by Judith Curry
Mathbabe asks ‘Whom can you trust?’ and discusses trusting experts, climate change research, and scientific translators.
Mathbabe (very cool name for a blog) has an interesting series of posts related to trusting experts.
On Nate Silver
The first post is Nate Silver confuses causes and effect, ends up defending corruption. Excerpts:
Silver says:
This is neither the time nor the place for mass movements — this is the time for expert opinion. Once the experts (and I’m not one of them) have reached some kind of a consensus about what the best course of action is (and they haven’t yet), then figure out who is impeding that action for political or other disingenuous reasons and tackle them — do whatever you can to remove them from the playing field. But we’re not at that stage yet.
Mathbabe says
My conclusion: Nate Silver is a man who deeply believes in experts, even when the evidence is not good that they have aligned incentives with the public.
Call me “asinine,” but I have less faith in the experts than Nate Silver: I don’t want to trust the very people who got us into this mess, while benefitting from it, to also be in charge of cleaning it up.
From my experience working first in finance at the hedge fund D.E. Shaw during the credit crisis and afterwards at the risk firm Riskmetrics, and my subsequent experience working in the internet advertising space (a wild west of unregulated personal information warehousing and sales) my conclusion is simple: Distrust the experts.
Why? Because you don’t know their incentives, and they can make the models (including Bayesian models) say whatever is politically useful to them. This is a manipulation of the public’s trust of mathematics, but it is the norm rather than the exception. And modelers rarely if ever consider the feedback loop and the ramifications of their predatory models on our culture.
The truth is somewhat harder to understand, a lot less palatable, and much more important than Silver’s gloss. But when independent people like myself step up to denounce a given statement or theory, it’s not clear to the public who is the expert and who isn’t. From this vantage point, the happier, shorter message will win every time.
This raises a larger question: how can the public possibly sort through all the noise that celebrity-minded data people like Nate Silver hand to them on a silver platter? Whose job is it to push back against rubbish disguised as authoritative scientific theory?
It’s not a new question, since PR men disguising themselves as scientists have been around for decades. But I’d argue it’s a question that is increasingly urgent considering how much of our lives are becoming modeled. It would be great if substantive data scientists had a way of getting together to defend the subject against sensationalist celebrity-fueled noise.
There’s an easy test here to determine whether to be worried. If you see someone using a model to make predictions that directly benefit them or lose them money – like a day trader, or a chess player, or someone who literally places a bet on an outcome (unless they place another hidden bet on the opposite outcome) – then you can be sure they are optimizing their model for accuracy as best they can. And in this case Silver’s advice on how to avoid one’s own biases are excellent and useful.
But if you are witnessing someone creating a model which predicts outcomes that are irrelevant to their immediate bottom-line, then you might want to look into the model yourself.
A lawyer’s perspective
Law Professor Stephanie Tai responds to Mathbabe’s post Stephanie Tai on Deference to Experts. Excerpts:
So when you apply the claim that Cathy makes at the end of her post–”If you see someone using a model to make predictions that directly benefit them or lose them money – like a day trader, or a chess player, or someone who literally places a bet on an outcome (unless they place another hidden bet on the opposite outcome) – then you can be sure they are optimizing their model for accuracy as best they can. . . . But if you are witnessing someone creating a model which predicts outcomes that are irrelevant to their immediate bottom-line, then you might want to look into the model yourself.”–I’m not sure you can totally put climate scientists in that former category (of those that directly benefit from the accuracy of their predictions). This is due to the nature of most climate work: most researchers in the area only contribute to one tiny part of the models, rather than produce the entire model themselves (thus, the incentives to avoid inaccuracies are diffuse rather than direct); the “test time” for the models are often relatively far into the future (again, making the incentives more indirect); and the sorts of diffuse reputational gains that an individual climate scientist gets from being part of a team that might partly contribute to an accurate climate model is far less direct than the examples given of day traders and chess players or “someone who literally places a bet on an outcome.”
What that in turn seems to mean is that under Cathy’s approach, climate scientists would be viewed as in the latter category—those creating models that “predict outcomes that are irrelevant to their immediate bottom-line,” and thus deserve people looking “into the model [themselves].” But at least from what I’ve seen, there is *so* much out there in terms of inaccurate and misleading information about climate models (by folks with stakes in the *perception* of those models) that chances are, a lay person’s inquiry into climate models has high chance to being shaped by similar forces with which Cathy is (in my view appropriately) concerned. Which in turn makes me concerned about applying this approach.
So what’s to be done? I absolutely agree with Cathy’s statement that “when independent people like myself step up to denounce a given statement or theory, it’s not clear to the public who is the expert and who isn’t.” It would seem, from what she says at the end of her essay, that her answer to this “expertise ambiguity” is to get people to look into the model when expertise is unclear. But that in turn raises a whole bunch of questions:
Given the high degree of training it takes to understand any of these individual areas of expertise, and given that we encounter so many areas in which this sort of deeper understanding is needed to resolve policy questions, how can any individual actually apply that initial exhortation–to look into the model yourself–in every instance where expertise ambiguity is raised? Expert reliance isn’t perfect, sure–but it’s a potentially pragmatic response to an imperfect world with limited time and resources.
Do my thoughts on (3) mean that I think we should blindly defer to experts? Absolutely not. I’m just pointing it out as something that weighs in favor of listening to experts a little more.
So how to address this balance between skepticism and lack of time to do full inquiries into everything? I totally don’t have the answers, though the kind of stuff I explore are procedural ways to address these issues, at least when legal decisions are raised–for example,
* public participation processes (with questions as to both the timing and scope of those processes, the ability and likelihood that these processes are even used, the accessibility of these processes, the susceptibility of “abuse,” the weight of those processes in ultimate decisionmaking)
* scientific ombudsman mechanisms (which questions of how ombudsman are to be selected, the resources they can use to work with citizen groups, the training of such ombudsmen)
* the formation of independent advisory committees (with questions of the selection of committee members, conflict of interest provisions, the authority accorded to such committees)
* legal case law requiring certain decisionmaking heuristics in the face of scientific uncertainty to avoid too much susceptibility to data manipulation (with questions of the incentives those heuristics create for actual potential funders of scientific research, the ability of judges to apply such heuristics in a consistent manner)
Mathbabe responds
A follow on post by Mathbabe is titled On trusting experts, climate change research, and scientific translators. Excerpts:
Stephanie asks three important questions about trusting experts, which I paraphrase here:
- What does it take to look into a model yourself? How deeply must you probe?
- How do you avoid being manipulated when you do so?
- Why should we bother since stuff is so hard and we each have a limited amount of time?
People: I’m not asking you to simply be skeptical, I’m saying you should look into the models yourself! It’s the difference between sitting on a couch and pointing at a football game on TV and complaining about a missed play and getting on the football field yourself and trying to figure out how to throw the ball. The first is entertainment but not valuable to anyone but yourself. You are only adding to the discussion if you invest actual thoughtful work into the matter.
Another thing about climate research. People keep talking about incentives, and yes I agree wholeheartedly that we should follow the incentives to understand where manipulation might be taking place. But when I followed the incentives with respect to climate modeling, they bring me straight to climate change deniers, not to researchers.
Do we really think these scientists working with their research grants have more at stake than multi-billion dollar international companies who are trying to ignore the effect of their polluting factories on the environment? People, please. The bulk of the incentives are definitely with the business owners. Which is not to say there are no incentives on the other side, since everyone always wants to feel like their research is meaningful, but let’s get real.
I like this idea Stephanie comes up with:
Some sociologists of science suggest that translational “experts”–that is, “experts” who aren’t necessarily producing new information and research, but instead are “expert” enough to communicate stuff to those not trained in the area–can help bridge this divide without requiring everyone to become “experts” themselves. But that can also raise the question of whether these translational experts have hidden agendas in some way. Moreover, one can also raise questions of whether a partial understanding of the model might in some instances be more misleading than not looking into the model at all–examples of that could be the various challenges to evolution based on fairly minor examples that when fully contextualized seem minor but may pop out to someone who is doing a less systematic inquiry.
This raises a few issues for me:
- Right now we depend mostly on press to do our translations, but they aren’t typically trained as scientists. Does that make them more prone to being manipulated? I think it does.
- How do we encourage more translational expertise to emerge from actual experts? Currently, in academia, the translation to the general public of one’s research is not at all encouraged or rewarded, and outside academia even less so.
- Like Stephanie, I worry about hidden agendas and partial understandings, but I honestly think they are secondary to getting a robust system of translation started to begin with, which would hopefully in turn engage the general public with the scientific method and current scientific knowledge. In other words, the good outweighs the bad here.
JC comments: I can’t remember how I managed to come across these posts, but I thought they were pretty interesting and they raise some good topics for us to discuss.
This gets right to F. A. Hayek’s “Fatal Conceit,” which can be applied to James Hansen: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/02/james-hansen-fatal-conceit/
The propaganda techniques used to demonize the productive in Western society are owned and honed by Leftist politicians skilled in the art of deception. These techniques are the same tools employed by charlatans and fascists and their con-job operatives that work their affinity-scams to mobilize the fear, greed, superstitious beliefs and prejudices of the masses. The AGW True Believer scam is but a variation on a theme we have seen many times before over the years from the mass mania of the citizens living in Hitler’s Germany to the “Rainbow Family” drinking the Kool-Aid at the Peoples Temple in “Jonestown,” Guyana.
W. – It is trivial to point out that the entire global warming enterprise depends on the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide. It is not trivial to say that greenhouse effect does not exist. And that is what I am saying because scientific observations tell us that. Let’s start with basic science and see if we can put that delusion in its place. When you add carbon dioxide to atmosphere it starts to absorb outgoing long-wave radiation, the captured radiation turns to heat, warms the air, and we have global warming. Or so Arrhenius told us. The physical source of this warming is the absorption of radiation which is a measurable quantity. If you can measure how much the atmosphere absorbs, then add carbon dioxide and measure it again, the difference will tell you if it is true that absorption is taking place. Fortunately, NOAA has been making such measurements for us. They send up radiosondes which measure the amount of long-wave radiation the atmosphere absorbs. In parallel, we have also been measuring the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and know exactly how much was there at any given time. And in 2010 Ferenc Miskolczi put all these measurements together. Using NOAA weather balloon database going back to 1948 he determined that the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared was constant for 61 years. At the same time, carbon dioxide went up 21.6 percent but did not cause measurable absorption. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, Arrhenius be damned. I should explain here that no measurable absorption does not mean no absorption by carbon dioxide took place. As Miskolczi explains it, the amount of water vapor in the air diminished at the same time as CO2 absorption increased and this effectively nullified the effect of CO2 absorption that Arrhenius theory predicts. This is called negative water vapor feedback, the exact opposite of positive water vapor feedback that IPCC uses to predict warming. Its existence was already in doubt when the hot spot predicted at ten kilometer height in the tropics could not be found. Now we know why that hot spot is missing. With that settled, the greenhouse theory of global warming is dead. Its predictions are just plain wrong and with it the global warming theory built up on these predictions. Laws and regulations to “mitigate” this imaginary warming were passed under false premises and must be voided. And with it the enforcement apparatus should also be abandoned and its personnel fired.
The heros of global warming will not listen to reason because their interests lie elsewhere in places where facts are unimportant and the scientific method is little more than a quaint anachronism.
Green Love…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/9817181/David-Bellamy-tells-of-moment-he-was-frozen-out-of-BBC.html
without, their happy faces.
When the Left decided to defrock morality and comon decency they also defrocked the Golden Goose. It will take years to flush a society of worthless turds and their offspring through a dented-up political and economic system that has been so severely corrupted by lies, superstition and envy of government junkies that hatred has become the only medium of exchange in the Left’s ponzi economics and blame game cash for chaos and clunkers liberal Utopia.
Where have all the talking flowers gone?
==============================
kim
Here’s one:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5262/5821041152_8efb25aaf2_b.jpg
Max
A trace of gas
And flutter byes
Fly up and face
The Monarch of the Skies.
==================
What’s with this obsession of talking to the masses?
All good Democrats believe in global warming, after all, it is the science of one of their key heroes, former Vice President and Senator Al Gore. And all good environmentalists are aboard the global warming band wagon. And, for all of them, the Agenda is what is important. Their Agenda is to eliminate fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine from our civilization. The carbon dioxide, CO2, thing is simply the means to the end. And if the means is not true; who cares. It is only the Agenda that is important. To all of these people, my effort to debunk the CO2 greenhouse gas science is irrelevant. ~John Coleman (‘why the global warming science has failed humanity,’ 26-Feb-2011)
Omnologos,
Who, ultimately, will decide what, if anything, will be done about AGW? Think about the answer for a while.
> What’s with this obsession of talking to the masses?
One has to be quite quick to talk to the speeds of light.
Not if the mass is in a church.
Tom, please tell me you don’t believe that ridiculous story.
Brandon, do you have your eyes wide shut? Of course, not. You are a scientist.
Tom, I’m not sure how much I should say since your comment was removed, but stories involving Satanic rituals involving abuse or murder are never true.
Never… is a very large word. May I suggest you read some ancient history?
THE ANTICHRIST BABYLON
AND THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM
by G. H. Pember
Evil exists.
Why communicate with the ignorant masses? Because ultimately they are the ones who determine what funds get spent on?
Owls & goats… they draw you pictures and tell you stories what more could you ask for?
Scientists’ currency is fame and reputation, which can be valued by itself but is also materially expressed in terms of career, posts and grants. This is a major kind of incentive one has to consider when evaluating possible biases in science, Another important element is ideological or political commitment to advancement of a cause, which is particularly important in the case of climate science (both orthodox and heretical).
Trust calculations
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NV.htm
I agree. Frankly, blind faith in experts is sloth, laziness.
Trust your own observations, calculations, intuitions . . . but privately check them out with someone else so that you do go off “half-cocked.” We are all capable of self-deception.
Basically, we all are mostly equal – although we possess varied talents.
This image shows human’s proper place in the universe – not as the ruler – but as one of many who are aware of their size and place in this vibrant, benevolent universe:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=sun+worshippers&qpvt=sun+worshippers&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=317DC2F3826AAC01016C2B8B5E39A6898528C7ED&selectedIndex=7
Egocentrics tend to be Godless, unable to accept a Higher Power
Trust your own observations, calculations, intuitions . . . but privately check them out with someone else so that you do not go off “half-cocked.” We are all capable of self-deception.
Most of those scratching their heads about climate change are doing so because they are incapable of doing the calculations. What of them?
In other professions we trust experts whose skills we do not share. We have methods for deciding who to trust in the law, medicine, politics and other fields that require mere scholarship as opposed to science.
And they work. We remember the failures–the crooks, the incompetent and the exaggerators. But by and large our methods of determining who to trust in areas we are not competent to judge ourselves work.
Those methods are not scientific–some factors that produce trust, such as physical height, seem almost laughable. But the suite of factors evaluated in establishing and retaining trust work.
If we took a poll of Professors of Economics prior to 2008 they would nearly all have advocated ‘light touch’ regulation of banks and commercial markets.
Not much attention would have been paid to the possible distortion of the markets by the financial incentive of the key players.
In climate science we have a similar situation.
If the political authorities realised there was not a climate problem with increasing CO2, then investment in climate science would be cut.
The career of certain prominent alarmist personalities would be over.
Does this account for the reluctance of some to release basic data underpinning conclusions and redefining the peer review process.
So if climate scientists weren’t doing climate science, they would be flipping burgers for a living?
HA HA ….. what a crock !
Max_OK
Naw. They’d be doing what they’re doing.
And when this whole hysteria about CAGW dies down, that’s what they’ll still be doing.
Max_CH
A while back, we ran out of space for all those Judith is throwing under buses. Good news! The new fleet has arrived.
Would you prefer an aisle or window seat?
Joshua
There is a huge difference between those who do not believe in the physics of additional CO2 leading to additional warming and not being confident that the amount of warming wich may result in the actual system being a “net problem” worth addressing.
Rob –
In a pure form that is true, Rob, but the reality is that it is hard to find those distinctions in a pure form. For example, someone who thinks that ACO2 warms the climate but isn’t sure by how much, wouldn’t support the logic behind (ubiquitously found) statements like “global warming has stopped.” So what do you do when someone says that they don’t doubt the basic physics of AGW theory, but then turns around and says that the warming has “stopped.” Which category do they belong in?
And no matter – despite the oft’ read claims about how “skeptics” don’t doubt the basic physics, we see abundant evidence to the contrary. Judith claims that she doesn’t listen to such folks, even as she praises the input of her “denizens” as members of an extended peer review community.
The assertion of “difference” seems to me to be undermined by a lack of validated data and a lack of clear definition of terms.
Joshua
You asked: “So what do you do when someone says that they don’t doubt the basic physics of AGW theory, but then turns around and says that the warming has “stopped.””
It the actual climate system it is entirely possible the additional atmospheric CO2 can be overwhelmed by other factors and the resultant warming might not be noticeable by humans over the timescales or in the amounts initially predicted. The is very typical in a poorly understood system.
Rob –
I suggest that the next time that you read a “skeptic” say that “the warming has stopped” or that it has “paused,” that you explain that to them. Be prepared to be busy.
Joshua
Imo the relevant point to the overall post of “Trusting the Experts” would be to ask more focused questions of those experts who are convinced and publicizing that additional CO2 is a great threat to humanity. If an “expert” claims that they know that temperature will rise by “X” degrees +/- a margin of error of 100% then it should be noted that they really do not understand what will happen at all.
Whether AGW is a problem to humans depends upon how fast any warming will really occur (which we do not know) and what other conditions will change at local levels as a result of that warming (which we also do not know).
Joshua,
It is not that hard to find us. I believe that CO2 has a warming effect, certainly from a theoritical standpoint. I accept that we have enough evidence to say it see that it is in fact doing so.
Yet it is also not hard for me to look at temps from the past 15+ years and see that they are not increasing at the rate they should be, according to some of the theories and models. No disconnect at all. And that confirms what I already knew – that the state of our understanding of global climate is far less than some people want us to believe. Add in the many claims we have been presented about all of the dangerous impacts, claims for the most part unsupported by any real evidence, and you have the basis for my scepticism. I think the average person (in the developed world) is seeing the same thing and reaching the same conclusion – that whatever is happening with global climate, there is little evidence it is a cause for concern. And when we see increasing attempts to raise people’s conscousness about the threat by tying it to weather events in the news (as a recent editorial in the Seattle Times by a UW Prof. in Public Health, claiming Sandy, the 1930’s Dust Bowl and this summer’s fire over in Wenatchee all share the common thread of climate change), it is a sign that someone has incentives other than good science.
Yes but I think Joshua raises a good point.
If you believe rising CO2 is causing warming then you DO believe natural factors are masking that warming in recent years.
Then the question is how much warming is being masked and if you look at the data it doesn’t take much to be masked at all for the IPCC projections to be *underestimates*
Lolwot writes: “If you believe rising CO2 is causing warming then you DO believe natural factors are masking that warming in recent years.”
While what you have written is correct a person who has such a belief should also acknowledge that their belief may be determined to be wrong. The system is performing differently than they predicted and it should be a time to reexamine the assumptions about how the system is operating. Sincerely believing something does not make it correct. Many religions are sincerely believed, but that does not make any of them correct (and all certainly can’t be correct.)
lolwot,
Natural factors masking the rate of warming increase is just one possible scenario. It is not one I dismiss. However it is also not one that I accept to the exclusion of other possible explanations.
so what are the other possibilities?
timg56
Spot on!
+100.
Max
tim –
Two points. The first is what if you look at temps from the past 30+ years? How ’bout the past 45+ years? Wouldn’t you think that the larger sample size would instill more confidence? The second is that the theory of AGW is perfectly consistent with relatively short periods of time that fit such a pattern. As such, I have no idea what you mean by “should be?” Do you mean as you interpret what the theories imply, or do you mean what the theories themselves indicate – complete with error bars, CI’s etc.? As I understand it, there is enough range in the theories that the 15+ record of temps that you’re referring to is within the range of what the theories predict “should” happen.
Well, the “some people” reference is a bit vague, but I’m inclined to think that given the lack of specificity, you are probably right.
The vast majority of the “claims” of dangerous impacts that I have seen (do I have to accept impact as a noun at this point?) have accompanying estimations of uncertainty. Yes, there are some that are lacking such estimations, and the problems with such claims should be taken seriously, but on the other side we often see the existing statements of uncertainty either ignored or distorted.
This seems to be in contrast to the data. It seems to me that you are projecting your views onto others – and not relying on validated evidence. Look at the recent polls on global warming and look at the correlates with the swings in public opinion over the last 20 years or so.
I haven’t read the article you mentioned, but I have seen overstated claims of linkage between weather and climate. But I have seen that on both sides of the fence. Further, I have seen appropriately qualified statements (such as, for example “No single event can be attributed to climate change but this recent extreme event is what we expect to see more often with climate change”) distorted and attacked by the very same people who try to associate weather and climate by pointing to short-term cold weather phenomena (take a look through WUWT archives if you don’t know what I mean).
lolwot | January 10, 2013 at 5:11 pm said: ”If you believe rising CO2 is causing warming then you DO believe natural factors are masking that warming in recent years”
THE ”belief” is wrong, BUT, hypothetically: .in 5-10 years, when the GLOBAL temp is still the same – on your presumption / belief: the CO2 producers saved the planet from ice age => those CO2 producers should be rewarded. Money wasted on the Warmist & Fakes -> should be recovered / with modest interest; and to be given to the big CO2 emitters, as a reward for saving the planet from cooling. how about that?!
lies have shallow roots, get exposed to the daylight one way or another
Q: can anybody trust a Warmist & Fake Skeptic for lying that they know what was the ”GLOBAL” temperature in precision, for HUNDREDS and thousandths of years?!
in 1800’s – was monitored by unreliable thermometers, on 5-6 places in Europe; say: in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome and on 3 places in USA – that will tell the GLOBAL temperature…? How many ”experts” are denouncing those misleading past phony temp charts / how many rely on them – to keep the phony GLOBAL warming alive? E X P E R T S…?!?!?! Experts in what?
Joshua, the current lack of warming falsifies the claims of AR4 chapter 10. In particular, the methodology applied in Chapter 10 would indicate that CS is about 1.2C to 1.4 C not 2C with ECS about 1.8C to 2.1 C and not 3C. In chapter 10 you will find the expected natural variance using the AR4 constraints for 2030 that the system can have according to AR4. We are already past that. All of this goes back to two poor decisions by the IPCC. One was using ever shorter times with a highpoint of 1998 as the endpoint region to claim accellerating rates, and not making sure that people understood enthalpy and equilibrium wrt such meant that we could see periods of temperature like the lead up to 1998, and periods like the last 15+ years but they do not effect the underlying rate. In particular, the assumed psuedo equilibrium that has to be used when describing the atmospheric systems means that temperature is a poor metric. These discussions with and arguments with those opposed to the policies reccomended by the IPCC are simply self inflicted wounds by the IPCC.
They would carry on regardless with carbon taxes and the like.
lolwot,
RE other possibilities.
1) That the assumed feedback from clouds is incorrect.
2) That there are other factors besides CO2 that impact temperature.
3) That the planetary climatic system tends to self correct..
The last one might explain why summers with reduced Arctic ice cover seem to be followed by NH winters with increased snow and cold.
I’m not sure how much attention should be placed on the impact of funding as an incentive for researchers. I certainly do not believe that it is the primary or even a secondary incentive for Dr. Hansen. I think he truly believes what he says.
I give the vast majority of scientists the benefit of doubt on this. They have to be cognizant of funding, but I don’t see it as a primary incentive. But I do believe one piece of evidence there is at least some incentive, even if lower on the scale, is how often we see reference to “climate change” or “global warming” in research that is not in the field of climate. Some times it is what has come to be the obligatory nod, as in the Nova program on tornado research. It was not mentioned at all until the final minutes and then only in passing. I think a good measure on how much the lay person can trust the “experts” when it comes to climate change is to look at how much emphasis it gets in research that is far from climate. I think the best example is that of Stephan Lewandowski. I have a better claim to being knowledgeable on climate topics than he does, yet he is front and center in the debate. To me that is good evidence that Prof Lewandowski is incentized on the issue and therefore to be taken with a very large grain of salt.
tim – just to be clear…
Are you saying that Lewandowski focused on the question of conspiracists amongst “skeptics” because he was chasing funding?
Joshua,
I hestitate to speculate on what Prof. Lewandowski’s motivation is. I would not place grant funding at the top of the list, were I to speculate. What stands out most about his Conspiracy Theorist paper is its poor quality. It is hard for me to imagine the circumstances which would drive me to put out such poor work with my name attached to it. I would have to believe in something very strongly to risk my reputation. So if asked to speculate, I’d guess Prof Lewandowski was primarily motivated by a strong personal belief – perhaps that humankind (or its actions) is a threat to the planet.
Max OK,
Elvis, is reported seeing real AGW scientists at Burger King too. What is your point?
“Do we really think these scientists working with their research grants have more at stake than multi-billion dollar international companies who are trying to ignore the effect of their polluting factories on the environment?”
Yes, we do.
You’re comparing the effects on individuals versus the effects on groups. A single scientist may have less at stake in total dollars – but a million dollars in grant money to study global warming is a pretty large chunk of “professional influence.” Add all of those not-too-huge research grants together, and you have a huge pile of influence.
Don’t forget the reverse issue, while you’re at it: for at least 20 years, it’s basically been impossible to get a serious research grant in the environmental sciences if you plan on using it to disprove the current global warming theories.
You also might want to consider the impact when the NASA administrator gets a half-million dollar “award” because of his global warming stance. Would that affect his future impartiality? You betcha – and this is the guy who’s been in charge of the most-touted temperature measurements for the US and the globe…
Let’s also bring up the various nonprofits that take in – literally – hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to “fight global warming.”
On the other hand… those multi-billion dollar companies? The amounts they’ve been shown to actually spend on this issue are trivial in comparison. People claim they’re throwing money at anti-AGW propaganda, but the total amount that’s known to have been spent is pennies on the dollar compared to the billions spent by governments touting global warming catastrophism.
This is what MathBabe has exactly bass ackwards. Follow the money, honey, I got the time.
============
Absolutely correct.
Then you have to look at the Green movements.
Greenpeace and WWF are billion dollar international corporations, with a huge direct financial interest in AGW.
If there are no percieved threats to the environment, then those big boys go out of business.
AGW being proved wrong would potentially have a bigger negative effect on the income of the likes of Greenpeace than the it being proved right would have on the majority of commercial corportations.
The Green Movements have to have a disaster to stay in business. Big energy companies would do things differently in a warming world than they would in a cooling world. Actual businesses do best when they understand the truth.
“it’s basically been impossible to get a serious research grant in the environmental sciences if you plan on using it to disprove the current global warming theories.”
You have science totally backwards. You don’t start off with a conclusion and then try to justify it.
No wonder they can’t get grants if their proposal simply says they plan to disprove global warming theories.
Besides if they already think global warming theories is wrong why do they need the funding to explain why? How much does typing an argument cost?
I hate to break it to you, but EVERY serious scientist who looks at the work of other scientists is trying to prove them wrong. Every major advance of the last century came from someone saying something like “I don’t think the Newtonian physics model is right, let me do some math to show that all of those other guys are wrong.” Real scientists don’t spend thousands of hours on a study to try and prove someone else was 100% right twenty years earlier.
The “scientists don’t set out to prove people wrong” myth is only popular among scientists who have a vested interest in the old models being right.
What IS wrong is someone setting out to “prove” the current models are right – by blocking grant funding for anyone who might disagree with them.
“No wonder they can’t get grants if their proposal simply says they plan to disprove global warming theories.”
They don’t. They propose things like “I’d like to study how cloud formation is affected by cosmic rays and the solar wind. It may prove that the computer models used to predict global warming are wrong.” Or “I have a model for how solar activity may predict climate cycles, instead of the current AGW models, which are not accurate.”
You’re trying really, realllly hard to assume the worst for critics of AGW, aren’t you?
“I hate to break it to you, but EVERY serious scientist who looks at the work of other scientists is trying to prove them wrong.”
You don’t get funding for chasing a result.
See this proposal:
“They propose things like “I’d like to study how cloud formation is affected by cosmic rays and the solar wind. It may prove that the computer models used to predict global warming are wrong.”
It’s akin to saying:
“I want to study the oceans and see if I can find 5C warming per doubling of CO2″
It’s just wrong. It’s chasing a result.
This proposal has far more chance of getting funding:
“I’d like to study how cloud formation is affected by cosmic rays and the solar wind. This should improve our understanding and reduce uncertainty in how cloud formation is affected by cosmic rays and the solar wind.”
Completely neutral as to the results and whatever the outcome it increases knowledge. And IF does find a significant effect the paper can say the models don’t include it.
The idea that climate skeptics are blocked from proposing studies like this is ludicrous. Studies like this are done all the time.
Not so much. You see, the cloud formation example is a real one – and was almost blocked from being done. It took a large amount of international complaints to convince CERN to allow the experiment. That sort of issue doesn’t come up with explicitly pro-AGW studies.
See also the Climategate emails, where they conspired – specifically – to block studies casting doubt on AGW from being published.
Cosmic rays cause clouds is so 1927, they already gave a Nobel prize for that.
It needs to be understood that trust is a condition for having the body of knowledge currently called science. As Hardwig puts it, ‘the alternative to trust is … ignorance.’ ~Steven Shapin
Waggy, I agree that trusty scientists is better than trusting ideologues.
Experts are not believable if they are not honest about reporting what they know. That is why CRUgate was a fork in the eye of all scientists. A demands of a fabricated ‘consensus’ demanded that the academic community failed to stand up and be counted before the foi2009.pdf disclosures and even to this day Westerm academics continue to support MBH98,99,08 (aka, the ‘hockey stick’ graph) which has been proven to be scientific fraud–i.e., they have shown themselves to be ideologically-driven to take sides against reason.
Max_OK
What about trusting scientists who are ideologues?
Max_CH
What about trusting scientists who are ideologues?
I presume you mean people like Jim Hansen, but he’s on record as having supported both main US political parties at various times. Most scientists, including climate scientists, aren’t particularly ideological in a political sense and if they do , like James Hansen, talk in what may appear somewhat emotive terms its because they are of the opinion that the world will experience a scientifically related problem rather than an ideological one.
The question you should be asking is: “what about trusting the genuine right wing ideologues who don’t understand the scientific case, but nevertheless have decided it must be wrong as it doesn’t fit in with their ideology?”
Max_OK | January 10, 2013 at 1:45 pm | Reply
I agree that trust[ing] scientists is better than trusting ideologues.
This deftly misses the central dilemma of climate science – that scientists are at the same time also (statist) ideologues to some degree, since they are selected by and work for the state, and labor to reward it.
The value of an experts’s opinion is correlated to the amount of experimentation available to him. With a time machine, I could become the greatest fund-manager, campaign-manager, or climate scientist (at least in terms of accuracy). And these are quite esteemed expert positions. But say I go back in my time machine and try to be a pilot, doctor, or a chemist – FAIL.
I have no training in any of these disciplines, but this only handicaps me in the latter since there is an experimentation that goes into training these experts. Where as in the former, “you never cross the same river twice” which is why hindsight is so much more powerful then expert knowledge.
Thus when considering how we should weigh expert opinion there are two questions: 1. How valuable is it when applied to that domain (in climate science I say low) and 2. How urgent must we come to a conclusion (in AGW, I’d say that could be decades away).
Good points concerning the need to consider value of expertise in a discipline and the urgency to take action based on expert advice. Experience tells us that supposed ‘experts’ oftentimes try to create a sense of urgency precisely to avoid scrutiny. It would be silly, for example, to be concerned about the excessive heat inside an airplane–believed by experts to be caused by an excessive amount of CO2 inside–when the plane is diving straight down to the ground. Similarly, it would be silly to be concerned about the excessive heat inside an airplane–believed by experts to be caused by being too close to the Sun–when the plane is close to its destination and in the process of descending below the clouds for a landing.
The value of an expert’s opinion is correlated to the ability to examine data and determine what it means. There is plenty of good data that shows climate parameters all in the bounds of the past ten thousand years. Only CO2 is out of bounds and it is not matched by any other parameter. There is no support in the actual data for alarmism an there is no support in the actual data for immediate drastic action. Turn the computers off that crank out flawed forecasts and look at the actual data and just think.
Nice question. I agree that you can estimate that if someone win or lose his cash every day, because of sucessful/failed prediction, he will make the best available prediction, or at least know he have none…
farmers might be good at choosing the good forecast company, if not having their own integrated in the brain.
I agree that if you look for models that focast far away, then teh incentive will be to continue to be funded for the prediction… GIEC funded scientist have a strong incentive to continue justify the problem they are paid for; even if the feel they are honest… it is the same for any member of an organization to sincerely think he is useful.
it start to be tricky when the forecast success depend on the forecast themselves. It is the problem of Financial modeling, which is more like a beauty contest, where the importance is to think the sam as the others…
Finally Roland Benabou http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers.html
remind us that we can reject all fact if it is painful to us to see them
http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf
, because we will have to accept we have lost wealth/fame/self-esteem compared to what we estimated before. He have made a mathematical model based on that principle http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf and it explains many real situation…
like why subordinates that see the reality do ignore it if their superiors believe in the myth… because it is not comfortable to see that your boss is ruining you.
note that initially in his model, the belief is based on facts and is optimal. but when reality seems different from estimated, and the previous actions seems to have been errors, people simply ignore the facts, to ignore the losses, and feel COOL.
The most stupid is that they do it even if seeing the fact could protect them from a huger loss…
the boss of enron did cover fraud to hide his losses, but kept his shares untiles he finally was ruined and jailed.
Note also that as we see in AGW, the more there are blatant fact against the belief, the more the believers are aggressive against the traitors, protecting their delusive assets, put at risk by realists.
I’ve seen this mechanism many times now, AGW, LENR, Internet bubble, real estate bubble, economy, renewable energy…
some imagine that it is only interest (mouse in the cheese)… there is some.
but self-delusion happens often too (frog on the stove).
I think Mathbabe is missing a key variable in her understanding of the incentives. The mythical funding of the skeptical movement by the big energy companies. Those companies are actually funding the CAGW research and carbon rationing efforts such as blocking production only make their products more profitable.
That funding combined with tens of billions of dollars in government research grants puts almost all of the incentives on the side of experts exaggerating global warming. She also seems to think that being wrong is a disincentive, but being within the consensus now determines whether an expert gets funded and published. The chance that they will be proven wrong in 20 years is clearly not a disincentive if we compare how wrong the predictors from 20 years ago got it. They are still in the forefront, even committing criminal actions whether wire fraud or violating freedom of information act laws are not seen as being wrong as long as they are on the side with all the grant money.
Theodore says: “Those companies are actually funding the CAGW research and carbon rationing efforts such as blocking production only make their products more profitable.”
_________
As a capitalist with mineral rights, I would say that’s a good idea. I don’t know about the short-term profitability, but it makes the reserves last longer, and increases the value of the investment.
Max,
Ever heard of the time value of money?
I agree 100%. It was almost a perfect ‘crime’.
Except if your business is exploration.
The AGW side was the loudest, you need a lot of money for that (and some human nature). There’s enough evidence of big oil funding consensus (climategate).
I was half joking. Raising prices of fossil fuels in the face of falling demand can cause further declines in demand.
Seriously Max,
You couldn’t come up with more idiotic comments related to economics if you tried to do so on purpose.
“Raising prices of fossil fuels in the face of falling demand can cause further declines in demand.”
Under what circumstances do you think prices would rise as demand fell? There are only two that come to mind for me.
1) Supply is falling at a pace similar to demand.
2) The price is being artifically increased by non-market measures – i.e. taxes and fees.
Can you explain the economic benefits from #2 and how they overide the negative impacts?
timg56 said on January 10, 2013 at 4:53 pm
“Seriously Max,
You couldn’t come up with more idiotic comments related to economics if you tried to do so on purpose.”
______
Well, I was trying to on purpose, but I guess I could try harder.
OK, I will attempt to seriously address your questions. You said:
“Under what circumstances do you think prices would rise as demand fell? There are only two that come to mind for me.
1) Supply is falling at a pace similar to demand.
2) The price is being artifically increased by non-market measures – i.e. taxes and fees.
Can you explain the economic benefits from #2 and how they overide the negative impacts?”
______
Re I. Maybe, but I think usually the supply would have to fall faster than demand for prices to rise.
Re 2. Yes, taxes and fees would do it. The economic benefits and whether they would override negative impacts would depend on how the taxes were used and value judgements.
3. Did you consider quality improvements?
4. Nostalgia/ fads? I’m not sure about this one, but I can give you an example. Tube amplifiers, which were the only kind of amps 50 years ago, sell for crazy high prices, but demand is almost entirely for solid state amps.
Earlier you asked: Ever heard of the time value of money?
I keep trying to remind myself of it.
Ever since the Climategate e-mail scandal exposed how Mr. Mann’s graph used ‘a trick’ to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures, public support also has declined for the fable that cosmic irritation at mankind’s exhalations has made things hotter by an imperceptible one-third of one degree over the course of a decade. In 2000, media-driven climate hysteria peaked with 72 percent of those surveyed by Gallup indicating they were worried about global warming. That according to, Washington Times’ Andrew Thomas who noted that those numbers have since fallen with many more agreeing that the alarm about global warming was exaggerated and that, pursuing policies that sacrifice jobs and economic prosperity on the pagan altar of warmism, amounts to cash-for-clunkers socio-economics.
Climatists have been, “locked into a simple-minded identification of climate with greenhouse-gas level. … That climate should be the function of a single parameter (like CO2) has always seemed implausible. Yet an obsessive focus on such an obvious oversimplification has likely set back progress by decades,” (Richard Lindzen, July 2012)
You don’t even know what the decline in the “hide the decline” was.
Here’s a clue, it wasn’t global temperatures.
So the IPCC is all clean where you are concerned?
From Climate Audit:
CA readers will recall Jones’ notorious email in response to David Holland’s FOI request.
subject: IPCC & FOI
Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith [Briffa] will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise.
The original “hide the decline” from the foi2009.pdf CRUgate emails refers to “hiding” tree ring data showing a decline in temperatures after 1960.
That’s only if you believe that temperature is the only thing that affects tree growth.
And the period involved was one where we have instrumental records showing temperature that were not declining.
Why do you care about hiding something if it never happened?
And another thing, weren’t you one of those saying CO2 makes trees grow more? Well, why didn’t the rapid rise in CO2 make those tree rings larger?
My questions were for Waggy, not Bob Droege.
Bob Droege seems not to understand what scientific principle was being violated, nay, raped by ‘hiding the decline’. Always the same question, the same question? Ignorant or disingenuous?
Besides, BD, are you going to stand by and allow that desecration? The Devil heself must be allowed benefit of the law.
=========
Kim, obviously you are using a definition of hiding that I am not familiar with.
Heh, so you tell me what was declining and why it needed to be hidden. I was born at night, but not last night. Rings as treemometers were compromised, and it is practically insane that we are still talking about it. Why are you hiding?
=================
Kim, what do mean by “rings as treemometers were compromised?”
Are you assuming that they are assuming that all tree rings respond to temperature in a “one to one and onto fashion” thus when we find some trees respond to factors other than temperature that someone is doing something dodgey? Just what part of multi-variate statistical analysis do you not understand other than all of it?
Waggy brought it up, he is the insane one.
Those are your assumptions not mine. However, something dodgy was done. Why?
That said, and I presume you can honestly answer that question, I’m vastly amused at the misinterpretation by hoi polloi of the whole hiding and declining matter. As is often with massive human behaviour, it can be dead stinking wrong on the particular and right as rain on the general plain.
============
Bob,
RE this: “That’s only if you believe that temperature is the only thing that affects tree growth.”
I don’t believe it is the only thing affecting tree growth. Yet when I point this out to a true believer, I become a “denier”.
I understand that dendroclimatology tries very hard to select sample specimens in which temperature is the predominating factor. I think people such as Keith Briffa have done some exceptional work. But I also am a bit sceptical about the degree of accuracy of proxies and very sceptical of people who tell me they are accurate, then stop using them when the data stops supporting their theory.
Max_OK | January 10, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
“Well, why didn’t the rapid rise in CO2 make those tree rings larger?”
Must be all the floods and droughts caused by CO2. Drought conditions not enough water for good growth. Flood conditions not enough sunlight for good growth. CO2 prohibits moderation. Or so I’m told by the usual suspects. /sarc
Timg56,
Any one who takes the stance that temperature is the only thing that affects tree rings, either width or density, is not a dendrochronogist, nor qualified to play one on TV.
MBH98 was the first crack at a global temperature reconstruction, and I wish Lamb was still alive, because I would like to hear his opinion on it. My guess would be that he would say it was an improvement on his contributions.
But temperature reconstructions have moved on with improved methods, so MBH98 can be thrown under the bus, even though it is still generally
correct. About a dozen or so reconstructions since then give basically the same result, including Loehle.
See this for more http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/07/tree-rings-and-climate-some-recent-developments/
And I think they stopped using divergent tree ring series not because they disagreed with their theory, but because they disagreed with their data. After all, don’t you trust thermometers better than reconstructions?
Bob Droege
It was the 20thC “decline in temperature” from the proxy data (that was supposed to prove that there wasn’t a warmer MWP), but which didn’t occur in real fact, and so had to be hidden in an attempt to validate the study.
Just a bit of scientific skullduggery (the “Nature” trick, I believe), that’s all.
Max
PS But IPCC still stuck with it’s statement that the 20thC warming was “unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years”
Bob Droege offers a helpful clue. If what we care about is his level of knowledge.
This is a pretty sad display, Bob Droege @ 6:06. That sort of persiflage will fly at uncritical alarmist sites, but there are too many people aware of the numerous lies that dwell within your few paragraphs.
Your first sentence is a strawman. You slander the memory of Hubert Lamb, who knew about millenial scale climate change. Subsequent reconstructions do not resemble MBH 98 unless chicanery with selected series, such as Tiljander and Yamal, was utilized.
You are still dodging around the reason a ‘decline’ had to be ‘hidden’. I give people a lot of credit for ignorance, but you are baring your dishonesty in a public place.
========================
Max, we know there wasn’t a 20th century decline in temperatures because we have the instrumental data. Should we trust tree ring series that are obviously responding to something other than temperature post 1960? And they never hid them, they actually published them.
Kim,
What about Hubert Lamb, the first director of The Climatic Research Unit, that place in East Anglia that was so prominent in the Climategate scandal? You know his graph in the FAR was not a global temperature reconstruction, don’t you? So he may have known about millenial scale temperatures, but not on a global scale.
As for my first sentence being a strawman, it is obvious to me from the responses about the “hide the decline” that some people do think that tree rings do respond only to temperature. Waggy said so, Max chimed in as well, so its not a straw man, it’s what is being argued. You know, some subsequent reconstructions don’t even use tree rings, and you have been sold a bill of goods if you believe that bizarre upside down Tijander series crap.
A couple of points. First of all, my understanding is that the divergence problem only occurred in trees in certain locations and where tree ring density as opposed to width was used as an indicator of warming, other trees were not affected. This would suggest to me that there was indeed some physical phenomenon affecting those particular trees from the 1960s onwards and so their use as a proxy before then is not necessarily devalued. Of course this is an active area of research, it’s not something that has been swept under the carpet.
Which leads to my second point. All of this stuff had already been in the public domain for years before climategate – the divergence problem was identified and published in the scientific literature 10 years earlier, MBH98/99 were already the most closely examined papers in climate science, the WMO report which the “hide the decline” email actually relates to was published way back in 2000. If “hide the decline” was a real scandal then it wouldn’t have needed climategate for it to be brought to the public’s attention.
If « hide the decline » was a real scandal then it wouldn’t have needed climategate for it to be brought to the public’s attention.
Eh??? No, the fact that it needed whistleblowing / Climategate to bring it to the public’s and policymakers’ attention, means it is doubly scandalous.
So a very real scandal, the attempted sweeping under the carpet of which, is indicative of the endemic, utterly unrepentant, politically-correct dishonesty that still charaterises the bulk of climate science today.
No, the fact that it needed whistleblowing / Climategate to bring it to the public’s and policymakers’ attention, means it is doubly scandalous.
But it didn’t need whistleblowing to bring it to the public’s attention – it has always been in the public domain. And it’s not like no one on the “skeptic” side had paid any attention to the HS before climategate.
The Hidden Decline most certainly did need whistleblowing to bring it to the public’s and policymakers’ attention, since these people would not have read the science papers. And of course the IPCC et al were very careful to not publicise it.
Bob Droege and andrew adams continue to misrepresent the issue badly. I’ll go with Evil Genie above and Brandon Shollenberger below, and ascribe it to ignorance. I’m feeling generous this morning.
====================
Oops, that’s ‘Vague Genie’ above. Evil crept into my morning after all. I’ll thank aa and BD.
============
I agree that the general public wouldn’t have been aware of it, but as I said above the skeptics who had been subjecting the HS to such close scrutiny must have been aware of the divergence issue so they could have brought it to the public’s attention. I guess it’s possible they weren’t aware of the 2000 WMO report (which is what Jone’s email was actually referring to) but then that may be becasue in the overall scheme of things it wasn’t very important.
Ho, ho, ho, andrew adams stretches his credibility to the breaking point. Fella, what decline was hidden and why? Why was extraordinary effort made to keep the decline hidden? The efforts of Stevie Mac and others are public record.
It’s also public record that you and so many others persist in ignorance of, or lie about, the meaning of divergence to the shaft of the hockey stick, the truly malevolent wood. This is what was, and still seems is, the reason to hide.
It is, I repeat, a magnificent irony, that the chicanery has reached a mass audience because of said audience’s misunderstanding that a decline of temperature is what was hidden. The crowning irony is that that temperature decline hadn’t even happened yet, but is happening now.
The Gods are laughing at us from the clouds. Some of them have been overcome by the vapours. What to do? What to do?
====================
kim,
“Hide the decline” in Jones’s email relates to the 2000 WMO report and his decision to append the instrumental record to the proxy record. The “decline” being “hidden” was the post 1960s divergence, which has been well known for a long time.
Maybe you are referring to something else – if you actually made an argument rather than silly insinuations then I might have a better idea, but that’s what I’m referring to.
Yamal trees don’t lie and neither does Fortran but the data from Yamal tree-rings (‘MXD’) can be made to dance to any tune they climatists wish and that is the big lie, that the inconvenience of reality is something academics felt comfortable lying to the public about then and covering up since–e.g.,
REM Uses ‘corrected’ MXD – but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.
The decline that was hidden is the divergence that Briffa et al worried about in this paper published Nature in 1998 (submitted May 1997):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html
A strange approach for “making an extraordinary effort to keep the decline hidden” is to publish it in Nature.
Yes indeed Pekka, why on earth would they do that?
Bob Droege
I assume that you are well-enough informed to know what the “hide the decline” scam (“Mike’s Nature trick”) was all about, so I won’t repeat it here.
Fer Chrissake let’s leave the discredited hockey stick in its grave – no point trying to resuscitate and rehabilitate it. It’s dead.
It was a bit of lousy science based on a bad statistical analysis and fudged data, with a part of the record willfully eradicated because it demonstrated the weakness of the whole study.
There have been many studies from all over the world since then, using different paleo data, which all show that the MWP was global and slightly warmer than today. So the “shtick” and its conclusions have been falsified by several other studies.
The only curious thing is that IPCC jumped so quickly on the “shtick” in its TAR report, without first doing sufficient “due diligence”, and – even in its AR4 report – repeated the conclusion of the “shtick” (that 20thC temperature is unusual in at least the past 1,300 years) – ignoring the many studies that showed the opposite.
Max
PS Back to our topic here: Michael Mann is one of the “experts” we definitely do NOT “trust” (even if he “got a Nobel”).
Max is right.
Let’s leave the HS alone.
There are all those other subsequent studies, using different data, different stats mthods, that show the same result, but we know that’s just proof of the ‘forced consensus’ fraudently frabricating the same result in the pursuit of research grants.
Thankgod for the climate-sceptics and their cast-iron logic and respect for evidence.
Pekka Pirilä, you are above comments like that. Your argument is Keith Briffa published the decline so Michael Mann and Phil Jones weren’t going to great lengths to hide it when they deleted adverse data. Nor were they when they replace the deleted data with instrumental data. Nor were they when they called the resulting series a paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Nor when they said things like, as Michael Mann said:
The fact the divergence was discussed elsewhere doesn’t change the fact that on multiple occasions, people went out of their way to hide the decline. It doesn’t change the fact those people chose dishonest manipulations of data over honest representations of a problem.
I assume you’re not aware of the details of this topic. That’s fine. But you look foolish or dishonest when you defend blatant dishonesty with nonsensical arguments.
In this one, Pekka’s childish enough to need some old geology school uniformitarianism. Mewling and puking about fill the bill
=============
Michael, determined to look foolish, says:
Michael mocks people for their lack of “respect for evidence” while claiming subsequent work gets “the same result” as MBH. This is fascinating as he’s basically making that up. Beyond which, he claims those subsequent studies use “different data” when anyone familiar with paleoclimatology would know there is massive overlap in what data gets used in reconstructions.
Basically every “hockey stick” ever published since MBH has suffered from the same primary flaw. In fact, many of them have confusingly suffered from the same minor flaws as well. Michael hand-wavingly claims various reconstructions are independent when in reality they’re… incestuous. The fact incestuous work produces similar results is hardly surprising.
(I doubt Michael would ever care to discuss actual evidence as to the quality of these papers. If I’m wrong, I have a standing offer to discuss any temperature reconstruction in any amount of detail. That provides him a wonderful opportunity to show he has more “respect for evidence” than I do.)
Pekka Pirila,
That is another statement by a CAGW Alarmist which illustrates why CAGW Alarmists cannot be trusted.
Sure the decline was published in 1998. In 2007 the Climate Scientists conspired to hide it and IPCC published the intentionally deceptive chart and to my knowledge have never admitted that they set out to deceive the world.
“use the same data’ – Brandon,
Really?
So the studies looking at just lake bed sediment or ice cores, are lying, and they really used tree rings?
I’m shocked.
Peter is right.
Hiding things in plain view is very clever.
