by Judith Curry
Climate researchers have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth.
This quote comes from an article in Spiegel Online entitled Warming Plateau? Climatologists Face Inconvenient Truth. Good article. The entire context for this quote:
Germany’s highest-ranking climate researcher, physicist Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, is fighting back against this refusal to face facts. Marotzke, who is also president of the German Climate Consortium and Germany’s top scientific representative in Stockholm, promises, “We will address this subject head-on.” The IPCC, he says, must engage in discussion about the standstill in temperature rise.
Marotzke calls the claim that a temperature plateau isn’t significant until it has lasted for over 30 years unscientific. “Thirty years is an arbitrarily selected number,” he says. “Some climate phenomena occur on a shorter timescale, some on a longer one.” Climate researchers, Marotzke adds, have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth. “That obligates us to clearly state the uncertainties in our predictions as well,” he says.
I don’t care what anyone else says this week, this statement by Marotzke should be hung around the neck of everyone in Stockholm this week for the IPCC meeting.
Bravo, Jochem Marotzke.
Are you insane? The IPCC is there to inform policymakers, not to toy around with truth. And they will inform the policymakers no matter what.
This is part of what makes the “largest peer review” a joke. They have a deadline and we know they will meet the deadline. When they write, they know it’s going to be published in one way or another. Those are luxuries that seldom if ever present themselves to a scientist trying to publish into a science journal.
I’m a sucker for sarcasm. That cracked me up.
“Climate researchers, Marotzke adds, have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth.”
I really like his choice of words. They should be carved in stone – “and hung around the neck of everyone in Stockholm this week for the IPCC meeting.”
“They should be carved in stone – “and hung around the neck of everyone in Stockholm this week for the IPCC meeting.”” …just before being dropped into the Baltic.
Why does the idea of the IPCC looking for “the truth” remind me of this?
Ah sow…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/23/us-climate-ipcc-china-idUSBRE98M0BP20130923
just in time with more World Bank help to clean up old irrigation canals.
I think tattooing it backward on their foreheads is indicated at this point.
Truth? Truth? We don’t need no stinkin’ truth.
==========
“You can’t handle the truth”:
“Environmental policymakers within the IPCC fear, though, that climate skeptics and industry lobbyists could exploit these scientific uncertainties for their own purposes. The IPCC’s response has been to circle the wagons. To ensure it remains the sole authority on climate predictions, the panel plans not to publish the complete report for some time after the release of the summary and not even release transcripts from the negotiations in Stockholm.
This despite the IPCC’s promise for more transparency after hair-raising mistakes in the last assessment report — from 2007 — emerged three years ago and tarnished the panel’s credibility. One result of that scandal was a commitment to avoiding future conflicts of interest. Yet scientists who previously worked for environmental organizations still hold leading roles in the creation of the IPCC report. This includes at least two “coordinating lead authors” who are responsible for individual chapters of the report.”
OT Memory Lane: Dave Pursell to the anti-frack crowd, by way of Co. Jessip, printed in Forbes, Aug 8, 2010
“You can’t handle the truth! …..You have the luxury of not knowing what we know. That fossil energy fuels economic growth. And the existence of frac’ing, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, powers our economy….. Otherwise, we suggest you pick up a pipe wrench, and meet us on location. We have wells to frac!”
re; Colonel Jessup
Best. Rant. Ever.
If only Al Gore had gotten a code red for lying we might not have this huge mess to clean up.
But of course!
Ramsey has oil exploration consulting skills to sell!
Hail no. Who needs truth when you can have troof?
The question is whether Jochem Marotzke is trying to reframe the SPM to make it more credible, or is really having second thoughts about the inflated certainty of the consensus.
Just over a year ago, he said this in a press relief from the Max Planck Institute.
“In the event of continuously increasing emissions of carbon dioxide, as assumed in the least favorable scenario, scientists expect a rise in the global mean temperature by up to 4°C by 2100. The impacts of global warming are manifold and have different implications in different regions.
‘We would have more frequent and intense heat waves on a global scale’, says Prof. Dr. Jochem Marotzke, Director at the MPI-M and vice chair of the World Climate Research Programme. ‘Our results demonstrate the possibility to limit global warming to below two degrees Celsius throughout this century. But it requires a drastic reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.'”
Is he trying to save the IPCC from making a fool of itself by ignoring the pause, so it can continue its support for decarbonization unabated? Or is this the first real about face on CAGW by a prominent, government sponsored, consensus scientist (to my knowledge)?
Or maybe he, like many other scientists, is having seconds thought about ever letting the activists get a hold of the steering wheel in the first place.
Or maybe we have,yet again, ‘skpetics’ overinterpreting and jumping to preferred conclusions.
Michael
It’s pretty hard to “overinterpret” a 10+ year stop in global warming (actual slight cooling instead), despite unabated human GHG emissions and concentrations reaching record levels, plus IPCC model-based predictions of 0.2C per decade warming.
Better get used to it.
No matter if the insiders at Stockholm decide to “underinterpret” it or rationalize it away in order to keep the IPCC CAGW mantra alive, it’s there, Michael.
And if it lasts another 10-15 years, IPCC can pack it up.
Interesting times.
Max
Michael,
There is no need to interpret what he said. It is in English and is clearly stated and easily understood.
As for trying to interpret his motivation for saying it, why bother? As far as I am concerned what he said is far more important than why he said it.
For all of the accusations of skeptical elements being primarily driven by big oil or other corporate entities, the evidence supporting this hypothesis is relatively thin. Particularly in comparison to the support environmental activitists and NGO’s have provided the “realist” position of climate change being among the gravest issues facing mankind. Whatever his motivations, Marotzke is being honest in acknowledging this support.
We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.
http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html
The sound of one Earth clapping.
Thanks Girma for that reminder of Richard Feynman’s classic Caltech 1974 lecture Cargo Cult Science. or hear audio – especially starting at ~6:20 min
“What’s bothersome, however, is how long a purely theoretical result can be milked for grants before the researchers decide to produce something practically useful. Worse yet, there often does not appear to be a strong urge for people in academia to go and apply their result, even when this becomes possible, which most likely stems from the fear of failure. You are morally comfortable researching your method as long as it works in theory, but nothing would hurt more than to try to apply it and to learn that it doesn’t work in reality. No one likes to publish papers which show how their method fails (although, from a scientific perspective, they’re obliged to).” (Anon, Resignation Letter to École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, published Sept. 9, 3013)
Because theory isn’t important? Congrats, you just defunded Einstein. There sure weren’t any practical applications of special or general relativity when he came up with them. If you defund everything without practical applications you’d pretty much destroy science. Defunding global climate models would be just as dumb, even if their predictive abilities leave something to be desired at this point.
How much government funding should we devote to the theory that aliens cause global warming.
Einstein wrote his three seminal papers, including Special Relativity, evenings after working as a clerk at the Swiss Patent office. He wasn’t
“funded” so how could he be defunded?
Just to be picky, Einstein did 4 papers + his dissertation in 1905, hence the term Annus Mirabilis. Only the photoelectric effect was cited by the Nobel committee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Miraculous-Year-Changed-Physics/dp/0691122288
If memory serves, Newton wasn’t funded for his laws of motion Hill’s lunar theory was developed while he was employed by the post office. It’s amazing how much good research has been done as a second unpaid effort.
