by Judith Curry
Later this week, the Royal Society is hosting a Workshop on Handling Uncertainty in Weather and Climate Prediction, With Application to Health, Agronomy, Hydrology, Energy and Economics.
The web page for the workshop is [here.] From the website:
This meeting follows on from the 2010 Anniversary Discussion Meeting on “Handling Uncertainty in Science” but with a focus on weather and climate prediction and downstream applications. How is uncertainty represented in weather and climate prediction? How reliable are representations of uncertainty? How can decision makers in weather and climate sensitive sectors make useful decisions in the light of uncertain input? Are current ensemble weather and climate prediction systems useful for decision making across a variety of application sectors? How should probability forecasts be presented to the public?
The agenda and list of speakers can be found [here]. I am unfamiliar with about 70% of the speakers, which makes this an exciting conference for me with the prospect of learning new things. The collection of abstracts can be found here [RS abstracts]
I am giving a talk entitled ‘Climate models: fit for what purpose?’ A link to my draft presentation is found here [RS uncertainty 12]. My presentation doesn’t cover a lot of new ground relative to material that I’ve presented previously, but it makes a slightly different argument than I’ve previously made. In particular, it responds to the recent report from the NRC National Strategy for Advancing Climate Models.
Here are the main points from my presentation:
Model credibility and fitness for purpose
Credibility: linked to the model and simulations themselves (expertise and trust)
Fitness for Purpose: suitability and confidence with regards to the (potentially) many uses of the model and simulations.
The user will treat simulation results as ‘fit’ when there is enough evidence that it fulfills its intended purpose, so that useful decisions can be made about the system of interest.
Climate models: fit for decision support?
CO2 mitigation policies:
- GCMs have a role to play, but large ensembles from lower order models with interactive carbon cycle may be the better solution for determining sensitivity
Regional climate change:
- Little to no skill here; increased resolution not helping
- Dynamical & statistical downscaling adds little value
- Many extreme weather events not explicitly simulated
- Depends on poorly simulated modes of natural internal variability
Decision making under uncertainty
The decision-analytic framework influences how climate models are used and developed.
The current focus on the precautionary principle and optimal decision making is driving climate model development & applications in directions for which they are not fit.
Summary
The objective of improving climate models for societal needs is based upon three dubious premises:
- climate models are fit for this purpose
- climate models are useful for this purpose
- climate models are the best choice for this purpose
GCMs are currently incapable of simulating:
- Regional climate variability and change
- Network of teleconnection climate regimes on DEC-CEN timescales
- Predictions of emergent phenomena, e.g. abrupt climate change
It is unlikely that the current path of development will improve this
Fundamental issues for climate models: with the focus on societal needs and the large investment in IPCC production runs, climate models are becoming less fit for the purpose of increasing our understanding of the climate system
Recommendations
Re-orient the science-policy interface to decision making under deep uncertainty, robust decision making and scenario thinking
Re-orient climate modeling development and applications to support the creation of a broad range of future scenarios
- refocus climate model development to emergent phenomena, extreme events, and natural internal variability
- emphasis on ensemble size
More complete exploration of climate model uncertainty, including unknowns and model structural uncertainty
JC comment: Assuming that the presentations are available online, I will post them, and will have at least one additional thread on this Workshop in the coming week. I would appreciate any comments that you have on my presentation.
Heisenberg uncertainty principle ruined clarity of the classic physics. Hansen ain’t Heisenberg.
Thank you, thank you, vukcevic, for trying to explain the Sun’s dominant control of Earth and its inhabitants to those who seriously believe their climate models can meet societal needs !
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Contents.htm
Societal needs are increasing, and the delusion of control has justifiably destroyed the reputations of world leaders and their scientific advisors.
Heisenberg didn’t “ruin” the clarity of classical physics; he merely indicated the limits of its precision. The fanciful mistakes that Hansen makes lie not in the subtle nuances of Heisenberg uncertainty, but in the gross violations of laws of deterministic physics, classical thermodynamics in particular.
You are right on target, John S.
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-1127
Prezackly. Not to mention treating raw data files as inviolate.
I wonder if they will have any engineers and economists who are not tainted by being part of the CAGW advocacy crowd.
Excellent!
That may well be true but what should we conclude from that.
What should be done if we accept (not everyone accepts) that the highly negative outcomes should be given much more weight that less negative ones but that we should still consider only outcomes shown to be credible and have some non-negligible likelihood.
It appears highly plausible that climate models perform badly in describing the most negative credible outcomes and in estimating their likelihoods.
I repeat: What should we conclude from that?
Conclude with respect to what, Pekka? That the models perform badly is already a conclusion.
Conclude on all aspects of the interplay between models and decision making, i.e. on the present and future role of the models in supporting decision making as well as on the pressure put on the future work to improve the models to make them better in answering questions most important for decision making.
I am afraid that “all aspects of the interplay between models and decision making” involves millions of people, including everyone here, so probably either no conclusion can be drawn or millions of conclusions can be drawn, none very interesting.
Well this is the point of my presentation. We need to take a look at the black swans and dragon king possibilities, and assess the real (i.e. local) implications of these, and whether there are cost effective ways of reducing our vulnerability. Since climate models do a bad job of identifying these scenarios, we need to look at the historical and paleo record of extreme events, and also use the scenario falsification approach in line with possibility theory. This is the gist if my presentation, if you actually look at the slides.
Dr. Curry,
You don’t need to go to far into historical records to prove that experts often could be wrong, as this simple calculation shows for the Keeling’s assertion that ‘stronger tides are associated with cooler surface water.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-T.htm
Judith,
I haven’t read your presentation yet, but have a suggestion. I suggest we (politicians, funders, NGO’s research bodies, etc) are placing too much emphasis on the science and insufficient on the economics. I suggest, there should be more emphasis on models like Nordhaus’s RICE and DICE. I’d like to see models like these used to direct where the research funding and effort should be focused. I expect there should be more focus on reducing the uncertainty in the inputs for the two parameters Nordhaus calls ‘Damage Function’ and ‘Rate of Decarbonisation’ (see Table 7-2 here: http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf ).
I am all in favor of more economic analysis, but my proposed approach is the opposite of reducing uncertainty. I propose that we expand the scenarios we are considering, and look at the vulnerabilities associated with these scenarios along with possible solutions. I don’t regard the CO2 stabilization policy strategy as being of much use, especially on time scales out to 50 years, which is the more relevant time frame for most decisions.
OK. I understand now. That sounds like an excellent approach. I’ll read your draft presentation tomorrow.
Judith,
BTW, totally off topic, but I wonder if you could take a quick look at this link: https://theconversation.edu.au/wind-power-why-is-south-australia-so-successful-9706
It is a thread on “The Conversation”, a web site that is supposedly for academics only and only academics can post articles on it. The reason I am pointing it out to you is as an example of what happens with unlimited nesting levels. This thread is now down to about 20 or 30 levels.
[The deepest thread is where I am in discussion (argument) with an accountant about the cost of renewable energy to power Australia’s electricity grid].
I realise you are not proposing to use unlimited nesting levels, but it shows what happens at one end of the spectrum. I argue that any level of nesting is a problem, and no levels is best.
No need to respond, it’s just a point for your consideration.
Pekka Pirrila,
I keep hoping, to no avail, you could get past the irrational anti-nuke scaremongering nonsense you keep sprouting straight for Greenpeace, et al. But alas, I recognise that won’t happen. And most other CAGW alarmist are of the same persuasion. Tat is the dilemma, not what you think it is.
Pekka Pirila,
Why is that an issue for now? Why is that a valid argument to delay progress (such as educating the population about the truth)? Why do you raise it as if it is an issue for now? That’s just FUD!
I’ve corrected you on that previously. Why do you bring it up again? It’s more FUD. You know as well as I do that the quantity of the resource expands at the rate we explore for it. Nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited for the foreseeable future. We’ll get breeders as soon as it become economical to do so. USA ran an IFR for 35 years until it was shut down by Jimmy Carter for political reasons.
That is a statement of nuclear phobia. It is not objective. It is your ideology speaking. How can you argue, objectively, we should block a safer technology because it is not perfectly safe, and by so doing advocate we use less safe technology. It is illogical.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html
Judith,
I read your presentation last night. Brilliant! It’s a major change in direction for policy; I copped onto what you are advocating as a result of your comment. Thank you.
My brain has been very active while asleep. I’ve woken up bursting with thoughts.
I’ll try to get some of them down here.
What you are advocating is excellent and a necessary re-orientation for the science policy interface, IMO, to “decision making under deep uncertainty, robust decision making and scenario thinking”. What you advocates also aligns with what Faustino and Pekka Pirila have been advocating – i.e. that it is pointless to implement policies with an intended life of more than a decade or so. They won’t survive. Kyoto Protcol and the various ETS demonstrate this.
At the moment I cannot offer any suggestions for improving your presentation, so I’ll jump straight into how to apply it. [I’d like to see/hear a video of your presentation].
Premises:
1. There is no point having a focus beyond 1 to 5 decades.
2. Centrally implemented and controlled policies will not survive for much more than a decade
3. Looked at objectively, CO2 emissions is a low order risk facing us for at least 50 years and probably longer.
4. A richer world is much better placed to handle threats than a poorer world.
Risks with the worst consequences for people in a region (like a city):
1. Loss of water supply
2. Loss of food supply
3. loss of energy supply
4. Loss of access to money
5. Loss of shelter
6. Loss of law and order
7. Economic recession/depression
Risk > consequences:
1. Loss of water supply > death of most people in a city within a week. Could be caused by disruption of electricity supply, poisoning of water supply, or long severe drought combined with poor management of water storages.
2. Loss of food supply > death of most people in a city within about 2-4 weeks. Could be caused by loss of electricity supply (disrupts money system, ATMs and banks don’t work, shop doors can’t open, people can’t get to work, no transport fuel available so no way to escape from the city)
3. Loss of energy supply > immediate disruption of water supply, access to money, food supply, transport fuels.
4. Loss of access to money > can’t buy food, can’t buy transport fuels. So can’t escape from the city to where there is fresh water.
5. Loss of shelter – less severe than the other threats mentioned above
6. Loss of law and order (see next)
7. Economic recession/depression > high unemployment > leads to social dysfunction > vandalism, looting, violence, may escalate to civil war and ultimately to wars between nation states.
These are the major risks facing communities, not CO2 emissions.
Some possible local impacts of global warming:
• improved or reduced crop yields
• increased or decreased average rainfall
• more or less severe weather events
• more severe or less severe and longer or shorter droughts
• Sudden sea level rise threat to ports and coastal cities
• Run out of water storage (e.g. for inland cities like Canberra)
• Murray Darling Basin – long, severe drought > Snowy Mountains water storage mismanaged so it runs out of water for irrigation. [This nearly happened in the drought leading up to 2007. By 2007, storage was down to 20%. This was in part due to mismanagement. The governments (federal and three states) that own Snowy Hydro wanted to privatise it. The accountants were in charge and over rode the engineers and hydrologists. The accountants wanted to generate and sell as much electricity as they could to make Snowy Hydro look more profitable so the governments could sell it for the best price they could get. So they released more water than they should have. We went close to ruining much of the Murray-Darling irrigation area.]
Solutions?
No one has all the answers. But I am convinced that cheap, reliable energy supply is one of the major components of the solution. A cheap, reliable energy supply would allow us (eventually) to have a reliable water supply (e.g. for irrigation) thus mitigating to some extent the effect of droughts. Cheap energy would allow the poor countries to develop faster so they could afford better infrastructure, like water supply. Cheap energy supports faster economic growth > more employment > less social disruption.
How could cheap, reliable energy be made available to the world?
The USA could make this happen. For example, the USA could remove the shackles on nuclear power. The USA has the knowledge, the expertise, the ability to innovate and the ability to ramp up production. It has, to a greater extent than any other country, the entrepreneurial culture that is needed to make this happen. What is blocking progress is the anti-nukes (like Greens, Greenpeace, WWF, FoE and the many other influential anti-nuke groups). The radiation phobia and nuclear paranoia that is prevalent in the general public could be turned around within less than a decade if the anti-nukes led the way. The anti-nukes are responsible for preventing progress. They could reverse this.
Peter,
My view on looking at the long term issues is more complex than may be interpreted from your reference to it – and it involves a dilemma. (You are not really explicit on that. Thus I say only that many may interpret my views erroneously.)
I have three separate views that lead to the dilemma when put together:
1) It’s important to have long term consequences in mind and to take them into account.
2) In preparing policy decisions or other important decisions one must use quantitative analysis as far as possible.
3) Available methods of economic analysis lose rapidly validity with increasing time span and become worthless is some number of decades (how many, depends on the case).
The dilemma is that I consider it very important to do something for which we do not have valid methods.
The solution must be in searching something of the nature of robustness also in the methods of economic analysis. That means in practice that the methods must be technically rather simple but at the same time chosen and used with great care. To get useful input to the analysis we must analyze the mechanisms of long term societal and economic change where natural adaptation to new conditions is the most dominant single factor (and a factor that is either disregarded or handled very crudely by some model parameters in standard analysis).
If I would know the answer to the dilemma I would, of course, tell it but I have only vague ideas. It’s a difficult one. Economists have studied it under certain assumptions like effectively unrestricted growth, but the available methods are not acceptable for issues like threat of climate change or limits on resources at level that are likely to materialize in almost foreseeable future.
Pekka Pirila,
Sorry if I didn’t provide enough explanation of your thinking on this matter. I didn’t mean to misrepresent you, if I did. Thank you for expanding.
Pekka Pirila,
Thank you for your comment. I’d like to discuss the dilemma some more.
I have lots of questions and comments. Here is a start:
1. I wonder to what extent the dilemma is a personal belief, or faith, in CAGW?
2. Do we have persuasive evidence that AGW is catastrophic or dangerous or even that the costs will exceed the benefits for many decades? Some say the benefits will exceed the costs for many decades. Do we want to give up those benefits to try to avoid a very uncertain cost in the far future, especially given that the future will be better able to deal with the problem if it occurs than we are now?
3. I suggest there is a robust solution available for a large part of the problem. However, it is blocked by irrational fears and paranoia – and by ideology. There is a relatively simple solution, IMO. Educate the people so they have a proper understanding of the issues and the irrational beliefs their paranoi is based on. Once they have objective information the vast majority would reject their irrational fears and paranoia. It’s relatively easy problem to solve. It could be achieved more quickly if the Greens and the so called ‘environmental’ NGO’s would lead the re-education program.
4. I recognise, of course, it will take time. However it is a major part of a solution that will allow us to cut global emissions by the amounts advocated and be economically beneficial rather than economically damaging. It ticks all boxes. It is economically rational, ‘no regrets’, cuts emissions, safer and improves energy security. What more could we you want?
5. Given the above, the issue is not with modelling. It is with ideology and politics and can be fixed by education.
6. Next, remove the impediments blocking low-cost nuclear (to the extent appropriate) and allow the market and competition to do the rest.
7. Therefore, your dilemma is solved. No more science is needed. No more economic analysis of the costs and benefits of AGW and of mitigation policies is needed.
8. Doesn’t this provide a significant component of a robust solution? If not why not?
Peter,
1) The dilemma is more general. In related fields it applies also to resource limitations (both non-renewable and renewable) vs. growth.
2) I have often stated that I accept the basic idea of precautionary principle but require that there’s some evidence to show that the likelihood of severe outcomes exceeds some threshold. For some risks the likelihood of 1:100 and even a lower likelihood could make some risks worth taking major preventive or mitigating actions (more limited actions are worthwhile at still lower levels of likelihood, e.g. measures to prevent nuclear accidents take very low likelihoods into account). This means that I don’t expect anything approaching certainty, only a likelihood that may in some cases be rather low.
3) For the rest. Nuclear energy is certainly a good choice in many ways, but there are more real problems in addition of the ill justified fears than you want to see. Either breeders or fusion is needed to make nuclear a really long term alternative. The amount of uranium ore of high enough grade for use in thermal uranium based reactors is not so plentiful that it would last very long in worldwide use.
Breeders have been constructed and as far I know one or two Soviet era breeder reactors are still operational, but breeders are not really ready for large scale use, neither is the required fuel cycle.
Thorium is another interesting option not ready for commercial use.
For nuclear energy to remain viable accidents like Tshernobyl and Fukushima must be prevented very effectively. That’s true in spite of the fact that the number of casualties and the extent of other damage is less than corresponding damages caused by many other forms of energy relative to the amount of energy produced by each form of generation.
Pekka Pirrila,
I keep hoping, to no avail, you could get past the irrational, anti-nuke, scaremongering nonsense you keep sprouting straight from Greenpeace, et al. talking points
But alas, you’ve reconfirmed that won’t happen. And most other CAGW alarmist are of the same persuasion. That is the dilemma, not what you think it is.
Peter,
I really cannot understand your interpretation of my views on nuclear – but then – that has happened before.
Pekka Pirila,
You said:
Because you continually repeat the standard anti-nuke talking points. Here are some examples from your comment above (which I’ve corrected you on many times before):
Why is that an issue for now? Why is that a valid argument to delay progress (such as educating the population about the truth)? Why do you raise it as if it is an issue for now? That’s just FUD!
I’ve corrected you on that previously. Why do you bring it up again? It’s more FUD. You know as well as I do that the quantity of the resource expands at the rate we explore for it. Nuclear fuel is effectively unlimited for the foreseeable future. We’ll get breeders as soon as it become economical to do so. USA ran an IFR for 35 years until it was shut down by Jimmy Carter for political reasons.
That is a statement of nuclear phobia. It is not objective. It is your ideology speaking. How can you argue, objectively, we should block a safer technology because it is not perfectly safe, and by so doing advocate we use less safe technology. It is illogical.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html
Is anyone discussing intrinsic unpredictability due to nonlinear dynamics? You might at least mention it. This concept desperately needs further development. How do we measure the limits to predictability? Can we? How do we communicate it? This is as fundamental as questions get.
Tim Palmer is addressing that issue to some extent, as is Lenny Smith. But this is really an underlying theme of the WOrkshop, how do you communicate this and make decisions in this context.
The problem with being an underlying theme is that the issue is not actually addressed.
well it is the starting point, everyone in the room accepts the challenges associated with uncertainty.
Uncertainty is a very broad topic, while I am referring to a very specific form which can be studied in isolation and should be.
Halley did it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley's_Comet
David, did he get a big grant to do it too?
Can’t touch this.
Not sure what your point is Tom. Halley did not know about nonlinear dynamics as the math was only discovered by Poincare around 1910. Nor is the comet’s orbit strongly chaotic, unlike the weather and climate.
Regarding the recommendation to “Re-orient the science-policy interface…” this is not possible as it is a large social system. Perhaps you can be more precise.
My point is that optimal decision making in context of precautionary principle has brought us to policy gridlock – this approach is fundamentally unsuited to a wicked mess like climate change. Decision making under deep uncertainty, and the attendant strategies for robust decision making, are making headway. But climate models applications are stuck in optimal decision making mode. I propose to use climate models in different ways that are more consistent with decision strategies under deep uncertainty.
I prefer to think that what you call gridlock is simply that the policy proposals are debatable, so they do not pass. What you propose is fine, but if the interface is the US Congress, for example, we are not going to reorient it, nor does it practice optimal decision making per se. The interface, broadly speaking, is a complex distributed system involving millions of people. It is not a person.
David, you write “I prefer to think that what you call gridlock is simply that the policy proposals are debatable, so they do not pass.”
Surely, it is worse than this. The world is facing a deep economic crisis, and we simply cannot afford to decarbonize society, and send us back to the horse and buggy era. The world is going to burn every last barrel of oil, every last cubic foot of natural gas, and every last ton of coal. No policy maker in any country of the world is ever going to limit how much we consume in the way of fossil fuels. In the UK for example, George Osborne has looked at the books and knows that if the UK implements the Climate Change Act, then the UK is going to commit economic suicide. He just hasn’t worked out yet, how not to implement the Climate Change Act. Our Canadian politicians have been even more cagey in saying CAGW is real, and then making sure that they do absolutely nothing about it.
