW story.
The AGW story contains some factual information, as does deceptive propaganda on the Sun’s origin, composition and source of energy, e.g.,
Global warming occurred as atmospheric levels of CO2 increased; The top of the Sun’s atmosphere is ~91 % hydrogen; H-fusion occurs in the Sun; etc., etc.
Instead of trying to identify factual information in the webs of propaganda about AGW, SSM (standard solar model), etc., we need to focus on finding ways to correct the flaws in government science to protect ourselves and future generations from living under the tyrannical Brave New World described by Aldous Huxley or 1984 described by George Orwell.
That is the real danger!
What Controls Earth’s Climate ?
Professor Curry, I hope you will bear with me and allow me to post our current understanding of what controls Earth’s climate.
The information posted below is the result of 50+ years (1960-present) of “truthing”: Continuously trying to improve our understanding and knowing that we never have the whole truth. More will always be revealed.
“Truthing”: Reduces certainty and egoism and increases humility and reverence for Nature.
Hiding the decline shows the absence of sincere “truthing.”
1. An image of What controls Earth’s climate.
http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/Suns_core.htm
2. A manuscript explains How it works.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1
3. A video summarizes The experimental evidence.
Others who question Is Earth’s heat source really a giant ball of hydrogen described by the SSM (Standard Solar Model) may enjoy a new paper by Vladimir Dzhunushaliev, et al. “A Star Harbouring a Wormhole at its Center.”
The first two sentences of the abstract: “We consider a configuration consisting of a wormhole filled by a perfect fluid.
Such a model can be applied to describe stars as well as neutron stars with a nontrivial topology at their center.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.4454v1
“Continuous climate change – induced by cyclic changes in gravitational interactions of the Sun’s energetic core with planets – has favored survival by adaptation.” And will continue to do so.
Thanks, Faustino, for the quote on Climate change causes:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1
“Continuous climate change – induced by cyclic changes in gravitational interactions of the Sun’s energetic core with planets – has favored survival by adaptation.”
Climate Sensitivity
“JC comment: I think we can bound this between 1 and 6C at a likely level, I don’t think we can justify narrowing this further.”
JC On what basis do you set these upper and lower bounds?
Spencer & Braswell (2008) found: “we obtain positive cloud feedback biases in the range -0.3 to -0.8Wm^-2 K^-1. . . .our results suggest the possibility of an even larger discrepancy between models and observations than is currently realized”
See Spencer’s discussion on Foster’s comments
“As can be seen, most models exhibit large biases – as much as 50 deg. C! — in feedback-inferred climate sensitivity,”
This up to 50C in models is >> your 6C upper bound.
Spencer cites: Spencer & Braswell, 2010: “On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedback in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing” JGR, for his latest work.
e.g. Lindzen (2009) finds: “…ERBE data appear to demonstrate a climate sensitivity of about 0.5°C which is easily distinguished from sensitivities given by models.”
Lindzen’s 0.5 C is << your 1 C lower bound.
When some models give results way above your 6C upper found and several researchers publish sensitivities half your 1 C lower bound, what are we to make of your bounds?
That there is a 33% probability that that actual sensitivity could be higher or lower than my bounds. To bound at a 90% level, I would say the bounds need to be 0-10C.
As I understand confidence intervals, the 66 percent figure means that if the data used for constructing an interval were sampled multiple times, approximately 66 percent of the intervals constructed in the same way would contain the actual value. However, they would all differ in the actual bounds, so we can’t say that the particular interval between 1 and 6C would include the actual value 66 percent of the time, or that the 1-6 C interval has a 66 percent probability of containing the actual value. (For example, if we resampled the data, we might end up with a 66% interval of 3-7.8 C, which would be neither more nor less likely to contain the actual value than 1-6 C.)
In rereading your post, you didn’t specify confidence intervals, but these are what are conventionally used, because estimating the probability that a value lies with a specified range is far more problematic, and requires assumptions about prior probabilities that are more fraught with uncertainty. Typically, therefore, climate sensitivity estimates are expressed in terms of confidence intervals (e.g., 2-4.5 C at 90 percent confidence).
One day later, I have some second thoughts about the definition of confidence intervals – e.g., a 95% CI. What I described was a standard definition, which distinguishes between the probability that 95% of samples will include the true value within their CIs (claimed to be true), and a 95% probability that the true value lies within the CI of a given sample (claimed to be false). At the risk of disagreeing with the consensus, I think the two descriptions may say the same thing. Probably no-one is reading this, but I wanted to go on record anyway in case someone wants to discuss further.
That statement is incorrect. There is no evidence what so ever of 0 and to insinuate otherwise isn’t taking into account the scientific literature on the subject. Provide me with a reference for evidence that even at the 95% level there is even a speckle of a chance that it is as low as 0.5 even?
Robert,
I will direct you to the climate sensitivity estimate by Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab. See http://www.megawetenschap.nl/www.megawetenschap.nl/Downloads_files/HeatCapacity.pdf
And his reply to comments in which he modifies his estimate slightly.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-80226-2008-JA.pdf
Schwartz gives 1.9 ± 1.0 K as his estimate, although he also quotes Chylek and Scafetta as very low estimates as well.
But here it the point. Schwartz’s estimate is based on CRU temp data. And if the CRU used unwarranted temperature adjustments to increase the warming trend, as the Climategate emails indicate they may have done, then Schwartz’s estimate is far to high. Reduce his estimate by 1/3 and you have 1.3 ± 1.0 K.
One of Chylek’s estimates was about half of Schwartz’s estimate. So you see, 0.5C as the low boundary is very reasonable.
0-10C at 90%? I’d say that makes you more of an alarmist than anyone I’ve ever read. Hansen is Pollyanna in comparison. That looks like a 50% chance of the end of civilization.
Cheers.
Yes. Quite a howler that was, I must say. Somebody tell Mark Lynas that he’ll need to write several more chapters… ASAP!!!
10C for a doubling of CO2… my, oh my…
5% at either end? That puts a sensitivity more than 10C inside of 2 StdDev. 2 StdDev is 2.1%
If you risked the lives of your children at that rate, you’d be put in prison.
Strange days indeed.
Jeffery– please identify what concerns you think would not be manageable? You have raised the concern over a temperature increase, but you seem to acknowledge that as long as the plants have water they will grow find and continue to provide food. If adequate dams and sewer systems are built, what is the great fear? Please try to be specific and not just general BS
Seriously. With the fat tail, that’s admitting significant possibility of a P-Tr extinction event.
Yes, indeed, it does. If you want 90% confidence, you’re going to get garbage.
This is something I’ve argued for fifteen years now. The less you believe in the maturity of climate science, the more you should want to halt CO2 emissions. Any other behavior is inconsistent with that level of doubt.
The fact that some people who think we have essentially no understanding of climate are not screaming louder than anybody else about a halt to emissions indicates that they are not thinking clearly and consistently.
To be sure, there are the Lovelock types who believe that very severe climate transitions are imminent, and really do take a consistent attitude toward anthropogenic global forcings. (i.e., terrified) It is fascinating how the “skeptic” crowd do not celebrate such skeptics.
Michael,
The less you believe in the maturity of climate science, the more you should want to halt CO2 emissions. Any other behavior is inconsistent with that level of doubt.
If you’re on the interstate and drive into a patch of fog, do you slam on the brakes?
No, you take your foot off the accelerator pedal.
Got any hard ones?
Thanks for your clarification. That 90% for 0-10C would include Lindzen’s 0.5C and Spencer’s 0.6C.
Assuming these are symmetric, (16.67 % on either side of 1 – 6, 5 % on each side of 0 – 10) this means an 11% chance of 6-10 C sensitivity and 5% above 10 C.
If, however, we assume a hard clamp at 0, this means a 6.67% chance of 6 – 10 C and 10% above 10 C.
Either way, it is exactly the odds (1/6) of global Russian roulette with a six-shooter. Who wants to play?
WRONG– it is not Russian roulette in any way. Your fear of temperature change does not make it a fact that it would be a disaster for humanity. Climate changes can be managed with proper infrastructure and is not the dire concern that you describe.
The long history of past extinction events proves you wrong in those assertions.
So climate change produces asteroids?
I’m used to some pretty bizarre consequences being predicted if the GAT goes up a tad. But that one takes the biscuit.
Please produce your evidence that ‘extinction events’ hare reliably linked to ‘climate change’, and in particular to warming.
Please describe what type of “extinction event” that you believe climate change will cause that would not be eliminated if infrastructure was built to prepare for the situation.
Why should there be a hard clamp at 0?
The sensitivity was stipulated positive in the top level article. This might argue for asymmetric tails. IDr. Curry is welcome to specify which it is, but either way we are looking at very high probability of enormous damage.
my point was made in this thread http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/24/probabilistic-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity/
too uncertain to even put probabilities on this, IMO. the best we can do is try to bound, and I think the IPCC’s likely bound is too narrow.
Michael— Your opinion on this is clear, but your have repeatedly failed to identify what the “enormous damage” will be if infrastructure in properly managed over coming decades.
“if infrastructure in properly managed over coming decades.”
Thoughts too deep for tears.
Climate sensitivity in excess of 6 deg, coupled with a business as usual emissions path would lead to a global warming by 2100 in excess of 10 degrees (and not stopping in 2100 of course). Land warms up more than water; Arctic amplification. And somebody is seriously asking what’s the problem?
No, we are looking at a range of possibiliities, a very few of which have theoretical impacts that are wise to insure against. The IPCC doesn’t think that sensitiviy is higher than a maximum of 4.5. Its contributing scientists argue for sensitivity of 3. That does not augur for a ‘very high probability of enonormous damage.’ And to say so is to push this thread into the realms of science fiiction.
No Michael,
A sensitivity range of 0-10C means we don’t really have a clue. It is pure speculation at this point with no empirical evidence to narrow it further.
Judith
What basis do you give for excluding climate feedback evidence below 1 deg C, by a “climate realist” like Spencer, or by Lindzen based on satellite data, by setting a “lower bound” of 1 deg C?
To clarify, Spencer’s evaluation of feedback of 0.6 deg. C from satellite transient data is very similar to Lindzen’s 0.5 deg C.
While I haven’t expended the effort to understand what Spencer is going on about here, it’s also clear that Hagen hasn’t either. The “sensitivity” of which he speaks is specifically NOT the net model response to CO2 forcing.
This point is clear from a graph in the cited article wherein Spencer compares the latter quantity, which is the one of general interest, to some new quantity which he defines.
Clearly Spencer thinks this new measure is important, but does not actually confuse it with the actual model response. Hagen is eager to do so.
I join with rustneversleeps in being astonished at Curry’s ecumenism regarding sensitivity in response to this confused query. Curry has been most obliging to those who claim that climate science is worthless because the understanding generated by the field is negligible. This is unfortunate in many ways, the health of the discipline not greatest among them.
Judith pegged her lower bound at 1C — which means no feedbacks. What reasonable study comes up with an estimate for no feedbacks?
Sorry. Others have already covered that. Ignore. I wish there were a DELETE button on blogs.
As amended by JC I find this a very good summary of what is pretty much known and some other things that might be known. Missing from the picture are the known unknowns.
Assertions about the effect of CO2 on global mean surface temperature should, I believe, always include a caveat such as “assuming nothing else changes in the climate system”. In other words, if we hold all other known or estimated forcings constant, a change will occur that will fall within a certain range of values. I think that this would be a better way to frame the AGW argument. At least for me, a confirmed CAGW skeptic, this qualification is all that is needed for me to agree with the consensus view expressed above. The physics is sound.
Aside from questionable research such the MBH Hockey Stick brouhaha, I and many if not most skeptics, are uncomfortable with the “assuming nothing else changes” part. This is, after all, an unusually complex nonlinear dynamical system and it is hard to imagine that its behavior is entirely the result of a single factor. Does increasing the amount of energy in a dissipative chaotic system do nothing more than change the amplitude of measurable phenomena? Or does the climate system, like other dissipative systems, show evidence of the Constructal Law in action?
The warmist consensus view as far as I understand it is that more CO2 -> increase in GMST -> more energetic everything else. Another way to look at things is more C02 -> increase in GMST -> changes in global climate system. As a skeptic, I will agree to the latter formulation but certainly not to the former. I simply can’t accept a paradigm that simplifies climate change to a mechanical model similar to an internal combustion engine.
Unfortunately, climate science is based on a pitifully small collection of verifiable observations. Our understanding of climate may be so limited that saying anything useful about its future is at present a fool’s errand. Nevertheless, if you offer enough money to motivate scientists to tackle problems that are for now insoluble, you will find some who offer solutions nonetheless.
Ken re
“an unusually complex nonlinear dynamical system . . . if we hold all other known or estimated forcings constant, (changes) will occur”
That does NOT mean that climate is static, but that it will continue to exhibit a wide range of natural changes as reflected in the historic/geological record.
I am not sure we can even determine ” that will fall within a certain range of values.” As in ocean “rogue” waves, combinations of natural forcings can cause extremes that are not commonly seen.
I agree with what is felt to be most likely. Thereafter, I diagree with everything else. Specifically, I disagree with
“What I think is very likely [>90% probability]
1.A doubling of carbon dioxide, holding everything else equal, would lead to a global average surface temperature increase of about 1 C. This follows from a basic derivation of forcing from changes to absorption bands, though it is complicated by the inherent difficulty of defining what exactly a no-feedback system is. JC: I have a problem with the way this is formulated, but agree that more CO2 will warm the surface.”
This is absolutely scientific garbage. The no-feedback climate sensitivity is a completely hypothetical and meaningless number, which not only has never been measured, but almost certainly can never be measured. The degree to which doubling CO2 will warm the surface is completely unknown. From what little observed data we have, the warming is negligible and the signal cannot be detected from the noise.
Yes, I agree that the no-feedback sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is a theoretically calculated parameter that can never be measured in the real world. What I have never understood, though, is how important it is and whether it plays an important role in modelling. ie what if it was 0.5C or 1.5C? How would that affect modelled sensitivity with feedbacks? Marginally or materially?
Agreement seconded; question judged a very good one.
RobB writes “What I have never understood, though, is how important it is and whether it plays an important role in modelling. ie what if it was 0.5C or 1.5C? How would that affect modelled sensitivity with feedbacks? Marginally or materially?”
Roughly speaking, the effect of feedbacks is linear. That is, if you double the no-feedback sensitivity, you double the total sensitivity.
A beautifully simple answer, which at one level therefore I feel I understand. At another, I have no idea why it should be the case. Don’t we run into spatio-temporal chaos with all of this in the real world, meaning such a nice linear relationship is just another level of moonshine?
The whole framing of those simple climate characyerisation in term of forcing, feedbacks and sensitivity suppose that we are working in a linear regime, where all variations are small enough that all relations can be linearised.
Which makes sense for very small temperature difference. For the considered one, let’s say 3+-2 degree, I am not so sure:
– for the S-B black body radiation, it probably makes sense, it is in T⁴, but around the current temp it could probably be linearised. There is subtlety here already: T varies around T average with very large amplitudes both temporally and locally, and those variations are large enough to trigger non-linear aspects of S-B. This means that the law should consider both T, and a measure of its variance…
– For the CO2 forcing, it does makes sense, the forcing difference considered is quite small compared to the total flux at TOA.
– For the feedbacks (outside from the main S-B negative feedback, which is traditionaly separated from the other feedbacks), I think that the assumption may be not valid, because of water. It seems to me that around the mean T, a difference of a few degree is enough to potentially trigger non-linear response, because some water phase change are very sensitive to temperature.
But anyway I think that this simple forcing-feedback-sensitivity model is not so useful for the climate system. It is easy in term of derivation because it collapse all possible external influence into an equivalent forcing and make all feedbacks respond only to mean temp, but given that:
-variation (noise) around mean temp are more than enough to trigger multiple non-linear effects, and T can not in principle be collapsed into a single mean temperature state variable
-I think that some external influence can not be fitted into a forcing, because they could modify the way the system respond to a mean temperature (feedbacks). It is the case with non-TSI solar influence ( magnetic effect with cosmic ray, variation in solar spectrum instead of total intensity) which are among the competitor to CO2 to explain non chaotic long term climate trends – if they exists.
-we lack a timescale short enough to consider the forcing as fixed (volcano, CO2 emissions, TSI variations) but long enough to get meaningful climate average (even if such average makes sense, that climate is only weakly chaotic) and certainly too short to reach equilibrium T. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is thus a purely theoretical construct not much more related to reality than the no-feedback sensitivity…
A simple precision to what I mean by the sensitivity linked to S-B blackbody radiation should consider both average T, but also the variance of T both spatially and temporally.
Consider that the average T of the earth is 10°C. It will radiate more if this average comes from a uniform distribution between -5°C and 25°C that if the T distribution is between 5°C and 15°C (*). Climate sensitivity thus makes sense only if one know how T variance change with the average T. If one do not know, it is impossible to give a single climate sensitivity… I think that to alleviate this problem, some propose to work with a “radiative” temperature T⁴ and to define the average temperature as ^(1/4). But then you can have problem with feedbacks which do not depend of the fourth power of local temperature…
(*)The demonstration is simple but it will not fit in the margin (no, just joking, a simple integral will show it imediately)
Kai – Your comment is best addressed by someone who actually constructs climate models for a living. However, based on my knowledge of the process, I would state that the heterogenity you cite is incorporated into the modeling effort. One example, among many, is the derivation of a temperature estimate for CO2 doubling in the absence of feedbacks. If one simply applies SB, assumes a constant linear lapse rate, and a mean radiating temperature of 255 K at a hypothetical mean radiating altitude, the estimate is 1 C. The models, by including heterogenity associated with latitude, seasons, and other variables, arrive at an estimate of about 1.2C. The difference is not trivial, but it is small enough to allow for some confidence in the results.
Thanks kai (Pierre de) and Fred. I’d wondered where the 1 and 1.2 deg C came from. Mostly I instinctively agree with kai that the “forcing-feedback-sensitivity model is not so useful for the climate system”. On the GCMs, as a long-term software engineer with an interest in such matters, I assume that both the following statements could be true:
a. They’re one of the great intellectual achievements of the last fifty years.
b. They cannot give us any idea of the climate in 50 or 100 years, including such crucial variables as regional precipitation.
But a is optional.
The non-feedback climate sensitivity is one of the concepts, which I do not particularly like as it adds in my opinion one major complication without adding much value.
The radiative forcing is a necessary measure needed to tell, how CO2 influences the energy balance, when nothing else changes. It can be transferred without any loss of accuracy to a change in the effective radiative temperature leaving troposphere. Including stratosphere adds only little uncertainty, which allows replacing the concept to effective radiative temperature leaving earth to open space, when CO2 concentration is changed, but troposphere and surface otherwise unmodified (the IPCC definition of radiative forcing allows stratosphere to adjust). This change in radiative temperature is about -1C. It is negative and the related positive numbers refer to the warming that has to occur to get back to equilibrium.
Getting to the related surface warming, assumptions must be made and an artificial definition of “no-feedback” introduced. All this changes the number by around 20%, but this occurs losing at the same time the possibility of having a precise model-independent definition for the concept.
Whatever is done at this stage gives always just one number that describes a theoretical situation that can never be realized. Real climate sensitivity is something else and making that one step from 1.0 to 1.2 does not help the continuation at all. For the arguments on direct effect of CO2 both values are equally representative, the difference of 20% is insignificant in that connection.
Thanks Fred and Pekka.
I also think that the GCM model incorporate the effects I mention. I think that the sensitivity/feedback description is a remain of the early 1D purely radiative models. At best it could be seen a way to interpret model results, some kind of rough post-processing to fit the model prediction within a mathematical framework that is now traditional in climatology.
So, model are the real beast to discuss, not the 1D model, that may be used to introduce the subject but are not really useful anymore except as quick sanity check for model outputs.
I have quite a long experience in modeling PDE with finite elements, finite difference, finite volume, well the usual stuff. This experience do not makes me overly skeptical regarding computer models…but I am not impressed by a pretty color plot animation on a grid either ;-)
And there is a problem I have no solved to date with GCM, which rings loud alert in my FE-modeler mind:
-what are exactly the equations solved by the current state-of-the art GCM? Or, probably closer to what is done: What are the equation solved by the submodules, and how are they connected?
-where can we see a mesh and timestep convergence study?
I guess (and hope) there is answer to those questions somewhere in the litterature…but they are not in the IPCC reports nor in any blog I have seen to date.
Kai,
I am certainly not the least expert on climate models. The best knowledge I have comes from the book “An Introduction to Three-Dimensional Climate Modeling” by Washington and Parkinson and from a few review type articles. Based on that I can assure only that some effort has been directed to the issues you raise, but I cannot even try to tell, how far the knowledge has proceeded on this line.
The problems are in many ways difficult for modelers. One difficulty comes from the huge range of timescales and spatial scales that each are important for some part of the solution. Most numerical methods work well only when these ranges are not wide. It may help that the answers are needed only for averages and some distributions, but this is in no means a guarantee that handling some scales in an inaccurate way would not influence the results. And this is only one of the large number of difficulties.
One issue relates to your question on connecting the submodules. Only part of conservation laws can be satisfied by the basic discretized model equations. Therefore the remaining essential conservation laws must be enforced through additional corrections, which cannot be done locally, but only globally. We need some real experts to tell better, what the situation is.
Yes, that’s more or less what I suspected too.
It is also a kind of deception, like “hiding the decline” did for the perceived solidity of tree ring proxy:
A numerical model which do not show the equation it solves and the coupling condition at interface or between subphysics is usually inferior to one who does.
Why?
Well, because it means that its results can not really be independently verified. At this point, the only validation are about some global conservation laws (that you mention have to be kludged in sometimes – no good) or experimental validation (that I consider very lacking from what I have seen).
And it throws out the argument I have seen time and time again in warmist blogs (and, more subtly or more weasely, depending on your goodheart, in the IPCC report) that models are solid because they are based on first principle laws and physics verified in the laboratory. Probably for the radiative subpart. For the rest, I doubt it, and the fact that the solved PDO are not shown explicitely is suspect. I know it can not solved full N-S, this is not feasable at those length and timescales for air or water, and never will be. I hope it is some clean N-S approximation with a model of turbulent viscosity, it looks like météo models do that so probably climate models too, with coarser grids and larger timesteps…
But I guess that most convective (including evaporation and condensation) phenomenons are sub-grids. Given that they make the bulk of vertical heat transport in the atmosphere, not sure the models are worth more than the expertise of the different groups into building complex subgrid paramterisations, and this is very far from “models implemetning first principles”…
I think that at this stage, climatology have more to win from progress in filling experimental database than from progress from modelling. So in this sense, paleoclimatology is crucial
That’s not what linear means!
If you double the no-feedback sensitivity and the total sensitivity triples, it is still linear.
No it is not. Jim is right.The no feedback sensitivity S_0 gives you how much T varies with the forcing associated to CO2 (wattage at TOA due to an increase in CO2, which I call delta W_CO2).
delta T = S_0*delta W_CO2 (linear relation)
S_0 is derived from S-B blackbody radiation and is not what people usually think of CO2 sensitivity. What they want is the quantity per doubling of CO2 concentration. Additional forcing related to a change in concentration is
delta W_CO2 = C_co2 * log_2(CO2/CO2_0) (log relation)
so we have the no-feedback CO2 sensitivity as
delta T = S_0*C_co2 * log_2(CO2/CO2_0) (log relation)
and the no feedback sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is given by S_0*C_co2 = SCO2_0
The feedbacks f tells you how a delta T induce secondary wattage at TOA (additional water vapor, albedo change through clouds, ice,…)
delta W = f * delta T (linear relation)
Now further assume that S_0, giving the delta T is valid for any wattage change at TOA, not only from CO2, but from the feedbacks themselves:
delta T = S_0*(delta W_CO2+ delta W)
= S_0*(delta W_CO2+f * delta T )
delta T*(1-S_0*f)=S_0*delta W_CO2
delta T=S_0/(1-S_0*f)*delta W_CO2
=S_0/(1-S_0*f)*C_co2 * log_2(CO2/CO2_0)
The sensitivity with feedback is S_0/(1-S_0*f)*C_co2 = SCO2.
So the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 with feedback is linked to the sensitivity without feedback by
SCO2=SCO2_0/(1-S_0*f)
Defining the feedback factor F as S_0*f allows to write
SCO2=SCO2_0/(1-F) (linear relation)
Note that the feedback factor F is a property of the climate system not related directly to CO2 (although it can be related indirectly through CO2 degassing of the ocean) but valid for any kind of forcing.
Doubling the no-feedback sensitivity will double the feedback one, because what climatologist usualy mean when saying what if we change the no-feedback CO2 doubling sensitivity is let’s change C_co2, not S_0…
So if I have understood this properly, a small inaccuracy in the no feedback sensitivity can make a significant difference to the modelled sensitivity with feedbacks. ie if you double one, you double the other. It is therefore a relevant parameter even if it can’t be measured in the real world.
All I was saying is that y=x is not the only linear function.
y=2x and 2y=3x
those are also linear functions
Not being able to observe the no-feedback number does not make it a meaningless concept. It’s value can be debated, but the way it is used here is reasonable as a way of identifying that the basic input to the system of more CO2 is X, where X is fairly small. I think the key point was that it is positive, rather than indistinguishable from zero.
Perhaps
“3. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing. Folks like Beck notwithstanding, there is no serious challenge to Keeling’s measurements, especially as they have been verified by hundreds of additional methods in the subsequent decades. JC: OK”
Filtered and averaged concentration is increasing. It might start declining when the temperature starts to plummet. I don’t discard Beck completely. Keeling’s measurements (raw data, code) should be transparent.
“5. The majority of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations since pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. This is confirmed both by the isotopic signature of the carbon and the fact that concentrations rise proportionate to emissions. JC: OK”
How much is this majority? I am not convinced that concentrations rise is proportional to emissions.
Regarding #3, Beck’s work is primarily concerned with pre-Keeling levels, especially 19th century, where there is a lot of evidence for high CO2 levels. Beck assembled something like 90,000 measurements, not to mention stomatal evidence, while AGW is based on ice core data.
Regarding #5, I have serious doubts that the CO2 increase is due to human emissions. I defer to Howard Hayden on this one.
Lots of the historical data were relative accurate (+/- 10 ppmv), but taken at the wrong places: over land, near huge sinks and sources. These are worthless for “background” CO2 levels. The late Ernst Beck averaged everything together.
E.g. the 80 ppmv 1942 “peak” is mainly based on data from 2 series over land, used for agricultural purposes. The same period gives no peak in high resolution ice cores (8 years averaging), neither in stomata index data or the d13C levels of coralline sponges.
Are there any longer term “non-background” measurements? Would annual avearges of non-backgroud concentrations correlate with the backgound CO2 levels?
There were sporadic measurements during ships cruises and coastal with wind from the seaside. These data all are around the ice core values for the same period. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/beck_1930_1950.jpg
Unfortunately, for the 1942 “peak” period there are no seaside data, except from Barrow and Antarctica, both with equipment accurate to +/- 150 ppmv…
The longest series over land, some 1.5 years, 3 samples per day, shows such a huge variability (66 ppmv – 1 sigma) that one can’t trust the data at all. Modern continuous sampling (30 minute averages) in the same neighbourhood also shows large variability, but the monthly averages more or less follow the MLO measurements with some bias:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_mlo_monthly.jpg
See more background at:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
3. raw data: non corrected hourly average data calculated from 2×20 minutes 10-second instrument voltage readings and 3×2 minutes calibration gases are available for 4 stations at:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/
The procedures for measuring, calculation, calibration and quality control of the data are here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
On simple request I received a batch of a few days of the 10-second raw voltage data to compare the results with what was archived in the 1 hour averages database. No differences found.
5. At least 94 ppmv from the 100 ppmv increase. 6 ppmv from the increase of maximum 0.8°C since the LIA.
The increase is incredibily fixed in ratio with the emissions at about 53% since 1900:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
Thank you very much Ferdinand!
As a non-expert, I am currently comfortable agreeing with the 95% group, and have a little more doubt in the 90% group but for the purpose of framing a theory the first 3 of these are a reasonable compromise (debating the detail of CO2 is not productive in the wider context).
Recent trends in solar parameters, and long term temperature reconstructions seem mostly inconclusive – this does little to help in determining the sensitivity more precisely. Dependence on these trends does not add weight to a theory.
In my view, everything in the ‘likely’ and below is sufficiently unknown to be plenty to focus on. That implies that I don’t expect much agreement on any of those items in this thread.
Without wishing to sound sycophantic, I agree with Judith’s remarks. To my mind, natural variability (including the role of clouds) is the big uncertainty especially as the alarmist case seems to be based on such a short period of warming.
This is a useful post as it nicely condenses the areas of debate. When you consider the pages of comments that have been written in the blogosphere one can’t help wondering if this summary is really the extent of the argument. Is that really all there is to it?
I’m sure we can vastly reduce the conciseness in the comments, in case anyone is worried … :) I’m also don’t wish to sound sycophantic but this shows Judy at her best – having the humility to pick up something on the blogosphere that is already good, though far from perfect, and running with it. That way we all gain, we all learn. Go Climate Etc!
Well, it is an excellent summary. But there is a lot of debate on the ‘mitigation’ and ‘consequences’ fronts, too. (E.g., is 2-4 C warming on balance bad, or good; would more warming increase or decrease extreme events; we’ve been de-carbonizing for centuries (wood -> coal -> oil -> natural gas) without government intervention; etc.)
But this comes first – “Are we warming or not from increased CO2, and how much” is primary … the other debates follow from that.
The majority of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations since pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
===========================================
Judith, I’m no longer sure about this.
Paper comes out saying plankton has reduced 40% (I don’t agree with it, but it’s there) if true, it would explain all of the rise of CO2.
History says CO2 levels have been in the 1000’s, where did it go?
When CO2 levels were in the thousands, we still had another ice age.
CO2 levels are the lowest ever, right now. What made CO2 levels drop in the past, and why is that same thing not working now?
What made CO2 levels rise in the past, and then crash again?
Oceans have naturally warmed, do we really know how to measure that CO2?
I have very little faith in being able to tell one CO2 from another….
I know there’s been a lot of mess trying to explain all of this, but it’s all lacking.
I honestly do not believe that we even know enough to make this statement………
I also feel I know less than I used to on this :)
Honestly, with all due respect to the original poster and commenters, I don’t see the value in this kind of post. I have no idea about the qualifications of the commenters to agree or disagree with the findings so I have no idea what value to place on their opinions. So what if joe-blow98 agrees with the 95%, and not any of the other statements? Who is joe-blow98 and why should I give their opinion any weight? Who cares what bloggers in general say about climate sensitivity or attribution or paleoclimate? They are not the people whose opinions count in a science debate. I want to know what climate scientists and those in allied sciences think about the data and theory. Everyone else is just noise.
shewonk, it’s a catch 22..
When people say who they are, they stand the chance of getting attacked for arguing from authority.
Plus, it’s the internet, anyone can be anyone………
Best bet is to use your own good judgement.
My own good judgement tells me that my own good judgement isn’t enough and that I should listen to scientists in scientific forums rather than anonymous bloggers on the web or non-scientists in self-published books. If scientists in other fields feel comfortable with the consensus view, why should I think I am qualified to dispute it?
People spend a dozen years in post-secondary education to get a PhD and then years doing research and teaching to gain the expertise necessary to evaluate a science issue. Theirs are the opinions I want to hear, not the opinions of those who passed high school physics or read Discover magazine. So when I want to know the best opinion on the evidence, I seek out scientific peer-reviewed opinion — and the preponderance of evidence, not the one-off paper.
It is not perfect, but it is all we non-scientist non-experts have to rely on if we want valid opinion. The gut feelings and prejudiced views of the non-specialist have no built in processes and procedures to winnow out the scientific chaff from the scientific wheat. It is all mixed in together. In fact, due to the lack of knowledge and expertise, the non-scientist non-specialist opinion is more likely to be mostly chaff.
I know this goes against the grain of many people in the blogosphere who want to think they are on the level with scientists on this issue, but I think they are massively deceived, if well-intentioned. Even if you spend 4 years reading in a discipline, as I have since 2007, you aren’t on the same level of expertise. I have a BSc in Biology and have taken physics, astronomy, calculus, stats, botany, geology, chemistry, and biochemistry at the undergrad level and I do not feel competent to evaluate the science and methods nor do I have the time to take the classes to get this competency. That is why we have organizations like the NSF, the national Academies of Science, the IPCC and other science organizations. They are not perfect and can be wrong at times, but I’ll wager that they are right far more often than wrong whereas the reverse is more likely to be true for non-scientists.
SheWonk is a bloggery science heretic!
So, your belief in CAGW or whatever is based on the length of time a person stayed in academia? While I’m sure people such as Dr. Curry would appreciate this, (maybe?), I have a hard time reconciling this with the contributions of non-scientists in this particular field.
Shewonk, I’ve seen your comments. You’re a bright person. I can’t help but feel a sense of disappointment that you would acquiesce your judgment to people that may or may not be as intelligent as you based on their length of time in academia. You do a disservice to yourself, but not only that, a disservice to your fellow citizens of this world.
The wheat and the chaff will be sorted.
based on the length of time a person stayed in academia
Well, she specifically said “a dozen years in post-secondary education to get a PhD and then years doing research and teaching.” In other words, the perspectives of people who have spent a significant amount of time studying and working in a field – particularly a very complex field – have more value than the perspectives of people who have not.
This seems self-evident.
thanks for reminding me, i wanted to add something on epistemic levels, adding that now
You left a category out of your list of epistemic levels.
5. Individual[s] who gets their climate information from main stream media (NY Times, CNN, ABC NBC, CBS, BBC, London Times, CBC…)
I have both sympathy and a sense of irony in agreeing with you about anonymous (or pseudonymous) bloggers, shewonk. Indeed my sympathy three days ago led me to suggest why you should depart from your current practice of only listening to those experts who defend Hide the Decline.
Alarmist climate science is I believe an extraordinary area – just as Eugenics once was – because of the profound social implications of its claims. A journalist like HL Mencken, who was not a scientist, knew Eugenics was a crock, when many US and German ‘scientists’ said it was the real deal. How did he know? By reading outside the official literature. Did it matter people like Mencken took this risk? You betcha.
I would agree with that, if each qualified scientist speaks for himself, but not if claims are made that 90% of an unspecified group of scientists agree with AGW!
The problem with some scientists (not all) is that they may have spent their entire career in academia, pondering hypotheticals where conclusions need not be empirically verified.
This seems particularly applicable to climate science. We see statistically contorted models with methodologies unique to the field, where results are deemed more accurate or important than actual observations. To boot, these academics often have highly developed writing skills and exploit ambiguity and uncertainty in their favour.
On the other hand, many non scientists, or scientists who have worked in industry, have to approach problems with a totally different mindset. Their results will be scrutinized and their solutions must work.
Having gained an MSc. at Uni after 25 years employed in various problem solving roles, I would certainly have more faith in the opinion of a relevantly qualified and experienced engineer who has studied climate science literature, rather than a career academic in that field.
Unfortunately, having advanced degrees does not necessarily mean you are unbiased (Google: “Lies, Damn Lies, and Medical Science” by David H. Friedman, an article previously mentioned in this blog). Our government, and other rich governments around the world, have become huge pots of gold mined by those individuals and organizations who are clever and smart enough to do so. One way is to align with the dominant view of the government on a particular issue. Climate alarmism is one such issue. While politicians come and go, the bureaucracy remains. Because climate alarmism has been around for so long, it has become the dominant view partly because the bureaucracy most likely has self selected for employment those individuals who share the dominant view. Universities, being grant seeking organizations that have become fairly dependent upon government largess of one sort or another, will find it in their interest to give the government what it seeks. This must have an impact on the views of those scientists within these organizations, except for a few who, like Judith, puts personal integrity first. ClimateGate is a good example, in my opinion.
That is why we have organizations like the NSF, the national Academies of Science, the IPCC and other science organizations.
All hyjacked by people with other motives than science.
I don’t agree with this line of thinking. It is at best a general rule for evaluating the worth of someone as a possible employee or advisor. The downsides of this type of thinking could be worse than the positive aspects of it. ie.
I have an engineering education (aerospace), and like many other scientific disciplines, it is comprised of several different ares of study (math, physics, aerodynamics, mechanics, etc). The coursework involved instruction from specialists that had far better knowledge than I about their particular specialty. If I write a paper stating my findings or opinions about a specific subject, and an expert in an area that was used in the paper tells me that I have made an error in a part of the paper that I presented, HE is actually the expert in the field, not me. If I have made a math error in say, solving a differential equation, and a Ph. D in math points it out to me, I should listen to them, and so should you.
This is what happened with Steve McIntyre . and Ross McKitrick when they pointed out the flawed math in MBH98 in their 2003 paper. Steve is a top shelf mathematician, and Ross a top statistician. yet their critiques were vilified. They were not climate scientists, and shouldn’t be listened to (argument from authority), even though the errors that they pointed out were in their areas of expertise. They were the experts, not the ‘Team”. We should listen to them.
As a further example (if one is needed), even though I am not qualified to be an accountant at a large corporation since I have not studied accounting, I could however easily point out math errors in adding and subtracting numbers in an accountant’s report. To dismiss my critique of such is not good reasoning.
Dr. Curry had 4 excellent posts on this very subject. this is one of the best.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/11/politics-of-climate-expertise-part-ii/
“…Steve is a top shelf mathematician, and Ross a top statistician…”
What are you basing this opinion on? Your own judgment, or what someone else told you?
Would a top statistician confuse degrees and radians?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08/mckitrick6.php
If they are both top in their fields, where are their publications?
Well, Little Miss Acdemia, not everybody who is good at something chooses to spend their lives in the narrow and confining straitjacket of academic research,. Where the only things of note most will ever achieve will be getting your papers cited and eventually achieving tenured status.
Plenty of people actually want to create something in their lives so get put from under the suffocating and deeply boring educational establishment as fast as they can and work for themselves or otherwise go and do something else. The academic world is not the only place to do science or maths.
Part of the problem that many of us with experience outside academe see with ‘climate science’ is exactly that closed little defensive laager like mentality, the absolute conviction that they – with their supposed superior intellects to us mere mortals – are qualified to lecture the rest of us, and that they are immune to any criticism purely because of their exalted status. Some others view many academics as relatively bright people but with few of the skills needed to earn a living in the big bad world. ‘Perpetual student’ is not meant as a compliment.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I read your comment that so beautifully reinforce this stereotype.
Please spend time away from academe, then return and let us know if you still see it all through your rose-tinted glasses and with your wide-eyed awe of the climatology gods.
Gee, defensive much?
Where’s your answer to Holly’s question: “What are you basing this opinion on? Your own judgment, or what someone else told you?”
@PDA
If that remark was directed at me, I have no answer. I don’t have any judgment about either individual. But from what I read about his demolition of Mann et al’s Hockey Stick method, he is certainly a better statistician than Mike Mann. No idea whether that qualifies him as top drawer. Looks like that might just mean he’s passed Stats 101 as part of a maths degree. And if he managed to make commercial living as a mathematician for forty odd years – i.e other people thought his work good enough to pay for, then that’s a good start for me.
My remark was an observation about the implict assumption that the only way to be a good mathematician was via the academic, paper publishing route. Which I find incredibly arrogant and small-minded. But sadly typical of climatologists.
My error, the question was directed at Bruce Cunningham.
The remark was, however, directed at you. In your defensiveness, you rather broadly insulted all those who follow an academic career, which was unfair. No one should (and few, in my opinion, do) denigrate anyone who doesn’t choose a life of research and study. However, anyone who makes their way in the commercial world should have the self-esteem and strength of character to avoid such unkind and prejudicial insults to people who choose a different career.
To the point: mathematicians are scientists. Not everyone who does mathematics is a mathematician. Someone who works in a challenging engineering career may in fact have superior understanding of certain applied maths than many credentialed mathematicians. However, the title “mathematician” is only applied to people who study mathematics.
It’s not a value judgment. It’s a job title.
@PDA
Fine. Argue about semantics and your chosen very narrow definition of mathematician if you wish. Others will not agree.
I don’t denigrate all who follow academic careers. Indeed, as the old saying goes, one of my best friends is a notable academic.
But I have developed a healthy scepticism about climatologists since starting to try to understand this debate a few years ago. They do not seem to care about following the scientific method with much rigour. Nor do many of them or their vocal supporters feel the need to persuade and explain when hectoring and arrogance once sufficed to make their points.
So when a climatology supporter wants to judge someone’s abilities purely on academic publications, I am underwhelmed with their persuasiveness. Looks more like defensive tribalism than objectivity to me.
Holly be careful. Ross’ radian error is more than matched by Mann’s errors in simple geography. Worse than that, when Ross’ error was found he fixed it and reported the results.
When one of mann’s geography errors was found out he ignored the correction and published a second paper with the same error. When he finally fixed it he refused to give credit to the man who pointed out the error and he failed to announce the correction and he misrepresented the importance of it.
Glass houses. Everybody makes mistakes. They should be acknowledged, credited, and fixed.
You know, Shewonk, I was going to post something about how you’re not giving yourself enough credit. You said, “If scientists in other fields feel comfortable with the consensus view, why should I think I am qualified to dispute it?” This viewpoint reminds me of that Barbie doll that used to say “Math is hard.” Sure, math takes work. But the more you practice, the more you understand; the more you understand, the more you can do. In that sense, everything is “hard.” Quantum physics is hard. So is painting. Baseball. Whatever.
But then I read your blog post on this current Hide the decline debate, and I see that you have no interest in critical thinking. You’re right … you are not qualified to dispute it, because you believe you are not qualified to dispute it.
The deplorable attitude of Barbie saying “Math is hard” is not deplorable because it is a wrong statement … it is deplorable because it is the wrong attitude. Math, or climate science, or engineering, or what-have-you, require knowledge AND creativity. You have to have facts to build your repertoire, but you also have to critically assess how to apply those facts. That’s where the creativity comes in … thinking up potential problems, different angles, pitfalls, etc. You have to uncover and challenge your assumptions, again and again and again.
Now, there are actually two paths to a PhD: 1) you can act like a scientist and become adept at critical thinking; or 2) you can memorize and trust everything you read, and acquire a large repository of knowledge without full (or any) understanding. If you go the path of (2), your dissertation will likely be more akin to a novel aggregation of previous claims than anything truly useful or deeply tested.
Now, most people have both (1) and (2), but true scientists will lean very heavily towards (1). This is particularly true in their area of specialty, but this mindset also spills out into other areas. Which is what is happening now, on this blog. Critical thinkers who may or may not be “climate scientists” – and often aren’t PhDs, either – are taking a hard look at the science on a number of issues. Part of that process is to stop and say, Okay – where are we? What are the areas of agreement, disagreement? Where is uncertainty high, and where is it low?
Speaking for myself, there are areas where I don’t have the expertise to judge, and I don’t plan on acquiring that expertise because I choose not to spend the time. (I’m in IT research, so it’s a bit out of my career path.) But some issues in this debate are still accessible to me, with the amount of effort and attention I’m willing to spend. I focus on those, and perhaps raise naive questions in other areas. The key point is, I question. I wonder. I have curiosity, and a willingness – some would say, the necessary arrogance – to challenge authority.
I want to know, to my own satisfaction, what’s going on in climate, and my satisfaction threshold is high. You are satisfied with the safety of the consensus view, and that’s fine – that’s your right. But conflating the process of questioning and challenging with some perceived political agenda is simply wrong-headed.
Saying a chart is wrong should not be construed as an insult on the chart-maker. Saying that a certain presentation of evidence is dishonest is not the same as saying the presenter is dishonest. The true scientists here know that the politics of the situation is a separate issue. And they have no problem being proven wrong on the science, because that is how the science – and our understanding of it – move forward.
And since I’ve just now realized I’ve gone horribly off topic, let me add: I think the idea of polling the denizens is a great idea. I’d love to see the results of a specific and intelligently designed poll.
Ted,
I’m not sure if Shewonk’s post is about the hardness of math. I’m not sure either that her questioning is about her very self, and not about a more abstract self.
Shewonk’s interrogation partakes of an ancient line of enquiry: what does warrant knowledge? Searching for this kind of justification is at the core of the theory of knowledge, and therefore has something to do with critical thinking alright.
I agree with you that to try to work things ourselves (Sapere aude!) or with the help of one’s community is very important. It could even help to be an amateur, as it provides the liberty to look at details at one’s leasure. Benefactors can provide many good insights into many issues.
I also agree that uncovering assumptions and challenging authorities partake of the way science ought to get done. And when shed under the best of light, we can hope that the critical endeavour of blog research will initiate some constructive dynamics.
But plain-old skepticism teached us that this only answers indirectly Shewonk’s question. However one approaches skepticism, i.e. whatever answer one comes up with the justification problem, trying to answer that question forces oneself to pause and reflect. If we are to accept your solution, we should only accept contributions that are thought critically, completely worked out, and constructively put forward.
Readers can judge if this is what’s happening hereunder, amidst the prevalent piling on and the cheerleading. These kinds of comment are so blatant and so brutal that it’s tough to imagine that Shewonk’s question really targets the more constructive dynamics you have underlined. So I’m not sure who’s “conflating the process of questioning and challenging with some perceived political agenda” here.
I am quite sure that Shewonk understands that questioning and challenging is not the same thing as chumming, blaming and shaming. At the same time, we all can see how the demarcation can get fuzzy. It’s subtle enough to make one step on it from one sentence to another. Take for instance your two important propositions:
> Saying a chart is wrong should not be construed as an insult on the chart-maker. Saying that a certain presentation of evidence is dishonest is not the same as saying the presenter is dishonest.
I agree that with the first proposition. I would prefer “bad” to “wrong”, but “wrong” is fair enough for me. The IPCC, and every instances presenting graphical information, should have some guidelines of best practices for graphmanship.
I disagree with the terms by which the second proposition is formulated. The expression “is dishonest” is commonly used to refer to agents, so the expression “dishonest information” looks a lot like a trick: personifying the information to hide in plain sight the conveyed accusation, i.e. that the presenter was dishonest. Googling “dishonest presentation” should suffice to convince yourself of that intuition.
(Another trick of the same trade would be to ask a rhetorical question: is the presenter honest?)
In my humble opinion, this kind of trick seems to me a more central topic to Shewonk’s blog than what we can think of her last skeptical interrogation. But the line of questioning Shewonk proposed is a fruitful one: it should not to be dismissed as a chichi from a Barbie.
In any case, let’s not forget the main message: Science is Corrupt.
So let’s get the polls rolling,
w
Shewonk,
While I agree with you on the limited ability of the general public to understand thecomplexities and nuances of a particular scientific field such as climate science and the value of non-scientists having “opinions” and “views” on specific
technical arguments such as tree ring proxies, I dont agree that somehow if you are not a scientist in that particular field, you cannot make intelligent arguments or judgements about the science. Neither is it true that if the majority of the scientists in the field agree on something that it has to be true. If that were the case your gastroenterologist will still be treating your ulcerous stomach with stress relief medication and stress control methods instead of a simple anti-bactereal medicine. Let me elaborate below:
1. Let us first make sure we have some ground rules. Lets assume the person making the “judgement” has the basic logic, mathematical/statistical skills needed. This doesnt require a graduate degree of any kind. It shouldnt even require a bacherlors degree. This constitutes a large chunk of the public, the kind who would pay attention to climate blogs anyway, instead of gravitating to American Idol blogs.
Im sure there are those who do both. Im not yet talking about scientists in other fields. They obviously have much higher level of skills.
2. The general public may not have the ability to understand the equations and models in that particular field to provide any worthy opinions about those elements. But what they can and must do is to pay attention to the outcomes of such models
and equations, particularly if it is bound to affect their and their children’s lives substantially. For example, if a auto engineer says to the public “Boy, haveI got a great idea for the fastest most safest automobile ever built”, public can judge the performance of the automobile along those vectors (safety and speed) without knowing the first thing about the equations that govern the automobile’s engine or the whole system. As long as they can understand simple stats and basic logic, they could do this without the help of experts in automobile. IN fact those
who critique these things better be independent reviewers who are really not auto experts rather than automobile engineers/experts.
3.I will admit that it is not that easy in the case of climate science to validate the perf of claims made by scientists, due to the time scale involved. But it can be and must be done nonetheless. Translating the above to climate science,
if you tell me that in 100 years earth inhabited by your children is going to hell in a handbasket, because our most complicated models built with all those horrendously complicated equestions you can find in math, show that the global temperatures will be 10 deg higher and icecaps will melt, sea will invade land, plant/animal ecosystem will get whacked out of order causing food supply to be badly disrupted, then I, without much
climate science expertise, can easily ask you the following questions and scrutinize the results:
a) where can I see that your model’s futuristic predictions about global temp, icecaps, eco system changes in the past have come true, even for much shorter periods of time, like say 20 years, before I take this for granted and make
radical changes in my life?
b) Assuming you are able to demonstrate 20 yr predictions with reasonable accuracy, given that these are very complicated systems of planetary scale, how can you inspire confidence in your extended predictions to 100 years, since we
are unlikely to have 100 year predictions that can be verified?
c) Let us start with the assumption that humans impact earth’s climate adversely to some degree. I am sure there is disagreement on even these mild statements. But lets put aside those disagreements. Let us also assume we all
agree to change the human behavior to change the impact on global climate. But, Havent we had ice ages and warmer temps in the past, much before humans could cause any damage to the planet’s environment? If so, how certain are we that these earlier natural occurrences wont repeat irrespective of our impact on the environment?
d) If such natural occurrences are likely to repeat, how are humans able to control or avert these occurrences by our environmentally friendly actions/policies? If it is not much in our control during one of those natural occurrences, can we
choose environmental protection policies which are not economically punitive to today’s humans?
4. Mind you, you dont need an understanding of PDFs, R values, proxies,paleoclimates, ENSOs, PDOs, decadal oscillations and the like to ask these questions. You dont need much of anything but the basic awareness of past climates like Ice ages, warmer periods, basic stat understanding and a little bit of logic.
These are essentially logical questions
So I do think you can evaluate or validate the claims of climate scientists and ask additional logical (though experimental) questions without a climate scientist credentials. Much like I evaluate the weather predictions, although admittedly,
it is much easier to do than climate claim validation.
Now if you are a scientist like I am in a different field, you can
certainly scrutinize at a higher level, like how come you believe deleting the post 1960 tree ring data doesnt invalidate the pre-1960 reconstruction when post 1960 measured temp is the only way to quantitatively validate the tree-ring’s ability to be a good proxy for global temp?
If somebody makes a claim about string theory toda (apparently Stephen Hawking receives a new theory every week by mail), it wouldnt matter to the larger public if there is no experimental proof to validate those claims as yet. But if you claim that I have to make wholesale changes to my lifestyle and sacrifice a chunk
of my retirement, I want to make sure your predictions actually have credibility based on the validation of your past predictions, before I am ready to take a dent on my lifestyle. I have a justified suspicion given the weather predictions are often a flip of the coin, even while it is claimed that climate predictions are
much better than weather predictions. The problem is that the climate scientists need to establish that (climate predictions are much better than weather predictions) with verifiable predictions, before we the public can be asked to
take that for granted. We are brilliant scientists, so trust us, doesnt cut it, particularly since we keep seeing how well weather can be predicted with bright scientists and complicated models and uber expensive paraphernalia.
In every other scientific field, No one touches your predictions with a barge pole, if your predictions with the same model havent been prevoiusly verified. This is not somwhow a unique standard/burden placed on climate science either. This is the standard expected for every theory/model/claim made in all other scientific fields I know of. So it is unclear to me, why this is any different for climate science.
Sorry, some of what I wrote is garbled in terms of spelling and sentence construction. As you can tell, I am having a hard time posting comments on this blog, since it is quite slow to respond. If there are some tricks to posting comments faster, I would appreciate any suggestions
Broadband?I am in UK and have no particular response issues with the blog. A little slow to ‘refresh’ perhaps. (1-2 secs).
Shiv:
Right on. Where are the predictions? There aren’t any!
Shewonk
Scientists with good accreditation disagree with each other about every aspect of climate science.
The only thing that counts is the evidence, cleary and truthfully put .
We cannot shrink.
We must evaluate the evidence ourselves.
Shewonk. Surely you would agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion, even a mere blogger? Many of the commentators here have read into the subject and whilst they may not have published papers they are reasonably well informed and able to offer a considered view. Your remarks seem to suggest that the purpose of a blog should be to convince a reader. It’s probably a bit more than that really. It’s an opportunity to engage on a subject of interest IMHO…..but what do I know!! :)
If the purpose of this blog is to just let everyone express their opinion, educated or otherwise, then fine. It should be understood in that vein. Still, logic demands that we evaluate the worth of the various opinions. There is nothing in the blogosphere general commentary to distinguish the valid opinion from the invalid.
In sum, if that is the purpose of this blog, it is of no more value than one in which bloggers rate Red Carpet fashions.
….. rather like your own blog then.
I won’t defend my own blog because obviously, I am biased and think it has a certain value or else I wouldn’t write it. ;) However, my blog doesn’t claim to be anything but an opinion blog in which I get to indulge in my own brand of commentary including personal observations, satire and sarcasm. Those who find it amusing or engaging are welcome to post. I’ve only ever had to moderate one person, who interestingly, is a frequent poster at this blog.
Shewonk, I would certainly recommend that people pay a quick visit to your place. It will help them to understand the context of your comments on this thread.
I would advice to evaluate the worth of a particular opinion through the supporting material (logical derivation and/or data backing the opinion, source of data, reference when they are provided, and so on) attached to the opinion, the history of your particular interractions (on this subject, or in general) with the people(s) expressing this opinion, and only as a secondary parameter, far away from the first two, of the formal academic qualification of the opinion giver.
I have met many PhD whose opinion I would not give a damn, being an advice on how to change a punctured tire or even on their main thesis subject.
Others have valuable insight on their speciality from having spend a lot of time on it, but are not especially bright and so their opinion on anything broader or speculative is no more valuable than any educated, reasonably intelligent citizen.
And some are really brilliant and usually have a opinion worth to listen. But they can be wrong too, a PhD is no silver bullet in general, in the field attached to your thesis, or even on the subject of the thesis itself.
Professors are usually from the brilliant PhD, but can also come from the hard-working, persistant ones… if they have talent for team management and academic politics ;-)
After all of this, if you are still interested in my formal academic qualification, I have a PhD, now work in the pvte sector but in research on numerical simulations. Still work with professors all day long, and I am one of the advisors for some new PhD students…So I do not speak out of bitterness ;-)
You know I read the comments and thought you were a reasonable person. Then the last comment made reference to your blog which is linked in your name.
I hope anyone else who reads your comments also takes the time to do so because it is both eye opening and appalling at the same time.
I thought Real Climate was bad enough with the arrogance and name calling but it appears you would fit in well over there. I am also studying as an undergrad – climate science as it where – and I truly hope that other “scientists” that I meet along the way are not as closed minded as your blog appears to be.
Take from your blog:
I will admit though, I can also use “best judgement” when it comes to blogs and this is one which does nothing to promote scientists in climate science and for someone wanting to claim that blogs are not the best place for science discussion you certainly go a long way in throwing mud at everyone else who tries.
yes, there is a certain (low) class of climate blogs, which are identified by their use of the term “denier chum.”
I wonder, when the arguments and analysis of those clowns starts to count, will we have attained post-post-normal science? Or is that just the point when we all finally dissolve into a sea of relativism and uncertainty?
Once you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.
The usual telltales are links to the other well-known extremist blogs, and for me, e.g. the words “Rebuttal”, “Denier”, “Denialist” usually tell enough to exit the page. This is a shame, that albeit their partizanship and perhaps somewhat immature black&white-type of thinking, people writing those pieces are smart and might have even good points. I bet many of which will regret their writings once they grow up, regardless of what turns out to be “truth”.
Well, you can be Very Insulted by the use of such a coarse term, or you can actually read the analysis. Might there be any reason why Lucia’s blog his substantive discussion on topics like this and your blog has Iron Sun Guy, conspiracy ranters and commenters posing as other commenters.
Is it random, or could it have something to do with the tone set by the host? You don’t have to find the argument compelling, but just pretending there isn’t an argument there doesn’t really bespeak an open mind.
@PDA,
You seem quite sensitive PDA. I am not posing as anyone, or I would have actually called myself “dhogaza”. Mine was nothing more than a satiric post to try to make a point about the silliness of some people who choose to talk down and condescend towards others, regardless of their intent. Those who throw about terms like “denier” towards those for whom it does not apply. I would not, for instance, put you in that group. But there are many who do. I simply chose a similar name to one of those people to make a point. One you apparently missed. It is irrelevant who I am in reality, though I do post from time to time under my own name. But not often.
I have read more than enough to know how certain people act. They don’t like me having a go at their expense, tough.
However, for your sake, and the sake of keeping Dr. Curry’s blog civil and not appearing as a farce–something I don’t think it is but many others do and are by no means shy about tossing insults about (a certain bunny comes to mind)–I will cease and desist.
Again, my deepest apologies to the great dhogaza for any pain I may have caused. For the record, I am neither him nor Mosher.
Dehogaza has a point and expresses it with zest and gusto.
It would not be dishonorable to make that point without a sock puppet.
Sock puppet or no sock puppet, the point stands. Would it be better if I used the name John Smith? Or HLM? or “teddy”? Or perhaps “Deeper Climate”? I guess it is the pinnacle of honor to hide behind a pseudonym to make genuine accusations of academic misconduct? You got the balls to accuse someone of something serious and real, you should have the balls to use your real name. John Mashey, for all his disturbing unhinged rants, at least has that going for him.
No, honor is a trait which is lacking throughout this debate, at many blogs–“warmist”, “lukewarm” and “denailist” alike.
> Sock puppet or no sock puppet, the point stands.
I agree. On the one hand, you have a sock puppet; and on the other, you have no sock puppet. Sock puppetry is then quite unnecessary.
> Would it be better if I used the name John Smith? Or HLM? or “teddy”? Or perhaps “Deeper Climate”?
I believe Deeper Climate is already taken. Using Dehogza made your point directly about Dhogaza, as an ad hominem. This kind of trick can be considered offensive after a while; mileage varies from site to site. Using it as a sign of protest can be beneficial. Let’s not slip into netiquette casuistry.
> I guess it is the pinnacle of honor to hide behind a pseudonym to make genuine accusations of academic misconduct?
I’m not sure how it relates to what I said except by caricature.
A commenter reaps what has been sown in the comments under his hame. If a commenter drowns him, her or itself in his, her or its own noise, say by proferring genuine accusation after genuine accusation of academic misconduct, readers might stop recognize him, her or it as a genuine contributor.
If that behavior acts as a catalyst for that person’s anger, say by preventing that person from child abuse, at least it serves as a genuine outlet.
> You got the balls to accuse someone of something serious and real, you should have the balls to use your real name.
Anonymity is a right, whereas identity is a responsibility. It would be inadvisable to confuse the two, like when sock puppets are overused and tolerated by blog curators.
Accusing someone of something serious without any evidence should not be tolerated by blog curators. But in the end, the policy can never really be stricly enforced, more so when the moral reason for the blog to exist to shame.
In the end, the reputation of the blog curator is a more important stake than the reputation of commenters.
If something annoys you here, contact JC.
If you have a problem with hatred speech, it might be possible to close down a site that promotes (in the technical sense) it, however anonymous it might be.
If you have a problem with free speech, turn it over to constitutionalists.
Appealing to pride does you a disservice. Honor is bound to names. My work under my name is my honor.
> [H]onor is a trait which is lacking throughout this debate, at many blogs–”warmist”, “lukewarm” and “denailist” alike.
Trying to prevent namecalling is fighting against the wind, and perhaps futile considering that namecalling mainly hurts more the name caller.
Trying to overplay your hand makes you lose your zest and your gusto.
willard,
“dhogaza is a jerk and an idiot”
That is ad hom.
Using a “variation” of his moniker to try to convey the actions of that particular side of the climate blogosphere is not. Granted, it’s my opinion of that side. And there are some on the “other” side who are no better. But, I picked on poor dhogaza as an example of the problem as I see it. Complete confidence and hubris are the problem when trying to convince the general public. I may as well have picked another, but he is one prime example. The problem being that any random person, science acumen being irrelevant, who ventures into this world is automatically going to be put off by the reception if they simply don’t buy the party line. They will automatically be put off by arrogance. I have seen it happen, first hand.
That said, your points are well taken. And as I have said previously, I will let it be. And my apologies to Mr. dhogaza for any pain and suffering..
Truth be told, Birds of Prey are big in my book. Beaver Creek area especially.
Good night now and forever…
Random Poster Not To be Confused With Anyone Else But Me And Certainly Not Another Antagonistic And Condescending Friend Of The Enviroment–Which I Am As Well,
When you say that:
> Complete confidence and hubris are the problem when trying to convince the general public.
I am in complete agreement with you.
Farewell,
w
Maybe I am an entirely reasonable person and maybe you are wrong about my being closed minded. That’s always possible. :)
You’re a political hack. And not a very good one, sorry to say.
Well, technically I am not a “political hack”, since that is an unskilled person who works for a political party and does so for personal gain.
I don’t work for a political party. In fact, if you want something to attack me on, you can call me a “midlevel bureaucrat feeding at the public trough”, since I am a member of “the professional civil service” or “snivel service” as we like to joke. However, I am unionized and so I do not serve at the leisure of the government in power. Neither do I try to appease whatever government I am serving nor do I try to undermine it. I stay where they come and go.
So, no. Not a political hack.
Onlyin your closed mind
The value in the post is in the pertinent questions asked regarding changes in atmospheric levels of CO2 in the past. If we can’t answer these questions, how can we confidently predict anything about the future?
Quite so. The theoretical postulated effects must first be evaluated by reference to analogy in natural change in the Phanerozoic geological record prior to the modern era. Until such time as the theoretical CO2 driven temperature relationship can be demonstrated convincingly in terms of quantitative forcing in the natural planetary record, the forcing can not be assigned any confidence value at all.
If it comes down to opinion rather than evidence, then I would suggest that while it’s certainly more likely than not that the majority expert opinion is correct, that one should firmly keep in mind that it is opinion, not fact, that one is considering. And it is worth remembering that there have been some spectacular failures of majority expert opinion, even when such experts are in fields – such as medicine – where peoples lives are on the line and standards for evidence are high. Is it a fact or opinion that the GH effect is real? It is a fact. Is it a fact or opinion that humans have had a major impact on climate? An unavoidable and obvious fact, I believe. Is it fact or opinion that the major human impact is CO2? Now we are entering the realm of opinion, in my view.
As a society, we can, have and do make decisions that impact our future based not only on facts but also on opinions – that’s unavoidable. However, in order to properly assess the evidence – and thus make the best judgement possible given the available evidence – one needs to clearly distinguish between what is fact and what is opinion, because facts clearly carry more weight than opinions (or at least, they should!). We should not act in ways that are likely to be damaging to people (including, but not limited to, economic damage) based purely on opinion, regardless of how expert that opinion is or how many experts we consult – in this respect, we should follow the maxim of the medical profession; to wit, “First, do no harm”.
I can’t help feeling that we are not following this path – that we are acting in ways that can and do harm people based on the opinion of experts. It may well be that those experts are right (or wrong!), but we do not know they are right (or wrong!) and this makes such actions (those that harm people) morally wrong, in my view. There are many “no regrets” actions that we can take in this area and we should restrict ourselves to those or we risk history judging us very harshly indeed – and rightly so – for our hubris. Yes, rightly so – do we not judge harshly those who act on faith rather than evidence? Surely acting on opinion rather than fact is an act of faith.
Trolling again SheWonk? What to do to shut down this unwelcome exchange of facts and viewpoints? You gave it your usual try. Don’t like the thread, STFU. Or better yet, go here for a more sympathetic audience:http://thepeoplescube.com/.
The fact that you interpret someone disagreeing with you as an attempt “to shut down this unwelcome exchange of facts and viewpoints” says all that needs to be said about your mindset.
shewonk,
People know the smell of bs, even if they do not understand the biology of bovine digestion.
People see the claims of AGW promoters and while they might not understand radiative physics as much as science of doom know junk claims when they see them.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ehcjjDPy8&w=640&h=390]
I agree, look at the CO2 tracker. We’ve got so much going on, we don’t know what we don’t know. And people make assumptions on the unknowable.
Ever driven in a white-out, suyts? Do you go faster or slower when you can’t see clearly? Using uncertainty as an argument for continuing to barrel ahead blindly makes no sense to me.
PDA, the argument cuts both ways. If you have no idea what is going on why would you pursue a very expensive course of action rather than doing nothing until you have a reasonable degree of certainty.
It depends on the actual cost of the “really expensive” versus the cost of the catastrophically expensive alternative, which is always sold as a deferred payment plan.
There is no such thing as “doing nothing.” Continuing as we are is doing something. This is a facile argument.
PDA
May I rephrase, for my own sake, into a more mathematical framework?
Your analogy does not reflect doing something vs doing nothing, but doing less that perturbs the Chaos of the climate (going slower) vs poking the hornet’s nest of climate Chaos — or extremities — with a bigger and bigger stick (going faster).
Jay Currie posits going slower to be very expensive, while Pinko Punko asserts going faster to be a catastrophically expensive deferred payment plan.
Again, mathematically, I’d like to rephrase:
Expense of going slower will either be a net loss, or a net dividend. Nigel Lawson proposes that going slower will be a net loss. Free market mechanisms should ensure whatever the expense, the individual choices of buyers and sellers will tend to reduce the impact of said expenses from the maximum numbers Lord Lawson posits to a much lower, marginal, level except where his numbers take on the aspect of pure fantasy, proposing a world that can never be, with an SUV in the driveway for every member of every family on the planet to ensure maximum welfare of the poor.
Much more reasonably in the alternative with regards to expenses, Ross McKitrick proposes a double dividend to going slower that would be a net gain. This is the very rigourously developed McKitrick Carbon Tax recommendation, though one takes issue with some of the details.
Also, classic Long Run Cost Analyses show going slower will reduce prices overall in the market and reduce monopolistic pressures, reduce unearned profit and lead to a more efficient economy, encourage new technology and in a Pigouvian sense shift tastes toward positive externalities while decreasing negative externalities.
Overall, Jay Currie and Nigel Lawson do not reflect the expected expenses one determines from careful examination of their case by the best methods available, but instead grossly inflate the expense without adequately accounting for the likely benefits.
That’s before we even begin to consider the climate at all.
Looking at Pinko Punko’s catastrophes, there are many uncertainties and we must take into account what some very advanced thinkers contribute about Chaos, that if we wait long enough, we’ll see the catastrophe anyway, and we can’t say what ‘enough’ means. This, however, _makes_ rather than deprecates Pinko Punko’s argument.
Insurance places bets on probabilities, not uncertainties or Chaos to minimize risk to each individual by sharing the cost of risk throughout the system so a set of worthwhile ventures may be pursued by all even where the cost of misfortune in that system would be too much for any one to bear alone.
You cannot insure Chaos. You cannot insure Uncertainty. There are Game Theoretical reasons for this, but it comes down to no one in the long run can afford to bet, or to be the bookmaker, when they can’t know the rules of the game or even how many players there are.
Reducing Chaos and Uncertainty, therefore — going slower — makes more of human endeavor insurable, which makes more of human endeavor feasible.
In short: slower is less expensive, has many side benefits, and allows more to be dared by more people; faster is more expensive, has many side detriments, and will hold back more people from more potentially rewarding adventures.
Did I phrase this correctly?
Well Dr. Curry put it differently than I would have, but she captures the sentiment. I would have said something a bit more derisive, something like,
Well, yes, this obviously means that we should destroy the entire socioeconomic structure of the world and starve developing nations of much needed energy, based on us not knowing something. I’m sure that would fix something.
I often wonder if people understand the implications of the draconian “remedies” being proposed.
I’m often amused that people who claim to be “skeptics,” making judgments solely on evidence, accept without question wild assertions such as the idea that any attempt to limit carbon emissions will “destroy the entire socioeconomic structure of the world and starve developing nations of much needed energy.”
PDA, check the numbers. CO2 emissions is a proxy itself. Its a proxy for economic growth. You know, that thing that increases standards of living. As the earth’s population grows, the requirement for energy increases. Already we’ve seen disastrous results from our headlong rush to “fix” something. In the U.S. alone 5 billion bushels of corn/year is changed from food to fuel. The cost of food increases significantly the availability decreases. We’re killing people to save humanity? Sorry, it pegs my fallacy meter. While we’re already OT enough, I’m hoping soon Dr. Curry will do a post on our “solutions” their cost and their effectiveness. That would be in an area of professional expertise for me. But I’ll leave it at this, they don’t work, they’re expensive and they’re killing people.
Before the US started making corn ethanol, nobody was buying all of it, it was piling up on the ground.
Take a look at it from the farmer’s perspective, it’s like it’s my land and I’ll grow what will make me the most money, and that happens to be corn and soybeans. If you want to feed it to the world’s poor, well it’s for sale to the highest bidder.
If energy = CO2 emissions, then this of course makes sense. If there were a concerted effort to replace coal-fired power plants with nuclear, for example, your argument pretty much collapses.
PDA, I’m all for nuclear energy. Sadly, environmental concerns have basically thwarted any effort made towards that end. Of course, today, from the time of inception and commitment towards building one, it takes about 20years to be built. Instead of, in the finest Quixotic manner, dreaming up whirlygigs and REE sucking solar panels, we should have been building nukes. We said that years ago. Hydro power being even a better option, but again……we’re thwarted. Oddly, by many of the same people advocating a CO2 emission free world. Kinda goes back to the BBC interview, no?
suyts,
it isn’t environmental concerns that have thwarted nuclear energy growth. What has thwarted nuclear is the cost. It’s prohibitively expensive to tie up private capital for the 10-12 years before payback begins.
In France, nukes are a governmental program.
So governemt ponies up the money for development and assumes the cost of catastrophic failure. And the people advocating nukes are capitalists who oppose government intrusion in markets?
Just a few contradictions to resolve.
Straw man argument both petty, illogical and irrelevant.
Neither does it make sense to blindly change direction.
We don’t yet even know what we don’t know.
Peter -You are correct- we don´t yet even know what we don´t know.
But we do know what we do know.
And when we state what we do know, we have a group of people jumping up and down and going “we don´t believe you we don´t believe you” and whatsmore -you are are all crooks with malice aforethought and proper science should be done on blogs by amateurs who know better.
It is becoming farcical.
What does `blindly change direction´ mean? Sounds stupid to me- who is suggesting that we blindly do anything?
Sarah your description contributes nothing, other than a generalized person against whom you can rail. Yes let’s ignore the “up-down jumpers”. Does that take care of the whole lot?
Sarah,
If there up-and-down jumpers claiming one thing, would you be able to agree that there is another group with opposite views jumping-up-and-down as well?
Ok – lets generalize then- one group is saying that there is a significant amount of damage being done to the biosphere through human activity to warrant concern- this group is made up of atmospheric scientists, biologists, physicists, oceanographers, Nasa climate scientists, National Science Academies, WMO etc
The other group- made up of the odd climate scientist, amateur bloggers, Republicans, retired non accredited weathermen, libertarians, tea partiers, Fox News, Koch Industries, right wing think tanks, conspiracy theorists and cranks who are saying that there isn´t.
In the middle we have another group-The General Public-many of whom are sufficiently educated to read up the information and decide for themselves. Many of those who do are convinced by the science and thus believe we should address the issue based on what we know. Others are convinced that we do not know what we do not know and we thus shouldn´t `do anything´until we do know what we don´t know. Still others are simply confused.
There is another important group- the sceptics -who are scientists who specialize in the field of Earth sciences and do research and publish papers to add to the increasing knowledge of how our planet functions- challenging assumptions, putting forth theories which can in turn be challenged and so forth- that is: conducting science in the arena in which science is conducted.
Blogs- like this one- are useful places to air opinions, even undertake analyses and have arguments. But they are not where science is done- anyone with pretensions of being a sceptic in the real sense of the word should undertake the revelant studies, do research and publish papers which are subjected to review by one´s peers.
These can then be further assessed by The General Public who take the trouble to keep abreast of scientific developments in this field.
As someone who is convinced by the science and believes that we should be addressing the problem with some degree of urgency, I am rather more than frustrated by this endless quibbling about what we don´t know about what we don´t know.
How do you characterize your own position?
So no takers on the satellite imagery of our CO2? Can anyone see the obvious respiration?
suyts
It’s not the obvious respiration at issue, rather your obvious misinterpretation.
Above (http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-49162) it was claimed CO2 is at its lowest level ever right now. I’m guessing Latitude, who made the claim, is in the 2-5 epistemological category; what I got from reading the level 1-2 epistemological reports is general agreement on (2.3+/-0.5)x10^-4 parts of unity CO2 for the half-million years or more before 1750 AD.
There’s at least a 40% difference between Lattitude’s claim and the generally agreed, to much higher than 95% certainty, range for ‘lowest ever’ and 180 ppmv (the low end of that range) is so much lower than 390 ppmv as to make that claim silly to see even on a blog.
Likewise, your graphic is informative, instructive, pretty and somehow leads you to the opposite conclusion of what the best of the work by those in the epistemological level 1-2 (though I think there is more distance between level 1 and than between 2 and 4) says.
Sure, there’s respiration. There’s also seasonal variation, and day night variation, and regional variation and variation due external forcings like volcanoes.
There’s also a baseline signal that can be detected, measured, verified and validated within the framework of knowledged and reasoning that forms the science of such matters.
It’s really good to keep in mind that we don’t know what we don’t know. That’s the beginning of a special wisdom. Yet it ought not prevent us from seeking to know.
It’s good to know what your graphic presents. It just shouldn’t, except if bias is involved, lead to the interpretation you present, by the methods of reasoning and careful study.
lol, ok Bart your appeal to authority is well noted.
One of your statements seems a bit curious to me.
“It’s not the obvious respiration at issue, rather your obvious misinterpretation.”
I asked if others saw a respiration. What, exactly, was the misinterpretation? That’s kinda irksome. I can appreciate you assigning the word pretty to the graphic presented, but it isn’t mine, it’s NOAA’s.
I don’t think Lat was speaking towards only the last 1/2 million years, but I haven’t read his particular post here, yet.
One final thought, there is a huge distinction between “seeking to know” and making assertions based on knowledge that is quite obviously incomplete. This is why we’re having this discussion. Because people are expressing certitude about things of which they have no possible way of being certain. My last statement, I put in the = 100% probability range. I’ll note, this is significantly different than saying “we took a vote and most of us are 95% sure this is truth.”
suyts
Technically,we are both inheriting Dr. Curry’s appeal to authority inherent in this thread and its epistemological definition of terms; by your participation in it, one must conclude you too inherit this same quality in what you say here, as you do not explicitly nor until you mention my use of it implicitly dispute it.
Indeed, by citing Latitude, I certainly was inclusive of non-authority opinion, where you cite by linking to the NOAA video only level 1 of the epistemology.
If you’re going to take note of arguments from authority.
