by Judith Curry
Well, if you judge ‘sides’ by what climate scientists have to say about the science, it is getting difficult to tell.
Kevin Trenberth was interviewed on NPR last nite, the ‘balance’ for my interview. I found several statements in this story to be interesting in terms of trying to delineate my ‘skeptical’ perspective from Trenberth’s ‘consensus’ perspective.
The ‘pause’
From Trenberth’s NPR interview:
So will the oceans come to our rescue?
“That’s a good question, and the answer is maybe partly yes, but maybe partly no,” he says.
The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries. But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998, which made it one of the hottest years on record.
Trenberth says since then, the ocean has mostly been back in one of its soaking-up modes.
“They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,” he says.
20 years!!! From his statement it is not quite clear what the starting date is for the 20 years: whether it is now and 20 MORE years, or whether it started in 1998 with 20 years presumably taking us to 2018. In any event, this is definitely not what the consensus said in the 2007 AR4 report, and based upon what I have seen of the AR5, this is not what I would expect the AR5 to say.
A reminder of what I said on this topic in my Congressional testimony:
When considering possible physical reasons for the plateau since 1998, it is instructive to consider the previous mid-century plateau in global average surface temperature. The IPCC AR4 explained this previous plateau in the following way: “the cooling effects of sulphate aerosols may account for some of the lack of observational warming between 1950 and 1970, despite increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.”
With regards to multi-decadal natural internal variability, the IPCC considers this issue primarily in context of detection of an anthropogenic warming signal above the background ‘noise’ of natural variability. The IPCC’s attribution of the late 20th century warming has focused on external radiative forcing, and no explicit estimate of the contribution of natural internal variability to the warming was made. A recent paper by Tung and Zhou suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century. They argue that a natural multidecadal oscillation of an average period of 70 years with significant amplitude of 0.3–0.4°C is superimposed on the secular warming trend, which accounts for 40% of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Tung and Zhou identify this oscillation with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), although recent research suggests a more complex multidecadal signal propagating through a network of synchronized climate indices. Tung and Zhou argue that not taking the AMO into account in predictions of future warming under various forcing scenarios may run the risk of over-estimating the warming for the next two to three decades, when the AMO is likely in its down phase.
Consider Hurricane Sandy. Trenberth figures the storm was maybe 5 or 10 percent more powerful as a result of global warming. And sea level is 8 inches higher than it was a century ago. That doesn’t seem that dramatic, but he argues that made a huge and costly difference.
“I reckon that without climate change, we would not have exceeded thresholds that caused the flooding of the subways in Manhattan and the tunnels from Manhattan to New Jersey and to Brooklyn.”
Preliminary damage estimates rank Hurricane Sandy as the 2nd costliest Atlantic hurricane, only behind Hurricane Katrina. When Sandy made landfall, it had been categorized as a post-tropical cyclone with winds equivalent to a Category 1 hurricane. Sandy’s 13 foot storm surge arose from a combination of a very large horizontal extent of the storm plus high tide conditions.
The current elevated hurricane activity in the North Atlantic is associated with the warm phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which could continue for another decade or two. The recent transition to the cool phase of the Pacific Oscillation is associated with a greater frequency of La Nina events, which are associated with elevated hurricane activity and a preference for Atlantic landfalls (relative to Gulf landfalls).
JC summary: My position on extreme weather events and climate change is much more consistent with IPCC consensus as expressed by the SREX, than is Trenberth’s position. While Trenberth is quick to acknowledge the role of the multi-decadal oscillations in ocean heat storage, he neglects to consider that these same oscillations have a dominant control on the hemispheric weather patterns that influence extreme weather events.
Scientists engaging in policy/politics
From my NPR interview:
“All we can do is be as objective as we can about the evidence and help the politicians evaluate proposed solutions,” she says. If that means doing nothing, “I can’t say myself that that isn’t the best solution.”
And this is where Curry parts company most clearly with her peers. For example, the leading scientific organization for earth scientists, the American Geophysical Union, says in a position statement that climate change “requires urgent action.” It concludes that despite some uncertainties, there’s no scenario where climate change will be inconsequential.
“I don’t know how concerned I should be about it — on what time scale that might happen, whether that’s 100 or 200 years, what societies will be like, what other things are going on with the natural climate,” Curry says. “I just don’t know what the next hundred or 200 years will hold, and whether this will be regarded as an important issue. I just don’t know.”
By now, of course, Curry has strayed far from science and deep into public policy.
“But in terms of telling other people what to do, I don’t have any big answers.”
From Kevin Trenberth’s NPR interview:
Over the decades that he has been working on climate change, the role of scientists has gradually expanded. Prominent scientists like him are trying to reduce the risk of global disruption by pushing society to act. These are frustrating times.
“This is very much in the role of the politicians who are supposed to do what’s in the interests of everybody as a whole,” Trenberth says. “And I’m not so sure many politicians understand their role in this.”
But wading into this policy debate, Trenberth argues that the United States could and should lead the world toward a less dangerous trend.
“If you play the right kind of role, then other countries will follow,” he says.
JC summary: KT and JC obviously disagree substantially on the role of scientists in public debates about policy. KT aligns himself with the consensus in terms of ‘urgent action is needed.’ I stay out of making specific policy recommendations or urging action, saying that i don’t think this the role of scientists and that personally I don’t have any good solutions to this wicked problem. The bizarre thing is that Harris labels me as straying from science and being deep into the politics and in bed with the Republicans.
JC conclusions
I think that Richard Harris missed the real story here: the changing social dynamics of scientists in the climate change debate. What actually differentiates academic scientists in this public debate? It doesn’t seem to be the science.
Virtually all academic climate scientists are within the 97% consensus regarding the infrared emission of the carbon dioxide molecule and the warming effect on the planet. This includes ‘skeptics’ such as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, etc.
The uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity are such that beliefs as low as 1C and as high as 6C cannot be judged as irrational.
‘Consensus’ scientists are busy investigating the pause cause, using arguments that have been skeptical talking points for several decades.
Few scientists are skeptical of the basic analyses and confidence levels put forward by the IPCC SREX regarding observationally-based assessments of linkages between AGW and extreme weather.
Trenberth has strayed from scientific arguments of the consensus; this seems to be ok if it is more alarming than the consensus.
So . . . what is the differentiator? Why is there such hostility between the two ‘sides’, even though there is little at this point to discriminate the two sides in terms of science? Why have I been thrown off the ‘consensus’ island? Here are my ideas on the differentiators, and they are social (not scientific). I use myself as an example here, since I don’t want to get into talking about or labeling other climate scientists in this regard.
1. Fear and loathing of skeptics, particularly Steve McIntyre (read the Climategate emails for evidence of this). McIntyre is symbolic of attacks against consensus science, and a number of scientists have taken this very personally. My engagement with Steve McIntyre was probably the impetus for my getting tossed off the island, which was very visible with the publication of my post-Climagate essay ‘On the credibility of climate research‘ on McIntyre’s blog.
2. Allegiance to the ‘consensus’ and the social contract between the scientists, institutions and policy makers that has been very beneficial to the field of climate scientists. I have raised concerns about the consensus approach in my uncertainty monster paper and my paper no consensus on consensus. I have also raised concerns about the social contract aspect.
3. The selling of the merchant of doubt and war on science memes, which made uncertainty and doubt dirty words. My uncertainty monster flew directly in the face of this.
4. Expectation of climate scientists to support CO2 mitigation policies. My position is that scientists should stay away from such advocacy unless they understand the policy process and advocate in a responsible way (as per the AAAS workshop guidelines.)
5. Others?
All of this is amplified by the consensus police and denial warriors surrounding the scientific community, including bloggers, the media, NGOs, politicians.
So I have committed 4 major ‘social’ faux pas against the the consensus. Maybe there are others. Tamsin Edwards has arguably scored on three of these; her continued stated loyalty to the consensus seems to have kept her on the island.
Or maybe things are changing? The whole issue of uncertainty seems to be growing in importance. Skeptics are increasingly getting their papers published (including some that have emerged from the skeptical blogosphere). The policy debate has broadened far beyond CO2 mitigation, although climate scientists don’t seem to understand this. Unfortunately, the ostracism of scientists that do not socially support the consensus continues. And the insistence on scientists supporting urgent action on CO2 mitigation continues unabated.
I realize that I am treading into the area of social psychology here, I am throwing these ideas out there in the hopes that some social scientists will pick up on this issue and investigate so that we can better understand the dynamics here, where the tribal differences on a scientific topic are not driven so much by scientific differences but by social issues. I would also like to hear more anecdotes in this regard from other scientists. I am concerned that the social psychology of the allegiance to consensus is getting in the way of moving climate science forward and providing useful information and analyses to support decision making by policy makers.
I would judge them both irrational for a scientist, as I would any value in-between. “We don’t know” simply isn’t consistent with “beliefs“
AK you picked on the point I was going to make. If we dont know what the value of the climate sensitivity is, but we believe it is positive, then the correct limits are not 1 to 6 C, but 0 to 6 C.
I was actually referring to “beliefs” in any one value. A PDF of some shape might be appropriate, although IMO a scientific attitude would still preclude any sort of “belief”. Personally, I’d say the current evidence probably supports a PDF with a small tail crossing 0, but I certainly wouldn’t apply the word “belief” to such a conclusion.
Dotcomming third eyes and crossing beliefs.
===============
JC…” Why is there such hostility between the two ‘sides’, even though there is little at this point to discriminate the two sides in terms of science? Why have I been thrown off the ‘consensus’ island?”
My assessment is that because you host a blog, whereon MANY of the conservatives ‘deniers’ post many reasons that support their (denying) arguments, many in the ‘consensus’ camp believe that you are also an AGW ‘denier’. And, the deniers who post here think ‘any enemy of my enemy is my friend’.
Taking you at your word, that you and the ‘consensus’ have little disagreement, I would point out that testifying before Congress (which is majority Republican, known for their anti-AGW position) puts you into the denier camp, just by appearing.
While we can agree that no climate model can possibly predict (accurately) what the weather will be at any particular place on July 1, 2020, because these models all agree that our globe is getting warmer, it is our politicians who must do ‘something’. That ‘something’ is passing legislation, no matter how draconian, to slow and stop GHG emissions.
I find it commendable that you believe that scientists should not get into the political arena; but if the scientists can clearly see that our worldly nest is getting fouled, who is going to scream and wave their arms to call attention to it?? I submit that with 97% consensus, and with IPCC releasing a report which indicates that the consensus are more confident in their assessment, taking action to slow and stop global warming is becoming more critical with each day.
But are these advocating scientists clearly seeing or do they need a good dose of humility? Trenberth clearly believes he sees more clearly than even the alleged consensus as represented by the IPCC and blithely steps out on a limb with his claims in the knowledge that he will be retired by the time he will be shown to be fool or sage.
Walter, rather than climate scientists “screaming and waving their arms to avoid fouling the nest”, why not put a massive effort into solving the climate sensitivity issue? My position as a sceptic is centered around the broad issue of feedbacks + or – and the value 0 or 6. There is plenty of tax payer money flushing through the climate science community to adequately address this issue. Reorganize it and get the answer. Until then I have little confidence in the assessments of the consensus!
I am ready to join but I need to see the work first.
The “97%” consensus is a propaganda figment created by the alarmists, one that has been debunked several times over, even by observers not in the skeptical camp.
The purported 95% confidence level in the upcoming IPCC report is probably more a reflection of so called “bureaucratic science” where the confirmation bias grows ever stronger, than anything else. At that confidence level, we are dealing with established dogma, no longer with science.
As JC has pointed out time and again -and which is the main reason she’s been punted off the island- is that if anything, we are in fact starting to realize -but necessarily acknowledge- how little we know and understand about our climate.
Keep in mind that Trenberth is a cardinal in the IPCC church, and he that he is straying into the realm of alchemy to keep the dogma alive. Most recently stating that while the temperatures have flat lined there are plenty of other “signs” that the earth is warming, and that these “signs” are “abundantly clear”. Not just alchemy as in oceans warming at -700m, but getting very close the shamanism, indeed.
In other words Walter, the folks you speak of ( along with yourself) are not capable of discernment.
If things aren’t put in nice, simple, tidy little boxes for you, you have trouble comprehending them. Which explains the simplistic, shallow assessment you’ve provided.
Walter,
I’m curious about your “no matter how draconian” comment. As I don’t believe you are stupid or an idiot, I am left with two conclusions. Either you can’t or won’t evaluate an issue beyond its simplest terms, or you fall into the category of true believer. (I can see where the two may overlap.)
Your no matter how draconian would put you into the latter category. It is a statement which places you out at the extreme. One analogy which comes to mind is the one where the doctor is congratulated on a successful operation and told it was too bad the patient died. Can you please explain why you should not be seen as an extremist after uttering such an extreme opinion?
Perhaps we should stick with a simpler question and have you show why using the 97% figure and calling people deniers doesn’t flush your credibility down the tubes.
In one paragraph you criticize her for testifying before Congress. In the very next paragraph you say that politicians must pass legislation. You don’t see that the first action is a prerequisite for the second?
Walter Carlson: I would point out that testifying before Congress (which is majority Republican, known for their anti-AGW position) puts you into the denier camp, just by appearing.
The Senate (which is majority Democratic) is irresponsible for not asking her to testify.
While we can agree that no climate model can possibly predict (accurately) what the weather will be at any particular place on July 1, 2020, because these models all agree that our globe is getting warmer, it is our politicians who must do ‘something’.
What the models “agree on”, if by that you take their mean, is wrong — at least up to now. It becomes more critical year by year to avoid taking action based on them.
My comments were written for Judith Curry, but since several have posted comments, I will try to respond to them:
Robert Austin: “But are these advocating scientists clearly seeing or do they need a good dose of humility?” This suggests that you disagree with the 97 %, et al. I think, therefore, that you are a ‘denier’, and no amount of scientific evidence can persuade you otherwise.
Hank Zentgraf: ” My position as a sceptic is centered around the broad issue of feedbacks + or – and the value 0 or 6.” I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And, let me say, that on this blog, I have found many mysterious statements from ‘deniers’ that seem to only obfuscate the discussion.
tetris: “The “97%” consensus is a propaganda figment created by the alarmists…” if you say so. However, when all worldwide meteorological and climatological organizations (including AGU and UCS) make clear statements that AGW is unarguable, I see no reason to disagree. Obviously, the deniosphere does.
timg56-first comment is an insult, I am ignoring it. Second comment: “I’m curious about your “no matter how draconian” comment.” I haven’t thought through just how urgent politicial action is needed; obviously, IPCC’s AR4 has been ignored in US, China, Russia, and elsewhere, so our politicians may have to take more severe action to slow/stop AGW. One thing I would advocate is legislation to push modular nuclear power plants. Nuclear power has propelled US aircraft carriers and submarines. This same, or newer, technology could be mandated and funded.
Bill Woods…I don’t see my statements as criticizing Mrs. Curry for testifying, only that it causes an association with the deniosophere.
Mathew Marler: “What the models “agree on”, if by that you take their mean, is wrong — at least up to now. It becomes more critical year by year to avoid taking action based on them.” I find it amazing that AR4 synthesized results from 18 climate models used around the world and found that doubling CO2 would increase average world temperature about the same amount (3.6F to 8.1F) as Arrhenius, with hand calculations (8F). However, Arrhenius calculated it would take 3,000 year, not one or two centuries.
Walter Carlson: I find it amazing that AR4 synthesized results from 18 climate models used around the world and found that doubling CO2 would increase average world temperature about the same amount (3.6F to 8.1F) as Arrhenius, with hand calculations (8F).
You addressed “agreement” whereas I addressed “accuracy”. The AR4 ignored a good deal of information that has been acquired since the time of Arrhenius, so it isn’t that informative that they got a comparable result.
You’re also selectively forgetting the rest of the story. That Arrhenius’ estimate was immediately criticized by Knut Angstrom as way too high. Angstrom was closer to what the most current estimates is.
Also, Arrhenius calculated his absurdly high coefficient without any feedback. The IPCC’s high end estimates include huge amounts of feedback.
Arrhenius’ estimate means exactly bupkis.
Mathew, you did not use the word ‘accuracy’ and I don’t read minds. If you insist on nitpicking, we can’t have a meaningful discussion.
Harold…you forget that Arrhenius work was done more than a century ago; even back then, the level of CO2 was of concern. His idea was way ahead of the rest of the scientific community. Only ‘bupkis’ to the denier mentality !!
“ …but if the scientists can clearly see that our worldly nest is getting fouled, who is going to scream and wave their arms to call attention to it??” They have screamed and they have arm-waived, but it hasn’t been getting much traction. And when that happened they became bitter and screamed “denier!” at anyone who disagreed with them, which cost them even more traction. Scientists are supposed to be rational: when stuck in a hole stop digging it deeper if nothing else. Many of them still haven’t noticed that we live in a democracy, not a technocracy, and that most people don’t have a secret yearning to be governed by scientists. Science and those who practice it are largely regarded as a social utility, largely bought and paid for with public monies. This seems to be too unflattering a concept for many who practice science to accept.
Walter,
My apology for being insulting, though I will stand by the part about it being a rather simplistic analysis. You assign a value judgement based on which political party is asking questions. You broadly categorize people using a term some find insulting and make reference to the 97% figure which is a public relations artifact that has no real value except to sell a particular spin.
As to your response to the question on “no matter how draconian”, you pretty much side step it, with an “I haven’t really thought about it”.
However you scored major points with me on the part of the response about one recommendation you would put forth. I voted each time for a candidate to the House whose platform I was in disagreement with on more than half of the items. But because the two issues he was mosted interested in, education and business, were two I also believe strongly in and agreed with him on, I had no problem supporting the candidate from the other party.
I recommend you quit with the name calling and instead focus on finding areas of agreement. You don’t have to agree 100% with the other person or even 50%, so long as you can find something of importance to you both that you can agree on. For me, whatever your opinions and belief might be on climate change, I have no problem fully suporting you on what direction we should be taking in terms of lectircal generation.
Walter Carlson: Mathew, you did not use the word ‘accuracy’ and I don’t read minds. If you insist on nitpicking, we can’t have a meaningful discussion.
My bad — I usually refer to “accuracy/inaccuracy” of models and calculations. I am tending toward “wrong” as good enough in this case for “too inaccurate to be relied upon for policy”.
Ok, another response attempt:
Mathew: I understand, sometimes I misstate what I’m trying to say (I think we all do, occasionally). But we will have to continue to disagree in the matter of ‘models’; I’m a geologist, not a climatologist. However, when several climatologists have stated that various models come to close agreement, and they put forth a range of temperatures that would be associated with a specific CO2 level, I have to rely on their expertise.
timg, et al…It seems that you find the term ‘denier’ insulting. I’m sorry, I thought it was a descriptor, not a negative name. However, many, here, challenge the 97%, which I see as having more credibility than the 3%. Also, I find more supportive indications of AGW, than just climatologists and meteorologists. Example: a NPS Park Ranger, in Joshua Tree National Park told me that in the last decade, these cacti have been found further north than ever before-an indication that the climate has warmed. There are many other reported instances of rising temperatures: whales further north, coral bleaching, etc.
Glacial coring, over the past three decades have repeatedly shown high correlation between CO2 measurements and temperature, going back thousands of years. That and other studies I’ve read have given me cause for great concern that our world is warming because greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) are rising and, without measures to reduce CO2 levels, MANY unforeseen and unfortunate things may happen that are very bad for the world. Obviously, many here don’t see things the same way; Among scientists, disagreement can be a good thing, IF the reasons for the disagreement are treated as reasons to continue research. Nevertheless, I believe that politicians could take steps (i.e .pass legislation) to, for example, hasten building a renewable energy infrastructure that will be needed to power the air conditioners that a warmer world will need.
Walter,
Walter Carlson: However, when several climatologists have stated that various models come to close agreement, and they put forth a range of temperatures that would be associated with a specific CO2 level, I have to rely on their expertise.
We can explore this again when next Prof Curry has another thread about comparing models to data. The models agree amongst each other, they just have not provided accurate forecasts of the actual temperature trends that they ought to have predicted accurately. This thread has too many posts already.
Walter Carlson, I thought that you might not want to wait for a future thread devoted to model-data comparisons, so I found one that you might like:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/17/temperature-models-vs-temperature-reality-in-the-lower-troposphere/
If you go the the WUWT web site and search on “model versus data” you’ll be able to read through a lot of these. Don’t rest content with WUWT, follow the links to the original data sources.
Mathew…thank you for the link. I went to the article and checked the comments. What I found in the comments confirms my thinking that Watts has a group of deniers following him who have no appreciation of the time and effort that goes into climatology models. In their book ‘The White Planet’, Jouzel, Lorius and Raynaud compare their findings with models and report good agreement. While Watts is concerned with the accuracy of data, his response to BEST results (promising to accept them before being published, then disavowing them after) shows me that he and his blog are more concerned with negating scientific effort, than finding scientific accuracy. Now I need to find data v model reports.
“no appreciation of the time and effort that goes into climatology models”
This does bring a tear to the eye. No one appreciates the time and effort I put into my Space Cheerleaders Do The Asteroid Belt: Sensual Short Stories either. ;)
Andrew
Matthew…as I mentioned I’m a geologist, not a climatologist. Also, not a modeler. However, I googled about climate model accuracy and found that while models have done, according to the articles, a good job of predicting climate big picture, it is small picture, such as El Nino Southern Oscillations that have been less well predicted. My take on this is that discussion on model predictions should proceed, BUT, past analyses of models have shown that generally, they give good results. That is, I believe the predictions are good enough for politicians to take legislative action and I believe they should.
Walter Carlson: What I found in the comments confirms my thinking that Watts has a group of deniers following him who have no appreciation of the time and effort that goes into climatology models.
Those considerations are irrelevant to the issue of the accuracy of the models.
I overstated somewhat the degree to which the models agree among themselves: as you can see, some of the models are only a little off, whereas others are way off.
Walter Carlson: I googled about climate model accuracy and found that while models have done, according to the articles, a good job of predicting climate big picture, it is small picture,
As you saw from the data and models that I linked to, and there are many such for various attributes of climate, they have not even predicted the aggregate global mean accurately.
Walter,
I find it interesting that geology is your background. It has been my experience that the geologists I know (and a couple I know very well) tend to be rather critical of climate science. I attribute that to their experience with models verse the real world.
I don’t argue that climate is changing. Neither do I argue against there being little to no human contribution. I do question the surity of how big a percentage that human impact is and my willingness to believe it is considerably above 50% is checked by some of the other claims I hear.
10 to 30 to 300 ft of sea level rise, species extinctions, tens of millions of climate refugees, war, famine, plague, hell, all of the 4 horsemen, plus their extending families galloping towards us. That is just not credible without at least some evidence to back it up. Even small things, such as Dr Trenberth’s moving hot spot and all of the claims about extreme weather. For years the climate science community repeated stated that weather is not climate. Yet now it seems all we hear about from them is about the weather. When a person is not a subject matter expert, they have to rely on the experts. And in order to do so, they have to have some sense of the credibility of those experts. What I am seeing is credibility running full speed out the door.
BTW – the denier label doesn’t bother me. I am not denying anything. Even if I was, it wouldn’t bother me. I was about 6 or so when my folks taught me the lesson about name calling as something to ignore.
TimG56…regarding correlation between atmospheric CO2 and AGW. MY take on it is: a) humans have been mining coal (think of cubic miles) and petroleum (think of billions of barrels) and burning them most heavily within the last 50-70 years; b) humans have been growing in massive numbers (over 7 billion) and using coal to fire steel manufacturing plants (also, mostly within the last 50-70 years); c) in their book ‘The White Planet’, glaciologists Jouzel, Lorius and Raynaud describe coring Greenland Ice Sheet and West Antarctic Ice Sheet and correlating analyses by several countries in these projects-they show close correlation between CO2 and temperature measurements.(these cores begin with very recent and go back nearly a million years and NO CO2 levels have approached those of today). I’m sure there are those on this blog who find something here to disagree with, however, having read this and several other books on AGW, i’m convinced that there is a very limited time available for humanity to recognize the long-term significance of this threat and take measures to mitigate it.
So Trenberth thinks “climate change” made Sandy 5% to 10% worse. I have two comments.
1. I disagree. I think it made it 6.732% worse, or maybe 2.573% worse. None of the four guesses means anything.
2. Substitue “witchcraft” for “climate change” and it does not fundamentally change the meaning. Without strong evidence, simply repeating “climate change” as a cause also means nothing.
+1 Unsupported assertions don’t cut it around here!
“So Trenberth thinks “climate change” made Sandy 5% to 10% worse. ”
Actually, ~1.25% climate change, .765% Carbon Pollution, 2.2% Climate Disruption, 1.2% Global Warming and 1% Unicorn Methane Emissions, a deadly combination.
And where do these figures come from Capt? :)
How does Kevin Trenberth know that climate change caused by man or otherwise didn’t make hurricane Sandy 5 to 10% less bad?
Ak.
I dont know how tall you are. But I
believe you are between 1 and 10 feet tall. I Believe that if i plan on you being 6 feet tall i wont be too far off.
In fact we know very little and manage quite well with mere belief
I believe that the apollo command module we are returning from the moon in will enter the earths atmosphere between 0 and 90 degrees. Of course, too shallow an angle and we might not be captured by earths gravity and well skip off into space, and to steep and well burn up whilst being crushed by the g-forces.
Belief may be adequate a lot of the time, especially when the decisions are non-critical, but it is irrational to rely on them when they are not. I would have thought constraining climate sensitivity on more than a “belief”, in this case synonymous with “educated guess”, would be a case of the latter.
Steven,
We are probably getting close to the end of the Holocene based on previous cycle lengths. In addition, we are entering a low solar activity cycle that may be as bad as cycles associated with the LIA. In addition, the measured global heating has paused, or may be already heading down. Does it seem reasonable, based on these, to combat HEATING with these pieces of evidence? Cooling is much worse in effects (less crops, cold homes of poor cause many more deaths than hot). The belief you refer to may lead to making a bad situation worse. Unless we know much more, the best activity is to prepare to handle any emergency, not try to redirect climate. If the trend of cooling occurs, I would consider the activities of those pushing climate mitigation as criminal, as they would have pushed all of society in the wrong direction, and also made science less accepted by the majority of people.
@Steven Mosher…
The cases aren’t parallel, as you know.
Your post is brilliant. Trenberth will understand his own statements better after reading your post. Harris will understand what he has done better after reading your post. Your post is an excellent summary of what has happened among scientists in the “climate wars.” Thank you so very much for your excellent work in behalf of science.
Theo, very well put. But will Trenberth or Harris see this? Perhaps Judith should e-mail them.
Your post assumes Trenberth and Harris are open minded. I don’t know either one of them to agree with this assumption.
Unfortunately neither Trenberth nor Harris will see this post or the comments here. Even if JC e-mailed them to both. They would not be able to read beyond the first paragraph, if that.
The reason is found in behavioral psychology and is known as “cognitive dissonance”. Cognitive dissonance -the effects of which are very real to those who experience it but which they may not recognize, and likewise to those who observe the ones experiencing it- occurs when ever more empirical data/facts compound to ever more contradict one’s world view and convictions.
The individual’s inability to acknowledge and accept those facts for what they are -verifiable facts- leads to a defense mechanism known as confirmation bias, where only those pieces of information that fit their world view/conviction are treated as real. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are the polar opposite of the skeptical thinking and mindset required for proper “ol’ fashioned’ Popperian science.
Try asking the Catholic Church for an reasonable and verifiable explanation for the immaculate conception or the Trinity -which as an institution it can not because these constitute core tenets of the faith- or convince a devout Muslim of the fact that not only God is capable of making perfect things, but that man has learned to do so as well [e.g. C60], which he can’t because it is a core tenet of his faith and accepting that would constitute blasphemy.
Trenberth -with his alchemy-like musings about “missing heat” hiding at -700m, and his hallucinations about “abundantly clear signs” of [man-made] global warming [some of which according to him apparently are to be found in the upcoming IPCC report] in the absence of rising temperatures, is a textbook example of cognitive dissonance at work. Likewise, Harris’ more or less politely giving short thrift to JC and providing Trenberth with ample space to propagate his gibberish, says as much about how cognitive dissonance plays havoc with his integrity as a reporting journalist as it does about the NPR’s institutional cognitive dissonance which makes it a poodle mouthpiece for the alarmist credo in the US.
You hit the nail on the head. You don’t have to understand climate science, you only have to appreciate the sociology of science, to know who is credible and who is not in this field. The climate scaremongers have been shooting themselves in the feet for a long time now.
We have terrestrial temperatures for the past 100+ years.
We have upper air temperatures since the 1930s.
We got walloped by the 1983 El Nino and decided the ocean was worth sampling beyond the surface.
So let’s see what NOAA says about the ocean.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html
“To date, we have explored less than five percent of the ocean. The ocean is the lifeblood of Earth, covering more than 70 percent of the planet’s surface, driving weather, regulating temperature, and ultimately supporting all living organisms. Throughout history, the ocean has
been a vital source of sustenance, transport, commerce, growth, and inspiration.
Yet for all of our reliance on the ocean, 95 percent of this realm remains unexplored, unseen by human eyes.”
“You can observe a lot by just just watching.” Y. Berra
Mother Nature deals from any part of the deck she wishes and always bats last.
The ocean is the critical link in this planet’s climate and always will be.
The Yogi Berra quote is dead on as were most of his tautological tautologies.
You’ve posted on this both directly and indirectly many times, but whereas climate is a matter of science, climate debate is much more a social phenomena.
That’s phenomenon.
Heh, there are enough debates it could be phenomena.
====================
http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-chinese-translation-fails/?image_id=funny-chinese-sign-translation-fails-35.jpg
Professor Myles Allen – at the Oxford Union debate with Professor Lindzen:
Myles (at 32:20)
” I think we should emphasise the enormous amount we all agree on…”
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2013/06/201361311721241956.html
The interviewer was very aggressive to Lindzen and Myles stated how appalled he was by this at the Bishop Hill blog the next day
(and a lot was edited out, including me, asking where the interviewer had got his 97% of scientists agree statistic from)
“Trenberth seems to think that he understands what is going on in the ocean..”
Yes, it does seem that way. But on what basis? It’s a beautifully compelling example of motivated reasoning. WHen will the MSM/left wing media begin to understand that the when interviewing the same old cast of climate characters they are speaking with people whose reputations depend on their being right about climate change. One does not have to be a scientist to understand human nature.
ROTFLMAO !!
Walter Carlson, If you agree with incorporating modular atomic boilers in the energy mix then basically you are on a team here; for whatever your personal reasons for getting to the conclusion. Worrying about why is not as important as how to do it.
Indeed-how to get US and/or world politicians to develop legislation that would move the first world countries toward reducing CO2 emissions?? That is the big question !! My thinking is that with each summer getting warmer, the solution to more electrical power with less CO2 emissions should include nuclear reactors. Technology has advanced to the ability to design and build modular nuclear power pants. Those who fear meltdowns, such as Fukishima, have ignored that aircraft carriers have bweeb nuclear powered for decades. Why can’t that technology be applied to cities with smaller populations?? Installing two of these plants, for a city of 80,000-100,000 would allow the cities to own their own plants and lessen the need for stretching copper cables all across the US.
Walter
Imo, one of the major reasons that the technology you describe is not being used in developing countries is that the currently nuclear countries do not like the idea of nuclear material becoming available across the globe. The argument is that it will increase the probability that the technology and the waste materials can be used for undesirable purposes. Why do you think large commercial ships are not nuclear powered? Same answer.
Rob,
on why large commercial ships are not nuclear powered.
I’d have to do some digging, but I believe it has to do with life cycle costs.
Even the Navy has eliminated ship classes it previous utilized nuclear propulsion in. Now only carriers and submarines are nuclear.
That is a excellent question, Judith Curry!
The strongest rancor arises not between scientist-and-skeptic, but between scientist-and-denialist:
▷ Practicing scientists fear-and-loathe the willful ignorance and suppressive abuse that is associated to denialist demagoguery. Because willful ignorance and suppressive are the mortal enemies to the free inquiry that is the foundation of good science.
▷ Practicing ideologues fear-and-loathe the evidence-based judgments and open discourse that is associated to good scientific practice (thank you for this outstanding reference, Judith Curry!) Because evidence-based judgments and open public discourse are mortal enemies to the ideological purity that demagogues seek to sustain.
Conclusion When strong skepticism rationally confronts strong climate-change science, the result is plenty of interesting public discourse, but not much rancor, and all parties benefits. Whereas when ideology-driven denialist demagogues abusively attack the weaker elements of climate-change science, plenty of rancorous heat gets generated, but not much scientific light!
Fan, here is an example of true demagogues/religious zealots:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/24/day-of-the-ungreens-dreaming-up-scary-language-to-convince-people-global-warming-is-really-just-like-a-scary-movie/#more-92269
Basically a “how to” book,for spreading propaganda. Seen anything similar on the skeptical side?
A classic, courtesy of Pat Michaels:
> Make an argument that you can get killed on and you kill us all.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/4027562164
Pat michaels is wrong.
skeptics can make horrible arguments all day long. some zombies never die
Mosher, pissing on people and telling them its raining isn’t a viable method for gaining trust or for ones chances of becoming an authority figure.
Whenever a patient is given a diagnosis for a terminal disease, the spend the week before visiting the specialist on the internet, doing all the background the can.
They visit the specialist, who 20 years ago would have have far more asystematic information, and bargain for their lives.
The oncologists tell me it is far better dealing with patients of today, who have spent days googling, reading trials announcements and medical textbooks, than it was before they had access to information and mis-information; at least now the patients already know the statistics and the timeline.
With ‘Climate Science’ we have a new field that only exists because of computing power; all the reconstructions and models can only exist thanks to number crunching. The problem is that many non-scientists can do the same sort of number crunching and have access to the same data. It is not like members of the public grow cancer cells and design their own drugs; but anyone can reanalyze climate data and statistical methods.
Many of the climate scientists hate that ‘anyone’ can second guess them and think this is demeaning to their profession, which is something medics have always had to live with.
And now to my point, as I really do have one.
Hospitals routinely give surveys to patients and ask them to rate their care, including what they think of their Doctor or Surgeon. Time after time departments get the same results for individuals, based on patient derived data. The ‘best’ doctors/surgeons are not the ones with the best outcomes, or who have the least complications or who even have the most senior positions; the ‘best’ doctors/surgeons are those who talk to the patient, those who visit the patient in pre-OP just before they go under, the ones who visit post-OP as the patient awakes AND those who pop-in for 10 minutes on Saturday and Sunday. If you doctor appears to care about you, talks to you, reassures you, you will rate the doctor as ‘Excellent’, no matter what happens to your treatment.
‘Climate Scientists’ should take note that even brilliant surgeons who come across as condescending, arrogant, jerks do not prosper.
thought of you doc
http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-chinese-translation-fails/?image_id=funny-chinese-sign-translation-fails-27.jpg
http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-chinese-translation-fails/?image_id=funny-chinese-sign-translation-fails-21.jpg
http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-chinese-translation-fails/?image_id=funny-chinese-sign-translation-fails-18.jpg
> The ‘best’ doctors/surgeons are not the ones with the best outcomes, or who have the least complications or who even have the most senior positions; the ‘best’ doctors/surgeons are those who talk to the patient, those who visit the patient in pre-OP just before they go under, the ones who visit post-OP as the patient awakes AND those who pop-in for 10 minutes on Saturday and Sunday.
Thank you, Doc.
Mosher,
You have to practice your head shots.
(Which goes against the tenet of aiming for center mass.)
Thank you Fan:
Hansen-style climate change science.
“Climate sensitivity depends on the initial climate state (1), but potentially (2) can be accurately inferred (3) from precise paleoclimate data.” – Hansen et al 2012-2013. Numbers added by myself.
1) Unsure as to what the initial climate state is, so perhaps we assume one.
2) Potentially.
3) Can be inferred, though the math is above me, it looked like using algebra, solving for one unknown, but that may describe the early work, if I am accurate, which I may not be. But what is looked to me like is, they had some data and plugged the CO2 in as the unknown variable. Based upon the long time understanding of it as a greenhouse gas, and its rising and falling with temperature.
Using qualification in the accounting sense, they have conservatively set things up by avoiding absolutes, at least in the one sentence above. They are describing their assumptions.
However, the more the qualifications there are, the less strong the conclusion would be. The strength of the first part (above) reflects on the strength of the second part (Conclusions).
I applaud Hansen et al for taking this conservative approach. But I have a hard time reconciling how much has followed from the core assumptions. How so much of our lives are tied what I quoted above. I would assume Hansen is an authority on Sensitivity. I keep reading, in this case, words signed off on, and I can’t see sufficient strength with it, based on the qualifications.
Qualification in the accounting sense means with reservations. An unqualified opinion means, without reservations. For example, here are my qualifications, a list of things that prevent me from endorsing these statements at the highest level. I apologize if this seems backwards.
“”Whereas when ideology-driven denialist demagogues abusively attack the weaker elements of climate-change science, “”
A fan…. Admitting there are weaker elements of “climate-changescience”????….
I would say that might very well be a flicker of scientific light right there! :-)
OK. I’m taunting a bit. Not usually my style. And I do apologize. But you did leave that bad curve ball right over the plate, and someone had to swing at it.
Since you did bring it up though…. I’m currious. What do you classily as the weaker elements of climate science?
Respectfully
Mike Alexander
Well the Powermad Carbon(C) of CatastrophicAGW has become the pusillanimous carbon(still C) plant food. It’s elemental, my dear WattSun.
====================
LOL… every scientist knows aphorisms like “wrong theories never die, but the theorists who believe them eventually do”
That is why another aphorism is “death-by-death, science advances.”
Thank you for asking, Mike Alexander:
▷ The Strongest Climate Science derives from thermodynamic considerations associated to conservation of energy and increase of entropy, augmented by radiation transport theory, calculated by slide-rule, and affirmed by paleo-evidence and by sustained observation of global energy imbalance. In summary, Hansen-style climate change science.
▷ Less-Strong Climate Science Massive computer models, in particular, models that attempt to model decadal-scale dynamics. In summary, IPCC-style climate-change science.
▷ Relatively Weak Climate Science Purely statistical models that presuppose the existence of “cycles” (commonly solar cycles and/or ocean-current cycles); also ad hoc models that ascribe climate-change to (e.g.) fluctuations in cosmic ray intensity. In summary, speculative climate-change science.
It seems likely that both Ehrenhaft and Millikan observed phenomena that indicated a fractional charge; Ehrenhaft honestly reported his and Millikan didn’t.
The Stanford Search For Isolated Fractionally Charged Particles group has been doing oil-drop experiments for a long while and they have noted that electron transfer between droplets, whilst rare, occurs and produces apparent fractional charges.
Do not forget Millikan deliberately excluded data points to reduce his error from >2% to 0.5%.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/mps/FCS/FCS_rslt.htm
BTW Ehrenhaft was right on the use of metallic colloids in Magnetolysis.
Fan:
“The Strongest Climate Science…”
Please Fan. Tell me my looking at the oceans is not in vain.
Don’t get kim started on the importance of water.
I think termites are important. If it weren’t for them little pests we would be butt-deep in dead wood.
Mold is good too. And bacteria. All good.
@jim d
Direct me please to the data that shows the oceans warmed by nearly a degree over the last century. It certainly seems odd, since that is more than the atmosphere did.
And if a 1C rise only produces 8 inches of sealevel expansion, we can safely write off sea-level rise as just a minor inconvenience.
Doesn’t leave much to scare us with. Better plant growth? Perhaps John Wyndham’s thriller The Day of the Triffids was a prophecy, not fiction?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/mean:120
a fan of *MORE* discourse: The Strongest Climate Science derives from thermodynamic considerations associated to conservation of energy and increase of entropy, augmented by radiation transport theory, calculated by slide-rule, and affirmed by paleo-evidence and by sustained observation of global energy imbalance.
These arguments are full of holes as well, especially if they ignore the thermodynamics of systems far from equilibrium. Ignoring non-radiative transport, clouds, and the UV radiation takes them farther from the truth. then there are the liabilities in the observation of global energy imbalance imbalance, which is non-constant and non-uniform.
The parts that you call “weak” were generally presented as “strong” until they had been disputed. Even today, some people believe the GCMs are strong evidence.
The WUWT/Watts site provides plenty of examples of “ideology-driven denialist demagoguery that abusively attacks the cherry-picked weaker elements of climate-change science”. It’s striking that the WUWT/Watts sites consistently refrains from engaging with the scientific reasoning and evidence of works like (for example) the multi-author multi-disciplinary 130-reference Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature
Conclusion No lasting benefit, to anyone, comes of flimsy willfully ignorant denialist demagoguery that exclusively cherry-picks and abusively criticizes the weakest elements of climate-change science.
That’s plain common-sense, right k scott denison?
Really? So there’s a manual on how to spread skeptical propaganda on WUWT. Funny, I’ve missed it somehow. Can you please supply a link as it seems you must have read it.
@A Fan etc
‘The WUWT /Watts site provides plenty of examples of
‘“ideology-driven denialist demagoguery that abusively attacks the cherry-picked weaker elements of climate-change science”’
It does? OK. Please can you illustrate your point with, say, three recent examples. I’d be particularly interested in seeing your commentary on the ‘ideology-driven denialist demagoguery’ that you can identify. It sounds like a lot of fun.
But you also raise an interesting point. Do the ‘weaker elements of climate-change science’ not deserve scrutiny? Why should they not be exposed as crap if crap is what they are? Surely that is the way that science progresses? Or is crap only to be exposed by approved climate crapologists, not by independent bloggers? Does one need a licence? And where should I apply?
> So there’s a manual on how to spread skeptical propaganda on WUWT.
In the words of Ron Broberg:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/24472458681
A pity top Fortune execs missed that training.
By serendipity some get daily practice.
Thank you for your politely-phrased request, Latimer Alder!
The lovely lass “Sou” regularly pillories Watts/WUWT on her abuse-exposing website “HotWhopper”:
▷ The UnGreens at WUWT – communicating with science deniers
▷ Spot the difference. Anthony Watts can’t!
▷ The negative bias of Anthony Watts, Hockey Sticks and the Dunning-Kruger Effect
There are dozens more, that no doubt you will find illuminating, Latimer Alder! Sou’s HowWhopper website is highly recommended to Climate Etc readers!
And just remember, Latimer Alder … Klingons never bluff!
Fan
You approvingly give three examples of watts being wrong, mostly centred on a curious blog that promotes the hockey stick and it’s spaghetti derivatives as being fine examples of science
Here is my own graph using these derivatives
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image0041.jpg
Taking a fifty year smoothing of data released by bits of wood unsurprisingly provide a curious static climate unknown in the real world where annual and decadal temperature is far more variable .
Tonyb
According to the blog’s author “Sou from Bundangawoolarangeera”, her motivation is definite:
Some recent examples:
▷ WUWT Policy Violation by a Clueless Female Eco-Nut
▷ A contrarian teddy bears’ picnic at WUWT – do science deniers believe in lizard men, too? (Yes, close enough anyway!)
▷ Wondering Willis as a concerned climate scientist (showing his sexism)
Gosh-golly … Sou sure hasn’t encountered much difficulty in finding examples of misogyny on WUWT, eh TonyB? Why do you think that might be?
Fan
Are you a closet ball room dancer? You have beautifully sidestepped the subject by introducing something completely unrelated to what was being discussed.
Tonyb
willard
“Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. ”
ya dont attack, CRU, IPCC, or NOAA.
TonyB, there’s nothing “curious” about websites that thoroughly expose Watts/WUWT (and similar websites) as devoted to ideology-driven denialist demagoguery that abusively attacks the cherry-picked weaker elements of climate-change science.
Are you entirely certain that you didn’t mean to type “laudable”?
Fan
You elegantly sashay seamlessly from one subject to another
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ball+room+dancing&client=safari&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=czgZUqvPCeLX0QWKzICoBw&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=672
Good night fan
Tonyb
“It’s striking that the WUWT/Watts sites consistently refrains from engaging with the scientific reasoning and evidence of works like (for example) the multi-author multi-disciplinary 130-reference Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature“
It is striking that you fail to see it was not a peer reviewed scientific paper, but a policy advocation piece, with plenty of references to stances taken by relegious organizations.
National Religious Coalition on Creation Care. LOL
Fan,
Do you see any irony in Miss Sou’s statement about denying climate science and misogyny in comparison to Dr Curry’s experience in the field of climate research?
In the event you do, you can earn bonus points in you can somehow tie it to Dr Hansen.
a fan of *MORE* discourse: . It’s striking that the WUWT/Watts sites consistently refrains from engaging with the scientific reasoning and evidence of works like (for example) the multi-author multi-disciplinary 130-reference Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature
You misrepresent WUWT.
Avoiding one work hardly constitutes “consistenty refrains from engaging with the scientific reasoning.” WUWT persistently quotes from peer-reviewed literature, accurately quotes climate scientists’ public comments and editorials, links to important curated data sets, and invites scientists to engage in the disputes.
Fan- from your link “This situation raises profound moral issues as young people, future generations, and nature, with no possibility of protecting their future well-being, will bear the principal consequences of actions and inactions of today’s adults. ”
What do you tell the millions of the current generation that are dying from cold(due to high energy prices), lack of food from unaffordable food costs(due to corn going for fuel instead of stomachs), loss of habitat in the tropics(palm oil plantations for biodiesel), lost opportunities from sale of carbon credits(benefiting the rich politicians and the poor not at all), poisonous pollution from solar cell factories, soot from coal plants(China and India). and on and on.
and “can push the climate system beyond tipping points”. Where? Yes there are climate tipping points. The ice core and geologic records are clear. The climate has tipped from glaciation to something like the current milieu and back approximately every 120,000 years- regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
People are dying today because of efforts to control the climate. Which is more important? The people dying for sure now, or the ones who might die in the future?
Fan
You routinely overlook that 97% of climate “science” is just politically-funded and motivated demagoguery, serving chiefly to ramp up taxes and politics generally.
That’s what the clash between skeptics and and climate ‘scientists’ is all about.
The longer I watch the climate wars, the more I think that at its heart it all goes back to Mann vs McIntyre.
The failure to admit at the start that McIntyre was right and Mann was wrong was the critical error. The attempts to cover up that mistake, rather than admitting it, have led to a farrago of increasingly unconvincing special pleading. Anyone who points out that the Emperor Mann has no clothes, or who even suggests that his clothing might be less than exquisite, has to be expelled and anathematised, but as long as you genuflect before the Hockey Stick minor deviation is still permitted by the consensus police.
Does climate science want to regain its credibility and start being treated like a proper science again? Well of course it has to call off the witch hunt by the consensus police. But it also has to admit that McIntyre was right and Mann was wrong. And at the moment I simply can’t see how that’s going to happen.
Yes, and no. The M&M debacle marked an important isthmus, but the ikonic Crook’t Stick was necessary for the ‘Cause’, and still is. Trace the ‘Cause’ for the origin of incredibility.
===========
Exactly
It has been my conjecture for some time that the “team” realized long ago that future climate states were not predictable…….in the sense that the public would demand for such an issue. The team then needed a marketing tool, and that is all the hockey stick was ever meant to be.
I’ve never seen Jonathan Jones comment on Nick’s analysis:
http://moyhu.blogspot.ca/2011/06/effect-of-selection-in-wegman-report.html
The Auditor himself has been quite parcimonious in his throwing of W under the auditing bus.
Yes, but genuflexion,
Or fluorescent censored files?
=============
It doesnt matter whether McIntyre was right or wrong on the science.
Mann’s mistake, and Steig after him, was challenging McIntyre to do his own damn science and get it published. Mann lost that challenge, as did Steig. Mann’s other mistake was withholding data. even after he released it all, even after other analysis which vaguely supports his work, none of that mattered because he destroyed the brand of climate science. And finally, he destroyed the leverage we used to have by playing the oil shill card on mcIntyre when it wasnt true.
you read the climategate mails and ask yourself who made mann the head of communications and PR for climate science? nobody, he just took the role and screwed the brand into the ground.
Steve, you seem to be more interested in Mann’s personality than his work. I think you have to give him some credit as a scientists, even if you don’t like him. He won as award for his science.
But I’m no better than you when it comes to judging people. I don’t like McIntyre’s personality. I find him petty, tedious, and boring. I call him McIntyrsome. I may not be fair, but that’s how I feel.
you read the climategate mails and ask yourself who made mann the head of communications and PR for climate science? nobody, he just took the role and screwed the brand into the ground.
No, the people who screwed it into the ground are the 97% of so-called climate scientists who said nothing about what he was doing, thereby messaging the public being that fraud is part and parcel of consensus climate science.
Max_OK | August 24, 2013 at 7:04 pm |
I don’t like McIntyre’s personality. I find him petty, tedious, and boring.
>>
So exposing major, deliberate deception is petty tedious and boring to you.
I don’t think so. Your real problem is you want the deceptions to succeed.
I’m pretty sure whatever awards Michael Mann may have won weren’t because of any scientific prowess. Calling his work subpar is being kind.
max OK
http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-chinese-translation-fails/?image_id=funny-chinese-sign-translation-fails-28.jpg
I’d hate to see Mann scapegoated because there are thousands of others worthy of opprobrium. The big story is a follow the money story. The scientists are just so many pawns, patsies, fall guys, dupes. You can spin it as a Sophoclean tragedy and awe at the damage science has done to itself. Truth be told, however, it plays just as well as farce.
Max (self-awarded) ‘okay’
Actions/ evidence are the meat;n potato. Awards? Joseph
Stalin, fer example received many awards, The Order of
Lenin (3 times,) lots of Medals fer the Defence of many
things and Hero of this’n that from his team. Would you
trust that man?
jest a serf.
Steven, good one !
Memphis, McIntyre exposed himself as a biased nitpicker.
I expect true skeptics to be evenhanded, which IMO he sure ain’t.
Brandon envies Mann’s achievements and prestigious prizes. Brandon’s prizes have come mostly from Cracker Jacks boxes.
Beth Cooper said on August 24, 2013 at 9:48 pm
Max (self-awarded) ‘okay
___
Beth, the “OK” in “Max_OK” means my name is Max and I was born and raised in Oklahoma, not that I’m just an OK person. I’m better than just OK, but not by much.
Your comparing Michael Mann to Hitler and Stalin makes confirms my suspicion you are less than OK, a lot less.
You ask me who I would trust. Well, certainly not you. As I recall, you approve of hacking, which IMO, makes you no better than a thief. If you came to my house, I would ask you to empty your pockets before you left
@Max_OK
Brandon envies Mann’s achievements and prestigious prizes. Brandon’s prizes have come mostly from Cracker Jacks
In the same way we all envy the fancy cars and houses with which gangsters reward their henchmen.
@Max_OK
McIntyre exposed himself as a biased nitpicker.
That’s a baseless knee-jerk lie, a bankrupt outburst of a willful ignoramus.
Name even one such case.
You really need to work on your mind reading skills Max_OK.
Max,
Which award(s) are you referring to?
I would say that one aspect (and there could be more) in which Dr Mann has garnered respect is in his ability to draw research grant money. I mean that in a positive way. Without numbers to compare, I am only guessing, but my impression is that Dr Mann is (or was) an All Star in that area.
+1
Mosher,
I find the “we” in the last sentence of your first paragraph -where you talk about “oil shill” leverage- most revealing. Freudian slip, no doubt. Very telling, nonetheless. We, unless I’ve missed something, includes you.
Which explains your contention that whether the science is correct or wrong, doesn’t matter. That Mann, Steig, Jones, Trenberth and all the others sucked their climate “science” out of a unicorn’s teat or got it out of a 1450s alchemy handbook, doesn’t matter.
As long as the Team controlled the IPCC CAGW/CACC storyline, how it was served to and told by the MSM, and how to best wreck the careers of Balunas and a good number of others, smear Spencer, Lindzen, McIntyre and JC to name a few, everything was OK.
Well, those days are gone and what’s left is going fast, whether that’s Mann’s doing or not. Thank god, because your and Mann’s brand of politicized climate “science” is not only worse than garbage; it has done more economic, political and social damage than most can imagine.
One good thing here though: your “we” above removes your mask once and for all for those who still hadn’t figured you out.
For some people I know, the fact that McIntyre is associated with the mining industry is enough in their minds to ignore him and his results. They are wrong, but there it is.
Jonathan Jones said on August 24, 2013 at 2:57 pm
The failure to admit at the start that McIntyre was right and Mann was wrong was the critical error.
______
Wrong? Are you sure McIntyre said Mann was wrong? I’m not a statistician, but I doubt you can use statistics to show Mann’s hockey stick is wrong because the temperature history looks like something other than a hockey stick. My impression is McIntyre took issue with Mann’s methodology, not his results, but he doesn’t whether the results are right.
Wegman in reference to Mann said something like wrong method, right results = bad science. I suppose right method, useless results is good science, but it’s not progress.
Max OK
Get with the parade. A leaked portion earlier this week at Reuters shows beyond much discussion that the IPCC now recognizes not only that the MWP did in actual fact occur, but that it was warmer then than now. At least one, if not two, cornerstones in the CAGW dogma have been removed
Look it up. From a “science” [such as it is] perspective, that means that Mann and other younger Hockey Stick purveyors have been thrown under the bus by the IPCC.
Good that tetris now believes the IPCC. Chalk another one up for the consensus.
But we know it was warm 1,000 years ago and less warm in the middle of the millennium. There are all sorts of correspondences with everything from cosmogenic isotopes to ENSO. If they’re claiming that this means that most recent warming is therefore CO2 – well you have to draw the line somewhere.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/04/21/blogs/dotkaufman.html
I think the “skeptical” logic goes like, because we don’t know exactly why it was warm in some places 1000 years ago, we don’t know why it is warm now even with more measurements and a CO2 theory that explains it.
What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world’s climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of Earth. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822105042.htm
But we’re pretty sure that climate shifts have a lot to do with recent decadal warming and cooling. Mainstream science after all.
@Max_OK
I doubt you can use statistics to show Mann’s hockey stick is wrong
What McIntyre did, was show that Mann’s statistics (that produced a fake hockey stick) were flawed. To put it mildly. McIntyre is too polite to say “fraudulent”.
@Jim D
I think the “skeptical” logic goes like, because we don’t know exactly why it was warm in some places 1000 years ago, we don’t know why it is warm now even with more measurements and a CO2 theory that explains it.
That’s just the “scientific” view, whose logic goes like like, because we have measurements and a CO2 theory now, non-CO2 factors that caused warming 1000 years ago no longer happen.
Look at how fast the changes are. Reconstructions show less than 1C temperature difference between MWP and LIA. And that difference is over 10 centuries.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/recon_lj_with_others.png
0.1C a century.
Compare that with 3C warming from a doubling of CO2.
Hockey anyone?
Jonathan Jones: The failure to admit at the start that McIntyre was right and Mann was wrong was the critical error.
I sympathize, but McIntyre did not actually show that Mann was “wrong”, he showed that Mann was sloppy (not that unusual in pioneering research) and that Mann’s conclusion was not solidly based. McIntyre and McKittrick’s work was subsequently shown to have its own flaws. The correct response by Mann would have been for him to acknowledge the comments of McIntyre and work on raising the standard of his analyses. A la Gallo and Montanier they could have published a review jointly, and the dispute would have ended. Subsequently, Mann et al published corrections in response to M&M’s critique, without acknowledgement.
You forget or choose to forget that when you boil the Hockey Stick down to its essence, it blade is solely due to the cherry picking use of one [1] tree in the Yamal series, and the splicing, upside down, of the Tijlander series into the graph. Remove those two, and there is no more uptick in the blade area.
Also, as per my comment above, the IPCC has now thrown Mann and his “opus” under the bus, acknowledging that the MWP did in fact occur and that it was the warmer then than now. That pretty much takes care of the “never seen before temperatures” meme, and opens the door wide open to more questions about the role of natural variability, while putting a possibly -over time- terminal hole below the waterline in the “anthropogenic only” portion of the dogma.