Sorry, this looks like another desperate effort by the proponents of CAGW to somehow get CAGW back on to the political agenda. It sin’t going to happen until the world’s various economic crises have been resolved; if then, since CAGW is a hoax, and the more time we have, the more likely is that we deniers can prove that CAGW is a hoax
Jim Cripwell
Agreed.
Max
Jim, unless you are claiming that there is no policy debate then I do not see how your comment relates to mine. You are stating a position in the debate, but many people hold the opposite view, including people here. Note too that CAGW is very much alive, given that the US EPA is presently implementing it. My point is merely that the term gridlock is conceptually wrong.
David, you write “Jim, unless you are claiming that there is no policy debate then I do not see how your comment relates to mine.”
It is not a question of debate. The proponents of CAGW have enough clout with the MSM that they can guarantee the debate will go on indefinitely. It is a question of politicians making positive decisions to actually reduce the use of fossil fuels. With very few exceptions, no politicians are going to be stupid enough to actually reduce how much in the way of cheap fossil fuels any country consumes. That is what I interpreted you to mean when you used the term “gridlock”; there is a gridlock in actually making decisions to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
This, of course, infuriates the proponents of CAGW, and they are desperately trying to get CAGW back onto the political agenda, so politicians will, once again, start talking about reducing the use of fossil fuels. What I believe is that as long as the world remains in a state of economic crisis, there is not going to be any political action which exacerbates this crisis, which a reduction of the use of cheap fossil fuels would certainly do. On the contrary, politicians are desperately trying to work out how they can reduce the ruinous subsidies that they have agreed to pay people now producing solar and wind power. This is the problem the proponents of CAGW face, and this is why they are getting more and more desperate.
Jim, I did not use the term gridlock. On the contrary I objected to it.
David, you write “Jim, I did not use the term gridlock. On the contrary I objected to it”
My apologies. I forgot where the term originated. I was merely trying to point out that gridlock exists with respect to politicians implementing any more reductions in fossil fuel use. This is what our hostess seems to be referring to. She seems to believe that CAGW is real, but the output of climate models is not enough to convince the policy makers that action is required, and it is all the fault of “a wicked mess like climate change.” The fact that CAGW is a hoax does not seem to be on Judith’s radar.
Jim Cripwell,
Could you lend them (Canadian politicians) to us (Australia) for a while, please?
“…optimal decision making in context of precautionary principle has brought us to policy gridlock….”
I don’t agree with this at all.
First, what gridlock? Europe and Australia are well down the decarbonization path to the economic abyss, and decarbonization is official US policy pursuant to the EPA’s faux endangerment finding.
The US EPA has decarbonization regs already issued, waiting only for the election to start enforcing them. Oil exploration and extraction have been largely stalled by the Obama administration, except on private and state lands they have not yet been able to take control.
And if Obama wins the election in November, expect a host of additional decarbonization regs, including likely some to stall that extraction on state and private lands, are almost certain to follow.
The only thing that has been stalled is cap and trade in the US, and the complete takeover of the energy economy by progressive governments. Has the IPCC been disbanded? Have Mann and Hansen been defunded?
What gridlock?
Second, it’s only “gridlock” if you want the additional decarbonization policies implemented. If you are against them, like the majority of the American voters, then it’s not gridlock, but simply a policy decision to NOT decarbonize.
We don’t need to do anything yet with respect to minimizing carbon emissions. Adaptation? When did we stop? Sometimes (and “moderates” have as much trouble with this as their fellow progressives), doing nothing IS a policy decision. And in this case, with respect to decarbonization, it is the right one.
GaryM, you write “What gridlock?”
As I read what you have written, you are only looking at what is happening in the USA. But things are different in the rest of the world, particularly Europe. The USA is not in that much of an economic crisis. Yes, the economy is not doing as well as you would like, but there are not 50% of US youth unemployed as there is in Spain. Until the European economic crisis has some sort of resolution, then we are unlikely to see any reduction of the use of fossil fuels, even in the USA. The current glut of new sources of hydrocarbons in the USA is one of the very few bright spots in your economy, and I cannot see how any US politician can afford to dampen your enthusiasm for more of the same.
EU unemployment 11.4%
USA unemployment 8.2%
Both figures suspect, because long-term chronic unemployment not captured.
EU problem greater than figures indicate, because of regional (i.e. national) differences: in Spain 50% of those under 25 are unemployed; Greece doesn’t even have unemployment figures; France is now driving out the rich with a 75% wealth penalty tax.
Germany, the only nation (along with a few other small northern countries) that somewhat has its act together, is being attacked by the others for not “contributing” enough.
So you think the USA is in a mess (and it is)?
But the EU is even worse off by far.
Max
I would suggest that the “do nothing policy” has worked fine for about 6 thousand years……. right up till the time when climate scientists changed their mind about global cooling and went with global warming. Am I missing something?
Kent, you write “Am I missing something?”
No, you are not missing anything. It is the Royal Society, and out hostess who are trying to make mountains out of molehills.
Jim Cripwell,
I am not sure I get your point. Of course things are worse in Europe with respect to the CAGW bandwagon. Which is why I wrote: “Europe and Australia are well down the decarbonization path to the economic abyss….”
As for your comment that “The current glut of new sources of hydrocarbons in the USA is one of the very few bright spots in your economy, and I cannot see how any US politician can afford to dampen your enthusiasm for more of the same.”
The “how” is also described in my comment. Even if Obama is re-elected, it is highly unlikely that he could get decarbonization as policy passed by the congress. Unfortunately for the US, Obama is a hard left progressive who doesn’t give a damn about democracy. That is why I described the existing EPA regs, and those we can expect if Obama wins. Obama will enact decarbonization by fiat, given the chance.
Decarbonization is under way, in Europe, Australia and to a lesser degree in the US. If conservatives win the November elections here, then the US will leave the CAGW path it is on, and Europe and Australia will likely have to follow suit.
There is no gird lock yet, only a reduction in the pace of the lemming like march to the CAGW cliff (eg the suspension of the EPA regs). It all depends on what happens November 6.
Judith
What you have just written David tells me that the underlying root cause of the problem is the “precautionary principle” itself: IOW the notion that a remotely possible but highly unlikely and uncertain catastrophic outcome must be given heavy weighting in the political decision-making process, simply because the posited impact is so devastating.
You address this in one of your slides where you state:
Have I misread your message?
It seemed quite clear to me.
Max
Better models would also help with geoengineering. Recently it was proposed to reduce total incoming solar irradiance by about 24wm-2 by partially obstructing the path between the earth and the sun with space dust. This would be enough to offset the co2 imbalance and keep temperatures no different than today (approx), but questions remain as to how reduced sunlight would affect the earth, plants and humans in other ways. Would reduced photosynthesis be a problem? A disaster? Would reduced sunlight at the same temp produce very different weather? Models are needed to provide some kind of answer to such questions.
I am sorry but I find it hard to believe any sane person would consider something like that given how little we know about the thousands of processes going on inside and outside of our atmosphere. All those questions you have asked are valid and I am sure there are thousands more that we dont even know enough to ask.
Agreed
Hell, yes. Geo-engineering projects like that would be just as crazy as releasing billions of tonnes of GHGs into the atmosphere annually and presuming that the consequences of rapid climate change will be either desirable or avoidable.
Except that CO2 is produced naturally by many processes and has been for billions of years and we did not just decide one day to release a bunch and see what happens just because a model said it might be ok.
Geoengineering proposals are and should remain a last resort. Its fine to study them and make models but hopefully geoengineering is many years in the future if at all.
lolwot
“geoengineering”?
Uh…Like shooting sulfuric acid into the stratosphere, for example?
Get serious, lolwot.
Reduced UV input = reduced crop output = more folks starve.
Don’t need an expensive model to see that this is a hare-brained scheme.
Max
So rising CO2 will cause more folks to starve? is that what you are arguing?
lolwot
No.
I am arguing that hare-brained schemes to reduce global warming by shooting sulfuric acid into the stratosphere (as Obama’s science “czar” recommended) will cause more folks to starve.
Get it now?
Max
but questions remain as to how reduced sunlight would affect the earth, plants and humans in other ways. Would reduced photosynthesis be a problem? A disaster? Would reduced sunlight at the same temp produce very different weather? Models are needed to provide some kind of answer to such questions. … – lolwot
Max – as is often the case, I have no earthly idea what you read, but it could not possibly have been what lolwot wrote.
As for Obama’s science advisor, he made no such recommendation. He said the procedure, which has been widely discussed by engineers and scientists around the world for quite some time, was being discussed as an extreme measure to be used only as a last resort. That is miles and miles from being a recommendation for action.
The problem with geoengineering is anybody could do it any time they want to do it. They do not need anybody else’s okay. A wealthy individual could do it. A wealthy corporation could do it. A rogue General could do it. Things do not even have to get dire. They do not need to ask Max, or the U.N., or the United States, etc.; they do not have to ask anybody. Just could just do it.
They could just do it.
That’s debatable. It has not done thus so far. And CO2 is limiting for plant growth (for many species) and does increase drought resistance.
So the question is: will increased temperatures and drought in the future occur at such a level (due to CO2) so as to make it an overall net negative effect? Good question.
Bill – I’ve heard grown men pray out loud to gawd for rain, for it to stop raining, for it to thaw, for it to freeze, etc., and so on. I have heard every sort of agricultural payer that exists, and not one GD’d time have I heard a farmer pray for more CO2.
And this may be why.
Farmers may not “pray” for more CO2, but it is common knowledge that crop plants thrive at higher CO2 levels (even used commercially to improve crop yields).
Max
JCH
The “Scientific American” blurb you cited states:
So what?
So plants only “gulped” half of this, or 15% of the CO2 emitted by humans.
They still were net “gulpers” of the added human CO2, according to your paper, and that is the point here.
Higher CO2 levels => higher “gulping” of CO2 by plants => higher crop yields => more food => less starvation => longer life expectancy
“Win-win”^2
Max
I thought plants used green light.
Green plants reflect green light and absorb other colors. Thus they don’t use green light.
JCH
You state that you “have no earthly notion” where I read that John Holdren supported aerosol injection to slow global warming.
Please see:
http://guymcpherson.com/2012/09/geoengineering-dangerous-proposal-or-lethal-reality/
Max
Hi Judy – An excellent summary of the issues!
With respect to one way forward, I recommend our paper
Pielke, R. A., Sr., R. Wilby, D. Niyogi, F. Hossain, K. Dairuku,J. Adegoke, G. Kallos, T. Seastedt, and K. Suding (2012), Dealing with complexity and extreme events using a bottom-up, resource-based vulnerability perspective, in Extreme Events and Natural Hazards: The Complexity Perspective, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 196, edited by A. S. Sharma et al. 345–359, AGU, Washington, D. C., doi:10.1029/2011GM001086. [the chapter can be obtained from http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/r-365.pdf%5D
Roger Sr.
Hi Roger, yes your approach is very complementary to what I am suggesting. I will try to follow up with a future post integrating these perspectives.
They’ll need on of these to handle that much stuff:
A question that has puzzled me that I have not seen addressed is:
“What criteria should a climate or weather model be able to reasonably accurately forecast over what timescales with what level of accuracy in order to be considered to be valuable for consideration in the formation of government policy?”
Readers opinions would be appreciated. I would think that annual rainfall amounts would be critical but I am unsure of what else should be included. I would think that regional models would be much more valuable for the purpose stated.
Can’t top this discussion. Judy’s got it, the catastrophes from future warming, should we get it, will be local or regional. A wealthier society, from cheaper energy will cope better.
To reduce future social catastrophes, ’tis more cost effective to plan for chilling scenarios than for warming ones, for a warmer earth will sustain more total life and more diversity of life.
==================
Hi Judy,
Excellent presentation. If you have time you may want to look at “Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change” by Fildes and Kourentzes (see http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207011000604 ) and the comment by Noel Keenlyside in the same issue.
Fildes – “The scientific community of global climate modellers has surely taken unnecessary risks in raising the stakes so high when depending on forecasts and models that have many weaknesses”.
Geoff, thanks for these very interesting references
Pingback: Comment Submitted To BAMS On The Mearns Et Al 2012 Paper | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.
Judith Curry
This is an excellent presentation.
Your first slides state the issue and summarize the confidence in (and comfort with) climate models, citing Knutti (2007)
You list areas of rising discomfort with models, question their suitability for CO2 mitigation policies and regional climate change forecasts and suggest some model improvements, such as
– Improve parameterization
– More comparison with real-time physical observations
Shouldn’t this include [my thoughts]:
– Less emphasis on [subjective] interpretations of [dicey] proxy data taken over [hand-picked] periods of our planet’s geological past?
You then move to
AMEN!
This includes: More “search for truth” rather than “search for proof” IMO.
You state the dilemma as follows:
Resolving this dilemma must include a serious look at potential “winners and losers” of a marginally warmer world, as well as at the best available cost/benefit analyses of the specific proposals being made to ”reshape our common future on a global scale” and their total costs including the impacts of all unintended consequences.
You do not state this [my observation]: All studies made so far have been “sales pitches” to justify some sort of carbon tax. They have assumed that global warming will bring more losers than winners and have overstated the benefits, understated the costs and largely ignored any unintended consequences that could occur from the “global climate policy targeted at [GHG] stabilization”.
Your quote of Bammer & Smithson 2008:
Is disturbing to me. “Ethics” (as well as “ethical rules”) are subjective; history has shown that they can be (and often are) manipulated politically to justify all sorts of basically horrible agendas.
The “ethical” premise of “doing something good for our great grandchildren, even if it hurts today” is a silly, presumptive and even arrogant premise. Who knows what kind of climate our “great grandchildren” will want in 100 years even if we were able to change it, which itself is far from certain?
Indeed! And this is a good lead-in for your slides on “Robust decision making”.
Here I would see your third bullet as a direct counter-argument to the “precautionary principle”, which states that disastrous outcomes must be considered in the decision even if their probability is very low, simply because their impact could possibly be so devastating.
As I read it, your “summary slide” concludes that climate models are basically ”not fit, not useful and not the best choice to meet societal needs” related to making policy decisions with regard to climate change, with the concluding remarks:
Inasmuch as essentially all of the IPCC claims of AGW attribution, the projections of future climate changes and the resulting recommendations to policymakers are based on GCM simulations, this is a fairly damning conclusion that will not make many modelers (and certainly not IPCC) happy.
Under your recommendations for the future you write:
To me this means (simplified): walk away from the “precautionary principle” and concede to “policymakers” that we are unable to predict future climate developments based on the limited capability of current GCMs and the great amount of uncertainty in our understanding of the climate system.
A skeptic may have hammered more on the flimsy nature of paleoclimate supporting data and the lack of real-time empirical data with which to compare the model outputs and hence the great uncertainty in their outputs but, as I said, I don’t think this presentation is going to make the modelers and IPCC happy.
Just my “take home” thoughts from your thoughtful and provocative presentation.
Max
> AMEN!
Moments of rational agreement like that are quite moving.
Manacker,
What you stated here sums up my most important concern very well:
“You state the dilemma as follows:
Resolving this dilemma must include a serious look at potential “winners and losers” of a marginally warmer world, as well as at the best available cost/benefit analyses of the specific proposals being made to ”reshape our common future on a global scale” and their total costs including the impacts of all unintended consequences.
You do not state this [my observation]: All studies made so far have been “sales pitches” to justify some sort of carbon tax. They have assumed that global warming will bring more losers than winners and have overstated the benefits, understated the costs and largely ignored any unintended consequences that could occur from the “global climate policy targeted at [GHG] stabilization”.
I see Dr Reason Lesego Machete from Reading will be presenting.
His Quantifying Chaos (http://cats.lse.ac.uk/homepages/reason/tale-maps-machete.pdf) paper was very interesting, and he has a good body of collaborative work in this area. (Tomas could benefit from review of these papers.)
I’m sure we all look forward to hearing more details of your perceptions of this workshop.
The problem with this whole approach is that they still have this idea that natural variation is a small “error” ontop of a huge known, and not that natural variation is almost all the signal of which a small part ought to be human induced, but you really can’t tell because the noise dominates the signal.
And it all comes down to one simple fact, the nature of this type of noise is that it looks like a signal. It looks like it has trends, that there are oscillations, in short that it is full of features, when in fact it is all noise. (except the bit that is probably there which isn’t).
In electronics, you are taught from the very beginning that you noise is a real thing. In science you are taught it is an error … something that can be got rid of. Conceptually, the two approach it very differently. Science sees it as trivial problem of obtaining more data, it therefore tends to dismiss noise as an irrelevance.
In contrast, in electronics, dealing with one-off events, noise is something that has a value that cannot be diminished, and the key is not how to average it out, but out to make meaning of the signal: how strong is the signal to the noise.
It is also important that like climate temperature a lot of electronics noise is 1/f type noise. This I feel is very important and where most climate academics fall down because most scientists are not used to dealing with this type of noise. Unfortunately, the approach of science is counter-productive, because with 1/f noise you can’t average it out … because the more samples you take, the bigger the noise!!! Which means you need to approach noise in the climate with a different approach to normal noise commonly observed in science.
At which point, I feel it would be useful to come, but … but do not have the funds.
While I have no argument with some of the individual precepts you discuss, I’m really not going to accept precepts on interpreting data from the same source as the incredibly wonky http://scef.org.uk/images/stories/news12/kyoto%20ends.png
Scotsmen led around by the nose by Lords Moncton and Lawson and their Australian and American adherents?
When I studied the graphical analyses of data, a distinct discipline applicable equally to electronics as to any other field of research built on observations, we used actual mathematics and specific methods to establish what we could or could not say from a set of observations.
Your way seems more like throwing every rule of interpretation, applicable or not, at the entire field of Climate all at once as an objection to forming rational conclusions at all.
Please show cites to the actual cases where you believe specific errors of the type you describe are made, so we can judge whether you are mouthing preconceived notions by rote, or saying something relevant and generally applicable.
From the summary of the presentation:
I think that most, including in particular most modelers, agree that the present models are far from ideal and at best only adequate for the purpose. On the usefulness there might be a more even split between both views. On the best choice many of those who give rather low evaluations on the above points may still think that it’s the best choice in the sense that including the models in the tool set adds very essentially to the whole, because the knowledge that we have without the models is even more seriously lacking.
In the above I have in mind mainly the global issues, not the regional level.
I cannot see how the models would be “becoming less fit for the purpose of increasing our understanding of the climate system” while I’m more ready to agree that the understanding of their limitations is becoming more widespread.
Robustness of the policy decisions is essential but there are differing views of what’s robust. I’m sure that most of those who support very strong policies to reduce CO2 emissions do that in belief that such a policy is the most robust one, i.e. they see the risk of large emissions as the dominating factor in creating risk and the maximal emphasis of that point to be the most robust choice.
I don’t agree that the present practical implementation of that thinking leads to real robustness. My views differ from those that promote such policies mainly for two reasons:
– The choice implies belief that the total cost from the point of view of human well-being is low enough to allow picking the CO2 reductions as the most important goal over all other concerns.
– There’s an implied assumptions that the decision to reduce maximally CO2 reductions is effective in reaching its stated goal.
I have great doubts on both points. Putting more emphasis in development of new technologies, on better understanding of the working of economic incentives and on more detailed knowledge on the actual threats as well as naturally occurring adaptive processes is likely to lead to both better results in the relevant long term and to lower costs of all types (not only direct economic costs).
Pekka, i agree with you 100%. I do not regard CO2 stabilization as a robust strategy or an effective one on timescales less than a century
Judith,
One point that I wanted to make is that there may be agreement on the basic philosophy even when the conclusions differ greatly. Too few people are, however, willing to discuss openly the issues on which they know the least – and applying properly the approach requires that all major issues are taken into account. When such discussion is lacking the progress in search for good policies is also lacking
(I chose intentionally the expression “good policies” rather than “best policies”.)