How can you not have read Latitude’s particular post here? It’s the one you replied to with the post starting “I agree..”
Small wonder you don’t know what you don’t know if you don’t read what you agree with first, and then compose world-spanning economic theories about baselessly.
What exactly was the misinterpretation? Michael Tobis says it well below, but to be exact, if you can look at a scale of 365-390 ppmv and thence draw the conclusions on it to agree to and further produce assertions on CO2 moving from as low as 180 ppmv, and not before holding a baseline above 280 ppmv until this quarter millennium on a timespan comparable to the age of our species, then you are clearly misinterpreting.
Sorry Bart, I’ve been on several different blogs simultaneously, and sometimes I lose track of the particular threads of a post I’m conversing on. (It is more stimulating this way.) Of course, you’re right, I did state, “I agree.” I apologize for my confusion. So, let me clear up what I was agreeing with,
“I honestly do not believe that we even know enough to make this statement………
I also agree, that by our presence here, “we are both inheriting Dr. Curry’s appeal to authority inherent in this thread and its epistemological definition of terms;” But, I should point out, that it was by this very premise, that gave rise to the skeptical community.
All give a pass on your snarky comments (because it was me that caused them) except to say, limiting global CO2 emissions by its very nature would have “world-spanning economic” consequences. I find it profoundly telling that we could create some very complex assumptions as to CO2 levels and tree rings and the like to the point of minutia and trivia, but have little to say about the subsequent effects of our actions beyond temp and CO2 levels. It is folly.
suyts
Very well-spoken, thank you.
Appeal to authority is a very great danger.
It can take a small child to say the emperor has no clothes.
It may take a condemned criminal to recognize an injustice done to another.
We ought not dismiss any voice in all this.
Further, the power of authority undetected to bias perception and preempt logic is great, we know from countless historical cases.
Still, once an authority has been validated by logic and observation and so many tests and checks as can be made by an ordinary skeptic, the attraction of referring to the works of authorities as a short-hand for reproducing their works.
I admit, as Dr. Curry often looks for gentle and fair ways to encourage we too-frequent and under-credentialed posters to read and learn instead of post and rant, I was using her method to see how the fit felt. I’m new to the form, as I generally avoid it for reasons above.
For myself, about your conclusion, I say this: the temperature record is to me of at best tertiary importance. All this effort on such a little piece of the puzzle reminds us how huge the problem we have to solve.
Knowing the regular and solvable patches of the problem are disjointed by Chaos, which trumps all, we are picking our way through a turbulent river of unknowables by stepping stones where logic and knowledge may be firm enough to uphold some conclusions.
I favor relying on the CO2 data, and the mathematical certainty that CO2 emission as a perturbation is going to upset some of the stability of the climate, and we can perhaps say little more than that, except with less perturbation there may be more stability.
And I’ll work on my snark.
BTW, Lats. epistemological category is probably 2. If we’re going to lend any meaning to such. I only say that because I’m very familiar with his posits and we’ve had several discourses throughout our time in the blogosphere.
Note that the absolute difference between the blue colors and the red colors is small. The patterns are easily understood in terms of sources and prevailing winds.
It is good to get this kind of resolution, because it will help enforcement in the apparently unlikely event of a remotely adequate international agreement. But I don’t understand why you find this animation mysterious. It is pretty much what you’d expect, isn’t it?
People really ought to distinguish between “not understood” and “I don’t understand it”. It’s a very important distinction.
Well, ok, small……..april – aug a drop in CO2 15-20 ppm prevalent all across the NH. Where did it go? Conversely a 15-20 ppm increase starting during the winter. Where did it come from? It isn’t the factories and coal plants, they don’t emit that much CO2 to raise it that short period of time.
5. The majority of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations since pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. …….
The only way #5 can be true is if the respiration witnessed was entirely symmetrical. In other words, the mechanism that takes out the CO2 during the summer is equal and opposite of the mechanism that puts it back in during the winter. Then the increases could be attributable to mankind. You ever see it work like that in nature?
There is no way a person can state with any certitude that we know the increase isn’t the difference occurring in the stated mechanisms.
I’d say I’m breathlessly awaiting your next wonderfully snarky insights, but I’m not.
Maybe you should break out the old calculator and pop in some assumptions and see if I’m correct instead of blathering about understand and understood. BTW, ain’t gonna happen, sis.
suyts
I don’t mean to step on Michael Tobis’ toes, but the level of CO2 has always so far as the various ice core and like data strongly suggest (above 99.5% with consilience) been seasonally variable over land due to interaction of plants and temperature as proven by NH/SH trends, just as it is diurnally variable due to photosynthesis.
CO2 levels have also always been, by the best interpretation of this ice core record dating 650,000 years or so, up to 1750 AD, selecting out cores and like data that show a signal of some external factor like volcanic activity or ‘dead air’, been varying gradually up and down from 180 ppm to 280 ppm with no particular periodicity and very few exceptions into the low 310 ppm range.
To account for attribution, given this variability, analysts used a number of techniques. They looked for the signature of fossil carbon’s distinct isotope ratio. They looked at gross tons burned. They used standard techniques of describing dynamic equilibrium of gases in air, and had long, intricate debates in the peer reviewed literature. They refine this iteratively, as more data comes available and better interpretations are offered, tested and accepted.
It’s possible they’re all wrong, of course.. but even so, what they say makes rational sense and is reflected in the data.
Which they have all over the phrase, “entirely symmetrical.”
Fill a half dozen large buckets with water and label them ‘MAN’. Set the drain and tap in your sink to the point the water level remains constant. Label that level ‘Nature’. You’ll note ripples in the sink make this level vary a bit.
Now dump in a bucket of MAN.
The level goes up.
Immediately dump in the next bucket. And the next. And the next. And the next. Look for a mop.
Every decade MAN adds as much new CO2 to the air for every square inch of sky as equals the mass of graphite in the clay core of a standard 8″ pencil.
Well, I was a bit OTT, but dayem, he’s stating I didn’t understand what I was seeing, when he had no idea of what I was stating.
I accept your explanation as a general position of consensus thought. The way I read the explanation, and, correct me if I’m interpreting wrong, is that we can accurately measure the various intakes and out-gassing of CO2 to where it remains relatively static except for man’s contribution. In fact, in your own response, “…..been varying gradually up and down from 180 ppm to 280 ppm with no particular periodicity and very few exceptions into the low 310 ppm range.”…implies the variance is as great as what we’re all up and in arms about…….(and that’s if you agree with the precision of the ice cores samples. I’m still working my head around that and withhold judgment as to their validity.)
Not to beat a dead horse, but this strikes me as Briffa’s method. They cut off the last 50 years because of a divergence….this implies they know it never happened before.
Again, leaning on the validity of ice cores, …..the last 650,000 years…….ok, that would work with me, except, many believe earth’s history is much longer than that. What of periods of time before? Did the past equilibrium seeking mechanism die? It is stated that CO2 levels varied much more back then.
The thing that bothers me, is the level of certitude attached to #5. I agree, it makes sense. This is probably the case. To state that we know this to be the case is impossible to state. Again, I submit, we haven’t accounted for the ppm change seen. And here’s the thing that bothers me the most. Other than ice core samples, is there anything else that has advanced this part of the theory in the last 30 years of ever increasing funding for climate research? I haven’t seen any. It was posited and accepted, in spite of howls of protest. But, to my knowledge, that’s been about it. We repeat the same arguments and there is rarely any new insights to the theory……..after over 30 years?
suyts
Again well-spoken, thank you.
I really doubt anyone familiar with me or the consensi calls me a consensus anything. Anything kind, at any rate.
And yes, you are wrongish, to quibble, unless we’ve seen a different 30 years of science.
There’s a voice in my head I always hear shouting, “No! No! That’s NOT the way it really works!” about practically every explanation I ever see or read or hear. My own included.
It takes every fibre of discipline I have to restrain that compulsion down to mere skepticism by effort of logic and reason, analyses and mathematics, and it does make me snarky, but I often come to quell my objections by selecting of the various alternatives the one that does best answer logic and mathematics, analyses and reason, and a framework of knowledge and general principles.
If you call that consensus, guilty as charged, and I pity the poor world of people in this maddened consensus class they share with me.
I don’t know Briffa.
I’ve seen and read the discussions of his method in some depth, and see no great similarity.
Comparing and characterizing all of science by the tree-ring debacle is perhaps unproductive.
In this case, however, it holds up well as an example of opposites.
Ice cores are a different sort of observation than tree rings, as ice is not subject to the same vagueries as living plants.
The statistics are entirely different.
The selection criteria is objective (meaning not self-referential) and based on a better-known and less assailable mechanism.
The rate of rejection of ice core samples within that mechanism is far lower, and the number of ice cores and length of the ice core record are substantiallty greater.
Most of the objections to Briffa simply do not apply, and where they do apply, they apply in a much less plausible light or as a luminous opposite.
A variance from 180-280 (and in a vanishingly small number of instances up to 310) much does mean Natural variation is on the same absolute scale as the human variation to date. Except the curve has always turned downward by 310 ppm on the ice core record (of which, unlike anything in the thermal record, we are perhaps more confident than any other measurement in all of Climate Science, at least so far as I have seen proposed, exceeding many of the standards of certainty of Physics, Chemistry and Astronomy) for over half a million years.
Until now, since 1750, when the Industrial Revolution happened.
We’d be idiots as a species to not suspect something was up.
We can broadly measure or estimate present day emissions (to a couple of significant digits) and work out our contribution to CO2 that way. This method agrees with that method and adds precision.
We can measure like isotope concentrations, too, an entirely different basis for deciding the contribution. This method agrees with that method and adds precision, and tends to confirm the related but distinct isotope methods used in ice cores to boot.
We can measure optical properties in the range of CO2’s absorbtion spectrum, again an entirely different basis. Again, agreement.
We have seen many alternative proposals howled, which were experimentally shown to not agree with what really happens, by the above methods and other measures over and over again.
This is the observational index other science only wishes it could touch in increasing Probability and also diminishing Uncertainty.
So, sure, what you call consensus, the work done by people devoting years of their lives to this and acknowledged to be brilliant at it, and that I tried to knock down by looking at other sources and using my own reasoning and always failed to find sufficient fault with to overturn, might be wrong about this one thing.
If they are wrong in this gold standard of reasoning, then we really can know nothing at all.
If ‘know’ means nothing, why bother have a word for it?
No. We KNOW this, within our definition of Uncertainty.
Bart,
Thanks for the response. I’d like to clear some things up about what I said, ….. I wasn’t calling you a consensus anything, but your explanation was consistent. There are quite a few things I agree with, also. When I referenced Briffa’s paper, it wasn’t really to disparage, rather to show, that many things in climate science are based upon the opinion that an occurrence never happened before. (I assume, the reasoning behind throwing out the most recent tree rings.) While there certainly is much else to say about the study, I was limiting it to that observation.
Towards ice core samplings. I’ve truly haven’t looked into the methods employed. The problem I have with them, is how they can time-sequence material that may have thawed and re-froze a few times and the fact that particulate can move through ice. But again, I haven’t looked at it, so I withhold judgment.
Towards the isotopes, I assume you’re referencing the 12/13 CO2 isotopes. I’ve got a few links and a couple of papers that I haven’t got to yet, I’ll probably give them a go as soon as I find some time. Have you any to suggest?
When you stated, “We’d be idiots as a species to not suspect something was up.” I entirely agree. My logic, my reasoning, is that we simply don’t know enough about the system to make assertions. Not so much as to the isolated specifics, but rather knowing all of the dynamics involved. In fact, we can be pretty sure we’re woefully lacking in our knowledge. We don’t know what we don’t know.
Bart, I’ve enjoyed our little colloquy. Thanks.
James
Suyts,
The scientists working in a particular field are supposed to know a lot more than others. Their scientific publications tell about their knowledge, but very seldom for outsiders to the research area to really judge. Thus the observation that I or you doesn’t know about the certainty of the conclusions is not a proof in either direction.
Very much skepticism has been directed towards climate science. Certainly some of it is well justified, some totally unjustified and very much in the range, where it is difficult to say. By the third group I mean skepticism that cannot be removed from, what outsiders may really judge. They cannot pinpoint correctly anything improper, but they may have some generic reasons to doubt, whether the scientists have really presented a fully objective picture or whether the scientists have been able to avoid all significant pitfalls.
We should somehow find the right balance between trusting scientists fully and having no trust to anything that we cannot check ourselves. If there would be time to wait until the science has settled on the issues, there would be little problem, but with climate issues many want to have answers faster than normal scientific processes can confirm them.
Suyts,
I am quite skeptical to anything said by anyone (at both sides of the fence), whatever his/hers degree and tend to check it myself (as far as possible) before agreeing or disagreeing with an opinion.
In the case of CO2 increase and human emissions, there is extremely little doubt that humans are the cause. Every observation agrees with it and all possible alternatives fail one or more observations. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
In short, oceans are not the source, as their d13C level is too high (thus should increase the d13C level of the atmosphere, while we observe a decrease) and vegetation is neither, as we observe that there is a net production of O2, thus vegetation as a net sink for CO2. All other possible sources for CO2 are minor and/or much too slow.
There is a lot of recent research showing the distribution of human CO2 in the oceans, the partitioning of CO2 sinks between oceans and vegetation, etc.
About the reliability of ice cores, the main objections are from Jaworowski, here what I make of his objections:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
And direct chemical measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere during the pre-Mauna Loa era had their problems too:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Pekka, thanks for the input, the trust/skepticism problem is one of our own making. The old adage, “fool me once…….”, applies. While, I find it entirely likely that most engaged in climate science are very intelligent, sincere and honest people, there have been a few cases of blatant hyperbole that caused the general public to believe certain things that I believe are highly unlikely. For instance, the pinpointing of places where prolonged droughts will occur if climate change continues on its death spiral.(this is only one of many examples) While I’ve yet to find someone that can give me a justification for such a prognostication, I’ve yet to see a refutation or even a clarification of such hyperbole. Trust is much easier kept than recovered. So, some of the skepticism may subside, but only if a consistent self-policing mechanism is visible. Else, people will continue taking their word with a grain of salt.
Ferdinand, thanks for the links, I promise to give them a good read when time permits!
suyts
Had a long reply praising yourself and Ferdinand and others with links and boring stories, but computer crash ate it.
In brief, anyone can start with wiki on ice cores and explore for themselves, so long as they are skeptical and widely read without falling prey to traps and deception.
Given your attitude and energy, I have faith you will find what you seek, whether it agrees with what I found or not.
Good luck.
“april – aug a drop in CO2 15-20 ppm prevalent all across the NH. Where did it go? Conversely a 15-20 ppm increase starting during the winter. Where did it come from?”
The biota, of course.
“In other words, the mechanism that takes out the CO2 during the summer is equal and opposite of the mechanism that puts it back in during the winter. ”
In the long term average with steady state biota, yes, certainly.
Are the biota not steady-state? No, they aren’t exactly. That is a well-known term in the anthropogenic CO2 forcing. But a familiarity with the Keeling curve will reveal that the two main features at the global scale are a nearly constant amplitude annual cycle and a persistent year-over-year increase. This is all well-understood.
The exact details of the biotic sinks are essentially a minor correction on this picture, and pretty much invisible on the animation. What’s interesting about it is the visibility of the large anthropogenic point sources. You can focus in on details and do lots of good science. But to my eye the movie holds no big picture surprises or anything that would rise to the level of unexpected or mysterious.
If you personally find it confusing, so be it. If you find an explicit controversy with the literature, so much the better – these are opportunities to expand our understanding.
If you find a contradiction with the major high likelihood IPCC consensus conclusions, then your original posting would make sense, but then you really ought to tell us what they are.
The important point is that there may be things you don’t know, or that Judith Curry doesn’t know, or that I don’t know. That deosn’t mean they are unknown.
The purpose of IPCC is to gather the relevant known information and state it in a balanced way. You and Curry have very little faith in the consensus process. Mine is rather higher. But even if you don’t accept IPCC you have not shown that a particular piece of knowledge is unknown, just because you yourself do not know it.
“I don’t know”, “it is unknown” and “it is unknowable” are drastically different epistemic claims. Their persistent confusion is the key to our policy dysfunction.
Michael, I didn’t find it confusing. I simply presented a changing graphic and asked for thoughts. I’m not the least bit confused about what it is stating. But, please, expand my knowledge base. Without speaking to the epistemology, explain to me how it is we “know” this isn’t the mechanism that is increasing the atmospheric CO2 levels rather than the relative insignificant anthropological contributions. Accumulating? Perhaps, but the respiration viewed seems to contradict that thought. You may think 15-20 ppm swing over the majority of half the earth in a period of 1/4 of a year isn’t much, but we’re all excited about an increase of 100 ppm in about a century. Yeh, ok, knowing, unknowable, etc…. if the out-gassing were just slightly more than the sinking, over the same time period, then it could explain the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2, but we “know” that’s not happening ’cause some really smart guys had looked into it and came up with a different explanation. And, because they are really smart guys, their explanation is more valid. Even though, neither has been proven nor disproved. (I know the answer to that one.) God, I love climate science.
BTW, I’ve never seen it, but perhaps I missed it, has anyone ever credibly refuted Jaworski?
Suyts,
If something else is increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere more than the human activities, then where has all this extra CO2 gone. There are some difficulties in figuring out, where the other half of the human contribution has gone, explaining the disappearance an large additional contribution is beyond all ideas anybody has presented.
The question is really about the amounts of CO2 in different reservoirs, not about the whereabouts of some particular molecule.
The question is really about the amounts of CO2 in different reservoirs, not about the whereabouts of some particular molecule.”
Yes, and the duration in the various reservoirs. And the variants of the cycles, both within, and external to, the reservoirs.
But there really are no signs of anything that could be even close to the human influence. All other contributions seem to be only some percents of it over periods of ten years or more. Up to one or two years the fluctuations of natural sources may be more significant.
The carbon cycle is reasonably well understood and the conclusion is totally clear: The only significant factor that has caused the increase in CO2 level during the period of good measurements (i.e. since the beginning of the Mauna Loa time series) is the anthropogenic influence. Everything else is just minor corrections.
“But there really are no signs of anything that could be even close to the human influence. All other contributions seem to be only some percents of it over periods of ten years or more.”
I don’t think we’re looking for another explanation. I think someone postulated through various observations and it was accepted because it fit a narrative. Specifically, G.S. Callendar.
Jaworowski was refuted in a review article which was (as of 2004) his only meaningful citation on glaciology.
See http://is.gd/6y0bLH
The refutation is in
The Ice Record of Greenhouse Gases.
Raynaud, D.; Jouzel, J.; Barnola, J. M.; Chappellaz, J.; Delmas, R. J.; Lorius, C. Science Volume 259(5097)
When I searched in 2004, I could find no answer to Raynaud in the literature or elsewhere.
Zeke’s “extremely likely” 1-4 absolutely, yes.
But 5 is No – there is serious scientific evidence that the majority of the CO2 increase is NOT anthropogenic. This viewpoint must be included albeit it being a minority. This is exactly the kind of point where the present gerfuffle started, where serious minority viewpoints were simply excluded or shouted down. Personally I think that the minority viewpoint here is scientifically more sound. I think this situation happens frequently, that the “correct” science is held by a minority.
What is needed is open discussion, with graphics, ordinary language, as little technics/maths as possible (though some may be essential), sources, and without accusations, so that the evidence itself becomes accessible to a larger number of people.
I would like to see science-by-wiki in such situations. Not a la Wikipedia, but a modification to allow exploration of hypotheses, in a dedicated wiki.
Then it would be easier to discern the true brilliance and good science from the charlatans and showmen who can look very similar – the hardest is when they overlap as happened I think with Tesla.
Going down Zeke’s list, I personally find steadily less and less agreement, and conversely, more and more need for the above – clear exposition of “minority” hypotheses.
Lucy, you say things so much better than I do…
Here’s a thought
Knowing that adding iron and phosphorus to the oceans would make them take up more CO2…..
….there’s a distinct possibility the oceans have become too clean
We know that plants grow better at higher CO2 which would include plankton, etc
Latitude
“We know that plants grow better at higher CO2,” is an overly simplified and grossly inaccurate Idsoism, and “which would include plankton,” simply ignores the problems of acid-base balance in the oceans, as well as the evidence you yourself cite (http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-49162 though say you disagree with.. why?) that plankton levels are reported down by 40%.
CO2 is a plant hormone inhibitor, not a fertilizer. Tiny shifts in CO2 levels have dramatic and varied effects on different plants differently in different circumstances. Having faith in CO2 to benefit the plants of the world would be like having faith injecting testosterone daily into every mammal in the world from fetus to corpse would benefit the mammals of the world. It’s unstudied, and it’s probably at least a little dangerous.
Also, we already add iron and phosphorus to the oceans in extreme amounts. All this seems to do is promote coastal and river delta dead zones.
Bart R, there is no evidence of negative effects of CO2 on land plants, up to 1,000 ppmv even beneficial for all sorts of plants. Sea organisms have already more than enough CO2 from the surrounding waters, but the effect of a 100% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a 10% increase in total CO2 in the surface waters. The effect of that on ocean pH until now is practically unmeasurable in the pH noise and is calculated from the other constituents. pH (and temperature) differences between the equator and the poles are enormous, compared to the tiny change that is at work.
Ferdinand Engelbeen
“..there is no evidence of negative effects of CO2 on land plants, up to 1,000 ppmv ..”
One does not wish to sound rude or unfair, but we’ve seen the “there is no evidence of harm,” argument before in tobacco and thalidomide, drunk driving and performing surgery without handwashing.
It is a generally disparaged assertion, and though in the way you may mean it you are doubtless correct so far as that narrow definition goes, you do make a statement one suspects you may have done too little research to credibly claim on its face value.
Do you mean one does not produce lethal doses in plants with CO2 at 1000 ppmv, or toxic doses?
What is the lethal dose of testosterone, or the toxic dose of estrogen?
If all the plants in the world were only plants in greenhouses, your claim would absolutely be the end of the matter, and I could not disagree with it, as toxicity would be all that we might need consider, and the benefits to productivity at little cost to viability in such sheltered and controlled conditions would be an exciting opportunity for us.
However, a vanishingly small fraction of plant life grows in greenhouses.
Plants are affected differentially by this very powerful hormone inhibitor, and plants in the wild compete with one another.
Horticulturalists usually raise CO2 levels for plants during the hours of light, when uptake diminishes hormonal side effects, and their plants enjoy so many protections from stress as can be engineered, and so much addition of nutrient too in observance of Liebig’s Law of the Minimum as is prudent.
In the wilds, plants are subject to every stress, have no supplemental nutrients, and have no relief from these elevated CO2 levels at night
In the chaos of the wilderness, or even of outdoor gardens and farms, one would neeed go very far to support the claim of no harm, given the complexities and uncertainties involved.
When you speak of other constituents being used to calculate pH changes, you again remind us of the complexity and chaos of the chemistry of our oceans.
Certainly there is large natural variability across the globe in sea temperature and pH. Does this make the oceans more predictable, or less, with regard to small changes in key fractions?
One submits there is a shared common resource in the wild plants and seas of the world, that these resources are not without practical limit when held up against unstudied changes of global scale, and the democratic principle does not in such cases call for proof of harm before stopping, but proof of consent prior to continuing, and compensation for the stakeholders for the risk of adding to the perturbation of a chaotic system, payed directly by those who benefit from the emissions.
So rather than having evidence or a “peer reviewed study”, you’d rather people just take you at your word that it *could* be toxic. You’d think that this would be one of the topics that the warmists would be screaming about if it were the case, but strangely, it’s not. Ever looked at the historical chart for atmospheric CO2? Below 400ppm CO2 is a *very* rare occurrence for this planet. I’ll be very interested if anyone takes up your “Plants are OK with 1000ppm CO2 in a green house, but are poisoned outside of it” theory up for study.
Eric Barnes
You’re arguing something that was never claimed.
Toxic?
Why would toxic matter?
Why do you construct this toxic straw man?
Let me repeat: toxic doesn’t matter.
Chaos does.
Unstudied does.
Consent matters.
Eric Barnes –
BartR often argues “by assertion”. For example, he talks about “wilderness” but I seriously doubt he knows what it is, or how it operates or the changes that have occurred over the last 20 years. If he did he wouldn’t be singing the same song.
IOW – he’s wrong.
Jim Owen
You mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion ?
Let’s look at the case:
Do I restate my case regardless of contradiction?
Did I?
I expanded my case when it was called too short. How is this argument by assertion?
I corrected straw man contradictions that put words in my mouth.
That straw man contradictions come up repeatedly does not make my case the repeated exercise. It makes the practice of furnishing straw man a common fallacy.
Have I amended my understanding through the course of the discussion? Absolutely.
The case I would make now would by no means be the case I made when I began.
My case would be far stronger, more evolved, more complete and more elegant.
Do I see in my repetition proof of the truth of what I say? Where do I claim that by repetition I make my case better?
It’s by the changes, the additional research others lead me to undertake, the growth in my understanding their challenges give, that makes my case better, and I’d be a moron to only repeat without making use of the more informed position I am now in.
Here’s where I began:
“We know that plants grow better at higher CO2,” is an overly simplified and grossly inaccurate Idsoism, and “which would include plankton,” simply ignores the problems of acid-base balance in the oceans.. CO2 is a plant hormone inhibitor, not a fertilizer. Tiny shifts in CO2 levels have dramatic and varied effects on different plants differently in different circumstances. Having faith in CO2 to benefit the plants of the world would be like having faith injecting testosterone daily into every mammal in the world from fetus to corpse would benefit the mammals of the world. It’s unstudied, and it’s probably at least a little dangerous.
Here’s where I am now:
“We know that plants grow better at higher CO2,” is a Big Lie, meant to be repeated until people believe it is true but clearly not anything like the whole truth; and, “which would include plankton,” simply ignores that marine diatoms, 40% by fraction of photosynthesis of the single-cell water plants, evolved in the period of reduced CO2 levels (180-280 ppm). You don’t need to claim CO2 is a poison, or toxic, or detrimental to any one plant at a particular level to object to increasing its levels without control across all plants. Nothing done in greenhouses applies to this or proves much applicable outside greenhouses. CO2 is a plant hormone inhibitor/promotor, not a fertilizer or nutrient. Tiny shifts in CO2 levels have dramatic and varied effects on different plants differently in different circumstances. Having faith in CO2 to benefit the plants of the world would be like having faith injecting progesterone daily into every mammal in the world from fetus to corpse would benefit the mammals of the world. It’s being studied with confirmed disruptive effects, and it’s demonstrably at least a little dangerous while the claims of benefits about this waste dumping are grossly exaggerated.
Now, as for ‘wilderness’, I can’t make heads or tails of what Jim intends. Am I too Environmentalist, nor not Environmentalist enough?
So, I might be wrong, but I learn when I’m wrong, and admit it, and look for opportunities for correction and improvement.
I leave it to you to decide.
Bart R,
I have my paycheck from the pension fund of my former work (chemical concern, not Big Oil or Big Coal for that matter).
I was not talking about greenhouses only. There are a lot of open air experiments under way (in forests, pasture,…) , where nothing else is changed than supplying some additional CO2. As far as I know, no adverse results are reported until now. See e.g.:
http://www.uni-giessen.de/cms/fbz/fb08/biologie/pflanzenoek/alte_homepage/forschung/Foeinr/ukl-en/projects/giface?language_sync=1
Indeed, CO2 only supplied during daytime. But I have figures of the CO2 levels at night in the same neighbourhood in summer:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_background.jpg
Much of the extra nightly CO2 comes from plant respiration… Of course, if the background CO2 increases, CO2 levels will increase at night too. But plants are not “poisoned” by CO2 at night, they are one of the causes of the increased levels…
Neither do your references show negative outcomes, except if you go up to 5,000 ppmv, which is 5 times more than the limit I proposed.
I am aware that some (C3) plants will profit more than other (C4) plants from enhanced CO2 levels, which can lead to changes in relative abundance and distribution of these species. That only will reverse (in part) the opposite evolution.
And I am aware of the latest report that reduced evaporation in an increased CO2 atmosphere may influence climate. But that is mainly beneficial for growing plants in deserts (as an Israelian study found)…
Most wild plants we now have did evolve in CO2 atmospheres of 1,000 ppmv and more. I don’t see why these should be harmed by the same CO2 levels again. Only C4 plants evolved because of lowering CO2 levels. That may be a disadvantage.
I’ve never seen CO2 complained about directly. Climate change is primarily a water problem. Over-abundance in some places and less than relied on in others. The problem isn’t what CO2 does to plants: the chief problem is what the temperature increases will do to the distribution of water.
Changes in the distribution of water and a change in the pH of oceans.
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Uh.. I’m glad you have an income?
It’s not my concern. I have worked as a consultant to some corporations I now criticize. I’m not into the whole ad hom paranoid conspiracy thing. People can be wrong without being paid to be wrong.
For instance, you failed to mention that most of the conclusions of your first link support all I say. Look athttp://www.uni-giessen.de/cms/fbz/fb08/biologie/pflanzenoek/alte_homepage/forschung/Foeinr/ukl-en/projects/giface/main%20research for Kammann, C., Müller, C., Grünhage, L. & Jäger, H.-J. (2008): Elevated CO2 stimulates N2O emissions in permanent grassland. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 40, 2194-2205 and in one Google search find http://nature.berkeley.edu/~chlewis/N2O_Fluxes.html which shows CO2 rise causes plants to produce more N2O (a bad thing).
Over and over this GiFACE research shows shifts in speciation and microbial composition, we agree, which is my point, and which ‘opposite evolution’ is a gloss for radical uncontrolled forced redistribution of all the plants we know.
You haven’t attacked my argument, you’ve armed it.
Also, for instance, you keep talking about poison, which I do not. (Well, not until the N2O revelation you provided.) How can I avoid being target of this type of straw man?
Would you be so kind as to provide a link or reference to this reduced evaporation CO2 climate study? If it is as opposite in conclusion to your assertion as this exchange leads us to believe, one would prefer judge for himself.
The last time we’re fairly sure CO2 regularly topped 1,000 ppmv was on the order of 100,000,000 years ago, and we have SWAG putting the current sub-300 ppmv concentration at about 20 million years old.
Sure, the photosynthesis pathways evolved before the current era, but no plant alive today is likely to be within 50,000 generations of those higher CO2 levels. 50,000 generations is a lot of evolution, even for plants.
C4 and CAM plants.. like maize, sugar cane, sorghum, pineapple, orchids, cacti, sedums, marine diatoms (about 40% of plankton by contribution to photosynthesis).. That may be a disadvantage indeed.
I hope you like barley and potatoes.
Jeffrey Davis
You make excellent sense.
But I can’t prove water or temperature to a level that satisfies my skeptical mathematics, and see no need to.
The direct CO2 cases in and of themselves are enough to decide for myself that I do not wish to consent to further rise in CO2 level.
The “reply” was off, because of too many responses I suppose….
This is in response to
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-50116
Your original claim was that more CO2 would be detremential to lots of plants. But the references you gave only did show that up to 1,000 ppmv lots of plants grow better. Only a few didn’t benefit, but absense of benefits is not the same as proof of harm…
Only at 5,000 ppmv there is proven harm for people and plants.
The same for the N2O releases: I have not found any evidence that N2O harms plants (N2O is not NOx!), but it is a potent greenhouse gas.
As all C3 plants tested show growing benefits by up to 1,000 ppmv, I am pretty sure that the biological reactions established over 100 million years ago still are working fine…
Of course, there will be loosers and and winners, but a changing world is not necessary worse or better than a static world (which never existed). Or is a change only bad if it is introduced by humans?
BWT, I think that land use changes have been far more damaging than more CO2 for biodiversity…
About water vapour, here a good summary:
http://www.csrc.sr.unh.edu/~lammers/MacroscaleHydrology/Papers/GedneyRelated-CO2andWaterNewsSummary.pdf
Although there may be negative points (more runoff), for desert plants , that is by far beneficial:
http://www.jpost.com/GreenIsrael/KKLJNFATUNCLIMATECHANGECONFERENCE/Article.aspx?id=166114
Ferdinand Englebeen
Please allow me to demonstrate your straw man. I’m sure it is unintended, but straw man it remains.
You say, “Your original claim was that more CO2 would be detremential to lots of plants.”
I said, “We know that plants grow better at higher CO2,” is an overly simplified and grossly inaccurate Idsoism, and “which would include plankton,” simply ignores the problems of acid-base balance in the oceans.. CO2 is a plant hormone inhibitor, not a fertilizer. Tiny shifts in CO2 levels have dramatic and varied effects on different plants differently in different circumstances. Having faith in CO2 to benefit the plants of the world would be like having faith injecting testosterone daily into every mammal in the world from fetus to corpse would benefit the mammals of the world. It’s unstudied, and it’s probably at least a little dangerous.”
I look for equivalences between what you say I said, and what I actually said, and see exactly none.
How can you be hearing me claim detriment for lots of plants in my original statement?
Sure, later I expand — and in a full third of my expansions try to disambiguate this ‘poison’ or ‘toxic’ or ‘detriment’ framework you and others keep repeatingly trying to put into my mouth — and it’s probably true that there is a lot of detriment to many plants even already.
But that wasn’t my original claim.
My claim is that the claim of benefits is a lie.
Can you imagine after all of this why I might feel that claim is only strengthened?
Your claim seems to have a lot of hand waving involved. On balance, it would seem that higher CO2 is better for most plants is a pretty conservative statement that is easily demonstrated. Your claims that additional CO2 on the scale that is occurring on earth needs seems very wanting.
Eric Barnes
You’re certainly correct, so far as it you apprehended my points.
To handwave less, one refers to a document (http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/v5/n5/full/nchembio.165.html) that discusses the plant hormone topic (CO2 is an ethylene inhibitor) and a contrary report (though paywalled) in its abstract touches on some of the questions hot in botany today and at least tangential to what I am suggesting be considered: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2011.01444.x/full
In short, it isn’t even known yet which plant hormone interactions could be considered complex, and how many if any would be considered important, and that there is a long way to go in this disputed area, which itself is only a small part of our issue.
I don’t pretend to be a botanist, but if leading edge publications are still disputing so preliminary of a question, it is to me unstudied.
And that’s just inside single pea plants in a greenhouse.
Let’s look at “better for most” in the context of past experience.
In Australia, it was agreed importing rabbits would be better for most for hunting.
The epidemic of rabbits that overwhelmed Australia proved most were better without rabbits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia) despite the few benefits.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad for another benefit to most, except run amok it is now a pest to most.
One mammal, one anuran; how do these compare to all plants everywhere under the unstudied pervasive influence of a hormone?
To handwave less.
Thanks for the refernces
Bart R:
What if we go back a bit further, like to the onset of a glaciation period. There would have been a large reduction of plant biomass, and consequently a large increase in CO2 levels, over a relatively short period. If increased CO2 levels are mostly bad for plant life, this would have reduced the plant biomass still further, and so on.
The mere fact that we’re around to be having this discussion is evidence that this positive feedback probably didn’t occur.
Peter317
Or that it had some singular and powerful external forcing at some point that reversed it?
Or that the feedbacks you introduce are not long-run at equilibrium?
And it’s also irrelevant, and a straw man.
See, I don’t suggest, or hope I don’t suggest, and keep repeating in every way I know how to, that I’m not talking about bad for all plants.
I’m talking about bad for us through the plants we are used to.
Kudzu sure doesn’t reduce rural biomass, but I know of many who curse the idiot who introduced it to their life.
Bart I have read the references you did give for the following quote:
CO2 is a plant hormone inhibitor, not a fertilizer. Tiny shifts in CO2 levels have dramatic and varied effects on different plants differently in different circumstances.
The first reference does mention the word CO2 once, in the references. Looking at the reference only shows that that article is about closing the stomata under influence of CO2.
The second article is behind a paywall and may show that plant hormone interactions are complicated. Of course I agree with that.
That doesn’t imply that CO2 is a hormone inhibitor of any kind. Not that I have read anywhere. Please can you give a direct quote that more CO2 inhibits anything?
Is anyone aware of greenhouses that artificially removal co2 from within their environment? There are many which add co2.
Bob Koss
Excellent question; here’s a slightly dated reference: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
Scroll to the second section from the bottom for:
bPlant Damage As A Result Of Co2 Supplementation
Do not allow excessive CO2 levels in greenhouses. Levels of 5,000 ppm can cause dizziness or lack of co-ordination to humans. Higher than recommended levels* can cause necrosis of old tomato and cucumber leaves. African violet leaves become very hard and brittle, show a very dark greenish-grey colour and often malformed flower petals, which do not fully expand. A similar symptom with freesia flowers has been observed where the CO2 burner was used to provide the majority of the heat requirements of the greenhouse, and thereby generating excessive amounts of CO2. Except in emergencies, do not use CO2 burners as the prime heating system.
*While some recommendations for some plants are as high as 1,300 ppmv, the article elsewhere notes A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties.
Looking at Figure 1. you may observe that at around 400 ppmv, the net rate of photosynthesis in ideal greenhouse conditions begins to gain much less per additional unit of CO2; we’ve already hit the point of diminishing returns and by Liebig’s Law of the Minimum can say with some confidence that experiments could find that additional CO2 on plants in the wild may be net detrimental right now.
Be nice if someone did those experiments.
Thanks for the link Bart.
So, no one artificially reduces co2 in greenhouses to improve plant growth.
The take-away from the article seems to be; plants will benefit from increased co2 at least until we are above 800 ppm.
It seems like plants have been on a starvation diet for centuries.
Bob Koss
We must have read different articles.
The take-away is pretty much the opposite of what you say.
One, your centuries amount to at least 650 centuries, and probably much more; this is not a starvation diet, but a hormone-free one that all plants worldwide have evolved and adapted to. Unless you also think we should start injecting testosterone into our diets, you’re simply being misleading.
Two, the article flatly discusses artificially limiting CO2 levels. Did you mean do any greenhouses reduce CO2 below ambient outdoor levels? The point of a greenhouse is to grow plants for profit, not build a biosphere for long run stability. (The failed Biosphere 2 had such extreme CO2 concentration issues that they do discuss CO2 limiting strategies, and settled on cooling their plants — though it meant lower crop yields and thus caused them to fall short of a critical goal.)
Three, 800 ppm refers to productive container plants in greenhouses, not to all plants everywhere, so saying “until we are above 800 ppm,” assumes we can generalize from greenhouses to the wild, and from domestic plants to all plants, which we know we cannot do. (Also, in some rare ‘dead air prone’ margins, a 40%+ rise in CO2 concentration in the last quarter millennium does take these marginal zones above 800 ppm already.)
Four, Liebig’s Law of the Minimum says there is a vertical line we must draw through Figure 1. in the link, that line determined by the least plentiful nutrient or condition for that wild plant or farm crop. Past that line of generally unknowable position, all benefit of additional CO2 is lost. For many plants, we have plentiful cause to suspect we’re past that line in the wild and even in some farms.
Zero benefit. Powerful plant hormone.
Do you want larger lettuce, kale, spinach and cabbage leaves? Larger, brittler, shorter-lived, brown leaves. Sounds yummy.
Do you want weeds (who favor shorter lives and make due on fewer nutrients by robbing their neighbors anyway) with longer, more invasive stems and roots?
Flowers are the sex organs of plants. Do you want to eat something with deformed sex organs?
How well do you suppose these overstimulated, short-lived, disproportionate, sexually deformed plants survive in the wild? Have you not seen http://www.nbc.com/im-a-celebrity/?
Huh, lost a zero. 650,000 years is 6,500 centuries.
It seems co2 is the limiting factor, otherwise co2 wouldn’t improve growth.
Bob Koss
Now you get it.
CO2 isn’t the limiting factor in greenhouses, as when well-fertilized, containerized, well-watered, humidity-controlled, climate-controlled, pest-free hand-reared plants get it while photosynthesizing they grow more.
Outside greenhouses, at some point, other factors limit faster than CO2 does.
If that were all there were to it, that would be enough on its own. But it’s much worse; different plants respond diferently, and usually weeds and undesirable plants benefit more than desirable ones almost by definition. What characteristics the observed hormone changes cause, weeds compete best under.
Which, I’m repeating myself as somehow you missed it, and apologize if this seems patronizing or snarky; it isn’t intended that way.
How can I more clearly say you are talking only about greenhouses and I am talking about everything else?
Bart, the problem I find in your specific argument in this specific post (not to single you out, I sense this in all posts engaged in back and forth, and also my own argumentation – though I am a recovering addict) is how easily we traverse levels. We summarize chaos and look for signals. When someone else summarizes we want to look under the hood because we do not agree with the summarization, and lo and behold we find such variability and use its presence to negate the “opponents” summarization. Do not know whether Latitude is correct but pointing out the magnificence of plant biology does not necessarily negate his argument. Is his summarization about planktons correct or not?
DEEBEE
“Is his summarization about planktons correct or not?”
If not decomposed into its false parts, the only answer to a summary is a pointless he-said, she-said.
Latitude is wrong.
Yes, Latitude says pretty much nothing that is correct here:
Knowing that adding iron and phosphorus to the oceans would make them take up more CO2..
We do add iron to the oceans.
We add it by the shipload, literally, when we dispose of ships to form artificial reefs.
While the reefs are generally beneficial, they provide also plentiful proof that adding iron to the oceans is not a plausible remediation.
More, we add both iron and phosphorus in staggering amounts through our rivers and outflows to the seas. This we see in the coastal and river delta dead zones that account for much of the plankton die off (http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/additional/science-focus/ocean-color/science_focus.shtml/dead_zones.shtml) by anoxia.
IE, we’d have to pump the oceans full of more oxygen in these places to get sea life back.
..there’s a distinct possibility the oceans have become too clean..
Some of the dead zone phenomenon itself is within the range of natural variability; sometimes rivers do flood with natural nutrients and cause some natural die back. However, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that it’s human activity causing most of that phenomenon too.
That phenomenon is likely the major significant ocean life stressor, along with some fishing techniques, overfishing, maritime traffic noise, and a list too long to easily sum up.
You can’t call any of this ‘clean’ by any definition, unless by clean you mean sterile, and by sterile you mean dead or dying.
CO2 change, however, remains a plausible chief suspect in the global plankton die off outside ocean dead zones, and certainly plays some role.
You can’t phosphorus it out. You can’t iron it out.
..We know that plants grow better at higher CO2 which would include plankton, etc.
See the rest of the thread for discussion of the distinction between the false benign-toxic framework Latitude introduces here, and what the real thing looks like under the hood with regard to plant hormones (orders of magnitude lower concentration) and the chaos of competing and naturally stressed wild plant systems and Liebig’s Law of the Minimum.
We can’t know what Latitude saw when he looked under the hood, as he doesn’t show his work, link to sources, or use detail at all. We can know he came to an unsupported and probably false conclusion even leaving out chaos. We can know it might be possible to design experiments to model wilderness conditions for wide varieties of plants to test this. We don’t know if anyone has, or what those outcomes would be.
So where Latitude says “We know,” he is flat out incorrect, and where he says “plants grow better at higher CO2,” he is leaving out too much from his summary to do anything but mislead, and where he says “which would include plankton,” there too he is flat out ignorant.
And I’d like to take an opportunity to whine and complain here, to support your generous spirit of questioning but ask perhaps for some balance of all of us.
Often on this blog we Goldilocks. Either one Argues From Authority, or one doesn’t cite sources. There’s no fine balance that appeases all. Either one is too verbose (me! me! me!) or one summarizes too much. I get engineers accusing me of not having read their elementary engineering math textbooks because I try to speak plainly. (Yes, this is me trying to speak plainly.) I see people criticized for being inaccessible or wrong for using apt and proper scientific techniques.
Maybe instead of saying the porridge is too hot, we can ask who the porridge is for, when we challenge one another?
In Latitude’s case, his porridge is not right for anyone.
“IE, we’d have to pump the oceans full of more oxygen in these places to get sea life back.”
This is not true. From my experience sailing offshore for almost 20 years, the mid oceans are generally pretty empty of life, while near land life is much more abundant. This is reflected in the clarity of the water, which is clear mid ocean and murky near land, even where there are no people. The difference is nutrient run-off from the land through erosion as wall as human sources. Mid ocean life has used up the nutrients and has a lot tougher time of it, as much of the nutient falls as a rain of dead organisms to the bottom, which can be miles below.
The idea that river run off kills life is misguided. What happens is that the nutrients can lead to population explosions of life, which use up all the available oxygen leading to local die off. In shallow water the now dead organisms are not wasted, their energy and nutrients are recycled by the survivors and transient species.
ferd berple
You’re quite right, my summary is not ‘true’ if you mean there are other ways to say the same thing.
Nothing you say isn’t in the link to NASA’s discussion, or is even missing from mine except focus is different; I gloss what you say as phenomena within natural variability.
In the wash, it all comes out the same: in the past quarter millennium, we have good cause to believe plankton levels have shifted dramatically and overall lower in ways CO2 rise must be a major suspect.
The missing nutrients mid ocean are not gasses. What is missing is minerals such as phosphates. These arrive in limited supply, carried from the land by river run-off, and are quickly consumed. Low phosphate soap is used in houses because it leads to an explosion of plant life in rivers and lakes, which can kill competing species.
Fresh water (river) run off is fatal to coral, which is why you often find a pass though coral reef and atols on the lee side of islands, which are exploited by sailors. Passes are not found on the windward side because salt water is continually blown onto the coral promoting growth. Even with heavy wave action, winward coral is typically healthier than leeward corals.
CO2 obsession blinds many to the simple facts of life on the planet.
ferd berple
I guess I’m a little confused by what you’re claiming.
Are you saying the mid-ocean plankton level drops are because people shifted to low-phosphate soap?!
All the other factors you attribute are ages old and so far as one can tell, have not significantly altered in any way correlated with this plankton clearing.
Have rivers begun to flow uphill?
If the delta and coastal blooms are increasing (which is pretty certain, well-documented) then what’s using up these nutrients and keeping them from getting mid-ocean? Shouldn’t the opposite effect happen, under your hypothesis?
Sweetwater channels in coral aside, other things appear to be killing coral than can be attributed to rivers, too.
I’m thinking that before you call others blind, you have to inspect the beam in your own eye here.
You are making stuff up at best. There have been thousands of studies of plant growth response to CO2. Not one of them has shown an adverse effect to higher CO2 levels. That includes all three photosynthetic pathways. There is an incredible wealth of information available to you. Read absolutely everything athttp://www.co2science.org/. Don’t make stuff up or parrot something you might have read at an environmentalist blog. Read the pertinent original research.
Polly Lydell
You think because I don’t parrot Idsos, I’m parroting?
I don’t go to environmentalist blogs; or is Climate Etc. now environmentalist?
Show the cite at CO2science that addresses my argument, and I’ll give you a cracker.
If you get over the distinction between TOXIC (adverse effect) and HORMONAL (physiological response), I’ll give you another cracker.
If there have been thousands of hormone physiological response natural condition simulating studies, or hundreds, or dozens, they must be unpublished, because they don’t especially pop up when I look for them, and I’m not really convinced Idsos prominently feature science contrary to their agenda, except to excerpt and mischaracterize.
I stand corrected.
Ferdinand Englebeen has kindly provided a link supporting my case.
http://www.uni-giessen.de/cms/fbz/fb08/biologie/pflanzenoek/alte_homepage/forschung/Foeinr/ukl-en/projects/giface?language_sync=1
I read this a few years back. I fell it might be relevant to the discussion.
http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html
Sorry, I meant to say I feel it might be relevant.
Bart,
I don’t see the problem. If the response to more CO2 is largely beneficial in growth and water use, why do you object to any hormonal changes (like N2O increase) which have no negative effect on growth or health of the plants at all?
Ferdinand Engelbeen
The problem.
1. Poleconomically – any assertion that forced, unconsented change to any resource we all share, is unacceptable and of itself odious, regardless of claims of benefit.
Men make more money than women, women live longer than men, one of these is a benefit to anyone but I’m fairly certain that global forced sex-change operations would be resisted regardless of claims of benefit.
It’s the same thing, poleconomically, as forcing CO2 levels to rise, in this sense.
2. The claim of benefit itself is overblown and dubious.
It amounts at best to about 0.7% increase in growth rate for those select plant species susceptible to this change under optimal conditions, cutting off when the limiting factor is encountered.
3. The claim ignores how much is unknown about the details of how the benefits themselves operate;
Many people call CO2 a fertilizer, which is clearly ludicrous; at 390 ppmv in atmosphere, its effects are hormonal/inhibitor, not nutrient. This is a very underdeveloped field of botany itself.
4. The claim ignores much of what is known too about the limits of the benefits;
Liebig’s law of the minimum (often not capitalized for various epistemological reasons), the cut off in various plants for gain to photosynthesis (maximum of 1300 ppm, but lower for many plants), the point of diminishing returns (about 400 ppm, but lower for many plants) of photosynthesis gains from CO2, all are ignored in this claim.
5. The claim utterly ignores the side effects;
CO2 is a plant hormone, analogous to testosterone in mammals; it’s known to affect gross sex traits in plants, among other changes. How can we judge a claim like this, when the people making it refuse to honestly evaluate even the obvious detriments of side effects?
6. The benefits accrue only to select plants, the side effects to all plants;
Some gain the benefit, all pay the price. Sound familiar?
7. The claim overlooks that the biosphere is chaotic.
This is not in chaos terms a ‘benefit’ (there is no such thing in chaos), but an external forcing acting as a perturbation; such perturbations destability systems, they are whacking the hornet’s nest with a stick.
What good enough reason do we know to perturb the biosphere in such a way for a maximum net 0.7% per year growth increase in some plants if all conditions favor them otherwise?
8. The claim itself is dishonest;
There is too much of this waste. It’s cheap to dispose of it everywhere without caring about consequence. It’s a sham and pretense to cover this real reason for the action as a benefit.
This is exactly the same claim one would make if one spread manure not just on one’s own farm fields, or only those fields of others willing to accept one’s waste, but also if one spread the manure everywhere, all the time.
It’s a waste product.
Pretending a benefit is simply a lie.
As ALL field trials show as worst case no benefit of a CO2 doubling, best case a 100% growth increase over the same time span, you are telling nonsense that CO2 is not a fertiliser.
Of course one must be careful with any negative effect that such a common fertiliser effect can have. But until now, even with 100 ppmv more, I haven’t seen any (a change in plant community composition is not negative or positive in itself). Including a net increase of 1.5 GtC per year in vegetation, the “Greening Earth”, seen in satellite images.
Again, give a direct quote of the effect of CO2 as hormone inhibitor (or promotor…).
Anything humans does have its effects on nature. From building houses, roads and bridges to dams and especially land use changes and the introduction of allien species where they don’t belong. But the last thing I should object to are the CO2 emissions…
That doesn’t imply that we shouldn’t look for cheap, affordable alternatives for an ever more energy hungry population. But sorry, I am tired of the daily alarmist stories…
“..you are telling nonsense that CO2 is not a fertiliser..”
Try looking for the typical applied concentration ranges of fertilizers like N, P, K, Ca, and Mg (all orders of magnitude higher than 400 ppmv), and the sensitivity of response of plants to changes in these fertilizer levels, compared to a change in 100 ppmv. The label on a bag of fertilizer or plant food at your local garden shop should suffice.
Compare with the concentrations of plant hormones (all the same level more or less as CO2 for comparable effect).
CO2 is a plant hormone, not a fertilizer.
“Again, give a direct quote of the effect of CO2 as hormone inhibitor (or promotor…).”
Again? I must’ve missed the first time you asked it.
Try Google Scholar with the search term “plant hormone inhibitor CO2” if you seek quotes.
Straw men and red herrings, wild geese and irrelevancies, these do not pertain and I will not stoop again to try to meet you at that level.
Using your tiredness as an excuse for lying, what is the logic of that?
Bart, I have used Google Scholar. Their are no quotes that CO2 is a hormone inhibitor or promotor. All I can find is that it competes with ethylene (which is a growth inhibitor and a ripening promotor), probably because both follow in part the same biochemical pathways.
see e.g.:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1982.tb04528.x/abstract
Even more for N2O production : Extra growth of plants under extra CO2 produces more food for bacteria around the roots, promoting N2O production from nitrates in the soil. Nothing to do with plant hormones.
See:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g243h78u360t81q7/
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/3/268
“This property of Ag(I) surpasses that of the well known ethylene antagonist, CO2..”
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/1/239
“If inhibitors of ethylene formation or action (Co2+,.. “
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/335/837.abstract
“Carbon dioxide and 1-MCP inhibit ethylene production and respiration of pear fruit by different mechanisms
“
Whether hormone, hormone antagonist, hormone controller, hormone inhibitor, hormone precursor, hormone promotor, or hormone regulator for plants in the wider literature, it all amounts to the same for our purposes: distinct from fertilizers or nutrients, more impact from smaller changes, changes that affect physiology and gross anatomy.
CO2 is not plant food, but plant drug.
It is not part of the plant’s diet, but of its hormone system.
The analogy is not giving plants more milk, but putting them on steroids from conception to death.
Then, after death, it affects the microbes that feed on plant decay, as it affected partner microbes during plant life.
These plant sex, size, conformation, and ripening affecting shifts form a continuum from detrimental to beneficial, if by benefit all you mean is first generation mass.
This continuum descends as CO2 level rises, detriment growing at some rate (though it is arguably minor as a first generation direct effect) and benefit cutting off and dropping quickly, and has a different shape, for different plants and different conditions, mostly as yet not well-studied.
Thus it is a differential perturbation across species, and will shift populations over time. We can expect a millennial scale of CO2 elevation. A millennium is long enough for such shifts to extinguish many gene pools and reduce biodiversity.
Heck a human lifetime is 70 odd generations for many plants, also more than enough.
As may be 30 years.
20? Can we say that without alarmism?
CO2 is a waste product.
Bart,
If you don’t know the difference between competing for the same enzymatic reactions and (in)direct influence on hormone levels, then you have no idea where you are talking about. None of the references you gave is about hormones, all about competing levels.
To give an example: people who were poisoned by methylalcohol can be helped by giving them a high dose of normal (ethyl)alcohol. Both follow the same enzymatic route of oxydation, leading to resp. formic acid and acetic acid. Formic acid is a strong nerve toxin, acetic acid is not. By adding a high dosis of ethylalcohol, the amount of formic acid formed over time is suppressed and may stay below the harmful level, if there is sufficient removal out of the body.
CO2 doesn’t influence plant hormones. It may suppres the formation and actions of ethylene, which is a strong growth inhibitor (and a plant poison in elevated dosis) and a ripening gas (reason that you need a lot of ventilation on banana ships). All what may happen with elevated CO2 levels is that fruits are ripening somewhat slower.
Ferdinand Engelbeen
We can agree, if you don’t want to go blind drinking wood alcohol, chase it with vodka. It needn’t be the same amount, it can be less, or more, but not two orders of magnitude more.
Which is the difference between CO2 levels and fertilizer levels, and again strongly argues for considering CO2 a plant hormone, or at the very least hormone-like, especially when taken with the types of anatomical and physiological changes seen in various of the studies and sources cited, that are typical of hormonal shifts, not of diet changes.
However you sugar-coat it, this shifting all over our plants and us that your CO2 is doing is just another reminder that CO2 is a waste product, and you’re trying to dress it up as something else to pull the shift over our eyes.
Bart,
As a long time organic gardener myself as one of my hobbies, I do apply some 10 kg organic fertilizer per year per 100 m2 in my garden, of which some 5% is nitrogen (as nitrate). That is 0.5 kg nitrogen fertilizer per year per 100 m2.
The net yield of a certain type of forest is a sequestering of some 4.5 ton carbon per acre per year (*). That is the difference between yearly uptake and release from decay. Converted to 100 m2, that is about 40 kg net sequestering of carbon per year per 100 m2. Taking into account that growing vegetables has a lower sequestering potential than trees, the net yield may be halve of that, thus some 20 kg sequestered per 100 m2. In fact, a multitude of that is sequestered during the growing season. Simply said, the amounts of CO2 sequestered are a few orders of magnitude larger than the amounts of nitrogen fertilizer used.
Thus CO2 is not a hormone disruptor, in many cases it is the limiting factor, even at low fertilizer availability, and it simply is the necessary building block for photosynthesis which, at current levels, is in short supply.
(*) http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Sequest_Final.pdf page 10
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Please.
First, CO2 in the air is on the order of grams per square meter from ground to top of sky, so we are between four and ten orders of magnitude below your 40 kg per square meter already.
Second, N2 in the air is >70%, so we’re many orders of magnitude below the N2 available.
Third, as you must well know, N2 fixing microbes form an intense beneficial relationship with most plants, again orders of magnitude different.
I know you’re better at math than this.
Please, drop the blinders and look with unbiased eyes at this question.
I know you are capable of fair-minded, even-handed conclusions about matters of science.
Why cling so hard on this one point?
The literature is rife with references to CO2 interactions with plant hormones in the same concentrations and with many of the same types of outcomes.
If CO2 isn’t the testosterone of plants, it is certainly the estrogen or if not that, the norprogesterone or the clomifene or femarelle or lasofoxifene or most definitely fulvestrant.
You’re simply moving the debate away from the point to the quibble. From the subject you are refusing to argue to the straw man you believe you have a case about.
Why would an earnest and sincere gentleman of your credentials and stature do such a thing?
You misinterpreted what I said. I was talking about what plants use to grow. That is minerals and fertilizers, water and CO2 and of course sunlight. Without CO2, no plants based on chlorophyll synthesis can exist.
In the plants (dry matter) the C:N ratio varies between 13:1 and 120:1, depending of the type of plant. No matter where it is taken from (air, water, soil), how it is taken, or what the quantities or ratios are of the building blocks in the different media to make the plant.
Thus a plant needs 1-2 orders more carbon (from CO2) than nitrogen (from nitrate or ammonia added or synthesized by bacteria).
You may call CO2 what you want, I don’t think this debate makes any further sense. If you think that a molecule, directly necessary to build up the structure of a plant is a hormone disruptor of the same, then that is your good right. I only think that not many will follow you in that reasoning.
Ferdinand Engelbeen
What you say seems to make good sense from a certain perspective, leaving off a few salient observations.
We can agree that practically every atom of carbon (the backbone of all organic molecules) in plants comes from CO2 in air or water (else whither marine plants?).
In this sense, building block.
But if true of C, why not of Cr?
That’s a building block, too.
If Cr, then too Cu, Se, Mo, I.
We’re at almost 70% above the median level of CO2 of the last 20 million years (by best extrapolation, and confidently for the past half million years and more), and had in all that time never been more than 22% above that average until the past 250 years.
Can you think of no building block you would not wish to ingest above 70% over the median intake? Sodium? Cholesterol? Fats? Carbohydrates?
Even in your framework, which falls apart as none of these causes gross physiological and anatomical changes other than morbid obesity and high blood pressure, is morbid obesity considered healthy?
And let’s not forget, if commercial handlers need food to ripen, they artificially add ethylene. How will that happen in Nature?
Unripe vegetation feeds nothing well.
We’re at almost 70% above the median level of CO2 of the last 20 million years (by best extrapolation, and confidently for the past half million years and more), and had in all that time never been more than 22% above that average until the past 250 years.
One last remark:
How was the terrestrial vegetation doing at 180 ppmv and how at 280 ppmv? And how is it doing at the current 390 ppmv? As far as I know, pretty well, according to satellites chlorophyll imaging: the earth is greening. And it stores some 2 GtC more carbon away (underground and above ground) than a few decades ago.
Ethylene production is increased, not inhibited up to 3,900 ppmv. Thus ripening is slowed down only at extreme levels of CO2. See:
http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/bitstream/246246/175474/1/06.pdf
and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1092153/
Ferdinand Engelbeen
You have been a most scholarly, patient, informative and challenging correspondent, and I thank you sincerely.
How was the terrestrial vegetation doing at 180 ppmv and how at 280 ppmv?
A fascinating question, and I wonder at the puzzle it must pose scholars in those fields able to approach that research.
And how is it doing at the current 390 ppmv? As far as I know, pretty well, according to satellites chlorophyll imaging: the earth is greening.
Are we really judging Nature by the same standards as Pamela Anderson, Heidi Montag and Anna Nicole Smith?
By how big we can pump up her tomatoes by dumping artificial levels of hormones into her?
And it stores some 2 GtC more carbon away (underground and above ground) than a few decades ago.
And if true.. producing even higher levels of methane? And still lapsing further and further behind the increasing CO2 levels? Why is this point even brought up, except to mislead and obfuscate? You certainly can’t be so silly as to believe it a benefit, or think any skeptic should.
Ethylene production is increased, not inhibited up to 3,900 ppmv. Thus ripening is slowed down only at extreme levels of CO2.
Finally!
You get there on your own without making me repeat it.
CO2 stress forces Ethylene production to increase.
Ethylene, the powerful plant hormone, is increased by CO2 wastes dumped into the air.
Lucy,
It’s good to see you commenting here – I’ve long been a silent reader of both your site and your periodic comments on WUWT.
As far as Zeke’s list is concerned, I start to ‘drop out’ at points 4 and 5 of the 90% list. I think solar and cloud albedo with greater water vapour are still much more open to uncertainty than 90%.
I love your idea of a science wiki: with the caveat that it avoids the kind of censorship that occurred with Connelly and Wikipedia.
I agree that exposition of minority hypotheses is absolutely vital. This is science we’re talking about. Evolution and free exchange of ideas, methodologies, data, code, mainstream and minority, are what this process should surely be about
.
For a scientist to be proved wrong but, in the process, to have advanced the understanding of her chosen field, is the ultimate accolade, IMO.
“I love your idea of a science wiki: with the caveat that it avoids the kind of censorship that occurred with Connelly and Wikipedia.”
That a single person can take over Wikipedia and delete a weath of knowledge provided by others to support his own agenda and limited point of view is a major loss to all of humanity. It reminds me of the burning of the lighthouse at Alexandria. It is a fundamental design flaw in Wikipedia.
“there is serious scientific evidence that the majority of the CO2 increase is NOT anthropogenic.” of course there is dear. So what is it this week? Volcanos?
deltaT
NAH! that was last week. Wake up Rumpelstiltskin!. Its Martian CO2 this week
Your patronizing reply misses my underlying point, namely that wherever there is serious minority hypothesis with evidence, it needs to be made visible in its best form, alongside the “consensus” hypothesis – and that this is a very important example of a general scientific principle which the pursuit of single “consensus” statements has undermined.
This is not the place for me to spell out or argue the details. If you can do so without being driven by desire simply to mock viewpoints different from yours, look at the ultra-slow effect of the thermohaline current, in addition to questionable ice-core CO2 measurements; the evidence is in different sensitive comparisons of delta CO2 levels with delta emissions levels, as well as isotope studies; nothing watertight proven but a lot of highly suggestive coherent evidence that it’s bad science to neglect.
“A serious minority hypothesis”, no there isnt, there is just a bunch of internet cranks with some pretty screwy science.
No one of any substance in the debate questions the source of the increase of CO2.
And delta T as Edim says.
Hi Lucy, good to see you here.
You know, I strongly disagree with you on this point. All available evidence points to the emissions as main cause of the increase in the atmosphere. Moreover, all alternatives I have heard of fail one or more observations. Thus are rejected by the facts.
For other readers here:
My stance can be read in a comprehensive overview here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
The same topic was elaborated in four contributions at WUWT, which generated some 1000 responses all together (that was a lot of work to react on, poor Judith with over 3,000 responses now, you have my compassion!):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/why-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-1/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/20/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-2/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/16/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-3/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/24/engelbeen-on-why-he-thinks-the-co2-increase-is-man-made-part-4/
Nice narrative. Whenever I see graphs and numbers without error bars and no understanding of how they impact the core numbers, I put such narratives in my pending bin. What I do not have a sense of is how when the errors bars are added (please no > 50% or 67% or some other substitute for the traditional 95%). Otherwise by magnifying the y-axis can produce all kinds of trends. Not saying that is the case here, but as long as that analysis is not part of your narrative – my pending bin. Also your comfort with throwing away samples makes me wonder the bias this introduces.
1. In the case of modern measurements, the error band is +/- 0.2 ppmv. About the width of the datapoint pixels used…
2. The full scale y-axis does show the trend over the 45 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_fs.jpg
Still the same 60 ppmv increase, or about 20% of the initial value.
3. The reasons for deselection of data is to exclude data which show local contamination. After all we are interested in background data, not the local volcano or downhill vegetation depletion of CO2. If one is interested in these items, do measure near the volcanic vents or within the vegetation (which is done too). The criteria for deselection and all procedures at stake are outlined here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
But for your assurance, I have calculated the average and trend for the year 2004, with and without outliers: no difference found, only the stdev is better, as is the look of the graph without outliers.
According to Pieter Tans, the difference is maximum two tenths of a ppmv over a year (as also indicated on my page). Any deviation in one year would be compensated in the next year(s) anyway.
Ferdinand, I’m very happy for you to disagree with me. All I ask for is for the other viewpoint(s) to be given hearing alongside yours, using the best available evidence.
Quite right Lucy. But the best available evidence is virtually no evidence, and what little we have is contradictory. Ferdinand’s argument always comes back to arithmetic = causation, that is, our emissions exceed the increase so they must cause the increase. It is a simple fallacy. The fact is we have no idea at this point.
David,
You have a small bussiness. You start the day with adding 100 dollar of your personal money into the cash register. After a lot of bussiness transactions that day, you count the cash register at evening and see that you have a gain of 50 dollar over the previous evening. You have the same scenario day after day for 50 days long. Total own money added: 5,000 dollar, gain in the cash register: 2,500 dollar. Do you still think that your bussiness is going fine?
If in that period you have bought assets to the value of $50,000 you are doing great. If you have invested the money in equipment needed to expand your business, you are still probably doing great. If you’ve spent the $50 dollars each day in the bookies and consistently lost or in the local bar and got p….d up every lunchtime, you aren’t doing great.
It all depends on how the money has been used. Just looking at the cash drawer tells you about cash. In isolation it doesn’t tell you anything about the ‘health’ of the business.
Accountants have developed a standard technique called a ‘balance sheet’ that begins to give a broader view.
(Please God tell me that there aren’t really any grownup humans posting on this blog whose knowledge of the fundamentals of business are really so limited? If so, it might explain a lot about the different mindsets between the committed and the sceptical).
OK,
It was a bad example, as bad as every example one can think of. Make it better and replace cash register with “balance sheet” and the 100 dollar at the start of the day with 100 million dollars investments at the start of every year for the next 50 years. The balance sheet at the end of each year shows a net gain of 50 million dollars in cash and bank accounts, but a net loss (including investments and fixed assets) of 50 million dollars in the total balance each year. What did cause the increase in cash and bank deposits? What will the shareholders think of their investment?
@ferdinand
What caused the change? Sale of assets.
Is this good or bad? Depends. If the shareholders decided that they want to get out of widget manufacturing and retire, this may be great news and shows fine resource management. Or maybe they want to buy some big expensive new equipment that will give them the leap on the competition. Other reasons might not be such good ones.
But you illustrate an interesting point. Nothing is inherently ‘good’ or ‘bad’ unless you understand the context of an observation and make your judgment against that.
But all AGW scarists automatically assume that all change is bad bty its very nature and to be avoided/prevented. As such they are extremely conservative in their outlook.
Personally, I think a warmer world, will, on average, be a better world. And I haven’t seen any compelling evidence to show why I am wrong.
Lots of people running around and making a lot of noise about how the End of the World is Nigh. But no actual evidence. If you have some, please show me.
PS – climate models are not evidence unless proven to have consistent and reliable track record of accurate prediction of the real climate over a number of years. AFAIK none have done this
Ferdinand, not only is it a bad analogy it is the wrong analogy. Suppose my cash register is linked to a bunch of others. The total cash flow is not determined by me alone. My transactions may even be irrelevant. We need to understand the system before we can know why the system is changing.
David and Latomer ( the reply is off again…)
I am as critical about the climate models as you, I suppose.
I have some experience with models, be it for chemical processes, not climate. I know how difficult it is to have such a model working even for the simplest physical processes, where all physical parameters were known. And had some bad experiences where one (chemical) parameter was unknown.
That said, I have not the slightest confidence in current climate models, they are missing too many real values of parameters. Especially the one-sensitivity-fits-all sounds to me as horror. It simply is impossible that all kinds of different forcings (SW, LW) have the same (+/- 10%) impact on temperature / climate.
But at the other side, I am pretty sure that we are responsible for the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. My strength in practical problem solving in the past was by eleminating the impossibilities rather than looking at the possibilities.
In the case of CO2 increase, there are two relative fast natural sources: oceans and vegetation. All other possible sources are too small (volcanoes) or too slow (rock weathering).
Oceans have a too high d13C (d13C in the atmosphere and upper oceans is observed in going down), and vegetation is a net O2 producer (observed), thus a net CO2 sink, as the oceans are (observed). Ergo, human emissions are the sole cause of the increase.
Even without the above lack of alternatives, the mass balance still holds: as long as the increase in the atmosphere is less than what humans emit, then nature as a whole is a net sink for CO2, doesn’t add anything to the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere, even if it circulates 10, 100 or 1,000 times more CO2 over the seasons. At the end of the year, only the difference between ins and outs counts.
Just because you seriously believe something does not make it serious.
An excellent reminder for the CAGW crowd.
Regarding solar influence on climate changes, there is still a lot of uncertainty and some correlations have been discarded too early by the consensus science. There are some striking correlations, solar cycle length for example.
Short cycle -> warm
Long cycle -> cold
Which could be interpreted as:
More RPM -> more power (whatever is rotating or cycling)
See Fig. 4 in this paper:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf
Another divergence post ~70s
SC 24 looks like it will be very long.
Yes, I’m very interested in cutting down the possibility for irrational ‘none-hitters’ but, I think, again, putting this down to what we can ‘agree’ upon (what can I, as a none scientist, not agree upon?) may not quite hit the point? I, as a none scientist, have a ‘gut’ feeling (based, however, on a lot of reading and even more ‘thinking’) that much of this is slapdash and bogus. For instance, let us just take the first ‘>90% certainty’ that the greenhouse affect is well attested – this is true, despite the irrationality of certain ‘Dragon slayers’ – but the question is, as a lay person I ask, how does this play out in a stochastic system? ‘Stochasticism’ is partly a proportionate expression of the multiplicity of unaccounted for variables?
But, putting the science aside, what disturbs is the ‘ought’ and ‘must’ that seems to come as an inevitable corrally. Let me put it this way. Let us say, the world and human beings as a species had five days to live, unless they did such and such. What if they decided not to? Isn’t that valid? Isn’t human choice valid?
Again, I ask why we should take your view into consideration? As a non-scientist, why do you feel qualified to evaluate the validity of the science? Do you have any basis to do so other than a gut feeling? Should we do a simple poll of the citizenry and see how many people’s gut feelings are pro or con and base our policy decisions on that?
Might as well write off science in that case and go with the old standby — superstition, religion, tradition and plain old wive’s tales and guesses.
That’s very weak, she-wonk, very weak!
Shewonk, what about going with ‘a considered view’? See my response to you further upthread.
shewonk,
I don’t think it’s a case of “writing off science”, or ignoring the views of citizenry. Science, like every discipline, has a duty to its patrons, in the case of most climate science, the taxpayer. IMO this necessarily gives the citizenry the right to examine and question the presentations of science that they have patronised, especially when it informs public policy that will have a material impact on their lives. It’s not good enough for scientists to say that people aren’t capable of understanding – if this is actually the case then why on earth even try to produce an assessment report for politicians?
I’m sure that quantum physics doesn’t currently experience this level of scrutiny; if, however, quantum physicists were advocating taxes and costly artificial trading schemes to outlaw rogue particles, you can be sure that they too would be subjected to a similar level of scrutiny…..and quite right too I reckon. It happens in my profession every day, as a fact of life.
Saad, Quantum Physics isn’t advocating anything nor is climate science. The quantum physics may have findings and implications for humanity – fission and radioactivity and the bomb, for example. Climate science has findings and implications for humanity — the GHE and global warming, for example. Humanity may choose to explore those findings and implications or not. That is political. I agree that science used in the formulation of policy must be the best we have at the time, but it’s the scientists who are best able to evaluate what is “best at the time” not the blogosphere.
Shewonk, don’t talk about something you know nothing about, please –
The quantum physics may have findings and implications for humanity – fission and radioactivity and the bomb, for example
Oh dear.
It’s an example, Lewis, come on. She should have said “quantum cryptography” or something. It doesn’t detract from the point.
PDA, I was merely giving an ironic counter-pointer to her dismissal of me. Of course, she has every right to talk about whatever she doesn’t and whatever she does know, but she better get that moat out of her eye first!
“mote”
Beam.
====
I should have written “nuclear physics” or “physics” in general.
Which just goes to prove my own point about laypeople opining on science matters. ;)
Shewonk, climate scientists have actually been advocating things. The interference of advocacy and science is indeed at the root of many efforts by climate scientists to transmit a “clear message”, that is not “diluted” by divergent data or “weakened” by wide uncertainties. To that effect some of them have gone to great lengths, as documented in recent episodes like the CRU mails, to keep data secret, to hinder publication of opposite views, and the like. That is precisely the whole point of Dr Curry preoccupations that led her to open this blog: ordinary methods of telling what is science and what is not, essentially peer-reviewed publication, is not sufficient in this case. Some think a transformation is ongoing about the way science is being assessed and disseminated, a transformation in which the surge in Internet content has a big role.
In this particular area of climate change, many of the assertions made by respectable scientists in peer reviewed literature are not backed up by archived data, code and other materials, and long legal battles have been fought to get those essential pieces of information put out for scrutiny. Much of those battles have been fought in blogs at through FOIA requests, since much of the specialist peer-reviewed journals conspired to keep dissension out. It is indeed an interesting historical process in the development of science, and you should pay attention to it. It is not something to be easily dismissed.
Besides, as you see at the end of Dr Curry’s post starting this thread, this is a rather technical thread that is moderated to avoid excessive “noise”.
(Major premise) Climate scientists have actually been advocating things.
(Minor premise) Judith Curry is a climate scientist.
The conclusion is left as an exercise to the reader.
Willard, you little syllogistic tyke! :-)
That’s about the same implied logic as, “all dogs are animals, all cats are animals, therefore all dogs are cats”
Peter317,
Your syllogism is a Barbara,
Whilst mine would be a Darii,
If it were a syllogism.
But it is not, as its conclusion,
As always must be that
Science is Corrupt
Yup.
shewonk:
…..Quantum Physics isn’t advocating anything nor is climate science.”
In a purely semantic sense you are right, so I would like to tighten my argument a little. Some prominent climate scientists are most certainly advocating their preferred policy outcomes, in addition to presenting the results of their various experiments.
To return to my quantum physics example, I don’t think Oppenheimer’s personal opinion on the morality of using the atomic bomb was ever considered by those that decided to use it. If he expressed an opinion, it would have been weighed only in terms of the science and certainly not in terms of ethics.