No. McIntyre has systematically destroyed every attempt to resurrect the flat shaft of the Hockey Stick by pointing out the abuse of the same set of fatally flawed paleoclimate proxies. Recently he’s exposed blatant biases in data selection in newer papers. Commenters on McIntyre’s site also destroyed one peer-reviewed paper within an hour of its publication by showing that its authors had failed to follow the “new and improved” method they touted in their abstract and introduction.
There just isn’t credible evidence to disprove the long-believed MWP or to prove that recent warming is “unprecedented.” Despite what some (including McIntyre himself) believe, that claim was a linchpin of the case for Urgent Mitigation.
tetris said in his post of August 25, 2013 at 9:03 pm
“Also, as per my comment above, the IPCC has now thrown Mann and his “opus” under the bus, acknowledging that the MWP did in fact occur and that it was the warmer then than now.”
______
tetris, you have been misinformed about the IPCC leaks. Apparently, statements by Jason Samenow, the Washington Post blogger on the leaks, were mistakenly interpreted to mean the MWP was warmer. For an explanation, see Jason’s update to Anthony Watt’s post on the subject at WUWT.
You also are misinformed about Michael Mann. He doesn’t believe the MWP didn’t occur.
@matthew r marler
‘McIntyre did not actually show that Mann was “wrong”, he showed that Mann was sloppy (not that unusual in pioneering research) and that Mann’s conclusion was not solidly based.’
I am not an academic so maybe there is some ever so subtle convention or something that may mean a lot to you but is totally incomprehensible to Joe Public.
But if I turn up at a client with stuff that is ‘not solidly based’ and ‘sloppy’, he would be perfectly entitled to not pay my bill on the basis that it was wrong.
Or do climatologists have a different meaning for ‘wrong’?
‘There, there, just a climo having a rush of blood like anybody could have. A childish prankette perhaps.Lets still make him the poster boy of the ‘science’ for a year or two. And maybe give him a professorship. that’ll help him to calm down poor child’
tetris and stevepostrel,
On the whole I agree. I was thinking as I wrote of what I might call my opinion earlier. My opinions in the AGW discussion have been changing across time as some of the information takes a while to sink in. The long, detailed posts on Steve McIntyre’s blog are worth reading carefully, and I had indeed forgotten them.
Latimer Alder: But if I turn up at a client with stuff that is ‘not solidly based’ and ‘sloppy’, he would be perfectly entitled to not pay my bill on the basis that it was wrong.
Lots of pioneering research, like the original MBH1998, has serious flaws. You may know that there have been serious criticisms of the work of Milliken, Margaret Mead, Robert Gallo (who shared patent rights but not Nobel Prize with Luc Montanier), and Johannes Kepler. When McIntyre first criticised MBH1998, much good would have come if Mann et al had engaged them in a formal discussion (as was done later in Annals of Applied Statistics with McShane and Wayner, Mann and Schmidt, M&M and others.) As I wrote, the criticisms of M&M were themselves criticized by other statisticians (such as the claim by M&M that MBH1998 used an inappropriate criterion for choosing the number of prinicpal components to use.)
But that was then.
Matthew R. Marler, I think you’re way off the mark:
I don’t know which statisticians you believe said this, but as far as I know, none ever did. The reason for that is it would be a stupid thing to say. The people who said it mostly relied on the claim MBH used a particular selection criteria, but that’s known to be a lie as it wouldn’t have given the values MBH used. W&A came up with a different reason, but it had no basis in statistics. It was pure cherry-picking.
On top of this, M&M did not even say there was a right number of PCs to use. They discussed what happens when you select different numbers of PCs. They showed that the PC selection issue was irrelevant save in that you kept whichever PC had a particular set of tree ring data. It doesn’t matter how many PCs you kept. If bristlecones were included, you got a hockeystick. If they weren’t, you didn’t. M&M didn’t even have a selection criteria to criticize!
What statisticians do you think said this, or even other things criticial of M&M? The only one I remember even commenting was Ian Joliffe. And he commented in favor of M&M after people misrepresented him to claim he’d oppose them.
For the record, M&M did show Michael Mann was wrong. They showed his reconstruction had no statistical validity in the period used to make claims about it. They also showed MBH’s claims of robustness were completely false. They further showed the entire results depended upon cherry-picking a small subset of their data, something MBH did via incompetent methodologies.
MBH has no validity.
Brandon Schollenberger: I don’t know which statisticians you believe said this, but as far as I know, none ever did.
I am not sure which of these were ever published, but the presentations that I heard were made at the Joint Statistical Meetings.
tetris, brandon shollenberger, steven postrel and jonathan jones:
I usually imagine that there is a group of reasonable unbiased lurkers reading each thread, and I imagine myself writing to them, even as I address particular posts. today I must admit to them you have pretty soundly thrashed my assessment of the “sloppiness” versus the “total worthlessness” of Mann’s line of work. For more technical details there are the Annals of Applied Statistics publication of McShane and Wyner, and I recommend careful reading of all the commenters, M&W’s rejoinder, and of the supporting online material; then I recommend careful reading of the subsequent discussions on ClimateAudit where it is pointed out that Mann and others have contradicted themselves in their claims of whether their hockey stick is overly sensitive to a few chosen proxy series, and where there is a substantial case made that, in fact, the hockey stick does depend on data selection.
And it is true that the IPCC stopped using the hockey stick as an emblem, for good reasons.
Matthew R Marler, thanks for that reference. It was fairly vague, but I believe I know what you’re referring to (correct me if I’m wrong). There was a session at the 2006 JSM titled, “What is the Role of Statistics in Public Policy Debates about Climate Change.” It had two speakers who discussed the hockey stick (and a third who discussed a separate issue).
Assuming this is what you had in mind, I believe your memory or knowledge has failed you. The two speakers who discussed the hockey stick were Edward Wegman and John Michael Wallace. Wegman is a statistician, but he is highly critical of Michael Mann’s work. It is impossible to believe he’d have raised the issue you raised.
Wallace, on the other hand, is not a statistician. Wallace is a climate scientist. He may have raised the issue you mention here, but he is not a statistician, much less “statisticians.”
On top of that, Wallace was part of the group responsible for the North Report, a report which coincided with the Wegman Report. The North Report has been described as schizophrenic because it accepts many criticisms of Mann’s work yet somehow (a member’s description was they “winged it”) decided Mann’s conclusions were likely correct. And while they tried to minimize their criticisms of Mann’s work, when pointedly asked if they disagreed with any of Wegman’s criticisms of that work (which had all previously been raised by McIntyre), the chairman of the panel for the report said they did not.
There’s an interesting fact I don’t believe was ever highlighted at Climate Audit. Michael Mann actually admitted his original (MBH98) reconstruction’s results were dependent entirely upon a series, NAOMER PC1, in his book. He flat out said that even though MBH98 stated the exact opposite, as did many of the responses to his critics. You can find the full quotes here (I should find the uploaded pdf file of it though as it’s formatting is much neater).
It’s a shame they didn’t stop using it all together. Mann’s work was prominently displayed in the chapter on paleoclimatology in AR4, as was other work dependent upon his. And I know it was even used in the zeroth draft of the AR5. I don’t know if it’ll be in the final version of that, but clearly, nobody is too worried about using it.
Matthew R Marler, I should clarify something:
Jonathon Jones was talking about the beginning of the hockey stick controversy, referring to the original hockey stick. This was a temperature reconstruction published in 1999, and it’s referred to as MBH. It was published in two stages, one a 1998 paper (MBH98) and one a 1999 paper (MBH99).
What you’re referrering to is a paper published a decade later, Mann 2008. This reconstruction was said to validate the original one, but it basically just repeated the MBH problems on a larger scale. Oh, and it added new problems. One of my favorites is it used actual, recorded temperature data as a “proxy” for temperature data. That was the case in 71 of the 484 series that passed his (absurd) calibration test. 15% of the data contributing to his results was actual, measured temperature data!
Sorry. Mann’s work is so bad I have trouble reigning myself in. The point was just to make sure people remember the difference between the original hockey stick and the 2008 version.
Brandon Schollenberger: The two speakers who discussed the hockey stick were Edward Wegman and John Michael Wallace. Wegman is a statistician, but he is highly critical of Michael Mann’s work.
You might be right that I misremembered. I know some of Wegman’s work from way back, before he critiqued Mann’s work, and I read his critique of Mann’s work. The session that I remembered did not have Wegman, as far as I can remember.
One of the reasons that I bother to post is for the informative feedback. I must admit that in this thread my point of view has been thoroughly demolished.
Brandon Schollenberger: What you’re referrering to is a paper published a decade later, Mann 2008.
I was in fact referring to the 1998 paper. But as I say, I have been defending my earlier opinion that Mann et al’s work was “sloppy” instead of “worthless”. Mann et al would have done science a good deed if they had responded more constructively to the criticisms that they received. A decade and more later, my earlier opinion is untenable.
Mann and Schmidt strongly defended their work and criticized M&S. Subsequently, McIntyre and his readers read the Mann et al work, including the supporting on line material at Science, and showed that Mann was inconsistent in his claims about the selection criteria for the proxies, and some other stuff. I had read through a lot of that, but in the intervening time it seemed to have had less effect on my opinion. Well, that may be how it happened, but I have been corrected.
Matthew R Marler:
I don’t see how. McShane and Wyner examined Mann 2008 not MBH98. Given you referred to M&W and the responses to it, it seems you had to have been referring to Mann 2008.
Incidentally, the 1998 reconstruction only went back to 1400 AD. The 1999 followup extended it back to 1000 AD. Only the latter covers the MWP.
A couple minor nits. One, McIntyre’s work preceeded, not followed, M&W. Two, Gavin Schmidt was not an author of the MBH or Mann 2008.
Brandon Schollenberger: A couple minor nits. One, McIntyre’s work preceeded, not followed, M&W. Two, Gavin Schmidt was not an author of the MBH or Mann 2008.
McIntyre’s work preceded M&W. However, McIntyre also commented on M&W in the AOAS volume, helped M&W with that paper, and subsequently reviewed published and online comments by Mann and Schmidt.
Schmidt and Mann commented on M&W, corrected an error (acknowledged by M&W), and contributed to the large volume of supporting on line material that accompanied the publication. Schmidt subsequently critiqued McIntyre’s criticism of M&W at RealClimate. Some of Mann’s comments at RealClimate were subsequently critiqued by McIntyre at ClimateAudit.
I did initially address MBH1998, or so I intended, and I subsequently cited M&M’s commentary on M&W, which as you noted, referred back to Mann 2008 not MBH1998.
There’s lots more in this history and in my biography. I truncated them drastically, to no good effect.
Watch out for the Little People.
===========
Trenberth, the Frightened, returns to his bogeyman under the bed scenario, little realizing the surprise is Santa Claus and won’t come out ’til it’s cold. Maybe he should just put up his stocking, and behave.
==================
Judith, I think your analysis differentiators pretty much hits the bulls-eye. A way to look at it is that it’s not the differentiators that drive the ostracism, it’s the ostracism that drives the increasingly desperate need for some differentiators.
Fan,
I don’t think you realize that when you talk about ideological purity, you are clearly talking about people such as yourself, true believers in catastrophic man-made global warming/climate change.
Skeptics, (who you insist on calling “denialists” – which does not speak well of your commitment to truth, or to open discourse, but instead to your inability to resist using pejorative descriptors to marginalize those who disagree with you) are not the ones speaking of or insisting on purity, or consensus, or 97% of anything. There are many levels of skepticism out there, and none of these skeptics are trumpeting percentages of those in agreement, or claiming that the science is settled, or insisting on conformity, or commissioning studies to show that catastrophic AGW believers are conspiracy theorists.
Those who insist in purity are you and those who think and argue like yourself. You are simply projecting your own actions and practices on those you disagree with. Are you really so blinded by your own ideology that you can’t consider this as being a real possibility? It seems obvious to me.
Trenberth’s notion that the fugitive heat is camped out in the deep oceans – neat theory to salvage the consensus view, but, serly, how robust is the empirical data?
Not very, I’m assuming, or he would nail his colors to it – rather than trying to give this 20-year warning on atmospheric warming.
Trenberth believe that heat goes into the depths below 200 m, without manifesting itself in the first 200 m, and like a joker in a box will jump up, concentrating itself back up to a high heat density, then warm the surface.
How or why is never explained.
As Mosher says, its all unicorns.
Everyone who thinks that oceans have a major role in the multidecadal variability must agree with Trenberth on that. There are no other alternatives.
DocMartyn | August 24, 2013 at 5:39 pm |
Trenberths believe that heat goes into the depths below 200 m
>>
“Believes” ? Is this the climate ‘science’ alternative to measurements now ?
Pekka just when did you start using the term ‘multidecadal variability’ and giving it an credence?
Pekka Pirilä:
“Everyone who thinks that oceans have a major role in the multidecadal variability must agree with Trenberth on that. There are no other alternatives.”
I think it’s an interesting area. That the Oceans might change their heat energy transfer rate. Trenberth may be right or close to right.
I did some plotting comparing temperatures and PDO index several years ago, certainly similar to what very many had done before, but I didn’t know at the time. While it was clear that the data was not sufficient for drawing any strong conclusions some of the plots left the impression that there is probably something there.
Since that time I have considered it most likely that what we see is a combination of AGW and natural variability and that the natural variability has a strong component of multidecadal nature, to what extent that component is (quasi)periodic cannot really be inferred from the data. It could have an approximate period of about 60 years, or it could have less regular transitions that are spaced by a couple of decades.
If I would have to pick a length for each “half period” I would pick 30 years rather than the 20 years proposed by Trenberth, but give only little weight on that particular pick.
My view is that climate scientists should avoid picking some specific values unless they have real justification for those. If they make badly supported predictions about the future, they are likely to be proven wrong as often as right. That’s not good for the science. I don’t believe that any of the models can describe correctly the natural variability (i.e. get right results for right and understood reasons). It’s not just random variability around the trend, but there’s some real but badly understood dynamics involved. The present models do not agree with observations as discussed by von Storch at Kilmazwiebel.
I have written many times that the climate scientists should not belittle the uncertainties. Those who believe that immediate action is needed should explain why they believe so in spite of the uncertainties, as many certainly do.
@Ragnaar
I think it’s an interesting area. That the Oceans might change their heat energy transfer rate. Trenberth may be right or close to right.
So why doesn’t someone just take the oceans’ damn temperature and settle the issue for us for heaven’s sake?
Why are we reduced to people merely having ideas of what might or might not be happening ? Hardly a basis for political action forcing vastly more expensive energy on the world.
Hi Gina – up until recently everyone was measuring down to 700m and wondering why it hasn’t been warming this century. Kevin Trenberth looked at the CERES satellite data – noticed the trend was positive and declared the energy missing.
This is the CERES data. OLR is outgoing longwave radiation – the infrared everyone is concerned with. There is not of a trend with OLR. RSW is reflected shortwave – visible light reflected from clouds, land, ice, snow, etc. There is a trend to less reflection – so more energy in and a warming planet. The net is by convention up warming. It is all shown typically as anomalies – relative change – in Watts/^2. So this is the source of the missing energy.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif.html?sort=3&o=117
Transfer of energy between the oceans and atmosphere is largely variable because of ENSO. Explained here. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/enso_variation_and_global_warm.html
In El Nino there is a reduction of cloud in the tropics and energy moves from the ocean to the atmosphere. As a result the planet cools. The reverse in La Nina.
The situation is shown here with spikes of OLR in El Nino and troughs in La Nina. The past decade or so have seen more cold water upwelling in the eastern Pacific. So the surface is cooler and the winds have picked up causing more eddies to penetrate deep into the ocean. There is a balance of processes here – warm water rises and eddies move surface water deeper. The stronger the wind the more eddies and the warmer the subsurface. The heat will come to the surface again as soon as the wind drops. Don’t let them tell you any different.
Karina von Schuckmann had the bold idea to interrogate ARGO data to 2000m . ARGO is a program involving some 3000 floats sampling temperature and salinity to 2000m starting in 2003. What she found was a modest increase in heat to 2000m. About 0.69mm/yr sea level rise from warming oceans – 0.55 W/m^2 increase in power in over the period and a small decrease in mass. The latter is ENSO related as well. The power trend is entirely consistent with CERES shortwave over the period. Voila – the missing heat.
There is a bit of a problem with ocean heat data before ARGO. The splice between the datasets is improbable to say the least. The dearth of prior measurements beyond 700m makes it all very hit and miss.
The most interesting thing about ENSO though is that it varies in intensity and frequency in periods from decades to millennia.
The decadal periodicity you can see for yourself. La Nina (blue) dominant to 1976, El Nino (red) to 1998 and La Nina again since.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
This seems to have an impact on clouds as well – decreasing to 1998, increasing in the 1998/2001 climate shift and a slight increase in the ARGO and CERES period.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=15
Pekka Pirila: Everyone who thinks that oceans have a major role in the multidecadal variability must agree with Trenberth on that.
Trenberth has made a somewhat more precise assertion than that; besides, he waited until after it was clear that the GCMs were inaccurate.
Hello Chief,
Thanks for the numerous considered replies.
(1) Ok so CERES tells us that while there is a trend in the net radiation budget in watts/m^2, making for a net increase in the planet’s e heat content, this is all down to RSW, since OLR shows no trend.
Now as I understand it, the basic mechanism of AGW is capture and restransmission of OLR, some of which heads back down to land and oceans, further warming them. But if OLR shows no trend while CO2 increases apace, does that not mean CO2 is off the hook?
Bingo Tom,
I’d like to see fan state exactly what I deny. I don’t even deny fan’s ability to post a worthwhile comment, despite his track record of not doing so.
Perhaps if we all acknowledged his man love for Dr Hansen, he wouldn’t feel the need to exhibit so frequently.
Trenberth is half right – as I was.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html?sort=3&o=10
The other half is what happens with radiative feedbacks to ocean and atmospheric circulation.
e.g. http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=53
Chief
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=53
Chief:
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Loeb2011-Fig1.png.html?sort=3&o=53
I have two statements and then two questions:
The LW TOA flux in graph (a) come from different measurement devices/systems.
Graph (b) has the same data but now “corrected”.
Query: The “corrections” are justified?
Query: How does graph (b) LW out show feedback?
I thought that Karina von Schuckmann found heat accumulating at 2000 meters and by-passing the first 700 meters. Right?
Feedbacks (which ones? clouds? air/ocean currents?) were doing exactly what? countering the accumulation by dissipating energy out? or providing a screen and reducing SW in?
In my head, and spending a bit of time at the sea shore, the heat accumulating during calm daytime weather gets mixed into deeper layers when the seas get rough. The heated surface water gets mixed to depth.
From what I perceived from ARGO data and what K v S was saying, heat bypassed the surface to 700 meters and went down to 2000 meters instead.
More likely than not, I am confusing SW heating with LW cooling as well as not addressing specific layers: TOA, Tropospheric, Surface (Land/Water), and Oceans including at depth.
If you find the time, might you re-guide me to some readings to help sort out this issue?
Regards
Judith, you write “So . . . what is the differentiator? Why is there such hostility between the two ‘sides’, even though there is little at this point to discriminate the two sides in terms of science?
`
Sorry, but there is an enormous lot of scientific difference between the two sides in terms of science. There may not be much difference between what you think is the correct science, and what Kevin Trenbeth thinks. But there is an enormous difference between the science of the true denier/skeptics and the ardent warmists. Let us start with your statement that “The uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity are such that beliefs as low as 1C and as high as 6C cannot be judged as irrational.” The true denier/skeptic claims that the climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero. And the disagreements get greater from there on in.
The glass is at a level
Its estimate our aim;
Optimists observe,
Pessimists declaim.
==============
@jim cripwell
You say
‘The true denier/skeptic claims that the climate sensitivity is indistinguishable from zero.’
Can you provide us with the name of a ‘true denier/skeptic’ who claims this? I don’t think I’ve ever come across one.
And how would you categorise a sceptic who doesn’t make that claim? Are they ‘untrue’?
I fear that – like all believers in any religion – you think that all who don’t believe, do so for the same reasons. This is just not true.
Example. Many British football fans do not support Manchester United. But that does not mean that they all support a club called ‘Not Manchester United’. There are more than 100 professional soccer clubs in England. They are all not Manchester United, but they are all different.
Latimer, you write “Can you provide us with the name of a ‘true denier/skeptic’ who claims this? I don’t think I’ve ever come across one.”
Yes, me. I suggest you frequent WUWT, there are lots of commenters over there who agree with me.
You also write “And how would you categorise a sceptic who doesn’t make that claim? Are they ‘untrue’? .”
Sorry, I overhyped that bit.
Does the US still own Manchester United?
Latimer its called projection. Jim C cannot imagine the reasons why people have not joined his cult and therefore has to project beliefs onto them that preclude ‘deniers’ from coming over to the dark side.
Don, you write “Jim C cannot imagine the reasons why people have not joined his cult”
Wrong on all counts. I dont have a cult, and I could not care less whether anyone else agrees with me or not. All I am interested in, is getting my ideas as close to what the science actually is, as I can. I come onto blogs to throw out my ideas, and, hopefully, people who know more about the subject than I do, will tell me where I am wrong. If in this process, there happen to be people who think I might have a point, well then maybe I have advanced the cause of science.
Jim explains science reminds me of this
http://www.epicfail.com/2012/05/14/translation-fail-3/
@capt dallas
I believe the majority shareholders in MUFC are the Glazer Brothers, who are American. That is not quite the same as being ‘owned by the US’.
But it is clear that the Glazer Bros. are just a front for the Koch Bros. and that Old Trafford is little more than a badly disguised payout window for the Big Oil Denier Machine, Frack the Planet, Drown the Polies and Roast Babies Alive UK branch.
While ‘The Team’ on the pitch are busy winning European Cups and the like as a distraction, the hordes of red-scarved individuals at the ‘match’ are in reality queuing up to get their orders from Mr. Big (or Sir Alex Ferguson as he used to present himself) about which ‘weaker cherry-picked parts’ of the Climate Science Empire to attack next.
Half-time ‘Team talks’ consist of re-propagandising the sceptic masses with new ideology driven denialist demagoguery. And the crowd’s apparent joy at the final whistle when United overwhelm another side of patsies is nothing to do with the result but the knowledge that 5pm is payout time.
At that appointed hour Sir Alex (or his latest incarnation – David Moyes) presses the big Green (ironic huh!) button to send the unthinking knuckle dragging slavering sceptic adherents their bribe money for the fortnight. And to unleash yet more terrible damage on the peaceful and unsuspecting Climos whose only wish in life is to advance the cause of Modelled Truth and the Rights of Mann.
But all that is way to the North of me. I am not a Manchester United fan. My team is rather more obscure and rather less successful. ‘Tis only the slavering and the knuckle dragging and the ability to be bribed that we agree on.
(BTW, I can provide documented proof for only the first paragraph. But I have a model that has sometimes given results ‘not inconsistent’ with the other findings.So I’ll call those ‘experimental evidence’ shall I? One has to be very careful with literal transatlantic minds).
Steven, you write “Jim explains science reminds me of this.”
Our hostess says she has a hide like an allegator. I am a lot older than she is, and I have a hide that is 10 times tougher than an allegator’s. I am proud of what I write. Just remember “He who laughs last, laughs longest.”
I don’t think I can ever stop laughing at Adler’s stuff.
=========
He who laughs last, laughs longest.”
not really. it depends when you start laughing.
“Our hostess says she has a hide like an
allegator”
As in, a person who makes allegations ?
Fear and loathing of sceptics?
When I started observing this discussion about 5 years ago, the loathing was very apparent.
Part of it seemed to come from the Team being completely aghast that anyone who was not a full time academic would have the bare-faced cheek to challenge their work. Climategate makes it very clear that they felt they had control of all the important levers of power of the academic publishing machine, that no junior climatologist would have the cojones to risk a ruined career by asking awkward questions and that basically what they said went. The subtitle to their one to many propaganda mouthpiece ‘climate science from climate scientists’ says it all. ‘We tell – you peasants just hear The Word and Obey’ is what it is meant to convey.
And then along came McSteve. A Canuck and not an academic so completely unfazed by the normal niceties of career and tenure and status and approval and citations and all the things that the Team were used to have working in their favour. And worse still , despite his background as a mining engineer (can’t you just hear the academic contempt dripping from those words?) he seemed to know a lot more statistics than Mann and co did (35 years experience of using them in reality counts).
None of this would have mattered much if he had no voice. But the internet and blogging was just starting up, And however much the journals might have been in The Team’s pocket, the blogs weren’t.
Mr McIntyre is unfailingly courteous. But also like Benton Fraser in Due South he never gives up. And as Jonathan has so correctly pointed out he was right and the Team were wrong. And in their heart of hearts everybody knows it.
The loathing part is easy – he outsmarted and outstatisticked and outpublicised them
But its only in the last couple of years that I have started to detect the fear. Because many climatologists have seen the recent pause and the lower sensitivity estimates as real threats to their existence. Its a simple equation, if climate isn’t going to cause global death and destruction by next Tuesday, then people aren’t going to be prepared to spend so much public money on researching it and the number of posts will decline..as will the once high status of climatology. And especially people will ask why so much blood and treaure is spent on so many climate models that have blatantly failed to do their job despite huge ‘investments’.
Uo until say, Copenhage, climatology and its associated hangers-on was a real growth industry. Fast expanding into new fields. And fast expanding its total revenue. It was a bubble.
But since Copenhagen that’s changed and the industry is hitting a round of what is politely called ‘consolidation’ and less politey called redundancies.
Sceptics have little to fear by this process. In the main they are not academics – or at least not full-time climatologists. And, despite endless attempts to pretend otherwise, there really is no Big Oil Denier machine funding their work. Just an interest in seeing science done properly and in drawing appropriate conclusions from the very rickety evidence. And its probably true that many have had reasonably successful careers in other fields and are not shrinking violets over-impressed by status or titles or the other gongs so revered within academia. They do not respect or observe formal hierarchies or shibboleths or conventions. They are outsiders..and increasingly powerful ones.
Perhaps the best example of their increasing power was the sad tale of Gergis et al…a paper that after passing all the ‘quality control’ of the academic machine was published with great fanfare – and lasted less than a week before its fatal flaws were exposed in the sceptical blogosphere.
So they loathe the sceptics because they are often right. And they fear them because they cannot be controlled. Barbarians at the gate. Ripping down the walls of the nice comfy controlled academic environment.
Lets reconvene in 10 years and see what the GAT is doing, how many full-time climatologists there are (fewer than now) and how much notice the general public and pollies take. It’s a dying industry.
+1
To infinity and beyond.
=================
Latimer is right on the money.
The precocious behaviour of “Climate Scientists” of the IPCC team persuasion,destroys their credibility.
Climategate only confirmed the doubts that they created.
Data unavailable, attack the inquirer, ignore the question, sneer, demean and avoid.
They are doomed to fail as public attention focusses upon climate science, they sense this.
Otherwise the gatekeeping they practise, makes no logical sense.
Reading some of the earlier work of Travesty Man and friends, shows they had no evidence of global warming, never mind man caused global warming and actually published these papers acknowledging this.
@ John Robertson
Its a wonderful irony that many sceptics cite being blown off, or treated with arrogant contempt and disdain by (for example) the denizens of Real Climate as the tipping point that solidified their doubts.
Their huge hubris thus unwittingly engineered the means of their own downfall. Just like the Greeks thought…Hubris followed by Nemesis. You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh……
+100,000,000
Interesting thoughts.
(35 years experience of using them in reality counts). That is exactly right! Experience can’t be learned overnight.
> Mr McIntyre is unfailingly courteous.
Le mot juste:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/3785579961
***
To determine and examine the networks involved, it might suffice to note who says what about whom or what.
Language is a social art.
@willard
When your post comes with an English translation, I will have some time to read it. Until then, my diary is booked. Sorry.
Dear Latimer,
Let me try again:
1. Your claim that the Auditor is “unfailingly courteous” is patently false.
2. Until you concede, I could quote counterexample after counterexample.
3. I’m not bluffing – only trying to help.
That was the first part of the comment.
Please tell me if that’s clear enough for you.
Hope this helps,
willard couldn’t appreciate the politesse of the like of McIntyre.
===========
@willard
Excellent!
See – when you put your mind to it, you *can* write in relatively clear understandable English. If you practice this skill more often you might find more people stop to read and fewer just have you on permanent scrollby.
Writing in obscure allusions might give you the impression that you are a great intellectual in the French tradition, but actually persuades everyone else that you are incapable of expressing a sensible thought or following a logical argument.
Maybe you have some examples where Mr McIntyre has been less than courteous. Perhaps he used a cuss word when a hammer fell on his toe or whne The Team hid their dodgy data from him for the fifteenth time.
I will rephrase my remark to ‘Mr McIntyre’s default position is to be extremely courteous’. Happy now? Has it changed the thrust of the argument one iota? Nope.
But keep on with the English practice. It’s obviously doing you good.
McIntyre, relative to the Hockey Team, is extremely courteous.
> I will rephrase my remark to ‘Mr McIntyre’s default position is to be extremely courteous’.
Good. Let’s see the effect:
Let’s go back to Latimer’s claim:
> Has it changed the thrust of the argument one iota? Nope.
Was this description part of an argument? Some might disagree about that. In any case, the “default position” signals the excuse that Steve’s lacks of courtesy is explained by the behaviour of his opponents, i.e. the famous You Made Me Do It of transactional analysis.
Also, the claim that Steve is extremely courteous sounds quite subjective. Considering that it applies to some kind of the idealization of a “default position”, it might very well be empty. From what we can gather, many “default positions” from the Auditor were certainly not extremely courteous. Mike’s & Phil’s “default positions” were also quite courteous, as we can read in our beloved Bishop’s political hit job.
***
Speaking of “the Team”, some might prefer The Kyoto Flames:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/5874729706
Courtesy of the Auditor, of course.
Latimer,
You said it all in a nutshell. And the tremds lend support to your last sentence. It is the trend of rapodly dying interest that is scaring the CAGW doomsayers.
You said:
Sure is and this demonstrates how rapidly it is dying:
Climate Change
http://climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#activitytimeline
Carbon credits
http://carboncredits.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#activitytimeline
Alternative energy
http://alternative.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#activitytimeline
Wind energy
http://wind.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#activitytimeline
Latimer Alder:
“Sceptics have little to fear by this process. In the main they are not academics – or at least not full-time climatologists.”
Excellent point. It’s the attributes of the players. The Skeptics can freestyle, make their own decisions, take bigger risks, are less encumbered. The Scientists work under less flexible conditions. A more structured system.
Sceptics have little reason to fear losing their jobs as the memes implode. You have entirely missed the context.
@ragnaar
Seems to me that a 40 year-old redundant climate modeller is going to be pretty much unemployable.
The private sector won’t want such an individual because an entire career spent in academia is no preparation for doing commercial work, and a great in-depth knowledge of a completely failed modelling regime is of limited to zero useful value. Commerce places a great value on getting real practical things right and none on writing papers. The academic world has the opposite idea.
Academia will be reducing, not increasing posts, and modellers are the obvious candidates to go. Despite huge investment their failure has been so universally big and so universally apparent.
Maybe there’s some thinktank halfway house inbetween the two that will take a few of the better candidates, but overall its a pretty bleak lookout for them. No wonder they fight tooth and nail to keep the ‘consensus lifeboat’ afloat. It’s all they have between them and burger flipping.
+10. Mirrors my thoughts a well. Overwrought experts under siege by the intellectually curious, rather than the energy-funded special interests they perceive.
We could just name this post “A Summary of the History of Climate Science” and make it a sticky top post for newcomers.
A good coverage of the “debate” from the viewpoint of a sceptic. I think that choice of adjectives and the ascribing of motives could have been left out but hey, its a good read!
My impression is that Trenberth has never behaved in a way that had led to the animosity between the main stream and skeptics. I don’t understand his thinking on the extreme events, but his views in that area could not maintain the animosity.
There’s some truth in the observation that Mann vs. McIntyre had a major role in the development. Reading the book of Mann on the fight tells certainly more about his role than that of the others, but several more people from both sides have certainly been needed. It’s typical of many of those that they see all kind of evil motives for their opponents behavior.
@pekka
I trust you have also read Mr Montford’s book The Hockey Stick Illusion which tells the story primarily from McIntyre’s viewpoint. And, I’d suggest, is rather less self-serving.
I haven’t read that, but I believe that I have read enough on views of various people involved. What was striking in Mann’s book is that it presents so direct evidence on his own prejudices and readiness to draw conclusions about the motives of other people.
A book written by a third party is of less interest to me, I have no need to learn about Mr Montford.
it’s clear that McIntyre can control himself better than Mann. Digger deeper to what he has done might, however, reveal behavior that deviates from the formal politeness shown on the surface. (I wouldn’t write that unless I had perceived some sign of that, but on that I may also err.)
Mr Montford writes as a historian and explainer. I don’t think I learnt anything about him as an individual (as it should be). But an awful lot about the events that led to the debunking of the Hockey Stick and the Team.
Pekka
Yes, there’s no real need for anyone to know anything about Mr Montford.
But I suggest there is a real need to know what he wrote, an account of deep-seated institutional climate science corruption, as revealed by Climategate and the subsequent attempts to sweep it under the mat.
A good writer with an agenda can make you learn both what’s true and what’s not without helping in seeing what’s what. Worse writers like Mann are often much more revealing when they write about themselves.
Memphis,
I’m pretty sure that i wouldn’t learn anything by reading Montford’s book. I have read quite a lot about the case elsewhere, and I have done that having the possibility to contrast opposing claims and to interpret original material keeping some balance in the selection process.
Adding to that his book would not be likely to make me accept any claim that I haven’t already accepted.
Another point is that I have been involved in science for decades. I have seen that scientists do not always behave properly in any field. Building a carrier in science is highly competitive. In a highly competitive environment all kind of tricks are used, and people are also surprisingly good in making themselves believe that they have not done anything wrong.
Scientists are human, and often pretty strange humans, science as a process is successful in spite of that, and perhaps sometimes because of that.
The way climate science gained rapidly prestige made the situation somewhat worse than in most sciences, but not really unique.
@pekka
You seem strangely resistant to reading what has generally been acknowledged as a classic.
How about ‘The Age of Global Warming’ by Darwall. Has this got on to your reading list?
By whom?
The main point is that I want to have the control of my sources. I don’t trust a selection of sources by anyone else, in particular not by anyone whom I suspect of having an agenda.
“Another point is that I have been involved in science for decades”
Me too. I have see things which lead me to believe that it is not only cream that floats to the top.
However, what independent analysis of our respective fields can we judge the fields of Physics, Biomedical Science and Climate Science since Hansen 1981?
Well, the pursuit of science in physics and biomedicals has produced a huge amount of technology. Humankind has been enriched by the spin-offs of research physics and in biomedicine. Just what has Climate Science given us? Seriously, what do we know now that we didn’t know before, that can enrich our lives? I think changing the death rate of childhood leukemia from>90% to the present <10% is a rather good payoff.
Do tell me what the period of 30 years has given us?
New statistical methods?
Better instrumentation?
A better thermos flask?
Just what have we got for the more than trillion dollars spent?
I cannot see much return on the investment. Spending it on Dementia research or curing river blindness or malaria would have given us something.
But, after a trillion bucks, just WTF is the 'equilibrium' climate sensitivity?
Pekka Pirilä | August 24, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
I don’t trust a selection of sources by anyone else, in particular not by anyone whom I suspect of having an agenda.<<
The obvious one being the IPCC.
Pekka Pirilä | August 24, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
Oh, please, Pekka … Your biases are showing, again! Gaia forbid that you should read anything that might show your “suspicions” to be unfounded!
Yet, you dutifully read Mann’s latest creative writing exercise in self-promotion. Did you not “suspect” that Mann might have had (and continues to be driven by) an agenda?! An agenda, one might add, that Mann has shown to be about as far from the practice of “communicating” credible and trustworthy “science” as it could possibly be.
DocMartyn,
People in general obviously have a psychotic compulsion to act irrationally from time to time. In some cases, it appears cultural. The “potlatch”, when accompanied by the destruction of the goods received, and the beggaring of the giver, is but one example.
The amount of time, money, and effort, devoted to climatology has produced, as you point out, precisely nothing of value.
Furthermore, the whole charade has been based on an hypothesis, which has been demonstrated experimentally to have no merit whatsoever. In other words, the GHE effect purely does not exist.
Any experiment which sets out to show the existence of such an effect, shows its non-existence. This is how science normally advances. Climatology, however, appears to be a form of infectious delusional psychosis. Impossible, but apparent to an objective observer.
A self proclaimed “climatologist” like Trenberth, is now apparently claiming that the ocean has entered one of its “soaking up” modes. Such is climatological science. The supply of climatological duct tape used for repairing the creeping, slowly collapsing Juggernaut, pushed by the CO2 worshippers, appears to be diminishing.
Obviously I support your comments fully.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Doc @ 6.01, Latimer throughout: excellent.
> You seem strangely resistant to reading what has generally been acknowledged as a classic.
If resisting is a behaviour, why use the precautionary “seem” to describe it?
Heh, I haven’t read the Bish’s Tender Tome, but it’s the next best thing to being there. A word to the Perspicacious Pekka.
============
Pekka Pirila,
You again expose your pro CAGW doomsayer bias. You say:
So you admit you read Mann but wont read “The Hockey Stick Illusion – the corruption of science”
You read only what supports your already formed views. You read Michael Mann and believe him, yet you won’t read “The Hockey Stick Illusion – the corruption of science”. What a joke.
How do you expect people to take you as anything more that a partisan, CAGW doomsayer and scaremonger?
> Mr Montford writes as a historian and explainer.
See for yourself:
Thus concludes Bish’s Tender Tome.
Rather less self-serving indeed.
Pekka wouldn’t sound like such a naif about all three if he’d followed Climate Audit such that he wouldn’t need to read the Bish’s Tender Tome. willard, it’s still there.
===============
“The main point is that I want to have the control of my sources. I don’t trust a selection of sources by anyone else, in particular not by anyone whom I suspect of having an agenda.”
This is conscious avoidance of critical thinking in a nut shell. Typical behavior of a default progressive, who has been taught since elementary school not to think for himself.
Contrary thought is dangerous, and to be avoided at all costs. The only way to view it is through the filter of approved progressives filters, like progressive media, Think Progress, Skeptical Science….
As a contrary example, when I want to know what the “consensus” thinks, I go to their sources. The New York Times, Huffington Post, Real Climate, Skeptical Science, etc. When I was studying history and economics, I didn’t learn what progressives thought from conservative media. (Well, there really wasn’t any except the Wall Street Journal editorial page and National Review.) I read Marx, and Lenin, and Mao, and Alinsky, and others.
When kept hearing how fascist conservatives were, I didn’t just read the rantings on the left making the charge, I read Mussolini, even plowed through Mein Kampf, the most boring book ever written. If you want to learn what other people think, you have to have the intellectual courage to read what they themselves say about it. Otherwise, when you make your decision, you are merely regurgitating what someone else told you to think.
Oh, and I read all those before making up my mind about my political/economic beliefs, which started out considerably more progressive than they are now.
I would be embarrassed to admit that i was afraid to read what someone else wrote on a topic in which I was interested. But that is unfortunately the norm for most progressives, “moderates,” “independents,” and libertarians.
Pekka presumes to speak of the corruption of science without having read the most lucid and most recent exposition. Sure, Pekka, it’s a simulacrum, of the twisting, the wrenching, the tormenting destruction of the highest enlightenment principles; skip it, not worth your bother.
Nor have I read it; no need.
=========================
GaryM,
” I dislike arguments of any kind. They are always vulgar, and often convincing”
The Importance of Being Earnest.
Oscar Wilde
> [I]f he’d followed Climate Audit such that he wouldn’t need to read the Bish’s Tender Tome.
If purple was the colour of his true love’s airs, it would.
Doc, I’ve long said the internet is a wonderful place where people can violently disagree without coming to blows, or worse yet, descending to agreement.
=============
Pekka Pirila,
What arrogance! What ignorance!
Pekka Pirila,
Rephrased: You want to filter so you read only what supports your beliefs.
We’ve seen that many times on past threads in discussions about energy, mitigation policies, carbon pricing policies and renewable energy.
Pekka’s most egregious ignorance is at the depth of his credibility loss among skeptics if he is not intimately familiar with the details of this most impressive corruption of science, and policy. Sure it’s a tall order, but it’s a short book; taller and shorter than willard.
===============
Doc martyn
+1
> What arrogance! What ignorance!
I think I can prove that Pekka could learn at least one thing from reading our beloved Bishop’s political hit job:
On page 27-28 there is the Deming Affair. It is claimed that “Lindzen of MIT has confirmed that the email was written by Jonathan Overpeck.” But note 12, which follows this claim, points to an Arxiv document authored by Lindzen. There is one mention to Overpeck in that document: a signature to an international conference invitation. The only mention of “getting rid” of MWP cites (Deming, 2005) as authority.
Here is when the Auditor might revive yet another introduction to check-kiting.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/15401067079
@willard
You quote the last three sentences of 449 pages of Montford’s book. And the final section from which it is extracted is called ‘Where do we stand now?’ .Seems not unreasonable for the author to finally express his opinion at this point.
I think my suggestion that it is ‘rather less self-serving’ than Mann’s book will stand up well to rigorous scrutiny if this is the best you can do. We can do a page-by-page comparison for ‘self-serving’ and keep score if you wish.
@willard
‘If resisting is a behaviour, why use the precautionary “seem” to describe it?’
1. To show that it is my opinion. Short for ‘seem to me’
2. To recognise that English is not Pekka’s 1st language and that there may be a translation difficulty.
3. To avoid stupid irrelevant nit-picking arguments from folk such as you.
But MWP!
=======
> To show that it is my opinion. Short for ‘seem to me’.
It does seemed that way to me too, Latimer. If we are right, then even behaviours such as resisting does seem to go through some kind of interpretation from the observer. Which means that to interpret Pekka’s behaviour as resisting, you need to work with much more than his speech patterns. In a nutshell, you need to work out a model of Pekka’s mind. This model can rest on a simulation, a theory, or whatnot:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-representation/
This does not matter for my point, which was to hint at a second refutation of your argument elsewhere in the thread about fear and loathing.
I hope this is clear enough as it is. But I can rephrase more carefully if need be.
> [I]t’s a short book.
I would not call a 482 pages’ book a short one.
There might be better ways to convince Pekka. Here’s a quote from the cover:
> … one of the best science books in years … deserves to win prizes.
Thus wrote Matt Ridley, in Prospect magazine.
The text from the quote is in red.
Some might have preferred purple.
> [I]t’s a short book.
I would not call a 482 pages’ book a short one.
There might be better ways to convince Pekka. Here’s a quote from the cover:
> … one of the best science books in years … deserves to win prizes.
Thus wrote Matt Ridley, in Prospect magazine.
> [I]t’s a short book.
I would not call a 482 pages’ book a short one.
I didn’t read the book, but I read McIntyre’s account of the e-mails on his website, and I think it was good. It showed that Mann was somewhat a hothead and proactive with the hockey stick. There was a lot of push back on how weak the hockey stick was among his peers, including the way they talked among themselves about Mann’s attitude, and they were especially concerned about convincing Richard Alley’s independent NAS committee who were skeptical of tree rings anyway. In the end, tree rings back in Mann’s 1998 and 1999 papers were weak evidence alone.
I wrote it in one line: The Piltdown Mann’s Crook’t Stick.
=================
Tree rings are a pretty tough sell even within the climate science community. The divergence problem was their main concern, mostly because they didn’t have an explanation of why tree rings showed “cooling” when the climate was clearly warming. The e-mails make this quandary clear.
It wouldn’t have been a quandary except for the need to defend the most important icon of CAGW. Had there been no ’cause’, they’d have figured out the flaws in the proxies, at least their own ‘proxies’. You are getting warmer, Jim D, some thoughts worth pursuing there.
============
AR3 became a big deal possibly because of the hockey stick. It was an advertising job to be able to say warmest in a millennium because that was Mann’s new result. By AR4 the MWP had made a return among the uncertainty lines, so it was short-lived. Climategate came out after AR4, and those e-mails were already 10 years old, and their actual effect had already faded. As I said, I am skeptical of tree rings unless they are backed up by other evidence. AGW doesn’t need them. The other part of Climategate was that Jones didn’t like McIntyre, who thought he was hiding something, but in the end BEST confirmed Jones’s land record a few years later.
Jim D | August 24, 2013 at 11:30 pm |
Tree rings are a pretty tough sell even within the climate science community. The divergence problem was their main concern, mostly because they didn’t have an explanation of why tree rings showed “cooling” when the climate was clearly warming,
_______
According to kim, more CO2 makes plants grow faster, but the stupid trees ignored the rising CO2 and grew slower. kim should give those trees a good talking to.
It was just one tree. We think someone forgot to water it.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/most-influential-tree-3501.jpg
@willard
Call me if and when you come back up from your rabbit hole. I don’t plan to chase you there. Have fun
HR writes
You haven’t obviously not read at all what I say about that book, and about what the book tells about Mann.
You have only noticed that I have read the book, and you have your prejudices about me.
I have bought a few books related to the controversies. Other authors are Hulme, Pielke Jr., and Leframboise. Hulme and Pielke Jr. are interesting and their books contain a lot of good thinking (while I don’t agree on everything), Mann’s book is rather bad but revealing, Leframboise is just unbearable for me.
Hah, the crimson on the thin ice ain’t berry juice.
==================
@Willard
our beloved Bishop’s political hit job:
A undisputed account of what happened is a “hit job” is it?
Doubtless you prefer to shoot the messenger, and go with the political cover-up jobs run by the organzations involved, that investigated and exonerated themselves, using taxpayers’ money to bribe their pals to run these shams.
Pekka and willard both shudder and shy at the book; it’s changed too many minds for their appetites.
=================
McIntyre’s viewpoint is one of a wealthy former Canadian mining executive.
As the tar sands operation in Canada is likely the world’s largest mining operation ever conceived, and he never seems to give an opinion of that debacle, I would think he is not the most objective participant in the debate.
The statistics of the energy return on energy invested for a low-grade fossil fuel such as tar sands would seem a natural fit for a statistician of McIntyre’s caliber. Yet he doesn’t seem to want to lift a finger and help estimate how much more carbon emissions that enterprise would add due to its low efficiency. I wonder why that is?
The only answer I get is that he can do whatever he wants. Well, so can I and I do get a kick out of continuing to point out the stunning hypocrisy of the denier camp.
Reading at Hilary’s blog the following, re the IPCC documented ‘pretended response’ to IAC recommendations concerning
panel members avoiding conflicts of interest by reviewing
their own or employers’ papers, is enough to make yer weep
at such prevarication, ( ter put it politely.) bts
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/ipcc-and-conflict-of-interest-tapping-into-the-team-work-side-step/
Gergis alone odorizes the rot way over, and I can smell it all the way over here.
============
Web smears tar
On the walls where
Minnie’s hottah,
Not at Torontah.
============
> Seems not unreasonable for the author to finally express his opinion at this point.
Perhaps, but this “opinion” contradicts the claim that our beloved Bishop wrote his political hit job “as a historian and explainer”.
And if that’s not enough, lots of such “opinions” drip page after page. Let’s try to find one by opening the pamphlet almost at random (with thanks to Beth for inspiration):
This was on page 305, in the middle of the political hit job.
Here are some comments on this old episode of ClimateBall.
***
First, note 198 leads to the citation, and nothing else. That is, no other references are made about this episode. Here are two important links:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/20/something-new-in-the-loehle-network/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/
Notice the dates. There are many others. In what Latimer considers the work of an historian, our beloved Bishop does not refer to his material. This is not the only place he forgets his references.
My favourite is when he uses a “forum” to refer to the Climate Sceptics mailing list. This led to a very interesting discussion at Lucia’s a while ago. Another time, perhaps.
***
Second, the Auditor’s position on Loehle’s paper was far from being as critical as portrayed. See for yourself:
http://climateaudit.org/category/multiproxy-studies/loehle-2007/
Third, the claim that “the more substantive criticisms of the paper related to the absence of any estimates of errors” is quite subjective. Gavin does seem to hold, in the post cited above:
Validation does seem to be quite crucial. Our beloved Bishop may very well be swallowing more than he can chew here.
***
Third, this episode is narrated to show that this was an example of 21st century science. As an aside, Bishop notes that, notwithstanding the contrarian criticisms, Loehle’s main findings “still stood”. This is clearly a subjective interpretation of the episode.
While I find sympathy with the argument for blog science, I also think that Bishop’s story romanticizes a lot what was happening during these discussions.
***
Fourth, readers should appreciate how our beloved Bishop shifts the readers’ attention from the Auditor’s behaviour and the ones of the contrarian crowd. If readers can find criticisms from the Auditor on Loehle, that would be appreciated. Here are the posts at Steve’s tagged “Loehle 2007”:
http://climateaudit.org/category/multiproxy-studies/loehle-2007/
***
All in all, we should always be circumspect in our interpretations, and always have in mind Bender’s advice:
> Read the blog.
Unless, of course, we’re more interested in hagiography than history.
So McIntyre not applying himself to analyzing the CO2 implications of tar sands, is an example of “denier hypocrisy”, says Webhub.
Astounding drivel, even by his standards. Weblogic, let’s call it, a product of the vino no doubt.
And Loehle gets funding by the paper and pulp industry, I.e. the Koch brothers.
Like I said, stunning hypocrisy.
@Jim D
The other part of Climategate was that Jones didn’t like McIntyre, who thought he was hiding something
Jones WAS, for years, hiding something. The data.
He resented McIntyre for asking for it, rather than take his (Jones’s) word on what it contained.
And Jones’s epitaph will one day be his most memorable comment, capturing the essence of the cargo-cult alarmist ‘consensus’ :
“Why should I show you my data when I know you’ll try and find something wrong with it?”
He’ll be remembered for his contribution to the exposure of the vacuousnes of the peer/pal review system too.
Here’s how Fred Pearce – no dyed-in-the-wool sceptic he – put it in the Guardian:
‘The most startling observation came when he was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication asked to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. “They’ve never asked,” he said.’
Jones has published over 200 ‘peer-reviewed’ papers in the last 25 years In all that time, nobody bothered to check any of his work. And yet it is used as the basis for the understanding of recent temperature changes via the HADCRU datasets.
That’s not a way to run a whelk stall, let alone a ‘science’.
Ref: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2010/mar/01/phil-jones-commons-emails-inquiry
Latimer
That sort of lack of scrutiny (and many other things) does set me thinking (again) as to whether climate science is a real, legitimate and separate branch of science in the manner of other more established scientific disciplines.
tonyb
What counts is the strongest climate-change science, not the weakest. That’s why climate-change skepticism that confines its attention to the weakest climate-change science amounts to a particularly timid, feeble, futile variety of climate-change denialism.
That’s plain scientific common sense, right tonyb?
Fan how do you judge the strength of climate science? Odor?
@tonyb
Again and again, I contrast the appallingly low professional standards that academics accept with those of the outside world.
In the OW we long ago recognised that humans are fallible and can make ‘mistakes’ either by accident or by design. And in response we implemented systems that try to identify and eliminate such errors. Simple things like double entry bookkeeping, auditing, witnesses for wills, double independent signatures, rest breaks for drivers, two pilots in a cockpit and so on and so forth. All of them (fallible though they still are) designed or evolved to reduce the risk and impact of human errors. Most have been learnt the hard way – with death and destruction in their wake.
And one might think that when working on ‘the most important problem humanity has ever faced’, our gallant academic seekers after truth would have been eager to adopt all the best lessons of hundreds of years of failures to ensure that they have the best possible data, conduct the best possible experiments, invite and encourage the deepest level of scrutiny and independent checking to come up with the most robust conclusions.
One might think so, but one would be sadly disappointed. The reality is that there is almost no ‘quality control’ in academia, and the culture of secrecy and of ‘why should I show you MY data’ is rampant.
An academic’s number one objective is to get something published. Whether it is any good is very much a secondary issue. And once published the chances of it getting any subsequent QC checks are minimal. Its in the sacred ‘literature’ and will stay there forever, no matter how much crap it may be.
Jones once again summed up the quality hurdle such papers need to overcome. ‘I read the papers on the train, and pass them if they feel right’.
And its quite reasonable to assume (since he leaves no audit trail of his decisions) that he used the same ‘method’ when ‘adjusting’ raw data to enter into his HADCRU datasets.
But we will never know because, like the careful custodian of the world’s most important data that he and his hapless colleagues are – they’ve lost it all in an office move. Surely only the late Tom Sharpe could do real comic justice to their ineptitude, and even he would be stretching the reader’s credulity.
Whether climatology deserves to be a ‘science’ is a moot point. But it is clear that the public – all of whose climate it is too – deserve far better professional standards from their advisers than the current academic model provides. they would be completely unacceptable in the outside world.
What counts is the strongest climate-change scepticism, not the weakest. That’s why climate-change ‘science’ and its apologies that confine their attention to the weakest climate-change scepticism, amounts to a particularly timid, feeble, futile variety of climate-change credulity.
You know the kind I mean – standard FOMB fare.
Lati,
Good point.
Why can’t orginial scientific thought be done like a recipe book?
Michael,
Lati and his recipe book will figure out how his home country can make up for a huge deficit in home-grown oil, natural gas, and coal production.
Not being able to come up with a solution, he and his mates down at the pub will then blame his ills on “my obsession”.
@michael
‘Why can’t original scientific thought be done like a recipe book?’
Might be nice if the cook had some decent guarantee of the quality of the raw ingredients though. That the white crystals really are sugar and not salt.
And if you’re going to suggest that we all spend vast quantities of blood and treasure on a problem you think your ‘original scientific thought’ has detected, I’d want a slightly better double check than ‘I read it on the train and it felt right’. Or even ‘and I told my mate down the hall about it and he agrees’.
If you want to do academic speculative ‘science’, that’s fine, But don’t then try to pretend that the ‘results’ are anything better than speculation too.
@webbie
You flatter yourself hugely if you think that the denizens of the Dog And Duck willl give you a first thought, let alone a second one. We won’t.
Lati,
You’re confusing a scientific publication convention (peer review) with the science itself.
Your long rant above was similarly confused/ill-informed/careless/wrong.
Climate scientists confused pal review with peer review. The review now is not by their peers.
==============
But you just did give me a first thought, Little Lati.
Here are a few other links to the North Sea oil problem.
and also
I am sure you have a solution, and it likely has something to do with the shale potential under Blackpool.
But don’t forget about Poland!
Any second thoughts, Lati?
@webbie
As promised.
No.
@michael
Science is based on observational data. If your data is bad, so will be your science.
One might think that ‘scientists’ would go to great lengths to ensure that they have good data. It seems that in climatology this does not apply. ‘It feels right’ is good enough.
Again, Lati confuses science and the process of peer-review.
Lati, I will continue to hold out hope for the pensioners of the UK and that they will continue to be able to afford to heat their homes in the winter.
Fortunately, the alternative and renewable energy industry will continue to make strides and provide the population with cheap energy in the coming years.
Cheers.
Owen Paterson went to Lithuania.
H/t the Bish’s Tender Toots.
==========
“Why can’t orginial scientific thought be done like a recipe book?”
Michael, the idea of ‘QC’ and ‘original scientific thought’ are two separate and distinct things. For QC, think ‘document and data control’. What kind of policies and procedures are in place to ensure traceability? How do you control for revisions? How do store and secure data and information used to form conclusions? Willard should know something about this. There are ‘recipes’ on how to do these things. Quality management systems are a dime a dozen as well as third party registrars. None of this has anything to do with ‘original scientific thought’. This is the same misunderstanding Pekka has long had with me on this issue, or at least that is my interpretation of it. Quality management has really nothing to do with the creative ideas of research, but it has everything to do with the housekeeping one should keep when doing it.