Per Wags comment: I believe Michael Crichton refers how, in a very round about way, that aliens ARE responsible for “global warming”….
“Philip Lee | September 24, 2013 at 12:52 am |
If memory serves, Newton wasn’t funded for his laws of motion Hill’s lunar theory was developed while he was employed by the post office. It’s amazing how much good research has been done as a second unpaid effort.”
Normally called, amateurs.
“Defunding global climate models would be just as dumb”
Yes. They obviously aren’t too hot :-) at the moment, but they can be improved once people stop using them to prove a point. Engineers use models for all sorts of things and use them pretty successfully. Agreed that modelling climate is orders of magnitude more problematic, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth attempting.
However, rather than there being dozens of them running around giving conflicting answers, perhaps it might be better to consolidate and go for something akin to particle accelerators and fund fewer, larger, projects.
Hold on…
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/23/2663111/climate-change-children/
to your kids.
I do not recall Einstein being funded by the government. Can you source that?
The uncertainties in short trend periods definitely are greater, just from the statistics of signal to noise, so it is right to emphasize that. This leads naturally to looking at longer trends for more certainty and better signal to noise ratios.
Try getting an annual trend from the temperature record. You can’t get anything significant. By the time it is ten years, it is better, but not much. At twenty years (one decade average minus the previous) I would start to trust it because the error reduces to about 20% of the expected trend and you also remove most of the solar cycle from the trend.
1910 to 1945 was 35 years. And it predates any serious effect from CO2.
How does the IPCC detect the natural warming caused by the recovery from the LIA? They don’t. They tell lies.
So you are sure that wasn’t part solar? There appears to have been a rise to a mid-century solar max about then.
In fact solar max was closer to 1998.
It is funny of AR5 to admit solar and imaginary volcanoes caused the pause.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/ipcc-ar5-admits-they-have-no-clue-what-caused-the-15-year-pause-in-warming/
For example sunspots and hadcrut4 with 30-year trends. Coincidence?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:360/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:396/scale:0.01/offset:-0.8
Jim D
You are stepping onto thin ice. If the sun “dunnit” in the early 20thC, the same sun could also have “dunnit” in the late 20thC.
But IPCC takes a more cautious stand.
IPCC has stated (AR4 WG1 Ch.9) that the “global mean warming observed since 1970 can only be reproduced when models are forced with combinations of external forcings that include anthropogenic forcings…Therefore modeling studies suggest that late 20th-century warming is much more likely to be anthropogenic than natural in origin…” whereas for the statistically indistinguishable early 20thC warming period “detection and attribution as well as modeling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming.”
So we have the following logic:
1. Our models cannot explain the early 20thC warming cycle.
2. We know that human GHGs have caused the statistically indistinguishable late 20thC warming cycle.
2. How do we know this?
4. Because our models cannot explain it any other way.
Ouch!
Max
Speaking of WUWT elsewhere in this thread, who could forget this month’s post by that Aussie krackpot genius David Archibald talking about the recent solar cycle:
His lead sentence:
That is the quote of the year. Apparently consensus is OK for kranks and krackpots but not for peer-reviewed science.
Oh, I forgot to add:
Ouch !
Hey, Webby, do you disagree with Archibald that the sun has entered a quiet period?
Data?
Max
Ice Extent on Earth was Larger during the LIA. Albedo was higher during the LIA. It did not snow much because the polar oceans were frozen. The sun removed ice extent and Albedo decreased and Earth Warmed. Temperature always stays in phase with ice extent. Now the oceans are warm and it is snowing more and the ice extent retreat is over or nearly over.
Hey MaxiPriest,
I typically start with the scientific consensus and then make amazing discoveries by building off this work.
How do you do it? Do you apply the principles of hypocrisy?
Ouch! That one has got to hurt.
Webby
Looks like you disagree with Archibald on the sun “entering a quiet period”.
Why?
(Get back on subject instead of simply spouting silly nonsense, or people will think you are a “kranky krackpot”, Webby.)
Max
JimD, What kind of lags would solar have? It is a small cumulative forcing in the oceans anyway.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/mean:600/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:800/scale:0.01/offset:-0.7
Solar forcing oscillations are 0.25 w/m^2 peak to peak according to the consensus.
That is much less than the consensus GHG forcing of 1.6 w/m^2.
I guess the consensus wins! Archibald believes in the consensus and so should you MaxiBoy.
Webster, “Solar forcing oscillations are 0.25 w/m^2 peak to peak according to the consensus.”
That is averaged over the entire surface. From 60S to 30N the Earth is 80% oceans and the winter solar is a a peak in this portion of the precessional cycle. There are quite a few newer papers making note of longer term solar tropical ocean correlation, though the 65N intensity gets all the press for some reason.
btw Webster, even Hansen estimates the impact of a prolonged solar minimum at ~0.25 C.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/mean:600/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:800/scale:0.01/offset:-0.7
I don’t know if that is the right accumulation period, but it is about 0.3 C for solar and there is northern mid-latitude land ampification after all.
Hey Captain Clueless, where do you think I got that number from? Hansen. Exactly. And I checked it against the solar radiation, divided by 4 and then modified for albedo.
He is right. Averaging over the earth is right. Cappy by definition is wrong and exists simply to act as an impediment.
Webster, The adjustment of ocean albedo is not the same for global albedo. Solar has a larger long term, i.e. cumulative, impact on oceans where it penetrates to depth. That is why I gave you the area ratio. Since the metric has shifted from surface temperatures to ocean heat content, you need to review your math.
I’m sure someone has done this before:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/integral/detrend:158297.37
not exactly well correlated with global temperature except maybe at an improbably large lag…
bill_c I have seen quite a few attempts to figure out solar forcing. Lean has one that is interesting. The lags are a bear though because the impact migrates through the oceans.
http://www.agci.org/docs/lean.pdf
This is a comparison of TSI composite with just the tropical oceans (UAH). TSI is scaled by 0.65 and there is a 30 month lag.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Sofa2zqYgaU/UkHYe1S4UnI/AAAAAAAAJoA/aB7HHCqNPLk/w805-h467-no/Solar+and+tropical+oceans.png
Depending on how you try to remove ENSO and volcanoes you can get just about anything.
I find the hypothesis that solar determines the equator to pole gradient interesting.
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/soon_legate.pdf
Germany is another country that is well and truly on the path to the truth. Australia now have the conditions in place for a similar journey as has Canada and the US.
The IPCC and the scientists currently working on the AR5 paper is now finding itself between a rock and a hard place as far as climate science is concerned and the rational world is watching.
It’s quite interesting that both Germany and Australia are leading the charge for the truth. Germany’s renewable energy revolution and Australia’s carbon tax are expensive solutions that will certainly have no measurable impact in isolation and heaven knows if they will if their energy generation strategies are broadly adopted world wide. For the citizens of these two countries who are paying a heavy price, its no surprise that people are asking what they are getting in exchange for significant sacrifice.
Say, Peter, truth hits the hip pocket nerve.
bts
Such grand delusions Peter.