I believe that the same should be true of climate science. Another blogger here, asked me if I would rather a heart surgeon was advising the government on climate change policy than a climate scientist. I answered that, in view of the number of hypothermia deaths recently in the UK due to the elderly economising on their heating, the advice of a heart surgeon may have been rather more useful in quantifying the effects of “low carbon” energy policies.
I guess, in the end, it’s people like us who have to try and come together on this issue and find a way forward. There is a way, somewhere, I’m sure. What do you think?
Not “the advice of a heart surgeon may have been rather more useful” but “the advice of a heart surgeon might have been rather more useful”.
In a purely semantic sense you are right, so I would like to tighten my argument a little. Some prominent climate scientists are most certainly advocating their preferred policy outcomes, in addition to presenting the results of their various experiments.
Yes, and they are entirely able to do so, in a democracy. As long as their science is sound and is published in the peer reviewed literature, I am not concerned if they speak out.
A scientist’s opinion on non-science matters is no better or worse than a layperson’s. It is up to us to weigh the opinions of scientists on non-science issues. A scientist may be right to express an opinion on the science they are expert in. It is another for them to opine on which policy option best addresses the threat. Unless they are an expert in the outcomes of policy decisions, their opinion, as Feynman said, is just a bad or good as any other laypersons.
Relevant expertise is what counts here.
I guess, in the end, it’s people like us who have to try and come together on this issue and find a way forward. There is a way, somewhere, I’m sure. What do you think?
I fully support people becoming as educated as they can about these matters. I don’t want to sound as if I am against curiosity. I think it is a shame that we don’t have a better education in the process and history and logic of science. There is a great deal of scientific information out there but one has to have judgement to evaluate what is sound and what is dreck or snake oil. Having that judgement is what is key. Sometimes, you have to defer to experts.
I know it goes against the grain of some people to do so, but as the saying goes, a little knowledge is dangerous. It gives you the illusion that you are competent when you are not.
Shewonk,
I agree that the position you are advocating (generally ‘trust well-qualified scientific experts’) would usually be the best course, and has previously been the one I’ve followed. However, in CAGW we seem to have an exceptional case where something else is called for. Why? The accusation has been leveled that several leading climatologists have distorted the peer-reviewed science by:
– Overstating alarming scenarios
– Understating uncertainty
– Suppressing legitimate minority viewpoints
– Suppressing legitimate criticism of their work
– Subverting the peer-review process
– Not reporting known adverse data in their publications
– Cherry-picking data to show a desired result
– Not taking steps to counter media and political exaggerations based on but unsupported by their work
– Using new and poorly characterized statistical methods without which their results would change substantially
There is at least some solid evidence supporting many, if not all, of these accusations. This situation is thankfully rare but certainly not unprecedented in the history of science (Piltdown Man etc).
On top of this there is a veritable perfect storm of situational drivers that indicate this particular field at this time deserves increased scrutiny.
– The well-documented funding incentives
– Much of climate science being a new field
– The small number of practitioners in the field
– The well-documented close-knit professional relationships in the field (see: Wegman et al)
– The fact that likely policy outcomes support actions also generally desired by the majority political viewpoint held in academia
In light of all this I think increased skepticism and scrutiny of ‘consensus’ climate science is not only justified but the only prudent course for reasonable non-experts to take. This doesn’t mean that the consensus viewpoint is entirely wrong or can never be proven correct. It just means that the bar is higher, the scrutiny deeper and the actions cautiously slower.
I’ll add that one of my own personal tripwires has also been tripped by this CAGW situation. Based on past life experience, anytime anyone comes to me and says:
– There is certain cataclysmic catastrophe ahead (not right now but soon).
– We absolutely must take drastic action now, Now, NOW!
– This action will be extremely costly.
– Unfortunately, evidence that would conclusively prove this extreme action was immediately necessary won’t be clear for quite some time.
There have been many, many examples from Y2K to domestic terrorism, acid rain, ozone depletion, global cooling, over-population, internment of all Japanese-Americans, peak oil, etc, etc, etc. I am old enough to vividly remember the shrill panic in the media and the seemingly conclusive, reputable science-based support for all of these (except Japanese internment – I’m not quite that old but my parents remember the hysteria in detail). In every single case drastic immediate action was eventually proven to be alarmist and unnecessary. Why does this keep happening? I don’t know. There have been interesting studies that tie it to human psychology. I would ask why, after being driven to needless over-reaction so many times, aren’t we far, far more skeptical of any claimed catastrophe that fits the ‘signature’ above?
Surely a scientist is one who actually practices the scientific method in a scientfic field.
It is not enough to loudly proclaim that one is a scientist. The walk must be walked as well as the talk talked.
Climatology seems to have a great many participants who are ‘world class’ at the latter, but pay scant attention to the former.
Mark, steps WERE taken to curtail acid rain and CFCs that were causing ozone depletion. They both ceased to be emergenices BECAUSE governments took action on them, despite industry wailing about how such actions would destroy the economy. The economic alarmists were wrong then and they are wrong now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Program#Effectiveness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer#Ozone_depletion
If the governments had refused to act then, we would be in more trouble now.
Actually, ‘shewonk’ (I get very irritated with pseudo-nyms ) why don’t we just take the medieval perspective of Beddington and proscribe ‘contrary’ opinion? As a ‘none scientist’ I meant, of course, I am not a professional, doctored and acknowledged expert. Which does not mean I, and many others, could not have a very well informed opinion on the science. In your world, we would give up the ability to decide for ourselves and defer to a scientocracy? And, pray, what are your qualifications? If you have none, you better back out but carefully but avoiding the elephant!
Well, you see, Lewis Dane, the internet is still a realm of freedom, and we are free to use our real names or not. I get irritated with people who like to pontificate about the use of real names on the net and who like to reveal them when the people prefer to remain anonymous.
As to the rest of your post, you may think and argue that you have a well-informed opinion on science, but how can I tell? If I am not well-informed, how can I tell if your opinion is? Only the expert can really evaluate non-expert opinion as to whether it is well-informed. So again, I am left with the conclusion that yes, your opinion may be well-informed but unless I am equally well-informed, how can I or those less well-informed tell?
I prefer to read scientific opinion rather than lay precisely because at least there is some objective basis for thinking they know what they are talking about.
Then what’s your beef? Read ‘scientific opinion’ and don’t plague us with your very ‘unscientific’ judgements? How can I tell, you being anonymous, if your not completely crazy? I’ll tell you one way – by addressing the substance of what you write and refraining from making, admittedly fun, cheap shots?
I’m sorry, shewonk, I lost my temper with you and I didn’t mean to. It was only because what you said has become somewhat typical of a very antisocial discourse. I will, and nor will you, I’m sure, never defer to ‘authority’, in whatever form. I’m sure, in your heart of hearts, you agree. Now, can we get back to the subject at hand?
I will, and nor will you, I’m sure, never defer to ‘authority’, in whatever form.
I take it you are joking.
I do defer to authority when it makes sense and when it involves an area of expertise for which I can’t be expected to judge. For example, when I go to the emergency ward and am told that my aging grandmother needs a nebulizer for her COPD, I am not going to refuse to accept the authority of the respirology specialist and check out the blogs to see what the lay public has to say about it.
Likewise, when I am asked to vote for a politician or a political party’s platform in an election, I check out whether they support the consensus view on global warming. Because the consensus view is based on the preponderance of scientific peer-reviewed evidence.
Even McIntyre says that the prudent politician would do so.
shewonk: “I do defer to authority when it makes sense and when it involves an area of expertise for which I can’t be expected to judge”
Judith is an expert. So do you accept Judith’s doubts about the certainty of the IPCC or are you selective about which experts you believe? If the latter, there must be a debate to be had and you are no different to any other blogger.
Judith is an expert. So do you accept Judith’s doubts about the certainty of the IPCC
Read it again: “the preponderance of evidence, not the one-off paper.”
Rob, Judith is one scientist. She may be right but I can’t tell.
Therefore, I look to the preponderance of evidence in the peer reviewed literature. It may be wrong, but until there is a replacement that is just as prolific, I have to go with it instead of the opinion of one expert.
Now it’s “nulla non verba”. Why is this site such a good source of garbled latin?
Here’s the source material:
” Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri,
quo me cumque rapit tempestas,
deferor hospes”
Horace Epistulae
“I am not bound to swear allegiance
to the word of any master.
Where the storm carries me,
I put into port and make myself at home.”
The intended meaning is that science is not subject to nonscientific dogma despite powerful interests, not that scientists are lying to you and you should listen to the people with money on the line!
Michael, your interpretation of a misquote from my favourite poet, Horace, is not really helpful. So I misspelt my latin? Grow up.
Yes, what Shewonk said has become quite typical of an antisocial discourse, according to Lewis Deane.
So what Shewonk said made Lewis Deane do it.
Bad Shewonk.
O what weally foolish fool.
Shewonk, even when I go to the Doctor, being a relatively sensible fella (I believe) I think about what he’s saying and weigh it up. Nulla non verba is obviously not your motto, but it is mine.
Since I can’t respond to Lewis due to threading, I will say here that I am not talking about a general visit to a doctor. I am taking about the ER where grandma is unable to breathe and is blue in the lips. I listen to the respirology specialist and when he says that she has COPD and needs a nebulizer to open up her airways, do I doubt him and take out my iPhone and google COPD and check out the website “www.breatheasierforum.com” to see if the majority of bloggers think nebulizers are harmful or helpful? Say I do have time to have a second opinion, do I ask MrsDoubter87 if COPD requires frequent nebulizer treatments? Or do I get another respirology specialist to take a look at grandma?
Back in the day, before civilization, we might have had to be experts in everything and could rely on our own best judgement to decide issues but we’ve progressed since then. We have bona fide experts today and the amount of sheer knowledge and technical skill needed to arbitrate some matters is well beyond the average layperson.
Common sense in this case is the ability to know your own limits and to know what authorities to go to when deciding matters.
People always bring this up, shewonk, and it’s always very foolish. If your ‘grandma’ (why do people have to make this thing personal, I wonder?) were blue in the lips and near to death and you happened to be a sub saharan african, would you not have to defer to the ‘authority’ of the only ‘medical’ person around, ie the witch doctor? Think.
Lewis Deane is right: sapere aude!
Sapere aude.
Quite Easily Done.
By anywho, anyhow, about anything.
Science is corrupt.
Yup.
And, also, I note, and this seems somewhat typical, you do not address one substantive point I attempt to raise – most of my comment was addressed as questions – why not answer them, instead of attempting ad hominem dismissals?
Lewis,
Shewonk is complaining about people arguing from authority…
….by arguing from authority
Since there are some of us that would rather not put our name out there, shewonk says we should go away and shut up..
Ever notice or pay attention to which group of people are always telling people they don’t agree with to do that?
Shewonk is complaining about people arguing from authority
Really? Where does she do that?
Since there are some of us that would rather not put our name out there, shewonk says we should go away and shut up.
Really? Where does she do that?
you do not address one substantive point I attempt to raise
Because maybe there were none?
why not answer them, instead of attempting ad hominem dismissals?
An ad hominem in this case would be for me to say that you are an idiot and therefore, we should ignore you. I did not argue that. I don’t know that you are an idiot.
It is not an ad hominem to say that the peer reviewed literature is the most likely source of the most valid science and that we should rely on it instead of blogs for our science knowledge…
Which is what I was arguing.
That may, by implication, suggest that your opinion is not as valid a that of the peer-review literature, and sorry if that hurts your feelings, but I can live with that.
I am not arguing from authority as I have none. I am arguing that the actual authority — peer reviewed science — is more likely than the blogosphere to be valid.
It is possible that you are right and that your opinion is valid. I have no way of knowing if it is because I am not an expert.
O my God, you are polite!
Firstly, what right have you to talk about ‘peer’ reviewed science? Taking your logic at it’s face value, only an ‘authoritative’ person could determine whether this or that ‘authority’ was ‘authoritative’ (understand logic, eh?)?
‘It is possible that you are right and that your opinion is valid. I have no way of knowing if it is because I am not an expert.’
Indeed, so stop pontificating, especially if it involves being needlessly rude.
Am I needlessly rude? When is rudeness needful?
I think I’ve been the model of politeness. I think you don’t like the implications of what I have written and are taking personal offence from a general statement.
Speaking of common sense, common sense would seem to dictate that a non-scientist is not as authoritative on science issues as a scientist. Only those filled with hubris would think otherwise. As Feynman said, “I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.” The opposite is also true.
I would think that even a person with only high school science would recognize that peer reviewed science is the most likely authority when it comes to questions of science, not lay opinion.
It doesn’t take a PhD in science to know that. Or so one might think…
As I said, it’s entirely possible for a layperson to be absolutely right about a science question, but the rest of us are far better served listening to the peer review science over the opinion of a blogger on a blog.
You didn’t answer me, of course. To repeat:
Firstly, what right have you to talk about ‘peer’ reviewed science? Taking your logic at it’s face value, only an ‘authoritative’ person could determine whether this or that ‘authority’ was ‘authoritative’?
Lewis,
Surely politeness is to be encouraged – at least that way we might respond to each others’ views rather than each others’ insults.
Exactly.
Shewonk,
Why have blind faith in peer reviewed papers? One out of ten ground breaking peer reviewed papers may stand up over time. The major scrutiny happens after publishing. Blog review has a lot of noise, but speeds up the process. Instead of snail mail letters or published critics that take years, things get hashed out in a shorter time with email and blog posts.
19th and early 20th century mudslinging was more eloquent, but the results are the same.
It’s not blind faith. Blind faith involves believing in something that has no basis in reality. There is a sound basis for trust in the peer review process over time.
Any one paper in the literature may be off or fraudulent. Bad reviewers, bad editors, bad researchers — they all may get through and lead to bad science. There is no alternative. Certainly blogs are not the answer.
While there are errors in the peer reviewed literature, there are at least some processes and procedures and values in place that are agreed to by those who participate and oversee it that can act to minimize them. We certainly shouldn’t leave matters of such importance to blogs because there is absolutely nothing to prevent charlatans with no scruples from using lies and masterful rhetoric to mislead people. And as we have learned lately, there is nothing in the blogosphere keeping corporations or governments from using social media like blogs, twitter, facebook and the like from trying to create a false sense of consensus (like climate skepticism) on matters of public concern or interest — or lack thereof.
Masterful charlatans are a problem. Almost as much of a problem as ill informed followers of agenda driven activists. This particular post is novel in that it can give one a little insight as to what we are dealing with. There is a lot that is agreed and some points of disagreement. While there are a few bloggers that are way out there, a major appears to be reasonable. Well, as reasonable as people can be.
I don’t have a degree. I took a semester off to make some cash but kept getting raises every time I tried to go back to college. So I have nearly thirty years of engineering experience, but had to hire fresh out engineers to stamp my work.
I really would not be bothered with climate change had I not seen a tree ring based temperature reconstruction claiming an accuracy of +/- 0.5 degree with a 95% confidence interval for global past temperature. That sounded a little over optimistic to me. Almost to good to be true? Set my BS detector off. Seems to have set a bunch of other BS detectors off too.
Without the internet, we may be all sitting around fat, dumb and happy waiting to see if we get our ration of electricity today.
Almost as much of a problem as ill informed followers of agenda driven activists.
To be sure, there are followers on both sides of this divide who are there not because they understand the science but because they are attracted to the potential policy implications which fit with their worldview.
It is true that there may be the moralistic environmentalist luddite types who have a rather apocalyptic view of the future and thus they are attracted to AGW the way that Christian evangelicals are attracted to the idea of war between Israel and the Arab world as the hopeful harbinger of Armageddon. I’ve encountered them. They have their spiritual bags packed and are waiting for the rapture.
The same applies for some “skeptic” followers. They are anti-government anti-regulation libertarians who are attracted to the skeptic side because it fits with their political ideology. These are the kind who think that if you don’t have a gun in your hand, the government will take your house and brainwash your kid in one world order communism. I’ve met a few of them as well.
It has nothing to do with the science but the policy implications.
I just reject the premise of this whole post. It’s just mental w*&^ing. Self-pleasure is fine and dandy. Just don’t fool yourself that it’s a big romance. ;)
What? Difficulty in answering? On what, let me ask, in a democratic society (something you perhaps think is ‘unnecessary’? Just when the whole world is demanding this?) can we base policies? An ‘informed’ public opinion was what the 19 Centuary said, because they had faith in the basic rationality of the people. But you know better. Better to use ‘hide the decline’ graphs in front of that dumb herd, eh? Because ‘human beings’ are basically base?
I’m sorry, Dr Curry, for losing my temper here but this just seems kind of typical of a very un-rational approach.
You’re probably closer to truth than you realize.
Perhaps you’ve seen this quote, “If I could instantly produce a genie with a magic wand to stand here before you today. And if, that genie could wave his magic wand and wall-la….carbon dioxide would no longer be a greenhouse gas that produced uncontrollable global warming….How many in this room would be happy, satisfied and pleased?” Two people out of two hundred hesitatingly raised their hands. Of the others, some smirked, some laughed and some yelled out, “No, no. Hell no.”
Wall-la.
“I cannot testify that this event actually occurred. But, I heard it as though it was a truthful report. ”
This is rather to the point of what to believe and why. Should an understanding of the world be purely anecdotal, subjective, “post-normal,” whatever accords with your preconceptions? Or should it be based in fact?
lol, PDA you’re a hoot, only one look at WUWT? Go back into the archives. I believe you’ll find the source of the story. Or are you going to be one of those that insist I provide a link to every thing that is of general common knowledge?
Oh what the heck, I’ll indulge…..give me a few….
This story rings true.
This related one too:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/692102203/what-if-we-create-a-better-world-for-nothing
Ok, the chit-chat pause is up.
Science is Corrupt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/25_01_10.txt
Second para.
So, to answer your question, of course, it should be based on fact, but I think it important to note, to some, as this experience shows, some don’t really care about the facts. Their dogma is entrenched. Once we as a society, finally dismiss this CO2 alarmism, another issue of alarm will be brought up. Some simply believe that man is an aberration of nature and not part of nature.
“General common knowledge?” Again, you’re assuming what Solitaire Townsend told the interviewer actually happened. You don’t know and neither do I. Merely the act of asserting something on BBC does not, you may be surprised to learn, convey any truth value.
The Carbon Fairy story is absolutely true..
The organiser herself who asked the question, repeated it, on a BBC Radio 4 program above.. I’ll dig out the link on bbc iplayer.
I don’t think many realise the significance of WHO the person is that told the story..
It is Solitaire Townsend – the co-founder of Futerra. (Rules of The Game, Sell the Sizzle, Branding Biodiversity, New Rules New Game, etc)
Futerra who were behind the advice to the UN Environment program and the UK government, with respect to communicating climate change to ACT like it is real and now..
If you look at that BBC transcript. MR IPCC himself Mike Hulme of UEA absolutely confirms the environmentalists agenda..
Me-thinks a little follow up for John Coleman at WUWT is due.. ;)
Ed Gillespie, the co-founder of Futerra, his good mate (according to him twittering) Bryony Worthington, just becme Baroness Worthington in the House of Lords, where the former Minsiter for Energy and Climate Change (Ed Milliband) who is the now the Labour Party Leader, said she was instrumental in writing the UK Climate Change Act.)
So Futerra’s connections are deep into the political/media establishment of the UK… Ed and BRyony are on the board of SANDBAG, campaigning for emission trading in Europe….
And Baronnes now Bryony, ever the activist is also a board member of the 10:10 Campaign, which was behind the ‘No Pressure’ blowing up sceptics, including children in a classroom, by their teacher, PR disaster..
So if Solitaire Townsend says.. that a deep green environmentalist element want social economic, de-industralisation on the back of climate change.. well why would anybody doubt her, her AGW consensus credentials are impeccable..
Unlike their scientific credentials…
Bryony studied English, Solitare English and she also has a Masters in Shakespeare Studies..
These people have been driving policy in the UK, NOT scientists.
A fatanstic quote from the next big scare – Futerra, Branding Biodiversity.
“Our audiences are emotional, NOT rational”
QED
All the above info freely available from the Futerra, Sandbag and Guardian websites…..
Suyts – I’m glad you gave the link, because to me, it shows that WUWT misrepresented what happened. Here is the relevant part of the interview:
“TOWNSEND: I was making a speech to nearly 200
really hard core, deep environmentalists and I played
a little thought game on them. I said imagine I am the
carbon fairy and I wave a magic wand. We can get rid
of all the carbon in the atmosphere, take it down to
two hundred fifty parts per million and I will ensure
with my little magic wand that we do not go above
two degrees of global warming. However, by waving
my magic wand I will be interfering with the laws of
physics not with people – they will be as selfish, they
will be as desiring of status. The cars will get bigger,
the houses will get bigger, the planes will fly all over
the place but there will be no climate change. And I
asked them, would you ask the fairy to wave its
magic wand? And about 2 people of the 200 raised
their hands.”
If I had been in that audience, I probably would not have raised my hand, because the question was complicated. It involved not only anthropogenic warming, but also the laws of physics and the persistence of human selfishness as an important force in society. Before responding, therefore, I would probably have wanted to take several minutes to disentangle the separate themes before deciding how to respond, even though I would be happy to see CO2 reduced to pre-industrial levels by magic or otherwise.
Sigh, yes, I suppose we could assume Mr. Townsend is being untruthful. But then, PDA, if that is to be your standard, you’ll have to replicate every bit of climate science to believe it.
But then, the question is provocative, is it not?
Fred, I like your response. It is to your credit that you’d understand some of the caveats carried some implications. However, it is very possible that you are reading into the questions that the speaker didn’t mean to convey. His comments about selfishness and physics, meant that people wouldn’t change. Simply the laws of CO2 would. But that is the question. Ostensibly, we’re just working on the warming aspect, right? We’re not trying to change the nature of people are we?
BTW, WUWT, carried it in more detail prior than today. The one today is a different person’s take of the event.
On what, let me ask, in a democratic society… can we base policies?
Well, in her post above, she says “scientific peer-reviewed opinion — and the preponderance of evidence, not the one-off paper.”
Is it perfect? No, and Shewonk acknowledges that. Is it possible that “the preponderance of evidence” is completely off-base? Abso-frickin-lutely.
What I don’t get – and what I suppose Shewonk doesn’t get – is what you propose to put in its place.
PDA:
“What I don’t get – and what I suppose Shewonk doesn’t get – is what you propose to put in its place.”
I think it’s sensible to evaluate policy on the preponderance of evidence, whilst accepting that this evidence may change over time.
This should also apply at a policy level ie: the preponderance of evidence suggests that we will not succeed in reducing CO2 outputs in the next 50 – 100 years , whatever the environmental outcomes.
Thus it makes pragmatic sense to me to focus our attention on a medium term adaption policy, whilst investing heavily in cleaner cheap sources of baseload energy, such as thorium fission and gen4 fission reactors and, in the slightly longer term, nuclear fusion reactors. In the meantime let’s focus on the massive amount of unnecessary pollution and bad land management practices which affect our environment on a daily basis. This we can definitely do something about.
What do you think?
Any response, PDA?
I don’t necessarily agree that “we will not succeed in reducing CO2 outputs in the next 50 – 100 years,” and I can’t comment on a “medium term adaption policy” without details.
Other than that, yes, we should definitely be working on cleaner cheap sources of baseload energy. Like yesterday. Nuclear presents its whole own set of challenges, but I’m afraid there’s no equivalent option at the present time.
“What I don’t get – and what I suppose Shewonk doesn’t get – is what you propose to put in its place.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why do you think it necessary to have something replace it?
“Why do you think it necessary to have something replace it?”
So PDA can do the same thing he/she is now criticizing/dismissing others for. So he/she can criticize/dismiss it.
Andrew
My statement was in response to Lewis Deane’s question “On what, let me ask, in a democratic society… can we base policies?” If it’s not the preponderance of scientific evidence, then what do you suggest?
PDA,
As free people with a stake in our own destinies, it should be based on our -judgement- of the evidence.
Didn’t anyone ever tell you this, in all your years of education?
Andrew
I don’t think they teach much of that stuff any more. What philosophy and logic? Baa. My daughter, soon to graduate, working towards a doctorate, is telling me she’ll never have to take an economics course. I’m shocked at this.
We’re talking, precisely, about how to judge the evidence. You reject the preponderance of expert opinion as a yardstick. How do you suggest citizens evaluate evidence in fields where they don’t have complete understanding?
PDA, it is here that there will always be an impasse. So, we should base our laws and policy on the consensus of a very small group of people………..I think humanity has already been down that road. I should think we’d be much chagrin to revisit it.
No, I don’t think we should “we should base our laws and policy on the consensus of a very small group of people.” Laws and policy should be determined through the democratic process.
Citizens, as I think we’d both agree, should be informed voters and incorporate the best possible information (as well as personal values, ideology etc.) to their decisions. In the case of science, if they’re not to be guided by the preponderance of evidence, then what do you suggest?
PDA, I don’t propose to put anything in the place of the ‘democratic will’ of the people – how could I, this weak of all weaks? The point, therefore, is, is that ‘will’ ‘rational’? I believe it is. You and shewonk, maybe not?
Neither do I propose to do away with democracy. Neither has anyone in this thread, as far as I can see.
I don’t know how you can evaluate the “rationality” of an abstract like “democratic will.” Individuals can reason, but can one speak of groups exercising cognition? It’s an interesting philosophical question, but probably out of scope for this discussion.
The matter of how individuals can best use practical reason to make optimal decision is a bit more bounded. How does one make judgments in areas where one’s understanding is limited?
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb arguing on what to have for dinner.” Benjamin Franklin
The problem is that the 51% are not necessarily smart enough to make the right decisions. The other problem is that there is no better system.
Democracy is only helpful if optimal knowledge is allowed to be disseminated to the most voters. But free-speech can be used to drown out what is the best known human knowledge. This still does not mean that the policy options are obvious, even without the garbage science, but at least we would have moved onto the point of discussing what we value and how we should protect it.
Democracy is certainly messy, just like this thread. Which reminds me
1. Climate Etc. isn’t a democracy
2. Moderation note: this is a technical thread, will be moderated for relevance.
I wonder if this comment and many above it will here tomorrow. I’m hoping not.
shewonk,
This is why we’ve a representative form of governance. Consensus seems to work the same way as simple democracy.
“The problem is that the 51% are not necessarily smart enough to make the right decisions.”
That isn’t the problem, the problem is there are some that would take their right to be wrong away. What a sad, generic, sterile society it would be if we all were forced always make correct decisions. It would insure existence but end living.
PDA, read shewonk
‘“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb arguing on what to have for dinner.” Benjamin Franklin
The problem is that the 51% are not necessarily smart enough to make the right decisions. The other problem is that there is no better system.’
Nothing here suggests much faith in the people. As for the supposed abstractness of the so called ‘democratic will’, it’s all we have!
Shewonk, in many cases the “science” is not well understood by the scientists. For example, the various iconic papers, (Mann98, Jones90, Steig 10) are statistically very doubtful.
And, in fact, a good deal of the modeling is more closely related to econometrics than it is to say, resource ecology or biology. The analysis of time series can and is competently performed by non-scientists on a regular basis.
As well, basic logic, the creation of intelligible null hypotheses, the qualitative examination of data and many other elements of the “science” can be handled by non-official experts.
Importantly, those unofficial experts are not parti pris; that is they do not have careers which will be influence by their willingness to go where the science takes them rather than in the direction of a pre-determined agenda.
Frankly, given the mess revealed by Climategate, it is difficult to take much of what the Team puts out without a rigorous audit. Which, happily, it gets.
Shewonk, in many cases the “science” is not well understood by the scientists.
That may be the case because often science is about pushing the boundaries of knowledge and that will alway involve uncertainty. It suggests that it is even more precarious for me to think I can understand it at a level that is necessary to judge.
For example, the various iconic papers, (Mann98, Jones90, Steig 10) are statistically very doubtful.
I accept the NAS report on the hockey stick paper. As to Jones 90 and Steig 10, they may be based on doubtful statistics. Individual papers can be erroneous. Future work in the peer review literature will either condemn them to obscurity or will correct them or improve them or validate them.
As a non-statistician, I have no way of telling if those papers are based on valid or invalid stats. Hence, the best strategy for me as a layperson is to look to the long term peer review science to sort these papers and these areas out.
You see the problem we laypeople face — we don’t know enough to know which papers to trust or doubt. Instead of falling into cynicism, in which I doubt all scientists and their motives, thus losing any ability to benefit from science, I think it is best to trust the process and methods of science to produce the best science on which to base our decisions.
Frauds do occur. Bad science does take place and erroneous findings are published. They are usually found out in short order, and if not, eventually are overturned.
And, in fact, a good deal of the modeling is more closely related to econometrics than it is to say, resource ecology or biology. The analysis of time series can and is competently performed by non-scientists on a regular basis.
Even I analyze time series on a regular basis. :) I agree that statistical methods can be appraised by those who have an expertise in statistics. Hence, I initially gave McIntyre and McKitrick a lot of weight when considering criticisms of the MBH reconstructions. But I soon realized that even the technical experts can get it wrong, on blogs or in papers. These are complicated methods being discussed and a lot of it is more than just proper method; it involves proper interpretation of what methods are applicable, how to apply them, and what conclusions can be drawn about the analysis drawn from them.
Again, my common sense tells me it is far better to rely on the peer reviewed literature to sort out which experts have it right and which have it less right and which are just flat out wrong rather than the opinion of bloggers.
As to models, I agree that the kind of and complexity of the modelling of the climate is a different kettle of fish from the usual models in biology, which is the area in which I have most knowledge (although not expert). While biological systems are complex, the models of the climate are, from what I understand, much more complex and require huge supercomputers to run. There is a difference between understanding the basic principles of modelling at a lay level and being able to evaluate the specific model, its validity and its output.
When people on blogs write off the models out of hand, I have to ask myself — who are they and on what basis do they write off the models? I have no means of telling the expert from layperson on the blogs and so can’t tell whose opinion is informed and valid and whose is just a repetition of something that appealed to the person for political or personal value-based reasons.
As well, basic logic, the creation of intelligible null hypotheses, the qualitative examination of data and many other elements of the “science” can be handled by non-official experts.
But how do I know that? In the absence of some kind of process or procedure or agreed-upon terms to ensure that these non-official experts have the ability to handle the data, create null hypotheses, and other elements of science, how do I know they are up to it? It’s entirely true that there are non-official experts out there who can opine on a blog and be absolutely correct in their evaluation of the methods of science and its findings. There are also a great many very persuasive blog commenters who claim that they know what is valid and correct, and through sheer force of rhetoric, they appear to be very authoritative.
My problem, and the problem facing laypeople, is that we are not able to tell one from the other in blog land. At least when we go to the peer review literature, we know that other experts have done a vetting of the work and its contribution to the science. It’s not perfect but at least it is a process that has, in the long run, worked. At least when we go to the science organizations, we know that the opinions coming from them are informed and expert.
Importantly, those unofficial experts are not parti pris; that is they do not have careers which will be influence by their willingness to go where the science takes them rather than in the direction of a pre-determined agenda.
They may not have a particular bias, but they will have their own set of issues that may bias them to take the science in a particular direction — political ideology (no government intervention in the market) or economic (an interest in the fossil fuel industry’s health). We all have those issues. Every one of us. At least the scientific method and peer review process have procedures to try to minimize those influences and come up with the most objective knowledge possible.
There are no such constraints in the blogosphere.
Frankly, given the mess revealed by Climategate, it is difficult to take much of what the Team puts out without a rigorous audit. Which, happily, it gets.
Again, this is a matter of judgement and I think that one requires a knowledge of how science works and how peer review works to be able to judge if what was revealed in the illegal release of the CRU emails showed anything that undermined the science or process.
To a layperson unfamiliar with science as a process or peer review as a process or the specific science itself, it may look at first glance to be of concern. I am not so sure it does after a deeper examination. So far, there have been several inquiries into the matter and none have found any grounds for that conclusion.
That people refuse to accept the findings of these inquiries suggests that they have already formed a conclusion and will accept no other answer.
That is not at all proof that the authors have not understood “science”. Rather that may be stated as an indication that the papers are perhaps not very good science. It is not a proof of that either, but certainly an indicator.
New creative work can seldom be done without errors. It is good for the science that new results are published reasonable rapidly. They will be accepted for publication based on their virtues, not based on their faultlessness. Errors that the referees spot and that can be corrected, shall of course be corrected, but no proof can be required that no errors remain. Further research by the same authors and by others is suppose to correct in time, what remains to be corrected.
“Should we do a simple poll of the citizenry and see how many people’s gut feelings are pro or con and base our policy decisions on that? ”
Hell no! The citizenry making policy decisions? That would be a democracy. Perish the thought.
Boy I hope more CAGW proponents are as honest about their contempt for voters over the next 21 months.
In our democratic systems the citizens do not make most policy decisions; we elect representatives who make these decisions on our behalf. The idea is that they will educate themselves on the issues, which of course includes consulting the experts.
This can go wrong in many ways, of course, but governments do not govern by individual voters voting on every issue, nor by what blogs and bloggers decide.
At least he is trying to understand, haltingly as it might be. You seem smug in you ignorance and use that as a weapon to knock down any one trying. If you find what he is saying incorrect,, then correct or just go away. If all you want to do is smirk then just lurk.
SheWonk, still trying to shut down an unwelcome exchange of ideas? This isn’t a college campus where sophomoric ignoramuses get to do that. Agitate elsewhere.
Why don’t you engage with the ideas she is discussing instead of insulting her?
Holly Stick, we are discussing the science. Shewonk thinks the NAS panel supported Mann over McIntyre. It doesn’t. It supported McIntyre on all the disputed points of science. It was polite to Mann, far different from the Wegman Report, but North testified before Congress that he and his panel agreed with Wegman. Does that matter to Shewonk? Not at all. She is here to flog the disinformation put out by RealClimate that the NAS report was bad for McIntyre.
witness the whole Sky Dragon debacle over at Judy’s blog
This comment of Zeke’s is a little puzzling to me. I followed the original Sky Dragon thread pretty closely and it appeared that Claes came out looking very bad. Fred, Pekka and others very convincingly refuted what he had to say…in what way was that a debacle?
It was a debacle because Judith wasn’t so afraid of debate that she felt she had to ban the topic, because she trusted the people here to discuss it and judge it with hardly any input from her, because she treats people with whom she disagrees with deep respect as human beings. This is not how it works in climate, Gene. If we didn’t demonise our enemies, where would we be today?
Worth reading Steve McIntyre for a truly toe-curling example from 2006 on Bishop Hill earlier. All hail Dr Curry for being so different from these ‘community norms’. (It is hard not to effuse a little. Sorry.)
Is my view this frame, as adjusted by JC, closely reflects the dinner party and water cooler consensus amongst the scientifically literate population who have no financial or reputational dogs in the fight. Thank you for bringing this forward for consideration.
DavS
It takes more than watercooler scientifically literacy to evaluate this, IMO.
How much literacy does a non-climate science scientist need to evaluate the validity of climate science? A PhD in another allied field such as particle physics? How about biochemistry? Genetics? Will a MSc do? How about a BSc? A subscription to Discover or SciAm? Watching the National Geographic Channel?
Are those your qualifications? Glad to know. It isn’t a question of the science that agitates you (and me) and to pretend otherwise is just typical disingenuousness!
You still don’t get it do you?
I have no qualifications that count when it comes to evaluating the scientific literature. Hence, I see the most valid authority to be the peer-reviewed literature and the scientific opinion of the experts who publish in it.
Not commenters in the blogosphere, named or anonymous.
And if I told you that my name was Susan N Lund, from Alberta Canada, would that make my opinion any more relevant or valid?
:I have no qualifications that count when it comes to evaluating the scientific literature. Hence, I see the most valid authority to be the peer-reviewed literature and the scientific opinion of the experts who publish in it.”
A thecnical analyst is qualified
To repeat, and as a little exercise in thinking perhaps you could work up an answer?
Taking your logic at it’s face value, only an ‘authoritative’ person could determine whether this or that ‘authority’ was ‘authoritative’?
No, you’d use exactly the same test: the preponderance of evidence. What is the evidence that the National Academy of Sciences is authoritative, and what is the evidence that it is not?
PDA. Yes. So you’ve set yourself up as an ‘authority’ on this ‘preponderance of evidence’ – should I defer to you, rather than the NOAA? For I, as a’non scientist’, cannot determine their ‘authority’? But, no, rather, I should defer to any ‘demagogue’ and chap standing upon a tin toilet who tells me he knows what is ‘authoritative’? You see where this is going?
Let me put this way. However ill-informed we, the ‘public’, are, we will not do what you want. Like them potatoes?
Indeed, let me put another way. What has this weak told us? That the public will always inform itself and that you must, at your peril, respect the ability of that public to inform itself? More potatoes.
Lewis, use your own judgment. What is the evidence that the National Academy is authoritative, in your opinion, and what is the evidence that it is not?
That is plain old silly. Whatever NAS says, one can evaluate whether it makes sense. If it does not why not, would be the criteria for me. Then you are at liberty to accept or reject the counter for logical, appeals to authority etc. reasons. Using you apparent criteria even NAS is not entitled to make any judgments, it is not a climate scientist.
No.
Sorry you’re still feeling weak.
Quite a bit of the needed evaluation today requires nothing more than a good solid high school math and science background, and some basic common sense. (This is actually sad: there is no excuse for errors easily visible to a person with only a high school education!)
Such a person can evaluate whether the scientific method has been followed, whether methods, data and analysis are presented or hidden, whether data is being honestly presented (at a basic level), whether uncertainties are carried through, etc etc etc.
Even more important: climate science is a multidisciplinary field. Climate scientists have often claimed exclusive ownership over the field, while unwilling to recognize their own crucial weaknesses in dimensions of import to their work.
* A professional statistician can easily assess the statistics in climate science — better than most climate scientists.
* A computer data/software professional may well be able to assess the computations involved.
* A field biologist may know quite a lot about biological response to climate. (Even a trained Master Gardener may have better insight than a desk-bound scientist, into how proxies respond to climate change.)
That’s sure to win you friends among those who frequent the climate contrarian and skeptic blogs, MrPete but I think you’re being too generous. There are of course, those who do not have higher education who may hold the right opinion on any given subject, but like a person who can’t show their work in maths, I can’t trust that they know what they’re talking about.
I don’t think that anyone with a high school course in maths or physics or biology is on the level with PhDs who are engaged in field work and peer-reviewed science. That’s pure hubris.
That may make a lot of people feel inadequate but hey, that’s the nature of our society.
I think you missed my point. I am in no way suggesting equivalent ability of HS and college grads to evaluate the entire situation.
I am suggesting that
a) many aspects of this are not graduate-level issues, and
b) many aspects of this are graduate-level issues for which experts outside of climate science may have equal if not more expertise.
This is not to preclude or minimize the aspects for which climate scientists do hold special expertise.
The point is, there is no reason to presume that we must in all ways defer to the climate scientists’ understanding.
In what ways would you think that you or I are qualified to not defer? Over what issues? What areas?
I provided a sample list in my replies above. Two examples:
At one extreme, of the basics, I would offer that anyone with a decent high school science education should be qualified to observe whether a graph is presented with uncertainty bars or not, and to notice the same. That should not be above your pay grade, particularly since you work in the medical field in some way.
At the other end, consider my case as one who is not a scientist, nor have I even completed a graduate degree (long story — the timing was bad.) So in the scale provided above I count only as a “3” although I would claim expertise for some things easily at the “2” level and some things at the “1” level. Even though it can’t be proven by academic credentials. As a professional with decades of real-world experience in various areas of computer and information science, I had better be qualified to assess many aspects of data collection, management, and algorithmic calculations–in any scientific field, climate science or not. Why? Because if I’m not qualified, then you should not be trusting the tools, methods and calculations used by climate scientists and others to do their work, nor the results of that work… because I had a role in developing and refining some of the very fundamental tools they (and you) use!
In a way, I’m not at all unique or special in this. There are millions of professionals with vast experience in using sophisticated methods and tools that are also used in science. Lucia Liljegren is a well-known example: she’s not a scientist, yet her professional experience easily qualifies her to comment in many arenas. Same with many others whose names are frequently mentioned.
At the same time, just because a professional (or scientist) is qualified to weigh in on one aspect, does not mean they are qualified to assess every aspect. That’s already been noted in this thread. Probably nobody is qualified to assess every aspect of climate science! This is where we all need to nurture a high level of personal humility. All of us.
And that highlights another aspect which any mature adult can assess: as soon as we see a so-called expert who imagines they are qualified to weigh in on every aspect of climate science… we know it is time to be very cautious about what they say.
And then there is I;
Capable, not qualified
To peer everywhere.
==========
You just don’t get it, Policy Lass. In general you are still right about expertise and authority. But in climate science a coterie at the core became enslaved to forces way beyond their control. We should all hope they may be allowed to be free enough to observe an even more powerful force than enslaved them, and that will be Nature.
==========
Sorry MrPete but as a layperson, I have no way to judge your abilities. You may have all the qualities you describe, but without some recognized scientific credentials, a publication record and/or membership in a learned society, I have no way of knowing if your opinions deserve my attention or whether you are just another blogger with a viewpoint that is self-serving. You may say you are at a level 3, 2, or 1 but how can I tell? By how convincing you sound? I’d be self-deceived if I thought I could judge between someone who is a talented lay expert and a talented BS artist blowing smoke. I’d like to think I can, but on a blog, there is no way to tell — unless I am an expert and can judge based on my knowledge of the field and literature and methods.
There are (at least) angles to this:
a) Self-assessment: am I qualified to assess XYZ or should I defer to “authority”?
b) Other-assessment: is the “authority” qualified to assess XYZ?
I was answering (a). You appear (now) to be asking (b).
What I am saying is: there are aspects of climate science which any person with basic science understanding can personally assess. And there are other aspects which many non-science professionals can personally assess. It doesn’t actually matter what others think. We can do this ourselves.
And beyond that: without any appeal to authority, our assessments can be shared with others, and can stand or fall on their own merits, because many others are qualified to make the same assessments.
You appear to be searching for authorities who simply ought to be believed… because they are The Experts. My response: everyone makes mistakes. So I can only truly have confidence in the quality of my own assessment, and in my ability to evaluate certain aspects of what others discover, and finally whether others have a solid track record (for whatever that is worth.)
Yet (especially in science!) we Really Ought Not to simply believe the Authorities, and even moreso not believe The Consensus. Because consensus is not science. Science is not even a little bit democratic. A minority of one can falsify what millions believe to be true.
This is why in some ways the current post has very limited scientific utility. Agreeing on “settled science” is very pragmatic and probably a Good Thing… yet is not itself scientific. What we are really doing here is determining which questions will Not Be Asked and which (non-scientific) assumptions will be made.
@ MrPete.
I think the following quote from Steve Connor’s email exchange with Freeman Dyson is relevant to your comment above about consensus:
The point I want to make is that it may well have been right for the scientific “establishment” of the 1930s to be sceptical of Wegener’s theory [about plate tectonics] until more convincing evidence emerged, which it eventually did. The experts, rather than the public, could see the flaws in Wegener’s argument which is why there was a scientific consensus against him. You are saying that the situation today with global warming is similar. However, surely an important difference this time is that it is the scientific consensus that is warning us of the dangers of continuing emissions of carbon dioxide, and that this consensus is saying quite categorically that if we wait until utterly definitive evidence emerges of dangerous climate change it will be too late to do anything about it.
Generalizing about science and consensus is a bit broad to be of much use. There are specific aspects of this debate that don’t generalize easily.
Sorry MrPete but due to threading I can’t reply directly to your post.
Consensus is not science but it is the only way that any kind of summary of the field can be made that is useful to both practitioners and the rest of us. As the Wiki entry says, “Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the ‘normal’ debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.”
The consensus can be wrong of course, but it is much more likely to be on the right path than the outliers. For laypeople, the consensus is the best bet, not the opinion of bloggers or contrarian scientists. For example, do I accept the scientific consensus that the AIDS is primarily caused by HIV infection or do I accept the skeptics who claim it is cause by some other yet-to-be-discovered source or that HIV is a big hoax?
I’m not saying that anyone should blindly follow an expert just because he or she has credentials. Like I say preponderance of evidence based on the peer reviewed literature.
I am saying that laypersons should be skeptical of self-proclaimed experts in blogland and the anonymous opinions or eponymous opinions of those without or without credentials.
Perhaps the hardest thing is to be honest with yourself and admit your own degree of trustworthyness. Should you believe your own arguments for accepting some position? Do you hold them because they are the most scientifically sound positions or because they fit with your worldview and prejudices? Your gut feeling is not the best judge of scientific matters. There are no processes or methods in place to prevent your biases from influencing which positions you take.
Most of the time when a layperson with no background wants to understand some science question, they are far better served going to the science authorities such as the NAS, IPCC, and others than blogland or your “gut feeling” because here there be dragons.
@Shewonk, I agree that most of the time it is reasonable to weigh the consensus and the most-published experts quite heavily.
What Judith (and many others) have pointed out is that in this case we’re dealing with an issue where there are significant non-scientific influences on the consensus/experts. There is no level playing field.
Those influences (e.g. politics, finances, etc) may or may not cause the consensus/experts to be incorrect. What they undeniably accomplish is this: related important questions are not being equally investigated, if they don’t align with the majority or the politically acceptable view.
The result: larger uncertainty than necessary, almost all of it in the direction opposite to the consensus view. This does not make it “more likely” that the consensus is incorrect but rather it is more likely that they don’t actually know as much as they think they do, either about the problem or about solutions.
This also does not imply that (as some say) if we’re so uncertain then that means it is more likely worse than what is being proposed. The bias is already in the “worse” direction.
One realistic implication is that I cannot trust the experts as much as I would like, because it is more likely in this case that they know less than they want to admit.
That’s probably the major reason I have put so much effort into personally digging in to various aspects of this question.
@Joshua,
Unfortunately, this consensus is blind in one eye: it is only looking at half of the problem. And long experience with interventionism in nature says that we frequently act in haste with awful unintended consequences. If there ever was a case where it is important to at least be “pretty close”, this is it.
We’re still adjusting our understanding of sources of GHG by huge amounts; adjusting our understanding of forcings and feedbacks by huge amounts; adjusting our understanding of the most important question (is today’s climate unusual) by huge amounts. The cost of wasting a few trillion is humongous. The cost of investing in the exact wrong thing is also humongous.
The few things already advocated by experts haven’t worked out so well in the last decade. So their track record is quite weak in my book. But that’s another topic (unless JC wants to add voting on not only scientific assessment of the problem but also on assessment of past/present/proposed solutions.)
@MrPete,
Unfortunately, this user interface makes it difficult, indeed, to respond.
From where I sit, your determination that the consensus, such as it is, is only looking at one side of problem is highly speculative. It is based on the blanket assumption that, as you stated in an earlier thread, (I’m paraphrasing) that no research with skeptical findings gets funded. That notion is based on a mechanism whereby all climate research is funded on an a priori determination of what it’s findings will be. This does not jibe with my understanding of research funding. It does seem plausible to me that there could be influences whereby established experts exert influence on what theories are considered valid enough to get published in high impact journals – but to categorize the research funding processes as categorically as you do, IMO, I’m sorry to say, borders on a conspiracy theory. While I have read of accounts by skeptical scientists of how they are selectively funneled out of the funding process, the level of coordination it would take to virtually eliminate any funding for good research scientists who might reach findings that diverge with what we are calling “consensus” here seems far too complicated logistically to be doable – particularly when you consider those very same scientists are frequently characterized by the the folks who make such claims about inequities in research funding as being so incompetent they are unable to see “obvious” flaws in their scientific reasoning.
But all that said, I think that is a side issue – in the same sense that it was a side issue when Judith brought it up in response to my critique that her observations regarding “tribalism” are problematically one-sided.
On point, I am arguing that you were treating the questions over the value of consensus in the process of science, anc secondarily policy development based on science, as a one-size-fits-all type of situation. With theories about AGW, the questions related to the role of consensus takes on a idiosyncratic and specific character, and it doesn’t seem to that the role of consensus in the AGW debate is significantly advanced by referencing the relationship between science and consensus in a more general sense.
As was suggested in the excerpt I quoted – scientific consensus in all issues is not equally of importance.
Your comment regarding the pros and cons of policies that have already, and could in the future, result from a consensus which is short of proof is of interest, and I hope to visit this blog again in the future on a thread where we might exchange perspectives on those questions.
Judging whom to believe or how much weight should be given on each argument is always difficult. Certain biases are known to exists and skeptically minded emphasis them, but do they overemphasize or not – or do I overemphasize them or not? I have written about the biases in many places both on this site and elsewhere and I’m continuously pondering are the biases really so bad or am I throwing aside perfectly valid evidence.
Concerning various claims presented in public I have found one good question to be:
If my answer is that almost certainly it would be and by one of those people who indeed presented it, then the statement has no value. What is the value of a statement that will be presented in the same way whether it is true or not?
(I apply my rule most commonly to politicians and well known issue advocates, but it is equally applicable to all strongly controversial issues.)
Shewonk,
Interesting. I’m guessing that you are assuming all those people who graduated and went to work in the real world stopped thinking and learning. I also guessing you are assuming that they would never work in fields similar to those studied by Climate Scientists. Also, I guess, you assume they would never bother reading any of the papers written by Climate Scientists and those in related fields.
Sorry, but you are wrong on all accounts. In fact, when you examine the time line, a the information fellow who received his PHD 20 years ago in a field currently associated with climate science is in many cases obsolete. Even fields of “pure physics” such as radiation physics have seen changes. A good case could be made for essentially anyone with a scientific bent closely monitoring climate science could easily be as well educated on the subject as one of the senior climate science folks.
My later career years before retirement were spent in computer engineering. More than once I demonstrated software to visiting university professors who responded with something like: “That was an interesting presentation but it would never work if you actually attempted to build it.” Interestingly, the response was anger when I explained that the demo was of a fully operational system and in use 24 hours a day by hundreds of operators, technicians, and engineers.
There are lots of people out there who are fully qualified to evaluate climate science presentations without PHDs in “Climate Science.”
A good case could be made for essentially anyone with a scientific bent closely monitoring climate science could easily be as well educated on the subject as one of the senior climate science folks.
That’s even ridiculous by the standards of this site.
PDA,
I guessing you have not interacted much with senior folks in the academic community. Some are darlings, some just honest people doing an honest job, and some are political wonks who ‘administer’ science in their field. Their claim to fame is sometimes simply having their name placed as co-author on work their post grads have done. Having a PHD and holding a senior position at a university is not universal sign of sound knowledge or even judgment. So yes, folks not part of the official climate science circle can certainly be as well educated on that subject.
Welcome to the real world. In industry, there are people who have the title of analyst, as well as people who act as analysts as part of their job duties. This can be anything from competitive analysis to analysis of potential new technologies, research, patents, etc. The approach of an analyst is typically different from what you see here, and no, they are experts at doing the analysis, not necessarily conducting the research itsself.
There’s quite a few perfectly good wheels lying around, but everybody seems to invent their own. Why is that?
It’s pure hubris.
Ms. Wonk,
Peer reviewed citation for that?
None needed for that is pure opinion. ;)
1. People who graduate and get jobs (like me and presumably you) tend to go out into the world and learn their own areas of expertise. They are busy and unless they have reading climate science as a hobby, they are unlikely to know much about it. Some of us have taken reading the climate science literature up as a hobby. I know I have. :) People where I live think I’m nuts, but whatever. Still, while my 4 years of reading climate science may have given me some knowledge, it doesn’t mean I am able to arbitrate scientific questions.
What it should mean is that I am now much more aware of how little I know about climate science, since I have spent 4 years and only know a bit more about one small area.
2. A PhD from 20 years ago is presumably busy doing field work and/or research and teaching and has to keep up with the field or become irrelevant. In the contemporary academic world, its publish or perish baby unless you are solely an adjunct lecturer and only teach. So it is possible but not very common or likely that most PhDs in a field do not keep up with the literature in their field – even ones who got their doctorates two decades ago. There may be talented amateurs who are as up to speed with the literature as experts, and can offer a valuable bit of insight, but those of us without said expertise have no way of telling if they are spot on or merely parroting something they have read on a blog.
My point is not that everyone who is not a PhD (Climate Science) is an idiot, but that I can’t tell whose opinion is or isn’t worth consideration in the blogosphere and whose argument is scientifically valid or who is just plain bonkers. Credentials aren’t perfect but they are far better than internet monikers and bald assertions.
Ahh, thanx Ms. Wonk, I understand now. This is your personnal way to wade through this complex science. Understood. Yet for others, they do have the ability to run with the big dogs, such as O’donnel et al . Lay people by your description, yet helping to further the understanding. For a while there I thought you were stating that only PhD’s who were in CS for many years could actually understand our climate system. Whew, you had me worried there for a bit :)
If a non-science expert can publish in the scientific literature and their work stand up to scientific scrutiny, I would consider their opinion on a level with science experts, yes. However, I still take the preponderance of evidence as the proper guide, not a one-off paper in the peer reviewed literature. As I have repeated, one paper can be a fraud or bad and slip through peer review so it is not wise to just accept the claims of any given paper. That’s not healthy skepticism.
What a layperson really needs is a summary of the science produced by expert scientists who have the ability to comprehend and evaluate the science and report it in a comprehensible way — kinda like the NAS, the various learned societies, why, even the IPCC, the WMO and others. Do they ever make errors? Of course they do. Only a fool will expect perfection and only a denier with anti-science motives would use the existence of specific errors as justification for doubting the whole endeavour.
One of can be a fraud. Nobody expects perfection.
You professedly cannot tell these situations apart, so how would you judge. Change you handle to sheknownot
“What a layperson really needs is a summary of the science produced by expert scientists who have the ability to comprehend and evaluate the science and report it in a comprehensible way — kinda like the NAS, the various learned societies, why, even the IPCC, the WMO and others.”
I’ll take any analysis team with a track record that’s less than 1 erronoeus report in 10.
Having a long background in science, but somewhat new interests after retiring, I have noticed it painfully true that the gap is indeed wide between an active scientist in some field and an outsider with good background, but not active research level participation in the field. This becomes apparent, when I think my own writing.
It is relatively easy to write short messages to discussion threads like this one. In these comments missing some important work is perfectly admissible. That allows me to express with confidence my thoughts, in which I have fairly strong trust, but when I think, how I could proceed to the level of a scientific publication that would fulfill those criteria that I set for publications of experienced scientists, I notice that I would have to do really much additional ground work – and here I do not talk about going to a field that would be totally alien to me to start with.
Active participation in research brings with it a more up-to-date knowledge of the state of science. It brings with it also additional knowledge about the trustworthiness of other scientists. Sometimes it may present also an one-sided and biased view, when different schools of thought are unable to understand each other or when a faulty paradigm has too much influence, but not at all as often than outsiders tend to think.
Pekka,
I’d just like to make sure my comments were not construed to refer to all science research. I was responding to claims that those outside the ‘climate science’ community are not qualified to judge the validity of statements made by ‘climate scientists.’ As I read what I wrote, I can see that my statement was could be taken to mean something other than what I intended. I apologize for that.
My thoughts in making that statement were about specific things. That is when forest biologists warning that the growth rings of specific trees do not provide accurate temperature indications were ignored. The biologist might not be a ‘climate scientist’ but could certainly have been following the science associated with tree biology quite closely.
Another example would be claims about hurricane intensity. It would be exceedingly unlikely that those folks who spend their careers tracking, studying, and predicting hurricanes would simply ignore published academic papers on the subject. Certainly they are themselves researchers, though not considered insiders in the climate science community, and are qualified to judge the validity or utility those papers.
Research and study does exist outside the academic world.
Looking at climate science, there are many issues that can be explained to well educated outsiders well and whose justifications can be assessed by these outsiders, but there are also areas of research which require detailed and wide knowledge to assess with any certainty. Much of the controversy about uncertainties comes from these areas, most notably from climate modeling.
Modeling systems that are as complex as the Earth system is extremely difficult. Many people (myself included) have doubts on the quality of the models. We know that modelers of systems in many ways similar, but usually simpler than the Earth system, have great difficulties in getting reliable results. We know that the errors are often subtle and difficult to observe. We know also that there are certain general limitations on, what can be modeled successfully and what not. All these issues lead us to have doubts on the climate models and also on the capability of the climate modelers themselves to assess the accuracy of their models. All this without any need to judge the capabilities of individual scientists.
Even, if the climate modelers have been successful in building the models to give valuable results and even if they have good reasons to believe that they have succeeded, it may still be impossible to convince outsiders. Any set of tests may be of little real value, and the success in it misleading. As outsiders, we cannot judge it. But we cannot judge either whether the modelers are really competent in giving a correct judgment on their own work, and I mean “competent” not “willing”. It’s most likely that they don’t know it either as well as they would like to know. Some of the modelers themselves have expressed assessments of that nature.
Still the modelers, or at least the most competent among them, have a much better understanding on the capabilities of the models than we outsiders.
There are some similar issues in any difficult research problem. I am pretty sure that the paleoclimatologists who create the reconstructions have much valuable knowledge overlooked by the statisticians, who criticize their work for deviating from standard practices. The issues are not at all that clearcut that a deviation would automatically be an error. The standard practices are useful and following them provides great advantages, but they are not the most powerful methods, when the problem to be analyzed deviates from the standard settings. This is a fact overlooked in much of criticism. The extra power is unfortunately often obtained losing at the same time on the possibility of estimating the accuracy of the analysis.
Looking at the research from outside on the basis of special knowledge of some related field (like statistical analysis) may bring valuable extra value to the research. It may also point out errors, but it may also be misguided, and it is that in particular, when there is a strong desire to condemn as soon as some deviation from expectations is observed.
Pekka,
Being retired, I agree with most of your commentary. Nonetheless, I don’t think that our age or employment status precludes us from being objective about what current scientists have to say about any specific subject.
You don’t know enough science or math to judge whether others know enough. Discover? National Geographic? SciAm? Does anyone with their wits about them read any of them? Your attempts to support the usual warmist arguments from authority are pathetic.
Even though I probably agree the forcings will end up from 1C to 6C, I don’t believe there is any valid mathematical path to that number….i.e. this calculation has unbounded error.
The models are the weakest point of climate science, and until they are validated this estimate of temperature rise is not possible (and using hindcasting with tuned models doesn’t have any credibility in my book)
This result is simply not knowable at this time.
You can calculate future probabilities from past records, but this temperature estimate is stating confidences on the effect of carbon above and beyond theoretical effects primarily as a result of simulations that have unbounded errors on the inputs and outputs.
The confidence level stated appears to be a gut feel assessment and belongs in the “we don’t know enough to make an assessment yet” category. Certainly there is political pressure to do it anyway, I’m only saying this number is very likely to have no traceability and thus needs demoted to at least <50% based on this alone.
Tom, I’m responding here to Pekka above you due to indenting making Pekka’s post non-reply-able.
Pekka, when you say
Still the modelers, or at least the most competent among them, have a much better understanding on the capabilities of the models than we outsiders
I agree but would like to point out that there is a difference between knowing all the complexities of how something works and understanding what that thing can’t do. For instance, I do not know how to fly an airplane nor can I tell from looking what its flight characteristics are (climb rate, max altitude etc). However, I do feel able to determine from a general examination some things it cannot do such as whether this airplane can land on water.
In the same vein as Einstein who famously said something to the effect “a thousand cannot prove me right but one can prove me wrong”. I don’t need to know all of the subtle characteristics and interactions in a climate model to understand that it doesn’t account for water vapor forming additional clouds which act as a negative feedback on warming. A thorough and honest modeler will make these sorts of limitations clear “on the label” as it where. If such limitations aren’t clearly and fully disclosed (bad modeler!) then helpful critics may point them out. Short of a response saying “oh yes my model does account for that right here”, I now know something definitive about what that model cannot do. All without having to be an expert modeler myself.
Mark,
We are not looking at a new theory as in the case of Einstein, we are looking at the capability of calculating useful results based on a variety of knowledge. Our problem can never be answered precisely, but it is possible that it can be answered well enough for practical purposes. This hypothesis can be proven wrong only by showing that the results are worthless.
Of cause also simple errors in what has been done, make the results worthless, but typical weaknesses in the methodology only add to the uncertainty without proving failure. This is precisely an area where expertize is valuable in the same way as it is valuable in nonscientific professional activities. This is an area, where wide knowledge of earlier related research that goes beyond publications is essential. Only through really working with the models and following closely, what others have achieved, can one make the best possible judgment on the value of the calculations.
Here we have the dilemma: To be able to judge the status of the models fully one has to get involved. That means unavoidably that one loses part of impartiality and gets influenced by biases of the research field. The best experts cannot judge, how much bias they themselves have, even less can they convince others that their bias is of little significance.
We shall not have naive trust, but we should not either throw the baby with the bath water.
Judy – As I commented at Lucia’s, I think we can actually accept 1-5 of the extremely likely group as true facts. With everything else (except perhaps no. 1 of the very likely), I think the degree of certainty needs to be knocked down at least one notch (in other words, I pretty much agree with you).
As to No. 1 (~1C from CO2 doubly with no feedbacks), I think it is ok as far as it goes based on radiative physics. However, it is a theoretical number only and, as such represents a starting point only; It doesn’t have real world application though.
On the paleoclimate reconstructions, I think perhaps that the focus on global reconstructions as to whether the entire globe was warmer of cooler in the past isn’t particularly relevant and more focus should be place on regional scale reconstructions. Also, I don’t think Zeke gives enough weight to the inherent uncertainties with many of the different temperature proxies.
LOL,
I agree with most but the things I disagree with snowball down the list.
First, Solar variation is most likely limited to 0.1 C for the past two centuries which implies that the first half of the 20th century had a significant (0.1 to 0.2 C) natural variation since reduced volcanic is unlikely to be 0.3 C for that period.
Paleo reconstructions tend to suppress variation, so past temperature change is likely underestimated by 0.1 to 0.5 C.
The surface temperature average is likely overestimated slightly, approximately 0.1 C, mainly due to ocean and polar coverage.
Feedback of convective clouds is likely negative not neutral.
The range of sensitivity then would be closer to 1.3 to 4 C. The lower end due to natural variability of cloud feedback.
Putting the major propositions on the table to discuss likelihood or uncertainty is quite a good thing. Helps to put order in the debate too.
The fact that the no-feedback CO2 sensitivity can not be directly measured (it is a theoretical concept) does not mean it is not useful. It can be calculated from basic physics, and thence separated from the feedback issue, which is more hotly debated.
Zeke’s interval for sensitivity (cum feedbacks) from 1.5° to 4.5° comes from the IPCC AR4, and to that Judy adds a more generous upper bound of 6°. It might be so, but I do not think it can be established with reasonable certitude or likelihood with our present knowledge (or lack thereof), especially about clouds (and considering saturation bounds for atmospheric humidity). It is quite possible that clouds’ cooling effect with higher CO2 is larger than thought, and vapour warming feedback is lower, AFAWK.
So far, an increase of nearly 40% in CO2 has caused (if we believe the existing figures, another big issue) a temperature raise significantly lower than 1°C (closer to ~0.5°-0.7°), with feedbacks and all. If sensitivity were, say, 4° then a 40% increase of CO2 would have caused a rise of 1.6° at least, which does not seem to be the case. Much more so if sensitivity is 6°C. If direct CO2 effect is about 1.1°, net total feedbacks could be much lower than thought.
Judith caution regarding historical instrumental temperatures series is well founded. Even the modest temp increase recorded in the global temp series is likely to be overstated (and very unlikely to be understated) due to various factors such as UHI (in its broader definition of stations getting increasingly in close vicinity of concrete, bricks, asphalt, metal and engines, even in rural areas) and also problems with the choice of stations, and other problems with infilling and averaging of gridcells without due consideration of spatial autocorrelation and other similar problems (cf e.g. the Steig-O’Donnell debate).
Hector M writes “The fact that the no-feedback CO2 sensitivity can not be directly measured (it is a theoretical concept) does not mean it is not useful. It can be calculated from basic physics, and thence separated from the feedback issue, which is more hotly debated. ”
To pick a nit; no-feedback sensitivity cannot be calculated; i.e there is no exact formula. It can only be estimated. If you believe Tomas Milancovic, which I do, it cannot even be estimated.
In fact, Jim, I meant “estimated”. Sorry for the use of “calculated”. I’m not sure whether I agree with Milancovic, so I’ll let it here at the moment.
The questions seem to ask ‘how confident are we of the scientific basis of AGW?’ (roughly). Which is fine. There’s also the question of ‘How confident are we that recent temperature variations have all been adequately explained, and that all future variations can be explained?’. (Rephrased in some way that’s acceptable to both sides of the debate). In the end, this debate is all about understanding and predicting temperature (climate) changes. If we can’t do that to a useful level of confidence, none of the rest makes any damn’ difference.
Dr. Curry:
I am not convinced about the impact of doubling. I had a discussion at scienceofdoom about this and though we agreed to disagree, he did not find a compelling reason to dump my argument. (Scienceofdoom is an excellent site for lay people to get an understanding of CO2’s heat absorption properties, or more accurately electromagnetic radiation absorption) I’ve summarized things on my blog under a post called “The path length approximation”. It is the method used by engineers to calculate heat absorption of intervening CO2 and water between a hot surface and a cold surface. It is a method I have used professionally with success in achieving a functional design. Steve M. and Willis can confirm that the “forcing” curve generated is relatively similar to what is generated using modtran. I have plotted 5.35 ln [CO2] on the same graph and there is a very close fit. The difference is the method used in all other fields to calculate CO2’s absorbance produces a maximum impact, beyond which further increases in CO2 concentration have no impact. It is only in climate science that there is this hypothesis of a continuous increase in impacts as concentration increases. That is, I would say that the logarithmic approximation could be supplanted with an hyperbolic approximation with an asymptote at about 200 ppm CO2.
I hope I’m wrong. Because if I’m right, that is a pretty spectacular fail on THE fundamental premise. As I’ve said elsewhere, “Science” will be catastrophically injured, if I’m right.
John,
That’s very interesting.
I accept almost none of these claims at the ridiculous probability levels they are expressed in. That was easy. On with the debate.
Zekes sees the following as “more likely than not (>50%)”: “Recent warming is unprecedented over the past millennium.”
Literally, recent WARMING (i.e. recent CHANGE in temperature) is more or less the same observed in the warming period up to 1940. So not unprecedented even within the same century.
If “warming” here is used to mean “absolute temperature” the debate is quite open. Efforts to demonstrate it, mainly through the Hockey Stick and its derivates, have encountered fierce opposition and been the object of criticisms on methodological grounds. Also, “recent” peaks in temperature are clearly associated with El Niño events (such as 1998) and there is no perceptible causal link in the literature between El Niño amplitude and global warming, as least in AR4 and subsequent literature on the subject (so far, the stronger El Niño period on record is 1885-1915). If one defines “climate” in WMO terms (30 year averages) any of the latest 30-year periods including 1970-99 (i.e. smoothing over individual year peaks) has been warmer than the preceding one, but not by much. All in all, this does not bestow 50% confidence (or more) on the proposition that “recent warming is unprecedented in a millennium”.
I agree with all of the extremely likely, but question most of the others in one small way or another. I only have time to comment on one. Said to be “likely:”
1. “Climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5 C and 4.5 C for a doubling of carbon dioxide, due to feedbacks (primarily water vapor) in the climate system. This is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including GCMs, paleoclimate evidence (including climate response to forcing during glacial periods as well as millennial proxies), the instrumental record, and the climate response to volcanic forcings among others. That said, this range is large enough that it could mean that climate change will be a moderate issue (1.5 C) or potentially quite dangerous (4.5 C). JC comment: I think we can bound this between 1 and 6C at a likely level, I don’t think we can justify narrowing this further.”
I think it is more likely the range is 0.5C to 1C. It appears to me that a majority of 20th century warming was natural (overstated at that because of unwarranted adjustments to the data) and that the net feedback to rising atmospheric CO2 is negative. We are simply not seeing anything like dangerous warming. An estimate of 6C is astronomical. I don’t know of any real world observations or math that can support it.
Look at the graph presented in Zeke’s post at Lucia. Scientific evidence shows that your estimates are very unlikely. You asked for observations for a 6C number, but missed to asked yourself how earth should have escaped snowball earth. Or that with your estimate the faint young sun paradoxon would be a real paradoxon.
As Shewonk would say, your numbers are a lay opinion.
CO2 cannot be the answer to the faint sun paradox because of the low 180 ppm concentration during the non glacial first half of the carbonaceous period. The combination of a fainter sun, higher temperatures, and lowest ever CO2 concentration argues for a very low sensitivity.
swift,
do you have a source for 180 ppm? Sounds like a scientific sensation: proxy data from billions years ago ;-)
What about another example: Little Ice Age. If you explain LIA by a weaker sun, so a forcing of about -0.5 W/m^2 and a climate sensitivity of 1C would lead to a decrease of global temperature of about 0.1-0.2°C.
Up to now I’ve never heard a sceptic claiming LIA being less cold than most reconstructions show.
Andrea,
The problem is that we do not know all of the forcings involved. You often hear people claim we do, but we have to be careful of unknown unknowns. If we knew everything about forcings, then we would not have the issue of missing heat that Kevin Trenberth became famous for.
We don’t understand clouds. The LIA could have been a very cloudy time.
Also, the hypothesis of solar amplification is still up in the air. If the climate is particularly sensitive to changes in solar output, the LIA could be particularly cold from solar changes.
Then there are the things we don’t know we don’t know. Can anyone explain why ocean heat content has not increased since 2003? Not that I know of. Instead of grappling with what is going on, researchers want to pretend it is instrument error.
The climate sensitivity estimate by Stephen Schwartz was based on the CRU temperature record. His estimate was on the very low end of the IPCC range. But if the CRU temp record has a warming bias from unwarranted adjustments, then the Schwartz estimate is actually too way too high possibly 33% too high. This puts the climate sensitivity pretty close to the numbers I provided.
I have lost the reference from four or five years ago (Computer death) and could not find it again. However I have found another with a CO2 level in the range we have experienced since the 1940’s http://www.pnas.org/content/99/20/12567.full At 379 ppm within 35 ppm, the start of the Namurian period, 330 million years ago, should be deep in an glacial period if CO2 was the answer to the faint sun paradox. Instead it saw the beginning of an ice age.
If a quiet sun during the Maunder Minimum cased the LIA,then the variation of the total solar irradiance was not enough to cause the probable cooling even at a higher sensitivity. There have been two indirect methods proposed that could magnify the effect. The well known galactic cosmic ray hypothesis is one. The other is a more recent proposal that UV radiation has a significant effect on the amount of ice crystals in the stratosphere. My estimate of the temperature rise from doubling CO2, is about .7 or .8 degrees C.
“I have serious concerns about the ocean data.”
Dr Curry, as the ocean data is crucial to the “global datasets” I would very interested to learn what your “serious concerns” are. However as you say probably best left until the Berkeley analysis is available especially if it is imminent.
Green Sand, some issues with ocean data are mentioned on this thread, i will pick up this subject in more depth at a later time
http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/17/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-i/
Many thanks, will check it out.
Yes, well worth another read.
Judith, if you published that post again it would surely attract more than the hundred comments it did last October.
The skeptical community should consider adopting the term “Sustainable Energy” as it solution to AGW, as an alternative to “Green Energy”
The term “Sustainable” energy is politically very powerful because it implies both green energy and affordable energy, for the long term. It is difficult to see how anyone can argue against it, and it provides a means to unite people from both sides of the argument.
Dr McKitrick made two very powerful points in his report:
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick.calgary.pdf
1) The satellite records is the most accurate records and it is trending below the best case IPCC projections. Things are not as bad as forecast, showing that there is time to implement alternative policies.
2) That if the projections are correct, that a shift to “green energy” will save money and create jobs, why does it require a large UN regulatory structure with carbon taxes, credits and penalties? Wouldn’t companies make the switch to improve their bottom line without regulation if the policies were economical?
Given that there is time, and companies will switch if it is economical, would it not make more sense for the skeptical community to adopt “Sustainable Energy” as a more reasoned solution to “Green Energy”? The point being that people need ” Sustainable Energy” to survive and prosper, and thus solve poverty on a global scale, as is happening today in India and China.
“Green Energy” is not a solution if it is not economically sustainable. If it was economically sustainable, why does it require such a large degree of UN regulation, taxes and penalties?
Well, maybe the labeling would work, it seems to work for other things, but I don’t see us having a energy problem other than the self-imposed sort. The energy issue is a self-fixing one. Man progresses, the assumption what we would continue to use coal and oil for infinity is just strange to me. Things change as do our sources of energy. We’ve no way of know what we’ll be using in 100 years. I think its best just to let it happen.
“Wouldn’t companies make the switch to improve their bottom line without regulation if the policies were economical?”
Are you sure there’s even an informed decision being made?
1998
* “Real Price Of Gasoline” Report Reveals Actual Cost of Gas to Consumers Is as High as $15.14 per Gallon
* That full report as a PDF
2008
* Real Cost of a Gallon of Gas: $11.35 plus
2010
* IEA reveals fossil fuel subsidies top $550bn
Out of the 550, Iranian dictators are subsidizing 101 to keep their population happy That should be included in the discussion?
But let’s stipulate the number and assume that all of it applied to oil and not fossil fuel as indicated.. US consumption is about 20 million barrels per day. I think that is about a third of world consumption. So the world is consuming about 60 million barrels per day. That is about 22 billion barrels per year. That makes the “subsidy” about $25 per barrel. A barrel is 42 US gallons. That is about 60 cents per gallon of oil. In rounded numbers you can get 20 gallons of gasoline from a barrel of oil. So the subsidy is 3 cents. If all is applied to that part of the barrel.
You forgot to include a category of “Extremely Unlikely,” which is where THIS nonsense would belong :
“Recent warming is unprecedented over the past millennium. While there are plenty of problems with paleoclimate reconstructions, enough corroborating work has been done to at least elevate this to more likely than not in my personal judgment. Were there reconstructions clearly showing MWP temperatures comparable with, say, the running 50-year mean of the instrumental record I would be less certain. ”
See the hundreds of studies under “Medieval Warm Period,” and “Roman Warm Period” here: http://co2science.org/subject/subject.php
Please don’t tell me we still have folks that accept the spaghetti graphs! :-)
That is the question:
Why was the web of knowledge, based on scientific measurements and observations, extended from fact into official propaganda?
Well, there you have it! Dr. Curry, it a consensus, skeptics don’t think point number 5. has near the certainty as stated and alarmists don’t believe that’s a valid opinion because we don’t have enough letters in front of our names.
I have a bunch of letters in front of my name….
…and still loose my car keys
No way!!! You mean doctorates and the like can be wr…..
try this again….wrogn..
one more time…….rwong
Scientists can be wrong? That’s just crazy talk!
Did you notice that I can’t splee eather?
Re: (undefined NaN NaN:NaN),
And you can’t spell “lose”!
Shameful, really …
;(
Me too on both counts, but I always find them at the last place I look
Ah but DB, in a quantum world, you may find them inthe first place you look at last!