Dang, that was supposed to be ‘the Bish’s Timely Toots’. Check out the timely reminder @ his Palace. Frack it again, frack it again, louder, louder.
===========
@michael
No confusion here, mon brave.
But if you are so convinced there is no problem please guide me (for example) to where I can find a description of the QC methods used in the production of the HADCRU datasets. And the independent auditors report on how well they have been adhered to.
Make up your mind Lati, are you lecturing us about how to do science, or how to store the pencils?
> How do you control for revisions?
I hope scientists do use a control version system. And if they do, they should use Git. Imagine the IPCC creating the trunk and the Auditors creating branches.
(Everything could be done in Python… OK, I won’t push the daydreaming.)
***
I don’t think the Auditor used a CVS:
http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/29/mosher-on-the-provenance-of-said-et-al-2008/#comment-285334
***
Also, let’s recall one of our first comment at Steve’s, in the comment thread of an op-ed Judy just quoted:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/22/curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/#comment-203085
Putting the two thoughts together, we get that to know exactly if and how Wegman did run Steve’s code, we’d need to have the correspondence between the two.
***
When we get to this part of the stories, we usually hear a chorus of crickets.
“Putting the two thoughts together, we get that to know exactly if and how Wegman did run Steve’s code, we’d need to have the correspondence between the two.”
Look… Squirrel!
I’m glad to see you don’t disagree with the other general principles I made.
W,
This is the vanishing point of ‘data whining’.
Crickets chirp and chat,
In the echo chamber file;
Flourescent Censor.
=============
“Make up your mind Lati, are you lecturing us about how to do science, or how to store the pencils?”
My guess is you make judgement calls and important decisions every day based on how people store their pencils. My guess would be you put your trust into those that know how to store their pencils vs those who are too dumb to know how to do it. How stupid do you have to be if you don’t even know how to store your pencils? Are those the people you hire to make sure things get done right?
You wanna watch the ones who know how to sharpen pencils.
=============
> Look… Squirrel!
Should readers notice fear from your reaction, John?
You know I disagree: there is a relationship between quality control and this aspect of l’affaire Wegman.
Proselytism about fully open audits carries its load of responsibilities.
***
Anyway.
If you prefer a more philosophical comment, here’s an example to show how we could reconcile both Pekka and your position.
Ludics is a framework to connect two types of work in logic: proof theory, which is traditionally syntactical, and game semantics, which develops the intuition that truth is the result of the interaction between some moves. Here’s the foundational paper:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=80083
Here’s an outline:
http://ls.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/prodi/slides/Lecomte.pdf
Sorry for the formalism. Sometimes, it’s useful.
***
There are many ways to prove theorems. This is a problem: how to keep track of all the proofs? A possible solution is to abstract away from how a proof is done and keep track of what the proof does exactly.
This relates to the discussion the following way. Pekka wants to focus on results. You, John, wants to focus on processes. What I’m suggesting is that you both should focus on finding a framework whereby we record results by way of their processes.
Of course, I’m not suggesting that we should do all this in Ludics. What I mean is that we should not forget that the content layer (the data) is never independent from the logic layer (the theory).
***
At this point, I would turn it over to archivists.
Finally, please bear in mind that V&V might very well be impossible, considering the current technological state. At least, that’s what Steve Easterbrook maintains.
Also, we should bear in mind that all this should cost many times the actual IPCC budget.
John,
I place a bit more import in what people do with their pencils.
Maybe I’m crazy.
‘data whining’.
Boo hoo, the bank dropped a few zeros from my balance. Guess they don’t store their pencils too well. Oh well, at least I still like their logo and marketing.
Do you have access to a fully open audit report of the costs of Occupy Irak, John?
I can find other examples if you fear squirrels.
Beware your wishes.
A slam dunk. Pencils swivel through the net.
==========
Thanks willard – there’s the rub.
Joking aside, I don’t have any problem with what John is suggesting.
But someone’s gotta pay.
When it’s a choice between paying your grad students/jnr researchers a decent wage and a 24 carat archiving and verifcation processes……if someone can make this happen, great, I’ll have a pony too.
Our beloved ‘skeptics’, who commonly exhibit traits suggestive of free-market fundamentalism, anti-government, anti-regulation obsessions, could get on board and acknowledge that some more of the latter elements might be required to achieve what they proclaim they want.
What you don’t get, willard, and maybe won’t because you can’t, is that the statistics were ‘garbage’ in Jean S’s memorable words, and the echo chamber of climate science amplified to an unsustainable screech the signal of catastrophe.
All the sophistry in the willard world isn’t going to change that.
===========
“This relates to the discussion the following way. Pekka wants to focus on results. You, John, wants to focus on processes. What I’m suggesting is that you both should focus on finding a framework whereby we record results by way of their processes.”
Willard, that is the whole point. If you don’t control the processes used to obtain the results, the results are not worth much. Calibration, traceability to standards etc… Are necessary for all measurements made. Results obtained otherwise are questionable. Even original research into unexplored ideas and methods need to obey this idea and find a path to it. Otherwise it does not stand on familiar ground that we can agree on.
“I can find other examples if you fear squirrels.”
No fear in squirrels, Willard, just annoyance at the distraction they pose from the original topic of discussion. Perhaps I misunderstand the true meaning of the phrase you coined.
kim,
you remind me of those halycon days of the ‘skeptics’ demanding the “raw data”.
Ah, good times.
Fan
Now, that is one of the most revealing things you have ever written here.
So what do YOU consider to be the ‘weakest climate change science?’
We need some guidance as we obviously want to concentrate on the most vulnerable of the many achilles heels.
Please restrict the examples of weak climate science to no more than 100, as our Big oil funding will only permit us to employ a few dozen researchers at a time.
tonyb
“But someone’s gotta pay.
When it’s a choice between paying your grad students/jnr researchers a decent wage and a 24 carat archiving and verifcation processes……if someone can make this happen, great, I’ll have a pony too.”
Michael and Willard, the ‘it’s too expensive” argument is not a convincing one. Archiving and storing data digitally is not bank breaking. I also said nothing about audit/verification processes. Being prepared to be audited and actual auditing are not the same. Having a system in place that makes a verification/audit process go smoothly is not the same as having an audit/verification performed. It’s when the pencils are not stored correctly that the audit/verification process becomes burdensome and costly. If you have a system in place that recognizes what auditors will be looking for, then most of the work has already been done. Just putting the right answer down when asking for a derivation on a test does not get you any credit, you have to show the work. Keeping records of how you show your work is not overly expensive if it is built in as part of the system FROM THE START. Getting started does have costs associated with it and their certainly costs associated with maintaining the system, and doing it all after the fact can be quite burdensome. What cost do you put on lost trust for work that has been performed, appears to be genuine, but can not stand up to scrutiny? Those costs are not easily measured, but are costly nonetheless.
John,
You misunderstand.
The argument is not “it’s too expensive”, simply that the cost must be borne and those footing the bills need to accept that as part of the cost of doing science.
This is not commonly the case at the moment.
“John,
You misunderstand.
The argument is not “it’s too expensive”, simply that the cost must be borne and those footing the bills need to accept that as part of the cost of doing science.
This is not commonly the case at the moment.”
Yes, I do understand and we are in agreement. I appreciate your response.
I’m glad that we’re all in violent agreement about the financial problems “Calibration, traceability to standards etc…” seem to impose, John.
The point I’m trying to make is that “Calibration, traceability to standards etc…” can be used to refer to the ideal of truly open audits, in which case the Wegman Affair illustrates that even the Auditor is far from it. If you prefer, we could take the interview between Harris and Curry: do we have access to the raw data? How could we replicate Judy’s judgement without it?
Unless you come up with specific requests, you have no business telling me these are squirrels. And in fact, as soon as you’ll into specifics, my guess is that the ideal of truly open audits should reveal to be the myth it always were.
Here what the myth looks like, in reality:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/54294182943
I think Judy said something about impugning motives to scientists.
***
Speaking of which, have you read a discussion of this judgement at Steve’s?
Seems that the Auditor prefers to build timestamps chronologies.
At Judy’s, perhaps?
Yes, but green line tests.
Longer Michael
‘I have a great lawyer. I really do. His courtroom skills are legendary.
And I know that if he’d remembered to turn up on the right day at the right court and hadn’t lost the court papers, nor prepared for a different case entirely, then he’d have been able to sweettallk the jury into finding me not guilty straight away.
But as it is, I’ve only another three years to go until I’m released and I can tell him face to face just what a great lawyer I think he is’.
Being professional in what you do is not just about storing pencils. That this concept seems to be beyond you suggests that you must be a climatologist.
@michael
You make a powerful case for doing less, but better climatology. Sounds good.
And just what I’d expect in a period of consolidation.
Perhaps we should start by closing down the teams that don’t adhere to minimum professional standards.
John,
I wonder, what you mean by that in a comment that is in full agreement with my thinking.
One possible reason for thinking that we disagree may be that I have emphasized some additional points:
1) When the exploration goes into new territories, it may be impossible to define QC procedures. Such procedures are useful only when enough is known about the issues studied ahead of the time. It’s clear that great care must be applied under such conditions, but trying to follow a QC handbook may be simply impossible.
2) For genuinely new results the best assurance is obtained by independent repetition by other scientists. That’s an essential component of the scientific process, not of any specific study.
When I have tried to explain to my students how scientific work differs from engineering, I have certainly not indicated that the requirements for quality control would be less. They may sometimes be less formal, but not less in any other sense.
Sometimes it’s justified that scientific results are published when significant uncertainties on their reliability remain, but that must then be stated very clearly in the paper. The progress of science may be sped up significantly by that as that may lead other scientists to a solution not found by the original author. That’s naturally applicable only, when the results are of exceptional significance if found correct.
I noticed that Willard is trying to redirect the approach to a logic-based system and perhaps consider different approaches to simultaneously tracking process and research in an optimal fashion.
One of the current trends for scientific process control is to use workflow systems such as Kepler. This can capture the provenance of an established process, allowing others to duplicate the work.
Gotta check out what I am working on, which is a semantic-web based knowledge and simulation server described at http://ContextEarth.com.
This built on a first-order logic framework, and is compatible with workflow-based schemes. All open-sourced and with version control at GitHub.
No squirrels over here. Collaborations welcome, as this is going to transform into an industrial strength server over time.
“Unless you come up with specific requests, you have no business telling me these are squirrels. And in fact, as soon as you’ll into specifics, my guess is that the ideal of truly open audits should reveal to be the myth it always were.”
Ok Willard, look. I was responding to Michael in reference to QC measures, ‘recipes books’ and ‘original scientific thinking’. I reread the beginning of the thread to try to understand your persistence with my squirrel comment….so i see where Jones was being crucified for not producing whatever, you offered McIntyre and Wegman as a counter example. That may be relevant to that discussion, but as far as the point I was making, which was generic and neutral with respect to climateball, it was a ‘look squirrel’ comment. I don’t think anything I said would be any less applicable to McIntyre than it would be to Jones. The fact is I was not directing my comment to any particular side of the debate or any individual specifically. And though the idea of truly open audits may be an ideal, it is one that all sides should aspire to conform to. No question that it is an unattainable ideal, but the spirit of the idea should live on both sides. Arguing over who did what and when and whether so and so also did it (mommy mommyisms) does not advance the ball. That must be painfully obvious to you. Bringing it up as you did to my comment is nothing less than ‘look squirrel’. I’m looking to get beyond that, beyond citing and counter citing examples in ways that provoke. Not to say I don’t provoke, I was trying to provoke Michael to think harder about the position of data housekeeping as it pertains to trust and its relationship to QC systems. In the end he agreed to that principle.
So, how are things going to change that advances the ball? QC management systems might offer some insights to the research academic world where it has been successful in the industrial world. Perhaps it is worth looking into?
“When the exploration goes into new territories, it may be impossible to define QC procedures. Such procedures are useful only when enough is known about the issues studied ahead of the time. It’s clear that great care must be applied under such conditions, but trying to follow a QC handbook may be simply impossible.”
Pekka, this is a good point. My stress on having a quality management system does not mean we disagree about this as your second point shows,
“For genuinely new results the best assurance is obtained by independent repetition by other scientists. That’s an essential component of the scientific process, not of any specific study.”
This is a path for standardizing. Once replication of a process or idea is realized, standardization can naturally evolve. With standardization comes requirements to meet the standard. To show how requirements are met, measurements and methods must be traceable. This takes time, effort and cooperation between all interested parties. In the end you are left with a higher level of trust and confidence between participating members. Heh, a consensus is formed.
Pekka, perhaps I was wrong to say we ‘disagree’. Perhaps you misunderstand the value, in my opinion, that a research program based on an established quality management system might bring to the table. Perhaps quality management system is the wrong term to apply as well, but at the moment I don’t know of an alternative example.
John,
In this kind of open discussion everyone frames the question differently, therefore the answers are also different even, when both would agree totally, when the framing is the same.
More specifically our experience comes probably from different research questions (mine is from elementary particle physics in my younger years, but closer to engineering, economics, and systems analysis more recently). Formal QC is essential in many laboratories, but much less, when other uncertainties are so large that potential errors of measurement make no difference.
One description of scientific work that I have given to an experienced engineer interested in writing a doctoral thesis is that in engineering the requirement is often that a good enough solution must be found with sufficient certainty, while a scientist given the same problem must do his utmost to find out whether the solution is the best available and to find ways to compare objectively alternative solutions. The scientist mus also report his whole reasoning.
Thanks Pekka, well stated.
“When we get to this part of the stories, we usually hear a chorus of crickets.”
huh. Its pretty simple. your next step would be to write to wegman and ask for what you want. pretty please with sugar on it.
Then you need to research your legal avenues if you have any.
Then you need to follow what legal avenues are open to you.
Then you need to follow up and get others to follow you.
In the end mails may be liberated one way or the other. ask gleick for help.
The bottom line of course is that wegman doesnt matter because Mann and the HS dont matter. not to the science at least. Mann’s mistake was thinking that he was protecting something that was worth protecting.
he was wrong. you see sometimes symbolic battles can be more trouble than they are worth.
But folks who would like to continue the wegman battle are welcome to do what I did. Im dumb founded that folks havent. Put mashey on it, then of course have somebody translate his work into something digestable
@WebHubTelescope
Lati and his recipe book will figure out how his home country can make up for a huge deficit in home-grown oil, natural gas, and coal production.
Not being able to come up with a solution, he and his mates down at the pub will then blame his ills on “my obsession”.
The obsession in question would be the bizarre insistence that all energy be home-grown. Autarky.
Any other goods and services you feel should be home-grown rather than traded for ?
Obviously you need BOTH grad students AND archiving systems.
The trick is to get the right balance.
Well, moshe, what’s nauseating is the waste of talent it took to swallow that ‘garbage’.
============
John,
No time now. Will reply later.
***
Web,
Thanks for the link.
John,
Sorry for the delay. School starts this week around here. Made lots of notes, but will try to offer an outline, as it’s already too late for discussion. It’s a long comment, but my notes are ten times that long.
***
Basically, what I want to say is that however good can be our scientific book keeping of the data, if we don’t have an objective way to settle our interpretations, the audit will never end. Having a tool like Kepler would be a good thing, no doubt about that. But this ain’t what determines Jones’ or Wegman’s responsibilities, to take the two examples from this subthread.
I don’t think that asking Wegman to clean up his act, asking for legal advice, or sending FOI requests will help bring the audits to an end. In fact, we can clearly see that legal retaliation has become an end by itself. It provides a steady stream of PR brownie points, which in other ventures could be considered harassment.
Personally, I have nothing to gain from such endeavour. In fact, the Auditor himself might have more to gain by throwing Wegman under his auditing bus. One does not simply try to portray oneself as being an over-conscientious auditor while relishing in competitive sports and espionage in cases whereby one is both judge and party.
Anyway.
***
I agree that your idea is neutral with respect to Climateball. But to appeal to them does imply connotations which advocate from one stance, as I’ve already said. So referring to Wegman helped me illustrate how having all the data would not be sufficient to prevent people from playing Climateball, exactly because it shows that this game could be played from all sides, but is not.
Why is that? Because quality controls, while being welcome, might never be enough to produce objective judgments. In fact, they might never be as central to produce science as the fact that it’s the cost of reproducing results that matter. If redoing an experiment from scratch is less expensive than producing quality-controlled experiments, that’s where science will go. Free science may not be free for everyone, at least that’s what the scientific industry seems to say.
Think of doing science as easy as doing 3D printing. It might be the case that getting free templates is the way to go. It might also be the case that getting proprietary one buck templates is also the way to go. What matters, in the end, is not that everyone reproduce exactly the same stuff, but that the most people get to agree that what they reproduce agree with each other. (In matters of economics, let’s say that I’m a pluralist.)
This is why I took the example of Ludics. The idea is that besides the content, you’d need the logic. This is the only way you’d be able to settle in an objective way. You need to have a way to compare one product to another. That is, not only you need a way to validate a product P, which is what QC does, but to verify it. This is the only way that will ever stop the never ending audit: by determining how judgements cohere with one another.
It is quite clear that we can’t wait for climateballers to fulfill their self-avowed commitments. Nor can we wait for everyone to arbitrate themselves or one another. Blog science needs a constant feed of outrageous news to keep climateballers happy.
***
We can’t expect any comment thread to settle everything, ever. And this is why I can only leave it at that, and move to the next op-ed. There are already two others, and that’s just at Judy’s.
The whole business blog science is quite unsustainable as it is. Perhaps it’s part of the fun. The fact that there’s no real QC may be another part of it.
Thanks for your openness,
w
I too caught the irony of Harris labeling you as diving deep into the politics by stating you don’t know what the future will look like or what actions need to be taken and then identifying Trenbreth as simply wading in while he acts as a responsible scientist trying to protect us.
Had it not been radio, Richard Harris may have suggested to Dr Trenberth that he borrow Scott Mandia’s Superman suit.
Yes, this irony gets a special lighted case in my museum. What does Harris wonder at the need for framing? Do journaloids dream of a world without framing?
=============================
> Fear and loathing of skeptics […]
I vaguely recall something about mind probing. It was a long time ago. Let me search my memory. Oh, yes, that:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/21/arctic-sea-ice-and-weather/
INTEGRITY ™ – The Credibility Race
Umm
Fear and loathing are observable behaviours. To say that they exhibit fear and loathing says nothing about the causes (motivation) of those behaviours.
Your post fails.
> Fear and loathing are observable behaviours.
Not exactly. They can be described using behaviours, but they serve as causal posits to explain these behaviours. One does not simply sees fear – one infers it from observations.
The same applies to motivation, or more precisely intention.
+1
“Fear and loathing of skeptics, particularly Steve McIntyre (read the Climategate emails for evidence of this). McIntyre is symbolic of attacks against consensus science, and a number of scientists have taken this very personally.”
McIntyre’s attacks have essentially been on blatant attempts at deception.
Those who resent him self-identify as supporters of deception.
BFJ seems to think if I don’t like who he likes I’m a supporter of deception. That doesn’t seem fair.
I believe he was referring to one person w.r.t. one topic.
BFJ : McIntyre’s attacks have essentially been on blatant attempts at deception.
Those who resent him self-identify as supporters of deception.
Max_OK : BFJ seems to think if I don’t like who he likes I’m a supporter of deception. That doesn’t seem fair.
Expert misreading.
Or are you going to try and tell us you resent McIntyre for his bad haircut?
I’ve watched this debate for nearly a decade and a couple of things have stuck out.
First, the IPCC was conceived politically rather than scientifically and therefore the language and attitudes of the IPCC and its supporters tend to be political. Words like consensus, dissent, skeptic and denier are all profoundly political.
Political discourse is very different in intention than scientific discussion: in politics the objective is to win and have your views implemented. In science, at least science before politics get involved, the objective is to find out what is true about nature.
If you make a mistake in politics your enemies/opponents jump on it and try to use it to destroy your credibility and people’s trust in you. In science mistakes are part of the process and, while you want to avoid them, do not harm reputation if they are made intelligently.
There is some truth to the idea that the rancor in climate arose because of the McIntyre/Mann tussle. People like Hansen, Jones, Trenberth, Gavin and so on lined up behind Mann despite knowing that his science was not terrifically robust. This was not a very scientific thing to do.
The situation was made much worse by the non-scientific cheersleaders like Joe Rohm and the zealots at Desmog and ScepticalScience. Once they became engaged what had been a semi-scientific discussion became polemical.
From a scientific perspective, given the state of the evidence and the relative immaturity of the various models, it would have been wise to avoid making broad claims or suggesting certainty in all but the most trivial areas. However, politically, modest claims hedged with uncertainty was not what was required to push the IPCC agenda.
Which, in turn, made it very easy for skeptics to ridicule the more outlandish claims. It also made it pretty much inevitable that Nature itself would refute or call into question the “certainties” which the more political scientists had been feeding to their political masters.
The “pause”, the stubborn persistence of Arctic ice, the expansion of Antarctic ice, the rise of non-CO2 based explanations for observed warming, the absence of abnormal sea level rise and the ongoing downward revision of CO2 sensitivity have all undermined the authority of “mainstream” political climate science.
The fact is that climate science was and remains too immature to bear the huge political weight the “greens” have placed upon it. Intelligent climate scientists implicitly recognize this as they seek the political neutrality of uncertainty. In hindsight, I suspect many climate scientists rather wished they had never forsaken the perfectly respectable “uncertain” position which an infant discipline should adopt in the face of the unknown.
While uncertainty will not satisfy the eco warriors it has the virtue of being intellectually honest. A virtue which a scientist should prize far beyond the transient satisfactions of policy advocacy.
@Jay Currie
+1
“From a scientific perspective, given the state of the evidence and the relative immaturity of the various models, it would have been wise to avoid making broad claims or suggesting certainty in all but the most trivial areas. However, politically, modest claims hedged with uncertainty was not what was required to push the IPCC agenda.
…
The fact is that climate science was and remains too immature to bear the huge political weight the “greens” have placed upon it. Intelligent climate scientists implicitly recognize this as they seek the political neutrality of uncertainty. In hindsight, I suspect many climate scientists rather wished they had never forsaken the perfectly respectable “uncertain” position which an infant discipline should adopt in the face of the unknown.
While uncertainty will not satisfy the eco warriors it has the virtue of being intellectually honest. A virtue which a scientist should prize far beyond the transient satisfactions of policy advocacy.”
Spot on, Dr. Curry. Once the history of this mess is settled, it will be recorded in these words. The great fault of Alarmists has been to claim too much for a science that is in its infancy.
Theo, this is a good post, but “Jay Currie” is not our beloved Dr Judith Curry, as you appear (from using “Dr Curry”) to assume.
Faustino,
Thanks. Up too late again. Though I continue to applaud the remarks that I quoted.
“the stubborn persistence of Arctic ice”
This folks is why climate deniers have little credibility.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MbmDA5AtX08/UFsjFj7yA4I/AAAAAAAAFAE/6uYIZp33KrM/s640/6a0133f03a1e37970b017744cf5360970d.jpg
+10 Another one right on target – well said.
> Allegiance to the ‘consensus’ and the social contract between the scientists, institutions and policy makers that has been very beneficial to the field of climate scientists.
If true, that would provide a motivation for some climate scientists.
INTEGRITY ™ – Never Attack Motivation, Describe It
To understand Mosher’s relationship with the consensus community one must understand that when God was handing out integrity Steven thought He said ‘regularity’ so when Steven got to the head of the line he asked God for Metamucil instead of a spine. The results are especially evident on this blog.
http://media.lolwall.co/c/2012/10/funny-chinglish-sign-fail-do-not-empty-your-dog-here-by-signfail_253054-670x.jpeg
http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-chinese-translation-fails/?image_id=funny-chinese-sign-translation-fails-18.jpg
While the ocean is complex and both JC and KT have focused on that in their careers and discussion, the land is simpler to follow as only the top few meters interact with the atmosphere on decadal scales, no circulations or deep interactions, etc., and more direct observations. We can look how the land temperature has been changing, for example here.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:120/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:120
We see that the last 30 years that the land (red) has been warming twice as fast as the ocean (green). Its rate corresponds to 4 C per doubling. I think more attention is needed to land temperatures as they respond to forcing more quickly, and this type of plot graphically displays something new going on since 1980.
Jimd
If we look at a single temperature record instead of the noisy global one we can see that the 1980 rise has reversed itself
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Tonyb
I think you are joking, so I won’t respond.
“. I think more attention is needed to land temperatures as they respond to forcing more quickly”
Bollocks. There has been no change in rate of warming, Tmax, and rate of cooling in Antarctica. Any CO2 driven photon reccing mechanism should increase the rate of summer warming, increase the Tmax and slow the rate of cooling.
If you believe in ‘global warming’ explain the differential response to the same “FORCING”, in the two hemispheres, and do so using normal thermodynamic and kinetic descriptions and not the ‘climate science only’ nomenclature.
Just as summer warms more over land, so climate warms more over land. It is quite easy to see how thermal inertia is important in response rates. The hemispheres are consistent with their land fractions, and the land furthest from the ocean responds more, which also favors the northern hemisphere.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/24/who-is-on-which-side-in-the-climate-debate-anyways/#comment-369159
CH, unless they can explain how the land warming leads the ocean warming in this last phase on my graph, what they are talking about has no relevance. I think they are just talking about seeing short-term El Nino signals over land which I don’t disagree with, but when it comes to decadal trends, it is a different story as we see from the graph.
‘CH, unless they can explain how the land warming leads the ocean warming in this last phase on my graph…’
It doesn’t Jim – you’re imagining things. This comes from eyeballing in woods for dimwits graphs with 10 year smoothing.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1970
‘A characteristic feature of global warming is the land–sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than over oceans. Recent studies find that this land–sea contrast also exists in equilibrium global change scenarios, and it is caused by differences in the availability of surface moisture over land and oceans.’
‘It’ is not all that relevant.
The idea is to bring some actual knowledge and science to the table. Not simply pull it out of your arse. If you took any time at all to review the Dietmar Dommenget paper you would see that it has absolutely nothing to do with ENSO and everything to do with long tern data and modelling periods of up to 2000 years.
CH, that explanation is consistent with thermal inertia if you think about it. It is easier to heat the land because it can lose less heat by evaporation. Drier land responds most to forcing, e.g. deserts.
Yes all – or thereabouts – the thermal inertia is in the oceans.
CH, good, thermal inertia explains why land warms more in the daytime, in the summertime, and under any other positive forcing. This was my point. The land warming more is a signature of positive forcing.
‘In fact, after the sea surface temperature, soil wetness and snow mass
are the most important “memory” mechanisms for time scales ranging
from weeks to seasons.’
http://www.ecmwf.int/newsevents/training/lecture_notes/pdf_files/PARAM/Rol_land.pdf
Water availability is the prime factor at low levels (not in the troposphere) over land as the Dommenget study says – but by far the ‘memory mechanism’ (80% to 90%) is oceans. Oceans drive land temperatures.
Through the larger area of oceans and greater thermal inertia and with greater water availability over oceans to transport energy. Fundamental and not secondary processes.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html?sort=3&o=10
JimD clearly has the stronger scientific argument in this case. To argue against it, you must come up with an alternative model, but all the Chief can do is unintentionally reinforce the low-thermal-inertia land heating model..
Oceans maintain a store of energy that moderates temperature changes globally. Oceans force global temperatures.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html?sort=3&o=10
The difference in surface temperature is the result of reduced water availability over land. It influences surface temperature but not tropospheric temperature – as suggested by the Met Office notes supplied.
‘A characteristic feature of global warming is the land–sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than over oceans. Recent studies find that this land–sea contrast also exists in equilibrium global change scenarios, and it is caused by differences in the availability of surface moisture over land and oceans. In this study it is illustrated that this land–sea contrast exists also on interannual time scales and that the ocean–land interaction is strongly asymmetric. The land surface temperature is more sensitive to the oceans than the oceans are to the land surface temperature, which is related to the processes causing the land–sea contrast in global warming scenarios. It suggests that the ocean’s natural variability and change is leading to variability and change with enhanced magnitudes over the continents, causing much of the longer-time-scale (decadal) global-scale continental climate variability. Model simulations illustrate that continental warming due to anthropogenic forcing (e.g., the warming at the end of the last century or future climate change scenarios) is mostly (80%–90%) indirectly forced by the contemporaneous ocean warming, not directly by local radiative forcing.’ http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2009JCLI2778.1
I have as usual supplied peer reviewed science that directly addresses the issue. Webby and Jim as usual supply nothing but what they pull out of their arses – webby enters the twilight zone by calling for citations below. These guys are a science free zone.
Chief, you lost this one too. I am curious when you will become angry and adopt one of your other sockpuppet names to express your outrage.
Very Hulk-like in the way you respond to getting feedback.
Larrikins like to mock, but they can’t handle it when the tables are turned.
Webster – you routinely miss the central concept in any discussion. You then p_ss around calculating climate trivia and ponce around as if you have then discovered quantum mechanics. The sad fact is that you then get the climate trivia wrong – as in the 5E+22 J/yr increase in ocean heat content just yesterday. I usually wonder how you possibly survive as an engineer with such utter mathematical incompetence. I can only think you have a severely limited range of expertise and just do the same thing over and over using a cook book. Either that or you are simply a ‘manager’.
I had a discussion on the last open thread on the statistically nonstationary nature of the ENSO time series. You repeated – amidst abuse – that the series reverted to the mean without obviously having any idea the statistical meaning of monstationarity. Finally – your claim was that something stopped ENSO from reverting to the mean and that I believed in perpetual motion.
‘There are a couple of ENSO theories – chaotic oscillator or stochastically forced. – http://www.pims.math.ca/files/kleeman_3.pdf – In either case the statistical series is non-stationary over decades to millennia.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/23/open-thread-weekend-29/#comment-369132
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | August 25, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
Chief, it always reverts to the mean.
What causes the mean value? It’s the forcing, stupid.
What a large tool, and multiple sockpuppet abuser you are
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | August 26, 2013 at 8:58 am |
‘Chief, Something causes reversion away (sic) from the mean.
You are like a believer in perpetual motion machines.
Chief is a multiple sockpuppet abuser and believer in perpetual motion — what a combination.
So forcing causes both reversion to and reversion away (sic) from the mean.
Your ignorance and dishonesty is astonishing.
I said that was a big number and then the original commenter corrected it by saying they intended to say it was 5E+22 J/decade. Per decade, not per year.
Chief, you are a gutless wonder. A gutless wonder is somebody that is all talk and no action. I doubt you could do any kind of model on your own.
“Please put the amount you so frequenty cite – 5 x 10^22 joules per annum in context. “
That is a big heat sink, see this
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/ocean-heat-content-model.html
And of course I avoided your silly little blog – I always do these days. Your ‘model’ vaguely reproduces ocean heat content – smooths and simplifies and has absolutely no point at all.
I of course model many things – floods, groundwater, water quality, estuaries, waves, sediment plumes, biology even. I just don’t incorrectly calculate climate trivia – like incorrectly derived dry adiabatic lapse rates – and then ponce about like I’ve discovered quantum mechanics. Give it a break – you are fundamentally shallow and irrelevant.
Sure you do. Probably with play-doh and a garden hose.
What a poseur you are Chief.
Jim D | August 24, 2013 at 5:17 pm
I think more attention is needed to land temperatures as they respond to forcing more quickly, and this type of plot graphically displays something new going on since 1980.
>>
So you’ve found something the alarmist Establishment has missed ?
No, they haven’t missed it, but the “skeptics” have avoided it in their chaos/uncertainty ideas that are completely associated with the ocean. Meanwhile we have this land signal that is even bigger and clearer and not discussed. The elephant in the room.
The pink elephant in the room.
Nonsense. The skeptics haven’t discussed it (land temperatures) because the “scientists” haven’t pinned much on it. You really do seem to think you’ve found something the motivated alarmist Establishment has missed.
Yes folks, what he’s found is that well-known pink elephant in the room. The one that also has the power of aviation, much like its porcine cousins.
But of course! The ‘D’ in “Jim D” stands for Dumbo.
Heck, Jim, why not just post as Dumbo from now on?
So, out of interest, what is the “skeptical” explanation for why the land is warming at a rate of 4 C per doubling (0.3 C per decade). I don’t think I have seen it, unless UHI is alive and well and living in Siberia.
JimD,
Evaporation from oceans 361*10^12 m3 per year
Precipitation on to oceans 324*10^12 m3 per year
Evaporation from land 62*10^12 m3 per year
Precipitation on to oceans 99*10^12 m3 per year
Average rainfall on Oceans p.a. 1.1 meters
Average rainfall on Land p.a. 1.5 meters
So we have incoming radiation being converted to latent heat over the oceans, then moving over the land, then being converted into sensible heat. So the system can be in steady state and yet have a differential thermal gradient.
Ain’t physics fun when you have a dynamic, non-equilibrium system.
DocM, but the graph shows it is not a steady state. It is diverging. The ocean can’t keep up with the land warming. At some point, the land will be so much warmer than the ocean, the clouds and rain will reduce over land drying it and making the situation worse, possibly.
Jim D, do you know what a steady state is?
Do you know the difference between a steady state and an equilibrium?
Have you perchance noticed the change in temperature between 5 in the morning and 2:30 in the afternoon?
You might also note the difference in ‘average’ temperature between summer and winter.
Note also that the interplay between components of the planets is continuous, and not based on a generalized average over a year, decade or century.
Have a little think and work out why there is more rainfall over land than over water, and see if this is due to a difference between ‘yearly averages’ in some measurable parameter.
DocM, I know a divergence when I see it, and that is not a steady state. The temperature gradient is growing seemingly linearly without slowing leading to a different world from before 1980 when the temperatures moved more in sync. The relative humidity over continents has to drop with this divergence, and I think that is starting to be observed.
Well JimD, I just plotted HADCRU SST vs. BEST for the period 1850-1980 and for 1980-2012
SST = 0.4388*(BEST) – 0.05; R² = 0.7787 (1980-2012)
SST = 0.4223*(BEST) – 0.1373; R² = 0.5478 (1850-1980)
Where is this decoupling of land from ocean?
DocM, here in case you missed it.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:120/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:120
It is quite obvious. I use CRUTEM not BEST as it includes more recent years. According to your numbers the land has always warmed at twice the rate of the ocean? Weird. It doesn’t look like it when you plot it against a time axis. They look to be 1:1 most of the time before 1980 then 2:1. See what I mean?
@Jim D
So, out of interest, what is the “skeptical” explanation for why the land is warming at a rate of 4 C per doubling (0.3 C per decade). .
So, out of interest, why have you still not told us the explanation for why the mainstream climate “science” largely ignores this alleged winning point, while you alone trumpet it ? Could it be that this is stretching things even more than they do, if that is possible?
If it wasn’t coupled, we would need a different model.
It’s good that the deniers want to talk about the divergence between land and ocean temperature temperature rise. That leads naturally to an explanation of how the ocean heat content is rising at the rate it is.
You see, the ocean’s heat capacity is masking the sea surface temperature rise by absorbing the excess heat. As JimD continues to point out, the land has no such mechanism, so its temperature rises approximately twice as fast as the SST does.
I will patiently wait for an alternative model that can explain this divergence in rate, replete with citations to scientific research. One just can’t say that the land is warmer, but it is the rate that needs explanation.
Gina is right. It is a winning point that the land is responding to the forcing on its own and obviously faster than the ocean. Thermal inertia is a little hard to explain to Joe Public, but I would say that the daytime heating of the land is faster than the ocean, the summertime warm-up is faster too, both due to the lower thermal inertia of land. In fact land responds more quickly to any forcing and is a meter for any changes in forcing. So, like daytime and summer, it responds to climate forcing faster too. it doesn’t have internal circulations to confuse the picture either. It is a very direct measurement.
Regarding the above, poetically you might call climate change “The Endless Summer”. With a tendency towards hotter, drier, less cloudy conditions than before in continental areas, if this divergence continues.
@Jim D
Gina is right. It is a winning point that the land is responding to the forcing on its own and obviously faster than the ocean.
So how do you explain the failure of the motivated alarmist consensus to seize on it ? Why is it only you ?
Are you even more committed to proving CAGW than they are ?
Or do they, as much as they want a winning point, realize yours is worthless ?
Heh, Human Heat Islands.
====================
“So how do you explain the failure of the motivated alarmist consensus to seize on it ? Why is it only you ?”
It isn’t only him Gina, you need to pay more attention. Less reckless abandon and blind denial please, this is the future of our planet we are talking about.
My apologies, it’s not only Jim D that is pushing the land temperature issue – lolwot is now lending a hand.
The Human Heat Island Effect will be pusillanimous against glaciers. We’ll still have to retreat to the Equatorial Cities, modeled after jellyfish. Get the first issue of the new journal; the next issue will explore implanting the human genome directly into jellyfish.
Oh, hi there Danny Bloom.
==========
Here is the plot of sea surface temperature and land temperature, for the northern hemisphere, from 1851-1970 and from 1970-2013.
(CRUTEM4 and HADSST2 data)
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/NHSSTvsNHCRUTEM4_zps9ed3f286.png
One can observe that the coupling of the two temperature series is both tight and is unchanged either side of 1970.
The SH is less clean, mostly because of the noise and there are steps i the SST around 1897 and 1944. But there does not appear to be a clean transition in coupling in the modern period.
Gina brings up a point that nobody else is trumpeting the land only warming as indicative of climate sensitivity. I would add that not only did the experts not highlight the ocean compared to land divergence on the GISS web page they also deleted it. Why hide such good evidence?
What are you talking about? James Hansen has been pushing this idea for years. Look at his figure showing what happens when the ocean sinks the heat (I added data points to his original 1981 paper)
http://imageshack.us/a/img802/3918/hansen1981.gif
More info here:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/stochastic-analysis-of-log-sensitivity.html
Little steven, you really are quite the fool. Don’t have the wherewithal to elaborate on your thesis as a real scientist would, so you keep blabbering on and on.
Web, saying that the warming of the land will be faster than the warming of the ocean is not the same thing as saying the land will warm while the ocean stops warming. If I were a fool I’d love to have invented you as my joke but I’m afraid that one has been told so many times now it has stopped being funny and is now just a nuisance.
The oceans will continue to absorb excess heat and the SST will continue to rise, but at half the rate of the land.
That is the theory and it has been borne out by observations.
Watch what happens.
Hansen in his 1981 paper used a ‘box model’ to distribute heat between the atmosphere and oceans. It assumes diffusion from the atmosphere to the oceans. The actual physics don’t work like that – and I assume Hansen understands that because the concepts are ultimately very simple. Webby has a problem with reality however – he substitutes his own.
The oceans and the land are heated by shortwave radiation. The oceans warm until the losses to the atmosphere are approximately equal to the gains from sunlight. The oceans provide a source of warmth that is there regardless of changes in incoming and outgoing energy. Land gains and loses energy with very little thermal inertia. It warms and cools with higher ranges and retains little warmth. The oceans moderate global temperature.
This is the real science of the land/ocean contrast.
‘A characteristic feature of global warming is the land–sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than over oceans. Recent studies find that this land–sea contrast also exists in equilibrium global change scenarios, and it is caused by differences in the availability of surface moisture over land and oceans. In this study it is illustrated that this land–sea contrast exists also on interannual time scales and that the ocean–land interaction is strongly asymmetric. The land surface temperature is more sensitive to the oceans than the oceans are to the land surface temperature, which is related to the processes causing the land–sea contrast in global warming scenarios. It suggests that the ocean’s natural variability and change is leading to variability and change with enhanced magnitudes over the continents, causing much of the longer-time-scale (decadal) global-scale continental climate variability. Model simulations illustrate that continental warming due to anthropogenic forcing (e.g., the warming at the end of the last century or future climate change scenarios) is mostly (80%–90%) indirectly forced by the contemporaneous ocean warming, not directly by local radiative forcing.’
Emphasis mine. Continental warming is 80% to 90% forced by ocean warming.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html?sort=3&o=11
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2778.1
Although ‘contemporaneous ocean warming’ at the end of the last millennium seems more driven by positive changes in net forcing at toa – which is entirely in the shortwave.
e.g. – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=129
This is what science and the data actually says. Webby is so bizarrely unable to process anything that doesn’t agree with his internal narrative. He is an interweb nut case complete with incompetent and simplistic web science and absolutely no real climate science in sight. If you discount Hansen’s 1981 study which he misinterprets.
Don’t listen to what The Chief Impediment says as it is completely wrong.
The Chief is an impediment to understanding. He does this stuff because he has this constant urge to mock authority.
The other deniers encourage him because he adds to the FUD.
Object to actual science webby? I’m not surprised.
Gina, as I mentioned, the reason land is not gaining much traction is that Joe Public doesn’t understand thermal inertia. Some of the “skeptics” still want UHI to explain it (even in Siberia and interior Canada), but they are just waiting for Watts to figure out how to “adjust” his station data in the correct way to show it.
Jim D,
The question you keep ducking, is not why Joe Public has not latched on to the land temperature issue, but why the government shills haven’t. Why are the climate “scientists” overlooking this “winning” point of yours?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:120/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:120
It is hard to overlook that the green (land) line is twice as steep as the red (global) line in the last 30 years and its trends lead the rise in 1970. I predict they will pay more attention to this if the “pause” goes on, but the “pause” could break first. Maybe they would be accused of changing horses in the middle of the race if they switch to land as the main measure now.
Judith you can say all sorts of things and remain inside the consensus because the consensus is underdetermined by the science. What you cannot do is cross certain thin green lines: you cannot talk about climategate in the way you do and you cannot criticize the IPCC except where it is too “conversative” such as in ice loss. And you cannot talk to skeptics or give them a place to demonstrate their nonsense
Is this intended as helpful advice or something else?
something else.
Lets put it this way. Judith wasnt kicked off the island because of her science, because the island is not defined by “the science”. She was kicked off for breaking certain rules that have nothing to do with science:
talking to McIntyre, taking a hard line on climategate..
Im not suggesting she change anything. Im pointing out that island climate is not defined by adherence to certain science beliefs.
Its kinda the same with Island skeptic.
The difference is, there’s no consensus on Island Skeptic, and thus no process for tossing anybody off.
“The difference is, there’s no consensus on Island Skeptic, and thus no process for tossing anybody off.”
Yeah well, I’m not sure there is a process for tossing people off island climate either, just criteria. Where there may be an island climate, it might be more accurate to say there is an archipelago skeptic.
> I’m not sure there is a process for tossing people off island climate[.]
Scientists vote with their citations.
Wegman’s fluorescent echo bubble chamber.
============
Folks
Just to alert you that in the UK ‘being tossed off’ has an alternative meaning that may mean something different than you mean.
But then, on reflection, I am in some sympathy with the idea that those who required Judith to leave Consensus Island are indeed a Bunch of Tossers
Getting kicked off the consensus island is like getting kicked off Gilligan’s Island. It’s hardly a loss to leave behind a bunch of intellectual Gilligan’s (Michael Mann) and Thurston Howell IIIs (Algore).
GaryM,
Bad move, citing Gilligan’s Island. Your side has characters the likes of Captain Dallas and Captain Kangaroo (the sockpuppet known also as Chief Hydrologist, Dr. Dunderhead, and Generalissimo Skippy) trying to steer your ship.
Those are the captains of industry that are taking you way off course and stranded on a deserted island.
It is all so very comical.
“Yeah well, I’m not sure there is a process for tossing people off island climate either, just criteria.”
It works better if there ISNT a process or set of criteria.
There will of course be exemplars for exile. Do X and you are history.
But it works better if there is no clear criteria. That way people are reticent to test boundaries and they look to others to figure out what is allowed and what is not allowed.
then there are groomers like willard
The other way you can look at this is the process must be opaque. Its something that cannot be discussed because if you discuss it they it becomes readily apparent that the tribe is not what it purports to be. iThe more arbitrary the application of power to marginal members the better.
You see other people looking at judith and wondering ‘what did she do?”
And each will try to explain which rule she violated. There isnt any chief to say which rule, so of course everyone who sees the exile moderates their own behavior based on their interpretation. So its vital that her sin never be named. To her it must look arbitrary that way she cannot figure out a way back in. To others in the group, they must come to some interpretatioin so they can avoid the same fate, and the arbitrary nature of the excommunication serves to homogenize group behavior.
This islands model works for other tribes as well. Who in the news was tossed off Hispanic island?
Mosh
Are you on your phone again when posting this?
What on earth does this cryptic comment mean?
Tonyb
Long ago I used to say this
Global warming is true and Mann was wrong to call McIntyre an oil shill.
Now of course the second part has nothing to do with the science. But if you belong to the consensus you cant utter that sentence.
The consensus “appears” as a body of scientific knowledge when it fact it is not. To belong to the consensus you have to believe certain science things that almost no one denies, but more importantly you have to avoid certain topics or hold the party line on those topics.
So, if you take a position of climategate as Judith and I do, which is outside the official line, then they will treat you like you disagree with the science. They have to pretend that the consensus is about the science when it is not. And you can prove its not about the science by taking certain positions across the thin green lines. AGW is right, Mann was wrong. If you cross that line it doesnt matter what your science position is
So what Judith, Tamsin, and Muller all did was they crossed certain lines that are utterly unrelated to the scientific truth of global warming. On the science they are “in the tribe” but the tribe isnt defined by that science, the center is hollow and vapid, what defines the tribe is adherence to a set of behaviors that have nothing to do with the founding principle.
Think of it this way. Judith is like an uncircumsized jew. She may believe in the core religion, but shes need to visit the Mohel and get a bit of symbolic flesh removed at least in the eyes of the tribe. She wont belong until she follows certain rules that have nothing whatsover to do with the science
What I am saying is that the things Judith does ( talk to skeptics, critcize the IPCC, talk about climategate ) are
1. utterly unrelated to the science
2. the very actions that make people think she is outside the consensus
of science.
@Mosh
What I am saying is that the things Judith does ( talk to skeptics, critcize the IPCC, talk about climategate ) are
1. utterly unrelated to the science
2. the very actions that make people think she is outside the consensus
of science.
>>
Only if you think the *process* of science is unrelated to the science.
mephis
“Only if you think the *process* of science is unrelated to the science.”
Lets see.
1. Co2 causes warming
2. Judith invites Mcintyre to georgia tech
3. Did C02 change it’s radiative powers?
Les see
1. The planet is getting warmer
2. Phil Jones violated FOIA rulez
3. Did that change the historical temperatures.
yes the process of science is important, that process would in fact explain why and how judiths actions are utterly UNRELATED to the science, to the facts of the matter, and that she was banished from the island for matters utterly and totally unrelated to anything connected to the science.
Boys can behave badly, but not girls.
Mosher said:
“Think of it this way. Judith is like an uncircumsized jew.”
___________
An amazing trick !
‘So what Judith, Tamsin, and Muller all did was they crossed certain lines that are utterly unrelated to the scientific truth of global warming.’
When Judith talks about climate shifts we are no longer in Kansas – Toto – although it might take some time for the threshold to be finally crossed. .
My favorite line is Toto’s note to Dorothy: ‘Took the shoes. Find your own damn way home’.
==============
Of course McIntyre is not an oil shill. He is a tar sands mining shill.
Big difference between drilling and mining.
Shills.
The worst of all are the government shills. You know, the Consensus.
Or as Willis said, you can talk to the hand.
Mosh, given other comments, I will say that your intent was clear to me. Although I think you meant “undetermined’?
No, Faustino:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination
Just like Jennifer Francis said:
> A very different interpretation of the results could be made.
thanks for that link willard. it had one of my favorite words
‘equipollence’
long ago I had an editor remove that word because he said it wasnt real
“Lets put it this way. Judith wasnt kicked off the island because of her science, because the island is not defined by “the science”.” – Steven Mosher.
Agreed.
“They deny that the scientific method can challenge scientific authority — that the institutions of science have more to say than the process of doing science.” – Ben Pike.
Interesting take on it here: http://www.climate-resistance.org/2013/08/science-without-an-object.html
The way I read Pike is, They pick up the Consensus stick and wave it around. If you look at the stick, there’s a note taped to it that reads, This I Is The Science, but it’s really not there. The Science is with the Scientists. Let’s look there.
Dr Curry, you seem mighty bothered and hurt because you have been thrown off the “consensus island”. You shouldn’t be. You are right, they wrong. You did what all scientist should be doing: be faithful to science and facts, to the best of your ability and conscience.
It is the “consensus” crowd who have thrown the science under the bus, and put advocacy before science. Shame on them, not on you.
Lest my comment should sound too flattering I would add this: it took you quite long to find the right way.
You would be very much in the minority then Jim. On the wrong side in the climate debate?
‘Model simulations illustrate that continental warming due to anthropogenic forcing (e.g., the warming at the end of the last century or future climate change scenarios) is mostly (80%–90%) indirectly forced by the contemporaneous ocean warming, not directly by local radiative forcing.’
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html?sort=3&o=10
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2009JCLI2778.1
Ah Chief, that was a paper anyone can understand so must be wrong. You need a super-computer and years of training the program to run proper models
willard (@nevaudit) | August 24, 2013 at 4:30 pm |
That is in the 1971 book “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. You didn’t know that?
Wrong. This is knowledge required to climb the corporate ladder. A senior VP at a Fortune 500 therefore must have it to get where they got.
David, you will find that it is generally people who can command loyalty, respect and can also pick effective subordinates who clime to the top.
Indeed, and some studies show that leaders are more likely to be sociopaths:
http://bigthink.com/videos/leaders-are-more-likely-to-be-sociopaths
That’s true Willard – I’m sure a lot of politicians are sociopaths also.
Seems that somebody somewhere agrees with you, jim2:
http://underthemountainbunker.com/2011/07/10/machiavelli-would-be-envious-of-todays-republican-party/
Has someone done an analysis of the mental health of sociologists?
Willard, let me ask a question.
Why do you think most clinicians are so aloof?
> Why do you think most clinicians are so aloof?
It varies, I suppose, but one might guess a mix of self-awareness and non-judgementality, which are acquired through the necessary experiences of a wounded healer:
To represent this, the Greeks left us the myth of Chiron, the centaur who could cure anyone except himself. Chiron is essential to understand how astrologers talk of Sagittarius, i.e. the daily ruler of Jupiter. It’s at the basis of the “I’m only trying to help” I alluded to the other day.
Interestingly, this only can help explain why there was so much debate to settle Jesus Christ’s birthday under the influence of this sign.
It is a pity that scientists do not study these concepts.
TL;DR; — I don’t know. Who cares? Here are some stories that structure our collective minds instead.
This is absolutely hilarious.
“And this is where Curry parts company most clearly with her peers. For example, the leading scientific organization for earth scientists, the American Geophysical Union, says in a position statement that climate change ‘requires urgent action.’”
…
‘Curry says[,] I just don’t know what the next hundred or 200 years will hold, and whether this will be regarded as an important issue. I just don’t know.’
By now, of course, Curry has strayed far from science and deep into public policy.”
Curry has strayed far from science and deep into public policy? The AGU says CAGW “requires urgent action,” aka decarbonizatiohn, and Dr. Curry says “I don’t know” enough to make such a radical policy prescription. But it is Dr. Curry, not the AGU, who has abandoned science for public policy?
I swear, it’s the deaf interviewing the blind, being supported by the stupid.
Are you calling the taxpayers stupid?
Stupid sound a bit harsh:
http://news.muckety.com/2013/07/29/us-companies-offshore-tax-shelters/43481
Sucker might be more accurate, but it does not result from the most advanced mediarology. To that effect, we await our Fortune top 500 execs’ suggestions.
Meanwhile, for more on mediarology, cf.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/Mediarology.html
willard,
An uneducated member of the public who falls for the CAGW propaganda can properly be called a sucker. But for the educated “elite,” like the reporter who interviewed Dr. Curry, stupid applies. Not in the sense of lacking intelligence, but in lacking common sense. Willfully ignorant. Stupid.
Harold,
No, I don’t consider most voters stupid. When theya re told what you progressives really want, they reject you in huge numbers. That is why decarbonization is called mitigation, or resilience, or protecting the children. because if you told them you wanted to charge them so much for gas and oil that they could no longer afford it, you would never win another election.
My comment expressly related to CAGW “supporters.” meaning the drone reporter, and most pro-CAGW commenters here.
Nope, the nature of the framing required by Harris precludes ‘Willfully ignorant, stupid’. Generally the same question, the same question, is ‘ignorance or disingenuousness’. In this case, it’s the same answer, the same answer: Disingenuousness.
Sadly, it’s blatant. When will they ever learn, ever learn?
============
kim,
I rarely disagree with you, but here I do. Oh I agree the reporter is disingenuous. But that does not mean he is not willfully ignorant/stupid as well. The dishonesty is a tactic. The motivation is the blind acceptance of that which any amount of critical thought would demonstrate was false.
But modern education, and modern progressive media, drives into default progressives the need to avoid critical thought. Read Pekaa Pirila’s comments elsewhere on this thread about not being willing to read Montford’s book.
Dishonesty and stupidity are not mutually exclusive.
Oh, sure, I guess the question is not really an either/or one.
============
> Willfully ignorant. Stupid.
Whatever the mental property, I think Judy’s observation applies when it’s used to characterize scientists:
Populists like GaryM are well advise to extend this observation to the public in general.
Heh, ignorant and disingenuous both apply here.
=========
Stupid is as stupid does.
Damn I should have finished your article before I piped up.
Let me touch on one point we made in our book
“3. The selling of the merchant of doubt and war on science memes, which made uncertainty and doubt dirty words. My uncertainty monster flew directly in the face of this.”
It did more than this. By positioning the opposition as merchants of doubt, the first law of marketing implies that the consensus is a merchant of certainty. Now note nobody ever says this, but our binary ways of thinking tend to trap folks into this conclusion. If I position my opponent as Expensive, you are naturally going to think that my product in in expensive.. even if its not.
To make matters worse this stealth message that the consensus is certain was buttressed by things like “the debate is over” the science is settled.
listen to experts. In short the science and what people say about it gets hi jacked by the first law of marketing. There is no helping it. It has a mind of its own which is ground in some of our most fundamental ways of thinking about things..
As I’ve said before I think a better description of skeptics is that they are merchants of confusion. In this schema their confusion is countered by “or best explanation” or merchants of clarity. In this opposition science gets to keep its sub brand of “uncertainty”
You, Tamsin, Muller have all crossed certain thin green lines. Whether its criticizing Mann, talking to McIntyre, challenging the temperature record, refusing to take a policy position, talking about uncertainty too much these lines are all boundaries that you cannot cross. And if you are already on the margin due to your gender, any flirtations with boundary crossing will be seen as dangerous ( and holy by others )
some things to consider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liminality
also, the figure of the trickster.. When Hansen called the folks at CA “jesters” I had a long deep chuckle
The other day willard recommend Girard, I would second that.
Frankly – we have rarely seen such an abundance of pop psychology claptrap in a single comment.
Judith
You may appreciate then how it is used in a modern pedagogical framework – http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html
Other than that Mosh’s comment seems merely another of the symptoms of groupthink.
1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
8. 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.
Point 4 is relevant. Using terms such as ‘confusion’ and ‘jesters’ to describe opposition. Other groupthink practices inhibit the ability to grow in knowledge and understanding – thus are inimical to passing through conceptual gateways to open up new vistas.
‘Threshold Concepts’ may be considered to be “akin to passing through a portal” or “conceptual gateway” that opens up “previously inaccessible way[s] of thinking about something” (Meyer and Land [9]).’
Thus ‘consensus science’ ceases to be science at all and is instead an expression of a psychopathology.
> [S]ymptoms of groupthink […] an expression of a psychopathology.
The alternative is to consider these traits as pervasive in group dynamics, as we can witness Denizens exhibiting most these items daily.
The link does not lead to the typology, BTW.
The link leads to a modern pedagogical application of the idea of liminality.
Try this instead – http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm
Sceptics may individually certainly talk from a position of somewhat common cultural values – but the group dynamic applies especially well to the cult of AGW groupthink space cadets. There is no equivalence as I am fond of telling Joshua.