When there’s agreement on the philosophical approach that should be taken advantage of to figure out where the main sources of disagreement are and then discuss them one by one to gain at least some more mutual understanding.
This is a very good sub-thread. Pekka, you say that:
“When there’s agreement on the philosophical approach that should be taken advantage of to figure out where the main sources of disagreement are and then discuss them one by one to gain at least some more mutual understanding.”
I’ve praised the approach of Australia’s 1983-91 Hawke government. One initiative, given the divergence of viewpoints on environmental issues, was to set up a multi-disciplinary body of economists and environmentalists to assess such issues, to gain “mutual understanding.” Several good economists I knew joined the new body with the best of intentions. They soon left in despair, as the environmentalists, scientists and non-scientists, flatly refused to give any credence to the economists’ framework. I’ve been abused at conferences (some time ago) for having the temerity to suggest that economics might have something to contribute to CAGW et al debates. I appreciate your approach, but I’m sceptical as to its effectiveness.
I approached the CAGW issue with “good intentions.” In 1997 a right-wing Coalition Queensland government supported the Kyoto Agreement on the basis of my Cabinet submission and recommendation. (We all have skeletons in our closets.) However, I have rarely found a “meeting of the minds” on these issues. Cf stevepostrel’s comments.
Faustino,
I’m sure you are not the only one with such experience. Many environmentally oriented people don’t accept that the economics sets real limitations or can be taken with similar weight as their concerns. Their views on technology development are also surprisingly asymmetric: extremely optimistic when that supports their policy views and equally pessimistic when that makes their arguments stronger. They appear to believe that we have a real freedom of choice and need only to make the basic decision.
It’s easy to find a number of success stories on the power of political decisions as the industry has opposed using economic arguments also changes that have been easy to make (like some required changes for cars) or that did indeed allow for rapid technology development as reduction of sulfur emissions or replacement of ozone damaging chemicals by safer ones. Such cases have made economic argumentation less convincing but believing that the situation is the same for all other problems is just naive. It’s the mirror image of the opposite naive views that free markets will solve all problems in an acceptable way without any government involvement.
The issue of reducing CO2 emissions goes much deeper in the economy than combating acidification or ozone depletion. The extent of the energy system based on fossil fuels is so huge that it cannot be forced down rapidly without major economic consequences and damage to well-being everywhere. The limits on the availability of fossil fuels require a similar change and the change is going to come given enough time. It may well be that it will ultimately be driven by limits of supply rather than concerns on climate change.
Economists, at least those familiar to environmental economics, are, in general, ready to accept that they don’t know well enough the external inputs, i.e. estimates on climate change or on energy resources. The other specialists are often less willing to admit that their knowledge on issues outside their expertize is so poor that they cannot base overall conclusions on what they know. They prefer to pick some particular assessments (like the Stern review or perhaps a very different one) and neglect the controversy on their validity.
Research scientists who concentrate successfully and go very deep in their own specialty are only in exceptional cases also the best in joining that knowledge with knowledge from other fields. It’s more typical that people who know the science well but have wider interests are better in communicating with people from other fields and in creating a balanced overall assessment.
The problem with “robust” and “no regrets” strategies in the real-world environment of politics is that they allow the climate issue to become a cover for every ideological and special-interest agenda. “Policies we should follow even if CO2 isn’t that big a problem” all too easily translates into “policies that fit my interests or obsessions that I’m smuggling in by wrapping them in climate concerns.”
For example, the nuclear, solar, and wind-turbine industries have been happy to argue for decarbonization as being doubly good because it reduces our “energy dependence” on foreigners and might “improve” the trade balance of the U.S. People who think the non-CO2 emissions from coal plants are intolerable even under current pollution laws are happy to use that as another “no regrets” argument for shutting down coal-burning power. People who think that too many of their neighbors are on the road or are public-transit fanatics are happy to cite traffic reductions as additional gains from high gas taxes. And so on.
If the political focus shifts from mitigation policies to adaptation, I can readily see the “robust” and “no regrets” approaches leading to plenty of special pleading from the Army Corps of Engineers, various real-estate interests, the air-conditioning industry, the insulation people, pest-control people, and so on. The key is packaging what you wanted to do anyway as being part of a “robust” or “no regrets” climate policy.
I remember in the 1980s and early 1990s when “competitiveness” became the vehicle for the drummers of every policy on the docket, from increased education spending to subsidies of large corporate R&D budgets to naked protectionism. But that was kid stuff in dollar terms compared to what’s been attached to the climate issue.
stevepostrel,
Good points.
Judith Curry wrote:
”
Fundamental issues for climate models: with the focus on societal needs and the large investment in IPCC production runs, climate models are becoming less fit for the purpose of increasing our understanding of the climate system.
”
Less fit than what? – the alternative? – non-models?
The way forward is this:
First you come up with a cost-effective and marketable social policy – Then you tailor the climate models to fit the policy.
Whether the climate models are, in fact, correct is of little importance.
Dr. Curry, please allow me to commend to your attention:
Boeing’s gains in Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) arise in roughly equal measure from (1) better understanding of fluid dynamics, (2) faster computational algorithms, (3) faster computer hardware … and there is no end in sight to this progress, eh?
It is notable, that these advances have changed, irretrievably and forever, the engineering processes by which commercial aircraft are designed, fabricated, and controlled.
There is every mathematical and scientific reason to foresee that global-scale climate modeling will progress similarly. And if this progress should occur, Dr. Curry, then your talk’s main theses regarding the infeasiblity of predicting regional climate change … even if they are true now … are far less likely to be true in coming decades.
And that progress will be *GOOD*, eh? :) :) :) :!:
To paraphrase:
I am all in favor of more flying, but my proposed approach is the opposite of reducing weight and drag.
I propose that we expand the fleet of aircraft we are considering, and look at the vulnerabilities associated with these aircraft along with possible solutions.
I don’t regard the flightpath stabilization policy strategy as being of much use, especially on time scales out to 5 hours, which is the more relevant time frame for most regional carriers.
Perhaps given enough time but the example doesn’t really tell much about that. The purpose of using models and the requirements of “fit for the purpose” are so different that the example of Boeing tells as little of the future of climate models as the very generic statement that progress is ubiquitous in science.
Pekka Pirilä, your incredible ability to assimilate-and-dismiss — within the limited time-frame of 13 minutes :!: — a highly technical 24-page survey article (that includes 74 further references) is utterly amazing! :roll: :roll: :roll:
Upon what rational basis, exactly, do you confidently assert that the following research program — which has been so immensely successful in aviation — is infeasible in climate-change science?
Conclusion By pursuing the above seven-part strategy, today’s strong climate-change science is destined to become stronger in coming decades. *GOOD* :) ;) :grin: :lol: :!:
Of course, we’re already making excellent progress toward this scientific goal! :) ;) :grin: :lol: :!:
Fan, the reason Pekka could easily discount it is history of aviation development that you quoted. It is in the history wrt #3. The validation of the precursors of the functional computer simulations were “”these tools consisted almost entirely of analytic approximation methods, wind tunnel tests, and flight tests. With the development of increasingly powerful computers, numerical simulations of various approximations to the Navier-Stokes equations began supplementing these tools.”” There were literally 10,000+ independent empirical parameters and actualizations that could be studied and tested. There is one climate record. This type of error on your part is sometimes called a model failure. IOW, your one actualization could not and was not used by those who developed CFD. The model of what they did can not be applied to the model you wish to pursue.
John Pittman, NASA uses many more datapoints than 10,000 in order to validate global-scale simulations like this! ;) :) :grin: :lol: :!:
So perhaps critiques like yours are just plain factually wrong, eh? ;) :) :grin: :lol: :!:
Fan, as I said, model failure. For those simulations there are well over 10,000+ data points applied in the model for just one of the 10000+ actaulizations. There is still just one climate realization, and incorrect model comparison is still incorrect.
Johnfpittman, an apropos quotation is (yet another of many) by Feynman:
By the rigorous standards of mathematical proof that are associated to the Clay Institute’s Millenium Prize Problem: Navier-Stokes Equation, it is implausible that the climate-change denialists here on Climate Etc will *ever* be convinced of *any* theoretical analysis, eh?
And yet, we can be rationally convinced that climate-change is real, serious, and accelerating … by Feynman’s traditional standard of scientific evidence! :) ;) :grin: :lol: :!:
This assessment is plain common-sense, eh johnfpittman? :) ;) :grin: :lol: :!:
Ooops … working Navier-Stokes linky! :) ;) :grin: :lol: :!:
fan, that one can know more truths, than can be proven, goes to the heart of the difference, especially when it comes to attribution. You have inverted policy on its head. I assume this is because of the precautionary principle, or a belief based system of some sort. From “truth” that may or may not be useful, to knowledge that climate change is real, serious, and accelerating is a example of a lack of common sense rather than the common sense you claim later. Without attribution the ability to know that CO2 is causing is suspect, the ability to determine real, serious, and accellerating is even more dubious. It is true you can be reasonably convinced that CO2 climate change is all these things. It is also reasonable that others come to a different conclusion such as that it should be real, but its seriousness and rate or rate of change is unknown can also be reasonable. Another reasonable position is that climate change will produce a better world and should be encouraged. That is why attribution and measurement of harm or benefit are necessary to support policy. The precationary principle is a rhetorical device based on a deferred argument from ignorance and a moral perspective. Other rhetorical arguments can be made that meet such a loose defintion of reasonableness.
Johnfpittman, with respect, why do hard-nosed market-driven profit-oriented insurance executives disagree utterly with your post’s conclusions? :?: :?: :?:
The market-driven insurance industry is embracing James Hansen’s worldview, eh?
Why is this, the world wonders? :?: :?: :?:
Another model failure, fan. Insurance and underwriters of insurance have to have money on hand or they go bankrupt. There are several excellent studies about this from Hurricane Hugo coming ashore in South Carolina. For them, it was cash flow, and lack of liquidity, not the ability to predict. Since that time, for coastal properties, the revenues set aside have increased based on this expierence. Also, they are profit driven as you state. There are interesting articles pertaining to insurance in Florida that profit was the reason of the increases, not risk. By not understanding the model you fail to realize that your example actually supports one of the reasons that the precautionary principle is objectionable. The PP invalidates capital conservation as a reason for not doing. The insurance and underwriters are conserving capital and profits by increasing rates. Further, mitigation is not buying insurance. If it were, we would expect to see increased rates for increased risk or uncertainty. But that also is market driven. If consumers do not buy, they lose due to cash flow on that end as well. So they are not embracing Hansen’s veiw. They are embracing profits and capital conservation.
Johnpittman, in the long-run, these are the same thing, eh? ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
And that is the simple reason why coastal insurance companies now regard James Hansen as a hard-nosed, foresighted, climate-change realist, eh? ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
Fan said
‘And yet, we can be rationally convinced that climate-change is real, serious, and accelerating.’
I have now read some tens of thousands of weather observations covering the last thousand years from such diverse places as the Met office archives and Library, the Library of Exeter Cathedral, The Devon records office which cover upland Dartmoor. Yesteday I was at the archives of the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge researching material for my next article on historic variations in Arctic ice.
I would say that far from current climate change being ‘real, serious and accelerating,’ we appear to be living in a very benign era.
tonyb
judith
i have now read through yur presentation.It looks good. I maDe a cmment to Fan about this being a benign era according to the thosands of observations I have read.
.
There are several representatives from the Met office at the meeting. They have an excellent archives section in a building two minutes walk from their offices.It appears the scientists are rarely seen there, that is a shame as they would see, asI have done (and the much more illustrious Hubert Lamb before me) that the Black Swans and Dragon Kings seem to take place during the cold and tempestuous times-such as the LIA- and not during the benign times, such as the MWP and the modern era.
In short, I think scientists are barking up the wrong tree with equating our modest warming with unprecedented climatic events.
tonyb
Your August 27th http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/27/ams-statement-on-climate-change/#comment-232944 is another model failure. The founders of the constitution were interested in “truth” which was considered immutable and eternal. The part we are looking at are the mutable and everchanging. So, no I do not agree that in the long run they are the same. A political treatsie that deals with aspects of humans that there is reason to believe reflects a million+ years of evolution compared to technical insurance or engineering responses to present conditons that are known to change and change at an increasing rate are not comparable. Besides you have simply moved your argument away from your infeasible argument about GCM’s to untrue and/or existential models, and argument. You have failed to make the point that GCM’s make a reasonable argument to forgoe proof that such are useful and meet the definition of useful for the purpose they were intended. Youneed to read Browning and Kreiss on such things as convective adjustment, and Tebaldi and Knutti on how long it will take models to be validated and what is needed to validate models in a shorter span that we do not yet know how to do.
LOL johnfpittman, it is striking that in The Federalist Papers words like “faction”, “interest”, “compromise”, “adjust”, and “accommodate” occur strikingly more often (430 usages) than the word “truth” (76 usages).
So there’s no much evidence that your claim is true, eh?
The Founders and Framers were masters of … wise compromise! ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
fan, another model failure. Without context, number counts represent number counts. Your claim of “striking” reflects your opinion. You are also avoiding your failure of making a sound argument wrt to GCM’s. You have enaged in a strawman that word counts reflect the validity of evidence that a claim is true. It is not a claim I made and word counts do NOT determine how the words were considered or used. A single statement with the word used once in correct context would “prove” my statement.
On inspection of The Federalist one finds “immutable” used not-at-all, and “eternal” used as follows:
So there’s no much evidence that your claim is true, is there johnfpittman? :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
Another strawman from you, fan. I did not claim the Federalist Papers were the only source. Nor about word counts. In fact eternal is a concept as used in my post, not a request for word counting nor strawmen.
Not infeasible, Fan. Climate science is complicated, so it will take time. Lots of time. In the meanwhile, we can keep collecting data to test how the current models are doing.
Fan, we don’t call Pekka “The MIghty Finn” for nothing.
Ah, the old false analogy trick. You can fool some of the people some of the time…
Fan
Take a gander at Langley and see the wind tunnel that tests a FULL SCALE airplane using helium to calibrate viscosity to obtain the right Reynold’s numbers.
After CFD, direct observation is required. No mini or 1/2 prototype provides enough accurate information. CFD is calibrated with objective data for validation/verification. Climate models are not.
GCM Disclaimer of Liability and Accountability:
Academia disclaims the merchantability and fitness of GCMs for the ordinary purposes for which they may be used and shall not be liable for the consequences of actions taken as a result of relying on conclusions that may be drawn from GCMs — i.e., NO GUARANTEE OR WARRANTY IS IMPLIED INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Given the above GCM disclaimer:
Be it resolved that:
A) Radically changing the earth’s climate, as we are at present, without fully understanding the consequences, is stupid.
B) The less that can be predicted about the response of the climate, the more stupid changing it is.
Foucault Pendulum
Let’s tweak that a bit:
A)
RadicallyPossibly changing the earth’s climate, as GCM simulations based on GH theory and other hypothetical assumptions suggest wearemay be doingat present, without fully understanding the consequences, is stupid.might result in overall positive consequences, overall negative ones or no perceptible consequences at all for humanity or our environmentB) The less that can be predicted about the response of the climate, the more stupid
changing it is.it would be to spend any resources in futile attempts to change it, without fully considering all possible unintended negative consequences, which could result from these actions.There. That ought to fix it.
Max
“A) Radically changing the earth’s climate, as we are at present, without fully understanding the consequences, is stupid.”
And just where is the empirical evidence that humans are at present changing the earth’s climate radically? Or that ANYTHING, human, solar, cosmic rays, or any other climate driver, known or unkonwn, is changing the earth’s climate RADICALLY?
As I understand it, the earth has been noticeably warmer AND noticeably colder in the past. Sea levels have varied dramatically, higher and lower, from sea level today. Unprecedented melting of alpine glaciers has exposed bodies and huts under the postulated eternal, absent anthropogenic CO2, glaciers. As near as I can figure, based on information presented on blogs such as Dr. Curry’s, there is absolutely nothing going on in the world right now that is outside the bounds of climate variability that occurred long before the advent of anthropogenic CO2.
As to the stupidity of changing things without understanding the consequences, the climate experts claim that amelioration of the (universally undesirable) consequences of the radical climate changes that are proclaimed but undocumented requires that we cease our production of CO2. Does anyone imagine that drastically curtailing or ceasing our production of CO2 will have no consequences or that the consequences are completely understood and will be universally benign? Or that the political control of CO2 emissions will allow the climate to be stabilized at some optimum? If so, what IS that optimum climate, established by controlling the ‘temperature of the earth’ (which is claimed to be the ‘canary in the mine’ for climate change) via the CO2 rheostat? Who determined the optimum? What criteria were evaluated in making the determination? What evidence was presented that controlling CO2 emissions would establish and maintain the optimum climate? Ad infinitum.
“And just where is the empirical evidence that humans are at present changing the earth’s climate radically?”
See:
http://ieet.org/images/CO2.png
There is no known rate of CO2 rise faster than that in Earth’s history. You also have to factor in where we are heading, not just where we are now.
For impacts: CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas. 3.7wm-2 imbalance per doubling. The rate of rise in CO2 also leads to a reduction in ocean pH. There’s also CO2s significant impact on plant life.
Climate skeptics of a more deniery nature readily accept the latter “plant food” side of the impact (but ignoring the downside of that), but try hard to deny the other two. In reality all three are facts and all three are changing rapidly and unnaturally and will have knock on effects. So we already know that man is having a big impact on climate.
The question is what the medium and end impacts will be. For warming many skeptics propose that clouds will just increase to reflect more sunlight and counter the warming. Of course they don’t have proof this will happen and…well scroll up a little you’ll see Manacker acting very alarmed that a reduction of sunlight would cause crops to reduce and people to starve. Yet that’s exactly what negative cloud feedback would cause.
There are plenty of elephants in the room that climate skeptics are frantically trying to ignore and as Foucault Pendulum points out, uncertainty is not a good enough excuse:
“Radically changing the earth’s climate, as we are at present, without fully understanding the consequences, is stupid.”
Pretending that man’s impact on climate is insignificant just won’t work.
A hockey stick!
So… you really want to go back to the horse and buggy, right? Riiggghhhht!
Well a horse is grain fed and straw too and so too would be your car, if some folks had their wishes.
Horse is a lot more efficient in converting sunlight energy to motive power, BTW
Paradoxically the Green Gas of the Left flows from capitalism’s freedom and plenty as the polar opposite of the founders respect for individual liberty. The aim of Leftist Big Government bureaucracy and EPA energy policy is to criminalize the practice of productive free enterprise capitalism.
“ Has it ever occurred to you how astonishing the culture of Western society really is? Industrialized nations provide their citizens with unprecedented safety, health, and comfort. Average life spans increased fifty percent in the last century. Yet modern people live in abject fear. They are afraid of strangers, disease, of crime, of the environment. They are afraid of the homes they live in, the food they eat, the technology that surrounds them. They are in a particular panic over things they can’t even see-germs, chemicals, additives, pollutants. They are timid, nervous, fretful, and depressed. And even more amazingly, they are convinced that the environment of the entire planet is being destroyed around them. Remarkable! Like the belief in witchcraft, it’s an extraordinary delusion-a global fantasy worthy of the Middle Ages. Everything is going to hell, and we must all live in fear. Amazing.” (Crichton).
I think a slight re-write will make Monsieur Foucault’s comment more accurate.
Be it resolved that:
A) Radically changing the west’s economy, as progressives are at present desperately trying to do, without fully understanding the consequences, is stupid.
B) The less that can be predicted about the response of the economy to their stupid central planning schemes, the more stupid changing it is.
Last paper before the mid-morning break, 25 minutes before presentation and 24 slides. Ambitious, very ambitious. There is no talk overview/roadmap slide up front.* Fewer slides, consolidation and prioritization of covered topics would help from a flow perspective. Leaves me with the impression of seeing a list of related concepts more than a yet concrete approach—brings out the virtual Missourian in me. (Granted your ideas are still in a formative stage and you have to talk whenever the opportunities arise.) As to the list–it seems that given a forum both academic and corporate scientists often like to show their credentials by concept piling-on. This is probably part enthusiasm in the throes of a new chase and part pride of ‘authorship’. Many of us have done that, but sometimes the results of a little restraint may be worth the effort. Depending on the message you want to deliver**, next time shorten the beast if necessary to fit the time-frame, and keep some concepts/details in reserve with an eye to the comments portion.