“I think we can bound this between 1 and 6C at a likely level, I don’t think we can justify narrowing this further.”
I wonder if we can be this certain. Weather is chaotic. Climate is weather over time. A chaotic time series. Unpredictable, nonlinear responses should be expected.
For example, the paleo record of earth’s average temperature for the past 600 million years appears to have an upper bound of 22C and a lower bound of 12C, regardless of CO2 levels. Until and unless climate science can explain why these bounds exist, any projections of temperature dependency on CO2 are fraught with uncertainty.
For example, Earth’s temperature is something like 14.5C right now. Based on the paleo records, no amount of CO2 is likely to raise the temperature more than 7.5C. This suggests that simple projections based on doubling CO2 are very uncertain.
Whether this will be harmful to life is questionable. Tree’s maintain their temperature at 21.5C, regardless if they live in cold or warm climates, and they grow better with increased CO2, so it would appear they are well adapted to a warmer, CO2 rich planet.
There is no reason to expect other life forms on the planet are any less well adapted. Human beings routinely heat and cool their houses to 72F (22C). Is it a coincidence?
Why are humans creating so much CO2? Mostly to heat things up. Very little energy goes for cooling, because evaporation is a much more cost effective means of cooling. We do not have a similar, low cost means to heat things up. This simple fact of physics is why cold is much more a threat to humans and human civilization than is heat.
The bottom of the oceans contain an enormous reservoir of cold water. It is very simple to pump this to the surface and cool the planet for centuries to come, and generate net energy at the same time. This was demonstrated off Hawaii 30 years ago.
The principle uses the temperature difference between the surface water and deep sea water to drive a sterling or similar engine. A pipe run deep into the ocean to draw up the cold water, and once the engine is primed it will continue pumping indefinitely. Any excess energy can be used to generate electricity.
As a bonus, the upwelling cold water carries nutrients, which are beneficial to sea live in the area and can be used as a basis for aquiculture. In theory we could create enormous floating cities using this technology, with food and energy created by the pumps, and cool the planet at the same time.
Fred – trees maintain 21.5C? That would make the subarctic forests a huge source of heat, and tree-hugging a life-sustaining activity, instead of a disparaging metaphor. Are you sure about this? Last time I felt a tree trunk in cold weather it was – well, cold…
From Canada To The Caribbean: Tree Leaves Control Their Own Temperature, Study Reveals
Tree leaves hold a constant 21.4C when photosynthesizing
http://www.treeworld.info/f29/trees-regulate-leaf-temperature-2846.html
ScienceDaily (Jun. 11, 2008) — The temperature inside a healthy, photosynthesizing tree leaf is affected less by outside environmental temperature than originally believed, according to new research from biologists at the University of Pennsylvania.
Surveying 39 tree species ranging in location from subtropical to boreal climates, researchers found a nearly constant temperature in tree leaves. These findings provide new understanding of how tree branches and leaves maintain a homeostatic temperature considered ideal for photosynthesis and suggests that plant physiology and ecology are important factors to consider as biologists tap trees to investigate climate change.
Fred, I have had a chance to read the commentary on the paper you referenced. The tagline
“From Canada To The Caribbean: Tree Leaves Control Their Own Temperature, Study Reveals
Tree leaves hold a constant 21.4C when photosynthesizing”,
is simply incorrect – the commenter writes:
“They aren’t however suggesting that a tree’s leaves stay at the same temperature all-day or all-season long. Instead, 21C is more of a long-term target that the tree achieves on average over the course of a year.”
This is far less jaw-dropping finding. I imagine, however, that the mechanism suggested by their findings may have some implications for dendrochronology.
4.As a corollary to 3., a warmer world will have an atmosphere with more water vapor. This will tend to enhance the greenhouse effect, though the situation is complicated by the difficulty in both projecting changes in cloud formation and determining the radiative forcing effect of clouds. JC: the coupled water vapor and cloud feedbacks are uncertain, doesnt belong in very likely IMO.
Climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5 C and 4.5 C for a doubling of carbon dioxide, due to feedbacks (primarily water vapor) in the climate system.
If ” a warmer world will have an atmosphere with more water vapor,” why has atmospheric water vapor declined since satellite measurements began in 1983, and why has tropospheric relative and specific humidity declined since 1948?
http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm
It is a mystery to me. While I’m a skeptic, I fully anticipated more water vapor. But, it goes back to, “we don’t know what we don’t know”.
I went to the site posted, and followed the link and went to the http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl
and I found water vapor to be increasing
Dr. Curry, it appears your replication of another blog may have been a bit ambitious. Personally, I got stopped on #5. It doesn’t stand to reason. Because we’re only measuring atmospheric CO2, that isn’t all of the earth’s CO2. The ocean sinks and out-gases CO2 at different rates at different times at different places. As does the flora of the biosphere.
The rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 has diminished in the last decade. Now that in itself doesn’t mean a whole lot, but I don’t believe we’ve quit increasing our CO2 output.
I’ve posted a video atmospheric CO2. (satellites are cool!!!) While I’m usually a numbers guy, in that I’m not much for graphical representations, sometimes they’re necessary to get the whole picture…..as it where.
Please watch it and then try to list the many inferences one can take from it. Many directly relating to this post.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-49225
lol, fingers…..as it were.
2 Zeke statements, Judy’s Comment and my comment.
Water vapor primarily acts as a feedback rather than a forcing in the climate system due to its short atmospheric residence time and the limitation to absolute humidity at a given temperature for saturated air. Science of Doomcovers this rather well. Pointing out that water vapor is Earth’s dominant greenhouse gas does not minimize the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide. JC: OK
HAP:The atmosphere can hold much more water than 100% humidity in the form of water drops in clouds and fog.
Recent warming is unprecedented over the past millennium. While there are plenty of problems with paleoclimate reconstructions, enough corroborating work has been done to at least elevate this to more likely than not in my personal judgment. Were there reconstructions clearly showing MWP temperatures comparable with, say, the running 50-year mean of the instrumental record I would be less certain.
JC: I don’t think we know; the white part of the Italian flag is very big on this one.
HAP:They are not currently growing grapes in Greenland. We are not near as warm as then.
Judy – I believe this thread will confirm what we have already observed from the Sky Dragon thread and the Radiative Transfer threads – attempts to arrive at a minimum point of agreement will degenerate into squabbles about even those minimum items. I find your post interesting for its insight into your thinking, but I doubt that the exchange of comments that follows will often let you get much further. Rather than discussing how best to constrain climate sensitivity estimates, for example, we will see arguments that most CO2 increases are not anthropogenic, or that further increases in
CO2 will have no impact, and so on.
I hope I’m wrong, and if fruitful areas of discussion emerge, I’d like to participate, but I’ve grown somewhat pessimistic.
I do tend to agree with much of your assessment, although as you know, I assign somewhat higher probabilities to many of the items. As one example, I find the probability of a climate sensitivity less than 2C to be small, and less than 1.5C to be very small, but that has already been a topic for a different post. Rather than belabor that point, which in any case is only a personal opinion rather than a “fact”, I would only suggest that interested readers visit AR4, WG1, chapters 8 and 9, read the text, and more importantly visit the most salient references as well as any references a reader believes were not in that report but are relevant.
Fred, my point is that when there is disagreement by people with high epistemic levels that have investigated the issue, then the confidence level is probably lower than assumed by each.
Agreed 100%. The parties are way too confident in their results and their proposed solutions. None have stood the test of time, which tells us we should not have confidence in the results.
Cancer research was set back many years as a result of a similar battle, with radical surgery emerging as the treatment of choice in spite of the evidence, based mostly on the status of surgeons. Many died before their time as a result. Experts can be and often are wrong, especially when it affects their livelihood.
You are doing a great job! Thanks for taking the time to read and reply.
Are you sure about the 100%? :)
Judy – Who do you have in mind when you refer to people with high epistemic levels? How much disagreement by a minority do you need to reduce the confidence held by the majority? If the balance is very lopsided, does this raise confidence instead, or is unanimity required? How important is consilience of opinion as opposed to consilience of evidence, a topic I addressed in an earlier thread?
I would add a mixed version to assigning the likelihoods.
As an personal assessment I agree with the list of Zeke (although I have issues with the concepts, some of which are poorly defined).
As my view of what has been justified convincingly by science, I would move close to Judith’s assessment. The difference comes from lack of evidence on the accuracy of the estimates and from many biases, which certainly exist, but whose strength is difficult to determine. In particular the uncertainty related to potential bias is strengthened by the attitude of many climate scientists, which has created pressure of uniformity for the whole community. This uncertainty can be lessened only by well demonstrated openness, which would also tell, how the risk of bias is countered in scientific practices. Here it is not enough that procedures are correct, their correctness must in addition be demonstrated.
Judith wrote, “I have serious concerns about the ocean data.”
Me, too, but my concerns are for the long-term datasets, which is why I spend most of my time evaluating satellite-era SST data.
Is Berkeley addressing SST data? That wasn’t clear at their website.
Berkeley group is focused now on land, they hope to get funding to continue with ocean.
In addition to clouds and fog, air can be supersaturated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_physics
“This is confirmed both by the isotopic signature of the carbon and the fact that concentrations rise proportionate to emissions”
The isotopic signatures have alternative explanations, and correlation is not causation. If the extra CO2 is a result of out-gassing as a result of natural warming, then the correlation could be entirely coincidental.
Given that human CO2 production is such a small percentage of the total production, even a small error in measuring natural effects could be the cause of the observed increase.
It is great to get back to the main point of the AGW discussion.
I have a few comments.
a) 1 C from CO2 doubling. Yes, this is a number that you can arrive at with some assumptions. The more easily defendable number is 3.7 W/m2 forcing at the top of the troposphere from CO2 doubling which comes straight from radiative transfer models that are trusted and verified. Unfortunately the average joe-public won’t know what this number means without context such as the 0.2 W/m2 from the 11-year solar cycle, or estimated 0.5 W/m2 from the LIA solar reduction. I have always thought this 3.7 W/m2 should have more prominence in the debate.
b) I agree water vapor feedback should be in the very likely category, but clouds should be separated out from this. Clouds could go either way in my opinion.
c) Solar forcing changes in recent decades don’t look to be significant, even compared to the 11-year cycle, so I agree with the original categorization as very likely.
d) Sensitivity. I am inclined to agree with 2-4.5 C. Richard Alley has a very nice lecture supporting this from paleoclimate. I could provide a link if interested.
e) Surface temperature record. I believe Roy Spencer in his last Heartland Insititute talk, re-did the land data from the raw records himself, and checked against UAH, and found CRU was basically correct. I don’t expect Berkeley’s data to do much else.
f) Natural variability on decadal scales. Maybe at a stretch 0.5 C, which is the amplitude of the ENSO cycle, could show up at decadal scales too, but given how strong a signal that has to be (look at ENSO), it would be somewhat amazing if such a thing showed up and had a physical explanation with ocean conveyor belts. I am very skeptical of multi-decadal ocean cycles of any significant amplitude. Obviously something like the Gulf Stream halting would be a significant impact, but is non-cyclic, and AGW has not ruled out such events.
g) OK, we can bring up MWP, but that could have been solar, while this one obviously isn’t. It don’t know why MWP is supposed to raise any doubt about AGW. There may be solar warming mechanisms too, certainly consistent with AGW that accounts for solar forcing changes.
Jim, love Prof Alley. If we could harness his giddy energy, we would be off the cabaceous cycle in a mili-second!
A small question that I have not yet managed to answer and have not seen a satisfactory explanation anywhere. All the points by Zeke is theory and based on this theory climate models are programmed and so on. I’m pretty certain that the pure physics part should be right as it’s old established knowledge. But isn’t there somewhere still too big an abyss of uncertainty as definitely for ten years, since 2001, maybe even since 1997 or 1998 the temperatures have not risen (and this year, at least now, is not shaping up as a hot year) while CO2 levels have grown with business as usual. What if this would continue for another, say 5 to 6 years, making the no-growth strip to 20 years? Will the theory be falsified?
According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. Ergo, the models have already been falsified at the 95% level. Fun with statistics, but no worse than the confidence levels assigned in this post and by the IPCC.
This is a critical point.
The current temperature plateau is not consistent with any of the General Circulation models. If this plateau continues (as, in my view, it is likely to given the switch in PDO) at what point do the modelers concede that their specifications are in error?
In other words, when do we revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing warming? If we go by the NOAA report we are already there.
Jay
They do admit it NOW, but in PRIVATE:
That was no warming for 7 years.
Now, it is no warming for 13 years.!
http://bit.ly/fMwWl1
Where on earth are you geting the idea that there has been no global warming since 1998? Sorry, the land and ocean are both still warming:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm
If you do not like my link, then go back to the top of this page and readthe 95% certain statements. Read number 1 & 2 until you understand them.
Holly Stick,
Where do I take it?
Just one example
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2010/trend
@Holly
You’ll forgive me a small guffaw. You link to ‘skeptical science’ as being ‘experts’.
Yet even their own ‘about’ page admits that they are not. John Cook, who wrote the cited article, studied physics. He states – and credit to him for this – ‘I am not a climate scientist’.
Beware of all self-proclaimed ‘experts’. But be specially aware of treating as experts people who don’t even make that claim for themselves.
10 years, from 2001
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2010/trend
False, Sven. 2000, 2007, 2008, 2009 all show warming for Hadcrut. Read this until you understand it:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/3-levels-of-cherry-picking-in-a-single-argument.html
Sorry Holly. I looked at Sven’s graph.
What is wrong with it in your opinion? Has he hidden something? Does it not show what it seems to show? It is a graph that anyone can plot with as good basic data as can be found…I gues sthe maths behind it is right, What, exactly, is your problem?
Brusquely (I am being charitable) demanding that he goes away and reads another article ‘until he understands it’ has two effects for me
1. It shows that you have no actual answer to his point. Or that if you do you are incapable of articulating it
2. It suggests that you have learnt your rhetorical skills elsewhere in the blogosphere where arrogance, rudeness and unpleasantness are perceived to be symbols of expertise. Here, however, they merely betray a weakness of argument and suggest a shallowness of understanding.
Holly Stick, I think that the main difference in our approach is that you are trying to prove your point while I’m just trying to find out. I’m not repeating any “deniers” claims but am rather following the temperature data and have done that for years already. The only data that shows warming from 1998 is GISS. None of the others does. As I said, that is something for what I don not have and have not seen any satisfactory answers. Yours definitely has not helped me forward.
If you were honestly “just trying to find out”, you would not cherry pick your years so carefully. Anyone who posts that graph starting in 1998 without including some caveats is dishonest.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes.php#trends
The scientists say 10 years is too short a time for a meaningful trendline. It should be at least 15:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/to:2010/trend
My mistake, this page says it should be 30 years:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm
So
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:2010/trend
This one is 30 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/to:2010/trend
The proper way to plot your data is this :
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/to:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/to:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2010/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2010/trend
The way you plotted it is a prime example of cherry picking. And of bad chartsmanship. As well as being misleading.
What you did there was to generate a linear plot through an inflection point. The inflection point is obvious by visual inspection and cannot be ignored just because it’s “inconvenient”. If you play with the WFT software, you can nail the inflecton point to the tenth of a year. I did exactly that several yearsa ago And even the GISS data showed the inflection point – although somewhat later than the others.
If someone (ANYONE) is telling you that it needs 10 years or 15 or 3o, then they’re lying, scientist or not. Neither nature nor climate operates on their schedule.
I don’t see any good reason for you to split them like that. And obviously a longer term trend is going to be more accurate than a piddling little 10 year trend.
Look what happens when you switch from Hadcrut to Gistemp:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1981/to:2001/plot/gistemp/from:1981/to:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2010/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2010/trend
http://www.skepticalscience.com/3-levels-of-cherry-picking-in-a-single-argument.html
Holly, your reply is exactly the kind of “proving your point” that I was refering to. Please read, what my point was. I never claimed that there is not or has not been any global warming. My point was that from 1998 (or at least 2001) there has been no warming (or in other words, there’s a plateau or even cooling) even though CO2 has continued to rise (and that’s what Jim Owen’s graph is also showing). That’s why I’m using 1998 0r 2001 as a starting point. 10 years or 13 years is quite a long time for this. And it’s not cherry picking. Since 1998 there’s only one year that will give significant positive trend – 1999. And I said already above that GISS is the only exception. If you have a good enough reason for that, I’m more than willing to listen. I’m truly interested to find out what’s the reason for that but sorry, that answer is not convincing.
When you use 1998 as an end point you are cherry picking. Read the experts:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/3-levels-of-cherry-picking-in-a-single-argument.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm
The specialists that you are refering to are trying to prove that nothing is wrong. Come on, these specialists are speaking about 15 year long cycles of El Nino and La Nina years! If you ever have followed the ENSO graphs you would know what rubbish this is. It would be cherry picking if I would use 1998 starting point to prove that there is no global warming. If I use it to show that there is a plateau for the LAST 13 years it is not cherry picking. In 2007 there was the same discussion after an article by David Whitehouse and Tamino was trying to convince everybody that 7 years means nothing we should look at 10 years. Well, now it’s even 13 years. And since 2001 (again, except GISS) there’s even a cooling trend. At the same time CO2 is rising. It’s still something I can’t convincingly explain to myself. I have no idea how it’s gonna continue, but what I see now needs explanation (to me at least it seems it does).
Oh, and one more point. It would be cherry picking if 1998 would be the only year that would give a flat or negative trend, but since 1998, 1999 is the ONLY starting point that gives a warming trend, after that it’s all either flat or negative (exception – GISS)
False, Sven. 2000, 2007, 2008, 2009 all show warming for Hadcrut. For the GISS explanation read this until you understand it:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/3-levels-of-cherry-picking-in-a-single-argument.html
Ok, sorry, I was not quite correct in the preciseness of my claim. To be more precise, 2000 is a positive trend but so small that it could pretty much be called flat. 2007, 2008 and 2009, on the other hand is really so short a period that it’s pretty much just year to year variation. 1998-2010 or 2001 to 2010 is not. Still, I’m not trying to prove anything but if this plateau is not a problem, even a question to you, then be it. For me it is.
You are manipulating yourself a line that shows cooling. When you choose the unusually warm year 1998 as the start of a line, you are cherry picking. And yes the shorter lines are less trustworthy, which means that the longer your trendline, the more accurate it should be. 30 years long is much better than 10 years long.
And as the link I gave you explained, Hadcrut does not include Arctic temperatures, and the Arctic is where amplified warming is taking place, so Hadcrut temperatures are too low. As warming in the Arctic has been increasing as predicted by the climate scientists, I presume the HadCRUT temperatures are getting less accurate.
Holly –
I don’t see any good reason for you to split them like that. And obviously a longer term trend is going to be more accurate than a piddling little 10 year trend.
Let’s start with the second point – less than 10 years ago the climate folks were using 5 year trends. Were they wrong?
Then, due to some “inconvenient data” they changed to 8 year trends. Were they wrong?
Unfortunately, the climate didn’t cooperate and they were forced to change to 10 year – and then 15 year trends. Now we’re approaching the end of that 15 years. And you want to change to 30 years trends? Moving the goalposts is one way of being dishonest.
Note – that “piddling” 10 year trend was once the gold standard. It wasn’t changed because it was wrong, but because the data stopped cooperating with the desired storyline. The extension of the trend times became a “convenient” way to maintain a fictitious storyline. Which is one of the dangers of the longer timelines you seem to favor.
Actually, there’s nothing wrong with 30 year trends – IF AND ONLY IF – the data is actually linear. OR if you’re using a polynomial for your fit.
However, generating a linear trend for obviously non-linear data is, at the very least, ignorant. And can be dishonest if you have the background to know better.
Climate is not a linear function. And when you have 10 years (or even 5 years) of data that clearly indicate a “break point” then it behooves you to pay attention and not make dogmatic statements about how that “break point” does not exist.
The argument has been made on another thread on this blog – that “eyeball data analysis” is not a valid methodology. And that’s ignorant nonsense. I spent 20 years doing “real-time eyeball analysis” on strip chart recorder data for spacecraft operations. It works extremely well – IF you know what you’re doing.
As for Skepticalscience – They’re neither sceptical – nor, in my opinion – science. I stated so and met their challenge on a previous thread. You need a different source. But that’s your problem, not mine.
Jim Owen Do you have citations for the use of 5 year and 8 year and 10 year trends?
Sorry, I doubt that eyeballing a chart is a useful way of addressing climate change, which is not a spacecraft operation. It looks to me like you just cherry picked your end dates to get a result you wanted.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf
Holly, what do you mean I’m manipulating data? What I have observed is that we have a lack of warming for 13 years. Not 14 or 15 or 16 or 30 (yet at least?). If we have a flat, as good as flat or cooling trend until 2010 with starting points at 97, 98, 00, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, and 06, it would be choosing 99 that would be cherry picking I guess. Or 07, 08 or 09 where drawing a trend (of 1 to 3 years!) would just be nonsense. In other words – flat or cooling 13, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5 and 4 year trends. N’est-ce pas? Think with your own head and do not just try to “shoot down” the “denialists” (the sole purpose of sceptical science).
Sven, go read my links again. You do not seem to understand what they say.
But I’ll stop here, there’s no sense in this discussion
Sven,
First of all, you should be using 2011 as your end point rather than 2010 in order to get the most up to date data. This still given a negative trend for HadCrut but a positive one for GISS, RSS and UAH. As Holly Stick pointed out if you start in 2000 you get a positive trend for all four records.
Of course there is no “correct” period to look at, just the general rule that longer trends are more meaningful than shorter ones, but 1998 is a particularly bad starting point (in the context of a debate on GW anyway) due to it being exceptionally warm largely for reasons other than GW. Having said that, for the period 1998 – 2011 all four records actually show a warming trend.
No worse indeed.
Can we go home now?
AGREEING?
There is no evidence for this statement according to the following data:
http://bit.ly/bjwZa7
1) In the period from 1910 to 1940, the globe was warming at a rate of 0.15 deg C per decade.
2) After 30 years of human emission of CO2, in the period from 1940 to 1970, the globe slightly cooled.
3) After further 30 years of human emission of CO2, in the period from 1970 to 2000, the globe warmed at a rate of 0.16 deg C per decade, similar to the period from 1910 to 1940.
4) With further 10 years of human emission of CO2, since 2000, there was little warming with average global mean temperature anomaly flat at about 0.4 deg C as shown in the following chart.
http://bit.ly/eV8dHl
At no 30-year period in the temperature record has the natural warming rate of about 0.15 deg C per decade for the period from 1910 to 1940 has been exceeded. As a result, there is no evidence of accelerated warming due to human emission of CO2.
Change in global mean temperature pattern may give evidence of man-made global warming, and it may be confirmed if we don’t see global cooling from 2000 to 2030 similar to past cooling in the period from 1880 to 1910 or in the period from 1940 to 1970 shown in the following chart.
http://bit.ly/ePQnJj
Zeke says:
The statement is wrong as it stands. Even if we ignore clouds and also ignore water vapor’s role in transporting heat, water vapor is still the major absorber of longwave infrared energy. If we remove water vapor from the atmosphere, the world will quickly become much cooler.
If we restrict our discussion to the greenhouse effect, water vapor still predominates because it absorbs energy over a much broader band of wavelengths, and more strongly than carbon dioxide. In addition, some of the absorption bands overlap. Increasing carbon dioxide would have no effect on atmospheric absorption of far infrared in those bands because it is already being absorbed by water vapor.
If one argues that water vapor acts primarily as a feedback, you are also arguing that carbon dioxide is truly inconsequential.
Water vapor absorbs much more energy than carbon dioxide.
So, if absorption is not water vapor’s major effect
We can pretty much ignore the effect of carbon dioxide
I’m pretty sure Zeke doesn’t want to make that argument. ;-)
The Science of Doom article conflates a bunch of issues and is particularly unhelpful for understanding the nature of CO2 and water vapor as greenhouse gases per se.
A reasonable starting point for understanding atmospheric absorption of longwave infrared is thiswiki article. Note that the graph in the article is for transmittance rather than absorption. You can get an idea of absorption by turning the graph upside down. The blue areas represent wavelengths where less energy is absorbed.
As you are well aware (but some readers may not be) the wavelength a surface radiates is determined by its temperature. Warmer surfaces radiate shorter wavelengths. Normal terrestrial surface temperatures occur in the blue region of the graph around 10 um.
(As always, follow the references rather than taking the wiki article itself as gospel.)
Judith,
Just for the record, I rate a no3 on your epistomological list. I part company with the confidence list at nos 4 and 5 of the 90% band.
I guess this confirms me as a lukewarmer!
Just for the record, she wonk, here’s your post and my reply:
shewonk | February 26, 2011 at 12:10 pm |
Since I can’t respond to Lewis due to threading, I will say here that I am not talking about a general visit to a doctor. I am taking about the ER where grandma is unable to breathe and is blue in the lips. I listen to the respirology specialist and when he says that she has COPD and needs a nebulizer to open up her airways, do I doubt him and take out my iPhone and google COPD and check out the website “www.breatheasierforum.com” to see if the majority of bloggers think nebulizers are harmful or helpful? Say I do have time to have a second opinion, do I ask MrsDoubter87 if COPD requires frequent nebulizer treatments? Or do I get another respirology specialist to take a look at grandma?
Back in the day, before civilization, we might have had to be experts in everything and could rely on our own best judgement to decide issues but we’ve progressed since then. We have bona fide experts today and the amount of sheer knowledge and technical skill needed to arbitrate some matters is well beyond the average layperson.
Common sense in this case is the ability to know your own limits and to know what authorities to go to when deciding matters.
Lewis Deane | February 26, 2011 at 12:21 pm |
People always bring this up, shewonk, and it’s always very foolish. If your ‘grandma’ (why do people have to make this thing personal, I wonder?) were blue in the lips and near to death and you happened to be a sub saharan african, would you not have to defer to the ‘authority’ of the only ‘medical’ person around, ie the witch doctor? Think.
reminds me of the advertisements you see on TV…
Take this new wonderful drug or your brain will explode…
Immediately followed by the ad from the law firm saying:
…if you took this drug and your brain exploded, call us, we can help
We are very advanced………..
LOL!
Sorry. I’ll try to write something substantive but that just tickled my fancy. :)
There is a reasonable degree of skepticism we should all carry around with us and use when faced with claims from experts. I work in the health care field and frequently deal with what are called “critical incidents” so I am well-aware that even the experts can make mistakes and errors and that it is far wiser to be well-educated and thoughtful than blindly follow what people claim and order. I am pro-skepticism when it is merited.
The “trick” is to figure out when it is merited and when it is not. Unwarranted skepticism slides into cynicism and that is what I fear from this attack on climate science and science in general.
shewonk, I think you need to be careful about asserting an “attack on climate science and science in general”.
Most of the skeptics who are worth reading are actually defending climate science and science in general from what appears to be an attempt to assert greater certainty than is warranted.
The fact is that climate science got off to a bad start when it was used by people like Al Gore, David Suzuki, Greenpeace and the WWF to push a political agenda. Worse, what should have been an objective appraisal of the state of the science was turned into a political football in the various IPCC reports.
The reputation of the climate scientists – at least the Team – was not enhanced by their refusal to release their data and their code. And it was pounded by the release of the Climategate emails and code. (And, I note, that not a single one of the “investigations” you cite above would pass even the most basic tests of objectivity or throughness.) And this reputational damage was compounded by the Team’s tin eared website which, frankly, often seems like it is run by a bunch of snickering frat boys rather than distinguished scientists.
The politicization of climate constructed a very tall edifice on necessarily weak foundations. There is no shame in scientists admitting uncertainty. Unfortunately, in climate science there has been a huge pressure to create a “consensus” position to bolster a particular policy agenda. And part of that consensus has been to claim that both the basic science and its implications are “settled”. Which, in its turn means that the important caveats going to uncertainty, the incompleteness of the data, the unverified nature of some of the statistical methods and the tentative nature of the models has tended to be suppressed, either directly or by way of a sense of professional prior restraint.
Noticing all of this and bringing it to public attention is, in fact, a defence of the seriousness of climate science and an attempt to enforce the general ethical norms of science on a very young discipline. In my own experience, the leading skeptics take science very seriously indeed.
I agree with you Jay that there are many in this debate on both sides who are taking part because of what they perceive to be a threat to science. That is how I feel and what motivates me. I love science. I revere it, but I am not sanguine that it is safe from political interference and manipulation by those who seek to dispute its findings. Those who claim to be upholding “sound science” appear to be doing it more of a disservice than a service, especially in light of recent budget cuts that are plainly motivated by politics rather than financial exigencies.
The whole meme of “sound science” is one I am interested in. It has been used before to undermine the actual sound science being used to inform public policy, which is my area of study. I figure you look at the results of these claims, and don’t take them at face value. I see no value in the skeptic blogs who smear climate science and scientists and raise unfounded or unwarranted doubt about both.
It’s one thing, and quite easy, to claim the high moral ground and assert that you are all about sound science. It’s motherhood and apple pie. It’s another thing to actually do something that promotes sound science.
I don’t see a lot of that in the skeptic blogosphere. And even efforts that I do see that improve science such as clear climate code, and the work of Ron Broberg, Zeke Hausfather and others, may only serve to allay the unfounded fears and overturn the unsubstantiated claims of the skeptics. In other words, we could have trusted the scientists in the first place and would have if certain “skeptics” and deniers — yes, I will use that word for those disputed science for political or economic interests — hadn’t raised unfounded doubt.
And from what you have learned in your field, more than in most I would imagine, do you not see that this is “normal” human behavior, behavior that cannot be issolated? Were not “those who disputed science for political or economic interests”, your “skeptics” and deniers, about as vocal to those who supported “science” for political and economic interests, the “warmers” and supporters? Is it not the “choices” we have regarding the solutions to the Problems that divide us more than the science? And when it comes to “choices” I think you’ll agree that there is nothing very scientific about the way people choose.
HMMM !Finally something I can agree with. Are there two people with the same handle. Just when I had decided to blow off anything you wrote, you had to go and do this. SHAME :-)
My only nit would be that one has to evaluate every “attack” and see for what it is. Yes there are groupies on each side but that is the price to be paid for being in the blogosphere.
No one is attacking climate science or science in general. Your generalization is sophomoric. What is being questioned is questionable science.
From Jim D’s comment:
“1 C from CO2 doubling. Yes, this is a number that you can arrive at with some assumptions. The more easily defendable number is 3.7 W/m2 forcing at the top of the troposphere from CO2 doubling which comes straight from radiative transfer models that are trusted and verified. ”
This is exactly the problem. Assuming that you can extrapolate theory to reality. Radiative transfer models may be trusted and verified but “forcing” is not just radiative transfer. I do not believe in CO2 forcing, or this 3.7W/m2, because it is meaningless unless backed up with a characterised experiment. It could be 0.37w/m2 or 37W/m2 if typical order of magnitude variations that you commonly get in models apply.
For me the whole issue with AGW is that no-one has bothered to test forcing in a lab. No-one is characterising the effect using a gas and vapour mix, and using solar simulators, to get a handle on the magnitude of the effect and of other processes that may go on.
Now we know that CO2 re-radiates at certain wavelengths and also that it absorbs and thermalises at others. So it both gets hotter and it acts like a “reflector” if you will of a certain part of the spectrum. But how this translates into the physical change of surface temperature under the presence of convection with a vapour providing a means to transfer heat from the surface to the atmosphere, is a much more complicated and nuanced process. And not a fully known process.
Some people on here might say that either you can’t do an experiment, it’s too hard or that or you don’t need to. Well, all I can say is LHC?
I’m an experimenter and 3 times in my career to date, physical testing and evidence have turned theory and assumptions on their head. If you don’t test and get evidence, for or against, it isn’t science. It’s just theory. I’m sorry if that ruffles peoples feathers but this is the hard reality of science. If you aren’t attacking the heart of your theory with test then you haven’t shown anything.
No amount of MODTRAN and radiative transfer, or water feedback and all that is going to count. You need to test.
Lastly, if you look at how people have become polarised with issues, the psychological effect of commitment and consistency, then really a reconciliation is impossible. What’s needed is a straight Occam’s Razor. Weed out anything that is conjecture and just work on the facts.
Measure CO2 forcing, Characterise it. Repeat and repeat until everything you say is backed up by a test result with your errors shown. Then talk about what you do.
Radiative transfer models can explain the current radiative fluxes, so we can be confident in their results if you take today’s atmosphere and double CO2 in it. This is what 3.7 W/m2 comes from as a global and annual average. It does not depend on feedbacks or atmospheric changes other than doubling its CO2 gas content. This is why it is such a clean result, and not under dispute.
“For me the whole issue with AGW is that no-one has bothered to test forcing in a lab.”
I’m a non-scientist – are you serious about this? Can you give an example of the sort of lab experiment you have in mind?
Hi TomFP
Yes I am serious. I’ve been looking for a paper for years on the characterisation of CO2 forcing with a representative atmosphere.
The kind of place you would start is this (and I’m not saying it’s easy but you have to try):
Take a large laboratory, ideally thermally and humidity controlled, and construct a large tank made with all but one side NaCl Glass (rocksalt), and one side as it is transparent to IR radiation.
Have a side that is blacked out and with some sort of absorbing surface on it to act as the sink
Get solar simulator lamps, the kind used to test satellites and place them so that they shine onto the surface from the outside of the tank. Fill the tank initially to atmospheric pressure with a given starting humidity and initial CO2 content (ppm). Turn on the lamps and let the temperatures stabilise.
You would have arrays of thermocouples on the surface, on the sides of the tank, on the floor around. You would also have humidity sensors, spectral analysers (for the lamp power output). Basically you want to characterise an initial condition as best as possible. In this case it is a “greenhouse” with no convection. Remember a greenhouse doesn’t heat up because of reflected IR (that was shown in the 1920s); it heats up because of lack of convection. So you would start with a condition, then you add in more CO2 and let the temperature stabilise.
Now this is just the start. You need change the set-up to be more like an atmosphere if you can, and you need to account for conduction in the tank walls, convection (if introduced); also you need to use other gases with similar molecular configuration to CO2 but without the IR absorptivity.
You try and characterise everything, so that you get as close to a basic atmosphere as you can. And then see what your results are.
The reason being, as many are trying to point out, CO2 forcing is a phenomenological effect. As in it doesn’t require you to have an Earth’s atmosphere to see it working. You should see something even with a basic set-up.
Yes it takes time and patience but is it not worth doing? I mean if it is science then there is no argument. You are debating the logistics not the logic.
Also, off the top of my head, a very tall tank may allow for a small lapse rate like effect, with warm air rising.
Why do I believe this?
My background is material science and ion thrusters. As an example, over a year ago we did a test with a probe taking electrical traces inside a running thruster, to confirm plasma parameters that we had been using in modelling for 10 years to predict lifetime. Turned out we were wrong not only about the values, but the assumptions behind the values themselves. And we wouldn’t have found this out unless we tested it.
Micky, all you say makes sense, but as I say I’m not a scientist. I have been persuaded by the Proxymorons that lab experiments cannot provide this sort of study, there is only one earth, etc. While I reject most of what they say, I had hitherto accepted this. But you contradict it, saying, in effect, that they have leapt to model-based conclusions while neglecting lab work that was indeed feasible.
Anyone else care to comment? Judith?
Micky H Corbett
How big a tank do you propose?
The atmosphere is over a hundred kilometers thick, and even the portion containing most of the air is 17 km thick at the equator (more by day, less at night due to the solar tide).
Optical density aside, you are seeking to base a transmissivity experiment in a space only a fraction of a percent of the total thickness involved.
Given that the changes in temperature are already small, and the error bars large, your experiment will at best give difficult-to-interpret results of limited use, unless you can build a tank with one dimension of several kms.
Bart R
I agree it may be complicated and that it may take work…but the issue here is that the “science” has already assumed that what needs to be known about Co2 forcing is known. And that isn’t the case: it hasn’t been characterised, no matter how difficult it is or how sensitive your measurements need to be, the fundamental driver of all AGW and all the arguments on this site and others, hasn’t been characterised.
Now if we can build the LHC then we can at least do justice to science and measure Co2 forcing even if it means a very large tank and very sensitive temperature measurements.
My problem with the whole forcing thing is that in my experience Nature always finds a way to deal with energy and heat and a lot of the time it’s not how you think…so testing no matter how hard it seems at first is always needed. You need to know what’s going on.
In a more purist sense we should always temper our debate to what we don’t know rather than all the hubris that climate science has amassed. And that alone should give pause for thought. I mean people are talking here about sensitivity and theory when really it’s just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
It amounts to nothing but noise. I’m sorry if people’s careers are invested in this…but if AGW is going to be viable science then put your money on the table and make sure you know as much as possible about it with REAL data…not with well-meaning models.
Micky H Corbett
I suspect we’re much closer in most of our thinking than would seem at first.
Among our many points of agreement, the first of your two lines below:
“Nature always finds a way to deal with energy and heat and a lot of the time it’s not how you think…so testing no matter how hard it seems at first is always needed. You need to know what’s going on.”
See, the first part is exactly my thinking. I’m not all about the heat. I’m about the Nature doesn’t do what we think.
What does the system do to “deal with” this energy?
Does it “move it into space faster”?
Wouldn’t that spell for a non-optimist more massive updrafts, change the ionization progression of O2 and other upper atmosphere components, distort the terrestrial solar tide and create shearing effects that contribute to turbulence and Bernoulli effects?
Or are these sometimes-claimed-to-be-observed phenomena unrelated?
What are the second order, if any, effects of these, if any, direct issues an alarmist might suggest?
Will the Jet Stream destabilize from its typical attractors, becoming longer and faster and tend to shift unpredictably?
Or is the recent Jet Stream-attributed weather disruption completely coincidental and within natural variation?
Will the Arctic experience tertiary effects that cause it to melt earlier and freeze later?
Or is this unrelated and unprovable too?
That’s all little green men from outer space, at this point.
Nothing in the proposed experiment will touch on these points.
Don’t get me wrong.
I’m excited about experiments, and want them for everything.
How the experiment is designed, and what at the most we could learn either way given the problems of interpretation, however.. that is a question we have to have clear expectations of for ourselves.
However ironclad the interpretations those who come at such experiments as experts seem to them, there will be plausible (to others) alternate views that may hold debate for years.
We’ll be no more decided then, than now.
But we’ll be undecided at a more informed level (except only about something seemingly related to what we’re talking about), so that’s at least aesthetically satisfying.
The lab analogy to the 3.7 W/m2 forcing goes like this.
Fill a horizontal container (e.g. 4 meters length) with air including CO2. This container is arranged to be colder at one end with an IR measuring device, and warmer at the far end with a warm black-body wall beyond that. Make a measurement of emitted IR from that container. Double the CO2 in the container. Make another measurement. It will be lower. What happened? The CO2 signal from the colder air nearer the sensor starts to dominate more because you have reduced the path-length in the CO2 bands. To see this effect more easily for normal lab-sized containers you would need to amplify these CO2 amounts to be first half then all the gas in the container, which is at least 4 meters, to give CO2 paths similar to the full atmosphere, and amplify the temperature gradient to be more typical of the atmosphere, e.g. 50 C from end to end. Then the difference in IR may be of a similar magnitude to the 3.7 W/m2.
Thinking more, maybe it is practically easier to make it vertical with the colder gas at the bottom, and the IR sensor looking up through it. The container has to be wide enough that the sensor is not seeing its side-walls.
Jim D
Technically, every CO2 spectroscopy experiment is this experiment.
These show CO2 is opaque to IR at 2.5, 4.0 and 20 micrometers.
It’s nonsaturating, meaning there is no practical limit to how much IR CO2 will turn into vibrational energy of molecules (heat).
It’s non-overlapping, meaning that there are no other common constituents of air — not even water — that absorb IR in these bands.
The experiment has been done to a necessary and sufficient level, in that sense.
Sure, questions can be raised about what happens in a tank several kilometers high and with walls wide enough that the light doesn’t strike its sides on the way down, but deciding you won’t be happy with any other evidence until someone builds this improbable experiment is simply balmy.
Bart R, if you read my other posts, you will know that radiative transfer models are sufficient evidence for me. I proposed this experiment, as a miniaturized CO2 atmosphere, to demonstrate that the essential features can be shown in a lab, because some people only believe things that can be shown experimentally. A 3-4 meter column filled with pure CO2 holds as much CO2 as the whole atmosphere in the same width column, which makes it practical.
Jim D
You’re always worth reading, but a hard guy to keep up with.. though I expect you don’t post nearly as often as many, and this is not meant as a criticism, but only an excuse for my own poor form.
Yes, you only need a little under half a gram of CO2 per square inch to simulate the amount of CO2 added in a decade, so it is feasible to build tanks simulating all the CO2 in the depth of the atmosphere.
It’s not a perfect simulation given it being pure CO2 and a much shorter column, and problems of interpretation would remain, and for all that, I’m a devout experimentalist, so I too would wish to see it undertaken seriously with adequate equipment.
Bart R, thanks for the compliment. I prefer to post on the science debates, like this one, but those can be scarce sometimes. I post here, probably for similar reasons to you, which is put wrong thinking straight and to gain experience in debating these issues, and I have been forced to go back to the science sometimes to clarify my own views. I have learned things, too, by debating on blogs. Just as they say, that the best way to learn a subject is to have to teach it.
Could we all agree ot to let overly emotional environmental lobby groups anywhere near policy makers..?
Like the group that shows graphics of plants withering and dying at C02 levels of 385 -390 ppm CO2 ( they also subscribe to the 350 idea).
The same group also has an image of people whereing facemasks at 400 ppm CO2..
Could we all agree that is alarmism?
It is a bit of a concern for me that, this group is endorsed by David Cameron (Prime Minister), Nick Clegg (deputy prime minisiter) and Ed Milliband Labour party leader and former minister for the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Oh and of course Sir John Houghton appear in the video and speaks on behalf of the same group.
When I asked at a local meeting, how they could justify this in their video, I was told ‘we decided not discuss the science’ and then treated like an awful ‘climate change denier’
Cross about it.. yes I am.
Oh my, I wasn’t aware it had gotten that bad. Well, the treatment has been going on since the 80s. Masks @ 400ppm? I don’t suppose you’d lend a name of the group would you? I could see much fun to be had at their expense.
a write up is due – Transition Towns – ‘In Transition’ video
they believe in the twin perils of peak oil and climate change.
lol, yes, the alarm over a self-correcting imagined problem. Use of oil is releasing the evil CO2! We must stop using oil!! We’re about to run out of oil!!!
I never could get past that.
Jim Hansen will tell you it is about the death trains carrying coal. Coal puts way more CO2 into the air than oil.
I wasn’t going to post this because this is labeled as a technical thread; however, I see man discussions which are non-technical in nature, and so I will go ahead nonetheless:
This comment related to a comment I wrote in a previous thread and Judith’s response.
For me as a “consumer,” Judith’s argument is lacking because of a lack of symmetry in her presentation. She talks of what she sees as “tribalism” and what she sees as the causative factors for that tribalism in great detail, but the detail is only supplied on one side. It leaves me with no way to locate her argument within the larger debate.
She’s ignoring an elephant. Whether or not there is an asymmetry in the funding of “skeptical” or “non-skeptical” science, there is no doubt that there is a great deal of funding for entities that attack theories of AGW from a non-scientifically sound basis. Rightwing and libertarian think tanks are well-funded, and within their area of rhetoric are many issues that impinge on the debate about global warming: government funding for research, whether government should spend tax money on environmental issues, whether environmentalists are seeking to destroy society as we know it, etc. Further, there is a lot of money being made by media entities that promote rightwing rhetoric attacking theories of global warming and/or whether it is anthropogenic.
The question of an asymmetry in research funding, while an important and interesting one, is not really on point – and so her response to my observations about her discussion of asymmetry (which discussed that alleged asymmetry was not really on point). The point I originally addressed was whether Judith’s arguments about the tribalism stand up if she hasn’t comprehensively presented much of the relevant information that ties into that particular issue. The existence of rightwing entities that fund anti-AGW rhetoric, and rightwing entities that make money from promoting that rhetoric, are extremely important factors in the etymology of what Judith describes as “tribalism.” For her to give short shrift to those elements of the debate is problematic.
Correct about tribalism being affected by funding for advocacy groups, either right-wing think tanks or Greenpeace activists. But this thread is not about them. The discussion is about the science, the likelihood of certain general points and certain ranges of values, as well as certain physical mechanisms suspected to be at play. Let militant tribes wage their tribal wars outside this thread.
My questions regarding Judith’s observations of tribalism are directed at her. Obviously, she will choose to respond or not at her discretion. I have absolutely no problem with that. If she doesn’t address it in this thread, I’ll ask her to address them in another. She did address my questions in the previous thread, but I found her response wanting and she didn’t respond to my follow-up questions (obviously, there’s a lot for her to respond to).
I really think you guys place to much emphasis on your “right wing” conspiracy stuff.
“Rightwing and libertarian think tanks are well-funded, and within their area of rhetoric are many issues that impinge on the debate about global warming:”
It is true they exist and are well funded. Climate change being only one of many issues they address. The skeptical community works well with or with out them. Most skeptic bloggers and readers alike are simply concerned citizens. You’d be amaze about how many otherwise card carrying liberals are skeptical of the CAGW theory. Mostly because of the policies, instead of the premise.
I’m not sure what you think I’m describing as a “conspiracy.” Maybe you could elaborate.
I’m simply saying that there is a lot of rightwing money which goes into funding anti-AGW rhetoric, and that it is a factor in the issue of tribalism, a factor which Ms. Curry has not addressed even though she has addressed other factors extensively.
As for your comment about most skeptics simply being concerned citizens, I offer this for you to consider:
I regularly check out various blogs from various perspectives, and just went over to Watts Up With That? Prominently featured there was a video by meteorologist John Coleman – a significant figure in the anti-AGW crowd who has been featured prominently at the Heartland Institute conferences on climate change. a poll done by Scientific American that showed that “science readers at least have abandoned the global warming bandwagon.”
So I figured I’d Google a bit, and came across this:
Readers of the Wall Street Journal may have been surprised by an editorial that appeared Tuesday. We editors at Scientific American certainly were.
In his opinion piece, techno-utopian intellectual George Gilder takes California’s Silicon Valley to task for its green initiatives to create jobs. At one point, he makes this sloppy claim:
“Republican politicians are apparently lower in climate skepticism than readers of Scientific American, which recently discovered to its horror that some 80 percent of its subscribers, mostly American scientists, reject man-made global warming catastrophe fears.”
First, fewer than 10 percent of our subscribers are scientists. Second, the 80 percent climate denial number is not to be believed.
For that 80 percent figure, I’m guessing Gilder relied on a poll that we created for an October 2010 article on Judith Curry. Question number 3 in particular asked visitors, “What is causing climate change?” The poll results show that 77.8 percent responded “natural processes”; only 26.4 percent picked “greenhouse gases from human activity.”
Ignore for the moment that this poll was not scientific (nor was it meant to be) and that it was open to all who have access to the Internet, not just to our subscribers, as Gilder implied.
Rather, the big problem was that the poll was skewed by visitors who clicked over from the well-known climate denier site, Watts Up With That? Run by Anthony Watts, the site created a web page urging users to take the poll.
It sure worked. Our traffic statistics from October 25, when the poll went live, to November 1 (the latest for which we have data on referrals) indicate that 30.5 percent of page views (about 4,000) of the poll came from Watts Up. The next highest referrer at 16 percent was a Canadian blog site smalldeadanimals.com; it consists of an eclectic mix of posts and comments, and if I had to guess, I would say its users leaned toward the climate denier side based on a few comments I saw. Meanwhile, on the other side of the climate debate, Joe Romm’s Climate Progress drove just 2.9 percent and was the third highest referrer.
So we were horrified alright—by the co-opting of the poll by Watts Up users, who probably voted along the denier plank. In fact, having just two sites drive nearly half the traffic to the poll assuredly means that the numbers do not reflect the attitudes of Scientific American readers.
I’m not sure what the poll numbers ultimately mean. (The poll also showed that 68 percent think science should be kept out of the political process–when did we officially go back to medieval thinking?) Given how the poll has become meaningless and skewed, I have taken it offline.
We certainly took our lumps from all sides about this online poll, and we learned from the criticisms and will aim to do better next time.
And George, if you must know, in another poll of 21,000 readers we conducted earlier this year, 40 percent of respondents said that over the past year they became “more certain that humans are changing climate”; 46 percent said their views were “unchanged” and only 14 percent were “more doubtful that human activity is affecting the climate.”
And so I then went to the Cato Institute website to see what they had to say, as a prominent source for anti-AGW rhetoric, and I found this:
But, as a make-up call for calling attention to Curry, Scientific American has run a poll of its readers on climate change…SciAm probably expected a lot of people would agree with the key statement in their poll that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is “an effective group of government representatives and other experts.”
Hardly. As of this morning, only 16% of the 6655 respondents agreed. 84%—that is not a typo—described the IPCC as “a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda.”
The poll also asks “What should we do about climate change?” 69% say “nothing, we are powerless to stop it.” When asked about policy options, an astonishingly low 7% support cap-and-trade, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June, 2009, and cost approximately two dozen congressmen their seats.
The real killer is question “What is causing climate change?” For this one, multiple answers are allowed. 26% said greenhouse gases from human activity, 32% solar variation, and 78% “natural processes.” (In reality all three are causes of climate change.)
And finally, “How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?” 80% of the respondents said “nothing.”
Remember that this comes from what is hardly a random sample. Scientific American is a reliably statist publication and therefore appeals to a readership that is skewed to the left of the political center. This poll demonstrates that virtually everyone now acknowledges that the UN has corrupted climate science, that climate change is impossible to stop, and that futile attempts like cap-and-trade do nothing but waste money and burn political capital, things
that Cato’s scholars have been saying for years.
I am not a conspiracy theorist just because I’m pointing out that rightwing/libertarian sources are players of significance in the debate.
Sorry, that should have read:
In Coleman’s video, he says:
“A poll done by Scientific American that showed that “science readers at least have abandoned the global warming bandwagon.”
The commenters at smalldeadanimals would no doubt freep a poll and then claim, and even believe, the poll proves they are in the majority. They don’t have the brains to notice that when they cheat on a poll, it becomes worthless.
Joshua –
You need to read (and research) more and talk less.
I am not a conspiracy theorist just because I’m pointing out that rightwing/libertarian sources are players of significance in the debate.
You’re repeating what was said on the religious/libertarian/conservative threads on this blog. It’s all old news. And then you claim that you’re only trying to point out that the playing field is level — when it’s obvious that it’s not.
The “whatever my side is doing doesn’t matter, but LOOK at what those other guys are doing”>/I> game is really, really old. And tired. And, at least for me, it crashed and burned a long time ago.
Saying “look how dirty THEY are” is only effective if your team is actually really squeaky clean. And they’re not.
If you want to do something useful, then do the research, come up with actual, verifiable numbers for what was funded, by whom, when, etc along with your sources — for BOTH sides. And then present the results in a TABLE. Otherwise you’re just playing the usual partisan game without having a clue about the rules or where the goalposts are located.
Coming across with numbers for Cato or Heartland that are generated by Greenpeace is simply not acceptable because it’s not believable to anyone with the slightest sense of reality.
I’m not saying that ‘the playing field is level.” There are imbalances to varying degrees in different aspects of “the playingfield.” But what I refute is the claim that no funding for “skeptical” research takes place. I’ll repost what I wrote above:
Such a claim is based on the blanket assumption that, as [MrPete] stated in an earlier thread, (I’m paraphrasing) that no research with skeptical findings gets funded. That notion is based on a mechanism whereby all climate research is funded on an a priori determination of what it’s findings will be. This does not jibe with my understanding of research funding. It does seem implausible [I mistakenly wrote plausible above) to me that there could be influences whereby established experts exert influence on what theories are considered valid enough to get published in high impact journals – but to categorize the research funding processes as categorically as you (an MrPete) do, IMO, I’m sorry to say, borders on a conspiracy theory. While I have read of accounts by skeptical scientists of how they are selectively funneled out of the funding process, the level of coordination it would take to virtually eliminate any funding for good research scientists who might reach findings that diverge with what we are calling “consensus” here seems far too complicated logistically to be doable – particularly when you consider those very same scientists are frequently characterized by the the folks who make such claims about inequities in research funding as being so incompetent they are unable to see “obvious” flaws in their scientific reasoning.
The specifics of the numbers may or may not be believable, but unless you give fact-based arguments about why they are wrong, they still remain to be disproven – no matter whether they are provided by advocates in the debate. That would be true of numbers provided by advocates no matter which side of the debate they’are on. I’d be quite interested in reading your detailed analysis of why Greenpeace’s numbers are wrong.
And please note, the context where I talked about funding for Cato and Heartland goes beyond research funding; I was talking about the relationship between funding and the roots of “tribalism” to the extent that it exists on both sides of the debate.
But it’s clear that you’re not actually interest in debating those questions. So be it.
@Joshua, as noted in my reply (sorry, not in sequence as the threading becomes crusty after a bit), you have entirely misconstrued and misrepresented both what I said and what I believe.
I was in no way suggesting “no research with skeptical findings gets funded.”
a) I’m not suggesting any aspect of this is all or nothing
b) My perspective is not about the findings but more about the questions.
Biased science only requires well-meaning influencers (whether funding sources or others) who bias which questions get investigated. And that is easily seen to be happening. See my linked response above.
IPCC itself is purposed to examine AGW, not natural variation. That is sufficient to inject a bias.
MrPete – to be clear, this is where I took it that you felt that “no funding” gets funded – from your statement on an earlier thread.
and then this:
I can assure you I was not contenting to misrepresent what you said, although I may well have misconstrued what you said. I’ll take you at your word that it isn’t what you believe. I apologize for misconstruing what you said.
I wouldn’t doubt that there would be influences and biases in the process by which journal articles are selected for publication – my doubt is when overly broad or categorical statements are made about the vast “asymmetry.”
Yes, there’s an assymetry in funding and I stand by that. Not 100%, as I said (in a bit more detail.)
But my point has nothing to do with what is selected for publication. It has to do with what questions are being asked and examined. You have yet to respond to this in any way.
Do you agree that the IPCC’s purpose is biased toward examining AGW (vs natural variation?) That’s my simple point.
MrPete, i agree with you 100% that a big part of the uncertainty in this whole thing is the narrow range questions that are being asked and examined (particularly with govt funding).
Thanks for that response, Judith :) … a nice surprise as my question was aimed more at Joshua who seems to be having difficulty recognizing any asymmetry.
[BTW, what we see here is another typical pattern in an asymmetric diplomatic/etc negotiation: those related to party “in power” tend to avoid giving up ground via humbly admitting to a need to modify their perspective, while the “weaker” party tends to bend over backwards to be agreeable, logical, etc. This is one way I was quickly able to recognize that something was slightly amiss when I first got involved…]
Obviously a false claim. Your fantasy of some denialist conspiracy funded by evil capitalists is hogwash. Disagree? Show me the evidence.
Joshua
You are well off topic and you covered your theory of right wing funding in some detail in another thread. It does not seem to have improved at the second reading. Perhaps you should cite your greenpeace references again.
What’s amusing about this response is that in the previous thread you said that if you offended me you apologized, and then go on to respond in this thread with a similar degree of disrespect.
I’ll repeat my earlier response to you one
morelast time:If you wish to engage with me in the future, treat me with respect. Otherwise, kiss off.
My apology on the other thread was made in the expectation that I had misunderstood your intentions. Actually, I now see that I should have trusted my intial impressions so on balance I think I will ‘kiss off’ as you put it.
If you want respect, then give it. But if you think what Rob said is disrespectful, then you REALLY don’t belong on Internet blogs. Particularly on climate blogs.
My default is to be respectful.
He was disrespectful to me once. I called him on it. He apologized, and then repeated the same disrespectful behavior. And when I called him on it again, he made assumptions about my “intentions” when he has no actual knowledge about what my intentions might or might not be.
I belong here. I just choose not to engage with folks who are disrespectful. If your determination is that only people who are willing to tolerate disrespect belong on this blog, you’re entitled, but as far as I’m concerned the only one who’s in a position to tell me whether I belong her or not is the moderator.
He’s entitled to be disrespectful all he wants. Honestly, it doesn’t matter much to me – but I have no interest in the type of exchange he initiated.
Have a good night.
Had not read any of your posts, but if this is a sample – “kiss off” is a good option for me. Thanks for offering it.
Let’s take it from the top –
Respect – you’ve shown none for the owner of this blog. Nor have you shown any for those who comment here. You’ve consistently failed to back up your assertions with numbers – which is, in itself a form of disrespect. And you’ve continued to post comments on “Hide the Decline” threads which are way off topic, even when you’ve been pointed at a thread – or threads – which were specifically about your favorite topic. That, my friend, is disrespect.
Speaking of which – it’s one thing to bring the subject up. It’s an entirely different matter to keep on pounding on it. Especially since you apparently can’t prove your case. Argument by assertion doesn’t go very far. Put up or shut up.
Also, putting out lots of 1000 word comments on your favorite subject is an indicator that you either can’t write very well – or that you don’t really know your subject and are just wandering in the wilderness. That kind of comment will lose your audience quickly. Personal opinion is that if you can’t say what you have to say in 20% of the words you’ve used, then you’re wasting everybody’s time – including yours.
And then you apparently fail to realize that “respect” isn’t a “right” – it’s not something you get automatically – and it’s not something you can successfully demand. It’s something you earn – no matter who you are.
What Rob wrote both times was not disrespectful at all. He told you some of what I’m telling you now. It was a comment that you should have paid attention to.
Do you belong here? That’s your choice, I don’t make those decisioins. But if what Rob wrote sent you into a snit, then you likely won’t be happy here. Or on most of the other climate blogs – on either side of the dance floor. Internet forums of all kinds require a thickness of hide that you have yet to demonstrate. If you’re really that sensitive, you wouldn’t last 24 hours on some of the forums I’ve lived in.
Finally – don’t put words in my mouth as you did here. The results are never pretty.
Judith, cudos to your website & topics… Its a daily read for me along with WUWT & about 10 others.
As a retired ChE w/40+ yrs of experience esp in fluid mechanics, heat transfer and process modeling I would like to comment on the flip side of uncertainty.
1. We are very certain that we don’t have sufficient data sets over time to accurately determine Earths heat budget. We have just started to implement measurement techniques & collect data sets on measurements that will allow us to more accurately calculate Earth’s heat budget. So in terms of climatology we’re still in the infant stages of understanding what exactly is happening. Its almost funny to see folks model future temps based on such short incomplete & uncertain data sets… without noting error or uncertainty bars.
2. We are very certain that we were wrong 40 yrs ago about the likelihood of global cooling…Hate to bring that up … but yes I was involved then & if we had the internet 40yrs ago it would have been a much bigger issue.
3. We are very certain that we were wrong about early GCM results & predictions … things that all modelers know & appreciate as a given.
4. We are very certain that we are in the process of learning physical and chemical processes that we haven’t analyzed or contemplated before.
5. We are very sure that the given AGW consensus has taken on cult or religious status and has left the scientific realm for the metaphysical.
6. We are very sure that it will take years… maybe decades to restore real science back to climatology… based on the accuracy and track record of predictions & predictors.
7. We are very sure that in the world of applied science… Engineering .. you are out-of-a-job if you consistently make wrong decisions or make non factual WAGs.
With regard to your second point. As I understand it, theories of global cooling 40 years ago were promoted by a distinct minority of experts in the field – even though they have been promoted subsequently as a consensus viewpoint. If you have information that specifies your statement that “we were wrong.”
As to your fifth point, on what basis do you conclude with certainty that AGW consensus has taken on a “religious” status. Is it your assertion that all, let alone the vast majority of climate scientists who feel that GW is A with a high degree of certainty are only basing their viewpoint on a “metaphysical” mindset?
Good point. In the 70’s the trend towards global cooling was discussed at length by a minority… mainly CLIMATOLOGISTS. There weren’t many then…and there still aren’t very many now in the physical sciences today… and they generally are not very vocal…. nor certain of current data trends.
Re. point 5: Look up the def. of religion… i.e., a faith or belief system. AGW espouses a belief system that has superceeds the scientific method. True science is Open, Transparent, Must be Tested & Verified By Others, Must continually be open to testing and verification. This is the opposite of what the field of climate science has been over the last 2-3 decades. I long for a return to science… but doubtful that we will return any time soon.
I’m not sure what empirical analysis would show that because some % of climatologists were wrong about something 40 years ago, any particular % of climatologists are wrong about something now. Of those climatologists that were wrong about global cooling forty years ago (do you even have an estimate what % were), how many other theories were they correct about? What percentage of their theories were incorrect?
Assuming that some climate scientists have a “religious” belief in theories of AGW, your assertion is that all scientists who think that GW is A are basing their opinions on metaphysical reasoning. That seems highly implausible to me.
Joshua –
I’m not sure what empirical analysis would show that because some % of climatologists were wrong about something 40 years ago, any particular % of climatologists are wrong about something now.
40 years ago there were no “climatologists” in the sense that there are today – nor in the sense that you apparently mean. Climatology is a “new” science – and still very young and full of itself. Which is part of the problem.
Of those scientists who supported global cooling 40 years ago? Today few admit to having supported it. But some of them now call themselves climatologists and support CAGW. Once an alarmist, always an alarmist?
Was it a serious concern? Yes – I have copies of a Time magazine cover and the New York Times ran stories on a regular basis. I believe you can still find those in the NYT archives. More – I also have copies of both military and CIA studies that took it seriously.
. Of those climatologists that were wrong about global cooling forty years ago (do you even have an estimate what % were), how many other theories were they correct about? What percentage of their theories were incorrect?
You know little or nothing about science, do you? About how it operates or the scientific method or about science history or even about scientists? If you knew anything about those things, you’d know that EVERY scientist worth the name has been both right and wrong – often on the same subject. And certainly both ways on multiple subjects. IOW, your questions are nonsense and indicative of a crying need on your part for a good science history course. And a science philosophy course would be a nice addition.
Richvs
thank you for reminding us that global warming is about measuring Earth’s heat budget. As someone who does not even understand the word ‘epistemic’ I find it a bit scary that we have all these discussions about average temperature. No matter how I try I cannot average temperature. Guess I will never be a cliamatologit (sic).
Dr. Curry, I hope your “epistemic levels” are somewhat tongue in cheek, especially the talk radio level, there being so many, many other ways of obtaining scientific information. Assuming there are just four levels, I am certain that both you and I are at each one regarding some aspects or other of the climate debate, despite having Ph.D.’s and decades of practice in a relevant discipline. For example, I have never had a college level biology course, so my biology learning level is high school (50 years ago) plus what I pick up reading Science and the science news.
One of the most interesting features of the climate debate is that everyone, no matter their experience and training, is a novice in 90% (or 99%) of the science and math. This is actually quite important, as it means there are literally no experts in the science, taken as a whole. This is a social system.
Indeed, David, what is ‘expertise’ in this ‘science’, which is a combination of so many disciplines? We are told to ‘defer’ to an ‘authority’ that seems to me, completely nebulous? And, further, a ‘nebulosity’ that feels almost as solid as that ‘dismal science’, economics?
I agree. It seems that Judith wishes to address the scientific issues on both sides of the debate with great seriousness and I assume, as non-expert, with integrity. However, she seems to be addressing only one side of the social issues comprehensively.
Thanks David, I was trying to figure out a way to express exactly that. It is my experience that many people with a consistent appetite for knowledge regarding climate change have a better general understanding of the science than some specialists. It is a massive field of study of which all components have yet to be identified. And, I doubt that we ever will. Most importantly, I hope we never do.
David – I do tend to agree with you on this particular point, at least partially, but I think it also should be put in perspective. There is a wide gap between novice and expert, and I expect that many within climate science are experts in one area and knowledgeable non-experts in others, without being complete novices. Not being a professional climatologist, I like to think of myself as a knowledgeable non-expert in some areas and an expert in none.
Within each area, though, you are likely to find many practitioners who are experts, and so their conclusions shouldn’t be considered the province of one mind or one set of studies. This is why those operating in a different area have some reason to trust the conclusions, ever mindful that the ultimate test of conclusions is their agreement with reality and the extent to which they can be replicated. This is not unique to climate science but applies to science in general.
Expertise has other implications, and to belabor a point I made elsewhere, I’d like to address the question as to whether “appeal to authority” is a legitimate complement to other evidence in assessing the probability that a conclusion is correct. The answer is “yes” under certain circumstances.
Scientific fashions come and go, and misconceptions can persist for centuries in the absence of scrutiny. However, if one asks of the historical record, “How often in modern science has an expert consensus proved largely erroneous after persisting for more than 60 years’ of intense study and in the face of enormous efforts to challenge it?”, I would submit that the answer is “rarely when the interval is that long”. As long as the conclusions of experts under those conditions are correct more than 50 percent of the time, their authority adds weight to other sources of evidence. Of course, if we had independent means of determining truth with 100 percent certainty, we could ignore the experts, but in all likelihood, they would have reached the same conclusions as the rest of us.
Fred, I agree that in addition to the expert and novice levels there is the knowledgeable non-expert level. The idea that there are only 4 levels is not mine, as I prefer to think of something more like a topographic map for each person’s knowledge levels. But whatever the geometry, it remains that no one is an expert on more than a tiny fraction of the climate science and this is very important. (I happen to be an expert on this.)
My favorite example is the mean temperature curve of the Jones type statistical models (HadCRU, GISS, NOAA, etc.). The climate physicists have adopted this curve as some kind of actual measurement to be explained, and this is taken as the central problem in climate science. It is nothing of the sort. It is at best a statistical artifact. I view this error as potentially one of the greatest blunders in the history of science.
You then sort of walked away from my point but your raise some interesting issues. Unlike some skeptics I think authority is terribly important in science. Progress requires accepting certain things so we can move on to new understandings. Science is what I call a cognitive production system. As such it needs a place to stand in order to do its work. The fact that we overthrow basic beliefs from time to time does not mean that we should not have basic beliefs.
However if you are claiming that there has been some kind of expert scientific consensus on AGW for the last 60 years, or even that there is such a consensus now, you are simply factually wrong. The experts are divided, period. That is the state of the science. There is no authority to appeal to, there are just camps of experts (and knowledgeable non-experts) opposing one another.
But while we are on your topic of history, when was the last time that a scientific community was widely captured by a political movement? It is a trick question because it depends on how big is a community? (This is what I study.) Acid rain was a very small community. Ozone depletion was a small community. Ozone transport is a small community (I have been in a room with them). Climate change is just a much bigger community. So the short answer is it last happened in 1988, and 1990, and 2000. This time however, the movement may have hit the wall. As McCauley said (I think it was him) every political movement ultimately expires from an excess of its own principles. Let’s hope so.
Consensus is not unanimity. There is a clear consensus within the community of scientists actively working in climatology and/or geophysics, and it has grown over the past 60 years. The division within the expert community is between a very large majority and a small minority, at least as I have observed from a conscientious, thorough, and continuing scrutiny of what is reported in the literature every month in dozens of climate-related journals. Curiously, much of the disagreement within climate science, although not all, comes from retirees whose views were shaped during earlier eras, including the time before the critical role of vertical atmospheric profiles in deducing response to greenhouse forcing became apparent. Within the active field, the consensus remains alive and well.
The temperature curves you cite may involve some uncertainties, but too many separate lines of evidence converge toward the same approximate results to take seriously the possibility that they are highly inaccurate. These include the relationship between satellite and surface measurements of surface temperature (I’m not referring to tropospheric temperatures), the dominance of SST in determining trends, the confirmatory evidence from steric sea level rise and of long term changes in OHC, among others.
I agreed with your assessment that no one is an expert in more than a small fraction of the science, but I don’t think you considered my point that despite the truth of that assertion, each small fraction is inhabited by a multitude of experts.
I have to conclude by suggesting that if the reported temperature record itself is something that you believe may be very different from the true trend of anomalies over the many decades of the past century – particularly the more recent decades – then you are probably grasping a slim reed in hoping to question mainstream conclusions. If you are simply claiming that there are inaccuracies, it would be impossible for you to be wrong.
Fred, I agree that the funded science assumes AGW in the main. That is what politicization means.
As for the temperature record, the satellites do not show any GHG warming. So it is not just that I doubt the surface statistical models, rather I think they are falsified, as is AGW.
As for your lines of evidence, I have mine too. So there we are. Have fun.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” –Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I agree. Unfortunately, in my view, David, despite his intelligence, or perhaps because of it, has often misstated facts, certainly including the satellite record.
While the satellite data do not “prove” anthropogenic warming, they are consistent with it. (Indeed, if data could prove this or some other conclusion, the blogosphere would be much emptier than it is). Quantitation is an issue, but will probably be resolved by a combination of better instrumentation and better understanding of upper troposphere dynamics. The basic principles are not contradicted, however. This is one of those arguments where the best recourse of readers is to visit the data rather than try to referee blog arguments.
Fred agreed with the need for better science. Until then humility on either side would be warranted. We otherwise just get into religious wars, trying to one up each other.
What doesn’t seem to exist is a climate research analyst http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analyst
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_of_Competing_Hypotheses
Indeed Harold, perhaps we need some intelligence analysis on the climate case. Regarding your second reference, it then refers to C.S. Peirce’s theory of abductive reasoning, which I greatly admire. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning . This is a form of reasoning whereby we come up with new explanatory hypotheses, which are far more than inductive generalizations, because they involve new concepts. Indirect solar forcing for example.
As for the unbiased analysis of competing hypotheses, I once experimented with having two teams. The first defended all sides in an issue, while the second attacked all sides. This kept people from becoming emotionally tied to a given side. It worked quite well, in fact it was rather spooky.
Glad to hear that it worked. Thomas Gold strongly recommended competeng teams/hypotheses too, in order to improve scientific conduct.
The two team approach in research is pretty well known, but seems in disfavor. In my view, the fact that a consensus approach was used meant there was too much uncertainty to reach a scientific agreement.
Like the methodology underlying certain of the claims of Working Group I (see “The Principles of Reasoning, Part III: Logic and climatology”), the methodology underlying certain of Zeke’s claims is illogical. However, the illogic is obscured by the ambiguity of reference by the language of climatology to the associated ideas.
I’ll focus on Zeke’s claim regarding the “climate sensitivity.” In its 2007 report, IPCC Working Group I (WG1) makes the same claim; WG1’s claim references Zeke’s “climate sensitivity” as “the equilibrium climate sensitivity” (TECS). Going forward, I’ll use WG1’s terminology.
TECS relates the equilibrium surface temperature to the CO2 concentration by the formula
ΔT = TECS * log2 (C/Co) (1)
where ΔT represents the change in the equilibrium temperature, C represents the CO2 level and Co represents the CO2 level at which ΔT is nil.
ΔT is not an observable. Thus, it would not be observationally possible for one to determine whether ΔT lay in the range of 2C to 4.5C. Thus, the proposition that “ΔT lies in the range of 2C to 4.5C” is not an observable. However, an outcome of an event is an observable. Thus, the proposition that “ΔT lies in the range of 2C to 4.5C” is not an outcome. Zeke’s claim that the probability exceeds 66% that, for a doubling of CO2, ΔT lies in the range of 2C to 4.5C references no outcome. As Zeke’s claim references no outcome, this claim conveys no information about an outcome from a policy decision to a policy maker.
As the consensus of climatologists plus some of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions support this claim, a policy maker might well conclude that this claim conveys information to him or her about the outcomes from his/her policy decisions. However, as I’ve just proved, it conveys no such information.
Terry – Climate sensitivity can be reasonably approximated by observing the magnitude of the “transient climate response” and applying appropriate mathematical extrapolations. It is not precise enough for certainty, but reasonably close. That is not a particularly serious problem. The greater difficulty lies in correcting for other factors that are operating at the same time – e.g., the role of solar and aerosol variations as modifiers of observed responses to CO2. This is why the range of sensitivity estimates is as broad as it is. If we could measure transient responses in the absence of the other confounding factors, we could narrow the range appreciably.
Fred Moolton
Precisely! (In particular, unknown other factors.)
Max
Fred:
You say that the climate sensitivity “can be reasonably approximated by observing the magnitude of the ‘transient climate response’ and applying the appropriate mathematical extrapolations.” I suspect you are saying that one could formulate a parameterized model and from the observed transient response estimate the values of this model’s parameters. By letting the transient terms in the associated coupled differential equations go to nil, one could get an estimate of TECS.
This model is an example of the entity that I reference by the French word modèle. By a somewhat lengthy argument (see “The Principles of Reasoning. Part III: Logic and climatology”), the construction of a modèle is not bound by the principles of reasoning. Thus, while it would be possible to execute the procedure which you have suggested, one could not do so under the principles of reasoning. The logical error that would be committed by the execution of this procedure can be described as fabrication of information.
Fred,
You are basically claiming that all possible forcings (solar, volcanic, ghg…) and their variation over time is known. Total change in net iradiance (deltaF) over time is settled?
It’s like the Drake equation, except in deltaF we might have some unknown unknowns.
“That is not a particularly serious problem. ”
It’s defined in terms of a non-observable, but your argument is basically we can calculate it from an observable (but can never verify the calculation).
I’d call that a problem. I don’t see a reason for starting out sloppy on a theoretical basis
Terry Oldberg
It appears to me that you have identified the key fallacy in Zeke’s logic regarding the premise that there is a greater than 66% probability that “climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5 C and 4.5 C for a doubling of carbon dioxide”.
Yet this one assumption is the basis for the entire alarm about AGW.
Max
Max:
My view is similar to yours. The structure and claims of modern climatology are based upon a false premise and it is the one that I have described.
“ΔT is not observable”. True, even if we wait for CO2 to double, the value of ΔT, given by the mean surface temperature change, will not be the equilibrium value. What the value of ΔT helps with, that is useful, is a prediction of the surface warming rate with added CO2. That prediction is or will be verifiable.
Jim D:
You’ve described the import from assignment of a value to ΔT a bit too strongly. This assignment would not necessarily be helpful to prediction of the surface warming rate but might be helpful.
Terry,
Your message is a demonstration on what I said in another thread. You cannot replace climate science by logic and overextending the value of logic is just fallacious logic – or contrary to correct logic.
Pekka:
You’ve made an assertion. Would you care to share your argument on behalf of this assertion?
Terry,
This comment lower in this thread explains part of my argument
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-49501
The main point is anyway that logic considers only rules of thought as mathematics considers only rules of mathematical analysis. Neither knows about the subject matter and neither tells, how the rules should be connected with the subject matter. Logic and mathematics work within their own sphere, but their connection to reality are not provided by them.
In your case the error is in the way you link the rules of logic to the physical science. You claim that certain concepts of science have certain specific connections to concepts of logic, but the connections that you propose are not valid. Therefore the conclusions are not valid either, when applied to real physical world or physical science.
The same problem occurs all around. Few words have unique precise meanings. The words are used with different meaning in different fields and by different people and by the same people at different times. Then somebody picks one sentence or wider discussion and puts his interpretation on the words. He may start to apply rules of logic to this invented meaning of the text, and this results on strange conclusions.