Here’s more from Marotzke;
“The laws of nature will continue to function without remorse no matter what mankind does or allows.”
“The laws of nature will continue to function without remorse no matter what mankind does or allows.”
An excellent skeptical quote.
I completely agree with your quote from Marotzke Michael, but I don’t see how this quote helps either side of the debate on policy wrt CO2 emissions, because the natural production of this particular gas has never been properly isolated nor has natural sequestration rates of this gas been properly evaluated.
I agree that humans affect the environment in various ways, especially wrt CFC’s and methane emissions and IMO efforts should continue to control them as much as possible. I attach an interesting study that points to CFC’s and ozone depletion possibly contributing to global warming.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf
I think that the AGW punters need to consider spreading their bets as there are many dark horses running in this particular race apart from CO2 Michael.
Peter – he was talking about the poltical will to act wrt climate change, ie., burying your head in the sand doesn’t stop radiative physics.
And on this point of inaction, he says;
“this reluctance will bring about fatal results.”
“Do laws of nature really exist?” might be more skeptical.
Willard you may well be correct as nature to me is most mysterious in her ways and difficult to hypothsise.
Peter,
You might like this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/
Marotzke conflates skepticism with what Carnap called objectivism.
No, not that Ayn Rand crap, this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
One place where the rubber meets the road:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20012245
Thanks for the links Willard. Pity about the paywall on the last one as I was starting to get wound up!
Its funny isn’t it? I often find that reading something completely unrelated gives an insight into a problem that I am grappling with.
I don’t believe in co-incidences
Try to create a JSTOR account. It’s free. I think you may have access to it afterwards.
Michael,
Interpreting?
A lie, just wrong or simply indifferent to the truth — you decide:
“A 2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be “ice-free by 2013” that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off… by 920,000 square miles.” ~Barbara Hollingsworth
“could be ice free” just means there was a non-zero probability.
Non-zero probabilities impress some people.
Certainly, WUWT had a front-page countdown to this non-zero probability over the last few months. Amazing stuff.
That is really disingenuous, jimmy dee. You are getting desperate.
They did have a countdown. Didn’t you see it?
Right, Jim D. That’s just how it was meant.
Your previous comment, jimmy dee.
Was the WUWT countdown illegal? What is the problem? Don’t they have a right to tweak that little money grubbing loser politician of yours, jimmy?
Disingenuous was WUWT saying Maslowski was falsified, when he had said “could be”. They took this probability somewhat like Jim Carey’s character. I thought it was appropriate for them, if not meant that way.
Jimmy D,
“Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent
Translation: None of the models got Antarctic Sea Ice right.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/23/ipcc-ar5-admits-they-have-no-clue-about-the-arctic-and-the-antarctic/
No jimmy, disingenuous is you pretending that your loser politician meant that there was a greater than zero probability that the blah…blah…blah. I thought that you were better than that.
sunshine, they misunderestimated the Arctic too, didn’t they.
Yeah, Jim D, real crazy of WUWT to have a countdown to a climate scientist saying something “could” happen. Why would anyone take that seriously?.
What was Anthony thinkin’?
Especially when Maslowski later said his “forecast” was too conservative.
Don M, “skeptics” twist things. We saw it begin with Wagathon above, I thought if they want to play that game with this thread, I can join in in the same spirit. Yes, I am saying, he did it first.
It is 2013 so statistics don’t apply. All you have to do is open you eyes. Probabilities are irrelevant. Reality is truth. Embrace it and the truth will set you free.
You used to be decent, jimmy. It seems that a lot of you characters are getting more agitated and slimey, like joshie. It’s because the wheels are coming off the alarmist wagon and you are getting desperate. The pause is killing the cause.
“The pause is killing the cause.”
Jesse Jackson would be proud of you! LOL
John M, “could be” means “could be”. It can’t be falsified. I am sure Antony was just having fun with it, but some might have even believed him.
Joshing Wagathon is a bit of light entertainment, otherwise he would get no responses from anyone.
Lots of animals are slimey.
Looks like as with stakes through the heart and final nails in the coffin, there is an endless supply of wheels on that wagon, as there are an endless number of times that “skeptics” have reported observing all three.
You are a denier, joshie. The prospects for enacting meaningful CO2 abatement schemes have been steadily declining, since let’s say about 2009, when the private emails were “stolen”. he he he And recently the morons in the mainstream media are letting it slip that there has been no significant warming for a longish time. People are noticing that the climate models are busted. The IPCC has got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do. It’s bleak for you characters. And nobody likes you. That has got to be depressing.
” Lots of animals are slimey”. Especially medium rare escargot.
“Yeah, Jim D, real crazy of WUWT to have a countdown to a climate scientist saying something “could” happen. Why would anyone take that seriously?.”
Maslowski, expressed his view on an uncertain topic. He used the language of uncertainty. “could be ice free”
Why is it that only skeptics get to use the language of uncertainty
” it could be something other than C02″
some slimy animals are good to eat live
Oh, and speaking of non-zero probabilities:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/mp/0_and_1_are_not_probabilities/
Steven Mosher,
“Why is it that only skeptics get to use the language of uncertainty…”
Anyone gets to use whatever language they like. Unfortunately, when scientists say “we COULD all die in the next five minutes because of global warming”, the politicians have a nasty habit of making it hard for me to pay my heating bill. And I really hate freezing to death (I think).
If I’m allowed to invoke uncertainty in my response to this situation, then I think it’s all fair. “Dear electric company, the amount I am going to pay you is uncertain. It may become clearer in the decades ahead. Much of the money I pay you will be hiding in the deep ocean for a while. Hope that’s OK. Byeeee.”
Not sure that would work though.
Jim,
Is this considered pea splitting or nit picking? I can’t tell, but I think it is the first.
Actually Jim D, Wagathon just asked a simple question. You could have chosen to give a simple answer, but instead, you decided to be “clever”, or so you thought anyway.
My first statement was a clarification that needed to be said before people judge whether he lied or not.
Can we ever expect a principled response from the Left on any matter when they oppose every principle upon which Americanism is founded?
“Wrong” was also an option, but I guess that’s not in the lexicon of climate scientists and thier followers. Oh wait, as long as one says “could”, I guess they can never be wrong. But then, how does one then have “increased confidence” in something that can’t be wrong in the first place?
Hmmm, suddenly, Jim Carrey is beginning to look like a genius.
I could have said “wrong”, but I gave the reason instead.
Hmmm. Is Jim Carrey human?
Principal: Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Billy Madison: Okay, a simple “wrong” would’ve done just fine.
Sounds intriguing. So what is this “Americanism” exactly? Tell me more.
I will let Roger Pielkie JR speak for me in regards to the IPCC..
” A difficult question for the climate science community is, how is it that this broad community of researchers — full of bright and thoughtful people — allowed intolerant activists who make false claims to certainty to become the public face of the field?” – Roger Pielke, Jr
It’s also worth noting that Marotzke is one of the two Coordinating Lead Authors for WGI’s Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models (the other is Gregory Flato from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis – a division of Environment Canada based at Andrew Weaver’s stomping ground, University of Victoria).