Damn those evil scientists.
Stupidity defending dishonesty? “Multi” is such a confusing thing.
Pekka Pirilä | January 11, 2013 at 4:21 pm |
A strange approach for “making an extraordinary effort to keep the decline hidden” is to publish it in Nature.
Which is of course where the general public and the politicians would read it over their cornflakes.
Memphis,
That would imply that you want newspapers to do a much better job in reporting science.
I agree.
Michael:
I’d be shocked if you could provide any reference to justify your response here. Heck, I’d be shocked if you even bothered to try. It’s far easier to just spout off claims that are so vague as to be irrefutable. Substantive remarks are so much more work.
If I’m wrong, it should be easy to prove it. I look forward to somebody trying.
Pekka might get a clue from Montford, but the inside baseball is at Stevie Mac’s. Michael Piltdown Mann and the wrecking team made an extraordinary effort to sustain the Crook’t Hockey Stick with reconstructions keying on series that had a built in hockey stick, like Yamal and Tiljander.
There was conspiracy to hide this effort, well documented in released and unreleased emails. The worst of it all, though, is the conspiracy of silence from ‘climate science’ at the fraudulent science of Michael Mann.
================
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL044771/abstract
Someone get the smelling salts for Brandon.
andrew adams | January 11, 2013 at 7:09 am |
“But it didn’t need whistleblowing to bring it to the public’s attention – it has always been in the public domain. And it’s not like no one on the “skeptic” side had paid any attention to the HS before climategate.”
Demonstrably, it did. The public went apeshiit over it once it came to their attention. What you’re struggling to ignore is the success of the efforts by the usual suspects to keep it out of the spotlight through such chicanery as creating a gauntlet-like peer review process with reliably adverse results for submissions contrary to the team’s dogma. Once the divergence problem made it into the public spotlight all hell broke loose. Even the unwashed masses could smell the foulness of what Mann and his close colleagues tried to pull off.
Michael claims this study shows the “same result” as Michael Mann’s hockey stick:
Why? Because it says:
Was Mann’s hockey stick limited to “incoming intermediate North Atlantic water”? Let’s see. MBH98’s abstract said:
Michael provided a paper that gives results for one part of one ocean. He claims these results are the “same results” as Mann got for an entire hemisphere.
If I was knocked out, it was only by Michael’s incompetence. It’s mind-boggling anyone would post such a stupid response.
kim calls me evil, unintentionally causing such to be true. Lies of omission are sins.
Well, colour me shocked, Brandon quibbles with trivialities.
Let’s review progress on this to better highlight Brandons twisting and squirming.
Me – “other subsequent studies, using different data, different stats mthods, that show the same result”
BS (rather appropriate initials!!) – ” he’s basically making that up…there is massive overlap in what data gets used in reconstructions…incestuous work produces similar results is hardly surprising…I have a standing offer to discuss any temperature reconstruction in any amount of detail”
Me – “So the studies looking at just lake bed sediment or ice cores, are lying, and they really used tree rings?”
BS – “I’d be shocked if you could provide any reference to justify your response here….If I’m wrong, it should be easy to prove it.”
He ‘s give a study (just one) that;
– uses different data,
– and gets the same rsult (HS – unprecedented recent warming wihtin the last 1000 yrs)
Does Brandon, like a good sceptc operating with good faith, ‘ oh, you’re right Michael – my mistake. Let me re-evaluate my position given my ‘respect for the evidence’.
Ha!!
No , he just sticks to his prior belief, and quibbles, pointlessly.
Lake Tanganyika has a pretty good HS too.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Unprecedented-Warming-in-Lake-Tanganyika-and-its-impact-on-humanity.html
And others too Jim, as anyone who ‘respects the evidence’, would readily acknowledge.
City, province, region, area, hemisphere. What’s the difference?
Brandon,
You say that Michael’s argument that other reconstructions have supported Mann’s conclusions is somehow invalid because there are overlaps in the particular proxies used. I don’t doubt that’s true in some cases, and it’s not really surprising as there is a finite number of proxy records in existence, but I don’t see how that necessarily contradicts Michael’s argument given that many of the criticisms of Mann are based on his statistical methods. If others are getting similar results using some of the same proxies but different statistical methods then that is surely significant.
Split bark, newly vertical shoots, and disturbed sediments. Once it’s settled, it’ll all be clear.
==========
Andrew,
We gave BS different proxies and different methods – he still twists and squirms.
andrew adams, I don’t get why you say:
When I explicitly said:
That “same primary flaw” has been giving a small amount of data undue weight. It doesn’t matter what statistical methods are used if they all give an improper amount of weight to limited amounts of data (simple averaging can cause that). Specifically, almost every reconstruction suffers from loss of variance in the past which necessarily enhances a hockey stick shape. In other words, the methods are biased.
But let’s say we we move away from discussions of methodology. Suppose the same dozen or so hockey stick series get used over and over in different reconstructions. Suppose most, if not all, of those have had serious and specific criticisms raised against their validity as temperature proxies. Now suppose reconstructions generally use fewer than twenty series to cover the MWP.
Can you see why methodology isn’t that important? The problem is incestuous use of data. If you keep using the same data with the same signal, you’re going to get similar results regardless of your methodology. It’s basically fishing for a specific signal.
Mann’s methodologies explicitly look for a signal. Many others do it inadvertently due to variance loss (see the screening fallacy). The rest do it by simply not having much data.
In case I wasn’t clear enough, the problem I see with multiproxy temperature reconstructions is data quality. If you look at temperature reconstructions like Christensen & Ljungqvist’s (which plots all series used), it’s easy to see only a handful of the proxies used have anything resembling a hockey stick. The rest don’t.
Does it make any sense to combine a handful of hockey stick shaped series with other series that basically amount to noise via any methodology and say, “We found a hockey stick”? The results are foregone. All you’re doing is taking some series with one shape, adding noise to them and saying the result now represents a larger area.
Why try to find “new” ways to combine series when we can just look at what the series show? If a hockey stick comes from just a handful of series, we should focus on those series to see why they show it. We shouldn’t just average random series with them and say we get a hockey stick.
If someone wants to discuss a specific paper and why I don’t think it’s results hold, I’m happy to. However, I can already tell you it will almost certainly be, “They used A, B and C series that are known to have X, Y and Z problems.” For example, there are a lot of reconstructions that use one or more precipitation proxies as temperature proxies.
(When I say “paper,” I mean a paper discussing large-scale temperature patterns. I’m not interested in local or regional ones.)
Bob Droege | January 10, 2013 at 9:51 pm |
“Max, we know there wasn’t a 20th century decline in temperatures because we have the instrumental data. Should we trust tree ring series that are obviously responding to something other than temperature post 1960? And they never hid them, they actually published them.”
Bob, you ignorant slut. If something other than temperature caused tree ring shrinkage in the 20th century, and we know it did because we had contemporaneous instrument records, then it’s an indictment of the basis for using tree rings as temperature proxies. This is why the decline the was hidden. It’s what it was all about. It hid data that proved tree rings were unreliable proxies for temperature.
I’m sure I used far too many multi-syllable words for a simpleton like you so please understand this is written at you not for you, dipshiit.
.
MBH98/99/08 (aka, the ‘hockey stick’ graph) is a proven scientific fraud. We know all about the ‘nature trick’ and the attempts by CRUgate conspirators ‘to hide the decline’. We know about global warming in the 10th and 11th centuries and global cooling during the ”Little Ice Age” of 1500-1800. Steve McIntyre of M&M repute noted (30-Nov-2010), as follows:
“While the term ‘trick’ can be used to denote a sophisticated mathematical method, it can also denote something as simple and unscrupulous as deleting adverse data. It is necessary to investigate the facts of the matter and the context… the Climategate correspondents did not use a sophisticated mathematical method; they simply deleted data that didn’t accord with their expectations. The `investigations’ ought to have denounced/renounced such methods and their failure to do so is to their shame.”
On many episodes of Saturday Night Live, Dan Akroyd called Jane Curtin an ignorant slut because he had no argument to refute her position, is that what you are doing here?
You are one smart cookie
Bob said, “On many episodes of Saturday Night Live, Dan Akroyd called Jane Curtin an ignorant slut because he had no argument to refute her position, is that what you are doing here?”
Very good Bob. When David refers to the Bass-O-Matic and Mann in the same sentence…..?
For ignorant sluts everywhere:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Jane%2C+you+ignorant+slut!
I have said it before, and I will doubtless say it in the future. Let me say it again now. When it comes to any aspect of physics, including climate science, the ONLY thing we can trust is the empirical data. Not the experts. not the models, not the hypothetical estimations; the empirical data, and only the empirical data.
This is why I keep on asking the same old question. Where is the empirical data that proves that when CO2 is added to the atmosphere from current levels, it causes global temperatures to rise? No warmist will touch this question with the end of a barge pole. If they claim the empirical evidence exists, then it is impossible for them to produce it. If they agree that the empirical evidence does not exist, then the whole basis for the hypothesis of CAGW is completely undermined. The certainty that the IPCC has claimed in the past, that the “science is settled” is clearly untrue.
So will any warmist denizen on Climate Etc., including our hostess, answer my question? Of course not. But the more they avoid answering the question, the more it becomes clear that CAGW is merely a reasonable hypothesis, and nothing more.
What empirical evidence would convince you?
There is evidence that global temperatures have risen.
There is evidence that CO2 levels have risen.
There is a mechanism that can link the two.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere has to warm the same, or else we have so much other science (which is , by the way, totally accepted consensus speaking) wrong.
Is CO2 the only thing that can affect global temperature?
No, of course not.
You ask for proof, this is not a math class, all the empirical evidence will not prove it, but the evidence is overwhelming.
One by one, Hansen’s predictions are coming true.
Bob Droege, you ask, “What empirical evidence would convince you?”
I have already asnswered that question. The evidence that proves that as you add more CO2 to the atmosphere form current levels, it causes global temperatures to rise. Simple and straighforward.
Jim, asked and answered.
Quoting now “This is the true global warming signal”
from
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/files/rahmstorf-vraies-temp%C3%A9ratures.pdf
Sorry, Bob, you are trying to make things much too complicated. What I am looking for, is very simple. What I need for someone to do, is to show that when X amount of CO2 is added to the atmosphere from current levels, it causes global temperatures to rise by Y degrees C. Then some measure of Y/X is the measured value of total climate sensitivity. Simple and straightforward.
What your reference fails to do is to provide a measurement of total climate sensitivity. Until that figure is measured, then there is no proof that as you add CO2 to the atmosphere it causes global temperatures to rise.
There is evidence that global temperatures have risen.
There is evidence that CO2 levels have risen.
There is a mechanism that can link the two.
There is a very simple mechanism that links the two.
THE LAWS OF VERY SIMPLE PHYSICS.
Open a hot carbonated drink and open a cold carbonated drink.
The hot one fizzes a lot and the cold one fizzes a little.
Ocean temperature does change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
When did you last hear that from an alarmist climate scientist?
The actual warming by CO2 is small and that is accepted by the different sides. The evidence is overwhelming and it shows that CO2, as a trace gas, does do a trace of warming.
Is there evidence or data that proves this to be wrong? Not in the actual data. Only in the flawed models that have not got anything right for a decade and a half and more.
As I thought Jim, you are asking for the impossible, as it is impossible to hold all factors that affect global temperature constant, while one adds a measured amount of CO2 and measures the response.
Thus no amount of evidence will convince you so you are holding a non-scientific stance.
Herman,
You are wrong, CO2 is not a trace gas, as it exists in the atmosphere at a concentration of more than 100 ppm.
Bob, you write “As I thought Jim, you are asking for the impossible, as it is impossible to hold all factors that affect global temperature constant, while one adds a measured amount of CO2 and measures the response.”
I agree with you completely. The interesting thing is that we draw completely different conclusions from the same truth. I dont want to put words into your mouth, but you seem to believe that, since what I am looking for is impossible, therefore we need to try and find other ways of proving that CAGW is true.
I take a completely different tack. It must have been obvious, ab initio, when CAGW was first mooted, that it would never be possible to prove, with proper empirical data, and using the true scientific method, that it was true. As long as we both agree with your statement, then CAGW will, forever, remain a hypothesis. That is what I believe should have been stated by people with names like Houghton, Watson and Hansen all those many years ago. That would have been the right and proper scientific thing to do. To admit openly and completely that physics can never prove the hypothesis of CAGW.
Instead of this, the proponents of CAGW, like yourself and our hostess, have been fooling the MSM, the politicians, and the general public, that it is possible to prove that CAGW is true, when it will never be possible to prove that it it true. And this is where I get really angry, when the IPCC puts up it’s opinion that it is “very likley” that something is true about CAGW, when it is impossible to use the concepts of basic physics to get CAGW to be anything more than a plausible hypiothesis.
I do not apologise for this rant. The warmists, yourself included, have bastardized science, physics, in the “cause” of saving the world from the ravages of CAGW. And the basic physics will NEVER be able to prove that CAGW is anything more than a hypothesis
Bob,
I would agree that we have empirical evidence for all that you list.
What we do not have empirical data for are the many dire predictions we’ve been presented with.
In other words, increased CO2 concentrations is warming the atmosphere, but empirically the degree it has done so has not proven to be either dangerous or at such a rate that it has a high likelihood to become dangerous in the near (i.e 50 – 100 years) future.
Bob can you prove that dinosaurs once roamed the Earth using empirical data?
I don’t mean fossils, they are just old bones that require assumptions to interpret. Can you show me an actual dinosaur walking around 65 million years ago?
If you can’t then sure it means there’s no empirical evidence dinosaurs once roamed the Earth!
lolwot,
Any 10 year old can prove their were dinosaurs. At least they can if they’ve seen Jurassic Park.
“You are wrong, CO2 is not a trace gas, as it exists in the atmosphere at a concentration of more than 100 ppm.”
Trace gases, by definition, are gases at concentrations lower than one percent, not 100 ppm (one one-hundredth of one percent). The only two non-trace gases in Earth’s atmosphere are oxygen and nitrogen.
You’re only off by two orders of magnitude…
Cirby,
let’s compare cites
I am sure you have a better one than me, but here goes!
cause mine is pretty crappy, but it agrees with better ones I have seen.
Also with the basic idea of being near detection limits, but this would vary depending on the analyte.
And I’ll throw in a totally worthless appeal to authority, because I am, in fact a tracer chemist. I make trace amounts of radioactive chemicals for a living. Therefore, I know what trace means.
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080204173120AAApGB2
Bob Droege
One by one, Hansen’s predictions are coming true”
Huh?
What are you smoking, Bob?
Hansen’s 1988 prediction of warming was exaggerated by a factor of 2.
That’s a lousy prediction, no matter how you slice it.
The evidence is underwhelming, Bob.
In fact, there is no empirical evidence that supports the CAGW premise as outlined in detail by IPCC in AR4.
None. Nada. Zilch.
And the past 12-15 years “pause” in warming despite unabated human GHG emissions makes Hansen’s predictions look even more screwy.
Sorry ’bout that. Jim Cripwell is right and you are wrong.
If Hansen is supposed to be an “expert”, then the advice should be, “don’t trust the experts”.
Max
Bob Droege “As I thought Jim, you are asking for the impossible, as it is impossible to hold all factors that affect global temperature constant, while one adds a measured amount of CO2 and measures the response.”
This argument works both ways. How can the AGWers be so positive that their position is the truth?
“let’s compare cites”
Fine. Mine’s NOAA. They call CO2 a trace gas.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
You, on the other hand, used a Yahoo page that was “voted on.”
I win.
I don’t know Max, perhaps we should trade, but I think you should keep some back, cause mine causes me to remember a Tommy Chong line from Up In Smoke, in the scene with Rueben and the Jets.
YESCA
One third of all human emissions of CO2 have occurred since the plateau of temperatures in 1998. One-third. A massive forcing in a short time period.
there’s hasn’t been a plateau of temperatures since 1998
The world has warmed since 1998. Both at the surface and in the oceans.
Bob Droege 400 ppm is one marble in a pile of 2,500 marbles. That is a trace. Manmade CO2 is 100 ppm. that is one marble in a pile of 10,000 marbles. That one marble is not pushing the whole pile.
I hope Bob Droege is a better trace chemist than he is at fact finding. He says CO2 is not a trace gas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trace_gas
When people get encyclopedic knowledge wrong then refuse to admit it they have a deep and abiding ignorance. Of course we all knew Bob Droege was a deep and abiding ignoramus so this just more grist for the mill. Proof piled upon proof.
Still in shut-eyed denial mode, Jim?
This is what you do.
One reason I keep staring at the circle is because climate alarmists continue to deny it! On skepticalscience.com they claim the Daily Mail “invented” this “myth”! It’s fascinating.
BBD
No.
I believe it is YOU who are in “shut-eyed denial mode”.
Starting with the fact that you are still in denial of the current pause in global warming.
Max
manacker
No, I have never denied that there is a short term reduction in the rate of surface and tropospheric warming. But what of OHC?
You are doing this. As I have pointed out over and over again.
That is called ‘denial’.
Different site, same old denialist garbage eh Tommy?
Sadly Marlowe old chap there’s a lot of it about.
We’d like to get the attribution right first. What we have noticed is an inability to process anomalous information indistinguishable to groupthink. Such as this from Wong et al 2006.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view¤t=WongFig2-1.jpg
http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf
Groundhog Day.
You never said whether you were a shopkeeper or a lawyer? Certainly not someone with any depth of science.
But if you cite warming of the oceans – you have to aceept that attribution is the central consideration. This is where the satellite data is most intriguing. Is there a good reason to ‘deny’ it? Perhaps not.
With you it is more like rat’s arse day blah blah for your endearing personal qualities and your supercilious ‘I am not amused’ song and dance. Does anyone give a rat’s arse what you think? Perhaps not.
And a Happy New Year to you too, Robert.
Any many happy rat’s arses to you.
You are insane Robert. Really. I’m making a calm, objective observation here, not responding to your last in pique. But it needs saying.
We’re all driven mad by ignorance of the totality, and find refuge in belief in the partial.
===========
You blah blah are an obnoxious, repulsive, abusive space cadet with overweening arrogance and an attitude that sucks big time. You have this unfortunate paternalisitic patian that cracks me up. It is very rod up your arse English. ‘Your one and final warning’. ‘I ask politely but firmly’. ‘Don’t make me come up there or you will regret it.’ ‘I am not just saying this in pique but making a sane, calm interweb diagnoses’.
I think your projecting again blah blah.
Further but redundant evidence that you are deranged, Robert. You have proved my point. Why not stop now?
Oh for God’s sake – grow up.
After you ;-)
Oh I forgot – you are a space cadet dedicated to endless trivial digressons and irrelevant snark. You didn’t say whether you were a shopkeeper or a lawyer in your past life. I insist that you reveal just what crappy background you have in any science at all. Geography for the intellectually challenged? It would explain just not why you are such a vapid and facile twit but at least why you are so ignorant.
space cadet (n) – Some one who acts like they are on another planet or plane of existence. Either they are incredibly stupid or are on drugs or most likely a combination (urban distionary)
I’ve told you Robert, I am a retired businessman. An interested layman who has managed effortlessly to show you up again and again for your poor grasp of paleoclimate and your habit of misrepresenting things generally.
If I were you, I would be worried by this. I would wonder if perhaps my towering intellectual arrogance were not blinding me to my own failings.
But by all means carry on telling yourself you are the smartest guy in the room.
An unusual application of force could cause unexpected behavior. Hit it hard enough, and the device might do something different from anything seen before. For example, the arm of the balance might bang against the table, and the ball could bounce out of the cup and roll away.
Now imagine that you have never seen the device and that it is hidden in a box in a dark room. You have no knowledge of the hand that occasionally sets things in motion, and you are trying to figure out the system’s behavior on the basis of some old 78-rpm recordings of the muffled sounds made by the device. Plus, the recordings are badly scratched, so some of what was recorded is lost or garbled beyond recognition. If you can imagine this, you have some appreciation of the difficulties of paleoclimate research and of predicting the results of abrupt changes in the climate system. NAS 2002 – http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=13
Effortless crap in which you attempt to pull out simple messages in some faux and quite ridiculous paleoclimatic certainty. Abusive, overweeningly arrogant, unreflective and quite simplistically absurd. By all means keep telling yourself that you are not deeply and absurdly in the thrall of cult of AGW groupthink confirmation bias.
Still foamingly insane I see Robert. So sad. Too bad.
;-)
Odd how quoting the NAS in the vain hope that you will recognise the limitations of the paleoclimatic record provokes sucha vile response.
I note below the response to Max which one of the most appalling bits of repulsive abuse I have ever seen. All on the basis that TCS differs from ECS by 1 degree C and not 0,6 degree C.
The lack of scientific training shows in both cases in the inability to evaluate confidence limits for data. It is something more however.
‘Janis has documented eight symptoms of groupthink:
– Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
– Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
-Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
– Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
– Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
– Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
– Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
– Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
You are so deep in this you can’t see daylight. So sad – too bad.
One of the few compensations for not visiting Collide a Scape at its new location is that I don’t have to see your buffoonish, insulting and error-filled comments.
You are stupid, rude and mean. A bad combination.
Ellison
You have a serious problem. You witter on about abrupt cooling but never admit that you have no mechanism. The abrupt cooling events during the last glacial and the deglacial phase required large NH ice sheets, proglacial lake runoff etc.
Ignorance of the topic plus bias plus nuttiness = garbage commentary.
You lot get treated with the intellectual contempt you deserve. Starting with manacker, who is an idiot even worse informed than yourself. Stop whining.
Apologies for the late reply. I have been in hospital with an infected big toe. Scarier than it sounds. Whatever did we do before mega doses of intravenous antibiotics.
What is this – insults for the sake of it? The most obvious mechanism seems to be a slowdown in thermohaline circulation followed by ice and snow feedbacks.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/causes.shtml
Abrupt change is the norm rather than the exception – get used to it, JC SNIP
But it was such an appalling and well deserved insult. Is there not a pattern emerging? He wears out his welcome at blog after blog by being plainly insulting, abusive and facile on top of it. There is really nothing in the previous comment but insult – unless you count the snark and piffle about mechanism as substantive comment.
Hey, Robert, I seriously maintain that my best stuff gets snipped, or deleted, or zambonied. Consider her snip an editorial compliment to your superlative skill.
Now, make that insult a third person joke and repeat it somewhere else in a little while. Hide and go seek.
===============
Jim Cripwell,
You seem to be under the misaprehension that there is no climatic “empirical data”. If we hadn’t grasped you felt that way the first dozen or so times you posted about it, then we certainly did the next hundred times. How many postings now?
Change the subject. Or better still: Give it rest. Put a sock in it. Dry up. Fall silent. Hush, Pipe down, Stop writing. Or less politely STFU !!!!
Look, tempterrain, I use my real name. I live in Ottawa, Canada, anyone can look up who I am, they could find my phone number and address with no probems. I am proud of what I write. You use a pseudonym. I understand why some people like to use a pseudonym, and in the ususal way, I make no fuss about it.
But if you want to give me advice as to how I should behave, then that is a different issue. I take no notice whatsoever of the sort of advice you give from someone who hides behind a cowardly alias.
Jim,
Give yourself something different to think about, for a change, and try rearranging the letters of tempterrain to reveal my real name. If you can’t do it, someone has kindly posted up the answer under the denizens link.
tempterrain
Instead of asking Jim Cripwell to STFU in his requests for empirical data to support IPCC’s CAGW premise, why TF don’t you simply cite these data?
Cat got your tongue?
(Or are there no such data?)
Max
Keep asking your question Jim. I am also looking for the empirical evidence. The theory of GHG effect seems to be based on the premise that the Earth atmosphere is a closed system and that temp directly responds to changes in CO2 with no allowance for co-variance.
Max,
Jim has been supplied with numerous references to empirical data both by myself and others but he’s totally impervious to idea that there may be any evidence at all there. He just goes quiet for a time then pops up a week later saying exactly the same thing.
It would be better if he did use an alias, himself, instead of his real name, and I’d like to suggest something like TotalF*ckwit !
tempterrain
No.
There has been no empirical evidence cited as yet to validate the IPCC CAGW claim.
Just you saying so does not make it true.
So let me be real blunt about this.
I’m calling you a liar unless you can cite such evidence.
Got it?
Max
Help! Tempterrain is melting! The gentle rain of observation has poured mercifully over him.
==============
Max,
The IPCC would rate the possibility of catastrophic global warming as ‘unlikely’ in the foreseeable future. ~ 2% chance of a rise in sea level of several metres or more due to a collapse a a major ice sheet.
So you are asking for “empirical evidence” for something which conventional science doesn’t think is likely to happen anyway.
Jim isn’t the only one who seems to be somewhat intellectually challenged.
Max,
Jim isn’t asking for empiral evidence of “CAGW”, he is asking for evidence that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase the GAT.
No he isn’t asking for evidence, he’s denying the evidence and asking for proof.
lolwot
You are wrong.
Jim Cripwell is asking for empirical evidence (Feynman) that AGW will have a measurable effect on global temperature.
I am asking for empirical evidence to support IPCC’s CAGW premise.
In both cases, the same “evidence” would do.
Simply showing a (statistically rather weak) correlation between CO2 and global temperature does not provide any empirical evidence.
Simply showing results of model simulations also does not provide any empirical evidence.
Simply citing a wonderful hypothesis – even calling it a “theory” – does not provide any empirical evidence.
The only thing that counts is “empirical evidence” (based on actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation).
And that is what is lacking, lolwot.
As Janice Joplin advised:
“Try, try, try a little bit harder…”
Max
From a legal perspective we must consider the Schlub factor. Rules of evidence, 101 (i.e., the Daubert standard)—i.e.,
&ntsb;
…that an expert’s testimony pertain to “scientific . . . knowledge,” since the adjective “scientific” implies a grounding in science’s methods and procedures, while the word “knowledge” connotes a body of known facts or of ideas inferred from such facts or accepted as true on good grounds. The Rule’s [i.e., Rule 702] requirement that the testimony “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” goes primarily to relevance by demanding a valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a precondition to admissibility.
Under Daubert establishing the relevance and weight to be given to an expert’s opinion concerning a scientific theory requires a reliability analysis, as follows:
• Has the scientific theory been empirically tested? (“The criterion on the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, refutability, and testability” ~K. Popper (The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 1989)
• Has the scientific theory been subjected to peer review and publication?
• What is the Type I and Type II error rate of the scientific idea to determine the validity and reliability the theory?
• What is the expert’s qualifications and stature in the scientific community and can the expert’s results be replicated by other experts elsewhere?
• Can the expert’s explanation of test results be clearly explained and understood by all of us schlubs?
Waggy says: What is the Type I and Type II error rate of the scientific idea to determine the validity and reliability the theory?
_____
I don’t see how an idea in itself can have a Type I error or a Type II error.
Perhaps you mean a statistical test of a hypothesis can have a Type I error or a Type II error.
Unfortunately, not all ideas lend themselves to that kind of testing.
AGW True Believers simply assume global warming is man-made. There are no peer-reviewed studies that rule out ‘natural, internal climate cycles’ — i.e., ‘natural, internal variability’ — as the real cause of 20th century warming.
And, that is the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming. The ‘null hypothesis,’ according to Dr. Spencer, has never been rejected, i.e., “THAT NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY CAN EXPLAIN EVERYTHING WE SEE IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM.” ~Dr. Roy Spencer
“Natural climate variability is the null hypothesis. No one has ever ruled it out. They have only come up with a potential alternative explanation, which is fine. But it is being advertised as some sort of ‘proof’, which it is not.” (Ibid.)
Why should we trust Roy Spencer, Wagathon?
Roy Spencer: “I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/06/261843/roy-spencer-job-minimize-the-role-of-government/
lolwot asks: “Why should we trust Roy Spencer, Wagathon?”
Because he follows the Scientific Method and is transparent as to data, algorithms, code, etc. He allows independent researchers to replicate his results, and when errors are found, he corrects them. Unlike the unethical anti-science catastrophe-mongers like Mann, Jones, Trenberth, Hansen, Thompson, ad nauseam who define the phase “climate scientists”, and their apologists who post here.
There is as yet no empirical data that the Earths’ climate is outside the natural variability of the Holocene. There is yet no empirical data that the Earth’s climate is dynamically unstable and responds to temperature perturbations with positive feedback. Quite the opposite in fact, as any intellectually honest person knows.
Waggy, why let Roy Spenser dictate to you what “the null” is? Shouldn’t you have the freedom to choose any null you want.
Spenser’s “the null” is useless for statistical hypothesis testing anyway. Why would you want a null like that? You might as well have no null at all.
So Andrew where can i download the source code Roy spencer uses to adjust the satellite data? Oh that’s right i can’t because Roy Spencer has it hidden.
In contrast I can download the source code for hansens record.
You may believe human CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming for no reason at all — that’s your choice — but, science demands that to have a viable theory you must be able to detect the effect. The null hypothesis simply holds that the effect is greater than what you would expect from natural variation. You cannot reject the null hypothesis and that is why you do not have a viable theory. You have nothing more than a dogmatic belief that has been held by many who have proven to be feckless liars and charlatans.
Wagathon, you might not have detected that the land temperature has risen by 0.9 C in three decades or that the Arctic Sea ice is reaching new lows, but I think other people have noticed these effects by now.
“Arctic Sea ice is reaching new lows” ??
No its all part of the conspiracy.
If they can fake the Moon landings, and crash planes into buildings then photoshopping a few satellite images isn’t at all a problem :-)
tempterrain, yes, thanks for giving me this opportunity to bring up some other typical conspiracy language I saw today, like “what is the going rate for being involved in a government hoax?”, and being accused of being a crisis actor, but this time it was the Sandy Hook “truthers” (deniers, in fact) saying those things, that have a familiar ring here, to protect their gun lobby.
Real scientists were involved in Americans landing on the moon not some UN-approved Western schoolteachers with delusions of grandeur about saving humanity from American soccer moms driving SUVs.
Even if there were some clear and distinct argument that delineates financial incentives in this debate (there aren’t; e.g., a scientists who could “prove” AGW theory is false would be awarded for doing so), the potential of motivating biases in this debate are certainly not limited to financial incentives.
There are strong political and cultural influences (just take a look at the overt political and religious cleavages in the debate), and there are strong personal influences (once, for whatever reason people take sides, they are influenced by the very human tendency to want to confirm their ideological orientation as well as the very human tendency to want to confirm that they are “right.”)
We are conditioned by myriad foundational psychological and cognitive factors to recognize the patterns we’re looking for and to reject the patterns that don’t fit out narratives.
Chasing down incentives in others is a fool’s errand, IMO – and inherently biased. In reality, we cannot know the incentives of others simply by trying to reverse engineer from what we assume to be their biases. Chasing down our own incentives is more productive, and once we’ve done that, we can work together from a place of mutual trust.
The kind of facile argumentation recommended by this article is only counterproductive, IMO.
Control the variables, people, if you want to hypothesize about cause-and-effect. Control the variables. Why is that concept so difficult? Why, in particular, is it difficult for people who spend large chunks of their lives practicing the control over variables within particular domains. Why are those principles that they know so well within their own domain so difficult to generalize?
a scientists who could “prove” AGW theory is false.
Mother Earth is going to do that for us.
Manmade CO2 will continue to rise and Earth temperature and sea level will not continue to rise.
Every year that the warm oceans open the Arctic Open, record snows will fall. In time this piled up snow will advance and cool the Earth, Just like it did after the Roman Warm Period and after the Medieval Warm Period and after every other Warm Period in the past ten thousand years.
The CO2 will rise and green things will grow better with less water and Earth will cool and oceans will drop.
Just watch the actual data.
We are well inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years and we will stay inside those bounds, except for CO2 and crop production, which will well exceed the bounds of the past.
I have an interesting hypothesis about this post.
Some folks, as they read along, will be nodding in agreement until they read the references to “demiers.” Suddenly, their view on the validity of the argument will do a 180.
Others folks, as they read alone, will be shaking their head in disagreement until they read the reference to “deniers.” Suddenly, their view on the validity of the argument will do a 180.
Same ol’ same ol’.
Heh. Well, interesting to me, anyhoo.
Are you saying that the warmists have no friends?
Ah yes, the genus typo nanny. Which ranks higher than perhaps only the grammar nanny and the spelling nanny in the bowels of Internet blog discourse.
Although even that is probably arguable.
Mathbabe demonstrates an excessive belief in the power of models. This is surprising in view of her history of working in finance. As I understand it, excessive belief in and use of mathematical models was part of the reason for the 2008 financial collapse in the USA. Her comments belie the saying: Once burned, twice shy.
“scientists who could “prove” AGW theory is false would be awarded for doing so”
How naive. On which planet do you live? Furthermore, in science no hypothesis can ever be proven, null or alternate. Data, such as the results of an observation or experiment, can only reject or fail to reject a hypothesis.
Sorry Joshua, I misunderstood you. You did say “prove” false. But the first point still stands, the forcing on the scientists to be ‘convinced’ of AGW was very strong (even big oil and banks were promoting it). Now that forcing is plateauing/declining.
The ‘forced consensus’ meme is paranoid rubbish borne of conspiracy-theory mentality. So claiming this non-existent forcing is declining is rubbish too.
BBD, Chomsky would say that you’re discouraging institutional analysis, by bringing up conspiracy. You may be not aware of it, but you’re a part of the propaganda.
More paranoid rubbish Edim.
And cut out the pseudo-intellectual posing. If you want to play at ‘Chomsky says’ I can make you look even more ridiculous than usual.
One and only warning.
It’s not paranoid, open your eyes – it’s a clear case of many conflicts of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
It’s no posing, I just agree with the guy and he says it better.
Edim, unless you believe that ‘the scientists’ are in cahoots with Big Government to fool ‘the people’ with a forced and bogus consensus in order to bring about World Socialist Government and the Endless Grant then your position is, in a word, ludicrous.
And I am *bored to tears* with this politicised, crypto-denialist crap.
Correction:
“Edim,
unlessyou apparently believe that ‘the scientists’ are in cahoots with Big Government to fool ‘the people’ with a forced and bogus consensus in order to bring about World Socialist Government and the Endless Grantthenand your position is, in a word, ludicrous.Edim is kind of right “the forcing on the scientists to be ‘convinced’ of AGW was very strong”
and it still is. It’s called data. Scientists kind of find it convincing. Even climate skeptics do when they are willing to admit so.
Last week skeptics were admitting 1.7C warming per doubling of CO2.
This week I see skeptics are back to pretending there’s no evidence CO2 causes warming, indistinguishable from zero, maybe all the warming could have been natural, etc etc.
BBD | January 10, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
“And cut out the pseudo-intellectual posing. If you want to play at ‘Chomsky says’ I can make you look even more ridiculous than usual.”
No one will argue that you’re expert at making yourself look foolish. I’m not certain that translates into skill at making others look foolish.
“One and only warning.”
Promise?
BBD
You must be joking when you write:
“The ‘forced consensus’ meme is paranoid rubbish borne of conspiracy-theory mentality. So claiming this non-existent forcing is declining is rubbish too.”
Huh?
Where have you been?
“Paranoid rubbish?”
“Conspiracy-theory mentality?”
Get with it, BBD. It’s quite obvious that IPCC has set up a “consensus process” to filter out views that dissent from its CAGW premise.
Are you blind? Or stupid? Or do you just not WANT to see what is going on?
Max
PS And it appears to me, as well, that the “forcing” of the CAGW “consensus” is easing off a bit, with the new findings of a much lower climate sensitivity than previously predicted by the models. But I think we’ll have to wait and see how IPCC end up responding to this new information.
manacker
You mean an unpublished and suspect monograph by a contrarian mischief-maker (Lewis) who chose Bishop Hill (of all places) as the venue to unveil his ‘findings’?
Is that what you mean? Or did you have something more substantial in mind, because I’m not at all sure what that might be. Please list your references (with links). Thanks.
manacker
No max, it is not ‘quite obvious’ at all.
All that is obvious here is conspiracy theorising and argument by assertion, not to mention the same dishonest framing you employed on the previous thread with your deliberate and repetitive misuse of the term ‘whistleblower’.
Springer
(misthreaded below; ignore double post)
Nothing I could ever do can equal the own goal you achieved here. That has to be one of the most astonishing displays of total ignorance I have ever seen.
I’m still chortling over it to this day. Idiot.
BBD
Looks like you find yourself behind Joshua’s “magic 8-ball” on the issue of (2xCO2) equilibrium climate sensitivity.
First of all, there’s Schlesinger et al. (2012) plus Lewis (2012), both based on actual physical observations.
There’s Spencer + Braswell (2007) plus Lindzen + Choi (2009/2011), both based on CERES (and ERBE) satellite observations.
These studies all show that the ECS as predicted by the models cited by IPCC is likely to be exaggerated by a factor of around two.
Then there are the actual observations since 1850, which show a CO2 temperature response, which again results in a much lower ECS than the models predict.
All-in-all, it appears to be a safe bet that the ECS is around half the figure previously estimated and reported in AR4.
The question simply remains, “what is IPCC going to do with these new data?”
Our hostess has opined that they can’t “sweep it under the rug” without a major loss of credibility, but we will need to wait and see if they attempt this anyway.
What do you think (as one of the greatest scientists who ever graced this planet with his existence)?
Give us your “expert” judgment on this, so we can “trust” you.
Max
manacker
Response to your last in moderation, presumably because of links. Please check back later.
I reposting my response with links removed and it went into moderation again. There is no obvious reason for this. I will try one more time, but at the bottom of the main thread.
Nope. Into moderation again. Bizarre. We will just have to wait.
One made it through… to the end of the main thread. Please see here.
BBD
thanks for the link to that awesome post from mr. springer. the concept of fractal wrongness is appropriate here I think.
“You are not just wrong. You are wrong at every conceivable level of resolution. Zooming in on any part of your worldview finds beliefs exactly as wrong as your entire worldview.”
My pleasure. Glad you appreciated it ;-)
So you still think climate sensitivity never changes? That’s pretty boneheaded even for you.
BBD attempted to constrain climate sensitivity at high value by looking at glacial/interglacial transitions. He clearly didn’t understand that the hypothetical feedbacks which put CS above the generally accepted no-feedback level of 1.1C can vary. The interglacial transition point is not delineated by a change in forcing but rather a critical transition point around a fixed temperature 0C. This is where water changes from a very high albedo solid to a very low albedo liquid. A small perterbuation around that point can have large consequences due a positive feedback effect – melting leads to lower global albedo which leads to even more melting and freezing leads to higher global albeod which leads to even more freezing.
In a display of what can only be willful ignorance BBD when on to describe a Milankovich driven change in forcing he described as quite small and connected it to a large temperature change. This is wrong. Milankovich cycles do not cause a change in mean annual solar forcing. The Milankovich cycle causes a change in temporal and spatial distribution of solar forcing such that beginning of an interglacial is marked by warmer NH summers and cooler winters which leads to less snow in the winter and more melt in summer. This is common knowledge. Thus, going by BBD’s logic, sensitivity must be infinite because no change in mean annual forcing will end a glacial period. Clearly this is preposterous and if BBD actually understood Milankovich cycles and glacial/interglacial triggering he’d realize it.
Thus we cannot calculate climate sensitivity by analyzing a rare happening centered around the solid-liquid phase transition temperature of water. Climate sensitivity is not the same under all global temperature conditions because water has a set temperature where its albedo undergoes radical change.
Therefore we must look to changes in forcing and subsequent temperature change in the current state of affairs which is very little glaciation and consequent low global albedo.
This was done here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3611.1
The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data
PIERS M. DE F. FORSTER
JONATHAN M. GREGORY
This is the only climate sensitivity estimate incorporated into the AR4 CS ensemble which doesn’t rely on model results. Let me repeat that. Forster and Gregory is the only CS estimate in AR4 which uses strictly empirical data.
Forster et al finds a climate sensitivity with a peak probability density at 1.6C and a mean probability at 2.3C. Personally, due to the narrowness of the spike, I’d bet on the 1.6C peak rather than the 2.3C mean.
Either way, a study of climate sensitivity based entirely upon recent empirical observations is at the low end, not the high end, of the AR4 ensemble. So BBD is basically out to lunch with his blog-quality analysis. Perhaps if his so-called empirical proof of high sensitivity makes it into the literature, which it clearly won’t because his mental of glacial/interglacial transitions is blatantly wrong, I’ll give it further consideration. Until then I’m going with Forster et al 2006.
Thanks for playing.
Forgot to include this graph which shows the probability distribution vs. temperature for climate sensitivity in all CS studies incorporated into AR4.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/fig1_influence-of-prior.jpg
“Forster et al finds a climate sensitivity with a peak probability density at 1.6C and a mean probability at 2.3C. Personally, due to the narrowness of the spike, I’d bet on the 1.6C peak rather than the 2.3C mean.”
Huh?
Other things Foster et al report:
1) Net positive feedback in climate
2) Notes empirical evidence for positive water vapor feedback
3) Neutral cloud feedback
4) Human emissions dominate global warming
One might also wish to take a closer look at Andronova 01 as of all the climate sensitivity studies incoporated in AR4 it has the highest/narrowest probability spike which happens to be at 1.2C which is almost exactly the no-feedback sensitivity for a CO2 doubling.
The AR4 ensemble again:
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/fig1_influence-of-prior.jpg
The abstract (my emphasis):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JD000259/abstract
Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity
Papers on Climate and Dynamics
Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity
Natalia G. Andronova
Michael E. Schlesinger
DOI: 10.1029/2000JD000259
“The size and impacts of anthropogenically induced climate change (AICC) strongly depend on the climate sensitivity, ΔT2x. If ΔT2x is less than the lower bound given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1.5°C, then AICC may not be a serious problem for humanity. If ΔT2x is greater than the upper bound given by the IPCC, 4.5°C, then AICC may be one of the most severe problems of the 21st century. Here we use a simple climate/ocean model, the observed near-surface temperature record, and a bootstrap technique to objectively estimate the probability density function for ΔT2x. We find that as a result of natural variability and uncertainty in the climatic radiative forcing, the 90% confidence interval for ΔT2x is 1.0°C to 9.3°C. Consequently, there is a 54% likelihood that ΔT2x lies outside the IPCC range.”
Given that Andronova states its more likely than not that climate sensitivity falls outside the IPCC range and given the probability density spike in the Andronova study is under the minimum of 1.5C it’s probably safe to say that, according to Andronova, there’s better than even odds that climate sensitivity is less than the lowest number in the AR4 range.
I agree. There is virtually no chance of being at the high end of the range as BBD clumsily and stupidly asserts. Anything over 3C is merely the result of long fat tails. The sharpest probability spikes are 3C or less with the spikes getting sharper and narrower as they become lower temperatures.
So it isn’t just me that’s saying BBB is full of shiit. It’s also every CS study incoporated into AR4 that says he’s full of shiit.
loltwat
None of the words human, emission, or dominate appears in Forster so I have no idea where you got that from Forster.
Perhaps you’re looking at Foster not Forster. Follow my link to Forster
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3611.1
load the pdf, and give me an exact quote from the paper because I can’t find it doing a keyword search.
Springer
It’s too late. You made your seminally stupid comment weeks ago. You can’t make it un-happen. I know you are clueless now and you cannot change this. All the waffling and posturing and pretence just makes it worse.
As dear old grandma used to say, you can’t put the fart back in the dog.
I’ve got your number now.
Oh, and as well as being risibly ill-informed, you are a liar.
I have *never* said that ECS to 2 x CO2 is above 3C. Go ahead, search my comments and see for yourself. So this statement is a self-serving lie.
You really are making things worse. I’d stop now, if I were you. It’s getting embarrassing.
I live on the planet where scientists who do substantive research that contradicts previous findings often get published, often get funded for further research. Are their barriers to overturning conventional wisdom on various research topics? Of course, But only if I were stuck in a binary mindset would I conclude a universal “world” from examples that comprise a small subset of the larger phenomenon.
Play semantics all you want: A scientist who can provide the evidence to definitively “reject” AGW theory would be rewarded for doing so. There is some who assert an “asymmetry” in the types of scientific inquiry that are financially supported on the basis of which specific hypotheses a scientist is trying to validate (i.e., that evidence that supports AGW gets funded more readily than evidence that invalidates AGW), but even if that were true, it is clear from the body of research on any given topic that scientific debate continues, and gets funded, even when there is broad agreement.
The tendency towards a conspiratorial mindset can easily be traced to motivated reasoning. This is why we can see significant groups who are as certain as you are about your conspiracy on both sides of many different debates.
I didn’t play semantics – a hypothesis can be ‘proven’ false, I agreed and said sorry. I disagree about everything else. It will take nature to prove it false. Some scientists may be rewarded then, but it’s not that relevant. Only what is counts.
Acknowledged. My comment about semantics was written before saw your clarification.
Joshua | January 10, 2013 at 2:04 pm | Reply
“I live on the planet where scientists who do substantive research that contradicts previous findings often get published, often get funded for further research.”
On the earth science advances one funeral at a time. ~Max Planck, Founder of Quantum Theory
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck
Joshua
What “planet” is that?
(It doesn’t appear to be Planet Earth.)
Max
A comment that perfectly illustrates one of the things that differentiates “skeptics” from skeptics.
“Skeptics” point to published climate research that runs in contrast to previous findings – and say that it undermines the validity of AGW theory – only to later hand-wring about how any climate research that runs in contrast to previous findings can’t get published.
The world is not as binary as “skeptics” think. Playing the victim card gets old, max.
Springer
Nothing I could ever do can equal the own goal you achieved here. That has to be one of the most astonishing displays of total ignorance I have ever seen.
I’m still chortling over it to this day. Idiot.
I agree, that in effect, only nature will “prove” this debate, and that only after I’m gone. In the meantime, what I hope is that people can stop confirming their biases by claiming proof (either of their own beliefs or the falsification of others’) long enough to have a serious discussion about costs and benefits and quantifying uncertainties.
Unfortunately, my Magic 8-Ball says “Outlook not good.”
I believe in the expertise of Joshua to ride a semantic hobby horse right out of the magical realm of serious discussions about costs and benefits and quantifying uncertainties, regularly.
====================
Joshua,
I hope is that people can stop confirming their biases by claiming proof (either of their own beliefs or the falsification of others’) long enough to have a serious discussion about costs and benefits
The people who matter, our elected representatives have had those discussions and decided to do what it is we are currently doing.
The battle against climate change will be one or lost in China and India. If China and India are kept as technological backwaters then the amount of coal they will end up burning will make developed world emissions look trivial.
Kyoto was backwards. It has the ‘developed world’ adopting clean technologies first and the developing world following at some future point.
Go re-read the IPCC Scenario A1T narrative…then find a map of where all the nuclear power and hydro plants are being built.
It will take nature to prove it false.
I agree, that in effect, only nature will “prove” this debate, and that only after I’m gone.
Joshua, unless you are very old or in very bad health, Mother Nature is going to use the warm oceans and open Arctic to deliver enough snow to turn this around in our lifetime. This is happening now. Look at the extreme snow and cold in North America, Europe and Asia. Every warm period is followed by a cold period and the snow has started.
Every year with warm oceans and open Arctic will be followed by extreme cold and snow until the warming and ocean level rise stops and cooling and ocean level drop starts. Every warm period is followed by a cold period and every cold period is followed by a warm period. A trace gas has a trace of ability to interfere.
Global annual snow cover is falling, not growing.
lolwot
Wait’ll next week.
Max
lolwot
The long-term trend on winter snow cover in the northern hemisphere (where most of the land surface is) is one of no real change since the 1980s.
Max
Winter snow cover looks stable, but spring and fall are dropping. Summer snow cover is decreasing as well and since this means that places that are snow covered year round for the most part are becoming not snow covered for the part of the year that they get the most sunshine, hence there is a positive feedback.
As usual Max only looks at the data that supports his case and ignores the rest and has the grits to call himself a skeptic.
lolwot Snow fall in the Northern Hemisphere is at record highs. They just had snow in the Middle East Countries. It snows more when oceans are warm and the Arctic is open. That is now. Pay attention to the actual data. The snowfall started early and will last long during this snow season.
Herman the data show annual snow cover falling. Not rising. Anecdotes won’t help you.
Joshua
You have a “magic 8-ball” that tells you “Outlook not good”.
I don’t have a “magic 8-ball” like you. All I’ve got is a bit of smarts and a rationally skeptical mind that tells me “nobody knows what the outlook is, but it is unlikely to be determined by human GHG emissions”.
Max
manacker
And the entire field of climate science disagrees with you. Who the f*** do you think you are, Max? The Greatest Scientist That Ever Lived?
You are neither smart, sceptical nor rational. Towering but misplaced intellectual arrogance is all I see here.
For shame, BBD!
In your obvious frustration and anger, you are throwing a tantrum and resorting to ad hom attacks.
How shameful!
Max
Not at all Max. Please, read what I wrote again. Every word is true.
BBD
When you claim that “the entire field of climate science disagrees with you” as a general comment, you probably know upon reflection that the claim is unsupportable. Try to be specific in your disagreement and you might make progress in reaching consensus
Okay.
“The vast majority of climate scientists disagrees…”
BBD
Can you please reference the specific issue in which you believe the vast majority of climate scientists disagree with him on? What is the source of your assessment?
BBD
I took your advice and calmly re-read your ad hom post.
To Joshua’s predicted “magic 8-ball” outlook, I wrote that I do not have a “magic 8-ball” but that I had concluded
“nobody knows what the outlook is, but it is unlikely to be determined by human GHG emissions”.
To which you wrote:
“the entire field of climate science disagrees with you”
Hardly true, BBD.
Most scientists would agree that “nobody knows what the outlook is”.
A good many would also agree that “it is unlikely to be determined by human GHG emissions”
There are several climate scientists who accept AGW per se as a valid hypothesis (as I do), but do not believe we know with any certainty what its magnitude might be.
Based on the past 150 years, we can see that the impact is almost certain to not be dramatic, but we do not know what natural factors also helped force the gradual (and cyclical) warming we’ve seen.
Any scientist who tells you that we DO know the magnitude of AGW is flat out lying (because we do not).
There are scientific studies based on physical observations, which show a ECS range of under 1C to 3C, and model predictions that go even higher (up to 4.5C).
The latest findings are at the lower end of the range, with a mean value around half of the value previously predicted by the models of 3.2C.