I also find the graphics to be a little choppy and distracting.
Have a good meeting. It should be fun.
*Note how early in the comments (curryja | October 2, 2012 at 7:32 am | Reply ) you found it necessary to state the point of the talk to Pekka. This is making a statement about the slides as they stand alone.
** ‘Here are some reflections’, ‘here is an approach’, ‘here is an analysis of the problem’, etc.
@lolwot:
“There is no known rate of CO2 rise faster than that in Earth’s history.”
And your point is? There is no evidence that increasing CO2, at least plausible anthropogenic increases, translates directly into climate change NOR that climate change is prima facie undesirable.
According to Jim Cripwell and others (whose scientific qualifications I am unqualified to evaluate) there is no empirical evidence that shows that the impact of anthropogenic CO2 is other than zero. AGW arrived on the public scene, apparently from nowhere, under the headlines ‘The Science is Settled!’, with the science purportedly showing that anthropogenic CO2 was driving the ‘annual temperature of the earth’ (undefined) higher monotonically, with the trend concave upward, and that the consequences would lead to world wide catastrophe in the near future unless amelioration was begun immediately. That was the ‘going in’ position and since then it has been treated by the climate science experts as axiomatic. In fact, questioning the ‘going in’ position will automatically disqualify a scientist as a ‘Climate Scientist’, no matter his qualifications otherwise. The Climate Models have been refined since day one, and continue to BE refined, but ALWAYS with anthropogenic CO2 driven ‘global warming’ treated as axiomatic.
“Pretending that man’s impact on climate is insignificant just won’t work.”
It will until there is clear evidence, not models, that shows that it is NOT insignificant AND that the changes are not on balance benign.
And you still haven’t answered the question as to what is the ideal climate, how does it differ from today’s climate, who determined the ideal climate, what factors were evaluated in making the determination, what evidence confirms that the controls on anthropogenic CO2 proposed by the climate experts would indeed establish and maintain the optimum climate, and whether the the political, economic, and social changes that would be required to do the controlling would on balance be less harmful than the effects of the postulated (but unsubstantiated) climate changes.
“And your point is?”
My point is that something very significant is happening in our atmosphere relative to human history and indeed the Earth’s history.
There are no benchmarks. It hasn’t happened before.
This renders a “nothing to see here” conclusion impossible. “nothing to see here” can only be supported now by providing positive evidence that the very significant change in CO2 level will have no effect, or that it happens all the time. Neither can be supported. In fact the evidence leans very much the other way.
The three known direct effects of rising CO2:
1) warming because CO2 is a strong greenhouse gas
2) ocean acidification because rising CO2 reduces surface ocean pH
3) plant fertilization because CO2 is “plant food”
It’s implausible that any one of these impacts will be zero, let alone all of them and each have further knock on effects on the environment.
The scale of this impact (global) and the long turnaround time to reverse it even if we wanted to, makes the issue particularly important. There’s no question of being able to suddenly turn it off, it’ll take many decades at least to reverse whatever impacts occur.
So ‘no-one knows what will happen’ is actually a bad thing, not a good thing. The more uncertain we are the more plausible the nastier catastrophes. Uncertainty works both ways.
“According to Jim Cripwell and others (whose scientific qualifications I am unqualified to evaluate) there is no empirical evidence that shows that the impact of anthropogenic CO2 is other than zero.”
They are simply incorrect. Zero impact from anthropogenic CO2 is implausible given what is known based on empirical evidence. You will not find a single climate scientist who accepts such an idea because it just isn’t credible.
“AGW arrived on the public scene, apparently from nowhere, under the headlines ‘The Science is Settled!’”
AGW is settled. Reasonable skeptics on this very site have accepted human activity is having a warming effect. As for catastrophe, that’s a threat, not a certainty. The IPCC reports do not claim any catastrophe is certain, only possible if CO2 continues to rise. In fact I think the IPCC should do better to raise awareness of possible catastrophies, there are far more possibilities than they mention.
“And you still haven’t answered the question as to what is the ideal climate, how does it differ from today’s climate, who determined the ideal climate, what factors were evaluated in making the determination”
The ideal climate is the one humans, other animals and plants are adapted to. That’s today’s climate. The whole of human history has taken place during a period of relative climate stability in the Holocene. Everything has adapted to this. We’ve built numerous cities at the sea level of the Holocene, not the sea level of some other period. We’ve concentrated agriculture in areas where today’s climate best suits it. This wasn’t an accident, we did it gradually and purposelessly.
Change the climate far outside the range of the holocene and effort is required to adapt. Perhaps too much effort, especially for some species.
Lolwot
Can you please point to something that you believe has worsened for humanity as a result of it getting warmer over the past few decades that is not easily adapted to via taking the steps any society should, i.e. building proper infrastructure?
Can you explain the basis of your concern about ocean acidification? When the PH level in the ocean at any specific point varies naturally more in a month than it would in years due to CO2, doesn’t that demonstrate conclusively that ocean life has no trouble with a slightly different PH level?
“When the PH level in the ocean at any specific point varies naturally more in a month than it would in years due to CO2, doesn’t that demonstrate conclusively that ocean life has no trouble with a slightly different PH level?”
No it doesn’t. Sustained increases and decreases in mean are directly comparable to short term variance.
5C cooling from day to night at a location doesn’t mean 5C global cooling (glacial period) is comparable.
correction: Sustained increases and decreases in mean are NOT comparable to short term variance.
lowot, you quote Bob Ludwick, who has misquoted me, as follows ““According to Jim Cripwell and others (whose scientific qualifications I am unqualified to evaluate) there is no empirical evidence that shows that the impact of anthropogenic CO2 is other than zero.””
My qualifications are that I have a BA (Physics) from Cavendish Labs Cambridge, which I earned nearly 70 years ago, plus a lifetime spent in scientific research. What I actually claim is that what little empirical data that we have, gives a strong indication that the total climate sensitivity of CO2 added to the atmosphere from current levels is indistinguishable from zero. This is quite different from what Bob says my statement is.
The point is that if the proponents of CAGW had followed the scientific method, they would not have clained that CAGW exists on the basis of hypothetical estimations alone. They would have confirmed these estimations with empirical data. The claim seems to be made that in this case, empirical data is not required; though the logic of this escapes me. I cannot provide any positive empirical data to prove that CAGW is wrong. All I can do is provide the negative information that no CO2 signal exists in any temperature/time graph. There is no change in temperature trend for all the years we have reasonable data for. As I emphasise this is negative information, which proves nothing at all.
AGW is real. However, the proponents of CAGW are wrong to claim that they can prove that CAGW exists, unless and until they provide the empirical data to prove their case.
I certainly didn’t intend to misquote you. In multiple previous threads I had seen your statement re the fact that the signal of anthropogenic CO2 in the temperature record was indistinguishable from zero and simply paraphrased it, rather than going back to a previous thread for an actual quote, in my note to lolwot. He quoted me correctly, but I apparently went wrong somewhere in my paraphrasing of your previous comments.
You said this: “What I actually claim is that what little empirical data that we have, gives a strong indication that the total climate sensitivity of CO2 added to the atmosphere from current levels is indistinguishable from zero. This is quite different from what Bob says my statement is.”
My problem is that I apparently cannot distinguish how my paraphrase: “According to Jim Cripwell and others (whose scientific qualifications I am unqualified to evaluate) there is no empirical evidence that shows that the impact of anthropogenic CO2 is other than zero.” differs appreciably from your quote above. But I’ll take your word that it in fact IS fundamentally different, whether or not I can understand in what way.
Bob you write “My problem is that I apparently cannot distinguish how my paraphrase”
I understand, and I apologise for coming on too strong. But I am supersenstive to this issue of writing on blogs, where carelessness and lack of pedantry can result in threadjacking. Take the use of the word “zero” in connectxion with climate sensitivity. I have, in the past, omitted the phrase “indistinguishable from” before zero. Then I get a bombardment that Jim Cripwell does not understand fundamental physaics, because CO2 is a GHG and, therefore it’s sensitivity cannot possibly be zero. So take no notice of anything else Jim has written, because he is clearly a scientific ignoramus. And they have a point.
I also have to be careful not to give the impression that I believe the empirical evidence proves that the sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero. It does not, and if it appears that I claim it does, I get the same sort of insults to my knowledge of physics.
So my problem is past history on Climate Etc. that I have to be extremely pedantic on what I say on this issue. Otherwise, the opposition jumps all over any mistake I make, and then goes on to claim that I simply dont understand fundamental physics. Unfortunately, that is the nature of blogs, which we have to live with.
The way around your difficulty, Jim, is to be deliberately vague.
============================
kim, you write “The way around your difficulty, Jim, is to be deliberately vague.”
Thanks, kim, but no thanks. I believe I understand of where the proponents of CAGW are wrong with the science that they present, that I need to be absolutely specific. The whole concept of no-feedback climate sensitivity is a load of scientific nonsense, and one of these days, I think I can come up with the proof that the proponents of CAGW cannot challenge. So I need to stay focused, be very specific, and remain pedantically correct in everything I write on the subject.
lolwot
After filtering out the emotional (i.e. irrational) hysteria from your last post, I’m left with your statement that the added CO2 from human emissions is likely to
a) increase global temperature
b) reduce ocean pH
c) increase plant growth
Let’s start with “c”.
Crop plants do grow better (higher crop yields) at higher CO2 levels. Interestingly the major crop plants (excluding maize or corn) show a higher response to increased CO2 levels than most weeds (which react like corn).
From 1970 to 2010 crop yields of all major crops increased to 2.4X their 1970 levels (while population increased 1.9X. Starvation rates came down considerably and overall life expectancy increased.
Over this same period
Global temperature increased by 0.54 °C and
Atmospheric CO2 increased by 66 ppmv or 20%
Obviously, there were other factors at play, but added CO2 did not hurt.
So we have one PLUS.
Ocean pH is a dicey topic, as others here have already pointed out to you. First of all, there are no comprehensive measurements with any history and second, seasonal variations today far exceed any future pH changes.
The amount of CO2 contained in all fossil fuels with combustion is truly a “drop in the ocean”.
So we have one ZERO.
We now come to increased global temperature. If we accept the IPCC model-derived 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3C, we could conceivable reach added warming of 4C above today’s value when all remaining fossil fuels on this planet are 100% used up (some day in the far distant future, all other things being equal).
If we look at the past observed CO2/temperature response, and accept the IPCC assumption that 93% of the warming was caused by CO2, we end up with a “maximum-ever-possible” warming of less than 2C.
If we accept the estimate of several solar studies that 50% of the past warming (instead of 7%) was caused by the sun, we end up with a “maximum-ever-possible” warming of around 1C.
These temperature increases are very likely to be beneficial to humanity and our environment rather than detrimental.
This may be especially so now that we appear to be entering a period of lower solar activity (i.e. natural cooling), which could be offset by the CO2 GH effect.
So we have another PLUS.
Looks like a “win-win” situation to me, lolwot, once the hysteria is removed and one looks at it rationally.
Max
I find your arguments unconvincing.
For c) you only consider crops. What wild plants? trees? If the extra CO2 boosts plant growth so dramatically doesn’t that mean entire ecosystems will be radically altered? Will rainforests become denser? What will that do to light levels penetrating them? What happens to insects that rely or feed on plants? Seems to me there’s a whole book full of questions about plant fertilization you haven’t even considered.
The fact is you can’t prove the net change will be beneficial. You would only be able to prove that if you knew exactly what the overall changes to all species of plant in the world would be to elevated CO2 levels.
The CAGW threat here from CO2 emissions remains credible until you can demonstrate exactly what will happen.
For b) you offer the odd remark that “seasonal variations today far exceed any future pH changes”
But how do you know what the future pH changes will be? You didn’t say. You need to make a *solid* case, that means backing up your claims with solid science. Until you can prove your case here, the CAGW threat from falling pH remains.
For a) you say “If we accept the estimate of several solar studies that 50% of the past warming (instead of 7%) was caused by the sun, we end up with a “maximum-ever-possible” warming of around 1C.”
How can that be a maximum-ever-possible warming when you’ve picked the solar studies with the highest value? What if those studies are wrong? Are you saying they can’t be wrong?
You also say “If we accept the IPCC model-derived 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3C, we could conceivable reach added warming of 4C above today’s value..”
And what if we don’t accept the IPCC models? Does that mean sensitivity could be higher than 3C?
You argue: “These temperature increases are very likely to be beneficial to humanity and our environment rather than detrimental.”
You don’t provide any evidence.
You can try all this again if you want but you won’t succeed. The science simply isn’t solid enough for what you are trying to do. You can’t refute CAGW unless you can prove what the impacts of AGW will be and that none of them will be catastrophic.
lolwot
Of course I can’t prove that added plant growth will be beneficial.
But you certainly can’t prove that this will be harmful.
And, since we humans (as well as most animals) depend directly on plants for our food, there is strong evidence that added plant growth will be beneficial.
The increase in crop growth from 1970 to today along with the reduction in starvation and increase in overall life expectancy provide additional empirical data that would indicate that added plant growth is a good thing for humanity.
To rephrase your statement so that it makes sense:
“The CAGW
threatbenefit here from CO2 emissions remains credible until you can demonstrateexactly what will happena credible threat”So added plant growth resulting from higher CO2 concentrations remains a PLUS.
You have not demonstrated any threat whatsoever from posited pH change. You have not even figured out how much pH change the ocean would see if (let’s say) half of all CO2 emissions from human fossil fuels ended up in the oceans. Nor have you demonstrated that this amount of CO2 would be larger than the CO2 that is emitted into the ocean naturally from underwater volcanoes and fissures.
So this “threat” remains unsubstantiated by any empirical evidence or logical reasoning, IOW a ZERO.
The same goes for slightly higher temperatures. You are unable to demonstrate based on empirical data that these temperatures will be harmful – and there are some indications that a slightly warmer temperature (especially in the higher latitudes, where GH warming is supposed to oiccur) will increase arable land surface across N. America, and Eurasia, lengthen growing seasons and result in higher overall crop yields.
So, again, added plant growth resulting from slightly warmer temperature would represent a PLUS.
YOU posited that CAGW would be HARMFUL in three areas, yet YOU are unable on ANY of the 3 points YOU brought up to demonstrated that the effects will be more negative than positive.
Max
It’s all imagined.
“Of course I can’t prove that added plant growth will be beneficial.”
“But you certainly can’t prove that this will be harmful.”
I don’t have to. I can justifiably go around telling people that CO2 emissions may be harmful, catastrophic even. I can point at how fast and sharply CO2 levels are rising and plant the seeds of worry into people’s minds. Justifiably because the threat is real.
Unless and until you can prove CO2 changes will be benign or beneficial the possibility of catastrophe (CAGW) remains.
“And, since we humans (as well as most animals) depend directly on plants for our food, there is strong evidence that added plant growth will be beneficial.”
You don’t have strong evidence. You just have assumptions and guesses. Have you reproduced the impact of doubled CO2 on all plants, insects and animals in a forest in under controlled conditions of a lab? No, you haven’t. Until you do that and can show me the verification documentation of such a test you have nothing. Small scale experiments on single species conducted in haphazard ways just won’t do. (/skeptic hat off)
“You have not demonstrated any threat whatsoever from posited pH change.”
I don’t have to. I only have to demonstrate that it could be catastrophic. I can point people at the sharp and rapid CO2 rise in the atmosphere and inform them that not only has a pH drop in the oceans been measured, but that it is expected under basic chemistry and that will continue as we keep emitting. Then I can inform them that this rate of pH drop might be the fastest in Earth’s history and it could be catastrophic. And I am justified in saying this because this is true.
It would only be false if you could show the pH drop wasn’t the fastest in Earth’s history, or you could show that the pH drop wouldn’t result in catastrophe. But you admit you can’t show that. In fact you admit you don’t even know *how much* pH will drop from human emissions.
“The same goes for slightly higher temperatures. You are unable to demonstrate based on empirical data that these temperatures will be harmful”
I don’t have to. I only have to point out that higher temperatures are possible. Much higher temperatures are possible, not just “slightly higher” as you claim. You can’t rule that out. I will tell people that rising CO2 may cause catastrophic levels of warming. And I am justified in warning people about that because it is true.
Unless of course you can prove there won’t be much warming and you can prove it won’t cause catastrophe. But you can’t.
“YOU posited that CAGW would be HARMFUL in three areas”
No, I posited that CAGW COULD be HARMFUL in three areas, not WOULD.
But of course if you addressed what I actually said you’d find it impossible to argue against it. Your demands for burdens of evidence only works if I were claiming CAGW WOULD be harmful.
It utterly fails given I am claiming CAGW COULD be harmful.
You can only argue against that if you know it CANT be harmful. And if you are silly enough to make that claim, the burden of proof is definitely on you.
lolwot
You still have it backwards
“COULD” versus “WILL” is not the issue here.
The issue is that you cannot demonstrate based on empirical data, that an increase from today’s 392 ppmv CO2 to a future level of 600 ppmv (for example) COULD (or will) be CATASTROPHIC.
Past actual stastistics, which I have shown, tell us it is likely that increased CO2 plus slightly higher temperatures, especially at higher latitudes, COULD be BENEFICIAL (rather than harmful) to plant growth and overall crop yields.
You have no data on ocean pH, or on how much the overall ocean pH COULD (or will) be lowered by human CO2 emissions or how marine life COULD (or will) likely respond. Nada. Zilch. Rien.
So, lolwot, all your words provide NO EVIDENCE that the added CO2 from human emissions COULD (or will) be catastrophic or even have a negative, rather than a positive net overall impact.
Until you do, your premise is just the hollow words of a doomsday cultist, who “believes” the IPCC “dogma” (or “concensus position”) that AGW COULD be catastrophic for humanity and our environment.
Max
lolwot states “The ideal climate is the one humans, other animals and plants are adapted to. That’s today’s climate.” This is a categorically incorrect statement for most living species. Most species did not evolve in the last 10,000 or so years. The ideal climate that departs from present the least is an outcome that is known to be false. The geologic history and species history is one of continual change, sometimes quite drastic. It is certain humans that desire this ideal as lolwot defined it. It is not biologically nor geologically correct. The difference is that if it occurs as indicated by lolwot , mankind would be responsible. However, if we did not do it, some other change would occur, OR the world we know, for some reason would no longer exist, as we now know it. More misinformation from lolwot “Change the climate far outside the range of the holocene and effort is required to adapt. Perhaps too much effort, especially for some species.” The reason is that life itself creates the necessity to adapt from other inputs than just climate.The effort is ongoing, and it is the losers in the evolutionary sense that do not adapt. That is the way it has been for about 1 billion years, and is not subject to mankind’s control. The statement that the climate will change too quick to adapt is speculation and is not supported by the geologic record in that there will be winners and losers, which also has happened when the climate has been relatively static.
“Most species did not evolve in the last 10,000 or so years.”
I didn’t say they did. I said they have adapted to current conditions. This is obvious by noting how species distributions have already been shifting polewards as the world warms.
“The ideal climate that departs from present the least is an outcome that is known to be false. The geologic history and species history is one of continual change, sometimes quite drastic.”
No it isn’t one of continual change. I’ve already pointed out the holocene has been remarkably stable and this is the period that covers the whole of recorded human history and agriculture.
“However, if we did not do it, some other change would occur”
No. There is no reason to expect a sudden and sharp super-interglacial in the nest 1000 years (conditions far warmer than seen for millions of years) without humans causing it. The natural state is to slowly return to a glacial period, although not for quite some time.
Such as glacial periods have happened before in the past, many species must be somewhat attuned to surviving it, but no doubt many species will perish.