One imagines he probably would have had his hands full with Ben <seer/seeder of “fingerprints”> Santer as a “contributing author” of this particular chapter. Not to mention WG1 Co-Chair, Thomas <Mr. Self-Promotion>, hovering in the background.
After all, Stocker had declared (circa June 2011):
One certainly hopes that even if the likes of Pachauri, Stocker & Weaver fail to see the writing on the credibility chasm wall, Marotzke whose current views appear to be more rooted in reality, will win the day!
It seems you have started a trend. A very good one.
What standstill, statistically significant trends are nothing but up, if you want to bet on trends that are not robust, go right ahead.
What about ENSO?
bob droege
Hope you close your eyes when you stick your head in the sand like that.
Max
Max, champion of slight cooling,
I got a 40 dollar bill says you can’t show me a statistically significant cooling trend on the Skeptical Science Trend calculator. You know a trend where the uncertainty is less than the trend. You just can’t do it.
I got a bet with my sister who’s a little bit dumb, I can prove it any day all deniers are scum.
H/t to Frank
Bob,
The topic is whether or not the IPCC, along with certain governments, have or have not allowed what could loosely be described as environmental and green elements to have undue influence in how the science has been presented.
I have some (tiny) experience with environmental NGO’s and it has been nothing to encourage any sort of credibility when it comes to matters of science. As I’ve mentioned before, we had to scrub all references to “environmental” from our programs due to environmental NGO’s having such a bad reputation from a science standpoint. Before that, we had the top science advisor for one of the big NGO’s (I want to say she was from the Sierra Club, but I can’t recall for sure) give a presentation, where she honestly admitted that NGO’s have a problem when it comes to credibility on matters of science. One example I recall her giving was how they all see a quote or press release and immediately incorporate it into their own communications. Without any fact checking or due diligence.
I have also posted quotes from leading figures in the environmental community, as to their opinion of human population. There is a very real segment of society, strongly represented in environmental organizations, who believe there are too many humans in existence. They believe this so strongly that any means leading to a reduction in population may be justified. (As a side note, relating to credibility, does anyone else wonder why a zero growth, carrying capacity guy like David Suzuki has 5 kids? Personally I think that’s healthy. It just doesn’t jibe with the message he tells everyone else.)
Why shouldn’t people question the message?
My favourite quote comes from Prof Petersen of the Nederland Environmental Assesment Agency and are reviewing the IPCC report – “It is a major feat that we have been able to produce such a document which is such an adequate assessment of the science. That being said, it is virtually unreadable!”
Don’t you just love unreadable reports, they give so much scope to burry things.
“I don’t care what anyone else says this week, this statement by Marotzke should be hung around the neck of everyone in Stockholm this week for the IPCC meeting.” – JC
Yeah, because the IPCC never expresses findings in terms of confidence levels. Oh, wait……
More dog whistling.
By chance it’s not an albatross:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatross_(metaphor)
But will you get better?
This observation is 25+ years late, where has Dr. Curry lived most of the past few decades?
Dr. Curry’s dissent is out of touch proportionally to the threats of Greenshirt totalitarianism of today as represented by the IPCC. Having Michael Mann hate you isn’t the acid test of defending science from the likes of AGW activists and green extremism. Dr. Curry is the consensus dictating the terms on which issues will be discussed. It’s nonsense.
cwonnie and mikey should get a room
Sorry … FROM its excesses
“In reality, such a debate will ultimately be resolved without any clear winners and losers being identified.”
From what I have read about ancient civilizations, when their weather shamans got the call wrong, it turned out to be very late game for the… you fill in the blank. It is never pretty when the blinders come off. Why are there no capstones on the Pyramids anymore?
I can think of a few more folks who should be invited.
Where have you been, cwon? You have been missed. Between Don posting less, hunter being gone (even under his sock puppet), no more Jim Owen, and Wags’ reduced output, it hasn’t been quite as hilarious around here lately.
Stick around.
The putz cwonnie is your mirror image, joshie.
The Joshua Tree must be frequently watered with attention from opponents or it withers and cries. So whatever it takes to garner attention is justified. Or Joshtified…
Joshua learned from the best:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/tom-fullers-advice-for-warmists/
Willard, you never forget anything and what’s more you can find things from the past very quickly indeed. Your indexing of topics and authors must be extensive.
Thank you for your kind words, Peter, but I archive stuff mainly because I tend to forget. Even then, I tend to delete, as it does not age well. Besides, my project is mostly done.
These days, I’m more interested in the poetry of it all.
***
To be honest, I never encountered that thread before. I had in mind something like this, two years later:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/to-publish-bs-or-not-thats-the-question-judith-curry-vs-richard-tol/#comment-14822
That kind of exercise is not that tough to recall. The lukewarm playbook is quite tight. More or less more of the same.
Instead of copying that comment to my tumblog, I will only note that last sentence, which pleases me, for a project I call ThreadLike.
Sounds like you are finding the AGW debate is getting stale Wiilard. I do find the old threads have a certain earnestness and freshness that reflects a more genuine attempt at discourse between sceptical commenters and orthodox climate science.
It seems a pity that the debate, as such, is winding down in the face of quite valid criticisms by non-aligned scientists and politicians. There is IMO a distinct belief and desire among the AGWers that humanity needs saving for its own excesses.
In reality, such a debate will ultimately be resolved without any clear winners and losers being identified. What is lost, however, is the trust in science by the average citizen of the US, Canada, Australia, Germany and many other countries, because of the seduction of climate science by political activism.
Peter Davies
+1
Peter –
I don’t know about elsewhere, but in the U.S., at least, I think your concern may not be needed.
The data that I’ve seen show that “trust in scientists” has dropped in the U.S., but it has been over a period of decades, the drop started well before the climate wars heated up, and the drop is only among Republicans (not Dems or Independents), and only among 1/3 of them. That drop is accompanied by a similar drop in “trust” in all governmental institutions, and has coincided with the growth of the religious right and in the context of debates about abortion, evolution, the origins of the universe, stem cell research, etc., that mix science-related debates with views of government and political ideology.
It always seems the best of times to join the bandwagon, Peter.
Yours or any otter’s:
http://discourseontheotter.tumblr.com/
Speaking of the placental mammal…
http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/ranking/release/corker-warns-obama-administration-against-any-action-to-implement-un-arms-trade-treaty-without-senate-advice-and-consent
and his habitat.
Tom Fuller,
+1
I bet even kim is envious.
The third man quote was profound. My approach to writing on blogs and in everything else was to provide information, opinions and beliefs for others to read and to possibly learn from, especially my mistakes.
Once a dialogue reaches a point that it becomes self absorbed and that any sense or non sense that is made of it by others who may be observing becomes irrelevant, then the dialogue becomes mere argument.
At last a comment about truth! But fer the IPCC
this would be like looking fer a very small needle
in a very large haystack … with no street light.
A serf.
Outstanding quote, Judith, many thanks for brining it to the fore.
w.