The problem is that even these estimates have difficulty separating out the natural forcing from the anthropogenic.
We have seen from the current lack of warming despite unabated GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels, that natural factors apparently play a more important role than was previously estimated by the models.
So even these latest ECS estimates may be underestimating the natural component and thus estimating an ECS that is too high.
You used the word “arrogant”.
It would, indeed, be “arrogant” to claim we know the magnitude of the AGW effect and thus can project with any certainty how the future climate will develop. I’m sure you do not want to fall into that trap.
Max
A couple of (questionable) studies do not overturn the consensus best estimate for ECS. You are being profoundly *unsceptical*. Credulous in fact.
Utter, complete rubbish.
See detailed response (previously stuck in moderation) here.
Max,
Your estimed latest two papers give estimates of transient climate sensitivity, not equilibrium climate sensitivity, which blows a big fat hole in you conclusions.
And if you take Schlessingers estimate of climate sensitivity as correct, do you also agree with his recommendations on what we should do?
I’ll take his number for climate sensitivity if you take his recommendations on what to do about it.
Yes, “in data we trust,” Jim!![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffeeff&fg=0000ff&s=1&c=20201002)
Halt all the computers, look at the actual data and think!
Only trust the data! YES!
Fan
Great!
You now trust in (empirical) data!
Let’s see some that supports the IPCC AGW premise (that’s what Jim Cripwell has been asking for).
Thanks (you can pop in a smiley or two, if that makes you happy).
Max
All hail the data! … uhhh, the data that indicates James Hansen is pretty much right, eh?
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff00aa&s=1&c=20201002)
I reckon we all can guess, pretty reliably, what the coming tranche of sea-level data will look like!
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=aa00ff&s=1&c=20201002)
Hi Fan
Whilst you are waiting for the Colorado update here is the data from NOAA
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
nice graphic showing global situation
Here is the global data.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL_global_trendtable.html
What exactly is it you are worried about?
tonyb
Fan, you write “yes “in data we trust,” Jim!”
I swore I would ignore you, and I will probably bitterly regret even writing this. But you refer to me specificly by name, so I suppose I should say something. There are terabytes of data relating to the environment, and which bear on CAGW. This data is of varying quality; some is very good and can be trusted; some has been so tortured that it is not clear it means anything at all; and everything in between. Anyone who picks on a few kilobytes of data, and somehow thinks that this proves anything, or is even an indication of anything, clearly knows nothing about the subject whatsoever.
Let me revert to silence again when it comes to you.
My experience with experts, leaving out myself of course, is that experts tend to have very specialized knowledge which lacks generalizability. The minutia and detail of their particular niche, makes their pronouncements in other areas of world opinion, just that, an opinion, one of many.
By training, Paul Ehrlich is an entomologist, specializing in Lepidoptera (butterflies). His 1968 book, co-written with his wife Anne: The Population Bomb written and published at the suggestion of David Brower the executive director of the environmentalist Sierra Club, provided publicity for an extension of the Malthusian end of human kind. A charismatic and vocal critic of food aid to countries which were considered “hopeless” to feed their populations, Ehrlich years later (2004) acknowledged that some of what he had predicted had not come to pass, BUT he reaffirmed his basic claim.
Like Hansen’s Storms of My Grandchildren, books by experts, modeled upon alarmism, are meant to goad people into action that will change the world in a way they believe is most desirable. These experts use their identity to validate that that which is not valid. These stories come from experts in a small realm of science into a world class movement maker.
My reflection is to observe such behavior, but definitely don’t act.
Nabokov weeps,
Beloveds flutter by now.
Monarch, unsplendid.
========
Mathbabe said:
“Call me “asinine,” but I have less faith in the experts than Nate Silver: I don’t want to trust the very people who got us into this mess…”
_____
Uh, exactly what “mess” is she talking about? For truly, the most important “mess” that we could be in would be if in fact anthropogenic climate change turns out to be far worse than even the IPCC is currently allowing for. The other “mess” would be the current distrust of climate scientists (by some, not the majority) of the population. The majority of the population really doesn’t follow either the science or the controversy too much. So the related “mess” would be the gridlock created by the controversy in the political arena, with that arena already being primed for more gridlock given the big money two-party partisan politics currently crippling the American political scene.
the most important “mess” that we could be in would be if in fact the government and the EPA does the stupid stuff they have been pushing that will seriously damage our Energy Production and the Economy.
R. Gates
The “mess” is the unfounded CAGW hysteria.
The “people that got us into this mess” are principally the IPCC (with its “consensus process”), green lobby groups, politicians eager to generate more tax revenues to spread around, a media that loves disaster scenarios and various corporations and individuals that hope to get a piece of a multi-billion dollar big business.
Max
This ‘mess’ is the famous elephant and the blind men story. We’re all touching different parts of the beast. Guess which part I’m attached to?
==================
kim
Just don’t stand in the wrong place and pull on the wrong part.
Max
One of the ‘experts’ sent me for a left handed thermometer, extra large size.
==============
kim
Stand back and cover your head when you insert the temperature probe to test for anomalous (or even unprecedented) warming.
Max
You see one treemometer, you’ve seen Yamal. This beast has either split bark or newly vertical shoots.
====================
Gates, I think the “mess” she was referring to was the global financial crisis.
Yes, she doesn’t mention climate science at all (sorry Max). She mentions medical research but she is primarily concerned with the financial crisis and specifically mentions the credit rating agencies. I certainly wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them, but then I would be reluctant to class them as “experts” anyway.
I certainly wouldn’t trust [credit rating agencies] as far as I could throw them, but then I would be reluctant to class them as “experts” anyway.
If there’s any merit at all in what you say, there must necessarily be a gap in the credit rating agency market for a newcomer with even halfway decent expertise. Any idea why this hasn’t actually happened ?
Fair question. Looking at it more seriously, I think the problem was not so much that they didn’t have the right “expertise” within the confines of their particular field, I don’t doubt that that they had some very bright and well qualified people working for them. But when it came to the crunch they were still, on an institutional level, not very good at doing what they were supposed to do. No doubt some lessons have been learned, but they have some way to go to regain credibility and their pronouncements certainly carry less weight as they used to.
Whether this means there is a gap for a new player, or whether it is feasible for a competitor to establish themselves, I’m can’t really say.
Regardless of credentials, how can anyone be considered an expert if they get it totally wrong? The climate change “experts” who tout AGW are nothing of the sort – they’re charlatans, which is the opposite of expert.
If I get something wrong I’m a charlatan.
Say, “hello” to a charlatan.
Which is most of the time Max.
At least you are a pleasant charlatan (your word, not mine). There are some who are not.
Max OK -There is a difference between an honest mistake, acknowledged when pointed out, and deliberately engaging in fraud. An expert can make an honest mistake, provided he/she sincerely takes responsibility for being wrong on that point. But that’s a very different matter from showing a consistent pattern of deception and lying, which is what the AGW experts” are doing. And they’re not merely wrong on one point – they’re wrong on every single detail of their “theory”.
This is *completely false*.
BBD
Chad said
“But that’s a very different matter from showing a consistent pattern of deception and lying, which is what the AGW experts” are doing. And they’re not merely wrong on one point – they’re wrong on every single detail of their “theory”.”
For the record I do not believe in a conspiracy theory or wholesale lying by scientists. Although I do believe they are mistaken in some of their assertions- through lack of knowledge of history or of natural variabilty or just the obvious the fact that we don’t know everything yet- that is a very different thing to being wrong on every single detail of their theory. That would require incompetance on a grand scale from virtually every climate scientist in every field of climate science.
Perhaps Chad was referring specifically to one aspect of the theory rather than making a sweeping generalisation?
Tonyb
tonyb
I think Chad was abundantly clear in his meaning. Hence my response ;-)
Chad,
I think some charlatan totally pwnd you.
the opposite of an expert would be someone who thought that climate scientists got “it” totally wrong.
That depends on how you define “it”. If defined as it is essential that humanity immediately, drastically curtail CO2 emissions to prevent a disaster for humanity……..then that climate scientist appears to have gotten “it” totally wrong
except the science hasnt found that. Some people conclude that from the science, but the science hasnt found that
Rob Starkey said:
So ‘climate science’ hasn’t found that but climate scientists do say it (without getting overly pedantic about what ‘immediately’ means). What does that say about the honesty and integrity of those involved in climate science and the wisdom of trusting ‘climate experts’ (or are they extremists)?
The second quote in my previous comment should have been attributed to Mosher.
Steven Mosher
“Totally” is such a BIG word.
The “experts” got some pieces right in all likelihood.
But they also got some other pieces wrong, because they trusted their models too much and they knew what the answer should be beforehand (like Vaughan Pratt did with his “within a millikelvin” extrapolation).
The simple truth of the matter is that there are no real “experts”.
Max
I don’t understand. Is perfectly possible having an expert who optimizes his model for accuracy as best he can, feels very confident about it, and goes way wrong. How about looking for (difficult) predictions come true, as many times as possible? We could maybe quit thinking in experts. There are too many “experts” who are wrong time and again. Curiously enough they don’t end being “experts”. Maybe it could be better looking for good predictors, instead of “experts”.
I am always skeptical of trying to second-guess people’s motives and how incentives (or perceived incentives) affect what they do. It is difficult enough to do this with people you know well; in the cases under discussion most likely we do not know the ‘experts’ at all.
The only thing that seems sensible is to look, not at was is said or presumed, but at what is done. Very few people have the expertise, time or inclination to dissect specialist models. What we can do is (i) support and encourage those who do have the capacity to do it; and (ii) look at the outputs and measure them against relatively easy to discover empirical facts. For example, Steve McIntyre does splendid work in both of those capacities, and then puts his work out there to be further debated and sometimes improved by open discussion.
The reality is that the fact that someone has a gambling model that they sincerely believe in and use themselves doesn’t mean a thing in terms of how good it is. It is quite possible that another person who is way too smart to gamble will develop and sell commercially a much better one.
I think, too, that the term ‘expert’ has been greatly devalued in the last few decades. Experts are a dime a dozen – just ask any TV news/chat/documentary producer. They have lists as long as your arm on just about anything – and between them, they will say just about anything as well.
So, summing up, the arguments presented in the head post seem sterile and a tad self-serving to me. Why, now we apparently have ‘experts’ on ‘experts’! Good grief.
Experts are a dime a dozen
Court cases often have certified experts on the different sides who do disagree with each other. They usually cost much more than a dime a dozen. If court cases can always find experts who disagree, that makes me suspicious of a science that claims the experts all have consensus. Consensus Science is not Science. Science is always Skeptic.
Johanna is right.
The term “expert” has been greatly devalued in the last few decades.
IPCC has caused a good part of this in climate science, with its “consensus” process.
Max
The ‘experts in climate science’ show themselves to be nothing of the sort.
This following link was posted in a discussion recently. How can the scientists in this supposedly prestigious science organisation show themselves so ignorant of physical properties and processes in the world around us? These so called climate scientists don’t know anything about climate or gases.
Where is the rain in their Carbon Cycle? All rain is carbonic acid, it is continually being washed out of the atmosphere, why isn’t this in the models? How can anyone write a piece about the Carbon Cycle and not mention rain?
How can a gas which is heavier than air accumulate for thousands of years in the atmosphere? How can such a minute trace gas act as a blanket? Have they no sense of scale?! How can carbon dioxide trap heat when it doesn’t have any capacity to do so? So all we have to do to keep our houses toasty warm is to raise carbon dioxide levels? Hang on a mo, I’ll just go up into the attic and breathe out a few times as each exhalation lungful is 4% carbon dioxide and I can turn down my central heating..
Are all climate scientists really incapable of seeing how ludicrous these statements?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/
“Why is the Carbon Cycle important?
While CO2 is only a very small part of the atmosphere (0.04%), it plays a large role in the energy balance of the planet.
CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a blanket over the planet by trapping longwave radiation, which would otherwise radiate heat away from the planet. As the amount of CO2 increases, so will its warming effect. CO2 is the largest contributor (currently 63%) to this effect by long-lived gases and its role increases each year. The additional burden of CO2 in the atmosphere will remain for a very long time, of the order of thousands of years, if we have to rely on the natural mechanisms of erosion and sedimentation to process the added CO2.”
The only reason they have got away with this utter physical BS for so long is because it was introduced into the education system to deliberately dumb down basic physics for the masses in order to promote the AGW scam, so the ‘masses’ who don’t have any reason to discover the idiocy of this fake fisics for themselves still think of climate scientists as being experts.
But as anyone even with only the very basics of real physics as still traditionally taught can see through this, so the question is, are these climate scientists simply of the brainwashed masses of this AGWScienceFiction fake fisics scam, or are they knowingly pushing the fake fisics while knowing the real physics basics?
I trust people who I regard as experts. For me to judge them to be an expert they need to have demonstrated impeccable honesty and integrity in their personal and professional lives. The Climate orthodoxy has most certainly not demonstrated honesty and integrity. In fact, they have demonstrated the opposite. Here are some of the groups and people who I feel have demonstrated they cannot be trusted:
IPCC
CRU
BOM (UK and Australian)
BBC
ABC
CSIRO
Royal Society
NAS
Australian Academy of Sciences
Michael Mann
Phil Jones
‘Once to be the next President of the USA’, Al Gore
The Australian Treasury Department
Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Effciency (DCCEE)
Professor Ross Garnaut
Will Steffen (Head of the Australian Climate Institute
Most of the Leading Australian Climate Science academics, including:
Thirteen extremist propaganda articles by these leading Australian academics in promoting extremists views of catastrophic climate change:
https://theconversation.edu.au/pages/clearing-up-the-climate-debate
David Karoly, University of Melbourne
Stephan Lewandowsky, University of Western Australia
Michael Ashley, University of New South Wales
Ian Enting, University of Melbourne
Ross Garnaut, University of Melbourne
Michael J. I. Brown, Monash University
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, University of Queensland
Mike Sandiford, University of Melbourne
James Risbey, CSIRO
Karl Braganza, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
And there is the list of academics that supported this extremism:
https://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808
Signatories
Winthrop Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Australian Professorial Fellow, UWA
Dr. Matthew Hipsey, Research Assistant Professor, School of Earth and Environment, Centre of Excellence for Ecohydrology, UWA
Dr Julie Trotter, Research Assistant Professor, School of Earth and Environment, UWA Oceans Institute, UWA
Winthrop Professor Malcolm McCulloch, F.R.S., Premier’s Research Fellow, UWA Oceans Institute, School of Earth and Environment, UWA
Professor Kevin Judd, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UWA
Dr Thomas Stemler, Assistant Professor, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UWA
Dr. Karl-Heinz Wyrwoll, Senior Lecturer, School of Earth and Environment, UWA
Dr. Andrew Glikson, Earth and paleoclimate scientist, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research School of Earth Science, Planetary Science Institute, ANU
Prof Michael Ashley, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, UNSW
Prof David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
Prof John Abraham, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas
Prof Ian Enting, ARC Centre for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems, University of Melbourne
Prof John Wiseman, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne
Associate Professor Ben Newell, School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, UNSW
Prof Matthew England, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
Dr Alex Sen Gupta Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW
Prof. Mike Archer AM, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, UNSW
Prof Steven Sherwood, co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
Dr. Katrin Meissner, ARC Future Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
Dr Jason Evans, ARC Australian Research Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW
Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Global Change Institute, UQ
Dr Andy Hogg, Fellow, Research School of Earth Sciences, ANU
Prof John Quiggin, School of Economics, School of Political Science & Intnl Studies, UQ
Prof Chris Turney FRSA FGS FRGS, Climate Change Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW
Dr Gab Abramowitz, Lecturer, Climate Change Research Centre,Faculty of Science, UNSW
Prof Andy Pitman, Climate Change Research Centre, Faculty of Science, UNSW
Prof Barry Brook, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide
Prof Mike Sandiford, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
Dr Michael Box, Associate Professor, School of Physics, Faculty of Science, UNSW
Prof Corey Bradshaw, Director of Ecological Modelling, The Environment Institute, The University of Adelaide
Dr Paul Dargusch, School of Agriculture & Food Science, UQ
Prof Nigel Tapper, Professor Environmental Science, School of Geography and Environmental Science Monash University
Prof Jason Beringer, Associate Professor & Deputy Dean of Research, School of Geography & Environmental Science, Monash University
Prof Neville Nicholls, Professorial Fellow, School of Geography & Environmental Science, Monash University
Prof Dave Griggs, Director, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University
Prof Peter Sly, Medicine Faculty, School of Paediatrics & Child Health, UQ
Dr Pauline Grierson, Senior Lecturer, School of Plant Biology, Ecosystems Research Group, Director of West Australian Biogeochemistry Centre, UWA
Prof Jurg Keller, IWA Fellow, Advanced Water Management Centre, UQ
Prof Amanda Lynch, School of Geography & Environmental Science, Monash University
A/Prof Steve Siems, School of Mathematical Sciences, Monash University
Prof Justin Brookes, Director, Water Research Centre, The University of Adelaide
Prof Glenn Albrecht, Professor of Sustainability, Director: Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy (ISTP), Murdoch University
Winthrop Professor Steven Smith, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Plant Energy Biology, UWA
Dr Kerrie Unsworth, School of Business, UWA
Dr Pieter Poot, Assistant Professor in Plant Conservation Biology, School of Plant Biology, UWA
Adam McHugh, Lecturer, School of Engineering and Energy, Murdoch University
Dr Louise Bruce, Research Associate, School of Earth and Environment, UWA
Dr Ailie Gallant, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
Dr Will J Grant, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, ANU
Rick A. Baartman, Fellow of the American Physical Society
William GC Raper, Senior Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO (retired)
Dr Chris Riedy, Research Director, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney
Ben McNeil, Senior Fellow, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW
Paul Beckwith, Department of Geography, University of Ottawa
Tim Leslie, PhD candidate, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW
Dr Peter Manins, Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research (post-retirement Fellow)
Prof Philip Jennings, Professor of Energy Studies, Murdoch University
Dr John Tibby, Senior Lecturer, Geography, Environment and Population, University of Adelaide
Prof Ray Wills, Adjunct Professor, School of Earth and Environment, UWA
Jess Robertson, Research School of Earth Sciences, ANU
Dr Paul Tregoning, Senior Fellow, Research School of Earth Sciences, ANU
Dr Doone Wyborn, Adjunct Professor, Geothermal Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland
Dr. Jonathan Whale, Director, National Small Wind Turbine Centre (NSWTC), Murdoch University
Dr Tas van Ommen, Australian Antarctic Division, Cryosphere Program Leader, Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC
Dr Jim Salinger, Honorary Research Associate, School of Environment, University of Auckland
Dr P. Timon McPhearson, Assistant Professor of Urban Ecology, Tishman Environment and Design Center, The New School, New York
Prof Deo Prasad, Director Masters in Sustainable Development, UNSW
Prof Rob Harcourt, Facility Leader, Australian Animal Tagging, Monitoring System Integrated Marine Observing System and Professor of Marine Ecology, Macquarie University
Dr John Hunter, Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems CRC, University of Tasmania
Dr Michael Brown, ARC Future Fellow & Senior Lecturer, School of Physics, Monash University
Dr Karen McNamara, Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development, University of the South Pacific
Dr Paul Marshall, Director – Climate Change, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Dr Ivan Haigh, Post-doctoral Research Associate, UWA Oceans Institute and School of Environmental Systems Engineering
Dr Ian Allison, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC
Dr Jennifer Coopersmith, Honorary Research Associate Department of Civil Engineering and Physical Sciences, La Trobe University
Professor Emeritus Peter Kershaw, School of Geography and Environmental Science, Monash University
Professor Peter Gell, Director, Centre for Environmental Management, University of Ballarat
Prof David A Hood, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering, Queensland University of Technology
Professor Lesley Hughes, Head of Biological Sciences and Co-director of Climate Futures at Macquarie, Macquarie University
Dr Melanie Bishop, Senior Lecturer, Department of Biological Sciences, Climate Futures at Macquarie, Macquarie University
Dr Jane Williamson, Senior Lecturer, Department of Biological Sciences, Climate Futures at Macquarie, Macquarie University
Associate Professor Grant Wardell-Johnson, Director of the Curtin Institute of Biodiversity and Climate, Curtin University
Associate Professor Ralph Chapman, Director, Graduate Programme in Environmental Studies, Victoria University of Wellington
Dr Malcolm Walter, Director, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, University of New South Wales
Dr Darrell Kemp, Senior Lecturer, Department of Biological Sciences, and Co-leader of Terrestrial Adaptation Research, Climate Futures at Macquarie, Macquarie University
Dr Liz Hanna, Fellow, National Center for Epidemiology & Population Health, ANU
Dr. Patrick J. Conaghan, Honorary Associate, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Macquarie University
The climate change debate and all of the supposed fixes for the non-problem of global warming point to one thing that will not change anytime soon. It is embedded in the Democrat platform: in good times and bad both here and around the world there will always be 47% living in this country who will never be proud to be an American. Just one example: George Bush did all anyone could to be a president for all of the people and by his efforts proved that 47% would never be turned around. Bush could only make the Left more angry by loving America with his whole heart. “Even if we closed down every factory, crushed every car and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw 4 billion people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often dramatically. Unfortunately, we would all be too poor to do anything about it.” (Philip Stott)
Peter, those seem like nice people. If they have to agree with you to be trustworthy, maybe your standard is too high.
Max_OK,
they may seem nice to you, but you may not be a very good judge of character. the question is can they be trusted.
Read Lewandowski’s three articles in the list of 13 articles here:
https://theconversation.edu.au/pages/clearing-up-the-climate-debate. E=What do you think of this title: “The false, the confused and the mendacious …? Soes that look like a nice guy to you. Does it suggest he is an objective scientist? Of course you don’t have to go too far to find out how corrupt is his research and how he is up to his ears in conspiracy theories with John Cook and what’s his name from SkepticalScience. He’s also under investigation for breach of UWA academic integrity. That’s the sort of person you feel we can trust, eh?
Then there is Will Steffen (Head of the ‘Independent’ Climate Institute which was set up by the Labor Government and funded to give the government ‘independent’ scientific advice on catastrophic cimatre change) who briefed and misled the Join Parliamentary Committee on Climate Change – resulting in Australia getting a carbon tax and ETS.
Then there is Professor Garnaut, ex senior economic advisor in Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke’s Office. Garnaut is as partisan as they come. The Labor government appointed him to do ‘independent’ modelling for the Australian ETS. Guess what he advised? Yep, we need to implement the Labor Party’s policy of an ETS. And he exaggerated the impacts and said Australia must implement an ETS because if we don’t sea level will rise 1.1. m by 2100, the Murray Darling Basin will dry up, there will be wild fires that will destitute us, the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu National Park will be ruined and Australian Tourism will be severely damaged. So Max-OK, are these the sort of people you think are ‘nice guys’ and therefore should be trusted?
What about the Australian Treasury. Under the thumb of the Labor Treasurer they had to tell the government what it wanted to hear, otherwise senior bureaucrats would lose their jobs. So they did what was wanted. As justification for their modelling they said global CO2 concentrations would reach 1500 ppm by 2100 and temperatures would increase 7 C if we don’t act and legislate the Labor-Green alliances’ policy; i.e. a Carbon Tax and ETS. Do you still think these are the sort of guys we should trust, Max_OK?
Therefore, Max_ I think you trust people who stroke your ego and tell you what you want to hear. You are certainly not objective. And, therefore, you cannot be trusted either, and your opinion is worthless.
This is not a place for insulting other posters, you sanctimonious skunk in the grass, you pious prevaricating polecat, you beslubbering beet-breathed bamboozler, you hairless hog-faced hornswaggler.
Max_OK
I think it’s ‘hornswoggler‘.
;-)
Peter Lang shows just how crook the state of climate science is in Oz
Facts are facts:
We see that global warming alarmists continue to support MBH98/99/08 (aka, the ‘hockey stick’ graph), despite the fact it has been proven to be scientific fraud. Early on, Von Storch called it ‘Quatsch,’ as would any statistician. McShane and Wyner observed, “it is hard to argue that a procedure is truly skillful if it cannot consistently outperform noise- no matter how artfully structured.”
So, isn’t it obvious? Global warming alarmists also are frauds!
Alex Rawls cited the MBH99 Hockey Stick as evidence that solar activity correlates with global temperature.
Are you saying that correlation is wrong?
I guess that’s another piece of evidence for a strong solar influence on climate gone then.
“On the contrary — we have MBH and the hockey stick “denying” that there is any significant climate variability at all that nasty old humans didn’t create, starting in the mid-nineteenth century.
The key to CAGW all along has been the elimination of the natural climate variability from the climate record. With it there, Bayes (also known as “using common sense”, by the way, quite literally) instantly rejects probable catastrophe. With it gone, then the last 150 years are extraordinary, unheard of, remarkable, and can have only one cause, anthropogenic CO2, because otherwise the Earth’s climate is stable.
Horse. Sh#t.”
~Robert Brown
Let me get this straight.
A consensus that isn’t supposed to exist is being maintained by grants and other rewards.
Hilarious.
Would you like to talk about the consensus of opinion about a lot of things in 1930s Germany?
lolwot
You got it pretty close with your remark – let me modify it slightly to improve its accuracy:
“A consensus that
isn’t supposed todoesn’t really exist is beingmaintainedfabricated by grants,andother rewards, and by ignoring dissenting views.There.
That should do it.
Max
I know of virtually no consensus on the topic of climate science outside of the basic principle that additional CO2 will warm the atmosphere if all other conditions remain unchanged.
What else are you claiming that there is a consensus on?
But when I followed the incentives with respect to climate modeling, they bring me straight to climate change deniers, not to researchers.
I would have appreciated more details: where did she start following? Which incentives? (tenure, self-aggrandizing, security, flexible hours) How did she follow? Which “deniers” did she track?
Had she tracked people working voluntarily, whom would she have found?
Matthew Marler,
I understand you are a statistician. I would like to ask your expert opinion. Mine is a genuine question. i am not trying to be smart or in anyway devious with this question.
I would like to know how we could estimate the probability that a policy to reduce global GHG emissions would achieve its objective. Fir example, I would like to know how to estimate the probability that these two policy options would succeed in the real world:
1) legally binding international agreements to emissions reductions targets timetables, penalties for breaches, global carbon pricing system, etc. All countries would have to participate fully and would have to continue to participate fully for this century and beyond. All GHG emissions would have to be included in the schemes;
2) no international agreement to emissions reductions, but instead each country and sovereign entity acts in its own best interest. Emissions reductions would be achieved by the developed countries removing the impediments that are preventing the world from having a low cost alternative to fossil fuels.
There’s too much focus on the climate models. There’s been little change in the uncertainty of climate sensitivity in 20 years. It’s naval gazing.
Therefore, ‘jump out of the cart’. ‘Sneak up on the problem from a different direction’. In other words, put the effort into finding a robust solution instead. That’s what Bjorn Lomborg has been advocating for a very long time. Why not put the focus on that instead of the incessant, down in the weeds arguments about climate models.
Climate data is well inside the bounds of the past ten thousand years.
Why should we find a robust solution for a problem that is not supported by actual data?
Herman Pope,
Because it is a genuine political issue and it is not going to go away, at least until the democratic countries go broke. The controversy is seriously damaging our economies. We can have a solution that is good for the world and would satisfy rational people (not the extremist fringe; they can never be satisfied). So why not focus on implementing robust solutions?
A proper robust solution is to recognize that climate data is well inside the bounds of the last ten thousand years and look for an energy plan that includes all the options that are cost effective and throw away the options that are not cost effective. This includes that we burn fossil fuels of all kinds until they run out and we build nuclear power to help the fossil fuels last longer and to cover for when they do run out. We must get ready for the cooling that always follows a warming. That will come next and a little ice age is not as nice and the nice warm time we are in now.
These truisms are ignored, nonetheless, true.
============
I recently had quite a lot of trouble with a torn cartilage in my knee. It may not have been the cheapest option, but call me an unreconstructed conservative , if you like, but I do tend, on balance to favour expert opinion over other options. So I chose to have it operated on by a orthopedic surgeon who was recommended as such by my GP.
Its certainly a lot better now so it looks like I made the right choice and trusted the right person. Of course if I were more cynical than I am I could have rejected his advice on the basis he had too much of a vested financial interest in performing unnecessary operations. Its good to be sceptical but it can be taken too far.
Orthopedic surgeons have a track record of success or failure that can be looked at and considered before you make a choice. Consensus Climate Scientists have track record of failure, but no track record of success. I do not tend to favor failed expert opinion. They say warming warming and it does not happen happen.
tempter,
Did your orthopedic surgeon just sell his TV network to Al Jazeera?
If he did, maybe you reach a different conclusion.lol ;)
Andrew
tempter,
Did your orthopedic surgeon rant to you about ‘Death Trains’?
If he did, maybe you reach a different conclusion.lol ;)
Andrew
tempter,
Did your orthopedic surgeon do some post-facto adjustments to your vital signs?
If he did, maybe you reach a different conclusion.lol ;)
Andrew
When Andrew’s car breaks down he calls his dentist to take a look at it.
tempter,
Did your orthopedic surgeon part of a group of Warmer Trolls who infest Climate Etc?
If he did, maybe you reach a different conclusion.lol ;)
Andrew
Peter, Peter, tempter treater
Was your Doc ever called by peers?
===============
tempter,
Did your orthopedic surgeon present you with a graph derived from estimates of proxies for your actual bodily functions?
Andrew
…except your analogy is on the wrong time scale.
Instead, someone told you that, in 100 years or so, your great-great-grandchildren will be having knee trouble, so you have to give up a significant percentage of your income so the government can build lots of stairs with rubber steps, and study ways to make sure that those knee injuries never happen.
The doctors who are telling you this are being given quite a lot of money to do nothing except tell you that their computer models show this is certainly, definitely, 100% going to happen unless you give them the money RIGHT NOW. And if someone tries to tell you that those people are wrong, they get labeled as “kneedeniers.”
Meanwhile, if someone wants to study things that support Anthropogenic Knee Reconstruction, they find that grants are much easier to get, while the people saying otherwise are denied funding. The people who do manage to show some results casting doubt on AKR are claimed to be on the payrolls of the big wheelchair manufacturers.
What!!!
You didn’t you get a lawyer or a mining exec or an engineer to look at it??
Bloody ‘expertism’.
“They say warming warming and it does not happen”
Its odd why they say that isn’t it?
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/alexknapp/files/2011/10/Updated_Comparison_10.jpg
“Whom can you trust?’”
No one.
Complete transparency is the only way. Remember that climate rsearch is a huge Public Service job run by unknown scientists selected by politicians who run the UN. Was the UN set up to do scientific research? No. How do they select their scientists? They don’t. You would think that for such an important task as climate, they would select a wotld renowned scientist to lead the team. Instead they chose an unkown scientist from an unknown institution in a third world country. Democratic? Yes, but science is not a democratic task. It is highly elitist. One of the reasons why transparency is so important. Scientists can and should be prepared to explain to the world what they are doing and why it is important. They shold be prepared to send their scientists to every Town Hall in the world to answer questions. That is the democratic part of science.
But what happened. They hand down a judgement every few years, refusing to discuss their conclusions and expect the public to calmly accept them. Let us face it. Many of the members of the IPCC are eminent weather experts who have been called on to do a completely different task: to predict the climate many years in advance, an unprecedented scientific task. But this is as much an international public relations task, badly handeled by the UN’s management. They believed they had only a limited time to save the world so they paniced. One of the results was an undue faith in modelling, without the depth of knowledge to support such modelling, it became probability built on probability. So they support around 20 (different?) models, when one fully validated one would do.
“It is highly elitist”
You’ve got this slightly wrong.
It might be a form of eltiism – but It’s based on credentials and demonstrated competence.
You do you undergrad studies and show you have a competent grasp of the basics, then post-grad and then ong-oing research and publication.
Anyone can do this – if they are prepared to put in the hard work.
Many choose not to.
But whining about it isn’t a valid response.
Of course it is elitist. If you ask someone to do something that no one has ever been able to do before, you are looking for someone with exceptional talent as well as qualification and like experience. Not the kind of person you would normally meet in the street.
Mathbabe responds, “But when I followed the incentives with respect to climate modeling, they bring me straight to climate change deniers, not to researchers.”
No citation. No example. No smoking gun. No facts. She’s just making stuff up.
A key point, which several have noted. She seems otherwise a cogent thinker. This deficit, and it is very endemic, is a measure of the madness of this Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Crowd.
=============
From perusing Mathbabe’s interesting site, she spent some time doing work in the financial industry, got disillusioned, and joined the Occupy Wall Street movement. (She now makes her living modeling consumer behavior in some capacity.) One should not be surprised to find that someone with such commitments would be more worried about corruption by “Big Oil” or “Big Coal” than by other forms of intellectual and material corruption possible in the climate arena. (One humorous sidelight on all this is that the nuclear industry was an early funder of global warming research, and that natural gas companies today have an incentive to hobble competition from coal.)
“She seems otherwise a cogent thinker.”
A cogent thinker would not build an argument on a false premise unless he/she was dishonest.
Speed, it’s a madness. Benefit of the doubt, you know.
==========
The alarmist consensus is certainly no ‘Madness’ of the Crowd. It is simply BAU for its financier (the state).
Judith Curry
Experts are great but, if one is a skeptic, there is no better motto than “trust, but verify”.
From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify
Makes sense to me.
Max
Given the recent history of climate science, and given the old maxim about being fooled once and twice, the climate skeptics proper position is ‘Distrust and Verify the Living Hell out of it’. Or at least do the Stevie Mac thing on it.
==========
Makes sense to me.
That means there must be a flaw in the argument somewhere!
It sounds like Reagan was saying he didn’t actually believe the Soviets unless what their information was verifiable. That’s not what most people mean by ‘trust’.
tempterrain
The statement (by Lenin and Reagan) to “trust but verify” captures the very essence of rational skepticism in science.
It is the antithesis of “trust” as a statement of “faith”.
The most well-known example I can think of is that of “doubting Thomas” in the Bible, who was rationally skeptical of the claim that Jesus had, indeed, risen from the dead, as the story goes.
When he saw Jesus standing before him, with the wounds he had suffered on the cross, he finally “believed” that Jesus had risen.
To which Jesus told him, “…Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
That is essentially the difference between “trust” and “rational skepticism”: not seeing and yet believing.
And that’s what “trust but verify” is all about.
Max.
“The most well-known example I can think of is that of “doubting Thomas” in the Bible, who was rationally skeptical of the claim that Jesus had, indeed, risen from the dead, as the story goes.
When he saw Jesus standing before him, with the wounds he had suffered on the cross, he finally “believed” that Jesus had risen.
To which Jesus told him, “…Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
That is essentially the difference between “trust” and “rational skepticism”: not seeing and yet believing.
And that’s what “trust but verify” is all about.”
It doesn’t make much sense.
I could be wrong, but wasn’t doubting Thomas a Jew?
In other words, he was quite religious [he wasn’t an atheist or non-believer]. The issue is the degree of Thomas’s faith in God.
Unless it’s a paleo reconstruction by Michael Piltdown Mann, I doubt we know what Thomas saw or believed.
======================
Makes sense to me.
That means there must be a flaw in the argument somewhere!
It sounds like Reagan was saying he didn’t actually believe the Soviets unless their information was verifiable. That’s not what most people mean by ‘trust’.
“What does it take to look into a model yourself? How deeply must you probe?”
We do not have to look into models of climatology to determine that their method is flawed. It is sufficient to scrutinize the modelling process itself, that is, how computational models are applied in this particular field. And that’s easy. Fields of expertise of different folks often overlap and a question as general as the one above extends far beyond climatology. Therefore we are in a pretty convenient situation this time, with lots of genuine experts who are not climate scientists themselves.
And, fortunately, there is an all encompassing consensus among experts about fitting multiple models of high Kolmogorov complexity to a single run of a unique physical instance being not science.
For what science does is just the opposite of it. It seeks a single model of low Kolmogorov complexity which fits multiple runs of a wide class of physical instances.
That’s it. As soon as a field embraces methods alien to science, its experts are no longer reliable.
You know as soon as a Warmer scambles for The Doctor Analogy, you know he/she/it still has his/her/it’s head up Patchy’s arse in one of his novels.
Andrew
Heh, Doctors bury their mistakes and they pretty nearly always stay buried. In climate science the mistakes rise from the dead and stumble on.
=================
“You are only adding to the discussion if you invest actual thoughtful work into the matter.
Another thing about climate research. People keep talking about incentives, and yes I agree wholeheartedly that we should follow the incentives to understand where manipulation might be taking place. But when I followed the incentives with respect to climate modeling, they bring me straight to climate change deniers, not to researchers.”
The BIG problem. Say I look at an energy budget, determine that the authors are over-confident in their “models”, misplace five times the estimated energy that a doubling would produce, dismiss data that is related to their “budget” and following second version of the same tripe with the same errors, “real” scientists confirm that the authors, misplaced five times the estimated energy that a doubling of CO2 would produce, were over reliant on models ignoring new more relevant data and then the original authors admit their “minor mistake” and cherry pick models that more closely match the relevant data, that would make me a “denier” in the pocket of some “BIG” something and the screw-ups er climate scientists, some kinda David versus Goliath hero and the error filled “budgets” get to remain as published without a huge, “REVISED” plastered over it so it never darkens Climate Science doors again.
Think of how many “peer reviewed” ground breaking climate science papers published 5 or more years ago, that should be mullet wrappers now? Are they no longer valid because of BIG or perhaps were they just valiant but misguided attempts at science?
The only “expert” to trust on how our climate behaves is Nature itself.
Nature has shown us that global temperatures are on a slow rise, with several “bumps and grinds” since the modern record started in 1850 and even further back, using CET as a proxy record.
And this has been a good thing for mankind, as we have emerged from a period of colder climate called the LIA.
We had two statistically indistinguishable warming periods in the 20thC and a slightly less prominent period in the late 19thC, each of around 30 years duration.
In between we’ve had 30-year periods of slight cooling.
Most recently the warming has again stopped since the end of 2000, for how long no one knows.
Nature will tell us what is going to happen.
All the “experts” in this world simply do not know.
That’s why projections by the IPCC are so absurd.
Even if they are not biased by “agenda driven science” they are meaningless, because only Nature knows what she is going to do – not the so-called “experts”.
Max
I don’t need to “look into the climate models myself.”
I already know that climate scientists don’t know enough to accurately model the climate. How do I know that? Because they have told me so.
Climate scientists don’t know the net effect of clouds on global temperature.
Climate scientists don’t know the net effect of water vapor on global temperature.
Climate scientists can’t “find” the warming their models have been predicting for decades.
Climate scientists don’t understand the effect of various oscillations like ENSO on global temperature.
Climate scientists don’t know what causes ice ages to start or stop. (And spare me the “we think it’s wobbles in the Earth’s orbit” nonsense ala Real Climate.)
Most of all, climate scientists don’t have a clue what the actual global average temperature is to anywhere near the accuracy they think they do.
And don’t get me started on the claims of accuracy of paleo reconstructions from tea leaves… I mean tree rings.
Climate scientists don’t know enough to model the Earth’s climate, so why should I waste my time examining their models?
GaryM,
In other words because climate scientists don’t know everything to an accuracy of seven significant figures, they therefore know nothing?
Is that a fair summary of your argument?
Simple question, simple answer: no, it’s not.
The problem is that climate scientists don’t know ANYTHING to an accuracy of _two_ significant figures. All of their predictions have been deeply into the noise of the data. Their error bars are larger than the trends they’ve been predicting.
Seven digits? Hell, they’d be thrilled to have one… but can’t admit it.
tempterrain,
Maybe this will help you.
http://www.bontot.me/remedial-reading-program/remedial-reading-programs-for-adults-2
If these complex climate models were, let’s say, an order of magnitude more accurate in their “projections” than a simple 0 dimensional model (eg, back of an envelope calculation), I would have some confidence that they were believable. And yet they do not. And the reason is quite simple – resolution. The current climate models resolution is akin to crash testing a car in an FEA simulation with a resolution of 10cm and expecting a meaningful answer – play with it enough and you can get “believable looking” results, but that is pure chance, nothing more. And so it is with climate models – they have “tuned” an inadequate model so it “looks good”, but it is still just numerical noise.
“JC comments: I can’t remember how I managed to come across these posts, but I thought they were pretty interesting and they raise some good topics for us to discuss.”
“People: I’m not asking you to simply be skeptical, I’m saying you should look into the models yourself! It’s the difference between sitting on a couch and pointing at a football game on TV and complaining about a missed play and getting on the football field yourself and trying to figure out how to throw the ball. The first is entertainment but not valuable to anyone but yourself. You are only adding to the discussion if you invest actual thoughtful work into the matter.”
I add that if you believe Al Gore’s end of the world stuff- you have to be a bit screwy- but if you believe it, you would be even more insane, if treat it as entertainment.
That you will not bother get involved in the topic even if you think it’s the end of the world.
One possible problem is the idiocy of: if something important, let’s organize a demonstration. As the only solution in the universe.
Therefore, if something is important, and being part of demonstration is waste of time- hence one does nothing.
It’s idiotic and result of hideous educational system, but it’s homespun ignorance and apathy, rather than being utterly insane.
Kind of like, I went to school, why do I need to study anything?
Judith,
A better title might be:
“Trusting (?) the Experts or Trusting (?) the F*ckwits”
Its got to be one or the other, unless we’ve got got several years to spare, and the necessary ability, to study enough Climate Science and then to be able to formulate our own opinions of course.
Whom do we trust? Do we trust the National Academy of Sciences who in 1970 said 500 million human lives were saved by DDT. Do we trust Federal Judge Sweeney, who, after 7 months of taking scientific testimony, ruled that DDT was not carcinogenic, not mutagenic and one of the great advances in science? Or do we believe Nixon’s EPA head, one William Rucklehaus, who summarily dismissed all the scientific evidence and testimony and banned DDT in 1972? Hmm, let’s see.
Bob,
Just on a point of information: DDT isn’t banned. Rather its use is restricted. If it were allowed to be used indiscriminately, target insect species would quickly evolve an immunity and the pesticide would be useless anyway. That’s happened to a large extent in many parts of the world anyway and DDT is much less effective than it was in controlling insect pests.
That’s what has also happened with many antibiotics which have been overused, the target bacterial strains have developed resistance and they are effectively now useless.
Temp – so I understand you correctly – you are worried about tolerance in mosquitoes so it is OK that 500 million people died needlessly. Think about what you said Tempt. Truly frighteningly.
tempterrain
“Banned?”
“Restricted?”
The best thing WHO has done for human health since its inception was to silently lift the “ban” (or “restriction”) on DDT, still the most effective agent to control malaria.
It was a silly mistake to restrict it in the first place and millions have died as a result.
Max
Another sign of a “skeptic”
The willingness to run with this counterfactual, without substantiating evidnece of what would have happened had the inappropriate overspraying of DDT for agricultural purposes not been restricted (vector control was not banned, and in fact was specifically supported and/or excluded in various locations). \
The “ban” which didn’t exist, and the restrictions which did exist were not “silently lifted.” Pure nonsense. DDT was not a magic bullet. It was an effective tool what was not utilized to its maximal benefit due to concerns about its toxicity and due to concerns about resistance had it’s misuse continued.
Why are “skeptics” so wedded to this facile argument? It is fascinating.
Talk about stunning… I’ve seen tens of millions before – first time I’ve seen 500 million. Nice job. Now why don’t you dig out that epidemiological analysis that details what would have happened had DDT misuse continued as it had been used prior to the international agreements to restrict its usage for agricultural purposes. I’d love to see it.
DDT ban takes effect – http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/01.html
WHO reinstates use for vector control – http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/
‘“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. “Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”
WHO actively promoted indoor residual spraying for malaria control until the early 1980s when increased health and environmental concerns surrounding DDT caused the organization to stop promoting its use and to focus instead on other means of prevention. Extensive research and testing has since demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans.
“We must take a position based on the science and the data,” said Dr Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programme. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.”’
DDT use had already declined to relatively low levels in the US prior to the EPA ‘cancellation action’ in 1972. The cancellation was the result of poor science and a moral panic about pesticides and chemicals in general. It is an object lesson in unintended consequences with a cost measured in many millions of lives and a failure to adequately learn the lesson is moral turpitude.
Robert,
DDT has always ben available for vector control.
You accept this as true, don’t you?
Chief –
If you’re actually interested in the topic as opposed to furthering politically motivated and facile arguments – I suggest that you read this thread.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/10/22/speaking-truth-to-green-ideology/#.UO-K2WfjEit
If you wade your way through the nonsense, there is actually a lot of fairly good information – specifically about whether or not international agencies supported use for vector control, and there is more than enough there to lay waste to this nonsense:
In order to make a valid argument about restrictions of DDT causing “millions of deaths,” you’d have to work out your counterfactual argument. That you would make the claim without having done so, only serves to undermine your credibility in that it shows a poor approach to scientific analysis.
The DDT policy does offer the potential of a good object lesson about unintended consequences. I think there is little doubt that a more beneficial policy could have been promoted, but that lesson will never be learned by those who are actually not interested in lessons, but who instead are interested in cynically exploiting the deaths of millions to score cheap, politically expedient points.
But don’t let that get in the way of your moral superiority. No reason why you should step down off your high horse at this point. I imagine you might injure yourself if you did. And besides, old dog new tricks and all of that, eh?
DDT was banned in the US. All well and good. The Stockholm Convention allowed continued use for vector control but the use was negligible given an unholy marriage between poor and misrepresented science and the moral posturings of a western elite. Ring a bell?
The use was certainly not encouraged or funded through international aid.
‘Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.’
Here is just one snippet of the useful information I referenced:
From the NGO Network for POPs Elimination: Background Statement and Elimination Platform (the part “b” of #17):
Let’s start with your first few sentences, point out the errors therein, and then work forward from there, K?
That is an incomplete statement. It was banned for agricultural purposes. Exceptions were made for specific vector control.
Ah yes – the ol’ argument by assertion, eh? Please read the reference to actual policy I listed above.
Well, the misuse> was certainly discouraged. Programs for POP elimination where structured in such a way as to show the errors in your statement:
The fact that when properly used – in contexts with the proper management infrastructure – DDT is a useful tool of multiple tools in an arsenal, is not really in dispute. I agree that it was not used maximally, but the silver bullet argument is facile to its core.
First, as I have repeated many times in these discussions but never seen addressed, you need to freakin’ address the counterfactual nature of the “the ban killed tens of millions argument.” You are arguing about what would have happened had something that didn’t happen, happened. That kind of logic requires you to consider other things that might have happened as well, such as widespread resistance (and other negative impacts) from the ongoing misuse of DDT that was taking place.
Further – there are other methods that are also effective, and DDT even for proper and well-managed vector control has its downsides as well as its advantages – particularly in some regions as opposed to others This is well-supported by existing evidence. Read the thread I linked if you’re actually interested.
Edumacate yourself, Chief.
Again I can not make any sense of your discussion. Counterfactual? You seem more interested in generalised abuse followed by an incoherent rant than rational discussion And really – I can’t find any reference in collidiscape to DDT. I would rather stick anyway to the US EPA and the WHO.
You are really too boring to talk too,
Now this is classic:
Try taking a more thorough approach to your research. the thread is full of discussion about DDT. Hundreds of comments on the topic.
Look up counterfactual reasoning. The entire “tens of millions wouldn’t have died” is by it’s very nature a counterfactual argument. That you don’t know what it means does not make my reasoning incoherent.
You seem to forget that each time you promise to take your ball and go home, you come crawling back begging for more. Masochistic, or perhaps you like learning things in spite of yourself?
‘Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.
“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. “Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”
WHO actively promoted indoor residual spraying for malaria control until the early 1980s when increased health and environmental concerns surrounding DDT caused the organization to stop promoting its use and to focus instead on other means of prevention. Extensive research and testing has since demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans.
“We must take a position based on the science and the data,” said Dr Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programme. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.” http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/
How many lives were lost because of ‘health and environmental concerns’? Many too many. My point really was the unholy marriage between poor science and moral posturings resulting in unntended consequences. These 2 things find an ideal expression in you Joshua.
And really – I am supposed to work my way through 500 odd blog comments to educate myself on DDT policy? Idiot. Why don’y you start with WHO and the Stockholm Convention as I did.
Another classic:
So after a shoddy attempt at looking at the link, now you claim it is too much work for you to look through the comments? In other words, you fail to do the necessary work and then you whine that it’s too hard?
The link contains much information that contextualizes the discussion, in particular the WHO policy and the Stockholm Convention. That is why I suggest that you move beyond the starting point. I have already explicated factual errors that you have made. If you took the time to read more of the background, then you wouldn’t make similar errors. Why wouldn’t you take such an opportunity?
Here, I’ll take pity on you and take into account your limitations and give in to your whining, and I’ll make it easier for you. Just put “thingsbreak” in your browser’s search text box and scroll down through his comments. That should suffice for now.
And besides, I thought you took your ball and went home? What happened? Which is it – masochist or do you really want to learn? If you want to learn, read the thread.
Anyway, time for bed. Stay out of the fires, chief – I wouldn’t want anything to happen to you. You’re always good for a laugh and you are the undisputed “chief” (of unintentional irony).
I am as you know an environmental scintist. I lined to WHO and referenced the Stockholm Convention – which I have actualy read many years ago.
Again – btw – I have explained to you before my lack of a need to be consistent on not talking to you. Occassionally I will read and respond to your incredible waffle. Occassionally – I will not read and respond anyway because really you are pedictably idiotic. Mostly your comments are too worthless to bother perusing.
Summer is intolerable on my patio most years. Would you please point out where I may purchase that vector control DDT product in Europe or the USA?
Robert,
That was a pitiful attempt to back up your ‘millions of deaths’ wild assertion.
It’s a fact that DDT usewas being cutsiled in some countires even before the US ban on agricultural use, and that other countrires have continued its use right up to the present.
It’s use, and non-use, depends on a wide variety of factors; cost, effectiveness, manpower, resistance, convenience, local preferences, etc.
The science on DDT is good – it was good at the time of the ban,and is now; DDT is only one weapon in the arsenal against malaria.
One could argue that the tunnel-vision demagoguery pushing DDT as some kind of silver-bullet and deceitfully claiming ‘millions’ of preventable deaths are the ones edging dangerously close to “moral turpitude’.