Thanks for the cite, Chief, and for this:
> [T]he group dynamic applies especially well to the cult of AGW groupthink space cadets.
which does sound like a stereotyped view of an out-group.
So I agree with you: the #4 is quite relevant.
Although you should really look at the symptoms as a package.
CH, you miss something else. My wife started out as a research scientist and gave up research, like many do, because she found it hard to deal with failure. Most of the things we do fail, they fail because most of our guesstimates are wrong. We design experiments to test our postulates and normally our postulates are demolished. If you have the sort of personality that doesn’t mind failure, your in. If you get depressed that you quite beautiful hypothesis is complete tosh, you crumble.
The temptation is not to test your postulate at all, but to just make your hypothesis more and more complex; epicycles on epicycles.
At the moment we have the ‘pause’.
The longer it goes on the lower the estimate of ‘climate sensitivity’ must be. The models are being tested by nature, and not the modelers, but testing is occurring.
The non-experimentalists will be buttressing their crumbling ivory towers using dust, black carbon, volcanoes, sulfates, CFC’s, sub-aquatic heat sinks and all manner of epicyclic tricks.
However, the post-Doc’s and the young, freshly minted, untenured professors are becoming restless. These are the people who know where all the bodies are buried, they know all the fudges, approximations, simulations that give the ‘wrong’ results and what the older generation has been getting away with. The quickest way to rise is by stepping into dead-mans shoes and these people know where the daggers are.
DocMartyn
“At the moment we have the ‘pause’.
The longer it goes on the lower the estimate of ‘climate sensitivity’ must be. The models are being tested by nature, and not the modelers…..”
A good comment but shouldn’t we consider that CS is a field in a Hilbert space and thus a vector rather than as a singular constant?
Doc, please curb those grocer’s apostrophes dude.
“Doc, please curb those grocer’s apostrophes dude”
I was never taught English Language at school, so I have tended to make up rules for writing as I go along.
Steve, I think you are quite correct as to the green lines; but I don’t think it is marketing, rather it is the political purpose which has underlain the IPCC process.
As I said above, the IPCC was and is a political not a scientific organization. As I write, political people are editing the 5th IPCC report. They are not editing with an eye to making the science clearer. They are editing to try to bring the science into conformity with the IPCC agenda.
Critically, the IPCC’s mandate is to explicate “man made” global warming. It is there to provide the scientific ammunition to buttress “solutions” to the “problem” posed by CO2 emissions. Now, politically, science which suggests that there is no problem or that the problem is not terrifically serious is unhelpful. Unhelpful science will tend to be left out of the IPCCs reports. Whether this is done at the lead author level, the reviewer level or in the political “edit” is immaterial.
Thus, the political goals of the IPCC shape what counts as consensus science. If someone does a scientifically rigorous analysis which proves that CO2 sensitivity is .5 degrees per doubling, the political goals of the IPCC mean that this science will be depreciated at best, ignored at worst.
Sceptics take a lot of stick for pointing out that the 1992 Rio conference had an essentially predetermined environmentalist agenda. However, a close look at the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development which includes the precautionary principle makes that agenda clear.
So, the consensus itself is a political construct having very little to do with science. In fact, the consensus operates as a filter on the science designed to screen out science which is unhelpful to the IPCC agenda.
Testing by nachur
is best,
never mind
the rest,
appeal ter
consensus,
adjustment
or buttress,
methodoligically
worthless
and finally
fruitless
bts
Bingo !! Spot on !
This is the most difficult issue for people to acknowledge.
That the IPCC by design was explicitly a political process (with a preordained desired outcome), not a scientific one.
I myself struggled mightily to reject this conclusion, because it required me to overturn some cherished beliefs of my own.!
@brent
The ‘I’ in ‘IPCC’ makes it clear.
It is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
By its own name it is a political body. And though carefully selected and government-approved scientists have an important input to its work, the finished product is essentially a political document.
That there’s stuff goin’ down in naychur we don’t know is
recognised by the methods and skepticism of science.
Naychur rules This in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean,
posted in comments at Jennifer Marohasy.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/atlantic-ocean-floor-unexpectedly-pumping-iron-130820.htm
The summaries are, indeed, finalized by government representatives, but not all of them are on the same side in the debate, and the final outcome is a compromise acceptable to all.
The working group reports are written by scientists, but governments participate in the review process and have trough that some influence on the outcome. All formal decision making of IPCC is done by government representatives. Thus they decide also, how the authors are selected. One problem is that some chapters may have an authorship where too few are really active and dominate too much when some of the others just fill the quota. This is a problem in all international collaboration.
Thanks Jay Currie your comments about the IPCC were always obvious to me. Organizations (Business or Gov.) tend to do what they say they will do.
a new word, liminality, i like it :)
You’ve probably heard it before, Judith, in the word “subliminal”, meaning “below the threshold” (usually of consciousness). Climate science, it could be argued, is also subliminal in the sense that it’s below the threshold of being a mature science–unlike, say, chemistry.
preliminary – liminary – postliminary
‘Liminal states: This space is likened to that which adolescents inhabit: – not yet adults; not quite children. It is an unstable space in which the learner may oscillate between old and emergent understandings just as adolescents often move between adult-like and child-like responses to their transitional status. But once a learner enters this liminal space, she is engaged with the project of mastery unlike the learner who remains in a state of pre-liminality in which understandings are at best vague. The idea that learners enter into a liminal state in their attempts to grasp certain concepts in their subjects presents a powerful way of remembering that learning is both affective and cognitive and that it involves identity shifts which can entail troublesome, unsafe journeys. Often students construct their own conditions of safety through the practice of mimicry. In our research, we came across teachers who lamented this tendency among students to substitute mimicry for mastery.’ http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/24/who-is-on-which-side-in-the-climate-debate-anyways/#comment-369403
http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~mflanaga/thresholds.html
The most interesting characters are liminal.
you can think of liminality as the space in between. neither outside nor inside, but able to occupy both.
a liminal character may be viewed as polluting or dangerous. Note Judith that your old student was most concerned about the effect your words might have on others.. on the flip side they can be seen as holy.
hence the difficulty people had placing you as either saint or heretic.
Think about the inititiation process for a scientist..
hmm maybe we need to talk about the “mad scientist” character in fiction and what they represent..
‘Meyer and Land [12] have likened the crossing of the pedagogic threshold to a ‘rite of passage’ (drawing on the ethnographical studies of Gennep and Turner in which a transitional or liminal space has to be traversed; “in short, there is no simple passage in learning from ‘easy’ to ‘difficult’; mastery of a threshold concept often involves messy journeys back, forth and across conceptual terrain.’
By definition it is a threshold – a portal – a passage. The passage may be messy – but once traversed there is a sense that there is a new heaven and new Earth. There is no going back. Adorning this idea with notions of saints and sinners seems quite unnecessary. They could be insiders – in the way of arcane knowledge in a field, as an adult for instance or as an initiate of some sort. They could be part of one of competing groups with disparate knowledge – old and new paradigms.
Mad science – or the fear thereof – has a different wellspring.
Let’s clear something up here about the war skeptics are waging:
It’s a war on corrupt science, and the politicized Merchants of Credulity who market it.
> It’s a war on corrupt science […]
A noble cause indeed.
Indeed, and swirlingly cleansed of corruption itself, such a cause, dontcha know?
=========
Anti-science ideologues posing as skeptics don’t stand a chance in a war against science. They will get their sorry butts kicked.
Memphis,
I’d say, for the vast majority of people, it’s not about the science at all, its about the economics and human well being.
It’s a war on waste – enormous economic waste on hugely expensive mitigation policies that would deliver no benefits.
Max_OK
“Anti-science ideologues” on either side of the debate do not have a chance against good ol’ Mother Nature (who still rules the climate game).
Max_CH
Max-ok,
The real problem we face is anti-science ideologues posing as scientists. Politically-funded climate scientists working to a politicizing agenda, pretending it is science. The IPCC lot, with their left/totalitarian outlook.
That’s who skeptics are bringing to book. As amateurs, they may lack the hard science, but unlike the scientists they actually know how the process of science is meant to work – to advance objective correctness, not political correctness.
>> Skepticism is a war on corrupt science […]
@willard > A noble cause indeed.
Yes. Quite distinct from Noble-Cause Corruption, such as that buttressing CAGW.
> Quite distinct from Noble-Cause Corruption[.]
How so, Gina?
Also note Chief’s typology:
There are ethical and moral consequences in your decisions, Gina.
Willard asks what the difference is between pursuing Noble Causes
(a) without
(b) with
the use of Corruption.
If we take her to be a typical alarmist, it does go some way to explaining the nonchalant attitude to tactical fraud in the whole Consensus edifice.
Thank you, Gina.
So, your war is noble, and your noble war does not contain any kind of corruption. That makes it an interesting kind of war.
Please tell me more about how you fight your war.
You feign ignorance of what I speak? Why?
What is so complicated or mysterious about trying to keep government climate science honest?
> [A] better description of skeptics is that they are merchants of confusion. In this schema their confusion is countered by “or best explanation” or merchants of clarity.
The subtitle of Oreskes & Conway is How a Handful of ScientistsObscurred the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming:
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/keydocs.html
Also note that the usual concept is FUD, an acronym which stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt
Auditors might wonder who would like to brand oneself as a merchant of uncertainty.
Come to think of it, the never ending audit could very well be transposed in a formal dialog between Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
This would be a bit less formal than Pinter’s own method:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html
Willard
How about “merchants of false certainty”?
(Example: IPCC)
Max
Where there is no real understanding, those like Oreskes who claim otherwise are the frauds. The skeptics are who point this out do us all a service; they spotlight rather than sow the confusion.
So you reckon the alarmists cannot themselves be guilty of FUD?
Merchandizing uncertainty irremediably portrays the opposition as selling certainty, perhaps more certainty than the opposition is willing to sell, e.g.:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-2.html
This “very likely” does not express any certainty.
> So you reckon the alarmists cannot themselves be guilty of FUD?
Fear, mostly. That’s why they are called “alarmists”, phatboy. They are being accused (not guilty, labels being just words) of exaggerating.
Please mind that a counter reaction to alarmism (i.e. exaggeration) is called minimization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimisation_(psychology)
***
Now, please tell me who’s Uncertainty and who’s Doubt.
No need for “guilty of”.
Thank you for your concerns.
“The subtitle of Oreskes & Conway is How a Handful of ScientistsObscurred the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming:”
I should not have to school you on the un importance of sub titles.
You of course are entitled to your own facts, but you’d have to be a dunce to not recognize the shortcomings of merchants of doubt, when doubt and uncertainty plays such a visible role in science.
you should sit through brand building exercises, since language is a social art I will suggest that you might benefit from sitting and watching folks who practice that art for pay. whats the harm?
The subtitle may be just an interesting coincidence.
I think Oreskes & Conway used the expression “merchants of doubt” because of the famous 1969 Brown & Williamson document.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/302809431
I would have talked of Smoke and Mirrors (NA has a tag for it), but I think that “merchants of doubt”, considered with this connotation in mind, has merits. It would be interesting to know which branding efforts are associated with doubt. It would be even more interesting to know which ones are associated with uncertainty.
Do you think that uncertainty is Judy’s product, Moshpit?
***
Now to the main argument. Recall that FUD “is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information.” We’ll make three observations.
First, note that we’re talking about perception here, not facts as we usually understand them. There’s no way to stop interpreting perceptions. It leads to what Stevan Harnad called, in another context, a hall of mirrors:
http://philpapers.org/rec/HARLIT
Second, note that one uses FUD to brand the competition. That means a brand is thus the result or two opposite marketing efforts. If I were a Fortune Top N exec, I might feel lukewarm to take the branding effort of a black hat marketer at face value, however charming may be his platonician theory of marketing by opposites.
Third, Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt are three interrelated roles. Doubt will accuse Fear of selling fear, while Fear will accuse Doubt of selling doubt. What’s the role of Uncertainty in that trio? Overton may have a question like this in mind when he invented a window that could be stretched:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
***
In a nutshell, here’s what’s happening.
Climateballers are raising concerns about other Climateballers’ credibility. It may look like an exercise of Monday Morning Quarterback (we are indeed monday morning), but that is the game that is being played. It looks like a fight, but it’s also a race to more credibility.
The fight looks like a comedy of menace. The race looks like waiting for Godot. This is why I say that Climateball is basically a comedy of menace while waiting for Godot.
***
Another word would be socialization, as such power struggles intensify around fourth grade:
http://www.pbs.org/parents/raisinggirls/friends/elem1.html
This kind of explanation has more bite than any islander analogy.
I cannot tell you how fascinating it is to watch Mosher deconstruct progressive propaganda cum marketing with such precision, when he so often engages in the same obscurantist tactics himself. Particularly in defense of all things modular.
This is what the “consensus” really has to fear. If any of the key members, Jones, Schmidt, Trenberth, ever had a come to Jesus – sorry, come to Gaia – moment, the party would be over. It’s what prosecutors call flipping an insider. Mosher hasn’t actually really flipped, and isn’t really an insider, but he has his moments. And they’re fun to watch.
Mosher’s a lot more complex and interesting than the Jonses and Schmdts, but it wouldn’t matter which side he flipped on anyway.
The ‘insider flip’ happened years ago, and he said “Harry Readme”. It might be dramatic if he decloaked, but it wouldn’t change anything. Frankly, nothing will change anything. Like Al Queda, too many people are ‘all in’ for anything to make any difference. The warmist ‘team’ will always be there, even through the next ice age. Waiting for the Great Pumpkin.
Waiting for willard to wonder well. Irrigating the little green sprouts in with the squash and the cukes.
=============
Harold,
HarryReadMe was not what I mean by a flip. And the anonymity of the releaser prevented it from having the impact that the flip of a major player would have.
Nor am I predicting anything of the kind. Though I think Jones gave it real consideration when he first got nailed after climategate. But now that they have survive that, and Mann and Gleick keep their positions in the field, and the IPCC keeps staggering along, the prospects are slim. But still possible, and fun to contemplate.
> Irrigating the little green sprouts in with the squash and the cukes.
Your Evil Clown act is getting boring, Koldie.
wee willie has sounded the full depth of tedium and triviality long since.
Thank you for the kind words, Chief.
Here’s an experiment. I won’t open or comment on any new topics in this thread. I reserve the right to comment if a commenter either reacts to my previous comments or invokes my name. That does not mean I will reappear, as I think I contributed more than enough so far.
You can have all the dancing floor to yourself, now.
Go ahead, show us some moves.
‘Wee Willie Winkie rins through the toon,
Up stairs an’ doon stairs in his nicht-gown,
Tirlin’ at the window, crying at the lock,
“Are the weans in their bed, for it’s now ten o’clock?”
some think this is related
The road to Damascus is a road not often travelled by climate scientists it appears, at least not until they approach retirement anyway. As for Voltaire, its best to cover all bets before one dies? ;)
More like plucking for the harmonics, moshe.
=============
Both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ are apprriate answers to the climate debate. Remember the debate is about climate, not models. Yes is appropriate for 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 1998 and No to the rest.
As a scientific debate it is silly because it was confected by politicians.
So from 1900 to the present: 58 years of Yes and 55 of No. Is there a winner?
And it looks like the “Nos” have it at the moment.
But who knows for how long?
(not even kim)
Max
This was a fantastic summary of perspectives. It would be nice to think that Trenberth might actually take the time to read it, though that is unlikely.
Regarding oceans, the energy flux between ocean and atmosphere and the “pause”, don’t know exactly where Trenberth pulled the 20 year figure from, except that was roughly the time between the 1976/77 climate shift and the reversal of 1998. If we suppose, as Trenberth seems to, that oceans have been in a accumulation mode since 1998, then 2018 or 2019 might be time for another period of dicharge to begin. But this would only be if we’re looking at the Pacific only. As pointed out, the AMO could shift to a cool mode, and really complicate things. But what seems to missed by all sides currently is the affects that increasing GH gases may have on these ocean cycles. The assumption that we can simply extrapolate the future from the past clearly is completely wrong-headed when considering the substational external forcing that the human carbon volcano represents.
R Gates views the Human Carbon Cornucopia through smoked lenses.
===============
“The assumption that we can simply extrapolate the future from the past clearly is completely wrong-headed when considering the substational external forcing that the human carbon volcano represents”
You sort of know that all science based predictions about the future and based on an understanding of the fundamental drivers of past events?
Is it only in climate we are to throw our hands up in the air and say ‘anything can happen, but whatever happens will be bad’? Are our children going to turnout ‘bad’ because the grew up in a completely different society to their parents? Can we make no predictions about the best way to raise them in the internet age, because never before has humanity had the internet?
Do you know that the spiral arm that the Earth belongs to was in this position, 225 million years ago, we were within 25 million years of two extinction level events? Should we be fearful?
We jest can’ predict and experts ain’t no better than the rest.
Thomas Sowell and Nassim Taleb check out the record of
the Ideas’ professions’, not so good.
No matter, there’s little built in accountability in the ideas’
profession, unlike fields of engineering and medicine,
feedbacks don’t matter What counts is oracular profundity.
Why, yer Erlich or yer Hansen can jest go right on prophesisin’ dooms-day till the cows come home, (or don’t.) Then there’s
them Intellect-chual pundits welcoming peace in our time
agreements, confidentaly forecasting the length of an impending
world war, foretelling visionary Utopean outcomes ter Stalinist or
Maoist political experiments or long range forecasts fer every
other goddam political interackshun ……….. ‘n if their wrong,
jest fergit about it or innoculate yer theory. Not ter worry.
bts
What I am getting at Doc is the notion of the perturbing a chaotic system by an external forcing, and thinking that you can predict what will happen based on the history of that chaotic system just prior to perturbing it. The natural cycles of PDO, AMO, ENSO, can’t be expected to guide us in our predictions for the future as those cycles themselves will experience the perturbation.
R.A. Gates, look at this:-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/DSCN1739-thomson-tide-machine.jpg/400px-DSCN1739-thomson-tide-machine.jpg
It is a Thomson Tide Machine (Lord Kelvin) and successfully predicts the tides and tide levels, using reduction gears.
Now just because you throw the word ‘chaos’ around doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about.
This isn’t Jurassic Park and you are no Jeff Goldberg.
That’s a very nice machine Doc. Too bad chaotic systems do not operate like machines, eh? They are just as deterministic as your nice machine, but far too many variables, feedbacks, etc. to model accurately. Hence why climate models will always be wrong in specifics, even if they have general dynamics correct.
Yes, I am no Jeff Goldberg, as he is an actor who learned some lines to make it sound like he was actually knowledgeable about Chaos theory. It was all an illusion to fool and entertain the audience. I prefer actually knowing something about it, for my own enlightenment.
“…these oscillators (PDO, ENSO, NAO, NPO) are in reality not causally independent but they are ALL just emergent local manifestations of GLOBAL dynamics of the system.” – Tomas Milanovic.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/04/scenarios-2010-2040-part-iii-climate-shifts/
I am no Jeff Goldblum. I am more like that guy who focused on raptor 1 and didn’t see raptor 2 until it was too late.
Off topic perhaps Ragnaar’s picture de jour: http://oceanmotion.org/images/impact/95324main_v39n2-big.gif
Showing Ocean currents around Greenland. Does anyone care to enlighten me if those currents meander more at times and less at times?
The other thing the picture says to me is spend research dollars here. It would seem to be as seeing that the narrow Bering Straight is the only other outlet for the Arctic Ocean, there’s a lot going on here.
Doc Gates,
The great thing about complex non-equilibrium thermodynamics is that it can make really smart people look like idiots. The wrong assumption here, poor choice of reference there, next thing you know you have the signs wrong.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/08/what-sign-was-that-again.html
Like land use for instance. :)
Captain, one of the oddities of chaotic behaviors is that they are not chaotic on all scales; the dripping of a tap is a classical chaotic system. The frequency of drops exhibits chaotic behavior, BUT, the overall flux through the system is zero order. One can simply model the system in terms of flux at larger time scales but not short ones.
The interesting points about Judith’s head post to me are the large areas of common ground that exists between the two sides, especially wrt the science, but any attempt by sceptics to bring this up is given short shrift by mainstream climate scientists.
The difference between JC and KT in terms of confidence in the projections of the climate models is striking IMO and this seems where advocacy has supplanted scientific objectiveness with a normative approach to the evidence we are all considering.
The sociology of the climate science has provided a fertile ground for the study of tribal behaviour and the staying power of motivated reasoning in the context of what everyone should be agreeing on: that is that climate/weather is a prime example of complex and dynamic systems interacting in unpredictable ways.
I think your second paragraph provides an explanation for your first one, Peter.
How would you react if I told you we almost share all our beliefs, but that most of our disagreements are based on the fact that you lost your objectivity, are being judgemental, and act like a tribesman?
I hope you do realize what being called a tribesman implies and that the accusation of being “normative” carries its load of irony, considering the accusations I just made up for illustration’s sake.
Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.
Agreed Willard. Reality is in constant conflict with human perceptions and any confluence usually is unrecognised in one’s thinking. A good step forward is always taken when one recognises that their biases need to be allowed for when they make decisions or express a POV.
I concur, Peter, and would add that we should acknowledge that sometimes, people are just not made to be in speaking terms. We all have our elective affinities. I enjoy your peaceful detachment, for instance.
Style matters.
I always enjoy your contributions Willard and while I sometimes find myself not agreeing with your POV on some topics, I still find that I am learning something from you, in contrast to some others, whose names shall not be mentioned.
You have invested much time and mental energy in this and other discussions around the blogosphere and your sources and links are always much appreciated.
As for being detached, I am endeavouring to control my emotions as much as I can so as to make more reasoned conclusions on what I am perceiving of the world around me and to influence the people with whom I engage to do likewise. I feel like a juror about this debate and I am still out.
Funny – I always find him trivial and specious. Perhaps I’m more objective.
Your POV on science and philosophy and your poetry is one of the main reasons that I keep coming back to this blog Chief but on the subject of Willard’s contribution I disagree. I enjoy Willard’s posts and particularly appreciate his tweets.
Perhaps its hard to be more objective about one another when you have exchanged insults numerous times in the past?
I do appreciate Chief’s tenderness, Peter, especially in his poems.
I almost appreciate his dismissiveness, even when directed at me.
What I appreciate less are the repetitive ringtones.
And I say this as a Philip Glass fan.
JC wrote: “I realize that I am treading into the area of social psychology here, I am throwing these ideas out there in the hopes that some social scientists will pick up on this issue and investigate so that we can better understand the dynamics here, where the tribal differences on a scientific topic are not driven so much by scientific differences but by social issues. […] I am concerned that the social psychology of the allegiance to consensus is getting in the way of moving climate science forward and providing useful information and analyses to support decision making by policy makers.”
I very strongly share the concern expressed in the last sentence.
– –
JC wrote: “‘Consensus’ scientists are busy investigating the pause cause, using arguments that have been skeptical talking points for several decades.”
That made me laugh. (It’s so true.)
– –
JC wrote of poor understanding of “[…] the mechanisms of vertical heat transport in the ocean”
Multivariate evidence considered collectively suggests very clearly that the role of equator-pole-temperature-gradient-driven-wind has been severely underestimated. (Temperature, mass, & velocity are coupled.)
Sober, appreciative attention to natural sun climate attractors is due now. (Further delay is unethical at this point.)
The Pause Cause is skeptic caws.
==============
Could it be that the thanksgiving turkey of certainty’s
goose is cooked?
Heh, no leering and frothing @ ClimateEtc? I tell you again, my best stuff gets deleted, even by my finest editor, StevieMac.
================
I guess kim hugging and kissing kim is OK.
Steven Mosher | August 24, 2013 at 6:12 pm |
Good, now you state a clear position. However, that position is that “the consensus on climate change” amounts to an unspoken conspiracy to promote a policy agenda while carefully avoiding genuine engagement on the issues. Well, it is that or, as another said above, a kind of psychopathology. Now we are clear on your view of the matter.
But what about Dr. Curry who has done her dead level best to engage Trenberth and others on the science and, perhaps more important, on the boundaries between science and advocacy? You seem to have nothing to say about that effort. Given your silence and your opinion of consensus science, my guess is that you believe that any attempt to address ethics in science is just another example of King Lear raging against the thunderstorm. Right?
Theo Goodwin >> …that position is that “the consensus on climate change” amounts to an unspoken conspiracy to promote a policy agenda.
“Conspiracy” Government is funding a climate science that argues for more government. Exactly as you’d expect, government is first and foremost looking after itself. What else do you expect? And how do you manage to shoehorn “conspiracy” into the picture?
I wanted to suggest that on the matter of ethics in science that Mosher’s position is nihilistic or, what amounts to the same thing, postmodern. Such a view makes attention to ethics something like a symptom of immaturity. From your post, it seems to me that you hold a nihilistic position.
Theo
“But what about Dr. Curry who has done her dead level best to engage Trenberth and others on the science and, perhaps more important, on the boundaries between science and advocacy? You seem to have nothing to say about that effort. Given your silence and your opinion of consensus science, my guess is that you believe that any attempt to address ethics in science is just another example of King Lear raging against the thunderstorm. Right?”
well you didnt read my book so you are forgiven.
The boundary between science and advocacy?
lets see if I can help
start with three words: activism, advocacy, advise
before we try to draw a boundary between advocacy and science I would think we want to know what advocacy is relative to other closely related words.
lets assume you can define advocacy. Comes the question
Does a scientist have the right to advocate. seems so
Does he have a moral obligation to advocate: probably not.
And so the question is does it make practical sense to advocate. that is do you do harm to “science” do you diminish “trust” or can you change the world! yippee
I see the decision to advocate as a practical pragmatic decision. Its not an issue of rights, its not an issue of oughts. Its an issue of will you achieve your ends. So I am quite happy with Judith advocating and not very happy with Hansen advocating.
I try to avoid advocating because I have no experience doing it. But its hard to avoid advocating ( we should do something, data should be open, scientific ethics should be followed )
So I dont have a problem with scientists advocating, cause its hard not to and its hard to draw lines, but pragmatcally speaking certain people need to shut up,, mann, trenberth, and let some newer voices have a go..
When the the climate scientists can give the economists a prediction with small enough uncertainty that the economists can use it with a reasonable discount rate and show future costs of different choices of actions with acceptable ranges of certainty the politicians will have something to work with. Until then scientists should stick to science and truth detection and avoid activism. The obvious exception to this is the requirement for activism to keep the politicians from running ahead before they have sufficient info to make an informed decision.
Yep, it’s a runaway horse and carriage sort of situation.
================
DMA
+1
The science can already provide a number such as 1 degree C for every 2000 Gt CO2 burned, which should be a useful and very direct measure. It is about as far as the science can go. Then it becomes a balance between Gt CO2 burned and degrees C warming, and everyone has their own idea of the optimal compromise.
Jim D
“CO2 burned”?
As I recall from Chemistry 101, CO2 doesn’t “burn”.
It is a product of burning fossil fuels.
You cite a number of 1 degree C for every 2000 Gt CO2, which sounds OK theoretically but you should add “all other things being equal”, shouldn’t you?
The rule of thumb fits for the past record, if we accept that human CO2 was responsible for 97% of the forcing since pre-industrial days, as IPCC claims in AR4.
Max
‘The science can already provide a number such as 1 degree C for every 2000 Gt CO2 burned’
It can? Wow. I thought we’d need to have an accurate understanding of climate sensitivity to do that. Do we have such a thing? How was it experimentally determined? How much has been burnt in the last 15 years? How much did the temperature rise?
Jim D
Typo:
Should read:
“if we accept that human CO2 was responsible for
97%93% of the forcing…”Max
Latimer Alder
Jim D’s 1 degree C per 2,000 GtCO2 (all other things being equal) is based on the estimate by IPCC in AR4 that 93% of the observed past warming can be attributed to forcing from CO2.
It stands or falls with the accuracy of that statement.
IPCC concedes in AR4 that its “level of scientific understanding of natural (solar) forcing is low” (it also concedes that “clouds remain the largest source of uncertainty”.)
There are many studies that have concluded that around 50% of the past warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th C solar activity (highest in several thousand years). This has now ended.
The current “pause” despite unabated CO2 emissions and levels reaching record heights (and IPCC projecting warming of 0.2 degrees C per decade) adds even more uncertainty
So there is a lot of “uncertainty” (as our hostess has emphasized repeatedly), and If these solar studies are correct, Jim’s number must be revised downward, say to 0.5 degrees C per 2,000 GtCO2 (or even less).
Max
I was saying that as an example of what the consensus could say at this point. Rather than 3 C per doubling, which is too sciencey, or even 2-6 C by 2100 depending on emission scenario, they could say 1 C warming per 2000 Gt CO2, which is practical information directly linking effect with cause. It gives a true sense of control of the destiny.
DMA, don’t underestimate the value of uncertainty. I fear making decisions, so uncertainty is my friend.
Max_OK
Uncertainty is there (and it’s big). (Judith)
Predictions are inevitably wrong, and this gets worse the further out the time period goes (Taleb)
But judgment helps make decisions despite this.
The “no regrets” policy and technology proposals included in the ASME “position statement” you cited a few days ago are a good example.
After going through this report in some detail, here are the major “take homes” for me.
– The ASME recommendations do not include the implementation of any direct or indirect carbon tax, but list some other policy proposals and then concentrate on specific “no regrets” technical actions to reduce CO2 emissions.
– Without the implementation of these specific technical actions (business as usual), and with population increasing to 10.9 billion by 2100 (latest UN estimate) plus per capita CO2 emissions increasing by 30%, the atmospheric CO2 concentration could likely rise from 394 ppmv today to around 650 ppm by 2100.* At this CO2 concentration the theoretical greenhouse warming from added CO2 would be between 1.3 and 2.3 ºC, depending on the assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.
– Approximately 125 ppmv CO2 increase could be averted by the implementation of specific “no regrets” technical actions in the power generation and transportation sectors plus various energy conservation initiatives, bringing the 2100 level well below 550 ppmv, which is seen as a goal. Over 60% of this reduction comes from the replacement of most new coal-fired power plants with nuclear plants. The theoretical warming from added CO2 by 2100, which could be averted by implementing all the actions being considered is estimated to be between 0.6 and 1.0 ºC, depending on the assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.
*[The ASME report includes much higher estimates, whereby the world-wide average per capita CO2 emissions would rise to a level by 2100 that is over 4 times as high as today and even higher than the per capita CO2 emission in the USA today! This obviously does not pass a “reality check”.]
The report does not go into cost/benefit analyses, but since the proposed CO2 reduction initiatives chosen to achieve these CO2 reductions are all “no regrets” actions (that essentially pay for themselves), no separate cost/benefit analyses are needed.
Good stuff. Thanks for giving me the link.
Max_CH
manacker said August 25, 2013 at 4:41 am
Uncertainty is there (and it’s big). (Judith)
Predictions are inevitably wrong, and this gets worse the further out the time period goes (Taleb)
______
And you are certain about that? Ha Ha !
I don’t agree about the predictions. It’s just a good excuse for doing nothing because you are certain nothing is going to change,which of course, also is a prediction.
The notion “predictions get worse gets worse the further out the time period goes” sounds good, but is it true?
Max_OK
You ask
A classical example of this are the predictions, made in the mid to late 1800s, that London, New York and Manchester would be inundated in meters of horse manure by 1930 or so resulting from the rapidly increasing number of horse carriages.
“Climatologers” (like city planners, “astrologers” or fortune tellers) are only as good as their “crystal balls” (or GCMs).
These cannot predict the future.- and the longer the time period, the less likely they are to guess it right.
Facts of life, Okie. Read Nassim Taleb, if you don’t believe it.
Max
Max_OK
The ASME “position statement” has a lot of good information in it.
Of course it contains a lot of “motherhood and apple pie” and the obligatory statement that humans are causing warming and this could become problematic (all things outside the mechanical engineers’ area of expertise).
But the specific proposed technical solutions are worth looking at seriously.
I’ve picked out the ones, which I could identify as “no regrets” initiatives (i.e. actions that make economic sense on their own merit).
These are
– Replace most new coal-fired power plants with non-fossil fuel plants (I’ve chosen nuclear for most of this, because this technology is available and cost competitive today). Where nuclear does not make sense (proliferation concerns or sitting on top of a gas field) a smaller part would be replace by combined cycle gas-fired plants, where technology is also available and cost competitive today). These two actions alone would give us an estimated 2100 reduction in CO2 of around 89 ppmv, or ~70% of the total reduction from all actions.
– Replace three-fourths of all light gasoline (or Diesel) driven vehicles with state-of-the-art hybrids; switch half of all heavy vehicles from Diesel to natural gas. Again, economically competitive technologies exist today. These actions would give us an estimated 2100 reduction in CO2 of 18 ppmv.
– Other climate initiatives to reduce waste and improve energy efficiency, such as waste recycling, building insulation, “lifestyle changes”. Based on studies made in Germany and the USA, it appears that these could reduce 2100 CO2 level by another estimated 19 ppmv.
The total savings from just these actions could reduce 2100 CO2 level from an estimated 650 ppmv (without these actions) to around 525 ppmv (with all above actions).
And, using the IPCC AR4 model-based estimate for 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (3.2C) for the upper end of the range of the temperature impact and the conclusion of several more recent observation-based studies as the lower end (1.8C), I arrive at an estimated net theoretical reduction in 2100 temperature resulting from all these “no regrets” CO2 reduction actions at 0.7 to 1.3C.
This should make you happy, Okie – but somehow I sense that you are not happy knowing that there are “no regrets” actions based on a serious report by an engineering group, which could result in a theoretical reduction of global warming from CO2.
And I’m having trouble figuring out why this is so.
Help me out.
Max_CH
manacker, to achieve 525 ppm, the global carbon footprint would have to drop to 2.5 Gt CO2/person by 2100 from its current 5, even as the population increases and development continues. The US footprint is 20 GtCO2/person, Europe is about 10 Gt/person, China is about 7. It is a lot to expect.
Solar powered electrolytic hydrogen and “bio-methane”. Both should be hitting their stride by 2040. Easily mature and rolled out in time for your deadline, unless some other, better, technology is used instead.
…of course my units should have been tonnes CO2 per person.
The notion “predictions get worse gets worse the further out the time period goes” sounds good, but is it true?
Lyapunov’s Theorem and the Perron effect are well known, the temporal horizon for instability being less then 0.2 time units.
There is a nice example of the application to a climatic series in Nicolis and Nicolis [foundations of complex systems pg 220]
Slutsky used LT in his seminal papers update on economic time series (1927),
Lyapunov’s Theorem is a bound on predicting when your prediction becomes unstable.
It isn’t really a prediction at the longer term, it is a change in the equilibrium climate. The sensitivity is the only parameter required in addition to the CO2/GHG concentration. No time integration is needed. These are two steady-state solutions, a current one and a perturbed one. The perturbation in forcing is about 1%.
Jim D
You say:
Your figures are totally goofy, Jim.
Here are some better figures (from Wiki and CDIAC):
World average per capita CO2 is 4.7 tons today; it was 4.6 in 1980 (increase of 3% over the 30-year period)
Nations that were highly industrialized in 1980 had pc CO2 of 12.4 tons in 1980; they have 10.4 today (16% reduction)
This includes North America, all the EU nations at the time, other W. European nations, Japan, Australia and New Zealand
The highest pc CO2 in 2010 was the USA at around 17 tons, down 20% from 1980 at around 21 tons.
All other “non-industrialized” nations had a pc CO2 of 2.3 tons in 1980; they now have a combined pc CO2 of 3.8 tons (increase of 65%)
The per capita CO2 generation in China has increased eight-fold from around 1.0 tons in 1980 to around 7.9 tons in 2012
The per capita CO2 generation in India has increased three-fold from around 0.5 tons in 1980 to around 1.6 tons in 2012
World population grew from around 4.4 billion in 1980 to around 7.1 billion today
Above “industrially developed” nations have grown from around 0.8 billion in 1980 to 1.0 billion today
All other nations have grown from around 3.6 billion in 1980 to 6.1 billion today
World population is expected to reach 10,854 million by 2100 (latest UN estimates)
This represents an exponential growth rate of 0.48% pa, as compared to a 1980-2012 growth rate of 1.47% pa
The “industrially developed nations” are expected to grow in population from around 1 billion in 2012 to around 1.2 billion by 2100 (~20%)
The “non-industrially developed nations” are expected to grow in population from around 6.1 billion in 2012 to around 9.7 billion by 2100 (~60%)
The pc CO2 of the “Industrially developed” nations will likely continue to decrease slightly from 10.4 to 9.5 tons (further 9% reduction)
Including future growth in China, India, etc., the per capita CO2 emissions of the “non-industrially developed nations” will continue to increase sharply in the future, from today’s 3.8 to a future 5.7 tons CO2 by 2100
On this basis, the global per capita CO2 emissions will increase by around 30% from today to 2100
This compares with a 3% increase over the 30-year period 1980-2010
This will result in cumulative CO2 emissions of 4,000 tons from today to 2100, with atmospheric CO2 rising to around 650 ppmv
If “no-regrets” actions listed in the ASME report are implemented, this could be reduced by around 125 ppmv.
Max
manacker, your numbers aren’t far off mine, but now you can see how hard your previous 525 ppm would be to achieve. It is half the rate to get from 400 to 650 ppm, and even that is optimistically low for no mitigation policies or energy transitions to renewables, adding other GHGs natural or not, etc.
Re Manac 4:58 PM post on Aug 25, 2013
Max_CH, I’m glad you found the ASME statement interesting. I think we can agree that many of the recommendations are good.
However, I’m not as keen on nuclear power as ASME, you, and Hansen (see his video).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZExWtXAZ7M
I can’t dismiss the potential for nuclear power disaster from terrorists attacks. There is just no guarantee these power plants will always be indestructible.
Tax policy was beyond the scope of the ASME statement. As you know, I believe a revenue-neutral carbon tax is a no brainer.
We have all seen Hansen’s video. At least I saw the first less than a minute. Nothing at all new – move on to something more interesting. Very few of us are at all impressed. It is just the way it is – that doleful voice and the lugubrious expression.
The new generation nukes are in fact a whole lot better at protecting the environment. Instead of having 270,000 tons of nuclear waste sitting around in leaky drums and tanks – e.g. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-usa-nuclear-leak-idUSBRE95K18720130621 – it can use the waste burning up the remaining 97% of fuel left in the waste and converting it to much less long lived products.
e.g. – http://www.ga.com/energy-multiplier-module – http://www.ga.com/websites/ga/docs/em2/pdf/FactSheet-TechnicalFactSheetEM2.pdf – http://www.ga.com/websites/ga/docs/em2/pdf/EM2_presentation.pdf
These are to be manufactured in a factory, delivered sealed to site where they are placed in a concrete bunker and run for 30 years before being taken back – still sealed – to the factory. They can’t melt down. The waste is a small percentage of conventional waste and dangerous for hundreds and not hundreds of thousands of years. It is a sealed system in first of all super tough ceramics and then an outer bunker of concrete. The coolant is helium in a closed cycle, high efficiency gas turbine. No radiation can possibly escape. Much better.
Taxes are idiotic and eventually deliver – if they are high enough and actually work – higher energy costs, no tax revenue and permanent damage to your economy. Nothing the rest of the world would like more – feel free.
Chief Hydrologist said:
“We have all seen Hansen’s video.”
“Very few of us are at all impressed.”
_______
Chief, I’m impressed with your ability to see into peoples’ minds. That must come in handy.
Jim D
Glad our estimates now agree.
It remains to be seen whether we (everyone on this planet) will generate around 4,000 GtCO2 from today until 2100, following more-or-less a business as usual approach, and arriving at around 650 ppmv CO2 or we will adopt the “no regrets” approach outlined in the ASME paper of aggressively implementing all those technology proposals that reduce CO2 emissions, which also make economic sense, thereby reducing the CO2 by 2100 by 125 ppmv to around 525 ppmv.
No direct or indirect carbon tax would be necessary to implement these “no regrets” proposals.
As pointed out, these will have a theoretical impact on the global average temperature by 2100 of between 0.7 and 1.3 deg C.
I do not think it is realistic to talk about “reducing CO2 by 2100 to 350 ppmv or even 450 ppmv”, because I do not believe China, India and all the other nations that want to develop their economies who will follow, will abandon that objective and there is no way for them to achieve it without developing an infrastructure that guarantees reliable low-cost energy, which will be at least partially based on fossil fuels.
I think replacing two-thirds of all new coal-fired power plants with non-fossil fuel generation (principally new generation nuclear) and half of the rest with combined cycle natural gas (where there are proliferation concerns or natural gas is locally available) is a pretty aggressive goal. This major step alone could achieve 70% of the above reduction if implemented.
There are, of course, substantial political hurdles, which would need to be resolved.
The remaining initiatives in the transportation sector or reducing waste/improving efficiency are no-brainers.
This is all based on technology, which exists today; any additional reductions that could possibly result from new technology innovations, which do not yet exist, could add a bit to the estimated CO2 reductions.
Max
Is that what you take away Max. Hansen starts talking about 4th generation nuclear and I turn of? Mind reading? I don’t need a 100 minute video on 4th gen nuclear. I’ve actually read quite a lot. I very kindly give you a potted version and a few links to what I think is the leading contender. GA is investing $1.8 billion their own money on developing what is already a workable design from the LANL. On what is actually an improvement in nuclear safety in doing something rational with all that gunk sitting around.
You don’t even thank me. Just behave like the ungracious dimwit that you are. Go figure.
Max_OK
Sorry to hear that you aren’t keen on nuclear.
It appears to me to be the alternate with the best chance today for dramatically reducing CO2 emissions over the next several decades.
Terror attacks?
If we stop building nuclear plants (that we’d like to build to reduce CO2)because we are afraid of terror attacks, we are in effect giving up to the terrorists – and we’re saying that CO2 reduction really isn’t that important, after all.
Solar for domestic use could be another “no regrets” option, but is limited to a small percentage of the total power supply. And as far as CO2 is concerned, nuclear eliminates more CO2 than solar, if you include the gas-fired standby plants required for the 75-80% of the time that solar does not work.
Folks that don’t want CO2 and don’t like nuclear are between a rock and a hard spot. Bad place to be.
Max_CH
Manacker,
I just noticed your reply to the dingbat who opposes nuclear power but wants to cut global GHG emissions. Unfortunately, he is just ACAGW alarmist, a doomsayer and an anti-nuke, pro-RE ideologue so no reasoning is possible with him.
But for others I’d support your points and add these:
1. For those worried about terror attacks on nuclear power plants they need to define the potential consequence and the probability. Given 55 years of operation so far and no terror attacks, the probability seems remote.
2. Also, the anti-nukes need to nut it in context. What would be the damages compared with the benefits?
3. Anti-nukes often raise the proliferation argument. But why argue to ban nuclear and not ban oil? Surely it is fossil fuels that have delivered all the weapons used in WW I and since and done far more harm than nuclear. So why not ban oil? Where is the perspective?
Re manacker’s post on August 26, 2013 at 4:39 am
Max_CH, you, Chief, and Lang are hilarious.
You three believe global warming isn’t a problem and nuclear power is a solution to this problem.
Thanks for reminding me why I come here for amusement.
Just to be clear, I would not say that attack on nuclear power plants would be likely, but I would like to provide an absolutely beautiful example of the kind of thinking we see resulting from motivated reasoning:
One someone may have said on Sept. 10, 2001
I love how Peter makes no attempt to define potential consequence and probability in his declaration that those who disagree with him about consequence and probability.
The mind of a “skeptic” is a beautiful, beautiful thing.
Selective reasoning is selective.
Dagnabit:
Just to be clear, I would not say that attack on nuclear power plants would be likely, but I would like to provide an absolutely beautiful example of the kind of thinking we see resulting from motivated reasoning:
One someone may have said on Sept. 10, 2001
Unbelievable. You’d think that sooner or later I’d actually check the formatting before posting. But nooooooooo. That would make too much sense
Max_OK (and Joshua)
Let me try to clear up some confusion one or both of you may have regarding my views on nuclear as a substitute for coal to reduce CO2 emissions.
The ASME paper listed several “no regrets” options for reducing CO2 emissions.
The one that could be implemented immediately and has the highest CO2 impact is replacing new coal-fired power generation capacity with nuclear.
As Peter Lang has pointed out, replacing coal with wind or solar is not a “no regrets” solution, because these are not economically competitive with coal, primarily due to the low on-line factor. Domestic solar could possibly be an option for a limited part of the total (Peter disagrees that this could become competitive without taxpayer-funded subsidies). But solar results in less CO2 being eliminated than nuclear, because of the gas-fired standby capacity that is needed to cover the 75-80% of the time when the solar panels are not working. So nuclear is the better substitute for coal from the CO2 standpoint.
I personally do NOT think we face a future climate problem due to human CO2 emissions, because there is no empirical scientific evidence to support such a notion (from his comments here, I believe Peter Lang agrees).
I also do not think we are in imminent danger of running out of fossil fuels over the next century, although it is obvious that these resources are not unlimited and substitutes will eventually need to be found.
And I have concluded, based on the evidence out there, that even the most urgent implementation of all the “no regrets” actions suggested in the ASME paper, while reducing future CO2 emissions to year 2100 by around half, will only have a barely perceptible theoretical impact on our future climate by 2100 (between 0.7C and 1.3C, depending on which climate sensitivity estimate is used).
However, if we DO want to reduce CO2 emissions, replacing coal with nuclear is the most effective “no regrets” approach.
(And don’t toss out the scare of a terrorist attack or meteor strike on the nuclear plant – sure these could happen, but there are other ways to protect against that.)
Max
.
Manacker,
I want to clarify my position. It is as follows:
1. I don’t know if we have a problem with potential CAGW or not. I am very open to a persuasive case. But so far I don’t find the case persuasive.
2. However, I am strongly persuaded that the policies being advocated to mitigate GHG emissions are very high cost, economically damaging and will not deliver the benefits stated by their proponents. So these are bad policies. The policies include Kyoto Protocol type policies, carbon pricing and mandating and subsidising renewable energy. I am strongly convinced these are irresponsible policies.
3. I believe we have very little understanding of:
– climate sensitivity,
– the damage function,
– the potential to decarbonise the global economy (by 2050, 2100),
– the probability that advocvated mitigation policies will succeed and deliver the benefits claimed by their proponents
Until we have a much better understanding of these four key inputs, policies other than no regrets policies cannot be justified.
4. Nuclear power is a potential ‘no regrets’ policy. It is the best currently available option for making significant cuts to global GHG emissions. If we change the policies that are effectively preventing it being a viable option, nuclear power could, potentially, cut global emissions from fossil fuels by 50% by around 2060. However, progress is being thwarted by the very same people who are most concerned about CAGW. Their hypocrisy suggests to me they are not really all that concerned about CAGW, instead, they are using CAGW as a means to implement their obvious political agendas. That is what I believe is the case, and it makes me less inclined to believe that we should risk implementing high cost mitigation policies.
I hope that clarifies my position.
Normal folks utterly reject the ideology of economic primacy over science and morality.
For excellent reasons.
Ain’t that right, DMA and kim and Peter Lang and Latimer Alder?
Fan said:
Normal folks utterly reject the ideology of economic primacy over science and morality.
_____
I do. I believe economic systems exist to serve people, not people exist to serve economic systems.
Max_OK
Looks like we all agree then, Okie.
Max_CH
“When the the climate scientists can give the economists a prediction with small enough uncertainty that the economists can use it….”
The only thing less scientific than a climate model is an economic model.
The only thing less Scientific than an economic model is a Keynesian.
And the worst of all is an economic model based on input coming from a climate model.
It isn’t so much that Keynesians are wrong, as they don’t see the big picture.
Deficit spending is stimulative. And so is cocaine.
“It isn’t so much that Keynesians are wrong, as they don’t see the big picture.”
Keynsians are wrong because they don’t see the big picture.
And “stimulus” spending, at best, moves future economic activity from the future into the present. It does not create wealth that would otherwise not be created. And Keynsians could not be more wrong about the mythical multiplier.
We’re saying the same thing. You don’t get a multiplier, you get a buzz that feels like one as long as you’re the one doing the multiplying..
Don’t try to tell a coke head that he isn’t multiplied.
who is on the side of the TRUTH? I’m!
sandpit job is NOT science!
Judith Curry,
“where the tribal differences on a scientific topic are not driven so much by scientific differences but by social issues.”
If I may comment upon social issues and in this case, the human species evolutionary, emotional and social maturation from pre-history to today. If one equates early human history behavior as infantile, needy, reacting negatively and intensively to life’s stressors (early capricious barbarism), and continue the child developmental theme with concrete thinking say during the heyday of Catholicism through the beginning of the Industrial Revolution we have come to where I believe the current evolutionary ride has taken us: Erik Erikson’s Identity and role confusion (adolescence). The quintessence of Judith Curry’s request.
It appears that the present climate debate is reflective more of adolescent behavior and thinking, hence, role confusion and identity confusion.
“Adolescence being a transitional period ” whose cultural purpose is the preparation of children for adult roles.” (Wikipedia).
Viewing the behaviors of the three parties, Trenberth, Harris, and Curry in the context of adolescent transitional period, It appears to me that the female portion of the species transitions much earlier towards adulthood’s Ego Integrity.
It also appears to me that: “However, there are also some negative aspects (to adolescences) which include the child or adolescent developing some egocentric thoughts which include the imaginary audience and the personal fable.[5] An imaginary audience is when an adolescent feels that the world is just as concerned and judgmental of anything the adolescent does as they are, an adolescent may feel as if they are “on stage” and everyone is a critique and they are the ones being critiqued.[5] A personal fable is when the adolescent feels that he or she is a unique person and everything they do is unique. They feel as if they are the only ones that have ever experienced what they are experiencing and that they are invincible and nothing bad will happen to them it will only happen to others” Piaget.
Trenberth’s egocentric thoughts are his expositions to his imaginary audience.
Harris’s egocentric thoughts encompasses his personal fable.
Judith Curry? having moved along a bit further and faster than others, she seems to be playing the waiting game, for some of the others to catch up.
Yes. I get that impression too. And, I’d add, doing it very well.
RiHo08
Your point makes sense.
We’ve got two prime examples (beside Beth, Johanna and some of the other denizens here) that come to mind: Judith and Tamsin.
But there are also a few that are still stuck in the adolescent paradigm, and (like the young Maid of Orleans) are fighting the “noble battle” of righteousness.
And, of course, there are some “gents” here, who have already reached their “best years” (not to mention any names).
Max
manacker
Remind me. Was St. Joan one of the good guys or bad guys?
RiHo08
Depends on whether you’re a Frenchman or a Brit.
(I’m neither, but I think Ingrid Bergman looked cool in full armor).
Max
RiHo08
Here she is
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://photodreamin.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/3383520.jpg&imgrefurl=http://oscarnerd.blogspot.com/2010/08/ingrid-bergman-in-joan-of-arc.html&h=300&w=300&sz=47&tbnid=TYCI2heiTG-flM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=91&zoom=1&usg=__OR9t6OIZfve7-XBUs_puq-WpERM=&docid=JouUU9y1ytSluM&sa=X&ei=PHMaUoqcM4KxiwLPz4C4Dg&ved=0CEUQ9QEwAg&dur=316
Max
The flames they followed Joan of Arc – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3EMjptFA9c
Chief
Does the burning of Joan of Arc mean that youthful exuberance and righteousness are destined to follow Manfred von Richthofen down in flames? A bitter end for those who cross the green line, at least in the age of concrete reasoning. But today is different. Right?
Live fast – die young and have a good looking corpse has always been the motto of the shooting stars amongst us. Arthur Rimbaud serves as a warming for those who burn too bright – and too long – in visionary splendour.
‘Once, if my memory serves me well, my life was a banquet where every heart revealed itself, where every wine flowed.
One evening I took Beauty in my arms – and I thought her bitter – and I insulted her.
I steeled myself against justice.
I fled. O witches, O misery, O hate, my treasure was left in your care!
I have withered within me all human hope. With the silent leap of a sullen beast, I have downed and strangled every joy.
I have called for executioners; I want to perish gnawing on their gun butts. I have called for plagues, to suffocate in sand and blood. Unhappiness has been my god. I have lain down in the mud, and dried myself off in the crime-infested air. I have played the fool to the point of madness.
And springtime brought me the frightful laugh of an idiot.’
Une Saison en Enfer – 1873
Yesterday – that warming was best elucidated by Alan Ginsberg.
‘…rejected yet confessing out the soul to conform to the rhythm
of thought in his naked and endless head,
the madman bum and angel beat in Time, unknown,
yet putting down here what might be left to say
in time come after death,
and rose reincarnate in the ghostly clothes of jazz in
the goldhorn shadow of the band and blew the
suffering of America’s naked mind for love into
an eli eli lamma lamma sabacthani saxophone
cry that shivered the cities down to the last radio
with the absolute heart of the poem of life butchered
out of their own bodies good to eat a thousand years.’
We should ask who is on the side of the Angels and Madmen in America’s naked and flaming streets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM9BMVFpk80
In the end times – we are reminded – the young shall see visions and old men dream dreams. Tomorrow – I always thought – belongs to the incandescent visionary. If they can only survive a blazing pyre of youthful visions to dream dreams of the ascent of humanity to the freewheeling stars.
Chief, there was a famous poster of Ginsberg with a Karl Marx poster on his wall: Marx and Ginsberg. Well, our neighbour in Newcastle’s grandfather in Leeds was once approached by a trader friend called Marks to join him in a “nothing over sixpence” stall. Ginsberg said “It will never work,” so Marks approached Spencer instead … and the rest is history. I couldn’t help but laugh when I saw the poster. I hesitate to say that I howled with laughter.
[Historical note: I think that Marks and Spencer might have Anglicized their names after joining forces.]
Fellow serf,
Judith and Johanna , yes, but Beth ..hmmm …matchurity doesn’t
always correlate with yeers, bit like globul temperachure and CO2,
but thx, Max.)
St Joan?
Strange girl. Hears voices.
But by Jove, even in death
she lights up a room.
H/t David Bader.
Beth, that may have been only while she was burning at the stake.
Peter Bocking once told me that if Al Gore’s hair were set on fire it would provide enough heat and light for a small English village.
Aaaannd, I’m inevitably reminded of the gentleman not thoroughly conversant with the early 19th Century warfare, who, on being told that the British had burnt Washington, remarked in surprise ‘Well, I knew we burnt Joan of Arc, but George Washington?’
Seriously, since when have we not sought totemic sacrificial victims?
===================
Using teeth as kindling?
Judith
You are also on the leading edge of the next scientific revolution into exploring and quantifying natural variations and uncertainties in climate compared to the simplistic majority “anthropogenic” global warming.
See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
That’s a nice thought about Judith, and maybe it will work out that way, but honestly, if anything valuable comes out of the “pause” and the “uncertainty” about AGW during this episode it will be:
1) We need to start thinking more in terms of the complete energy system of the Earth and take into consideration how natural variability moves energy around and controls its flow in that system.
2) AGW did not (from a full Earth System perspective) take a pause over the past 16 years, but our myopic focus on the troposphere has caused a lot of confusion, and this confusion has permitted the uncertainty monster to bite more than a few.
3) The truth is, our certainty that humans are altering the energy balance of the planet has only increased during the past few years as more data about the full energy balance of the planet has become available.
You’re right. We can start by talking about how the total energy content of the oceans has increased by ~0.01% over the last 50 years.
R. Gates
Your point 1 is an absolute no-brainer. In fact, the very structure of the “AGW movement” (under IPCC) was so designed to make this impossible by focusing all efforts myopically on the greenhouse effect and its impacts. This is changing.
Whether or not AGW has taken a “pause” over the past X years (point 2) is really a moot discussion. Rationalizing that it “really” hasn’t done so could be seen as simply trying to keep the story alive despite the facts on the ground. What is unequivocal is that the “globally and annually land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (which has been used as an indicator of AGW by IPCC and others since the beginning) has stopped warming, in direct contradiction of model projections cited by IPCC and despite unabated GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels.