The whole process is a form of fallacy in argumentation, and fallacies in argumentation are, as far as I have understood one the most important things to avoid in logic. You have failed on that.
Pekka:
Thanks for taking the time to reply!
A theoretical argument supports the contention that we now are in a position to supplant heuristic methods by the principles of reasoning in deciding upon the inferences that are made by our models. A mountain of empirical evidence supports the same contention. The principles of conditional entropy minimization and entropy maximization under constraints are accepted principles of thermodynamics and communications engineering. Devices that are built under these principles work as expected, without any exceptions.
I sense that you’d like to tear down this edifice and send us back into the age of heuristic methods of decision making. You seem to think that a fruitful place to start would be to find a fallacy in my theoretical argument. However, in reading your various comments I don’t find a proof of any falsehood in my argument. Can you provide one?
To me the basic tenet is self evident: Logic does not create new knowledge, it just organizes and reformulates existing knowledge.
Some entropy measure may help in finding the most likely answers for some questions based on earlier knowledge, but they do not either create new knowledge.
When proposing new methods it is really to the proposer to show that the method is genuinely useful. The others may wait for the proof. I have only my feeling on that, and that is not at all positive, but you are free to prove me and other doubters wrong.
What is the thing that I really dislike is bringing all kind of new untested theories and approaches to the climate discussion and using them as an argument, when the ideas themselves lack all real evidence to support them.
Sorry I couldn’t disagree more. I don’t know about the philosophical logic that Terry might be referring to. But mathematical logic is absolutely essential for modern science of all kinds. Particularly those which rely on mathematical properties to derive conclusions and to develop models. I cant imagine a discipline where this wont be a requirement. Logic isn’t a separate entity which needs to be connected to “reality”. Logic actually validates or enables the “Reality”. Logic is integral to deriving relationship between various entities and proving those relationships. I am not sure why climate scientists see it as a removed entity, if indeed the vast majority of them do see it that way. This is probably why I am seeing some issues with logic in climate science, such as the earlier discussion on deleting the post-1960 proxy data in the Mann paper.
Shiv I agree that climate “scientists” seem to view logic as a discrete entity, and as Pekka indicates, one whose employment is optional. If it leads to right answer, then, fine, if not, then…. (here they lose me, but it looks like ad hoc gobbledegook).
In the same way, they see the null hypothesis as a separate logical entity from its alternative – to be dusted down and cursorily examined on rare occasions over coffee and biscuits, before being confidently disregarded and put back in its box.
Something odd happened to education in about 1980….
Think of all the news stories about some discovery proving bona fide experts to be wrong. Bona fide experts can be wrong and often are. The Climate Models and Climate Theories must be pulled apart and verified by a team made of diverse disciplines. At NASA, we were the bona fide experts. After our accidents, our theories and models were pulled apart and verified by a team that included many disciplines other than rocket scientists. This must be done for Climate Science. No closed consensus group can be trusted to properly police themselves. A consensus group will first tend to defend it positions against everyone who disagrees, often without even giving consideration that they could be wrong. Consensus Climate models did not properly predict the snow and cold that we had all around the northern latitudes this winter. That alone is enough proof to say they must be properly verified and properly verified by a diverse team.
Alex,
I Strongly agree!!! NASA didn’t even learn to self-police after Challenger, because then there was Columbia whose catastrophe’s generic root cause was similar to Challenger’s….NASA knowingly continued to operate the Shuttle outside of the structural operational envelope it was designed and structurally verified for. Otherwise, who verified by test and analysis that hundreds of pieces of tank foam hitting the Orbiters, and known to occur on every one of its more than 100 missions, would not cause a catastrophic failure as required by Shuttle structural design and operational requirements? Why did (does?) NASA continue to fly the Shuttle until this known threat was (is) verified to be acceptable according to strict structural design requirements?
Are climate scientists also not troubled and humbled, by all that is happening that they didn’t predict with their models, or when recent climate trends aren’t on their model’s projected path to their 50 year CAGW predictions?
Consensus Climate models did not properly predict the snow and cold that we had all around the northern latitudes this winter. That alone is enough proof to say they must be properly verified and properly verified
They also didn’t predict the unrest in Egypt. Worthless!
Well, they did predict polar amplification, didn’t they? With the warming air in the Arctic sending more cold air south. the Hudson Bay area had record high temperatures.
As for Egypt, one factor in the riots may have been higher food prices, which were higher because of crop failures in Australia. Russia, etc., which crop failures were caused by bad weather in which global warming may have played a part.
Actions have consequences and our adding CO2 to the atmosphere is having cconsequences.
Here’s the Arctc reference:
“…Air temperatures over much of the Arctic were 2 to 6 degrees Celsius (4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal in January. Over the eastern Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin Bay/Davis Strait and Labrador Sea, temperatures were at least 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. Temperatures were near average over the western Canadian Arctic Archipelago and Scandinavia…”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The may have played a part (language that people like Roger Pielke Jnr and our host completely disparage) should be contrasted with the impact of biofuel subsidies, which undoubtedly have played a part in higher food prices.
It turns out that biofuel subsidies seem to have made squat all difference to carbon emissions. Even Al Gore is now having second thoughts about them. But they were originally justified through this wonderful ‘settled science’ of which we hear so much. What they are doing is they are making a lot of money for some very rich farmers and causing death and misery at the other end of the economic spectrum.
I often ask myself why such terrible, irrational policies become embedded in places like the United States and Brazil. The greed and hypocrisy of vested interests and the politicians they rent have to be part of it. But the loss of rationality begins for me in the discussion of the science itself and how it relates to policymaking.
Not on Climate Etc, but almost everywhere else. This irrationality is already costing lives – and as Freeman Dyson warned in The Independent yesterday it will do far worse damage if we don’t rapidly come to our senses.
Certainly in Canada our rightwing governments had some of their buddies acting as lobbyists for biofuel companies which then received government subsidies; so I consider those subsidies to be corrupt.
I suspect that a left wing government (well, I think ours is currently centrist) might have given even more money to the biofuel, solar, tidal, wind and other scam artists. – guy in bc
No, a centrist leftwing government, in Canada at least, would be more likely to pay attention to the scientists and less likely to cut funding for climate research. An old style Conservative government would also have paid attention to the scientists; but the idiots running our current government prefer not to face the reality that our climate is changing.
And there are all sorts of clean energy solutions for people intelligent enough to look for them:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/01/27/ZeroEnergyHomes/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/your-business/grow/alexandra-seno/china-embraces-made-in-canada-solar-products/article1735527/
http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/11/19/GeothermalPower/
Holly, how is this on topic?
DeNihilist, it’s a response to the response to my previous post. In general some commenters here seem to think switching to cleaner renewable energy would destroy civilization, which I think is ridiculous. Human beings are far more creative and adaptable than you realize.
Couldn’t agree more. The only remaining test is the Orwell one: will you be as quick to see corruption, when it exists, in leftwing regimes?
If we ever have one, hopefully yes. The Liberals are usually centre left to centre right and more to the right, at least to Canadians’ viewpoint.
To be honest, Holly, I have little interest in what left and right mean to you in Canada or to anyone else anywhere else. I follow historians like Michael Burleigh that what we must strive to avoid is political religions – like Bolshevism and Naziism. I have learned from Paul Collier that the damage bad government can do is far worse than the good the very best government can do. As the psalmist enjoins, I don’t put my trust in princes – or in democratically-elected leaders. If we can just avoid the worst, and see countries like North Korea, Burma and Sudan come out of it, I’ll be content.
No one is more corrupt than Ontario Liberals with the Green Energy Act as Liberal insiders line their pockets with taxpayers money. They will be history in Oct when we elect a conservative government.
Meanwhile, the only government in the world dumb enough to enact a carbon tax is the current Lberal (right wing) government here in BC. Raised costs, abated carbon not a bit. There are idiot righties as well.
I have a small issue with this:
“Water vapor primarily acts as a feedback rather than a forcing in the climate system due to its __short atmospheric residence time__”
Is this point only about the radiative characteristics of the H2O vapour, and the assumption that relative and/or specific humidity should rise thanks to CO2-induced increased evaporation, which in turn would increase downwelling heat radiation – or just the part that slightly hotter surface (due to CO2) also emits more heat to be trapped by the vater vapour?
For me, this illustrates the largely artificial separation into feedbacks and forcings, although I think I understand their meaning also in climate science context. Personally the the biggest issue with this taxonomy is the fact that we are _mostly_ unable to separate them from each other – anywhere else than in theory and models.
For instance, vater vapour: it has the radiative properties, but we cannot quantify it’s effect as it is due to e.g. hydrological cycle with huge amount of latent energy transferred from the surface up in the sky, and cloud albedo effects.
Generally I think marking one variable as “certain” (basically assuming when everything else is held constant) despite it is totally dependent on the others is not very convincing, and somewhat analogous to “2xCO2 without feedbacks”-sensitivity evaluation.
No it is also about the thermodynamical properties of water molecules, principally that they can vaporize and condense as a function of temperature and also that there is a hell of a lot of liquid water lying around.
Large amounts of heat energy are absorbed when water evaporates and given off when it condenses (aka latent heat). Since the temperature decreases with altitude, water vaporized at the surface carries energy into the atmosphere where it condenses (aka rain drops) this releases the energy. This limits the concentration of water vapor (and clouds) with altitude. If the surface warms, more water will vaporize. That is the feedback from any process that warms the surface
Dr.Rabbitt, you have left me confused here. – {This limits the concentration of water vapor (and clouds) with altitude. If the surface warms, more water will vaporize. That is the feedback from any process that warms the surface}
I know that I am missing something, but if there is a limit on vapour and clouds, then does this not also limit the amount of surface water that can vapourize?
GCMs are not evidence.
Which leaves
Where are these ‘lines of evidence’ for sensitivity discussed on Climate Etc, out of interest?
Richard – I suggested some sources in the last paragraph of my earlier comment. See Comment 49286
The typical estimated climate sensitivity range of about 2-4.5 C with 90-95% confidence limits is based on the multiplicity of lines of evidence encompassed in the chapters I mentioned, plus additional references that have appeared since.
Fred, I agree that one should know as background what’s in AR4 ch 8-9. But my question was whether Climate Etc. has dealt with these ‘other lines’.
Probably not completely, Richard. However, there have been discussions of recent papers by Lindzen/Choi, Spencer/Braswell, Dessler, and Clement et al.
Fred:
I referencing the equlibrium climate sensitivity (TECS) as though it were a physical constant, I don’t believe you’re giving proper credit to the argument that I make in my comments of Feb. 26 at 1:14 PM and 3:07 PM.
Rather than being a physical constant, TECS is a misnomer, for the value that is assigned to TECS is dependent upon the equations that are solved in computing it. In assigning likelihoods to the values of TECS, climatologics assume TECS to be a constant but this assumption is false.
Here’s the problem I have:
“1. …the early 20th century warming was due primarily due to solar forcings and a volcanic lull.
2.Recent warming is unprecedented over the past millennium.”
I struggle to see much of a difference between early 20th century warming and late 20th century warming.
If the early warming is natural, and the late warming is natural, then it’s all natural and nothing to do with us.
If the early warming is natural and the late warming is unnatural, then clearly the late warming is not unprecedented, as it was immediately preceded by very similar natural warming.
I have not seen convincing response from the consensus scientists to this one. Anyone?
It can not be unprecedented, can it? I still see consensus people claiming that AGW is unprecedented.
Also, when did anthropogenic GHG global warming star “officially”? When did it get significant (Taghg – T > ~0,1 °C)?
If we have measures of volcanic activity, solar activity and greenhouse gas forcing, then it is straightforward assign similar warming rates at different times to the dominating forcing at those times. It’s the old chew gum and walk problem
Provided there are know “unknowns”, Eli, you are right.
But there are “unknowns”.
Max
Yeah, that “unprecedented” term gets slipped casually into the “analysis” over and over, yet it’s ridiculously easy to refute. Especially since the implosion of the Hokey Stick scam. Even in the last 150 years there have been warming episodes whose graphs would be indistinguishable from the latest one.
Sounds like a fun test, actually. Make a graph with the rises randomly spliced into the record, and see how many could pick the right sequence without reference to “the real record”.
In many disciplines one may have a theoretical definition or theorem referring to unobservables, and then an observable proposition derived from the former. For the derivation to be legitimate, you need a clear causal link between the unobservables or unobserved in the first proposition and the observables in the second (e.g. Length of mercury column = Temperature, BECAUSE heat expands bodies such as a mercury column in such and such manner within such temperature range). In a similar fashion, if your theory of the greenhouse effect is theoretically defined in relation to an unobservable equilibrium temperature, you need some auxiliary theory relating unobservable equilibrium temperature to some observable quantity, such as “30-year average of mean global temperature computed in such and such manner”. Is there any such auxiliary theory? Has it been checked or corroborated, and how? Fred Moolten said before (February 26, 2011 at 1:52 pm ) in a response to Terry Olberg that the point is of no great importance and easily solved, but I encounter it again and again. Could a definition of climate sensitivity be shaped in terms of observables only? Is there any such “operational” definition?
Hector – I didn’t quite say “easily solved”, but the Transient Climate Response (TCR) can serve as a useful approximation to equilibrium climate sensitivity, and moreover, may be of greater practical use, since it predicts climate responses over the course of decades rather than those that might eventuate one thousand years later.
Basically, TCR depends on how the temperature responds to the strength of feedbacks (a determinant of climate sensitivity) and the rate at which this occurs as a function of ocean heat uptake. The latter can be modeled, with a range of values as the result. Within a reasonable but not completely defined range, TCR estimates sensitivity because of its substantial dependence on the feedbacks. Here is one reference discussing some of the factors involved:
Transient Climate Response
Fred,
that paper:
“The Role of Climate Sensitivity and Ocean Heat Uptake on AOGCM Transient Temperature Response”
Gives us:
“Now assume that ΔF = κ·ΔT (Equation 3)
This defines the ‘‘ocean heat uptake efficiency’’ κ (Gregory and Mitchell 1997). Empirically, it is observed from climate model results that k varies with time (see Wigley and Schlesinger 1985). Nevertheless, k is a useful concept since for monotonically increasing forcing and not too near the beginning of an integration (when mixed layer effects have an influence), κ does not vary with time nearly as fast as ΔT so that a substantial part of the time variation of ΔF can be explained by the time variation ΔT. Here we focus on the difference of κ between the different models shown in Fig. 2b. We do not discuss further the time dependence of κ.”
This is a classic case of choosing do assume something that is known to be unrealistic, saying why it is so, saying that it doesn’t matter much, and that the problem won’t be discussed any further.
Formally κ appears as a conductance, which should ring a few alarm bells. The equation does not model the uptake of retained heat.
In my judgement, everything that follows is going to be tainted by this below par assumption, they simply haven’t tried hard enough.
They do note the linkage between lambda and kappa but in their analysis of why this should occur, fail to consider that it could be a result of training the model to reproduce the temperature record. That is the need for low sensitivty to be wedded to low kappa and high to high, if the temperature record is going to be reproduced.
The trouble is that there are, or were, people who know how to do these kinds of studies. They are not this easy. A standard approach is to emulate with an upwelling diffusive ocean model.
To be honest I think this is a poor paper, in the sense that we know how to do this in a much more convincing way.
For what it is worth, if one must try and calculate rather than emulate, the relation between ocean flux and a temperature history is better considered as the result of convolution with a response function. But that does not give a neat parameter because in truth there is no neat parameter connecting ocean flux to temperature.
I am not sure what these people are expert in, was there an oceanographer on the team? Is this the standard? Was it used by the IPCC?
With respect to the same paper:
Fig 3 (c) Ocean heat content change categorized according to model.
The scale is in J/m^2
Apparently after 80 years when CO2 has doubled the heat content reaches the dizzying heights of between 2 to 4 J/m^2 depending on the model.
Now I am expecting values about 9 orders of magnitude bigger than this, but I guess I am just old fashioned.
Correction :
Figure 1 (c) not figure 3.
Alex – You make valid points about some of the assumptions, but the point I would emphasize is that kappa was relatively constant between the models and so TCR was primarily dependent on the feedbacks that determined climate sensitivity, which is why it is a fairly good surrogate. I didn’t think that unreasonable.
Regarding your point below about figure 1c (not 3c), I haven’t done the calculations, but note that the 80 year figure for retained added heat does not refer to 80 years post-doubling but rather 80 years after the start of a CO2 rise at a rate of 1 percent per year, which will yield much lower heat accumulation than for an instantaneous doubling. It may still be too low, but it’s hard for me to judge, or to state that the models all got it wrong.
On reviewing Figure 1, I think something there has been mislabeled, because the ocean heat change can’t account for the temperature change.
When we go to sufficient level of detail all concepts used in discussing climate – or almost anything else – are idealizations that do not exist as such. They are properties of some simplifying models. These simplifying models can be just models of thought or they can be precise mathematical models.
Climate sensitivity is one such idealization that is defined combining an imaginary change controlled by something outside the climate system considered, like CO2 brought to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, and some idealized measure of the warming of the earth surface.
Nothing in this is directly observable, but many things can be observed in the sense that real measurements give results out of which we can calculate something which appears to be close to the idealization.
We can calculate CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, we can measure the CO2 concentrations at several measuring stations. This way we know pretty well, how CO2 concentration has changes in resent decades and we can make projections on its future development.
For the temperature, estimates have been calculated from empirical data for the historical average surface temperature. There is additional empirical data on factors influencing the temperature and there are theoretical models, which can be used to calculate estimates for the historical influence of CO2. We know that these estimates are inaccurate, but there are no fundamental reasons preventing better estimates in the future. There is little fundamental difference to a more direct observable, but there is a very great practical difference.
The determination of climate sensitivity will always retain this basic nature although the accuracy may improve dramatically after a long enough period of detailed observations (a much better estimate may be available in 2100). The value will, however, always be affected by factors that come from some model, because the earth will never stay in a stable equilibrium for a long enough period to reduce major model dependence.
There is nothing wrong with the fact that we use idealizations instead of direct observables, but the real meaning of idealizations must be understood and some idealizations are much more intuitive or much more useful than others.
Judy,
Thanks for reposting this; it certainly provoked some interesting responses! As I mentioned in the comments over at Lucia’s place, I meant to include the non-cloud component of the WB feedback under very likely and the cloud aspect under more likely than not/tossup, but I ran out of steam near the end. I’ll admit not being as familiar with the literature on cloud feedbacks as I should, though from what I’ve read its not clearcut if clouds are positive or negative feedbacks on balance.
More to the point, what is the chance that the deviation from zilch is significant in the Lindzen sense. It does not matter if this is slightly positive or negative, it only matters if it is globally huge.
Eli
IPCC AR4 WG1 tells us that the model-derived 2xCO2 CS including all feedbacks, except that of clouds equals 1.9C on average.
After including cloud feedback, the IPCC models estimate the 2xCO2 CS to be 3.2C on average. This represents a fairly strong positive feedback from clouds.
So, if it turns out that the real net feedback from clouds is now negative or even strongly negative, this will obviously have a major impact on the 2xCO2 CS and all the future warming projections.
Nicht wahr?
Max
Judith,
The way climate physics is set up, it cannot distinguish between the planets energy and solar energy. Thermodynamics is a perfect example.
Every rotating planet has stored energy including the sun.
I know where this mistake is to separate these two areas.
“Land and ocean temperature measurements over the past century are largely accurate at a global level, though there are some regions that have limited data, especially toward the earlier part of the century. ”
I completely disagree with this based on the data I’ve seen, but would be perfectly happy to be proved wrong.
I am told that the continental US land temperature record is the most reliable in the world, so that’s a natural place to start. People are concerned about UHI and poorly sited stations, so I can throw those out. Also many stations are near airports, and this makes me uncomfortable. Fine, I can throw those out too, if the US has really warmed so much in the last century I should be able to see it from what remains.
So I want to the USHCN data, NOAA has great records and I know and respect some people who have worked for NOAA. Some stations have many resitings. OK, deal with those later and look at what’s left. TObs doesn’t look like such a good thing to use since it relies on what time of day a human observer took a measurement, and that won’t stay constant, but I have TMin and TMax. So assemble the TMax data for a half a dozen stations and try to see how I have to process this data.
Well, there are big blocks of missing data; OK, I can replace the missings with an average of the same days from a previous year (if you throw them out it makes the year look very hot or very cold). Split up the data and look at intervals between resitings. Standardize the data (turn it into Z scores) so I can eyeball whether there seems to be anything non-random going on.
What I usually see is everything looks plausible and relatively flat during large blocks of time, but at a certain point TMax makes a big movement (up or down, but more likely up). Big means that the data suddenly starts coming in 1 or two standard errors above the previous data, i.e. suddenly the data jumps 1 or 2 degrees F. I don’t think this represents AWG, it shows there is something wrong with the data.
NOAA has been helpful in pointing me to references on how they make their (very complicated) adjustments, and referring me to the NCDC data compilers for specific stations, but I still have not found a sizable set of stations from which I can extract a 50+ year signal without making annoying adjustments. If someone can help me see the supposed trend in US land temperature without putting all the data through a huge meat grinder (after 20 years of working with data I don’t trust meat grinders), I would be grateful.
JFK – Questionable station records are a problem, as you indicate, but their importance can be exaggerated.
If you compare global temperature trends with sea surface temperature (SST) trends, the results are almost the same. This is because oceans occupy about 70 percent of the global surface and their warming and cooling averaged over long intervals dominates the record.
Without land data, the trend would be slightly shallower, but not much, and so we can ask, whether it is justified to average in the land data trend globally, given uncertainties about UHI effects and other variables. For centuries, it has been known that land warms or cools faster than the oceans – the reason is that the latter exhibits much greater thermal inertia due to its enormous heat capacity, and also because evaporation moderates ocean warming. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that at least some of the excess of recorded land warming over SST warming must be accurate.
Given all these considerations, I would suggest that land data, although important particularly for regional forecasts, has rather little relevance to global trends. U.S. land data is such a small fraction of the total that its contribution to the global land record is quite small. A more critical issue is the accuracy of ocean data. Here, we know that older records are relatively unreliable (obtained often as convenience samples from ships using a variety of measurement techniques). We have no reason, however, to conclude that their trend data have been strongly biased over multiple decades, despite evidence for a shift when measurement technologies changed in the 1940s. We also have concordant observations from night-time maritime near surface air temperatures, which trend in the same direction.
Since the satellite era, satellite measurements of ocean skin surface temperature have supplemented the other technologies, and continue to demonstrate the upward trends. In addition, multidecadal measurements of steric sea level rise (a rise due to thermal expansion of sea water), and of ocean heat content have also been consistent with the temperature trends. Each of these suffers from some degree of inaccuracy, and in addition, short term up and deviations from the trends have been observed – some probably reflective of real climate fluctuation and others of technological and sampling problems. Overall, however, the concordance of results from many sources indicates that we are observing something with reasonable accuracy. This does not obviate the need to improve both SST and land-based data in the future.
Measurements of lake surface temperature trends provide an additional, independent source of global data. See Adrian et al. for a good discussion of the potential (and complicatiing factors) of these data, and for many additional references. A very promising, developing field.
It absolutely makes sense that sea temperatures are a lot more important than land temperatures. But in the post Judy says she has serious concerns about the ocean data. I’ll google around and see what I can find out. I suppose I should just believe the satellite data although I know there are questions of which algorithm is used to deduce temperature from raidiance, differences in instrumentation, and malfunctioning of instrumentation. I looked at US land temps because I thought that’s where the fewest questions would come up – but in fact lots of questions come up. I’m comfortable saying 1917 was very cold and 1998 was very warm; getting much more accuracy than that seems like a struggle.
So, JFK, you think that the Berkeley surface temperature project cannot work (they are not correcting for station issues).?
As I read it, they are correcting for station issues
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary.pdf
“In addition to the uncertainty adjustments detailed above, we might also search for statistically significant discontinuities in the record that could indicate undocumented station moves and similar problems. The impact
of discontinuities can be resolved by partitioning such data into two time series with independent baseline estimators. Hence the corrections for such discontinuities can become part of the simultaneous solution to the
larger averaging problem rather than a series of local adjustments.”
I don’t know if it will work, but I’m very interested to see what they come up with.
The main problem with ocean data is quite simply that it does not exist for much of the ocean surface before the satellite era.
Huge areas of the Pacific and Southern Ocean in particular are almost never visited by ships. As a matter of fact many areas were visited more frequently in the sailing ship era than they are now.
Just as an example I was on an expedition to the subantarctic islands south of New Zealand this southern summer. We were out three weeks and covered some 3000 nautical miles. We sighted exactly zero ships between leaving and re-entering harbour in New Zealand. I was informed that one more ship was scheduled to visit the Antipodes and Bounty islands this year. That is, at the most, two traverses for a whole year, both in summer, through an area about the size of Britain.
When I commented on the ocean data I was thinking about the satellite measurements. If I read that a dataset requires adjustments for use of insulated versus uninsulated buckets and the heat of the engine room, I just sort of go on to the next thing.
“a shift when measurement technologies changed in the 1940s.”
This is a myth, probably to explain away the “1940’s blip” in SST. The shift from buckets to intake measurements was much more protracted and complicated as covered by Steve McIntyre e. g. here:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/29/lost-at-sea-the-search-for-windowed-marine-de-trending/
I don’t believe it is a myth. It really happened, and the change made a difference.
How much? Well, I was one of the first persons in the blogosphere at the time to evaluate that, because I compared the dip in the temperature of sampled water with the dip in the temperature of near-surface air measured on ships, and observed that approximately half or so of the dip was explainable by instrumentation changes and the remainder by some other mechanism – probably a change in internal ocean dynamics (PDO, AMO, etc.)
It might be a myth, or it might be just one small part of a more complicated problem. The diagram Steve shows from a paper by Kent et al. starts in the 1970s so any extrapolation back to the 40s is problematic. It’s possible that that there was more than one shift from from buckets to intakes or vice versa. Around the second world war there are very few data in the ICOADS archive and many of them come from different sources in the periods before (merchant ships), during (naval ships), after the war (back to merchant ships).
This paper suggests that ships were already using intake measurements in the 1930s (see page 454):
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadsst2/rayner_etal_2005.pdf
The drop in temperatures in 1945 occurred at the same time as a whopping great big change in the data base. It’s suggestive of a widespread change in practice around that time with the implication that some or all of the drop is artificial. If you think the drop is real, then you still need to prove that the sudden change had no effect on the SST record.
It seems strange that no one has looked at this in greater detail. The raw SST data is in ICOADS which is freely available on line:
http://icoads.noaa.gov/
Absolutelly agree JFK. No meat grinders, they are unnecessary.
A meat grinder is necessary, otherwise you would notice that some stations warm while other stations cool. Seriously, I think too much emphasis is being placed on the various meat grinders being able to turn out such similar results while turning a blind eye to the problems in the temperature record, which with some effort, could actually be fixed.
If you can be more specific either Zeke or I can help you.
The issue’s you raise are important, but not critical.
Finally, you will have to put the data thru a meatgrinder.
luckily there are many out there so you dont have to write one yourself.
you can use, Zekes or mine or ron brobergs or nick stokes or jeffid
Anyway, feel free to write me and i’ll help
Thanks for the offer. It’ll take a couple of days to get the data assembled cleanly, I will send over. I don’t have your contact info.
a comment on my blog will do
So assemble the TMax data for a half a dozen stations and try to see how I have to process this data.
see http://cdnsurfacetemps.wordpress.com
I’ve started doing some of this.
Judith
Here are my thoughts on Zeke’s comments, for what they are worth:
>95% probability
1 (GH effect), 2 (CO2 is a GHG): OK
3 (Atmospheric CO2 is increasing): OK (but would like to see specific references of “hundreds”)
4 (Human CO2 emissions are increasing): OK
5 (Human CO2 causes majority of CO2 increase): Seems logical, but isotope studies are not conclusive; annual changes in concentration do not correlated with annual CO2 emissions at all, so something else is also in play here.
>90% probability
1 (2xCO2 dT ~1°C, no feedback): Good hypothesis, but quantitatively not validated by empirical data, therefore not conclusive at >90% probability.
2 (CO2 long-term residence time): Agree with Judith that this is uncertain. If half-life of CO2 in system is 120 years, then concentration would theoretically diminish by 0.58% of concentration per year; as long as new CO2 entering climate system is higher than this level, we can expect continued increase; if it gets below this level, we can expect a leveling off.
3 (Strongly positive WV feedback): Sounds logical in theory, but long-term NOAA records on tropospheric specific and relative humidity do not confirm a constant relative humidity postulation and therefore the magnitude of the water vapor feedback.
4 (Positive cloud feedback): Agree with Judith; net cloud feedback is a major unknown, with some recent indications that this could be strongly negative; ergo overall feedback could well be neutral to negative.
5 (Essentially no solar influence): Agree with Judith that this is still being debated, but I would bump it down even further in probability, as we are not at all certain that TSI is the only solar influence on our climate, as postulated by IPCC.
>66% probability
1 (2xCO2 CS): I disagree that either the 2°-4.5°C or the 1°C-6°C are >66% probable. Up until now, this is a purely hypothetical deliberation; there has been no observed change in temperature, which can be directly linked to increased CO2 concentrations (see comment by Terry Oldberg, February 26, 1:14 pm).
2 (Validity of surface record): I would agree with Judith that the jury is still out on this one; also the word “modestly” (for impact of UHI, station shutdowns and relocations, sparse data, etc,) is purely speculative.
3 (Cosmic ray hypothesis interesting but unlikely): Agree with Judith that this statement is a leap of faith. The long-term cosmic ray temperature correlation, while weak after around 1990, is still actually much better than the CO2 temperature correlation, statistically speaking.
>50% probability
1 (Natural variability relatively insignificant at multi-decadal scales): I would agree with Judith that there are far too many unknowns at work to draw this conclusion.
2 (Recent warming is unprecedented over the past millennium): I would agree with Judith that this is far too uncertain. There are many studies from all over the world, using different paleo-climate methods, which suggest a MWP that was slightly warmer than today. In addition, there are historical records from all over the civilized world at the time plus actual physical evidence, all of which confirm this.
Max
Judith, can I make a suggestion for a future post? Do the opposite of this post. Identify points which would DISPROVE AGW. Surely there must be some tests that, if true, would disprove AGW?
Excellent idea Jim.
We might start with the decade and a half of non-warming we have experienced.
Exellent idea, how about you look at all the temperature data too. Not just the average, but what Tmax/Tmin are doing during specific seasons. Summer TMax is not increasing, and there is no indication of increasing heat waves.
Once the new database is public this will be easy for all to see.
We might start with the decade and a half of non-warming we have experienced.
What decade and a half of non-warming?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/to:2011/trend
Jim
Before we jump on “disproving AGW”, I think we need to define what it is we want to “disprove”.
(I personally do not like the word “disprove” to start with – but let’s leave it in.)
Do we want to “disprove” that CO2 is a GHG, that GHGs absorb outgoing LW radiation thereby contributing to warming and that human activities generate CO2 (the basic AGW hypothesis)?
I hardly believe anyone here would want to do this.
Or do we want to “disprove” the premise that AGW, caused principally by human CO2, has been the primary cause of past warming and represents a serious potential threat for humanity and our environment (let’s call this the dangerous AGW hypothesis)?
I believe that this is where the disagreement lies.
And it is also where the high level of uncertainty lies.
However, the “dangerous AGW hypothesis” as stated above is not the “null hypothesis” here (regardless of whether Kevin Trenberth would like for this to be the case).
So I believe it would be up to the defenders of this hypothesis to provide the empirical evidence to support it, not up to those who are rationally skeptical to provide the evidence to falsify it.
If, on the other hand, the defenders of the DAGW premise have provided empirical data based on physical observations or reproducible experimentation, which support the hypothesis, then it would be up to the skeptics to refute these data in order to falsify it.
Have I got this wrong?
Max
If, on the other hand, the defenders of the DAGW premise have provided empirical data based on physical observations or reproducible experimentation, which support the hypothesis, then it would be up to the skeptics to refute these data in order to falsify it.
Here ya go. Take a look at “Constraints from the Instrumental Period” and “Palaeoclimatic Evidence:” you’ll find lots of empirical data based on physical observations or reproducible experimentation which support the hypothesis.
There’s 101 references at the bottom, so there’s no shortage of source information.
PDA
Yeah. I’ve looked at all that. First of all, there’s lots of model stuff (= no empirical evidence).
The paleo stuff is weak as errors are great, assumptions are dicey and unknowns are immense.
But let’s look at more recent data.
The past decade has shown an observed lack of warming, both in the atmosphere (surface plus troposphere) and the upper ocean, despite an observed record increase in CO2.
Unless these data can be refuted they represent a falsification of the premise that CO2 is the principal driver of our planet’s climate and that AGW is, therefore, a serious potential threat to humanity or our environment.
In fact, they tell us that something else has driven our climate over the past decade, and that this “something else” has been strong enough to overwhelm a record increase in CO2.
Is this “something else” a “known unknown” or an “unknown unknown”? Nobody knows (by definition), and that’s what uncertainty is all about.
And that is really the crux of the debate here.
Max
PDA, computer models don’t mean anything. They are not evidence. They are what if computer games. Climate science has too much modeling and not enough physical evidence.
I wrote, as clearly as it’s possible to do in the English language, that the empirical data is in the sections “Constraints from the Instrumental Period” and “Palaeoclimatic Evidence.” Instead, you repeat boilerplate about models.
Are you so very afraid to look at the evidence? What does that say about your beliefs?
Are you so very afraid to look at the evidence? What does that say about your beliefs?
A bit of an oxymoronic statement. Once presented with the evidence, then there is nothing to believe.
That was exactly the point of my statement. You have been presented with the evidence, but you will not look at it. It’s reasonable to conclude that your reluctance has to do with fear of overturning your belief system.
Please, though: prove me wrong.
PDA, it’s all too easy to find evidence which corroborates a hypothesis. After all, the hypothesis is put forth place because the immediate available evidence leads you to believe that it might be true in the first place. The difficult thing to do is to try and disprove your hypothesis — and that is the true business of a scientist. Engineers do this ALL THE TIME. In the course of Quality Assurance/Quality Control an engineer is hoping that one of his colleges can find the flaw in his design before he stamps and signs the drawings. This is not true in academic based research. Climate scientist don’t have liability insurance payments to make if they are wrong.
Again, I’ll repeat myself — is it possible to assemble a list tests and observations that, if true, would disprove AGW? If the answer is no, this does not confirm the strength of the AGW hypothesis — but rather it shows it’s weakness.
It’s reasonable to conclude that your reluctance has to do with fear of overturning your belief system.
Not possible since I don’t have a belief system. I never fear any evidence.
Then what’s stopping you from reading the evidence in Knutti and Hegerl?
Soon as I see comments in the abstract that starts with:
“The Earth’s climate is changing rapidly as a result of anthropogenic carbon emissions, and damaging
impacts are expected to increase with warming. To prevent these and limit long-term global surface
warming to, for example, 2 °C, a level of stabilization or of peak atmospheric CO2 concentrations
needs to be set.”
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
I know it’s not evidence, but opinion. They are starting with the Null Hypothesis that AGW is real. Schwartz’s work on sensivity counters those guys.
Have you looked at the evidence?
I read that link, am I to accept that their clear bias does not affect how they present any evidence? I can’t.
Second, if this is the paper you are refering to, it’s model based. Model output is not evidence. It’s meaningless what if computer games.
I read that link, am I to accept that their clear bias does not affect how they present any evidence? I can’t.
That is a statement of belief. The evidence is there, and it is either correct or incorrect. Despite your assertion that you “don’t have a belief system,” you have made up your mind before evaluating the evidence.
Second, if this is the paper you are refering to, it’s model based
No. It’s not. You are literally so blinded by your belief that you are unable to read words like “Constraints from the Instrumental Period” and “Palaeoclimatic Evidence,” which are empirical observations that have nothing to do with models.
It’s actually very interesting to watch your cognitive dissonance.
manacker, A good scientist should state the conditions under which his hypothesis would be proven to be false. This is something rarely seen in climate science.
Judith,
Heard talk of a small nuclear war cold help cool the planet.
A WUWT rumor.
Hmm. I’ll make a few adjustments to my answer on Lucia. mostly a 2 or 3
( some areas require more study for me, in which case, I have no basis
to question the IPCC)
ExLikely(>95)
1Y
2Y
3Y
4Y
5Y
VL (>90)
1Y
2Y
3Y
4~Y (need to study more)
5~Y (need to study more)
L (>66)
1 Y
2Y
MLTN (>50)
1 Y ( need to study more)
2 N ( field is too effed up for me to believe anything without redoing
the work myself)
“I have no basis to question the IPCC”
What gives you a basis not to question the IPCC?
questioning is easy. So, if I’m unwilling to do the work of checking the stuff myself, then as a practical matter I will accept it. I kinda left Easy skepticism behind when I stopped doing philosophy. I’ve read the whole document. and try to focus on areas where I am actually able to check some of the work. Then read the papers in that area, look at the data. when I’ve earned the right to question ( by being able to answer it for my self) then I’ll say I question it. Thats the ideal, i try to embody. Obviously some stuff is questionable on its face.
You’ll note that I dont prescribe that you adhere to my approach. So, I’m not arguing that you should trust them. However, merely questioning everything is too easy for me. Questioning, without saying, and heres some help to get it right, is too easy. Although I’ve also engaged in that. figuring out what to question and what not to question can be simple
( question everything) or hard ( question if and only if you would actually RECOGNIZE the truth or be willing to do some work)
how should one limit ones skepticism?
“Being uninformed is not nearly as bad as being misled. For one thing, it is much easier to know that you are uninformed than to know that you are being misled.” — Thomas Sowell
Hope it’s relevant – I’ve always thought it’s handy.
You gotta love those guys. Very relevant.
Well, I’ve a different approach. You’ve presented an either/or situation as far as questioning. Mine isn’t either everything or simply of things I may have direct knowledge. To me, that sounds pretty easy. It makes your choices rather Boolean. Like you, I don’t prescribe mine for you, it yours works for you so be it. I use a little more complex approach. From childhood I was given exposure to a religion/philosophy/way-of-life, if you will. When I find thoughts/values/ or assertions that may run contrary to the constructs, I find one should question. And learn. An example……..ethanol. On the surface, it sounded like a good idea. Talk about renewable!(but not really) Less dependence on foreign oil! And at the time, cheaper! But, one of the constructs I was given was that you didn’t play with your food. People are hungry in the world and feeding them is something of which I’m an advocate. (note, the current manner in which we go about this is entirely inadequate) So, ethanol and the conditions, potentially ran afoul of my constructs. It behooved me to question and learn. Here’s what I learned. Ethanol sharply increases the cost of food. It sharply decreases the available food supply.(this was evident to me even before it was widely adopted) It is less efficient in most vehicles. Using ethanol in my truck had such a decrease in performance that I actually consumed more oil derived gas than I would have using straight unleaded. And now, depending upon the price of corn vs oil, is more expensive than oil derived.(today may be otherwise, because of the unrest) That’s beautiful, we’re actually paying to starve people while becoming more reliant on foreign fuel. Every advocate of such madness should take a bow. And, while I’m not pointing a finger personally, I think, too many people in this particular case adopted your way of questioning rather than mine.
I also follow Voltaire’s posit that “No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking.” So, I find that there are very few issues that I cannot come to an understanding. Why would I acquiesce to the thoughts of some that may not come to a better understanding than myself? All it costs me is some learning. Yes, this shows a great ego, but even then it isn’t larger than an ego that states we can control our climate. Again, an idea that violates all of my constructs.
BTW, I’m well read in the IPCC documents, too. And I can’t count the studies I’ve wandered through. I’ve taken questions to professors and other experts in various fields. Steve, your apparent assumption that most skeptics don’t read the studies is, IMO, errant. And not very helpful, it perpetuates the myth that we’re a bunch of un-educated muppets that sit around denying that the holocaust ever happened. I wish you’d stop.
Off for some fun-n-games concerning physics and calculus of spheres on a plane.
I think failure to read all the literature isnt just a skeptic problem. I have a problem doing that. part of it is paywall ( so I hate paywall for stuff cited in AR4) and the rest is time constraint.
I guess I would make the point that a total skepticism is just not feasible. We are always picking and choosing which things to question.
Notice, I said well-read. Like you, I find paywalls rather frustrating.
And I totally agree, we are always choosing what to question, and what to accept. There are somethings, that we’d neither accept nor reject, but defer judgment until more information is available or time to get more information is available.
Ya, I’ve experimented with a variety of approaches, lets say rules for responsible skepticism. Suspending judgment sounds good on paper. It’s a tough question.
“So, if I’m unwilling to do the work of checking the stuff myself, then as a practical matter I will accept it.”
I’m sure this is Steven Mosher’s M.O.
Except for when it isn’t.
Andrew
Steve, as temperature plateaus, I am reminded of Johnson’s refutation of Bishop Berkeley:
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till herebounded from it — “I refute it thus.” (James Boswell: Life of Samuel Johnson book 3)
Spin as the Team may, the fact is that none of the models predicted a plateau, or even the possibility of a plateau. And, as we are entering a cooling period due to the reverse of the PDO, that cooling period is odds on likely to continue for a decade or more. Which will, I suspect, mean that, one by one, the models will feel the force of Johnson’s foot.
Judith, It might do well to first see if folks can agree on the extremely Likely
stuff. To be sure commenters will disagree, but I think Monckton, Watts, Eschenbach, McIntyre, ( name any prominant critic) will accept those.
yes, everybody but the sky dragons
What’s the extremely likely value for atmospheric CO2 saturation?
CO2 saturation is almost impossible within any CO2 concentration range compatible with the availability of fossil fuels. We are at about 390 ppm, and even several thousand ppm would not saturate. Whether it might modify the logarithmic relationship between concentration and forcing is another matter, but given the shape of the spectral CO2 absorption/emission range, the deviation would probably not be great.
It depends, of course, on what you mean by saturation. For example, the spectrum could be described as a series of sharp lines which overlap at the bottom. The absorption on the peaks is saturated, the base not and even that is a simplification.
If you mean that an increase in CO2 mixing ratio will have no effect, then Fred is correct, in that sense there is no saturation.
#4 Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing.
Given the 400% increase in the global price of coal that has occurred in the last 8 years and the the fact that the disruption to even some small part of oil production produces huge price swings then this ‘fact’ is likely to be temporary.
I would note that Bangladesh,one of the poorest countries in the world, as measured by per capita GDP($1700) ordered two nuclear plants from the Russians yesterday. Those two nuclear plants will represent 30% of Bangladesh’s generating capacity.
Vietnam, also a fairly poor country ordered 4 nuclear plants last year. They will also represent 30% of Vietnams total generating capacity on top of the 50% of capacity that is now hydro.
The rate of increase of anthropogenic emissions has slowed in the developed world and is poised to begin slowing in the developing world within 10 years.
I can only agree to
#4 Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing and are highly unlikely to be economically sustainable past 2020.
Seems to me the scientific input from IPCC on Level Of Scientific Understanding ought to help inform this chart.
From this chart we see that the majority (!) of forcing sources currently under consideration have Very Low or Low level of scientific understanding. This was the final AR4 scientific input.
I would echo others in suggesting that there are obvious presentational bias(es) in the table provided for this post. E.g., what aspects can be considered less than 50% likely?
Another way of getting past our own confirmation biases: what can be learned by seriously considering an opposite hypothesis?
For example, what effects would contribute to the instigation of the next Ice Age? Everything considered in the OP appears to presume that another Ice Age is more or less an impossibility. If earth is not immune from such an event, how do the factors that likely contribute to such an eventuality impact the AGW equations and uncertainty levels?
I’m quite hesitant to pile on about the certainty of warming factors, without purposefully attempting to position myself in a context of balanced understanding that leads to models capable of demonstrating known significant historical events.
@JudithCurry
Zeke writes, “What I think is very likely [>90% probability] : 1. A doubling of carbon dioxide, holding everything else equal, would lead to a global average surface temperature increase of about 1 C. This follows from a basic derivation of forcing from changes to absorption bands, though it is complicated by the inherent difficulty of defining what exactly a no-feedback system is.”
The global average surface temperature increase due to a doubling of carbon dioxide is going to be closer to 1.2 degrees C, according to science reviewed by the IPCC. Reference :
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html
“The diagnosis of global radiative feedbacks allows better understanding of the spread of equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates among current GCMs. In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature increase), the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006).”
It is true that feedbacks in the climate system can operate, making the surface temperature change experienced in different regions of the Earth’s surface somewhat different to this 1.2 degrees C.
(Of note, only a few negative feedback processes have been identified. Most feedback processes that have been identified and measured are positive or amplifying of increases in temperature.)
(Also of note, it is well-recognised that absorption band “saturation” effects need to be taken into account when making this kind of calculation. )
However, even though surface temperatures of land and ocean may experience feedback effects, there are few possible feedbacks posited for the level of the atmosphere where the net radiation to space takes place, and this means that the 1.2 degrees C heating effect must be absorbed within the boundaries of the atmosphere somewhere.
Changes at height that could alter this 1.2 degrees C figure include changes in the composition of the atmosphere at that height, or changes in the density of the atmosphere at that height.
For example, Susan Solomon has identified water vapour changes in the stratosphere and trends in this could have an impact on temperature changes experienced at the Earth’s surface :-
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100128_watervapor.html
And in addition, Ben Santer has identified that the tropopause has expanded (increased in height) and trends in these kinds of changes may also have an impact on temperature changes experienced at the Earth’s surface :-
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/climate-scientist-benjamin-santer.html
However, as far as I understand it the 1.2 degrees C average warming of the Earth’s surface for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide has not been challenged.
Remember then – it’s 1.2 degrees C, not 1 degree C. And 1 degree C is not the same as 1 degree F.
You write, “I have a problem with the way this is formulated, but agree that more CO2 will warm the surface.”
How would you formulate it then ?
For example, Susan Solomon has identified water vapour changes in the stratosphere and trends in this could have an impact on temperature changes experienced at the Earth’s surface :-
The WMO 2010 has different conclusions
Chemistry-climate models predict increases of stratospheric water vapor, but confidence in these predictions is low. Confidence is low since these same models: 1) have a poor representation of the seasonal cycle in tropical tropopause temperatures (which control global stratospheric water vapor abundances) and 2) cannot reproduce past changes in stratospheric water vapor abundances.
Tropical lower stratospheric water vapor amounts decreased by roughly 0.5 parts per million (ppm) around 2000 and remained low through 2009. This followed an apparent but uncertain increase in stratospheric water vapor amounts from 1980–2000.
The mechanisms driving long-term changes in stratospheric water vapor are not well understood.
The conclusions of Joshi et al 2010 are very succinct on incorrect stratospheric parameters .
This analysis has again shown that changes to minor constituents in the stratosphere can have profound effects on the evolution of the surface climate in models. Any future metrics of model behaviour should take account of potential biases arising from this region of the atmosphere, especially if the stratosphere is poorly resolved as is the case in HadSM3
BTW the inclusion of an additional chapter in the 2010 review ,was a customer driven requirement due to a number of incorrect assumptions and errors in the AR 4 .
The current chapter helps to place the Protocol’s climate impact within a wider context by critically assessing the effect of stratospheric climate changes on the troposphere and surface climate, following a formal request for this information by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. As requested, the current chapter also considers the effects on stratospheric climate of some emissions that are not addressed by the Montreal Protocol,
but are included in the 1997 Kyoto protocol. Hence, the chapter covers some of the issues assessed in past Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports (IPCC, 2007; IPCC/TEAP, 2005). The current chapter is designed to provide useful input to future IPCC assessments.
The troposphere and surface climate are affected by many types of stratospheric change. Ozone plays a key role in such stratospheric climate change, but other physical factors play important roles as well. For this reason, we consider here the effects on the stratosphere of not only emissions of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), but also of emissions of greenhouse gases, natural phenomena(e.g., solar variability and volcanic eruptions), and chemical, radiative, and dynamical stratosphere/troposphere coupling
4. Individual who gets their climate information from talk radio
I provide a corollary: 4. Individual who gets their climate information from the NY Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The Guardian, NBC/GE, the Obama administration, Joe Romm, etc.
Concerning the entire >95% collection:
Mars has 25-30X the CO2/sq. m that Earth does, with few or no complicating factors. About as pure a “lab experiment” as you could ask for, and on the appropriate planetary scale.
Yet, if anything, the surface and atmosphere temp are slightly below B-B calculations.
Where’s the GHG effect?
The entire set falls into the “Ignorance” box as far as I’m concerned.
@JudithCurry
You write, “the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is debated”.
For me the key question is “what are the processes and the speed of the processes that take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere permanently ?”
Geological evidence for carbon cycle sequestration show that the processes are measured in thousands and tens of thousands of years, not tens or hundreds.
Of the total carbon dioxide emissions of mankind, the oceans manage to take up somewhere between 40% to 50%, but it is not clear if this carbon sink might break down or degrade – it might just be a temporary effect caused by the rapid rise in anthropogenic emissions rates to air.
Meanwhile carbon dioxide continues to accumulate in the atmosphere to the tune of somewhere between 50% and 60% of all we emit. This means, by simple deduction, that the lifetime of carbon dioxide in the air is longer than 50 years, as the modern atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements tell us that it is continuing to rise in step with our emissions.
There’s more to read in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Here’s a summary box :-
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-3.html
There is good reason to accept that the lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a large number, which is why it is urgent to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in particular and especially.
A representative diagram :-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38436614@N00/423200614/
The long residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is why there is an “after-burn” potential – that carbon dioxide emissions from decades ago are continuing to cause global warming today, and that the Earth would continue to warm long after all fossil fuel burning ceased and all the remaining forest was left to stand.
Have you followed Tom Wigley’s arguments ? :-
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
There is no one answer for the residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – there are ranges put forward which depend on conditions of soils, oceans, forests and so on – statistically expressed.
But none of them are small numbers, and I think you should be prepared to accept that this is significant, and not apply fudge.
jo abbess
As shown on the CO2 residence time curves you cited, the upper limit for 50% remaining in the system is somewhere around 120 years. If we look at this as a half-life, we have an annual reduction equal to 0.58% of the concentration.
At the present CO2 level of 390 ppmv, this represents an annual decrease of 2.3 ppmv.
Human CO2 emissions from all sources are currently adding the equivalent of 4.5 ppmv annually, yet we only observe an annual increase of 2.2 ppmv, or slightly less than half this amount.
No one knows for sure where the “missing CO2” is going, and it is not unreasonable to assume that a major part may be leaving our system (dissipation to space, carbonates dropping to the ocean bottom, etc.) following the long-term half-life estimation.
Therefore, is it not reasonable to assume that if CO2 emissions were reduced to half of today’s levels, the atmospheric concentration would level off?
Max
The above discussion doesn’t tell about the role of deep ocean. The 40-50% range for the ocean uptake refers to the fast uptake, which occurs mainly in few years or very rapidly in relation to the increase in the atmospheric concentration. The role of deep ocean is more complicated and the related time scales are much longer extending to thousands of years.
The fast uptake to oceans is likely to slow down gradually due to changes in ocean chemistry, but the slower processes will gradually have more and more importance. The complexity of all different processes influencing the removal rate of CO2 from the atmosphere has lead to the conclusion that it deviates strongly from exponential, but can be presented by a sum of several exponentials over a rather wide range of concentration.
For the most extreme scenarios and for the time scales of several hundred years or longer much uncertainty remains, but much uncertainty remains also on the significance of the development after we have reached the maximum and the concentration has turned back on the lessening trend. In my opinion those issues are not likely be the most important as the natural adaptation to changing environment is very effective on such time scales. Thinking back: How much difference would it really make for the present well-being, if the development of climate had been significantly different since the time of the Roman Empire or even since the end of the Middle Age.
@JudithCurry
You write, “the coupled water vapor and cloud feedbacks are uncertain”.
Yes, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report admits uncertainty in several places :-
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-6.html
Uncertainty is not the same as unknowing, however. There are estimates of values and effects.
You also write, “I think we can bound this between 1 and 6C at a likely level, I don’t think we can justify narrowing this further.”
I’m not sure how you come to this conclusion.
Let’s just look at the 2007 IPCC review of the science :-
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html
“The diagnosis of global radiative feedbacks allows better understanding of the spread of equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates among current GCMs. In the idealised situation that the climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 consisted of a uniform temperature change only, with no feedbacks operating (but allowing for the enhanced radiative cooling resulting from the temperature increase), the global warming from GCMs would be around 1.2°C (Hansen et al., 1984; Bony et al., 2006). The water vapour feedback, operating alone on top of this, would at least double the response. The water vapour feedback is, however, closely related to the lapse rate feedback (see above), and the two combined result in a feedback parameter of approximately 1 W m–2 °C–1, corresponding to an amplification of the basic temperature response by approximately 50%.”
So, that’s 1.2 degrees C for the basic physics of added greenhouse effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; coupled with a further increase of a similar magnitude from changes in atmospheric water vapour that come about as a direct consequence.
That’s not 1 degree C, Judith. That’s closer to 2.5 degrees C or even 3 degrees C.
But note that this idealised situation completely ignores cloud feedback.
Jo, for me the problem with all your posts is that the motivation seems always to be the pursuit of an agenda rather than advancement of the science. However much you learn about climatology it won’t be enough to draw the conclusions you seek (because of Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns”). For example, the atmospheric warming due to increased CO2 might well be expected to increase water evaporation so as to keep Relative Humidity constant (albeit raising Specific Humidity), so amplifying the small warming effect of CO2 itself. We don’t know that this is true and there are studies, eg http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm#Atmospheric%20water%20vapor which suggest that it isn’t. Perhaps you might go learn some more until you’re 100% sure of your ground, but on the way be careful not to contribute to consigning millions to disease and poverty as a result of your activism, however well meant. Regards, simon.
The MWP is an interesting case. As I understand it, when Steve McIntre removed the bristlecone pine data from the conflation of proxy data, the MWP showed up clearly. But why should it not show in the pine data? Part of the reason may be the same reason why the bristlecone pine data was discarded in the Hockey graph in favour of instrumentation – correctly because instrumentation can be relied on , because for some reason it does not correctly show higher temperatures, and hence, as in the present, does also not show up properly in the MWP.
Recent warming is unprecedented over the past millennium. While there are plenty of problems with paleoclimate reconstructions, enough corroborating work has been done to at least elevate this to more likely than not in my personal judgment. Were there reconstructions clearly showing MWP temperatures comparable with, say, the running 50-year mean of the instrumental record I would be less certain.
This one is almost certainly wrong, at least for the North Atlantic area and the Far East, There is abundant historical and biological data that indicates that climate during at least part of the MWP was significantly warmer than at present. These include:
Grain cultivation in areas where it is not possible at present, or very marginal, such as southern Greenland and Iceland.
Sheep and dairy farming further north than practical today (Nuuk area Greenland)
Treelines higher than at present (Scandinavia)
Deciduous forests (oak, hornbeam) further north than at present (Sweden, Finland)
Grape cultivation further north than practical today (Yorkshire, perhaps southern Norway)
Farmsteads at higher altitudes than practical today (Britain) or even overrun by glaciers since (Norway)
Citrus trees and other subtropical crops cultivated further north than possible today (China)
Driftwood deposited on beaches currently blocked by permanent shelf-ice (Ellesmere land)
You can add:
Farms at higher elevations than are possible today (Swiss alps)
Signs of ancient plant life and even, in rare cases, of ancient civilization, under receding glaciers (Swiss and Austrian alps)
Max
Direct solar forcing has played a relatively minor role in the last four decades, as TSI has been flat-to-modestly-decreasing during that period. JC: this is still being debated, in terms of calibrations of the satellites, etc. I would bump this down to likely.
Not only are there problems with the satellite data calibration, there is the question of terrestrial amplification of the solar signal. This is published in the literature, and there is no excuse for ignoring it. (Nir Shaviv: Using the oceans as a calorimeter: Journal of Geophysical Research.
http://sciencebits.com/calorimeter
Also, no account is taken here of either the accumulation of solar energy in the oceans on longer timescales, or the lag between solar activity and climate response noted in the correlation of solar cycle length and global temperature.
Then there is the question of the accuracy of the surface record…
Dear Dr. Curry,
About your points of (dis)agreement:
I am a level 2 epistemic level assessor.
About the 95% probability:
Agreed on all points.
About the 90% probability:
Point 1 : agreed.
Point 2: some problems with:
the growth limitations of sinks means that the stock will not decline quickly should emissions stop increasing
There is no evidence (beyond models…) that the deep ocean sink is saturating. That means that the “middle” decay time of the Bern model still is working fine. Only if we burn 10 times more carbon than already done, then the longer term decay rates come into play.
Point 3. Some problem with:
Earth’s dominant greenhouse gas does not minimize the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide.
With increased water vapour due to increased temperature, a similar increase in CO2 would have less effect?
Point 4. Agree with Judith that water vapour feedback including clouds are far from certain. In my opinion needs a new level: less than 50%.
Point 5. Disgree: Solar activity is at its highest level since 8,000 years. Models seems to underestimate the sensitivity for solar, including the transient heat accumulation in the oceans from this high plateau of activity. The next 5-10 years will be crucial to determine the real influence, if solar activity remains lower than in the previous period.
About the 66% probability:
Point 1: Some problems with:
paleoclimate evidence (including climate response to forcing during glacial periods as well as millennial proxies)
The paleoclimate evidence from glacial periods is dual: at one side, there are huge overlaps between temperature changes and CO2 changes, which allow GCMs to include huge feedbacks from CO2 on temperature. At the other side, the end of the Eemian is interesting that it shows a cooling to a new minimum (and ice sheets to a new maximum – both at about 75% of the previous opposite directions) while CO2 levels remained high. The subsequent CO2 drop of 40 ppmv had no measurable effect on temperature or ice sheet formation, to the contrary, these go the other way out. This points to a much smaller sensitivity for CO2 than for other – natural – causes. Thus, my range would be 1-3°C.
Millennium reconstructions have no skill before 1600.
Point 1 bis (2?): agreed om “wait and see”.
Point 2 (3?): is part of the overall influence of the sun, see point 5. of the 90% confidence.
About the 50% probability:
Point 1. completely disagree: PDO, NAO and other ocean related oscillations have lengths of 60-80 years. Lots of other longer cycles are seen in paleoclimate data like D.-O. and related Holocene Bond cycles.
Point 2. completely disagree: Compare recent proxy data with historic proxy data, not with grafted temperature data. That is exactly the discussion at stake.
That said, this range is large enough that it could mean that climate change will be a moderate issue (1.5 C) or potentially quite dangerous (4.5 C).
Judith, why the a priori assumption that higher is “dangerous”? What evidence is there of that? “Dangerous” is a human perspective only, not scientific.
Like some others, I was uncomfortable with some of the ZH propositions, because they seemed to carry baggage with them, A more concise formulation would have been better, at least for me.
Having said that, my capacity to agree diminishes as we go down the list. I was heartened to see unprecedented warming down the bottom. I agree with Judith that this is white-part-of-the-flag stuff. In something I have just written I gave the opinion that there is virtually nothing in the central AGW propositions that isn’t contested, in a serious way, by an apparently competent person and argument. That doesn’t mean that the person/argument is correct, but it does mean that AGW is a most awkward intellectual construction. For example, I think I can mount a strong argument that the surface instrumental data before the 1970s are hardly worth taking seriously at any other than a one-degree margin, and that the three decimal places that dignify the anomaly are risible. Since the alleged increase in temperature over the 20th century is 0.7 degrees, that tells us nothing — error could be greater. Proxy data (of course, measurements from mercury thermometers are proxies too) going back into the past come with their own errors, are not global in any sense, have utterly different periods, and are fiddled with in ways that are not always explained. They too seem to me close to worthless for any fine-detail argument. I would argue that the best we can say is that in the last thousand years there have been warm and cool periods in Europe, which seem to have been about as warm as/rather cooler than now. The numbers that we fling around have an absurd precision.
What do I agree with? The black-body hypothesis that a doubling of carbon dioxide will, all other things being equal, lead to around a one degree C increase in temperature.
Let me add a comment to what I thought was an extraordinary exchange in the middle of the thread about authority. I have seen it before. One side says: ‘There are competing exerts here, and I have to decide which set of experts to believe. Look! Here are the learned academies, governments, the UN and the IPCC all backing that set of experts. I’ll join them’.
The other side says: ‘This is a most important issue, and I am affected by it either way. I’d better find out what it’s all about.’
Very many follow the first argument, and to do so is not silly. But the second is the more justifiable intellectually. It means a lot of work. But any reasonably educated person can quickly discover that he or she can understand the issue up to a point, and then begin to ask questions of the experts, or to read the relevant papers. WG1 of AR4 is not all that hard, for the most part. To say it again: if it were all really straightforward, we wouldn’t be here. AGW isn’t straightforward, most of it is conjecture, and it doesn’t take you all that long to find that out. Then you become irritated by the fudging, the lack of disclosure, and the denunciation of people who are simply asking questions, the high-handed dismissal of arguments, and so on.
And remember that governments are not scientists, that there are not total experts in this area (as has been pointed out above), and that reasonable people have to sort out (if they are advising governments) how to make sense of all this, or (if they are citizens) how they should regard government pronouncements and intended policies — because we are all affected.
This website, and many others, attract people of the second camp. We are here to find out, because we think it is important..
Dead right.
Particularly on the question of finding out for ourselves. I think Judy’s epistemic levels are interestingly wrong. One does not have to do climate science in order to evaluate the claims of climate science. That evaluation is open to anyone who is willing to spend the time looking at the arguments and the data. (And motives but those are actually less interesting.)
And Don is dead right in pointing out that governments/politicians are not scientists; rather they are consumers of the scientific product (plus spin.) Which explains why Canada is getting ready to ban incandescent light bulbs notwithstanding that we heat our houses 8 months a year and none of the heat generated in the production of light is wasted.
The black-body hypothesis that a doubling of carbon dioxide will, all other things being equal, lead to around a one degree C increase in temperature.
And what would that 1C increase look like in the real world (not the mathematical and meaningless average)? What would you expect in the climate to actually change?
for Richard Wakefield:
Well, if it is correct that there was a 0.7 degree C increase over the 20th century, an increase in food production seems to have been at least associated with it. I can’t see anything especially negative that could be reasonably associated with (not caused by) that increase.
If there were an increase of a further degree C over the next fifty years I cant see why I should be especially worried, for myself or for humanity generally.
Or was your question rhetorical?
My question is to the alarmists here. I’d like them to explain exactly what an increase in the average of the yearly mean means? How is it manifested? I’ve been waiting a long time for one of these alarmists to answer this, but they never do because they have no clue about what would actually happen.
There must be a name of a con game wherein all sorts of reasonable statements are made, but a few hidden statements are embedded, so that the public says, “WOW,” that sounds reasonable. (It must be related to keeping you eye on the pea).
Well I suggest that Zeke may be ngaging in that kind of a game. One of the reasons that I say that is that, in the hypothetical analysis, THERE ARE NO TENENTS THAT ARE 50% in a field of inquiry with such enormous uncertainty?
The trick in the post, as with virtually ALL of climate science, is that we don’t havea frigging clue about the natural variability of the climate, so we absolutely don’t know what is “unprecedented.” But, Zeke/Judith (innocently?, cleverly?) puts the MOST IMPORTANT concept in the whole frigging game in the >50% category: namely, that modern warmth is “unprecedented.” What nonsense!!!
Well, the whole AGW argument hinges on this little portion of the analysis, friends!
Dang it: The following:
“THERE ARE NO TENENTS THAT ARE 50% in a field of inquiry with such enormous uncertainty?”
Should read:
THERE ARE NO TENENTS THAT ARE RATED <50% in a field of inquiry with such enormous uncertainty?
Are there absolutely NO AGW "hypotheses" that fall below the "50%" certainty level? Do ALL of these claims rise above the 50% level?:
http://climatechangedispatch.com/temperate-facts/6402
Judith, interesting post. I have described myself before as neither a skeptic nor an AGW supporter.
I am a climate heretic. I believe that the climate has a number of homeostatic processes that tend to keep the temperature within a fairly narrow range despite wide fluctuations in forcing.
As a result, I think that the idea that the climate can be represented by
∆Q = λ ∆T
where Q is forcing, lambda is climate sensitivity, and T is surface air temperate
is a tragic joke. C’mon, folks, this is a huge and hugely complicated system. Why on earth would something that simple be true? It isn’t true for the human body, which is equivalently complex, there is no such relationship between forcing and temperature for humans. Why? Homeostatic processes in the human body.
The idea that climate is so bozo second-grade simple that it can be boiled down to a one line equation is NONSENSE, folks. You’ve been had. It ain’t that simple. THINK ABOUT IT! Do you truly believe the system can be contained in a simple, one line equation?
The claim that T is a function of one and only one thing, Q, rests on bad math and an incorrect understanding of dynamic systems. It is a very convenient fiction because it allows us to say “if the forcing changes like this in the future, the temperature must change like that” … but guys, please, think about it — can anyone name me a system as complex as the climate whose output properties are a linear transform of a single input variable?
Anyone?
Because rivers don’t act like that. Storms don’t act like that. Eddies in the stream don’t act like that. The ocean currents don’t act like that, waves breaking don’t act like that, none of them can be boiled down to a dirt simple equation.
∆Q is not equal to lambda times delta T anywhere but in the climate models.
The concept of “climate sensitivity” assumes a linear relationship between the two which does not exist anywhere outside the models. The entire field of climate science has made a fundamental mistake. It has assumed that the climate is like a pool ball on a perfectly level table. Push it north with a force of 3.7 units, it moves north 3 units. The relation between the force applied and the distance moved is called the “climate sensitivity”.
I say, on the other hand, that climate is like a river. If you push it north with a force of three units, it’s just as likely to shift its banks and move east two units. Try it sometime. In such a situation, there is no linear “climate sensitivity” relationship between the force and the distance moved. Nature’s ugly like that.
So … not sure where this puts me on your agreement list. It does reveal a problem with your list, however. As far as I’m concerned, it’s missing one of the most important questions:
Are there homeostatic systems within the climate which tend to keep it in a certain temperature range despite variations in forcing?
I say most definitely, I’ve identified one, and there are likely others. You guys are free to go on with your ideas about “climate sensitivity” of climate pool balls on a lovely level playing field … but when you ask if I agree, I don’t agree at all. I think that linear simplicity is the wishful thinking of modelers desperate to forecast the future. While they’re on the pool table playing with their balls, I’ll be out on the river learning more about how the world actually responds to forcing … I can already tell you four things about it, though:
1. It ain’t linear.
2. It ain’t simple.
3. It involves self-organized criticality and emergent phenomena.
4. It won’t fit in a one-line equation.
I think the field was put together without a clear overarching theory, and that it is suffering for it. Instead of being modeled as anything approaching the complexity of a natural planetary-scale heat engine which contains a host of self-organized emergent phenomena, it is modeled by a simple one-line equation … and you folks truly believe that? Truly? You really think we can reduce the climate to a one-line equation?
So no, I don’t agree, but not with the things you ask.
I disagree at a fundamental level with the basic assumptions. I disagree with the bogus math used to claim that the only variable in Q is T. I disagree that climate is like a ball on a pool table, free to respond linearly to forcings. I disagree that there is anything remotely resembling “climate sensitivity”, it is a component of an incorrect and oversimplified understanding of what’s going on.
Until your questionnaire gets down to that level, I fear it’s deck chairs on the titanic from my perspective …
w.
Most rational thing I’ve read to date on climate change. Thank you Willis.
Or put another way, when the first line to build the case that CO2 causes warming is:
“A doubling of carbon dioxide, holding everything else equal, would lead to a global average surface temperature increase of about 1 C.”
I think your case is shot right then and there. Please, name one time period, of any length, during which “everything else” was EVER held (or could be held) equal. That’s a very shaky foundation upon which to build your house of card.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with starting one’s analysis with a simplified situation like “a doubling of carbon dioxide, holding everything else equal…” In various kinds of problems in physics, we can start with this “first order perturbation” effect and then systematically correct for feedback and such to reach a more accurate answer. (See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory . There are also broadly similar ways of thinking in, e.g., numerical integration, and in the solution of differential equations on progressively finer grids.) And even in problems where it’s impractical to systematically do the corrections or sharpen the integration grid to reach an accurate answer, knowing the uncorrected first order result can be helpful for understanding the problem.
The validity of this approach doesn’t depend on the existence of a time period when things were “EVER held equal.” Similarly, one can use perturbation theory to analyze orbits of bodies around the Earth starting with the approximation that the Earth is a perfect sphere, and then correcting for the various bulges and such; the usefulness of the method doesn’t depend on whether the Earth EVER was a perfect sphere, but only on whether the sphere is a sufficiently good approximation that the correction terms are mathematically well-behaved.
This approach may not be helpful for you if you’re not used to thinking that way (especially if you’re not used to the calculus foundational concept of convergent series), or if that’s just not the way you like to think. But it’s not invalid or dishonest. It’s a normal way to think among people who have some experience with getting numerical answers out of complicated physical equations.
When I first start a business software model, I do exactly that. You have to r you get lost very quickly. By the time the project is finished, those that do, you are a far cry from that “first order perturbation” as reality forces otherwise. Most often you don’t even know of the reality until you encounter it.
“In various kinds of problems in physics, we can start with this ‘first order perturbation’ effect and then systematically correct for feedback and such to reach a more accurate answer. ”
The first problem with that approach is that you then need to know what the “feedback and such” are to reach that more accurate answer. This is just another way of saying “other things being equal.” To me, that is why the inability to explain earlier periods of warming is fatal to a claim that we know with real certainty what the temperature will be in 10 or 100 years.
The second problem your use of the term (accurate I believe) “more accurate.” It may be easy to be more accurate than random noise. I have no doubt that the models the climate scientists use today are the “most accurate” ever in the history of humankind. But that does not mean they are “accurate.”
When my son was ten, he was the most accurate at sinking a basketball ever in his life. He still couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn. More accurate is relatively easy. But accurate is the test. And the models just aren’t accurate at future forecasts.
Gavin Schmidt said elsewhere, if I recall correctly, that the models don’t need to be validated. That’s fine, but then don’t be surprised when voters refuse to elect people to enact your preferred policies.
A climate modeller claims that climate models don’t need to be validated? Well knock me down with a feather!! What a huge surprise that such a statement shoud come form such a disinterested and unbiased observer!
Whatever next? The CFO of the Grabbit, Swipeit and Runn Corporation swearing blind that it is a fundamental misunderstanding of accountancy principles and a personal insult to his professional judgment to insist that his books should balance – or have any other relationship to reality? And that no layman is entitled to even have an opinion about the contents of his big briefcase marked ‘SWAG’?
I can’t find the actual statement by Gavin that I was looking for (I believe it was on one of the Collide-a-Scape threads), the closest I could find elsewhere is this: “You need to have some kind of evaluation. I don’t like to use the word validation because it implies a kind of binary true-false set up. But you need tests of the model’s sensitivity compared to something in the real world that can confirm that model has the right sensitivity. This is very difficult.”
(http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/schmidt09/schmidt09_index.html)
(An interesting article by Gavin, I particularly liked this comment: “In the same way that you can’t make an average arithmetic be more accurate than the correct arithmetic, it is not obvious that the average climate model should be better than all of the other climate models.” I would like it better if it was modified to read: … it is not obvious that the average climate model should be better than the correct climate.)
My recollection was that in another context, when confronted with the fact that climate models have not been successfully validated against temperature records, or general global climate, Gavin responded that that type of validation was not necessary. Validation of individual segments of the models, usually one against another, was sufficient to make the models “useful.”
By this argument, volcanoes can’t just cause proportionate cooling by putting dust in the stratosphere, because the climate is too complex to allow such a thing as Pinatubo to have had just a cooling effect. Whether it is volcanic dust or CO2 being added to the atmosphere, yes, it can be that simple, because these are just perturbations to a stable balanced system.
Stable and balanced is the one thing we know the climate is not.
We are talking about a 1% change in forcing. What kind of percentage response do you expect in temperature for that? The response of a black body is 0.25%. These are small numbers in the total budget.
Yes, but initial conditions matter. Consider an earth with an atmosphere that contains N and O but no water vapor. Logically, when water vapor is added the initial “sensitivity” is positive since none of the phenomena associated with negative feedbacks from water vapor would exist. However, as the concentration increased the negative feedbacks due to clouds would change the magnitude, if not the sign, of the sensitivity. Eventually clouds would produce rain changing the term even more. This is just one over simplistic qualitative discussion of one phenomena. What about all we don’t know?
So you’re saying that you disagree with Willis’ thesis?
Willis: “…can anyone name me a system as complex as the climate whose output properties are a linear transform of a single input variable?”
I’m not sure anyone is saying that there is only a single input variable, just that the effects of other variables may be small or average out over time periods of decades. Sometimes simple models can be useful (and sometimes not).
How about an example system of a single human (maybe as complex as climate)? If we want a model of how many hours a given lawyer will work providing legal advice as a function of how many dollars he is paid, a linear model probably works well over a fairly large range. There are many other variables (how much other work he has, interest in your case…), but they generally don’t make the model useless.
‘I’m not sure anyone is saying that there is only a single input variable, just that the effects of other variables may be small or average out over time periods of decades.’
And what excactly makes you assume those variables will “average out” over decades? Why not over centuries or over millenia? The boundaries are just plain arbitary and besides, how are you supposed to average chaosness at all?
That is not the real issue. The real question is: “Do we have reason to think that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant (fill in your limits of significant) on the climate?”
What happens independently of the influence of CO2 is not an essential factor in this question. It will come in addition and either reduce or increase the effect. Feedbacks are part of the CO2 influence, but other forcings, oscillations or transitions are not.
The other factors make estimating the effect of CO2 more difficult, but they do not reduce or remove it. How we should react to the conclusions on the influence of CO2 and the uncertainties involved is another issue again and solving it requires a lot of additional input.
Pekka,
I do not disagree with you. That is excactly my point, that those effects will either mask or exaggerate the effects of CO2 depending on the situation, and will make detection of CO2-signal more difficult. No matter what the time scale being used. And that is why I’ve joined the critics of linear trends in GTA.
Actually not just GTA, but other important indicators as well.
Ok, here’s a simple example. I postulate that doubling my intake of water will result I a doubling of weight within a year. Based on this I write a computer model and voila, I’m correct. Except I forgot to add the “forcing” that my body would counter with, i.e. increased urination.
So, who out there is certain, and to what degree, that we fully understand how the earth might counter increased CO2?
The urination was not a forcing, it was a negative feedback. And I’m sure your average weight would be higher as long as the forcing was applied.
Don’t think so. Would only gain weight if I began in a dehydrated state. So do we know all the feedbacks and forcings for the climate and have we accounted for them? Given the timeframe in which the earth has remained relatively stable wrt climate, have we really been observing the climate long enough to know all of the feedbacks and forcings? Remember, in the example I appear to gain weight initially, at least until my bladder is full. How much confidence do we have that we know all of the ways in which the earth will react are known?