Michael,
Here s the quote from the WHO again. http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/10/trusting-the-experts/#comment-284558
A million people a year die of malaria. ‘“We must take a position based on the science and the data,” said Dr Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programme. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.”
If you want to play absurd odeological games – by all means – but I am not impressed.
Take your blinkers off Robert.
That announcment was not about DDT, but about IRS – DDT is only one of the possible insecticides used in IRS. And, again, there are a range of reasons in deciding which is the best to use. Some will use DDT, some will not.
What the hell is with this DDT obsession???????
‘Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.
“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. “Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”
WHO actively promoted indoor residual spraying for malaria control until the early 1980s when increased health and environmental concerns surrounding DDT caused the organization to stop promoting its use and to focus instead on other means of prevention. Extensive research and testing has since demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans.’
No the press release was in reletion to the approval of the use of DDT after 30 years of not using it. Are you lying or merely deluded?
Robert,
Why do you keep posting the same thing over and over? Dementia??
Here’s the primary announcment;
“WHO promotes indoor spraying with insecticides as one of three main interventions to fight malaria …”
And that DDT can be one of those insecticides.
Another sad DDT obsessivem, playing fast and loose with the truth as a stick to beat ‘environmentalism’, which itself is just another of the proxy wars on climate science – pure ideology at work.
WHO gives indoor use of DDT a clean bill of health for controlling malaria
WHO promotes indoor spraying with insecticides as one of three main interventions to fight malaria
15 September 2006 | Washington, D.C. -Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa…
“We must take a position based on the science and the data,” said Dr Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programme. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.”
Indoor residual spraying is the application of long-acting insecticides on the walls and roofs of houses and domestic animal shelters in order to kill malaria-carrying mosquitoes that land on these surfaces.
“Indoor spraying is like providing a huge mosquito net over an entire household for around-the-clock protection,” said U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, a leading advocate for global malaria control efforts. “Finally, with WHO’s unambiguous leadership on the issue, we can put to rest the junk science and myths that have provided aid and comfort to the real enemy – mosquitoes – which threaten the lives of more than 300 million children each year.”’
No – I simply can’t believe the contortions you subject your consciousness to. I keep hoping that by quoting the source document some clarity might emerge – a forlorn hope I fear.
The most effective insecticide is DDT – there are no health problems – it is cheap. 30 years and 500 million a year infections later it is an object lesson in poor science and moral panic. It is the hard lesson that you seem incapable of learing for ideological reasons. I read Rachel Carson. I believed the propanganda. I suggest you move on. Either way your mindless zombie defence of the indefensible has no place in the real world.
Bob,
If you are genuinely interested, but I suspect you probably aren’t, read this and you may learn something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT
Tempt – But some humanitarians were upset. They claimed the ban was a death sentence to millions of people. And they had statistics. In Sri Lanka, the country’s malaria burden shrunk from 2.8 million cases in the 1940s to just 17 in 1965, due to the use of DDT. Five years after the country stopped using DDT, the number of cases had risen to 500,000. In the 1980’s Madagascar stopped using DDT and immediately had an epidemic of malaria, resulting in the death of more than 100,000 people. The humanitarians’ rage over the ban was summed up by Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park. One of his characters in the novel State of Fear says that banning DDT was “arguably the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century” and that the ban “killed more than Hitler.”( com_content&view=article&id=309&Itemid=263)
Wow Temp – I am glad you gave me a link to Wikipedia.
Bob,
Malaria mostly kills children under 5 years old.
And you could classify children up to 5 as special kind
of very late term abortions.
So for Lefties it could be regarded as a kind of birth
control- and birth control is regarded as very
good thing.
So, that’s millions of mothers freed of a decade of servitude.
Probably one of their greatest accomplishments
gbaikie, yes you are right. I shouldn’t be, but I am still shocked and dismayed at Tempt’s knee-jerk answer. Notice how his immediate concern was not for the hundreds of millions (mostly, as you point out are children under five), who needlessly died despite only minor concerns, but alludes to theoretical concerns that the mosquitoes might develop immunity to DDT. What kind of mind thinks like that – astonishing.
This is rich – even for a “skeptic.” The whole “DDT ban killed millions” is a theoretical argument.
It is a counterfactual argument, in that it rests on (as you state them certain) assertions about what would have happened had things that didn’t happen, happened. By it’s very nature it is theoretical, and an argument that rests on statements of absolute certainty about something that is by it’s nature theoretical is inherently illogical. It is a sure sign of a “skeptic” and it is a completely unskeptical argument.
“DDT has always been available for vector control. You accept this as true, don’t you? ”
I’m not sure its fair to single out Robert but climate sceptics aren’t particularly interested in what is true. They are, though, much more interested in anything which which can be distorted to suggest conventional science may have got it wrong in advocating that DDT should be restricted.
They like to make out its evil lefties who rate the survival of Eagle chicks higher than the survival of children in countries which are malaria prone.
Unfortunately, to anyone with any intelligence, a reading of the available literature shows there is no magic solution based on widespread uncontrolled usage of DDT.
As reported in by Chapin G and Wasserstrom R (1981). “Agricultural production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India”. Nature 293 (5829): 181–5. “widespread agricultural use led to resistant insect populations. In many areas, early victories partially or completely reversed, and in some cases rates of transmission even increased”.
‘More famously, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (21) shows the spread among climate models for global warming predictions. One of its results is an ensemble-mean prediction of ≈3°C increase in global mean surface temperature for doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration with an ensemble spread of ≈50% on either side. The predicted value for the climate sensitivity and its intermodel spread have remained remarkably stable throughout the modern assessment era from the National Research Counsel (NRC) in 1979 (22) to the anticipated results in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (foreshadowed, e.g., in ref. 3) despite diligent tuning and after great research effort and progress in many aspects of simulation plausibility. An even broader distribution function for the increase in mean surface air temperature is the solution ensemble for a standard atmospheric climate model produced by Internet-shared computations (23), but there is a question about how carefully the former ensemble members were selected for their plausibility.
In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?
Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
‘In 1963, Lorenz published his seminal paper on ‘Deterministic non-periodic flow’, which was to change the course of weather and climate prediction profoundly over the following decades and to embed the theory of chaos at the heart of meteorology. Indeed, it could be said that his view of the atmosphere (and subsequently also the oceans) as a chaotic system has coloured our thinking of the predictability of weather and subsequently climate from thereon.
Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
Climate models are different to most models in that the central equations are chaotic. It is odd that there is a consensus amongst experts on the nature of climate models but that this does not translate into the popular zeitgeist. It is I believe the theshold concept problem. Certain concepts are prerequisites to understanding. Once grasped the field reveals itself in new and much broader vistas. Yet these ideas are often ‘troublesome’. – http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html
These models are chaotic. There is no unique, deterministic solution. The solutions presented in the ensembles of opportunity are selected based on a posteriori solution behaviour. That is: the solutions conforms to expectations without any objective basis for choosing one possible soluion over another – or any investigation of the range of possible outcomes. Yet these are presented as objective calculations by very many who lack understanding of the essence of these models – or are deliberately misleading the public and policy makers.
Dynamical complexity has broad implications for climate as well.
‘Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/abstract
Can’t beat expert, peer reviewed opinion. Although a lot of people seem capable of ignoring it.
Chief,
I see you are off on your hobby horse again. Yes we know that its not possible to predict the weather in NY City on any given day many decades from now. We knew that before. We also know that the prediction of future climate can’t be as exact as we would like. But not knowing everything isn’t the same as knowing nothing.
The comment below is a bit rich from one who doesn’t accept most peer reviewed work on the AGW question.
“Can’t beat expert, peer reviewed opinion. Although a lot of people seem capable of ignoring it.”
Yes they do. And others seem quite capable of distorting it to suit their own purpose too.
Peter,
We are back to the nonsense of climate averages. What is clear from the above references from leaders in the field of climate modelling is that numerical methods of climate ‘prediction’ are chaotic. There are no unique solutions. There are multiple and widely divergent solutions for the temperature in NYC decades hence – and there is no particular reason (other than liking a particular solution) for choosing one over another. Thus even if climate evolved smoothly over the decades – it won’t – models most assuredly do not. This I believe is the consensus in the field of climate modelling – the threshold concept you are incapable of comprehending. Don’t feel too bad but it would be better if you stopped peddling this particular distortion arising from your lack of comprehension around the interweb.
‘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#content-block
Probabilistic estimates may be possible but until those arrive we effectively can know nothing about climate decades hence. Some people know less than that as they still think that we can know something from solutions chosen on the basis of ‘a posteriori solution behaviour’.
The world is still not warming for a decade or three more. So sad too bad.
That was a sting in the tail from mathbabe, wasn’t it. First the skeptics would have been nodding in agreement with the “don’t trust the experts” talk and then, boom
“But when I followed the incentives with respect to climate modeling, they bring me straight to climate change deniers, not to researchers.”
She’s not on their side after all.
The incentive is to have a ‘solution’ within the range anticipated by the peer group. As there is no unique, deterministic solution there is no problem arriving at any required solution at all. Misrepresenting the nature of the ‘solution’ comes from ignorance or deceit.
Indeed – in case you missed it.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/10/trusting-the-experts/#comment-284265
Unmemorable the first time Josh. Try some science instead – http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/10/trusting-the-experts/#comment-284505
Tell us Chief – did you do a 180?
Or will you stand up and tell “skeptics” to stop with this facile “you can’t trust the experts” line of argumentation?
Go ahead. Explain to one of the “skeptics” the selectivity of how they treat expertise, the selectivity in their hand-wringing about appeal to authority.
You won’t mind if I don’t hold my breath, I hope?
I did miss it, perhaps because I searched for the word ‘denier’ to see what had been said about it before (you used ‘demier’, possibly being PC).
or you did spell it correctly later, so I would have seen it, and subliminally got the ‘nodding’ into my head. I thought I was being original, oh well.
Heh. Good point. Anyone who uses “denier” is clearly calling people Nazis.
I don’t know what you are talking about Joshua. This is nothing new. It stems from the liberal waffle that passes for coherent thought in any of your posts.
I suggested reading some science – http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/10/trusting-the-experts/#comment-284505 – That might help with improving your logic skills – but forgive me if I don’t hold my breath.
Joshua | January 10, 2013 at 10:20 pm said: ”Anyone who uses “denier” is clearly calling people Nazis”
that’s scraping on the bottom of the beryl…. same as: everybody with mustaches is Hitler or Stalin ==== if you deny that you are a bank robber, or a pedophile => does that make you a Nazi…?
”denying” any phony GLOBAL warming is honesty. Denying localized warmings as GLOBAL = honesty. Denying that climatic changes have anything to do with the concocted past phony GLOBAL warmings / global coolings is honest science.
Believing in LIES, just to be trendy and to fit with the nutters from both camps; is irresponsibility, low moral value / bigotry, and total ignorance ; or just ”frozen brains syndrome”
Joshua
Perhaps you need to look closer at how you “judge” people when you prejudically describe someone as a “libertarian extremist”. What does a person have to support in order to be so labelled by you?
Rob –
Read up on Armtrong’s views on education. There is actually much I agree with him about the problems with the methodology and pedagogy of our institutional approach to education – but IMO, he carries his views into the land of extremism. Similar with what Armstrong has to say about DDT.
And if you really want a nice example of libertarian extremism, try Googling Alex Jones.
Joshua
You are the one who labeled him as a libertarian extremist. I asked what specific position he of another person would take that would warrant them having such a label applied? You seem to like to label people overall as libertarian extremists if they have supported a position on a particular issue that you may disagree with but you do not seem to apply the extremist label fairly or consistantly. If a “progressive” or a “conservative” take a position on a specific issue that is more or less extreme than the norm are they extremist overall or is their view biased on just that issue.
Sorry but your position seems unreasonable
Rob –
You asked why I called him extremist, and I gave you two issues on which Armstrong’s perspective is extremist. I’m not going to dig up the references now. If your interest is not to the level where you want to do the work, no problem.
It is not even that clear cut. Michael Mann wrote about Nate Silver, and the bottom line is that he thinks Silver is trusting the wrong experts. This from last September.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/nate-silver-climate-change_b_1909482.html
To expand on this. Apparently Silver interviewed Mann for his book, and Mann was quite happy with how the interview went, but when he read the book, Silver had been talking to experts from the political/economic fields, more related to his own background, and mostly conveyed their views on climate change, and not the scientific view. Mann’s article is titled “FiveThirtyEight: The Number of Things Nate Silver Gets Wrong About Climate Change”
Haven’t read the book yet… I’m dubious about Silver’s reliance on J. Scott Armstrong – who’s quite a political extremist and who supports the ridiculous “DDT ban killed millions” argument – although even so, Armstrong did seem objective in his (fairly accurate) election analysis/predictions.
Silver, you mean, did better than the Republicans on election predictions. Armstrong was on a recent congressional panel and certainly gave the dubious side of the argument there.
Joshua, you say “ridiculous “DDT ban killed millions”. You, as usual, are out of your depth.
DDT Timeline
1930s – Malaria was common in the Southern United States.
1935 – Paul Müller begins a search for a new and better pesticide in Switzerland.
1939 – DDT discovered by Paul Müller.
1947 – In 13 southern states, over 4,650,000 houses were sprayed with DDT.
1948 – Paul Müller awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine.
1949 – Malaria eradicated from Italy.
1951 – Malaria eradicated from the U.S.
1955 – The World Health Organization (WHO) makes plans to eradicate malaria worldwide.
1959 – More than 80 million lbs of DDT was sprayed over the US (half a pound per person).
1961 – DDT use reaches its peak. It is registered for use on 334 agricultural products.
1962 – Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring blamed environmental destruction on DDT.
1964 – Rachel Carson died.
1965 – Paul Müller died.
1969 – Residues of DDT and its metabolites (such as DDE) found worldwide.
1970 – WHO announces that malaria has been eradicated in 37 countries.
1972 – EPA bans DDT in the U.S.
1976 – WHO gives up on eradicating malaria.
1998 – POPS Treaty proposes banning DDT.
2001 – POPS Treaty grants a temporary health-related exemption for use of DDT for malaria.
Prior to 1950, malaria was common in the southern US, infecting 15,000 people a year and killing about the same number as scarlet fever. Beginning in 1947, 4.6 million houses were sprayed in the United States, completely eradicating malaria from the country. Similar sprayings eradicated malaria from Europe. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) began as an organization to eradicate malaria. When malaria was gone, it sought other ways to benefit America. That’s why it’s located in Atlanta, GA, in the southern US. In India when the DDT campaign began in 1953 there were 75 million malaria cases a year and 800,000 deaths. By 1966 there were fewer than a million annual cases of malaria and no deaths. In parts of Indonesia, 25% of the population was infected by malaria. When DDT was introduced, the rate fell to 1%. In Venezuela, the number of malaria cases dropped from 8 million to 800 when DDT was used. Today,malaria still kills about 2,000 children a day, most in Africa.
In Sri Lanka, the country’s malaria burden shrunk from 2.8 million cases in the 1940s to just 17 in 1965, due to the use of DDT. Five years after the country stopped using DDT, the number of cases had risen to 500,000. In the 1980’s Madagascar stopped using DDT and immediately had an epidemic of malaria, resulting in the death of more than 100,000 people.
http://scienceheroes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=309&Itemid=263
Bob –
Read the thread I linked as a starting point – if you’re really interested in a meaningful discussion, I’m game. In particular, you seem to be making the basic mistake of correlation = causation (less use of DDT caused more malaria). You will find much information to help you fill out your knowledge base for making that assessment. You will also find out more about the actual policies that were implemented, as opposed to what has been spread like an infectious disease in the rightwing blogosphere. Do some research on what measures were taken for vector control in the US. Look at what happened with malaria eradication in the US prior to the use of DDT, and consider what might happen if there had been funding for similar programs in poor countries that lacked the proper infrastructure for effective DDT usage. Consider the koan of how to spray the walls of houses in houses that don’t have walls. Consider resistance in communities to the usage of DDT. Consider that spraying DDT often just causes mosquitoes to go to the next location where they aren’t spraying. Consider the localities were DDT usage remained high and malaria remained high. Consider what is needed to make DDT usage effective. Consider the managed programs that promoted “extended phase out periods” depending on circumstances.
Come back if you’re read through the thread I linked, and we can discuss this.
Work your way through a blog thead?
‘Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.’
“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. “Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”
WHO actively promoted indoor residual spraying for malaria control until the early 1980s when increased health and environmental concerns surrounding DDT caused the organization to stop promoting its use and to focus instead on other means of prevention. Extensive research and testing has since demonstrated that well-managed indoor residual spraying programmes using DDT pose no harm to wildlife or to humans.
“We must take a position based on the science and the data,” said Dr Arata Kochi, Director of WHO’s Global Malaria Programme. “One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT.”’ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/
Imagine what would have happened had the use of DDT not been curtailed because of poor science and moral panics. You are an incredible idiot Joshua.
And – btw – I have explained to you before my lack of a need to be consistent on not talking to you. Occassionally I will read and respond to your incredible waffle. Occassionally – I will not read and respond anyway because really you are pedictably idiotic. Mostly your comments are too worthless to bother perusing.
Robert I Ellison | January 10, 2013 at 11:59 pm |
“Imagine what would have happened had the use of DDT not been curtailed because of poor science and moral panics. You are an incredible idiot Joshua.”
And an anonymous coward.
Added for completeness.
Oh, he’s famous, alright. And I give him credit for bravery for coming back after the Pacifica fell into California. Or foolhardiness.
====================
Jim D –
Actually, I was referring to Armstrong (although Silver did well also).
Armstrong’s site seems to be having some major problems – but here’s the link:
http://pollyvote.forecastingprinciples.com/
Reading his predictions was actually quite interesting – as he’s a pretty hardcore libertarian extremist. Just goes to show, not all libertarian extremists are incapable of any form of solid analysis. I wonder why Judy has so much trouble attracting those that are capable?
“Just goes to show, not all libertarian extremists are incapable of any form of solid analysis. ”
A comically distorted view, unmistakenly identifying its author as being a blinkered hardcore totalitarian extremist.
As supported by the data I notice – it came from Joshua
Heh. I guess tomcat objects to me saying that not all hardcore libertarian extremists are incapable of solid analysis.
Too funny.
No, just confirming that an obviously nutty comment came from an obvious nut.
See – proof of what I said. You are obviously capable of solid analysis. You “confirmed” that Joshua is the one who wrote the comment under the name of Joshua. Incredible.
Where would we be w/o people so capable of solid analysis?
With the dishonesty and slipperiness generally expected of a totalitarian/alarmist nut like himself, Joshua doges and weaves and wriggles to try and divert attention away from the insinuation he tried to hard to sneak in unnoticed under the cover of pretending to be focused on something else. The comically inept ‘thought’ he is trying to sneak in, being his feigned surprise at a libertarian doing sound analysis, his sad little would-be implication being that this is generally not to be expected of libertarians.
Often in the past, he has complained of libertarian insights, but has always been utterly at a loss to coherently counter them. His general style of deception and rhetoric being characteristic of his highly ideological tribe.
Excellent point. I tried to “sneak” it in, by writing it in my post. I’m so slippery, I am. I try to sneak stuff in by writing it.
Once again, I can only thank my lucky stars that folks as perceptive as you can ferret this stuff out. Imagine that, the ingenuity of finding out what people say by reading what they write!! Who woulda thunk?
Yes, that’s the style, just continue deny the very impossibility of underhand / sotto voce insinuations . Because of course they stop working once admitted and identified. Can’t have that now, can we?
“I agree wholeheartedly that we should follow the incentives to understand where manipulation might be taking place. But when I followed the incentives with respect to climate modeling, they bring me straight to climate change deniers, not to researchers.” Yes, mathbabe, a hoard of posters on Climate Etc, Climate Audit, WUWT etc have billions of dollars riding on CAGW scepticism, none of us have concerns for good public policy based on provable science. Well spotted.
Faustino –
You do realize that your horde only makes up a tiny % of people who could fairly be characterized as “skeptics?” Now the % of the full gamut of “skeptics” who might profit directly from climate “skepticism” might be small, but the influence of those “skeptics” who would profit directly is quite large.
Keep in mind, I think that the entire notion of reverse engineering from assumptions about profit motivation is facile, and likely mostly reflective of biases in those doing the reverse engineering – but that said, I have seen you before extend the “horde” you describe to reflect the phenomena of climate “skepticism,” when in fact, it is a small slice. I’d be willing to wager, for example, that the vast majority of “skeptics” have never even heard of any of the websites you just listed. One of the problems in this debate is the pattern where people project their own thinking/experiences onto others.
We are all outliers here. All of us.
We know that the large oil companies, such as BP, have donated lots of money to climate alarmist causes. We know that natural gas producers, such as T. Boone Pickens, work pretty hard to inhibit coal production on CO2 reduction grounds. We know that the nuclear industry has generally been supportive of global warming alarmism. And of course the large corporations like Greenpeace and WWF have been on the bandwagon for a long time. That’s not to mention the huge flows of taxpayer money that are channeled through EPA, NOAA, etc. that are incentivized to support an alarmist narrative (no alarm, less clout, less money).
Joshua’s phantom skeptics who are secretly funded by the gnomes of Wheeling, WV are hardly important players in all this.
Fair enough, and sorry about the spelling mistake. It’s not unknown for me to be an outlier, though in recent times rarely an outlaw..
steve –
Actually, none of that is germane to my point. Now I might argue with some of your points, but nonetheless, assuming your points to have 100% veracity, it says not a word about the influence of a small % of “skeptics” – of which I spoke.
And this:
Is just a flat out strawman. I had come to expect better of your comments. Play the ball, not the man. You’ll get farther along towards a fruitful discussion.
Joshua,
Do you have any evidence to support your conspiracy theory? Please provide evidence for the massive amounts of money being given to sceptics. I’d be looking for evidence that it is a significant proportion of the money being spent on climate science and climate policies, let alone the economic damage those policies are doing.
Enough with the transparent troll tactics. I quote: “Now the % of the full gamut of “skeptics” who might profit directly from climate “skepticism” might be small, but the influence of those “skeptics” who would profit directly is quite large.” Not a strawman but your direct and unfounded assertion.
Joshua, do you not believe Michael Mann who tells of the hordes of bark beetles controlled like border collies by the twitch of a Watt’s eyebrow ?
If you don’t trust the experts, you should go to people in scientific fields who can judge the expert consensus without any ‘benefit’ to themselves (NAS, APS, etc.), or go to other clearly intelligent people (Apple, Google, Microsoft) for their climate opinions. Even Exxon has some climate risk statements these days that would make skeptics’ heads explode, if those are your trusted experts.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_climate_mgmt.aspx
‘Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/abstract
You could try going to the source of peer reviewed science. Or is this a little too radical?
Last sentence in the same paper. Maybe you didn’t read it through.
“If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability [Kravtsov and Spannagle, 2008].”
‘However, the nature of these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into
the future must at least be entertained. The apparent lack of a proximate cause behind the halt in warming post 2001/02 challenges our understanding of the climate system, specifically the physical reasoning and causal links between longer time-scale modes of internal climate variability and the impact of such modes upon global temperature.
Fortunately, climate science is rapidly developing the tools to meet this challenge, as in the near future it will be possible to attribute cause and effect in decadal-scale climate variability within the context of a seamless climate forecast system [Palmer et al., 2008]. Doing so is vital, as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.‘ My emphasis.
The penultimate paragraph. I don’t know what you make of this Jim – but it is the essence of dynamical sysyems in that they exhibit abrupt and non-linear change. I quote it because it is both right and challenges linear climate wisdom. Climate may well be warmer, it may not change or it cool. All bases covered? Can’t help it – it is the way of deterministic chaos grasshopper. If we had some proper probabilistic forecasting – we might be able to estimate the probability of various outcomes. As we don’t we can’t. So sad too bad.
Indeed talking about short ranges, they say natural variability has a big impact. We all agree. Then they start to talk about longer ranges which is where they conclude with their climate warming statement that looks more warmist than skeptic. They are warmists, no mistaking that.
The papers are about dynamical complexity augmenting and counteracting warming over these decadal scales – climate shifts. There is no potential for climate to repeat the pattern of the 20th century and therefore there is no assurance that the next shift is to warmer or cooler. Hence the potential for surprises due entirely to natural variability that are outside the envelope of steady warming. There is no basis for deciding the trajectory of future climate shifts within the context of deterministic chaos. The future may well be warmer than guestimated expectations – due to these non-linear mechanisms. Theoretically it may also be cooler.
In decadal scales – the world is still not warming for a decade or three more at least. Which is all I said. You need to get your head around the concept of abrupt climate change to understand these papers.
Abrupt climate change means the warming rate could abruptly resume tomorrow too. You talk about chaos then claim to be able to predict it, which is a completely inconsistent view with itself even.
Indeed the phrase indeterminate length is contained in the quote I supplied. But these shifts tend to last 20 to 40 years in the proxy records.
A decade or three more seems a broad enough claim.
Given the shifts in SW at TOA in the satellite recods – a warming shift next time seems not to be guaranteed.
Yes, it makes more sense to look at the temperature trend in at least 30-year segments, and for the last 30, the rise is 0.17 degrees per decade, even with the recent flat part, which cancels with the more rapid rise just prior (possibly from the Pinatubo recovery). If you don’t look at 30-year periods, be prepared for a roller coaster, I think everyone would agree. Tunnel vision on the shorter trends doesn’t help at all. Thirty years from now 0.5 degrees is just the minimum rise from extrapolation.
The shifts identified by Tsonis in his network of ocean and atmospheric indices were around 1910, the mid 1940’s, the late 1970’s and 1998/2001. Temperature trajectories and the frequency and intensity of ENSO change at these times. It makes sense to look at these periods as ‘regimes’.
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
It makes sense to look at a longer period – over both a cool and warm period at least. Alternatively – one may do as Kyle Swanson did here – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/ – and calculate a trend over a period that excludes the shfts themselves. Either way you get a trend of less than 0.1 degrees C/decade. Much of this is not carbon dioxide at all. Indeed – given that the satellite records suggest that most of the Swanson increase was clouds – if this was all there was there would not be much of a problem at all.
So we have a cool period likely to last a decade or three more and not see increases in temperature followed by an utterly unpredictable climate shift. It is most unlikely that the 20th century pattern will repeat. This is the warmist dillemma. But risk remains for the dynamical system -transformed from a steady evolution to warmer conditions to that of abrupt and non-linear climate change.
Jim D
You’ve got it wrong.
If you don’t trust the “experts” (IPCC et al.), DON’T go to other “experts” (NAS RS, etc.) who are judging the “experts” based on their own “expert opinion” (as you suggest).
Instead, “VERIFY”.
Demand that the “experts” show you the empirical data upon which their “expert judgment” was made.
Keep the “experts'” feet to the fire until they show you this empirical evidence.
Do not accept their “expert judgment” until they do.
Quite simple, actually (Feynman expressed it long ago).
It’s called “rational (or scientific) skepticism” and is an integral part of the scientific method.
Max
So you think none of the other experts have verified for themselves that the science holds together with the observations. We know the earth responds in an expected way to forcing changes (volcanoes, solar, global dimming aerosols, natural GHG changes), so why should it not respond when the forcing change is from anthropogenic CO2, and not only that, but this is larger than the other recent forcings added together. Sometimes it looks like acceptance of some forcings, while denying others, in a non-scientific selective way, and no wonder independent scientist societies don’t fall into that line of thinking.
As a non-expert, I count meself well qualified ter contribute ter this discussion. Herewith…
Mathbae asks: ‘Whom can we trust?
Trust, say, one of the BIG questions of life, inter related to
knowledge, ‘wadda-we-kow?’ Socrates, and with interdependency,
John Donne, ‘No man is an island.’
Guess from the beginning of life, children (and animals) demonstrate
a powerful need for regularities and into maturity we cling to our expectations dogmatically even as they break down. A problem of
learning, as Nassim Taleb discusses in ‘The Black Swan’ is that once
we produce a theory, we are not likely to easily change our minds.
And that applies to ‘experts’ as well.
So should we uncritically trust the expert? Taleb, in Chapter 10,
‘The Scandal of Prediction,’ :) gives examples of our human
epistemic hubris and poor record in prediction, our tendency ter over-estimate what we know to under-estimate uncertainty, and
our practice of over-looking our record of failed forecasts. Well
then, so who de we trustt? Every day some of us must rely on
some expert or other, we catch a plane, visit a dentist, undergo
a medical procedure. Past record of performance may re assure
here, and Taleb makes the distinction between experts who tend
ter be ‘experts’; … eg livestock judges, astronomers, pilots,
mathematicians ( when they deal with mathematical ‘problems)
and experts who are not ‘experts’ … eg stock brokers,
psychologists, intelligence analysts or professions that deal with
the future and base their predictions on any, other than short term physical processes. )
But what about scientists and ‘science’? Scientists per se .. well
…er no…they’re jest human like the rest of us, subject ter
confirmation bias of paridigm, ideology and the need ter procure
GRANTS. Fortunately, given the shifting sands we live on, our lack
of expertise, we have evolved the institutions of the OPEN SOCIETY
to provide checks and balances on the hubris of individuals and
power cliques.
The methodology of science, of conjecture, (guess) of testing,
tentative provisional acceptance of a hypothesis or theory, and
of refutation leading ter a new state of play. We recognise that
scientists don’t always adhere ter the methodology, maybe
inocculate their theory or gatekeep, but the METHODOLOGY
opens up to critical examination, show – yer – workings –
trans-parency and has brought great advancements ter human standards of living and ter life expectancy.
Like democracy itself, government by non expert representatives)
of the people, involing transparent enquiry and elections, ultimately
our fate lies in our own hands, not experts, not central planners , dictators, faceless decision makers of the IPCC an Yew Nighted
Nashuns At its heart it’s based on skepticism and protecting the
checks and balances. Amen.
Beth Cooper
Thank you for producing something I can use.
Errata (as usual.) ‘Mathbabe’ ‘know’ ‘paradigm’ (perhaps others)
People who portray great certainty are often those the most full of it. Consider, for example, Bob Droege. He told someone:
The attitude here implies Droege knows what he’s talking about. It turns out, he doesn’t. A few hours after that comment, Droege posted this comment. It is mind-boggling how much he gets wrong in it:
MBH98 wasn’t a global temperature reconstruction. The words “Northern Hemisphere” are plastered all over the paper. The caption for the main graph “Northern Hemisphere mean temperature.” The IPCC version of the graph labels it “NORTHERN HEMISPHERE.” The follow-up paper (MBH99) which built upon it is titled “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium.” It’s hard to understand how someone could decide it is a “global temperature reconstruction.”
This shows another basic point Droege gets wrong. MBH98 was one of two papers responsible for the iconic hockey stick. The followup paper is labeled MBH99, and they are collectively referred to as just MBH. There is no legitimate reason one would talk about criticisms of the hockey stick and limit themselves to discussing just MBH98. MBH98 doesn’t even cover the controversial MWP.
Even Mann’s later work doesn’t “give basically the same result.” To show how far off it (and other modern reconstructions) are from MBH, look at this figure.
Nobody “stopped using divergent tree ring series.” What they did was truncate tree ring series at a point to give the impression the series matched instrumental temperature records. Who in the world would say, “I stopped using X series” to mean, “I deleted a portion of the X series with no real reason.”
But the real shining moment comes in a slightly later comment:
Apparently Droege not only doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he isn’t even thinking about what he says. The answer to his question is obviously, “No.” We shouldn’t trust those series. That’s why we shouldn’t use them at all. The fact the series has a problem means the series has a problem. It doesn’t mean we should trust one part of the series but not another when we have no reason to believe anything is different between the two parts.
Given how much Droege gets wrong, should his portrayed certainty be enough to make you trust him when he says:
No. If you want something to believe, I suggest reading this and checking the sources given in it. I know self-plugging is a bit cheesy, and that link is to a poorly formatted version (it looks better as a pdf), but it’s still a far better resource than anything Droege could offer.
From out of left field, Amac, too, rifles outrage to the plate.
================
Brandon,
What is the title of MBH98?
And why did you leave the error bars off of MBH98 in your graph but leave them on for the other series? If you put the MBH98 errors bars back on, you would see that they overlap the other series.
And your linky doesn’t work for me.
Bob Droege:
It is, “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries” of course. What’s your point? That anyone lazy enough to just read the title of the paper won’t see you’re wrong about an incredibly basic fact?
First, it wasn’t my graph. Second, it’s hardly fair to criticize me (ignoring the fact it isn’t even my graph) for not including error bars when the error bars you refer to were calculated in a nonsensical fashion (for MBH98; nobody knows what was done for MBH99). Third, even if I wanted to include error bars for MBH, MBH failed statistical verification. That means it’s impossible to assign it any confidence intervals.
If you want to say MBH is barely similar to other reconstructions if you use meaningless, errantly calculated confidence intervals, you can. I think most people will just say, “Wide error bars barely let the series match? The new results must be fairly different.”
Given I included about five links, it’d have made sense for you to specify which link you were talking about. Not doing so just makes things more difficult for me. Regardless, somehow the URL for my last link got appended to this page’s URL. It should have been easy to figure out the right URL, but here is a fixed version.
I suppose I ought to point out that graph doesn’t actually show the error bars “for the other series.” When you average four series together, you introduce a source of error. That’s what the error bars in that graph show.
In other words, error bars weren’t included for any of the five series.
Dont give me that crap about MBH failing statistical verification, that’s not applying a statistical test correctly.
And I meant the last link, the one you stated was your paper.
Sorry you didn’t get that.
Bob Droege:
It must be wonderful to hand-wave your way through conversations. Not only can you say whatever you want, you don’t have to explain or justify anything! It must be wonderful. That is, unless you want someone to actually believe you.
This is what is called a notpology. A notpology is where one pretends to apologize but actually doesn’t. As you display, it usually involves blaming the other person. In this case, you’re blaming me because I didn’t “get” the phrase “your linky” somehow referred to one specific link rather than another.
One nice thing about people who put on airs is they generally resort to petulent behavior when challenged in any meaningful way. It’s one of the most reliable methods of telling who is full of it. I mean, if you could respond to me in any substantial way, why haven’t you?
Brandon,
You started off saying I was full of it and now you want me to respond to you in a substantial way, OK, here goes.
What statistical verification did MBH98 fail? Please be specific. You too are guilty of handwaving.
I looked at your Watts up post, and I see you are still flaming on the upside down tiljander series crap, care to prove they used it upside down?
Bob Droege:
I said you were full of it while showing you were wrong on multiple points. That is a substantive criticism. The fact I derided you doesn’t some excuse you from addressing your own failures.
The link to my earlier writings discusses the issue in some detail. I hardly think it’s hand-waving to raise a specific point discussed in detail in a source I had just provided. Regardless, the answer is R2 verification.
The fact you keep calling this simple point “crap” is quite telling. I think you’re the last person still arguing this. If I go to Skeptical Science and look for information on the topic, the very first link they give acknowledges Tiljander series were used upside down. If Skeptical Science admits a criticism of Mann, it’s amazing anyone would dispute it.
Heck, the same criticism was leveled against another paper by Darrell Kaufman et al, and they (eventually) admitted the criticism was true. To believe Mann did not use the Tiljander series upside down would require us believe Stephen McIntyre claimed Mann and Kaufman did it, and it turns out Kaufman did but Mann didn’t. That’s a difficult position to take, especially since Ray Bradley was a coauthor on both papers.
The data and code for Mann’s 2008 paper is available, it has been analyzed by many people, and it has even been replicated. That the Tiljander series were used upside down is beyond dispute. However, if you want to pursue this matter, we can. Before we do though, I require one thing of you.
I want you to accept that if you’re shown to be wrong on this point, you have no credibility when it comes to discussions of the hockey stick. I want you to accept nobody should believe to anything you say, that my description of you (that you are full of it) was perfectly accurate.
If you accept that condition, I’ll happily provide whatever proof is necessary. And to be fair, if you can prove you’re right and I’m wrong, I’ll hold myself to the same standard. The key is if you agree to this, neither of us will be able to back away from our positions. It’s a form of accountability.
(Alternatively, we could bet money on it.)
Brandon,
The R2 statistical test determines how well a series can be explained by comparing it to another series. In what fashion do we apply that to a temperature reconstruction? What number would be considered failing?
Your cite for the tiljander series clearly concludes that McIntyre got it wrong.
“Looking at McIntyre’s claims on this and the real situation descibed above shows that McIntyre’s claims are false.”
And looking at the graph in question, which compares x-ray density to time, looks like x-ray density is higher in the late 20th century no matter what the orientation of the graph. Looks like a hockey stick to me, only not too pronounced.
Now switching gears to the crux of the biscuit. The question is whether the Medeival Warm Period is warmer than now. From the E&E correction to the Loehle reconstruction (and I so do love pointing out that yes indeed E&E has done peer review) where he states that the warmiest three decades of the medieval warm period were warmer than the warmest three decandes of the 20th century, but not statistically significantly so.
From the NOAA database, the warmest three decades of the 20th century average to an anomaly of 0.23, while the first decade of the 21st century is 0.57. So clearly the 21st century is much warmer than the MWP
Wow, Bob, I begin to understand how you convince yourself of things you do. How do you ever get anything right?
===============
Bob Droege said
“From the NOAA database, the warmest three decades of the 20th century average to an anomaly of 0.23, while the first decade of the 21st century is 0.57. So clearly the 21st century is much warmer than the MWP.”
You are not comparing like for like at all. You need to wait for the first three decades of the 21st century to finish before you can make a proper comparison using your terms.
tonyb
Bob Droege, I note you once again choose to not respond to multiple points I make. If you wish to selectively respond to/ignore issues, you can, but it only makes you less trustworthy. With that said, response to the points you did make:
I’m not going to touch the first question here as it’s something you should take up with Michael Mann and his co-authors as they’re the ones who decided on the test. However, I will answer the second question. As a rule, an R2 score that is indistinguishable from 0 is always a failing score. Scores that are below one or two percent certainly qualify.
That said, your question is kind of stupid as the significance of R2 verification scores depends on multiple factors. There is no way to give a single value as the breakpoint between failing and passing as it depends on the individual analysis. If you don’t know this incredibly basic point it’s amazing you’d say “that’s not applying a statistical test correctly.”
Either you don’t know an incredibly basic point or you tried to set some sort of “Gotcha!” trap for me. Neither possibility makes you look good.
Cherry-picking quotes doesn’t make you look trustworthy either. The issue we were discussing is the supposedly “bizarre upside down Tijander series crap.” You took a quote that says McIntyre is wrong while ignoring the fact that link explicitly said:
That link explicitly states my point was right. You ignore that obvious fact and focus on an irrelevant quote about a third party. It’s hard to imagine a way you could look less trustworthy.
And this just makes you look insane. You’re saying a section of a graph looks to be the highest whether or not you flip the graph upside down. How could that possibly make sense? How could anyone believe flipping a graph upside down wouldn’t change what the highest part of the graph is? You seriously just said, “It goes up. If you switch up and down, it still goes up.”
If you believe flipping a series upside down doesn’t change what the high and low points of the series are… there aren’t words.
Brandon,
One thing, it looks to me like you don’t realize that when McIntyre flipped the graph upside down, the y-axis went along with the flip, so the graph is the same. And you call me insane for noting this, this is my last response to you unless you cut out the ad-homs.
Here, read the whole quote.
“Looking at McIntyre’s claims on this and the real situation descibed above shows that McIntyre’s claims are false. Just look at the graphs McIntyre presented. In all graphs there the values in X- and Y-axes give matching values, and yet McIntyre shows them as they would show the mistake. The graphs he presents just show how the data is in the TEA and in the input of the MEA reconstruction so basically those graphs just show that MEA have not flipped the data upside-down before feeding it to their analysis, which is exactly the opposite that McIntyre claims to be the case. He claims that MEA have flipped the data, while in real world the problem is that they haven’t flipped the data.”
If you look at what I have posted, I have said the “Tiljander upside down argument is crap,” and I asked you to prove that Mann used it upside down, and you have done that, however Mann used the series in the configuration that he received it. He didn’t flip it.
So you are right, Mann used the data upside down in the state he received it, he is innocent of the charges of fraud, for deliberately flipping the data, to make his case.
And I don’t see how you apply the r2 test to a temperature series unless you know what the temperature is supposed to be.
Sorry, can’t respond to every argument you make.
Tonybclimatereason,
Why not?
Do you claim someone can’t compare say, Albert Puhols’s batting average for one season vs his carreer batting average and argue whether or not he is having a good season or not?
I’m comparing a 10 year average temperature with a 30 year average temperature, so it is like for like. One thing I did do, though was compare the standard deviations for the two data sets. It was lower for the shorter series, the lower trend possibly explains that.
Bob Droege, my apologies. I did not call you insane, but I did say you looked insane because I misinterpreted what you said because of my hastily made response. I didn’t give thought to the fact you were talking about the X-ray density itself.
The reason for this is nobody was talking about that. Nobody claimed the underlying data was changed. The argument has always been that the data was used upside down. That doesn’t mean the data was changed. That means it was misinterpreted. What you said has nothing to do with that.
I shouldn’t have said you look insane. I should have instead realized you were raising a completely irrelevant point and criticized you for that. You sound completely unaware of what you’re talking about, not insane.*
Huh. So when you said:
You were, in fact, full of “crap”? I guess I was right from the start.
Seeing as neither I nor McIntyre ever said otherwise, I have no idea why you’d say this. The criticism we’ve been discussing has always been about Michael Mann’s methodology and how it affects his results. You’re demonstrating my point, that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
You don’t know a basic aspect of the statistics involved, and yet you told me not to give you “that crap about MBH failing statistical verification” as it’s “not applying a statistical test correctly.” I hope you realize you are proving you are “full of it” as I said all along.
*Neither of which are ad hominems. Insults are not inherently ad hominems.
Bob Droege:
You’ve again demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge. If you want to talk about statistics, you should learn at least some basics about degrees of freedom and significance levels.
Brandon,
Your cite , the AGW observer one I quoted from says McIntyre claims Mann flipped the data, and shows that Mann didn’t.
What did he finish the post with?
“Bizarre, indeed.”
Your cite proves my point, that McIntyre was wrong, and the upside down Tiljander series is indeed bizarre.
Now if you can make the case that using the series upside down had a significant effect on the results, then you have made the case that it is not crap. You havn’t done that.
By the way, I got this from Saturday Night Live:
“By flipping the data opposite to the interpretation of Tiljander et al, Mann shows the Little Ice Age in Finland as being warmer than the MWP, 100% opposite to the interpretation of the authors and the paleoclimate evidence.”
“By flipping the data…,Mann shows”
McIntyre calims Mann flipped the data!
Your inability to read clearly affects your arguments and no one should believe a word you say until you admit you were wrong when you claim McIntyre never accused Mann of flipping the data.
And using big words like degrees of freedom, Constantinople and significance levels doesn’t demonstrate your statistical knowledge, much less do anything to my argument that the 21st Century is warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. Although I will admit I can’t put a confidence level on it.
Bob.
Mann used a method that flipped the data.
It’s not fraud, its a questionable method that inverts data where the relationship between the proxy and temperature is known.
but there are additional issues with Mann’s treatment of the data which
indicate that his final results should not be relied upon without a complete re analysis.
Start here. Mann has the degrees of freedom wrong since there are only
TWO series from tiljander not the 4 Mann used.
http://amac1.blogspot.com/2011/08/lightsum-and-darksum-are-calculated-not.html
Bob Droege, you acknowledged series were upside down but now say:
I’m confused. Are you saying it’s “bizarre” in that Mann’s method makes no sense, or are you saying a point is bizarre despite agreeing it’s true? Either way, even if McIntyre was wrong, that would have no bearing on the issue of whether or the series were used improperly.
Actually, I did. In the link I provided to my more detailed writings, I provided ample proof of exactly that.
First off, you butchered a quote while offering it as proof I am bad at reading. The words you removed from that quote were irrelevant. They were, “opposite to the interpretation of Tiljander et al.” Clearly, McIntyre is saying Mann inverted the interpretation of the data.
Your entire argument rests on saying Tiljander flipped the data and Mann didn’t therefore McIntyre is wrong to say Mann flipped “the data opposite to the interpretation of Tiljander.” At best, that is opportunistic, semantic nit-picking. On the same page, McIntyre says:
You’re seem to be arguing McIntyre wasn’t clear enough in one sentence therefore the entire criticism of Mann (even if it doesn’t come from McIntyre) is “crap.” Oh, and if someone doesn’t over-analyze things the way you do, they can’t read.
If you think “degrees of freedom” or “significance levels” are “big words,” that says a great deal about you. As for them, the fact I know what they mean shows I know more than you do. It doesn’t, however, “demonstrate [my] statistical knowledge” as I know far more than just their meanings. For example, I know how to use the concepts.
Your inability to put a confidence level on anything actually does do something to your argument. It renders what you said meaningless. It is impossible to make the claim you made without being able to account for uncertainty in the data.
(The fact I know this and you apparently don’t is yet another indicator of our relative levels of statistical knowledge.)
Two quotes from McIntyre:
“By flipping the data opposite to the interpretation of Tiljander et al, Mann shows the Little Ice Age in Finland as being warmer than the MWP, 100% opposite to the interpretation of the authors and the paleoclimate evidence. The flipping is done because the increase in varve thickness due to construction and agricultural activities is interpreted by Mann et al as a “nonlocal statistical relationship” or “teleconnection” to world climate. Mann:”
“#11. Be careful in how you use “flipping”. The climatic interpretation of Tijlander inverted the X-ray density measurements (and thicknesses) etc. When Mann used the raw data without checking to see whether it was a “long” or “short” position, he, in effect, inverted the Tijlander interpretation (by not inverting the original data.).”
and two graphs
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/tiljan11.gif
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/tiljan10.gif
In the first quote, apparently McIntyre says Mann flipped the data and in the second quote he says Mann flipped the data by not flipping it.
And the inverted graph is the same as the non-inverted one.
And back to my claim that the first decade of the 21st century is warmer than the MWP. Taking Loehle’s published claim that the MWP is not statistically significantly warmer than the warmest three decades of the 20th century. From NOAA the average temperature of the last three decades of the 20th century is 0.23 with a standard deviation of 0.17, while the first decade of the 21st century is 0.57 with a standard deviation of 0.16. The two periods do not overlap with a probability of 67%.
So I am 67% sure that the MWP was cooler than the first decade of the 21st century, but not 95% sure.
Bob,
You might be interested in these two resources:
http://amac1.blogspot.ca
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/climate-science-scientific-method-skeptics-not/
My own take on this:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/TiljanderAffair
Please drop Tiljander until you read a bit more about it.
Bob Droege:
What an amazing demonstration of statistical… something. One would hope you’d realize having smaller “error margins” in a period with one third the data is nonsensical, but… If you’re “x% sure” based upon absurd calculations like that, more power to you.
As far as I’m concerned, you’ve proven my point for me.
Bob
10 years is less than a full stop whereas the MWP is a period. There is no comparison.
tonyb
I’ll still take Mann’s response:
“The claim that “upside down” data were used is bizarre. Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors. Screening, when used, employed one-sided tests only when a definite sign could be a priori reasoned on physical grounds. Potential nonclimatic influences on the Tiljander and other proxies were discussed in the SI, which showed that none of our central conclusions relied on their use.”
They did the analysis without the Tiljander data and got the same answer. Which is why I think you guys need to show that the use of the upsise down data is relevant. It isn’t. So why don’t you guys drop it.
And why is a shorter data set having a smaller variance non-sensical? 10 years of data is still thousands of data points.
You can’t win thaïs zone, Bob.
Let it go.
‘This one.’
Damn autocorrect.
tonyb
One thing. There’s no such thing as the MWP. There is no evidence of a synchronous ‘warm period’, not even in the NH. Rather the proxies suggest a sequence of *regional* warm events in the NH over a period of ~400 years.
So the MWP is not a period. Or a full stop. More of a misnomer than anything else ;-)
Bob Droege:
You claimed this. I told you you were wrong and pointed you to a source that proves you are wrong. You responded by simply repeating yourself. This is what we call digging oneself further into a hole. When even Gavin Schmidt won’t defend Mann on a point, you should know you should stop talking about it.
Somebody should take that shovel away from you. I never said a word about smaller variance. I said “error margins.” If you don’t know the difference yet think you can draw conclusions about statistical issues… you’re proving my point. The fact you apparently have no idea what degrees of freedom are or why they matter shows you have no basis for saying things you say.
In other words, you’re full of it.
Enough with the Tiljander, lets go back to McInyres claim that Mann’s reconstruction failed r2 testing. Anyone who has ever done a regression analysis knows that you pick the function, for example log co2 that you are comparing the temperature series to. What failed is McIntyres fit, not the data.
I do regression testing to verify an HPLC insrument is suitable for analyses of drug samples intended to be injected in someone’s brain. The instrument has two detectors that must pass regression, 0.99 for one and 0.95 for the other. One has a linear response and one has a log response, if I select the wrong function to do the regression, the test will fail, but what I can’t do is throw out the data, I could be cuffed and stuffed for that.
The data just can’t fail regression testing, IT IS JUST THAT SIMPLE.
I am really impressed with a 0.02 r2, cherry pick of the century.
Bob Droege:
Sure, let’s randomly stop discussing one point you’re wrong on and jump to another point you’re wrong on. Why not?
Right… What failed is McIntyre’s fit, that Mann calculated. And published in his original paper before McIntyre even knew who Mann was. And it’s all McIntyre’s fault that Amman and Wahl published a paper denouncing McIntyre’s criticisms of MBH that included the verification scores I referred to (in fact, their paper is the source of the image I posted).
McIntyre is certainly to blame for the people who disagree with him calculating the results of a simple and common test.
You should take that up with Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Eugene Wahl, Caspar Amman and dozens of other people who defend the hockey stick but disagree with you. They’ve all commented on the use of the test you criticize me for promoting.
It’s funny you mention cherry picking verification scores. Michael Mann published the r2 verification score for the 1820 step of his reconstruction while hiding the adverse scores for earlier steps. So not only did Michael Mann do what you say can’t be done, he cherry-picked while doing so!