Your point 3 goes back to point 2 (we’re really causing warming even if we can’t see it). Yes, humans are causing local and regional changes to our environment, which are likely causing local and regional changes in our climate. Urbanization, land use changes, deforestation, smog pollution, hydroelectric dams, canals and river re-routing, dikes and levees, are just a few examples we all know about. But the jury is still out on whether mankind is really causing substantial changes to our global climate because of AGW.
Max
R. Gates Warmist
Re: “our certainty that humans are altering the energy balance of the planet has only increased”
“Show me!”
Put your “skeptical” hat on and evaluate if/how AGW can be detected, and quantitatively distinguished from alternative models.
Not just a claim, but hard nosed engineering quality verification and validation. See Lucia & von Storch on statistics of warming
Von Storch et al: Stagnation in Warming
Von Storch et al.:
Lucia:
Warmist, the burden of proof lies on you to show that models incorporating AGW lie within +/- 2 sigma (95%) AND that the majority is due to AGW.
You also must include ALL major uncertainties per Curry’s explorations.
e.g. See Dr. Roy Spencer on 75 climate model projections from 1979 ALL exceeding global temperature evidence.
Severe bias rather than normally distributed results appear to be a major Type B error.
For further evidence, see
The Right Climate Stuff; and
Burt Rutan on climate.
Puffery does not convince. Hard quantitative evidence does.
Per the Royal Society:
Show me!
Kudos to Curry to raise quantitative issues of uncertainty and push climate science to hard evaluation of the models against evidence , not alarmism to generate grants.
Crispin Tickell (One of Principal Godfathers of the CAGW Scam )
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/11/climate-science-sociology/#comment-364124
Trevor Davies,
date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000
Mike, Be aware that Tickell dislikes Tom Wigley; this isn’t hearsay – I know this for a fact. After Tom published that “delaying –emissions cutbacks – scenario” analysis in Nature, Tickell told me that Tom was irresponsible, & had damaged the likelihood of the cc issue being addressed seriously. There is also the baggage about Tickell pinching some of CRU’s ideas & Tom telling him so rather unsubtly. So – he needs to be the “sort of top research scientist we know is interested”.
Trevor
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2038
Wigley,
Fri, 17 Mar 2000
Grubb is good at impressing ignorant people. Crispin is not only ignorant (in the economics area) but also a *real* snake in the grass. What he will do is vote on the basis of what he can get out of it, not on the basis of knowledge-based and fair judgement.
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5123
CAGW was always IMO a political agenda In search of a pseudo-scientific justification. That is the most difficult thing to acknowledge, including by yours truly ( I had my big wake up call in 97/98 time frame)
I don’t know how David Suzuki is perceived elsewhere, however in Canada he’s an environmental icon. Originally his claim to science was as a fruit fly breeder (geneticist). However he’s long been a journalist/advocate.
In the short clip below, he actually explains exactly what the advocacy process has been. Al Gore tells him in 1988 not to expect action from the politicians on Climate Change, but to go forth (as supposed scientists) and preach the gospel of CAGW until the public demands action from the Pols.
Notice that the supposed scientist (Suzuki) actually acts as if his scientific mentor is none other than Al Gore!!
Forecast Earth In Depth: David Suzuki, Part 2
http://tinyurl.com/n3pkcun
Suzuki 1972 ( Warns of the Dangers of Anointing Scientists as new High Priests of Society )
David Suzuki on science, elitism and the apocalypse
Suzuki talks about the politics of science and the science of politics
http://tinyurl.com/mas3mkv
Trenberth’s opinions are the product of game theory not science.
What do you think your opinions are a product of?
A common sense reaction to a hoax perpetrated on a sleepy public by the Left.
“Meanwhile, as the warmists continue their doomscrying and seeking further hundreds of billions of dollars to carry on their vast charade, the whole economic structure upon which everything depends is teetering on the brink of disaster with little effort to address or to even recognise the very real and present dangers which confront us.
“All over the developed world, governments have committed to unfunded liabilities and fostered a proliferation of bureaucracy which their increasingly uncompetitive productive sectors cannot sustain. Most are now running on empty with no credit left, no plan B and no apparent recognition that the path they are on leads only to the edge of a cliff.” ~Walter Starck, 2-Jan-2011
What’s the notion you have common sense a product of?
Max_OK
My “opinions” of you are “a product of” your blog comments here.
How ’bout you?
Max_CH
Einstein said the only real valuable thing is intuition.
I resist acting on my intuition at times. Perhaps I shouldn’t.
Max-OK
If you look at intuition as simply an amalgamation of millions of observations processed by your brain over a lifetime, it can give your intuition a fresh perspective.
It is not hard to figure out why the Left hated George Bush. “Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.” {Emerson)
Dennis, intuition certainly works well for animals.
Your second comment here is exactly correct. I believe its actually contributed greatly to the worlds economic decline.
Ayn Rand/Rand Paul! Is that you?
It’s mighty cool that this coalition of faith is seeking to publish its findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals … and that James Hansen is helping them!
Gosh, isn’t that plain common sense, Berényi Péter?
A Serious Question Is it right for scientists to co-author articles with faith organizations? Is it right for religious organizations to sponsor top-level scientific studies and conferences?
Or should we all just bow down and worship Ayn Rand’s bankrupt ideology of economic selfishness?
Note: the context is Berényi Péter’s mockery of the nineteen-author multi-disciplinary preprint Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature (which is presently wending its way through peer review).
A Serious Question for Climate Etc Discussion Does it weaken or strengthen the corpus of science, when individual scientists ally themselves with religious coalitions, and then participate in that glorious enterprise — which undoubtedly is chaotic — of creating (what Judith Curry calls) “the best available science”?
If its cool that some scientists work for corporations, and some scientists work for schools, and some scientists work for conservation organizations, why ain’t it cool too that some scientists work for religions?
Whose side are you on, Berényi Péter?
I don’t believe in the existence of Sky-Fairies, but it doesn’t worry me that other people do.
However, there is no evidence that people who worship Sky-Fairies are more moral than people who do not.
If you present an argument that we should give weight at an argument because people who think that the universe was created by a supernatural being to bring forth humankind and then judge them on, for instance, their sexual behavior, then I think that you have completely lost the plot.
Belief in Sky-Fairies, Demons, Spirits and Ghosts is relatively harmless, but the idea that people who believe in Sky-Fairies, Demons, Spirits and Ghosts are ‘better’ than people who do not believe in in Sky-Fairies, Demons, Spirits and Ghosts is an indicator of mental illness.
@Doc Martyn
I couldn’t agree more with you aboy Fan of more discourse. All he/she does is spount total garbage stemming from the delusion that he/she is an intellectual.
Fan is also a serial linker and only a small percentage of his links support his contentions. Come to think of it, I doubt he even reads most of his links.
“Fan is also a serial linker …”
Well, if he has nothing original to add….
Death by death, science advances.
AGW is dead. It was murdered by planet earth’s 16 year temperature stasis proving that CO2 does not control the planet’s temperature.
If a theory is wrong, no matter who says it or how smart he is, it is WROOOOONG. Richard Feynman.
You seem not to understand that basic GH gas theory is about energy balance and not about specifically tropospheric temperatures. AGW is far from dead, and given the continued energy imbalance displayed in the Earth system over the past 16 years, AGW has been most strongly confirmed.
R., As a layman I’m not equipped to evaluate this on the merits. But I can’t help wondering why this isn’t being splashed all over the MSM by beleaguered climate scientists who can’t seem to explain the pause…..TRenberth is turning himself inside out trying to explain the missing heat, and the NYT’s is forced to recently admit that the lack of warming over the last 16 years is for climate scientists, “a bit of a mystery.” (Love the “a bit”)
And why then, have establishment climate scientists been trumpeting the recent rise in temps, as THE SIGNAL of agw, the element in the absence of which it seems to be tacitly implied, we can all pretty much forget it and go home?
Pockerguy,
The myopic focus on the troposphere is part historic, part circumstantial. As creatures that dwell in the troposphere, it is the most immediate sphere to us and the easiest to measure. Putting the energy imbalance caused by increasing GH gases in terms of tropospheric temperatures is far more convenient than talking about the ocean gaining 5 x 10^22 Joules of energy! But convenience does not lead to scientific accuracy. The rise in GH gases is all about altering Earth energy balance. This is the basic physics. Where that energy goes in the system is what the models try to figure out, to greater or lessor degrees of success. But the fundamental fact is, to the very best, more accurate level that we can measure, there has not been a pause in the rise in Earth’s energy over the past 16 or 10 or 5 years, only a slowdown in the rate of flow of measurable energy between ocean and atmosphere, likely caused by alterations in ocean cycles. Earth continues to accumulate energy– completely consistent with the basic physics of AGW.
@rgates etc
As you rightly point out, we are born, live and die in the troposphere. Not in the deep oceans.
And it is the supposed effect of AGW on tropospheric temperatures that has brought it to prominence. Not because anyone gives a tinkers cuss for the theory itself, but because there are claimed to be actual dangers to our troposheric existence as a result.
Maybe it is the case that energy is accumulating in the deep oceans. and maybe the true AGW believers can draw spiritual consolation from this knowledge. But without some plausible argument that real dangers may ensue – and in a reasonable timescale, – this fact fails the SFW test and gets filed in the drawer marked ‘scientific curiosities’
Latimer,
You could label AGW a curiosity, with all its ocean effects, in our rather myopic tropospheric bias, if it weren’t for the fact that our weather and climate are almost completely dictated by those oceans. What happens in the ocean most decidedly does not stay in the ocean. They are basis for life, weather, climate, and pretty much all else that is interesting on this particular planet.
@r gates etc
Please put the amount you so frequenty cite – 5 x 10^22 joules per annum in context.
How much does that amount warm the oceans?
And why – in real practical terms – should we care about that amount of ocean warming?
That is a big heat sink, see this
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2013/03/ocean-heat-content-model.html
I appreciate all that RG to the extent that I understand it, and I gave it an honest twirl, but that doesn’t really answer my question about lack of emphasis out in the “front lines” I don’t believe. Also, if temps aren’t rising what are we left to talk about it terms of danger. It all seems to have to do with warming, without warming do we even care? I assume you’re going to say it’s just a matter of time before warming resumes? And if it doesn’t in the next say, 20 years?
By the way, how is energy measured? Isn’t energy heat?
@webbie
I’ll wait for braver souls than me to venture onto your blog. If they survive perhaps they will report back on what your estimate of the ocean temperature rise associated with 5 x 10^22 joules is.
But I suspect that those courageous souls will find nothing of the sort.
Latimer,
The argument is not that we should be worried by that amount of ocean warming, the argument is that the present accelerated warming of oceans is a temporary state that will be over soon (meaning perhaps 10 years or less) and be followed by the opposite phase of the natural variability that brings back the warming we saw in 1980’s and 90’s.
Right now that seems the most likely explanation of recent history, and a prediction based on extrapolation of that history. That’s, how Trenberth explained that, and that’s what I do also find plausible.
I’m not at all certain that the explanation is right, but for me it’s likely enough for being taken as the basis for policy choices.
It’s likely enough in spite of the fact that I don’t have the same trust in the measurements of ocean heat content as R. Gates. Something that’s as likely to be true as not would be enough for the policy conclusions, and my intuitive estimate of the likelihood is more than 50%.
5.e22 J can warm a kilometer of water over the whole earth by 1/30 degrees C. This would be quite a lot if it is maintained every year. 1/3 degree per decade.
Actually the 5.e 22 J isn’t per year, it is over the last decade. So the warming rate of 1/3 degree per decade would apply if the heating was confined to the top 100 meters of the earth’s ocean area. Seems more like it.
@pekka
Thanks for your remarks.
But since we don’t appear to have any idea why the heat suddenly and unexpectedly started going into the deep ocean, I do not share your confidence that it will equally suddenly and unexpectedly revert in 10 years. why not 3 or 50 or 1500?
Until quite recently we heard a lot about ‘tipping points’ in climatology. They seem to have fallen out of the alarmists scaremongering toolkit, but how do we know that we haven’t encountered one and that the move to ocean heating (if indeed it is occurring) won’t be a long term one?
Whichever it is, it is undoubtedly true that the practical effects of this putative change have been to stabilise the temperatures that concern us. Kids now rising 16 have never lived in a warming atmosphere.And so it is more and more difficult to persuade people that we need to spend money and effort ‘just in case’ it starts up again.
Latimer,
The idea is not that it suddenly started to flow into deep ocean but that the natural variability means that heat goes sometimes down, sometimes up. Before 1998 it was coming up, after that it has been going down.
Is this true? We don’t know. We can only infer from the observation that there are clear signs about quasiperiodic variability with a period around 60 years.
@jim d
Thanks for those numbers. It seems that we are not far apart in our estimates.
Mine was that it would take 250 years to warm the oceans by 1C..Yours is just over 300.
Now try selling those numbers to the pollies. Or Joe and Jennie Sixpack who will have to pay for them. Good luck – you’ll need it.
Latimer, the warming is not evenly distributed. A high percentage goes into the top few hundred meters with lesser amounts as you go deeper. This is because the ocean circulation is slow and diffusion is very weak. This is why a number for 100 meters depth is a good measure of what would happen at the surface with this OHC added. But, even then, the ocean won’t keep up with the land which is now warming at 0.3 C per decade.
@jim d
The land is warming at 0.3C per decade? Really? Last GAT I saw was that it was pretty static. Where do you find different?
But its good to know that we can easily measure the temperature of the top 100m of the oceans where all the heat is going. We should be able to confirm (or deny) the ‘ocean warming’ theory very easily and within just a few years,
pockerguy, .
Remember that energy in the Earth system takes many forms, of which sensible heat as measured in the troposphere is just one form, and not the largest or most persistent. Everything from the your child peddling their bike down the street to the kinetic energy of raindrops is energy in the Earth system. Out of convenience we have chosen to measure the energy imbalance caused by increasing GH gases via just one small metric of Earth’s overall energy system. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, our models are just as myopic (and therefore inaccurate). The energy just being stored in the ocean alone each of the past 10 years would add several degrees to tropospheric temperatures. Thankfully we have this buffer, but of course life on Earth would not have developed without it. But there is no free ride here, eventually that energy will cycle back through the atmosphere, the timing of which is based largely on natural ocean cycles, which might be altered in their character by the same energy imbalance that is sequestering so much energy into the ocean.
RGates
I looked at many hundreds of accounts to devise this graph showing the advance and retreat of glaciers over the last 3000 years.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image010.jpg
(a blue closed line at top of page indicates glacier retreat i.e warmth) and a solid blue line at bottom indicates advance in periods of cold.)
Don’t you think it very likely that on this sort of evidence that the oceans have been warming and cooling on a regular basis? IF it takes hundreds of years for heat to accumulate in the oceans depths, is what is being found in the ocean depths a residue from the last warm period?
The other lines on the graph are self explanatory. How glacier changes could have been precipitated by the static climate depicted in the Hockey Stick is ‘anyone’s guess. My guess is that it wasn’t static as the other line indicates.
tonyb
That’s a fun and interesting chart Tony. Yep, oceans rise and fall as glaciers retreat or advance respectively, and it all has to do with energy balance of the planet. Add a little more and glaciers retreat, oceans rise and warm– take a little away and you get the opposite. What we are seeing now, is a rapid ocean warming (by geological standards of past warming.) This is far outside any known forcing other than the energy imbalance caused by increasing GH gas concentrations. Could it be something else we currently don’t know about? Absolutely, but the probability for that is extremely low.
Lati, I told you that was a big heat sink of it sunk 5e22 joules/year. JimD changed that to per decade, which is about the amount diffusing downward due to the excess infrared forcing function caused by GHG.
Look to the documented analysis as that holds the key.
Sanity check anyone?
There is about a 15E+22 J increase in ocean heat content – eyeballing the NODC data – over 30 years to 2010. Sorry that’s about a 0.5E+22 J/yr increase.
Use the best available data.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/vonSchuckmannampLTroan2011-fig5PG_zpsee63b772.jpg.html?sort=3&o=39
You get 0.3E+22 J/yr
That’s about a 0.006 degree C increase averaged over the top 2000 metres.
Levitus at the NODC looks distinctly different to von Schuckmann – which looks disturbingly different to JASON altimetry. Karina von Schuckmann is consistent with CERES so I’m going with that.
Most of this change is caused by secular cloud cover change.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif.html?sort=3&o=117
Have you been to webby’s site? It’s totally hilarious.
When it warms, it’s really really AGW, but when it doesn’t warm, it’s only an apparent non-warming, a non-real non-warming.
Got it.
R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist | August 25, 2013 at 9:07 am
… basic GH gas theory is about energy balance and not about specifically tropospheric temperatures … given the continued energy imbalance displayed in the Earth system over the past 16 years, AGW has been most strongly confirmed.
>>
So the radiation budget of Earth has finally been reliably and accurately measured ?
And moves in lockstep with CO2 concentration ?
d(W&H)/dt = power in – power out
where W&H = work and heat
The changes in the individual terms have been more or less well defined. It is a little difficult to put them all together quantitatively.
The big RH side changes however – and decadal at that – are in power out as feedbacks of ocean and atmosphere circulations.
‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’ http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
Advances in Understanding Top-of-Atmosphere
Radiation Variability from Satellite Observations
Norman G. Loeb • Seiji Kato • Wenying Su • Takmeng Wong • Fred G. Rose • David R. Doelling • Joel R. Norris • Xianglei Huang
There are a few leading lights there and complicated it most certainly is.
Have you looked inside Chief Hydro’s mind? It’s completely empty. Hilarious.
A psychotic psockpuppet is the best way to describe him.
Hansen predicted the current land-sea warming split in 1981. If there is no heat sink, the transient temperature rise is greater than if there is a heat sink. Other factors will also play a role, but this one is always there.
Trenberth said “observed warming has been, and transient greenhouse-induced warming is expected to be, greater over land than over the oceans, owing to the smaller thermal capacity of the land”
Besides being well understood and well cited, this is also a concept that a competent scientist or engineer would be able to intuit if they were presented the premise of a mixed land and sea environment.
Raise your hand if you can not understand this concept.
‘A characteristic feature of global warming is the land–sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than over oceans. Recent studies find that this land–sea contrast also exists in equilibrium global change scenarios, and it is caused by differences in the availability of surface moisture over land and oceans. In this study it is illustrated that this land–sea contrast exists also on interannual time scales and that the ocean–land interaction is strongly asymmetric. The land surface temperature is more sensitive to the oceans than the oceans are to the land surface temperature, which is related to the processes causing the land–sea contrast in global warming scenarios. It suggests that the ocean’s natural variability and change is leading to variability and change with enhanced magnitudes over the continents, causing much of the longer-time-scale (decadal) global-scale continental climate variability. Model simulations illustrate that continental warming due to anthropogenic forcing (e.g., the warming at the end of the last century or future climate change scenarios) is mostly (80%–90%) indirectly forced by the contemporaneous ocean warming, not directly by local radiative forcing.’
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html?sort=3&o=11
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2778.1
Intuit? I intuit that webby is unable to process anything that is not in accordance with his inner ‘intuitive’ narrative, is obsessed with climate trivia and gets that wrong and is tedious in his endless whines and abuse.
Seriously – he solves ‘climate sensitivity’ with a single line of algebra. Can we conceive of anything more simplistically stupid?
I prefer Michael Ghil’s solution for sensitivity – ϒ in the next link.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Ghil_fig11_zpse58189d9.png.html?sort=3&o=0
Something a bit more nuanced that webby’s inner reality.
Of course ocean warming at the end of the last century was driven by net toa radiant flux – which was all shortwave.
e.g. – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=129
Hands up anyone who thinks webby is an idiot.
The Chief has never shown any attempt at analytically formulating a model or of simulating anything as far as I can tell.
Yet he goes on and on with cherry-picked quotes that he has mined from a select few papers.
No one trusts a fake scientist such as the Chief, as we all have had bosses who could talk the talk, but could not walk the walk.
Treat the Chief as an impediment to understanding.
Read what he says and then do your best to ignore it.
Not even Hansen is stupid enough to believe that his ‘box model’ is physically realistic.
What you call models are simplistic and incorrect climate trivia – such as the heat accumulation in the oceans yesterday. Out by a factor of 10. Insane and not all that interesting a factoid for a number of reasons.
You have such a shallow understanding of climate. Such as first denying that ENSO reverted to the mean by forcing and then reverted away from the mean by forcing. In both cases it was appropriate to insult and abuse – without admitting what an idiot you are of course.
It is all very tedious, dishonest and stupid.
The first-order physics model always has a basis in reality.
Chief can’t comprehend this because he is just a garden-variety Civ.
Students go into CivE because that can’t cut the hard engineering disciplines.
It is not a physics model but a ‘box model’. No one but webby is stupid enough to think it is anything other than a modelling convenience – even James Hansen.
Wrong Cheap Hydrologist,
Diffusional models are strong climate science, as they apply first order physics known to work.
Wrong Deadhead Dick – the physics of energy flow is from the Sun to the surface, to the atmosphere and back out to space. It is not from the atmosphere to the oceans. Therefore the model is physically unrealistic – it is a ‘box model’ in which virtual diffusion is substituted for more realistic but much more complex physics.
‘In science and engineering, a black box is a device, system or object which can be viewed in terms of its input, output and transfer characteristics without any knowledge of its internal workings. Its implementation is “opaque” (black). Almost anything might be referred to as a black box: a transistor, an algorithm, or the human brain.’ Wikipedia
You are the only one – including James Hansen – who believes that his 1981 ‘box model’ is physically realistic. Hilarious.
Nice word salad gibberish ya got going there Chef Waterboy.
That you continue to misunderstand such a simple concept is pathological and not just down to dumb.
“Death by death, science advances.”
This sounded awkward to me. Also Fan’s version. So I looked it up.
It’s “Science advances one funeral at a time” Max Planck
It is not a physics model but a ‘box model’. No one but webby is stupid enough to think it is anything other than a modelling convenience – even James Hansen.
Wrong Deadwood Dick – the physics of energy flow is from the Sun to the surface, to the atmosphere and back out to space. It is not from the atmosphere to the oceans. Therefore the model is physically unrealistic – it is a ‘box model’ in which virtual diffusion is substituted for more realistic but much more complex physics.
‘In science and engineering, a black box is a device, system or object which can be viewed in terms of its input, output and transfer characteristics without any knowledge of its internal workings. Its implementation is “opaque” (black). Almost anything might be referred to as a black box: a transistor, an algorithm, or the human brain.’ Wikipedia
You are the only one – including James Hansen – who believes that his 1981 ‘box model’ is physically realistic. Hilarious.
In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.
The IPCC
has always agreed with sceptics about the the unreliability of climate models in their current state – along with such illustrious leaders in the field as James McWilliams and Tim Palmer.
NASA confirms the importance of natural variability in climate. Mojib Latif has just the other day reaffirmed the importance of chaos and abrupt change in climate change. This of course is a favourite theme of the father of climate science Wally Broeker.
The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.
It looks like sceptics were right all along and things are not quite so simple – aye FOMBS.
Unlike progressives we would like to see approaches that have some likelihood of succeeding. This paper from the hugely influential London School off Economic is an example of humane and practical approaches to carbon mitigation. As is this later Breakthrough Institute publication.
Unlike progressives we see opportunities and not just problems – such as in retreeing the Sahel. Or in achieving energy efficiency and diversity through research and development.
What would you do if you had L$75 billion?
This is not an idle question – this is the most important question in the world aye FOMBS?
Chief Hydrologist, who is the “we” for whom you speak? Who are the “progressives” whom you demonize? Does James Hansen stand with you or does he stand against you? How about Pope Francis and Wendell Berry; do they stand with you or against you?
The false dichotomies of your in-group/out-group worldview are utterly nonsensical, aren’t they Chief Hydrologist?
+(-1)^0.5
Oddly FOMBS decries insider/outsider dynamics. Is there not a modicum of hypocrisy here? Not surprising I am sure.
Scientifically I have allowed the IPCC, James McWilliams, Tim Palmer and Mojib Latif to speak for me.
In policy terms it is the London School of Economics, The Breakthrough Institute, The Copenhagen Consensus and the Millennium Development Goals. These are all worthy objectives although with MDG tainted by association with the UN. Nonetheless – aid programs are directed by individual countries and commitments have been made.
Technically – I let the American Society of Mechanical Engineers speak for me on energy innovation. I could also point the the LANL, General Atomics, Air Fuel Synthesis, MIT (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/algae-fuel-0524.html) and many others.
Economically we are more likely to read F.A. Hayek than Any Rand. Maximum economic growth remains essential to human progress this century and people who oppose this are closer to dangerous fanatics than saints.
‘For some on the far left, the stock answer is that capitalism is the problem, leaving us stuck in a rut and powerless to move towards a better society. Is economic contraction compatible with capitalism? This is a key question, but one that it is important to answer without resort to dogma, if the real obstacles are to be understood….
Eco-compatible capitalism is conceivable in theory, but unrealistic in practice. Capitalism would require a high level of regulation to bring about the reduction of our ecological footprint. The market system, dominated by huge multinational corporations, will never set off down the virtuous path of eco-capitalism of its own accord….
Mechanisms for countering power with power, as existed under the Keynes-Fordist regulations of the Social-Democratic era, are conceivable and desirable. But the class struggle seems to have broken down. The problem is: capital won….
A society based on economic contraction cannot exist under capitalism. But capitalism is a deceptively simple word for a long, complex history. Getting rid of the capitalists and banning wage labour, currency and private ownership of the means of production would plunge society into chaos. It would bring large-scale terrorism….We need to find another way out of development, economism (a belief in the primacy of economic causes and factors) and growth: one that does not mean forsaking the social institutions that have been annexed by the economy (currency, markets, even wages) but reframes them according to different principles.’ http://monthlyreview.org/2011/01/01/capitalism-and-degrowth-an-impossibility-theorem
It sounds very similar to things that FOMBS has promulgated along with Jim Hansen and Wendell Berry. So the real question is not about false dichotomies but about which side you are on. Individual freedom, free markets, economic growth, democracy and the rule of law or dangerous fantasies about a resurgent socialism. Isn’t that so FOMBS?
The basic dichotomy is between
– ‘progressives’ (eg FOMD) who want more politics for its own sake, and hitch on to the CAGW bandwagon merely for convenience, exhibiting credulity as regards to it, but having zero interest in whether or not there is actually any substance to it, since it justifies more government interference in society — their real agenda
–
– people who want more than IPCC-type hype before accepting even more government interference
Energy efficiency and diversity – http://www.energetics.com/resourcecenter/products/roadmaps/samples/Pages/asme-roadmap.aspx
“my post-Climagate essay ‘On the credibility of climate research‘ on McIntyre’s blog.” – JC
Never saw it before
So, this is interesting;
“he quickest way for HADCRU et al. to put Climateaudit and the rest of this tribe out of business is make all climate data and metadata public and make every effort to improve the datasets based on all feedback that you receive. Do this and they will quickly run out of steam and become irrelevant” – JC
There really isn’t that much that isn’t avaiable is there?
Doesn’t stop the never-ending audit,or quieten down WUWT does it? Why?
Because such sites have gone far beyond any original motivating issue, to simply exisitng for their own sakes and maintaining an audience.
There’s no terribly compelling issues in the slowly evolving world of climate science research that needs daily blog-posts.
It’s primarily about keeping the eye-balls engaged and maintaining the profile of the blog-owners.
@michael
Fear not.
The Real Climate blog has already faded away into insignificance.
You needn’t worry about it any more.
@michael
Meant to say that its demise just illustrates my earlier contention that interest in climatology continues to fall. Nobody wants to be lectured by The Team anymore. They have become irrelevant.
Devout and gullible alarmism-at-any-cost advocate that he is, Michael doggedly blinds himself as to why people will not let go of Climategate, even though data was eventually prised data out of Jones and the other crooks.
He urgently needs help, so here it is : it’s because there has never been any recognition from the alarmist establishment that there was ever anything wrong with the whole “why should I show you my data when I know you’ll try and find something wrong with it” approach, and that its ok to corrupt science in order advance political correctness.
A very well reasoned and useful blog. Thank you Dr Curry.
I agree with the following one caveat, “Virtually all academic climate scientists are within the 97% consensus regarding the infrared emission of the carbon dioxide molecule and the warming effect on the planet. This includes ‘skeptics’ such as Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, etc.
[and me, Frank P White, too]
The caveat I wish to add concerns the role of clouds, which are not well modeled. The physics of clouds and their role in climate are still uncertain.
There are at least three possiblities (1) that clouds either reduce the positive feedback of water vapour or (2) that cloud formation is driven by factors exogenous to the Earth’s climate systmem (Svensmark and others).and (3) both ot the above.
“I reckon that without climate change, we would not have exceeded thresholds that caused the flooding of the subways in Manhattan and the tunnels from Manhattan to New Jersey and to Brooklyn.”
Tell that to the people in Galveston Texas in 1900
Herman, please, that was more than a hundred tweets ago.
============
Trenberth has argued that climate change is affecting all weather now, because the background conditions have changed as a result human-caused global warming. I don’t disagree with this statement; however there is no prima facie reason to think that global warming will make most extreme weather events more frequent or more severe.
The weather in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods was different than the weather that occurred in the Little Ice Age.
That is clear and everyone should see that. That is certainly true, but it has nothing to do with the issue. Manmade CO2 did not cause the changes from the Roman Warm Time to the cold time after. Manmade CO2 did not cause the next warming into the Medieval Warm Period. Manmade CO2 did not cause the next cooling into the Little Ice Age. There is every reason to believe that this warming would have happened with or without Manmade CO2.
Why do climate scientists think this time would be different.
Only because their models tell them so. Data from the past says warming would have happened on the current schedule. Look at data and if Model output says something different, go with data every time.
H. Pope said:
“There is every reason to believe that this warming would have happened with or without Manmade CO2.”
——
Completely untrue. There is no reason (as in specific physical cause) to think this would have happened. Certainly some of the 20th century warming was natural cycles, but a percentage of it- especially late 20th century has no other known cause but human activity.
Phil Jones heself showed me something in that wonderful, just post ClimateGate, interview with Roger Harrabin. Three times in the last century and a half the rate of temperature rise was the same, and only in the last of these was AnthroCO2 also rising. We are witnessing the grandest example yet of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc logical fallacy.
R Gates, the episodically skeptical alarmist, gives some of it away with ‘no other known cause’, and the rest of it away with his failure to observe those slopes of the Phil & Roger Reality Show.
=======================
kim, yes, but that last step is a doozy. Look at the land temps to date.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/crutem4vgl/mean:120
JimD
your 9.58. What is your end year for your plot?
tonyb
Gates-
No other known cause but human activity is not the same as no other cause.
RGates
The warming has been going on for 350 years. In which year did the rise suddenly change from being natural to being man made?.
In which year did the rise suddenly change from being natural to being man made?. When they figured out they could make money with man made but there is little money in natural.
tonyb, the last 10-year average ends in the middle of 2013, and is assigned to 2008.5.
Mainly this rise in the land temperature makes you ask that, at this point, what difference does the ocean temperature make? AMO shmAMO.
With the slow but continual external forcing that GH increases represent, you can’t identify a single year that suddenly the warming (or rather the alteration of Earth’s energy budget) begins to show up. The best you can do is take decades, and talk about the relative influence in percentage terms compared to natural variations during a period. When doing this, and realizing that the anthropogenic effects are cumulative and increasing, you can say that during the period of 1850-1900 anthropogenic effects on Earth’s energy balance were say less than 10%, from 1900-1950, maybe around 10-20%, from 1950-1975, 20-30%, from 1975-2000, 30-50%, and going forward now, greater than 50%. The anthropogenic influence now dominates Earth’s energy balance compared to natural variability with corresponding effects on climate.
JimD
In that case it would be useful if you redid it on a shorter average so it ends now as it would be interesting to see it brought up to the minute like the Met Office chart you scoffed at yesterday
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
tonyb
I don’t think regional averages are useful unless you also average over at least 30 years. Then it starts to look like the global average that you can do with shorter time-averaging. They are consilient when like is compared to like. Ten year averages get rid of ENSO noise and solar cycles, so I stick with that as a minimum.
R Gates, that is a reach. While I am sure man has some impact there are numerous examples of abrupt change in the paleo data provided you don’t let some morons smooth it to death. CO2 has lead some of those changes and trailed others. Having an overshoot of mean recovering from a depressed temperature is not only common but should be expected based on D-O events and the numerous centennial scale pseudo-oscillations, the Pacific Centennial Oscillation for example.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00421.1
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0Ljwh9NTkS0/Ubx9dAfZtAI/AAAAAAAAInM/UROadZys8_k/s800/giss%2520and%2520ersst%2520with%2520ipwp%2520from%25200%2520ad.png
There are even physical reasons why CO2 forcing is limited on a planet cover mostly with water.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/08/it-is-greenhouses-all-way-down.html
If you realize that Earth’s random climate generator has a range of about +/-1.25 C for interglacials, over precision and over analysis are the likely causes for alarm.
After having a warm period after every cold period and after having a cold period after every warm period for ten thousand years, why do you think this cycle should stop and now a warm period is unnatural.
What changed that could stop this natural and very regular cycle?
Capt.,
You make good points, but it seems you at least agree to some anthropogenic influence, and certainly you must agree that this influence has been gradually increasing over time, rather than a specific year upon which it suddenly started. We know the effects of GH gases on Earth’s energy budget, and we know these effects increase with greater concentrations. What we don’t know is how this chaotic but deterministic system with all its positive and negative feedbacks will respond to this (geologically speaking) sudden and large jolt, which I have accurately named the human carbon volcano.
H. Pope asked:
“What changed that could stop this natural and very regular cycle?”
———
That’s why it is called an external forcing. Life goes on peacefully with season following season, warm periods and cold periods on the side of a volcano for what can thousands of years. The volcano erupting represents an external forcing to the ecosystem and micro-climate near the volcano. The system gets perturbed. Only in the case of AGW, the volcano is everywhere that humans are, with billions of tailpipes and smokestacks equalling the human carbon volcano.
R. Gates, but the Human Carbon Volcano has limits. The point should be to rationally determine those limits for which over confidence in artificial precision of reanalyized sparse data is not conducive.
You yourself noticed that SSW events were just plain missed in the models and energy budgets previously used to “prove” confidence in projections. We haven’t scratch the surface of the math required to figure this sucker out yet. Until then, Carnot and basic thermo indicate that Trenberth’s reliance on models is daft.
JIMD
I disagree. 30 years are an arbitrary human made measure. Civilisations gave fallen in less time than that. Humans operate on much shorter time scales. If climate is changing farmers need to change their cropping plans and all sorts of industries need to adjust their patterns.
Here is CET graphed in 50 year and decadal set against the Hockey stick.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/clip_image0081.jpg
The HS (and other paleo proxy reconstructions) give a false impression of climate stability. The real world is not like that. It is local, it is regional it is not Global (as can be seen by CET and other data sets)
tonyb
Capt.,
Trenberth has stated quite clearly that we know the models are wrong. Did you not know this? But he enough of a scientist to know that the basic physics is right, and hence his insistence (from years ago) that there must be missing heat somewhere in the system, or, as he also admitted, it could have just gone into space, somehow undetected. We have since that infamous statement of his, found pretty good evidence that at least some of the heat is indeed in the oceans, as the past solid 10 years of ARGO data clearly shows.
Related to SSWs, (yes, a favorite topic of mine), the connection of these events with troposphere-stratosphere energy exchanges is indeed an area we know relatively little about, and certainly they are not well accounted for in climate models.
Rgates
Lets just say that somehow the warming is hiding from our surface sensors until it reaches the ocean depths where our imperfect data shows it has suddenly accumulated (perhaps) .
At the present rate of the energy budget diverting to the ocean how long would it be before the ocean depths (below 200metres to the abyssal depths) increased by a temperature we might notice. Lets generously say that’s as little as 1degree Centigrade.
Tonyb
Tony,
Unless thousands of independent ARGO sensors have simultaneously started having the exact same kind of error, we already know to a very high degree of certainty that the oceans have been gaining energy. Furthermore, the amount of energy being retained by the ocean is far more than the energy lost by the so-called “pause” in tropospheric temperatures in the past decade. To a very high degree of confidence we can say that Earth’s energy imbalance has continued quite steadily, without pause, all consistent with the basic physics of increasing GH gases in the atmosphere.
The best thing to come from the “pause” may well be that we take a closer look at cyclical ocean-atmosphere energy exchanges, and account for them more fully in future models.
R. Gates, “But he enough of a scientist to know that the basic physics is right, and hence his insistence (from years ago) that there must be missing heat somewhere in the system”
Then why is his energy budget still wrong? Stephens and Stevens didn’t publish on the energy budget just for grins. As for his missing heat, 0-2000 is about half the average ocean depth. Increased mixing efficiency in the southern oceans increases the colder flow down below 2000 meters. If he had the physics down to begin with there would have been no missing heat. Realizing you have screwed up is a good thing, but correcting the screw up is part of the process.
Now since the NH SSW event magnitude has increased, the rate of even the 0-2000 OH uptake has decreased in the NH. I haven’t heard him making press releases on that subject. That is an indication of a shift in the AMO which he should be all over. Pre-dicting is where the money is. Post-dicting is normally pretty simple and they can’t even get that right.
RGates
2 points.
Firstly the tiny number of buoys (they are a very coarse sieve) dive down to only 2000 metres (stopping along the way). The average ocean depth is double that so there is an awful lot of water not being sampled.
Second point. You did not answer my question. How long would it take the ocean to warm from top to bottom 1 degree centigrade assuming current rate of ocean warming?
tonyb
Captn.,
Related to NH SSW magnitude increasing, or even the frequency increasing, you realize this is quite consistent with models showing an enhancement to the Brewer-Dobson Circulation as the result of increased GH gases, yes? Furthermore, this enhanced BDC, which has been measured and is consistent with a weakened QBO, runs exactly against some models which showed a tropical troposphere warm spot as the result of increased GH gases. We had two classes of models, some showing an enhanced BDC, and some showing the troposphere warm spot, and it seems the BDC models were correct, and this ties directly into larger and more frequent NH SSW events. Quite interesting, eh?
climatereason, 30 years is not arbitrary. If you have a time series with a standard deviation of random fluctuations and you want to see a signal of a tenth of a degree per decade, you have to knock down the noise level by averaging either over space or time to see these signals. The global annual average temperature has a standard deviation of about 0.1 degrees, so a ten-year average brings that down to where you can see global warming. I would bet the annual CET has a much larger standard deviation and needs more averaging to see the same signal. Typically n-year averages reduce the standard deviation by a factor of root n.
R. Gates, ” We had two classes of models, some showing an enhanced BDC, and some showing the troposphere warm spot, and it seems the BDC models were correct, and this ties directly into larger and more frequent NH SSW events. Quite interesting, eh?”
Yes it is. I started looking into mixed phased cloud impacts and stratosphere response after finding the ~18 Wm-w error in the K&T Earth Energy Budgets. Yep, that’s right, the HVAC guy found a mistake. That should be pretty sad commentary on the state of the science. I also started looking for better ocean models since stratosphere response is directly related to ocean heat transport.
If you look close at that link to my blog you see ~20Wm-2 from the surface to the free atmosphere. K&T have had 40 in every budget including the last one. They don’t even consider the impact of the ABL which is most of the greenhouse space.
So as far as I am concerned, the crap models should go in the dumpster, the false certainty based on the crap models should be loudly renounced and the overall state of the climate science should be brought up to date, kind of like it mattered.
Tony,
I think we all agree that we need more and better and deeper sampling of the ocean, but the over 3500 ARGO floats represent a good enough sample to know what is happening with a high degree of certainty over most of the worlds ocean down to 2000 meters. To this depth, we can, again with a high degree of certainty, say the ocean has been gaining energy.
Regarding your question about how long it would take to warm the ocean to a temperature we might notice- you said 1C. I haven’t the faintest idea. We are already noticing it through our sensors, which is more important. The oceans are a great heat sink, and 1C over the whole ocean down to the bottom would be a huge amount of energy. As it is, the oceans are storing around .5 x 10^22 Joules per year down to 2000 meters (actually a bit more than this over the past decade). Remember, this is not energy being moved from atmosphere to ocean, but energy never reaching the atmosphere from the ocean as the net flow is always from ocean to atmosphere.
@ r gates
Wow. 5 x 10^22 Joules! Sounds like a real big number.
But please explain to a layman why that amount passes the SFW test?
The oceans are big and deep and have a high thermal capacity. Tony asked a perfectly sensible question – how long before this would raise the temperature by 1C. And you have twice avoided answering it. Shouldn’t be hard to do. You know the amount of heat per unit time, the amount of oceans and the thermal capacity. Simple calculation to get a first pass estimate.
The cynical might wonder if the answer is suitably far away that revealing it would kill any residual concern about the supposed bad effects of AGW stone dead.
Please answer the question ..and show your working. I have already made my estimate and deposited it in a sealed vault. Once you have made yours, we can compare. And in case I die before you do so, the password to the secret vault is A2253D.
RGates
Firstly, let me agree that I thoroughly approve of the ARGO initiative.
However it is very early days and as yet we have no real idea if the data is representative as it is so limited and so recent. There is very limited sampling even of the limited amount of ocean-to 2000 metres- that they are set up for
Argo is a fairly home spun organisation at present. Here is the latest meeting of the Argo steering committee.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/iast14.pdf
Bearing in mind the vastness of the ocean I would suggest that it will be very many hundreds of years before the temperature rises 1C even if-and it is a very big IF, that is where warming is going.
Don’t you think that if there is an energy imbalance it is most likely going into space?
tonyb
It is not a simple question because it depends what layer the warming affects. The ocean surface (the part that matters for climate) can warm and cool several degrees in a season. The answer depends on what depth you are talking about and what time scale, which is linked to the depth.
Tony,
I guess I do put more credibility in the numerous studies showing the oceans to be gaining energy, and related directly to this, more credibility to the data coming from the thousands of ARGO floats. But we must remember that there are still other sampling going on, separate from ARGO. Not as extensive, but the data is completely in line with ARGO findings. I do have a high degree of confidence that the oceans have been gaining energy.
Could some energy be escaping to space, undetected? Perhaps a very small amount. Satellite TOA measurements seem pretty consistent is showing an energy imbalance of around 0.8 w/m^2 for our planet (+ or – .2 w/m^2). I think most of that is going into the ocean, but am open to the possibility that it could be going to other parts of Earth’s energy system, or even, completely undefected, going right into space through some as yet unknown mechanism.
R. Gates,
I knocked this out for ya.
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-844q6xb-EhE/Uho6dLTxPtI/AAAAAAAAJSQ/HVmjapaeEbA/s759/NH%2520SST%2520and%2520OH%25200-2000.png
When you use the Trenberth OHC switcheroo to deflect attention away from the “pause”, you need to remember that OHC and SST are actually related. Invoking UNicorns to maintain UNtopian fantasies is all the rage in politics, but science is supposed to be different. It is pretty remarkable how well data sets agree and for there to be something “missing” would be an indication of poor understanding of the system physics aka crap for OH transport modeling.
With the current rate of ocean heat uptake, it would take nearly 350 years for the ocean average temperature to rise 0.8C or about the amount that the “Globle” cooled during the little ice age.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-0Ljwh9NTkS0/Ubx9dAfZtAI/AAAAAAAAInM/UROadZys8_k/s800/giss%2520and%2520ersst%2520with%2520ipwp%2520from%25200%2520ad.png
There is finally a legitimate discussion by real live scientist on the longer term, ocean oscillation and the possibility that there is indeed a long term secular trend unrelated to your scare headline worthy, “Human Carbon Volcano”.
Thanks for doing the math there Captn. Your figure is roughly correct I presume, but we must keep in mind that the rate of heat retention by the ocean is accelerating as GH gases continue to increase. Over the past 40 years we saw a roughly 0.5 x 10^22 joules per year on average addition down to 2000 meters, but during the past 10 years, during our most accurate measurement period, we saw nearly 1 x 10^22 joules per year. If this trend is indicative of what the continued buildup of GH may bring, it could be much sooner than a few hundred years that we see the 1C rise in ocean temperatures. A potential mitigating factor, though hardly cause for great comfort, would be if larger pieces of Greenland and Antarctica ice break off sooner, which, like putting ice cubes in a drink, might serve to cool at least some of the oceans a bit. Whether this small amount of ocean cooling would make any difference for ocean temperatures is dubious, though we would see sea levels rise even faster than predicted for the additional mass transfer.
R Gates
look forward to your comments on my glacier chart.
As regards warming of the oceans surely the amount of direct sunlight hitting it is key to warming the surface, which then percolates deeper. Why the concentration on trying to prove that Co2 is achieving this?
tonyb
@r gates etc
So we got there in the end. We have three estimates from three people and they vary from 250 to 350 years to warm the ocean by 1C.
That’s about it all over for AGW alarmism then.
I doubt that you will ever persuade anybody to do anything at all on the basis that all the pain will be felt now but the benefits (if any) won’t occur for 250 years. At 20 years you have a chance..but 12 generations away you’re out.
And having finally established this important pint, I can feel the cold wind of ‘consolidation’ blowing through the halls of academe. From headline poster boys to total irrelevance. It’s taken Mother Gaia just 15 years to show the immodest climos that she still has tricks up her sleeve..and to punish them for their hubris and arrogant certainty.
You’d need a heart of stone not to laugh.
Latimer
Yes that ocean warming time scale is hardly scary is it? I would point out that I asked the original question of R gates which has killed AGW so should get the Nobel prize. Mind you in my acceptance speech I shall graciously acknowledge that you made some of the calculations.
So that will make two Nobels I will have. The other because one was awarded to the EU and we are both very happy participants in the great EU project of course, so your consolation is that you do at least have one Nobel prize, which is all that Dr Mann has got.
Strange end to the cricket
tonyb
Tony & Latimer,
A perfect study in self-fulfilling conclusions. Your assumptions that no effects from warmer oceans will be important until some arbitrary 1C increase is reached was where your game really was pre-ordained to the conclusion you reached (and Tony getting his second Nobel prize!)
As oceans play such an integral role in weather and climate and the oceans don’t know of the 1C restriction you’ve placed before things get interesting, and given that even small variations of ocean temperatures vertically and horizontally, make a big difference in weather and climate patterns, you can be sure that the additional energy being added to the ocean play a role in weather and climate immediately.
@tony b
I wish you joy of your Peace Prize. Seems to me that it has been somewhat diminished in stature by some perverse awards recently. But I would be very proud indeed to be a fellow laureate with Mikhail Gorbachev and Lech Walesa. If you can arrange an introduction to either I’d be delighted.
Very very odd end to the cricket. It’s good that England has already won the Ashes. Had this been the decider I imagine that rioting would have broken out. And I doubt the umpires will be on many Xmas card lists this year.
R. Gates, “Your figure is roughly correct I presume, but we must keep in mind that the rate of heat retention by the ocean is accelerating as GH gases continue to increase.”
Actually, there is no evidence of acceleration. Using sea level rise as a proxy for ocean heat content you have the same recovery secular trend with more of a blip i.e. step, than an acceleration. CO2 is a ln(2) function not an exponential. CO2 emissions were exponential, but that is unsustainable. If you ASSUME that 100% of the SST or OHC rise is due to CO2 forcing you can barely eke out a 3C sensitivity, 1.6C fits the instrumental including pause and 0.8 to 1.2 is a better match once you consider exponential CO2 emission growth is unsustainable and include the longer term secular recovery trend.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/08/is-picture-worth-trillion-dollars.html
Tropical SST has less of the ~60 year oscillation and more of the centennial scale oscillation. If you start with the wrong initial conditions you can get whatever you want, but as is becoming more obvious, the little ice age was not “normal”.
You can go the abby normal route and be like Webster and JimD and ASSUME CO2 is the sole forcing and that the land tail wags the ocean dog, but that is not all that bright as you know.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/08/sea-dog-wagging-best-tail.html
Latimer, test your theory against the data. The oceans warmed nearly a degree over the last century. How do you suppose that happened? Perhaps because the active part of the ocean where the warming occurred is quite shallow and the deep water doesn’t take part on these time scales.
@R Gates etc
You would have been a lot more convincing if you’d just come out with the numbers up front and explained then why they were still of interest.
Your great reluctance to do so shows that you (like I) knew the values and also knew that you haven’t a cat’s chance in hell of frightening anyone with them. 5 x 10^22 sounds like a lot more than 1/30C. No wonder you didn’t want to admit that the two are the same.
And given the triviality of the annual increases, maybe it is worth keeping a few honest climos as observers to see exactly what disasters a 0.2C rise ill have provoked by 2065.
Otherwise, it’s over. I’ll take a while to wind it all down, but it’s over.
Latimer, you are assuming the ocean quickly mixes surface warming down to kilometers, aren’t you? Doesn’t that seem stupid to you, or do you see these deep churning motions in your part of the world? How did the ocean warm by nearly a degree in the past century with forcing a fraction of that to come? These are the questions.
Jim D
Naw, Jim.
The questions are: Did the ocean warm by nearly a degree in the past century and how do we know that?
Max
R. Gates
Certainly some of the 20th century warming was natural cycles, but a percentage of it- especially late 20th century has no other known cause but human activity.
>>
So natural cycles are now well understood and quantified, and we rule out the possibility of there being causes we can’t think of. Oh, just forget clouds btw.
Case closed, let the carbon taxing commence.
Gates:
The anthropogenic influence now dominates Earth’s energy balance compared to natural variability with corresponding effects on climate.
>>
Regurgitate dogma of the models a few more times please, I still haven’t found the faith.
Gates : We know the effects of GH gases on Earth’s energy budget, and we know these effects increase with greater concentrations. What we don’t know is how this chaotic but deterministic system with all its positive and negative feedbacks will respond to this (geologically speaking) sudden and large jolt, which I have accurately named the human carbon volcano.
.
Wow, this is bordering on sensible, very different from the other “Gates” so fond of pious platitudes and certainty.
RGates
“we already know to a very high degree of certainty that the oceans have been gaining energy.”
How much, and to what accuracy ?
“To a very high degree of confidence we can say that Earth’s energy imbalance has continued quite steadily”
How much, and to what accuracy ?
RGates,
The oceans are warming, you say, but “this is not energy being moved from atmosphere to ocean, but energy never reaching the atmosphere from the ocean as the net flow is always from ocean to atmosphere.”
So nothing to do with CO2 then …
There are basically two alternatives explanations for what we have seen (and any combination of the two):
1) The explanation of Trenberth, i.e. variability in the net heat flux between oceans and the atmosphere.
2) The explanation of skeptical scientists like Lindzen and Spencer, i.e. variability in the albedo and through that in the net heat balance of the whole Earth system.
The first explanation says little about the climate sensitivity, but accepting that the earlier rapid warming was partly due to natural variability does lower the best estimate to some extent from earlier estimates. The second explanation would make it more likely that the overall feedback averaged over longer periods is not strongly positive, might be even a little negative.
There’s certainly additional evidence from satellites, OHC measurements, paleoclimatic studies, etc.. Some of that tells that the climate sensitivity is not very low, while some does also support the conclusion that albedo has a significant role. The more detailed proposals of Lindzen and others in support of the second alternative have not been convincing, but that by itself doesn’t tell, what’s really going on.
Right. That’s part of a picture, where the overall temperature change forms as the sum of
1) AGW caused mainly by CO2
2) Natural processes, which have little to do with CO2.
The sum rises sometimes rapidly, but at other times much less (or not at all). The longer term trend is given by 1).
@climatereason
R Gates, As regards warming of the oceans surely the amount of direct sunlight hitting it is key to warming the surface, which then percolates deeper. Why the concentration on trying to prove that Co2 is achieving this?
Because the basic mechanism of CO2 AGW, is that CO2 absorbs and reradiates outgoing LW – in all directions, some of which (“downwelling”) reaches the Earth’s surface.
Jim D, it appears from your arguments that you discount the heat going into the deep oceans as per Trenberth. I agree with you. It is unlikely it ever existed to take a journey anywhere.
Thank you, Pekka, for that precis and for ‘what’s really going on’. The first step is admitting ignorance. This is not the same thing as helplessness.
=====================
Kim,
It’s easy to admit ignorance, it’s much more difficult to judge, how far the ignorance extends, or to judge what science can tell and what not.
My main argument has been for long that uncertainties are large, but that there’s even so enough evidence on potentially serious future damages to take the climate issue seriously. (If you doubt that I have though so for long, you may visit my site.)
I’m, however, not at all happy about the approach that leads people into stating that “something must be done urgently”, when they cannot justify any specific action, only “something”.
in the past ten thousand years, a warm period always followed a cold period. Why do you think it should suddenly not happen this time?
Normal Modern Climate is made up of cold periods and warm periods that always follow each other. Now computers have smoothed the data and say that did not really happen and would not again.
This warm time will be followed by a cold time. that always happens in the modern ten thousand year climate. This Modern Climate is different, and it will stay this way as long as the ocean currents and polar ice cycles turn the snowfall on when Polar Oceans are Warm and Wet and turn the snowfall off when Polar Oceans are Cold and Frozen.
A consensus clique is an evil thing. They defend their current consensus with religious zeal. The current fad can be Flat Earth, DDT, Ozone, CO2, Milankovich or whatever. They decide who is in the clique and who is outside the clique. They rule over what can be published by blackmail and blacklist of Publishers and they control the public information outlets. Any public information outlet that airs an opinion that disagrees is attacked as not worth listening to. They maintain 97% by just not counting more than 3% who disagree. You can read the many blogs and clearly see that they don’t have 97% other than inside their clique.
As long as they lock themselves in their clique, they will never consider anything outside what they think they already know. They are no longer skeptic. They are no longer Scientists.
Dr Curry has been kicked out of the 97% Consensus Clique because she does not share their 97% Certainity. She still believe some of the same things but I don’t know if she is counted as one of their 3% or if they don’t count her at all.
She would have been kicked totally out and not counted at all, but she has too many credentials.
Curious eyes
Reflect the wisdom
In dogs’ understanding
Of individual
And collective action.
===============
With regards to multi-decadal natural internal variability, the IPCC considers this issue primarily in context of detection of an anthropogenic warming signal above the background ‘noise’ of natural variability. The IPCC’s attribution of the late 20th century warming has focused on external radiative forcing, and no explicit estimate of the contribution of natural internal variability to the warming was made. A recent paper by Tung and Zhou suggests that the anthropogenic global warming trends might have been overestimated by a factor of two in the second half of the 20th century. They argue that a natural multidecadal oscillation of an average period of 70 years with significant amplitude of 0.3–0.4°C is superimposed on the secular warming trend, which accounts for 40% of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Tung and Zhou identify this oscillation with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), although recent research suggests a more complex multidecadal signal propagating through a network of synchronized climate indices. Tung and Zhou argue that not taking the AMO into account in predictions of future warming under various forcing scenarios may run the risk of over-estimating the warming for the next two to three decades, when the AMO is likely in its down phase.
Thank you JC.
That is the main dispute between sceptics and the consensus: the multidecadal oscillation, which is not acknowledged by the consensus science.
Here is Swanson et al contradicting the consensus:
Observations suggest the warming of the 20th century global mean surface temperature has not been monotonic, even when smoothed by a 10–20 year low-pass filter. Temperatures reached a relative maximum
around 1940, cooled until the mid 1970s, and have warmed from
that point to the present. Radiative forcings due to solar
variations, volcanoes, and aerosols have often been invoked as
explanations for this non-monotonic variation (4). However, it is
possible that long-term natural variability, rooted in changes in
the ocean circulation, underlies much of this variability over
multiple decades (8–12).
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full.pdf+html
Girma, the cycle-driven statistics-oriented research that you cite is exclusively Type-3 (relatively weak) climate-change science.
Climate-change skepticism that confines its attention to the weakest climate-change science amounts to a particularly timid, feeble, futile variety of climate-change denialism.
Isn’t that common sense, Girma?