“The statement that the climate will change too quick to adapt is speculation and is not supported by the geologic record in that there will be winners and losers, which also has happened when the climate has been relatively static.”
That’s completely wrong. Mass extinctions are associated with great climatic changes for a reason. It’s because lifes ability to adapt is not magic, it’s biological and change can happen too fast.
“This renders a “nothing to see here” conclusion impossible. “nothing to see here” can only be supported now by providing positive evidence that the very significant change in CO2 level will have no effect, or that it happens all the time.”
Golly, another CAGW acolyte arguing for a shift of the burden of proof. What a shocker.
There is nothing new in the climate debate.
The burden of proof has never shifted. Those who claim catastrophe from AGW (CAGW) is impossible are making a positive claim to know and so have a burden of proof.
If I were to claim catastrophe from AGW was certain, I too would be making the opposite positive claim and a burden of proof would be on me too. But I am not.
I am pointing out that AGW is significant enough that catastrophe from AGW (CAGW) is plausible. This is also what the IPCC points out. To refute that the burden of proof is on you.
lolwot
You’ve got it all ass-backward.
It is up to those who posit potentially catastrophic warming from AGW (= CAGW), as IPCC does, to demonstrate that this premise is correct – NOT up to those who are rationally skeptical of this premise to demonstrate that it is false.
IOW that ball is in YOUR court.
Bring the evidence to support your premise (or admit that it is not based on scientific evidence, but simply on model simulations, hype and hysteria).
Max
For this skeptic, the heart of your presentation is the slide on “rising discomfort with climate models”. “Dissatisfaction” is a less ambiguous word than “discomfort”. Unless the audience is convinced by this one slide, they may not feel a need to pay attention to the rest.
Shouldn’t you mention the increasing number of OBSERVATIONS that appear inconsistent with the output of climate models (assuming you think any are credible). The missing hot spot in the upper tropical troposphere? Observed, but not modeled, precipitation has been increasing with Clausius-Clapyeron. Surface temperature record (see Lucia). Does Argo prove that “missing heat” in the last decade has not gone into the oceans?
The disparity between the IPCC’s models doesn’t come close to exploring range/uncertainty of viable projections that could be made with climate models. Some ensembles (Stainforth) have explored parameter space for atmosphere, but not oceans or carbon cycle. Almost any future appears possible.
As for the phrase “fitness of purpose”, my cynical response is: Whose purpose? Despite the known inconsistency of regional climate projections, there has been a huge push to produce regional climate models to generate local data for convince local governments. (Those who believe governments are incapable of acting without “scary stories” have different purposes than you do.)
Frank
You wrote to our hostess:
Former UK Prime Minister, “50-days-to-save-the-planet” Gordon Brown, was one of those, as the frightening government-sponsored TV “climate fairy tales for children” showed.
As a matter of fact, eons before the current climate change hysteria, H.L. Mencken wrote:
It’s the playbook of the fearmongers, from Al Gore to James E. Hansen.
But is the populace getting wise?
We’ll see.
Max
Yet another outstanding showcase for the growing power of global-scale computational simulation is the NASA Dynamic Earth simulation.
The trifecta of modern climate-change science is simple:
Science Deliverable I Simple Hansen-style thermodynamic heat-balance models that predict accelerating global energy imbalance.
Science Deliverable II In-depth NASA-style computational simulations that affirm ergodic climate dynamics on decadal time-scales.
Science Deliverable III From Deliverables I-II, predictions of (1) accelerating oceanic heating, (2) accelerating ice-mass loss, (3) accelerating incidence of extraordinary heat and drought, (4) accelerating sea-level rise-rate.
With the science of Deliverables I and II now validated, and the predictions of Deliverables III now being verified … well … it’s looking to be “game over” for rational climate-change skepticism, eh? :!: :!: :!:
And *this* should be the main message of Judith Curry’s talk, eh?
Message In climate-change modeling, there’s plenty of room for improvement, but no longer much room for doubt. :!: :!: :!:
http://gilkalai.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/sidles.jpg
Fan it seems to me you don’t grasp the essential aspects of modeling a theory or real phenomena. Ever heard about “analog computing and modeling” ? Well here’s an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC_Computer. You can refine this kind of model ad infinitum by adding and tweaking vessels, valves and pump etc… i.c. the parameters of the model to fit historical data or to try and make a guess at what the future will be.
“MONIAC had been designed to be used as a teaching aid but was discovered also to be an effective economic simulator.”
This model does exactly the same as current digital computer models do for you. If you want to predict the climate future 50 years ahead you need to have all major important valves, vessels etc. etc. correctly in place and keep setting them to their correct values, correcting them ever so slightly, continuously for 50 years. And as this model is inherent analog it will do a better job than an digital process as there is no issue with numerical precision.
I love naivety, it is so endearing.
Fan
I hate to get bogged down among all your smileys, but had to gag when I read
Huh?
“Doubt” is what it’s all about, as our hostess points out.
You then compound the stupidity by citing as the “first deliverable”:
The only predictions from “Hansen-style thermodynamic heat-balance models” to date are the badly botched 1988 forecasts, which predicted warming at exactly twice the rate, which was actually observed.
Ouch!
And the 1988 predictions are going further off course year-by-year as the global warming has now stopped for a period of time, while Hansen’s forecasts keep shooting upward like a NASA rocket.
“Deliverable” indeed!
Max
Manacker, the elements notably missing from your comment were science, rationality, and any concern for long-term consequences :) ;) :grin: :lol: :!:
Fan
Fancy, evasive footwork, empty words embellished with smileys, but no substance.
The Fanny song and dance minstrel show goes on…
Max
I have a comment from an engineer’s perspective.
Consider two dedicated professionals. One works as a climate scientist at a university (an academic) and the other as a design engineer with a project. The subject of selecting a design storm comes up. The academic responds, “I don’t deal with single events. Go see the weather people.” And the engineer replies, “Never mind. I’ll look it up in this here book.”
Simplistic maybe, but it is the way the world works. Design is a complex matter. Just considering climate, the engineer has to set criteria for rainfall, snowfall, wind direction and speed, temperature extremes, degree days, relative humidity, freeze depths, and the possibility of weather extremes of any sort. Then the engineer has to get on with all the other criteria outside of climate that goes into the design, knowing all the time that his or her career is at stake. But let us stay with the design storm and rainfall data for a moment.
Typically, the selection of the design storm would take less that an hour. Most jurisdictions (but not all) require the use of well tested, published design criteria for calculating runoff. A common document is the Weather Service (now NOAA) Rainfall Atlas. The scientists that prepared it used historical data gathered from rain gages and stream gages, monitored for decades if not centuries, with the data being carefully reduced to provide design curves for storms anywhere in the US. It is simple, easy to use, the engineers like it, and all is right with the world.
The process above covers 99% of the design work done. However, there are projects where design curves are not adequate, not available, or not appropriate, and expert advice is required. That is often where the academic, usually busy churning out more scientists and engineers, becomes involved. However, with every such project I have been involved with; historical data has always been the starting point for discussions. “Climate Change” considerations are applied very judiciously and with great suspicion. I have not seen the results of Global Climate Models used at all. Things like sea level rise, wave heights, high and low water in rivers, hurricane tracks, and storm surges are all based on historical data with the occasional consideration of possible extremes events based on theory.
For things not well known and not well understood, the engineer must incorporate an adequate safety margin or, with owner’s permission, accept the risk. Hopefully the the academic can help with that decision. However, the academic has to be careful in pushing the “state of the art” in climate science as the term is somewhat of a lightening rod. Engineers think in terms of the “state of the practice.” If an owner wants to build a high rise on Tybee Island, the engineer is going to help him do it, extreme predictions of beach erosion, sea level rise, and storm surges be damned. If the economics work out, put the foundation on drilled shafts, place the parking deck on the ground floor, and design the structure for 135 mph winds.
One last comment. The average global temperature has no meaning in engineering. Like politics, all design criteria are local. If projects can be designed for +135 degrees (f) in the desert and -60 degrees (f) in the arctic, the range of temperature increase due to global warming can be easily considered. And don’t tell me that those extra degrees will affect the food supply. I have seen vegetables growing quite well in the middle of Saudi Arabia. All that was needed was water.
LOL … The key word “uninsurable” has been included in your post, Bill Norton! ;) :) :grin: :lol: :!:
Because there’s the rub, eh? ;) :) :grin: :lol: :!:
The Empire State Building has stood for eight-one years … the Brooklyn Bridge for one-hundred-thirty years … and both are easily good for another century! ;) :) :grin: :lol: :!:
So maybe engineers *do* have to contemplate periods longer than the six-to-eight years before “profits are harvested”? ;) :) :grin: :lol: :!:
And come to think … the greatest enterprise engineers have always taught in academia too … and the greatest academic engineers have always worked for great enterprises. GOOD! ;) :) :grin: :lol: :!:
So when we analyze your comment rationally Bill Norton … we discern little or no rational sense in it whatsoever! ;) :) :grin: :lol: :!:
I take it you haven’t been to the coast lately. I suggest you visit Destin, Florida. The high rises there are a lot nicer that the ones at Tybee.
One of the design considerations is insurability, but I did not think I would have to explain that.
I take it you haven’t tried to purchase long-term coastal flood insurance, Bill Norton :!: :!: :!:
The public sector won’t insure your buildings for more than five years into the future.
The private sector won’t provide long-term coastal insurance at any price.
And this is true not only in the United States, but all around the world.
Simple Conclusion The global insurance markets have tacitly judged, and politicians have tacitly agreed, that James Hansen’s worldview is scientifically correct. :!: :!: :!:
It’s not complicated, eh Bill Norton? :?: :?: :?:
Bill Norton,
Excellent comment. Excellent reality check.
Bill Norton
Excellent comment on the key differences between the engineer (or applied scientist) and the theoretical (academic) scientist.
It explains why most engineers are skeptical of the CAGW premise.
Max
JC,
From reading your presentation paper it would see they will benefit greatly by having you contribute at this event. One note, you gave examples of Black Swan events, but might you want to give a Dragon King example? (or perhaps its there and I missed it). It still see a lot of confusion around these two.
Dr. Curry:
I liked reading the slides. Will we get to see your talk as well? Without the accompanying talk, it’s a bit hard to get a complete picture you are trying to paint. However, the concepts are explained relatively clearly in layman’s language.
There seems (cite studies please says Joshua, etc-lol), at least in my limited experience, a pathological tendency to focus on the 20,000-ft view (models) and to “stay out of the weeds” (data). This corporate-speak attitude has permeated many levels of our society, including academia. For better decision-making under extreme uncertainty, getting more reference points established in the boring and simple tinker-toy phenomena found in the “weeds” is the best way to reduce uncertainty.
From my perspective, the models would be best used to identify field data gaps, identify opportunities to glean old data and propose collection of new data. Also, you comment above about taking a harder look at paleo. This is great as long as the data is collected to at least geological, not environmental studies standards.
One problem with paleo is that big climate shifts are caused by asymmetrical forcing (insolation, mega-volcanoes, mantle-derived vulcanism, plate tectonics, etc) that creates unique feedbacks, etc. WMGHG forcing is a completely different animal. I have real doubts that it is possible to isolate the WMGHG effects from a 100ppmv CO2 pimple on the back of a huge asymmetrically forced climate shift from random scattered paleo data. Solving this requires a ton on seriously unsexy collection and examination of data, much of which will be dead ends.
Howard
Agree with everything you write.
On paleo data, I think the real problem is two-fold: first of all, there is the flimsy and dicey nature of the proxy data being used and the tiny GH effect that’s being read in, which you mention, but then there is the more basic problem that these studies have almost exclusively been “searches for proof” (that “CO2 is the climate control knob”, as Richard Alley puts it), rather than objective “searches for the truth”. With a skewed starting point, one can “prove” anything with paleo data (as Michael Mann demonstrated).
Max
I have now read Climate Modeling 101 and found it singularly unhelpful. even as a general statement om modelling it is hardly a bible. It jumps from the mathematics of a single cell to computer coding in a single bound. Conputer coding should be much further down the track.
If there were ever any advantages in the IPCC having 34 different models, when one good one would do, it would have to be with 34 conceptually different mathematical models. This would increase the probability that one would be right from the beginning, because few would start with any hope of success.
Top down or bottom up mathematical modelling? (as distinct from computer coding). If you don’t have a good conceptual model to begin with, the initial structure of the mathematical model will be wrong and may never recover. The IPCC seem to have made a fundumental mistake when they ignored climate change before 1940. They either drew or condoned the zero anomoly line through the 1940 average global tenperature. That is, the 1940 temperature was not affected by human action – it was pristine. What a load of codswollop! Worse than that, by not trying to explain climate before 1940, they missed a golden opportunity to explain it and it is not surprising that their models have been poorly based.
I wish Judith and her delegation all the best for the Royal Society meeting. They may use my conceptual model (my website above) as they wish.
Dr Curry,
The best way to handle uncertainty is to reduce it where possible. There seems no mention of this approach at the seminar. My own objection to acting on current climate models is that the obvious major contributors, clouds and aerosols, are not being addressed on a scale commensurate with their dominance of the overall problem.
When the Gulf oil spill was gushing we had a perfect opportunity to discover if sea surface pollution was lowering albedo by slowing aerosol production, but our limited ability to deploy resources prevented our taking advantage of the situation, so an area of uncertainty was left without resolution. Worse, we have no central directive to reduce the uncertainties in obvious areas and we accept them rather than tackle them. This is a major weakness of the IPCC approach to the science — it is a mere review of the latest literature rather than a guide to improvement.
Perhaps all measures would be better put on hold for an iteration and an agreed programme of uncertainty reduction taken as a matter of urgency. As a model I would cite the great IGY which did so much to kickstart its science. (Incidentally, if you ever get the International Climate Year off the ground I’d like to carry the bags on the great ‘oil/srfactant dump onto pristine ocean’ experiment, as I expect it to be near Fiji. I will also observe from the shore. Three star will do.)
I am reminded of a Russian visitor to a UK city many years ago who was being shown around an area with a major litter problem. ‘Sorry about this,’ said the UK councillor, ‘we have a lot of trouble with litter. What do you do about litter in the USSR?’
The visitor looked puzzled.
“We clear it up,” he said.
What do we do about uncertainty in climate science? Err….
JF
Even to myself I’m beginning to sound like OKM. And I have a sticky ‘u’ key, sorry about any lacnae.
Julian Flood: My own objection to acting on current climate models is that the obvious major contributors, clouds and aerosols, are not being addressed on a scale commensurate with their dominance of the overall problem.
Putting into the models the missing Water Cycle would be a useful first step.
Not only would it eliminate the uncertainty around the degree of warming attributable to “greenhouse gases” by giving a 52°C buffer zone before this could become a problem.., [the temps with our atmosphere but without water would be 67°C, think deserts], but it would put rain back into the Carbon Life Cycle, all pure clean rain being carbonic acid, which eliminates the uncertainty created by the fear of man-made carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere because carbon dioxide in this shares the same residence time in the atmosphere as water in the Water Cycle, 8-10 days, there is no accumulation of any significance to worry about.
It is good to put scenario thinking at the center. Robustness requires encompassing possible scenarios in your planning. How do we generate scenarios, since this presentation leaves little choice except for people sitting around a table and inventing them? I would suggest this is where models come in. If one or several models predict Black Swan events, like unprecedented extended droughts in some region over the next century, that should not be ignored, but added as a possible scenario. Maybe another region will have Black Swan floods in some models: add a scenario to the planning. Why ignore them? It is better than inventing scenarios from scratch. The models are credible in extending the subtropical dry zones northwards: plan for that. What happens if Arctic sea-ice melts more: models can tell us whether that means big west European snowstorms, or at least give some scenarios to think about that sitting around a table, imagining what would happen in the climate system, can’t.
I should point out that the second to last slide recommends this use of models, so it is not all negative about models, but would have seemed so to an audience until that slide.
Testing connection(
(Sorry about the glitch!)
Judith raises concerns about the epistemology of models for open, complex systems, distinctly indefinite … and then…adopting an uncertain global climate policy that could possibly produce ‘losses that throw mankind into economic, social and environmental bankruptcy.’
Hmm …Faites vos jeux? ..Like betting yer house on an outsider, a horse with erratic past form, sometimes up, sometimes down, depending where and when and no distinct idea of future performance.
They bet on CO2.
They bet on the Rays.
If they’d bet on Ol’ Solball
They’d be free ones today.
==================
Beth Cooper
A three-legged horse at that.
Max
Ah … ” free!”
Mais oui!
Judith, the speakers are predominantly climate science professionals, and attendance is by invitation only. Who are the likely attendees? That is, what is your likely audience? Who do you want to reach?
Will there be policy-makers there, or non-scientists, businessmen etc, who might be concerned with policy? There’s an impression from your post and comments that you aim to provide a better basis for policy, so I hope that the audience would include people with policy-making experience. If so, they might not immediately catch the significance of your title and intro, and you don’t get on to the decision-making process half way through.
I don’t know your proposed commentary, but I’d be inclined to start with a comment along the lines of: “The policy response to prospective global warming will have enormous ramifications for human well-being. It is therefore essential that policy-makers have a sound basis for their decisions, including understanding of the uncertainties regarding future climate and of the costs and benefits of alternative approaches. I question whether the current climate models are an adequate basis for policy, and suggest some alternatives.”
The audience would then have this framework in mind as you go through the presentation.
Faustino,
That’s a good suggestion. I suspect the audience may not really appreciate the policy issues. This saying comes to mind:
If you don’t recognise there is a problem, you can’t fix it.
By “you” I mean the audience
By “a problem” I mean the science-policy interface.
So, I agree, the first step is to get the audience to recognise the problem, and understand it.
There have been some excellent comments recently describing parts of the problem. There is an excellent comment today by an engineer, Bill Norton, that I suspect many Climate Etc. readers may have read once and not recognised the value of that contribution. He describes how the commercial world works and how issues like possible climate change are dealt with in the commercial world.
Bill Norton’s comment is a few comments above this, here: http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/02/rs-workshop-on-handling-uncertainty-in-weather-climate-prediction-part-i/#comment-247801
This may be the first JC post that I agree with without reservation.
Yeah, Max, and then there’s the jockey as an additional variable. Gettin’ comp – lic -ated.
:-( (reverse fan response.)
Beth
Ah nev’r did trust them corn-puter jockeys.
Max
Judith Curry
There has been a lot of discussion about the role of increased CO2 concentrations on increased plant growth / higher crop yields, plus the possible absorption of add human CO2 by increased plant photosynthesis.
Have there been any studies on these topics?
Is this something that could be specifically discussed here on another thread?
Max
“Look in the sky!”
“It’s a Bird…It’s a Plane…It’s Sky Dragon!”
Splat!
“Oops! It wuz a bird…”
Judith,
The comment to “fan” was written in an impulse, to counter the general implied consensus or belief that computer models or simulations can represent reality or any “realistic” representation of the future. The simple fact is they do not now and they never can. If that would be the case then the monstrosity becomes clear when “social scientist” start using “very accurate, refined and sociological proven models like The Sims” to tell us what will happen if we don’t accept CAGW and it’s consequences. As someone said before, there is no validity in any model or theory not supported by real empirical evidence. Lets remember the most important aspect of science: the universe never gets it wrong, man made theories with human fallacies and errors do.
Anyhow, I think that the analog of the hydraulic computer can help to demystify the aura that is hyped around the current climate models implemented on digital computing devices. A leaking and seeping water computer wouldn’t look at all impressing ,reliable and thrust worthy. The next information age hype (is) could be quantum state computing devices, when they are available even that technology can’t beat reality.
CFD (Computed Fluid Dynamics) has demonstrated in recent years that computing devices can be a great tool in engineering, to get a deeper insight to optimize flow control on a technological level. As far as I know there is no satisfactory CFD model to simulate the regime where laminar flow changes to turbulent flow. Lets ponder and wonder what some of the “great mathematicians to be” of our time are studying and trying to grasp and nail down: chaos and it’s statistical probabilities, attractors, delta path functions, time series, infinite series. Ok, when they are done, made up their minds and theories create the tools for mundane scientist, I am happy to use them and feel backed by the authority of mathematics and can refer to them. That’s science as I see it.