(Should we jump to another topic now, or would you like to admit you have no idea what you’re talking about?)
Can you actually cite something to back up your nonsense, and nothing from wuwt will do.
Bob Droege:
Cite something? I cited two papers. The Wahl and Amman one may have been a vague citation (though it is easy to find via Google), but surely you know what Mann’s “original paper” on this topic was. Why in the world would you act like I haven’t cited anything?
I have no idea what you’re asking here. Is there something specific you want a citation for, or did you just ignore the fact I already cited several sources?
For the evaluation of people, even experts, you should also consider the aspects of means, motive, and opportunity.
…and especially so for the deniers!
The Bible, says the says the same; Michael.
Yes the problem with experts is not with the quality of their expertise, but with their incentives, integrity and paymasters.
Climate science is now surely the No 1 textbook example of the problem.
Exactly the opposite problem to the one we face here – which is to figure out who is seeking action for political or other disingenuous reasons, and tackle them.
Climate science ‘experts’ are expert in producing fraudulent science. That’s the bottom line.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259942/The-crazy-climate-change-obsession-thats-Met-Office-menace.html
All the temperature, rainfall, hurricane etc. data coming from “climate science experts” is shown to be faked by constant adjustments, cherry picking and other malpractices, all of it. The Hockey Stick was fraudulent science deliberately created to con the ignorant masses into believing that AGW exists, but the adjustments to world temperture records began earlier, when CRU funded by big oil and the nuclear industry altered the New Zealand records as well as adjusting their own and then ‘losing’ the raw data.
This is a scam, there is no science in this and there is no scientific integrity from those pushing the AGW fiction that carbon dioxide is capable of such great physical effects.
The “climate science experts” pushing the fake fisics about carbon dioxide and fraudulently manipulating data to fit are not scientists they are climate con artists, they are experts in this.
Why should we trust expert con artists?
Let me bring this out as a new piece. One of the advantgages of Climate Etc is that scientists from both sides of the issue do talk to each other, and exchange ideas. As a result I, for one, learn more about what issues we disagree on, and why we disagree.
@@@@@
Bob Droege | January 10, 2013 at 4:44 pm |
As I thought Jim, you are asking for the impossible, as it is impossible to hold all factors that affect global temperature constant, while one adds a measured amount of CO2 and measures the response.
Thus no amount of evidence will convince you so you are holding a non-scientific stance.
@@@@@
This brings up an issue, which I do not think has been discussed fully; this is the quality of such little empirical data that we have. Classical physics tends to be based on data from controlled experiments. As Bob so rightly points out, it is impossible to do controlled experiments when we are considering CAGW. This must mean that the quality of any empirical data we have is not as great as it would be, if controlled experiments were possible.
This might well explain some of the diffrences that skeptics and warmists have. Yes, there is empirical data as Pekka has pointed out, as well as tempterrain. But the quality of this data is not as good as it would be if controlled experiments were possible. So this brings up another question; is the empitical evidence good enough? Being the best that there is, does not mean that it is good enough to prove that CAGW is more than a hypothesis.
This sort of explanation might go a long way to explaining the difference between the two sides. One needs to look at more that whether a specific reference gives empirical data. One needs to evaluate whether the empirical data is good enough to prove anything. The basic difference between myself and the warmists on Climate Etc is I am never going to be satisfied with the quality of the empirical data. I simply cannot see how it can ever be good enough to prove that CAGW is real.
This brings me to the issue which I think we might to discuss. This issue is not whether CAGW is more than a hypothesis, but whether the IPCC is correct in claiming that “the science is settled”. It is here that we might have a useful discussion. So let me try a new question. Is the empirical data that we have good enough for the IPCC to claim that it is “very likely” that some aspect or other of CAGW has been proven?
Jim,
Are you sure you are a Physics graduate? Didn’t they teach you that science, unlike mathematics, works on the balance of evidence rather than proof? Maybe you’ve just forgotten. Maybe you’ve lost too many brain cells over the years.
Yes I know that you “simply cannot see how it [empirical evidence] can ever be good enough to prove that CAGW is real.”
Ok you’ve set the bar so high that you know it is never going to be jumped over. So what?
As I said to Max the IPCC haven’t ruled out the possibility of GAGW but they don’t think its likely in the foreseeable future. AGW, though and without the C, is still a serious matter and is something better avoided.
Its not about proof and its not just about CAGW. If you can’t see that then you should find something else to do in your retirement years like grow roses or join the local bowls club.
tempterrain
There are a couple of errors in your post to Jim Cripwell.
First of all, IPCC has defined in some detail its hypothesis of potentially catastrophic impacts resulting from AGW over the course of this century, which has been called the “CAGW” premise. I can outline these for you again, if you missed the earlier posts where this was done.
Secondly, the concept of “empirical scientific evidence” to validate a hypothesis has been covered in several treatises – a good basis can be found in the notes of Feynman.
Such “empirical scientific evidence” does not exist at this time to support the above “CAGW” premise of IPCC.
As a rational skeptic of the “CAGW” premise, I would like to see this evidence before I accept the premise as valid, as I have indicated to you in the past. Jim Cripwell has also requested this evidence.
So far the evidence has not been presented.
That’s the issue here, tempterrain.
It can be resolved very quickly by simply citing the empirical evidence, but not by rhetoric.
Ball’s in your court, tempterrain
Evidence – not talk.
Max
TT, you write “Ok you’ve set the bar so high that you know it is never going to be jumped over. So what?”
The “so what” is the final question I asked, and which you have not addressed. If it is, indeed, impossible to produce the sort of quality empirical data that is required to show that CAGW is more than a hypothesis, is the IPCC correct to claim that CAGW has been proven to a very high level indeed? That is the question which I wish you would address.
But you wont.
Jim,
is the IPCC correct to claim that CAGW has been proven to a very high level indeed? That is the question which I wish you would address.
Ok Let’s make a start on addressing it then. Can you give me a reference on where the IPCC have actually said that and we can then take it from there?
Well first of all you would have to define CAWG – typically as greater than 2 degrees C increase. As silly as linear thinking in a non-linear system is and as improbable the methods of prediction are.
Max,
” …………..which has been called the ‘CAGW’ premise”
Who by?
Robert
A 2C temp rise does not mean the C needs to be added to AGW. The temperature increase in and of itself is not a problem. It is what happens as a result of the temp rise that could be the problem.
“Well first of all you would have to define CAWG – typically as greater than 2 degrees C increase.”
The IPCC reserve the use of the word ‘catastrophic’ for much greater levels of warming.
Actually – the IPCC uses catastrophe in the sense of Rene Thom. Abrupt and catastrophic change.
TT you write “. Can you give me a reference on where the IPCC have actually said that and we can then take it from there?”
Quoting from the SPM to the AR4 of WG1, page 8 it is stated “Most of the observed increase in global averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”. On page 3 it states that “very likely >90%”. So the IPCC is stating that most of the observed rise in temperature at the end of the 20th century is more than 90% certain to have been caused by increased levels of CO2 concentrations.
Where is the empirical data that supports the certainty of this conclusion, if we are agreed that it is impossible to do the controlled experiment and measure that when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere adds X to current levels, it causes global temperatures to rise by Y?
““Most of the observed increase in global averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations””
So this is CAGW?
So you admit that if man is responsible for most of the global warming since 1950 it means there is a catastrophe?
lolwot, you write “So you admit that if man is responsible for most of the global warming since 1950 it means there is a catastrophe?”
What TT and I are discussing is the relationship between the empirical data and the certainty with which the IPCC states it’s conclusions with respect to CAGW. The actual IPCC statement refers to the rise in temperature in the 20th century. But the issue is the certainty with which this issue is stated. If you want to address that issue, the certainty, you are welcome to join in the discussion. But please dont introduce red herrings.
The IPCC puts the “C” in CAGW in working group II’s section of the AR4.
“increases in malnutrition and consequent disorders, with implications for child growth and development;
increased deaths, disease and injury due to heatwaves, floods, storms, fires and droughts;
the increased burden of diarrhoeal disease;
the increased frequency of cardio-respiratory diseases due to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone related to climate change”
Malnutrition, drought, heatwaves, floods, storms, but no claims of catastrophe… not us, no sirree.
Hey, I guess we don’t have to listen to any more bilge about the precautionary principle. (Yeah, I know, CAGWers like to have it both ways. Cognitive dissonance – don’t leave home without it.)
Jim Cripwell,
You’ve asked if ” the IPCC [is] correct to claim that CAGW has been proven to a very high level indeed? ”
So I’m looking for some indication that the IPCC has used the word “catastrophic” and the term “proven to a very high level” in relation to each other. Or even if they have ever written anything at all which might lead you to think they believe this to be the case?
TT : The IPCC reserve the use of the word ‘catastrophic’ for much greater levels of warming.
Yes in keeping with their general dishonesty, they assert catastrophic effects but avoid the word itself.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-2-4.html
“This brings up an issue, which I do not think has been discussed fully; this is the quality of such little empirical data that we have. Classical physics tends to be based on data from controlled experiments. As Bob so rightly points out, it is impossible to do controlled experiments when we are considering CAGW. This must mean that the quality of any empirical data we have is not as great as it would be, if controlled experiments were possible.”
If global CO2 were over next few decades rise by 50 ppm, how much would
this cause global temperature to rise?
So assuming an increase of 20-25 ppm per decade and before 2035.
And also what would global average temperature be by 2035 in perhaps
unlikely case that it was instead around 400 ppm [doesn’t increase- and no reasonable governmental global policy can actually plan on such low levels by 2035].
So question by time we had increase of 50 ppm, how much will global temperature increase by?
And if there was no increase of global CO2, how much would global temperature increase by 2035?
And checking what think is obvious, everyone agrees that 50 ppm already added to global CO2 does have greater impact on temperatures than a future addition of 50 ppm of CO2. Which gets to the two questions: you can only assume the future addition of 50 ppm will have greater effect than a past addition 50 ppm, because you think the past addition of 50 ppm CO2 has in some way been delayed and so will manifest itself if given enough time.
And I assume if you think past addition of CO2 has had this delayed effect, that also means the future addition of CO2 will likewise be delayed.
I guess a third question is what if we were get unexplainable massive increase in global CO2 occurring very rapidly, so there is sudden addition of 50 ppm within less than 5-10 years.
So in summary, we have the kind of expected increase of CO2 over decades adding 50 ppm. And no increase in CO2 by 2035. And the as unlikely, sudden increase of 50 ppm.
What is predictable temperature increase due to CO2 and whatever increase in global water vapor this rise in CO2 will cause?
But exclude such things as natural variability, catastrophic methane release, volcanoes, land use, SO2, or whatever else.
Just talking about the so called “control knob” of CO2.
gbaikie
The climate “control knob” of CO2 (as touted by some “experts”) is being falsified as we speak (if it hasn’t already been).
There are too many instances in the modern record where warming has occurred without significant CO2 increase or CO2 increase has occurred without warming.
The ~30-year multidecadal warming/cooling cycles in the record cannot be explained by the CO2 “control knob”.
The paleo record going back 500,000 years shows CO2 increased lagged temperature increase by several hundred years, with several instances where temperature rose when CO2 levels were below average or dropped when CO2 levels were above average. This belies the suggestion that CO2 was the “control knob”.
The current lack of warming, despite unabated CO2 emissions and levels reaching record heights, cannot be explained by the CO2 “control knob”.
CO2 is a GHG.
GHGs trap outgoing energy and should result in some warming all other things being equal
But, first of all, the magnitude of this warming is not at all certain and, second all other things are obviously NOT equal.
Until we know the effect of all natural climate forcing and variability factors on our climate, it is absurd to talk of a CO2 climate “control knob”.
Max
I just want to say that the quality of the data is not related to the nature of the experiment.
You can have good quality data and do a crappy experiment, just as you can do a great experiment but with crappy data.
Of coulrse there are the other two extremes.
“gbaikie
The climate “control knob” of CO2 (as touted by some “experts”) is being falsified as we speak (if it hasn’t already been).”
It’s my opinion that CO2 probably has little to do with average global temperature.
Or to be clearer, CO2 has too small a capacity to “trap heat” or in any way keep regions of Earth warmer.
In addition if CO2 somehow trapped 100 times more heat than I think is vaguely possible, this would still not warm the earth by any significant amount.
Now, water vapor is suppose to “trap heat” by about this factor of 100 times more than CO2 [at least in tropical region where is higher quantities of water vapor]. And I don’t think this more “powerful water vapor” traps any significant amount of heat. And if that if the amount heating which water vapor does were to be increased by factor of 100,
it still would still not trap enough heat to make any difference in terms of warming earth.
Earth does not retain heat very well. As example, In comparison I think Venus would retain the energy of a nuclear explosion far better than Earth. Though an under water nuclear explosion would seem to be more effective at retaining heat as compared to Venus.
And someone at some time may have already measured how much energy this was measured to be- it could even be publicly available information [though doesn’t seem likely].
In terms of natural effect, lakes of lava, and large lava flows, are also not having much effect upon warming Earth, and it seem to me that if they were on Venus, more of the heat would be retained in the atmosphere.
So that’s what I mean by Earth does not retain heat well.
But in terms of low levels of heat gained from the energy of sunlight, Earth is pretty good in terms retaining this heat.
In comparison I think Venus at Earth distance could be frozen ice house. So, I do think Venus could very well involve some kind of “runaway affect”. But it goes without saying that our level of knowledge regarding Venus is far less than our knowledge of Earth.
The way look at Venus, is Venus is heated liquids and solids in it’s atmosphere. So mostly warmed by sunlight heating up the clouds of sulfuric acid, and this warmed liquid, heating up the atmospheric gases. And dust also probably part of it.
But all this is somewhat academic.
The issue at hand is the empirical evidence of CO2 warming Earth. And also a clarification of the hypotheses regarding the theory of the Greenhouse Effect.
It seems to me if someone were to believe the theory of the Greenhouse Effect, then adding 50 ppm of CO2 to global CO2 levels
should cause about .3 to .4 C.
That would seem like a reasonable guess. Which would based upon whatever empirical evidence one could regard providing evidence for this theory.
So my answer to my question is:
.3 to .4 C for addition of 50 ppm
No warming if there is no increase
And a sudden addition of 50 ppm also within a few years
gets this addition of .3 to .4 C to global temperature.
Or the sudden addition of 50 ppm of CO2 doesn’t in someway
amplify the effect so one get more than .3 to .4 C of warming.
According to the FED, it became a new American tradition.
Unfortunately, translation of scientific findings to the general public is often undertaken by university Public Relations departments, by press release. Most of these are simply extremely bad to awful — spinning findings way beyond actuality, speculating wildly, and encouraging the authors to give ‘sexy’ or ‘intriguing’ quotes that will encourage the MSM to pick up and print the press release, which they too often do without any further questioning, fact checking, or even looking at the paper’s abstract. The interest of the PR department is to make the university look good — not to forward the public’s understanding of the particular piece of science.
This is what I (and others) have named Press Release Science. It is not a compliment.
Reminds me of Anthony watts major announcement press release
Watts press release was a case of fighting fire with fire. Muller fired the first press release across his bow. He responded in kind. Watts was quite clear that he didn’t approve of the practice, that two wrongs don’t make a right, but that if that was the rule that Muller wanted to play by then Watts would do the same.
I’m not certain you can appreciate the difference between starting a food fight and throwing food only after you unexpectedly get hit in the face with a pie.
There’s no distinction. If you value the kind of integrity that says science should not be done by press release then Watts has lost that integrity.
The Watts press release was aimed far beyond Muller. It wasn’t a rebuttal. It was a promotion of a result in it’s own right: claiming that global warming was less and that the NOAA temperature records were wrong. It spinned the findings way beyond actuality, speculating wildly, and included ‘sexy’, ‘intriguing’ quotes to encourage blogs to pick up and print the press release.
Science by press release. Skeptics are against it unless they do it it seems.
Excuses about fighting fire with fire were just failed excuses tacked on to try and justify the hypocrisy.
The restriction on the use of DDT and its impact on malaria deaths in several poorer nations is a matter of record, despite a few lame denial attempts, as the Chief and others here have pointed out.
It appears to have been a monumental “screw-up” by well-meaning (rich, white) “experts”, who thought they were doing the “right thing” for our planet in response to the worldwide public and political reaction to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring.
Is there a parallel with the current CAGW hysteria?
Are well-meaning (rich, white) “experts” again doing what they think is “right” for our planet, and will it again have a similar devastating impact on the poorest individuals on this planet, this time by depriving them of the possibility of access to a reliable, low-cost source of energy (based on fossil fuels)?
Should the world “trust” the well-meaning (rich, white) “experts” this time around?
That seems to be the pertinent question here.
Max
A Precious Conceit of the Western Elite.
==============================
SOD
Let ’em listen to windmills.
===================
mathbabe:
http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_12/cathyoneill.jpg
Not math but same babe category:
http://www.silverdisc.com/images/00/025192699122.jpg
Fake fur, I hope. But then, that wouldn’t be renewable.
===========
I love the feel of fur. I prefer it on the beasts of course. Mathbabe looks like a beast but technically she isn’t and I don’t want to even think about her natural fur. Yuck.
Tip O’ the Hat to CS Lewis.
hope you’re happy.
you’ve rooooooned breakfast.
Hey, I’ve been rooting around and tossed up a tasty trubble.
=============
Trusting (?) the experts
IPCC’s writing about itself:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the organization that provides “the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change.”
An insiders writing about IPCC:
“I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions.”
…
“…the rules of IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal) but production of results.”
Decide for yourself.
Yes Girma, unpublished material and activist grey literature…
perhaps fifty shades of grey?
Beth
Michael Mann
“But he falls victim to a fallacy that has become all too common among those who view the issue through the prism of economics rather than science. Nate conflates problems of prediction in the realm of human behavior — where there are no fundamental governing ‘laws’ and any “predictions” are potentially laden with subjective and untestable assumptions — with problems such as climate change, which are governed by laws of physics”
I wonder how Mann arrives at the conclusion that animal behaviour is not governed by physics.
Is it governed by the divine ?:Or is it complex…like….you know! Climate.
Experts and Thrust
As CO2 concentration increased by 26 ppm (=26*7.83 = 203.6 Gt of CO2) since 1998 as shown:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/compress:12
there was no change in the global mean temperature trend as shown:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/compress:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend
How can one trust people who say things contrary to the observed data?
What matter is not being “expert” but being honest to the observed data.
Is there something amiss with sticking with the very same metric of AGW as was used on us before ?
Now it’s deep ocean heat or sea level or date of robin eggs hatching instead of surface temperature.
And sooo dishonest to talk about surface temperatures.
Girma said
“How can one trust people who say things contrary to the observed data?”
How to have confidence in the confidence man after you hear him confide.
How to trust the thruster with bluster
Is there anything that is known to be not governed by physics?
Literary fiction for one.
Climate science for another.
Or maybe that’s redundant.
Has global warming ground to a halt?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23060-has-global-warming-ground-to-a-halt.html
This realisation has been bubbling up for a while… Natural variability. No s*** Sherlock!
Edim
Speaking of “experts”: The Met Office is up to its usual BS with this “scary” prediction:
” that could mean that sometime round 2020, warming will start to race away again as the atmosphere makes up for lost time”
Past flops by Met Office:
– BBQ summers (that never materialized)
– Snowless winters (actually above-normal snowfall)
– Record warm years (that ended up being cooler than the year before)
– 0.3C warming per decade (that ended up with slight cooling instead)
The lesson Met Office should have learned from all this is NOT to make short-term forecasts based on model predictions.
But it looks like they are setting themselves up for yet another “flop” with a new “trust me, baby” prediction.
Some “experts” never learn.
Should we “trust” them?
Ho, ho!
Max
As I posted on the second mathbabe article’s comments, I am astonished that she would dismiss Steve McIntyre, when he has been doing exactly what she says people should be doing: trying to checking someone’s model in detail. In fact, in better detail than she prescribed: She merely “asked obnoxious, relentless questions about the model until I was satisfied”. He actually tried to replicate the work. Would she have been satisfied if the modeler she questioned in “obnoxious, relentless” detail had refused to answer her questions? Or would she have concluded that he talks a good model but is actually hiding shoddy work?
Feds fund $100,000 video game featuring female climate change ‘superhero’
January 10, 2013
A new video game featuring a black alien female superhero delivered to Earth to fight global warming is about to hit the market thanks to a $100,000 grant from the Obama administration.
The National Endowment for the Arts is funding the Spelman College of Atlanta, Ga.’s multi-episode game called “HERadventure.” In the grant announcement made last year, the NEA said the story “focuses on a young female superhero sent to Earth to save her own planet from devastation because of climate changes caused by social issues impacting women and girls.”
The game is set to debut on March 8 on International Women’s Day.
The college’s digital newspaper described the project this way: “What would happen if the societal issues affecting women put other planets at risk? Well, of course, HER, a black female superhero, would swoop in with a plan to save the universe. HER is central to HERadventure, a science fiction-based, multimedia platform project that interweaves virtual worlds, digital and social media to create a gaming and storytelling experience. HERadventure not only entertains but tackles social issues that permeate the daily reality of many women.”
While the grant was hit by a lawmaker when it was made, it just came to our attention when the watchdog site Speak With Authority called it wasteful.
“The description defies parody. $100,000 of taxpayer money is going to help develop a video game about a female alien sent to earth to rescue her own planet,” said the site, which added: “Mark your calendars for March 8th. We paid $100,000 for it. We might as well see if we got our money’s worth.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/feds-fund-100000-video-game-featuring-female-climate-change-superhero/article/2518134#.UPArdSJvZac
Meet the “1%” Funding Anti-Fracking Hysteria
The world presented in Matt Damon’s new movie Promised Land is a world in which the fracking movement, well-funded by corporate oil money, takes on a ragtag bunch of idealistic environmentalists. It’s the classic David vs. Goliath story. According to a new report, the anti-fracking movement is just as well-funded by highly organized environmental groups backed by deep-pocketed liberal philanthropists and even Middle East oil money.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/volpe/meet-the-1-behind-the-anti-fracking-hysteria/
A wonderful example of inappropriate US government spending
Flash, Flash, I love you, but we only have 4 years to save the Earth
MIT to Obama: Only 4 years left to stop global warming
In a bruising open letter to President Obama, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is urging the administration to give up its bungled, politically-driven green energy program to focus exclusively on new taxes and industries aimed at fixing global warming.
“You have the power and the opportunity to lay the groundwork for a new clean-energy policy that will help us avoid the worst consequences of climate change,” said the letter, published in the MIT Technology Review. “It is quite possible that if this is not done over the next four years, it will be too late.”
The now or never message said that since Obama won’t face voters again in a election, he should take the risk of upsetting Americans by imposing a carbon tax and fund research projects that could cost trillions of dollars. “We can no longer pretend that addressing climate change will be without real costs,” said the letter from the world’s leading technology university.
MIT urged Obama to make climate change his No. 1 priority. “The potential for global warming over the next decades threatens consequences so dire that they could overwhelm any progress you make toward other long-term economic, social and political goals,” said the letter.
The school gave Obama credit for using the 2009 stimulus bill to foster green energy, but said he made “painful mistakes” that “doomed” the effort. Worse, they said Obama’s focus on “green jobs” was a failure that went to companies like Solyndra instead of new technologies. “That outcome,” said MIT, “was an entirely unnecessary black eye for the clean-energy effort.” It slammed Obama for searching for shovel ready green jobs, adding that “the rush to fund energy projects meand that the choices made were not always wise.”
The letter said Obama should act now to cut carbon emissions and begin the path to ending global warming:
“This is a deeply unpalatable political message. It means immediate spending and economic sacrifice by present-day voters in order to achieve benefits that will be realized decades from now. And it must be done while millions of Americans are still skeptical that global warming is taking place or that it is caused by human activity. But as extensive and exacting analyses over the last decade have shown, we can no longer wait without risking dramatic upheavals in global security and the health and welfare of hundreds of millions of the world’s inhabitants.”
Doc
Do you have a link to the letter? Who authorized the letter?
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/508841/dear-mr-president-time-to-deal-with-climate-change/
MIT, read the comments.
So the Trillion Dollar Clown rolls out reels of alien superheroines.
====================
The truth will finally come out!
Example:
“Are these cycles just something scientists have invented to explain away the lack of recent warming?”
“No. The Met Office admits that we still know far too little about how these natural cycles work, and how big they are. And climate scientists are open to the charge that they ignored the potential impact of natural variability when it was accelerating global warming. According to Brian Hoskins of Imperial College London, it now looks like natural cycles played a big role in the unexpectedly fast warming of the 1990s.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23060-has-global-warming-ground-to-a-halt.html?full=true&print=true
Has the Met Office now become skeptical of IPCC’s 0.2 deg C per decade warming for the next two decades?
Girma
“The truth will finally come out!”
Yes.
And it is happening right before our eyes right now.
The late 20thC warming cycle (statistically indistinguishable from the early 20thC warming cycle) has come to an end.
Since the end of 2000 there has been no further warming, despite unabated human GHG emissions and CO2 concentrations reaching record levels.
The “CO2 climate control knob” is evidently broken.
IPCC’s CAGW premise is being falsified NOW.
How many more years of no warming despite unabated GHG emissions will be required to finally drive the wooden stake into the heart of the CAGW hobgoblin is still being debated.
But it won’t be long.
And then “the truth will finally come out”.
GAME OVER.
Max
Wait, does this mean that the Met Office thinks that, “because climate scientists don’t know everything to an accuracy of seven significant figures, they therefore know nothing?”
“No. The Met Office admits that we still know far too little about how these natural cycles work, and how big they are. And climate scientists are open to the charge that they ignored the potential impact of natural variability when it was accelerating global warming. According to Brian Hoskins of Imperial College London, it now looks like natural cycles played a big role in the unexpectedly fast warming of the 1990s.”
The met office admits this now, why?
Because it has been pushing the science fraud of anthropogenic global warming for decades – and there’s only so much you can do to keep tweaking data when that is brought to public attention and even those who don’t read these articles can see that their forecasts are a bad joke.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259942/The-crazy-climate-change-obsession-thats-Met-Office-menace.html
“What if all the expensive, economy-ravaging, job-killing, environmentally destructive measures we’ve taken have been a spectacular waste of money?
If so, the Met Office will be attacked for being not just risibly incompetent — but an active menace both to the integrity of science and to the nation’s wellbeing.
Hence its defiant attempts to argue that nothing has changed and it’s business as usual.
‘The fact the new model predicts less warming, globally, for the coming five years does not necessarily tell us anything about long-term predictions of climate change for the coming century,’ it claimed yesterday.
In other words: ‘Never mind that global warming stopped in 1997. It will come back with a vengeance one day. We’re just not quite so sure when.’”
It will continue to come out with this kind of gobbledegook as long as it is not held accountable for deliberate producing this fraudulent science global warming scare, and moreover being the prime mover in setting up the scare globally:
“‘Somewhere in the world, a weather record is being broken almost every day. This is normal. What’s not normal is when people try to impose on it some kind of invented trend.’
This is what happened just yesterday, when the scorching Australian heatwave that has caused bushfires was linked in both The Guardian and The Independent to global warming.
The Met Office has subscribed to this sort of stance since at least 1990, when it became politicised under its then director John Houghton — the fanatical believer in the great global warming religion, who was also responsible for setting up the IPCC.
Under Houghton’s stewardship, it became an article of faith that not only was man-made global warming real and dangerous, but that it was the primary job of the Met Office to spread the alarmist gospel.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/05/met-office-accused-of-misleading-public-over-rainfall-trends/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/09/uk-rainfall-2012-the-report-the-met-office-should-have-produced/
http://i.imgur.com/KrpIG.jpg
The sooner those interested in climate science check out the basic physics claims of the AGW Greenhouse Effect the sooner we can be rid of this malign control over us.
Given the Met Office prediction doesn’t show warming stopped in 1997.
The Met Office data and prediction shows warming since 1997. The next few years are predicted to be far warmer than the late 90s.
lolwot | January 12, 2013 at 7:49 am | Given the Met Office prediction doesn’t show warming stopped in 1997.
The Met Office data and prediction shows warming since 1997. The next few years are predicted to be far warmer than the late 90s.
Oh really?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9787662/Global-warming-at-a-standstill-new-Met-Office-figures-show.html
“Global warming at a standstill, new Met Office figures show
The Met Office has downgraded its forecast for global warming to suggest that by 2017 temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades.”
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/major-change-in-uk-met-office-global-warming-forecast/
They finally had to do something about the lack of warming making a mockery of their previous forecast.., but all we get is the same old same old spin: http://www.channel4.com/news/met-office-global-warming-predictions-revised-down
“The Met Office announces the world is not going to warm up as much as previously thought. Surprising news, as last week it said UK rainfall could keep breaking records because of global warming.”
The Met Office under Houghton brought in Santer to excise the conclusions of the consenus of scientists of the 1995 IPPC report which said no AGW signal discernible and to replace it with the lie that it did exist, cobbled together from a paper he’d written.. Santer admitted this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/06/madrid-1995-was-this-the-tipping-point-in-the-corruption-of-climate-science-2/
More on the skullduggery of the Met Office
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5955955/Weather-records-are-a-state-secret.html
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100197657/the-met-office-defending-the-indefensible-as-per-usual/
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/1/28/sir-johns-emails.html
These people are con artists not scientists, fully backed by the governments of all stripes, acting in concert against the interests of the general public. The Met, Hadley Centre and CRU are in cahoots to defraud the people with this fake fisics models and corrupt data and malpractice.
How can you ignore the detailed history we have of their machinations passing off their global warming scam as science?
More on the IPCC 1995 Houghton/Santer establishing the Anthropogenic Global Warming narrative – http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/8/7/madrid-1995-the-last-day-of-climate-science.html
Someone asked:
“I found this very interesting but tough going. It appears that the end outcome of an explicit attribution of climate change to human activity is someone’s “big” agenda, but it is not clear to me who they are. Did I miss something?”
The background:
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/climate-science-corrupted
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established under the sponsorship of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The UNEP’s belief in manmade warming in the late 1970’s led to a stage-managed conference in Villach in 1985, which in turn led to the political decision to form the IPCC.”
The UNEP beginnings:
http://www.jillnicholson.com/global2.htm
“Among the more important but lesser known organizations formed during this period are the Club of Rome (COR — 1968) and the Trilateral Commission (TC — 1973). The COR is a small group of international industrialists, educators, economists, national and international civil servants. Among them were various Rockefellers and approximately 25 CFR members. Maurice Strong was one of the “international” civil servants.38 Their first book, The Limits to Growth, published in 1972 unabashedly describes the world as they believe it should be:
“We believe in fact that the need will quickly become evident for social innovation to match technical change, for radical reform of the institutions and political processes at all levels, including the highest, that of world polity. And since intellectual enlightenment is without effect if it is not also political, The Club of Rome also will encourage the creation of a world forum where statesmen, policy-makers, and scientists can discuss the dangers and hopes for the future global system without the constraints of formal intergovernmental negotiation.”39
That “world forum” was authorized in 1972 by UN Resolution 2997 (XXVII) as the UN Conference on the Human Environment. Maurice Strong was designated Secretary-General of the Conference which, among other things, recommended the creation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which came into being January 1, 1973, with Maurice Strong as its first Executive Director.40 The Conference held in Stockholm produced 26 principles and 109 specific recommendations which parroted much of the language in the COR publications. The difference is, of course, that the Conference Report carries the weight of the United Nations and has profound policy implications for the entire world.41 ”
…
“In retrospect, it is clear that the early work of the United Nations was an effort to achieve global consensus on the philosophy upon which its programmatic work would be built. It is also clear that, despite the disproportionate share of the cost borne by capitalist nations, the prevailing philosophy at the UN is essentially socialist. The fundamental idea upon which America was founded — that men are born totally free and choose to give up specified freedoms to a limited government — is not the prevailing philosophy at the UN, nor at the CFR, the COR, the TC, or the IUCN. Instead, the prevailing philosophy held by these organizations and institutions is that government is sovereign and may dispense or withhold freedoms and privileges, or impose restrictions and penalties, in order to manage its citizens to achieve peace and prosperity for all. In his book, Freedom at the Altar, William Grigg says it this way:
“Under the American concept of rights, the individual possesses God-given rights which the state must protect. However, the UN embraces a collectivist world view in which “rights” are highly conditional concessions made by an all-powerful government.”45″
To go further back to whose agenda, follow Maurice Strong’s history with the banking cartel..
Trust is an emotional and yet calculated response to someone you deal with who earns it incrementally over time. Because I’m not trained in science or statistics, I have to go with my gut on much of what I read.
People like Judith, Ross McKittrick, Steve McIntyre and Lucia have earned my trust over the years. Anthony Watts also, although he is a little less careful due to a more rapid publishing style. Richard Lindzen and John Christy have also earned my trust and respect.
On the warmist side, I’m still evaluating Richard Muller. It’s hard to trust anyone who has ever been influential in writing the IPCC reports.
The truth of the matter is simple: while the original purpose of Michael Mann’s ‘Nature trick’ (Mann’s infamous ‘hide the decline’ cash-for-clunkers climate science)now has a new purpose: to out those who continue to use Mann’s fabricated ‘hockey stick’ graph to continue sticking it to America and capitalism.
I thought I put it under the bus
Alas, the ‘hockey stick’ is a is a sorry judgment on the corruptibility of Western schoolteachers.
Truth is — the AGW hypothesis has never been more than a tentative theory and it has since been popped by reality and honest science.
A far from insignificant part of the 47%’rs is a government education complex that knows they all need to be cleaned out and sent to the farms — just like Mao did when his Red Shirts cleaned out the temple — if the integrity of the educational system is to be restored in America.
@Girma: I’ve been poking around in temperature records with some denoising/decompositional methods and it looks to me that the Brian Hoskins quote is dead-on. It looks, to me, that the global temperature trend peaked at a 0.19-degree-per-decade rate in the early 90’s and has been decelerating since then. The mid-90’s saw a confluence if quasi-cyclical influences (natural variability) that was unusually low, and the late 90’s saw a confluence that was high. Which combined to give you the impression of rapidly accelerating growth or a step change, depending on your climate change viewpoint.
wayne2.
Agree.
The maximum is for 1974 to 2004 => 0.19 deg C
And the latest is for 1981 to 2011 => 0.15 deg C
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1974/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1981/to:2012/trend
The data shows decelerating 30-years GMST Trend
0.19 deg C per decade
0.15 deg C per decade
“CS stuff by Lewis is unpublished mischief making blogged on Bishop Hill. ”
Since mainstream climate “science” is cargo cult, being published means something most likely BS. Being unpublished means is it possibly not BS.
manacker
(repost from here)
And what does Schlesinger think we should do about AGW eh Max? Here’s an extract from Schlesinger’s letter to the WSJ, in response to Matt Ridley’s piece which of course relies on Lewis’ unpublished monograph:
‘Just plain wrong’. That’s Schlesinger. Your reference. Oops.
I told you Max, this CS stuff by Lewis is unpublished mischief making blogged on Bishop Hill. Lewis (2012) is something else.
Both deeply flawed and rebutted. We’ve been through this before. Don’t waste time bringing up these studies again. It was annoying the second time you did it.
BBD
You err again.
In addition, your debating etiquette remains atrocious.
“Lewis is unpublished mischief”. Well, once it gets “published”, will it be “published mischief”? Get serious, BBD
Schlesinger et al. give a range for (2xCO2) ECS, which is very close to that of Lewis and well below that of IPCC in AR4.
Spencer + Braswell has been quickly rebutted – but NOT falsified.
Lindzen and Choi 2009 had some calculation errors, which were corrected by the authors in L+C 2011. This paper has also been rebutted, but not falsified.
“Deeply flawed” = does not agree with what BBD thinks personally.
Fuggidaboudit, BBD.
With this line of reasoning you are only making yourself look stupid (which I’m sure you are not).
Max
BBD
Your waffle on Schlesinger et al. (published 2012) does not change the fact that the study (based on the actual past record rather than simply model simulations) showed a (2xCO2) ECS of
1.45C to 2.01C = 1.73C+/-0.28C
This compares with IPCC AR4 (model predicted) mean estimate of 3.2C+/-0.7C (IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch.8, p. 633), so is around one-half the previous estimate.
Lewis (also 2012, but not yet formally published) simply confirms the Schlesinger et al. result.
These new data are out there and cannot be simply wished away.
As I wrote, the real question is how IPCC will handle this new information?
Either it tries to “sweep it under the rug” and loses all remaining credibility, or it revises its estimates accordingly and the “C” has been removed from its CAGW premise.
A true dilemma.
Max
Max,
you cool with this?
“Under the Plan, all countries begin mitigation in 2015 and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to zero in 2065”
Since you are cool with the 1.7, do you take this too?
manacker
1/ Balls
2/ You deserve no less
One of your ‘references’ is a blog post at B*shop H*ll. Get serious Max
S&B and L&C are junk. Real scientists say this. Shame you are so absolutely reliant on this stuff you keep wheeling it out despite repeatedly being shown that it is of no value. Desperation? Stupidity? Both?
Your claim about lots of evidence for a low ECS is rubbish. I have shown this. Your response is rubbish. I have now shown this too.
You should go back and read Schlesinger’s response to R*dley and Lewis instead of skipping over it. What did he say? Did he endorse Lewis. Why no, he did not.
Game over max.
Go and read Schlesinger as both I and Bob Droege have suggested.
Bob Droege
You ask me if I’m “cool” with the Schlesinger et al. quotation of:
“Under the Plan, all countries begin mitigation in 2015 and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to zero in 2065″
I could not find that sentence anywhere in the report.
http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:0tt90Rhl0vEJ:scholar.google.com/+Schlesinger+2012+climate+sensitivity&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1
I’m “cool” with a 2xCO2 ECS of 1.7C (since it is the result of a recent study using the observed record since 1850, i.e. Schlesinger et al. 2012).
As to the excerpt from the study you cited, let’s look at the actual section that refers to mitigation:
This makes it more likely that mitigation of human emissions will be able to hold the global temperature increase since pre-industrial time below 2˚C, as agreed by the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancun [54]. We find with our SCM that our Fair Plan to reduce LLGHG emissions from 2015 to 2065, with more aggressive mitigation at first for industrialized countries than developing countries, will hold the global temperature increase below 2˚C [55]. Although we believe, given our relatively low values for equilibrium climate sensitivity, that the 2˚C goal is attainable, we emphasize that steep emissions cuts must begin now in order to reach this goal. It is a temptation among members of the general public and even more highly educated adults outside the climate sciences [56], that CO2 concentrations can be stabilized simply by stabilizing our present emissions, or that a drop in CO2 emissions would quickly cause a drop in global temperature. Climate scientists of course know that the large imbalance between current CO2 emissions and natural removal processes, and the long resident lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, render the “wait-and-see” approach impossible and dangerous. Mitigation of human-caused climate change requires immediate corrective action.
So I’m “cool” with that statement, keeping in mind that every climate paper these days has to “pay homage” in support of the IPCC “consensus” position (even if the results of the paper show just the opposite) and that Schlesinger et al. do not claim to be knowledgeable when it comes to forecasts of future CO2 emissions or concentrations.
If these were to rise to 1000 or 1200 ppmv, then with a 2xCO2 ECS of 1.7˚C it would take a CO2 concentration of 900 ppmv to reach the “magic” 2˚C limit above today’s temperature at equilibrium.
This CO2 level is higher than any of the IPCC “scenarios and storylines” and pretty close to the ~1000 ppmv absolute maximum we could ever reach from fossil fuel combustion.
Of course, if we move the “starting point” back to 1850, we have already seen 0.7˚C of the “allowable” 2˚C warming (and are doing splendidly, thank you), and the maximum CO2 level to stay within an added 1.3˚C warming, would only be 670 ppmv (which is what IPCC states we will reach by 2100 with a BaU approach and no “climate initiatives”).
So, yeah, I’m “cool” with Schlesinger et al. 2012. The whole thing.
Are you?
Max
Bob Droege
Correction:
If these were to rise to 1000 or 1200 ppmv, thenwith a 2xCO2 ECS of 1.7˚C it would take a CO2 concentration of 900 ppmv…manacker
But S12 isn’t a purely empirical analysis, as this WAPO piece clarifies. First, Schlesinger:
Apparently, we have models vs models:
Yet despite all this, Schlesinger clearly thinks your position is untenable. This really should give you pause. But of course it will not.
Hey Max,
I think we are looking at different Schlesinger papers.
People seem to be missing the real issue in the CRU emails. Gavin over at realclimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the Nature “trick”, and the like. Those are side trails. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency. ~Steve McIntyre (Nov 25, 2009)
Says the rent-seeker.
LOL.
Why not use your own money money to lie to the people? Taxpayers are tired of Big Bird science.
Tax violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so AGW ‘science’ is all a fraud!!!
High five!!
I probably should know better than to ask but what is “big bird science”?
TT
I believe Big Bird is a character from the Muppet Show.
Was there not also a Beaker – an actual Muppet scientist? Perhaps Waggy needs to work through this again?
Michael
No.
Says an individual who knows more about climate science and statistics than you ever will, and who has the courage and tenacity to expose the cheaters.
Max
tempterrain
You ask:
“What is big bird science?”
Ask Michael Mann – he’s an “expert”.
Max
It was Sesame Street. The one Romney wanted to axe to save the US economy.
Just three separate comments:
The internet has greatly enhanced communication, awareness and discussion. Sure, the tribal instinct to believe the side you normally support will still be strong, but open minded people can research the arguments and make up their own minds.
The majority are not always right. The Euro was considered to be a great idea by the governments and experts of 17 countries. Common sense suggested that it would collapse. Throwing money at it has delayed the collapse, but the fundamental flaws are still there, so it will still collapse.
AGW is a bit like the Euro in many respects. I doubt if anyone will ever trust these scientists ever again.
True, just California is a lot like Greece except that Governor of California has alzheimer’s
It is not possible for the technically literate generalist to really understand a GCM without devoting an enormous amount time. Had I done so, I’m not sure what I would have learned. The question for me remains – do the conclusions of the model pass the laugh test. So irrespective of what the models predict for the future, I still wonder why they do not explain the past. I have questions like:
– Since the Eemian interglacial was warmer than this, why did we not experience runaway water vapor feedback and warming then? What caused the next glaciation if it is true that a little warming leads to much more warming? Does the Eemian temperature and sea level represent an upper bound to any catastrophic warming in this interglacial?
-Why has the current interglacial been getting cooler since the Holocene optimum?
-What is the explanation for Bond and D-O events?
The problem for me with respect to CAGW theory is that there is so much “dodgy stuff:”
– The medieval warm period (MWP) remains a huge issue for me. The harder the alarmists try to disappear (in the Orwellian sense) it, the more stubbornly it refuses to go away. One issue with the attempts of paleo-climatology to disappear the MWP is that the proxies are not consistent with written historical records. Hello!!!!!!
– Skeptical Science (as a proxy for CAGW defense in general) is an interesting study in contradictions. Just as skeptics engage in a wide range of ad hoc attacks on the CAGW theme, the Skeptical Science engages in equally ad hoc defense. Consider this tidbit from its discussion of the MWP: It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today’s warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms. http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm. Then look at the solar influence discussion which shows an 80 year period of solar irradiation increase ending in 1960 – http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-intermediate.htm. And all you have to do is look at the temperature anomaly maps to see the arctic warming is coming from the North Atlantic. And of course, we can have “committed warming” from CO2, but there is no “committed warming” from the 80 year increase in solar irradiation and the following 60 year period in which solar irradiation has been higher than the late 19th early 20th century. http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/03/06/how-much-warming-in-the-pipeline-part-ii-abcs/
– One of the major indicators for me was was when CRU disappeared its 5 year smoothed trend and reworked its easily accessible graphs just when that trend was rolling over.
-And then one sees the behavior of the most ardent alarmists as documented at Climate Audit.
It is easy to point out dodgy stuff put out by the motley collection of skeptics. I am frankly more forgiving of this group than the IPCC and the numerous government funded CAGW alarmists.
I always refer back to Dr. Richard Lindzen’s comment: “…we are talking about tiny numbers here…”.
RobertInAz
I agree that common sense (or your laugh test) is a good guide.
The climate scientists were obviously highly motivated perhaps by excitement, saving the planet, global importance, fame and power, massive, massive funding, peer respect, etc. Maybe they got carried away and ignored the fact that they didn’t understand the natural factors that control climate and didn’t understand the various cycles and had no idea how to model these factors…. So they ignored all of that stuff and decided that CO2 was the only thing that mattered. Is that naive, madness, a lack of common sense, or what?
Was the lurch into alarmism by paid government scientists “naive, madness, a lack of common sense, or what?” asks the Cat.
Just follow the money. The bias is rooted not in the specific scientists, but rather in those who select which scientists to fund in the first place. Government funding agencies naturally select the climate science most likely to advance the cause of government (by justifying more taxes and a generally more bloated state).
So Warmers desire that you believe Climate Scientists because some people believe some Doctors. A blatant grab for the Low Information segment of society. Transparently stupid.
Andrew
If you want to join the cult of the AGW True Believers climatists you first must live in one of the Blue Cities, or be a bureaucrat or schoolteacher in the government education industry and care less about ever providing anything of value to society. Only then can you be afraid of runaway global warming—so much so you are willing to destroy the US economy to prevent human-caused CO2—and still be deemed employable and even trusted to preach this sort of insanity in the nation’s classrooms.
your conspiracy is a bit US centric isn’t it? try to weave more of an international nature into your comic stories
It’s a conspiracy. Group-think is a failed attempt to pretend it doesn’t require a conspiracy.
I mean maybe the moon landing conspiracy theorists should try that one.
“No we aren’t claiming NASA was involved in a conspiracy to fake the moon landings. We are saying they faked the moon landings because of group think”
The social phenomena behind CAGW is manifestly *not* a conspiracy. Conspiracies typically have very shallow social penetration, and are weak in both temporal and geographic space.
The global warming alarmists prayed for Thermageddon but their prayers were not answered. Worse for them, nothing happened — temperatures stopped trending up after 1998 and polar bears didn’t die (now there are more polar bears than ever). As Michael Graham observed, that is when, “the mantra became ‘climate change.’ The liberals formerly known as ‘warmists’ began predicting that we would experience fundamental changes in our weather. Scientists at the University of East Anglia — the Harvard of climate change — said snow would be ‘a very rare and exciting event.’ Children wouldn’t know what it was.” Then came Snowmageddon, burying the East in the confabulations of the Left. So, that is when the Leftist-liberal journalists started about climate wierding.
“If every weather condition can be used to ‘prove’ global warming simply by being declared ‘weird,’ then it’s not science. It’s a joke. Which is exactly what the environmental movement has become.” ~Michael Graham
lolwot
Forget the silly “conspiracy” claim.
I, for one, am not claiming a “conspiracy”.
Just a convenient “collusion of interests”.
Max
Collusion ; synonym – conspiracy.
The use of the term conspiracy is a transparent attempt to marginalise the other – as evidenced by the moon landing reference.
Groupthink on the other is a recognised group psychopathology which it is increasingly apparent applies to AWG fanatics.
For instance – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704238104574601762696721506.html – but there are many other like opinions expressed over the years. One would hardly expect insiders to be cognisant of the groupthink dynamic – so consider this is being directed past you not at you.
But Robert, there is a link between moon-landing conspiracy theorists and climate conspiracy theorists.
They’re all from the same ‘basket’, as it were.
Michael
Hey, if you believe there is a “conspiracy”, by all means do so.
I personally do not, as I explained.
Simply a “collusion of interests”, which does NOT imply an actual “conspiracy”.
And, hey, I know EXACTLY what I THINK it is.
You don’t.
But if you want to believe that it’s a “conspiracy”, be my guest.
Max
Oh Robert, what a priceless link!!!
An opinion piece from British conservative MP Peter Lilley, bringing up the usual bunch of stupid, and wrong,talking points (‘hide the decline’, ‘ equating skepticism with Holocaust denial’) – oh, the GroupThink!!.
Absolutely priceless.
And what is doubly good about this link (oh, thankyou, thankyou Robert!!) while on the ‘conspriacy’ topic, Lilley is up to his neck in oil interests, and was caught on video with what they thought was one of their anti-AGW groupthink buddies, talking about how the gas industry was going to ‘dismantle’ wind-power.
Go Team Groupthink!!!
Only in your fervid imaginings Michael.
‘First, the climate-change industry is shot through with groupthink (or what climate scientist Judith Curry calls “climate tribalism”). Activists would have us believe that the overwhelming majority of “real” scientists agree with them while the few dissenters are all either crazed or greedy “deniers” akin to flat-earthers and creationists. These e-mails show that what’s really at work is a very large clique of scientists attempting to excommunicate perceived heretics for reasons that have more to do with psychology and sociology than physics or climatology.’ http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228728/groupthink-and-global-warming-industry/jonah-goldberg#
Or ‘moon-landers’ of course. As the anomalies accumulate the rationalisations fly thick and fast.
‘Groupthink is a flaccid substitute for actual thought, as practiced by all good liberals. A groupthought originates deep in the arse of a liberal “leader.” The liberal leader pulls the groupthought out of her arse and dispenses it to the hordes of waiting liberals. The liberals gratefully accept the groupthought from the liberal “leader,” then they kiss her obsequiously on the arse, then they all mouth their little groupthink platitude as if it were actually true. It is far easier to use groupthink and let sissy-pants liberal “leaders” do your thinking for you. ‘ Urban Dictionary
I can provide links to AGW groupthink all day. It is what it is space cadet.
Awesome Robert,
When you said “psychopathology’ I thought at least you’d give me a cognitive science paper – but no, just an opinion piece from a politician who has lucarative oil interests.
Oh, the scepticism!!
Max,
I, for one, am not claiming a “conspiracy”.
I’ve noticed you don’t like the word conspiracy , Max. You favour putting the argument in more a rational way like:
“Forget all the junk science by so-called experts that are all in on the multi-billion dollar “climate research scam”……Use your common sense. It’s all a hoax.”
So it’s important to emphasise that all these “so-called experts” and politicians are “all in on” the hoax/scam but there’s no way it can be called a conspiracy? And we should “forget the silly conspiracy claim”?
Have I got it right now?