Despite resistance from many researchers, the German ministries insist that it is important not to detract from the effectiveness of climate change warnings by discussing the past 15 years’ lack of global warming. Doing so, they say, would result in a loss of the support necessary for pursuing rigorous climate policies. “Climate policy needs the element of fear,” Ott openly admits. “Otherwise, no politician would take on this topic.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-face-crisis-over-global-warming-pause-a-923937-druck.html
Decline in sunspot mean starting from 2000:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:360/from:1900/plot/sidc-ssn/compress:12/from:1900
Clearly, the automobile caused more sunspots.
I’m thinking this is how the policy makers influence. Split it upon ideological lines. Do you trust the government, and its agencies to do the right thing? Bet on us. We need to control you to prevent catastrophe.
But at the bottom, Germany, and other countries promote their national interests. You can take this so far, but eventually, it no longer makes sense. That’s what’s interesting about this. German leaders are fearful they will no longer be viewed as leaders, and no longer be able to make the case they are doing the right thing for Germans. They are worried this will lead to lesser votes.
That’s why Merkel threw the greens under the bus:
“””I grew up in a Christian house. We didn’t eat meat on Fridays. I think every restaurant should have a vegetarian dish, but we are a party confident people can manage their own lives,” the German prime minister added. “We are confident people will live a reasonable life and we don’t want to deprive them of this opportunity.”””
Though, of course, it might have been because of this: “”
To be sure, the “Veggie Day” flap is far from the only thing hurting the Greens’ chances at the polls Sunday. Their dalliance in the 1980s with legalizing pedophilia has gotten extensive, negative press attention during the election campaign.””
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/09/germany-veggie-day-and-michelle-obama-173206.html
Don Monfort | September 23, 2013 at 9:17 pm |
“It seems that a lot of you characters are getting more agitated and slimey, like joshie. It’s because the wheels are coming off the alarmist wagon and you are getting desperate. The pause is killing the cause.”
Yup.
Joshua | September 23, 2013 at 10:01 pm |
“Looks like as with stakes through the heart and final nails in the coffin, there is an endless supply of wheels on that wagon, as there are an endless number of times that “skeptics” have reported observing all three.”
The wheels have been coming off slowly for quite some time. Same problem, multiple observations. How many times has someone painted a sunset? It was the same sun every time. Duh.
its not so much wheels coming off.
more like limbs.
One of my all time favorites Mosher.
“What are you going to do? Bleed all over me?”
“Marotzke calls the claim that a temperature plateau isn’t significant until it has lasted for over 30 years unscientific. ”
I seem to recall Judith arguing for 30+ years for determining climate trends.
I predict that someday there will be 30 or more years of global warming. The Earth has seen that before despite global cooling over the last 10,000 years.
I seem to recall Judith positing that the pause post the 1998/2001 climate shift was scientifically interesting and that she ‘wouldn’t rule out continuation to 2035-2040; this seems at least as likely as the the CMIP5 predictions that have already failed for the last decade.’
I’d give it 99% likely for at least the next decade and you are so far from across the last 10 years of climate science – Michael – that everything you say seems more like merely smarmy point scoring from a cognitively dissonant framework than an actual attempt to understand.
And I wouldn’t rule out it continuing till 2100……but I think the probability of that is vanishingly small.
“wouldn’t rule out” is such a handy non-statement.
But then again – some of us are talking science and not rubbish.
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.
Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and declining since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold – due perhaps in a decade or two if the recent past is any indication.
‘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. Today we know that the cause is the interaction between ocean and atmosphere.’ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822105042.htm
Smarmy point scoring is no substitute for knowledge Michael
“perhaps…if….” almost as good as “wouldn’t rule out”.
‘Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents
significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26),
leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global
mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that
could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implemen-
tation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions
(27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and
without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability.
To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and
may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’ http://deepeco.ucsd.edu/~george/publications/09_long-term_variability.pdf
Emphasizing perhaps and if in my discussion of climate shifts is pretty thin grounds on which to dispute low frequency climate regimes that have been observed in proxies for a 1000 years. Why not emphasize I give it 99% for the next decade?
“I seem to recall Judith arguing for 30+ years for determining climate trends.”
no, 30 years + to separate the trends due to Anthro forcing versus trends due to natural forcing. different question.
I think 25, santer thought 17.
FInally, there is no such thing as a minimum number of years required to establish a “climate trend”,
So 1 year is enough?
It is for CAGWers. Just wait til the next El Nino.
Michael | September 24, 2013 at 1:26 am |
So 1 year is enough?
Sure, just use daily data. you get huge uncertainties, but understand this… trends dont exist. They are models used to fit data.
So there’s no reality of increasing thermal energy behind rising global temps, it’s just a data fitting exercise??
Michael | September 24, 2013 at 1:57 am |
So there’s no reality of increasing thermal energy behind rising global temps, it’s just a data fitting exercise??
No, of course the thermal energy is rising. Look at the data.
But when you “do statistics” you make an assumption, “oh, lets fit a line to this data” Then ON THAT ASSUMPTION, you can calculate a slope for the fitted line. That slope is not an observable. That slope is a mathematical entity that results from a human decision to “fit a line”.
When we make the assumption to fit a line, we are assuming that the underlying data generating process is linear ( its not, in fact we fairly certain that it is not )
But surely that’s the problem. Temperatures aren’t rising.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/LymnaandJohnson2013OHCA_zps703732d0.png.html?sort=3&o=1
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2013_v5.6.png
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/ProjectEarthshine-albedo_zps87fc3b7f.png.html?sort=3&o=5
Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=28
Long may it rain on your parade.
I doubt even a million year “trend” is a trend if you are looking at it in terms of billions of years. They are all part of some larger “trend” regardless of the length.
+1 to dennis adams
Thank you for playing Michael
You can use a Monte Carlo method to estimate the effect of observed natural fluctuation on OLS trend.
figure.
So you need 20 years to resolve a 2°C/century warming at the 95% CL.
I used a variant on the spectra method to estimate the noise field to calculate this.
I’ve put Lucia’s estimates on the same curve for comparison. I suspect she is over-estimating the uncertainty a bit due to the way she’s doing the calculation, but it’s possible my uncertainties are a bit small too.
Approximate formula:
Based on this formula, it’s closer to 40 years to distinguish a 2°C/century from a 1°C/century warming trend at the 95% CL.
I have the same analysis elsewhere on this thread and show a Monte Carlo run that can reproduce a pause. Given the size of the yearly temperature fluctuations, it statistically isn’t that rare.
Yet statistically, most skeptics have little knowledge of statistics.
A honest scientist has an obligation to the pursuit of the truth, knowing that when they find it, it is always provisional. A honest scientist puts whatever provisional truth they think they have in the context of uncertainty, probablility and potential outcomes if it relates to environmental policy. It is up to the elected policy makers then to decide how to take that information and put it into policy.
+ 1
My +1 as well.
The Spiegel article refers to soot as a cooling force, when it is in fact an aerosol that warms the atmosphere and accelerates ice melt. Not exactly confidence inspiring.
Pretty sure it depends on what time of year it is emitted as to whether it produces net warming or cooling. Also latitude matters.