Well the principal actors in the pseudo-scientific sideshow called Climate Science conjured up their own version of science: well it’s a hockey-stick, it can and will be wielded with astonishing speed to hit you over the head to accept the incline. We as new and original mathematicians of Climate Science pose: scientific descent will be proven if you regurgitate the hockey-stick rammed down your throat, again and again until accepted or when denied, to hasten your personal integrity and intellectual demise.
Amen.
——————————————————————————————-
Fan it seems to me you don’t grasp the essential aspects of modeling a theory or real phenomena. Ever heard about “analog computing and modeling” ? Well here’s an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC_Computer. You can refine this kind of model ad infinitum by adding and tweaking vessels, valves and pump etc… i.c. the parameters of the model to fit historical data or to try and make a guess at what the future will be.
“MONIAC had been designed to be used as a teaching aid but was discovered also to be an effective economic simulator.”
This model does exactly the same as current digital computer models do for you. If you want to predict the climate future 50 years ahead you need to have all major important valves, vessels etc. etc. correctly in place and keep setting them to their correct values, correcting them ever so slightly, continuously for 50 years. And as this model is inherent analog it will do a better job than an digital process as there is no issue with numerical precision.
I love naivety, it is so endearing.
Designed by CFD, …
… flown by digital control …
… low, slow …
… and turbulent flow! :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
Check the details fer yerself! :smile: :grin: :lol: :!
Fan, links to knowledge do not make up for lack of knowledge. In my experience there is not only learning but a world to explore in real knowledge. I don’t need to follow your link “Designed by CFD”. I know the theory that is the basis for the computer code that implements and on real hardware calculates CFD. The CAD programs used to construct i.e. a turbine blade and the feedback into CFD to get optimization. The thermal-, mechanical-stress analysis, vibration analysis and whatever you like to do as an engineer.
My advise to you is to start of with a good textbook on Calculus, Schaum comes to my mind. Come on don’t weasel out, learn to calculate real physics. After that you don’t need your links anymore and you will be an informed fan of *intelligent* discourse.
BezorgdeBurger, our points of disagreement arise (in part) because we read-and-appreciate different texts.
For me, a good mathematical first-step in learning dynamics is Michael Spivak’s celebrated best-selling short (and inexpensive!) Calculus on Manifolds: a Modern Approach to Classical Theorems of Advanced Calculus. As one Amazon reviewer says:
A good second step toward a modern appreciation of dynamical flows is Saunders Mac Lane’s classic Chauvenet Lecture (at the US Naval Academy) titled Hamiltonian mechanics and geometry (1970).
These two much-cited works will prepare you to read modern works on non-linear dynamics, and understand (and develop too!) modern simulation codes … here an outstanding resource is Terry Tao’s weblog post “Why global regularity for Navier-Stokes is hard.”
Please enjoy these mathematical resources, BezorgdeBurger! They will assist you to a modern (and wonderfully enjoyable!) appreciation of turbulent dynamical (and thermodynamical) flows! ;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
Fan,
Never got your opinion or assessment to use hydraulic computers as a platform to implement climate models. The infinite amount of parameters each with infinite range of values you can assign to them. If that isn’t bad enough let’s start a discussion on the infinite amount of initial conditions to startup the Gurgling Future Calculating Device (GFCD). The inherent analog and chaotic behavior of fluids make them ideally suited to “compute” or “simulate” inherent analog and chaotic behavior of the universe at an “anthropomorphic” size and time scale.
In my opinion it is obvious: the simplicity of this kind of setup will show to the general public the stupidity of climatologist trying to predict the future 50 years ahead.
BezorgdeBurger ({Worried/Concerned}Citizen) is a fan of Hex (now with sticker Ants Inside), the computer maintained by Ponder Stebbins at the Unseen University.
John Harrison is running an analogue computer modeling a heat engine the size of the Earth @ The Unknowable University. He’s got lots of fans.
================
While we can certainly model catchments using PDE of fluid motion and finite element methds – in a way that is analogous to turbulent flow over wings – climate modelling is orders of magnitude more complex. Indeed dynamically complex – for those more interested in the details of theoretical physics than strewing smilies all over.
‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation’
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
What really is the point I wonder?
Chief Hydrologist,
Partial Differential Equations are used as a tool in Computed Fluid Dynamics with specific conditions assumed, related to the subject in general as fluid flows or more specific to an object as a wing or a turbine blade. Computations, simulations and models are only accepted when there is a “scientific and engineering consensus” that there is a validation, within margins of errors, to reality i.c. empirical data.
As an engineer you have to deal with reality, you don’t deal with expectations and conjectures. Gödel is as far out as, in my juvenile years, my water-pipe showed me vistas of imagination that never materialized.Let’s do a quiz.
I want to fly in a jet designed and powered by science and engineering based on general principles adhered to by:
a) conservative engineer
b) general academic
c) climate researcher
d) environmentalist
Have a nice day, life is to precious to live in ignorance.
Have another bong burger – because the climate is in no sense designed by an engineer. If you looked at the paper quoted – you might have some idea of what constitutes undecidability in the context of atmospheric and oceanic simulations – at the core of which lie the Navier-Stokes PDE.
Your ruminations seem quite irrelevant otherwise. An engineer – and I am an engineer so I know whereof I speak – designs based on many things and not simply a minor aspect of fluid flows. There are materials, cost, weight, ease of manufacture, fuel efficiency, etc.
The output of AOS are very different because they are chaotic – so they may echo Godel in being undecidable. They don’t teach chaos in engineering that I know of – so you may have to learn something new.
I’ll choose a) thanks!
Nothing’s certain except … Jest ter cheer us all up )
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq1q9k_bob-dylan-a-hard-rain-s-a-gonna-fall-1964_music
I saw Bob Dylan on his last tour here. But I will see your hard rain – and raise you Jimi Hendrix with all along the watchtower.
Will yer now? )
I really have to bring this out as a new thread
@@@
lolwot | October 3, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
The burden of proof has never shifted. Those who claim catastrophe from AGW (CAGW) is impossible are making a positive claim to know and so have a burden of proof.
If I were to claim catastrophe from AGW was certain, I too would be making the opposite positive claim and a burden of proof would be on me too. But I am not.
I am pointing out that AGW is significant enough that catastrophe from AGW (CAGW) is plausible. This is also what the IPCC points out. To refute that the burden of proof is on you.
@@@
I am absolutley gobsmacked. What a retreat from the IPCC claims about it being very likely (90% probability) that CAGW is real. This is the most reasonable statement I have seen from lolwot. He is, however, not quite right.
I cannot speak for all deniers, but I have NEVER claimed that CAGW is impossible. All I have ever claimed is that CAGW has never been proven; that the physics behind the claims of CAGW is dubious, not that it is wrong.
If it is true that CAGW is merely plausible, which I cannot disagree with, then why are all our learned scientific societies, and I should add our hostess, saying precisely the opposite? Surely lolwot should be arguing for a complete rewrite of the positions of the Royal Society and the American Physical Society on the issue of CAGW.
I am just wondering if lolwot is willing to discuss, in a quiet and scientific way, the dubious physics behind the claims of no-feedback climate sensitivity and subsequent feedbacks. I am just not convinced that AGW is “significant enough”; I agree it must be real, but the empirical data gives a strong indication that it it is not “significant”.
Having woken up, and had breakfast, let me add to what I have written, in the hopes that lolwot will respond. I will try and lay out where we agree, and where we disagree. I dont want to put words into his mouth, but this is my assessment.
We agree that
1. CAGW is a perfectly reasonable and plausible hypothesis.
2. As more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, it causes a radiative imbalance. For a doubling of CO2 this imbalance is about 3.7 Wm-2.
3. The earth’s atmosphere will respond to this imbalance in order to ensure that as much energy is radiated into space as the earth receives. The response will, therefore, be a rise in global temperatures. AGW is real.
So far as I can see, this is where our agreement ends. I maintain that there is not enough empirical evicence to prove the CAGW hypothesis. I think this rests of two pillars.
a. There is no empirical proof that any observed rise in global temperatures was caused by increased amounts of CO2 in the atmopshere.
b. What little negative empirical data we have, gives a strong indication that the rise in global temperatures as a response to the radiative imbalance is insignificant.
Again, not wanting to put words into lolwot’s mouth. his claim seems to be that the rise in global temperatures in response to the 3.7 Wm-2 is significant enough to warrant action on CAGW.
I am willing, at any time, to discuss in as much detail as anyone wants, the basis for my contention. The question I am asking, is this. Is lolwot willing to discuss the scientific basis for his contention in a quiet, scientific manner?
Let me elaborate on what I wrote as I realize it is not quite accurate. In my commentary of what we agree 1. should read “1. CAGW is AT THE VERY LEAST a perfectly reasonable and plausible hypothesis. (Capitals to show the addition).
“What a retreat from the IPCC claims about it being very likely (90% probability) that CAGW is real.”
The IPCC never claimed that. If I am wrong provide the quote where they do.
Consider that my reply to all your above comments.
lolwot, you write “The IPCC never claimed that. If I am wrong provide the quote where they do.”
You are correct. I was paraphrasing what the IPCC wrote. What they actually wrote in the AR4 was
“Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
So let me restate what I ought to have stated in the first place. What a retreat from what the IPCC claimed. The claim that “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” is very different from what you are now claiming.
Except I agree with the IPCC. I believe most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
Your use of CAGW is a strawman. It wasn’t a paraphrase, you tried to claim the IPCC said something they didn’t. Because if you had to address what me or the IPCC actually say, you’d have no easy argument.
lolwot, you write “Except I agree with the IPCC. I believe most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Fair enough. Do you base your belief about the rise in global temperatures on empirical data? If not, then this is where we differ. I base my scientific beliefs solely on the basis of empirical data.
Heinrich, you write “The rest of your commentary demonstrates a frightening ignorance of the meaning of the word “empirical”, and is therefore rather silly.”
Fair enough. But I dont understand. Will you dissect what I wtote, and show me where I have demonstrated a frightening ignorance of the meaning of the word “empirical”? I am always willing to learn from my mistakes. What have I done wrong?
Jim Cripwell
You may have difficulties getting either Heinrich or lolwot to get specific in debating whether or not CAGW is real (i.e. can be substantiated by empirical scientific evidence).
But let’s see.
Maybe one or the other will surprise us.
But I doubt it.
Max
Max:
You know what they say about old dogs…?
Of course you do – There isn’t a stereotype around that doesn’t appeal to your scientific intuition.
max, you write “Maybe one or the other will surprise us.
But I doubt it”
I have started with Steven Mosher. Heinrich obviously cannot be taken seriously. lolwot seems to have disappeared. However, I noticed in one of his recent postings that he deliberately avoided claiming that there was any empirical evidence to support the various estimates of climate sensitivity. So we may be making progress.
Certainly – Always willing to help out with a ‘teachable moment’.
You have offered up no “proof” whatsoever that you actually had breakfast.
in the first place empirical “evidence” never constitutes a “proof”. so you seem to be confused by the notion of what constitutes a proof and what “empirical” means.
Second
a. There is no empirical proof that any observed rise in global temperatures was caused by increased amounts of CO2 in the atmopshere.
####################################
The simple fact is that causation is never observed and empirical proof of causation is not possible. Causation is inferred from evidence. A better way to proceed from this point is for you to DETAIL what you would count as proof and why you think that constitutes proof. I say this because your notions of empirical and proof seem confused
b. What little negative empirical data we have, gives a strong indication that the rise in global temperatures as a response to the radiative imbalance is insignificant.
Again, you are not being very clear here elaborate. That will help us understand what you mean by proof and evidence.
Steve Mosher asks Jim Cripwell to
”
elaborate.
”
Proof:
See Euclid “Elements”, Proposition I.47 and VI.31.
Amazingly – Euclid did this work around 300 BC and used no hard, measured, independently reproducible data at all.
Crook.
Elkhound
Great waffle.
I always though the Belgians were the waffle experts, but you (pardon the expression) take the cake.
Congrats.
Max
Heinrich
Don’t know what they taught you guys up there in Norway, but we learned that Euclid was a great (Greek) mathematician, sometimes called “the father of geometry” .
Whazzat got to do with physical science like climatology?
Max
Gosh – You’re right – mathematics versus physical science…
Completely disjoint modes of human inquiry.
Nothing in common whatsoever.
I think I finally understand how it is that you ‘skeptical’ denizens can glance sideways at entire scientific disciplines and, with no mathematics, no new measurements, and no alternate physical theory, instantly conclude that they are ‘just plain wrong’.
It’s amazing! Carry on!
Heinrich the Norwegian Elkhound,
You’ve seen nothing else.
Wait till someone tries to tell you that climate sensitivity is not a scientific concept because it does not exist.
Ontoclimatology at its best, or nearly best:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/OntoClimatology
You’ve seen nothing yet, not else, of course.
”
Wait till someone tries to tell you that climate sensitivity is not a scientific concept because it does not exist.
”
Existence is not a predicate.
First rule of climate science metaphysics – know your Kant.
(He was a pissant progressive and a scientist too!)
Bertrand Russell gives the governmental-education complex an “F” for failing to teach that science by ‘consensus’ is no science at all and that fabricating a ‘consensus’ about global warming in the name of science is liberal fascism.
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” (Bertrand Russell)
Oh what a demoralizing thought for the Leftist-libs. Support for their half-baked science of global warming alarmism is drying up. Soon these ‘true believers’ of AGW will have to return to hyping concerns about the environment along with the enviro-whackpots — and, all of the rest of us who really care instead of just yipping and yapping about it.
Of course, this will be a big fall to Earth for the Leftist-libs who in their delusions of grandeur enjoyed so much seeing themselves totally invested in saving the Earth from the evil business of capitalism; and, in particular, saving nature from Western civilization; and, in particular, saving humanity America — the keeper of the torch of individual liberty and the only active participant on the globe supporting people yearning for freedom from tyranny, despotism, neo-atheism and liberal fascism.
The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holders lack of rational conviction. Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately.
Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons.
Bertrand Russell
Probably because Western civilization is going Greek.
Ever wondered why so many of the big buildings in London and Washington look so much like the ones on the Acropolis?
Somewhere, the heads of the ghosts of Plato and Aristotle just exploded.
Dostoevsky does have an imaginative and creative way of defining the problem–i.e., truth no longer matters to the Left, they have no devotion to honesty and are now destitute of the impulse to any uplifting activity.
Oh those selfish evil shortsighted godless lefties!
;) :smile: :grin: :lol: :!:
“The importance of ecology is no longer disputed”
I don’t think Pope Benedict XVI can be a reader of Climate etc!
The Pope has a number of concerns including hunger, poverty and the politics of belief. I won’t go to the latter – but the speech goes on the discuss the ‘ecology of man’. It is a course a metaphor for rediscovering God and not at all about ecology in depth.
But I would commend to the Pope the particular technology of conservation farming because it addresses hunger, poverty, water and soil conservation, improved ecologies and carbon sequestration at the same time. :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/
http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/doc/CA_SSC_Overview.pdf
“Ye shall know them by their fruits; do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? So every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. Therefore by their fruits shall ye know them.” Matthew 7:16-20.
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
The line made with marks “####” are quite interesting. It reminds me of this comment by some “Tom Gray”:
> For example, one of the clear resuls from the IPCC effort is that paleoclimate studies offer very little useful information in relation to the determination of climate sensitivity.
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2011/08/26/climate-link-makes-landfall-ahead-of-irene/#comment-74119
This sentence is being quoted because Marlowe Johnson responded to it:
> Keith is there an emoticon for epic fail?
Interestingly, here’s the answer:
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2011/08/26/climate-link-makes-landfall-ahead-of-irene/#comment-74119
Emphasis added. The following reply by Marlowe Johnson:
> Steve I didn’t realize you’re a sock puppet for Tom Gray. Thanks for letting us know!
No answer to this reply yet.
=====
Peace warriors must go through many hardships, including giving up their identity.
The path of love is not an easy one.
sreven, you write “. What little negative empirical data we have, gives a strong indication that the rise in global temperatures as a response to the radiative imbalance is insignificant.
Again, you are not being very clear here elaborate. That will help us understand what you mean by proof and evidence.”
Thank you for your response. Let me start with the easy one, which I quote above. What I have looked for in all the various temperature/time graphs, is a CO2 signal; a change in trend which shows that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes a change in the rate at which the earth is warming. It is generally agreed that the earth has been warming since the LIA, and the rate without the added effect of CAGW this rate is around 0.06 C per decade. This rate does not seem to have changed. Now I cannot claim that there is no CO2 signal; only that I have searched and I cannot find a CO2 signal. So this is the sense of how I use the term “negative emnpirical evidence”. I can find no empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels has changed the rate at which global temperatures are rising.
From this I deduce that the total climate sensitivity of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.
Wow. This is your long piece
Let me start with the easy one, which I quote above. What I have looked for in all the various temperature/time graphs, is a CO2 signal; a change in trend which shows that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes a change in the rate at which the earth is warming.
#############################
1. You should know that the temperature response function has multiple inputs. basically DeltaT is f(x,y,z…) where C02 is but ONE of these these forcing effects.
2. There is no part of the theory that holds the response to C02 forcing
will be instantaneous. The system has thermal inertia.
3. Show your work. Show what data you looked at. Show your method.
NOT WORDS! but actual data and methods.. that means code.
4. When a theory tells you that the change in temperature will LAG the input, when a theory tells you that ALL FORCINGS must be considered,
It is fraud on your part to look at the data in a way that the theory tells you will fail
######################
It is generally agreed that the earth has been warming since the LIA, and the rate without the added effect of CAGW this rate is around 0.06 C per decade.
######################
sorry, I do not see any WORK here Jim. “generally agreed’? does not cut it for science. Do you believe it is warmer now than in the period of 1650-1700?
1) yes, I am certain
2) yes, but I could be wrong.
How much warmer?
you say .06 per decade? thats about 1.8C warmer
why do you believe this number? on what factual basis?
How did you estimate this rate?
Did you fit a straight line?
Why do you think the underlying model is linear?
Did you look at other data generating functions?
Did you look for unit roots?
what analysis did you actual do?
###############
This rate does not seem to have changed. Now I cannot claim that there is no CO2 signal; only that I have searched and I cannot find a CO2 signal.
1. I see no work that you have done to establish a “rate”
2. fitting a line is not how you find a trend. two different operations
3. Did you assume that all other forcings were equal, that is did you
isolate the variable of interest?
4. The temperature record from 1750 to today can be explained with two variables: Co2 forcing and Volcanic forcing. This does not establish cause, but it does provide evidence that the rise we see is explanable by changes in just a few parameters. Do you have a competing explanation that is superior in terms of explained variance
So this is the sense of how I use the term “negative emnpirical evidence”. I can find no empirical evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels has changed the rate at which global temperatures are rising.
From this I deduce that the total climate sensitivity of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero.
#################
That is not a deduction. That is admission that you don’t understand the theory or how to do the work.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/gistemp/compress:12/detrend:0.1/offset:-0.075/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/detrend:-0.83/offset:-0.35/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.0001/detrend:-0.83/offset:-0.9/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.0001/detrend:-0.83/offset:-0.64/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/off
Try again
Steven, you write”Show your work”
Sorry, I forgot the URL. I have done no work at all. Girma did the work.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/plot/gistemp/compress:12/detrend:0.1/offset:-0.075/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/detrend:-0.83/offset:-0.35/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.0001/detrend:-0.83/offset:-0.9/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.0001/detrend:-0.83/offset:-0.64/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/scale:0.00001/offset:-2
Steven, you also write “The simple fact is that causation is never observed and empirical proof of causation is not possible. Causation is inferred from evidence. A better way to proceed from this point is for you to DETAIL what you would count as proof and why you think that constitutes proof. I say this because your notions of empirical and proof seem confused.”