Poor analogy. Climate science purports to address the whole climate — all of the lawyers activities, if you will. Linearity in a selected, cherry-picked subset is useless.
Totally with you Willis. The evidence: the four billion years or so where, as far as we can tell, some part of the earth has had open water and some ice. (No need to agonise about the details of a single ‘global temperature’.) Without such incredible stability – despite the complexities of spatio-temporal chaos – we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.
All of which makes it kinda strange to some of us that we can talk ourselves, including, disgracefully, our children, into great fear about what we may be able to do to it, or what we have already done to it.
It isn’t true for the human body, which is equivalently complex, there is no such relationship between forcing and temperature for humans. Why? Homeostatic processes in the human body.
Have you never run a fever? Sat in a hot tub, heard about someone dying from hypothermia?
Joshua | February 27, 2011 at 1:06 am | Reply
Sure, all of which proves my point even further. There is no linear relationship between forcing and temperature. I can run a fever when it is cold outside … in other words, just like the earth, my temperature is not a function of the forcing.
w.
Yes, you can run a fever if it’s cold outside. But you can also run a fever if one variable in your physiology changes by a fraction of a percentage.
Dude, you keep proving my point over and over. I said that there is no linear relationship between forcing (external temperature in this example) and the temperature in the human body.
Your response is how about a fever?
I point out that you can run a fever if it is cold outside, showing my point once again, that my body temperature is not a function of the forcing. You say a fever might be caused by some small change elsewhere in my body.
THAT’S MY POINT! Human body temperature is not a simple function of external temperature, it’s not a function of external temperature at all. It is a complex function of a whole host of things, the strength of the homeostatic systems of the body, the health of the body, whether the forcings are strong enough to overwhelm the homeostatic systems, whether “one variable in your physiology changes by a fraction of a percentage” … all of which proves my point. There is no complex system I know of where the output is merely a simple, linear function of the input.
w.
Human body temperature is not a simple function of external temperature, it’s not a function of external temperature at all.
So you’re saying that if you sit in a tub of ice your body temperature won’t necessarily go down?
It may or may not go down a lot or a little. However, you still seem to be missing my point, which is:
There is no single-valued linear function that relates the external temperature and my body temperature.
I brought this up in the context that this is exactly the kind of linear relationship claimed between forcing and temperature in the climate, where the change in the output variable, global temperature, is claimed to be a certain number λ times the change in the input variable, forcing.
If, as you seem to be claiming, the human body has that kind of simple relationship to the forcing of the external temperature, then we could say:
Human body temperature = some constant K times external temperature.
If you are claiming that, then please tell us what value of the constant K is. If that’s not what you are claiming, then, as I said, you are making my point for me, because you are pointing out that there is no constant linear relationship between body temperature and external temperature of the type claimed for climate.
w.
If you sit in a tub of ice your body temperature may go down?
How much ice is there, how finely are we measuring changes in your body temperature, how immediately after you get in the ice are we taking the measurement, how long are we measuring your temperature, what is the magnitude of the change in the temperature of the fluid surrounding your body once you stepped into the bath? Assuming the sensitivity of your measurement capability, pretty much invariably if you soak in a tub of ice it’s not a question of whether your temperature may go down. It will go down. Your body will take some time to compensate. And your body may be able to compensate for some duration of time. But what happens in the interim or what happens after your body can no longer compensate is what’s important.
The point I’m making here is that if you take someone’s argument and reduce it beyond recognition and create a straw man then it is easy to knock down.
Do you really believe that no change in any forcing agents can cause a change in the Earth’s (or your body’s) temperature (water, land, or atmosphere), no matter what the forcing agent, the magnitude of change, how long after the change you start measuring, how long you measure, etc.?
You did not say that there is no single variable that if changed, no matter the magnitude of the change or how that change is measured, will in itself determine body temperature, correct?
the change in the output variable, global temperature, is claimed to be a certain number λ times the change in the input variable, forcing.
The output variable is not change in global temperature, but the change in global (surface) temperature due to forcing. It doesn’t include feedbacks like reflection by gases, absorption by various gases or surfaces, and emission of heat by different materials… or clouds and thunderstorms.
My interlocutor either doesn’t know this, which would evidence poor understanding of the matter and hand… or is pretending he doesn’t, which would evidence something else entirely.
Joshua, why can’t you grasp the notion of nonlinear systems? What Willis says is evident to anyone with the slightest knowledge of physiology.
@ Ken Lydell,
I never claimed genius nor deep knowledge of human physiology, but it seems to me that Willis is over-simplifying what some climate scientists are saying so he can build a straw man and then knock it down. Seems to me that he is assiduously avoiding quantification of the dynamics he’s describing – with respect to global temperatures an with respect to human physiology. I re-post what I posted below:
As I understand it, below a certain threshold the body is able to maintain homeostasis beautifully in response to certain external stimuli, but there is a threshold. You would get hypothermia at a faster rate if you sat in a tub of dry ice than if you sat in a tub of regular ice. Similarly, I would imagine that beyond a certain threshold, you’d get the bends or altitude sickness more quickly depending on how deep you go in the ocean or how how you go in elevation, respectively.
Also, as I understand it, that’s pretty similar to what climate scientists have to say.
In addition, if you sit in a tub of ice long enough, your body temperature will go down. Your internal body temperature is not necessarily singularly a function of the temperature of the fluid surrounding you, in some situations your body can compensate, but your body’s ability to maintain homeostatis can certainly be affected by a relatively small change in only one of the variables which normally create that homeostasis.
blood vessels change shunting heat to the brain and internal organs at the expense of extremeties. The body’s complensation to the situtation. Hence not linear.
Joshua, please reread Willis’s responses to you. If human body temperature was relate to external temperature the same the climate scientists claim global temperature is, then when you sit in the ice you temperature would drop LINEARLY care to prove to us that that is the case?
Ken, as I understand it, below a certain threshold, the body is able to maintain homeostasis beautifully in response to certain external stimuli, but there is a threshold. And you would get hypothermia at a faster rate if you sat in a tub of dry ice than if you sat in a tub of regular ice. Similarly, I would imagine that beyond a certain threshold, you’d get the bends or altitude sickness more quickly depending on how deep you go in the ocean or how how you go in elevation, respectively.
Also, as I understand it, that’s pretty similar to what climate scientists have to say.
Seriously, what part of the word LINEAR are you having difficulty with Joshua?
Even tree leaves have a non-linear response to temperature:
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/06/tree_leaves_keep_the_same_temperature_from_tundra_to_tropics.php
“These adaptations have enabled trees to colonise the planet, across its many different environments. But the idea that they could help trees to regulate the temperature of their leaves is a new one. Some other studies provide support the conclusion. One found that the leaves of conifers on a chilly American mountain were about 5-9C hotter than the surrounding air. Another team took thermal images of a Swiss forest and found the canopy to be 4-5C warmer than the cool alpine air.
The new results fly in the face of an historical assumption that the conditions inside a tree’s leaves are coupled to those of the air around them, in both temperature and humidity. Many climate scientists use the oxygen ratios of tree rings to reconstruct the ambient temperatures of past climates. But this approach relies on a close match between the temperatures of leaves and air, a match that this new study calls into question.”
Although I wouldn’t use as strong words as you have selected, you pretty much summed up why I don’t see much other value than convincing politicians with this linear sensitivity idealisation. Whereas I recognize some value to have a single value for e.g. GTA change as a function of CO2 concentration, at the same time I find this oversimplification and somewhat artificial forcing-feedback concept quite problematic.
Bottom line is that it has never been shown that such linear relationship would be valid, much less confirmed by experiments. Even less we know about a timespan where this kind of relationship might be a good approximation. A bit related time range was given in a recent thread also here, where NOAA estimated that 15 years of flatlining temperatures (a range which we will reach quite soon) would invalidate the current modelling efforts, or at least the climate sensitivity estimates.
You’re saying that climate science is ‘not even wrong’, I think.
Agreed. We don’t know what we don’t know. To bang the same old drum again, we don’t know why recent climate variability happened, so we have no basis to make meaningful predictions.
I think the problem with Zeke’s questions is that they lose or ignore the central point in all this: we’re going to make (or in the UK, have made) policy decisions based on this science. If what we’re dealing with is a vague sense that temperatures might rise because of our CO2 emissions, that’s not a basis for policy. I can make any number of vague statements about what bad things might or might not come to pass as a result of human activity. It’s only worth ringing the alarm bell if you have a usefully certain level of knowledge, which we don’t.
EXACTLY!!! Well said.
I’ll take issue with this:
Try it sometime. In such a situation, there is no linear “climate sensitivity” relationship between the force and the distance moved. Nature’s ugly like that.
No, that’s what makes Nature so beautiful. It’s only “ugly” to those mere humans who are arrogant enough to think they have it figured out. To me, Nature’s complexity is what makes Nature fascinating!
Note to “Team”: You will NEVER figure it out. The fun, the challenge is in the trying to figure it out. Always more to discover is the reason to discover. What’s ugly are your simplistic computer models, and passing them off as reality.
Masterful Willis. Truly insightful. I have never seen the point addressed as you have done.
And here is another way of looking at the problem.
In a globe that is for the most part too cold to support photosynthesis at optimum levels, except for fractional parts of the year you (i.e. climate scientists) should begin by asking which parts are too warm and which parts too cool and focus on the bits that you consider too warm. Then ask yourself if the warming is happening in winter or in summer, and if it’s in winter then ask yourself if there is any disadvantage in that.
The global temperature metric is simply inappropriate.
Consider this: South of latitude 60 south maxima have declined since 1948 but minima have risen at a steeper rate than the decline in the maxima. So the mean has increased. And this adds to the global mean. But the average maximum is just MINUS 5C.
Is this increase in the mean temperature south of latitude 60 south really a cause for concern?
The part of the globe that supports the great bulk of humanity lies between latitude 10 south and 60 north.
The vast bulk of the southern hemisphere is too cold. Winters are too long.
The continents of the northern hemisphere deliver lots of energy into the atmosphere, mostly via evaporation and release of latent heat in the middle of the year, dominating the variation in ‘global temperature’, delivering a long growing season. And would you really have it any other way?
The northern hemisphere has warmed strongly since 1978 and the most notable feature of this warming has been an increase in winter minima. In the last couple of years winter minima have fallen to levels not seen this side of 1978. Would you like this to continue? There is very good reason to think that it will do just that. Ask a Canadian grain farmer what he thinks about it.
Oh, and just by the way, the globe radiates most strongly over the southern hemisphere which is a little too cold and it does so in a zone where the air is descending, has little moisture and very little cloud. So, very little chance of a feedback there. And if there was a little warming as a result of this radiative activity it would be welcome.
The greenhouse theorist seems to suggest that the surface loses heat by radiation. The only parts of the globe where all of the energy is lost via radiation are those parts that are frozen and those parts on land that have no moisture at the surface.
Most of the energy transfer from the surface of this rather wet globe is accomplished by evaporation, and heavily so in vegetated areas on land. This gives rise to convection. Energy is then lost by decompression. Look for radiation elsewhere, and the bulk of it from the upper troposphere which just happens to be extraordinarily cold.
The most effective greenhouse gas is ozone and its presence results in the stratosphere. Does a warming stratosphere result in a warming troposphere and vice versa?
The physics is doubtful the geography is awful and the understanding of Earth processes is just about nonexistent.
No, CO2 has very little if anything to do with the temperature of the air near the surface. That is determined by the extent of cloud albedo and there is good reason to think that cloud albedo is ultimately determined by activity in the interface between the stratosphere and the mesosphere over the poles.
If this explanation is of interest and you want more detail please email erlathapps.com.au
I like Lucy Skywalker’s ideas re a wiki. Blogs generate too much egocentric palaver coming from people who won’t put their name to what they write. Count me in Lucy.
Finally, someone who also wants to know from the alarmist what temperatures do they expect to see increase.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply from them.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/detailed-look-at-climate-sensitivity.html
Another masked warrior spouting irrelevancies.
That link does not address my comment at all.
Great reply, thanks.
Regarding sensitivity:
Sensitivity is frequently inferred by “top down” calculating the sensitivity at the end of the last ice age. Per Dr Gavin Schmidt this is at least in part the basis for the values used in GCMs. Ignoring the issues with our ability to know what the value and causes of the forcings were at that time. Why do we believe that sensitivity is constant? That is, why do we believe that the sensitivity coming out of a cold dry ice age bears any resemblance to current sensitivity. In a deterministically chaotic system this makes little sense to me.
Or to rephrase my previous post:
What Willis said above. In the real climate system I don’t think the term “climate sensitivity” has any useful meaning.
This thread, especially with the proposal of a poll, reminds me of the IPCC process.
Take a bunch of statements, assign some vague probabilities as to their truth and assemble at an exotic location and ask government representatives to vote on the statements line by line.
At the end of the process, voila’, we have a consensus and everything in the document must be true.
You never know, commentors of this blog may come to a consensus as well, therefore the statements must be true.
Have a good read of Willises post.
Zeke,
Thanks for all your work to assembly this post. Having it all in one place and stated in simple terms makes commenting a joy.
Zeke says, “What is extremely likely [>95% probability]”
JW comment – If you quote a number like that, then I think you are obliged to show your calculations . . . otherwise just stick with qualitative statements. If you are just doing the IPCC quote thing then we know form the IAC report that they do not work well in the probability assessment area. Please show any independent (of IPCC) probability calculation for all of your below points.
Zeke says, “#1 The greenhouse effect is real, albeit poorly named. While reams of comments have been written on this subject (witness the whole Sky Dragon debacle over at Judy’s blog, or Science of Doom’s heroic efforts to explain every facet of the issue), I’d hope that readers here won’t argue with this one.” JC says: “OK”
JW comment – A more clear statement is (my words), ‘The earth’s atmosphere contains a mixture of gases. Some of those gases absorb and emit IR radiation. The wavelength of some of the IR radiation involved in absorption and emission with those gases overlaps with incoming IR in the SSI and with earth emitted outgoing IR.” I vote qualitatively that is trivially true. As to your original statement and probability assessment, it is not clear and I do not see your quantitative high probability basis.
JW comment – What is in debate is the process (my words above) has a net effect on atmospheric temperatures when all other atmospheric conditions and processes are involved. Qualitatively, that there is a net warming effect with increasing H2O and CO2 is unlikely and if at all likely then it is minor in effect.
Zeke says, “#2 Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.” JC says: “OK”
JW comment – A more clear statement (my words), “CO2, like H2O, has radiative properties involving IR.” (now inserting my #1 above comment again) ‘The earth’s atmosphere contains a mixture of gases. Some of those gases absorb and emit IR radiation. The wavelength of some of the IR radiation involving absorption and emission of those gases overlaps with incoming IR in the SSI and with earth emitted outgoing IR.” I vote qualitatively that is trivially true. As to your original statement and probability assessment, it is trivially true . . . CO2 has IR radiative absorption and emission properties.
JW comment – To be more balanced in your assessments you actually should have a #1a and #1b. The #1a should be CO2 and the #1b should be H2O.
Zeke says, “#3 Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing. Folks like Beck notwithstanding, there is no serious challenge to Keeling’s measurements, especially as they have been verified by hundreds of additional methods in the subsequent decades.” JC says: “OK”
JW comment – Whether CO2 concentrations are (for the whole volume of earth’s atmosphere) rising or falling or constant is in debate; whether you agree or disagree with the debate. Also in debate is the regional effect of local CO2 concentrations versus “global” CO2 concentrations; that argument parallels the GST argument. (See need for BEST GST project). I vote qualitatively that the measurements of CO2 conc, both regionally and globally, are in sufficient debate that no overall probability can assigned. As to your original statement and probability assessment, I say not there is not enough basis to say yes or no . . . . I say science should debate on.
Zeke says, “#4 Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing. We have reasonably good data on the consumption of carbon-heavy fossil fuels over the past few centuries.” JC says: “OK”
JW comment – A more clear statement is (my words), “Mankind’s communities, industries and agricultures are both adding to and removing CO2 from the atmosphere, bodies of water and solid land deposits. There has been large and significant growth in modern times of mankind’s communities, industries and agricultures. The attribution of mankind’s total contribution, whether positive or negative, to atmospheric CO2 are in debate.” This is so whether you agree with the debate or not. As to your original statement and probability assessment, I say there is not enough basis to say yes or no . . . . so I say science should debate on.
Zeke says, “#5 The majority of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations since pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. This is confirmed both by the isotopic signature of the carbon and the fact that concentrations rise proportionate to emissions.” JC says: “OK”
JW comment – Independent of the above #1, #2, #3 and #4 assessments, then the assessment of the attribution to mankind’s activities as the cause of some or all of an increase or decreases in atmospheric CO2 conc (whether regional or global) is in significant debate. As to your original statement and probability assessment, I say there is not enough basis to say yes or no . . . . so I say science should debate on.
SUMMARY NOTE: All the problematic climate science imbalance, controversies and intellectual integrity issues all bear on these assessments . . . . we cannot avoid them having an impact on our willingness to be more confident . . . . indeed they highlight the need for more caution about assessments going forward.
John
PS – maybe I will get to commenting later about Zeke’s other probability categories. : )
On the whole Agreeing thing, http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/agreeing/
I am not feeling real agreeable on much of anything. I have a very technical background and have been reading CA and RC for at least 5 years. I bought pretty much what Steve M said, perhaps because of the artifact based delivery that he provides, verses the pompousness and self referencing at RC. If I had any doubts, watching climategate unfold pretty much confirmed for me everything that Steve claimed at CA. If Steve, with the limits of his time, uncovered this much of a stretch of the facts, what other facts have been stretched? I am agnostic that it could be warming, and that it could be due to CO2 increase, and that most of the CO2 increase could be from our love of burning fossil fuel use (I get the carbon isotope thing), but I am no where near “extremely likely”, nor “very likely”, on any of that. I look at the nice smooth Scripps Mona Loa CO2 rise and the way it tracks so perfectly with their data on fossil fuel usage.
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/images/graphics_gallery/original/mlo_seas_adj_ff.pdf
Does the global economy that burns that fossil fuel march forward so smoothly? Who is watching Scripps? Steve M’s effort may have just scratched the surface of climate science areas that need more scrutiny. Until the climate scientists collectively restore their credibility, color me denier chum. After all, climate science as a profession needs to restore their collective credibility. It is not on me to suddenly become accepting of their results after the community let some in their field hide the decline and manipulate the peer review process.
John you need to make a distinction between scientists making a honour of delivering good field data (as Keeling Senior and his successors did and do) and those who interprete the data… Not all field data are representative for what really happened in nature (tree rings as a notorious example), but CO2 data are one of the most rigorous quality controlled data available, since Keeling Sr. started his measurements. One can only hope that the temperature record would be subject to the same scrutiny.
Fossil fuel burning is based on national inventories, which are based on fossil fuel sales, which in most countries are quite well known (taxes!). That may be underestimated in some coutries (China…), but with less chance of overestimating. There is some influence visible from economic crises on fuel use, but not with huge variability, still increasing smoothly:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html
or directly:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls
Historical reporting of global warming and cooling cycles.
For the global cooling from 1880s to 1910s, the headline in The New York Times on 24-Feb-1895 was PROSPECTS OF ANOTHER GLACIAL PERIOD.
http://bit.ly/dM1dp9
For the global warming from 1910s to 1940s, the headline in The New York Times on 15-May-1932 was MELTING POLAR ICE CAPS TO RAISE THE LEVEL OF SEAS AND FLOOD THE CONTINENTS.
http://nyti.ms/6vk7O6
For the global cooling from 1940s to 1970s, the headline in Newsweek on 28-April-1975 was THE COOLING WORLD.
http://bit.ly/X403E
Cartoon that summarizes the above historical reporting
http://bit.ly/aVQyxO
Data that supports the above historical reporting of global warming and cooling cycles:
http://bit.ly/emAwAu
Is the agreement between reports and data coincidental?
DO WE AGREE THAT GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE IS CYCLIC?
yes
Jeff Id briefly un-retires from tAV to tear bleeding strips off this nonsense:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/45/
My own comment is that anyone who describes “>95%” as “extremely likely” hasn’t the faintest about stats or science, and isn’t worth the time of day.
To be slightly more specific, at “95%” confidence, even the slightest whiff of data-snooping is enough to drive the number down below chance levels (<50%). And there's not a one of the whole list above that isn't data-snooped up the kazoo.
I am pleased to see Dr. Curry explicitly say what she agrees with – It is an interesting rebuff to most of the so-called skeptics who have taken refuge in her criticisms of IPCC and tree rings. Dr. Curry acknowledges that CO2 is a long-lived greenhouse gas and exerts an impact on climate that can be reckoned as falling between 1C and 6C. So if we put Lindzen, Curry, Schwartz and IPCC on a spectrum, we get sensitivities that range from 1 C to 6C for a doubling of CO2. (In his YOUTUBE debate with Andy Dessler, Lindzen says that he is moving toward 1C per doubling. He also acknowledges that his recent GRL paper has been strongly criticized and is being revised.)
That means that the Inhofes of the world and their many allies on this blog and DE can go pound sand. As George Bernard Shaw would say, we know that climate is sensitive to CO2, we are only haggling over the price (sensitivity). With regard to sensitivity, IMO there is no reason to go lower than Schwartz’s 2C per doubling. If Lindzen can’t find a sustainable argument for sensitivity below 2, I doubt that Curry can. The satellites are not finding that negative cloud feedback that is needed to sustain that pinnacle of optimism. Yes, the cloud and water feedbacks are uncertain as JC sez above – but realistically the low end is less and less likely. And if Schwartz is right, we do not have very many years to decarbonize! So the distraction of the hockey stick is really not worth the bruhaha, so lets get the puck out of here and address the grown-up questions of how to adapt and how to decarbonize. The radiation heat transfer and First Law trump all the Blah-Blah concerning the the quasi-direct effect, etc. (I say that as an aerosol guy who studies and likes npf.)
Dr. Curry is waiting for the Berkley Project on the instrumental record. I assume that they will publish in the refereed literature. If so, they will be one additional paper in the pile to be considered along side GISS, NCDC and HadCRUT. No more, no less. Given the excitement with which S. Fred Singer (and presumably S. Fred Seitz from his place where it is likely warming) awaits the Berkeley Project, we can guess that there may be divergence between the current analyses of the instrumental records and the so-called BEST re-analysis (remember, it is just an acronym). I am quite curious concerning why Dr. Curry would risk a pre-publication endorsement.
As for the guys who are cheering on the House budgets aiming to defund climate science, it is worth noticing that the real funding for climate science in the US has decreased pretty steadily since 2000 and has meant that satellites we need to validate Curry’s optimism (or not) have not been launched.
On this blog I learned that scientists can call one another names. I have experienced that in faculty meetings and, now, on the blogs. Not much of a revelation really, if one reads the history of science. But note that name-calling is mostly absent from the refereed literature (where you can read Lindzen as well as Hansen, it turns out ). That is just one reason to prefer the literature to the blogs. But it is an important one.
Regards,
Chuck Wilson
Golden, CO
Being involved in the Berkeley project is a strong reason for trying to get rid of all prejudices and commitments concerning the expected results. That applies both to each participants own thinking and public statements. I think Judith Curry has kept this line in all recent comments on the temperature records.
For the other considerations, the selection of the very likely range appears to involve quite a lot subjective judgment of the evidence and go beyond fully objective analysis. Thus it is perfectly legitimate that many scientists consider the range to be wider at one or both ends, while some others say that the estimate is already more accurate than presented in AR4.
This kind of legitimate differences of opinion should not be reason for names calling from either side.
” (In his YOUTUBE debate with Andy Dessler, Lindzen says that he is moving toward 1C per doubling. He also acknowledges that his recent GRL paper has been strongly criticized and is being revised.)”
Could you provide a link please, since I’ve read the submitted (not published yet I think) paper and would like to hear some opinions about it.
“The satellites are not finding that negative cloud feedback that is needed to sustain that pinnacle of optimism. ”
Have you actually read the both Spencer&Braswell papers? The bottom line is, that when clouds are *the cause* the Dessler (+ several others) kind of analysis will always show a “positive feedback”. Spencer claims to have found a climate sensitivity from 6-8W/m2K with alternative analysis methods. But there propably is no linear relationship in cloud changes vs temperature.
And btw, what comes to sensitivity, my Layman view would give it a range from 0,3C to 4C where less is much more likely than more (1C would be my best guess as well). And sensitivies more than 4C I find no observation which could ever support that hypothesis and also estimates ranging from 2C to 4C I believe to be most unlikely.
Or were you meaning L&C 2009 as their most recent paper? Did you know they have made corrections and submitted them into a journal?
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.11&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Thank you. Will the reviewers allow them to ignore the comments of Murphy? We will see.
A little heavy on the snark, Dr.
And I am always wary when a third party tells me what someone thinks.
You inject your assertion that the low end of sensitivity is less and less likely, and only the absence of evidence for your claim makes it dubious.
But well played, sir.
As George Bernard Shaw would say, we know that climate is sensitive to CO2, we are only haggling over the price (sensitivity). With regard to sensitivity, IMO there is no reason to go lower than Schwartz’s 2C per doubling.
Read Willis’ post. There is no linear relationship. That’s why Schwarz can’t figure it out.
Maybe you can answer this. Average temperature of the planet is a completely meaningless number. It’s meaningless is because it does not tell us what is physically going on to get that average. So tell us, what would a 6C increase in average temp physically look like? What would that mean for tropical temps? For winter temps? For summer temps?
Well I see no reason to go below zero sensitivity as rising CO2 must cause increased warming at some level. In the absence of a lot of hidden heat in the oceans or a lot of invisible aerosols, there is no current observational evidence to support a sensitivity above 2C.
Boys, we haven’t got a clue about CO2 sensitivity and so far mother nature is not tellin’ ;)
Trenberth’s figure tells us (on average) what is going on to get the average (IPCC WG1 FAQ 1.1). But actually the global average temperature is a pretty good indicator. As it has gone up, we have seen changes in sea level, sea ice coverage, glacier lengths, precipitation. As it goes up more we can expect more of the same. Granted if it goes up a lot, we may need to recalibrate to a different set of realities to project forward. For the moment we can expect more precip in some places, less in others, higher sea level, less sea ice in the N hemisphere, shorter glaciers etc etc.
It is not a perfect indicator of inconvenience, but suggests that things will become less convenient as we press on with our planetary experiment. A 6C increase probably takes us to a different planet without the inconvenience of space travel. The last time it was 4-5C warmer, paleotypes tell us that much of the ice was off Greenland and sea level was meters higher. Of course this will take lots of time -and we will be long dead, but maybe not forgotten – our imprudence may live in infamy.
Regards,
Chuck
Trenberth is making a huge speculative leap. Global temps vary for many reasons beyond CO2 levels including but not limited to: planetary motion, changes in albedo, stratospheric aerosols, and solar variability to name a few, but the only area of genuine study by the IPCC has been rising CO2 levels. All other historical attributions of climate change have only been given lip service.
Chuck:
You claim that “we are only haggling over the price (sensitivity).” This claim is equivalent to the hypothesis that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS) is a physical constant. Currently, this proposition is non-falsifiable, thus lying outside science. It is non-falsifiable because climatologists have not yet identified the statistical population that underlies this hypothesis.
Actually, I disagree strongly with the use of falsifiable and non-falsifiable. We know all knowledge is approximate and all science provisional. Popper would have known it too, if he had paid attention. The physics upon which the that flawed vision of science was based is the biggest clue. Sigma T to the fourth, special relativity, the spectrum of iron all “falsified” classical physics. Is the consequence that we only teach quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics and relativity? NO. Of course not. Every engineer on the planet learns E & M from Maxwell first and that is sufficient for all antenna design and many things that are done. No course in Statics, Mechanics or Machine Design mentions the correspondence principle or quantum mechanics. We use ‘falsified’ classical physics for antenna design and the design of every mechanical device on the planet. Even most MEMS devices can be understood classically. So in the real world we do not ask what knowledge is completely certain, only which is useful and good enough for the task. Some work with lots of significant figures, some work with just a few. That does not mean that their work is worthless.
In climate there are a lot of ideas that can not be pressed too far without losing their meaning. NAS wrote a long report on Forcings and improving the usefulness of the concept because if you push it to the limit you find that not all forcings are the same but still the idea is useful. Example, the warming from CO2 and the cooling from volcanic particles have different impacts on precipitation – therefore they are not exactly interchangable – but they are useful none the less. Same with climate sensitivity. To lump feedbacks with varying time constants into one supposed constant is clearly wrong but not useless. As Murphy (JGR 2009) says (or implies or stated in a seminar somewhere) consider the equation to be a Taylor series and you have kept only the first term because not enough is known about the details to keep higher order terms. That is the sense in which it is a constant.
We are not in the certainty business because we will never have the pleasure of dealing with certainty – that is why any policy mechanism must (like the Montreal Protocol) be flexible and able to assimilate information as it comes out. So lets start with a carbon tax or cap and trade: we don’t know how high to set a tax, and we do not know how sensitive climate is beyond the broad range quoted above. As we learn more about the response of emissions to the price on carbon, we can raise or lower the tax or as we learn more about the maximum CO2 we can sustain in the atmosphere, we can raise or lower our cap. We will be working with uncertainties in multiple dimensions: How does the economy respond to a price on carbon? How does the climate respond to CO2? How does technology develop when stimulated by the carbon price or gov’t investment? Welcome to the real world, we drive down the road at a prudent speed and steer as needed as the 3-D curves reveal themselves. So, ‘falsifiable’ has no role to play in our dirty, one-and-one-half-significant-figure real world exercise, and it can not even be found in the most rarefied, academic discussion of science. It is the reddest of herrings.
So why act at all? Murphy et al. (2009 JGR) gathered the numbers for us: something like 1400 x 10^21 Joules of energy added by anthropogenic CO2 (and etc) since 1950. Only 200 x 10^21 needed to explain observed warming of oceans and soil and atmosphere. What more do you need? Isn’t the First Law enough? Skeptics need to come up with the negative feedbacks to show that the warming did not arise out of the added energy. Sure, some was radiated to space, (3.5 x 10^21 Joules), some balanced by stratospheric, volcanic, sulfate (3 x 10^21 Joules). And the rest? Aerosol and cloud, but the accurate, historical description of those phenomena is not available and never will be. So people shrug and say that it can not be known or blab on about PDO or AMO or GKW (God Knows What). Phooey. We know that energy will continue to accumulate and the internal cycles will pass it back and forth in ways that will continue to elude us until the ocean becomes as transparent to us as the atmosphere. In the mean time CO2 will continue to accumulate. Solomon et al. tell us that the ocean is a sample and hold device that will hold our peak for a kilayear. That is why we should act, now and prudently and flexibly. As we talk about statistical populations, the oven will be preheating.
Regards,
Chuck Wilson
Golden, Co
Chuck:
So why act at all? Murphy et al. (2009 JGR) gathered the numbers for us: something like 1400 x 10^21 Joules of energy added by anthropogenic CO2 (and etc) since 1950. Only 200 x 10^21 needed to explain observed warming of oceans and soil and atmosphere. What more do you need?
Some problems here: cloud cover decreased 1985-2003 with about 1.5%, causing an increase of insolation of the subtropics:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_Chen_etal_2.pdf
That is enough to heat the oceans with some 3 W/m2 extra, far more than the increase of CO2 in the same time span would give.
The interesting part is where the heat accumulation of the oceans over the past 50 years is concentrated: in the subtropics. Quite remarkable, as the maximum effect of CO2 is near the poles. See Levitus e.a. Fig. 2:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf
Further, there is very little increase in heat content of the oceans in the years since 2005, while CO2 increased considerably…
Thus we need more reliable data about what causes what, before wasting money on projects without proven benefit, where there are far more urgent needs…
Let’s assume all these points are OK (which they ar not). Then, the probability for unprecedented, anthropogenic CO2 global warming is:
P = 0.95^5 * 0.9^5 * 0.66^3 * 0.5^2 = 0.03284 = 3.28%
OK, good as a joke, but…….
I think that is just wrong. First of all, each probability band was represented as p>X, so it isn’t fair to round them all down to the minimum. Secondly, some of those probabilities may be correlated.
It’s meant to be a kind of joke, but it’s no worse than the consensus joke.
OK, for s**s and giggles, let’s round them up to the bottom of the next level of certainty:
P = 1^5 * 0.95^5* 0.9^3*0.66^2 = 0.0556 = 5.56%
If the probabilities aren’t independent, they’re not useful questions, so change them or combine them.
I think whatever way you cut it, this tells me that if we’re honest, we don’t know much about how all this works…
What a shame the listing of scientific plausibility wasn’t done as Greek letters — then I could say that I’m glad I’m a gamma.
Extremely Likely Point 5: I wonder if someone could explain the plausibility of this assertion. Engelbeen has tried with his mass balance equation, and the good folk on sceptical science (point 72 on the full list of Most Used Arguments) have done their best to prove to me that it’s us. I cannot get my mind round the logic that, just because we’ve measured human emissions, we can thus say it’s _all_ us. For example, what if warming is real (a point I am sure is correct), then how do we know that other temperature-related releases are not occuring, or, nearer my heart, what if e.g. oil spills are correlated with oil production which in turn is correlated with anthropogenic CO2 output? Without knowing if, for example, industrialised agriculture has tipped the oceans from calcareous phyto production to silicaceous diatoms, and thus reduced light C pulldown, I cannot understand how we can assign the increase just to what is coming out of our chimneys. The reduction in acid rain will have released much methane from the tundra (acid rain suppresses its release) and that may be metabolised to light CO2. Maybe we’ve killed too many termite predators. Etc etc. Presumably industry and its CO2 production will correlate with many things we are doing to the planet, so simple correlation is not enough. Give me measurement and give me plausible mechanisms, otherwise there’s enough hand-waving here to launch an Avro 707.
If we know human output and the increase in the atmosphere, how can we assign one to the other when there are many other inputs and outputs that we have not measured within Gt accuracy and which may correlate? Too many unknowns for me to understand this very likely assertion.
The CO2 forcing from 1910 to 1940 was 0.25 w/m^2, from 1970 to 2000 it was 2 w/m^2**. The warming rates are strikingly similar. This leads me to believe that CO2 forcing is a minor component of the temperature rise (even Hansen in his paper ‘Global Warming in the 21st century, an Alternative Scenario’ has assigned much warming to e.g. black carbon, methane etc, and an inquisitive mind might easily think of others such as albedo change). Yes, we are carrying out ICM*, but I don’t see the way we are doing it explained in enough detail to assign anything other than a shrug and ‘who knows’ likelihood. Cloud feedback, disregarding ICM, is most likely to be negative, moderately negative, otherwise we would be bumping up at the highest projected temps all the time. So my gamma guess of the forcings gives me a gut feeling of CO2 sensitivity as .6 deg C.
Tackling the other forcings would be easier and might well be more effective than trying to close down civilisation.
JF
*Inadvertent Climate Modification.
**Tamino, Open Mind.
Concerning the CO2 in the atmosphere I personally am 100% (not 99.9999% but 100%) convinced by the arguments that
– we know the emissions from burning fossil fuels,
– we know the increase in CO2 concentration since Keeling started his measurements at Mauna Loa
– we have a rough, certainly inaccurate, but still very significant understanding on the movements of carbon in atmosphere, biosphere, oceans and continents.
The numbers turn out to be safely in the range that leaves no doubt about the role of human influence on the CO2 concentration. Of course there are other factors that influence the result to some extent as they determine the ratio of the increase in the atmospheric CO2 content to the emissions. As this figure is very roughly 50%, we may allow for an uncertainty of a few percents without significant effect on the conclusions.
The other arguments like that on the isotopic ratios are not needed, but they can be used to improve and check our general understanding of the carbon cycle.
The relationship of the temperature change to the CO2 concentration and all other factors has been discussed so much that I have right now nothing to add on that.
quote
– we have a rough, certainly inaccurate, but still very significant understanding on the movements of carbon in atmosphere, biosphere, oceans and continents.
unquote
With uncertainties in the tens of Gt. So how, with those uncertainties in the movement rates, are you still 100% certain that — for example — the deep sea clathrates are not outgassing more CO2 because of a current warmed 800 years ago during the MWP? With very inaccurate estimates, how can you be certain that some of the light atmospheric C is not coming from termites, reduced calcareous phytoplankton pull down, increased imbalance between sea and air caused by reduced mixing? Or, or, or….
You have two facts and dozens of unknowns. How can you know what’s going on?
It must be me, I’ve seen this argument too many times to think that I’m not missing something, but I’m damned if I know what it is. There are known unknowns which preclude any definite assignment of cause and effect here. Well, that’s how I see it. I wish people would explain why I’m wrong.
Maybe not here though, it’s off topic.
JF
When the story is clear enough, nothing else is needed.
We are releasing twice as much as is accumulating in the atmosphere. Nobody has proposed any mechanisms that would remove significantly more than presently is being removed. To change the conclusions we need both a new source and a new sink, which balance each other. We cannot imagine any realistic mechanism for either one, nobody has proposed anything close to realistic for either one and we would need both.
I don’t need more to convince me.
Pekka, you are confusing arithmetic with causation. It is trivially true that if you subtract our emissions you get no increase, in fact you get a decrease! It in no way follows that our emissions are causing the increase. For example, let us suppose that every sink and source on earth has either increased or decreased over the last 100 years. If so then the increase is due to the total combination, not to any one factor.
Do you claim to know the 100 year emission history of the Gulf of Mexico? The Sargasso sea? The southern Indian Ocean? The Canadian boreal forests, or the tundra? The Midwest US grasslands? And so on around the world. I hope not.
Moreover, there are some good arguments for the increase being completely natural. For example the very close correlation between estimated CO2 levels and estimated SSTs. This suggests that the SSTs are driving the CO2 levels, not the other way.
In short there is no clear story here. If you think there is then you clearly do not understand the debate.
No. I am not mixing anything. You just don’t accept my definition of causation.
For me A is the cause of B, if B would not occur without A. This is the fact that I consider 100% sure.
To complete the logic.
A is the cause of B, if B is not true while A is not true, but is true, when A is true.
“For me A is the cause of B, if B would not occur without A. This is the fact that I consider 100% sure.”
You’re assuming that only A can cause B. What if C can also cause B?
Pekka, propositional implication and causation are very different. But I agree with your first definition that “A is the cause of B, if B would not occur without A.” Now show me the science, not the arithmetic, that shows that if our emissions had never occurred there would have been no CO2 rise. Let’ see your model of the earth’s CO2 flux system that shows this for the last 100 years. A simple reservoir system is not a causal system.
You’re confusing if and iff (if and only if), ie the difference between necessary and sufficient.
My first formulation was incomplete, as I left part of the argument understood. The second fills that gap.
I know that formal proofs do not exist on anything, but I tried to tell, what are the simple pieces that I consider to give a proof beyond reasonable doubt, although not formally. It is up to everybody to decide, what to consider convincing, I just told my view.
Well, that’s reassuring, it’s not just me….
JF
Dr. Curry.
Judith. I have a suggestion. You are clearly interested, as I am, in trying to build bridges between the two sides of the CAGW debate. It seems clear that on one issue, mentioned in this thread, there are opinions which are diametrically opposed. That issue is the no-feedback climate sensitivity.
On the one side we have people like Tomas Milanovic and Terry Oldberg claiming that the idea is scientific nonsense. There are, of course, many others who hold the same sort of view. On the other side, there are people like Richard Lindzen and Fred Moolton, together with many others, who believe that the idea is scientifically sound.
Since the concept of no-feedback sensitivity is at the very core of the science which claims that CAGW is real, would it be an idea to get some sort of panel of unbiased scientific experts, to look at the issue, and give their ideas as to who is right? Something sort of like the Wegman panel and the Hockey Stick.
I realise that there is no such thing as a Supreme Court of Science, but you are in the academic world, and I would hope you would know some eminent, unbiased, scientists who would be prepared to “rule” on this issue. I know it would not be any sort of final word, as Wegman showed, but might it be worth while trying?
He is putting a far lower than likely probability on natural variability being able to well explain the cliamte and weather of the past ~150 years.
That probability should be around 90% – 95%.
Another point that should be of lower probability is that of the usefulness a global temperature average to represent what the global climate is doing.
On Lucia’s the Blackboard
‘Zeke (Comment#70635)
February 25th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Robert,
The Harvard economist Marty Weitzman has a good saying about the economic cost of climate change: “the sting is in the tail”. That is, the social cost of warming increases nonlinearly with temperature. At 1.5 C over pre-industrial temperatures (we are half-way there already), the costs aren’t high at all. At 3 C they are starting to become reasonably big. At 6 C they are catastrophic. Thus the uncertainty in sensitivity itself argues for insurance against high sensitivity, and narrowing down the range (and particularly excluding the higher end) could significantly change our optimal policy response.’
This is where my interest starts. As an economist, of course, this is just nonsense, for it assumes a status ante in it’s projections? But I’m interested if some informed opinions could inform me otherwise?
I’m unsure about my figures this bright Sunday morning but I think the temp increase is 0.6 c, surely? In which case we are much less than’ half way there’? What I find interesting here is what one calls the ‘opportunity cost’ – we know the ‘precautionary principal’ is a self defeating logic (since action in it’s alleged favour should also be ‘precautioned’ against!) but if we act as if an eventuality might happen what damage might be done to now? Besides the political and reactionary forces that seem to wish to seize this as an excuse for their agendas.
The insurance metaphor is simply wrong, yet it occurs frequently. We insure against risks that are relatively certain to occur, we just don’t know when or to whom, so pooling makes sense. To the extent we insure against risks that are highly unlikely to occur at all, it is in small ways. In the case of climate change our multi-billion dollar research budget is such an investment. So is building gas, as opposed to coal, fired power plants, which we are now doing. What we do not do is restructure our economy.
Actually, and as an interesting aside, the whole of the ‘insurance’ business model is based on the assumption that one will not have to pay out – that is why it’s original form, the pensions industry, is now becoming bankrupt and has to be bank rolled by the state? Because people are actually living to long?
Or rather, ‘pension funds’ are not becoming bankrupt, because they are obviously based on a ‘rentier’ basis.
Actually, the insurance industry is based on receiving enough in premiums to cover exenses and expected payouts with a little extra left for profit. In the time between receipt of premiums and payout, the insurance company can ideally invest the money (called the “float”) at a profit.
Insurance is a highly regulated industry and regulators do not allow insurers to maintain assets (reserves) based on “the assumption that one will not have to pay out.”
Actually that’s the spiel but in reality no such thing. You pay (often mandated by the State) for what you will hardly ever receive. Ever heard of a ‘no claims bonus’. A ‘highly regulated industry’, indeed. Like banking I suppose.
Lewis Deane, you said (above) …
How can I tell … if your [sic] not completely crazy? I’ll tell you one way – by [you] addressing the substance of what you write [about] and refraining from making, admittedly fun, cheap shots?
And the same to you sir.
Touché!
‘How can I tell … if you’re not completely crazy? I’ll tell you one way – by addressing the substance of what you write and refraining from making, admittedly fun, cheap shots?’
My language is, usually, well considered but I admit my spelling is atrocious and my grammar lazy.
Actually insurance companies can have any reserve they want over the ‘minimum’ required by regulators.
Reserves are not ‘taxable’. So convincing the tax man that huge reserves are required in order to avoid taxation is a major undertaking for insurnance companies.
It’s a lot quicker to grow assets using ‘pre-tax’ dollars then ‘post-tax’ dollars.
‘regulators do not allow insurers to maintain assets (reserves) based on “the assumption that one will not have to pay out.”’
Except as invested ‘funds’? I admit this is an area I am not ‘expert’ upon but the ‘language’ merely obfuscates, surely?
We insure against low probability, high cost risks (tornadoes). We reserve against (or pay for out of current income) high probability low cost risks (a flat tire). We mitigate high probability, high cost risks — flooding along the Mississippi River by moving away, building dikes and dams or expensive flood resistant construction for necessary facilities like grain terminals.
Both the probability of damage from CO2 induced global warming (the range of projected temps) and the cost of damage and/or mitigation (technology marches on and gets cheaper) decades in the future are unknown. So it is also unknown how much we should spend to prevent or mitigate or when we should do one or both.
Lomborg and his Copenhagen Concensus make a good argument that it is better to wait.
Tornadoes are a good case of a high probability event, where who it hits is a low probability. High probability is the basis for actuarial science. But you are correct about climate change. It is impossible to price an event with unknown low probability. Moreover, the number and range of such events is huge.
Lewis, what gets me about the above statement of Zeke, is what is the pre-industrial temp? If we look at the Greenland ice cores for the past 15k years, we may get an average value as close or more then todays. If we then step further down the rabbit hole, and look back 100K, take an average, then we have already achieved the greater then 6*C of warming and the world is ending already (2012 anyone?).
I know it is nit picking to some, but who was deigned with the irrefutable priviledge of stating what the pre-industrial temp was????
One thing that surprises me a bit about these summaries and people’s modifications of them is what is lacking or better said, not mentioned. First of all, people are predicting what they expect the score to be (warming of 1-6 C over the next century) but no one talks about the best way to keep score such as the 4 surface temperature data sets or Dr. Pielke Sr’s thought to use Argo data and total ocean heat content. Second, I’d prefer to see some predictions that are verifyable in our lifetimes such as the next 10-15 years. Given the unique place we find our selves in the solar cycle and the ocean set-up (cool PDO), the traditional meteorologists would forecast a couple of tenths (C) of cooling while the high CO2 loading would argue for continued warming of a similar amount by GHG theory proponents. Could Mother Nature swing the arguement one way or the other in 10-15 years?
Regarding the epistemic levels, I have been thinking about Fred Moolten’s concept of the level of knowledgeable non-expert. The fundamental debate is about the weight of evidence across many technically disparate topics. It seems likely then that the knowledgeable non-expert, one who studies the full debate, may actually have a better grasp than someone who is merely expert in some specific narrow technical topic.
If anything the technical expert is likely to overrate their knowledge, because they do not see how great the uncertainties in distant fields really are. My standard example of this is the atmospheric physicists who blithely assume that the mean global temperature curve is actually a measurement. But there are a huge number of such cases.
I think there are two aspects to this:
1st) What is it to be a ‘rational’ and ‘knowlageable’ layman? I think we’ve lost our grasp on this very venerable 19 century concept? You yourself have acknowledge expertise and yet are uncertain when climate scientists stress their certainty?
And, 2nd), the seemingly self defensive and incestuous world of academia? When Judith Curry starts a blog in an attempt to address the concerns of the aforesaid ‘rational layman’ she is considered a heretic?
[I’m pulling this response out of the highly nested thread above. Seems this is an important sub-point when assessing likelihood of various aspects of the topic at hand.]
@Joshua,
Not quite.
Much of what goes on is resourced not based on what the findings will be, but what questions will be asked. Perhaps a subtle, yet very important, distinction.
A very visible and basic example: the purpose of IPCC is to examine AGW, not natural variation.
The questions we ask have a great influence on the answers we discover. And therefore, they also influence our uncertainty levels.
Yes. And isn’t the IPCC based on the assumption of anthropogenic climate change and, therefore, the questions asked are what is its extant and consequences? In other words, even before the ‘science was in’ about this very contentious assumption, allegedly, it was assumed?
The assumption of AGW is manifested in the non-falsifiable theory that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS) is a physical constant.
Indeed, as Kuhn first pointed out, a paradigm frames the scientific questions. Most climate research assumes AGW. Scanning the table of contents of any of the leading journals makes this immediately clear. In many cases the questions being pursued only make sense in the context of AGW.
That’s a good point, and something I haven’t really thought about. I would still question, however, even if what you’re describing here is a reality, whether you aren’t being too categorical.
the purpose of IPCC is to examine AGW, not natural variation
Kind of hard to study climate change without studying the natural forcings like orbital, solar, volcanic, ozone, albedo changes etc.
Unless you mean something else by “natural variation,” of course.
The fundamental hypothesis is that at some time in the past and over some unspecified time-averaging period that on a whole-planet basis radiative energy transport attained a state of equilibrium; out-going energy = in-coming energy.
Testing of the hypothesis should be among the highest priority objectives. It seems that accurate measurements of the in-coming and out-going radiative energy at the TOA is the way to accomplish this. All other approaches rely on measurements of phenomena and processes that are, at best, indirectly related to the energy imbalance.
Can we agree that (1) the previous existence of a state of radiative equilibrium has not yet been quantified with respect to when that state occurred nor the degree of imbalance in radiative energy transport at the TOA at this ‘equilibrium’ state, (2) the time-averaging period that was used to demonstrate this equilibrium state has not yet been specified, and (3) the extent of the time periods over which there was net out-going or net in-coming energy have not been quantified.
There is never a state of instantaneous radiative energy transport equilibrium at the TOA, so these assertions must refer to some kind of quasi-equilibrium, again over some as yet un-specified time period, in which there are some degrees of departure from equilibrium with both net incoming or net out-going states.
Can we also agree that with regard to what if-ing with models and computer codes, it has not yet been determined that the models / methods / users can attain temporal and spatial resolution, nor fidelity in the modeling, sufficient to accurately account for the small level of energy imbalance within the Earth’s climate systems.
It seems to me that agreement at the fundamental hypothesis level would be a good place to start. The focus, IMO, should be on the energy imbalance, not on the enormous number of indirect ramifications of the energy content of, and its distributions within, the Earth’s climate systems.
Corrections for incorrectos will be appreciated.
If this is off-topic, zap it.
>”The fundamental hypothesis is that at some time in the past and over some unspecified time-averaging period that on a whole-planet basis radiative energy transport attained a state of equilibrium; out-going energy = in-coming energy.”
Dan – Energy balance studies are one means of quantifying radiative forcing and feedback, but I’m not sure they are any more “fundamental” than other methods such as those that track temporal changes. One problem with energy balance is that current methodology is too imprecise for good estimates. There is no single approach that supersedes all others on the priority list; they are complementary.
Regarding the cited paragraph, I think it’s easy to say that on a “whole planet basis”, equilibrium of the sort you describe (zero TOA net flux) has occurred many times in the Earth’s history. We have ample evidence of a negative (cooling) imbalance in some eras and a positive (warming) imbalance in others, including our own. To go from one to the other requires transition through a zero-flux state. At the level of individual locations, this may not have been an equilibrium state, and of course, these states will have often been very transitory, but presumably they happened.
I believe it’s more important to ask whether we have previously been in a state that was stable enough so that the start and trajectory of trends could be identified. This is what the IPCC has done in calculating forcings on the basis of change since 1750 so as to determine how industrial era anthropogenic CO2 and aerosol emissions have altered climate. Even if the underlying assumption is not 100 percent accurate, it has been heuristically useful, and at least some of the models that utilized it have not done badly for long term global temperature trends (e.g., Hansen et al 1988), although less well for other simulations. Interestingly, some recent literature suggests that pre-1750 human activities have also exerted more of a climate impact than previously assumed.
Say WHAT????
David L. Hagen sez @ February 26, 2011 at 5:31 pm
“JC comment: I think we can bound this between 1 and 6C at a likely level, I don’t think we can justify narrowing this further.”
JC On what basis do you set these upper and lower bounds?” (cont’d.)
He’s actually fishing for her to expand on those bounds. And then, he is obliged with this answer???:
curryja sez @ February 26, 2011 at 8:04 pm
That there is a 33% probability that that actual sensitivity could be higher or lower than my bounds. To bound at a 90% level, I would say the bounds need to be 0-10C.
I am having trouble beleiving what I am reading… This is an astonishing assertion, Professor. For a feedback sensitivity of BELOW zero????
rustneversleeps writes ” I am having trouble beleiving what I am reading… This is an astonishing assertion, Professor. For a feedback sensitivity of BELOW zero????”
Not necessarily. This could be based on a no-feedback sensitivity of 0 C – by far the most likely value.
I don’t frequent this blog that often, so it is hard to jump in here after so many comments. These specific assertions seemed to be simply being made without any reference to any evidence.
But as to an potential explanation of “This could be based on a no-feedback sensitivity of 0 C – by far the most likely value.” – that we can rule out categorically, because JC agrees with Zeke’s no-feedback point, as least as far as saying: “I have a problem with the way this is formulated, but agree that more CO2 will warm the surface.”
Anyway, as far as I can tell, concerns here appear as though they can be countered simply by asserting the opposite, so I’m dubious as to whether this is a constructive pursuit. But to me, there doesn’t appear to be anymore thought or substantiation to what our host is saying here than if she instead said that her feeling on the matter is that the feedback sensitivity lies, say, between minus 0.9C and 11.3C with 86% confidence. It’s just random musings as far as I can see.
Yes….sensitivity must be reasonably high to generate ANY climate change! I’ve been away the last couple of days but glad that Judith has been pinned down on her views on sensitivity. So….has she actually explained why her (presumed) views are so much of a departure from almost every other scientist involved in this debate. Of course, she may have agreed with the 3C consensus (I can’t be bothered to wade through 600 plus comments).
To me the message is clear. She wants to emphasize the uncertainties in all estimates that are not based on solid evidence. She agrees with the main line on issues that are known well, but when others accept that the uncertainties are large, she tells that they may be even larger.
A related issue is that there has been quite a lot of opposition among climate scientists towards open public discussion on these uncertainties. She may be pushing for more such discussion by her wide error estimates. I would also welcome more discussion on the basis of the error estimates. Even the original publications are often quite terse on other uncertainties than those given by the statistical analysis directly. Such statistical errors are not the full story.
Perhaps I should not try to interpret the thoughts of someone else, but I am certainly not the first one to do it here.
To me, the first-order question would be: Is the forcing from doubling CO2 significant enough to produce climate change?
The answer is yes, 3.7 W/m2 is equivalent to a 1% increase in solar output, which is larger than any known solar changes in the last millennium by a factor of about five (including the estimates for the Maunder Minimum).
I keep drumming on this issue, because 3.7 W/m2 is a number that even skeptical scientists agree with, and the arguments get muddied by feedback discussions instead of the importance and unprecedentedness of this forcing in our climate.
Jim D writes “I keep drumming on this issue, because 3.7 W/m2 is a number that even skeptical scientists agree with, and the arguments get muddied by feedback discussions instead of the importance and unprecedentedness of this forcing in our climate.”
Not all skeptics agree with 3.7 Wm-2. I think the number is a load of garbage. It has never been measured. Until you show me where a number has been measured, I will always consider that the number is suspect. And some numbers are more suspect than others. I can see no basis whatsoever to believe any number associated with radiative forcing.
OK, how about if we list Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke, Sr. (even non-scientists Monckton, Eschenbach), I think they carry most of the skeptics between them. If there is a skeptical climate scientist who doesn’t believe in 3.7 W/m2, I would like to know who they are.
Jim D,
You do Willis Eshchenbach a disservice. He is published in the peer-reviewed literature.
I don’t believe Willis calls himself a scientist, nor I don’t think Jim meant what he said as a slight.
In terms of peer review, even Pielke Jr. regrets having submitted a paper to that journal, so I’m not sure it’s the gold standard you may wish to think it is.
I am one of a dying breed with a long and proud history, a self-educated amateur scientist. I am also one of the few amateur scientists who has published anything peer-reviewed in Nature Magazine in many years. Yes, it is was a humble “Brief Communications Arising”. But it was assuredly peer reviewed.
I also have published three pieces in Energy & Environment, the journal AGW supporters love to hate and slander because it dares to publish peer-reviewed non-AGW supporting science, a disgraceful public flouting of heresy. Two of those three pieces were peer-reviewed, and one was an opinion piece.
And yes, E&E has published some peer-reviewed stuff that has turned out to be junk … quite unlike say Science and Nature …
w.
I stand corrected.
OK, Monckton also has something he considers peer review, but that is beside the point. These all agree to the magnitude of radiative forcing from doubling CO2, and I would like to see someone with peer reviewed articles who does not accept it, and their reasons.
Jim D says: “The answer is yes, 3.7 W/m2 is equivalent to a 1% increase in solar output…”
Bad example for a planet that’s 70% ocean. There are significant differences between the impacts of Downward Longwave Radiation and Downward Shortwave Radiation.
Good point Bob. This difference is probably something that could be tested in a controlled environment. A body of sea water with significant depth, black bottom, controlled humidity and wind/wave speeds to simulate ocean conditions. Subject the water to typical daylight hours of full sun and note the temp change to calculate accumulated heat. Then close the roof and subject it to constant LWR over an equal time period and measure the heat content. Actual radiation input vs increase in heat content could be measured. The results could be very surprising.
Exactly the type of experiment I had in mind, but including wind and no wind conditions for evaporation estimates and measuring backradiation from the surface…
Yes, it could be tested at different wind speeds, different ambient humidity, at different starting water temps, and over different seasons to simulate latitude effects.
The top-of-atmosphere budget doesn’t care if it is ocean or not. It has to warm if the net radiation there increases by 3.7 W/m2, whether it is an increase in downward shortwave, or an increase in upward longwave.
oops, decrease in upward longwave.
Monty, I barely had time to read your comment. Usual mindless appeal to authority. Reference to an ensemble average that is meaningless. Weak bear, Monty.
Hi Ken
How’s your Quaternary 101 course I suggested you take coming along? Learnt anything yet?
Dr. Curry,
I have suggestion regarding establishing the upper bounds of climate sensitivity – that it be done in two parts. In the first part, you consider only estimates of climate sensitivity based on actual observations such as the one by Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs and Petr Chylek of Los Alamos. In the second part, you consider climate sensitivity estimates based on computer models.
It is my prediction you will see a dramatic difference between the two groups. It is possible to get any level of climate sensitivity you want from a climate model. You only have to tune it until you get the desired results.
I believe the alternative assessment report to AR5 should clearly differentiate climate sensitivity estimates based on these two approaches. When consumers see that an observational approach consistently provides a low climate sensitivity and computer models provide a consistently high estimate, they will be enlightened.
Ron – Every climate sensitivity estimate that has ever been done has utilized models of one sort or another, and all have also used observational data. The difference resides in how the two are combined. For example, many studies involving relatively recent observational data have applied paradigms based on the multiplicative role of feedbacks on initial forcings and/or have used ocean data combined with modeled versions of ocean heat uptake (e.g., Schwartz), whereas many paleoclimatologic studies have started with temperature data and have used models to determine which values of other variables (forcings and feedbacks) can account for the temperature changes. The difference between the results of the various approaches has not been particularly large.
There have been dozens of these studies, and so citing individual examples is not particularly useful and can be misleading. It is the evidence evaluated from the combined results that has led to the current estimate climate sensitivity range of about 2-4.5 C per CO2 doubling, typically with 90 percent confidence limits. This does not preclude the existence of individual estimates outside that range.
For additional details, my suggestion is for readers to visit AR4 WG1, Chapters 8 and 9, to read the text, read the most salient references, and then look at other references not cited there including those that have appeared in the last three years. The problem seems to be that even during that time, the 2-4.5 C estimated range hasn’t narrowed much, and so the same level of uncertainty prevails.
The review article of Knutti and Hegerl may be a better read than the IPCC report
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
What this paper tells is closely the same message as given in the IPCC AR4.
Pekka,
Interesting paper. Not entirely helpful because of the gross bias the paper displays, but it does have a lot of information in one place.
The authors discuss both Schwartz and Chylek in passing described as “estimates based on problematic assumptions discussed above.” Not exactly what I would call a thoroughgoing review of the literature.
To the authors, sensitivity estimates based on paleoclimate are worthy of discussion and estimates based on GCMs are worthy of discussion, but estimates based on actual observations are giving a throw away line.
I’m surprised and disappointed this passes for science.
Bias is always defined in relation to something. Now it is clear, where your point of reference is. Mine is not there.
Pekka, yes I am biased toward observations not climate models.
Ron,
I am not surprised that that is the way you want to describe it, but I would describe your choice as purposeful selectivity between equally valid and equally scientific arguments denying part of them to reduce their power as evidence.
Most of the confidence K&H seems to be from the models which one couldn’t critisize enough. Part of it, is from paleoclimatology (which can not be used for sensitivity experiments without huge assumptions imho) and even they agree it has a large uncenrtainty.
Pekka,
Have you taken a look on the paper Lindzen & Choi have recently submitted? They have agreed to the 2009 paper’s critics as well and have submitted corrections (at least they claim so). Results seem to be similar.
On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.167.11&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
If the feedbacks were indeed to be in the 2C-4,5C range when is it going to kick in? I do not find the observations supporting that hypothesis.
juakola – your link doesn’t seem to work?
Yes, WordPress doesnt seem to like links with question marks. Let’s add a tinyurl instead:
http://tinyurl.com/6ycx34q
Fred,
You write:
“Ron – Every climate sensitivity estimate that has ever been done has utilized models of one sort or another, and all have also used observational data.”
Fred, your statement is true and beside the point. When I wrote “computer models,” I think you knew I meant GCMs. Your statement is designed to mislead readers into thinking a researcher calculating a few things on a computer is the same as a GCM. Stop obfuscating.
There are two types of climate sensitivity estimates. One is based on observations and not GCMs. These include the estimates by Schwartz and Chylek and there are probably others. The other is based on GCMs which are tied loosely to cherry-picked and highly adjusted datasets. These two approaches are not equivalent. The upper bounds of the two approaches are significantly different.
Now, Fred, try to discuss the actual suggestion I made.
‘Zeke’: (Who is s/he?) “Climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5 C and 4.5 C for a doubling of carbon dioxide, due to feedbacks (primarily water vapor) in the climate system. This is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including GCMs, paleoclimate evidence (including climate response to forcing during glacial periods as well as millennial proxies), the instrumental record, and the climate response to volcanic forcings among others. That said, this range is large enough that it could mean that climate change will be a moderate issue (1.5 C) or potentially quite dangerous (4.5 C).
JC comment: “I think we can bound this between 1 and 6C at a likely level, I don’t think we can justify narrowing this further.”
PDA’s question (first comment on this post): “As this is directly on topic here, I’d be curious to hear your source for confidence on 1° C climate sensitivity. There seems to be a certain amount of literature suggesting a lower figure. Has all this literature been superseded or discredited?
Does anybody have a source refuting – or discussing, for example, the following paper: Zdunkowski, W. G.; Paegle, J.; Fye, F. K. The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer. Pure and Applied Geophysics, vol. 113, no. 3, 1975, p. 331-353.
Abstract: A radiative-conductive model is constructed to study short-term effects of various carbon dioxide concentrations on the atmospheric boundary layer for different seasons. The distribution of the exchange coefficient is modeled with the aid of the KEYPS formula. Infrared-radiation calculations are carried out by means of the emissivity method and by assuming that water vapor and carbon dioxide are the only radiatively active gases. Global radiation is computed using Linke’s turbidity factor. It is found that doubling the carbon dioxide concentration increases the temperature near the ground by approximately one-half of one degree if clouds are absent. A sevenfold increase of the present normal carbon dioxide concentration increases the temperature near the ground by approximately one degree. Temperature profiles resulting from presently observed carbon dioxide concentration and convective cloudiness of 50% or less are compared with those resulting from doubled carbon dioxide concentrations and the same amounts of cloud cover. Again, it is found that a doubling of carbon dioxide increases the temperature in the lower boundary layer by about one-half of one degree.
I’ll take the opportunity to restate my question.
What is your source for confidence on <2° C climate sensitivity?
It’s on topic, and I’ve done a fair amount of searching through previous posts to see if I am asking Dr. Curry to restate an answer that has been given before. I’m not finding anything other than assertions of “uncertainty” for low climate sensitivity.
It’s not clear to me that anything is happening here other than just an arbitrary range arrived at by guesswork. I’ll be happy if I’m mistaken.
PDA says: “It’s not clear to me that anything is happening here other than just an arbitrary range arrived at by guesswork. I’ll be happy if I’m mistaken.”
Yes. You just accurately described IPCC AR4 climate sensitivity estimates.
Apologies, part of my last comment got lost somewhere. Where I wrote
PDA’s question (first comment on this post): “As this is directly on topic here, I’d be curious to hear your source for confidence on 1° C climate sensitivity. ” it should have read:
PDA’s question (first comment on this post): “As this is directly on topic here, I’d be curious to hear your source for confidence on 1° C climate sensitivity.
Sorry, there seems to be a bug in the system which is mangling my comments. It has twice deleted a whole line as well as the ‘less than’ and ‘greater than’ symbols, making the comment incomprehensible. It doesn’t make a great difference, but I’ll try again: the missing words in my first comment before ‘1° C ‘ were: ‘…less than 2° C climate sensitivity. That sems a fair request from PDA. For myself, I’d be curious to hear your source for confidence on more than…’
If it scrambles my comment again I won’t try again.
It may be that whatever you are writing is being interpreted as HTML. To be absolutely sure, you can use ampersand escapes: < should give you a less-than symbol.
And I thank you for drawing attention to my question.
Coldish – Regarding climate sensitivity, and the current estimates that typically cite a range from 2 to 4.5 C for doubled CO2 as the most probable in light of available evidence, please see my response to Ron Cram above, including my suggestions for finding references to dozens of studies on this topic.
Also above, Pekka Pirila has cited an excellent review article on the same subject.
Fred, I responded to you and commented on the paper cited by Pekka. The paper Pekka cited did not do justice to estimates based on actual observations. And I pointed out that your response was misleading. Feel free to comment in the appropriate spot.
Coldish
No, Coldish. They have not been discredited or superseded. Simply ignored.
Spencer and Braswell stand; these observations from CERES satellites show strongly negative cloud feedback over shorter time periods in the tropics. Attempts have been made to discredit/refute Lindzen + Choi, which showed a 2xCO2 CS of around 0.4°C; the best critique of this paper comes from Spencer, who does not agree with the L+C approach of analyzing the ERBE satellite data, and concludes from the data that the 2xCO2 CS should be around 0.6°C instead.
Then there are model studies by Wyant et al. using super-parameterization for clouds to get around the uncertainties that the models cited by IPCC have with cloud feedback. These also show a net negative feedback from clouds, which would result in an overall 2xCO2 CS of well below 1°C.
Most of this information came out after the cut-off deadline for IPCC AR4 WG1 report, so this may explain why IPCC has not included this when it estimated that the cloud feedback was strongly positive on average, leading to an increase in the 2xCO2 CS from 1.9°C (without cloud feedback) to 3.2°C (including cloud feedback) on average.
So it is clear to see that if the IPCC assumptions on cloud feedback were adjusted to show a net negative feedback, we would have a 2xCO2 CS below 1°C.
So your question is very valid.
Max
I’ve read this thread carefully and its blatantly obvious that nobody actually has a b…y clue about what the temperature will do in future. There is no agreed method, there is no ‘consensus’. Not even among climatologists.
It may have risen as much as 0.7C in the last hundred years and no great dreadful consequences have occurred because of it. Nobody has shown any argument as to why the temperature in 190o or so was the ‘ideal’.
I think its a reasonable risk to take that another degree or two is the most likely increase, and that any consequences will be quite livable with, and many may overall be beneficial.
Panic over. Please can we now all get back to fixing things that really matter without these spurious climatological distractions?
Joshua | February 27, 2011 at 9:40 am |
No, Joshua, I don’t really believe that. WHICH IS WHY I DIDN’T SAY IT.
What I said was there is no linear relationship between forcing (external temperature) and response (core body temperature) in humans. I have said it over and over and over. Since you seem unable to read simple English, or for some other reason seem to think that I said something like “no change in any forcing agents can cause a change in the Earth’s (or your body’s) temperature”, I fear I’m going to have to break off the exchange. I can’t argue uphill against someone who is that unable to comprehend repeated statements in simple English.
w.
Willis:
“What I said was there is no linear relationship between forcing (external temperature) and response (core body temperature) in humans. ”
So, for example, if we define a condition lets call it a “normal human body”
that body is not sick. That body starts at a normal human temperature.
That body has a full stomach of food. That body has a surface area that is
average ( say for a male). and average fat, Are you arguing that
1. If we lower the outside temperature, there will be no response
2. if we lower the temperature, there will be an unpredictable response
3. if we lower the temperature, the response will be non linear?
4. if the response is non linear that no portion of that response will be
linear?
5. That no linear fit of the response will be highly accurate?
There is always a linear relationship. Sometimes that relationship is highly accurate, other times less so, and other times downright misleading. The correct question is “how accurate” or how useful is a linear model of the response.
So, what is your contention. In math please. And what kind of experimental data would falsify your claim.
Basically: what do you mean by “human” average human, all humans, all conditions, blah blah. That is, are you arguing over ALL subsets of conditions?
and what do you mean by no linear relationship. Since almost nothing is linear and yet we do linear fits all the time to understand things, do you meam that a linear model is inaccurate? for what purpose?
So, I’m wondering in mathematical terms what your exact argument is.
In case you’re wondering, working a few years in crew systems, you do have the occassion to read a lot of fun stuff. Like what windspeed will blow the pilots arms and legs off, how long can they survive in cold water.. etc.
And of course we do have some models of it
http://www.comprehensivephysiology.com/WileyCDA/CompPhysArticle/refId-cp040117.html
http://www.comprehensivephysiology.com/WileyCDA/CompPhysArticle/refId-cp040117.html
http://jap.physiology.org/content/42/1/93.extract
http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/…/Ch17-ColdWaterImmersion.pdf
Even a simulator!
http://www.stormingmedia.us/25/2505/A250581.html
steven mosher | February 27, 2011 at 6:42 pm | Reply
Always misunderstandings, mea culpa. To clarify my meaning, please allow me take another example of a system with a governor, a car with cruise control. We kick in cruise control and the car merrily remains at the same speed up hills, into valleys, and on the flat. We measure speed and gas consumption as we roll. Is there a linear, quasi-linear, non-linear, or basically no relationship between the speed of the car and the gas consumption?
I hold that there is basically no relationship between speed and gas consumption. Gas consumption varies widely depending on the terrain, the road surface, and the wind. Speed on average remains constant. (Yes, I know that you know the exact details of the wind and the terrain and the road surface, you may be able to back-tease out a signal depending on the exact nature of the governing system. I said basically no relationship. Speed in a car with cruise control engaged is basically independent of fuel consumption.)
That’s the problem. It’s not linear relationships in nature. As you point out, we use those often to good effect.
It is linear relationships in governed systems that don’t work, not because the relationship is not linear or sorta linear, but because basically there is no relationship at all.
w.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1207/1224260240126.html
Albert Kong
The complex non-linear dynamic system that it is, long term climate prediction is simply impossible. If there is a problem, which we can’t say, our only hope is climate control. Climate has many variables (solar activity, volcanic activity, orbital variations of the planet, CO2 atmospheric concentrations etc.). Of these sets of variables the only one we can possibly control is CO2 concentrations. For this there is no consensus on the sensitivity of climate to this variable. Even if it were significantly sensitive, it is the only one we can control. To put this in simpler terms it would be like trying to drive a car (which has many control variables) when all that you can control is the accelerator (no brakes, no steering wheel). Control also requires accurate short term predictive models (turn the wheel right the car goes right). That we don’t have that is dramatically demonstrated by the deception attempt by climate scientist, the car went right when it should have gone left, and they tried to pretend it was going right even to the point of trying to silence occupants seeing it going left. So they are not really in the drivers seat, the question is should they collect a fare from each passenger, grossly enriching themselves nevertheless? That is the question.
Rather than change the subject to another system, lets stick with the claim you made about the human body. Also I asked you to specify you claim in mathematical terms so that we can test it:
But, if you insist on changing the terms of the debate:
“I hold that there is basically no relationship between speed and gas consumption. Gas consumption varies widely depending on the terrain, the road surface, and the wind. Speed on average remains constant. (Yes, I know that you know the exact details of the wind and the terrain and the road surface, you may be able to back-tease out a signal depending on the exact nature of the governing system. I said basically no relationship. Speed in a car with cruise control engaged is basically independent of fuel consumption.)”
Again, you have a poorly specified problem. For example, if you have ever worked on coming up with fuel consumptions for an aircraft with a velocity hold control, you would know that one can work out the relationship. Same for a car. When you say there is ‘no relationship’ that is ill specified. Again, you can specify a relationship for fuel consumption and speed. That function will be more or less accurate, for a given purpose. For example, for telling a pilot when he will run out of fuel. You can make the model very complex or very simple. It depends on the accuracy you want and your purpose.
To Steve Mosher and others.
A normal human sitting in a room with a measured air temperature of 20 degrees C will have a core body temperature of 37 degrees C. A glass of water in the same room (at equilibrium) will have a temperature of 20 degrees C.
If you raise the temperature in the room to 25 degrees C, the human will increase blood flow to his skin and start sweating. His core body temperature will remain 37 degrees C but the temperature of the glass of water (at equilibrium) will rise to 25 degrees C.
If you drop the temperature in the room to 15 degrees C,the human will reduce blood flow to his skin and start shivering. His core body temperature will remain 37 degrees C and the glass of water will cool to 15 degrees C (at equilibrium).
There is a linear relationship between the air temperature and the glass of water temperature. There is no linear relationship between the air temperature and the human core body temperature.
Over the range of external temperatures from 15 degrees C to 25 degrees C, the human core body temperature will be 37 degrees C.
Your doing what I expected willis to do. Have a look at the stuff I linked to.
Steve Mosher,
Link one requires membership or access to an institutional library. However one block diagram is available which includes “adjustable circulatory insulation” and “adjustable peripheral circulatory insulation” components. These actively decouple the body temperature from the external (environment) temperature.
Link two is a duplicate of link one.
Link three discusses heat transfer coefficients, not temperature. However it is instructive as it found that direct measurements on real humans gave far different results than those taken from various models — which can be taken as a caution to anyone using any model.
The fourth link is to a to a paper available for $20.95. However the abstract has some small support to your position that there is a relationship between environmental temperature and body temperature. Immersion in 28C and 20C water resulted in mean rectal temperature drops of 0.5C and 0.9C respectively. Two points define a line but three are required to prove a linear (straight line) relationship over a defined range of values. In my experience, normal resting human subjects have this much variation in body temperature over the course of a normal day so without seeing the data, I’m skeptical. And based on those numbers I certainly wouldn’t consider a live human a reliable proxy for water temperature.
I think you miss the point. As I tried to explain to willis his statement ‘there is no linear relationship’ is too vague to even evaluate. Does he mean over all conditions? for example, and what does he mean by “no linear relationship”. He might mean that the response is better described by a non linear relationship. or by some piece wise linear model. It might be that the respone is linear for a subset of the data. Taken on its face ‘no linear relationship” its trivially true. Nothing fits a linear model perfectly.
So, I’m more interested in getting willis to explain. IN MATH what his claim is. so we can test it. But he generally doesnt do that.
Willis –
I can’t argue uphill against someone who is that unable to comprehend repeated statements in simple English.
It is my considered opinion that Joshua may well be (>95% confidence level) a troll. This is a standard technique, straight out of the “Troll Handbook”.
As many of his other comments and attitudes have been.
Could I be wrong? Possible, but I seriously doubt it.
WHICH IS WHY I DIDN’T SAY IT.