For most of human exiistence our ancestors were at war with the environment. Keerping warm in the winter and cool min the summer were major achievements which started wih our mastery of fire and has reached the air-conditioned buildings in which we live. So the war w3ith the environment is over, at least for most of us in advanced countries,
“Marotzke calls the claim that a temperature plateau isn’t significant until it has lasted for over 30 years unscientific.” Of course it is. The first plateau 1940 to 1970, did last 30 years and temperature actually fell, but the IPCC ignored that, because they had been told to do so.
Yes, we need a good dose of the truth.
A year ago, claims of a pause were met with angry jeers of “denier!”
Just pulled this off Google News summary:
BBC- Hundreds of scientists are holding talks in Stockholm on Monday on the latest major assessment of global warming.
The UN climate panel, known as the IPCC, reports every six years and its conclusions are meant to guide governments around the world.
A key challenge this time will be to explain why the rise in global temperatures has recently stalled. “
Who says that is a ‘key challenge”?
A journalist??
The key challenge for for hundreds of scientists is to fly first class and drink and eat as much free food and booze as possible because the party is coming to an end.
{nesting fail – meant to go here}
And it’s fascinating to watch the deniers work themselves up into a frenzy of self-righteous delusion over this.
It’s their latest meme.
“A key challenge this time will be to explain why the rise in global temperatures has recently stalled.”
No, the key challenge will be coming up with a coherent theory of climate that honors observations and accurately predicts future states of the climate.
And the primary challenge in that task wont be accurately divining the secrets of a massively complex multivariate system for which no true experimentation is possible. That is kids play compared to the necessary first step in finding a coherent theory of climate: admitting that you haven’t already got one.
Just coming up with ad hoc “explanations” for the recent local maximum isn’t a challenge. Any cargo cult climastrologist can do it. Chinese aerosols, deep ocean hide and seek, low level volcanism, “natural variability” … that stuff is so simple that priests and shamans have been doing it for millennia. Conversely, science is hard. And this lot simply is not up to it.
Agreed.
JJ
The first step in figuring out a problem is to guess. (an educated guess sometimes called a SWAG) Then, you test your guesses. However, like everything else in life, the first step to progress is recognizing that there is a problem that needs solving.
I don’t normally agree with WebHubbleHandlens, but he makes a great point about deniers: you are rooting for failure. The consensus is evolving, slowly and late perhaps. Skeptical blogs and folks who jumped into the game from the sidelines are changing the process for the better. It also helps that as luck would have it, the weather is cooperating with skeptics and fueling irrational exuberance of deniers. The pre-1999 weather helped make the alarmist case, now they are hoisted on their own house of cards, scrambling to make lemonade.
Let me give you a hint: this is how the world works. You can protest the nature of social reality all you want, but it just identifies you as a narcissistic whinger with a touch of conspiracy ideation and a pathological sense of entitlement.
And it’s fascinating to watch the deniers work themselves up into a frenzy of self-righteous delusion over this.
It’s their latest meme.
> It’s their latest meme.
It takes discipline to promote a meme:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political/Moral_Politics.html
Unfortunately, climate science has entered into a stranglehold with politics from which I cannot see it managing to extract itself. The stakes for politicians are just too high to allow it the freedom of investigation that the natural sciences demand. Perhaps we should stop thinking of it as a natural science but, at best, a social science. After all, methodologically, it isn’t too far from economics in the way it progresses: contestable data and modelling methods relying upon ‘laws’ – whether they be Savage’s axioms of rationality or the laws of radiation – which whilst credible in isolation are rendered unintelligible by complexity. If we accept that then perhaps we should recognise that reality is socially constructed and truth is about coherence and consensus rather than with correspondence to ‘facts’ or ‘evidence’. Sad, but that perhaps is where we are.
+1 Prof Bob Ryan. What field are you from? You don’t sound as if you belong to the climate science industry.
Peter – once a scientist (analytical chemistry) then over to the dark side – now a financial economist.
AGW meets AMT man; we have gone from Genesis to Genius and all it took was a few words, that won’t cost you anything after taxes.
I thought so Prof Bob. Me too but more on the financial advice side of accounting for small businesses. Economics was my first degree with majors in statistics and econometrics but then did accounting and finance at night school back in the eighties.
Now semi retired but still looking after a few dozen business clients in between travel, sight-seeing and visiting grandkids and staying with friends interstate in Australia and abroad.
Thanks for putting “professor” in front of your name, because like the PHd suffix used by others, it identifies you as an insecure fool seeking adulation from bottom-feeders in the peanut gallery.
And Nought, is still trying to run the world. What a trip. One Day…
Yes .. we should have a good explanation why the average surface temperatures have not risen since 1998 even though CO2 atmospheric levels have increased (like you would expect from a simplistic model). But we have known for 2 whole centuries the effect of GHG on planetary atmospheres and surfaces, pretty well proven 200 years ago. So why have temperatures not moved ?, could it be natural variation (ENSO, Sun radiation, deep sea absorption, energy spent melting polar ice etc..etc), and what about methane levels, certainly it is also dramatically rising. Are we actually counteracting a LIA like some say, well good job – keep on exploring for oil in the Arctic, be pre disposed to ignore AR5 there is always Mars.
A plateau or pause of 30 years is very significant. Where was it the last 5 years. It was 12 years, then 17 years as the pause became more visible and viable.
30 years is of course is the last refuge of the incompetent and a very desperate one. It is impossible to go any further out because it would mean the rise in temps in the 80’s and 90’s could no longer be significant.
(Lasting less than 30 years).
That may well be the reason that professor Marotske and all other warmists
refuse to countenance it.
Lolwat ,FOMD and R Gates are unable to commit to a figure despite being asked many times.
So 17 years Santer to 30 years max, watch the squirming if the pause continues.
NOAA claimed 15 years, until you know, we hit 15 years..
“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
And Phil (it’s my data so screw you) Jones expertly opined:
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
In fairness you have to remember the 15 year period was adjusted for ENSO. I’m not sure what the ENSO adjusted trend for the last 15 years is.
err…blog
Angech, you make an important point. It goes back even further for Hansen.
In 1981, Hansen relied on 15 years of temperature change as his ‘dramatic evidence’ of global warming- “They have found that the Earth’s average temperature rose 0.2 degrees Centigrade from the mid-1960s to 1980.”- Eleanor Randolph, in The Pittsburgh Press, August 15, 1981
There are several problems with this. First, from 1965 to 1980, HadCRUT now gives 0.06C rise, GISS now gives 0.12C rise and HadSST now gives 0.02C DROP. So, Hansen hung his hat on a temperature increase that is smaller than the noise in the measurement. Remarkably, he was fitting the flat tail of an exponential curve to noise. Second, we now have 15 years of no temperature increase, while annual CO2 emissions are 2.5 times higher.
I see the growing disagreement between models and observations as climate science’s version of the ultraviolet catastrophe. With appropriate transformations, even the shapes of the curves are similar. :-)
+1 chris y and welcome to the log.
I’m having a senior moment here. I adjusted my previous comment to you in the wrong nesting. I meant welcome to Judith’s blog. We are always interested to hear from different people.
The mistake comes at the very start in your assumption that tropospheric temperatures represent a good proxy for gains in overall energy content of the Earth system. If you think they do, then you should explain why they are a better proxy than ocean heat content, and over what timeframe you think they are a better proxy.