Here I have a little more difficulty in explaining what I mean. It is generally accepted that CO2 levels have been rising as a result of the burning of fossil fuels. We can measure what this rate of rise is. We can also observe in the various temperature/time graphs, periods when global temperatures are rising, or have risen. Now if we were doing a laboratory experiment, we would ensure that all other factors remained constant, so that we could ensure that any given observed rise in temperature was, in fact, caused by the rise in CO2 concentration.
In the earth’s atmosphere, it is impossible to do laboratory style experiments. We simply cannot prevent all sorts of things from changing, so it is difficult to show that any given rise in temnperature was, in fact, caused by the rise in CO2 concentration. This makes it dificult for the proponents of CAGW to show that any particular occasion when global temperatures rose, that this rise was, in fact, caused by the additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Without this positive proof that, in fact, the rise in temperature was caused by the additional CO2, there is always the possibility that the rise was caused by some of the other things which are changing, and which we cannot control.
I think what I am trying to point out is this. Because we cannot do controlled experiments in the atmiosphere, it is impossible to get the same standards of proof of how much the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere actually causes global temperatures to rise, by making use of empirical data..
Semantic nitpickery. Needs to be qualified. Empirical evidence can be considered proof. Cops find your fingerprint on a window it’s considered proof you touched it. I could go on but probably everyone gets the point except maybe you. Did the sun rise in the east today, Steven? Can you prove it?
Steven Mosher
The IPCC premise (let’s call it CAGW for short) is that most of the observed warming since around 1950 was very likely [i.e. with greater than 90% likelihood] caused by increased human GHG concentrations – AND that this constitutes a potential threat to humanity and our environment unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2).
It is this CAGW premise, as differentiated from the AGW hypothesis, which is in question here.
And it is precisely this premise which is not validated by empirical scientific data.
By empirical scientific data I refer to actual real-time physical observations or reproducible experimentation.
This is just not there.
As far as I can determine, the CAGW premise is not even falsifiable.
An example: Even if the current “unexplained lack of warming” (Trenberth’s “travesty”) continued to year 2100 despite unabated CO2 emissions and CO2 concentrations reaching record levels, this would not “falsify” the premise as stated above.
The world might by then long have buried it, but there would always be “Chinese aerosols,” “natural background noise”, “unexpected climate variability”, etc. (and a thousand other rationalizations) to keep the premise alive.
And that, IMO, is the dilemma of the CAGW premise.
It ain’t “science”. It’s doomsday “religion”
Max
“What have I done wrong?
Well, Jim, and as my wife would say, if you don’t know there’s no point in telling you!
Jim Cripwell
Not to butt into your discussion with lolwot (and Heinrich), but to me the first thing that needs to be demonstrated is that the following claim by IPCC can either be validated or falsified by empirical scientific data (bold type by me):
If this notion cannot be either validated or falsified it is not a valid hypothesis and remains an uncorroborated premise.
You will have great difficulty getting any CAGW supporter to engage in this kind of debate, as it is a loser. There will be waffles, ad homs, side tracks, discussions of Arctic sea ice trends or Russian heat waves, etc., but no specifics on the topic of discussion.
It is the same as with “intelligent design” believers. They are also unable to come up with empirical scientific data to support their belief.
Keep trying, though.
Max
”
There will be waffles, ad homs, side tracks, discussions of Arctic sea ice trends or Russian heat waves, etc., but no specifics on the topic of discussion.
”
Don’t be so hard on yourself, Max.
Every once in a while you ‘skeptics’ say something on topic – or even something true.
Law of large numbers.
The first day of the workshop has been pictorially summarised by the inimitable Josh.
Pingback: Uncertainty Royale « The View From Here
Here’s an interesting application of things we learn from Geometry (in this case the study of Fractal Geometry) to climate models and the physical measures we base them on:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/mean:11/mean:13/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:11/mean:12/scale:-0.15/offset:2.0/plot/rss/last:204/trend/plot/rss/to:1997/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/last:204/trend/scale:-0.15/offset:2.0/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/to:1997/trend/scale:-0.15/offset:2.0/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:11/mean:13/plot/gistemp/last:204/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1980/to:1997/trend/plot/uah/mean:11/mean:13/plot/uah/last:204/trend/plot/uah/to:1997/trend
We find that GISS disagrees with both RSS and UAH satellite trends on 17-year spans (and they disagree with each other), but that there is symmetry: GISS agrees broadly more with UAH trend (though not amplitude) for the 17 years ending 1997, but more with RSS trend in the last 17 years (though again not with amplitude).
So, which of these datasets behaves most like the global temperature? Do we have anything that suggests itself as a proxy for global mean temperature over the multidecadal scale, that can be independently validated and verified? As it happens, the mean Arctic Sea Ice cover is available, and when we scale the trend in sea ice loss over the same spans of time we find an excellent agreement between sea ice and GISS trend.
So what are the minders of the 1970’s technology in orbit doing wrong, that they can’t make the very expensive equipment outperform land-based stations as predictors of sea ice trend? If only their methods were more transparent, we might know. Has anyone done an FOI on UAH’s emails, so we can look into that?
Judith keeps talking about decision making under “deep uncertainty”. To this cynic, decision making under “deep uncertainty” sounds like politics as usual. For example, all estimates of government revenue and outgo depend on some sort of economic model, which superficially have the same weaknesses as climate models: validation issues, adjustable parameters, some key processes (convection, precipitation, human behavior) can’t be reliably modeled. For example, when Bush II came into office, economists were projecting a $5.6 trillion dollar surplus over 10 years and Congress passed a $1.5T tax cut. The Obama economic team’s estimate of what their stimulus would accomplish was equally poor. Unfortunately, analysis becomes even less rigorous as one moves from economics to other social “sciences” relevant to policy making. For example, consider the Head Start program, which was rigorously demonstrated to produce lasting benefits during pilot studies, but found to produce only small transient changes after being implemented on large scale for decades. As for black swans and dragon kings, these may be just new names for the unlikely outcomes that politicians have long used to scare colleagues and voters.
Re-orienting climate research to provide better information to policy makers sounds great. Focusing on robust decision making should help. An observational method for accurately determining climate sensitivity would be much more valuable.
Max, It was Simon and Garfunkel who wrote about the sounds of silence; and silence can speak louder than words. You were absolutely correct when you suggested that the proponents of CAGW will never join in a proper scientific debate on CAGW. I asked lolwot whether his trust in the IPCC was based on empirical data. No response. Steven Mosher asked me for more details on my ideas, and I wrote two quite long pieces. No response from Steven. I can only assume that everything I wrote was absolutely correct, though I doubt that this is true.
I had some correspondence with our hostess following your summary of what we skeptics think are the important tissues, following the last thread on “Skeptics make your best case”. I suggested to her that she should select just one of the issues in your summary, get the proposer to do the introduction, and then have a whole thread on that issue. Again I got no response.
The fact of the matter is that the only way that the issue of whether the hypothesis of CAGW is right or wrong, lies in the empirical dara. There is no other way that, scientifically, the issue can be settled. Sooner or later the issue of empirical data must be addressed. For the proponents of CAGW to hide their head in the sands, and pretend that they can solve the issue without empirical data is just ludicrous. And our hostess is preaching to the converted at the Royal Society in the UK, trying to pretend that there is an alternative way of solving the problem.
The mind boggles.
”
You were absolutely correct when you suggested that the proponents of CAGW will never join in a proper scientific debate on CAGW.
”
The ‘proper’ debate has already occured in the published literature.
You can read all about it if you have the courage.
It is laughable that you contemptuously demand empirical evidence and ‘proof’ and simultaneously take blog commentary to be “scientific debate”.
Why is it that science denialists always expect others to do their leg-work for them?
And when no one does, that this somehow supplies evidence of a global scientific conspiracy?
You post some ‘aw shucks – please exlpain this’ words on a blog – and because no one cares enough to take up the Sisyphusian job of supplying you with freely available scientific results, you conclude that you are a brilliant scientist and all those people with earned PhDs in the Royal Society are stupid dickwads or hoaxers
”
The mind boggles.
”
Your mind boggles.
Mine is no longer surprised anything I read here.
“The ‘proper’ debate has already occured in the published literature.”
When was there ever a debate about CAGW in “the published literature?” The politicized CAGW propaganda train left the station in 1988. A debate requires two sides, one pro and one con. Where are all the published articles in the peer reviewed literature that argued against the CAGW consensus, even before it was formed?
The only debate has been forced on the “consensus climate science” community from the outside.
There was never a con side to the CAGW “debate” among the government sponsored scientists and bureaucrats who have simply followed their tribe all along. Just as there has never been a debate (among progressive academics) over the coming rapture of progressivism vs. the freedom of the free market.
Progressives are minted early on, and never even consider the alternatives to their view of themselves as the elite who should have the right to control the lives of others. They are taught (including in climate “science”) only one view, and are taught to ridicule and ignore anyone who dissents. That’s why progressives think The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are news shows.
That is also why progressives can never actually debate those who disagree with them. The closest they can come is SkepticalScience, which uses straw men and distortions to pretend they are engaged in a debate.
Never mistake someone’s unwillingess to debate for their inability to debate.
Personally, I take great care to avoid actual debate with all kinds of people – Climate Etc denizens are no exception.
Thank you for illustrating my point so promptly.
Your comment is an excellent example of what progressives do when confronted with an argument that conflicts with the view they have formed in their protective tribal bubble.
You claimed ““The ‘proper’ debate has already occured in the published literature.”
I pointed out that no such “debate” ever occurred within the “climate science” tribe, because the CAGW “consensus” started out as a consensus. Rather than dispute the point, you change the subject. Why? Because you don’t know how to respond. You would have to either cite to dissenting views in the peer reviewed literature post-1988, or concede the point. You have been programmed to never concede anything, like a good little progressive, and don’t have a clue as to where to find a dissenting, peer reviewed article, published before there was a “consensus.” So quick, talk about something else.
Maybe you should apply to write for SS?
GaryM,
I thought lawyers had some kind of honor code.
Something to do with, among other virtues, courtesy, good manners, fairness, and due consideration:
http://www.sdcba.org/index.cfm?pg=AttyCodeConduct
Or perhaps this is only something that binds you toward one very specific “bar”?
INTREGRITY ™ – Mind Your Manners, Dammit!
Heinrich, you are not the only one.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100183929/romneys-debate-victory-spooked-the-mainstream-media-this-is-why-republicans-nominated-him/
Everyone was watching too.
11062012
> Must have struck a nerve [1] because another progressive drone [2] chimes in with an ad hominem [3] non sequitur [4].
[1] Speculative attribution.
[2] Deshumanizing stigmatization.
[3] Misleading labeling.
[4] Proof by assertion.
Seventeen words, four dirty tricks.
And that’s notwithstanding the flurry of all those use to struck nerves.
Have you shown how the efficiency of your technique to your colleagues, GaryM?
Say – Gary, have you heard about the latest conspiracy?
Along with your conspiracy among “the mainstream media” and your conspiracy amongst the pollsters, now we have a conspiracy at the Bureau of Labor Statistics to fudge the unemployment numbers.
Grab the women and children and head for the hills, Gary. And for god’s sake, don’t forget your keys to the bunker.
Joshua,
First, thanks for demonstrating my point even better than Willard.
Second, you are just so precious. Bragging about an unemployment rate of 7.8 percent almost 4 years after your beloved bishop of progressivism was elected. Oh, and it’s “only” 7.8 percent because they don’t count people who have been unemployed so long they have given up looking. Which puts the real unemployment rate over 11 percent.
But the BLA has had to revise downward its job creation numbers, and revise up the unemployment rate for the last, oh I don’t know, 20+ months. Want to bet they revise them again the same way for these announced numbers?
Not that it matters to those of you safely feeding at the government trough, but of the 800,000 plus increase in jobs claimed in the household survey, over 500,000 of them were part time jobs.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/the-sickly-stagnant-september-jobs-report/
What a recovery! Go Obama! Four more years!
Progressives use statistics like Leni Riefenstahl used celluloid.
Oh, and Joshua, you should quit lying about me claiming conspiracies. As an example, you say stupid things, lolwot says stupid things, Heinrich, the latest addition to your progressive denizen tribe says stupid things. That doesn’t mean you are engaged in a conspiracy to say stupid things. You are just all committed to regurgitating the same dogma.
But don’t worry, lying about what other people say is just such a habit with you, I don’t actually expect you to stop.
GaryM
From my perspective on this side of the pond debt seems to be by far the most urgent problem that the US-and by inference the West-has to deal with.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
The US is drowning in debt. It is kept afloat by other peoples money. Which of the two presidential candidates has a programme to deal with this alarming problem?
tonyb
tony b,
Obama’s idea of policy is more of the same. Hike taxes, increase regulation and cost of energy, continue the socialization of the healthcare economy.
Romney is better, but only because he is constrained by the need to get elected. Currently, his proposal on taxes is no net change, reduce rates but reduce exemptions as well. And on healthcare, what he is saying now is not truly promising.
If Romney does the types of things he talked about in the debate, then conservative economic policies will get teh economy going. More people working means more tax revenue. More people working means more profits to corporations, which means more tax revenue.
So Romney the presidential candidate will deal with the debt by slowing the growth in government, and increasing revenues by growth.
Now if he governs like he did in Massachusetts, he be will like a third Bush. Get elected as a conservative, govern as a progressive, and we will continue down the path to financial armageddon, just at a slightly reduced rate.
The key to dealing with the debt in the US will be conservatives taking control of the House and Senate.
Here’s a conspiracy Joshy can get his gums around.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/05/1140435/-Did-Mitt-use-crib-notes-for-the-debate
Hankygate.
Wow – Gary!
No need to offend, bro. I just figured that given your belief in the “non-conspiracy” that pollsters are deliberately creating fraudulent polls by over-sampling Dems, you’d have a similar belief in the “non-conspiracy” that the Bureau of Labor Statistics was in cahoots with the Whitehouse to create fraudulent unemployment stats.
First, thanks for demonstrating my point even better than Willard.
Second, you are just so precious. Bragging about an unemployment rate of 7.8 percent almost 4 years after your beloved bishop of progressivism was elected. Oh, and it’s “only” 7.8 percent because they don’t count people who have been unemployed so long they have given up looking. Which puts the real unemployment rate over 11 percent.
But no, I’m not “bragging” about the 7.8 unemployment rate. I think that isn’t very good at all – which is why I’m surprised that Obama is ahead in the polls. 7.8 is pretty bad. Although I will note that given the unemployment trend when he took office, it is an improvement over his predecessor. I will also note that
Oh, and tell me, Gary – would you suppose that the Bureau of Labor Statistics was also in cahoots with the Regan Whitehouse?
Guess so, huh?
And finally,
Really? I have read multiple places that the numbers of jobs were revised upwards by 86,000 jobs in July and August. I guess everyone but you must be “non-conspiring” to mislead, eh – because they say the numbers have been revised upwards and you say they have been revised downwards?
Keep those “non-conspiracies” going, Gary.
Heinrich
The “null hypothesis” is that those who engage on blog sites but refuse to debate the issues, which are being discussed on these blog sites, are not able to do so.
Of course, this inability also leads to an unwillingness.
Max
Quite right, Max, so what shall we infer from the crickets we’re still hearing over there:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/02/rs-workshop-on-handling-uncertainty-in-weather-climate-prediction-part-i/#comment-248790
?
Max likes crickets. In the past, there are a couple of other topics he ducked out on when he had no reasonable answers to questions posed. Most recently, it happened when Max was completely wrong about Muller, laughably tried to argue that he wasn’t wrong, and then vanished even thought asked repeatedly to show some accountability.
Pretty much disproves the whole “rational skeptic” line of argumentation, I’d say. I’d say that accountability for errors is pretty much indispensable to being rational.
“The Labor Department also said that 41,000 fewer jobs were created in June and July than previously reported. The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for June was revised from 64,000 to 45,000, and the change for July was revised from 163,000 to 141,000.”
http://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/august-2012-unemployment-report
http://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/august-2012-unemployment-report
But don’t worry all you unemployed, Joshua read somewhere that the job creation numbers were revised upward in June and July.
Gary –
Maybe if you checked with the more recent info, you’d find that your “non-conspiracy” mongering is ill-informed:
Keep trying, Gary. One of these days you’ll find evidence to support your “non-conspiracies.”
In the meantime – you do always amuse.
Joshua is vying for the honor of being the most dishonest denizen on ClimateEtc.
In trying to disprove my comment that the BLS has repeatedly had to revise its jobs report numbers down, Joshua posted the following quotation to show the contrary:
“Oct 5, 2012 4:41 PM ET
The economy added 114,000 workers last month after a revised 142,000 gain in August that was more than initially estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington.
[…]
Revisions to July and August added a total of 86,000 jobs to payrolls in those months.”
No link, no citation, no attribution at all. Now I know Joshua is lazy, but it seemed odd to copy so long a quote without providing a link or cite. So I googled the first paragraph. And then I understood why. The quote is lifted from a Bloomberg article here:
http://www.newsmax.com/Economy/Jobs-Part-Time-Positions-unemployment/2012/10/05/id/458819
And guess what Joshy omitted with his ellipses. The very next sentence in the initial paragraph reads: “The median estimate of 92 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for an advance of 115,000.”
In other words, Joshy used an article that compared BLS revised numbers to earlier estimates of economists, not the prior BLS numbers, to try to disprove the comment I made, with two links, to show the BLS had to revise its job numbers downward in the months he claimed they had been revised upwards.
Now why spend so much effort to find an article, selectively edit it, and then cut and paste it without a link or cite? Why try so hard to create the appearance of authenticity on such a minor, at best tangential point to the subject of this thread?
Why? Because a dishonest, pedantic, boring progressive can’t stand to admit making even the most minor error.
And why spend so much time demonstrating his dishonesty? One I was bored, two I wondered if the stats I had found in several places had in fact been misrepresented, and three, to determine whether Joshy is just too reflexively dishonest to waste another comment on.
If someone who will go to such lengths to lie to try to prevail on such a minor point, why would anyone believes anything he says again, ever? Why waste time engaging in discussion on any issue with someone whose desperate need to win any argument so outweighs any sense of integrity?
Creating straw men, putting words in someone else’s mouth because you can’t argue with what they actually say is dishonest. But it par for the course in debating progressives. But this embarrassingly petty display of dishonesty just takes the cake.
But then, it’s my own fault for trying to engage with Joshua as though he were an adult.
Gary –
Is this some kind of a joke? I excerpted the relevant information from the Bloomberg site. No citation was necessary because you can find the same information all over the web. Obviously, if you wanted to find the specific cite I quoted from, of course you could just Google a string. If I felt there was something unique or important about the particular cite I excerpted, I would certainly have provided a link.
As for your absolutely laughable argument – here is a quote from a BLS link (Google the string if you don’t believe me).
Now Gary – your claims that I’m a liar aside, I do think that you can add 40,000 + 46,000, can’t you?
So Gary, I would suggest that you try researching a bit better before you make statements – even more so if you’re going to run around calling people dishonest.
So what that means, Gary, is that the following is all fantasy:
It is the fantasizing of someone who dreams up actions and motivations on the part of someone else, and then becomes convinced of their veracity minus actual evidence. It is the type of fantasizing we typically find among conspiracy theorists.
Now Gary. Maybe you should revisit this statement of yours.
Now I won’t chalk up your failure to acknowledge your errors to your political ideology. I won’t even attribute it to your character. I wouldn’t doubt that in real life, you are more careful to not make errors and to own up to them when you do. I wait for evidence before drawing conclusions. But it will be interesting to see how you walk this one back.
And no matter what, you do continue to amuse.
Gary –
I notice that you just posted on the most recent thread. Judith made a specific request to keep that thread on topic, so I will ask you here why, after calling me a liar and saying that I edited material for the purpose of deception, you have failed to respond to the above comment.
Did you just miss it? Or are you avoiding accountability for being wrong?