But that’s exactly my point, Willis. You made a blanket statement without quantifying the parameters which would be required to prove it either true or false – which leave is completely open to interpretation.
It seems to me that depending on the parameters – specifically whether you are beyond the threshold point at which your boy can no longer sufficiently compensate and maintain homesostasis – there actually is a linear relationship between the forcing (external temperature) and response (core body temperature) in humans.
See my comments below to the Kens.
Willis
Let me try some “logic” on your statement:
“there is no linear relationship between forcing (external temperature) and response (core body temperature) in humans”
Most flus (in humans) occur in winter, when temperatures are “cold”.
The same goes for “colds” (wonder how they got that name?).
Clinical studies have shown overwhelmingly that flus and colds cause human temperatures to rise.
So is there an inverse relationship between ambient temperature and human body temperature?
Let’s set up some models…
Max
Why bother?
If you want to b….r around with models which you can then endlessly squabble over, do it in your own time, quietly and among consenting adults in private.
Lighten up Latimer. Max isn’t being serious, he’s agreeing with Willis.
My point was a general one. I believe there are thirty different climate models and modelling teams all huffing and puffing about their great insights. And all wanting fed and watered at public expense.
Can anybody give a good reason why we need more than say, two?
When a private individual such as Steve McIntyre can show that one of the most influencial paters in climate science is bogus, when FOI requests are routinely ignored or worse, actively undermined. When emails are sent out instructing people to destroy documents. My question is this:
In a time when we are all having to tighten our belts to make ends meet, when the government is running an unbelievably huge deficit, selling our childrens future to the banks, why should we give one penny more for climate science? The science is not serving the interests of the people, otherwise there would have been no need to try and hide anything. Criminals try and hide things. The Enrons of the world send instructions to destroy evidence. Scientists do not.
Good question, Fred. I can see no need at all for any further work in ‘climate science’. Thirty years of funding and effort have got absolutely nowhere as this discussion shows.
Meanwhile the budgets for necromancy, alchemy and homeopathy are suffering. Expenditure on those three – and their many cousins – would probably be more overall use.
Judy,
Perhaps we should all agree to disagree at this juncture. The effort was worthwhile if only to demonstrate the chasm between both sides. A better approach might be to form a committee from both sides, scientifically speaking. This could address all contentious issues eg data, algorithms and models (modeles). A return to the scientific method would be essential but current knowledge could be verified, and added. Since both sides are involved opposition would be marginalised and vested-interests silenced.
Who would be in the committee? We all have our favourites but Professor Curry should the Chairperson.
Should read : Professor Curry should be the Chairperson.
“A better approach might be to form a committee from both sides, scientifically speaking. ”
The last thing we need is a committee to try to find a new and improved consensus. Gavin Schmidt and Judith Curry engaged in a couple of public extended discussions on Collide-a-Scape last year. After days of talking openly, and primarily maturely, with each other, they realized they both could look at exactly the same information, and reach different results.
Two intelligent people, neither of whom was lying to the other, neither of whom was evil or motivated by greed, simply came to different conclusions. On a topic as complex as climate, why was anyone surprised at that result? (It is not just liberals who assume that those who disagree with them are either evil or stupid, but they sure are more vocal about it.)
Talk of committees, reconciliation, alternative dispute resolution, are all ultimately beside the point in an area where there are gaping holes in the knowledge available. There are issues of uncertainty, unknown variables, etc. that require subjective assessments, however educated the guesses. And that’s just on the science. When you get to the economics and policy….
CAGWers believe they know enough to prescribe drastic, society transforming policies. Skeptics believe they do not. Lukewarmers want to have it both ways; we know enough to do something, but not too much. Most people in all three camps are honest, reasonably intelligent and not funded by big oil. Yet they still have big disagreements where the data is clear, and bigger disagreements where the data is not.
But we already have a dispute resolution system in place to deal with this. Everyone gets to say whatever they want, and in November 2012, the U.S. voters will vote for the politicians who best reflect their opinions of what climate policy (among other issues) should be.
If conservatives gain power in the next election, then the climate scientists can continue doing their (soon to be less extravagantly funded) research like other scientists in other disciplines. And if you find something more convincing, you can get back to us.
Two does not make a committee. People with new ideas, like Terry Oldberg, can give different approaches to, for instance, Policy, which has been one glaring example where forecasts have become predictions.
It is wrong to assume AGWers automatically support or believe in drastic policy actions. Accepting a 3 degree C change between 2000 and 2100 will lead to wiser decisions in planning. For example, do we try to mitigate against forest harm by assuming the previous climate will return, or do we accept it and plant new trees that are better adapted? Similarly for sea-level rise mitigation, can we assume sea-level will go down again, or do we plan for higher rising levels? It saves money to know what is going to happen, because it decides between short-term wasted actions and long-term planning.
The point of the committee is to start from scratch. Any points raised just now are opposed by the other side. It is not a witch hunt against AGWers, or sceptics, but a clean slate. Points can be agreed, by 99%, and the next issue addressed. Contention will disappear since both sides own the process.
I am saying the science is separate from the policy. Get the science agreed on first. That is one committee, and is basically what the IPCC is. Then the policy is another committee that uses the first committee’s reports.
John,
Prof. Ravetz et al tried to do this in Portugal. None of the consensus big guns attended. The problem being IMO of your proposal, is that rightly or wrongly, most of the consensus scientists believe strongly in what they publish, and feel that if they ever do try to meet with the oppsers, this would then grant the opposers a legitimacy that the CS don’t believe that the opposers have earned.
A good example of this is the Steig/O’Donnel affair. If you read Dr. Stieg’s blog @ RC, he comments on how he tried to forge a bridge to the other side, against the advice of his peers, only to find out that said peers advice was true, and the O’Donnel group/opposers were not really interested in the science, just scoring points.
Pretty well intracable attitudes to get by.
“It is wrong to assume AGWers automatically support or believe in drastic policy actions.”
That would be why I wrote “CAGWers believe they know enough to prescribe drastic, society transforming policies.” You left out the C.
An AGWer would likely be a lukewarmer, and a CAGWer would be a consensus climate catastrophe believer.
I simplified it to 2 basic sides. Hopefully, the more extreme ‘C’s and ‘D’s would be shunned, to keep the peace.
Accepting a 3 degree C change between 2000 and 2100 will lead to wiser decisions in planning.
So we place aside proliferation concerns related to nuclear power and somewhere around 2030 some nut case lights off a few nukes.
Or the UN votes to freeze Chinese/Indian emissions immediately, and they decide to go to war over their right to economic development.
Policy is about risk management, we all have to accept the risks of whatever policy’s are made. No policy is risk free.
Being well informed can guide policy, it can’t decide policy.
Some would regard 3 C as catastrophic. CAGW is a vague term. AGW is a scientific position, CAGW and DAGW are scientific/political positions. I don’t pretend to know the consequences of a 3 degree warming, so I prefer to state myself as AGW. The climate science question is easily separated from policy because it only talks about temperature, precipitation, sea level, sea ice, etc., regardless of humans. Where it gets grey are the consequences for food production, or environmental safety.
I should clarify when I say ‘regardless of humans’ I mean except as an injection source for fossil CO2.
Climate science is not the only field where models are disputed.
MOND Theory Of Gravity Gets Some Support, Say Researchers
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/mond_theory_gravity_gets_some_support_say_researchers-76663
“..Of course, McGaugh said, one can start from the assumption of dark matter and adjust its models for smaller scales until it fits the current finding. “This is not as impressive as making a prediction ahead of [new findings], especially since we can’t see dark matter. We can make any adjustment we need.” This is rather like fitting planetary orbits with epicycles,” he said. Epicycles were erroneously used by the ancient Greek scientist Ptolemy to explain observed planetary motions within the context of a theory for the universe that placed the earth in its center.
“If we’re right about dark matter, why does MOND work at all?” asks McGaugh. “Ultimately, the correct theory – be it dark matter or a modification of gravity – needs to explain this.”
Fair point, Ed. The idea would be to look afresh at all contentious issues, not to find fault but to do things better, where necessary.
This is exactly how science works. If modified Newtonian dynamics proves consistent with reality, it will be incorporated into the scientific understanding of the universe. If it does not, it will not.
What is the argument for the idea that science now needs to be done by committee, other than the fact that the findings are not what you would like?
I am looking at this dispassionately, not to score points, though I feel sceptics will be vindicated at least in some areas. What is there to fear from the AGW side? This would improve the standing of climatology and expand its knowledge.
It’s not fear, just puzzlement. What will this committee do that is not now being done?
The whole idea is to move forward to a mostly contention-free position, the opposite of today. So called certainties can be investigated thoroughly, and all bias removed.
Why is it better to do this “investigation” around a table rather than in published literature? How is that even possible?
Are you really suggesting science should be submitted to a vote? If there were a committee of nine astrophysicists and ten Oliver Manuels, does it mean the Sun is therefore made of iron?
This is exactly how science works.
Yes – it’s how <science works – but it’s not how climate science has worked in the recent past. Which is precisely why we’re all gathered here.
So, what can we conclude after 629 commentaries (and 176 at Lucia’s)? I guess, for some, we are somewhere between a no problem and an Armageddon, without a clue. For others, we are in the middle of a highly speculative and probably nonsensical discussion. There may be people in mid ground, though. Is this enough to have a case? Don’t know.
Where is the mid-ground? Respected individuals should be chosen. Steve McIntyre could look at data. Who would argue against that? The alternative is more of the same.
Mid-ground: probably not nonsensical, but otherwise with too many unknowns to say anything helpful. Wait and see, but listen.
In other words: more of the same.
Steve, in agreement with the other members, should decide which datasets are untainted and offer alternatives to questionable data. Choosing a starting point/year is another consideration. Should we start at a peak (1998) or a trough (1950) of graphed data?
When data matters are settled, a proper text algorithm, to cover all items, would be the next step.
The tale of the squabbles about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin seems an apt parallel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F
Otherwise ‘nonsensical and highly speculative’ will do for me.
The “committee” idea is a poor one.
Willis Eschenbach (February 26, 2011 at 10:17 pm) has raised the more basic question (which no one here or anywhere can answer definitively).
And it has to do with the validity of the simplistic concept of “climate sensitivity” in the first place.
Let’s address that one first, before we start quibbling about whether the “2xCO2 climate sensitivity” is 0.6°C or 4.5°C.
In addition to the “known unknowns” (PDO, ENSO, etc.), the “host of unknown unknowns” (as Judith Curry called them in her interview in Scientific American) will need to be addressed and resolved before we can seriously give credence to such a simplistic equation.
And, since they are “unknown unknowns”, this will not be easy to do.
Max
How do you plan to break the impasse, or do you enjoy it too much?
Obviously, climatology is an incomplete science but we can all agree the basics as a new starting point to build on – Climatology II, if you will.
The problem could be knowing how much incomplete it is. You need to think you know the basics to agree on them. Do we?
I think this is the problem, at least for some. A check on “climate change science”. What can and what cannot say such science. Sorry. I guess this was the purpose of Zeke’s list. Some are convinced enough, some not at all. And the show goes on.
I mean the very, very basics which are disputed. Until these are dealt with, all else is unimportant.
@John Costigane
“Breaking the impasse” will not be easy to do.
It will certainly not be done here by a “committee” approach (as suggested).
It has certainly not been (and will not be) done by a political group, such as the IPCC, with its myopic brief to concentrate on human climate forcing factors, resulting projections for the future and recommendations for mitigating actions.
Willis has raised a very basic question:
Are there homeostatic systems within the climate, which tend to keep it in a certain temperature range despite variations in forcing?
The question could have been parsed in Zeke’s manner, and listed as his first bullet:
One could argue about the level of probability to assign to this premise, but this is a basic point, which Zeke did not even consider, because it lies outside the paradigm of his thinking.
In fact, it appears to lie outside the prevailing paradigm of climate science today, which postulates an inherently unstable climate being whip-lashed between extremes by slight changes in forcing (Hansen).
IMO that is precisely what makes it such a basic premise that should be addressed.
Max
I agree but what other choice is there?
The idea of a Climatology II is also to allow new ideas free reign, rather than be shouted down. Can you remember when Svensmark (Cloud) was shouted at by a British AGWer for daring to challenge the ‘consensus’? Far better to incorporate new knowledge and better understand the climate.
Should new knowledge be incorporated by committee fiat, do you think, or by published and reviewed research?
When the science follows the correct method, we can leave the scientists to work, and trust their results.
And who will determine “scientific correctness?”
@PDA
History, eventually.
But there is also an established process called the “scientific method”.
Following this process, hypotheses must be falsifiable.
They can be corroborated by empirical data based on physical observations or reproducible experimentation (i.e. not simply model simulations based on theoretical deliberations).
They can be falsified by empirical data based on physical observations or reproducible experimentation.
If the falsification cannot be refuted scientifically it stands, and the hypothesis has become a “falsified hypothesis”.
If it has, however, scientifically withstood repeated falsification attempts, it can move to being a “corroborated hypothesis”, or even eventually accepted as “reliable scientific knowledge”.
The IPCC hypothesis that AGW, caused principally by human CO2 emissions, has been the primary cause of past warming and that it represents a serious potential threat to humanity or our environment is an “uncorroborated hypothesis” at this time, unless one agrees with Pielke that the recent decadal lack of warming of the atmosphere (surface plus troposphere) as well as the upper ocean despite record increase in CO2 levels has falsified it, in which case it has become a “falsified hypothesis”, until such time that the falsification can be refuted with empirical evidence.
That’s the process.
And IMO that’s where the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis stands today: somewhere between being an “uncorroborated hypothesis” and a “falsified hypothesis”.
Now as to the “WHO”.
That’s a big question.
It is certainly not the IPCC.
It is also not the mainstream media.
One could argue that this was once the venerable scientific bodies, such as NAS or the RS, but that has changed.
Even if one ignores any political bias the leadership of these organizations may have, their statements on climate science have simply become “arguments from authority” and hence carry no scientific validity.
I believe it will be the general public, discussing these issues on venues, such as this blog site, that will eventually be the judges, not as a committee but as rational individuals.
This means you, me, and all the others here and on other blogs. There may be an “epistemic weighting” (as Judith Curry has suggested), but I would not put too much weight on that, since the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis is too broad for any one single expert to master in its entirety.
And I commend Judith for actively recognizing the importance of the blogosphere and actually doing something about it.
Believe it or not, PDA, we are all making history here.
Max
I believe it will be the general public, discussing these issues on venues, such as this blog site, that will eventually be the judges, not as a committee but as rational individuals.
So if Oliver K. Manuel, Ph. D. gets enough votes, that means that the sun’s core will suddenly change from hydrogen and helium plasma to a big hot ball of iron?
Maybe you and your cohorts will be successful in your Great Leap Forward into scientific correctness, and the Western world will gain its understanding from polls on the blogs. I doubt it, but I’m telling all my friends to make sure their kids learn Mandarin just in case.
PDA:
‘scientific correctness’ is established by correcting the many data errors first of all. Next, a complete text algorithm is necessary to show the logical detail of climatology, including a process to incorporate new knowledge.
Well put. Why, after billions of years, it is ASSUMED that suddenly small changes will cause rampant runaway climate behavior is beyond me. Until, of course, one notices the money. Becomes crystal clear at that point.
Don’t forget careers, influence and ego. Money is a powerful motivator for many, but not the only one.
But for less assertive individuals in any workplace, conformity with the perceived norms – and hence a quiet life – can be just as powerful.
Not everybody associated with climatology is an egotistical, avaricious, arrogant Rasputin-in-waiting.
The IQ of a committee equals that of the brightest participant divided by the total number of legs.
Brian
I think the actual “divider” is the square of the number of arms and legs combined.
“2,500 scientists”?
Wow!
Max
When all is said and done, no purported evidence, no spurious circumlocations, no rationalizations can take the place of good old-fashioned logic, as Terry Oldberg has pointed out, and was illustrated more than a century ago by the graphic tale of
The Deacons’s Masterpiece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee
Design by committee is a term referring to a style of design and its resultant output when a group of entities comes together to produce something (often the design of technological systems or standards), particularly in the presence of poor leadership. The defining characteristics of “design by committee” are needless complexity, internal inconsistency, logical flaws, banality, and the lack of a unifying vision.
The IPCC process defined.
IPCC is one of the problems. Leadership is mentioned, from wiki. There is no leader but plenty of good individuals.
The bit I don;t understand is that after the IPCC has studied all the model output and written its report on the way it would like Mother Gaia sto behave to fit with the theory, how exactly is that communicated back to her?
Is this where Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth come in? Do they hold special ceremonies to illustrate? Dance once around the maypole reciting the ‘well-funded big Oil denialists’ mantra for a climate sensitivity of one, twice for two and three times for any more? Then a further recitation to instruct Gaia (aka Earth) in the required cloud albedo effects?
And how do they know whether She listened. Since they eschew any experiments, how can her response to their instructions be known?
The analogy to body temperature fails. There is one “forcing” variable that predicts rise in body temp: the presence of an infection. A fever selectively kills or weakens the invading microbes.
But that’s not a simple externally measurable “forcer”. It’s a decision reached by a sophisticated biological detection/response system which has evolved (in virtually every multi-cellular organism) over a period of hundreds of millions of years.
The planet’s “climate system” may or may not be at quite that level of complexity and sophistication, but it is certainly NOT one which can be usefully “modelled” in any kind of toy linear GCM.
Jim D:
This is dangerously bogus. The IPCC is no such thing. It is the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”, a body specifically designed to provide support for international action on AGW. The examples abound of scientific qualifiers and warnings about uncertainty which are trimmed from the summary reports to government(s).
It is a fatally flawed design and process and body, and should be expunged.
Working Group 1’s report is a report from climate scientists. This part is a committee of scientists. There are other pieces such as the summary for policy-makers that for sure have been affected by wrangling over wording, where I think the various governments via their delegations have influenced the statements. If we know what is what, it is a valuable contribution.
Well, we’ve had about 100 mm of “global warming” in the past 24 hours in Vancouver with no end in sight. Projecting this forward 100 years, Vancouver is going to be buried under more than 2 miles of snow at this rate!! We are all going to be dead within 100 years if we don’t do something.
10,500 years ago, Vancouver, BC was covered by a sheet of ice 1 mile thick and the sea level was -100 meters compared to today.
And Vancouver drivers have in all that time learned nothing of driving on snow.
“5.The majority of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations since pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. This is confirmed both by the isotopic signature of the carbon and the fact that concentrations rise proportionate to emissions. ”
Surely we are not suggesting that natural sinks select the 97% of CO2 produced by natural sources in preference to the 3% produced by humans?
Interesting. about 10% of the CO2 produced by humans is not due to burning of fossil fuels, but from breathing. http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/
ferd berple
All we need to do is pretend the word “increase” wasn’t in the original quote, and your comment makes sense.
Well, minus the figures you cite or link to.
Surely we are not suggesting that natural sinks select the 97% of CO2 produced by natural sources in preference to the 3% produced by humans?
ferd, you are doing the classic error of not making a differentiation between total amounts and origin of the CO2 involved. Human CO2 is a tiny fraction of what is exchanged, but it is fully responsible for the increase in total mass of CO2, because it is additional, not part of the cycle. Nature doesn’t differentiate in the origin of the CO2 which is removed (except for some isotopic fractionation), but removes in mass only 4 GtC, half the carbon mass added by humans. What the origin is of the molecules which are removed is of no interest (even if all human induced CO2 was removed by the next tree near the sources, or stays in the atmosphere for the next millennium), only the increase of total CO2 as mass is important.
Breathing or wood burning doesn’t add extra CO2 to the atmosphere, because what we breath or use as firewood was removed as CO2 from the atmosphere months to years before by photosynthesis… In contrast, fossil fuels were removed from the atmosphere many millions of years ago and now it is one-way addition…
Well, I would kind of agree with Judy.
Zeke’s 95+’s are fine, but his 90+’s are all very dubious. I would put most of them at around 50/50.
I watched an interesting doc. last night. It was about the extinction event of the big mammals in North America about 13K years ago. So far we have two hypothesis. Overhunting and climate change attributable to humans. This doc posited a meteor/astroid strike. The Scientists who came to this view have found some physical evidence, and of course historical, such as the Clovis people extinction at roughly the same time. What struck me the most though, was the lead scientist said the she was expecting other scientists in this field to be very sceptical, and go as hard as they could to destroy her groups hypothesis. This was said with no rancour in her voice, just matter of factly.
I have been looking at the claimed 1DegC increase in surface temperature for a doubling of CO2. I am not convinced:
1. I agree that there will be an outgoing energy imbalance and am happy to stipulate that it will be around 4W/m^2 at the Tropopause.
2. I cannot see how this imbalance appears at the surface. It seems to me much more likely that the entire Tropopause heats up (and is lowered) until balance is restored. I think at the very least, the mechanism for translation of tropopausal imbalance to Surface Forcing is ill-explained, and thermodynamically questionable.
3. Even if the Surface and atmosphere were to magically warm by 1DegC, there would be a back-radiation shortfall of between 2.5 and 5.5W/m^2. (My calculation takes into account the 1W/m^2 drop in insolation arriving at the surface, and the 0.5W/m^2 increase in back-radiation due to the tighter surface CO2 greenhouse).
Your assumption is correct that the warming is required through the whole troposphere. This maintains the lapse rate that is determined by convection, and is part of the idea that the warming has to extend quite uniformly from the surface to the tropopause.
I thanjk JimD for his reply.
He has misinterpreted – I don’t think the entire Troposhere can warm up. I think only the Tropopause warms up and moves lower.
The key point is that the surface cannot maintain a uniform 1 DegC no-feedback atmospheric temperature rise. The surface is not even close to energy balance in that situation.
I agree that a 4-ish W/m^2 imbalance at the Tropopause implies a 1DegC-ish rise in the whole of the atmosphere’s temperature, or that the outgoing balance has to be restored in some other way. The surface cannot support the former, so the uniform atmospheric temperature rise cannot happen, and the IPCC WG1 Figure 2.2 implying a downward heating of the atmosphere is wrong.
The only way for a balance at both top and bottom of the column to be achieved is if the entire Tropopause warms, ie the gas which is experiencing an energy surplus heats up until balance is restored.
The lapse rate would be maintained (there would be a slight drop as the surface would slightly cool), but the Tropopause expands.
The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, so it is not a very thick layer. It is the troposphere that warms to balance the outgoing longwave energy. I had assumed you had a type when you said ‘tropopause’ before. That layer is too think to have any radiative effect on its own.
Jim D pointed out that the Tropopause is very thin.
The International Standard Atmosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere has a Tropopause from 11km to 20km.
At present, looking at many sonde results at http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html , I must say I agree with Jim D. The picture in very early February (unfortunately I didn’t save the data) was quite different, with some depth to the Tropopause.
It seems this part of the atmosphere is extremely variable from day to day.
That is what I would expect.
If CO2 concentration is increased and we assume no cloud or water vapour feedbacks (however evaporation is NOT a feedback – it is always a major determinant of surface temperature.),
1. There is a decrease in insolation at the surface due to increased absorption into the high atmosphere.
2. Therefore there is an equivalent drop in the NET fluxes leaving the surface (as at equilibrium these always equal absorbed sunlight at the surface).
3. There is a small increase in back-radiation due to increased CO2 concentration (the back-radiation in the CO2 band almost balances the radiation from the surface, due to the strength of absorption at present concentrations.) This increase does not balance the decrease in insolation at 1 above.
4. There is increased radiation in the CO2 bands from the Stratosphere. There is also increased energy into the stratosphere (increased absorption of sunlight, see 1 above). The increased radiation is stronger, and the resultant energy imbalances through the stratosphere tend to change the temperature gradient and also to cool the stratosphere generally, raising the height of the top of the tropopause.
5. There is decreased energy from the surface into the lower atmosphere (see 2 above). This alters the lapse rate slightly.
6. There is decreased radiation from CO2 to space at lower heights. Where there is outgoing energy defecit, the atmosphere heats, lowering the height of the Tropopause.
7. The whole troposphere cannot heat uniformly. Although the calculated outgoing defecit at the Tropopause is about 4W/m^2, and this translates to about 1DegC at the surface if the Troposphere warms uniformly, the surface is highly unbalanced:
a. There is already a small CO2-caused cooling effect (see 3 above)
b. The rate of increase in Surface Radiation due to temperature in greater than the increase in back-radiation due to temperature, so this will also be a cooling effect, and,
c. The rate of evaporation also increases with temperature, also a cooling effect.
It is not correct that it is just the Earth-Space energy budget that needs to be balanced. The budget needs to be balanced throughout the atmosphere, and particularly at the surface. Assuming zero feedback, scientists have incorrectly calculated a 1 DegC temperature increase at the surface. Hidden within these calculations is an assumption of an unbalanced surface. The model used to arrive at a 1DegC surface temperature increase is therefore incorrect.
That definition of tropopause is not standard. I would call that the lower stratosphere. The tropopause is the name given to a usually sharp change in vertical temperature gradient.
I think your other argument says that the solar effect of CO2 is bigger than the IR effect. This is not true. Increasing CO2 decreases the IR cooling rate of the surface, which then warms creating more convection that warms the troposphere.
JimD stated that the definition of Tropopause in the International Standard Atmosphere is non-standard. I wonder if he could provide a link to the standard definition. I must say I have always thought that the Tropopause is the area of roughly constant temperature between a negative gradient (Troposphere) and a positive gradient (Stratosphere).
Jim’s second point is that increased CO2 means increased back-radiation. I agree, but there is very little increase to be had.
The standard tables for absorption of photons by CO2 show that at STP, 50% of photons are absorbed within 25m and 50m for wavenumbers 650,and 700 respectively. Nicol (
http://www.middlebury.net/nicol-08.doc )
has calculated 1m for wavenumber 670, and I think his calculation is correct and consistent with the table figures. The heights for 90% absorbance are about 200m and 500m, (about 20m for wavenumber 670).
This means that the average photon radiated to the ground from atmospheric CO2 is coming from very close to the surface. The atmosphere in the CO2 band must be nearly in radiative balance with the surface.
My estimate is that there is at most a 1W/m^2 imbalance in this region of the spectrum. Since doubling the concentration of CO2 will halve the average height of emission, there is at most 0.5W/m^2 increase in back radiation from this cause.
[The near radiative balance of the atmosphere and surface is clearly seen in the figure from Kiehl & Trenberth 1997 shown in IPCC AR4 WG1 at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html . Here outgoing radiation is 390W/m^2, 40W/m^2 of which escapes “through the window” to Space. The remaining 350W/m^2 enters the atmosphere, almost balanced by the 328W/m^2 back-radiation. The radiative imbalance (or energy transfer) is only 26W/m^2 from the Surface to the Atmosphere .]
Judith,
Are you going to continue allowing Ken Lydell to spam/stalk this or any thread with unverified five year old allegations against another commenter? He seems to have some sort of compulsion. No one here should have to put up with this.
Simple comment removal hasn’t worked as you’ve done that already a couple times. This is yet another thread ruined by this odious character.
Please remove these comments.(there may be more)
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-50027
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-50051
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-50052
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-50054
It’s not just an allegation.
I see the case was adjudicated 20 years after the offense and he served no time. I also see he is in compliance.
I see it as being egregiously vindictive and petty to hound someone on a site devoted to science concerning something totally unrelated and for which they have paid their debt. It reflects poorly on what are considered acceptable community standards around here.
This entire series of comments should not be allowed to stand on a thread supposedly moderated for relevance.
Yes, Ken’s behavior was harassing, but many have strong emotions about the subject. Anthony Watts said he would have banned him (before he was banned for spamming threads as he does here) if he had known. There are a lot of people who were victims of such abuse.
I’m not going to bring it up again, but I thought it reasonable to point out that Ken was not making baseless allegations.
Wow this is really amazing — someone raises an actual criminal conviction of one of the commenters and people get all up in arms that his sordid past is being publicized and they demand it be removed. Yet the very person whose past is exposed is making allegations of deceit and manipulation of evidence, use of propaganda against climate scientists and the IPCC, the NAS and other science orgs, and these charges stand and are repeated!
Am I the only one to see the contradiction here?
shewonk,
We disagree on many items, but I agree that Dr. Emanuel is not a person who should simply be welcomed into a discussion.
One nice thing is that he is making the charges in public using his own name. That allows us to consider the evidence and then ( seeing that his ‘evidence’ is utterly BOGUS) it allows us to hazard some explanation for his bizarre behavior.
I dont think people should bring up the statute of limitations thing.
it’s too close to the ICO and CRU
Bob Koss
You think that child rape is a mere trifle?
“Dr. Oliver Manuel arrested for multiple counts of rape and sodomy of his children”
” The allegations that are being prosecuted came from four of Manuel’s children. Sharon Manuel, 50, his adopted daughter, alleged the abuse took place from the time she was 6 to 14 years old. Oliver Manuel Jr., 43, his biological son, alleged that the abuse took place from the time he was 11 to 17 years old. James Rosenburg, 34, his stepson, alleged the abuse took place from the time he was 7 to 17 years old. Sirikka Llohoefner, 27, his biological daughter alleged the abuse took place from the time she was 5 to 11 years old. ”
Oh but it happened sooo long ago, that makes it OK in your eyes doesnt it?
Judith
Why do you tolerate ianish’s abhorrent post.
Please delete them and save us reading tabloid in a science blog.
Please save us.
Girma
My comments relate to the obscene comment from Bob Koss:
“I see the case was adjudicated 20 years after the offense and he served no time. I also see he is in compliance.”
If this guy knew anything about sexual assault cases, especially incest cases, it is not unusual for victims to only feel strong enough to take action many years later. To imply that because he was charged later somehow makes it OK – is obscene. Vile in fact.
And he served no time…so that makes it OK? He got off most of the charges on a technicality (statute of limitations) but was convicted with statutory rape – sodomy.
Ianash, for once we seem to be on the same wave-length. Pedophilia is the lowest of crimes and one that truly deserves a response proportionate to the problem. A smattering of articles follow that will give you a small indication of the scope of the problem:
Google: “BBC Peacekeepers Abusing Children” to scratch the surface of the ugly side of the United Nations’ ” good works.”
Google: “Washington Post Cancun Horror Story” to get a glimpse of a sex-tourist destination and site of the last IPCC blow-out party conference.
Google: “Wikipedia Prostitution of Children” to learn that there are an estimated 40,000 child prostitutes in Sri Lanka, the destination of your up-coming trip.
If you’ve got ideas, ianash, on how to eliminate first-world sex tourists that exploit children, NGO/UN peacekeeping personnel that are disproportionately disposed to do likewise, and business-insiders that profit handsomely from the repellent trade, I’d love to hear your ideas. Sri Lanka might be a good place to start.
I would not mention the statute of limitations thing. It will remind people of CRU and FIOA.
I am currently dealing with a family emergency so i am not quite as vigilant as I would like to be, will go through and try to remove
I hope your family emergency is favorably resolved.
I find it interesting that the individual in question has been openly posting in his own name, making him vulnerable for such scrutiny and attacks. But how many others, posting using pseudonyms, have things in their backgrounds that they’d prefer not be aired? While I find no merit in iron sun theories, or analogous centrifugal force theories of another frequent poster, to attack them in a such a personal manner is clearly not appropriate for your forum in my opinion.
djohnson
How about you spare a thought for his children – the ones he raped and sodomized.
Having spared a thought, would you like to suggest what our next actions should be in your opinion?
In my case, I have long ignored Oliver Manuel’s postings as being tediously repetitious, predictable and irrelevant. I doubt I am alone.
I totally agree, Latimer. Cut/Paste usage adds nothing to the debate since points raised by opponents are not answered directly.
Dr. Emmanuel has long since been ignored by nearly everyone here.
I pointed out his backgrounbd problem months ago and asked him to simply leave.
Between his spam-style posting and his creepy past he has little to offer this discussion, no matter which side he may be on.
It’s not what we (blog savvy humans) think is most likely, it’s what data analysis shows is within or outside of confidence limits.
Science by expert elicitation (imo) is bogus science.
Sneaking suspicions, gut feelings, and informed judgments don’t count (except in dinner conversation).
As for reexamining conclusions, I think a good place to start would be the USEPA’s executive summary of the TSD to the Endangerment finding: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Endangerment%20TSD.pdf
Btw climate sensitivity between 1 and 6 deg. C suggests model confidence is quite low.
Note to Ken Lydell: you are temporarily banned from making further comments, you know why. Send me an email if you would like to be reinstated, convincing me that I should take off the ban.
Thank you Judith.
Killing the messenger.
Keeping the blog roughly on topic.
And avoiding any possible legal controversies. Courts are the places to discuss such things, not climate blogs.
Dr. Curry –
While I don’t think I have ever agreed with shewonk before (and probably will not ever again), if as indicated by the links above, said individual was found guilty of the alleged crimes, then in my opinion, it would be appropriate to ban said individual as well. He really doesn’t contribute significantly to the discussion anyway. I feel somewhat tainted just having checked the links.
Of the seven counts he was accused of, he was only convicted of the attempted sodomy charge. I think Bob Koss makes a good point about the man having paid his debt to society. Treating sexual offenders like lifelong pariahs is something I’m not at all comfortable with. It just seems wrong, and probably counter-effective.
It does seem, though, that what we’re dealing with is more than just a quirky guy with some unique ideas about astrophysics. This may be a person with serious mental illness, and that would be something worth taking into consideration by commenters and the blog host alike.
“Of the seven counts he was accused of, he was only convicted of the attempted sodomy charge.”
He would still be in jail now if he hadnt got off most of the charges on a technicality (statute of limitations). He hasnt paid his debt to society – hasn’t even started to pay it imo.
I agree with you – the guy is seriously disturbed.
statute of limitations. Didn’t CRU get off on that?
For the record, when I found out about the incident I recommended that he be banned. Not for the reasons you think.
There are two schools of thought here:
1. Man can control the climate
2. Man cannot control the climate.
Those who believe that humans can control the climate also believe that government must control the climate. Their deeper hope is that government will control population. Said one blogger: “I yearn for the day when i might not have been born!”
They work in concert with multi-national corporations whose eyes are on the bottom line while supporting cap and trade legislation. http://www.hopenhagen.org/friends
BP
Business Week
Chrysler
Coca-cola
eBay
General Electric
General Motors
Getty
Ford Motors
Google
Hewlett-Packard
Johnson & Johnson
Newsweek
Nike
PepsiCo
Scientific American
Wall Street Journal
Those who believe that man can control the climate are willing to give global governance over to the United Nations, discarding the outmoded notion of national sovereignty. Their beliefs are the “new” religion with a strict dogma that can be recited from memory.
A comment I archived from another blog pretty much sums it up:
[beginning of quote] “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, all this fixation on get-it-right, got-it-wrong is obscuring the real issue: the truth is what we define it to be, and the truth is that mankind is a scourge on the planet. The sooner we can limit the right to breed, the sooner the planet will recover. If glacier data is a little incorrect but helps that effort, then the data is true in all but a very narrow and clinical scientific sense.
Common people don’t really understand science. But they understand not having enough to eat and not being able to sit down on a too-crowded subway. If we can educate people not to reproduce there will be many seats and the fewer people will be happier. Indeed, as the capitalist economies of scale are reduced, the satisfaction from making your own clothes and embracing a low-carbon vegan diet will be so intense, reproduction will come to be seen in the same category as child abuse.” [end of quote]
H’mm
I don’t think that you need read too much into the ‘multinational support’ demonstrated here. ‘Hopenhagen’ was self declared to be an advertising industry ploy. And you probably go to become a ‘supporter’ by donating less than $10,000. This would most likely have been within the budget of an individual media relations manager, rather than implying ‘endorsement of cap and trade legislation’. With 20,000 delegates in Copenhagen, this must have seemed like a good bit of cheap corporate advertising, not a ringing endorsement of Obama’s policies.
It is, after all, difficult to understand why ‘Nike’ – a sportswear manufacturer – should take a position on cap and trade. It has almost no relevance to their business. I’ll bet they are far more focussed on the 2012 Olympics and the opportunities they present than they are on obscure bits of taxation policy.
I’ve worked for and with a lot of multinationals. It is a wildly inaccurate caricature to characterise them as having political positions on anything unless it affects their business absolutely directly. They haev far better things to do…like satifying the shareholders needs for dividends and share price in the next 90 days.
Who will survive crushing governmental regulation except the largest corporations?
Kate | February 27, 2011 at 8:56 pm | Reply
There are two schools of thought here:
1. Man can control the climate
2. Man cannot control the climate.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
How vapid.
The real debate is ‘human influence on climate is sufficient to take actions that will have an economically significant impact” or ‘human influence on climate is insufficient to take actions that will have an economically significant impact”.
“economically significant?”
For Whom??
This might explain the position of the BBC and other government and academic organizations: http://www.iigcc.org/index.aspx “The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4trillion. A full list of members is available on the membership page”.
The IIGCC are not alone. And UNEP have their fingers in that as well. http://www.unepfi.org.
The world’s largest investors released a statement calling on the U.S. and other governments to quickly adopt strong national climate policies that will establish a stable investment climate and thus spur low-carbon investments to reduce emissions causing climate change. At December’s Copenhagen Climate Change Summit it was estimated that private-sector investors will need to finance more than 85 percent of the global transition to a low-carbon economy.
The Investor Statement on Catalyzing Investment in a Low-Carbon Economy calls for rapid action on carbon emission limits, energy efficiency, renewable energy, financing mechanisms and other policies. The statement was endorsed by four groups representing more than 190 investors with more than US$ 13 trillion of assets – Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) and the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI.)
Thank you, Kate. This is the energy that is holding back progress on the debate, now that the science is ‘settled’ and found lacking. This and the sort of thing outlined by Booker about the insurance companies profiting from overestimating of future risk. The Political Power to be gained by demonizing carbon is also powerful, but not so directly involved as the money.
As in times before, it is the love of money that is the root of all this evil.
================
It’s a bubble, folks; for how long it stays inflated even kim doesn’t know.
==============
You never even bothered trying to defend you statement that people beleived they could control the climate. I guess even you see it was a pile of rubbish and badly mischacterised the debate.
“This is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including GCMs…”
For God’s sake, must we go through the basic lecture on scientific method for the bazillionth time? Computer models are not evidence and do not produce evidence. Anything in your claims that treats computer models as evidence must be stricken.
The evidence that is produced by a study is comprised of independent observed statistical events. Climatologists confuse these events with projections from GCMs. To the naive, it sounds as though the projections are evidence. It’s a way of dry labbing the experiment.
There seems to be some confusion as to how climate models are used as evidence. Their projections are not evidence per se, but a comparison of those projections with observational data can provide evidence that the inputs that went into the models were accurate (or inaccurate). The best known example was the use of GCMs, using inputs from the existing climate at the start of a run combined with basic principles of physics, to demonstrate that long term, global temperature trends matched the model projections when anthropogenic emissions were included in the inputs along with natural variability, but not when natural variability alone was used. Changing the various parametrizations within the constraints imposed by observational evidence did not eliminate this distinction.
I don’t believe that those who performed these model runs claimed that this evidence was the same as proof, but it is reasonable to consider it evidence nonetheless, and to suggest that if the results had come out in the reverse direction, it would have been evidence for a different conclusion.
Note that model skill, model uncertainty, claims of bias, and other considerations have been discussed extensively elsewhere, and further discussion should probably be directed to the relevant threads. My comment only addresses whether or not models provide evidence.
Errm. Nope.
If you do what you say and get it wrong compared with real climate (to coin a phrase), you know the model is inherently wrong. If you do what you say and the answer is sort of right with CO2 but sort of not right without it, you know nothing about either the correctness of the model or the effect of CO2.
It’s not correct to say that you know “nothing”. I suggested above that discussions about how much we learn as a function of how closely models match observations be directed to the threads where this has already been discussed extensively, and probably to those threads only if there is new material not already covered there.
Fred:
In technical English, the semantics of “evidence” to not allow one to represent that projections are evidence. In proper technical English the “evidence” that is produced by a study is comprised of observed statistical events. The complete set of these events is called a “statistical population.” When a study is conducted under the scientific method, this study’s statistical population underlies the study’s claims. If you examine the year 2007 report of IPCC Working Group 1 with a eye for what is missing in it, I believe you will find that no statistical population underlies WG1’s claims. Working Group 1 actually supplies no evidence in support of its claims. The information that Working Group 1 seems to convey to policy makers about the outcomes from their policy decisions is fabricated through misuse of technical English.
Terry – Above, I’ve described the reasons for using model projections as evidence when taken in conjunction with observational data, along with an example. There are other examples, but I cited the one that is best known. There is probably no need for me to reiterate the point here because readers can visit what I wrote to draw their own conclusions. I’ll be content with what they decide.
.This is the part I have difficulty understanding about climate science. In all disciplines I know of, the _OUTPUT_ of the model is the key entity to validate with measurements to conclude it presents of evidence of model’s skill. So if the models indeed “demonstrate” that global climate parameters like temp, rainfall, icecap extent, sea level etc are matching measurements for sufficient number of years, like say 20 or 25 years at least, that would be a great boost to believe in their 100 year projections. But I have been trying to locate such models which project future climate for 20 years accurately to see if they match measurements, but with little luck. So, when you say “demonstrate that long term, global temperature trends matched the model projections when anthropogenic emissions were included in the inputs along with natural variability”. are you talking about model output matching measured “global temp” trends? Further are you talking about hindcasting or forecasting by these models? If it is hindcasting that is not evidence of model skill though. That is the minimum criteria to consider the model even worthy of attention. Without reproducing at least some of the past climate, the model wouldnt even be in discussion. What really would constitute as evidence would be the forecast projection output from the models matching measured climate parameters for a significant period that avoids “short term” variability. If such model outputs exist for any of the global climate parameters, I would really like to learn what they projected and how that matched real measurements. That would greatly help my understanding of the climate change claims.
“Epistemic levels
When an individual is assessing these, the epistemic level of the assessor is relevant. I propose the following levels:
1. Research scientist publishing papers on relevant topics
2. Individual with a graduate degree in a technical subject that has investigated the relevant topics in detail.
3. Individual spending a substantial amount of time reading popular books on the subject and hanging out in the climate blogosphere
4. Individual who gets their climate information from talk radio
Note: personally, I would rate an epistemic level of 1 on some of the topics, and level 2 on others.”
This is utter nonsense of the sort promulgated by Kommissars. It has no meaning whatsoever. The fact that you have it on your site is deeply offensive. I will take special care to pass this along to everyone at Tech.
I agree with this ranking. 4 is solid and practical and 1 represents a complete disconnect with reality, right?
A little perspective is all that is needed here. Have all major scientific discoveries been made by scientists at level 1&2 or have there been any at level 3&4? In fact many extraordinary scientific discoveries have been made while the discoverer was level 3 or 4. In astronomy we have a young apprentice: Johannes Kepler, a musician/composer: William Herschel, a lab assistant: Charles Messier. In physics we have a young sickly lad at Woolsthorp Manor: Issac Newton, another lab apprentice: John Tyndall, a telephone engineer: Nikola Tesla, a young Swiss patent clerk: Albert Einstein, and a pair of high school dropout/bicycle mechanics: The Wright Brothers to name just a few.
Many of these scientists and engineers went on to level 1 or 2 in there education, but all made initial groundbreaking scientific discoveries at or below the level of a Bachelor’s degree education (3-4).
My goodness, Judith. I agree with all of your comments on Zeke’s list!
It indeed would be interesting to poll your audience on each statement to see where the popular opinion lies, and perhaps see how factors like educational background affect the vote.
David
Willis:
“It is linear relationships in governed systems that don’t work, not because the relationship is not linear or sorta linear, but because basically there is no relationship at all.”
I have a strong hunch that your thesis is very well understood and accepted by most climate scientists at the gut level (because it fits so well into that wonderful bunch of self-regulating systems that we call “nature,”) but it MUST not be admitted by the fear-mongers, under ANY circumstances, lest the “crisis” goes away and the money well dries up.
Your exquisite posts on the tropic thermostat, island building systems, etc. prove your point very well.
The stability of this wonderful planet through millions of years also proves your point.
Uh-oh…watch the MWP aficionados squirm when they read this one…
Extensive glaciers in northwest North America during Medieval time – Koch & Clague (2011)
“The Medieval Warm Period is an interval of purportedly warm climate during the early part of the past millennium. The duration, areal extent, and even existence of the Medieval Warm Period have been debated; in some areas the climate of this interval appears to have been affected more by changes in precipitation than in temperature. Here, we provide new evidence showing that several glaciers in western North America advanced during Medieval time and that some glaciers achieved extents similar to those at the peak of the Little Ice Age, many hundred years later. The advances cannot be reconciled with a climate similar to that of the twentieth century, which has been argued to be an analog, and likely were the result of increased winter precipitation due to prolonged La Niña-like conditions that, in turn, may be linked to elevated solar activity. Changes in solar output may initiate a response in the tropical Pacific that directly impacts the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and associated North Pacific teleconnections.” Johannes Koch and John J. Clague, Climatic Change, 2011, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-010-0016-2.”
I can;t get at the full paper, as it is behind a paywall and my Big Oil cheque seems to have been delayed yet again, but even the abstract says that the glacier advance was due to increased precipitation, and makes no mention of temperature.
And note the very careful wording that
‘The advances cannot be reconciled with a climate similar to that of the twentieth century’ says nothing about temperature. Climate, in this sense, surely refers to the totality of weather effects – including precipitation, humidity, wind etc etc….not just temperature.
It is perfectly possible to have a different climate from the 20th century, but similar temperatures. Rain forests and the Sahara have spectacularly different ‘climates’, but similar temperatures
The trick with climatologists (as with any interested party trying to persuade you of their need for your money) is to read what they say very very carefully. not what you might like them to say or think they say. What is not said is often as important as what is.
But maybe the full paper shows something different from the abstract. Perhaps somebody with access will provide a summary for us.
And just for fun… I thought increased precipitation was a predicted consequence of warmer temperatures, not colder ones?
Sorry – I forgot . It’s Monday here today. Models predict that warmer temperatures mean reduced precipitation on Mondays, Wednesday and Fridays. It is Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays when the warmer temperatures mean extra precipitation. On Sunday they just don’t have any frigging idea at all.
I hope that’s cleared up that point.
“The advances cannot be reconciled with a climate similar to that of the twentieth century, which has been argued to be an analog, and LIKELY were the result of increased winter precipitation due to prolonged La Niña-like conditions that, in turn, MAY be linked to elevated solar activity. Changes in solar output MAY initiate a response in the tropical Pacific that directly impacts the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and associated North Pacific teleconnections.”
As a layman there is a lot of “may and likely” in here, would it then be probable that this paper fits into the “What I think is more likely than not [>50% probability]” or “we don’t really know” category”?
Bit late to this party- weekend away at in-laws…. So for what it’s worth my views are:
In the extremely likely category:
1- Agree
2- Agree
3- Agree
4- Agree
5- Not so sure- though this is probably down to a lack of knowledge on my part re this particular point. I’m happy to take as read though for now.
In the very likely category:
1- I disagree. Not so much with the theoretical aspect- but more with the unknown roles of the associated feedbacks, the pure physics point to this, but you cannot extrapolate into a complex system. This is not to say that I don’t think it’s possible or even likely- just that I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to show this. I’d put this in the ‘evens’ section.
2- I disagree. There’s evidence that the ‘sinks’ capacity to absorb co2 rises, with a lag, to cope with the new levels- which given the predominantly biological nature of the cycle is hardly suprising. Again, I am not discounting the possibility- only that the current evidence is not sufficient to show this. Again I’d put this in the ‘evens’ category.
3- Partially agree. Again this ties into feedbacks- I’d put this in the ’more likely than not’ section.
4- Disagree- as the roles, degree and signs’ of the clouds forcings are unknown this statement is unsupported and should be removed.
5- If we’re limiting this to DIRECT solar forcing- I’d agree. I think we know too little about the indirect forcing to state comprehensively. Needs to be carefully worded to make sure it is not implying ALL solar forcings were negligible (again not to say that they weren’t- evidence again).
The likely category:
1- Disagree. Until we can quantify the forcings I don’t think we can make a judgement on this. Any figure that was arrived at via a model I would also discount. (note I’m not discounting ANY figure=- again it’s the evidence thing).
2- (was another ‘1’ in the original post) Disagree strongly. The land and sea measurements are a mess. The interpretations of the data are a mess and the records are a mess. They would not survive even the most ‘friendly’ of audits. We are trying to detect a change in the fractions of a degree, there is no way on this green-green earth that we can do that with these records. I’d remove entirely. (again not saying the world hasn’t warmed- just that the records stink to high heaven).
3- Disagree. See the above #5.
The more likely than not category:
1- Disagree strongly. They don’t, to use a British colloquialism; ‘Know their a#se from their elbow on this one.
2- Disagree- see above point 1.
Epistemic level of one ‘labmunkey’:
I’m looking at this from a data integrity and evidence point of view- in the ‘auditor’ mind-set. I’d put myself at a ‘2’ for most items, though where I am less sure I mention it and then I’d ‘demote’ myself to a ‘3’ for those issues, with the qualifier that I prefer papers over books^^.
Oh Dear, it gets worse chumsters…
Here’s one for the ‘Hockey Stick is Broken” crowd – another hockey stick!
“Land surface temperature changes in Northern Iberia since 4000 yr BP, based on δ13C of speleothems.” Javier Martín-Chivelet, M. Belén Muñoz-García, R. Lawrence Edwards, María J. Turrero, and Ana I. Ortega, Global and Planetary Change, doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.02.002.
“The surface temperature changes for the last 4000 years in northern inland Iberia (an area particularly sensitive to climate change) are determined by a high resolution study of carbon stable isotope records of stalagmites from three caves (Kaite, Cueva del Cobre, and Cueva Mayor) separated several 10 s km away in N Spain. Despite the local conditions of each cave, the isotopic series show a good overall coherence, and resulted to be strongly sensitive to surface temperature changes.”
“Remarkably, the presented records allow direct comparison of recent warming with former warm intervals such as the Roman or the Medieval periods. That comparison reveals the 20th Century as the time with highest surface temperatures of the last 4000 years for the studied area.”
Ok denialists… at the ready…set…go!
Don’t overstate your case.
This abstract doesn’t say anything about ‘hockey sticks’. A hockey stick has a distinctive shape. The shape of the alleged curve is not discussed here.
Bit early to expect opinions of off them, they need McIntyre or Watts to tell them what to think.
See my above, 15 mins before yours.
Your call.
Relevant to this thread how, exactly?
Ianash, perhaps an oversight on my part, but I did not see the link to the data, methods, and internal correspondence, to include all e-mails related to the paper you cited (review comments would be nice to have, as well).
Until those items are in hand and the blogosphere has had a chance to crunch this latest slam-dunk “bombshell”–well, I’ll just file the whole matter away as yet another of climate science’s urban legends–one with the mysterious aquanaut-people of Sri Lanka.
The only way to deal with Steve McIntyre’s critique of the hockey stick, is to either:
1) Disprove it without just introducing additional hockey sticks.
or
2) Accept openly that it was wrong, and go on to demonstrate a valid way to create temperature proxies.
Each paper must be judged on the evidence and methods it uses. Letting a very influential, but flawed paper stand because there are other papers that seem to show the same trend, is simply bad science.
The tragedy is, that if you really do have evidence of AGW, this will forever be doubted if you can’t apply the normal rules of science to weed out past mistakes – even if they did show a trend that you think is valid!
There is a large number of peer-reviewed papers, with results from all over the world, reaching precisely the opposite conclusion – that is, that the MWP, and/or the RWP, were warmer than, or as warm as, the present period.
Abstracts – sometimes with copies of the graphs – of the individual papers are linked to on this site: co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
So, brandishing any one single paper as it if was a “trump card” does not really work,
Let me get this straight:
our troll- still unable to post working links- offers a paper that shows that if you use the same techniques as Mann you get the same results in a regional area.
And that means, besides ianash is a neverwuzzer who can’t do basic blogging, that true believers are down to chasing regional records to support a disproven global claim.
Was it not the true believers who just a while ago were claiming that a skeptic offering a paper disputing a tenet of AGW dogma was irrelevant because one paper does not trump hundreds of multi-line works?
Now our troll relies on just that.
Good luck with that.
Interesting paper. While at AGU I saw some interesting papers on using downscaled GCMS for doing regional paleo reconstructions. The selected area was Iberia. The interesting thing about the study was the finding that many areas had poor S/N and some had inverse relationships between the proxy signal and the reconstruction. I believe Eugene Wahl asked the question : well which is right the GCM or the proxy? err, no answer for that.
Anyway, its also good to have another proxy. I note that their reconstruction has no error bars. The issue with the HS has always been as follows:
1. increasing the coverage
2. methods that reduce varience ( overconfidence in the CIs)
3. availablity of code and data.
4. Robustness WRT the removal of suspect proxies
So, when the full paper becomes available it will probably add to our knowledge. No telling from the abstract.
Personally, as a lukewarmer, I’m rooting for a diminished MWP. with the best data and the best methods.
Re: Ianash’s mention of a new stalagmite-based paleotemperature reconstruction for northern Spain —
The abstract of Martin-Chivelet et al (2011) is available via ScienceDirect. There’s a graph of the past 4,000 years as well. A Medieval Warm Period appears prominently, as does a pronounced rise in 20th-century temperature. Thanks for the heads-up; I’m looking forward to reading it.
(1) Does J. Curry benefit career-wise from all this? Thought Curry would already be very busy as a Professor and Department Chair, teaching, doing research, guiding graduate students, applying for research grants, writing and publishing papers, doing administrative work.
(2) McIntyre, Lindzen and others have shown that peer review is corrupted, and the literature is not trustworthy. The false papers of pro-CAGW authors are published with scant criticism; the opposite is true for anti-CAGW authors. Journals do not require data and code to be provided, and archived. Research authors seek to ensure continued incoming research grants, and cry Wolf! The pro-CAGW studies are therefore not credible.
(3) The temperature record is similarly not reliable. New Zealand has already admitted its temperature record is skewed higher. Watts and others have shown real UHI effect, temperature sensors are wrongly sited on government agency rooftops, at airports near tarmac and jet exhaust. Methods of recording temperature by hand are error-prone. The FAA employees reading thermometers record the data by hand differently than is needed by climatologists. Temperature measuring sites have been abandoned, and are fewer in number.
(4) Based on hysterical and false predictions from warmists, insurance companies increased their rates for hurricane insurance (wind, flood) in Florida over the past 4 years and made a bundle. There’s a motive.
(5) NASA’s James Hansen has refused Rep. Lindner’s (R-Ga) request for Hansen’s data, which was developed using taxpayer money. Lindner states, a cancer researcher who so behaved would be arrested. Climate science does not conform to best practices or even reasonably ethical practices.
(6) Shewonk says 12 years are required for a Ph.D. No, it’s 7 years: 4 for the B.S., 3 more for the Ph.D. Since many get a B.S., it’s only an additional 3 years for the Ph.D. A person with a Ph.D. is not a god. Mere mortal, with a mortgage, probably divorced, in debt, and cowtowing to the school administration and the government which provides the research money. Here in Frisco, I’ve met Ph.D.s who drive taxis. I know a Ph.D. in Chemistry who’s been business programmer at a credit card agency for 10 years. If CAGW is proven to be a fraud, and climate research money dries up, look out for unemployed climate researchers. It was good while it lasted.
(7) Ocean temperature sensing devices show the oceans are cooling, not warming, and the oceans are declining in height, not rising.
(8) Ice cores have shown CO2 increases AFTER temperature increases. Where’s the PROOF that CO2 increases temperature?
(9) Why does “Zeke” ignore the well-proven Medieval Warm Period? There were 3 towns in Greenland, between what, 950 to 1200? Wheat and rye fields, horses, housing, docks, etc. Doesn’t that prove he’s a warmist?
(10) START OVER. The published record, and the data of Hansen, NOAA, NSIDC and the Met Office aren’t credible. Defund and fire the IPCC. Defund NASA’s climatology section, and fire Hansen & Schmidt. Start over. Clean sweep. In the future, demand all the data and the code. Put all reports, data, etc. on the Internet. Everything else is hot air.
I’m sure Judith will answer for herself if she needs to, but my guess is that she is already at a stage where further career advancement (even if such were to be available) is unlikely to be a strong motivator for her.
“James Hansen has refused Rep. Lindner’s (R-Ga) request for Hansen’s data”
I’ve never heard of this so I put your claim about James Hansen and Rep. Lindner into a Google search.
No hits. None. Zip. Zero. Nada. Blank. Goose eggs. Zilch. Bupkis. Empty. Null set.
If you’ve got a link, please post it.
Tom, With respect to temperature data, dont forget that 30 years of satellite data are really quite reliable.
I concur
Even assuming the data is being presented honestly and that the satellites are performing correctly, 30 years is nothing.
Of course you didn’t hear about it, the MSM didn’t report it and it’s still being suppressed. Also, his name is spelled Linder. Below is the link; it’s a CBS interview of Rep. John Linder (R-Ga, now retired) on Youtube. Listen starting at 3:33 to 6:18. Included is a clip of the wonderful Michael Mann, doing his best to defend “hide the decline”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7gfru3XIhs
Here is a second important video of Rep. John Linder (R-Ga, now retired) skewering CAGW, warmists, Jim Hansen, etc.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKy02kdW3cM&NR=1
Who will survive crushing federal regulation other than the biggest of corporations?
What evidence do you have that regulation would crush anyone? Sounds alarmist.
Learn what you can about Monsanto, the company that has a complete monopoly on seed corn. It sponsored the recent Food Safety Act.
And GE, recently exempted by Obama from emissions penalties.
It looks to me like the problem is more that government fails to enforce the regulations on big corporations. Maybe it’s time for the people to crush the big corporations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_safety#United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#In_the_United_States
The Best Picture winner last night was a movie about the present. We became conditioned, over the course of the picture, to listen to the King’s stammer so that when it came time for him to give an important anti-Fascist speech, we — the modern audience — held our breath waiting for him to stammer. He could have been announcing the opening of a shopping center. The content of his speech just didn’t matter. The wrapping paper mattered.
Our hostess here and James Hansen have both pointed to the ridiculously scary likelihood that our world will be disastrously degraded by climate changes due to greenhouse gases. Hansen is mocked. Curry is praised. Both are, in essence, ignored. 9 posters in 10 here — (“SELECT DISTINCT …”) probably think Curry agrees with them. So it goes. I bet 9 in 10 voters for The King’s Speech thought they were voting for a Masterpiece Theater costume “dramedy”.
Somewhere I lost the point of this.
it would be nice if Judith agrees with my views, but I’m not going to lose sleep if she doesn’t. She has done enough just to create and continue to run this forum to deserve our thanks.
And while I thought TKS was a very well-done film I found it hard to get very emotionally engaged with it. Viewed as a piece of acting Firth’s work was undoubtedly excellent. But I felt that Geoffrey Rush as the therapist made a better contribution to the drama. I really believed in him. Excellent.
Great. I just think it’s funny that they (Hansen and Curry) both have the same beliefs about the likelihood of a terrible consequence to AGW, and yet Hansen is reviled by Deniers and Curry isn’t. Funny? Tragic? Can you account for the reason why Deniers heap scorn on Hansen? Curry’s 90% likelihood of 0-10c is, iirc, even scarier than the range and odds that Hansen cites. Do people just not hear (a la The King’s Speech) the content of Curry’s remarks? Maybe if you wrap your remarks in academic-speak (words like “consilience” and “epistemology”) the scariness drains away. (It shouldn’t.) People only seem to see the wrapper and ignore the content.
One, two, three to ten.
Uncertainty is a ghost;
Scared him out of wits.
===========
kim, I’m beginning to think your ignorance may be a boundary condition. Uncertainty very much ought to ‘scare us out of our wits’ here. Large uncertainties about Charney sensitivity translate into far larger uncertainty about system sensitivity and even larger uncertainties about economic & ecological damages.
Judith’s claims about Charney sensitivity would make catastrophic outcomes extraordinarily thick with probability indeed. Are we meant to believe that even keyboard hard cases like yourself don’t view such formulations with worry? To borrow further from Weitzman:
But hey, what could possibly go wrong?
I fear D-O events much more than I do the apparently impotent CO2.
================
Not apparent to the blog host, at least by her testament here. You must’ve missed that bit of the comment that’d you’d ostensibly responded to, or perhaps it was over your head? How very apropos.
Just like Cee Oh Two
Straw dogs bark impotently.
Roar out of their heads.
==========
I know that you think your jibberish is poetry but actually, it’s just jibberish.
Kim, I don’t think Louise get’s it.
Lukewarm air
None too slight
A headful of lies is the weight
Major– LOL your fears are based largely on nonsense. Over the timescales involved, what fears or concerns identified by the IPCC could not be easily mitigated by proper infrastructure management by individual countries. Based upon a realistic assessment of probable GHG emissions, what is lekely to happen to GHG levels?
Can I account for the reason people pour scorn on Hansen?
Simply because he has been proven wrong so often, He makes wild-eyed doom laden predcitions that catastrophe is just around the corner. Then when it doesn’t come, he starts a new scare about a further catastrophe. And it seems his self-regard knows no bounds.
In UK he would be a national figure of fun like David Icke – briefly chair of the Green party, who now believes that the lizards are taking over the government – and some other wacky ideas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke
But in US Hansen seems to be taken seriously for unfathomable reasons.
If Judith were to start acting a la Hansen, I would have the same low regard for her as I do for him. But she hasn’t, so I don’t.
No. He doesn’t make doom laden predictions that don’t come to pass. That’s absolutely untrue.
And Curry’s (0-10C, 90%) is even worse than any of Hansen’s remarks. Two StdDev beyond the mean is ~2.1%. In general, you start worrying that something is beyond normal variation when it’s more than 2 StdDev beyond the mean. (The European Heat Wave of a few years ago. The Russian Heat Wave this year. Etc)
Curry’s 0-10C at 90% means that 10C is within 2 Standard Deviations of the range of climate sensitivity. That’s horrifying. Foundations of our civilization will really start to give way around 3C. And yet 3C is on the landward side of the mean of her range. By a good deal. She’s saying the same stuff as Hansen: you’re just not hearing her. And not countering either. As the movie which prompted my original post this morning dramatized: we’re conditioned to react to the packaging so much that we miss the substance.
I think you saw the extension of the range down to 0C (from 1.5C) and missed the rest.
Jeffrey
“That’s horrifying. Foundations of our civilization will really start to give way around 3C.”
Can you point me at some evidence that demonstrates this assertion? I have often wondered what constitutes ‘catastrophic’ climate change and why.
For me? 2 huge crop failures in 3 years after .9C
Weather is a fright.
Let’s do something about it;
Go find a virgin.
============
Hi jeffrey
Would you care to give some physical/farming insights into why you think a very minor temperature change would automatically lead to these crop failures.
Because to this sceptic, there were crop failures well before any thought of AGW. Even as far back as the Old Testament.What made these any different and how do you attribute them to AGW as a cause?
Becasue it looks like juts another bit of Hansen-esque scare-mongering to me unless you have some solid evidence.
Jeffrey
I’m sorry if you have had 2 crop failures but I have to tell you that I find it hard to attribute it to a 0.9 degC rise in average temperature.
What you’re referring to:
“Computer models by Hansen and others suggest that by the middle of the next century earth’s average temperature may rise 4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit, possibly altering storm patterns, making crops fail, and raising sea levels to flood low-lying coastal areas.”
MAY.
His 1986 prediction was intemperate (joke), but 1998 was warmer than anything in the temperature record. And we’ve gone higher since then.
“Would you care to give some physical/farming insights into why you think a very minor temperature change would automatically lead to these crop failures.”
Would you care to give me some insights into why you want to make a straw man argument?
At 3C, I think those kinds of failures (Russia, Australia, Pakistan) will be the rule thanks to desertification of the sub-tropics and the greater variability of rainfall patterns.
@Jeffrey
Sorry – no strawman for me. I guess being a ‘hard scientist’ by training I always like to have some sort of underlying physical mental model of what nature is doing. As an example in chemistry we try to envisage the shape and size of the atoms we are manipulating. And if they are the wrong shape and size, it’s unlikely our understanding of how they react will be right. Having an ‘instinct’ for mechanism is very helpful.
So if somebody says there were crop failures caused by a 0.9C GAT rise, I think ‘I wonder *how* the one caused the other?’ And I might then ponder that crops don’t have a way to ‘know’ about GAT..only about the local climate they experience. And then I think ‘I wonder if we could do an experiment to see if they do respond to GAT. And I might go back to the ‘Warmest Year Ever’ in 1998 and see if they had crop failures then. And if they did that would be interesting. And if they didn;t it would show that being warm wasn’t a sufficient condition for a crop failure, but that you needed at least one other condition. Or that warmth didn’t have anything to do with it.
I just wondered if you too had thought like that. We used to do that sort of thinking in the old S level papers in UK (16 yo). Maybe your science education didn’t g that far.
But since climatologists seem to believe in in treemometers with teleconnections, take correlation as automatic proof of causation and do not understand the concept of actual experiments, I can see that we are at cross purposes.
You saw 0.9C and two crop failures. It is therefore climatologically proven that the one caused the other. No doubt you can write a paper and get it pal-reviewed on that topic. At which point it will become accepted science for ever. Apart from with me.
Jeffrey,
You have no idea what you are talking about irt crop failures.
RobB, the ‘very minor’ temperature change you’re referring to, which actually isn’t that at all of course, is a global average mean temperature. You do realize that this is not the same as saying that the temperature anomaly is the same in at places at all times over every inch of the earth’s surface… right?
As to your prior question, I think it would profit you to first define what type of outcome you would consider catastrophic.
You should know in any case though that no one that has spent any time with these issues doesn’t find the damages of anomalies anywhere near 3 degrees wouldn’t be profound. This goes across the gamut of identified sources of damages from sea level rise to impact on agriculture to drinking water stresses, especially for the billions in asia that rely on himalayan glaciers, to infectious disease to massive malevolent land use changes- think last year’s Pakistani heat wave on steroids- to all the magnifying implications the resulting geopolitical conflict could trigger.
The mitigation CBAs you may be aware of that ultimately argue for adaption focused strategies forecast long lead times to much lower temperature anomalies than three degrees, (and not to mention typically feature high growth, low damages and no handling of uncertainty).
There is a rich literature on these subjects that would be worth investigating if you’re genuinely interested.
He predicted that AGW would drive rising sea levels that would mean the West Side Highway in NYC to be under water by now. It isn’t.
But wait. There’s more!
http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/james-hansen-1986-within-15-years-temps-will-be-hotter-than-past-100000-years/
No he didn’t.
From http://climateclash.com/2011/01/27/james-hansen-singing-in-the-rain/
Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. Michaels has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2. Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message:
“I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later probably because I’d been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.“
Strange then that he didn’t make these errors clear when the story was last run and received publicity in 2009.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/
But let’s assume that he’s right and he did opine that it would take 40 years, not 20. We are 23 years in, so by now the relevant sealevel rise should be 23/40ths of sufficient to drown the WSH.
How’s that coming along? Any verifiable measurements about how ‘on track’ we are? I’d imagine the sea at least lapping at the verge by now.
And please don’t forget the other 5 disastrously failed Hansen predictions in the last link (haunting the library) that I posted.
Jeffrey,
You are either kidding or are uninformed of what Hansen says.
Have you read ‘Storms Of My Grandchildren’?
Have you read his endorsement (unsolicited) of ‘Time’s Up’?
Have you read his interview with pro-AGW writer, Rob Reiss?
He has been saying we are four years away from disaster for about 20 years.
I own “Storms of My Grandchildren.”
You wouldn’t kid a kid, would you, kid?
majorajam
I do understand what an increase in GAT of 0.9 deg C means, hence my own use of the term ‘average’. Perhaps I should have been clearer for you. My question was a genuine request for information as it is the effects of a temperature rise that I am unclear about. No need to be snarky. I am a farmer myself, actually, albeit on a small scale.
RobB, the intention was to respond straight forwardly. When you base your robust disbelief of the link between recent prodigious crop failures and realized warming on what you call the ‘relatively minor’ global average mean anomaly you are demonstrating either less than full appreciation of what nine tenths of a degree could mean for regional weather over shorter periods, or what such weather could mean for agriculture. This is the case whether you used the word average or not (although you get points for that relative to the less informed comments of people like Latimer). I admit to assuming the former, but seeing as you do some farming, I’m guessing that assumption is actually not the problem.
So let’s be clear. Warming of 1º means much much more than that over smaller geographies than the surface of the planet, and shorter time periods than annual averages. It in fact means very strong anomalies at certain places and during certain periods. Being a farmer you will know that extremes of high temperatures do not need to last very long nor extend to the next county to ruin whole fields of crops, and farmers’ whole days. Of course, some areas are luckier than others in how their regional climate has responded to global climate change to date. There will, however, be a lot less high ground as we traverse the next 2º.
Just how those long-term average global anomalies translate into small scale regional anomalies is a source of (yet more) tremendous uncertainty. This is not however good news, as it only serves to frustrate our ability to predict outcomes and hence adapt to them. All else equal, this further increases the attractiveness of mitigation.
And did those places that suffered crop failure also suffer these extremely high temperatures?
Plus, when we get a cold spell in UK, or snow in Copenhagen we are endlessly reminded by the warmists that that is just weather not climate. How do I reconcile that view with your discussion above which seems to suggest that hot weather is actually caused by climate change? You cannot have your cake and eat it – and retain any credibility.
And yes thanks, I do understand what average means. But it is local weather that crops respond to. Unless you too believe in the ludicrous ‘teleconnections’.
Latimer,
Stupidity like what you just wrote is a quintessential example of what happens when people that aren’t necessarily stupid actively try to misunderstand things. This is ‘climate change skepticism’ in a nutshell. Let me try to sort out your confusion:
Firstly, indeed there are indeed plenty of crop failures that have been linked to heat waves- most recently and significantly the disaster that was the Russian wheat harvest this last year. Saying that, this is irrelevant. The point is not what has happened but what will happen, and it is not controversial to say that increased incidence and severity of heat waves will create more crop failures in direct proportion with their increased incidence and severity (climate change bulls will claim offsets to cold snaps at higher latitudes rather than debate this point).
Secondly, climate is to weather as central tendency is to observation. So while it is correct to point out that a single observation does not prove anything about a distribution, that is not the same thing as saying that central tendency does not say anything about the likelihood of a given observation. Ok so far? This also means there is nothing remotely inconsistent in claiming on the one hand a cold weather event is not evidence of a not-warming or cooling climate and at the same time saying that the increased incidence and severity of heat wave weather events are consistent with and, indeed, anticipated by a warming climate. In other words, your supposed hypocrisy is a ‘climate change skeptic’ canard.
As to your final para/paleo smoke screen, if there’s anyone attempting to link global average temperatures to agriculture here, it’s you.
Majorajam
I make no claim to be an expert which is why I am seeking to improve my knowledge and I am grateful that you took the time to reply. The big questions are the extent of temperature extremes away from the average and where will those extremes occur? Allied to this is the question of what extremes of weather such changes in temperature will provoke (if any)?
To my simple mind there have always been extremes of weather, floods, droughts etc and it seems nigh on impossible to attribute them to AGW as opposed to natural variability such as ENSO (the recent floods in Australia were due to La Nina and I won’t be convinced otherwise!) Additionally, my understanding is that most of the warming seems to be occurring in the ocean and at the poles. There seems to be less of a temperature issue in temperate areas although that is not to suppose that the weather or global circulation in those areas is unaffected.
Like you say, a great deal of uncertainty. In Part II to this thread there is a very interesting link to an article by Pielke Snr that I found compelling. The blog database is getting clunky/slow on this thread so I will leave it there. Regards, Rob
majorajam –
indeed there are indeed plenty of crop failures that have been linked to heat waves- most recently and significantly the disaster that was the Russian wheat harvest this last year.
To my knowledge, the Russian wheat crop has had multiple failures for multiple reasons over the last 35 years. Citing “this years” Russian crop failure based on a short term “heat wave” (which is precisely what it was) as an example of “climate change” – is just nonsense. Fact is that historically there is nothing particularly anomalous about that Russian “heat wave.”
In 1972, I was system engineer for the LACIE (Large Area Crop Inventory) program. It included, and in fact, was specifically aimed at Russian and Chinese crop production forecasts. Including failure modes.
http://dge.stanford.edu/SCOPE/SCOPE_23/SCOPE_23_4.4_chapter8_191-217.pdf
http://www.asprs.org/publications/pers/2003journal/june/2003_jun_615-618.pdf
This also means there is nothing remotely inconsistent in claiming on the one hand a cold weather event is not evidence of a not-warming or cooling climate and at the same time saying that the increased incidence and severity of heat wave weather events are consistent with and, indeed, anticipated by a warming climate.
You are comparing multiple heat wave weather events to a single cold weather event. And at the same time you ignore the multiple cold weather events over the last few years. If you’re counting multiples of one then you need to count the multiples of the other as well.
There have been very few record heat wave weather events while there have been multiple record cold weather events.
And then you said:
In other words, your supposed hypocrisy is a ‘climate change skeptic’ canard.
No – it’s your hypocrisy that’s showing.
@majorajam
‘As to your final para/paleo smoke screen, if there’s anyone attempting to link global average temperatures to agriculture here, it’s you’
Well actually – it was the warmist Jeffrey Davis earlier in this thread who did so. I was actually arguing that it was nonsense. Perhaps you and he should have a chat, because one or other of you are not ‘on message’. You cannot both be in the consensus when you contradict each other,
For the rest, think Jim Owen has covered most of the points I would have raised, so I’ll look forward to your replies to him. Especially about how a few heat waves are climate but frequent cold snaps are just weather. I’m still puzzled.
That doesn’t even rise to the level of willful misunderstanding Jim. Not only did I explicitly make the point that individual weather events do not prove anything about the climate, cold or warm, that was the point. Your argument to the converse, that I am trying to prove ‘climate change’ by citing the Russian summer demonstrates that either you didn’t read what I wrote, or that you should revisit your remedial reading comprehension.
As to what I actually did write, there were two very uncomplicated claims 1) that the Russian summer wheat harvest was done in by heat and attendant drought, which illustrates the entirely uncontroversial fact that heat extremes are not good for agriculture, and 2) that warming on a global average basis anticipates an increased incidence and severity of extreme heat events, (and decreased incidence and severity of extreme cold events), of which this event was a quintessential example.
The latter argument is not robust in the way of the former as the effect of regional weather extremes of warming global average temperatures is highly uncertain. I acknowledged as much earlier in this thread. However, it is still reasonable to invoke central tendency given how global average temperatures are calculated, not to mention other evidence we might look to, such as the experience of extremes in different climates. If you disagree, you might consider making an actual argument that this is actually not reasonable. You haven’t done this. All you’ve done is to use the word nonsense, which is a good working definition of projection.