Fan
Glad to see you down here on a very short reply thread as my reply to an earlier comment of yours ended up a LONG way from your original comment.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/24/who-is-on-which-side-in-the-climate-debate-anyways/#comment-369585
Fan
Ps I was hoping you would be more precise with your examples than the generalities you gave in your link.
tonyb
The uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity are such that beliefs as low as 1C and as high as 6C cannot be judged as irrational.
The uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity are such that beliefs as low as zero C cannot be judged as irrational.
JC conclusions
EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!
Politization of science means that scientist are divided in two sides: skeptics (the bad side) and consensus (the good side).
Imagine we step appart politics from this debate. Then we will get only good and bad science. The bad science says “climate sensitivity uncertainties go most likely from 1C to 6C”. And what the good science says has still to be seen.
The bad science’s discredit comes from abusing, once and again, of the “cherry picking” logical fallacy. Best regards to Al Gore.
Consensus Science is not Really Science.
There is only one good Science Side.
Righto. The risk of appealing to consensus is that if one of the consensus is wrong about the relevant issue, then they are all wrong.
Hmmmm.
Andrew
Some of the Skeptic Science agrees with some of the same conclusions of the non science but they hold with a lot more uncertainty and still are skeptical of what they believe.
A Skeptic can be a scientist with AGW beliefs or not.
Skeptic Vs Consensus is not all or nothing. Only the Consensus People are all or nothing.
Judith, your sins against orthodoxy are three in number and serious in nature. Everyone focuses on the first one, your challenge of the ‘alarmists’ who claim to be the voice of the ‘consensus.’ And it’s true that that sin alone is sufficient for you to be declared excommunicate.
However, their passions are inflamed every day because of your other two sins. The first is that you provide a forum for skeptics without being condemning of them. The alarmists are blind to the fact that your blog has helped defuse the conversation and that many skeptics are picking up a pen to speak with you when otherwise they would be picking up a pitchfork. They don’t want a bridge. They liked their moat. They hate that your occasional guest posts also question their point of view and blame you for your guest posters’ writings.
The third sin is U.S. domestic in nature, testifying before official bodies when invited by the hated Republicans. The Democrats (not the Republicans) succeeded in turning climate change into a partisan issue in the USA, and I say that as a passionate Democrat. My party has been doing this since the 1920s and we show no sign of stopping. Insufficient purity is worse than full-on heresy.
I actually think that what you’ve done is pretty special and very good. When the students of the future mine the climate blogosphere for future dissertations, you will achieve a level of prominence that you probably don’t now expect.
Yah mean, the sin of “unwillingness and/or inability to distinguish science that is strong versus mediocre versus weak“?
Yes, that triptychal reluctance and/or inability definitely *is* a grave sin against the quest for (in Judith Curry’s phrase) “the best available science.” Because climate-change skepticism that confines its attention to the weakest varieties of climate-change science amounts to a particularly timid, feeble, futile variety of climate-change denialism. Needless to say, that is why ignorant demagogic denialism preferentially cloaks itself in the mantle of this timid brand of skepticism.
Whereas strong skepticism respectfully and rationally confronts the strongest climate-change science … to the mutual benefit of science *and* skepticism.
Isn’t that plain common sense, Tom Fuller?
Latimer Alder, at the beginning of this thread, asked me if I could, name anyone who agreed with me that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2, was indistinguishable from zero. Thinking about this, I had a discussion with Richard Courtney some weeks ago on WUWT. We did not specifically discuss this issue, but my impression was that, while he might not agree with me, by the same token, he probably would no actually disagree with me. I suspect Christopher Moncton would have similar views.
“anyone who agreed with me that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2, was indistinguishable from zero”
Jim, I agree with you. Since CS has never been measured, there’s no way to distinguish it from zero.
Andrew
Or you could look at it t’other way ’round…
Since it can’t be distinguished from zero, there’s no way to measure it.
Andrew
climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2, was indistinguishable from zero.
I agree with that!
Jim Cripwell, it is plausibly true that the IPCC statements represent neither the “best available science” nor the “worst available science”, but unsurprisingly represent the middle path of “committee-digested mediocre science“
So who do think, Jim Cripwell, is nowadays advancing the *best* climate-change science (in Judith Curry’s useful phrase)?
▷ James Hansen and his team of multi-disciplinary multi-national multi-organization colleagues, versus
▷ Chris Monckton and his team of Watts/WUWT-supported demagogic denialists?
It is interesting that Chris Monckton’s public record of eccentric medical claims has led folks to conclude that Monckton’s cognition is characteristic of “a mentally unbalanced, paranoid crackpot“. Perhaps that’s why denialist websites like Anthony Watts’ WUWT show a persistent predilection for Monckton-style climate-change demagoguery?
Conclusion The strongest candidate for “the strongest science” is neither neither the IPCC’s middle-of-the-road summary statements, nor the feeble denialist demagoguery of Watts/WUWT/Monckton, but rather the creative body of scientific work that was initiated in 1981 by James Hansen’s Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, then sustained and scientifically broadened and deepened by Hansen (and his colleagues) throughout the following thirty-two years.
What do you think, Jim Cripwell?
The CS sure looks like zero to me, Jim. I see no GHG warming in the entire UAH record, so none is to be expected. Last I knew Courtney’s position was that there is no empirical evidence for AGW, which surely implies a CS of zero.
Dr. Richard Lindzen might agree with you. IIRC, he sees the 20th century temperature record as noise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw
This also looks into the motivations driving the manipulation of the science. His fundamental scientific point is we are still talking about very small numbers.
Lindzen shows the first negligible range example about 13 minutes into the video.
It is because beliefs regarding CS range from 6 degrees C down to 1 degree or less that we are all here. This is a science intensive policy and political debate, not just a scientific debate. Political debates are typically nasty and this one is no exception. But scientific debates can also be nasty, especially when they go on for decades, as this one has.
Here is Trenberth:
“The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries. But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998, which made it one of the hottest years on record.”
Complete rubbish, no science. He has not the slightest idea of what he is talking about. The super El Nino of 1998 that he is referring to is undoubtedly the warmest El Nino peak in a century but the source of its warmth is not the ocean bottom nor is it heat flowing back into the air. It is an exceptional phenomenon that has no connection whatsoever with the missing greenhouse warmth that he is trying to explain.
The warmth of an El Nino is due to the fact that it carries the warm water of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool to South America. On arrival this water spreads out along the coast in both directions and warms the air above it. Warm air rises, intereferes with trade winds, mixes with the westerlies, and gets carried all over the world. For that reason the El Nino peaks from America, Europe, and Japan are in register. The super El Nino follows this pattern too except that the mass of warm water it brought across was greater than normal. On satellite graphs its peak is almost twice as high as the average of the preceding five peaks. But in ground-based temperature curves it is squashed down and its true height does not show. People working with ground-based data don’t even know that it was followed by a step warming that raised global temperature by a third of a degree and then stopped.
That step warming is the only warming during the satellite era but to them it does not even exist because they invented an alternate warming that takes credit for it. It is called the late twentieth century warming and covers the eighties and nineties. No one could find a physical reason for its existence and this was taken as proof that it was man-made. Man-made it was all right, in the back rooms of temperature guardians. In the course of doing research for my book I used satellite data, discovered that it was phony, and said so in 2010 when the book came out. Result: two years later GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC, all in unison, stopped showing this warming and aligned their eighties and nineties with satellites.
After the step warming was over global temperature did not go down as I expected and has remained basically unchanged (except for ENSO). The 2004 La Nina also is missing because the warm water apparently blotted it out. The legacy of the step warming is that all of the twenty-first century years are warmer than the preceding twentieth century years. Hansen realized that and pointed out that nine of the ten warmest years happened after 2000. He was right of course but he was wrong to attribute it to global warming by the greenhouse effect. Thanks to the pause, the greenhouse effect was just not working when the century began. Nevertheless, futile attempts to make it seem like warming are still cropping up. Usually they use a baseline that partly or wholly belongs to the previous century. This is dishonest. If you want to measure current temperature trend, use a baseline from this century.
As to the oceans soaking up heat they do it all the time, not just sometimes. The Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, the source of the El Nino waves, is built up by the two equatorial currents driven by the trade winds. Water piles up there because its further passage into the Indian Ocean is blocked by New Guinea and the Philippines. ENSO oscillation entails a sloshing back and forth of the Pacific waters from side to side with turnaround points at this warm pool and at the South American coast. When the ocean level at the warm pool is high enough gravity flow east begins along the equatorial counter-current. An El Nino wave forms that is visible by satellites, moves east, and runs ashore in South America. There it spreads out along the coast and warms the air above. Warm air rises, interferes with trade winds, mixes with the westerlies, and we notice the arrival of an El Nino. But any wave that runs ashore must also retreat. As it retreats, sea level behind it drops by half a meter, cold water from below fills the vacuum, and a La Nina has started. As much as the El Nino warmed the air the La Nina will now cool it and global temperature graph looks like a wave. It is not a perfect sine wave because of other happenings in the ocean. To understand the process, consider what happens when you blow across the end of a glass tube. You get its fundamental tone that is determined by the dimensions of the tube. Trade winds are the equivalent of blowing across the end of a tube and the ocean answers with its own fundamental tone – about one El Nino wave every five years or so. This has been going on ever since the Isthmus of Panama rose from the sea. All global temperature curves as far back as you can go are a concatenation of such El Nino peaks with La Nina valleys in between. They are integral to global temperature, not noise to be blotted out by a computer. Their amplitude has remained the same over the years and provides an opportunity to compare diffrent temperature curves. Because they are universal to all temperature curves global average must be defined by putting a dot at the midpoint of every line connecting an El Nino peak with the bottom of an adjacent La Nina valley and connecting the dots. Computed mean is invalid because it treats these peaks as noise which they are not. Knowing the locations of El Nino peaks has another practical value: it helps you to disabuse yourself of the existence of volcanic cooling which is another current climate fantasy.
The process I described explains the ordinary, every-day El Ninos, but it does not explain why a particular one in 1998 was suddenly far more powerful than the rest. But consider the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool again. The islands framing it are not an absolute barrier to flow because there is still a narrow passage left to the Indian Ocean that leaks away some of the water piled up by the trade winds. If something should block that temporarily the water level of the warm pool would rise faster than normal and it just might create an exceptional El Nino wave as happened in 1998. A giant storm surge is a possibility but that is just a guess. We know that an unusually large El Nino wave arrived in 1998 and that it had a lasting effect. Some of that 500 million that NASA got for climate research should have been used to investigate this but they have no idea of what causes El Ninos.
That comes from not reading my book “What Warming?” that is still current and could serve as a tutorial for those needing to understand basics of climate change. It does not cover details of the Miskolczi theory, however, that proves the absence of the greenhouse effect from first principles. Miskolczi proved his theory by using NOAA weather balloon database to study the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere. He discovered that absorption was constant for 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time went up by 21.6 percent. This means that addition of this substantial amount of CO2 to air had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. And that is exactly what the pause is – absence of any greenhouse warming despite the highest level of atmospheric carbon dioxide ever. It has lasted for 15 years now.
How likely is it that CO2 decided 15 years ago to stop warming the atmosphere? Not very, I would say zero actually. It follows that all climate models using the greenhouse effect are invalid and their predictions of warming are just plain wrong. Furthermore, it is also clear that any warming previously designated as greenhouse warming is simply natural warming, misidentified by over-eager observers who needed to prove that man-made warming exists.
So when will the seas stop rising, Arno Arrak?
2008? After not warming much and rising at only 0.69mm/yr in ARGO to 2010.
http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/guidance/ocean-heat-content-10-1500m-depth-based-argo
Looking forward to the next update.
Will the more recent uptick in cloud have a bearing?
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=15
A fan of *MORE* discourse | August 25, 2013 at 4:05 pm |
Obnoxious and dumb question. You do have a narcissistic tendency, formerly known as “delusions of grandeur.” I looked at your Poseidon curve and they report an annual rise of 3.2 mm. Chao, Yu & Li made corrections for water held in storage and obtained 2.46 mm. Their data were linear for 80 years.
Upon inspecting (what many regard as) the stronger-than-IPCC scientific summary Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature, there was no evidence of misogyny in it … in striking contrast to Watts/WUWT denialist demagoguery, eh timg56?
Perhaps its unsurprising … Hansen’s distinguished scientific coauthors Makiko Sato and Camille Parmesan and Lise Van Susteren and Karina von Schuckmann aren’t likely to tolerate expressions of misogyny … *or* bad science.
Why are so many women scientists allying themselves (as co-authors and colleagues) with Hanson-style “best available climate-change science”, and so few with abusively ignorant Watts/WUWT/Monckton denialist demagoguery?
It’s puzzling, isn’t it timg56?
fan,
with your knack for mis-direction, I wondr if you missed your calling.
BTW – exactly who are the many who regard the particular Hansen et el paper you linked to as superior science? The folks who autghored it?
So who do think, Jim Cripwell, is nowadays advancing the *best* climate-change science (in Judith Curry’s useful phrase)?
Apples and bowling balls fan. I’ve got to say though, your hagiographic portrayals of that rogue’s gallery of activist climate scientists as shining champions of truth, justice and the progressive way is a tad nauseating. You’d get more respect of you’d drop the propagandistic tone
So according to your notion of “the best available science“, when will the seas stop rising, pokerguy?
2008? After not warming much and rising at only 0.69mm/yr in ARGO to 2010.
http://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/guidance/ocean-heat-content-10-1500m-depth-based-argo
Looking forward to the next update.
Will the more recent uptick in cloud have a bearing?
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=15
There is quite a big difference between JASON and ARGO.
14mm and 3mm respectively in the period 2005 to 2010. If anything JASON should be lower than ARGO.
The difference is related to gyre scale pressure changes and perhaps a lack of international tide gauge calibration. ARGO is more certain.
pokerguy, you ask “So who do think, Jim Cripwell, is nowadays advancing the *best* climate-change science (in Judith Curry’s useful phrase)?”
Well, there are an awful lot of candidates, so it is difficult to choose. Off the top of my head, and in no particular order; Marc Morano, Christopher Monkon, Neils Axel-Morner, Henrik Svensmark, Richard Courtney, Richard Lindzen, Bill Kinninmonth, Chuck Weiss, Benny Peiser, Nigel Lawson, Matt Ridley, Alec Rawls, Mike Kelly, Vincent Courtillot. I am afraid the list goes on and on and on, and my memory is failing me in my old age. They all have slightly different approaches, but the message of the denier/skeptics who believe that there is no science to support the hypothesis of CAGW, is “Show us the empirical data. And without that data, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that there is a high probability that CAGW is correct”.
‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’ http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2246
Perhaps there is a low probability of catastrophic change within as little as a decade?
Hey Chief:
In the video you see all the small surface circulations, 100s of them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aESMZyrQ1Y
Then here, as you linked:
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751/F1.expansion.html
I see two regimes in each diagram and imagine them circulating like in the video. When we approach the other is unknown I suppose. I see its random in that we may stay towards the middle or be near the edge, however the regime may bring us towards its middle and edge following a circulation pattern.
That Lorenz diagram has brought me as close as I’ve got to understanding regime changes.
A comment on the above video. I don’t think I will attempt to model that.
I love the video. Some day we are going to have a 3D virtual Earth – in real time would be good.
The Lorenz strange attractor is the start of chaos theory. Well done.
http://www.ibiblio.org/e-notes/webgl/lorenz.html
LOL … Chief, did you happen to notice the the PI of the ARGO dataset (that you cite) is none other than Karina von Schuckmann, who is yet another a prominent woman-scientist of (what pokerguy calls) “Hansen’s rogue’s gallery,” who co-authored “Scientific Case for Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change to Protect Young People and Nature”?
It sure appears that Dr. Schuckmann ain’t overly inclined to keep quiet about the meaning of “the best available climate-change science”, aye Chief?
RAOTFFL
You should be more inclined to accept the ARGO results then FOMBS.
I don’t know personally but perhaps Karina von Schuckmann has moved on a little.
Here’s another woman.
‘JC note: Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.’
Here’s a guy – Mojib Latif – just the other day.
‘What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world’s climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of the Earth.’ http://www.science20.com/news_articles/climate_predictions_better_hindcasts_will_lead_better_forecasts-118948
Here’s NASA with the best available science.
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. #8220;This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
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
“Around 2001 the climate began shifting. It’s cooling now. That doesn’t mean that the warming was a fluke,” said Tsonis.
He believes man could have played a role in the warming the world recently experienced. However, Tsonis says natural forces, particularly ocean currents, are playing a greater role in the world’s climate than man. Tsonis says it’s dangerous to place all the blame for climate change on one or the other.
“I think both views are extreme, and the truth lies somewhere in between,” Tsonis said.
Regardless, Tsonis believes mankind should take steps to minimize its impact on climate further. Now that we’re in a period of cooling, we have time to do it right.
“This could be a blessing,” Tsonis told the MacIver Institute. “I think we need to understand this shift better, instead of taking it out of proportion.” http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2010/01/uw-milwaukee-professor-predicts-50-years-of-global-cooling/
Cooler heads prevail – aye FOMBS?
Chief, your long post boils down to embrace the strong (Hansen-style) science, refine the mediocre (IPCC-style) science, ignore the weak (empirical/cycle-driven) science.
Which is exactly what most climate-change scientists (both female and male) are choosing to do!
It’s a pretty reasonable choice, eh Chief?
RAOTFFL again.
You are utterly clueless. The strong science is climate as a non-linear and non-equilibrium system. This is the core of mainstream climate science but that you don’t understand is not to be wondered at.
Have I quoted Wally Broecker recently?
‘The climate system is an angry beast and we are poking it with sticks!’
– Dr Wally Broecker
Perhaps someone needs to poke you with a stick FOMBS.
The question is what to do about it. Which is where you transform from an ignorant eccentric to a potentially dangerous fanatic. Idiot neo-green/socialist fanaticism or practical and pragmatic?
The crash of 2009 presents an immense opportunity to set climate policy free to fly at last. The principal motivation and purpose of this
Paper is to explain and to advance this opportunity. To do so involves understanding and accepting a startling proposition. It is now plain that it is not possible to have a ‘climate policy’ that has emissions reductions as the all encompassing goal. However, there are many other reasons why the decarbonisation of the global economy is highly desirable. Therefore, the Paper advocates a radical reframing – an inverting – of approach: accepting that decarbonisation will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals which are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic.
The Paper therefore proposes that the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.
It explains radical and practical ways to reduce non-CO2 human forcing of climate. It argues that improved climate risk management is a valid policy goal, and is not simply congruent with carbon policy. It explains the political prerequisite of energy efficiency strategies as a first step and documents how this can achieve real emissions reductions. But, above all, it emphasises the primacy of accelerating decarbonisation of energy supply. This calls for very substantially increased investment in innovation in non-carbon energy sources in order to diversify energy
supply technologies. The ultimate goal of doing this is to develop non-carbon energy supplies at unsubsidised costs less than those using fossil fuels. The Hartwell Paper advocates funding this work by low hypothecated (dedicated) carbon taxes. It opens discussion on how to channel such money productively.
To reframe the climate issue around matters of human dignity is not just noble or necessary. It is also likely to be more effective than the approach of framing around human sinfulness –which has failed and will continue to fail. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf
This makes practical and pragmatic sense – aye FOMBS.
Alert! Alert! Paging Latimer Alder and Bad Andrew! `Cuz Chief Hydrologist is defecting to the Hansen side!
This calls for very substantially increased investment in innovation in non-carbon energy sources in order to diversify energy
supply technologies…
The Hartwell Paper advocates funding this work by low hypothecated (dedicated) carbon taxes. It opens discussion on how to channel such money productively.
We should really expect utter dishonesty from you FOMBS.
The depressing reality is that current climate policies have failed. Yes, there is a climate problem, but we are throwing huge amounts of money at it to achieve almost nothing. The reason is that green energy is not yet ready to take over, neither economically nor technologically. We need to focus on cheaper technologies for the future. If we could make green energy cheaper than fossil fuels, everyone would switch – including the Chinese.
At the Copenhagen Consensus on Climate, a panel of economists including three Nobel laureates found that the best long-term strategy was to increase dramatically investment in green research and development. They suggested doing so tenfold to $100bn a year globally. This is still much less than just the price tag of the EU climate policy. R&D holds no guarantees, but it has much a better chance of success than continuing our futile efforts of the past 20 years. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a59c270a-f7b0-11e2-87ec-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2d1k9lnri
Even at $100 billion this is 0.0013% of the global economy – with the potential for huge payoffs. Of course it makes sense to leverage this through the private sector. It is a different thing entirely to penalty taxes on carbon fuels or caps on use – each of these leading to trillions in expenses, very little benefit, declining productivity and hunger and blighted lives at the economic margins.
The former makes moral and intellectual sense and the latter none at all. Isn’t this so FOMBS?
My apologies – 0.14%
Scientists never found insecticides cheaper than DDT, nor propellants/refrigerants cheaper than fluorocarbon gases.
Yet the world switched anyway.
That was a smart idea, eh Chief Hydrologist?
And it was driven by “the best available science”, ain’t that right?
And these changes were opposed by willfully ignorant denialists, eh?
Gosh, these themes sounds familiar!
DDT was approved for use as a surface spray by the WHO in 2007. It’s use as an agricultural chemical had wound down well before banning in the US in 1972’s – the banning had the effect of limiting access to a cheap and effective tool for malaria control globally. There is little doubt that a more measured response and better – less hysterical – science would have saved lives.
So too with climate science. Less hysterical science and a more measured response – as in the Hartwell Paper and many other places – will produce better and more effective results and save lives.
Perhaps if there were a little more rationality we would not have the unedifying spectacle of one Chinese factory making hydrofluorocarbons
in one factory only to burn them in another.
I certainly agree with Hansen. I think these new generation nuclear systems – in fact an old idea – are the way to not only supply relatively cheap energy but to transform 270,000 tons of high level waste to a far more tractable form while harvesting 100’s of years of otherwise wasted energy.
e.g. http://www.ga.com/energy-multiplier-module
Good on you James Hansen and General Atomics. Well – more GA than JH.
Some people I also agree with are Wally Broecker, Mojib Latif, Anastasios Tsonis, Tim Palmer and Judith Curry.
‘Prediction of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain: our observations of weather and climate are uncertain, the models into which we assimilate this data and predict the future are uncertain, and external effects such as volcanoes and anthropogenic greenhouse emissions are also uncertain. Fundamentally, therefore, therefore we should think of weather and climate predictions in terms of equations whose basic prognostic variables are probability densities ρ(X,t) where X denotes some climatic variable and t denoted time. In this way, ρ(X,t)dV represents the probability that, at time t, the true value of X lies in some small volume dV of state space.’ (Predicting Weather and Climate – Palmer and Hagedorn eds – 2006)
Don’t you agree that this is far more sophisticated science FOMBS?
There is a mathematical poetry of state space here that I find compelling.
Returning to your tired old theme of ignorant and repugnant deniers seems a little odd. Clearly very odd. Does it apply to me? Although the core of mainstream climate science is non-linear and non-equilibrium dynamics – these seem difficult concepts. Threshold concepts if I might put it that way – without which a proper appreciation of the more advanced and important elements of the field is not possible. It is still core science and can found anywhere you look in the field – if you have have the capability of looking close enough.
Here – http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nonlinear+and+nonequilibrium+processes+in+climate+science
Don’t say I am not helpful.
I have quoted Wally Brooks on angry beasts and many others. More than that I have discussed practical and pragmatic ways forward many times in this forum.
e.g. http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/07/soil-carbon-permanent-pasture-as-an-approach-to-co2-sequestration/
Shame on you FOMBS – if I didn’t know better I might assume purposeful dissimulation and obfuscation of your true motives.
Wally Broecker of course.
‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’ http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2246
Hey Chief:
“Some people I also agree with are…”
What about Stefan Rahmstorf?
Trying to understand that chaos part is killing me. Lol.
‘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/F2.expansion.html
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
We should think more in terms of Navier-Stokes on the side of numerical models and of Lypunov exponents in the case of climate itself. Aye FOMBS?
I am not rejecting basic radiative physics but putting it in a nonlinear and nonequilibrium context suited to the Earth’s climate system. Isn’t that right FOMBS.
Well Arctic ice is declining faster than expected. Sea level is rising faster than expected. Global temperature is rising slower than expected. CO2 rise continues to accelerate and emissions are up.
Mixed bag, but overall things are heading in the direction climate scientists had predicted decades ago and the science indicates that man’s CO2 will be the primary driving of global temperature over the 21st century.
So I would say I am more on the realist side of the climate “debate”.
Arctic ice has multidecadal regimes – just like climate. Sea level rise in ARGO is 0.69mm/yr from 2005 to 2010. Global surface temperature is likely not to rise for 10 to 30 years more.
Climate shifts are a robust feature of climate – as more and more people are realising. See my comment above.
This was all predicted decades ago? Utter nonsense.
This was all predicted decades ago? Utter nonsense.
They predict so many different things that they can always go back and pick something that sounded close.
The actual data over the next few years is not going to support your side.
The actual data over the next hundreds of years is not going to support your side.
The actual data over the last thousands of years does not support your side.
You have no data to support your side. You only have computer model output that has been wrong for decades.
Well Arctic ice is declining faster than expected. Sea level is rising faster than expected. Global temperature is rising slower than expected. CO2 rise continues to accelerate and emissions are up.
I have been studying climate for over five years and I expected all of this.
Climate is following in the same path of every other warming period of the past ten thousand years. The only thing different is a man-made fraction of at trace gas and that may make a trace of a difference that no one will ever be able to verify.
lolwot, you write “Well Arctic ice is declining faster than expected.”
Sorry, this statement is wrong. It is correct to use the past tense, and say “Well Arctic ice WAS declining faster than expected.”, but not to use the present tense.
Record low sea ice events are almost never back to back. Record low sea ice causes record high snowfall and the year following, or years following are generally cooler. We will bounce along here with above average snowfall until the ice volume gets so large it must advance and cool earth again.
The time with warm and wet polar oceans are necessary to rebuild ice volume for the next cold period.
These changes are on the same schedule as the Roman and Medieval warming schedule. if it is not what you expected, you have not looked and understood data from the past when this same thing happened.
If it turns, the millenial scale changes, I’m going to find it remarkable that the panic peaked at the tipping point.
=======================
“I’m going to find it remarkable that the panic peaked at the tipping point.”
Classic bubble Kim. They’re all pretty much the same.
@lolwot
‘faster than expected’, ‘slower than expected’
Sounds like the problems are with the expectations, not with Mother Gaia. She’s just doing what she does.
And you can’t average ‘slower than’ with ‘faster than’ to say ‘pretty much in the right direction’. Both are wrong. The don’t cancel out.
Well of course both are in the same direction, so I can. predictions will never be perfect, but 30 years ago Dr James Hansen predicted the world would warm. This was before we even had proper global surface temperature records.
Time has proven Hansen right. Great care is needed at this point if we are to avoid making a huge blunder…there is only so much I am allowed to warn/hint.
lolwot,
“…30 years ago Dr James Hansen predicted the world would warm.”
Come on now. Don’t sell Jimmy short. 25 years ago James Hansen didn’t just predict the world would warm, he told us by how much. CO2 followed his scenario A, so his prediction was about .7C to date. Even before the pause, as of 1997, warming had fallen far below his predictions. We were supposed to be .45 degrees warmer by then, and were only about .11 (leaving aside for the sake of argument the issue of claiming such precision in “global average temperature”).
Then of course we have the pause, which somehow escaped Hansen’s predictive powers when dealing with the presumed effect of additional CO2 emissions.
So trumpeting that “Hansen predicted it would warm” is, well, technically true, but wholly irrelevant and laughably misleading.
(Although, if you slightly reframe Hansen’s prediction in scenario C to read “rise in temperature if CO2 has no substantial effect on global average temperature,” rather than if emissions are significantly curtailed, then he’s got the pause right there in his figure 3 for all the world to see. He just misses the start date by about 2 years. Isn’t Hansen 1988 thus a good argument for a CS of 0? If he got everything else right, then his model shows that CO2 emissions have virtually no impact on global temperature.)
It was his 1981 prediction which is proving correct, but that was because its sensitivity was only 2.8 C per doubling which is still close to today’s consensus center. Remember in 1981 it was the end of a long flat period, so it was daring to say it would warm noticeably above the noise level in the next decades.
Hansen’s 1981 prediction isn’t “proving correct.”
“Projected global warming for fast growth is 3° to 4.5°C at the end of the next century, depending on the proportion of depleted oil and gas replaced by synfuels (Fig. 6).”
Figure 6 shows no pause, rather constantly accelerating warming. And about .5C increase by today.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
GaryM, explain why you think this model should show a pause? Its ocean is very simple, and it is designed to get the big picture, which is climate change over a century.
Jim D,
I didn’t say it should show a pause. I simply stated what Hansen incorrectly predicted for future temperatures. And did note that only his 1988 scenario C, the one with no CO2 impact, is the only one that does show any break in the predicted relentless increase in temperatures.
Now here’s a question for you. Apart from the fact that Hansen 1981 is almost as badly wrong as Hansen 1988, why would you pose the earlier Hansen prediction as “correct” in any event?
Even if it were, it would just mean that the more Hansen learned, the wronger he got.
This is what Mosher would call poor marketing.
Hansen’s 1981 model warmed by 0.5 degrees by 2010, and it really warmed by 0.5 degrees by 2010, pause and all. Not bad. I mention this model because it agreed with the Charney consensus of 1979 which was 3 C per doubling. Hansen’s later model ran hot, but skeptics (had they existed then) would have predicted zero warming in 1988 so it beat them. Even today’s models have a range of sensitivity as you might have seen if you were paying attention to a thread about a week or two ago.
skeptics (had they existed then) would have predicted zero warming in 1988 so it beat them.
Skeptics are not that stupid. Skeptics believe in natural variability. Skeptics believe that this warming should have happened just as the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods happened. Skeptic forecasts are right on track. Skeptics look at past data and they know that this warming is natural and normal.
Jim D,
If you move the goal posts any further, they will be in a different stadium.
Your comment was “It was his 1981 prediction which is proving correct.”
That is false. His ’81 prediction was false,, his later, supposedly better ’88 prediction was even worse.
And skeptics would not have matched predictions with Hansen. Skeptics aren’t making predictions now. Because skeptics don;t think we know enough about the climate to model it and make accurate predictions.
But keep digging. Maybe if you take climate science back far enough in time, you will find a point where the consensus was that the climate is too complex and chaotic, with too many known unknowns and unknown unknowns, to make any realistic predictions about future global average temperature.
You know, back when they got it right. Of course, that would be before “climate science” became a political movement….
@lolwot
‘Thirty years ago Hanesn predicted the world would warm’
And seventy years before that so did Arrhenius. Is Hansen’s prediction any better than Arrhenius’s? Nope.
Its all been a total waste of time and effort. There is almost nothing useful about climate that we know now that we didn’t know in 1980.
Jim D,
“Hansen’s 1981 model warmed by 0.5 degrees by 2010, and it really warmed by 0.5 degrees by 2010, pause and all.”
That’s not true at all. The Real Climate article shows..5C warming, but from 1950. From 1981, you get a little more than .2 from 1981 to 2010. If you plot the temps at WFT, you get the same. Around .2C.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/
If you look at the RC graph, you might notice that the hot pink line to show recorded temps, stops around 2008-9, even though the later recorded are plotted inn this 2012 article. The fact that the next two years showed a drop in temps had nothing to do with the graphic truncation, I am sure.
@gary m
For no apparent reason ;-) your remark about graphic truncation suggested that this old song deserved another look
“If you look at the RC graph, you might notice that the hot pink line to show recorded temps, stops around 2008-9, even though the later recorded are plotted inn this 2012 article.”
The pink line is a running mean, but you knew that didn’t you?
“The pink line is a running mean, but you knew that didn’t you?”
The RC article linked to the GISS Land Ocean Index which provides a running mean up to the year before. So they could have included the mean up to 2011 in that 2012 article.
But you knew that, didn’t you?
Exactly, so you knew full well they hadn’t truncated anything.
RE: lolwot’s “there is only so much I am allowed to warn/hint.”
So, there is a conspiracy after all. Who knew? (Besides Cook & Lewandowski.)
This is what Hansen predicted in 1981 and what transpired up to the year 2000.
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/5853/phqq.gif
The land surface temperature follows a curve which is closer to the “No ocean heat capacity” model.
The ocean surface temperature follows a curve which is closer to a heat capacity model featuring a nominal vertical diffusive layer of around 1 cm^2/s.
This model is elementary physics based on a thermal forcing function. You can quibble about the amount of variability but in 1981, Hansen surmised correctly that the two curves would start to diverge. And they did.
The oceans and the land are heated by shortwave radiation. The oceans warm until the losses to the atmosphere are approximately equal to the gains from sunlight. The oceans provide a source of warmth that is there regardless of changes in incoming and outgoing energy. Land gains and loses energy with very little thermal inertia. It warms and cools with higher ranges and retains little warmth. The oceans moderate global temperature.
This is the real science of the land/ocean contrast. The ‘model’ of heat diffusing form the atmosphere to the ocean is delusional.
‘A characteristic feature of global warming is the land–sea contrast, with stronger warming over land than over oceans. Recent studies find that this land–sea contrast also exists in equilibrium global change scenarios, and it is caused by differences in the availability of surface moisture over land and oceans. In this study it is illustrated that this land–sea contrast exists also on interannual time scales and that the ocean–land interaction is strongly asymmetric. The land surface temperature is more sensitive to the oceans than the oceans are to the land surface temperature, which is related to the processes causing the land–sea contrast in global warming scenarios. It suggests that the ocean’s natural variability and change is leading to variability and change with enhanced magnitudes over the continents, causing much of the longer-time-scale (decadal) global-scale continental climate variability. Model simulations illustrate that continental warming due to anthropogenic forcing (e.g., the warming at the end of the last century or future climate change scenarios) is mostly (80%–90%) indirectly forced by the contemporaneous ocean warming, not directly by local radiative forcing.’
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/DIETMARDOMMENGET_zps939fe12e.png.html?sort=3&o=11
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2009JCLI2778.1
Emphasis mine. Continental warming is 80% to 90% forced by ocean warming.
Although ‘contemporaneous ocean warming’ at the end of the last millennium seems more driven by positive changes in net forcing at toa – which is entirely in the shortwave.
e.g. – http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Wong2006figure7.gif.html?sort=3&o=129
GaryM, are you really saying that between 1980 and now has only had 0.2 C warming? It has in fact been nearer 0.5 C. In fact most of the warming since 1950 occurred in 1980-2000.
Jim D,
First, pick a comment thread. If I hadn’t been reading now I would not have seen your question. This thread is up to almost a thousand comments. Your last was on the new thread.
As to the substance:
Looking at the graphs, it looked to me that the reported rise from 1981 to 2010 was right around .2C. None of the graphs I found were very high resolution.
But looking at the GISTEMP table referred to in the RC article, it shows the change was about .39C. What is also shows is that you cherry picked the year.
Hansen’s 1981 model did not make a prediction for 1981 to 2010. That would be kinda odd, would it not? 29 years? Why such an odd prediction? But of course it didn’t, and he didn’t.
A closer look at the GISTEMP reported data shows why you picked that particular cherry. (I forgot 2009-10 was a strong el Nino, as you clearly did not.)
Reported annual means:
1981 – 28
2006 – 59
2008 – 49
2009 – 60
2010 – 67
2011 – 55
2012 – 57
So the increase over 25 years? 3.1 Over 30 years? 2.7 Over 31 years? 2.9
Nary a .5 to be seen.
I will say again. Hansen was wrong in 1981. He was wronger in 1988. He is wronger still today. He will be even more wronger tomorrow.
Hansen was right back then and he was right now.
Chief couldn’t analyze himself out of a paper bag. Don’t listen to a thing the Chief says, as the physics is all wrong.
Tony Brown’s study of the historical record and Loehle non-tree
ring proxy study, show agreement on past climate variations of
warming and cooling.
bts
http://www.sott.net/article/249643-Little-Ice-Age-Thermometers-Historic-Variations-in-Temperatures-Confirms-Extended-Period-of-Warming-Before-Rapid-Cooling
http://www.sott.net/article/249643-Little-Ice-Age-Thermometers-Historic-Variations-in-Temperatures-Confirms-Extended-Period-of-Warming-Before-Rapid-Cooling
Which agrees with Manns hockey stick and other reconstructions and suggests warming today may have already surpassed the medieval warm period.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/recon_lj_with_others.png
lolwot, give it up with the Hockey Stick already. It just confirms your ignorance. No responsible scientist believes it. Hello,lolwot, it is 2013.
You are confusing irresponsible climate deniers with responsible scientists.
Check the link I posted. Compare the Loehle reconstruction with Mann’s. Then explain which one is wrong.
lolwat, here is he simplest explanation to for the data obtained for dendroclimatology.
The width of tree rings follows a normal distribution and are largest when conditions are ‘warm’ and narrow when temperatures are ‘cold’ or ‘hot’.
The decline in tree ring widths during the current warming, as in the decline in ‘hide he decline’, is the signature of what happens to tree ring widths in trees growing in temperatures higher than their optimum.
This decline in growth occurred throughout the whole tree record.
I enjoy Tony Brown’s work.
This is the 2nd url.
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/
Dr. Curry, I worry that you will end up like Dr. Drapela of OSU for being seen as a heretic.
On the AGW side of the argument are the UN and the Eurocommies (which includes the Western secular-socialist Government-Education establishment). Opposed are everyone else. The Left is essentially engaged in economic genocide against the poor while blaming the problems in the world on the productive.
@jim d
How’s those 2 refs coming along good buddy? According to your recent claims:
1. Land temperatures rising at 0.3C per decade
2. Oceans warming at 1C per century?
References please.
Did you miss this btw
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/25/rss-flat-for-200-months-now-includes-july-data/
LOL … so when will the oceans stop rising, Latimer Alder?
Scientific Realities Hansen and colleagues explain in Section 13.6.1 (pages 31-32), titled “Measuring Earth’s energy imbalance”, of their review Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications the technical reasons why satellite-borne radiometric thermometry is an *inaccurate* method for observing global energy balance.
Conclusion More flimsy faux-skepticism from WUWT demagogues.
+(-1)^0.5
@A Fan
Oceans gently rising at 10 inches per century. Caused us no real probs last century…no reason to believe that there’ll be any in the next century.
And now we know about it, we can better plan. I really cannot conceive that it is beyond the collective wit of man to strengthen our sea defences by the depth of 4 standard house bricks between now and 2113.
An inconvenience, but not a catastrophe. Life is full of inconveniences.
FOMD,
I realise the question about when the oceans will stop rising was not directed to me, but the answer is obviously just before they start to fall again. It’s about as stupid a question as asking when Mt Everest will stop increasing its height by around a centimetre a year.
As to believing a delusional person such as Hansen, and those of like mind, history shows that it is not uncommon for even intelligent people to believe the most arrant nonsense. The capability for self delusion seems to be embedded in the human psyche – at least in Western civilisation.
So panic away, my boy. As a matter of fact, if you are convinced that my complete lack of concern or panic will somehow accelerate your forecast of the end of civilisation as we know it, feel free to double your panic on my behalf.
In the meantime, I will double my contentment (if I can) to ensure the Karmic balance is maintained – chi, yin and yang, lingam and yoni, all that sort of thing.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
technical reasons why satellite-borne radiometric thermometry is an *inaccurate* method for observing global energy balance.
Anything that does not support the Alarmism is considered inaccurate.
“Oceans gently rising at 10 inches per century. Caused us no real probs last century…no reason to believe that there’ll be any in the next century.”
How much more damage would Sandy have done if the storm surge was one foot higher?
A fan of *MORE* discourse | August 25, 2013 at 10:10 pm |
Lauri Heimonen is right, you are just stuck in a rearguard action in a losing battle to rescue AGW. And that two year old article by the Hansen gang you refer to is worthless. Here are a couple of highlights from the abstract of that 39 page snow job:
(1) “…recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum”.
(2) “…the ascendancy of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration of the rate of sea level rise this decade.”
Serious science this is not.
First, they try to explain ocean cooling by inventing a non-existent rebound from Pinatubo aerosols plus solar effects. Pinatubo aerosols had no effect whatsoever on global temperature and the alleged Pinatubo cooling is an ordinary La Nina cooling, misidentified. I am not aware of any reports claiming solar effects on ocean temperature except for theirs.
Second, he does not understand ice melt. There is essentially none in the Antarctic. The Arctic just happens to be the only place in the world that is still warming but not because of any carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. Its warming is caused by warm water of the Gulf Stream, carried into the Arctic Ocean by North Atlantic currents. Read E&E 22(8):1069-1083 (2011).
@Jim D
Sorry – missed your earlier ref to 2 and HADSST2. Apologies.
If true then we can certainly forget about sealevel rise being a big problem from AGW. Since a 0.8C rise since 1900 has produced only about 8 inches, we have now successfully calibrated the sealevel/temperature graph.
And it shows that for each degree C , the sealevel rises only 10 inches.
Another non-scary number. After 2 degrees we can expect less than 2 feet. and on the current forecasts it’ll take between five and seven hundred years to achieve even that modest rise. It’ll be a nuisance not a catastrophe
.
My underwear remains undampened and pristine at the prospect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png
We need to be careful about this.
Sea level rise so far is a product of temperature rise so far multiplied by time itself. Sea level will undoubtedly rise much further even if global temperature does not further increase. yet burning through all the oil, coal and natural gas will result in a sharp increase in atmospheric CO2 level which will push global temperature to a high not seen for millions of years.
Latimer Alder,
Having lived in an area where Nature provided enough sand to move the old “coast road” a kilometre inland, and in another where the coastline is now unrecognisable compared with WWII photos, my breeches remain likewise unsoiled.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
@lolwot
‘ Sea level will undoubtedly rise much further even if global temperature does not further increase.’
Explain please. Why?
Your comment abt ‘multiplied by time itself’ didn’t make much sense to me.
In AR4 they projected sea-level rise between 8 and 15 inches, and excluded changes in dynamical ice flow because that part is unpredictable, so it was more conservative than many thought. We will see what AR5 does. WUWT has already brought in their sea-level expert Lomborg to complain about 1 meter projections he saw in the press, so they are on top of this issue for you.
To borrow a phrase from General Buck Turgidson: “The paleo record has already invalidated that presumption!”
Clarke’s Law of Denialism Sufficiently rigid denialism is indistinguishable from idiocy.
Remedy: Learn about delay equations)
Fan, if the ice would continue to melt should the world not warm then how much would it have to cool in order to stop the melting? To the levels of 1750? 1850? 1950? yesterday? Ever hear of consistency of argument?
Mike Flynn
True. Any one who has read any basic geology text book would know this has been going on since the oceans first formed.
AFOMD,
Port Arthur 1842 -2002.
Sea level rise 0.13 m approx.
Work out the average, including the “rapid rise” due to CO2. Really scary? I’m sure you can provide a model result to trump this observed, actual, measured rise.
Less than 1mm per year. Flee to Mount Everest – it’s rising 9mm per year faster! But wait, sea shells are found in that area. This proves that the sea level has actually fallen more than 8,000 metres. Or maybe not.
Can you not accept that change has occurred, and is still occurring, in the solid, liquid, and gaseous components of the Earth? Try as we might, trying to return to a previous time in the Earth’s history is not likely to happen. Nature has ignored our desire, and moved on.
If you find a way to bend Nature to your will, please let me know. I would like a little less rain in the Wet, and a little more in the Dry. How hard can it be?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
@A Fan
Exactly what relevance do you suggest delay equations have to this set of circumstances? Be specific. A worked example of their use in sealevel rise calculations would be helpful.
@jim d
I don’t really give much of a monkeys what AR5 says. What matters is what Mother Gaia does. And now we know.
That’s another bit of climatology we can start closing down. Game over.
Putting your money where your mouth is … climate alarmist Prime Ministers Gillard and Rudd have recently bought beach-side properties. Gillard’s in South Australia cost $A2 million, Rudd’s is at Noosa (Sunshine Coast, north of Brisbane), so would have cost a lot more.
Proposition for discussion:
The amount of panic about sealevel rise depends linearly on the distance of your home/work from the sea.
Example 1: I live and work near the Tidal Thames. My panic level is low to nonexistent.
Example 2: A researcher at the Sea Level Research Group in Colorado. Their panic level is high, while their distance from the sea (horizontally and vertically) is great.
Example 3: Big port cities. NYC is not being evacuated. London is not a desert ..indeed the centre of gravity has moved towards the sea in recent years. I see few people in the streets of Chelsea wearing wetsuits and flippers in anticipation of the coming aquapalypse.
Observation..the more people know about the sea and the tides, the less scared they are.
Latimer Alder,
[re-post with corrected formatting]
Latimer Alder,
Point 1: The high level officials charged with scaring the population (like Al Gore and Australia’s Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery) have both bought mansions at sea level since they started their scare campaign. What’s that tell us about the truth of their scaremongering/
Point 2: even if sea level rises 1 m by 2100, the damage cost would be trivial when put in the context of the GDP over that period. But the mitigation policies being advocated would be hugely expensive and have no effect on sea levels.
These points are continually ignored or sidestepped by the duty dingbats who defend such policies on this and the many CAGW alarmists’ web sites.
There is evidence of acceleration in the sea level record so it would be unwise to project a linear increase.
Besides there is heat pouring into the oceans still even if emissions stop. If they continue that rate of heat gain increases, and so does the rate of melt of the ice sheets. This is where the acceleration comes from.
Lolwot-
I want you to look at this NOAA data for NYC at Battery Park for the last 160 years and tell me with a straight face that there is an acceleration of sea level rise in NYC over the last 160 years. I know you can deflect from the question and use other data, but just this one location tell me it changed.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
The turbulence of heat/mass transfer dynamics ensures that IPCC-style local observations are fluctuating and weak, Hansen-style global energy measures are steady and strong.
Young scientists appreciate what this means: “It’s over.
HeisenbergHansen won.”It’s not complicated, eh dennis adams?
Fan, young scientist or old, half are still below average, though climate science appears to be beating the odds.
dennis adams,
It may indeed show acceleration. But I was talking about global average sea level.
The uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity are such that beliefs as low as 1C and as high as 6C cannot be judged as irrational.
Under what circumstances can a 6C climate sensitivity still be considered a rational possibility?
http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-even-more-low-climate-sensitivity-estimates
In the past 17 years, we;ve moved from a CO2 concentration from 370 to 400. That 30 ppm increase is about 10% of a logrithmic doubling. If 6C (per double) is a rational possibility, we should have seen a 0.6 deg C increase in temperatures over those 15 years. RSS temperatures are flat over the past 200 months. What are the rational causes that could be counteracting that expected 0.6 deg C we do not see in the temperature data?
Is it irrational to hold the view that negative feedbacks make a 0.5C climate sensitivity possible?
“Under what circumstances can a 6C climate sensitivity still be considered a rational possibility?”
The circumstances on a planet that has a massive thermal delay in the form of huge oceans.
But if there is a massive thermal delay in the form of huge oceans, how then did an increase in CO2 from 1950 to 1990 create any measureable rise in the temperature at all? The oceans have changed their mass by a trivial amount in the past century.
So ocean heat sink doesn’t answer the question. In fact, by giving the ocean different properties over the past century, it is an irrational explanation.
I would like to dedicate this next song to all my climate scientist friends,
Tight Rope, by Leon Russel
Not bad,
Diag.
Say, things are becoming very literary around
here, kinda’ like a battle of the literati. Herwith
throwin’ me clown’s hat inter the ring;
The Pause, by beth the serf.
The pause is
now the cause
of somethin’
even richer
and stranger
than even you,
Horatio,
imagine in yer
wildest dreams.
H/t Hamlet and Jim Hansen*
*(it’s dead, Jim.).
Stephen Rasey
Good point concerning statement:
“Irrational” is a BIG word.
Does “not irrational” mean “rational”?
Does it mean “logical”?
Could it mean “possible” but “unlikely”, “very unlikely” or even “extremely unlikely” (in IPCC parlance)?
Or could it even mean “more likely than not”, “likely” or even “very likely”?
Several recent observation-based studies are pointing to a CS that is around 1.8C (or about half of the mean of earlier model-based estimates by IPCC = 3.2C).
In some of these studies 1C is within the range cited; in none of them is 6C within the range.
And, yes, if 6C were the ECS and we had reached 50% of “equilibrium” since 1850 (with the rest still “in the pipeline”), we would have seen GH warming of 1.4C since 1850. But we only saw half this amount and there were very likely other factors at play, including the unusually high level of 20th C solar activity, etc.
So 6C may not be “irrational” – but it sure doesn’t look very “logical” to me.
Max
After some 25 years of research, with enormous public support and government funding, we have next to no idea what ECS is.
We have even less understanding of the damage function.
But it matters not one iota at the moment because the mitigation policies being advocated would make not the slightest difference to the climate or sea levels because …. they wont work:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/
Peter Lang
Good study on the futility of the Australian carbon pricing scheme.
You write:
If “benefit” = global warming averted this is 100% correct.
If Australia were to “shut down” completely tomorrow, this would have an imperceptible impact on global temperature by 2100.
Max
“The Australian carbon pricing scheme, if continued, would be high cost and provide little if any benefit”
Of course that conclusion is based on flawed economic models. The same economic models that failed to see the bank crisis coming.
Get back to us when you have solid proof that the ETS won’t work.
lolwot,
Did you miss the introduction?
We are decarbonizing, switching to a clean energy future. That’s the bottom line.
How? Switching to renewables, carbon pricing, etc.
Is there proof that any of this will cause an economic catastrophe? No. And if and until there is proof, we will press ahead.
lolwot,
Your comments demonstrate you didn’t even read the article you are trying to argue with. You don’t have a clue, as usual.
Your assertions are your personal wish. They are supported by nothing.
And this shows your belief is wrong that we are pressing ahead with carbon pricing: http://carboncredits.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin/topic?#activitytimeline
As does the Chicago Carbon Exchange, the EU carbon price (crashed from $40 to $4), the NZ carbon price and the soon to be repealed Australian carbon price legislation.
Until you can demonstrate that carbon pricing will work, we will not press ahead with it.
We certainly are pressing ahead with it. Look at the longterm trend, rather than short-term noise. In the longterm carbon reduction polcies have been ramping up.
@lolwot
We are decarbonizing, switching to a clean energy future. That’s the bottom line.
How? Switching to renewables, carbon pricing, etc.
Is there proof that any of this will cause an economic catastrophe? No. And if and until there is proof, we will press ahead.
Yes that’s right, renwewables are no more expensive than fossil fuel, don’t need subsidies or regulatory privilege, so we’ll not have to give up anything else to make the switch.
Kool-aid, anyone?
@lolwot…
@Gina
There’s a big difference between carbon pricing, which is intended to raise the price of energy until “renewables” can compete, and other methods of “Switching to renewables“. A major investment in R&D wouldn’t have much (if any) impact on energy prices, while it would certainly pay for itself in spin-off technology even if it turns out “renewable” energy is unnecessary.
It seems likely (IMO) that there will be a change in course, abandoning carbon pricing in favor of R&D. This would be a “compromise” in the best American tradition. (Which might explain why Australia and Europe are so slow in achieving it.)
lolwot,
You’ve diverted again. A sign of intellectual dishonesty. No point continuing.
I get it, you want us to operate under the precautionary principle. You say we should stop decarbonization because economic catastrophe might happen. You can’t prove it will happen, but argue that just the chance of it happening is enough for us to continue with fossil fuels.
Okay, but I don’t think the word is buying that. Governments seem to be pressing ahead into formulating policies that tackle carbon pollution.
@AK
It seems likely (IMO) that there will be a change in course, abandoning carbon pricing in favor of R&D.
But R&D into what?
We can throw all the money we want into PVsolar technology, into battery storage, into improved wind turbines, and CO2 sequestration. But will any of that be spent wisely?
We can throw R&D money into ways to bypass the 1st and 2nd laws of Thermodynamics, That doesn’t mean the investment can payoff.
Private R&D money has gone into shale fracking for oil and gas. That has paid off well. But I doubt that area was on any government’s priority list.
There is no low hanging fruit.
The easy to reach fruit has already been picked.
But as we grow and learn, more fruit becomes within our reach. The key is to realize that some orchards have heavy boughs of sweet fruit just beyond our fingertips, while other orchards bear fruit scrawny and bitter and high.
What can we realistically hope to get for more R&D into Wind? Blade efficiencies are near optimum now. Mechanical conversion into electricity? We are already using rare earth magnets. Make them Taller? Maybe make them smaller, less efficient, cheaper, and put them four to a city block with the noise and maintenance headaches to follow.
What can we realistically hope to get for more R&D into PV Solar? Maybe we can drive the price low enough so we don’t have to subsidize it! How about batteries? … Like 100 years of R&D into that technology has missed a motherload of promise. Electrochemical self-potentials are well known. We’ve picked the fruit off the top of that tree a long time ago. Maybe composite variable density flywheels will be a game changer for stationary power storage. Maybe an air breathing battery has some potential, to eliminate the anode material. None of these are new ideas.
CO2 sequestration? Best leave that to the plants. But, Good God!, is it even smart? The corals, who have been sequestering CO2 for half a billion years, will ultimately be the death of this planet. Why help them?
So again, I ask “R&D into What?”
LFTR’s? Will people let you build them?
Fast Breeders? Liquid Sodium coolant gives me the willies.
Hot Fusion? What has R&D got us beside employed physicists?
LENR? Prove it is physically possible, first.
GeoThermal? The low hanging fruit was picked long ago.
Fuel Cells? Don’t forget that hydrogen is a difficult and dangerous gas.
And WHOS money are we talking about? The government spent billions of dollars on Oil Shale, and got nothing for it. Two decades later, oil companies put the R&D into shale oil and shale gas and tuned fracking operations into a profitable venture.
Rasey Addendum:
Maybe make [wind turbines] smaller, less efficient, cheaper, and put them four to a city block with the noise and maintenance headaches to follow.
Least we not forget the hazards of schrapnel from mechanical failure.
Stephen Rasey,
+1
It’s very simple lolwot : non-fossil energy is (a lot) more expensive than fossil fuel. Therefore switching to it will necessarily make everyone poorer on average.
Max, “Irrational” is a big word, but not one of my choosing.
When 5.9C is included but 0.9C is excluded from the “not irrational” band, I detect some anchoring going on.
Personally, I think 6C is still considered only because of friendly peer review of a suspicious Bayesian Update study using a uniform prior where 1C was just as likely as 19C, an irrational and careless, if not disingenuous, assumption. http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/07/climate-sensitivity-follow-up/#comment-84125
On the other hand, I can envision a negative sensitivity at CO2 concentrations high enough that the increase in plant growth rates accelerates the hydrologic cycle, increasing albeto and the cooling effects from increased atmospheric circulation from storms. It is a hypothesis that for me helps explain the Devonian-Carboniferous and Jurassic-Cretaceous geologic periods where there was high CO2, abundant life, but not runaway warming.
http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/1673
There is no reason to believe climate sensitivity is a constant at all concentrations when dealing with a live planet. “Life will find a way.”
‘After some 25 years of research, with enormous public support and government funding, we have next to no idea what ECS is.’
A Mathematical Theory of Climate Sensitivity or, How to Deal With Both Anthropogenic Forcing and Natural Variability?
Michael Ghil
Recent estimates of climate evolution over the coming century still di er by several degrees. This uncertainty motivates the work presented here. There are two basic approaches to apprehend the complexity of climate change: deterministically nonlinear and stochastically linear, i.e. the Lorenz and the Hasselmann approach. The grand uni cation of these two approaches relies on the theory of random dynamical systems. We apply this theory to study the random attractors of nonlinear, stochastically perturbed climate models. Doing so allows one to examine the interaction of internal climate variability with the forcing, whether natural or anthropogenic, and to take into account the climate system’s non-equilibrium behavior in determining climate sensitivity. This non-equilibrium behavior is due to a combination of nonlinear and random e ffects. We give here a unifi ed treatment of such e ffects from the point of view of the theory of dynamical systems and of their bifurcations. Energy balance models are used to illustrate multiple equilibria, while multi-decadal oscillations in the thermohaline circulation illustrate the transition from steady states to periodic behavior. Random eff ects are introduced in the setting of random dynamical systems, which permit a uni ed treatment of both nonlinearity and stochasticity. The combined treatment of nonlinear and random eff ects is applied to a stochastically perturbed version of the classical Lorenz convection model.