If you can point to your pieces I’d gladly read them. However, anyone who argues that sensitivity is ZERO either does not understand sensitivity or has overturned the laws of physics.
Steve
That is not an accurate statement. Net sensitivity can certainly be zero. The issue is for how long it would be maintained.
Steven, my pieces are at
Jim Cripwell | October 4, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Reply
Jim Cripwell | October 4, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Reply
Please note I have very carefully never claimed that the total climate sensitivity is zero. I have always been very careful to claim it’s value is indistinguishable from zero.
‘ I have always been very careful to claim it’s value is indistinguishable from zero.”
Indistinguishable from Zero is rather meaningless Jim and unfalsifiable.
What’s the climate sensitivity when the squiggly line goes down?
Andrew
Steven Mosher
No one here (as far as I can judge) “argues that the sensitivity is ZERO”.
Several posters have, however, argued that the sensitivity is not as high as posited (or estimated) by IPCC.
They (including our hostess) have questioned the IPCC claim, i.e. that most of the warming since 1950 was caused (90+% probably) by increase of human GHGs, due to the many uncertainties surrounding the attribution of natural versus anthropogenic forcing.
Many also question the scientific validity of the IPCC projections of future anthropogenic warming and its consequences, especially the IPCC premise that these are likely to result in serious negative impacts, i.e. a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2).
These two premises (about the past and the future) are often referred to as the “CAGW premise”, to differentiate from the AGW theory itself (i.e. the premise that the sensitivity is greater than ZERO).
And it is this “CAGW premise”, which is being debated here, not the AGW theory
Max
> the IPCC premise that these are likely to result in serious negative impacts
Quote and citation needed.
And I thought it was a conclusion.
If it really was a premise, AGW would be easy to prove:
(1) C & AGW [premise]
(2) AGW [discharge of the &]
Quite simple, really.
Willard
If it’s so “easy” to cite empirical data that supports the CAGW premise, why are you not simply doing just that?
Answer (my “null hypothesis”): because you are unable to do so.
Quite simple, actually.
Max
PS But I’m really more interested in reading what Mosh has to say.
Max,
My point was a logical one. A premise is something you take for granted. It is your evidence basis. Asking for evidence about your evidence basis leads to an infinite regress.
Not that you would mind playing that game, now, would you?
The place to look for the evidence should be on the IPCC’s reports. Since you’re the one who’s contesting this evidence, the onus is on you to go check it out. I hope you’re not trying to burden me with what you have to prove. Terry Oldberg tried that recently. It did not work too well for him.
So let’s recap: you claim there exists an “IPCC premise”, and that this premise has no evidence basis. Notwithstanding the fact that it’s usually the evidence basis that plays the role of a premise in a scientific explanation, we should remind you that if you have not succeeded in finding that evidence basis by reading the IPCC’s reports, you should read them again.
Heinrich
I’m beginning to think that you are either dense or unable to read and digest the written word when written in English, so let me repeat (I’ll put it in bold letters, so you can see it better way up there in Norway).
1. The CAGW premise can be stated as follows: “most of the warming since 1950 is more than 90% likely to have been caused by increased human GHGs and this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions, principally CO2”
2. It is up to the proponents of the above CAGW premise to provide the empirical scientific evidence to support this premise, NOT up to the rational skeptics of this premise to provide empirical scientific evidence to falsify it.
3. The premise, as stated, appears to not even be scientifically falsifiable, therefore it appears to be an invalid scientific hypothesis.
Now, if you do NOT support the above CAGW premise (point 1) just simply state so and we can end this entire discussion.
However, if you DO support this premise, tell me first how it could be scientifically falsified.
Then show me the empirical data that support the CAGW premise.
If you CANNOT tell me how it could be falsified and CANNOT provide these data, I’ll take it that this is simply because this is not a scientifically valid hypothesis.
OK?
Got it this time?
Max
Max,
I thought you drank the falsificationnist Kool-Aid.
According to falsificationnism, science is only a bunch of conjectures and refutations.
In other words, your #3 contradicts your #2.
Re: #1, CAGW is not a proper way to label the hypothesis, btw. And if you’re to criticize an hypothesis, you should quote it as formulated, with the proper citation.
Willard
To your critique of my post
#1 concerns the terminology “CAGW”. I did not make this up. It has become the general name for the IPCC premise
a) that most of the warming since around 1950 has with greater than 90% likelihood been caused by increases in human GHGs and
b) that this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment unless actions are undertaken to curtail emissions of GHGs (principally CO2)
If you do not subscribe to that premise, great. The debate is over.
#3 does not contradict #2.
Regarding falsifiability see:
http://www.experiment-resources.com/falsifiability.html
and
Read more: http://www.experiment-resources.com/falsifiability.html#ixzz28T1kq9N8
IOW, by Popper’s definition, a premise that is not falsifiable is not a scientific hypothesis. I do not believe that the premise as stated is falsifiable, because there are too many built-in loopholes. So I ask those who support this premise to tell me how it could be falsified.
For example: it has not warmed for 11 (or 15) years despite ever increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other human GHGs.
This apparently is not yet seen as a “falsification”. Ben Santer has estimated that it takes 17 years before a trend is statistically significant. Will the premise be “falsified” if no warming continues for two more years? Would 20 years of “no warming” be a “falsification”? How about 30? 50? etc. (I think you get my drift.)
#2 is more specific to the scientific validity of the premise (Feynman). If the premise is not supported by empirical evidence, such as from real-time physical observations or reproducible experimentation , it remains an uncorroborated hypothesis. The CAGW premise, as outlined, has not yet been validated by such empirical evidence.
So I have asked those who support the CAGW premise to provide the empirical scientific evidence to support the premise. (So far, no takers.)
Hope this has cleared up your confusion on these points.
Max
Max,
1. I’m not sure who calls it the “IPCC premise” except you. CAGW is not a premise, but a conclusion. A conclusion you have not quoted, nor cited. The fact that it’s been called like that by its opponent does not justify the use of this epithet. AGW and CAGW are quite different beasts and to force the C into the AGW is more than a terminological issue.
In any case, a quote is needed if you want to make sure you that you are not waving a strawman.
2. The point is that your #2 reformulates confirmationnism (e.g. “the empirical scientific evidence to support this premise”), while #3 rejects this epistemology. Popper invented falsificationnism because he did not believe that any evidence could ever support an hypothesis. For falsificationnists, this idea makes no sense whatsoever. Testability could be enough for someone who is less stringent Popper concerning falsifiability.
Thus #2 and #3 are indeed contradictory.
That’s notwithstanding the fact that falsification should be directed toward AGW as a whole, and perhaps even the whole serie of theories, as Lakatos believes.
That’s notwithstanding the fact that AGW might not even be a theory:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/8960561626
That’s notwithstanding the fact that you’re supposed to establish your falsifying criteria on beforehand, on an a priori basis. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that could prevent you from invoking any ad hoc decision to refuse the evidence.
And that’s what you do.
3. Whatever the merits of your epistemological standpoint, it is important that we have a better grasp on the “empirical scientific evidence to support” some thesis.
Here is John Nielsen-Gammon formulation:
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/08/roger-pielke-jr-s-inkblot/
I hope you will find this to your liking.
Enjoy,
w
PS: Please wait a bit before your touchdown dances. You still are on your line of 20.
”
If you CANNOT tell me how it could be falsified and CANNOT provide these data, I’ll take it that this is simply because this is not a scientifically valid hypothesis.
OK?
Got it this time?
”
Max, I got it long ago. No need to yell.
Since willard has already taken your comment apart, let me just add this…
Like most denialists, you are too lazy to do the required homework to understand the science that you deny. Not my problem. I’m only here for the doggy treats and to poo in the yard – I don’t have nearly enough of the self-satisfaction that you display to think that what goes on here is at all important.
Your personal opinion on whether something constitutes “a scientifically valid hypothesis” are as crucial to the scientific enterprise as wheels on honey-bees.
OK?
Heinrich
As you see, I have deconstructed Willard’s critique, explaining to him why his points of critique were based on false assumptions or incorrect understanding of my previous post. So that’s taken care of.
Now, since you are unwilling to cite any empirical evidence to support the CAGW premise, which you apparently support, I can only assume (my “null hypothesis”) that you are unable to do so.
Case closed for me.
It was interesting talking with you and reading your sometimes witty commentary.
Max
Dear Max,
I’m not sure why you think that the case is closed.
As far as I am concerned, you just opened it.
Best of luck,
w
Crickets.
“1. The CAGW premise can be stated as follows: “most of the warming since 1950 is more than 90% likely to have been caused by increased human GHGs and this represents a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment, unless actions are undertaken to curtail human GHG emissions, principally CO2″ ”
It rather seems that the CAGW premise is that we had catastrophic events caused by CO2 that has risen, and/or we will have catastrophic events caused higher levels of global CO2 which humans have caused to rise.
First it should be noted that any rise or fall of global CO2 which is not caused by human activity is not CAGW.
And second it should noted that the increase in global CO2 since the time global CO2 began to be measured in 1959 has been about 80 ppm, so this is from 1959 up to 2012- 53 years. With roughly, starting 1 ppm yearly increase to a 2 ppm. And that a 1 ppm of global CO2 is roughly equal to 8 billion tonnes of CO2.
The amount of CO2 emission assignable to human activity is an extremely vague term which as not been clearly established. It is unmeasurable because it has not been clearly defined, this by itself, condemns the premise of CAGW.
Instead of clearly defining human CO2 emission, it is common to focus on the emission of CO2 from the process of burning carbon compounds [fossil fuels] which used for energy needs the technologically advanced segment of the human population. This done because this is significant source of emitted CO2 and because this involves economic numbers which have been counted and recorded. I.e, it’s the drunk looking for his keys under the street lamp, because this is a location which has enough light to see them.
So there is very exact measurement of burning of fossil fuels, an there has very vague numbers given for “land use” and it seems because there is good light on fossil fuel CO2 emission the focus generally on these relativity exactly measured quantities, e.g. sources such as Wiki do say:
“The following table is lists the 2010 estimate of annual CO2 emissions estimates (in thousands of CO2 metric tonnes)”
World: 33,508,901 (thousands tonnes of CO2)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Which is 33.508901 billion tonnes.
Whereas only absolute fools would give number for example,of say, xxx.xx [carried to second decimal point] billion tonnes emission for anything like *land use* or any other CO2 emission [or CO2 sink]. So comparatively, fossil fuel is has very, very, very good night time seeing conditions available for any dumb drunk who is wandering around looking for car keys.
So given the above caveat, which should be ringing loud in your ears,
roughly the fossil fuel emissions vaguely average out to half of the amount [2 ppm equals 16 billion tonnes of CO2- and 33.5 divided by 2 is roughly, 16 [though there various persons which could provide you with numbers to a couple decimal points]. And so, roughly one can say that 1/2 of human emission from the burning of fossil fuels is added to the atmosphere. But fossil fuel emission has risen from 1959 to today by more than a factor of 3. So less than 1/2 of these emissions, would *more accurate*. Or another way to characterize it, there seems to be an ever increasing amount of human emission which get absorbed as these human emission *dramatically increase* within the 50 or so years.
As I said there is no way to know how much the global CO2 increase is due to human activity, but since from 1959 we measured about 80 ppm increase, we can say it’s less than 80 ppm during this period.
Since the beginning of 20th Century, one could make a list of catastrophic weather events or changes in climate. A very well known example would be the dust bowl:
“The Dust Bowl, or the Dirty Thirties, was a period of severe dust storms causing major ecological and agricultural damage to American and Canadian prairie lands in the 1930s, particularly in 1934 and 1936. ”
This particular event occurred over 70 years ago and require extreme level madness to say it caused rising global CO2 levels which caused by humans. It would less crazy to say perhaps that any human increase in Global CO2 has *prevented* another dust bowl event from occurring- but is just less crazy. The point is global CO2 had nothing to do with it.
In addition there is no known catastrophic event caused by rising CO2 levels [regardless what fraction of this increase is caused by humans].
What is known in terms consequences of rising global CO2 levels is a significant increase crop yield and natural vegetation growth from elevated levels of CO2. Or there has made available more food and more timber as direct an measurable and knowable amount- a direct not refutable causation.
The past has no evidence of CAGW, so it only in the future that there is any hope of finding such evidence. And there little reason to assume a continuation of warming trend of the 20th century will bring about such catastrophic events. They has been what could be called catastrophic event in the past [none assignable as being caused by levels of CO2], and they probably will event one can call catastrophic in the future, though such events would need to be caused by rising CO2 levels in order for them to be relevant to the CAGW hypothesis.
It seems fairly obvious that continuation of a 20th Century warming trend is not seen as supportive of CAGW hypothesis, and what is *needed*
is a significant increase in the rate of global warming. And we have seen any indication of such increase.
What is known is the ever increasing global CO2 level will cause further increases in crop yields and more increase in growth of natural vegetation. Which is needed for a growing human population- about 9 billion people by around 2050 or so.
Dear Agony Aunt Judith,
I had given up indulging in unsafe sex with strangers. Some years ago I’d read an article on the health risks which said that this was likely to reduce my lifespan by anything between 10 to 15 years.
However, I’ve just read another article by a different doctor and he says there is more uncertainty to it all than has previously been admitted by these so-called experts, and, in his opinion, the reduction is more likely to be anywhere between 5 and 20 years.
Does this mean it is now OK to resume my unsafe sex?
Dear tempterrain
Don’t believe everything you read.
Unsafe sex has been shown with empirical evidence to be a high risk factor for sexually transmitted diseases of all types. HIV/AIDS is a killer disease that is transmitted primarily through unsafe sex.
People have choices, however.
If you are a single (I’m assuming you are a male), how you live your life is your business. Some would rather have 20 or 30 years of freewheeling sexual adventure before dying of AIDS, rather than live to a ripe old age.
If you are married or have a steady partner, and still engage in unsafe sex with others, you are putting your partner as well as yourself at risk, and you should consider the moral or ethical aspects.
My advice to you – just say NO.
If this is too difficult, follow the “Boy Scout” motto: “be prepared”.
Yours truly,
Aunt J
The Pope has a number of concerns including hunger, poverty and the politics of belief. I won’t go to the latter – but the speech goes on the discuss the ‘ecology of man’. It is a course a metaphor for rediscovering God and not at all about ecology in depth.
But I would commend to the Pope the particular technology of conservation farming because it addresses hunger, poverty, water and soil conservation, improved ecologies and carbon sequestration at the same time. :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/
http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/doc/CA_SSC_Overview.pdf
“Ye shall know them by their fruits; do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? So every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. Therefore by their fruits shall ye know them.” Matthew 7:16-20.
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
Why was there any need for the BEST study?
http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/c0.0.320.320/p403x403/545711_372490466160346_706884953_n.jpg
Ye shall knoow them by their fruits.’ sure covers a lot of ground…
“Dear Messrs Malthus and Erlich,
Yer apocalyptic theories of population disaster and famine have been falsified. Populations world wide are stabilizing, child mortality is going down but women are also having fewer children. Hans Rosing stats from census data show the best stats you’ve ever seen and the gaps between developed and ‘third ‘world countries are reducing. So stop yer doomsayer pronouncements and take a look at rhe real world data…”
“Dear IPCC Consensus on AGW and it’s bad fer yer… Central Committee,
You say its probable that pesky humans are caising the planet to significantly warm. But where’s yer evidence that the planet ‘s 1985 – 1998 warming is unprecedented in the historical record? And where’s yer evidence that rising temperatures are in lockstep with increasing CO2 emissions? Where also is yer evidence of the ‘Hot Spo’t global warming fingerprint? And that’s jest fer starters. Verification and falsification is the name of the game but yer seem ter be playing a different game.”
“Dear Green Parties fer drastic action on CAGW ,
So if CO2’s as BAD as yer claim, and we ‘re facing ARMAGEDDON, why aren’t yer actively promoting conservation farming that sequesters carbon from the atmosphere and into the soil and increases the fruits of the earth and feeds populations. We shall know you by yer fruits, be they positive or negative.”
What uncertainty? Certainly easy enough to fix:
=====
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/05/yet-another-fix-needed-for-climate-models-this-time-due-to-aerosols/#comment-1101975
richardscourtney says:
October 5, 2012 at 10:35 am
In other words the models use values of “Total anthropogenic forcing” that differ by a factor of more than 2.5 and they are ‘adjusted’ by using values of assumed “Aerosol forcing” that differ by a factor of 2.4.
So, each climate model emulates a different climate system. Hence, at most only one of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth because there is only one Earth. And the fact that they each ‘run hot’ unless fiddled by use of a different and completely arbitrary ‘aerosol cooling’ strongly suggests that none of them emulates the climate system of the real Earth.
===========
There is only one Earth, but as they’re all using different fiddling tunes without ever having shown there is such a critter as “anthropogenic forcing” then none is relevant to the this our one real Earth.
How come that not one of the “97% consensus of scientists” has managed to provide even one reasonable empirical science basic example to show that carbon dioxide is capable of driving global temperatures?
Because they can’t. It is physically impossible for carbon dioxide to do what they say it can do.
Carbon Dioixide is a trace gas incapable of forming an “insulating blanket” around the Earth, unless you redefine insulating blankets as being practically 100% hole. Even doubling carbon dioxide the blanket is still all hole.
Carbon Dioxide cannot physically accumulate in the atmosphere for “hundreds and even thousands of years” because a) carbon dioxide cannot defy gravity; it is one and half times heavier than Air, and b) it is fully part of the Water Cycle; all pure clean rain is carbonic acid and in this it shares the same residence time in the atmosphere as water, 8-10 days.
Carbon Dioxide cannot store heat; it has a heat capacity even less than oxygen and nitrogen and releases any heat it absorbs practically instantly.
What does one have to do to get “AGW/CAGW climate scientists” to focus on the lack of basic science logic in this their basic premise?
They would not have to lie about the properties of Carbon Dioxide if it really could do what they claim.
Quite frankly, this lack of phyisical science nous of the real physical world around us as they play childish games with their ‘models’ of their claims for Carbon Dioxide, is embarrassing.
This generation of “climate scientists” will be the laughing stock of future science historians.
As they are now to any with even a smattering of basic real physics knowledge of properties and processes.
“Shortwave in longwave out” – this is such utter physical stupidity that it is only that the majority of those who do know real physics and difference between heat and light energies from Sun, don’t know that this is the basic energy premise of the Greenhouse Effect comic cartoon energy budget, KT97 and kin.
When will AGW/CAGW “climate scientists” wake up to the fact that they’re decribing a totally fictitious Earth created out of someone’s imagination?
And wake up to the fact that they don’t have any relevant real world science knowledge of physical properties and processes to be able to spot that what they’re saying is really, really, stupid.
I don’t know whay my post today Myrrh | October 6, 2012 at 6:53 am has appeared slipped in before posts even two days earlier instead of at the end, http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/02/rs-workshop-on-handling-uncertainty-in-weather-climate-prediction-part-i/#comment-249173
Anyway, my point here missing conclusion:
““Shortwave in longwave out” – this is such utter physical stupidity that it is only that the majority of those who do know real physics and difference between heat and light energies from Sun, don’t know that this is the basic energy premise of the Greenhouse Effect comic cartoon energy budget, KT97 and kin.” – that there is not even more ridicule heaped on the scientists promoting AGW/CAGW fake fisics.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: ‘Pause’ discussion thread | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Still good news: global temperatures remain stable, at least for now. « Fabius Maximus
q paydayloansonlinehut.com k [url=http://paydayloansonlinehut.com/]http://paydayloansonlinehut.com[/url] s http://paydayloanshut1b.com/ C As a result you will get cash within hours rather than days or the are finding themselves sinking further behind instead!You, as investor, are named as beneficiary, and pay the insured some amount between the face value and the cash value of the policy? 3
Pingback: Climate: UNKNOWNS are greater than KNOWNS | ScottishSceptic
Pingback: UK-US Workshop on Climate Science Needed to Support Robust Adaptation Decisions | Climate Etc.