Not really getting it numbnut? It is not conspiracy but the cult of AGW groupthink space cadets. A matter of psychopathology.
Trust a madman? Don’t think so.
‘It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.’ Mike Hulme
You want to discredit commentators one at a time? It won’t work – the whole adds up to a pattern that is too widely recognised.
Groupthink –
‘A subtle influence on a highly self-regarding and insular discussion group that deludes them into agreeing to dubious assumptions and plans on the basis that everyone else seemed to think it was a good idea… or at least no one wanted to be the one to speak up in dissent.
It mentally shortcuts past the process of examining risks and alternatives, assuming that of course the others have taken them into due consideration.’ Urban Dictionary
“A subtle influence on a highly self-regarding and insular discussion group that deludes them into agreeing to dubious assumptions and plans on the basis that everyone else seemed to think it was a good idea… or at least no one wanted to be the one to speak up in dissent” -Robert
You mean like how the climate-‘skeptics’, who believe a range of mutally contradictory (or impossible) things, seem to spend most of their timeback-slapping and high-fiving each other.
Projecting again Michael?
Mean while Michael…
http://www.naturalnews.com/038647_vaccinated_children_disease_risk_unvaccinated.html
back at the ranch, has supper with the experts.
“Groupthink –
‘A subtle influence on a highly self-regarding and insular discussion group that deludes them into agreeing to dubious assumptions and plans on the basis that everyone else seemed to think it was a good idea… or at least no one wanted to be the one to speak up in dissent.
It mentally shortcuts past the process of examining risks and alternatives, assuming that of course the others have taken them into due consideration.’ Urban Dictionary ”
wiki:
“William H. Whyte, Jr. coined the term in March 1952, in Fortune magazine:
Groupthink being a coinage — and, admittedly, a loaded one — a working definition is in order. We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind. What we are talking about is a rationalized conformity — an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well
….
In his first writing on groupthink in 1971, he defined the term as follows:
I use the term groupthink as a quick and easy way to refer to the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. Groupthink is a term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell used in his dismaying world of 1984. In that context, groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. Exactly such a connotation is intended, since the term refers to a deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgments as a result of group pressures.”
And I want repeat this bit:
“We are not talking about mere instinctive conformity — it is, after all, a perennial failing of mankind.”
So the term groupthink is new, but is it actually a new thing. And are sure it’s not a “mere instinctive conformity”.
Could one say that what we call groupthink is merely certain style of gossip? Or subsection of gossip.
If instead groupthink were something distinction in fundamental way, rather fashionable manner, one might ask when it began, and what is most interesting where does it go- what is the result of such a new thing.
But did we have groupthink in Pharaoh’s court 4000 years ago.
So to be successful in such Pharaoh court, one needed to understand the bias of the people, and give talking points which appeared address these bias. Of course you also needed access to be able
to deliver the talking points. Whether in person at court or it was in the news- perhaps that discussed at the temple or marketplace.
So if it’s not really new, one can’t say it’s going to go anywhere.
Sp such as groupthink isn’t lead to people into being a bunch of idiots, anymore then it’s always been making us into a bunch of idiots [which no doubt it’s done].
But perhaps, if you progressive in nature, and one had hopes about having more public dialogue, one might not place as much value on
any hopeful results coming from groupthink. One might think repeating talking points is actually more than just a waste of time.
The suspicion is in the air nowadays that the superiority of one of our formulas to another may not consist so much in its literal ‘objectivity,’ as in subjective qualities like its usefulness, its ‘elegance,’ or its congruity with our residual beliefs. (William James)
Michael
climate-’skeptics’, who believe a range of mutally contradictory (or impossible) things, seem to spend most of their timeback-slapping and high-fiving each other.
So because skeptic A has beliefs which contradict those of skeptic B, that means skepticism is wrong? This moronic meme is seems to be a mainstay of the dumber alarmist faithful.
Well that mght be the case, but the point was according to Waggy’s take, the ‘sceptics’ should be calling each other on their BS – instead we have a self-congratulatory echo chamber.
Sceptics do in fact call each other on their BS here. Not as often as calling the mainstream, since the latter is a much bigger and well-funded target.
If you want to see a real self-congratulatory echo-chamber, try RealClimate or Skeptical Science.
I popped over to Skeptical Science the other day. One of their big themes seems to be denial of the 16-year warming pause.
Apologies Memphis, I must have missed the time when it happened.
Michael, what happened to the Essenes, again? You missed something…
Happens often enough; as someone preoccupied with spreading the consensus gospel, you’re obviously ignoring it so as not to disturb your current beliefs. And, like most of us, also to avoid timewasting.
Note also that views held by one or only a few people tend to get much less attention that those more widely held. We all only have limited time.
The ’greatest generation’ had a lot better marketing. Society took care of them to the end. But these benighted ones with their climate delusions and hatred of capitalism have brought about a self-fulfilling prophesy: they say they want less for everyone and everyone will have less. Society probably can no longer provide for them from cradle to grave. There are too many of them who refuse to provide any value to society and free enterprise system that is founded on self-reliance and self-determination. They only want to dine out at Big Government Free Lunch cafeteria and no economy can continue to pull that amount of dead weight.
Waggy,
High Five!
Hey Memphis,
While your being all unGroupthink on your fellow travellers, what did you think of Tom’s link above to the good old vaccination-autism stuff?
Michael, As mentioned I do not – cannot – follow up on each and every point here. Not even nearly. Not even in climatology.
fwiw, ‘er indooors dismisses the vaccination-autism thing.
Hilarious. Because the Consensus is groupthink, Consensites (like Michael) can’t even imagine non-group think. For them, skepticism just doesn’t register as a concept, beyond being the evil of heresy.
Michael
Sceptical Echo Chamber?
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/10/trusting-the-experts/#comment-284778
tonyb
Great Post, Judith. Sorry if I’m repeating, haven’t read all the comments yet.
“Do we really think these scientists working with their research grants have more at stake than multi-billion dollar international companies who are trying to ignore the effect of their polluting factories on the environment? People, please. The bulk of the incentives are definitely with the business owners. Which is not to say there are no incentives on the other side, since everyone always wants to feel like their research is meaningful, but let’s get real.”
So MathBabe bought the ‘Merchants of Doom’ meme hook line and sinker. This shows that her ‘method’ of getting to the truth is not robust. She was derailed at step 1, before even putting any serious effort into ‘looking for herself’ regarding climate. It is *extremely* difficult to extricate our thinking from the pre-conditioning of memeplexes we happen to be immersed in.
Andy West
Excellent, Andy, this is a much more elegant manner of exposition than just calling it a ‘madness’ of the crowd.
=================
I err. He’s not mad. That is just a quote from the MathBabe. OK, back on the island, Andy.
=============
Andy West
People, please. The bulk of the incentives are definitely with the business owners.
It definitely is is not. Government expenditure and vested interest is greater by several orders of magnitude.
Yup, he’s mad, too.
============
Thast quote is from Mathbabe in the top post, not me; we are strenuously agreeing.
See above, two errors in two posts. Yikes, need another half a cuppa.
=================
Hiya, MemeBabe!
=============
I would further say that the reason we have this explosion of false alarmist memeplexes is precisely from the imbalance of incentives.
But this kind of growth is neoplastic, unsustainable, and the artificiality of the constructs conflicts with Nature, whose response is immune.
This alarmist memeplex, harmful as it is, may well vaccinate us against worse. I can but hope.
===============
Kim, I’ve completely lost you; I was pointing out that Mathbabe was screwed on climate before she even started, due to innate conditioning she was unable to overcome…
Ah, okay, we are back in sync…
::grin::
H/t Sue.
======
Kim, I’ve noted often your literary bent. You might like this (free and freely distributable) story here: http://wearenarrative.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/truth.pdf
as featured in Judith’s Cli-Fi post :)
Arrgghhh, I like it.
=======
Which really begs the question: why have these multinationals not spent some of their terabucks hiring armies of scientists and researchers, launching their own satellites etc?
Who would then listen to the IPCC, with their paltry handful of experts?
Because Mathbabe is wrong. There are no corporate billions spare to combat the CAGW memeplex, nor do corporations much care one way or the other. They’ll figure out a way to make an honest (and occasionally dishonest) buck whichever way the wind blows. Heavy industry is as happy to make windmills as cars, as long as it has something to make. It’s as happy to make satellites for the government as for telecomms as for someone who wants to fight the IPCC, but it has no common purpose so won’t independantly create that fight. ‘Industry’ in the end, is just a whole bunch of industrious and independant people trying to make a living.
Because that would produce more data about the climate, which would reduce uncertainty about climate, which is the opposite of their agenda.
When they did try this, eg funding Muller and BEST, it backfired.
It’s far more reliable and effective (eg cheaper) to fund “uncertainty projects” where reports are compiled to undermine science by appealing to doubt.
Funding teams of scientists to do larger work, eg involving a satellite, would just compound the problem. I mean if you launch an ice satellite and it then finds the ice declining, how are you going to spin that? Do you call the scientists and demand they lie? See it isn’t as straight forward as that.
It’s easy to tell someone to write a up a report that casts doubt on something.
It’s not easy to call up some scientists and tell them to lie.
The first is also cheap. The second is very expensive.
So Andywest, how come then as Eli points out, is Monckton’s Australia tour being bankrolled by mining companies?
And why has a coal company given funding to the Heartland Institute?
And what exactly is their ‘agenda’, if not just part of your conspiracy theory?
lolwot | January 12, 2013 at 6:53 am
Industry would welcome certainty on Climate Change issues, as it welcomes certainty in every field. Uncertainty is bad for investment, so is always industry’s worst enemy; can’t invest in new generation product, new kit etc.
However, ‘industry’ has no common voice. As you’ve noted, it will spend small amounts here and there in a mix of philanthropy / tax avoidance / or attempts to protect near-term investments. But for all the billions listed in its various turn-overs, fairly trivial amounts are actually uncommited for such purpose. Far short of independant satellite launches for highly contestable and unprofitworthy aims. And it has spent just as much money on green related issues / product as black related issues / product. Industry is a means to earn a living; it doesn’t care too much which ‘side’ the living comes from.
lolwot | January 12, 2013 at 6:56 am
As we’ve both noted, industry spends small amounts here and there on likely good bets, and ‘bankrolled’ is rather a heavy term for a flight and a few hotel bills ;) Certain factions in Oz politics have pretty much a war on mining, which is a fundamental strut of the Oz ecenomy. The trivial expenditure involved that might produce a gain or at least pause from the anti-mining guys, is a pragmatic ‘no lose’ policy. Whether you think mining is right or wrong, one can hardly miss why they’re doing it; thousands of jobs are at stake, not to mention other economic dependancies. But such trivial amounts speak nothing to any global or co-ordinated investment in an anti-IPCC or whatever type of agenda.
The issues involved in the greenhouse conjecture relate to the physics of heat transfer. Most climatologists have limited understanding of this physics and have rarely done a full degree majoring in physics, as I and many of my peers have. Often it’s a case of a little knowledge being worse than none at all, because it is very obvious to physicists that the assumption of an isothermal atmosphere in a gravitational field violates the First Law of Thermodynamics and assumes energy can be created
so obvious that physicists the world over don’t accept your claim
gbaikie Firstly, Russian probes measured incident radiation at around 80 degrees latitude at less than 3W/m^2. At the Venus poles I would suggest the mean would be less than 1W/m^2, so I stick to saying the poles of Venus receive virtually no insolation. That small amount has nothing to do with their temperature of over 720K I can assure you.
It’s all very well discussing the supercritical CO2, but that doesn’t explain its temperature in the first place. Pressure does not maintain any particular temperature. If you look at data from the great planets, pressure shows no constant relationship with temperature when comparing different planets. You may see a correlation with pressure, but there is no causal relationship, because each is caused by gravity.
I encourage you to keep thinking about the reason before you perhaps listen to my 10 minute video, and/or read my paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” which is easily found with Google.
This has profound consequences, because it shows why the IPCC conjecture of isothermal 255K conditions could never have occurred, so there is no warming by any radiative greenhouse effect, and there is actually slight cooling by water vapour because it reduces the thermal gradient, and thus the intercept of the thermal profile with the surface.
“gbaikie Firstly, Russian probes measured incident radiation at around 80 degrees latitude at less than 3W/m^2”
There were few probes that were sent to Venus.
With varying success.
The Venera 9:
“On October 20, 1975, the lander spacecraft was separated from the orbiter, and landing was made with the Sun near zenith at 05:13 UTC on October 22. Venera 9 landed within a 150 km radius of 31.01°N 291.64°E”
And
“A system of circulating fluid was used to distribute the heat load. This system, plus pre-cooling prior to entry, permitted operation of the lander for 53 minutes after landing ”
And:
“and surface light levels comparable to those at Earth mid-latitudes on a cloudy summer day.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera_9
I am not aware of one which was sent to polar region of Venus.
Venera 7: “Landing coordinates are 5°S 351°E”
Venera 8: “landed at 09:32 UT in what is now called Vasilisa Region, within 150 km radius of 10.70°S 335.25°E, in sunlight, about 500 km from the morning terminator. The lander mass was 495 kg. It continued to send back data for 50 minutes, 11 seconds after landing before failing due to the harsh surface conditions. ”
Maybe Venera 8, it wasn’t in polar region but it was 500 km from morning terminator. Which means it would same solar angle as around 80 degrees latitude.
Also:
“The probe confirmed the earlier data on the high Venus surface temperature and pressure (470 degrees Celsius, 90 atmospheres) returned by Venera 7, and also measured the light level as being suitable for surface photography, finding it to be similar to the amount of light on Earth on an overcast day with roughly 1 km visibility.
Venera 8’s photometer measurements showed for the first time that the Venusian clouds end at a high altitude, and the atmosphere was relatively clear from there down to the surface.”
Venera 11: Landing coordinates are 14°S 299°E.
Venera 12: Landing coordinates are 7°S 294°E
Venera 13 landed at 7.5°S 303°E
Venera 14 landed at 13.25°S 310°E
And I think that is all the landers.
“gbaikie Firstly, Russian probes measured incident radiation at around 80 degrees latitude at less than 3W/m^2. At the Venus poles I would suggest the mean would be less than 1W/m^2, so I stick to saying the poles of Venus receive virtually no insolation. That small amount has nothing to do with their temperature of over 720K I can assure you.”
I am certain the small amount solar radiation that reaches anywhere on the surface of Venus could not do any amount of heating of the surface. Nor do I think a magnifying glass increase the power by 100 could increase the temperature of the surface.
I am interested in how dark or diminished the sunlight would be at polar regions at the surface.
“It’s all very well discussing the supercritical CO2, but that doesn’t explain its temperature in the first place.”
I included it, because I hadn’t noticed this factor before. I am not certain of it’s significant in terms heating the surface of Venus. But it seems heat would be conducted well by supercritical CO2- and that is significant factor- and perhaps relevant regarding your question to Michael.
Btw the supercritical CO2 seems confined to region below 5 km in elevation, as it needs a pressure of 72.9 atm.
And according to wiki chart 5 km is 66.65 atm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
And the supercritical CO2 would be somewhat dependent on topography of Venus and so, in some way be analogous to water on Earth.
“Pressure does not maintain any particular temperature. If you look at data from the great planets, pressure shows no constant relationship with temperature when comparing different planets. You may see a correlation with pressure, but there is no causal relationship, because each is caused by gravity.”
Not sure what you saying.
“I encourage you to keep thinking about the reason before you perhaps listen to my 10 minute video, and/or read my paper “Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms” which is easily found with Google.”
Reason for what?
I would say that gases aren’t heated by radiation.
Instead gases are heated by surfaces which heated by radiation.
As I said not sure what you saying above paragraph. But cut off your first paragraph. In full:
“It’s all very well discussing the supercritical CO2, but that doesn’t explain its temperature in the first place. Pressure does not maintain any particular temperature. If you look at data from the great planets, pressure shows no constant relationship with temperature when comparing different planets. You may see a correlation with pressure, but there is no causal relationship, because each is caused by gravity. ”
If whole thing is about supercritical CO2- then pressure could certainly makes a difference, as supercritical CO2 is about pressure. And gases in stars are about pressure [and different state of matter: plasma].
But I don’t think enough sunlight reaches the elevation where there is supercritical CO2 on Venus. So not my point, that supercritical CO2 could be heated by sunlight.
As said, I think it’s the droplets of clouds and particle in atmosphere which would heated by the sunlight, which in turn, these surfaces heat the gas of the atmosphere.
So Venus somewhat different than Earth in terms of what is causing the Earth’s atmosphere to be warmed [I don’t think cloud of water droplets
or dust particles are doing much heating in Earth atmosphere].
Finally:
“This has profound consequences, because it shows why the IPCC conjecture of isothermal 255K conditions could never have occurred, so there is no warming by any radiative greenhouse effect, and there is actually slight cooling by water vapour because it reduces the thermal gradient, and thus the intercept of the thermal profile with the surface.”
As said before, I think greenhouse effect is wrong. And agree with lapse rate stuff. But last part about water vapour reducing thermal gradient, causing slight cooling, I don’t know if I agree or understand completely.
From one point of view, water vapour make higher elevation warmer-
warmer mountains..
Anyhow, I don’t know if I disagree or not.
Nutter.
Is Doug really trying to say that warming=creating energy??
Maybe Doug has forgotten more physics than he ever knew?
OK Michael. You explain how the energy required to maintain a temperature of about 730K at the POLES of Venus gets there. There is no direct sunlight at any time, no convection and, without insolation, there would be no energy for back radiation.
If you can throw a stone into the air and make it retain its kinetic energy while gaining potential energy, then I suppose the molecules in your world would do likewise when in free path motion between impacts. Apparently they do gain energy in the IPCC world that all started at 255K on the surface and throughout the atmosphere.
Answers, Michael, answers!
If anyone continues to bandy around fictitious “pseudo” physics, expect open and cogent rebuttal from myself. Over 200 fellow members of PSI are fed up with the garbage which is costing the world not only money but lives in developing countries.
The carbon dioxide fraud has been exposed, even in the courts, where Michael Mann blew a million dollars by failing to produce evidence for his AGW fraud.
.
.
“OK Michael. You explain how the energy required to maintain a temperature of about 730K at the POLES of Venus gets there. There is no direct sunlight at any time, no convection and, without insolation, there would be no energy for back radiation.”
That’s a interesting question.
Venus axis is apparently at around 3 degrees:
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/eduoff/vt-2004/Background/Infol2/EIS-D3.html
A question is how much of polar region of Venus would be in permanent darkness.
But I guess Micheal and others may think that as sunlight travels thru
the atmosphere of Venus, the solar energy heats the air.
Generally as air gets denser, it absorbs more sunlight.
According to Wiki:
“The pressure found on Venus’s surface is high enough that the supercritical carbon dioxide is technically no longer a gas, but a supercritical fluid. This supercritical carbon dioxide forms a kind of sea that cover the entire surface of Venus. This sea of supercritical carbon dioxide transfer heat very efficiently, buffering the temperature changes between night and day (which last 56 terrestrial days).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
“If the temperature and pressure are both increased from STP to be at or above the critical point for carbon dioxide, it can adopt properties midway between a gas and a liquid. More specifically, it behaves as a supercritical fluid above its critical temperature (304.25 K) and critical pressure (72.9 atm/7.39 MPa), expanding to fill its container like a gas but with a density like that of a liquid.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_carbon_dioxide
And:
“There is considerable work being done to develop a supercritical carbon dioxide closed-cycle gas turbine to operate at temperatures near 550 °C. This is a significant usage, which could have large implications for bulk thermal and nuclear generation of electricity, because the supercritical properties of carbon dioxide at above 500 °C and 20 MPa enable very high thermal efficiencies, approaching 45 percent. This could increase the electrical power produced per unit of fuel required by 40 percent or more.”
Michael and Gbaikie: Please see my response in this comment.
Micheal Mann, Rasmus Benestad, Stefan Rahmstorf and Raymond Pierrehumbert at Real Climate all have degrees in physics.
And the Rabett, who hasn’t published on climate change, and is actually a Professor of Chemistry, but doesn’t have a degree in chemisty. I wonder what his degrees are?
Wow, three out of five mentioned have Ivy League degrees in physics.
Who would have thunk
Ag, with a carrot specialty of course.
But you raise an interesting point, worthy of a post (at RR coming soon) the answer to which you might gain insight into by looking at the sheer variety of departments that house climate related programs.
Heh, the CO2 control knob turns out to be the grant volume control knob. Just as Nature does, there are negative feedback loops for the grant volume control knob.
==============
Failed model du jour.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=seaquence&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Failed model du jour.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130110142125.htm
Maybe climate scientists could use a tool where you don’t need to know anything. Like Seaquence.
http://seaquence.org/
He Joshua,
I am waiting and looking forward to your retraction of your assertion that skeptics are funded by big business http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/10/trusting-the-experts/#comment-284539
I no9te you are very persistent at seeking retractions from others, but not so good at making them yourself when clearly warranted, are you? What does this say about your integrity, your biases and whether you could be trusted, eh?
You’ll recall how I commented – when Climate Etc, was taken down by the host, WordPress, reputedly for breach of licence agreement in mod November 2012 – that the cause may have been a complaint made to WordPress by Professor Stephen Lewendowski or “The Conversation” for comments I had posted exposing the mendacious, misleading and extremist claims by them in the series of articles here: https://theconversation.edu.au/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558.
You will recall that you mocked and hounded me in tens of comments for my unjustified and unsubstantiated ‘conspiracy theory’. You’ll recall that I said repeatedly that I was almost certainly wrong, but you ignored that statement each time I made it and kept going repeating the same accusation in multiple posts with weeks in between burst of attack. You milked it for all your worth for weeks. Remember all that?
So where are we now, Joshua, Where are you at with your retraction of your unsubstantiated assertion that skeptics are funded by big business? How much funding is their fore skeptics? How does the amount compare with the amount of funding for the climate science orthodoxy? Can you provide figures for how much funding there is for climate skeptics and how much for the climate orthodoxy? What are your sources? How can I get some of that money?
Since you have not yet shown you have the personal integrity to make an admission you were/are wrong I suspect we could wait a while for a retraction, eh Joshua.
But meanwhile, it will provide another window into the honest, integrity, trust worthiness and the agenda of the CAGW Alarmists, eh Joshua?
Of course it is all passed through 501 c(3)s and such. Monckton’s tours of Australia, for example, have been sponsored by various mining interests and in particular by Gina Rinehart, who owns Hancock Prospecting a mining company. Fred Singer was on the dole of the tobacco institute, etc. as was Roger Bate, etc. Heartland had a whole stable of denialists on the payroll. The pass through to SPPI through the Idsos was among the most flagrant examples. Just sayin
Yes, well as an author at Principia Scientific International I am not paid a cent for the thousands of hours of research I have done in my own time.
Some people have the people of the world to help, rather than the pseudo scientists seeking grant money or in one way or another, ensuring the status quo is maintained. After all, there may not be much work for climatologists when the world knows the truth that it is all natural climate cycles.
.
It was worth every penny Doug. Haven’t you figured out the long con?
Peter – check your assertion against what I actually said. I’m sure that if you’re careful, you’ll find your error.
Joshua,
I expected some pedantic response so you could avoid admitting to propagating a ridiculous, unfounded conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy theory that is plastered all over CAGW alarmist web sites and pushed at every opportunity by CAGW Alarmists like yourself.
Your hypocrisy in hounding me with your repeated pejorative comments, while ignoring my response each time, but not being prepared to admit that you yourself are pushing a much more significant conspiracy theory, demonstrates your hypocrisy, your bias, and your ideological obsession.
Importantly, it shows why many CAGW Alarmists are such untrustworthy people.
Do I need to post parts of your previous comments addressed to me until you admit your hypocrisy?
Michael E Mann, say, isn’t he a member of”Concerned Scientists
Without Data?”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/nate-silver-climate-change_b_1909482.html
Beth Cooper
His academic specialty was creating data from non-data and (when the data did not agree with the foregone conclusion) creating non-data out of data.
Sort of the “Harry Houdini” of paleoclimatology.
Hey, he was even “Nobeled” for his tricks!
But (unlike Houdini) he got caught in the act.
Max
And don’t forget the 2ad law of thermodynamics.
Go Team Sceptic!
Become a government bureaucrat or a school teacher destitute of the impulse to any uplifting activity who can care less about ever providing anything of value to society. That is how you can be afraid of runaway global warming — so much so you are willing to destroy the US economy to prevent human-caused CO2 — and still be deemed employable and even trusted to preach insane superstition and ignorance in the nation’s classrooms.
Yes, “but even worse is the way some textbooks are pushing the liberal agenda,” the Fox News host (Eric Bolling) explained, pointing to an algebra worksheet that Scholastic says gives students “[i]nsight into the distributive property as it applies to multiplication.”
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1yfvF)
Sometimes it can be very subtle–e.g., fruiting trees are valuable therefore monkeys are territorial.
Wagathon
Not all school teachers are CAGW nutters.
Nor are all government bureaucrats.
Max
Now what in the world has such a philosophy [i.e. Schopenhauer’s] to do with that alma mater, the good, substantial university philosophy, which, burdened with a hundred intentions and a thousand considerations, proceeds on its course cautiously tacking, since at all times it has before its eyes the fear of the Lord, the will of the publisher, the encouragement of students, the goodwill of colleagues, the course of current politics, the momentary tendency of the public, and Heaven knows what else? Or what has my silent and serious search for truth in common with the yelling school disputations of the chairs and benches, whose most secret motives are always personal aims?” ~Arthur Schopenhauer (the Professors of Philosophy)
Max,
Ironic, ain’t it, these days yer get the Nobel fer nobbling.
Hockey Stick noble cause corruption?
Beth
Wagathon,
Ahem … I meself am a schoolteacher, and nobody, nobody,
could call me insane . LOL!! Tho’ I will admit ter cracked brain
syndrome, Robert told me so hisself.
Beth
Graph for relationship between global mean temperature and CO2 concentration.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend/detrend:0.075/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/detrend:0.075/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend/detrend:0.12/offset:-0.06/plot/gistemp/from:1998/detrend:0.12/offset:-0.06/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/scale:0.0000001/offset:1.4/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/scale:0.0000001/offset:0.8/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/scale:0.000001/offset
1998 • Iraq prevents UN weapons inspectors from conducting a search and President Bill Clinton orders a series of air strikes against Iraq
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1998.html
So this proves there’s been warming since 1997?
After more than a decade of a cooling trend will the prophets of AGW come to be seen as foolish or hysterical fanatics who have moved on from destroying the culture to demolishing the economy? Surely, the AGW True Believers’ use of natural variations in the weather – both hot and cold and a hoped-for disaster somewhere — to indict the productive must be seen as a hate crime against the most industrious among us or simple-minded self-defeating nihilism.
Who do you trust on climate science and why?
For example. On things solar I trust Leif Svalgaard. I trust him because.
a) Long track record of success.
b) He openly engages people who think differently.
c) a spot check of his work showed nothing fishy.
d) he acknowledges what he doesnt know.
e) In person he’s a humble guy with a lovely wife.
What’s that mean? to “trust” Leif. I rely on him to get things right. One cant re check evry argument, every bit of data, every reference. I trust leif to get it right, just like I trust my doctor to get the dosage right. That doesnt mean i dont double check.. etc.
‘Expert” doesnt begin to describe why I trust Leif.
Anyway, discuss experts if you like. In the end, who do you trust and why.
Should I trust who you trust?
But, Al Gore was awarded the Nobel prize. Obama too. And, the UN-IPCC.
Don’t forget Wilson, for showing that Cosmic rays cause clouds.
… in 1927
why do you trust feynman?
why do you trust Willis?
Pick anyone you like. forget the issue of experts. its stupid. who do you trust and why
It’s the beat, honey; I got a rock.
========
steven mosher
You ask “whom do you trust?”
Just like Bob Droege, I “trust” those who agree with my viewpoint; isn’t that what everyone does (including you, if you’re honest)?
‘Fess up, Mosh…
Max
Don’t forget Nobelist Michael (the “Shtick”) Mann.
Max
I wouldn’t be surprise if before long even Al Qaeda may be awarded a Nobel — European anti-Americanism will only get worse as it starts swirling down ’round the swirling vortex of failing socialism.
Max,
Unfortuneately, that doesn’t work for me because I dont find many who agree with me on everything, thus having the same viewpoint.
I try to follow their arguments and see if they are solid or not.
Disagreeing with you is usually a solid place to start.
mananker.
Lets see. I trust Nick Stokes and he and I disagree on many things.
I trust Zeke and Menne and we probably disagree on a few things.
I trust Roy spender on UHA and we disagree on many things.
There are quite a few people who I disagree with that I trust. There are also people I agree with, but i would check their work.
The difference between you and me perhaps is that I am speaking about practicalities and you are just commenting on a blog.
When you decide to do real work the question of trust will pop up immediately. The other day I needed a 1km elevation dataset. constructing one from 30 meter or 90 meter data is a PITA. So there is a guy I trust. I suspect he and I disagree about some aspects of AGW, but he is someone who I trust. I trust his work because I have used his work.
I trust Tamino’s work even though I think he is not a nice person. I dont always agree with his approaches, but he does good work.
“What’s that mean? to “trust” Leif. I rely on him to get things right. One cant re check every argument, every bit of data, every reference. I trust leif to get it right, just like I trust my doctor to get the dosage right. That doesnt mean i dont double check.. etc.
‘Expert” doesnt begin to describe why I trust Leif. ”
It seems to me that Leif would be expert.
The only thing missing is you not paying Leif.
Experts are providing a service. And mostly
if people provide services, there is some mechanism
of payment.
Generally amateur are people not doing something for
money- it’s a hobby and one doing it because one can afford
to do it one one’s own dime. So expert is someone whom services
one can buy.
“Anyway, discuss experts if you like. In the end, who do you trust and why.
Should I trust who you trust?”
It seems to me that experts on the government dole, should be trusted
by a majority of the people they are providing a service to [the public- in theory].
For example, it was with deception in his heart that Tenskwatawa used secret knowledge that he gained from “Panther across the sky,” who was his famous older brother Tecumseh. The secret knowledge was used to fool their fellow Shawnee people. It is true that Tecumseh was very intelligent. He learned English and had some conversations with those who were schooled in a few things about natural events that indigenous American natives were understandably totally ignorant of and never even dreamed about. Much like the Al Gore of his day Tenskwatawa laid claim to being a Shawnee Prophet. He used what was easily accessible knowledge from another culture to ‘predict’ an eclipse. Armed with false credentials so it came to pass that Tenskwatawa doomed the Shawnee to death but not from their ignorance of a simple natural event that was about to take place whether or not the Shawnee understood how or why or when. Rather, it was the Shawnee’s belief that Tenskwatawa was a Prophet. It was Tenskwatawa the liar that led them to their death.
Don’t tell anyone but there’s a Konnectikut Yanqui in King Kevin’s Kourt.
=============
Mosher says:
Pity Mosher didn’t learn anything from him, eh?
Note my qualification. In person.
Mosher,
Someone who is humble in person isn’t a nasty, abusive, insulting, rude, arrogant person on-line. So my point remains. That is pity, you didn’t learn anything from him.
In your case, you have not justification for your arrogance. You are just a computer nerd. It is clear from your comments you have very limited experience of the real world – but, unfortunately for you, you don’t recognise that.
You never did ask if the reason you are so abusive is that you were an abused child. Were you? If so that would explain your online persona.
“Someone who is humble in person isn’t a nasty, abusive, insulting, rude, arrogant person on-line. ”
you have not read Leif on line nor met him in person. I assure you that there is a substantial difference between his on line persona and his off line persona. read some WUWT threads. Many think he is an arrogant man. But in person he is quite different. un fool yourself. Same with Willis who is a fire breathing dragon online and a pussy cat offline. When you have some evidence that shows that a persons offline persona is always the same as their on line persona, then you’ll have an opinion worth considering.
Nature has impersonal humbling in store for us all.
=================
One day kim, I will quote this back at you.
BBD, Since this thread is on “trusting the Experts”
Do you trust this crew?
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2013/2013-01.shtml
Or how about this guy?
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/25/2013/esdd-4-25-2013-discussion.html
That one is in discussion so you can weight in there and tight him/her up :)
Both of those links came from the blackboard were people discuss the reality of climate science.
The truth will finally come out.
…our estimates of climate sensitivity using our SCM and the four instrumental temperature records range from about 1.5°C to 2.0°C. These are on the low end of the estimates in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. So, while we find that most of the observed warming is due to human emissions of LLGHGs, future warming based on these estimations will grow more slowly compared to that under the IPCC’s “likely” range of climate sensitivity, from 2.0°C to 4.5°C.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=24283
“Considering the last decade, when both the decreasing aerosol optical depth and the increasing carbon dioxide concentration have been causing warming, we deduce the climate sensitivity to be 0.4 (with uncertainty of 0.1) K/Wm-2. This value corresponds to a warming of about 1.6 (with uncertainty of 0.4) deg C due to doubling the amount of carbon dioxide from its pre-industrial level. The deduced value is close to the lower end of the IPCC 4AR assessment of 2 to 4.5 deg C (with 66% probability). It is also in agreement with the recent results (0.44 and 0.41 K/Wm-2) of experiments with cloud resolving models embedded within GCMs.”
[] Chylek et al, Aerosol Optical Depth, Climate Sensitivity and Global Warming
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.A21H..04C
“http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFM.A21H..04C”
Chief says “the IPCC uses catastrophe in the sense of Rene Thom. Abrupt and catastrophic change.”
Fair enough. Just what is termed ‘catastrophic’ is an arbitrary decision. I’d have said anything over about 4 degrees of warming. But I know that’s not the IPCC position.
Chief has suggested that it should be 2 deg C. That sounds a little on the low side to me.
What do those who use the term CAGW think should be the definition? Are they saying that the IPCC’s most likely value of 3 degC ( for 2x CO2 sensitivity) would bring about “catastrophic” warming?
‘Limiting the average global surface temperature increase of 2°C over the pre-industrial average has, since the 1990s, been commonly regarded as an adequate means of avoiding dangerous climate change, in science and policy making.[12][13] However, recent science has shown that the weather, environmental and social impacts of 2°C rise are much greater than the earlier science indicated, and that impacts for a 1°C rise are now expected to be as great as those previously assumed for a 2°C rise.[11] (The diagrams also show the effects expected for a temperature rise of as much as 5°C.) In a July 2011 speech, climate scientist Kevin Anderson explained that for this reason, avoiding dangerous climate in the conventional sense is no longer possible, because the temperature rise is already close to 1°C, with effects formerly assumed for 2°C.[14][15] Moreover, Anderson’s presentation demonstrates reasons why a temperature rise of 4°C by 2060 is a likely outcome, given the record to date of action on climate, economic realities, and short window of time remaining for limiting the average surface temperature rise to 2°C or even 3°C.[14] He also states that a 4°C rise would likely be an unstable state, leading to further increases in following decades regardless of mitigation measures that may be taken.[14]’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change
Catastropism in the sense of Rene Thom involves tipping points and abrupt change. These happen all the time in climate. The climate catastrophism of AGW groupthink alarmists is another thing entirely. It is replete with quite unbelievable numbers, dates and scenarios that remind me more of late night TV astrology than science.
So Eli went and read the mathbabe blog and came across this interesting description
———————
False expertise, arising as persons recognized as experts are conversant in methods and tools, and not the underlying business phenomena, thereby relegating subject matter knowledge below methodological knowledge,
———————–
and as Cathy o’Neill’s friend puts it
—————–
We are in a world where self-appointed experts with very little experience or expertise get celebrated in the press with no due dilligence or peer review process; where falsehoods spread like wildfire on twitter; where self-promotion carries more weight than actually Doing Data Science; where people with no credentials are pontificating on subjects they know nothing about, and do not have the strength of character to say “You know, you shouldn’t be asking me about this. I am not an expert”, but instead take the opportunity to climb their way up “best-of” lists and industry expert panels on the basis of a weak foundation and lies, while real statisticians, analysts, researchers, software engineers and computer scientists, labor away relatively anonymously actually doing work.
————————
Seen that have we. Demands for the laying on of statistical high priests in climate studies who don’t have a clue about why carbon dioxide doesn’t sink in the atmosphere, freaky econometricians, mining investors, and more. Eli could go on and on and on, but you, dear readers can fill in the blanks
But of course, Eli did go on and on and provide links
Eli, who would you recommend to write the new sillybus, on three-card-monte?
Rick Perlstein, he has it figured out, but of course, Lubos was running that game years ago
@ Mathbabe
The frugality suggested by Stephanie is entirely feasible.
Toxic Pollution = Bad
We agree on that, but let’s not erroneously conflate the serious issue of toxic pollution with deliberate disregard of mother nature’s stunning power & beauty.
Yesterday’s more primitive microscopes blinded the unwary academic masses via unrecognized statistical paradox (source: El Niño’s first moment).
Consider the counsel of mathematician George Pólya.
“Pólya notes that ‘human superiority consists in going around an obstacle that cannot be overcome directly'”
“Pólya advises that this requires that the student have the patience to wait until the bright idea appears (subconsciously).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Solve_It
3 of Pólya’s problem solving suggestions:
1. “Use symmetry.”
2. “Solve a simpler problem.”
3. “Eliminate possibilities.”
Applying this strategy:
A. solar-terrestrial double-helix of gradients from semi-annual earth rotation:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2jg5tvr.png
B. lunisolar-terrestrial double-helix of gradients from annual earth rotation:
http://i50.tinypic.com/11he49z.png
2 sides of one coin.
Thus, via universals laws (of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum) clearly observed aggregate constraints effortlessly (wei wu wei) reduce by many orders of magnitude the size of the set of permissible climate model states.
One can find in Jean Dickey’s (NASA JPL) papers the elements needed to assemble awareness of aggregate constraints.
Consider the possibility that a few sharp experts cloak their deeper awareness for personal security. In order to exercise power, one has to first maintain it. The competitive squeeze of scarce & limiting resources is ubiquitous across ponds both large & small. Stephanie sharply picked out your scale variance flaw, but went quite easy on you where she could’ve pushed further & harder.
It may not be possible to assure straightforward & simple justice for all as we navigate these philosophical waters. My suggestion for Stephanie & colleagues would be that where justice cannot be assured for individuals, they be given something else of equal value. This may demand a wider concept of law than is currently practiced, as part of a step in our evolution.
If I had to pick one individual who may be able to lead us out of these troubled waters, it might be Jean Dickey (NASA JPL), but I’m not inclined to underestimate the potentially overwhelming (short-term) power of coercion stemming from dark forces of ignorance &/or deception that have (so far) been allowed to retain power.
If I had to pick one individual who might be able to play the role of translator, it might be Marcia Wyatt.
“[…] teach in such a way that no course of action is dictated to a student (they are just told raw facts for use, and left to their own creative devices), so they assume that they have been taught nothing […]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu-wei
Paul Vaughan, B.Sc., M.Sc.
Former Ecologist & Stats Instructor
I’ve decided to add an anecdote motivated by an insufferable brush with “expert” darkness…
Harassing “in-your-face” institution-sponsored dark agents of authoritarian ignorance &/or deception (e.g. at WUWT) relentlessly & rudely policing thought, stirring deep social intractability, and herding public belief to go against the grain of natural universal laws (of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum) are being neither wise nor frugal in their disgracefully unethical misapplication of “expert” effort.
I suggest that institutions (e.g. Stanford) redouble their efforts to ensure sensible professional & ethical guidelines are being followed by “experts” publicly attempting to project authority with integrity.
For example, when a member of the public generously volunteering precious time carefully decides they have reached their tolerance limit (e.g. after generously extending a 2 year grace period of tolerance of relentless authoritative “expert” insistence of a logical equivalent to “2.0 + 2.0 = 5.0”) and resorts to stating in the clearest terms, “Do not ever address me again,” is the appropriate authoritative “expert” response to persist with aggressive bullying?? (This happened.)
A sensible “expert” would let the issue go after 3 back-&-forths, rather than harass ad infinitum, even if they couldn’t see or wouldn’t acknowledge that their narrative was in violation of universal laws.
— — —
Now, fluidly cycling back into the light to suggest the next natural step…
The efficient way to exert agency or will is by appreciatively & respectfully cultivating effortlessly harmonious clear seeing of natural power & beauty.
In the old days it was still a sin, to lie to.
JIm Cripwell,
I’ll start this in a new spot as it was getting entangled in other comments.
You’ve asked if ” the IPCC [is] correct to claim that CAGW has been proven to a very high level indeed? ”
So I’m looking for some indication that the IPCC has used the word “catastrophic” and the term “proven to a very high level” in relation to each other. Or even if they have ever written anything at all which might lead you to think they believe this to be the case?
Lolwot commented that you were confusing the possibility of future catastrophic AGW with the attribution of past temperature rises. He’s exactly right in saying this, and you are equally wrong in claiming he’s introduced a red herring.
Can I just ask if you want a discussion on what the IPCC have actually written, or do you want to discuss what you, or some other denier, has falsely claimed they’ve written?
God cliff–
The null hypothesis of AGW Theory has never been rejected, that all climate change can be explained by natural causes.
There is no scientific justification for some of the extremist economic and social penalties that a minority of zealots are trying to impose on the people of the world. ~Koutsoyiannis
…given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research. (Ibid.)
… they are unable to predict weather beyond a week or two, yet in conjunction with the IPCC they presume to tell us what to expect over the next few decades. (Ibid.)
How could we reject a hypothetical model (e.g. one in which the climate sensitivity is very small), according to which the entire observed (past) variability is ‘internally generated natural variability’, while the response to change in external forces is negligible? (Ibid.)
“The null hypothesis of AGW Theory has never been rejected, that all climate change can be explained by natural causes.”
Yes it has. You are a few decades behind with the science.
Not likely.
TT, You write “Can I just ask if you want a discussion on what the IPCC have actually written, or do you want to discuss what you, or some other denier, has falsely claimed they’ve written?”
TT, So far as I am aware, the IPCC did not use the word “catastrophic” in the part I am interested in. What I am interested in, is discussing the certainty with which the IPCC claims that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global temperatures to rise; in the absence of any empirical evidence on this issue. So, yes, I am only interested in what the IPCC has actually written. I specified this in my post above.
@@@@@
Jim Cripwell | January 11, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
TT you write “. Can you give me a reference on where the IPCC have actually said that and we can then take it from there?”
Quoting from the SPM to the AR4 of WG1, page 8 it is stated “Most of the observed increase in global averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”. On page 3 it states that “very likely >90%”. So the IPCC is stating that most of the observed rise in temperature at the end of the 20th century is more than 90% certain to have been caused by increased levels of CO2 concentrations.
Where is the empirical data that supports the certainty of this conclusion, if we are agreed that it is imp
ossible to do the controlled experiment and measure that when the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere adds X to current levels, it causes global temperatures to rise by Y?
@@@@@
So what is the science behind the IPCC claim that it is “very likely >90% probability” above? For the moment, I am not querying whether adding CO2 to the atmopshere causes global temperatyures to rise. I have said many times that I believe it does. But I suggest that the probability that most of the rise in the latter part of the 20th century is somewhat less than 1%.
“But I suggest that the probability that most of the rise in the latter part of the 20th century is somewhat less than 1%.”
What empirical data do you have to support that claim of certainty?
I note you are MORE certain than the IPCC.
The IPCC report > 90% confidence that more than half of the warming is caused by man.
You report > 99% confidence that less than half of the warming is caused by man.
Jim Cripwell,
“What I am interested in, is discussing the certainty with which the IPCC claims that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes global temperatures to rise”
As your own quote shows the IPCC don’t claim certainty. So although you’ve come some way towards wanting to discuss the actual IPCC wording you aren’t quite there yet.
It’s not much fun this , is it? Its just so much better when you can make up what you like and then go to say how bad the IPCC are.
Lolwot makes a good point too. You aren’t too worried about uncertainty when you are advocating one way, but it becomes a major issue for anyone advocating the other way.
PS I seem to remember doing comprehension tests when I was at school. The idea was to read a passage from a book then answer questions on what it meant. Then later we’d have to write a precis or summary of it all entirely in our own words.
It would be a good exercise for those who are so critical of the IPCC to try the same with their reports.
Just a tip: Replacing sentences like “Most of the observed increase in global averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”
With “Our observations show the complete certainty of CAGW . The science is proven to a very high level. Its all settled on this issue just as our spokesman Al Gore has often claimed”.
Isn’t quite getting it right.
TT you write “As your own quote shows the IPCC don’t claim certainty.”
I have no idea what you are talking about. I never claimed that the IPCC claimed certainty. The reference shows that the IPCC claimed that most of the rise in temperature was caused by GHGs with >90% probability. What I asked you, and you have not answered, is what is the science behind the claim that they know about the cause of the rise in temperature with >90% probability. Where does the number “90%” come from? That is the question I have asked; that is the issue you have not addressed. I cannot understand what science could be behind the statement if there is no empirical evidence to support it.
JIm,
You previously said “The certainty that the IPCC has claimed in the past, that the “science is settled” is clearly untrue.”
Now you are saying “I never claimed that the IPCC claimed certainty.”
You’ve also said “I have no idea what you are talking about.”
Look, Jim, not only don’t you know what I’m talking about, you don’t know what you’re talking about either!
tempterrain
I don’t believe any rewriting or rehashing of the IPCC CAGW claim is needed.
It is well spelled out in its AR4 report.
And this claim is not supported by empirical scientific evidence.
It’s just that simple, tempterrain.
Max
Jim,
The IPCC say its very likely that GHG’s are the cause of previous warming because it is known that GH gases warm the atmosphere and the build up of GH concentrations in the atmosphere corresponds to a measured rise in temperature over a period of 150 or more years. There is simply no other way to explain it. If there was anything at all which could possibly explain the temperature rise then 90% may be justified, but as there isn’t then maybe 90% is an understatement. The term “very likely ” too.
The scientific method isn’t as you describe it. It doesn’t rely on the use of repeatable experiments where they aren’t possible. The scientific method is solely about giving the best explanation to fit the known facts. Those who don’t like the idea that humans evolved from apes make essentially the same objection as yourself. They want to know where the empirical scientific evidence is which can “prove” this to be the case. If any biologist attaches any figure of confidence, they too will be attacked by creationists who may well say they are “at a loss” to understand where it came from.
In both cases the objections aren’t about numbers per se. They are about attacking scientific conclusions which are either religiously or politically unacceptable.
TT, Perhaps, with your highly-developed comprehension skills, you might want to put the following passage into your own words:
“Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.” (my bold)
From: “Advancing the Science of Climate Change”, available from The National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782
TT, you asked “Can I just ask if you want a discussion on what the IPCC have actually written, or do you want to discuss what you, or some other denier, has falsely claimed they’ve written?”
I thought that started the subject from a new beginning. Forget all I wrote before you made this statement. I then gave you the reference from the IPCC which I hoped we could discuss. That is what I want to discuss. Apparently you want to discuss things I said before you started with the above statement.
What do you want to do? Do you want to discuss everythign I have written previously on CE, or would you prefer, as I do, to discuss just the IPCC statement I quoted fro the SPM? Your choice.
Jim,
“Forget all I wrote before you made this statement.”
That’s good advice for everyone. You included. You’d have written lots beforehand and it’s certainly nearly all worth forgetting.
So to get back to the IPCC statement: This tells us that it is “very likely” that warming has occurred due to anthropogenic GH gas emissions. There are other statements which you can find which will also predict levels of future warming with various degrees of uncertainty. Its possible to get involved in the semantics and ask just what is meant by likely or very likely. Should it really be 90% , or 80% or 95%? I’m not sure. Or if I am, I’m only sure the IPCC is correct to the 90% level. Or should that be 80%? :-)
The ‘take home message’ of the IPCC reports is that increased GH gas emissions , and therefore increased atmospheric concentrations, is a potential climatic hazard and humanity collectively would do well to avoid that happening. Just how hazardous is difficult to quantify.
The premise of your argument is that it can’t be hazardous because nothing is absolutely certain and that’s where the fallacy lies.
TT you write “Should it really be 90% , or 80% or 95%? I’m not sure. Or if I am, I’m only sure the IPCC is correct to the 90% level. Or should that be 80%? :-)”
I am clearly not asking my question clearly. There has to be some sort of science, physics, behind every number that anyone quotes. So when the IPCC says that there is >90% probability that most of the warming was caused by GHGs, then that number of >90% is based on something. What I dont understand is the basis for that number. Where does it come from? How was it derived? Where in the IPCC report does it explain how this number was arrived at?
If there was empirical data to support the statement, then I could understand how such a number could be estimated, or calculated. But with no empirical data, I am at a loss to understand how this number was chosen. Where is the explanation in the IPCC report as to how this number of >90% was estimated, or calculated or whatever?
Jim Cripwell
A whole lot of the IPCC AR4 stuff is “based on expert judgment and not on formal attribution studies” (as IPCC concedes).
A more elegant way of saying “WAG”.
Max
Max, you write “A whole lot of the IPCC AR4 stuff is “based on expert judgment and not on formal attribution studies” (as IPCC concedes).”
Fair enough. But if the quote I use is in the SPM, then presumably it has come from somewhere in the report originally. I have never heard of a report where the conclusions are not justified by some part of the actual report. Where in the report do the experts justify their judgement that >90% is the right figure, so I can see where this figure comes from?
Jim Cripwell
That’s the nice thing about being an “expert” for IPCC.
(Provided your conclusion meets the specs) you don’t have to justify your “expert judgment”.
Max
Max, you write “That’s the nice thing about being an “expert” for IPCC.
(Provided your conclusion meets the specs) you don’t have to justify your “expert judgment”.”
Thanks, Max.
That is probably why TT has not answered my query. He almost certainly knows that there is no scientific justification for the “>90%”, but is simply unwilling to admut it.
The IPCC say its very likely that GHG’s are the cause of previous warming because it is known that GH gases warm the atmosphere and the build up of GH concentrations in the atmosphere corresponds to a measured rise in temperature over a period of 150 or more years. There is simply no other way to explain it. If there was anything at all which could possibly explain the temperature rise then 90% may be justified, but as there isn’t then maybe 90% is an understatement. The term “very likely ” too.