Climate sensitivity is then defi ned mathematically as the derivative of an appropriate functional or other function of the systems state with respect to the bifurcation parameter. This de finition is illustrated by using numerical results for a model of the El Nino-Southern Oscillation.
‘Deep Thought’ was built to calculate the answer to life, death, the universe and everything. After 7.5 million years it spat out the answer – 42. So they build a bigger computer to discover the question.
Equally we may have a definition of climate sensitivity – we now need a much bigger computer. There is a short answer in Ghil – but you’re not gonna like it.
Well, Chief, don’t tease your audience. You’re just dying to tell us what is the answer in Ghil, aren’t you? So tell us. We’re waiting with bated breath :)
What I want to see is cumulative probability charts of projected climate damages for various times (e.g. 2030, 2040, 2050, 2070, 2100) for projected amounts of GHG emissions released.
Use whatever method gives reliable projections :)
Once we have that, we can develop appropriate, evidence based policies that the public will support.
The answer for climate sensitivity is …. wait for it… γ in the linked diagram.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Ghil_fig11_zpse58189d9.png.html?sort=3&o=0
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf
I said you weren’t going to like it – and now we need 1000’s of times more computing power to find out what the question is.
Hey Chief:
With this:
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Ghil_fig11_zpse58189d9.png.html?sort=3&o=0
Making progress. Call it an S or Z curve. Middle part unstable. Tsonis’s 4 indices lined up near T, we entered the middle part and ended up elsewhere (through the looking glass). Why is the middle part unstable? Why not? Some things are stable, but not all of them are. Any thought of looking for outliers during our last transition so we can say, look this indicates instability or happened at the same time as instability.
Looking at the chart again, approaching the tipping point from above, assumed to be marked by the T, the slope is increasing. Continuing down past T, the slope flips. Which is instability. It then flips back to normal at the bottom.
How to interpret this? When all indices are saying yes or no, something is wrong. As in a housing bubble. Agreement means volatility will be arriving shortly.
That middle negative slope part. That’s the most interesting part of this.
Actually you are pretty close Ragnaar. Economies are complex systems – which are characterised by –
1. Slowing down – an increase in autocorrelation – prior to bifurcation.
2. Dragon-kings – otherwise known as noisy bifurcation.
e.g. – http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14308.full
Remember the Lorenz attractor – the instability is the shift from one lobe to another in the topology of the strange attractor. The phase space of the real climate is effectively infinite and the shift somewhat messy as tremendous energies cascade through powerful systems – until it settles into a new pattern.
Don’t forget Black Squirrel events.
Black-squirrel events: they chew through the wiring and the duct tape and the whole darn world collapses! Watch out!
Perhaps I should have started with Economics first.
Dragon Kings related to Economic bubbles:
Exponential growth
Extreme risks
Extreme gains
Positive Feedbacks (Stock price rise increases demand which increase price.)
Perhaps followed by brutal negative feedbacks.
Looking at the demand curve at collapse, it step shifts leftwards and/or downwards.
Prior to the collapse, the demand curve moves toward the vertical as does the supply curve.
‘to squirrel, squirreling, the act of being distracted in the middle of–wow, something shiney!’
Urban Dictionary
Black swans are not a chaos concept – related but not essential to the theory. Black squirrels are the province of small minds… hey – something shiny.
Chief and Ragnaar,
Thank you for your replies and discussion. I read the paper previously (but didn’t recognise this is what you were referring to) and accept it is a possible, perhaps even more likely, explanation of how the climate may be subject to tipping points. I also read the paper you linked a while ago about possibility of the the Hadley cells combining.
All this further persuades me we’d be wasting our money (and doing significant harm to human well-being globally) by implementing policies, such as carbon pricing and renewable energy, which have low probability of delivering the benefits claimed by their proponents.
How do ‘multidecadal oscillations in the thermohaline circulation illustrate the transitions from steady state to periodic behavior’?
=====================
OK, steady state ain’t the same thing as equilibrium.
=============
Replying to your second comment, “tremendous energies cascade…”
While economies can be boring and slow and usually are, things can accelerate with massive turnover during an economic sea change. Which is to say the capacity is there but rarely used.
Not to lose sight of the point which is chaos theory, how does this theory apply to the framework of prescriptive economic policies.
“By now, of course, Curry has strayed far from science and deep into public policy.”
The above statement would be completely wrong coming from anyone but coming from Trenberth it is both wrong and hypocritical.
Professor Curry do you have something which would help me Deep Ocean Missing Heat for Dummies? As I can’t find any references for intelligent radiation?
” “They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,” he says.
20 years!!! From his statement it is not quite clear what the starting date is for the 20 years: whether it is now and 20 MORE years, or whether it started in 1998 with 20 years presumably taking us to 2018. In any event, this is definitely not what the consensus said in the 2007 AR4 report, and based upon what I have seen of the AR5, this is not what I would expect the AR5 to say.”
It seems he means it can’t last beyond 2018.
I don’t anyone agrees with consensus. No decision by any committee is ever one that each member agrees with.
But I would agree that only way to get global warming is to warm the ocean. But I see no means in which the ocean is warmed by CO2 and therefore the warming of 20th century was a recovery from the cooler period which is called the Little Ice Age.
And the warming of 21 century will also be a recovery from the LIA.
But since solar activity may decrease over next decade or longer [or well beyond anyone ability to predict]. We might not see any warm over the next decade [or decades].
We also can not predict whether there will be more volcanic activity over the next couple decades.
Novarupta, 1912, was largest eruption of 20th Century: ” The erupted magma resulted in more than 17 cubic kilometers”. And Mount Pinatubo, 1991, “eruption ejected about 10 km3 (2.4 cu mi) of material”- Wiki.
In 19th Century, Mount Tambora, 1815, with estimated ejecta of 160 cubic km. Wiki
And second largest eruption being unknown, but occurring 6 years previously in 1809:
“Scientists have long blamed the 1815 eruption of an Indonesian volcano, Tambora, for a worldwide cold snap the following year—the so-called year without a summer.
But the entire decade from 1810 to 1819 was about 0.9 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degree Celsius) cooler than normal—making the dip in temperatures prior to Tambora a mystery.
Now the case appears to be closed: A recent analysis of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica reveal that in 1809, a volcano somewhere in the tropics erupted, a new study says. ”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091209-mystery-volcano-global-cooling/
And third largest, being Krakatoa, 1883, with 18 cubic km erupted in less than 48 hours and: “Heard 3,000 miles (4,800 km) away. Caused a 5 year volcanic winter.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_of_the_19th_century
It quite possible within next 2 decade of having volcanic eruption as largest in 20th century or as large as largest in 19th century. Or bigger.
Or a string of Pinatubo size eruptions occurring within a decade or two.
It seems something “unexpected” will occur within next couple decades, though not having something at least as large Pinatubo would be also be “unexpected”.
Trenberth, just like his deceptions on ‘missing heat’ is just setting the stage so that anything that happens proves him right.
He uses sciencey words when he does this, so the gullible thinks he is practicing science.
No, gbaikie, no. If aerosols cause cooling then calculating a ‘equilibrium’ climate sensitivity from the ice-core record is screwed big time.
The levels of atmospheric dust differ by three orders of magnitude between the warm and cool phases, in the ice-cores. If aerosols cause cooling, then it means that the ECS is low, less than 2 degrees.
“No, gbaikie, no. If aerosols cause cooling then calculating a ‘equilibrium’ climate sensitivity from the ice-core record is screwed big time.”
Don’t know what you saying.
Volcanic eruptions cause cooling- this isn’t an if.
And this has to do with the explosive power of volcanoes putting aerosols in the high atmosphere where they remain for a long time. [and will eventually end up in ice cores- other than detecting a large eruption [about 50 cubic km] I didn’t say anything about ice cores].
Other than this why does ice-cores have anything to do with what I posted? And it seems you think someone was calculating a ‘equilibrium’ climate sensitivity. Who is doing this, me, Trenberth, you, someone else?
I have no idea.
My point is only way to get global warming or cooling it has to be related to ocean temperatures- and I mean long term trends as only over a long time periods can oceans warm or cool.
But as we are measuring global warming, so over 10 to 30 year time periods, there are various effects which cause regional or global trends of warming or cooling- and ocean circulation patterns are also responsible are yearly, decadal, and century long movements of heat and long term weather patterns.
But volcanic eruptions placing, oh say, 10 cubic km or more dust in air and large amount into high altitudes of atmosphere.Though having severe regional affects, is mostly global in nature and will affect global temperature and ocean temperature.
The effect upon yearly temperatures such as causing it snow in the summer is obviously visible in temperature records and quite noticeable without actually using a thermometer.
But just because it “seems” to disappear from the record records fairly quickly [years]] it doesn’t mean if effects “disappeared” rather mean it’s large effect has diminished AND yearly, decadal variability has masked the effect.
Or another way to say this, is that Earth climate weather response to large effects, the 1998 spike in global temperature shows this.
Rather than warming causing more warming, it does the opposite, strong warming factors will cause affects which cool. And strong cooling effects will cause warming effects.
So the causal effect of volcanic eruption has a direct and obvious affect on ocean temperature- ocean depth absorb less energy- not just ocean skin temperature, and thereby it’s long term affect is less noticeable.
“The levels of atmospheric dust differ by three orders of magnitude between the warm and cool phases, in the ice-cores. If aerosols cause cooling, then it means that the ECS is low, less than 2 degrees.”
Well first, not all aerosols are the same, but I will assume you mean volcanic aerosols which are fine particulates.
Is there some problem with your ECS being less than 2 degrees?
There seems to be a grave danger that the warmists are using circular reasoning with respect to the amount of sea ice in the Arctic. The extent of this sea ice will have numeric values in the future, and the question is “What will these values be?”
There seems to be two different arguments. One argument goes something like “We know CAGW is correct, and CAGW causes Arctic sea ice to decrease in the future. Therefore, Arctic sea ice is going into decrease in the future”.
The other argument goes somthing like “We know that Arctic sea ice is going to decrease in the future, so we know that CAGW is true”.
Now it seems to me that either of these statements could be correct, but they cannot both be correct at the same time. So anyone claiming that the future of Arctic sea ice is in an inevitable decreasing state, leading to an ice free Arctic in the summer, because we know that CAGW is real, is claiming that the AGU and the UK Met. Office are wrong to claim that decreasing amounts of future Arctic sea ice are proof that CAGW is real.
“Something is rotten in the State of Denmark ” William Shakespeare.
As an aside, what if Arctic sea ice has turned the corner, and is now increasing?
“the AGU and the UK Met. Office are wrong to claim that decreasing amounts of future Arctic sea ice are proof that CAGW is real.”
But they don’t claim that.
Arctic sea ice is disappearing much faster than predicted.
lolwot, you write “But they don’t claim that.”
From the AGU statement “These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases.”
From the UK Met. Offfice at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF
“Changes in the coverage and thickness of ice over land and sea areas are often highlighted as particularly dramatic and visible indicators of a changing climate.”
How else do you interpret these statements, except that changes in Arctic sea ice show that CAGW is real?
Whether it disappears or not, just who says that is necessarily catastrophic? lolwot wants to speak of the future of the planet, and he has such dim vision.
===============
Your mistake is to “interpret” the statements. They don’t need interpretation, they are clear and they don’t say what you’ve interpreted them to say.
I see Kim is playing the interpretation game too.
“Whether it disappears or not, just who says that is necessarily catastrophic?”
Kim ponders who to (mis)interpret.
“There’s danger ahead,” said the secretary bird. “To wit?” said the owl. The secretary bird told him. “Aren’t you afraid? he asked. “Who(m)? said the owl calmly, for he could not see the truck.
There’s more and the moral: You can fool too many of the people too much of the time.
H/t More Thurber, but yet, not enough.
============
““Whether it disappears or not, just who says that is necessarily catastrophic?””
Do you know why you chose to insert the word ‘necessarily’ in that question?
Think about it.
@lolwot
Your mistake is to “interpret” the statements. They don’t need interpretation, they are clear and they don’t say what you’ve interpreted them to say.
Interpreted as : Yes in future please just swallow statements whole at face value. Under no circumstances look below the surface, especially if doing so weakens my point..
AGU: “These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases”
Kim Jim Il spinterpretation: “These changes prove Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming”
Defend it all you want Gina, but anyone sanely reasonable can take from this that climate skeptics should leave “interpretation” to those who are more competent at it.
Then the predictions are wrong and they should be reviewed.
But the ice is not really disappearing in any way that is dangerous or unheard of historically, so the predictions either way are trash.
The AGW true believer’s appetite for garbage science is amazing. If only that appetite could be turned loose on waste dumps- imagine how the environment could be cleaned up.
“But the ice is not really disappearing in any way that is dangerous or unheard of historically”
There’s that little unnecessary word injection again. Similar to dear leader kim’s “Whether it disappears or not, just who says that is necessarily catastrophic?”
Telling little words.
Your mistake is to “interpret” the statements. They don’t need interpretation, they are clear and they don’t say what you’ve interpreted them to say.
‘A radiant fool setting off skyrockets by day.’
H/t Jimmy the Thurb.
================
‘Bridges rise lazily into the air, like balloons’.
H/t alzo JT.
=======
lolwot, you write “Your mistake is to “interpret” the statements. They don’t need interpretation, they are clear and they don’t say what you’ve interpreted them to say.”
If they are clear, as you claim, then why do people like myself, find them misleading? Then again, that is a stupid question. The warmists are never going to admit that they are wrong. I have learned all I am going to from this exchange. My thoughts are basically right, and the warmists are being deceptive, if not actually wrong.
Trenberth has increasingly become a caricature of himself, seemingly unaware of how much he relies on attribution of motive. It is almost like he seeks to join in as side kick to Al Gore’s role as the Al Sharpton of climate.
Preamble; This has turned into a long discourse which few will bother to read so it rightfully will be posted near the end of the 700 plus comments on this subject where it probably belongs.
Anyway it was thought provoking to me to think through this and write it down.
You use a very interesting analogy Professor Curry, one which I don’t think you have quite thought through the ramifications of your use of that analogy.
To quote;
Why is there such hostility between the two ‘sides’, even though there is little at this point to discriminate the two sides in terms of science?
Why have I been thrown off the ‘consensus’ island? .
Why have you been thrown off the consensus island?
So from out here in the Australian hinterland from where comes the wherewithal that keeps the ivory towers and it’s numerous inhabitants in the splendor to which they have become very accustomed and now assume is their right to enjoy, we see a steady and increasingly cynical shift in attitudes towards science taking place amongst the proletariat.
In private conversations the comment when on climate scientists with spill overs into other science disciplines generally follows along the lines nowadays of “they are only in it for the money”.
This terminology is most noted when climate warming and climate scientists come up in the conversation with Climate Commissioner Flannery and Will Steffen being the prime examples mentioned. Both for for their extreme claims of climate disasters about to befall us with a completely blatant disregard for the fact that the predicted time of so many of their previously predicted climate disasters has already passed without the slightest evidence of anything untoward happening climate wise.
Which leads to some of my points below.
I was born in mid 1938 so the consequences of WW2 have shaped my life and much of my generation’s thinking, attitudes and political beliefs .
Consequently I read quite a lot of WW2 history particularly the history of the Pacific war.
There are many parallels in the as yet unfinished climate wars between the skeptics and climate catastrophists and the course of the WW2 Pacific War.
So I have thought about and have attempted to list in my humble and uneducated way a number of comparisons between the two.
1/ a
The Meiji revolution of the late 1860’s in Japan had led to the development of the Shinto religion to the point that the Emperor was divine and therefore his power and the power of the state under his rule was unchallengeable .
An unchallengeable Japanese “consensus” on the divinity and power of the Emperor underlay and gave authority for every government decision made
1 / b
Climate warming science and the developed almost unchallenged over some two decades until it gained immense political power and influence to a point where any challenges were to be put down with a maximum application of social stigma and the maximum denigration of the offending non conforming party.
So climate science created and upheld it’s consensus like the Japanese, through fear, guilt and the power of the threat of exclusion from all the activities now controlled by the tribal “consensus” group.
2 / a
The Japanese at the start of the Pacific war controlled great slabs of territory and huge resources of both material and human in Manchuria and northern China after it’s invasion of Manchuria in 1931. They were intent on expanding their control of even more territory and resources in the name of their divine Emperor.
Both to increase the power of the Japanese Empire and to protect it from any substantial challenge to it’s integrity and it’s structure and it’s divine Emperor based belief system
2 / b
The climate warming scientists and advocates, often the same people, set out to gain and establish control of all the science institutions and scientific power centres so as to maintain their unchallengeable status and reinforce their positions and develop a deep strategic defence with access to huge financial, scientific and institutional resources to be able to use the full weight of major scientific authorities to politically implement and enforce their particular climate catastrophe ideology
3 / a
The Japanese had a battle hardened army led by war experienced officers and a war economy created for it’s war in China and it’s future war against either Russia or into the Pacific.
The second Sino / Japanese war was deliberately started in July 1933 with the Marco Polo Bridge incident [ .the instigator of this incident which led to the 2 nd Sino Japanese war, the ultra nationalist and then Major Ichiki was hanged for war crimes following the end of WW2 ]
The Chinese were completely unorganised, untrained, short of supplies of every type and riddled with internal conflict amongst a whole set of war lords themselves.
3 / b
Unlike the warmists / alarmists the Skeptics were unorganised, had little or no resources as these were deliberately denied to them by the now institutionalised and very powerful all controlling climate alarmist warmers and advocates.
Unlike the warmists with their IPCC, their CRU and GISS and NCDC, the skeptics had no centralised authority or ideology or fundamental overall ideological belief that they could refer to as the scientifically proven central authoritative source for their understanding of the science of the global climate.
And the skeptics were and still are very good at disagreeing and arguing amongst themselves, each for his / her own or their particular group’s case at every level of science across the full range of probable causes and effects, both natural and manmade as well as the future direction of both the global temperatures and increasingly the local climates as well.
It has been said that trying to organise skeptics is like trying to herd cats let alone trying to get them to adhere to the one supposed scientific consensus regardless of what that supposed consensus pertains to.
4/ a
The Japanese quite dramatically and suddenly released their war machine onto the South East Asian nations .
They claimed and it was accepted and praised and welcomed by most SE Asian nationals, that they were destroying the western nation’s colonial hegemony and yoke and returning those Asian nations, under Japan’s tutelage back to the Asians themselves.
4 / b
The original claims of the climate catastrophists were mostly accepted by the populace at large as the climate catastrophy scientists and increasingly the radical green climate catastrophy advocates were after all, going to save the planet from an oncoming catastrophic disaster that their models had predicted.
But not only were they going to save the planet but also the holy “environment” and of course last of all “mankind” itself from our own created climate catastrophe.
5 / a
The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in Dec 1941 with 353 aircraft.
2400 Americans died.
The bombed Australia’s northern city Darwin on the 18th Feb 1942 with 242 aircraft with more bombs were dropped than on Pearl Harbor.
297 people died out of a prewar population of 5800.
What the original prewar inhabitants of Darwin claimed is that only the white casualties and dead were counted. With the chinese and there were a lot of chinese settlers in Darwin plus the aboriginal natives whose home territory it was, the death toll was arguably closer to 1000.
Australia went on to endure close to 100 japanese bombing raids across it’s northern towns and harbors.
The Americans had one raid, Pearl Harbor.
There is a somewhat amusing sequel to this. Recently a Japanese company was building a gas pipeline across the Darwin harbor and came across some unexploded WW2 bombs and munitions. They immediately demanded that these be cleared by the Australian government.
The reply was a very blunt “Up yours! They’re your bombs. You clear them and make damn sure you don’t create a problem for us when you are doing it. ]
5 / b
The Pearl Harbor equivalent attack of the global warming castrophists was the reversing of the findings of the 1995 Madrid conference to a finding that mankind was responsible for the warming by Ben Santer, probably operating under some instruction from further up the science political tree.
The skeptics who weren’t really known as skeptics up to that point as it was still primarily a science orientated situation were caught completely unaware as the findings that had been signed off by the assembled scientists responsible were completely reversed by Santer in the final published findings of the Madrid conference.
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-Santer.htm
Anecdotal evidence also claims that some dozens and possibly more skeptical papers just simply vanished at the Madrid Conference and have never been seen or heard of since.
6 / a
And then came Midway and at Milne Bay in New Guinea where the Australian’s for the first time defeated and destroyed an elite Japanese landing force.
Followed by Guadalcanal and the Japanese from then on adopted an increasingly defensive strategy across their entire newly created Asian empire.
6 / b
And then came the late 2009 Climate Gate and the Copenhagen debacles. The climate catastrophists and advocates have never fully recovered from those two institution shaking events and have become increasingly defensive and have and are adopting an increasingly defensive and ever more extreme wagon circling attitude.
7 / a
The Asian nations were discovering that their own welfare and national status and colonial subjucation that the Japanese had claimed they were ridding these Asian nations of was all a great Japanese facade intended to hide the fact that the Japanese were the new and much harsher colonial masters.
The role of the Asian nations they were now discovering was to serve their new Japanese masters under even harsher strictures than had been the case under their former colonial masters.
7 / b
So many across the west who either welcomed or accepted the catastrophists claims and the need for severe measures to be imposed upon people and societies, all of which was initially accepted by the populace as a small price to pay for the release from fear of the climate model predicted catastrophe.
But when those measures created rapid increases in energy costs, draconian and unenforceable strictures and legislation on both individuals and the populace and the predicted climate disasters never occurred on schedule.
Plus increasing fuel poverty and very resented increases in costs plus the very public enrichment of the main advocates of the harsh measures as they took advantage and promoted those measures which was seen by most to be further enriching them, then the populace began it’s own and now increasingly strong negative reaction to the excesses of the catastrophists and the climate warming scientists and their dire but never seen or experienced climate model predicted catastrophes.
In short large parts of the populace have come full circle like those under the control of the Japanese in WW2 to the point that they are saying, “We didn’t expect that we would have to suffer for the sake of the planet and your crazy climate catastrophe ideology and now we want out and begone with you and good riddance” to the climate alarmists and the climate scientists who are advocating these draconian policies which are part of their own personal belief system..
8 /a
As the war continued on into 1944, the pressures and losses in men and materials and shipping and territory started to strangle the japanese Imperial armies.
In particularly the numerous Pacific Island chains now controlled and garrisoned by the Japanese Empire started to suffer the most from the lack of supplies.
And there was no other source of supplies other than Japan itself.
So they drew in upon themselves, fortified their islands to the maximum extent possible, ejected unneeded personnel and civilians and prepared to sell their lives at as great a cost as possible all in the name of their divine Emperor.
Those who were garrisoned on large areas of territory got to go home at wars end. Those who garrisoned islands that were invaded by the Americans uselessly died and all for nought. They gave their lives in the collective belief, the consensus, that they were doing so to save the Empire.
8 / b
Back in 2009 the climate alarmists were totally convinced that Copenhagen was to be the final seal on the restructuring of the political make up of the planet with the central political directions coming from the un-elected UN.
The greens, ie; Greenpeace and the WWF openly stated that they intended to have seats at the table of the UN’s new global governance body.
They could not even contemplate that it would all come very unstuck in just a few hours of failed negotiations at Copenhagen.
Since then the wagons have been circled, the consensus Islands are losing the influence and support of the central and main global warming catastrophe support structures in the various political, media, social and community bodies as the full costs of “saving the planet” becomes clear to those who believed saving the planet did not involve any sacrifice however minor, would be required on their part.
And the realisation by the populace at large that it was not going to be allowed to continue on it’s usual and long accepted laissez-faire manner without draconian restrictions and new demands being placed on it to conform to a new set of harsh rules politically created at the instigation of the climate warming alarmist scientists and the climate catastrophists.
And so getting ejected from such a “consensus” island might well be the saving of a career, a saving of respect and particularly personal self respect.
And one day a cherished memory that will last until the final breaths that you did what you believed was right and you gave up much because of your belief.
And perhaps and increasingly so, the deep satisfaction that you were proven right about the utter misdirection of the self mandated authoratism that global warming climate science and it’s practioners in particular were taking and have become.
The end game has not yet been played in the global warming catastrophe stakes but the Japanese fought until the bitter end when the Russian invasion of Manchuria finally destroyed their belief that they could hold on and continue to draw on the huge resources of Manchuria.
And then come to a negotiated settlement still giving the japanese much of what they demanded as the Americans who had much blood to lose in any invasion of Japan.
The Russians and the loss of Manchuria did what no atom bombing was likely to do as the japanese cities had already almost ceased to exist after the great fire bombing raids.
What will be the end game of the catastrophists?
And what shape will that end game and Nature itself take?
Who knows!
As Niels Bohr, the Danish Nobel physicist is attributed as saying; “Prediction is difficult, especially about the future”.
Thank you if you have managed to get this far..
AFAIK the Japanese grand strategy involved taking all that territory, then fighting exactly the rear-guard action they did. They calculated (in the best Sun Tsu style) that the Americans would lack the nerve to continue the war into an invasion of the homeland.
Many analyses I’ve read suggest that they were right, and only the atom bomb allowed the Allies to force a surrender, rather than a negotiated armistice. One that might have left them much of their Asian empire.
I wonder if there’s a parallel grand strategy among alarmists. If so, perhaps the ClimateGate leak was actually arranged by alarmist strategists?
That was obnoxious in its length. I’ll thank you for using links to long material in the future asswipe.
Rom,
Why does your “Australian hinterland” provide such a rogue’s gallery of deniers? Here is a partial list of kranks from down under
David Archibald
Tim Blair
John Daly
Ian Pilmer
Bob Carter
Murry Salby
Joanne Nova
Chief Hydrologist and his sockpuppets
Peter Lang
Girma Orossengo
David Evans
Jinan Cao
Don Aitkin
Louis Hissink
Andrew Bolt
Jennifer Marohasy
Warwick Hughes
Douglas Cotton
Greg House
Stef The Denier
Garth Paltridge
Tim Curtin
Alexander Biggs
John Reid
Many of these comment here and elsewhere. What separates them from normal skeptics is that many also have the most insane counter-theories to explain why the conventional GHG theory is wrong.
What is going on? Use your historical evidence to explain this.
Happy not to be listed as a krank, Webby. Though I know several of those listed. Tim Curtin unfortunately died recently, I hadn’t met him but was planning to.
ROM, it is important to appreciate that among young scientists in particular, there is surprisingly LITTLE hostility and/or controversy. That is because young scientists appreciate pretty clearly the distinction between weak, mediocre, and strong climate-change science:
▷ Weak Climate Science Purely statistical models that presuppose the existence of “cycles” (commonly solar cycles and/or ocean-current cycles); also ad hoc models that ascribe climate-change to (e.g.) fluctuations in cosmic ray intensity. In summary, speculative climate-change science.
▷ Mediocre Climate Science Massive computer models, in particular, models that attempt to model decadal-scale dynamics. In summary, IPCC-style committee-consensus climate-change science.
▷ Best Available Climate Science Derives from thermodynamic considerations associated to conservation of mass, conservation of energy, and increase of entropy, as instantiated by radiation transport theory, as calculated by slide-rule, and as affirmed by paleo-evidence and by sustained observation of global energy imbalance. In summary, the multi-decade arc of Hansen-style climate change science (here and here and here and here).
Obviously, the predictive capability of (weak) cycle-driven climate science is negligible; the predictive capability of (mediocre) model-driven climate science is modest (but slowly improving); the predictive power of Hansen-style (strong) thermodynamics-driven climate science is already quite strong.
Conclusion The answer to Judith Curry’s question (namely, “Who is on which ‘side’ in the climate debate, anyways?”) is that the great majority of young scientists are “on the side” of strong Hansen-style science … without regard for the ideological, economic, or political implications of that science.
For one simple reason: young scientists appreciate that “Nature cannot be fooled”, and they appreciate too that Hansen-style climate-change science provides (by far!) the simplest, strongest, clearest, best-validated description of how Nature works.
As far as young scientists are concerned: “It’s over.
HeisenbergHansen won.”In that approach the real question is: “How much does the Best Available Climate Science, as defined by you, really predict?”
The problem is that far too little, not nearly as much as Hansen may sometimes tell. The well understood constraints are weak and far apart (like the limits on climate sensitivity that Judith presents). More accurate predictions are obtained only by the complex models, which have their problems, as you correctly note.
My preference is the Overall Balance of Evidence rather than your BACS. The problem with OBE is that it’s highly subjective. It’s so multifaceted and sparse that it cannot be handled objectively. We would not have a controversy of the present type, if BACS would really be so strong.
Pekka, you write “My preference is the Overall Balance of Evidence rather than your BACS. The problem with OBE is that it’s highly subjective.”
And that is why any discussions between us are doomed to failure ab initio. I will NEVER accept OBE as a valid scien tific apporach
Fan, as usual, the strongest part of your posting is signature. First, you show no proof that “young scientists” are any different from older scientists.
In fact, it’s arguable that the opposite is true. Who has led, and continue to lead the AGW charge? The graybeards of The Team.
And you also ignore the point, made way back in the discussion, that quite a few young “scientists”, by their own admission, became scientists to “save the world!” That is, they entered the field with the highest possible levels of confirmation bias swirling in their veins. You really need to differentiate between those with scientific training and scientists. The first is a skill set, the second is a mindset.
That’s *EASY* … the emerging climate-change matriarchy!
Observation Few denialist works have multiple authors; few have young authors; *NONE* have multiple young female authors.
Why do you think that might be, Wayne?
The striking denialist lack of author-diversity and gender-diversity is another concrete reason (among many!) why, as far as young scientists are concerned: “It’s over.
HeisenbergHansen won.”Just keep repeating that lie often enough. Or maybe you already have.
Oops … here’s a working link to the emerging young climate-change matriarchy!
Proposition Skepticism that can’t attract young scientists (of all genders) is fated to extinction.
That’s pure common sense, eh Wayne?
Fan,
your argument is not that far removed from Max OK’s ageist one. That is not a good thing.
Were it anyone else, I’d ask if you missed Judith’s point on how difficult it can be for a young researcher to question the current orthodoxy. But as it is you, I know I would not get a straight answer. So much for honest engagement.
Rom
I have been reading “The Prize, The Epic Quest For Oil, Money & Power” by D. Yergin. As you experienced WWII in a close and personal way you might find Part III “War and Strategy” of the book of interest as it chalk full of details on how the warring parties addressed their energy needs.
As Dr. Mann has written a book on the climate wars and V. P. Gore supports the decarbonization of the worlds energy supplies (based on the scientific evidence provided Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen, etc.) a comment on strategy by Winston Churchill (page 161) seems appropriate- “This afternoon we have to deal, not with the policy of… (Originally using oil as the fuel for the British Navy- vs coal as the fuel used by the Navy to gain a strategic advantage in speed, maneuverability, costs, etc.), but the consequences of that policy….”
As you have pointed out it is the consequences of what has been done to date (CA RES, Britain’s Kayto implementation plans, Australia’s carbon tax, etc.) to address the perceived problem of increased CO2 levels and those efforts lack of progress (that is have we been effective) to the goal, due to lots of things, that some in the proletariat are wondering how new evidence is being dealt with in the Scientific and political decision making communities.
The magnitude of the perceived problem and a different way to look at “Policy to get to a High Energy Planet” was coved rather well in a recent talk given by Roger Pielke Jr. at Columbia university- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTUE5Ue6Z38
Short term any national organization, or a US state, can follow President Roosevelt’s thoughts on “the silly, foolish old dollar sign (page 371),” in order to fight for (as in implement a bunch policies) the perceived better, best, alternative (mitigation) at any given point in time. Long term this only works out if certain assumptions are met. Pielke’s discussion of how leakage of CO2 emissions from the UK to overseas comes to mind here.
I am looking forward to how Dr. Curry integrates -curryja | August 21, 2013 at 12:54 pm | Reply
“Yes i read this, and I flagged it for the following quote, that i know I want to use somewhere”:
Climate science, a far-flung family of loosely related disciplines, is unusual because it has become closely aligned with a set of costly and controversial policy proposals. This political orientation raises a question: Which comes first — the science of climate or the art of persuasion?
into a blog post.
+ 111 for 6 declared
ROM
An excellent post. Thank you. There is one sentence I’d have to say I didn’t find convincing. You said:
Your excellent, well structured comment does not support the claim you are uneducated :)
I hope you will ignore the disrespectful and nasty comments by the usual suspects. They are children, young and gullible, and they know no better.
The quote was from judith Curry’s post at the top.
Science won’t have any real say in what eventually happens and how mankind handles and adapts to any climate changes either warming or cooling.
Business and commerce will have the final say, not science, as the direction of business and commerce is the only long term accurate way of defining trends in human and natural affairs.
Otherwise known as the “mighty Dollar”.
Young climate-change scientists embrace the common-sense historical principle that climate-change demagogues seek to obscure and deny, namely that in the long run, scientific reasoning and open discourse dominate timidity, willful ignorance, and mercenary demagoguery.
Which is *GOOD*, right ROM?
Fan-
You really do have things upside down dont you. Did you come out the wrong way?
The courageous tradition of independent progressive science that was established by Franklin, Priestley, Jefferson, d’Holbach, Lavoisier (and hundreds more!) provided an outstanding start.
ROM
True.
http://slackhalla.org/~demise/test/socialattitude.php
Radicalism 50
Socialism 18.75
Tenderness 37.5
These scores indicate that you are a tough-minded moderate; this is the political profile one might associate with a jaded materialist. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as right-wing.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a pragmatist with very few strong opinions.
hehe.
Radicalism: 72
Socialism: 44
Tenderness: 56
Summary “you are a moderate progressive … an egalitarian with very few strong opinions.”
Duh!
Moderate?
That sounds about right. i want to see willard and Joshua.. and nutjobs like wagathon. Peter Lang , springer.
What about Judy? There is still hope. She may have even less tenderness.
Radicalism 36.25
Socialism 25
Tenderness 59.375
These scores indicate that you are a moderate conservative; this is the political profile one might associate with a sincere clergyman. It appears that you are accepting of religion, and have a generally optimistic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as right-wing.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with several strong opinions.
Wrong, I am a knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, troglodyte conservative. Just ask any of the progressive drones around here.
Moderate?
your turn Josh
LOL … GaryM, your and my high “tenderness” scores indicate that we are both of us just sweet little kitty-cats!
ya gary’s tenderness, was a bit of a shock.
The “sides” in the comments are :
The denialists are categorized as Rednecks. This includes all the Aussie commenters, who appear here as larrikins, yobbos, and ockers. The true American rednecks are Cappy Dallas and Springer. Also the Canadian hosers and British lads.
They all seem to share a trait of essentially mocking any kind of authority, and in this case in particular, science and climate scientists.
The other side is the non-rednecks.
Who would ever think the two sides could ever get along? This is a cultural phenomenon that will not respond to a scientific scoring system. Rednecks will not change their stripes because the lost a scientific argument.
Just look around and observe the style of comments.
Radicalism 80.25
Socialism 0
Tenderness 59.375
These scores indicate that you are a progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with an animal rights activist. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a centrist with many strong opinions.
0? I wasn’t steering for that.
The socialism 25 is what has me POed. I demand a recount. They apparently mistake charitable inclination for an expectation the government should do it.
Who do I see to get my troglodytic reputation back?
Mosher,
That just shows that you, like George Bush before you, don’t really understand conservatism. “Compassionate conservatism” is redundant, not an oxymoron. If you are genuinely compassionate, and not historically or economically illiterate, conservatism is the only way to go.
My laugh for the day,
web talking about style points.
It would be incredible if TimG ever added any scientific ideas to the discussion,
The “sides” in the comments are :
The alarmists are categorized as credulous and dishonest, motivated by a desire to advance the cause of politics, much the same characteristics as the climate “scientists” they worship. Web and others.
They all seem to share a trait of essentially deferring and hero-worshipping any kind of authority, and in this case in particular, science and corrupt government stooge climate “.
The other side is the skeptics.
Who would ever think the two sides could ever get along? This is a cultural phenomenon that will not respond to a scientific scoring system. Alarmists will not change their stripes because the motives are political, so they just don’t care how iffy the “science” is.
Just look around and observe the style of comments.
RE: “It would be incredible if TimG ever added any scientific ideas to the discussion,”
I leave that to the real scientists WEB.
Like Chief.
I would like to see one scientific paper that Chief has gotten peer-reviewed.
It is not that high a hurdle, yet Chief has yet to prove that he understands science.
Chief’s style is that of mocking science.
Too bad TimG can not see this, but understandable given his own limited experience in scientific circles.
You forgot to answer question 33. Click the BACK button to correct this.
Political Values
Radicalism 44.5
Socialism 18.75
Tenderness 46.875
These scores indicate that you are a moderate; this is the political profile one might associate with a regular person. It appears that you are moderate towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as right-wing.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with very few strong opinions.
regular person. no shock there
Regular is an endangered species
captain, ya regular is becoming rare
especially on the internet. I’m collection some data to test your thoughts.
Sadly, historical data on boreal forest is hard to come by
I have: grassland, cropland, urban, rural.. Maybe I’ll do a post on the transition from rural to urban. i do have some historical data on forest but the data points are
1700,1750,1800,1850,1900,1950,1970,1990.
I suppose I can do something with that just to see if the effect you suspect is detectable
Steven Mosher, “I have: grassland, cropland, urban, rural.. Maybe I’ll do a post on the transition from rural to urban. i do have some historical data on forest but the data points are…” sparse.
Just for grins I used the Houghton land use carbon as an attempted proxy. The impact is really soil moisture which impacts specific heat capacity which varies as the soil gets abused leading to a delayed response. I thought I would give carbon land use a shot anyway, but inverted.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ED8HN3AH7F8/UhqZc70F9qI/AAAAAAAAJSk/qB5eDhdsyPo/s640/AMO+and+Land+use.png
Kinda funny
CappyD is ABC.
Anything But CO2.
Mankind could change the ecosystems completely and thus change the albedo, but that would be OK with him because he has to prove the climate scientists wrong with their GHG thesis.
I suspect that he has issues with non-rednecks.
Webster, “CappyD is ABC.
Anything But CO2.
Mankind could change the ecosystems completely and thus change the albedo, but that would be OK with him because he has to prove the climate scientists wrong with their GHG thesis.”
Actually, I use CO2 impact as a tracer since that is the only thing that is reasonably well known. Then I have said that before and you ignored it. Water vapor is the other GHG that the sign of impact is not even known and land use impacts soil moisture content. I hope I am not going too fast for you.
If you compare regional warming with estimated CO2 forcing, no feedback because the feedbacks are unknown, you find that areas with sufficient water don’t tend to warm as much or have as much variability.
Now you have a great respect for you idols as all minions would, but I personally think there are more than enough error, divergences and “surprises” to not trust a damn thing most of the more vocal experts have to say.
After Dessler’s little trick, I doubt they can get their signs right.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2013/08/what-sign-was-that-again.html
You go right ahead on being a good little minion though.
Just how red is your neck, Cappy?
Some of us know it’s all a joke to you.
Climate Etc is like a redneck joint. Any outsider that enters is likely to get taunted. The typical decision is to turn around and leave and so not have to suffer the consequences
Alas, there are no consequences here, and so we laugh at the lack of scientific thought on display
The “regulars” here are rednecks and they do not want a real scientific discussion.
Webster, Pretty red since I work outside most of the time but not as red as some because of my long hair and full beard. That is how rednecks got their nickname btw, sunburned necks. Redneck has a pretty interesting history.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/05/fred-reed/in-defense-of-rednecks/
Of course most snot nosed holier than thou beaver brained idiots wouldn’t know that :)
here capt.
ftp://ftp.biosfera.dea.ufv.br/users/francisca/Franciz/papers/Goldewijk%20GBC%202001.pdf
http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rmap/rmap_nrs4.pdf
There are 2 criteria for redneckness:
1) Does your car have wheels?
2) Does your house have wheels?
Steven Mosher,
The US woodland density change, especially in the southeast tended to show local cooling with the replanting. Someone at Lucia’s had a pretty good graphic of surface stations with opposite trends. Forest soil temperature versus pasture indicates there should be a difference. BEST has that neat new us temperature map that would overlay that nicely.
Having some issues with the Dutch site so far.
capt, switch to explorer if you are having trouble with the dutch site, i talked to the author and he mentioned that their site had some issues with chrome.
Capt D,
some folks are unlikely to accept the idea that someone classified as right wing can be a regular person.
I’d say you have fairly substantial evidence of my beliefs from my comments. If you have any questions, ask away.
no fair joshua. the key is your comments might reflect a persona you have here.. we want data
Seriously? You’re going to complain about “fairness” in the medium of blog comment exchanges? What is your method of determining fairness?
They might. And I might lie about the results of the assessment. Or I might not answer the questions on the assessment accurately. And what is the validity of the assessment anyway?
I’d say all-in-all, you have much, much better data that what you’d get from me reporting on the assessment. Certainly, I have read absolutely confident assessments of me, my opinions, and my ideology, in thread after thread here at Climate Etc. Folks felt that they could draw conclusions with such confidence; that they were (often) wrong is convenient proof of my arguments about motivated reasoning.
And regardless, they’d filter whatever data I’d give them through their “motivated” analysis anyway, to simply confirm their bias.
In fact, I’d say that the whole concept of such online assessments are so fundamentally flawed from a validity perspective that they are basically, nothing much other than an exercise in confirmation bias. People will conclude the assessment valid if it confirms their biases and conclude the assessment invalid if it contradicts their biases. One of the biggest manifestations of the underlying mechanisms of confirmation bias is the tendency to use invalid assessment techniques. People like to attach numbers to inherently “wicked” and complex and ambiguous and dynamic phenomena, and think that they can capture some kind of simple measure that has any real meaning.
Sound familiar?
thats a lot of words for something as simple as an on line test.
perhaps you took it and didnt like the result. I’d put that down as a hypothesis to explain your overly long, illogical, defensive response.
hypothesis only of course. Could be youre just a humorless putz
According to your “hypothesis,” what result did I perhaps get? And which type of results would I “not like?”
Now this is getting interesting. What is “overly” long? How do you apply the criteria to your own posts? Where was my comment “illogical?” How have you determined what is “defensive” – because I doubted the validity of the assessment?
Because I, correctly, call such assessments invalid and more interesting for the fact that people like doing them than for the actual results they produce, you “hypothesize” that I am “defensive?”
Should we conclude that anyone who questions the validity of assessments is therefore being “defensive?”
Fascinating response, steven. Quite. I won’t be able to get back for a while to read your explanations, but I will look forward to doing so.
And btw – before I go, I just want to stress how cute I find your whining about “fairness.”
Maybe if you whine to Judith she’ll ban me like you used to plead for her to do?
of course its not fair joshua, everybody else is playing. dont you want to be one of the gang
gosh josh, you could have just ignored the bait. weird that you didnt.
Joshua
‘Should we conclude that anyone who questions the validity of assessments is therefore being “defensive?”
of course not. a hypothesis is not a conclusion. its just a hypothesis.
you are designed to make them without thinking.
Its pretty simple.
the test will either reflect what others think of you or not.
It doesnt matter if the test is valid or not or whether you fake it or not.
what matters is whether you will play or not.
Choosing not to play is a behavior. Choosing not to play and then explaining why you choose not to play is also a behavior. We get to interpret your behavior. We get to struggle to make sense of it. All theories will be underdetermined by the evidence, but thats the case with everything. So we get to hypothesize. those are neither right nor wrong, they are what they are.. hypotheses. Offering up a suggestion is also a game. If I suggested you didnt take the test because you were purple, you’d probably not even respond.
lets see if willard responds to poking. can you predict what he will do?
‘Maybe if you whine to Judith she’ll ban me like you used to plead for her to do?”
ah you fell for that one as well.
Radicalism 88.5
Socialism 12.5
Tenderness 46.875
These scores indicate that you are a progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a centrist with few strong opinions.
I didn’t realise I was such a radical
Interesting which questions you answered and which you ignored.
I have a hypothesis about that.
Heh. So you determine what matters? Interesting. A very interesting view of the world.
Anyway, why do you think it “matters” whether I “will play or not?”
Me? I say it matters not even a little bit.
I’d say that comparatively speaking, what “matters” is your reaction that I’m not being “fair” by taking the inane assessment.
But only comparatively. In any meaningful sense, that is only slightly less trivial than whether I take the assessment.
the questions I answer is easy to figure out.
i list them down. I roll a die.
its a wonderful game.
Some of these questions aren’t answerable; such as:
“Jews and Muslims are as valuable citizens as any other group.”
Stupid test. I bailed on it. But then again, I usually do bail on these things because they’re stupid.
just pick neutral. duh.
Let me refer you back to this thread.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/27/climate-scientists-are-different-from-the-general-public/
People who bail on these things do so because dumb questions are irritating. It takes a certain profile to want to answer questions that don’t make sense. People who like to opine on everything whether or not there’s any point in doing so.
harold I find the dumb questions irritating as well, but Im curious. Not a curious as willard apparently who is reverse engineering the test.
Harold
Yeah. I agree. That was a loaded question.
Check out the list of Nobelists.
Then check out the list of terrorists.
Just sayin’…
Max
Harold,
Radicalism 52.75
Socialism 6.25
Tenderness 81.25
These scores indicate that you are a very tender-minded moderate; this is the political profile one might associate with a protective parent. It appears that you are accepting of religion, and have a generally optimistic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a pragmatist with few strong opinions.
how the hell did you get a high tenderness score and low socialism
Hey, you cursed Commie Fascist, I hope you have a really wonderful day full of sweetness and light.
“Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.”
“how the hell did you get a high tenderness score and low socialism”
Ask Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, Chavez, Ceaucescu, Ortega, Hoeneker…. The most brutal dictators in history have been socialist.
Or ask Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Reagan, Churchill, Thatcher, the greatest most civilized leaders of the west have been capitalists.
Should I list the national socialists?
GaryM, don’t you think Lincoln can speak for himself?
Needless to say, the 21st century’s heir to Abraham Lincoln — and Thomas Jefferson too — is (of course!) Wendell Berry
It is a pleasure to illuminate your understanding, GaryM!
fan,
Your historical illiteracy is matched only by your economic illiteracy.
And your google skill suck. If you want to quote Lincoln’s first address to congress, try reading it first. Then you have a chance of actually understanding it. A chance anyway, though I don;’t hold out much hope.
Lincoln was talking about “labor” in deconstructing the arguments of your fellow eltists/progressives in favor of slavery.
“Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all.”
Yeah, that sure sounds like Lincoln endorsing socialism to me.
Yes Fan, he said that,
“Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.” – Lincoln.
And the next line is,
“Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.”
This above line is sometimes forgotten. Perhaps we have, capital is simply labor converted. Still worthy of protection.
GaryM and Ragnaar, you guys ain’t yet read Wendell Berry’s 21st century follow-up to Abraham Lincoln yet … have yah?
It’s good that some sober-minded American Republicans *ARE* gettin’ the message, eh GaryM and Ragnaar?
fan,
Thank you for demonstr4ating how progressives think, or rather, don’t think. You can’t read Lincoln’ words themselves and understand his meaning. You have to regurgitate what you are told to believe they mean.
Absolutely beautiful that.
First try:
Radicalism 83
Socialism 62.5
Tenderness 56.25
These scores indicate that you are a progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear communist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as left-wing.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a centrist with very few strong opinions.
***
Fifth try:
Radicalism 77.5
Socialism 68.75
Tenderness 50
Your attitudes towards economics appear socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as left-wing.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with very few strong opinions.
***
I lost tries 2-5, but I remember being the animal-right activist, which I find less insulting than the professor. My tenderness once reached 70 at the time. Don’t know why yet.
The test seems culturally biased, and very sensitive to how crisply the claims should be intrepreted. For instance, I could answer “Religious beliefs of all kinds are just superstitions” in many ways, almost from 1 to 5, depending on how crisp “are just” is.
***
My objective is to have as a result: “you are Chuck Norris”.
interesting, I also had a problem with the religion question for the same reason.
Its funny that they said “university professor” If I didnt trust you I would think you made that up.
For myself I expected higher tenderness. perhaps I misconstrue my sentimentality for tenderness.
guess i’m the resident pinko punko:
Radicalism 99.5
Socialism 93.75
Tenderness 56.25
Alright Willard, it looks like your sense of humor is back. So I’m dragging the pom poms out of the closet. Keep it up and I’ll put on the skirt as well.
Radicalism 77.5
Socialism 37.5
Tenderness 34.375
These scores indicate that you are a tough-minded moderate progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a liberated atheist. It appears that you are cynical towards religion, and have a suspicious and unsympathetic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as a political centrist.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with several strong opinions.
Not than anybody cares (I barely do), but my scores:
Political Values
Radicalism 80.25
Socialism 25
Tenderness 43.75
These scores indicate that you are a progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an egalitarian with many strong opinions.
_______
It is quite accurate.
Yours appear to be closest to mine
Political Values
Radicalism 80.25
Socialism 6.25
Tenderness 53.125
These scores indicate that you are a progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an egalitarian with few strong opinions.
====
I’m even less a socialist, and I have fewer strong opinions (meaning obviously that I chose more often 2 or 4 on the scale from 1 to 5).
I do not consider myself a libertarian, although I know that share some of their values.
Just a note- many people (especially conservatives) find it difficult to understand how a Progressive can also be a Libertarian. Those of us who are both, find no such conflict, and in fact, the current war within the Republican party between Libertarians and the so called- Radical Right indicates that a 3rd Party may need to be formed that is indeed:
Progressive (socially)
Libertarian (regarding the role of government)
Capitalist (you should get the enjoy the majority of the fruits of your labor)
Appropriate size Military (we don’t need to be the bloated policeman of the planet, only strong and lean enough to kick ass if messed with)
Such a new Party would draw from the Left and Right and be quite viable.
Pekka,
From your comments here over the many months I would have guessed you and I were somewhat close. You seem to be more “tender” than I, but I lean a bit more toward the socialist side (though still not strongly so). Interesting…
Two or three of my answers would have been different, if I had chosen U.S. as the reference rather than Finland. In those cases my preferred choice is somewhere between the present states of matter in the two countries. Difficult to say, how much that would have affected the final score.
whats with all these radical old farts..
Well, Gates, my summary is the same as yours except for the addition of “laissez-faire”. I’m a bit surprised, I did not have the impression that we were so similar. Perhaps the limitations of the test, perhaps we are secret soul-mates, who can tell. I scored 72, 0, 43.75.
Where is Bart when you need him?
timg56 | August 26, 2013 at 9:12 pm |
Where is Bart when you need him?
Political Values
Radicalism 74.75
Socialism 18.75
Tenderness 53.125
These scores indicate that you are a moderate progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an egalitarian with many strong opinions.
This concludes our analysis; we hope you found your results accurate, useful, and interesting.
Waste of time. The questions are so dated as to be an inefficient gauge of attitudes.
A true contrarian, i.e. a person that would disagree with all the claims of the test, would be:
Radicalism 50
Socialism 50
Tenderness 50
These scores indicate that you are a moderate; this is the political profile one might associate with a regular person. It appears that you are moderate towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear neither committedly capitalist nor socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as a political centrist.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a centrist with very few strong opinions.
***
Alternating from Strongly disagree and Strongly agree leads to:
Radicalism 11.5
Socialism 100
Tenderness 75
These scores indicate that you are a tender-minded conservative; this is the political profile one might associate with a sincere clergyman. It appears that you are trusting of religion, and have a compassionately humanistic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear communist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as pro-government.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with primarily strong opinions.
***
Alternating between Strongly agree and Strongly agree, i.e. the opposite of the case above, leads to:
Radicalism 50
Socialism 100
Tenderness 93.75
These scores indicate that you are a very tender-minded moderate; this is the political profile one might associate with a protective parent. It appears that you are accepting of religion, and have a generally optimistic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear communist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as left-wing.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a pragmatist with primarily strong opinions.
***
Mimicking a libertarian, i.e. maxing out progress and openness, gives me this:
Radicalism 83
Socialism 25
Tenderness 43.75
These scores indicate that you are a progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with primarily strong opinions.
Strange, just by inversing the first question, which I mistread, my libertarian becomes:
Radicalism 83
Socialism 25
Tenderness 37.5
These scores indicate that you are a tough-minded progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a liberated atheist. It appears that you are cynical towards religion, and have a suspicious and unsympathetic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with primarily strong opinions.
Josef Stalin
Radicalism 25
Socialism 100
Tenderness 0
Adolf Hitler
Radicalism 25
Socialism 50
Tenderness 5 (he loved animals)
FO*M* D ‘s HERO, JIM.
Radicalism 97%
Socialism ditto
Tenderness towards ‘the poor’ re energy needs, or
towards ‘capitalist swine’ zero.
b-t-s
crap
Radicalism 47.25
Socialism 0
Tenderness 37.5
These scores indicate that you are a tough-minded moderate; this is the political profile one might associate with a jaded materialist. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as right-wing.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a eugenicist with several strong opinions.
This concludes our analysis; we hope you found your results accurate, useful, and interesting.
You made that up.
Radicalism 77.5
Socialism 31.25
Tenderness 46.875
These scores indicate that you are a moderate progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a centrist with few strong opinions.
Political Values
Radicalism 80.25
Socialism 12.5
Tenderness 37.5
These scores indicate that you are a tough-minded progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a liberated atheist. It appears that you are cynical towards religion, and have a suspicious and unsympathetic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a pragmatist with few strong opinions.
Radicalism 61
Socialism 18.75
Tenderness 65.625
These scores indicate that you are a tender-minded moderate progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with an animal rights activist. It appears that you are moderate towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a devoted egalitarian with few strong opinions.
Well, I’m not sure where the animal rights activist bit comes from. I generally consider those folks to be mushed brain idiots.
how do you score more tender than me. for chrissake this test is rigged, Josh was right
Mosher,
Who would have thought there are so many of us progressive libertarians here? Most of which have few strong opinions.
Except you of course. Way out there on the far right.
Im in the center.. this whole test is rigged
I’m kidding.
Thanks for this. It was a lot of fun. And even if the survey is bs, it still can provide interesting conversation.
Too bad Josh decided to mope in his room instead of coming out to play. Do you get the feeling he’s up there looking out his window watching the rest of have fun?
“Who would have thought there are so many of us progressive libertarians here?”
and
“Im in the center.. this whole test is rigged”
Now let me see, who is it that often remarks how most people who consider themselves “moderates,” “independents.” and “libertarians” are in fact progressives of one degree or another?
Dang, his name is right on the tip of my tongue….
Nice to see it confirmed by such a rigorous, robust, accurate and precise piece of social science.
GaryM,
GaryM,
May I ask what you are talking about? I haven’t a clue from what you wrote.
timg56,
Wow, OK.
The first two sentences quote you and Mosher expressing surprise at being described as progressive.
The next is an oblique way of saying that I comment all the time on how most progressives either don’t know they are progressive (because of the intentional blurring of the definitions of the various descriptors by the real movement progressives), or don;t want to admit it.
The last two sentences are just wise ass remarks added for color.
What I could have written was:
“timg56 and Mosher,
You two, like most self-described moderates, independents and libertarians, are really progressives. You just don’t want to admit it, to yourself, or anyone else.”
But where’s the fun in that?
GaryM,
If I am a progressive, at least as I think you might describe one, it is a surprise to me.
Timg
What I find most interesting is that the people who played the game generally had a good time and didnt take the results too seriously.
Willard surprised me the most but in the end his approach made sense for how he likes to present himself.