Speaking of which, this little gem:
truly stretches the dictionary definitions of the words used to articulate it. Moscow’s record July 2010 temperatures, fyi, were a 4 standard deviation event against the 130 year temperature record. The record heat continued all the way into mid-August. Meanwhile, the event is said to have claimed over 55,000 lives. You’d think if there was nothing anomalous about it those silly Russians might have been more prepared. So when you say ‘nothing particularly anomalous’, I’m wondering what you were using for a baseline- the Early Triassic?
You could do with a bit less enthusiasm and a bit more diligence Jim.
Dearest Latimer, it appears you’ve goofed again, as I can’t for the life of me find evidence of this
I wonder if you tried actually thinking about the difference between weather and climate and then re-reading what it is Jeffery and I have written if it wouldn’t help to soothe your clearly addled mind. Trust me when I say this, it’s a lot easier to understand things when you make an actual effort to do so.
@majorajam
OK. I have learnt over the past few years the following definitions:
If there is a cold spell that is just weather.
If there is a hot spell it is proof of climate change. And its worse than we thought!
Alternatively if there is indeed a sceintific entity that we can call ‘climate’ it is probably a sort of ‘integrtaon’ of the weather over a period of time. taking into account humidity, precipitation, wind direction and speed, cloudiness variability of all of the preceding, wind chill factor etc etc. All of which are important to agriculture to a greater or lesser degree.
Unless its very cold which is just weather. Or so our friendly Met Office people assure us. Only hot spells count for ‘climate change’.
And your point is?
My point is that you lose the ability to comprehend simple English when your beliefs are challenged. And now you’ve even managed to get yourself to doubt even the existence of climate. So yea, I think we’re done here.
I don’t think Judith believes that coal plants are “death factories” or that “coal is the single greatest threat to civilization and all life on the planet”. Hansen is an over-the-top activist prone to unscientific hyperbole who honestly falls into my personal “nutjob” file. I’m not comfortable with anyone who believes the above statements to be a thoughtful contribution regarding the merits (or lack thereof ) of coal. The use of the phrase “death factories” and “death trains” is particularly disturbing because we all know what event that is referencing.
On the other hand people like Judith because, while she believes in climate change, she doesn’t have a problem calling the team out on “hide the decline” or Lonnie on his missing ice cores. Or to put it another way, I think Judith’s stance on climate change is honest, thoughtful and perfectly reasonable – traits that I don’t believe describe the team or Hanson.
Do you think 10C is going to be hunky-dory? Do you think Curry does? Just because she doesn’t call coal plants “death trains” doesn’t mean that the implication isn’t there. (Hansen’s entitled to his polemics outside of his scientific writing. Every scientist is.)
The tone of that ‘Boo’
Described a perfect bell shape;
Curved him off his cool.
=============
He can do whatever he wants – although I personally don’t think it’s appropriate or in his best interest. You asked why people see Judith differently and I told you why I do and why I think others do as well.
Okay, I’ll play.
How hot is it going to get if global coal consumption peaks at 7 billion tons per year, oil consumption peaks at 100 million barrels per day and natural gas consumption peaks at 150 trillion cubic feet per year?
The IPCC A1F1 projects 30 billion tons per year of carbon emissions by 2030.(Carbon, not CO2)
I’ll just use some estimates as to where I think peak fossil fuel production will end up being
8 billion tons of coal(6 now) * 75% carbon = 6.00 billion tons carbon/year
100 million barrels per day(80 now) * 365 *
260 lbs of carbon per barrel of oil* = 4.75 billion tons carbon/year
.03 lbs of carbon per cubic foot of natural gas * 150 trillion cubic feet per year(100 now) = 2.25 billion tons of carbon per year.
I can manage to get to a 13 billion ton carbon emission scenario.
Jeffrey,
The chances of what we are doing to the atmosphere raising temps by 10 degrees C are what?
No, Hansen is not entitled to lie to the public on the same topic he is writing his alleged science on.
His public statements on climate are credible only becuase of his science on cliamte.
This is not Einstein outside of physics supporting israel or left wing politics.
hunter,
Polemical does not mean “lie”. It means he’s using rhetorical arguments to support his positions. (Surely, you don’t equate rhetoric with lying. Here?)
A lie is an attempt to deceive. I’ve never heard that anyone thinks that Hansen is anything except entirely convinced of the danger’s from AGW. In fact, he is scrupulous about pointing out where he deviates from “expert” estimates. As in sea level rise from melting ice. He acknowledges that his model isn’t a GCM but the geological record. He looked at the geological record since GCMs have consistently underestimated melt. And what he has found is that ice collapse comes quicker than the computer models would predict. Much quicker.
Where is the lie?
Jeffrey –
(Hansen’s entitled to his polemics outside of his scientific writing. Every scientist is.)
Hansen is a Government employee. As such, he is legally prohibited, under the Hatch Act, from engaging in political activity.
In addition, he has been arrested multiple times. That would be an automatic cause for termination in most agencies.
@ Jeffrey Davis “Curry’s 90% likelihood of 0-10c is, iirc, even scarier than the range and odds that Hansen cites.”
Yes, that is a good point you are making. Essentially, she is saying that there is about a 1 in 20 chance that if we double the CO2 concentration from pre-industrial, that global temperatures will – on average! – rise by MORE than 10C. Yikes!!!! Obviously, there would be even larger odds that it would be over, say, 7C or 6C, etc. Scary, scary stuff.
This is a way, way more alarmist assessment than what “The Team” is saying, for sure. I can imagine Hansen learning of this and saying “Calm down, Judy, calm down!!!”.
As Martin Weitzman has demonstrated in many papers, fat-tails in the damage functions for climate change favor more aggressive and urgent policies to lower GHGs. Although, even his work would have to stretch to contemplate something as probable and catastrophic as Judy does.
I’m surprised she has anytime at all for us here. Realizing now that these are her conclusions, I would think she should be devoting all of her efforts to a desperate attempt to halt all CO2 emissions yesterday. It makes it all the more generous that she still makes time for this blogging endeavour.
Personally, I am much more comfortable with Zeke’s confidence interval for feedback climate sensitivity than Dr. Curry’s. It makes it easier to sleep at night.
Yes, but it shows that she really doesn’t seem to have a clue about this. I’m more interested in her views as to how sensitivity could be low (ie 0-1.5 C) than high, given that paleo estimates suggest higher than IPCC estimates (although not as high as 10C). I don’t even think Dave Stainforth or Lenny Smith think sensitivity is as high as that (although I confess I haven’t actually asked them about this).
monty–don’t you agree that those estimates based on paleo data should have wide ranges since these estimates have very significant margins of error?
Hi Rob. Yes, they do have wide ranges….but many are higher than Charney estimates. Personally, I don’t believe in very high sensitivity (ie above about 6C) but low sensitivities are just unrealistic. See Annan et al 2005 and 2006 for interesting approach using the paleo record.
I appear to have been recently banned from posting comments on Scientific American’s website as a result of comments critical of the bias that SA seems to have repeatedly shown on the topic of potential climate change. Site like “Real Climate” seem to have a similar practice. Here is my question.
Does it seem that there is a much greater degree of censorship by sites/periodicals that support the concept that increased GHG’s are a potential disaster for humanity than from those that are not certain? Why is censorship acceptable and in fact common from only one side of the discussion?
You are right, Rob.
Welcome to reality of “1984” in development !
Climategate is only the tip of an iceberg resting on decades of filth.
That is probably why the official investigations find nothing wrong.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Rob, You write “Why is censorship acceptable and in fact common from only one side of the discussion?”
The answer to that is simple. There is only sound science on one side of the debate. Only the skeptics/deniers have proper science on their side. On the CAGW side there is only smoke and mirrors.
So in order to keep their religion pure, the proponents of CAGW need to censor any posts which show just how much sound science there is on the side of the deniers/skeptics.
Jim– I have to disagree. There really is science on both sides of the discussion, and pretty interesting science. What there does not seem to be is good realistic discussions about the costs and benefits of potential policies regarding the science that makes sense. What I really find disturbing is censorship. I have not posted rude or inappropriate messages, but have been banned from SA.
Judith… I’m really shocked that you allow this kind of baseless hand waving to corrupt your blog.
You mean that the possibility of climate sensitivity from 0-10C is 90%?
Yeah, I’m shocked that she’d allow that on her blog.
What do you think is “baseless hand waving” – or were your making an attempt at a joke
This thread contains many comments, which contradict my own thinking. I have answered some of them here and I have written related comments in other threads. Now I concluded, that I must put some of these thoughts in better order and that I can do it better by writing about them in my own blog, linked through by name above.
The posting is not exactly on the subject of this thread, but has many connections to it. In the posting I try to tell, how I see science and climate science in particular. A short posting is only a short posting, but perhaps I succeeded in getting some substance in it.
An interesting blog post would be to investigate how many valid ( or not) studies have been compromised by the obligatory global warming (climate change) inclusion in order to get published. I do not think that this is a frivolous charge.
Pekka,
You write:
“Ron,
I am not surprised that that is the way you want to describe it, but I would describe your choice as purposeful selectivity between equally valid and equally scientific arguments denying part of them to reduce their power as evidence.”
This is the fundamental disagreement I have with computer modelers. They describe their computer runs as “experiments.” They are not experiments. I am not saying they are without value. We can learn things from computer runs, but it is not the same level of evidence as observation. Based on your statement, you seem to think computer runs have equivalent scientific value as observations. This is flawed thinking. Even if GCMs had been properly validated and verified (and they have not), they do not have any predictive value. Please read Orrin Pilkey’s book Useless Arithmetic to understand his point of view of dealing with computer models of sea coasts. Or, you might want to start with the paper you can find at
http://nctc.fws.gov/EC/Resources/Decision_Analysis/List_Serve_Attachments_files/PilkeyArticle2008.pdf
I made a suggestion to Dr. Curry that a literature review (or even blog post) would be valuable which compared the upper bounds of climate sensitivity based on observations to the upper bounds of climate sensitivity based on GCMs. Both you and Fred seem to have a problem with my suggestion. Why? Are you afraid of what this new information may show?
The only estimates of climate sensitivity based on observations that I know of are by Schwartz, Chylek and Scafetta. If there are others, I would like to know of them.
Ron,
If you go to my site, you may learn better my way of thinking on these issues, although certainly only to a few questions as one posting cannot tell more.
Experimenting with models is not fully comparable with experimenting with real systems and even less with collecting empirical data from nature. The laboratory experiments may, however, also be model experiments, because the laboratory setup is often a model of some other system.
Experimenting with models tells about the models. That may or may not tell something about the real world depending on the validity of the model in describing that particular detail the experiments tell about. If the model has been well verified on closely related empirical, there may be good reason to believe that the model experiment gives good results on that detail even though the model may fail in something else.
Again, there are no single answer, it all depends ..
All methods of science have their value, none of them should be condemned summarily, but neither should none of them be trusted without proper evidence.
Pekka,
You have, perhaps unknowingly, touched on the problem. The GCMs have very limited value and no predictive value. The GCMs produce what they were programmed to produce. They can be tuned to get any result you want. If you want the GCM to indicate a high sensitivity, you can get it to be as high as you want.
Please read the paper by Pilkey and his daughter that I linked. I would like to know your thoughts on it.
As for me, I will stick with sensitivity estimates based on observations which lead me to believe the sensitivity is somewhere between 0.5 and 2.0 C.
Ron,
Generic arguments do not answer well specific questions. The value of GCM’s can be judged only by studying the GCM’s.
Did you notice, how positive they were to the climate science community compared to other environmental modelers? There is likely much more competence in climate modeling activities than in any other environmental modeling. Unfortunately their scope is also the largest. Therefore success is certainly not guaranteed at any particular level of accuracy, but dismissing the work without really good arguments is not of any value.
Ron,
You say
That conclusion requires a model. It requires a model that provides evidence against such interpretations that give a much higher climate sensitivity. How have you got convinced about the validity of that model?
Pekka,
The simple models based on observations can be followed logically. They do not involve GCMs and the calculations can be done on a handheld. Are you familiar with the discipline of scientific forecasting? Like climate science, it is a young discipline (about 25-30 years old). There are thousands of practicioners and three or four peer-reviewed journals devoted to the discipline. One of the principles of scientific forecasting is that simple models are to be preferred over more complex models. See the paper title Rule Based Forecasting.
Ron,
If you check my further answers to your comment on my site, you may notice, that I consider it essential that models are chosen to be as simple as possible (and it has been my principle for longer than 25 years). We must however remember Einstein’s words “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler”.
Simple climate models are perfect in answering many questions, but they require too many unphysical assumptions when they are used to answer other questions, and they cannot tell anything about some further ones.
In the same comment I emphasized that the user of the model must understand, what the model does. This is trivially not true for a model whose behavior is not understood by anybody, and the most complex models may be subject to this problem.
Accepting all this I do not agree that large CGM’s should not be given significant value. One should only know, which of their results are more and which less reliable.
For an outsider the CGM is a black box. Therefore they should be used only by experts for whom they are not black boxes – again something that I wrote in the same comment. They contain certainly incompletely known features for every expert as well, but that allows for ways of usage, where the relevance of the results is assured well enough for making them relevant. This comment is really based on general knowledge on using complex models, but I’m sure it applies to GCM’s as well.
(I’m personally not very interested in papers you list. I have noticed that my earlier knowledge covers essentially everything they tell. Mostly I agree with such papers, sometimes disagree, but papers of this level do not add much knowledge after 40 years of modeling.)
Rule based paper can be found at http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/images/pof-rbf.doc
You might also be interested in:
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/13592/2/Naiveclimate.pdf
and
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf
GCMs are black boxes with poor documentation that have not been validated or verified. GCMs are tunable to get almost any result desired yet they are almost uniformly alarmist.
My question is, why are you convinced GCMs are valid when you admit GCMs are not accurate representations of the climate system?
Ron,
I have tried to emphasize that I do not make strong claims in favor of CGM’s. What I have said strongly is that your arguments against them are not based on facts, but on prejudices and generic arguments that are not sufficient for making judgments on a specific case.
There are difficult questions involved, but the lack of clear answers is only in small part due to unwillingness to give clear answers. To a much larger extent the lack of those answers is in the fact that all valid answers are complicated and understanding them requires a very good background and a lot of work from the receiving side. The range of validity and estimate of accuracy of a large complex model cannot be justified in easily understandable ways.
Well, this argument is easily settled by doing the following:
1) Refer to a GCM produced chart or a figure or a simple series of numbers representing some global climate parameter, say global temp for say 15 or 20 years before the onset of that time period. I dont know if 10 is sufficient, since the natural variability within short periods could make the data really volatile
2) Refer to a measured data based chart or a figure or a simple series of numbers representing global temp matching the exact same period predicted by GCM or other models.
3) compare the two and arrive at the error bars or margin of error
4) If the error bars or margin of error is within small acceptable limits appropriate for most scientific fields, declare that the models are at least trustworthy for 30-50 year timeframe.
5) You could then argue that since it is difficult to have long term predicted data vs. measured data comparison, we could just go out on a limb and accept the 100 year projections. That to me would be a reasonable request at that point.
You would like to crush them because capitalism is evil
I would like to humble them by fostering healthy competition.
No. I prefer to crush the giant criminal corporations, so the smaller companies can take over.
Holly –
And just what “smaller” companies do you believe are capable of taking over the functions that those giant corporations now perform? Or don’t you know what those functions are? Are you just applying ignorant idealism?
How is it that you don’t realize that those giant corporations were once “smaller companies”? And that your “smaller companies” will rapidly grow to be giant corporations if the present giant corporations are crushed?
Reply problems – New thread please
Kate raised a point, February 27, 2011 at 8:56 pm:
If we carry this a bit further, let’s see which of these schools of thought make more sense.
All specific actionable proposals made to date to “control the climate” can be shown to be unable to do so.
“Pledges” by political leaders to “reduce carbon emissions to X% of those in year Y by year Z” or “to hold AGW to a maximum of 2°C” are not actionable proposals, but simply political posturing
But there have been a few specific actionable proposals.
A recent NASA-GISS paper in Env. Sci. Tech., co-authored by James E. Hansen calls for the shutting down of all coal-fired power plants in the USA by 2030, in order to avoid the global warming caused by the emitted CO2.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Kharecha_etal.pdf
What effect would this step actually have on global warming?
It turns out that the implementation of this proposal would result in a theoretical reduction of global warming by year 2100 of less than 0.1°C at a total investment cost to decommission the coal plants and replace them with nuclear plants of around $1.5 trillion. [This cost/benefit study was not included in the paper.]
This confirms to me that “man cannot control the climate” at will.
So much for the bad news. Now for the good news.
On the other hand, it is reasonable to assume that natural market factors will gradually result in a reduction of ever more expensive fossil fuel combustion as older coal-fired power plants are shut down and replaced by nuclear plants, as hybrid and electrical cars gradually replace gasoline and diesel driven ones, and as energy efficiency is improved and waste reduced.
[Coal costs have increased more than four-fold from 2000 to 2008, while crude oil costs have increased three-fold over the same time period (Wiki).]
Human CO2 emissions will naturally start to decrease gradually as a result of the above factors.
Whether atmospheric CO2 will level off at 450, 500 or 550 ppmv will depend on how fast this natural transition will occur, which itself will depend on a lot of factors, but it will undoubtedly level off as the CO2 added to the system each year becomes smaller than the CO2 being removed from the system annually by its “half life” (which has been estimated to be around 120 years).
IPCC “scenarios” in this regard all seem unrealistic. Even the lowest estimate (B1) assumes an compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of atmospheric CO2 to year 2100, which is around 20% higher than what we have actually seen over the past 50+ years since Mauna Loa measurements started (or over the past 5 years), despite the fact that population is expected to grow at only a fraction of the 1960-2010 CAGR.
Other IPCC scenarios are even more unrealistic. The highest scenarios (A2 and A1F1) actually project CO2 levels, which exceed all the carbon contained in all the optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves of our planet!
And these are the ones use to make the alarming warming projections.
So, in summary, while we cannot “control the climate” at will, our gradual natural shift away from increasingly expensive fossil fuels will limit the amount of atmospheric CO2, which we emit into our atmosphere until it levels off some time in the second half of this century.
And, if we accept the IPCC 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C, this naturally occurring trend will limit the amount of theoretical equilibrium GH warming we can expect from today to 2100 at somewhere between 0.6°-1.5°C.
So it is my conclusion that:
1. Man cannot control the climate at will
2. Naturally occurring market trends will limit AGW.
Max
harrywr2 [ February 27, 2011, 4:27 pm]
Forget A1F1, harry. It is a canard.
It assumes that by 2100 we will have emitted CO2 that is roughly two times all the CO2 that would be expected from the combustion of all optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves on our planet!
Coal (Wiki):
910 Gt “proven”
910 Gt “estimated additional”
1820 Gt total
Assume consumption increases from 6.4 to 10 Gt/year =
182 years reserves
Oil
1317 billion bbl “proven” (O+GJ)
500 billion bbl “optimistic new finds” excl. shale
2800 billion bbl “shale” (Wiki)
4617 billion bbl total =
600 Gt total
Assume consumption increases to 100 million bbl/day =
126 years reserves
Natural Gas
176 trillion cubic meters “proven” (O+GJ)
180 trillion cubic meters “optimistic new finds, incl. shale” (Wiki)
356 trillion cubic meters
Assume consumption increases to 5 trillion cubic meters per year =
71 years reserves
All of these optimistically estimated reserves together would generate:
Coal: 1820 * 0.91 * (44 / 12) = 6073 GtCO2
Oil: 600 * 0.85 * (44 / 12) * .75 = 1403 GtCO2 (25% used for non-combustion)
Gas: 356 * 2 * 0.8 = 570 GtCO2 (20% used for non-combustion, 1 cu.meter = 2 kg CO2)
Total: 8045 GtCO2
Assuming 60% of this “stays” in atmosphere (today ~ 50%):
Mass of atmosphere: 5,140,000 Gt
8045 * 0.6 * 1,000,000 / 5,140,000 = 939 ppm(mass)
939 * (29 / 44)= 619 ppmv
IPCC “scenario A1F1” assumes an atmospheric CO2 level of 1590 ppmv is reached by 2100.
This is 1200 ppmv higher than today.
Yet all the carbon contained in all the optimistically estimated fossil fuels on our planet can cause an increase of only half this amount.
Ouch!
Max
Trying to answer the question on this thread:
Epistemic level: 3+ (My MA minor was Philosophy of Science and I read papers available on the Web.)
95% level: Agree with Dr. C.
90% level: Agree (mostly) with Dr. C, except:
3) A problem that I have with this is that while over the oceans, water vapor is relatively constant over huge areas, but over land it isn’t and can act as a forcing locally thanks to moving pressure cells and wind patterns. Living at the moment in Indiana, where we get alternate blasts of cold dry air from Edmonton and warm wet air from New Orleans, this is fairly obvious. And to the response that weather isn’t climate — well, yes it is — and paraphrasing the famous Dr. Jones, “If climate isn’t weather I can’t think what else it could be.”
5) This depends on what precisely one means by “direct”, since e.g. differences in UV content will have large effects on O3 formation in the stratosphere, which may have (largely unknown) effects on surface temperature and weather patterns.
66% level: Agree again (mostly) with Dr. C, except:
1) I would put the lower bound of with-feedback sensitivity somewhere between unmeasurable and 0.6 deg C. and the upper bound at the no-feedback sensitivity. I have three reasons for this, none admittedly terribly rigorous:
a] Long ago in 8th grade Earth Science, we learned that the greenhouse effect accounted for a 30 deg surface temperature increase, in keeping with the consensus analysis, but we also learned that calculating the full effect gave a surface increase of around 60 deg, which would result in an average temperature similar to the interior of a black Camaro in a Las Vegas parking lot. This suggests that feedbacks reduce the greenhouse effect by about 50%.
b] The 0.5 deg figure is close to what Lindzen, Spencer, and other researchers are converging on. Even Susan Solomon, hardly a skeptic, attributes as much as half of the warming since 1950 to changes in stratospheric humidity — which leaves little to attribute to CO2.
c] I’ve been building analog electronic equipment since around 1962, and I know that positive feedback creates instability. The entire history of Earth — especially the last several million years — indicates a system of remarkable stability, oscillating between 2 more or less fixed states regardless of wide variations in all known climate-influencing factors. The fact that CO2 concentrations many times the current levels led to no “tipping points” also speaks to this; the earth glaciated in spite of high CO2 levels and warmed in spite of low levels; speaking of “reinforcement” is pure speculation.
I hasten to add that I have absolutely no idea what “66% probability” means in this context; it seems to amount to “I think …”
50% level: Agree again (mostly) with Dr. C, except I would bet hard money that the Holocene Optimum and the Roman Warm Period were globally at least 1 deg C warmer than the present (2011). The problem is that nobody at the moment is around to settle the bet.
harrywr2 [ February 27, 2011, 4:27 pm]
harry,
You say you can get to 13 GtC per year by 2100 (rather than 30 GtC/year as estimated by IPCC A1F1).
My estimate is 14 GtC/year, so very close to yours.
The other point is that A1F1 assumes twice as much fossil fuel consumed by 2100 than there is on our planet, defying all the known laws of physics.
So it is a ridiculous “scenario”, and should be discarded as such.
Max
Really, Max, the mere fact that something is completely contrary to all the known laws of physics (or chemistry, or …) has never influenced politicians or political activists before — witness the loony chase after “renewable energy” — so why should it now? They are like children with a new Superman costume, except instead of jumping off the garage roof, they’re throwing the rest of us off.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, this is a technical thread… Sorry.
here Judith. interesting
http://www.newton.ac.uk/programmes/CLP/seminars/120812001.html
steven,
Thank you for this link. It’s very interesting. The most likely outcome is definitely on the low end of the IPCC range. Of course, it if turns out the temp record used has a warming bias, then this estimate will have to be adjusted down significantly.
interesting post. My level of knowledge is between 2 and 3
Votes are as follows
95.1 greenhouse is real-> in a lab yes, in real world 66%
95.2 CO2 = ghg ->66%
95.3 CO2 concentration is rising->90%
95.4 ant. CO2 is rising-> 100%
95.5 CO2 rises as a result of ant. CO2->66%
90.1 2xCo2->1C->50%
90.2 long lifetime CO2->66%
90.3 H2O is feedback->66%
90.4 warm->moist->warmer ->< 90%
66.1 climate sensitivity 1,5 – 6->50%
66.2 temps largely correct->50/50
50.1 intrinsic variability insignificant-><<<50%
90.4 should be <<50%
Everybody keeps talking about the warming effects of GHGs. This thread wants to find out the level of agreement.
So what happened to the COOLING effect of GHGs? Any agreement on that?
The planet doesn’t just lose it’s energy via the atmospheric window, it loses substantial amounts via radiation by GHGs.
Re Agreeing(?) 2/26/11
When an individual is assessing [Zeke’s statements], the epistemic level of the assessor is relevant. I propose the following levels:
1. Research scientist publishing papers on relevant topics
2. Individual with a graduate degree in a technical subject that has investigated the relevant topics in detail.
3. Individual spending a substantial amount of time reading popular books on the subject and hanging out in the climate blogosphere
4. Individual who gets their climate information from talk radio
Note: personally, I would rate an epistemic level of 1 on some of the topics, and level 2 on others.
The context is clear enough: assessor means a voter contributing his opinion to Zeke’s (and IPCC’s) pole of subjective likelihoods, quantified with equally subjective probability numbers. In that setting, and for some sense of purity in the art of opinion surveying, the assessor levels might be relevant. That poll could be scientific in the field of opinion sampling, but not in the sense of the substantive, climate elements in Zeke’s statements. The poling process would be equally valid for the proposition “multiple supreme beings exist” (to enlist the monotheist reader in the argument), and the supporting statistics of opinion.
Zeke and Curry agree that there is no serious challenge to Keeling’s measurements … . Does this agreeing mean that they are unaware of any Level 1 challenge in a peer-reviewed climate journal? Is the operative word serious? Are Z&C distinguishing between concentration measurements at MLO and the reconstructions accepted by IPCC and widely known as the Keeling Curve? AR4, Figure 2.3(a), p. 138. Do Keeling’s measurements include the isotopic measurements, and IPCC’s reductions to fingerprints? Id., Figure 2.3(b). Do they include the missing wind vector by which samples were deemed valid for the reconstruction? Have Z & C considered the fact that MLO lies in the exhaust plume of massive oceanic outgassing in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific, and that Keeling cautioned against relying on measurements near sources or sinks?
Z&C agree on Extremely Likely statement 5: The majority of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations since pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. This is confirmed both by the isotopic signature of the carbon and the fact that concentrations rise proportionate to emissions. Both signatures are the product of IPCC’s chartjunk. Hiding the Decline. Part IV: Beautiful Evidence, undersigned, 2/25/11 at 1:16 pm. Is this agreeing based on another Level 1 “accumulation of evidence” from peer-reviewed climate journals?
If the intent of the epistemic level applies beyond weighing opinions, then it might be relevant to the level of courtesy extended, and the depth presented, in answering the concerns of people – people who express an opinion or curiosity about the substance of the science of climate. However, the levels read like a recipe for formalizing ad hominem responses. If that is the intent, it is arrogant and elitist. That view would be underscored if publishing papers is to apply only to peer-reviewed journals.
To make matters worse, the statement of Level 4 could have been taken from a political left-wing tract. Clearly the left has adopted AGW as a plank in its platform, but the wording of Level 4 coming from the climate community tends to confirm what the right wing accuses: that climate science itself is a political faction of the left. If that is what is to be conveyed, it might be punched up by including Fox News Channel and Glenn Beck, its conspiracy theorist du jour.
Science is entirely about models of the real world with predictive power. Epistemologically, science is the objective branch of knowledge, and, except for certain honors and accolades, devoid of the subjective, of belief systems, of voting, and of academic and bureaucratic hoops, like publication and peer-review. The scientific method is a logical structure composed of definitions, logic, facts, cause-and-effect constructs, predictions, and validation. The prerequisites of publication and peer-review have academic and quality control implications, but are distractions in the scientific method. To the extent that a scientific model has, or fails to have, predictive power, whatever else might be said is trumped.
The epistemology in the matter of climate lies in the quality of supporting scientific models, usually graded in increasing order from conjecture, to hypothesis, theory, and law. The epistemic level should be the quality of an inquiry, whether posed as a question or proposed as an alternative, as it relates to science and the scientific method, independent of the character or credentials of its source. “Dr. Curry, why do you think CO2 is long-lived?” deserves a full dialog with even a Level 4 citizen.
To avoid wallowing about in philosophy on the one hand, or in the minutiae of the AGW model, the matter needs to be brought into focus on the monumental underlying question. The United Nations IPCC has rung the alarm. It claims that an out-of-control industry has launched an irreversible movement toward human catastrophe, a movement that can be only mitigated by what amounts to finishing off what remains of the World’s crippled economy, all in the name of climate and the hope of cutting back carbon dioxide emissions.
IPCC lays this matter expressly and squarely before the World’s “Policymakers”, impliedly and especially the United States Congress as representatives of the (disproportionately) largest contributor to both the investigators’ purse, and to the CO2 emissions. That Congress has just responded by advancing a statute to defund IPCC. Whether that survives to be law is a short-term matter, but the question will be “extremely likely”, i.e., “>95% probability”, a campaign issue before U.S. voters next year. If the climatology community wants to keep its seat on the gravy train, in case that train ever pulls out of the station, it had better satisfy those with Level 4 doubts.
The ultimate climate question can be morphed into various forms, but it is now public, out of the hands of climatologists, scientists, philosophers, academics and journal editors. It is a question for laymen, who best fit the politically charged Level 4. These laymen include policymakers, their staffs, political candidates, lawyers, preachers and their flocks, people who get their information from the Internet, from posters, from the streets, and “more likely than not”, “>50% probability”, the most populated category, the uninformed. About half of them are going to vote next year, and the result will be determined by a distorted measure of the mean opinion, dominated by Level 4 as generalized.
The scientific question put to the public is whether to give credence to IPCC’s alarm. So the problem has its origin in IPCC’s work. Early on, IPCC assumed that AGW exists. IPCC, Principles Governing IPCC Work, 10/1/1998, p. 2. Then it adjusted its models to agree on a prediction of just the right amount of global warming, too small to be invalidated before it is funded, but large enough to loosen public purse strings immediately. This warming must be from various, plausible CO2 emission scenarios, and not from natural causes, of course. IPCC’s core assumption that AGW exists is the first hole in its argument. It lends itself to a simple, binary hypothesis: the null hypothesis, H0, is that AGW does not exist, and the converse, H1, is that AGW exists.
The evidence for the affirmative, H1, is what can be inferred from IPCC Reports with their data and modeling results. Those Reports comprise a condensation of opinion from over 3,500 experts, plus several hundred editors and reviewers, and the content of over 6,000 peer-reviewed papers. Adding more experts, more peer-reviewed papers, or more GCM runs doesn’t amount to significant evidence for the affirmative hypothesis. That is evidence considered cumulative in the legal sense, disallowed in court, and deserving similar fate in the public climate question. When the accumulating evidence comprises measurements, however, then the model can acquire statistics for its predictions — real probabilities this time, not fantasy probabilities. Such facts may be cumulative in law, but they are scientifically significant. They provide probability distributions for predictions. Without probability bounds modeled on facts, most model predictions would be meaningless.
IPCC Reports are designed to show the consequences of the AGW assumed to exist, not to support the existence of AGW. However, IPCC does dedicate a chapter to its evidence against the null hypothesis. It says, The role of natural internal processes can be estimated by studying observed variations in climate and by running climate models without changing any of the external factors that affect climate. AR4, Chapter 9; FAQ 9.2 Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?, p. 702. Those models are born-again weather emulators, biased by design at their rebirth against natural causes and in favor of human causes of climate change. Some design choices are biased by misfortune, as in the choice of the radiative forcing paradigm. More important biases arise from not just a lack of diligence in modeling natural forces, but from discouragement to do so. The models cannot supply evidence for what they were designed to minimize. The models don’t work under H0; the null hypothesis requires different models.
Evidence that IPCC erred in its modeling is evidence to reject H1. As Oreskes’ famous study shows, (e.g., Undeniable Global Warming, NY Times, 12/26/04), H0 evidence is not to be found in peer-reviewed climate journals. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full . Therefore, it is excluded from peer-reviewed climate journals, and in large part excluded from Level 1. Nonetheless, it is both extensive and available.
Evidence supporting the null hypothesis is in hand. Stott, et al., 2003 (see thread Hiding the Decline. Part IV: Beautiful Evidence) discovered a fragmented fingerprint of solar activity in HadCM3 runs forced with amplified solar models and regression of the output against the instrumented temperature record. They discovered a statistically significant amplification factor in the climate of 2.78 using the best solar model then available. AR4 dismissed the paper on mistaken and irrelevant grounds, leaving its models still without an amplification factor. The fact that the GCMs do not respond to solar variations is not evidence that the climate is insensitive to them. The sensitivity to solar variations exists in the temperature record, and the GCMs need repair to account for the facts.
By relying on a GCM, Stott’s analysis omits the reaction of the ocean’s heat capacity, and the strong, positive and negative feedbacks of cloud albedo, two of the omissions in GCMs that also serve to negate the affirmative hypothesis. Stott, et al., investigated the sun/climate relationship by regression analysis on simultaneous records. That they still found mathematical evidence for the amplification factor at zero lag was especially good luck. Had they applied reasonable physical models for the integrating and lagging (low pass filtering) response of the ocean, and the positive feedback of cloud albedo from the burn off effect, they could have discovered that solar activity can account for the full, 140-year instrumented temperature record. Using the updated, IPCC-preferred, solar model by Wang, et al., 2005, Earth’s surface temperature follows the Sun with an accuracy of 0.11ºC (1σ), a value comparable to the variability in IPCC’s smoothed temperature reduction for the period. , rocketscientistsjournal.com, 4/17/10.
IPCC’s conclusion that Anthropogenic warming of the climate system can be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the troposphere and in the oceans (AR4, Ch. 9 Executive Summary, p. 665) is contradicted in the first order. The temperature lags the Sun, and whatever patterns might have been deemed significant to be attributed to humans cannot exist on the Sun. Independent evidence shows that the attribution to humans of the large signal, 1ºC rise in Earth’s global average surface temperature over the last century is erroneous, and confirms the non-existence of AGW.
To grade individuals by their “epistemic levels” seems to me to be a distraction from the issue that is of importance to the people of the world. The epistemic failure of individuals of epistemic level 1 is evident in the failure of these individuals to identify the set of observed independent statistical events that would prove false the claims of these individuals.
Terry Oldberg 3/4/11 1:12 am
Epistemic level grading is a multi-pronged distraction.
It is nominated to be an official distraction for certified climatologists who may apply it to safely ignore external criticism. It’s a softer version of CRU ridiculing the quality of non-conforming journals, or conspiring to shun a journal that published a heretical article and suggesting the journal be stripped of its peer-reviewed status.
The levels are intended to distract the policymakers who fund climatologists and their labs, and who are supposed to restrict carbon emissions. The distraction is from those deemed not qualified to object, reducing science to selected expert testimony. Only the Preacher may interpret the Word — the others are heretics or the unwashed indigenous for the harvest of cultural imperialism.
The four levels are also a distraction from the fact that climatologists do not actually sit atop the tree of epistemology. In the epistemological hierarchy, climatology is subservient to the laws of physics, to thermodynamics, to system science, to science in general, and to ethics.
Putting on a Level 0 hat, here are some particular ripe examples:
Laws of physics: IPCC disregards the Beer-Lambert Law, which governs radiative transfer. It disregards Henry’s Law of solubility, governing CO2 flux, to make natural CO2 more soluble than the anthropogenic variety.
Thermodynamics: IPCC models the surface layer of the ocean in thermodynamic equilibrium, essential to the manufacture of its false bottleneck for human CO2 emissions.
System science: IPCC thinks feedback, which it adapted from system science, is either an illusory relation between correlated processes or a computer parameter calculated at run time. Feedback actually is the transfer of material, energy, displacement, potential, or information from within a system that modifies the system’s inputs. As a result, IPCC models climate open-loop, as, for example, with cloud albedo, and is unable to calculate any closed-loop gain.
Science: IPCC models climate without accounting for the known, dominant climate events of the past (e.g., the ice ages, the interglacial epochs, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, sudden changes in the slope of temperature instrument record), and predicting only an unverifiable catastrophe. By inference, its models predict a near term trend in temperature, which has failed validation. IPCC models, which don’t even pretend to work in the long run of past epochs, nor in the short run of weather, are advertised to predict a looming, mid-term catastrophe. It’s like accounting with the least significant the most significant figures obliterated, leaving just the middle, insignificant figures.
Duty & Ethics: IPCC violates its public trust by employing chartjunk to create faux fingerprints of human activity on atmospheric CO2. IPCC in its quest for recognition, control, and profit relies on an unvalidated model, at best a hypothesis, to foster public panic.
Re: Jeff Glassman ,
Excellent summary and indictment. Thanks.
Several here (Ferdinand, Bart, suyts, DeNihilist have mentioned ice cores so if I may I’d like to pick up on that subject. PaulM commented on February 25 at 12:54 pm on Judith’s “Hiding th Decline .. “ thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/25/hiding-the-decline-part-iv-beautiful-evidence/) “An example of bad practice, widely used by the IPCC, is the misleading comparison of data obtained using one method with data obtained by a different method. In addition to the notorious example of splicing temperature data onto proxy data, we have, for example, in the AR4 WG1 SPM: .. Comparing ice core carbon dioxide with recent atmospheric data .. ”. He drew attention there to what Andrew Montford calls “The Hockey Stick Illusion” (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Illusion-Climategate-Corruption-Science-Independent/dp/1906768358) and what I call “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?”.
It is noteworthy that the IPCC proudly presented the (in)famous Michael Mann temperature “hockey stick” in the TAR Synthesis Report (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/) at “Question 9” in Figure SPM-10b and in the WG1 SPM at Figure 1 yet seemed reluctant to headline it in AR4. Either I simply missed it or they were wary of the reaction there would be to it taking into consideration how McIntyre and McKittrick had exposed the dubious nature of the statistical manipulations that were undertaken to produce it.
Rather, they gave the starring roll to what were at the time less contentious “hockey sticks”, presenting in “Figure SPM.1. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide over the last 10,000 years .. ” (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html).
Apart from carefully questioning the statistical techniques applied when estimating past and present atmospheric air composition, there is also the question of the validity of the claim that the atmospheric gases of interest are virtually “trapped” in ice during the decades, centuries and millennia that it resides therein. After all, the different gases do not have identical physical and chemical characteristics. One of these characteristics that is of particular interest is the size of the different gas molecules and their movement within the ice.
I hope that by the time that AR5 is published the CO2 “hockey stick” will be recognised as being just as much a misrepresentation of the facts as was the global temperature one. The statistical manipulation of raw measurement data of CO2 concentration in air from both within polar ice and atop a volcano in the middle of the pacific requires no less scrutiny by independent expert statisticians than the temperature analyses warranted. Let us not overlook the fact that the IPCC’s SPMs are not scientific documents but simply propaganda publications politically massaged to an even worse extent than the reports of the three working groups.
Also, it is worth remembering that one of the “Drafting Authors” of AR4 WG1 SPM is Professor Richard B Alley, Penn State University (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spm.html) – a buddy of Michael Mann’s (http://live.psu.edu/story/37730). Well, “A man is known by the company he keeps” (http://www.answers.com/topic/a-man-is-known-by-the-company-he-keeps).
Alley is a staunch supporter of the notion that reconstructing past atmospheric composition from air recovered from ice sets the “Gold Standard” for estimating CO2 changes (http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml). Note that Alley said at the outset of that 2009 AGU presentation on how CO2 functions as the thermostat part of the globe’s temperature control system “ .. I am not an atmospheric scientist .. ” and emphasised “ .. let’s be very very clear. We cannot fire the climateologists or the meteorologists because we know that CO2 makes it warmer. This is not the answer to everything. It tells us nothing really exciting about regional climates .. There are more things than CO2 that matter .. ”. He also confirmed that as far as his “ .. work on CO2 levels in ice cores .. I don’t actually do that but I talk about it, OK I teach about past climate change .. ”. Despite that he goes on, with total confidence, to say about “ .. CO2 paleobarometers .. as we come younger we get the ability to tell how much CO2 was in the air. The gold standard is the ice cores .. you drill an ice core, you break the bubbles, take the CO2 out and measure the concentration .. ”.
If only it was that simple. What Alley skips over so glibly is all of the complicated processes that go on within the ice sheet, starting from the highest level where new snow coats the surface and continuing down into the debths through the compacting firn into the “solid” ice beneath. Concerns about these have been made repeatedly by Professor Zbiniew Jaworowski since 1992 and Ferdinand made mention of him. He and his co-authors in their 1992 paper “Do Glaciers Tell a True Atmospheric CO2 Story” (http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf) described one of these concerns as the “ .. lower molecular volume and .. viscosity of CO2 than N2, O2 and Ar. Differential diffusion occurs both in the ice sheet and in the ice cores .. ”. What they call “differential diffusion” and “lower molecular volume” I call “preferential fractionation” and “kinetic diameter”, the latter being the relevant measure of molecular size at the lowest level in the firn and n the ice beneath.
The three gases featured in the AR4 SPM are CO2, CH4 and N2O but other gases of interest are N2, O2, Ar, Xe and Kr. The physical difference between these gases that I have been focussing on for over a year now is the size of the molecules in those gases.
N2, O2, Ar and CH4 all have larger kinetic diameters than CO2 which can migrate through the ice when the others gases are prevented.
I started with a debate on Chris Colose’s thread “Richard Alley at AGU 2009: The Biggest Control Knob” (http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/” but that one was ruined by individuals who were intent only on disruptupting what had been a fruitful exchange of ideas.
There is presently reasoned debate going on at http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/#comment-46052 and http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/#comments following on from previous ones at http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/its-not-warming-you-nitwit-its-cooling/#comment-45360 and http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-twilight-zone/comment-page-1/#comment-25161. If anyone here is interested in taking it up here then please let me know, or join us on the Climate Conversation and Nova blogs.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley, Agreeing(?), 3/26/11 2:41 pm
1. Re splicing ice core data onto modern measurements: Assume for the moment that the ice core data are properly calibrated so that the CO2 concentration is correctly for the time and place of firn closure. However, that process low pass filters the records mechanically in the range of many decades to many centuries. Instantaneous CO2 concentrations are irreversibly lost in the ice core record. By contrast, the MLO CO2 concentration aperture time is approximately one minute, and essentially instantaneous. Even calibrating the ice core data to match the instrument record, the slopes should not match. To compare the two, one might imagine low pass filtering the MLO CO2 data with a comparable lag. The ice core data is insensitive to an epoch of 50 to 100 years, such as that observed in the full MLO record. A computer algorithm is necessary to blend the ice core and instrument records into smooth records.
2. The Hockey Stick advanced by Mann et al. (1998) and revised by the authors in 1999 was, as you note, the featured hallmark of IPCC’s TAR. The Stick erased the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The authors then spliced their overly-smoothed tree-ring temperature reconstruction smoothly into the modern thermometer record. This had the effect of making the temperature record (a) benign before the industrial era and rising with man’s CO2 emissions thereafter, and (b) in the modern era, unprecedented at least for the past millennium. Thus Mann and IPCC produced evidence that (a) man caused the observed temperature rise and (b) that the rate of rise is at an alarming level.
3. IPCC uses the coincidence of the industrial era and the rising temperature as evidence that CO2 causes warming. It uses the fact that the modern records are unprecedented compared to reductions over the last millennium to bolster its conclusion that man is the cause of consequential global warming. These are naïve, unscientific principles. They are corollaries of the clichéd caution that correlation does not establish cause and effect. They do not validate AGW.
4. You can add SO2 to your list of gases IPCC hockey sticked.
5. Following the TAR in 2003, first Soon with Baliunas and then McIntyre with McKitrick published papers critical of the hockey stick reduction. Soon, relying on a variety of regional and local climate indicators, concluded somewhat ambiguously that the MWP and the LIA must have been real, global epochs. McIntyre, correcting several errors discovered in Mann’s analysis, showed that Mann’s Northern Hemisphere method not only produced temperatures greater than the modern era, but did so during the depths of the Little Ice Age. McIntyre’s results are not only critical of Mann’s statistical methods, but call tree-ring reductions into question. That same year, Mann and Jones published a paper sustaining their previous results, and adding somewhat similar results for the Southern Hemisphere and for global temperatures. The major difference in the new reductions was that the dendroclimatology results no longer smoothly blend into the instrument record.
6. The analyses by Soon and McIntyre suggest that Mann and IPCC manufactured evidence for their claims.
7. IPCC briefly reported the controversy in AR4, but did not withdraw Mann’s hockey stick reduction. It retained the hockey stick reduction, but obscured it by burying it in a spaghetti graph of a dozen or so contemporary reductions. In addition, IPCC provided new definitions for the MWP and the LIA. In the First Assessment Report of 1990, the temperature anomaly circa 1975 was about 0.09ºC (interpreted from subsequent IPCC’s charts), the MWP contained the maximum of about 0.47ºC, and the LIA contained the minimum of -0.61ºC, each global over the period of 900 to 1975. IPCC now defined the MWP simply as being warmer than the LIA, and vice versa, and applicable just to the Northern Hemisphere. By definition now, Mann et al.’s analysis was appropriately regional, and no longer deleted these two epochs.
8. Prof. Alley’s AGU talk was IPCC Animated and Prognosticated. He denied that the best model for Total Solar Radiation could predict the Global Average Surface Temperature, when that has been demonstrated with an accuracy comparable to the variability of the smoothed temperature record itself. He ignored the solubility of CO2 in water, and that at Vostok, CO2 record accurately followed the temperature record according to Henry’s Law. He never mentioned cloud albedo, the most powerful feedback in climate. He ignored that it is a negative feedback to climate sensitivity, for which he gave IPCC’s open loop values. He also dismissed cloud albedo as a positive feedback to solar variations, which IPCC also evaluated open loop. He dismissed that positive feedback in reliance on Svensmark’s galactic cosmic ray conjecture, never recognizing the cloud burn-off effect, nor published correlations between GAST and GCRs and between GAST and TSI. He never mentioned water vapor, the dominant GHG, and that its effect is strongly temperature dependent according to the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. To his credit, he alluded to post AR4 evidence for acidification by atmospheric CO2. However, he never mentioned that the model for CO2 acidification, based on the quantitative Bjerrum theory, requires à priori that the surface layer of the ocean absurdly be in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Hi Jeff (Glassman), as always you offer a carefully considered response to what others say. Thanks for your contribution (March 27th at 9:51 pm) and I agree when you say “ .. that process low pass filters the records mechanically in the range of many decades to many centuries .. ” if by “that process” you mean the diffusion of air molecules within the firn when the pockets, pores and interconnecting channels are much larger than the diameter of the individual gas molecules, allowing normal Fickian diffusion to take place.
The process that I am focussing on is the preferential size-dependent fractionation of CO2 at a much later stage when the pores and channels are approaching the size of those different molecules, Fickian diffusion no longer applies and molecule kinetic rather than collision diameter must be taken into consideration. That is where I believe researchers like Severinghaus and Huber have misled themselves. They recognised the process of preferential fractionation of molecules with smaller diameters and concluded that there was a critical molecular diameter of 0.36nm above which fractionation did not occur. The collision and kinetic diameters of each of most atmospheric gases are very similar it makes little difference which measure is used so their oversight made little difference for those gases. Because CO2 has a collision diameter of 0.39nm they paid no further attention to it, however, CO2 has a far smaller kinetic diameter of 0.33nm. This means that it can happily continue escaping long after the others are trapped.
During the very gradually process of air being “trapped” in the air pockets deep in the ice there is a progressive reduction in diameter of the pores in the “walls” of the pockets and of the channels that interconnect pockets as they are compressed by the increasing weight of falling and compacting snow. As I said before, N2, O2, Ar and CH4 all have larger kinetic diameters than CO2 which can migrate through the ice when the others gases are prevented from doing so. As a consequence the CO2 record is not only low-pass filtered along with the other air components but subsequently is able to continue escaping from pockets long after the larger molecules are trapped. As well as being low-pass filtered, the air “trapped” in the pockets after complete close-off has been depleted for those gases having smaller diameters, like CO2, and the air above is enriched.
This process is one of the several that distort the historic record to provide the false “hockey stick” impression of relatively consistent low levels in the distant past (around 220 – 280ppm) rising steadily to the present time. The inconvenient ice/air age adjustment that is necessary in order to align that false historic record with the recent MLO estimates is another aspect of the attempts to reconstruct past atmospheric CO2 content which warrants careful independent scrutiny, along with the dubious statistical manipulations that are carried out in order to produce the MLO estimates of recent CO2 increase. I hope that McIntyre and McKittrick turn their attention to those too.
I have been searching recently for clear pictures of the ice compression process taking place within the firn and have provided links to several excellent SEM reconstructins on the Climate Conversation blog (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/#comment-46052). Yesterday I found another beautiful ‘photo of a slice through a core at the deep end of the ice. It was shown on the Cambridge-based The Naked Scientists Science Interviews: Science Radio & Science Podcasts blog “Climate Change and Ice Cores” thread, featuring an interview with British Antarctic Survey scientist Dr Eric Wolff. The interviewer was Dr. Chris Smith (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/about-us/who-are-we/chris/), who is qualified in medicine, not a discipline that many of us would associate with climate science.
“The Naked Scientists are a media-savvy group of physicians and researchers from Cambridge University who use radio, live lectures, and the Internet to strip science down to its bare essentials, and promote it to the general public” (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/about-us/). The pedigree of the members can be found on their “Who Are We” thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/about-us/who-are-we/).
You may be interested in the comment that I have posted to The Naked Scientists QUOTE:
Hi Chris, I came across your blog while searching for detailed pictures of ice extracted from deep down an ice sheet. I have a question that has been puzzling me for over a year now and remains unanswered despite asking it of experts in the subject. My question to you in a nut shell is “why do paleo-climatologists use collision diameter in preference to kinetic diameter when considering the migration of air molecules through firn and ice”? Here is some background.
The photo shown on your “Climate Change and Ice Cores” thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/643/) is a beauty as a starter because it clearly shows the air pockets which are claimed to hold air having the same composition as when it was captured from the atmosphere thousands of years ago. This sounds like a wonderful natural archive which simply has to be emptied of air which can then be analysed to provide what Professor Richard Alley refers to as “the gold standard” for exposing the ancient atmospheric make-up to – but is it?
Dr Eric Wolff from the British Antarctic Survey thinks so. When discussing the natural global warming that has occurred since the Little Ice Age (it always warms between ice ages, then cools again towards another one) he says “ .. the arguments about whether global warming is real hinge on four aspects. The first one is the physics that tells us to expect that when we get more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it should get warmer. The second one is whether carbon dioxide has actually increased in the atmosphere, and that’s what I’m best at because that’s what we can see from ice cores. The third one is whether in the past that’s caused climate change. And we can see in the ice cores that at least every time carbon dioxide’s changed in the past, then it has warmed. So there’s no counter evidence .. ”.
Let’s look at each in turn:
– physics tells us that if everything else that controls the mean global temperature remains unchanged then increasing CO2 will cause an insignificant amount of warming amounting to about 1C for a doubling in concentration from 300 to 600ppm. The present atmospheric CO2 content is estimated (from readings on top of an extinct volcano in the “ .. exhaust plume of massive oceanic outgassing in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific .. ” – http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#) to be about 400ppm, having risen from an estimated 300ppm in 1850,
– the ice cores are only able to show us that the concentration of residual CO2 in the air bubbles reduces the lower the bubble is in the ice sheet until a depth is reached when the residual level changes relatively little around a mean value of about 280ppm (Fig 2 in http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html)
– an important piece of information about this has been withheld. “ .. On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air’s CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP — which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition — Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years. .. ” (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php).
I have been researching the second of Dr. Wolff’s points for over a year now, exchanging opinions with experts in relevant fields such as Professor Alley, Professor Jeff Severinghaus, Professor Michael Bender, Professor Hartmut Frank, Professor Zbiniew Jaworowski, Dr. William Connolley (you may know him), etc. I think that is quite a balanced selection of experts and my conclusion, after reading lots and lots of relevant papers, is this. Due to its much smaller kinetic diameter, CO2 is preferentially fractionated out of the air pockets when the escape routes have reduced to a size in the lowest levels of the firn that prevents the escape of the larger N2, O2 and CH4 molecules. This results in the residual air “trapped” in pockets after close-off are depleted in CO2 while the air above is enriched. I say “trapped” because even after close-off it is still possible for further depletion in CO2 to take place due to H-bond breaking through the ice crystal lattice.
If you are interested in more of this you’ll find some on the Climate Conversation blog (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/#comment-46211 and http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/its-not-warming-you-nitwit-its-cooling/#comment-45360.
As I said before, trying to simplify science that is poorly understood is fraught with danger and the processes and drivers of the different global climates. Professor Barry Brook, previously Professor but now Director of Climate Change at Adelaide University said a couple of years ago “ .. There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers. But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem .. ” (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/). The significant part of that comment is “we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers” (Please read the full comment as Professor Brook gets rather upset when readers are unable to ascertain the full context of what he said.)
It strikes me as being perhaps disingenuous to try to imply that only 5% of the science is uncertain by plucking those 100, 95 and 5 lines of evidence out of the air, but it’s a bit like what the IPCC does when trying to quantify “expert opinion”. Maybe Brook has the same attitude as Professor Stephen Schneider “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest” (http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm).
I’d be very interested to know what your opinion is of scientists being what is, in my opinion, simply dishonest. It is scientists like Schneider who make lay people like myself trust “climate” scientists even less than we trust politicians and used-car salespersons. Talking about politicians (and other power-hungry individuals), isn’t that where all of this Catastrophic Anthropogenic Clime Change (CACC) propaganda is coming from?
If anyone can point me towards clear nm-scale reconstructed pictures of ice at any depth in the ice sheet then I’d be very grateful.
OK Jeffrey, destroy my hypothesis and change my opinion that the ice-core “Gold Standard” for reconstructing past atmospheric CO2 concentration is really a “Fools Gold” standard.
BTW, I do appreciate that “ .. molecules are not rigid objects and that the kinetic diameter gives only a rough estimate of the molecular size .. ” (but hey, the CACC argument is all about rough estimates.
Regarding the SO2 “hockey stick”, although it does not seem to relate to the process of preferential size dependent fractionation like CO2 does (SO2 kinetic diameter 0.36nm/collision 0.41nm) have you anything to add to why it is suspect?
Best regards, Pete Ridley
In my previous comment I made reference to the Naked Scientist blog and an interview by Dr. Chris Smith (medical) with Dr. Eric Wolff (British Antarctic Survey). If you are interested in hearing the podcast a download is available at http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38247.0 and the relevant interview starts at 20mins 30secs.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Pete Ridley, Agreeing(?), 3/28/11 2:41 pm
Hey, Pete!
By “that process” I meant the model by which a gas age can be estimated as a function of core depth for any gas. Values for that parameter are sufficient to estimate the time span for the gas released from a sample, given the length of the sample. The trapped gas concentration should be proportional to the integral product of the prevailing gas concentration over at least the time span of the sample with a sampling function. That is the low pass filter.
Investigators sometimes write about this process as if the sampling function were uniform over the time span. Whether that is true or not, uniform ought to be a good, first order approximation, and climate modeling is still searching for a valid first order model. A uniform sampling function ought to produce a first order low pass filter.
If the sampling function is approximately bounded, the width is the lower bound for uncorrelated sampling.
Following your reference to Severinghaus, I found the 2008 paper by Kobashi, Severinghaus, and Kawamura, Argon and nitrogen isotopes of trapped air, etc.. Hasn’t Severinghaus gone much further with the model than you give him credit? He and the others discuss several mechanisms for gas mobility, including thermal fractionation, and both lateral and vertical modes. They speak of gas leaking during close-off, losses due to fracturing, and losses during coring and storage, and, presumably, analysis.
You use the phrase “complete close-off”, (“sealing”, too, in Kobashi, et al.), but in light of the above, does that ever exist? Your argument, too, seems to be that it does not. Along that line of inquiry, I have a problem with the simple notion of a fixed number, like 0.39 nm, for porosity. I would feel more comfortable with that number stated as the mean.
Doesn’t your concern about molecule size reflect on the calibration of the ice core results? It would affect the proportionality factor use in my integral, above. I presume that your work would in some sense improve the curve of ice age as a function of depth, as well as the conversion from sample concentration to atmospheric average.
I don’t follow your argument that these diffusion and fractionation considerations show that ice cores tend to produce hockey sticks. For the one truly important curve, CO2, the Vostok reductions have lots of character, which is significant compared to the temperature reduction. However, an improved calibration isn’t going to change the first order conclusion that ice core CO2, like other gas analyses, is heavily low pass filtered, and should not blend smoothly into the instrument record, even as it has been subjected to heavy-handed processing to produce the Keeling Curve.
The SIM photos are great.
Re sulphate, IPCC co-plots SO2 and SO4^2- in TAR, Technical Summary, Figure 8, p. 36. It plots SO4^2- alone in AR4, Figure 6.15, p. 480. In each case, IPCC blends, pastes, or co-plots ice core reductions to make heavily low-pass filtered reconstructions match smoothly into nearly instantaneous instrument records. IPCC did not intend its Reports to be complete or scientific, and they succeed in both regards with these hockey stick representations.
You asked why these IPCC are suspect. Here are three reasons.
(1) Low pass filtered data will not match unfiltered data. Low pass filtering occurs in ice cores because of the gas dependent aperture effect below the firn. The molecule size, porosity, and temperature profile are parameters that affect the depth at which the aperture effect occurs, but not the ultimate existence of the aperture, given sufficient pressure. That the calibration of ice age with depth might be improved is neither doubted nor relevant in the first order. The fools gold can be taken at face value.
(2) Data from different methods, as in proxies and instruments, should be portrayed honestly and quantitatively. Calibrating, smoothing, blending, and graphing to create visual correlation, a subjective illusion, is dishonest, and in dealing with the public, unethical. Any reduced, blended composite representation should be shown separately, clearly as the investigator’s subjective interpretation, and best as an overlay to data close to the raw state.
(3) IPCC’s hockey stick message is that man is affecting climate. It relies on the naïve and quite unscientific principle that correlation establishes cause and effect, and its corollary, the unprecedented principle. That man developed instruments to measure climate early in the industrial era is not a coincidence.
Climatology needs to be candled not by peer review, but by its higher authority, science.
Pete Ridley, Agreeing(?), 3/28/11 2:41 pm
My description of “that process” is misleading. I have the right number of functions but in the logical wrong order, and I gave the kernel in the integral an unfortunate name of a sampling function. It is better described as a smoothing function.
Consider the actual CO2 concentration at Vostok over its time span. Then if we had a decompressed ice core, the CO2 concentration below the firn would be a version of the actual concentration, filtered by the smoothing function. It might be uniform to a first approximation. It might have rounded ends because the closure is a gradual decrease in porosity relative to the molecule size. Regardless, the concentration along the decompressed ice core would be the actual concentration smoothed by that function. Now recompress the ice core, cut it into samples, and measure the gas concentration.
The difference is that my first description in the post above can be falsely read as attributing the low pass filtering to the fact that the sample has a non-zero length. The low pass filtering is in the concentration recorded in the core, and even if the core could be read with samples of infinitesimal width, the low pass filtering would be present.
This is difficult to describe for lack of references that give the actual sample widths and the actual gas age algorithm corresponding to the published Vostok data. In my model, the ice at any depth contains CO2 both older and younger than the ice age. This seems to taken into account by the gas age, although the gas age also seems to dated as if the smoothing were one-sided, looking back in time relative to the ice age.
“That process” is equivalent to sampling the actual data with an unrealizable low pass smoothing filter, that is, one that looks ahead in time as well as back in time because of the mechanics of firn closure. The fact that the samples have width introduces an averaging effect in addition to that from firn closure.
Jeff;
Your repetition of the “low pass filtering” phrase is a bit obscure for us non-rocket-scientists. I take it that you mean, in effect, smearing of the CO2 types and quantities above and below the sampled level. Carried to extreme, this suggests there would be one low peak somewhere in the record, and a shallow straight slope to the low point.
So the Vostok (or any ice core) record isn’t jagged enough to give detailed information, and suppresses all phenomena narrower than the average smearing width.
Is that close enough?
Brian H, 4/2/11, 6:08 am, Agreeing?
But not climatologists, pro or amateur. Low pass filtering is just one more bit of science adopted into climatology. (In this regard, do see my response to Fred Moolten, 3/28/11, 7:55 pm, on An essay on the current state etc.) As to your question, IPCC has a one page tutorial on Low-Pass Filters and Linear Trends, AR4, Appendix 3.A, that should provide the answer. Here’s a postage stamp size tutorial.
In short, a low pass filter allows the constant part of a signal to go through while rejecting high frequency components.
In engineering terms, you’ll hear the constant part called the DC, standing for direct current. The high frequency components are often, and regularly in climatology, the parts identified as variability. The meaning of high depends on the application and the choice of the investigator. The low pass filter can be extremely simple, or quite complex. These are called low order and high order, respectively, and the lowest order are often called first order.
Low pass filtering causes a time delay and an attenuation. The time delay is a transient effect to the output, and it causes a ramp at the input to lag in time. The attenuation depends on the frequency of the input signal variations, which is the essence of the filter: the higher the frequency of a variable component, the greater the attenuation. The primary and corresponding characteristics of low pass filters are its time constant and its variance (not variability) reduction ratio.
Averaging, smoothing and trend lines are all examples of low pass filtering.
All detectors are low pass filters because they must have a time aperture over which the signal is collected. Even instantaneous thermometers are not instantaneous. Modern CO2 analysis is a low pass filter with a time constant equal to the time required to collect the sample, which is as much as a minute or two in the manual mode. The variance reduction ratio is inversely proportional to the square root of time aperture.
Ice cores collect air samples over a protracted interval, ranging from a few decades to a few millennia. The variance reduction ratio compared to MLO is on the order of 23,000:1, the square root of the number of minutes in a millennium. The composition of the air in each sample is proportional to the average in the air over that closure interval. All quantities in the air are low pass filtered. The characteristics of the low pass filter are gas dependent, because firn closure depends on molecule size as the core goes through compression, decreasing porosity.
My summary of the Vostok low pass problem is two-fold. One, it can barely respond to an event like the rise in CO2 seen at MLO. The 50 year or so MLO bulge in CO2 would be just a bit of variability at Vostok. Two, the sampling interval at MLO is about 1,300 years, so the chances of even hitting an MLO event is only about 3%. When IPCC says that the modern CO2 concentration is unprecedented over the last 620,000 years, the confidence interval is about 3%. The observation is ludicrous.
Hm, yes, you’re talking about actual, feasible sampling patterns and the availability of detail. Got that. But I guess I also had in mind a kind of physical parallel, in which migration of CO2 within the ice (up, down, and sideways(?) ) would tend to cause “progressive regression to the mean” and loss of information.
Hi Jeff (Glassman) sorry that I’ve taken a while to respond to your comments, which again gave food for thought. Thanks for providing those further explanations of your view of the low-pass filtering process which occurs as a result of measurement sampling. Now let’s talk about my favourite topic, air “trapped in ice” and “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?”.
You said “I found the 2008 paper by Kobashi, Severinghaus, and Kawamura, Argon and nitrogen isotopes of trapped air, etc.. Hasn’t Severinghaus gone much further with the model than you give him credit? He and the others discuss several mechanisms for gas mobility, including thermal fractionation, and both lateral and vertical modes. They speak of gas leaking during close-off, losses due to fracturing, and losses during coring and storage, and, presumably, analysis.”
That paper “Argon and nitrogen isotopes of trapped air .. ” by Kobashi et al. (http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/Kobashi_GCA_methods%201.pdf ) is not of particular relevance to my hypothesis. The following are more of interest:
– “Winter Sampling of Shallow Firn Air at the South Pole to Understand Processes Affecting Firn Atmospheric Histories and Ice Core Gas Records” by Severinghaus (2000),
– “Thermal fractionation of air in polar firn by seasonal temperature gradients” by Severinghaus, Grachev & Battle (2001),
– “ Severinghaus et al. “Fractionation of gases in polar ice during bubble close-off: New constraints from firn air Ne, Kr and Xe observations” by Severinghaus & Battle (2006),
but all follow the same line of reasoning.
The Kobashi et al. paper makes the relevant point that “During the bubble close-off process, smaller molecules such as neon, oxygen, and argon with less than a certain threshold molecular size (3.6A ˚ ) leak out through the ice lattice with little isotopic fractionation. .. it is critically important to understand the gas loss process in order to use gases trapped in ice cores for paleoclimatic studies”. All of those papers suggest to me that the researchers are misled by the use of collision diameter when considering that magic molecule size of 0.36nm. This is why they show little interest in what happens to CO2 when considering the fractionation process during the final stages of firn compression, when air pocket pores and any remaining interconnecting channels are below that 0.36nm diameter.
Regarding that model that Severinghaus helped to developed, although I have not come across any details about its structure it seems primarily to incorporate the rules of Fickian diffusion to address thermal and gravitational fractionation. These are only two of the fractionation processes that distort the reconstruction of past atmospheric CO2 concentration from that air allegedly “trapped” in ice and are not the issue that I am interested in at the moment. Severinghaus said in the 2000 paper “Model calculations .. are based on the measured surface temperature history for this site and the known diffusivities of these gases” but my suspicion is that he was referring to the Fickian diffusion taking place when pores/channel diameters are large compared with the size of the different gas molecules.
Severinghaus and his associates concentrated on isotope rations for different atmospheric gases but paid scant attention to CO2 because they concluded that fractionation of gases with molecular diameters larger than 0.36nm was insignificant. In my opinion they were misled because they considered only collision diameter when they should have used kinetic diameter. As I have pointed out before, the difference for most of the atmospheric gases is insignificant but not for CO2, which has a kinetic diameter of 0,33nm and a collision diameter of 0.39nm. In his E-mail of 24th Dec 2010 Severinghaus said “As you note the diameter of CO2 is larger than that of our inferred effective threshold size of 3.6 angstroms. So one would not expect CO2 to be fractionated, from a theoretical point of view. Taken together these two points suggest that the CO2 records from ice cores are not significantly affected by this process. … Also, in the Huber et al paper, we wrote that our findings support the integrity of the records of large-molecule gases such as CO2 from ice cores”.
It seems that Severinghaus had skipped through what I said in my earlier E-mail to him and overlooked my suggestion that kinetic (not collision) diameter was appropriate during the later stages of firn compaction. I think it worthwhile quoting some of what I had said QUOTE:
Your own research seems to support my own opinion that Jaworowski could be correct to the extent that the different atmospheric gases are fractionated preferentially according to their molecular size. Your 2006 papers .. provide evidence for it but at that stage you weren’t looking at CO2. I wonder of you have done so since then or is your research only concerned about noble gases, as suggested on your “Research Interests”? The validity of those reconstructions is vitally important yet it appears that no research has focussed on whether or not CO2 is preferentially fractionated in a manner similar to that of Ne.
Your research used a model that “presumes that fractionation is caused by selective permeation of gas through the ice lattice from slightly overpressured bubbles. The effect appears to be size-dependent, because Ne, O2 and Ar have smaller effective molecular diameters than N2, and fractionation increases strongly with decreasing size. Ne is fractionated 34±2 times more than O2 in South Pole firn air and reaches an enrichment of 90‰ in the deepest sample. The large atoms Kr and Xe do not appear to be fractionated by this process, despite the large size difference between the two gases, suggesting a threshold atomic diameter of 3.6Å above which the probability becomes very small that the gas will escape from the bubble”.
The diameters estimated for atmospheric gases (collision/kinetic in Å) are:-
O2 = 3.5 /3.5; CH4 = 3.8 /3.8; N2= 3.8/3.6; CO2 = 3.9/3.3. Ne = 3.4?/2.55?*(I haven’t been able to confirm these sizes – * subsequently found to be 2.82/2.75).
It appears to me that collision diameter is relevant during the time in the firn that pores are much larger than the molecules .. however, as the firn is further compressed until it becomes nano-porous it is the kinetic diameter that becomes relevant. As compression increases during that nano-porous stage pores will eventually become too small for any but the smallest gases to pass, i.e. CO2 and smaller. In other words, CO2 will be preferentially fractionated over N2 and O2, hence distorting the composition of the finally trapped air as well as enriching the air above.
UNQUOTE.
It would be interesting to know what the result would be if Severinghaus ran his model using kinetic instead of collision diameter but he never responded to that question.
You ask “ .. “complete close-off .. does that ever exist? .. ” but I have no feel for the size or extent of fractures within the ice to make a judgement on that. All that I can say is that such a condition will be approached but how closely I (and probably the “experts” themselves) do notr know. You also said “ .. I have a problem with the simple notion of a fixed number, like 0.39 nm, for porosity. I would feel more comfortable with that number stated as the mean”. First a minor correction – the magic diameter is 0.36nm not 0.39 (that is the estimated collision diameter of CO2), then, aren’t the “experts” on this issue always really talking about means and estimates rather than absolutes?
I haven’t yet considered any aspect of the calibration of the ice core results but I seem to recall Professor Hartmut Frank or Jaworowski making a comment about that in one of their E-mails. If you don’t mind I’d rather leave that for now because I’d rather concentrate on all of the different processes that distort the historical record from the time that air is collected in falling snow through its very long journey to the bottom of an ice sheet. That should keep me going until I say cheerio to this wonderful world I’ve enjoyed for 74 years.
One of the areas of interest for me regarding the” .. curve of ice age as a function of depth .. ” is why it levels out at about 275ppm at the deepest levels. I commented on this recently (March 25, 2011 at 9:14 am) on the New Zealand Climate Conversation Group’s “Fallen Snow” thread (http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/fallen-snow/#comment-46719) – a search on * will take you to the relevant bit. I think that there is a lot more to that “steady level” suddenly starting to rise when the industrial revolution started that our use of fossil fuels.
Regarding my “ .. argument that these diffusion and fractionation considerations show that ice cores tend to produce hockey sticks. .. ”, in my ignorance I put this down in part to the very very slow process of size-dependent CO2 migration depleting the lower lower levels and enriching the higher. I’ve no doubt there are significant flaws in that line of reasoning but I find it reassuring that even the IPCC’s “experts” have to speculate frequently about processes and drivers of global climates.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
Regarding point 5 of Zeke’s assessment of what is extremely likely:
“The majority of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations since pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. This is confirmed both by the isotopic signature of the carbon and the fact that concentrations rise proportionate to emissions.”
Submarine volcano activity is always dismissed as a significant contributor to atmospheric CO2. I really don’t understand why and I have never really found a good source explaining why. To summarize my reasoning for entertaining a contrary view:
There seems to be lots of dissolved CO2 in magma. Kilauea in Hawaii appears to be emitting 8,500 tons of CO2 per day (.0031 Gtpa). For comparison, the Wikipedia estimate for global CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is 30 Gtpa. Thus Kilauea contributes approximately .01% of CO2 compared to that from burning fossil fuels. Also for comparison, Mount Etna emits 10 times as much CO2 as Kilauea. And the recent eruption in Iceland (Eyjafjallajökull) was apparently emitting about 20-40 times more CO2 per day than Kilauea. Wikipedia says the Eyjafjallajökull eruption was relatively small for volcanic eruptions.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFM.V22E..10G
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iFlK7AFMG1W1EKOCEcsMnheg0oow
There must be lots of submarine volcanoes spewing magma. Logic tells me that volcanic activity under the oceans should dwarf volcanic activity on land:
– Seventy percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by the oceans.
– The Earth’s crust is thinnest under the oceans.
– Sea-floor spreading and many tectonic faults occur under the oceans.
– The OSU website estimates 1 million submarine volcanoes. Watts and Hillier estimate 3.5 million submarine volcanoes.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/submarine
http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~tony/watts/downloads/HillierWatts2007GL029874.pdf
What evidence is there for submarine volcano activity? It’s been said that we know more about the topography of the moon than we do about some parts of the ocean floor. A recent expedition along a very small section of the Gakkel Ridge by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found a lot of volcanoes and evidence of a lot of recent explosive volcanic activity, including evidence that large amounts of CO2 had probably been emitted into the ocean.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=81bb2fd3-63f1-476f-b0be-f48c0dc90304
How much CO2 might be emitted from all submarine volcanoes? Well, if you multiply the Kilauea CO2 figure (Kilauea must have been a submarine volcano in the past) by the OSU estimate of 1 million submarine volcanoes, the result is 3,100 Gtpa. Is this a reasonable computation? I have no idea, but you can see this number is 100 times greater than the anthropogenic number. If this value fluctuated by 1%, the change would equal the anthropogenic CO2 contribution.
Direct emission is not the only way undersea magma can generate CO2. Woods Hole has found magma flowing over wide areas of the Guaymas Basin in the Gulf of California, reacting with organic sediments to produce substantial quantities of CO2 (and methane). The magma is also disrupting the natural sequestration of carbon. “Soule suspects the Gulf of California is far from the only place on the planet where this phenomenon is occurring. He says there are “lots of places”, including the Red Sea, with similar characteristics.”
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/52549-strange-magma-eruptions-could-affect-worlds-climate
I have no idea what’s happening with all this undersea CO2, whether the carbon precipitates out and falls to the sea floor or whether it is able to reach the surface and out-gas to the atmosphere. I have no idea what “fingerprint” this CO2 might have. I have no idea what kind of fluctuations might occur in submarine volcano activity from decade to decade and century to century. I haven’t seen any articles that discuss this. But I have seen articles that state that CO2 out-gassing from the oceans to the atmosphere is an order of magnitude greater than CO2 produced from anthropogenic sources. And I have seen articles that suggest that CO2 in the oceans is increasing.
It seems to me there is a lot of uncertainty related to CO2 from submarine volcanoes.
It is really a great and helpful piece of info. I? glad that you shared this helpful information with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.
So sick of sepo AWG deniers posting their minority of spurious sources that always ultimately link to the same dodgy organisations and their dodgy scientists. Record polar ice cap melt dick heads… absolute correlation between Co2 and temperature rise… Deal with it…. Plant forests, protect wild areas, limit population growth, move of fossil fuels, limit carbon emissions. Good ideas for multitudes of strategic and future proofing reasons, let alone climate change. Just accept the reality, stop listening to crack pots and vested interest shills, and get on with the job… People who believe that 911 was a con job have more evidence and a more plausible hypothesis than these climate change is a myth kooks.
If you aren’t sure what to perform, ask an obvious
professional to have a very look on the definite bluehost renewal coupon the civitas insitute’s board
chair, far-right businessman bob luddy, was the single largest individual contributor for the campaigns with the four newly
elected, republican-backed school board members.
the gospels a North Face UK ccording GHDs Outlet to the dick cheney apost
The opportunities described on these pages have been supported by the Andrew W. Mellon Fou GHDs Outlet ndation, the Freeman Foundation, the Weissberg Foundation, individual donors, and internal sources. GUELPH Guelph Soccer has become an affiliate of the Hamilton