The scientific method isn’t as you describe it. It doesn’t rely on the use of repeatable experiments where they aren’t possible. The scientific method is solely about giving the best explanation to fit the known facts. Those who don’t like the idea that humans evolved from apes make essentially the same objection as yourself. They want to know where the empirical scientific evidence is which can “prove” this to be the case. If any biologist attaches any figure of confidence, they too will be attacked by creationists who may well say they are “at a loss” to understand where it came from.
In both cases the objections aren’t about numbers per se. They are about attacking scientific conclusions which are either religiously or politically unacceptable.
tempterrain
Regarding the IPCC claim of >90% likelihood that “most” of the warming since 1950 was caused by human GHGs,
Try:
argument from evidence (see Feynman for what this means)
rather than
argument from ignorance (“we can only explain X if we assume Y”)
This is what Jim is requesting, as I understand it.
Max
TT, you write “The scientific method is solely about giving the best explanation to fit the known facts.”
First thank you for your explanation about how the IPCC gets it’s >90% probability. Now I know what you are getting at. As to the quote I have repeated above. I have only one word to describe it. GARBAGE.
Max,
Sherlock Holmes famously used to remark that when he had eliminated the impossible that whatever remained, however improbable, must be the truth.
That’s not an argument from ignorance.
Its the same with attribution of global warming. Except, of course, that’s its not at all improbable an increase of GH gases will lead to warming. That’s why they are called GH gases!
tempterrain
Forget your “Sherlock Holmes” analogy, the “argument from ignorance” is well described (Wiki and elsewhere). Check it out.
Then check Feynman for the meaning of “argument from evidence”.
You’ll see the difference.
Max
Max,
Firstly – re the famous Sherlock Holmes quotation – its not an analogy. Its basic logic. Common sense if you like.
If there is no explanation, other than the effect of increased GHG atmospheric concentrations, for the measured rise in temperatures in the past century or more then the rise must be caused by ….. er increased GHG concentrations.
The IPCC allow themselves a 1 in 10 chance that it may be something else. Cosmic rays maybe? Or something that no-one has thought of yet?
They probably think it’s more like 1 in a 100 though.
You have to remember the GHGs do explain the warming. If it is not GHGs, you have to come up with two explanations: what it is, and why GHGs aren’t having the expected (Arrhenius/Tyndall) effect.
tempterrain
Sure, IPCC posit that human GHGs are the cause of most of the past warming – that’s their shtick (no hidden reference to another long discredited shtick).
But they do not present any empirical evidence to support this statement (as Jim Cripwell has reminded you several times).
In fact, the most recent interpretations of the empirical evidence, based on actual observations, indicate that the (2xCO2) equilibrium climate sensitivity is around half the range previously estimated by the model simulations cited by IPCC.
On this basis it is apparent that human GHGs are NOT the cause of most past warming and, more importantly, that the warming they could effect in the future represents no potential threat to humanity or our environment.
These new studies represent a major breakthrough in resolving a question that has remained unsolved over several IPCC reports.
Whether IPCC will attempt to “brush this under the rug” or not is still open. Our hostess does not believe that IPCC will be able to do this without a major loss of trust, but we will have to wait and see how it decides to handle it.
No matter how IPCC ends up handling it, this new information will be a “game changer” IMO.
Follow the bouncing ball…
Max
Jim D
Looks like you’ve got it wrong again.
I do not have to come up with alternate explanations for the past warming beside GHGs (as you suggest).
Recent new independent studies, all based on the actual past record, have concluded that the (2xCO2) ECS is around one-half of the previously model-predicted range. This is a major breakthrough.
These studies included some estimates for natural contributions to the observed warming (although they may have missed some natural forcing factors, for which no mechanism has as yet been demonstrated), so -if anything – the latest ECS estimates may still be too high.
But the really good news is that they are very unlikely to be too low.
So cheer up – we are saved!
Max
manacker, yes, I noticed you have at last put your full faith in Schlesinger’s simple box climate model. Maybe we can talk after you have progressed beyond the sand-box. He has a constant scalable ocean diffusivity to represent the ocean circulation and an aerosol scaling parameter that he also optimizes along with climate sensitivity. Hansen, in his imbalance paper, has warned against such simple representations getting the correct temperature trend with canceling errors in these two parameters. The ocean response is not simple diffusivity. It has multiple response time-scales.
“Jim D | January 13, 2013 at 6:27 pm |
You have to remember the GHGs do explain the warming. If it is not GHGs, you have to come up with two explanations: what it is, and why GHGs aren’t having the expected (Arrhenius/Tyndall) effect.”
I agree it needs to be explained. But it seems more relevant to try to explain why the Little Ice Age was such a cold period within the 10,000 years of our current interglacial period.
The Little Ice Age was labelled as a ice age, because glaciers were growing around the world. And scientists and everyone else noticed
that this was occurring.
During interglacial periods, the glaciers are normally melting. The big difference between glacial period and and interglacial period, is that in glacial period there are ice CAPS in North America and elsewhere. And the melting of these ice caps, and the general warming causing other glaciers to melt mark periods of an interglacial period. And when glaciers
begin to grow worldwide, it indicates perhaps the begin of a glacier period- or beginning of an Ice Age.
So the Little Ice Age is agreed to have ended around 1850. Because very significant amount glacial retreat began around 1850.
So whatever was causing the cooling which caused there to be a period where global glacial growth was occurring, stopped, and we returned to normal condition of a interglacial period- warmer period and less glacial ice.
gbaikie, if we had observed global volcanic and solar effects back in the LIA, all that would be understood too. For this century, our knowledge of those effects is better and can be included in the explanation that involves GHGs with no contradiction. Incomplete data in the 1800’s is not a basis for refutation of the more complete data we have recently. Science is weighted by the data available which certainly varies with time.
Max,
I guess there are two ways of looking at this. If you are quite determined that there should be no action to curb GH emissions you’ll say things like:
“I do not have to come up with alternate explanations for the past warming beside GHGs (as you suggest).” and keep banging on about the “null hypothesis” or “empirical evidence” as you and Jim Cripwell always do. Its a case of wanting to convince yourself, and everyone else, that there really isn’t a problem when there very probably is. There’s a word for that which just escapes me for now!
On the other hand, if you’ve at least an open mind on the need to avoid future climatic hazards, you might at least think that increasing GH gas emissions might be the cause of measured warming and that it may cause even more warming if emissions aren’t brought under control. You’d look at all possible explanations rather than hiding behind some pseudo-argument.
A more sensible person may at least look for some evidence, empirical evidence even, that it will be safe to change the atmospheric concentrations of GH gases before actually doing it.
Warming in the 20th century attributable to greenhouse gases is at most 0.1 degrees C/decade – and perhaps less if the satellites have even the sign of radiative flux changes correct. The satellites suggest of course that most of the recent warming resulted from cloud changes.
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC 3.4.4.1
It seems hardly likely that the 20th pattern will repeat – more likely that we are on the cusp of Bond Event Zero and hundreds of years of a cooling influence.
If this was all there was – there would be no great risk in observing and planning for another 50 years – especially as much of that period is not likely to show any warming at all.
The objection as always is to precipitate action that achieves little and costs much thus putting at risk global development.
The satellites suggest of course that most of the recent warming resulted from cloud changes.
Look, Chief I’m not sure how satellites can actually suggest anything at all. Unless maybe there are climate scientists up there in permanent orbit , perhaps:-)
As, an advocate of the peer reviewed literature (albeit only that which can be distorted to suit your message) you should know that you need to support these sort of statements with references to peer reviewed literature.
Otherwise it will be just another, “oh no it isn’t”, “oh yes it is” type discussion.
The clearing after Pinatubo might count as cloud changes(?) Perhaps that’s what he meant.
Jim Cripwell | January 12, 2013 at 6:43 pm said: ” I’m only sure the IPCC is correct to the 90% level”
Jim, the 90% is exclusivity for fear, mongering – BUT the remaining 10% are the most important; they are for: keeping the backdoor exit open.
They collect the cash -> .there is no GLOBAL warming… well, they ”predicted” only 90% possibility!!! In other words: they are professional manipulators, not like the ignorant Fake Skeptics.
in the 80’s / 90’s was only ”GLOBAL warming and sea rising”’ – then when they realized that is no such a thing as ‘global warming – they changed it to ”Climate Change”
in the first edition of the swindler’s books was no talk of ”climate change” it was GLOBAL warming – then in the second editions they changed the words -… not one of the Fakes can notice that – it says everything about the Warmist successes, thanks to the Fake Skeptic’s stupidity in,every subject
Hmmm – I see you want to be deliberately thick? I would have thought that the IPCC quote would be sufficient. The references are there of course along with the tabulated numbers. s3.4.4.1 is case they missed it.
I call it climate science for idiots. Jim and tt should be right at home.
Mr Ellison,
You didn’t notice words and phrases like “may” , “expected to be”, “to the extent they are real” , “evidence is equivocal” ??
But even if you imagined it, rewritten it all in a much more positive manner, your IPCC quote still doesn’t mean that “most of the recent warming resulted from cloud changes.”
If the IPCC really did want to convey the idea that “most of the recent warming [has] resulted from cloud changes” , don’t you think they’d have written “most the recent………………..” ??
I can’t see why they wouldn’t, can you?
Robert Ellison, I thought Pinatubo had a noticeable effect on TOA fluxes, so I mentioned it. Perhaps clouds also responds to other decadal changes, but that is a response not a forcing.
Warming in the 20th century attributable to greenhouse gases is at most 0.1 degrees C/decade – and perhaps less if the satellites have even the sign of radiative flux changes correct. The satellites suggest of course that most of the recent warming resulted from cloud changes.
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ IPCC 3.4.4.1
We know of course that natural low frequency climate variability is very real. But surface cloud observations show increases in some areas and decreases in others – hence equivocal. The satellite data is what it is and is not equivolcal at all. It is either accurate or inaccurate. http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf
I would quote as well from the ISCCP-FD site to the effect that the changes were expected to be due to cloud changes – but the NASA site is off line. The numbers are quite clear – cooling in IR and warming in SW between the 80’s and 90’s. .
The rate of recent warming is at most 0.1 degreees C/decade without considering cloud radiative forcing as determined by ERBS or the ISCCP.
As I understand it, vast amounts of money are spent on climate models, yet they are seemingly still useless .
At the same time, we have only a vague idea of the planet’s radiation budget, something that is absolutely essential to testing and quantifying AGW. If we knew this well enough, the debate would be largely settled (given that CO2 levels are thought to be well known).
Surely it would make sense to divert all/some of the money in models into improved technology for measuring the radiation budget ? Why is this not done? Is it because there are people high up who fear (and want to avoid) the issue becoming settled ?
And how about also diverting money wasted on models into better measurement of ocean heat ? – another area that could help clear up the measurement of AGW theory if only we had robust empirical data.
A study of the Earth’s albedo (project “Earthshine”) shows that the amount of reflected sunlight does not vary with increases in greenhouse gases. The “Earthshine” data shows that the Earth’s albedo fell up to 1997 and rose after 2001.
What was learned is that climate change is related to albedo, as a result of the change in the amount of energy from the sun that is absorbed by the Earth. For example, fewer clouds means less reflectivity which results in a warmer Earth. And, this happened through about 1998. Conversely, more clouds means greater reflectivity which results in a cooler Earth. And this happened after 1998.
It is logical to presume that changes in Earth’s albedo are due to increases and decreases in low cloud cover, which in turn is related to the climate change that we have observed during the 20th Century, including the present global cooling. However, we see that climate variability over the same period is not related to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Obviously, the amount of `climate forcing’ that may be due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases is either overstated or countervailing forces are at work that GCMs simply ignore. GCMs fail to account for changes in the Earth’s albedo. Accordingly, GCMs do not account for the effect that the Earth’s albedo has on the amount of solar energy that is absorbed by the Earth.
Wagathon (and others):
Yes you are correct. Only variations in solar intensity, albedo and related factors such as cloud cover affect climate by raising or lowering the whole thermal profile in the troposphere, whilst retaining the same gravity induced thermal gradient. -g/Cp (AKA “lapse rate”) which is the quotient of gravitational acceleration and the mean specific heat. Intra-atmospheric radiation, mostly between water vapour and droplets at different altitudes, then reduces the gradient, and thus the surface temperature. Hence there is also a possible effect of clouds on water vapour concentrations, and thus on the thermal gradient as well as albedo.
The interesting question is then, why does climate appear to follow regular natural cycles, such as ~1,000 years and a superimposed 60 year cycle? Only planetary orbits could cause such regularity and so it is feasible that their magnetic fields (and maybe gravity) affect not only solar intensity but also cosmic ray levels. The latter are thought to affect cloud formation on earth.
So, you trust that study and the people who did it.
why?
what about that study makes it trustworthy? did you check the data?
ask for their code and check it?
Did you look into the guys who worked on it?
Look. You refer to the study. You point to it as something we should take seriously. you trust it. you didnt do the work yourself or even check their work. But you rely on it and ask us to rely on it. Why?
It helps when scientists do not pretend to know more than the facts. We should be willing to know what we can know and NASA should get some credit for that and building on the wisdom of Leonardo daVinci is a good start.
http://evilincandescentbulb.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/leonardo-davinci-crescent-moon.jpg?
If you mean the net radiative flux at TOA, then that is not the cause of climate change: rather it is the result of natural climate change. See my reply to Wagathon just below.
There are very different issues involved in trusting the experts depending on the case considered.
Reading what Mathbabe actually writes we observe that she is critical of certain groups of experts but not so much of climate scientists.
Some experts are, indeed, strongly biased by personal interests that differ from interests of most others. It’s obvious that this is likely to occur in fields like finance and where private interests are very large.
Most scientists don’t have same kind of direct personal interests. They are certainly interested in personal career and in securing research funding, but here the long term interests are mostly in line with wider public interests. Dishonesty has a great potential for backfiring.
In many fields of science a third type of incentive enters on top of selfish interests and ideals of science. By that I mean belief that the result are of great public significance. This is what Stephen Schneider wrote about and what is evidently driving James Hansen. That has led often to the situation where they project the results they are really specialists on to a wider context where they are not. They may be right or wrong on what were objectively best policy choices taking the scientific knowledge properly into account in this wider context. Even when they are right on that, they may still misjudge severely what’s required to get those policies accepted.
My personal view is that Stephen Schneider misjudged the alternatives that scientists really have when he didn’t insist that scientists should not allow own policy ideas and related moral considerations to win over the ideals of science. The problem is that going that way they ultimately become just activists among activists and will not forever be considered capable of giving unbiased scientific advice. And what’s worse they affect also the credibility of other scientists.
For me the outcome is that I don’t trust views of Hansen and that distrust extends to his publications. He has clearly exceeded the line for me. There are a few other cases with whom I have similar feelings although not as strongly.
As another example I do believe that I get valid knowledge from IPCC WG1 reports. I feel that I must read with particular care the discussion of uncertainties and make up my own interpretation of the sentences, but my experience is that the information is fundamentally unbiased enough.
The issue of the “hiding the decline” case was one of going public in a way that can justly be criticized. The scientific problem relates to judging the value of the multiproxy analysis of Mann and others. Results of that analysis were given too much weight and that involved also leaving out information (the decline) that had raised questions about the validity of that analysis. The public was given the impression that a rather weak and problematic scientific result would be much more reliable knowledge than it really was based on the information available to the people who decided to publish this graph. It was a case of using science improperly to advocate more general views of those people (some of those scientists discussing whether to publish this graph obviously disagreed but the others were more influential).
Baby steps, Pekka; I’m so proud of you.
========
Very good assessment. What is frustrating is that once the biases, for what ever reason they exist are identified, the near cult defense of the bias. It is a complex problem scientifically and politically.
Pekka –
Giddyap, Joshua. Bon Voyage.
======
Pekka,
That’s a long-winded, underhanded BS way for joshie to insinuate that you must be a believer in Intelligent Design. Of course, he will deny any such intentions. He always does. Please come back to Dr. Pratt’s post, Pekka. We need help in finding our way out of that foolishness.
kim
Hi-ho Silver, away!
Max
Pekka
I think you have taken your issues with a single paper – HSR12 – and projected them onto the entire body of Hansen’s work.
To demonstrate why I think this is the case I ask you now to (very briefly) list *all* Hansen papers which you ‘don’t trust’ and summarise in each case why
If you are unable to do this, I must ask you to reformulate what you have written and post a clarification.
“I must ask you to reformulate…”
lol
What’s the matter BBD, one of tribe not beating his drum loud enough?
Boo Hoo
Andrew
BBD,
That one paper has certainly added to my suspicion. There are two issues in that that are too condemning for me:
1) When the work was originally done any impartial scientist should have been very suspicious of the results. They were not really plausible but far too strong to be true. Disregarding such considerations and publishing it is a serious issue for a well known scientist.
2) When the error was pointed out, the authors should have retracted the paper almost immediately.
This is, however, not the only case where I have read such text from Hansen that trust in him had been low already before this most recent paper.
If a scientist shows that he cares so much about something that scientific truth is secondary, how could I trust him?
I don’t condemn him morally. He has the right to his priorities as a human being. I think, however, that his behavior is detrimental to science.
Pekka
I asked you to (very briefly) list *all* Hansen papers which you ‘don’t trust’ and summarise in each case why.
You have not done so. Therefore I am forced to conclude that you have misspoken. I ask again that you correct your sweeping and unsubstantiated ad hominem against Hansen. I ask politely but I ask firmly.
“If a scientist shows that he cares so much about something that scientific truth is secondary, how could I trust him?”
Pekka gets it. It’s really that simple.
BBD,
I don’t have any list. My views develop with all kind of input, but I don’t keep track of all that. In case of Hansen the first step was his presentation to Congress (1988 I guess) about which he has said himself that he presented his predictions as more certain than he could really support by science (no, I don’t have any reference, only a firm recollection). Since then my impression has developed step by step from several cases that I cannot list.
I present this kind of strong views only when the evidence is direct, i.e. usually papers and other direct and indisputably genuine quotes. Hansen is the only clear enough case for me to state in this way in public. (I have certainly even stronger views on many “skeptics” but they are not even worth listing.)
Pekka
Unfortunately, it is very obvious now that you are unable to substantiate your statement about Hansen’s general trustworthiness. It is regrettable that you declined the opportunity to put matters straight, but I suspect you know that you went too far.
Certainly I agree with what you say about the dangers to science presented by advocacy among scientists. Please don’t think that I haven’t taken your point.
However, I also believe that sweeping accusations of untrustworthiness aimed at a pre-eminent researcher like Hansen are both unhelpful and unwarranted.
I hope on reflection you will be able to agree with this too.
Pekka distrusts a man. BBD demands a detailing of why this distrust manifests. Pekka is polite so BBD declares victory.
BBD,
I said that I don’t trust him. I told why. I was explicit in stating that these are my views. It’s easy to see that I’m not alone, not even among those, who in general have trust in climate science. I don’t say that everybody must agree. I may, however, try to influence others, because I do believe in my views.
It’s obvious that not all climate scientists have equally strong views on issues that are not part of the most solid scientific knowledge. When there are different views someone is bound to be more extreme than most. That means also that most have at least some reservations on their views.
Stephen Schneider brought up an important issue. I agree with most that he writes on that, but on the final conclusion my views differ from his as far as I can judge what he really thought. That disagreement is within the limits he indicated as legitimate.
I cannot claim that my views would necessarily be more right than the views Schneider or Hansen, but I have my views. One part of those views is that science can best serve common interest when the distinction between scientific knowledge and personal preferences is kept totally clear.
I do think that the attempt of well known scientists to be more influential relaxing requirements of science full honesty and openness in the spirit Schneider described as one alternative may work for a moment but will be detrimental in long run.
Pekka
Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I agree with much of what you say. But ;-)
And:
I do not dispute Hansen’s outspokenness *in public*. But you specifically included Hansen’s published work. We have HSR12. And only that. If you wish to stand by your own statements, you should be able to provide examples of other Hansen papers that you regard as flawed. In fact you should already have this knowledge in order to make the first *generalised* statement about the supposed untrustworthiness of Hansen’s published work.
As I said at the outset, you have made an unsubstantiated and unwarranted accusation of bias, if not worse. You know this is serious. That’s why I am being obstinate about it. Given the charged nature of the debate, we should be careful what we say. Obviously this is the very point you are making as well. And I agree with you.
There’s no challenge implicit in any of this. I don’t want to engage in a long back-and-forth with you. But I do feel, strongly, that the point I am trying to make here is reasonable. Exactly as the points you make are reasonable.
BBD,
I think you have it backwards.
I don’t trust Hansen. I trust Svalgaard and I trust Palmer.
That doesnt mean I think Hansen is wrong. All it means is this.
I double check Hansen when I think the paper is important.
Lets take H2010. Not trusting is different than dis believing.
I dont dis believe h2010. But before I rely on it, I have to check it for myself. Not trusting, for me, means I have to verify. On the other hand, if i were using Solar data I would trust Leif to get it right. I would re check every step of his calculation. I would just cite him and use his results.
Same with menne or Zeke. Since ive worked with both of them, I trust them to do a complete fair job. I can use their results without having to recheck every damn step. With hansen or mann or Jones, I know I better re check the work. Not because I think they are wrong, or evil, or biased, not because i distrust them, but rather because my experience tells me that on occasion they will make choices that I would not make that may have a material impact. Lets take h2010. In that paper Hansen used nightlights as a proxy for urbanity. I check to see what dataset he used.
YUP. he used the wrong dataset. I contact the PI, the PI expresses concern that anybody is using that data and points me to the better data.
So, Zeke and menne are writing a paper on UHI and I let them know the correct dataset to use. I also, find the papers that indicate why Nighlights cant be used in India and other places as an urban proxy. Thats cool because my doubts about H2010 lead me to explore other datasets. So, I think I’m on good grounds for rejecting H2010. Now, somebody who trusted hansen would never check to see that he was using the wrong dataset. They would not contact the nightlights PI.. they would just cite h2010 and move on.
Again, “not trusting” does not amount to dis believing or rejecting or thinking that Dr. hansen is a bad man. he’s not. he is a good man and great scientist. However, my experience is that you better double check it. 9 times out of 10 you will find nothing.
ERRATA:
“I would trust Leif to get it right. I would re check every step of his calculation. I would just cite him and use his results.”
I would trust Leif to get it right. I would NOT re check every step of his calculation. I would just cite him and use his results.
Steven
This applies to all papers. Scientists disagree with each others’ choices of data sets *all the time*. You know this! I appreciate the way you manage to have a go at Hansen while (almost) concealing the blade ;-)
BBD,
It’s possible that the earlier written questionable (to me) statements of Hansen have been published through different channels, not in scientific journal articles. Testimony to Congress was delivered also in written form and Hansen has published material that mixes science and opinion. All these activities had affected essentially the trust on him both by me and certainly many others before the latest paper was published.
My main purpose for mentioning Hansen was to give a clear example that has led to loss of trust, i.e. an example that all scientists should in my view take as a warning signal.
As I said I don’t present moral condemnations, I’m writing on what’s a good and proper practice and what’s not as far as i can judge. Following a bad practice need not be a vice even if it works against the goals that the scientist and his colleges have both as scientists and as citizens.
Just to be clear BBD, i’d distinguish three cases.
Trusting: I use their results without re checking every step they took.
Dis Trusting: I won’t even waste my time on them. Their view is rejected without further processing.
Requires Checking: Folks who experience tells me I better re check their work before relying on it.
I can think of no published scientist that I dis trust. I can think of many bloggers that I distrust. Its not worth the time to find the error. The vast majority of scientists are trust worthy and a few require due dilgence and double checking.
BBD.
Your reaction is odd. you ask for example of hansen papers and I give you one. The problem is scientists disagreeing about datasets, the problem is using a dataset that is not fit. not fit according to the man who built it. There is a difference between using different data and using a dataset that the PI says is unfit. its ok to be wrong and correct it. Its not ok for you to pretend that a mistake is a disagreement. Its not ok to pretend that nighlights is a proxy for population in the un developed world, when the very scientists who developed the data say otherwise. Again, Hansen is a good man. he is a great scientist. He happened to make a mistake here.
It’s not a material mistake which makes your defense of it utterly silly.
Just fix it.
Steven
Fair enough. It will be interesting to see what view posterity has of Hansen. I wonder if he will be regarded as untrustworthy, or held in high regard?
errata:
“The problem is scientists disagreeing about datasets, the problem is using a dataset that is not fit. not fit according to the man who built it. ”
The problem is NOT scientists disagreeing about datasets, the problem is using a dataset that is not fit. not fit according to the man who built it.
Again, BBD I find your reaction to verge on ir rationality.
The wrong dataset was used. The PI informed me it was not fit for science. You want that mail?
BBD.
History will find that Hansen was a great scientist. A good man.
But, if you rely on each and every publication and each and every claim he has made without re checking, you will make mistakes.
What history finds is utterly un related to the practical matter of deciding to use somebodies work or not without checking it.
It is utterly illogical to confuse these two matters
Steven
Where do I dispute what you say? My response began with the words ‘fair enough’.
I know you’d love to bang on about nightlights all night. Let’s pick on a problematic *detail* and hammer away because the noise distracts attention from the bigger picture. Reminds me of something…
steven mosher
“trust but verify”
Always a good approach, as you know much better than I.
Max
Steven Mosher
James E. Hansen may go into the record books as a good (or even great) scientist (I personally doubt it, because of his activity as an advocate, which affects his scientific objectivity), but he will also be known as a lousy predictor of future climate, based on his disastrous 1988 prediction.
CO2 levels rose a bit faster than in his “Case A”, yet temperature rose at less than half the predicted rate.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2537/5738998081_b3b3e55049_b.jpg
The problem was apparently that Hansen’s model used a 2xCO2 climate sensitivity that was too high by a factor of over 2.
This error is now being confirmed by latest estimates of ECS (Schlesinger 2012, Lewis, 2012), which show that previous model-derived estimates were exaggerated by a factor of 2.
Max
You’re delusional, and you have an odd habit of fantasizing about me.
But I will give you credit for being like a bulldog with a bone. No matter how many times proven wrong, you never give up. I admire you for that, Don.
Nobody here likes you because you are a bigot, josh-u-a. Everybody here knows that when you pull this crap out-
“I have no clue as to your predisposition – i.e., your cultural, social, or ideological identifications that might lead to “motivated reasoning” on your part – but for most people in this debate, their position on the science is predictable by those factors.”
-you are looking for an excuse to dismiss your target’s qualifications as a sentient human being based on your assumption that they must be some dumb Christian-Conservative-Republican-Intelligent Design believing, anti-science moron predisposed to not share your belief in the CAGW dogma. And you have the public opinion polling results to prove it. (now watch josh-u-a squeal)
There are two points regarding experts and models. Firstly you don’t need to know anything about the model to evaluate them. Evaluating the power of a model is completely separable from understanding the model. In theory all you need to do to evaluate the model is understand statistics and the claims the models makes about what it is able to predict.
For instance you don’t need to understand quantum mechanics or even statistics to understand the quantum theory is pretty amazing in its ability to predict the hydrogen spectrum completely. Or that Newton’s theory is pretty amazing in its ability to predict the time of return of Halley’s comet down to the month.
So far GCM models haven’t done anything this spectacular. So why should I trust them. Remember what St. Thomas said: “Until I can put me figure through the holes in his side I will not believe”. Thomas asked for something extraordinary to justify the claims that Jesus had resurrected. I ask the same of Global Warmists. Justify your apocalyptic scenarios with extraordinary predictions.
I have used to trust people whom I know as open-minded to new knowledges, and who are ready to check them by scrutinizing if they can be understanable or not. I repeat here a wisdom written by Nir Shaviv http://sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-III :
”Don’t believe a word I write. If you are a genuine scientist, or wish to think like one, you should base your beliefs on facts you see and scrutinize for yourself. On the same token, do not blindly believe the climate alarmists. In particular, be ready to ask deep questions. Does the evidence you are shown prove the points that are being made? Is the evidence reliable? Sometimes you’ll be amazed from the answers you find.”
There Nir Shaviv himself states on climate warming (in the end of part I of the link above):
”In summary, there is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused the 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming. The question to ask is therefore can we point to some other culprit? If humans are not the only ones responsible for climate change, what else is responsible?”
Already in the Rio conference 1992 there was stated an uncertainty on the cause of climate warming: ‘lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation’. Yet until now there has not been any due working solution for the problem of climate warming. The Kioto protocol has not proved any costeffective influence in reality. Nevertheless, even today, without any proper evidence, institutional scientists, politicians and media preach the AGW hypothesis as a truth. And there are being planned enormous, new cuts of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, although there are no proper bases for them. The politicians have to make their decisions on cuts of CO2 emissions exclusively as dependent on belief in AGW proponents. The politicians have been made to believe in AGW so strongly that there even are no alternative strategies in case of potential failures.
That is why I do not trust the AGW experts. They are not able to strike out the deep uncertainty prevailing at the science-policy interface.
curryja; http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/26/how-might-intellectual-humility-lead-to-scientific-insight/#comment-280257 :
”I have stated that I am willing to engage in the policy process, at the science-policy interface.”
In my opinion, there is only one way to avoid the ‘deep uncertainty’ at ‘the science-policy interface’. And that is to find out a working solution simple enough, which can be understood by both scientists and politicians as laymen. That I have tried to make understandable e.g. in my comment http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/03/new-years-resolution-for-scientists/#comment-282817 :
”The CO2 content in the atmosphere is controlled together by both all CO2 emissions from sources to atmosphere and by all CO2 absorptions from atmosphere to sinks. Nowadays when the yearly total CO2 emissions are little over 200 GtC (CO2 as carbon) and the yearly human CO2 emissions are about 8 GtC, the influence of the human CO2 emissions on the CO2 content in atmosphere is approaching 4 % at the most. For instance, when the CO2 content in the atmosphere is 390 ppm, the manmade share of it is only about 16 ppm at the most; in the reports of IPCC the human share of recent CO2 content in atmosphere is assessed to be about 100 ppm without any proper evidence.”
As I have already earlier in this forum expressed, we have to make ourselves understand that it is wrong to believe that the recent warming could have been dominated by anthropogenic CO2 emissions; look e.g. at my comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 etc.:
– The CO2 content in atmosphere follows temperature changes and not vice versa. For instance during the recent three decades the CO2 increase in atmosphere has been dominated by natural warming of the sea surface areas on higher latitudes where sea surface sinks of CO2 are.
– SST on higher latitudes rises during periods of decades when natural El Niño -events are dominating.
Steven Mosher wrote along similar lines but I add here my formulation.
Within science it’s the rule with some exceptions to trust that other scientists are honest and don’t deceive by purpose (at most they may exaggerate the importance of their finding by purpose). It’s, however, not assumed that they don’t make mistakes. Neither It’s assumed that getting published in a peer reviewed publication is a proof of correctness. Because science is about finding something genuinely new, errors are common. Most new results are taken with some skepticism.
The results are considered reliable only when they have been verified in some way, which varies depending on the nature of the results. In some cases the whole experiment is repeated and mostly a little differently. Theoretical work is studied by other theorists. It’s very common that the results are used as a starting point for further research in a way where an error in the earlier work would almost certainly be noticed. There are many other possibilities, but what’s common is that some form of confirmation is usually required.
This level of limitation on trust extends to all science. Where some cases differ is that the readers of the paper do not assume as strongly as usually that the work is presented with the same criteria of honesty and openness most scientists apply and that there’s an significant possibility that the paper has been written at least partly for other reasons than for presenting most objectively science.
I just received via email this very relevant cartoon, take a look:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/856054/thumbs/o-TED-WEEKENDS-INFOGRAPHIC-900.jpg?12
I like it! (Shades of gray.)
Steve Mosher says, “I can think of no published scientist that I dis trust. I can think of many bloggers that I distrust.” So I guess that means that you don’t dis trust Mann, Gleick, Steig, for example. Should we distrust you Steve since you don’t dis trust them. Gosh, even Richard Muller dis trusts Mann.
I think Mosher level of trust is conciliatory. No need to torch all the bridges just yet. His level of trust has slipped a tad recently based on a few comments related to cartoonists :)
Manacker, please beat the dead horse. You say, “And Mosher has another trait that is sometimes frustrating for those debating with him: he is harder to nail to the wall than Jell-O. I agree – it’s part of the lukerwarmer moniker – a somewhat pusillanimous description of what I beleive Mosher to be. His opinions on research are mercurial, always testing the winds to establish his own position. Lukewarmers are like bisexuals – sooner or later you have to get off the fence and pick a hole.
Bob
To Steven Mosher’s credit, he co-authored a scathing book about the “loss of trust” in certain inner circle climate scientists resulting from the Climategate email leak.
So he obviously does not trust these guys.
Max
manacker, they are his words – ,”Steve Mosher says, “I can think of no published scientist that I dis trust.” Mann, Steig and Gleick are all published. He said it so please don’t defend him. manacker, do you trust Mosher? Personally I think he’s got his finger in the air, just testing the winds mind you.
Also, Manacker, with Mosher’s brights and code competency, tell me one study he refuted. He is no McIntyre. Oh, I forgot he fingered Gleick as the fraudster – at best he is a Nancy Drew.
Bob
When Mosher co-authored the “Climategate tapes” book, he very obviously “did not trust” the scientists whom he implicated in the scandal. All you have to do to confirm this is read his book.
Whether he has changed his mind and now trusts “all climate scientists” I cannot judge.
Ask him and see if you get a straight answer.
Max
Bob
Not to beat this dog to death, but Mosher has (in his book) identified himself as a lukewarmer (whatever that means).
I would identify myself as someone who is rationally skeptical of IPCC’s stated CAGW claims but not necessarily of AGW per se; so maybe I’m a lukewarmer, too.
But I disagree with Mosher on a lot of points.
I am significantly more of a skeptic than he is.
He believes, for example, that model outputs are “scientific evidence”, while I am convinced that this evidence is only provided by “empirical data”, based on actual real-time physical observations or reproducible experimentation (Feynman) and model outputs are only as good as model inputs (GIGO).
He also believes that human CO2 emissions could pose a serious threat to humanity and our environment if not curtailed – I have not concluded, based on the evidence at hand, that this is the case.
IMO his approach reflects more of a “theoretical” rather than a “practical” approach.
And Mosher has another trait that is sometimes frustrating for those debating with him: he is harder to nail to the wall than Jell-O.
Max
No you aren’t. You aren’t remotely sceptical. You seize on any little thing you can and misrepresent it as the ‘truth’ (as you imagine it and desperately want it to be). This is the opposite of scepticism.
What we need here is a campaign to win back normal usage of the language. Those engaged in denial should be so described. When those same people attempt to hijack the term ‘sceptic’ they should be vigorously rebuffed.
The deniers have got away with this for far too long and it needs to stop.
Yep.
The ‘sceptics’ seem to be some of the most gullible people you could imagine.
BBD
Sorry.
If YOU are going to start telling ME what I consider to be valid, you are barking up the wrong tree.
I am rationally skeptical of the IPCC CAGW claim.
My reason is simple: it is not supported by empirical scientific evidence (Feynman)
Period.
Max
PS It appears from your posts here that you have swallowed the IPCC CAGW claim “hook, line and sinker”, but I am not going to make the stupid mistake of trying to tell you what you believe. That’s up to you.
Its pretty simple.
three categories based on practical experience.
1. Trust. I would accept their data as is without doing a laboious recheck of everything.
2. Dis Trust. I reckon their shit is wrong and I dont even have to check. They have a record of mis leading or cutting corners ( many skeptics in this pile)
3. Requires A double check. based on my experience there is a small chance that they have made on error that slipped through review.
So, I don’t distrust Mann for example. I read what he does and if I am interested I re check the work. Other folks ( take Leif Svalgaard) I would trust to get it right and not double check him. Other guys ( say Goddard.. crap their is no point in looking for the error that you know is there )
three categories. Not merely trust/distrust. Distrusting requires a lack of scepticism toward your own opinions. splitting hairs to some. But, All I can do is describe what I do and what I consider trust to consist of in a practical manner
manacker
No you aren’t and I have shown why, on this thread. You are as unsceptical as it is possible to be. To make matters worse you are also hopelessly ill-informed.
What you are doing here is *denialism*, not rational scepticism. You don’t get to indulge in incessant and repetitive denial and then claim to be a rational sceptic. Not any more.
BBD
Has Max indicated that additional CO2 would not lead to warming if all other conditions remained unchanged? NO isn’t that the measure of denial.
You keep pretending that you know how the climate system will respond to more CO2
Rob Starkey
Either you haven’t followed manacker’s extended displays of evidence denial and his endless repetition of debunked rubbish (also evidence denial) or you are unwisely attempting to defend the indefensible for tribal reasons.
I dont suppose there is a transitive law of trust.
I started this by giving concrete examples of who I trust, why I trust them and what that means operationally. In the end I am an operationalist.
For example. I trust Leif Svalgaard. What that means operationally is that I would build on his work. I expect is work to withstand my scrunity and so I can use his work without re checking every last bit. I dis trust Steve Goddard. That means based on experience that he usually makes mistakes. Same thing with ‘sunshine hours’. I would not waste my time with their work. For mann, I neither trust or dis trust, which means operationally that I would re check any of his work that I wanted to rely on. Most of you guys do not get the operational and practical consequences of what it means to trust somebody and what it means to distrust and what it means to fall inbetween these two realms. For me saying that I dis trust somebody is basicaly saying that I know they are wrong before even checking. So, three classes. Leif –trust, no rigorous checking required. Goddard, distrust dont waste your time finding the inevitable error. All others, some level of checking is required. Over time you learn who you can rely on and who you need to re check. This is important because science cant move forward unless there is some level of trust.
This may be a new low for this blog. A user, Michael, claims a study got the “same results” as Michael Mann’s iconic hockey stick. Mann’s hockey stick, as most will remember, gets results like:
The study linked to by Michael gets results like:
Obviously, “incoming intermediate Atlantic water” and the northern hemisphere are very different things. Despite this, Michael says the paper:
That’s right. He claims the results of Mann’s hockey stick are that there was unprecedented warming… somewhere. His argument requires the location and spatial coverage of any warming not matter. In other words, Mann’s work would have been equally meaningful if he had only examined one part of the hemisphere. Mann could have just looked at 5% of the hemisphere, and his paper would have the same results.
Or so Michael claims. Me, I think part of a paper’s results are the extent of the results. I don’t think it’s the same thing to look at a local temperature record as it is to look at a global temperature record. I don’t think one can analyze the temperature record for the UK and claim it is the same as if you analyzed the entire planet’s temperature record. Michael’s response to this viewpoint is to say:
I’m curious what Michael Mann would say if he was told the results of his temperature reconstruction are the same as the results of a study that examines only a single region. I suspect he’d be insulted and “pointlessly quibble.”
That conversation is still where it was;
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/10/trusting-the-experts/#comment-285258
No need for re-hash it here.
Come back and I’ll explain consilience to you.
Consilience of evidence to support a point by definition requires the individual pieces of evidence be different than the point in question. Arguing the (one piece of) evidence you provided is part of a consilience of evidence that is the same as Mann’s results necessarily requires admitting what you provided is not a paper that gets the same results as Mann got.
Unless or until you offer a less insane argument than those you’ve advanced thus far, that conversation is over. I’m happy to expose your absurd arguments to readers, but I don’t intend to engage you on them further.
Brandon,
As i said, there are many others.
Let’s refresh Brandons memory again.
What did Brandon ask for? – “provide any reference”.
Now he has it (Jim gave another).
And Brandon runs – “that conversation is over…..I don’t intend to engage you on them further.”
Brave Sir Brandon ran away, bravely ran away away……
Mock me all you want. The more certain you act, the more ridiculous you’ll seem. Anyone can see all you’ve done is provide one thing while claiming it is another.
By your argument, I can take my local temperature station’s data that shows a decline in temperature over the last 40 years and say the planet is cooling! Because that makes sense!
Brandon, it was your request – “any reference”.
This sounds like rather lame excuse making.
If one isn’t enough, there’s more. Jim gave you another. Then there’s ice cores in the Andes, bore hole temp’s – all different data sets , different methods, all get a HS.
Consilience of evidence.
Keep running away.
Michael, I said “any reference to justify your response.” That means the reference has to be relevant to the topic being discussed. You couldn’t, for instance, simply hand me an encyclopedia and say it’s a reference.
In this case, you claimed a local/regional temperature reconstruction was the “same results” as a hemispheric temperature reconstruction. That’s insane.
Don’t be obtuse – I never offered to provide a ‘hemispeheric temperature reconstruction’.
I said that there were other studies, using different proxies, different methods, all finding HS’s.
For real sceptics – this points to consilience.
For fake sceptics – opportunity to quibble, nit-pick, evade and generally look for excuses to ignore the evidence.
Michael:
Bull. You said there were:
Same result means they have to find what Mann “found.” Mann “found” a northern hemispheric temperature hockey stick. You can mock me and call me obtuse all you want, but you are the one misrepresenting his own words.
Brandon’s running away from the evidence as fast as his little legs will carry him.
No respect!
Michael
As a lurker I’d say that it is YOU, not Brandon, who is “running away from the evidence as fast as your little legs will carry you”.
Brandon appears to me to have a much more detailed understanding of the numbers (the “evidence”) than you do.
Your strength appears to be more in evasive wording and silly “one-liners”.
Just my observation, Michael.
Max
manancker, given Michael provided a single link to an abstract of a paper he has almost certainly never read as his only evidenciary contribution, I’m at a loss as to how anyone could conclude he has more respect for evidence than I do. And that’s ignoring the general absurdity of his position.
See above.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/10/trusting-the-experts/#comment-285643
Keep running.
Brandon
Could it be that Michael here (not the famous Nobelist “Michael” of hockey shtick fame) is using the Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperatures for three of the past eight years as a proxy for the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water temperature?
Or the other way around?
Hey, stranger things have been done in this business, Brandon.
Max
I wouldn’t care to guess what Michael is doing as there aren’t any flattering possibilities, and I have no way of knowing which might be true. I’d rather just point out what he’s saying is crazy and leave it at that.
Don’t address the evidence Brandon – name calling is the extent of Brandon’s ‘respect for evidence’.
tempterrain
Jim has requested evidence for an IPCC claim, but let’s look at what that claim really tells us>
The claim is [AR4 WGi SPM, p.10]:
Let’s assume “most” means somewhere between 51% and 80%.
IPCC tells us that (since start of industrialization) the greenhouse radiative forcing was (Wm-2):
1.66 (CO2)
1.33 (all other GHGs)
2.99 total GHGs
So CO2 was 1.66/2.99 = 56% of total GH forcing.
But let’s assume that since 1950 CO2 forcing was 75% of total GH forcing.
Temperature (HadCRUT3 linear)
1950: -0.28°C
2005: +0.34°C
dT: 0.62C
CO2 concentration was
1950: 311 ppmv (extrapolated from Mauna Loa 1959)
2005: 379 ppmv (Mauna Loa, when IPCC AR4 was written)
C1/C0 = 1.2187
ln(C1/C0) = 0.1977
ln(2) = 0.6931
Case 1: “Most” means 51%
2xCO2 temperature response
= 0.51*0.75*0.62*0.6931/0.1977 = 0.8°C
Case 2: “Most” means 80%
2xCO2 temperature response
= 0.8*0.75*0.62*0.6931/0.1977 = 1.3°C
So we have an observed 2xCO2 temperature response of between 0.8°C and 1.3°C.
IPCC tells us in AR4 that 0.6°C are “in the pipeline” today [AR4 WG1 SPM, p.13] – this has to be added into observed temperature response to arrive at (2xCO2) “equilibrium climate sensitivity”
So we have an ECS of between 1.4°C and 1.9°C.
Looks like IPCC is confirming the Schlesinger (2012) and Lewis (2012) estimates!
And, TT, this is really good news, since it means that we will not fry from CAGW.
Lean back, drink a Fosters and rejoice!
Max
Max, Trying to discuss science with tempterrain is a waste of time, IMHO. He has drunk the Koolaid, and is convinced CAGW is written on tablets of stone. It is bad enough when people quote Wikipedia as a scientific reference; occasionally this source has validity. But when he quote Sherlock Holmes as a scientific source, that shows just how little he understands about science; a work of FICTION used as a scientific reference. The mind boggles.
Jim C
In a past time on another site, I spent over a year debating the scientific validity of the CAGW premise with tempterrain.
He is not a “numbers guy” and discussing scientific specifics is not his strength; he prefers talking politics and uses polemic, strange analogies and waffling very effectively to evade unpleasant questions, which could threaten his paradigm.
But he is generally a well-behaved debate partner who does not resort to childish outbursts or ad hom attacks, as some others do, so exchanges with him are usually pleasant and interesting.
Max
Thanks to Judith Curry for making such debates possible, and for her open-minded approach which is rare in this polarised subject.
I would love to see a conclusion for each debate, yet I realise that this will always be impossible. Part of the reason is to do with climate change being a religion or belief on both sides of the divide.
We know why Dr Curry started this blog, it relates to doubts about the IPCC .
It would be very interesting to see a sort of “Belief/Doubts” log with time, perhaps linked to published material, scandals, whatever. In other words, a chronological account of an objective assessment of so-called Climate Change since this blog started.
I think that that would be fascinating and informative.
On one side of the divide there is a scientific consensus that has emerged from the usual scientific dog fight over many decades. On the other, there is faith-based reasoning.
How do we know this? The simple test is mutability. Faith is absolute, certain, and immutable. Scientific knowledge is provisional and evolves over time.
The scientific consensus on AGW is *evolving* as new evidence emerges. The rejectionist position is not. It is fixed, absolute. It is a matter of faith.
BBD, it is plain to see that your powers of observation, stink.
Then help me out. Explain yourself.
Explain yourself, to Jesus. I cannot do more than that.
I’m not sure what prompted you to say this. If you think I am attacking religious faith, you are mistaken. What I said about faith is in accord with Christian doctrine. Faith in God is either certain and absolute, or it is not faith. Faith is the opposite of provisional knowledge. Faith does not accommodate uncertainty about faith.
More-immediate-help…
1Cr 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Cr 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures
or is it so simple, you just won’t get it?:
I really think you should go back and read my original comment. At this point you are effectively talking to yourself about something entirely unrelated.
Faith is exercise of the Body..
I don’t follow you. Although you capitalise the B of ‘Body’ so perhaps I am missing something of personal religious significance here. From my doubtless limited perspective, exercise of the body is exercise of the body. If I spend an hour on anything from ballet to nunchaku, it is not faith. It’s exercise.
Don’t worry about it. Tom has these nonsequiturs, I find.
BBD, you have plenty of time to read about 1,362 pages. Believe what Paul writes. Follow all the instructions to the letter & you will see. Until that day…
All the Best
Pekka:
His declaration of almost-certain anthropogenic attribution also seemed more more hype than science. During the 1988 presentation, he stated that there was only a 1% chance that the temperature rise of 0.4 C during 1958-1988 was natural (“accidental” was the word he used : “The main point to be made here is that the expected global warming is of the same magnitude as the observed warming. Since there is only a 1 percent chance of an accidental warming of this magnitude, the agreement with the expected greenhouse effect is of considerable significance.“)
Contrast this with the IPCC 1990 report, two years later :
(from the executive summary of the SPM, via Wikepedia)
I think the IPCC summary has firmed up a bit since FAR ;-)
BBD
Yeah. And it looks like it’s got some more “firming up” to do, in light of the new observations showing that (2xCO2) ECS is around one-half of the previously model-predicted range.
Good news, BBD!
As these new data get “firmed up” we will effectively see the “C” removed from the past IPCC CAGW premise.
Rejoice!
“Firming up” is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?
Max
manacker
And on you go. Being unsceptical. You have unquestioningly accepted a single outlier (Schlesinger) as the ‘truth’.
[This response to your comment #285527 ended up in the wrong spot, so am re-posting]
BBD
Wrong.
Not “a single outlier”.
One of three recent papers (two published already) that all are based on the actual temperature and CO2 record (rather than simply the model simulations cited by IPCC), which all conclude that the (2xCO2) ECS is around half of the previously model-predicted range.
So there are three independent “outliers”, based on real data – not just models.
And, as Nassim Taleb and Thomas Kuhn both warn us: watch the “outlier” – it may become the new “paradigm”.
Ouch!
Max
Response, also posted downthread:
I am sceptical about low estimates for ECS to 2 x CO2 because of paleoclimate behaviour. If we limit ourselves to TSI (solar variability; orbital dynamics) and albedo, paleoclimate becomes difficult to explain. Include GHG forcing (described by the unfalsified RTEs) at currently estimated efficacy – and a coherent explanation is possible.
This applies to the ~50Ma cooling trend since the Eocene Optimum and deglaciation triggered by orbital forcing. Low estimates of ECS to 2 x CO2 are at odds with the bigger picture.
BBD: I think the IPCC summary has firmed up a bit since FAR ;-)
The IPCC quotation was included for some perspective. The main point is that Hansen’s claim to Congress was not supported by the science at the time. (In Hansen’s written submission to Congress, he seems to tacitly assume that the 1951-1980 period sufficiently captures the characteristics of climate’s natural variability for Hansen to be able to claim that there was only a 1% chance that the 1958-1988 rise happened without GHG forcing. This assumption was speculative, and IMO unrealistic.)
Even if a scientist is convinced of a truth of a hypothesis, it’s misleading (by some definitions, fraudulent) to knowingly misrepresent results.
Hansen himself said 18 years later :
Even now some scientists are to the “right” of the IPCC consensus as Hansen was back then.
I mentioned that because I have read somewhere a statement by Hansen himself that he knew his testimonial to present it’s claims as more certain than they were based on science of that day.
His justification was naturally that he did believe that the threat is severe and that he had to exaggerate to get something moving. That’s not at all unfamiliar to politicians. Many people give similarly exaggerated testimonials on all kind of issues all the time, but that’s not what scientists are supposed to do.
Hansen at the time did not take into account the importance of the Montreal protocol,and the impacts of future reduction in ODS which are also GHG.
The importance of the reduction in ODS in terms of radiative forcing leave a reduction in the summation of radiative forgings eg Velders 2007, Wu 2012
Furthermore, since the ODSs are also greenhouse gases (GHGs),
their elimination has helped reduce radiative forcing of the Earth’s climate by approximately 0:8-1:6 W/m2 by 2010, which is, in fact, substantially larger than the reduction target of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (Velders et al. 2007). As also reported
by Velders et al. (2007), this compares to the radiative forcing due to anthropogenic CO2 increase since preindustrial times under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) A1B scenario of about 1:8 W/m2 in 2010.