Joshua.. well im shocked I tell you, shocked that he would take it so seriously and take his ball and go home. shocking.
kid needs a few links in his chain
‘Radicalism 72
Socialism 37.5
Tenderness 65.625
These scores indicate that you are a tender-minded moderate progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with an animal rights activist. It appears that you are moderate towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as a political centrist.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a devoted egalitarian with many strong opinions.’
Surprisingly accurate for these things. I eat free range eggs, chickens and pork and grass fed beef. Not to mention kangaroo, crocodile, fish and emu.
Like Homer I love animals – beef, pork, lamb – mmmmmm – drool.
I’m more Hayekian and democratic than socialist I would think. But I certainly resent being called a progressive.
Chief
Sorry I missed your late entry in the “denizen tenderness sweepstakes”
Your score of 65.625 puts you in the “silver medal” runner-up position (which entitles you to a free lecture on climate sensitivity by Webby), but you still haven’t topped the “gold medal” tenderness winner miker 613.
Sorry ’bout that.
Max
Thanks Max
I have already solved for climate sensitivity however.
It is ϒ in the link.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Ghil_fig11_zpse58189d9.png.html?sort=3&o=0
Now we need 1000’s of times more computing power to find out the question. Do you think we could incorporate his brain in the wetware?
That’s better than 1st prize, which entitles you to a 5 day residential seminar on on climate change hosted by Al Gore.
I preen.
You were drunk and maudlin. 81.25 fer Christ’s sake? I’m calling for a drugs in interweb personality quizes inquiry.
I think this test is bad for certain nuances, especially when it comes to theological beliefs, but the results are interesting:
Radicalism 72
Socialism 18.75
Tenderness 59.375
These scores indicate that you are a moderate progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with an animal rights activist. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an egalitarian with many strong opinions.
Brandon,
Maybe this explains why I like your comments (except maybe when you get a little prickly, but even then you mange that ok).
Who would have guessed we are a couple of animal rights activists? Want to trade ideas on what one can do with a dead cat?
It’s weird animal rights activism got mentioned in mine. I have little interest in animals. I hate pets because of having to take care of them. Sometimes I like to play with/watch animals because it’s fun, but otherwise, I’d be fine with ignoring them completely.
I guess it’s just a matter of fairness. I try to be fair to everyone and everything. In the case of animals, that means treating them better than many people think I should.
Radicalism 80.25
Socialism 87.5
Tenderness 53.125
These scores indicate that you are a progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear communist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as left-wing.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an egalitarian with many strong opinions.
“Radicalism 72
Socialism 25
Tenderness 40.625
These scores indicate that you are a moderate progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a liberated atheist. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an egalitarian with few strong opinions.”
So I’m a pragmatic egalitarian capitalist libertarian progressive!
And a nice human bean, Peter, lol
Serf,.
Thanx Beth. What’s your score? I looked but couldn’t find them!
Radicalism 52.75
Socialism 18.75
Tenderness 43.75
These scores indicate that you are a moderate; this is the political profile one might associate with a regular person. It appears that you are moderate towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a pragmatist with few strong opinions.
Peter, 18.75! I appear to be the only one to score zero for Socialism.
“Political Values
Radicalism 63.75
Socialism 25
Tenderness 53.125
These scores indicate that you are a moderate progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an egalitarian with few strong opinions.
This concludes our analysis; we hope you found your results accurate, useful, and interesting.”
Libertarian is what usually score in other tests.
But I do have have lots strong opinion, on what regard as important issues, but I found most “hot topics” given were boring and lacked much significance. And no one would make the mistake of thinking of me as any kind of progressive. Unless one using the term correctly- thinking the world is improving- being fan of technology.
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2011/09/15/the-price-of-altruism/
Proposition The price of altruism is higher than money can measure.
Example My spouse brought home a 14-year old “stray cat”. To keep that “cat”, we became licensed foster parents. During training, the instructor looked-out at her audience and asked: “How many of you hope your foster child will learn to love you?” Many raised their hands. The instructor fixed us with a flinty gaze: “Most of you will be disappointed.”
Today (fifteen years later) the price of that stray cat (in strictly economic terms) has been comparable to a brand-new Ferrari Testrossa.
Worth every penny? Yes (to us).
Question What fraction of American states — “red-state” and “blue-state” alike — are experiencing a grave shortage of willing foster parents?
Answer All of them, “red” and “blue” alike.
Lessons-Learned (if any) The “tenderness” score on Steven Mosher’s “social attitude” test matters far more than the “radicalism versus conservatism” or “socialism versus capitalism” score. Actions speak louder than any brand of demagogic rhetoric. Wendell Berry is entirely right to remind us that, in the only world that matters, “It all turns on affection.”
???
The cat is 29 years old? I’d say that you could turn that financial equation around by marketing whatever food you’re giving it as a “fountain of youth.”
Fan, I heard this book reviewed on late night radio and I thought of you.
Not so much for the argument being made, but I just thought it might be something you’d like to read.
I think the tenderness issue is the most interesting and least understood.
i would have thought myself a more compassionate conservative than the test indicated. Of course I can reject the test.. or look in the mirror. So even if its wrong, its worthwhile.. unless of course it told me I was tender when I wasnt.
You’ve got it backwards, Joshua. This particular high-spirited high-energy “cat” — who had been returned to the “pound” three times previous — has been *OUR* “fountain of youth”.
And yah, sure, you bet’cha … this real-world “fountain of youth” ain’t cheaply drunk!
“Answer All of them, “red” and “blue” alike.”
In addition to tenderness, onemust be willing to subject oneself to state and local employees. That requires saintliness to match.
Our family would no more mock the folks in Child Protective Services than we would mock a combat-veteran US Marine.
Come to mind, Child Protective Services and the US Marines *both* are socialist institutions, ain’t that right? And more; the veterans of both institutions know first-hand where PTSD comes from, for sure … and what sacrifice is all about, too.
These are matters of which economists and ideologues and denialists know nothing.
Fan,
Since I just recently found out I am an animal rights activist ( or at least could be), an I ask you a question about your cat story?
Did you really have to be certified as a foster parent to adopt a cat? Assuming you live in Seattle, I can sort of believe that. Yet if true, I would be outraged (ok, slightly ticked off). Getting people to adopt abandoned pets is tough enough without making them go through the process develop for foster care of children.
Native altruism is just self interest with a longer payoff time that also benefits others.
Indeed, just think about these thousands of virgins.
Unfortunately, personal experience and much research had led me to conclude that generally Hobbs in The Leviathan was correct- strip away the veneer of civilization and in our natural environment we’ll resort to tribalism and the war of “all against all”. Yes, we can be tender hearted to a point, and I’ve personally adopted many stray cat and stray dog in my life, but if push comes to shove and the relative plenty that civilization brings is stripped away, or scarcity is perceived, then it quickly turns to a “war of all against all”. One only needs to think of Thanksgiving day shopping sales and the rush of the crowd to realize how quickly the veneer of “civilization” gives way to this natural state of human nature.
turns out when starfish are resource constrained their altruism increases
RGates
Is William Goldings ‘Lord of the flies’ still read over there? It sums up the rapid descent into barbarity very well.
In that respect I think we have far more to fear from a Carrington event or malicious hacking than even the most dire predictions of CAGW. Once the electricity had gone civilisation would be over very quickly
(Although Brandon disagrees)
tonyb
Or *NOT*!!!
Indeed, *NOT*!!!
Assuredly, *NOT*!!!
> (Although Brandon disagrees).
That makes no sense.
Willard
Every time I say that a Carrington event -or more likely a malicious hacking attack-is a grave threat to our civilisation if aimed at our electronic infrastructure (immediate cessation of electricity/banking/water/supermarkets/fuel etc) Brandon pops up to say that my concerns are hugely overstated. I think that civilisation is far more likely to be disrupted in this manner than by CAGW.
tonyb
Tony
‘Is William Goldings ‘Lord of the flies’ still read over there? It sums up the rapid descent into barbarity very well.”
i was waiting for somebody to bring that up.
CR,
10 years ago I would have agreed that worries about electronic warfare are all Y2K stuff. However, nowadays the industrial automation vendors are all pushing cloud computing and internet connectivity. Some want you to leave their PLC connected to the internet all the time for automatic firmware updates.
Gee, what could go wrong with that?
Interestingly climatereason, I wouldn’t have said anything this time if not for your reference to me. The first few times I see a topic, I’ll comment. If my views become known, I’ll stop commenting each time I see the topic discussed. I try not to restate my views too many times. In this case, I just want to clarify something:
I don’t believe I’ve commented either way on a Carrington event. And I know I haven’t commented on what would happen if electricity was gone on a major scale. My disagreement lies just in whether or not hacking could cause something like that. My view is there’s no way it could.
Harold:
Yup. PLCs are probably the single greatest cyber security risk sources in the world right now. Sadly, rather than this problem becoming smaller as more people become aware of it, it seems to be becoming larger. Still, the exposed systems are far too minor to cause anything like climatereason fears. On top of that, if any real attack happened on them, things would change almost overnight.
Interestingly, one of the greatest protections against this security problem is finance. Introducing new infrastructure takes a lot of time. It’s a slow and gradual process. That means no matter how vulnerable a new fad may be, it’ll only affect a portion of the system. We still have 20 years for PLC issues to be fixed before they could lead to major problems.
That’s actually the major reason why cyber security is possible. If people updated to the newest systems the moment they became available, we’d eventually be doomed. It’d only be a matter of time before some serious vulnerability led to a catastrophic attack.
But as it stands now, individuality protects us. Not only are there many different systems in use, many of those systems are patchwork things with ad hoc solutions nobody could have ever predicted. The fact many of those systems are less secure in general is counterbalanced by the fact they provide a buffer for any major attacks.
Steven,
If only humans were starfish, eh?
and BTW, at 54, I don’t consider myself an “old fart”. :)
Tony wisely said:
“Once the electricity had gone civilisation would be over very quickly.”
____
Yep, some major CME or other event that took down the electrical grids of the world and we’d be back to the stone age very fast, and the road getting there would not be a pretty sight. We’d quickly see how Hobb’s “war of all against all” would happen very quickly. From the initial event to the murder, war, hunger, famine, and pestilence that would follow, the human population would plummet well below 1 Billion within a few years.
Of course, tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people are prepping for this exact event all around the world– including of course the most famous group– the Mormon church. Their bunkers are ready, stocked full of food, weapons, seed stock, water, medicine, etc. Ready to ride it out. Those who would survive the initial years of terror, will need to be a hearty bunch for sure.
I normally stay out of the CME discussions because I have enough trouble just covering cyber security, but… this is getting ridiculous. Even at its worst, a CME wouldn’t take down the world’s electrical infrastructure. Not all parts of the grid are vulnerable, and even if they were, a CME wouldn’t affect all areas the same (entire countries would be “missed”).
Even ignoring that, the rebound time would be short enough that there would be no Armageddon. Rebuilding the basic electrical grid of the US would only take a couple months, and that’s assuming no preventative measures were taken during the event (with approximately 24 hours to do so). Even if it happened in the worst time possible (the middle of winter), there’d be no doomsday.
On top of that, even if the grid as a whole were brought down, power would not be gone from all areas. The best example of this is steam power plants. Even if they lost all computer equipment within them, they could be up in days.
There’s a lot more to say, but the basic point is, concerns about CMEs are massively exaggerated.
Interesting thread.
Mosh
Radicalism 47.25
Socialism 18.75
Tenderness 43.75
kinda radical, sorta tender non-socialist (with conservative or libertarian tendencies)
Max
Radicalism 69.25
Socialism 18.75
Tenderness 37.5
These scores indicate that you are a tough-minded moderate progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a liberated atheist. It appears that you are cynical towards religion, and have a suspicious and unsympathetic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with few strong opinions.
WTF, how do you all beat me on tenderness. this test sucks.
Swiss are Eurolibertarians. Kinder and gentler and like that.
JC, after listening to both interviews as they were broadcast on NPR, it was obvious that Richard Harris, the NPR interviewer, didn’t miss anything. He had his own agenda and beliefs as a starting point and intended for the two segments to bolster them rather than delve into the subject objectively. In that way, your voice of reason was done a tremendous disservice.
As fiction and propaganda AGW theory is a chef-d’oeuvre; as science, climatology is an embarrassment to Western education.
should there be a comma after propaganda?
lolwot
Always (if not a period or exclamation point).
It’s usefulness is highly overrated.
From JC’s summaries:
”So what is the disagreement between mine and Trenberth’s perspective? It’s mainly one of confidence: Trenberth seems to think that he understands what is going on in the ocean, whereas I regard all this as an hypothesis that is associated with substantial uncertainties in the data and understanding of the mechanisms of vertical heat transport in the ocean. – – – ”
– – –
”KT and JC obviously disagree substantially on the role of scientists in public debates about policy. KT aligns himself with the consensus in terms of ‘urgent action is needed.’ I stay out of making specific policy recommendations or urging action, saying that i don’t think this the role of scientists and that personally I don’t have any good solutions to this wicked problem. – – – ”
As I understand on the basis of the excerpts above, Judith Curry is openmindedly ready to believe any new ‘ good solutions to this wicked problem’ as it is properly stated.
Further an excerpt from JC’s conclusion:
”The uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity are such that beliefs as low as 1C and as high as 6C cannot be judged as irrational.”
‘The uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity’ proves that the climate sensitivity based on climate models is inapproriate for any assessment of climate warming. And that is proved empirically e.g. during the last 17 years when the global temperature has not been rising although CO2 content in atmosphere has been exponentially increasing; look more e.g. at comment http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/17/open-thread-weekend-28/#comment-366643 .
Lauri Heimonen, you might want to reconsider that assertion, in light of Section 13.6.1 (pages 31-32), titled “Measuring Earth’s energy imbalance”, of the review Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications.
Broader scientific knowledge is *GOOD*, Lauri Heimonen!
Denizen Tenderness Ratings
Mosh 37.5
Fan 56
GaryM 59.375
Ragnaar 59.375
captdallas 46.875
phatboy 46.875
willard(1) 56.25
willard(5) 50
willard(top) 70
willard(corr) 37.5
Marlowe J 56.25
Howard 34.375
R. Gates 43.75
Pekka 53.125
RobertAZ 46.875
Joshua ? 50 (estimate based on expert judgment, not formal studies)
lolwot ?? 50 (see above for basis)
Webby ??? 10 (see above for basis)
Harold ???? (bailed)
manacker 43.75
Rob Starkey 37.5
An’ da winnah is…….
Miker613 at 81.25
Who wudda thunk?
Max
rub it in.
Wherein it is shown that the university professor has less tenderness than the animal right activist:
Radicalism 77.5
Socialism 68.75
Tenderness 59.375
These scores indicate that you are a moderate progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with an animal rights activist. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as left-wing.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a centrist with few strong opinions.
***
Radicalism 77.5
Socialism 68.75
Tenderness 56.25
These scores indicate that you are a moderate progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor. It appears that you are skeptical towards religion, and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as left-wing.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a centrist with few strong opinions.
***
The two profiles changed by varying the answer to the first question.
Add me in at 59.375.
I can’t have any tenderness. I am a racist, sexist, homophobic, climate denying, God fearing, Judeo-Christian ethic practicing, conservative Catholic. Just ask one of the narrow minded, uncritical thinking, default progressive drones who comment here.
Wait, that wasn’t very tender, was it?
manaker,
You missed my 65.6 tenderness score. And i didn’t have to draw little hearts over my i’s to get it.
I was so close.
[This is in response to Jim D comments #369675 and #369678]
Joulie the Joule
[In a 6th grade science classroom]
Hi, children!
I’m Joulie the Joule.
You can’t see me because I’m invisible.
I’m also an itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, li’l bitty ol’ thing.
I warm things up, but I’m so tiny that I could only warm a glass of water by 0.004 degrees – can you imagine!
In fact, I’m so small you couldn’t even feel me at all if I got into your eye.
But I’m very important in the war on climate change and the carbon pollution that causes it, and that makes me very proud.
Here’s why.
Your teacher may not have told you, but global warming has stopped for a really long time. In fact it’s stopped since before any of you were even born!
But scientists know this can’t be true because grownups are still driving cars and SUVs plus turning up the thermostats in winter and the air conditioners in summer making lots of that really bad gas, CO2 – so they know it’s really gotta be warming, even if we can’t feel or measure it.
So the scientists figured out how this could be.
All that heat had to be going somewhere and since it wasn’t going to the air around us, it was probably hiding in the deep blue sea!
Nobody had really been measuring this, but scientists know it’s true anyway.
And for the last 10 years they have even been measuring it. That’s kinda hard to do because, as we all know, the oceans and seas of the world are so very, very humongous. But anyway, the scientists now have some measurements scattered around here and there and these show that the top part of the ocean has warmed by a total of around 0.008 degrees C over the past 10 years.
This doesn’t sound like much at all, so nobody gets very scared when they hear it.
And that’s where I come in!
The scientists have figured out that they can convert the warming to Joules – ME! – and it will sound a whole lot scarier.
Remember that I can only warm a glass of water by around 0.004 degrees so it would take gadzillions of me to warm the whole top part of the ocean by that much.
And to warm it around four times that much, or 0.015 degrees, which scientists think they have measured over the past 10 years total, would take 14,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of me! Scientists would call this 1.4×10^22 Joules.
And that sure sounds a whole lot scarier than 0.015 degrees, doesn’t it, children?
And it makes li’l bitty me very proud to play such a big and important role in the war on climate change!
Even very small things can make a really big difference.
I hear the Trenberthian heat wave a comin’
It’s rolling round the bend
It ain’t seen the sunshine since I don’t know when,
It’s stuck mile deep water, and time keeps draggin’ on
But that Trenberthian heat wave keeps a rollin’ on down to Hell’s Kitchen..
I’ll have you know that I am a moderate progressive, politically centrist, pragmatic towards humanity, egalitarian, according to that test. None of which I mind as a description.
At 75-44-53, I find the closest to me here is FOMD with 72-44-56 (almost a twin in fact).
LOL … “Joulie the Joule”, your nephew “Newt the Newton” is the weight of a hamburger patty against your hand, and you yourself are enough energy to toss that hamburger patty one meter in the air.
These are metrics that every modern kid understands!
Social attitude test: I note that Radicalism, Socilaism and Tenderness are not defined, but no matter. My result:
Radicalism: 72 (hands up those who think I’m a stodgy old conservative?)
Socialism 0 (and proud of it)
Tenderness 43.75 (hmmm. I’m pretty compassionate, perhaps it’s realist “hard love.”)
These scores indicate you are a moderate progressive (progressive? moi?! Well, I support progress, I often disagree with what alleged “progressives” mean by it); this is the political profile one might associate with a university professor (Heavens forbid!). It appears that you are skeptical towards religion (tick), and have a pragmatic attitude towards humanity in general (tick).
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist (tick), and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian (perhaps, I don’t use labels much).
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an egalitarian with several strong opinions (who could wish for more?).
You should begin eating the fruit on your neighbors’ trees until your socialism-deficiency is all cleared up.
For what it is worth:
Political Values
Radicalism 44.5
Socialism 12.5
Tenderness 40.625
These scores indicate that you are a moderate; this is the political profile one might associate with a jaded materialist. It appears that you are moderate towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as right-wing.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, a centrist with several strong opinions.
This concludes our analysis; we hope you found your results accurate, useful, and interesting.
Unlike many other political tests found on the Internet which base themselves on untested (and usually ideologically motivated) ideas, this inventory is adapted from Hans Eysenck’s own political inventory which was developed after extensive empirical investigations in the 20th Century.
Where’s my Little Red Book?
Political Values
Radicalism 52.75
Socialism 50
Tenderness 56.25
These scores indicate that you are a moderate; this is the political profile one might associate with a regular person. It appears that you are moderate towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear neither committedly capitalist nor socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as a political centrist.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an idealist with primarily strong opinions.
This concludes our analysis; we hope you found your results accurate, useful, and interesting.
Seems that Wagathon’s our middle man!
Black squirrels willard,…
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-black-squirrels-infested-wall-street-2013-08-27?dist=beforebell
these adjustments move so fast, they can’t seem to tell us if they were going up or down and they still don’t know but trust them your money is safe somewhere.
SOES, why not just ask BM himself, since he created it…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff
65 billion nuts are stored somewhere now aren’t they? Take a poll and you will find it all.
Thanks again, Tom. Noticed it the first time. Where are your test results?
Where are Judy’s?
where is the link to take the test? I’ll take it this aft
http://slackhalla.org/~demise/test/socialattitude.php
It has been very entertaining to see such rapid adjustments being made to only the one model. Now let’s all get back to that incredibly deadly gas CO2, and see what numbers we will be giving it tomorrow.
There have already been far too many adjustments to the economic model (as well as the cultural model): too much Leftist-liberal jiggery-pokery to game the productive out of their blood, sweat, sacrifice and investment. So, the danger is real: CO2 Never Killed Anyone But Socialism Has. We don’t need to look for even MORE ways to continue funding the Left’s liberal Utopia gone viral at the expense of those who actually contribute value to society.
I came late to the party
Political Values
Radicalism 50
Socialism 6.25
Tenderness 50
These scores indicate that you are a moderate; this is the political profile one might associate with a regular person. It appears that you are moderate towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as right-wing.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an egalitarian with few strong opinions.
This concludes our analysis; we hope you found your results accurate, useful, and interesting.
I would say this is pretty close to who I am.
I hate to tell you guys, but so far I am the only “regular” guy as in “normal” That makes y’all abby normal or irregular if you prefer.
Yeah – everyone but you and me is crazy – and I wonder about you sometimes.
Judging by my scores, well, I must say, I’m a little embarrassed, as I thought better of myself but I guess it isn’t true and I have a lot of soul searching to do.
Now I appreciate that Chief is not crazy because he says he is not crazy and anybody who is crazy would say they are not crazy so I wonder about Chief.
As for you Capt’nDallas, when you tell me you are a regular guy I think of my mother’s admonishment as she sent me off to war: “keep your bowels open, your mouth shut, and never volunteer” so I appreciate what you mean when you say you are a “regular” guy.
Rather than wimp out, I …ahhh…well, do haft to?
Political Values
Radicalism 72
Socialism 18.75
Tenderness 34.375
These scores indicate that you are a tough-minded moderate progressive; this is the political profile one might associate with a liberated atheist. It appears that you are cynical towards religion, and have a suspicious and unsympathetic attitude towards humanity in general.
Your attitudes towards economics appear laissez-faire capitalist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as libertarian.
To round out the picture you appear to be, political preference aside, an egalitarian with several strong opinions.
Say, isn’t the variay-shun in human responses ter the cloudy
wots -out-there kinda re-asshuring. Some one responding in
a unique way ter some problem sit-you-ay-shun is likely ter
come up with a solushun. if’n we don’t bunker down.
bts – the – home – spun = fillossofer.
capt
If you are the only one that is normal, surely you are proving there is no such thing as ‘normal’, whether it is people OR climate.
tonyb
Is there a “normal” way to water and add nitrogen to a cricket pitch? It would appear not.
tonyb, actually there is a crap load of us that are “normal”. Most of the ones that didn’t take the survey are “normal”. I think I am regular because I didn’t answer one of the sillier questions :)
mosomoso
Difficult to tell in the dark. what was happening. Mind you if they had finished the match instead of setting up the game sportingly then appealing against the light all this might have happened an hour later when even journos had gone to bed. :)
very silly thing to do though.
tony
LOL … I wanna know Christopher Monckton’s assessment! Does it begin “you are a mentally unbalanced, paranoid crackpot” as some folks have concluded?
It’s peculiar too, that the folks at Watts/WUWT are headlining Monckton’s ramblings again this week. What does that say about the slipping sanity of the Watts/WUWT editorial policy?
Thank goodness for the solid contact with reality that HotWhopper/Sou from Bundangawoolarangeera! provides!
How about humourless twit with annoying and irrelevant links to non science and nonsense and an inability to say anything at all that is not desperately stupid manifestations of rule number 5 for pissant progressives? Someone who wants to make the same tedious point relentlessly about the idiocy and heartlessness of sceptics? Someone who is hopelessly scientifically illiterate at that and who stupidly links to random pages of Wikipedia with the intent of bamboozling gormless sceptics?
Real science and real scientists know exactly why it is not warming – and not warming for another decade to three. A weak statistical and speculative climate shift in 1998/2001. Isn’t that right FOMBS?
What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world’s climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of Earth. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822105042.htm
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
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
You don’t even know what sychronised chaos or abrupt climate change means. Monkton is hardly a scientist of any sort as far as I know – but at least he is correct that surface temperature have declined since the last climate shift.
Frankly FOMBS – word of advice – you are looking like the idiot around here.
Fan, I guess you classify yourself as being “regular”? I don’t want to sound judgmental, but that is not exactly the first thing that pops into my mind when I think Fan of More Discourse.
I can relate to Monckton though. He made a good deal of money with a couple of puzzles and uses a bit of an over the top persona to sell his wares. One of his critiques of Climate Science was actually spot on, that silly Planck Response thing where he said Trenberth’s budget even indicated that CO2 “sensitivity” was 0.8 C. I don’t know if he came up with that himself or stole that from Kimoto, but energy is fungible only the work done is not. Eventually, this CO2 forcing thing will end up being a bathtub fart instead of a volcano, but “averaging” forcing is incorrect, averaging responses, work, is more correct. You will never get 100% efficiency converting energy into work.
Chief and captdallas0.8, it’s reassuring that even “mentally unbalanced, paranoid crackpots” like Chris Monckton can find tender defenders here on Climate Etc!
Chief’s notion of “sychronised [sic] chaos” is well-chosen:
▷ The quest for pure ideology “sychronizes” Monckton-style denialist cognition in that all scientific findings are assessed by the sole criterion “Does it support my political/economic/conspiracy-centric denialist ideology?”
▷ Cherry-picking “chaoticizes” Monckton-style denialist cognition in that denialists suffer from a compulsion to cherry-pick weak climate science, abuse mediocre climate science, and ignore strong climate science, in order to sustain a worldview of near-perfect ideological integrity, at the price of near-zero scientific integrity.
Summary “The purest ideology sustained by the weakest available science” is an apt summary of the Monckton/Watts/WUWT style of denialist cognition.
Thank you for clarifying this point, Chief and captdallas0.8!
‘The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.’ http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2246
Weather has been known to be chaotic since Edward Lorenz discovered the ‘butterfly effect’ in the 1960’s. Abrupt climate change on the other hand was thought to have happened only in the distant past and so climate was expected to evolve steadily over this century in response to ordered climate forcing.
More recent work is identifying abrupt climate changes working through the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode, the Artic Oscillation, the Indian Ocean Dipole and other measures of ocean and atmospheric states. These are measurements of sea surface temperature and atmospheric pressure over more than 100 years which show evidence for abrupt change to new climate conditions that persist for up to a few decades before shifting again. Global rainfall and flood records likewise show evidence for abrupt shifts and regimes that persist for decades. In Australia, less frequent flooding from early last century to the mid 1940’s, more frequent flooding to the late 1970’s and again a low rainfall regime to recent times.
Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.
I’m am not sure what your purpose is FOMBS – but it is not science.
Fan
I have almost lost the will to live on the subject of Monckton-who certainly does not speak for me.
However, in the interests of fairness it is my understanding that he is a MEMBER of the House of Lords and this has been confirmed by a constitutional lawyer.
See the comment here which seems to accurately capture the status.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/26/sticking-it-to-the-mann/#comment-1400971
So his claim is correct. However, he does not have a SEAT in the house of Lords. That is a quite different thorny constitutional question way beyond my pay grade complicated by the inept and confusing legal instruments brought in during 1999 to abolish the House of Lords..
The unpleasant site you linked to also claimed that Monckton had cured Aids. As far as I can see he claimed no such thing. Some 20 years ago he suggested a way in which the spread could have been reduced, that is a quite different thing.
IMHO the climate crock site is much worse and far more myopic than WUWT and I don’t know why you would want to cite it.
Quite why Monckton courts controversy by citing his aristocratic status is beyond me, other than perhaps it keeps him in the public eye and the world still seems fascinated by British aristocracy.
tonyb
TonyB, doesn’t Chris Monckton’s rap sheet speak for itself? Why does Watts/WUWT continue to shill for this guy? Why does James Hansen attract dozens of young scientist-collaborator/coauthors, whereas Chris Monckton attracts none at all?
These are serious questions, TonyB!
Conclusion Among young scientists, it’s over: Hansen has won.
Fan
You are practising your ballroom dancing again and sashaying away from the subject matter.
I pointed out that the site you linked to was incorrect. Monckton is who he says he is and never claimed a cure for Aids. You are promoting smear and innuendo. .
I have defended Hansen and Scott Mandia before now when they were right so I do want to get at the truth as I am sure you do, and aiming for the man (or woman) rather than the science is a low shot.
As I said before I hold no brief for Monckton. He does not speak for me but his in your face science seems to go down well at WUWT.
tonyb
When I saw the good Lord Monckton walking around the streets of Tombstone Arizona with a six-shooter strapped to his waist and wearing a silly hat, I knew he was eccentric. When I began to actually read some of his thoughts on the sensitivity issue and his claim to be a “leading expert” on the subject, I knew that he was more than eccentric. Here’s a great pic of him in Tombstone (he’s the guy on the left in the American flag shirt, an attire I assume was approved by House of Lords):
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Br9imjm1kvk/hqdefault.jpg
RGates
That seems pretty conservative compared to the attire of the House of Lords.
http://www.edeandravenscroft.co.uk/ceremonial-dress/peers-robes/peers-parliamentary-robes/
I heard Monckton on the radio once and he is certainly a compelling speaker. If he were to give a talk in our local village hall (800 yards away) I would certainly go along. Mind you if Hansen were talking I would be prepared to walk 200 yards further to another hall thereby demonstrating my lack of tribalism. The former scenario is somewhat more likely I feel as Monckton was head of UKIP (United Kingdom Independence party) for a time and we here in the South West are a hotbed of support for it. Could be something to do with the fact that we are subject to the lunacy of Brussels at first hand as the MEP (member of European Parliament) for the South West is ALSO the MEP for Gibraltar !!
tonyb
Are you entirely sure of this, TonyB? Don’t Monckton’s patent applications speak plainly?
TonyB, based upon these medical claims, would you invest in Monckton’s pharmaceutical company, Resurrexi Pharmaceutical?
By the way, for some bizarre reason, Watts/WUWT is providing Monckton’s theories with front-page coverage again this week!
Fan
As your original link made clear the patent was for the common cold. And in the 1980’s he suggested ways in which Aids could be contained not cured.
As for your dozens of young Hansen collaborators. What is your definition of dozens and ‘young’?
tonyb
LOL … it is easy to answer these questions for yourself, climatereason!
▶ count the co-authors
▶ “Young” means (obviously!) “younger than Hansen”
Seriously, Hansen’s ability to recruit top-rank collaborators (women and men, young and old, from every nation, over many decades) is mighty impressive, eh climatereason?
Query Why haven’t climate-change denialists done the same?
fan, “▶ “Young” means (obviously!) “younger than Hansen””
That is like 97% of climate scientists :)
Fan
‘younger than Hansen’ That is a classic.
As for why sceptics don’t do the same! the answer is easy. Because we are disorganised and have as wide a variety of views as a hundred accountants looking at the same company accounts.
I blame big oil. If only they gave us even more money we could put in place a proper command and control structure.
Tonyb
Tonyb:
“Because we are disorganised and have as wide a variety of views as a hundred accountants looking at the same company accounts.”
Are you saying I might have something to contribute after all?
George Bush sums up the Science/Accounting dialectic quite succinctly (30 second, no regrets video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcygSFgKu9I
Well, Tony and Ragnar, if BIG OIL gave us sceptics even more
money to put in place a proper command control centre it would
still be like herding cats. )
Cheers,
bts.
jonathan jones says : Does climate science want to regain its credibility and start being treated like a proper science again?
since when did climate science ever have any credibility ? it is incomparable to the traditional hard sciences.when you are dealing with elements that cannot be accurately measured,over timescales of millenia it means climate science at very best can only be classed as pseudo science.
for the past couple of decades the purveyors of climate science have been afforded a status outwith the realms of their (lack of real ) knowledge, only as opportunistic politicians and businessmen have seen yet another another way to extort wealth from the already hard pressed masses around the world.
in another 2 decades climate science will be well on its way back into obscurity where it belongs,along with the small minded zealots that refuse to believe they are wrong and in fact nature will drive the climate,regardless of how much co2 is in the atmosphere.
latimer alder says : fear and loathing of sceptics ?
latimer,you have a new fan.that post sums the situation up perfectly.unfortunately the damage these pseudo scientists have done to the scientific community in general may well be irreparable. as a member of the general public in the uk,i and many others look on at the whole climatology debacle in disbelief.
ordinary people that for one reason or another decided to have a look online at what had happened to the disasterous global warming we were all told was coming.
to an ordinary citizen like myself it beggars belief that not only are people that have proclaimed theories based on false assumptions as facts ( that have cost the populations of the western world billions) not in jail,but are in fact held in lofty regard by their fellow academics,whilst still employed by top universities ,teaching the same falsehoods to the next generation of academics,mind blowingly unbelievable !
doc martyn,you may well just have restored a small amount of the lost faith i have in science in general with the quote below , i didnt think anyone else had thought about the obvious question !
But, after a trillion bucks, just WTF is the ‘equilibrium’ climate sensitivity?
Mosh
Josh DID take the test.
BUT he scored well below the tenderness gold medalist (Miker613) or the silver-medalist runner-up (Chief). He didn’t even match timg56’s bronze-medal performance.
So, tenderness-wise, Josh is a mediocre also-ran.
As a result, he is so embarrassed he doesn’t want his score known by anyone.
Max
Miker613 is a scum of the interweb sockpuppet who was probably drug assisted.
I am lodging a protest.
Chief
The Tenderness Sweepstakes Committee has taken due note of your formal protest.
At this point in time the members of the Tenderness Judging Panel have awarded the Tenderness Gold Medal to miker613, in the assumption that this denizen actually does exist, and is not simply an “internet sockpuppet” (say of Joshua, Web-o-scope, or some other denizen here), as you suspect.
If, however, substantive evidence can be provided to the Panel before the final closing date of 1 September (2013), which demonstrates conclusively that miker613 is, indeed, an “internet sockpuppet”, the panel will reconsider its decision.
We hope we have responded to your satisfaction and are awaiting further word from you in this matter.
Respectfully
The Committee
JC comment: not sure if you spotted it, but Mike613 just posted a biosketch on the Denizens thread
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/12/the-denizens-of-climate-etc/#comment-370723
Max
I was thinking he was a sockpuppet for Joe Romm – but perhaps it was simply a few large whiskeys. This could be a performance enhancing drug in interweb personality quizes scandal.
Climateetcgate!!!!
We have got to the bottom of the problem and should leave no stone unturned.
Stated in no uncertain terms.
An alternative hypothesis would be that Joshua’s waiting for Judy, Tom & Beth before publishing his results.
Were not interested in no freakin’ hypothesis. Put up or shut up.
70’s 30’s 50’s Willard, nor as tender as U but tenderer
than Steve Mosher )
bts
Your score similar to mine Beth, just a little bit more tender, which makes you nicer than me but I’ll live with that! ;)
“With respect to the science of climate change, many experts regard the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the world’s authoritative institution. A draft summary of its forthcoming report was leaked last week. It describes the panel’s growing confidence that climate change is real, that it is a result of human action, and that if the world continues on its current course, it will face exceedingly serious losses and threats (including a significant rise in sea levels by century’s end). ”
Jim2: “Say what?”
…
“In this light, it should not be surprising if people don’t get much exercised by the IPCC’s forthcoming report. All the obstacles are daunting — skepticism about the science, economic self-interest, and the difficulties of designing cost-effective approaches and obtaining an international agreement. But the world is unlikely to make much progress on climate change until the barrier of human psychology is squarely addressed. ”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/people-don-t-fear-climate-change-enough.html
climatereason,
Allow me to disabuse you of certain falsehoods you’ve been told about Christopher Monckton.
Monckton is a British Viscount, a hereditary peer, so he really is a “Lord”. But in 1999 (before Monckton inherited his title in 2006 from his father,) Parliament enacted the House of Lords Act, which says, “No one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage.” Did you get that? So a lot of hereditary peers (Lords) who were members of the House of Lords before 1999 no longer were after 1999.
So when Monckton started going around introducing himself to members of the U.S. Congress as a member of the House of Lords, but he didn’t appear on the official list of members, people started asking questions. Then Monckton’s claims started shifting a bit. Instead of just claiming to be a member of the HoL, he started qualifying that by saying he’s a member, but without a seat or vote. Queries to the HoL Information Office were answered with a form letter saying that Monckton was not, and never had been, a member of the House of Lords, and furthermore, there’s no such thing as a member of the HoL “without a seat or vote.” Eventually, the Clerk of the Parliaments put an open letter to Monckton on the Parliament website asking him to cease and desist claiming to be a member of Parliament, and illegally using their logo.
Monckton responded by hiring a “constitutional lawyer” to say that the Clerk of the Parliaments was wrong, and that the sentence, “No one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage,” doesn’t really mean what it says. Did Monckton press his case in the courts? No, because the fact is that other disenfranchised peers had already filed suit, and had lost in the courts. You see, Britain doesn’t have a written Constitution, and so Parliament can essentially pass whatever they want. But then, His Lordship’s goal was only to confuse the poor rubes who read Watts’s blog, so they would keep being enthralled by his bellicose prose peppered with gratuitous Latin phrases. You can find sources for most of what I just said here:
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/the-monckton-files-lawyering-up/
If you need sources for anything else, including Monckton’s claims about creating a miracle cure for AIDS, Herpes, Multiple Sclerosis, Graves’ Disease, Influenza, the common cold, and many other major diseases, I can give you that, too. You can find some here:
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/
As expressed here by others, the point is that Watts will publish anything by contrarians, no matter how crazy or stupid. If you’ve been taken in by Watts, please take a closer look. Instead of just parroting what Monckton says, actually look it up.
I don’t ever go to WUWT – it always seems a bit shallow – but I did look in on Monkton after FOMBS usual nonsense. Monckton is hardly a scientist of any sort as far as I know – but he is correct that surface temperature has declined since the last global climate shift in 1998/2001.
Perhaps it is more a case of executing the messenger. You’re obsession with Monckton and not science seems a bit sad Barry.
Barry Bickmore
Monckton does not claim to be a climate scientist.
But he appears to be a rather outspoken, fairly well-informed skeptic of the IPCC CAGW claims who definitely has a way with the English language.
Whatever other quirks Monckton may or may not have are irrelevant to the ongoing climate debate, as is his claim to be a member of the House of Lords.
Who cares? (I sure don’t.)
Max
Barry
You might be a great biochemist and you might write for the site that Fan originally linked to but that doesn’t mean you are a constitutional expert on Britain does it?
As I pointed out to Fan I am not interested in Monckton and he does not speak for me and I don’t know why WUWT keeps promoting him or that some people seem to hang on to his every word.
However I would put the record straight if Hansen or Mann were being misquoted. Of course Britain has a written Bill of Rights. Here it is. It came about through the Glorious Revolution. William of Orange marched past my house.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
You might also reference Manga Charta and various other acts. . It is uncodified which makes it messy and elastic. Arguing about changes to it and the nuances would keep an army of lawyers busy for a century. especially as not all lawyers agree with each other.
Not that I care, but Monckton is who he says he is-a member-. The 1999 fiddling with the constitution was done in a ham fisted and incomplete manner and there are lots of loose ends.
Does being a member mean anything in practical terms? No. Does he have a seat? No. Did he claim to have a cure for aids? No. Did he claim he could cure the cold? Yes. Is he a self promoter of the first order ? Yes. Is he a ‘scientist?’ NO.
Why do certain people take such notice of him they need to divert the thread? I do not know.
Do I CARE? NO!
tonyb
Barry
It appears you have missed some of the story here. Monckton actually filed for two patents not 1.
07 October 2009
(Journal 6281) GB0915801.5 Applicant: Monckton, Christopher
Title: Theraputic treatment
Date Lodged: 9 September 2009
07 October 2009
(Journal 6281) GB0915802.3 Applicant: Monckton, Christopher
Title: Therapeutic treatments
Date Lodged: 9 September 2009
As you will note they are for unspecified therapeutic treatments with no claimed purpose for them in the application , let alone they will cure Aids. I understand that Monckton had Graves and believed he had come up with a treatment that supposedly cured him.
Now, I am sure we both have better things to do than waste our time on someone that neither of us believes is of any importance in the climate science debate, other than to fringe sceptics and warmists who believe he supposedly exerts influence far greater than he does.
tonyb
Keeping the record staight is somethin’ i admire… ter do
with what *can* yer believe. i hate dissimulation because it’s
a power ploy and, heh, misguided fallible humans as we are,
we need ter try be faithful ter the evidence and if it doesn’t
measure up ter testing, discard it. Tony Brown is one of our
denizens here, who, like Juditjh Curry, has this kind of integrity.
Don’t mean ter embarrass either Judith or Tony but that’s how
I see it
A humble serf.
T, it’s been about four centuries that armies of lawyers(and others) have been marching about it, and a coupla more before that spent busily torquing the meaning of the meeting of the Barons, millenial scale climate changes ago.
=================
Tony, I don’t believe that Monckton is a sitting member of the House of Lords, but he seems prone to stretching the truth as had Michael Mann in relation to his claim of winning the Nobel prize. Its called Nobel cause corruption ;)
‘Banks, for example, would not accept the evidence of the particular text of Magna Carta drawn up in John’s reign, because it was “an inforced act from a distressed king,” and had never been restated in exactly that form.’
H/t Margeret Atwood Judson.
==============
Chief and others,
I became a Monckton hobbyist after he visited my home town and gratuitously fibbed to my state legislators and reporters. He then tried to engage in a conversation with some local scientists. I decided to follow up on some of his claims–e.g., he liked to use graphs that seemed to show that IPCC temperature and CO2 projections were already way off the mark, and I was able to show that 1) he had miscopied (faked?) the CO2 numbers, 2) which he then fed into an equation for equilibrium (not transient) climate sensitivity to get his (fake) IPCC temperature projections. In other words, he fed fake data into the wrong equation to get fake temperature projections that magically didn’t match well with real temperature data. You can find sources for all these claims here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
So the idea that I’m just “executing the messenger,” or engaging in simple ad hominem, is laughable. But with all this damning evidence, why do I bother pointing out Monckton’s oddities–like pretending to be a member of Parliament (!!!) and claiming to have invented a miracle cure-all (!!!)?
I soon discovered that the people who listen to Monckton 1) usually don’t have the skills to check for themselves whether he’s telling the truth, and/or 2) don’t give a rat’s posterior whether he’s telling the truth. I emphasize his wackiness for the benefit of those who simply don’t have the skills, but no matter what anyone points out about Monckton or his claims, some will defend him to the death. But this is useful too, because it is a great way to show reporters that a large swath of the climate contrarian community is impenetrably stupid.
Consider how Monckton countered the charge that he had faked the IPCC temperature. Here’s what he said on WUWT:
“Some have said that the IPCC projection zone on our graphs should show exactly the values that the IPCC actually projects for the A2 scenario. However, as will soon become apparent, the IPCC’s “global-warming” projections for the early part of the present century appear to have been, in effect, artificially detuned to conform more closely to observation.”
In other words, right there on Watts’s blog, Monckton came right out and admitted that what he was calling the IPCC’s projections were not actually the IPCC’s projections! And yet, he still defended himself for representing them as IPCC projections because his fake projections were (according to his fevered imaginings) what the IPCC really should have projected!
Detailed analysis and sources here:
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/the-monckton-files-a-bold-monckton-prediction/
Did this cause any of the WUWT faithful to reconsider their loyalty to Monckton? Not that I could tell. Drop in a few Latin phrases, and that crowd is fully satisfied that all His Lordship’s foes have been vanquished.
So by all means, keep defending Monckton, and keep defending Watts for unfailingly publishing whatever nonsense Monckton’s addled brain can produce. He’s God’s gift to climate realists, because in the eyes of people who aren’t scientists, but also aren’t complete rubes, he discredits quite a lot of people.
So how were those ‘projections’ after all?
=======
Much better than Monckton claimed.
Please don’t tell me there’s been exaggerating going on around here.
==============
TLDR – you’re a Monckton hobbyist? That is sad.
Yes, it is sad. And yet, immensely entertaining.
i insist that everyone call him Monktpus
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2011/09/30/the-monktopus-vs-the-lucianator/#.Uh5vRtK-pr0
climatereason,
Your willingness to defend Monckton is gratifying. Allow me to point out a few reasons why.
1. While I may not be a “constitutional expert on Britain,” I can still read the Wikipedia page on the “Constitution of the United Kingdom”. Here is the introduction:
“The Constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed.[1]”
“Unlike many other nations, the UK has no single constitutional document. This is sometimes expressed by stating that it has an uncodified or ‘unwritten’ constitution.[2] Much of the British constitution is embodied in written documents, within statutes, court judgments and treaties. The constitution has other unwritten sources, including parliamentary constitutional conventions (as laid out in Erskine May) and royal prerogatives.”
“Historically, ‘No Act of Parliament can be unconstitutional, for the law of the land knows not the word or the idea.'[3]”
“Since the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK’s supreme and final source of law.[4] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. There is some debate about whether this principle remains valid,[5] particularly in light of the UK’s membership in the European Union.[6]”
In other words… essentially what I said before. Parliament can pass whatever laws it wants. Although some people no longer think that necessarily holds because Parliament has ceded some of its sovereignty to the EU. But since Monckton is an officer in UKIP, I suggest that perhaps he would disagree.
So essentially, you and Monckton can insist that he’s a member of Parliament all you want. If Parliament says he isn’t, and the British Courts say he isn’t… normal people will think your defense is a bit limp.
2. You point out that Monckton actually filed two (not just one!!!) patent application for “Therapeutic Treatment”, and since the summary of the patent application one can find on the Internet doesn’t say anything about curing AIDS, you conclude that he never claimed any such thing. Well, he has, like it or not. On national television, no less.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm-tKEpJs7I
Monckton complains that the nasty BBC film crew failed to note that he went on to say he is ever-so-scientifically doing trials of his miracle cure-all. That makes it so much more believable. I can’t believe they left that out.
In fact, Monckton has filed the same two patent applications EVERY YEAR since 2008, because the British patent office keeps rejecting them. He’s due to re-file them in September or October of this year, but hey, maybe THIS time the patent applications will go through!
I sense, however, that even for someone whose mind works at such an astonishingly furious pace, it’s not easy mounting a decent defense of such a crackpot. Even you would prefer that His Lordship would just go away, and you conclude by claiming he is “someone that neither of us believes is of any importance in the climate science debate, other than to fringe sceptics and warmists who believe he supposedly exerts influence far greater than he does.”
Alas, I don’t think he will be so easy to get rid of, because it’s not the “warmists” who made Monckton an important figure in the debate. We’re not the ones who invited him several times to testify as an expert witness on climate science before Congress, for instance. (Rep. Joe Barton introduced him as someone who is “widely regarded as the one of the most knowledgable, if not the most knowledgable, experts from a skeptical point of view on this issue of climate change.” Wow.) We’re not the ones who invite him to speak at the Heartland conference every year. We’re not the ones who constantly push his ramblings on the most popular “skeptical” blogs.
So if you really don’t think Monckton is of any importance in the debate, and it bothers you that people like me like to bring him up as evidence that climate contrarians can’t tell the difference between science and utter crack-pottery, may I suggest a course of action?
Get together your contrarian buddies–as many as you can–and have a quite talk with some people like Rep. Joe Barton, Anthony Watts, and the Heartland folks. Let them know that old Chris is dragging down the cause, and he ought to be quietly shoved back in the attic. Hey, maybe they’ll listen to you, whereas it’s perhaps too easy to brush someone like me off as a big, fat meanie who takes guilty pleasure in pointing out His Lordship’s wackiness and stupidity. Touché, if you know what I mean.
BTW, here is a link to verify my claim that Monckton has re-filed his patent applications every year.
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-os/p-journal/p-pj?startYear=2006&startMonth=October&startDay=25th+-+6127&filter=Monckton&perPage=10&sort=Publication+Date
Barry
listen to your own tv highlights.
‘Shows much promise…’
‘Sounds Barking Mad…’
‘Appears to…’
Where does he claim that it WILL cure Aids? He sounds very circumspect and uncertain (for him”!)
You can not be expected to know the nuances of the British climate scene and ironically you have landed in the middle of a thread on the very subject that you say Monckton complained about-being misrepresented, this time by the ‘nasty BBC crew.’
Without hearing the WHOLE interview plus the edits I cant possibly know if that is so. However, if you look back to the start of this thread I got it in the neck from various sceptics here by innocently saying the Harris interview sounded reasonably balanced to me!
In the UK sceptics world we are deeply suspicious of the Guardian/Monbiot whose blog appears to be patrolled by attack sharks who remove anything contrary to the Monbiot line. Although it has a deservedly tiny circulation it is hugely influential with the socialist party PLUS the BBC (which often appear the same thing)
The BBC is highly biased on climate change so it MAY be true that Monckton was misrepresented as others here feel that Judith Curry was.
Why not provide a link to the whole interview?
As for the Lords business, this is far too murky for the likes of you and me. An awful lot of constitutional water has flowed under the bridge since the rather strange Lords ruling you cited from 2 years ago.
Why don’t I write to the relevant person via my MP and ask the LATEST definitive situation?
If it goes against Monckton we ask him on a neutral site to respond and put his side, together with proper citations rather than wooly arm waving.
If he fails to respond properly we can take it he has a weak case. I will provide a copy of the neutral letter.
Sound fair?
I am only interested in Fair Play because as I say he does not represent my views but is not here to defend himself. I find the traction he gets in the States (not over here) embarrassing and counter productive.
tonyb
Barry,
The wki page you cite is the first one you come to. Of course I read it then went into the more interesting factual stuff on other sites. Citing wiki for anything other than world capitals is not a good thing, bearing in mind the ability to change it at will, like Connelly did for years.
Get together with my contrarian buddies? I have no idea at all who the first guy you mention is, and I have frequently said that Heartland does not speak for me. In fact I think that-like Monckton-they muddy the water for more serious minded sceptics. Perhaps in the States they get more traction than in the UK?
I would guess that Anthony features him so prominently because Monckton is an entertainer and draws in the crowd. There were a lot of commenters for his two recent pieces, many of whom are unfamiliar to me and who do not all question the statements as a sceptic should.
I don’t doubt that Monckton has re-filed each year, but its still for a general therapeutic cure, not a cure for Aids, which was the point I was making and he is still a (meaningless) member of the Lords according to our very muddy constitution. .
I would point out that the constitutional ‘experts’ had not realised that the egalitarian demand to make the first born of William and Kate the heir to the throne whether or not it was female, has run into choppy waters as our ‘realms’ have to pass such legislation as well. It is all very murky and confused.
As I say, constitutional lawyers could argue expensively about it for years but Monckton is correct in the (deliberately?) very narrow definition he gives. Which is not to say that he isn’t pulling the wool over peoples eyes in pretending to be more important than he is.
BTW, hope you will make CE a regular port of call, we need more diverse voices.
tonyb
CR,
Monckton has explicitly claimed that he is “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature,” not just a member of some nebulous “House of Lords” in the sense of “a collection of Lords.” I still find it astonishing that you defend him, although I find it encouraging that you can at least recognize that he is “pulling the wool over peoples eyes in pretending to be more important than he is.”
I have popped in to this blog from time to time. Judy’s big thing is going on about “uncertainties” and “unknown unknowns,” or whatever, and in fact, I have some sympathy for that. E.g., I recently wrote a couple blog posts in which I argued that Al Gore and co. should knock off claiming the “science is settled,” and the like.
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/heartland-knows-squat-about-science/
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/dear-rich-trzupek-heres-why-heartland-creeps-us-out/
Once that’s established (and I think it’s a really basic point about science,) however, it gets a little dull to beat that drum too much. Imperfect and uncertain as it is, science is still a reasonable way of trying to figure the world out. And if you put all the evidence together (including paleoclimate evidence–not just the 20th century record or the last 15 years, for Pete’s sake), it seems abundantly clear to me that climate scientists have enough ammo to make the case that it’s really stupid to jack up atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases as much as it looks like we’re on track to do. Geologically rapid climate change is associated with mass extinction events in the past, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why that might be.
While I don’t have a problem with Judy deciding that it’s all too uncertain to make a case for any action–that’s a subjective judgment, after all–I do have a problem with some of what I’ve seen of how she defends her decision. I remember reading one of her articles (I think it had “Uncertainty Monster” in the title) in which she completely abused spectral analysis to say there might be a 40-70 year natural oscillation in surface temperatures. The data set she was applying it to was too short to say anything about such a long-period oscillation, even if you get a peak in the power spectrum. Spurious peaks at low frequency are a standard problem in power-spectral interpretation, so this isn’t esoteric stuff she was missing.
This all ties into the Monckton business, I think. Someone here brings up something Monckton claimed over at Watts’s. Someone else complains that Watts and co. are gullible, and will believe anything Monckton says, no matter how stupid. I provide quite a bit of support for that contention, and yet a number of people here can’t seem to accept that Monckton is not a credible source of information. You seem to be trying to be reasonable, but even you can’t just look at the video I linked and admit that Monckton has claimed his “therapeutic treatment” can cure AIDS. Why not? For the same reason Watts keeps posting Monckton’s tripe. Watts doesn’t really care whether Monckton’s arguments are sound. He just cares that Monckton concludes that we shouldn’t do anything about climate change. Just so, I think a lot of people who hang around here think Judy is the bees knees simply because she comes to conclusions they can use to support their preferred policy positions. I’m not saying that this problem is exclusive to climate change contrarians. Rather, I’m saying that when it gets so bad that even Monckton is treated as a reasonable source, there is a BIG problem.
Barry Bickmore – you seem to hold Monchton in disdain, but I see also that you generalize rather than assert specific refutation. Humor me, and others, and go to Monckton’s post at WUWT and point out specifically what you find wrong or misleading.
A crucial distinction between “skeptic” and “denialist” is Judith Curry’s sustained commitment to reasoned open discourse as contrasted with the Watts/WUWT/Monckton sustained commitment to the opposite.
That’s the simplest kind of common sense, eh?
Barry
I am sincerely hoping you have suddenly gone for a weeks holiday far away from the Internet and thereby haven’t seen the hat trick of posts by you know who.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/global-warming-is-no-longer-a-planetary-emergency/#more-92552
Tonyb
Interesting analysis of JC vs KT, including interview with Richard Harris, at Yale Climate Media Forum
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/08/judith-curry-and-kevin-trenberth-equal-time-on-npr/
On policy leadership, Kevin’s megalomania meets BRIC wall. Teachers, leave those kids alone.
==============
Judith
This from one of the commenters on the link you cited (see we do read them)
‘I’m sorry but you are factually wrong almost everywhere. We are seeing more hurricanes and extreme weather events.’
In my research I have read literally thousands of contemporary accounts of the weather. Extreme events are much more marked prior to 1850 than before it both in terms of numbers and severity.
Have you any idea what the genesis of the ‘more extreme events’ meme is? A science paper? TV?
tonyb
Has anyone ever asked Trenberth why he thinks it is ok to just make stuff up?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Professors, politics and public policy | Climate Etc.
more testing
howaboutthat
Pingback: Consensus denialism | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Salvo Three: Dr Judith Curry « DON AITKIN
I’m gone to tell my little brother, that he should also
go to see this web site on regular basis to obtain updated
from hottest news update.
For instance, original models are turned into hybrid ones for more eco-friendly elements.
Our highly skilled team provides full administrative support – including credit management,
invoicing, collections, account reporting, expense reporting, fuel card management and
much more. This story also hits home for Cassie who is reminded of her
mother, a school lunch lady, who took revenge on the kids that tortured Cassie when she was a child.