R. Gates
For many years, covering several IPCC summary reports, IPCC has used the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly” (HadCRUT3 at the time) as its “proxy for global warming”.
Now that this indicator no longer shows warming (but slight cooling instead), you would like to move the goalposts to “ocean heat content”, a proxy that has no long-term record of meaningful data, but shows infinitesimally slight warming since ARGO started in 2003.
Fuggidaboudit, Gates. That’s silly.
No one in his right mind (least of all the ocean dwellers) cares a whit whether or not the ocean is warming by a few thousandths of a degree over the next several decades. It’s the surface air temperature that counts (and that’s not warming, but cooling).
Max
MiniMax you better watch it when you talk about cooling. If one takes trends backwards from the current year, only one time span had a standard error completely within a cooling regime.
The rest had large uncertainty and only going back 12 years, the mean slope was warming.
Looky here what I done:
http://imageshack.us/a/img843/6951/vukd.gif
And all the climatologists keep saying its not just the number and some just refuse to listen let alone understand.
angech,
You really don’t understand the statistics behind fluctuations do you?
Here are two versions of a log CO2 versus temperature anomaly record
http://imageshack.us/a/img843/6951/vukd.gif
http://imageshack.us/a/img546/637/gvx.gif
In each, the record extends for about 150 years. The top plots show the slope of the curves corresponding to a given number of years backwards from the current year. Go far enough back and the slopes converge to about 3C per doubling of CO2, which is the modeled ECS for land temperature.
In recent years, going back 20 to 30 years, notice how much the slopes can change — this is due to the limitations of counting statistics, a category of systemic uncertainty.
One of the records is a completely random signal (white noise) on top of a rising trend and the other is the real hadcrut land temperature record.
Can you tell which is which?
This is purportedly an academically-oriented science blog with a focus on uncertainty, so I figured you could learn something.
I note that from co2 levels of 375 to 395 on the bottom plot on both graphs which is only from 1900 [113 years not 150] the distinct leveling out of the temperature anomaly at 1.4 degrees .
This is the pause every one is talking about. I would imagine that it represents 16 years on a time scale. There is a flat line of zero for that 16 years for the rise in CO2.
You have posted some recent graphs on the same subject of CO2 and temperature doubling explaining your view elsewhere, thanks.
is the real hadcrut land temperature record near to an airport or is it a real land temperature record?
You still will not give a figure for the length of a time a pause would have to go to convince you that the pause is real.
I have already fixed you into less than 30 years, but remember we only have to wait another 7 years to see a 30 year pause because the pause goes backwards a year for every year it goes forwards
In other words we will both know by 2020.[ 1990-2020]
Angech asks whether the real hadcrut temperature data is “near to an airport”.
I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry at this kind of question.
This is your kind of people deniers. You deserve them.
This seems almost like betting shops in the U.K. or the TAB shops in New Zealand, warmists will squirm if the pause continues and the coldests will have to squirm if ENSO reverses and the good Research Professor of the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University is correct…. watch this space .. Judith or Jennifer ??? Never mind the poor old Palaeoclimatologists that deal in steps of millions of years .. 30 years is decisive
Like you redskylite, I have no dog in this fight, only curiosity. Yes I do want to see the climate scientists do good work for some selfish reasons. I figure if they can make good predictions wrt the climate, they can apply that knowledge to predictions of when and where the wind blow and where and when the clouds will part so that we can optimize our renewable energy resources.
But I realize that the crass vindictiveness of the deniers places a damper on this type of forward thinking. They actually root for the scientists to be proven incompetent.
I do not understand this negativity at all. It would be like rooting for the incompetence of computer scientists when it comes to writing a software language compiler. If they can do that well, a lot of people can benefit downstream, but if they suck, a lot of programmers will be disappointed. Note that I said disappointed, not gleeful in other’s ineptitude. They don’t have the tools they need, and have no where else to turn.
Right now, as I see it, the incompetents are the arm-chair warriors who over-analyze statistical fluctuations and refuse to even consider the bigger picture. That is not even considering all the kranks that are infesting the waters. Of course, the Chief deniers appreciate all the FUD.
Webster, “But I realize that the crass vindictiveness of the deniers places a damper on this type of forward thinking. They actually root for the scientists to be proven incompetent.”
Couple of points, 1) Skeptics have a great deal of respect for forward thinking which requires knowing your limitations. Most are big fans of various alternate energies and don’t assume that any particular type is inherently EVIL. 2) Yes we do root for the climate scientists to be not only proven wrong, but to be totally and completely humiliated by their over confidence faced with an extremely difficult problem. We respect the sharper tacks in the box, not the run of the mill minions. As they say, respect is earned not guaranteed and one oh shite wipes out a 1000 atta boys.
Cappy, your job is to name “the sharper tacks in the box” so that we can keep on funding them.
Looking forward to the list.
Amen!
But let’s see what the insiders at Stockholm decide…
Max
People want everyone to tell the truth until it really matters.
For example, just today I was censored from WUWT for speaking the truth about the hate speech directed at sceptics.
From that episode I have learnt that one mustn’t speak the truth.
Hello Scottish Sceptic. I would be interested in your story in a bit more detail, especially seeing that your offending comment never presumedly saw the light of day?
Hence why I chose to not frequent WUWT. Not the same rules for everyone.
WUWT isn’t my favorite site for science content to say the least, but they do post the rules for moderation, and they do a decent job of maintaining discipline among the editors.
Perhaps you should contrast and compare that with the hairball way that Real Climate moderates comments. The idea that the RC editors should follow a protocol for how to moderate comments, seems to personally offends them.
Yes, but RC moderation.
You should know better, Carrick.
I don’t exactly follow. Explain what I’m supposed to “know better” willard?
This, Carrick:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
What? I enjoy reading the stuff that gets dumped into the Bore Hole thread on Real Climate.
That is book material right there for the next edition of Voodoo Science.
If WUWT had an equivalent thread, they wouldn’t know what to call it.
Willard, no, I wasn’t engaging in tu quo que.
What I actually trying to say was I thought that the WUWT comment moderation policy is decent, and in contrast, RC is not. This has nothing to do with the front page content of the two sites (e.g. taking sides in a debate).
You will note that I said “WUWT isn’t my favorite site for science content”. Is it really necessary to say that RC generally gets the science right (even if on some debates they give one-sided arguments)?
Oh willie, could you please provide a link to the wikipedia description of the logical fallacy that you just clumsily employed to discredit Carrick?
WHT:
I wasn’t discussing borehole comments, but how comments not BH’d get mangled by the editors. Not all deleted comments make it to the BH either, at least they didn’t use too.
Here is what Thomas Fuller had to say about them, which I find spot on:
I’ve stopped reading the site, not because the science is necessarily wrong, but because of censorship of criticisms of their claims. For what I am looking for (which is not just a “bible” to tell me what I should think), that makes the RC site useless for me.
Carrick
My favorite RC hatchet job came when Hansen released the code.
At climate Audit I suggested that people be classy and post a thank you to Gavin at RC.
I did. under several accounts.
they hit bit bucket.
I’ve also had a comment supressed at Watts. I followed all the rules but my commented pointed out a error.