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/wu+polvani+seager-JCLIM-2012-inpress.pdf
You keep saying this. Please can you find the relevant statement and link to it. Otherwise your assertion is weightless. Like you assertion that all Hansen’s published work is untrustworthy, which you similarly failed to substantiate.
Sorry, that was a response to Pekka
Hansen 1969 extrapolated Eddington Diophantine approximations,which were a lot of Twaddle,this was a well known problem eg Landau, Chandrasekhar had published on the problem.
Those numbers seem very high. According to IPCC AR4 WG1report halocarbons contribute about 0.3 W/m^2 to the existing forcing.
My point was anyway not to discuss how well Hansen’s predictions agree with present understanding but how well they presented the scientific thinking of that time.
Read Velders AR4 is incorrect this was a reason for the additional chapter request for the O3 2011 assessment on the relations to climate change,
Making an independent judgment on who is correct is not an option in this case. Thus I note only that Velders has not made others agree that AR4 was wrong as far as I can judge evidence available on that.
We are back in the problem of whom to trust?
Velders was instrumental in that the signatory parties of the MP requested the additional chapter on climate effects in the 2010/11 assessment eg
It is evident that the 1987 Montreal Protocol and its subsequent Amendments and Adjustments have led to reduced emissions of ozone-destroying halocarbons, many of which are greenhouse gases. The current chapter helps to place the Protocol’s climate impact within a wider context by critically assessing the effect of stratospheric climate changes on the troposphere and surface climate, following a formal request for this information by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. As requested, the current chapter also considers the effects on stratospheric climate of some emissions that are not addressed by the Montreal Protocol, but are included in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Hence, the chapter covers some of the issues assessed in past Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports (IPCC, 2007; IPCC/TEAP, 2005). The current chapter is designed to provide useful input to future IPCC assessments.
The last sentence being a bit more polite then what was initially proposed.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/chapters/chapter4.pdf
My purpose was not to imply that Velders were not a good scientist, I have absolutely nothing to say on that.
My suspicion is based on two factors:
– What you have told appears to contradict understanding of most scientists. That includes IPCC AR4 but also everything else that I was able to check with a limited effort. That did include later assessment of the role of halocarbons.
– The basic view that I have about all new scientific results. I remain skeptical unless they have been confirmed well enough in some way. I didn’t find such confirmation of those proposals.
I didn’t see any confirmation of the results that you gave or of the claim that AR4 was in error in the link you presented.
All very well and good except that the replacements for the halocarbons have equal or higher (esp the hydrofluorocarbons e.g. HFCs ) global warming potentials in the troposphere so from that point of view it is pretty much a push. The real horrors are the fluorocarbons which were substituted for the CFCs in cleaning applications.
Net is that while the ODS was reduced by the Montreal Protocols the greenhouse forcing not so much.
ER Hfc is indeed problematic,there are substitutes,ad some with low residence times,the amendment to the MP should limit some and further constraints should be applied eg Velders 2012
http://www.igsd.org/documents/Science-2012-Velders-922-3.pdf
PP the almost obvious problem is the antarctic and the mid high latitudes of the SH, IE the observations such as an absence of trends,or the inability to explain say the multidecadal increase in SH sea ice,The models cannot explain the dynamical effects,or replicate the observations,either understanding is incorrect,or there is a greater natural variability ( such as higher melt prior to the period of observations.)
So? You were going on about how Hansen missed the ghg forcing because of the Montreal Protocols, but it turns out that until now as far as GHG it is a wash? Substitution of the first generation HFCs will make a difference IN THE FUTURE because of decreased forcings. Try again
Hansen uses the forward approach ie prediction of an increase in the climate potential of pco2 eq,if as the potential forcings have been reduced (the total summation of radiative forcings) which it has and the future decrease is expected in cfc , it will subtract from the potential eg Shindell and Scmidt 2004
BBD
Wrong.
Not “a single outlier”.
One of three recent papers (two published already) that all are based on the actual temperature and CO2 record (rather than simply the model simulations cited by IPCC), which all conclude that the (2xCO2) ECS is around half of the previously model-predicted range.
So there are three independent “outliers”, based on real data – not just models.
And, as Nassim Taleb and Thomas Kuhn both warn us: watch the “outlier” – it may become the new “paradigm”.
Ouch!
Max
I am sceptical about low estimates for ECS to 2 x CO2 because of paleoclimate behaviour. If we limit ourselves to TSI (solar variability; orbital dynamics) and albedo, paleoclimate becomes difficult to explain. Include GHG forcing (described by the unfalsified RTEs) at currently estimated efficacy – and a coherent explanation is possible.
This applies to the ~50Ma cooling trend since the Eocene Optimum and deglaciation triggered by orbital forcing. Low estimates of ECS to 2 x CO2 are at odds with the bigger picture.
BBD, what ever you do, don’t read this!
“The results here suggest that much of the full thermal effect of Drake Passage could have been realised well before the channel was very wide or very deep. This is because the mere presence of an open gap introduces an asymmetry into the system that is amplified by higher salinities in the north and lower salinities in the south. This kind of haline effect, and the possibility of increased Antarctic sea-ice and land-ice, lead us to conclude that the thermal response to the opening of Drake Passage could have been fairly abrupt and quite large, perhaps as large as the 4–5°C cooling seen in palaeoceanographic observations.
http://sam.ucsd.edu/sio219/toggweiler_bjornsson.pdf
Those guys are obviously part of some lunatic fringe denialist movement intent on collecting your precious bodily fluids :)
BBD
You state you are “sceptical about low estimates for ECS to 2 x CO2 because of paleoclimate behavior”.
Huh!
You have 3 independent studies, all based on real-life physical data from the past 160-year record on one hand, but you prefer the subjective interpretations of dicey proxy data taken from carefully selected periods of our geological past,using argument from ignorance to assess attribution (i.e. “we can only explain X if we assume Y”)?
Ouch!
Don’t you see how silly that makes you look?
Unbelievable!
Get used to the new lower 2xCO2 ECS values. They will become the new paradigm.
Max
manacker
You just aren’t paying attention. We have a blog post at B*shop H*ll by a mischief-maker and *one* paper employing questionable methodology (why not read my comments on Schlesinger 12 instead of repeatedly ignoring them?).
You abandon all pretence of scepticism and seize on this outlier as the ‘truth’, rejecting the majority of evidence pointing to an ECS for 2 x CO2 of somewhere close to 3C.
You *deny* what I point out about the impossibility of squaring known paloeclimate behaviour with a a low sensitivity to CO2 forcing by simply *denying* the validity of decades of work. This endlessly repeated *denial* of the validity of paleoclimate research is unacceptable.
You absurdly accused me of poor debating manners. You aren’t even debating; you are simply *denying* everything that you do not like and repeating your silly denial ad nauseam. It doesn’t constitute an argument or debate. Something you seem completely incapable of grasping. And you wonder why you get treated with a certain amount of contempt.
I give up with you. Denial is a mental illness that cannot be cured by blog conversations.
cap’n
Certainly the opening of the Tasmanian Gateway shows up as a single cooling step at Oi-1 (~34Ma), marking the end of the Eocene hothouse climate. If the Drake Passage opened at about the same time or earlier as some researchers propose (Lawver & Gahagen 2003; Livermore et al. 2005; Pfuhl & McCave 2005) then we can see the combined effect clearly in reconstructions such as the Zachos curve. There it is, marking the Eocene-Oligocene transition.
What we also see – and what I was referring to above – is an *overall* cooling trend spanning some 50Ma from the Eocene Optimum to the late Holocene. *Discontinuous* and rare ocean gateway events cannot explain ~50Ma of slow cooling, a point underlined in Hansen & Sato (2012):
Repeatedly waving Tuggweiler at me is to *miss the point*. The effects of the thermal isolation of Antarctica fit within an overall cooling trend forced by the slow reduction of atmospheric CO2 since the Eocence by uplift weathering.
The constant efforts by many here to deny the influence of CO2 on climate at all time-scales are sometimes laughably transparent.
BBD
It is apparent from your last post that you are getting excited and emotional.
This makes rational discourse difficult.
It could also be bad for your blood pressure.
So try to calm down, before you respond to this post.
I have pointed out to you that (in addition to the not-yet published study by Lewis) there are two recent independent studies, which both point to a (2xCO2) ECS of around one-half the previously estimated range.
These are Schlesinger et al. (2012) and Gillett et al. (2011).
Since all of the latest studies use the actual physical record since 1850 as the basis, whereas the older, higher values came from predictions by climate models cited by IPCC, I would place more faith on the later studies, as a rational skeptic (Feynman).
Hope this finally clears it up for you.
Max
PS We still have no notion how IPCC will react to this new information: “sweeping it under the rug” would result in further loss of already thin-stretched credibility (according to our hostess), while accepting it will effectively remove the “C” from its CAGW premise. A true dilemma.
PPS Please try to stay calm. You should actually be happy – your worst fears have been shown to be unfounded. Rejoice!
Max,
Is your criterion for acceptance of any particular (2xCO2) ECS figure, which you may find in the scientific literature, based on an estimation of the scientific merit of the particular study, or on it relative size?
Do you treat it like a price to be paid? In which case, acceptance of 1 degC is preferable to 2degC or more. 0.5 deg C would be even better of course.
Or is it just that you accept the lower figures because there is, in your opinion, an inverse relationship between the level of predicted warming and the ability of the researchers involved?
manacker
Your ignorance is frustrating. Gillet estimated TCR not ECS. Read the paper before referencing it, you lazy buffoon or you will be mocked, as now.
It is *very clear* that you have no real understanding of this topic. You could not possibly make an error like this if you did. This is on a par with proclaiming HvS to be dead ;-)
Once again, you ignore what I have said about your denial problem. Once again, you push a single, questionable study (which uses a model as well as observations, and an extremely simple model at that) as the ‘truth’ while ignoring the totality of the evidence.
This is the opposite of scepticism. You are not a sceptic Max; you are a denier.
Not to mention thick as mince. I give up on you; there’s no helping the mentally ill via blog comments.
BBD
You did not follow my advice to cool down before shooting off a response to my last post.
As a result you were apparently emotional and goofed up again.
Sure. Gillett et al. calculated the “transient 2xCO2 temperature response” (transient climate response), based on the past record, and not the so-called “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS).
Duh!
But, BBD, it is quite easy to get the ECS once you have the TCR.
IPCC have told us in AR4 that there is 0.6C warming hidden “in the pipeline” (presumably waiting for “equilibrium” to come out).
If you add these in to the TCR estimate of Gillett et al. (adjusting for the lower resulting sensitivity of around half the earlier estimate), you get an ECR of 1.95°C±0.3°C or 1.65°C to 2.25°C, as I pointed out to girma in my post #285501 on the open thread
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/12/open-thread-weekend-6/#comment-285501
BBD, you need to relax, keep cool and not shoot off posts before you are really sure that you understand what others have written.
(Just a bit of friendly advice.)
Max
tempterrain
In earlier posts I have outlined why I find the latest studies on ECS, which show a lower range than the older estimates, more credible than the previous estimates.
The latest studies are all based on the actual physical record since 1850, with estimates made for natural factors.
The previous range from AR4 was based on predictions from IPCC model simulations, rather than from the actual physical record.
Actual empirical data always trumps model outputs in my book (Feynman).
Hope this explains it for you.
Max
manacker
Clueless.
What is this garbage about 0.6C being the difference between TCR and ECS? You don’t even manage to get this right. The difference between the best estimates for TCR and ECS is ~1C, not 0.6C. You really do not have the faintest idea what you are on about. You are *ignorant* Max. Painfully, obviously deficient in knowledge of this topic. So why not give us all a break and stop spewing out endless crap?
Aren’t you embarrassed to get hauled up, over and over again, for stupid, obvious errors that prove conclusively that you are clueless? Doesn’t it shame you to be revealed as nothing more than a yakking, bluffing, know-nothing?
How can you muster up the brass neck to tell me I haven’t understood your tripe?
Idiot.
BBD
You cite a “best estimate” for the amount of warming still “in the pipeline” waiting to reach “equilibrium”.
Whose “best estimate”?
Fuggidaboudit, BBD.
IPCC has given us its estimate in AR4, which is based on a mean ECS of 3.2C.
At a mean ECS of half this value, the “pipeline” warming would obviously be lower.
Duh!
Again you have shot off an emotional email before checking out all the data.
A bad idea, BBD.
Only makes you look silly (even if you really aren’t).
Max
BBD
And the “ad hom” vindictives don’t make you look too bright, either.
Stick with the subject matter and leave off childish name-calling and you will appear to be more rational and more intelligent.
Max
I’m having a genuinely hard time believing that my last comment was removed JC.
I think my views are with WHT on this.
Why are you cosseting morons and deniers? What for?
Want it heated up, Bubba?
=======
manacker
You don’t understand the quantification of TCR used in AR4. See section 9.6.2.3 for the necessary further reading.
Let’s pause to recollect that you have so far failed to address what I said about the difficulties of reconciling a low value of S to CO2 with paleoclimate behaviour. Please note: simply denying the validity of *decades of painstaking work* does not constitute an argument.
Let me jog your memory. I am sceptical about low estimates of S to CO2 because of paleoclimate behaviour over the Cenozoic. If we limit ourselves to TSI (solar variability; orbital dynamics) and albedo, paleoclimate becomes difficult to explain. Include GHG forcing (described by the unfalsified RTEs) at currently estimated efficacies and a coherent explanation becomes possible.
This applies to the over-arching ~50Ma cooling trend since the Eocene Optimum and deglaciation triggered by orbital forcing. Low estimates of ECS to 2 x CO2 are difficult if not impossible to reconcile with the big picture.
“I think my views are with WHT on this”
Given the fact that we can not mention certain commenters by name, at the risk of having your comment deleted, I have given up with commenting here. Not open = not worth it.
I still follow it to see what supreme brand of whoopass BBD is delivering to the denial crowd though.
BBD
Your last comment would make sense if we new everything there is to know about what makes our planet’s climate behave as it does – both in the recent and distant past and for future projections.
We don’t.
The “uncertainties” are great.
The “assumptions” are large.
The “unknowns” are enormous.
“Argument from ignorance” is futile.
As a result, the posited “CO2 control knob” (and high estimates of ECS) are uncorroborated hypotheses.
Nothing more.
Estimates (like Schlesinger 2012, Gillett 2011 and the not yet officially published blurb by Lewis), which are based on actual observed physical measurements (plus assumptions on natural forcing) are much better than simply model simulations or studies based on dicey paleo proxy reconstructions, but even these latest estimates include a large degree of uncertainty, when it comes to the assumed impact of natural factors.
I seriously hope more work will be done to address this issue (where IPCC concedes that its “level of scientific understanding is low”.
Maybe the work at CERN will give us more information on one possible natural mechanism, possibly also reconciling unknowns regarding the impact of clouds, which IPCC concedes “are the largest source of uncertainty”.
Max
WebHubTehe Crackpot said: | January 15, 2013 at 4:12 pm ”Given the fact that we can not mention certain commenters by name, at the risk of having your comment deleted, I have given up with commenting here. Not open = not worth it”
Comrade, before you throw the first stone, let me ask you: would you let me make few comments on your blog?.If you do, they will make you the boss of ”BP”
Otherwise, your blog should be called: ”The Sovietskaya Pravda” as YOU the Crackpot as editor.
stefanthedenier wrote
Sure, why would I not let you? Unlike this place, I don’t delete comments on my blog.
manacker
And once again, instead of addressing the point – that low sensitivity to CO2 simply doesn’t fit with paleoclimate behaviour – you find another way to dodge it.
You place excessive weight on Schlesinger (the only study that looks at ECS) even though the study uses a highly simplified *model* constrained by the historical record. Once again, here’s the relevant quote from the WAPO article:
Once again, let’s remember that Gillet12 estimates TCR, not ECS, and proposes a range of 1.3C – 1.8C. Now AR4 WG1 estimates a 5 to 95% range of 1.5°C to 2.8°C for TCR with a median of 2.1C. The Gillet estimate actually overlaps with AR4. And Gillet is just one paper. We have to be very careful about placing too much weight on individual studies.
Speaking of which, Lewis has made no attempt to publish his blog post at B-Hill formally, and has given no indication that he plans to do so.
Your certainty is inappropriate. Ironically, you resort to waving at uncertainty as justification for dismissing decades of paleoclimate investigation.
BBD
Thanks for you last comment.
This discussion is beginning to become a bit tedious, since you keep harping on the same topics, but let’s go through your post, bit by bit, and try to tie it back to the topic of this thread: “trusting (?) the experts”.
Let’s posit that the “experts” are IPCC (the group once touted as the “gold standard” body for consolidating and summarizing scientific knowledge related to our planet’s climate and possible human influences on it).
In the “bombshell” post out hostess indicated that the new findings on ECS, which were based on actual physical observations, showed a dramatically lower range of values (around half) of earlier estimates by the IPCC “experts”, which were based on model simulations. She opined that it would be difficult for IPCC to brush this new information “under the rug” without losing confidence.
This makes sense. The new data present a dilemma for IPCC: either they acknowledge it, thereby weakening the CAGW claim as outlined in AR4 or they ignore it (or rationalize it away – as you are trying to do) and lose even more public confidence and trust than they already have from Climategate, etc.
Schlesinger 2012 was preceded by Gillett 2011, which only went as far as determining TCR, but pointed out that the values were much lower than previous estimates and would have significant impact on future projections. Lewis released similar figures on a blog, although these have not yet been officially published.
So the problem for IPCC is real. It is too early to say how IPCC will finally react to all this in its new AR5 report.
That’s the background, which we have discussed ad nauseam by now.
You have pointed out that you could not accept figures based on actual real-life observations, which were significantly lower than those obtained from paleo proxy studies.
I pointed out that real-life observations were, by definition, better “evidence” than subjective interpretations of dicey paleo proxy data from carefully selected periods of our geological past, especially when these involved attribution estimates based on the “argument from ignorance” (“we can only explain X if we assume Y…”). Therefore I would give more credence to the Schlesinger, Gillett and Lewis findings than to paleo data.
You now come back with:
BBD, I HAVE addressed it (and repeated it above), but let me write it in bold for you.
Real-life physical data trump interpretations of paleo proxy data and model simulations based on theory.
You then advise me:
Huh?
Sure they did!
To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies: “they would say that, wouldn’t they?”
[If I were T+F, I’d be “concerned” about these new findings, too!]
You then add:
The cited paper states (bold by me):
IPCC has given us the info for converting TCR to ECS in its AR4 report (add the 0.6°C that are “in the pipeline” now, waiting for “equilibrium”). Since this 0.6°C estimate was based on an ECS estimate of around twice the latest range, the value would be around half at the new lower range. Therefore (as the authors state) the “projections of 21st-century warming” will be lower than previously estimated by IPCC.
BBD, I have addressed all your points and the conclusion remains: we have new information, which tells us that the ECS is much lower than previously estimated. Get used to it.
Max
Well manacker, you have simply repeated all the misconceptions and errors in your previous comments for the nth time. This exchange is as pointless as all previous ones with you because you aren’t listening. Since I am no longer permitted to express my very real exasperation at this na-na-na-can’t-hear-you tactic of yours, I don’t think there’s anything left to say.
WebHubTelescope | January 16, 2013 at 12:43 am said: ”Sure why would I not let you? Unlike this place, I don’t delete comments on my blog”.
How come you forgot to send me my Christmas card? Are you getting a dementia or something? Happy new year Crackpot!
Model predicted range?
Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?
Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
Simplistic, optimistic, pessimistic or realistic – which is the true scientific stance? The interpetation of the IPCC ensemble is stuck at simplistic it seems. This is not the modellers thenselves who know the situation perfectly well but simplistic camp followers such as blah blah.
manacker (January 11, 2013 at 5:43 pm) :
[ I don’t think you mean AGW, but increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration ]
Your earlier comment suggests that you believe that the empirical evidence which Jim has repeatedly asked for does exist :
manacker (January 11, 2013 at 11:33 am) (paragraph breaks removed)
You may want to let Jim Cripwell know about these studies – I can see you’ve participated in some recent sub-threads involving him on this topic, but have as yet to raise this point of disagreement with him.
oneuniverse
There are, indeed, recent studies, which constrain the (2xCO2) ECS to a value of around 1.7C (or around half of the previously predicted value).
And, yes, these are based on analyses of the actual physical record rather than simply from model simulations (as was the case for earlier higher values).
These data do NOT resolve the open uncertainties on the quantitative impact of natural forcing on the past record. This is one of the big “uncertainties” to which our hostess has referred repeatedly.
The studies all estimate that natural factors were quite small.
If, however, the natural portion of the past warming were greater than what was assumed in the studies, then the (2xCO2) ECS would be even lower than the recently estimated range. In fact, it could be as low as almost zero.
So there is no “point of disagreement” between me and Jim Cripwell. I have simply chosen not to be rationally skeptical of AGW per se, but to limit my skepticism to the CAGW premise as outlined by IPCC.
And IMO the recent studies have given us a new “upper limit” of the ECS range – it could be much lower if past natural forcing was, in fact, greater than the relatively tiny amount that was assumed in the studies.
Hope this clears it up for you.
Max
Thanks for your summary, Max.
Jim Cripwell (January 10, 2013 at 12:53 pm)
(Jim says that no-one no-one can present this data.)
manacker (January 11, 2013 at 11:33 am)
You say the actual observations since 1850 show a CO2-temperature response. Assuming that you wrote what you meant, you disagree with Jim.
oneuniverse, you write “Assuming that you wrote what you meant, you disagree with Jim.”
Max and I do not disagree on the fundamentals. We disagree on the extent to which we concede that CAGW might be correct. I maintain that CAGW is a plausible hypothesis and nothing more. I base this belief on the issue of empirical data. I will only be convinced that CAGW is more than a hypothesis when someone produces the empirical data that proves that when you add X CO2 to the atmosphere it cause global tempeartures to rise by Y. If that belief means I am unscientific, or a clown, or a number of other uncomplimentary things I have been called, so be it. That is what I was taught at Cavendish Labs over 65 years ago.
Bob Droege has pointed out, quite correctly, that what I am looking for is beyond the scope of current technology to produce; it is currently impractical to produce the empirical evidence that I require. It is here that Max and I disagree. He is prepared to concede that there may be other ways of trying to decide whether CAGW is correct or not. I do not concede this. The warmists are fundamentally wrong in pretending that there is a scientific way of proving that CAGW is correct without producing the empirical data that I require. I am not prepared to concede on that issue.
There are, of course, many other ramifications of this fundamental difference I have with the warmists. If people want to discuss these, I am more than willing.
oneuniverse
Since you quoted me, let’s look at the quotation, taken in context.
I listed several studies, all based on actual physical observations, and all showing a much lower “CO2 temperature response” (and therefore a lower 2xCO2 ECS) than had been previously estimated by the IPCC model simulations.
Estimating certain fairly small natural forcing factors over the period, Schlesinger and Lewis attributed a portion of the observed warming since 1850 to CO2. This is the estimated “CO2 temperature response” to which I referred, which I accepted a priori.
As I understand it, Jim Cripwell plays the skeptical “hard line” here and is unwilling to accept this until he sees that it is supported by empirical evidence. So be it.
Of course, if the estimated natural forcing factors were larger, based on some as yet undefined mechanism (cosmic rays or whatever), the “CO2 temperature response” would be lower.
And if this mechanism were confirmed and quantified by empirical data, I would revise my acceptance of the above “CO2 temperature response”, based on the new evidence.
So I see this as sort of a likely maximum value.
And, as a result, I also see the newly estimated range for ECS of 1.5C to 2C as a likely maximum.
Sorry for the long response, but hope this clears it up.
Max
Max, Jim has stated: I still believe that the empirical data [gives a strong indication] that the true value of climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero.
You wrote on this thread, 3 days ago :
All-in-all, it appears to be a safe bet that the ECS is around half the figure previously estimated and reported in AR4.
These two statements are in quantitative and qualitative disagreement.
(“Disagreement” in the sense that both of your “bets” can’t be right.)
oneuniverse, you write “These two statements are in quantitative and qualitative disagreement.”
Not at all. Quite the contrary. No matter how hard you try, you will never get Max and I to disagree on anything that matters. If you will read all that Max writes, you will see that he recognizes that estimating CS from empirical data requires that one has a complete knowledge of all natural effects on global temperatures. It is for this reason that I do not trust this methodology. Max and I discussed this months ago, and agreed that it makes this way of estimating CS to be of dubious value. But Max likes to take a dig at the warmists by using their own, scientificly incorrect, method, to estimate CS from empirical data and show that his way of doing things produces numbers that are considerably less than the warmists claim. As Max noted above “So I see this as sort of a likely maximum value.” In other words, he thinks that any unknown natural effects probably cause warming rather than cooling.
So our two statements are completely compatible. I believe that the total climate sensitivity for adding CO2 to the atmopshere is indistinguishable from zero. Max believes that the value is considerably less than the exaggerated values espoused by the warmists, but that his numbers are probably bigger than the true number.
ps. Max, thanks for your further considered comments (11:41am).
Jim, I did read Max’s comment about “likely maximum”. I don’t know whether he meant it as a retraction of his earlier “safe bet” comment, or if it was complementary to it – I left it to Max to clarify whether he stands by his earlier comment.
Yet a mere two hours earlier, you wrote :
Jim Cripwell (January 14, 2013 at 11:41 am)
So you believe that X is zero (or indistinguishable from it), yet you believe that the scientific evidence required to determine X is currently inaccessible to our technology. So your belief is, by your own criteria, not based on scientific evidence. (Even if your “null” hypothesis is that CO2 has no effect on T, you still have to experimentally test it).
In light of this, next time you should say something like: “Based on no empirical evidence, at least none that passes muster with me, I believe that the total climate sensitivity for adding CO2 to the atmopshere is indistinguishable from zero. “
Correction: Please replace the two appearances of the letter X in the penultimate paragraph with Y (“So you believe that X is zero [..]”, “[..] X is currently inaccessible [..]”) .
oneuniverse
Believe Jim Cripwell has answered your latest query, but I will repeat (in short form).
The latest estimates of (2xCO2) ECS show values around half those previously estimated.
The latest estimates are based on actual empirical observations since 1850, while the previous ones were based on model simulations.
For the above reason (Feynman), I would accept the newer estimates as more likely than the earlier ones.
Both include an estimate for natural factors, which has a high level of uncertainty and could be considerably understated, as the mechanisms for natural forcing are poorly understood, and IPCC concedes that its “level of scientific understanding of natural forcing is low”.
Therefore, I regard the latest estimates as “upper estimates” of ECS.
If and when the scientific understanding of solar forcing mechanisms increases or new natural mechanisms are validated and quantified by physical observations or reproducible experimentation (ex. cosmic rays / clouds), this could, of course, revise the above estimate for ECS significantly.
It is my understanding that Jim Cripwell insists on empirical data to validate any ECS estimate, while I am prepared to accept the latest estimates as a likely upper end of the range, until the uncertainties regarding natural forcing can be cleared up.
I hop this now clarifies this point for you.
Max
manacker: Hope this clears it up for you.
Almost, thank you. You wrote earlier in the thread :
You’ve subsequently expressed the following a few times :
Does this mean that you no longer agree with your earlier statement from three days ago? (Or is the “safe bet” the same and now additionally described as close to the upper estimates?)
oneuniverse
You appear to still have some difficulties with my position on the latest (2xCO2) ECS estimates.
You ask:
“Does this mean that you no longer agree with your earlier statement from three days ago? (Or is the “safe bet” the same and now additionally described as close to the upper estimates?)”
I agree with my earlier statement with the additional clarification.
IOW it is a safe bet that the latest ECS is more realistic than earlier estimates and that the most representative actual value is not higher than the latest estimate, for the reasons already mentioned:
– latest estimate based on actual physical record since 1850 rather than just model simulations
– assumptions made for natural forcing in latest estimate may need to be increased if suggested additional natural forcing mechanisms (ex. cosmic rays / clouds) can be experimentally validated and quantified
Max
The ‘difficulties’, if you want to call them that, were caused by ambiguities in what you’d written, necessitating clarification on your part – you hadn’t mentioned that you regard the latest studies as providing upper estimates for ECS until I questioned you. You’ve now changed the “safe bet” from
All-in-all, it appears to be a safe bet that the ECS is around half the figure previously estimated and reported in AR4.
to
it is a safe bet that the latest ECS is more realistic than earlier estimates and that the most representative actual value is not higher than the latest estimate
The former is in disagreement with Jim Cripwell, since it places the likely value as positive (around half the AR4 estimate). The latter, more weakly, states (redundantly) that the likely value is likely lower than the new upper estimate.
oneuniverse, you write “The former is in disagreement with Jim Cripwell, since it places the likely value as positive (around half the AR4 estimate). The latter, more weakly, states (redundantly) that the likely value is likely lower than the new upper estimate”
Thinking about this, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. There is no problem. As I have tried to point out over and over again, according to the scientific method, the PROPER scientific method, until we have an actual MEASUREMENT of climate sensitivity, no-one knows that the value is. Yes, there are all sorts of estimates, but none of them are worth a tinker’s dam. This is what I keep on emphasising when I demand empirical data. Until we have the empirical data which actually measures climate sentitrivity, any particular number is as good, or as bad, as any other. Max has his way of doing things ; I have mine. Neither of them matter.
However, what we are both railing against, is this stupid idea that the warmists put out, that their ESTIMATE of climate sensitivity is somehow written on tablets of stone. The warmists estimates are just as bad as mine and Max’s. That is what Max and I are trying to point out; the warmists estimates are nothing more than SWAGs, as his and mine are, and aren’t worth the powder to blow them to hell.
Let me try and illusttrate this with a couple of examples. Several years ago, a dozen or more people estimated (guessed) what the maximum smoothed Wolf number, Rz, would be for the sunspots of solar cycle 24. The guesses ranged from 35 to 185. Everyone knew that someone was likely to be correct, but no-one knew who. Did it worry anyone that the numbers varied by a factor of 5? Of course not. In a few years, we will know who was right. Now Livingston and Penn have given their estimate of 7 for SC 25.
For the past few years, people have estimated (guessed) how much ice there would be in the Arctic at minimum. Again there have been around a dozen and a half guesses. We have had this for several years, and no-one has, as yet, shown any consistency in guessing. So, next year, we will have the same poll, the same sort of guesses, and, in the end , someone will be right.
So it is more than likely that Max and I are both wrong. All we are trying to show is that it is a stupid idea that anyone KNOWS what the CS of CO2 is. Which is the garbage that the IPCC and their ilk have been claiming for years.
But Cripwell. we do have measurements of sensitivity.
But Mosher, can you state what (you believe) the climate sensitivity is to a doubling of CO2 +/- .5C?
Steven, you write “But Cripwell. we do have measurements of sensitivity.”
No-one has proved that when you add X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere it causes global temperatures to rise by Y degrees C. That is the ONLY measure of climate sensitivity that I will accept. Period.
Steven Mosher
Aw, c’mon.
On the “Draft US Climate Report” thread you’ve just expounded on why “fresh pie in the baker’s window” does not provide evidence that “the baker is baking today” (with logic that makes sense).
http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/12/draft-u-s-climate-assessment-report/#comment-286015
And now you write to Jim Cripwell: “we do have measurements of sensitivity”.
What kind of measurements?
I’d agree (as I pointed out to oneuniverse above) that the latest studies (Schlesinger 2012, Gillett 2011 and the yet unpublished blurb by Lewis) are based on actual “measurements” (unlike the earlier IPCC estimates, which resulted in values twice as high), but even these include a big assumption on natural forcing (and you certainly know how to spell ASS-U-ME).
So it is true that we now have estimates of sensitivity, which are largely based on actual “measurements”, but we do not have “measurements of sensitivity”.
Sorry.
Max
oneuniverse
After a long exchange we have established that my position today (on the latest estimates of ECS), as clarified, is not in disagreement with my position a few days ago.
I am prepared to accept these new estimates (as an upper range of ECS), because they are the best we have to date (as they are based on real-time “measurements” of total change plus an assumption on natural forcing, rather than simply on model simulations, as the earlier IPCC estimates were – until such time as the natural forcing estimate can be validated by other measurements or reproducible experimentation.
Jim Cripwell is not (as I understand his position). He accepts no estimate if it is not backed by empirical data from real-time measurements or reproducible experimentation (Feynman).
That’s where the difference lies between Jim and myself on this issue (although I think we both want to see exactly the same thing – empirical evidence as defined by Feynman).
Thanks for an interesting exchange.
Max
So, if I understand you correctly Jim, when you wrote “I still believe that the empirical data [gives a strong indication] that the true value of climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero.“, you actually meant something entirely different, as you clarify, : “Until we have the empirical data which actually measures climate sentitrivity, any particular number is as good, or as bad, as any other.”
Similarly, when you wrote :
.. the passage wasn’t to be taken seriously, but understood to be mocking climate scientists’ attempts to constrain and improve estimates of climate sensitivity without the use of precision controlled planetary-scale experiments (if I understand you correctly).
The satire wasn’t obvious – I think you could’ve helped by saying something like “the true value of climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from my ass” (or “the circumference of my ass”, for the type-sensitive) to let readers know that the actual number was irrelevant, and that you were taking the mick.
I am sorry, oneuniverse, but you fail to understand what I am trying to say. You take little snippets from what I write, and miss the total message. Let me try to explain in simple words. The only way to know what the true value of climate sensitivity is, is to measure it. The only way we can do this is by proving that when you add X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere from current levels, it causes global temperatures to rise by Y degrees C. We do not have the terchnology to do this at present, so there is no way to actually measure climate sensitivity.
However, there is another way of approaching this problem from the empirical data that we actually have. This is what I call negative evidence. No-one can find a CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. This does not mean that there is no signal, nor does it mean that a signal could not appear in the future. It is just that no-one can find one at the moment. This negative empirical data gives a strong indication that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is indistinguishable from zero. It does not measure climate sensitivity, and it does not prove anything. This is the best I can do to try and arrive at a value for climate sensitivity from the actual data we have. It is entirely unsatisfactory, but I dont think anyone else has done any better.
Thanks Jim (I think we’re almost back to where we started on the other thread.)
According to you, “any number is as good, or bad, as any other” until we’ve done the controlled experiment. I don’t think you’ll find many scientists (climate or otherwise) agreeing with you.
(Extending your reasoning, regional weather forecasts aren’t worth considering because we haven’t done controlled experiments mapping out the precise relationship of precipitation to other environmental variables. )
According to you, it’s meaningless to evaluate whether anyone else has done better or worse, since “any number is as good, or bad, as any other” (until the controlled experiment is carried out).
oneuniverse and Jim Cripwell
It appears you both agree that, at this time, it is not possible to find actual physical observations or perform reproducible experimentation that would provide empirical scientific evidence to determine the value of (2xCO2) climate sensitivity.
But there may be a ray of hope here.
As you know, the CLOUD experiment at CERN (Geneva) has its objective to verify or falsify the hypothesis of Henrik Svensmark and others that galactic cosmic rays act to nucleate clouds during certain conditions, thereby affected climate. This hypothesis rests on some fairly good long-term correlations between GCRs (solar activity) and climate plus some rudimentary experimental work.
So far the CLOUD experiment has validated, under controlled conditions, the mechanism itself, in the presence of naturally occurring aerosols, but it is still too early to say how this would work quantitatively in our atmosphere.
Further work is planned.
Now let us postulate that this work finds that this mechanism is too weak to cause much change in actual cloud cover and our climate. We would then be at essentially the same point we are today (except that we would have eliminated one alternate to GH warming).
If, however, these experiments demonstrate that the Svensmark hypothesis is, indeed, validated and even quantified, then we would have “empirical scientific evidence” to enable a better definition of (2xCO2) ECS.
Alternatively, someone could devise a controlled experiment to do the same for the GHE of CO2, although this might be a much more complicated experiment to set up and perform. But who knows?
We are in the very infancy of climate science today. We have so much more still left to learn than we already know. Our hostess has pointed this out repeatedly with her statements, papers and analyses (“Italian Flag”, etc.) of “uncertainty” in our planet’s climate.
It may not happen in our time, but I’m sure that some day scientists will have a real understanding of our planet’s climate and Jim Cripwell’s challenge can be answered..
Max
oneuniverxse, yoiu write “According to you, “any number is as good, or bad, as any other” until we’ve done the controlled experiment. I don’t think you’ll find many scientists (climate or otherwise) agreeing with you. ”
First, I am not sure I used the expression “controlled experiemnt”, but I certainly used the idea of measured experiemental data. I am quite prepared to agree that there is little difference between these two ways of saying the same thing.
I am not quite sure how to respond to this. I am so appalled that I am afraid I will be accused of some sort of terrible crime if I write what I really think. As I have said many times, when I was at Cavendish Labs over 65 years ago, learning the fiundamentals of physics, the one thing my mentor Prof Sir Gordon Sutherland, and all the various professors and others, hammered into my head is that until there is measured evidence, then all you have is a hypothesis. On that issue, I will NEVER yield.
I am sorry, oneuniverse, but if there are any people who disagree with me, then they are certainly not physicists. And I will defend that attitude and opinion anywhere, anytime, with anyone who wants to take part in the debate.
The first word that came into my head when I read what you wrote was garbage, and maybe it really is the best word.
You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Committee Publications > All Select Committee Publications > Commons Select Committees > Science and Technology > Science and Technology
Memorandum submitted by David Holland (CRU 24)
“Submission
1. In the space available I shall only deal fully with the first of the three questions posed by the Committee regarding the implications of the release of the UEA emails. However, on the second, in regard to UEA’s own enquiry, I would hope it would review the many breaches of the DPA and call for written and oral evidence from those named. On the third, regarding temperature datasets, if those using land based stations are being referred to, my answer would be, not sufficiently, and I am sure others will explain why.
2. The emails show that a group of influential climate scientists colluded to subvert the peer-review process of the IPCC and science journals, and thereby delay or prevent the publication and assessment of research by scientists who disagreed with the group’s conclusions about global warming. They manufactured pre-determined conclusions through the corruption of the IPCC process and deleted procedural and other information hoping to avoid its disclosure under freedom-of-information requests.
3. The Committee should note that, despite the longstanding instruction from world governments in the Principles Governing IPCC Work[1] that its work should be open and transparent, only on the most recent AR4 IPCC Reports do we have any information on the assessment process and then only well after its publication. Only because of freedom of information requests by Canadian Stephen McIntyre, do we now have online the draft text that was sent out to Government and Expert Reviewers together with most of their comments and the Lead Authors’ responses.
4. In 2007 I published a paper “Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process”[2] in which I described the then known facts about scandals similar to, but far more important than that of the Himalayan glaciers. A reprint of this paper and one I presented at the October 2009 University of York Climate Week accompanies this submission, together with a folder of the UEA/CRU emails that I will refer to by number and an Appendix with other documents. With my submission these provide conclusive evidence of the wrongdoing I first described in 2007.
The Historic Temperature Record Scandal
5. The emails cover the period from March 1996 just after the IPCC Second Assessment Report to November 2009. They chart the efforts by a small group to establish as a scientific certainty that the slight warming, which had then only been apparent for just over 15 years, was exceptional compared with pre-industrial times.
6. The IPCC’s First Assessment Report had concluded that, because it had undoubtedly been warmer in earlier epochs with lower concentrations of carbon dioxide, it was not possible to say what part increased concentrations were playing in current warming. The suggestion that all might not be well came only from the emerging climate models run on computers.
7. The 1995 IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) said only that Palaeoclimate ‘work in progress’ suggested that warming might be exceptional, but the scientists were even more confident of the alarming predictions of their models. Several Expert Reviewers strongly disagreed and insisted upon strong cautions in the text.
8. However, allegedly[3] under instructions from Sir John Houghton, who in turn was responding to a letter from the US State Department, UEA’s illustrious alumnus Ben Santer deleted the cautions and precipitated a major dispute. This led to some dissenting scientists shunning the process. It also resulted in the addition of ‘Review Editors’ to the IPCC assessment process.”
Continued on http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc2402.htm
THe IPCC put the agenda to corrupt science and scam the public by the fiction of AGW into full throttle by excising the consensus conclusion of scientists of the 1995 report and replacing it with the the science fraud cobbled together by Houghton and Santer. The “AGW consensus” has been this manufactured science fraud since then and the base on which all the other malpractices to promote AGW have been built.
Unless this is widely known the general public has no reason not to trust the experts proclaiming there is science consensus, no reason to stop and think about any of it, but learning the “AGW consensus” is a deliberate science fraud could be problematic for scientists in the field who consider themselves experts if the rug is pulled out from beneath their feet, they might have to learn to think for themselves because who can they trust..?
The label ‘liberal progressive’ seems ter me a contradiction in
terms, considering how those so-called, often express views
that are neither ‘liberal,’ pertaining to human liberty, ie freedom
from constraints, or ‘progressive,’ ie advancing or developing to
an (arguably) better state, innstead they advocate a return to some
planned utopia..
How does the term apply when liberal progressives demonstrate
pervasive tendencies ter proclamation … (green manifestos or
consensus science) prescribe creeping authoritarian centralist
government, and seek ter prohibit individual responses and
adaptations ter living on the littoral, “PC” constraints ter
individual free speech?
….Flash back…
It’s still about Plato on the hill, interpreting the shadows on the
cave wall, prescribing a ‘back ter the golden age’ manifesto:
‘Listen, serfs, only philosopher kings, and I am one, select advisory councils are others,* are able to interpret these shadows in the cave
wall ( with 95% probability,) WE will tell yer what yer need ter know!’
… Meanwhile, down in the agora, there’s Socrates, apostle of
individual freedom and open society, criticizing shibboliths and unconsidered opinions,… tenets of certainty … reminding us of
how little we ‘know,’ yet,how everyone seeking enlightenment, is
capable of learning … even serfs!
* EXPERT Advisory Councils such as:
The Yew – Nighted Nay – shuns
The IPCC
The NCADC.
Yeah Kim,
Disturbed sediments, split bark, sometimes it ain’t easy rootin’
out root causes of hockey sticks. Tea leaves, chicken entrails?
Fear and guilt are the root of some evil.
==========
Beth
The root cause of any shtick – is the “shtick”.
(Riddle: “What came first, the…….?”)
Max
Why did the schtick cross the road? For burial at the cross.
===========================
Root causes Kim and Max?
“Seed before shoot,
Except after loot..”
A Limerick about a “shtick”
There was a young fellow named Mick
Who cobbled together a “shtick”
His data looked fine
Once he “hid the decline”
And nobody noticed his trick
Very quickly the “experts” agreed
‘Twas a wonderful graphic, indeed
Changing bothersome history
(How it could was a mystery)
But it perfectly covered the need
Then a couple of skeptic Canucks
Started checking into the books
They found faults and omissions
Which raised grave suspicions
That Mick and his cohorts were crooks
So the hockey “shtick” died in disgrace
But a bevy of clones took its place
Wiggling ‘round, flat and pretty
Like a bowl of spaghetti
And all of the “experts” saved face
Now Michael, who writes on this thread
Has gotten it into his head
That with rationalizing
And crazy surmising
He can raise the “shtick” back from the dead
Although it is hard we still try
To caution poor Mike with this cry:
“You’ll look like a clown
If you don’t put it down
The hockey ‘shtick’s’ dead, let it lie”
RIP
Plus one, Max.
A fitting elegy fer the Hokey Shtick.
Beth.
Pertaing ter … ahem… experts )
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/major-change-in-uk-met-office-global-warming-forecast/
Pertaining has an ‘n’
Two, in fact. According to experts.
:)
Touche Faustino :) and tho’ I’m kinda lib er tar ian
non progressive liberal I agree with yer about Button
as a heluva good guy Oz politician.
Beth
thomaswfuller2 | January 11, 2013 at 10:45 am |
“One third of all human emissions of CO2 have occurred since the plateau of temperatures in 1998. One-third. A massive forcing in a short time period.”
Wow. I didn’t know that. No wonder you’re causing such a shiitstorm of reaction from the usual warmist suspects.
Good one.
Yes (it’s ALMOST one third, not exactly) and it can only get worse for warmists.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n1/images_article/nclimate1332-f1.jpg
Emission growth was high in both 2011 and 2012 and we’re now at almost 10 Gt C/year (fossil fuel and cement production).
Poor Tom doesn’t understand the carbon cycle. He doesn’t understand sinks. He can’t read a very simple graph like the Keeling Curve. Can you see a massive surge in the fraction of atmospheric CO2? Can you?
Well, perhaps you should ask Poor Tom why not. That would be the sceptical thing to do, would it not? Rather than just gulping down Poor Tom’s latest misunderstanding without the slightest hesitation or questioning.
You are not sceptics.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say.
The annual change in CO2 follows the temperature closely – when the cooling kicks in, the growth rate will reduce and eventually change the sign (with sufficiently low temperatures).
Edim
You wrote to BBD
“I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say.”
Don’t worry, neither was BBD.
Max
Can you see a massive surge in the fraction of atmospheric CO2? Can you? Yea or nay? Do tell.
Dr Curry, why am I on moderation?
Very large number of comments (approaching 10% of total CE comments) plus too many insults. I will take you off moderation if you can calm down the insults. Also, anyone that mentioned ‘BBD’ in their comment also went into moderation, so I could assess both sides of these exchanges.
Dr Curry
Thank you for the response. I look forward to a continuation of you even-handed moderation policy.
Is BBD a technocrat? Naw, Judy’s just washing his face.
===============
I see that the trolls will now attempt to goad me into getting moderated again. This might backfire in the face of an even-handed moderation policy.
BlahBlaDuh doesn’t understand what he’s trying to say either. Fuller was exactly correct. Well almost exactly.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full
CO2 rose from 370 to 395ppm in past 15 years (25ppm).
Assuming 280ppm at beginning of industrial revolution the total rise is 115ppm. 25/115 is 22%.
Thus it is true:
There has not been a significant rise in global temperature in the past 15 years despite a 22% rise in anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere.
If 33% of human CO2 emission was 1998-2013 but atmospheric accumulation was 22% of cumulative total since year 1750 then carbon sinks must be kicking up a notch otherwise the percentages would match.
At any rate we’re still left with the bald fact that there was no significant temperature increase associated with the most recent 33% of cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emission. That doesn’t jibe with the AGW narrative. The stink of it is so strong that it’s waking up the apathetic unwashed masses.
I have the notion that what we could find if we look into the code of the models (assuming we not only have the TIME but also the expertise. But if we have the expertise, what might we find?
…A few years ago I read about the early days of climate models. There was one factor that kept making the slope go to infinity, and they were having an impossible time of getting it to go away. They brought in a Japanese (as I recall) programmer/modeler. He found a trick (that term again) that left the rest of the program intact and functioning, but it prevented the curve from going vertical. Problem solved, right?
Well, yeah, but what he DID had nothing to do with mechanisms in the climate. Just because it made the model keep from going haywire doesn’t mean he di ANYTHING for the model mimicking the climate.
Ever since reading that, I’ve wondered how many “fixes” are in the models – fixes that make numbers behave but don’t replicate the physical climate at all. The purpose of the models is NOT to make numbers behave but to be mathematical copies of the mechanism they purport to show.
Since models all have different outputs, It is obvious that each one has not only different values input, but also different fixes.
For every mathematical fix, I give them a good old Brooklyn cheer – and would flunk them for fudging not the data but the handling of the data. Any fudge at all is a failure. And I DO expect that a good objective look into ALL the models would show such tricks.
At the same time, we all also know that they don’t include proper understanding of water vapor, so no matter what else they have in the models’ code, they are “misunderrepresenting” the biggest greenhouse gas (as GW Bush might put it).
Steve Garcia
Talking flowers? Say …
Heading down the primrose-path, tip-
toe-ing among the tulips today,
I heard them talk of tipping-points and say
how much they fear the dreaded climate-scient-ists
who seek to tax their food and
ration it.
I didn’t get a chance to comment on this thread while it was still active, but an article I stumbled upon may interest some readers. First, I will say that I practiced workers’ compensation law, and part of virtually every case was expert medical opinion on both sides. Although I generally respect doctors and acknowledge their high level education, I still saw glaring mistakes.
One example involved the Cleveland Clinic stating that my client had a psychological problem (after the local doctor diagnosed scleroderma — a truly awful anti-immune disease that attacks your joints and organs.) when my client had scleroderma. Several years after the Clinic misdiagnosis anyone could see the scleroderma — my clients skin was discolored and his hands were like claws. There are other examples, which I don’t need to explore now. However, my basic opinion is that expert opinion is entitled to some deference, but that it needs to be tested over and over again.
An article that makes my point stronger than I can may be found here: http://www.tmlt.org/newscenter/closedclaims/generalsurgery.html?x=1
This article details how a 3” by 13” metal surgical retractor was left imbedded in a patient after surgery. Although that is terrible enough, what is truly amazing is that over a period of 6 years, five separate imaging films were taken, and only on the last occasion was this huge piece of metal discovered in this unfortunate patient. If this many doctors can mess up such a simple matter, climate scientists with an agenda and others can just as easily mislead the public.
JD
There is something about exploration that satisfies the
angler 2 soul off the angler. Now you are a beginner and want to stop it and
let it go. After the break the Cygnets were shown by Cygnets fly tying Instructor, Jimmy Miller how to tie
a Palomar. And the more experienced angler will re-discover
thee anticipation, excitement, aand yes – even in HUGE flows.
Froom a doe cull in the south, coast lines, lagoons, lakess and bays.
Another US rod manufacturer, Sage, is based in thee
shimano fireblood fishing rod 7 foot North-East.
Iusually break the fishing seasons into thrde parts,
says the guide. However, since air temperatures have cooled, humidity is down,
light breezes tickle the waters and hihh wind conditions and be safe.
Not only did Andrew repair the reel.
Romney says he’d make accountant urban dictionary
up lost revenue by curbing tax breaks. When
legalization passed in Colorado in November, taxes will drop accordingly.
You would have to clear a hurdle rate of at least $2, 000, 000 drinks.