Long ago when Charles did all the moderation you had to really go bonkers to get deleted. But it took a toll on him, lack of sleep, and endless stack to go through every night.
The new mods are not as even handed as he was.
RC? Well I did some tests using various methods of anonymizing. lets just say they failed.
Of course comparing the two is some sort of logical fallacy.
hmm I give RC a 10 on science and a 3 on coherent moderation
I give WUWT a 2 on science and 7 on coherent moderation, it depends on who is manning the que.
YMMV
carrick the best examples at RC come from recent episodes where the authors comments got hi jacked and then un hi jacked. pretty funny.
Jim, no, I’m not talking curve fitting. I must say that I sympathise with your PNAS reviewers… I don’t get what you mean either :-)
[Response:Readers will notice that someone here at RealClimate has seen fit to delete my extended comment to Martin (without justification and without any notice), so hold on while I re-compose it.–Jim]
[Response:Original comment: Then I’m not sure what application of least squares you are referring to. As for understanding the issue, the reviewers, who were (supposedly) tree ring experts, had available to them a huge amount of detailed information. I have discussed the issue in great detail beginning here and going to here. The problem is as follows. The RCS method is designed to estimate the age/size effect by taking an ~ mean ring response for each age/size in the data set. But this is only fully accurate if each sampled age/size fully samples the environmental space covered over the full time period. If instead you have, for example, a situation in which early rings preferentially sample one end of that continuum, while later rings tend to sample the opposite end, this will cause the entire RCS “regional curve” to be biased by a constantly increasing amount over time. Not just at the series ends, and not with offsetting errors in the middle as claimed by Briffa and Melvin, but the entire curve, from one end to the other. This is the main point in my series on that whole topic at my blog, is easily demonstrable with a flexible growth model that can produce any type of age/size effect, and was the point of a PNAS paper I submitted last year (but which was rejected because the reviewers completely failed to understand this issue and the evidence I presented for it). This problem is one reason–and only one–for why trying to estimate climate states over long periods, from tree ring widths, is completely unreliable. Completely.–Jim]
[Response: It’s probably worth adding that Jim’s last conclusion is not universally shared (e.g. fig 3 from Esper et al, 2012 shows a very good correspondence between TRW and MXD chronologies). That isn’t to say that there aren’t issues… ;-) – gavin]
Comment by Martin Vermeer — 22 Jun 2013 @ 1:48 PM
###########################
Thats FUNNY.
Skeptical science is even better. I’m completely banned and I’ve probably only made a couple comments there.
Steven Mosher, the deleted author’s comment is particularly an amusing one. If their system keeps a log of who deleted the comment, they certainly didn’t share it. My guess would be somebody with the initials “MEM”.
I don’t suppose that WUWT is perfect on comment moderation, and some of the moderators is a bit knee-reflexive “gung ho”. I had run ins with one of them in particular, who did eventually (slantwise) apologize, on thread, for his behavior.
At least they have consistent rules that they are supposed to follow, so you can say when they aren’t. ;-)
In terms of scientific content, yes, WUWT is very poor. Too low for a Likert scale to effectively measure. Often the comments are better than the posts in that respect.
“Skeptical science is even better. I’m completely banned and I’ve probably only made a couple comments there”
I’m not banned (as far as I know), but I don’t post there very often, and when I do, I rarely engage with the regulars.
I put SkS up there with ClimateProgress in that regard, though perhaps I’m being unfair. At least Joe Romm makes it clear he is behaving as an activist on his blog, and at least he is an actual scientist. I can respect that.
Neither Cook nor Nuccitelli have any serious physical sciences research experience (though Dana’s experience in the fossil fuel industry may qualify as applied research–oddly it’s something he doesn’t like to talk about on blog).
I would have more respect for OpenMind if Tamino weren’t wrong so often, or didn’t take such offense when people pointed out his errors. So it is another blog I don’t end up reading.
Who needs yet another “Surely I am a GOD” blog?
Well, I’ve been censored everywhere, and all my best stuff, too.
===============
Carrick,
You’re basically spelling out your tu quoque when you say:
There may never be a purest example of tu quoque. The discussion’s turnabout confirms that it worked.
Thank you.
***
Don Don,
You ask me for a link after I offered thy Wiki page.
Here’s another one:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
The two “persons” here are the establishment and its dissenters.
What matters is not the terminology but the explanation, emphasized FYEO.
Maybe you didn’t learn something from your trip to nutterland after all.
“When did environmental policy and the truth become mutually exclusive?”
one describes what is.
the other argues for what should be or what we should do.
we would not ordinarily describe a policy as true. we might say it is wise or stupid, supported by the science or at odds with the science.
that doesnt make them “mutually exclusive”, but then the OP never suggested that they were.
Hmm, hate speech from skeptics? Surely not, or…
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/23/quote-of-the-week-3/#comment-386053
Louise
Do you agree that Climate researchers have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth?
”
Do you agree that Climate researchers have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth?
”
When did environmental policy and the truth become mutually exclusive?
“When did environmental policy and the truth become mutually exclusive?”
one describes what is.
the other argues for what should be or what we should do.
we would not ordinarily describe a policy as true. we might say it is wise or stupid, supported by the science or at odds with the science.
that doesnt make them “mutually exclusive”, but then the OP never suggested that they were.
Scottish sceptic: For example, just today I was censored from WUWT for speaking the truth about the hate speech directed at sceptics.
Perhaps you should link what actually happened next time, instead of giving us an anecdote with lots of spin in it. The claim that you know it was “censored” because you were “speaking the truth” though, is an absurd claim and undermines the credibility of your story.
I can think of lots of reasons why your comments might get edited. Use of inappropriate language. Etc.
Yes, the notion of “censorship” with subjective explanations just had no credibilit….. Oh. Wait:
Nevermind.
And to wrap up, “Yes, but RC moderation….”
Truthfully Joshua, this is why nobody takes you seriously.
The problem with Scottish sceptic’s claim:
is that he is asserting the reason that he was censored was for “speaking the truth about the hate speech directed at sceptics.”
it isn’t that it is subjective that is the problem, it’s that it requires a feat of mind-reading that “Scottish sceptic” would be required to do in order him to be able to state this was the reason he was censored.
That’s pretty obvious isn’t it.
As to this:
You’ve confused subjective with objective here.
The behavior of deleting opposing views and warping comments of critics is objective.
It is subjective that this behavior is a bad thing, but behaviors are observable.
Carrick –
Hey, look at this, Carrick read past the first paragraph. Imagine that!!
I agree that SS’s comment is flawed. “Censorship” is a silly concept in this context. Further, the assessments of the reasons for the “censorship” are obviously flawed by being completely subjective.
The same criticisms apply to Tom’s statement, that you seem to value so much.
And that is why the whole “Yes, but RC moderation” is so laughable as a serious contribution to the debate about climate change. It rests on a fundamentally “skeptical” platform.
Not at all. It assumes criteria that are only determined subjectively. There are comments of opposing views that are not deleted. That means that it is entirely possible that obnoxious, or repetitive, or of topic, or ridiculous, or unscientific, or “skeptical,” etc., comments are the ones that are deleted.
We are all selective in our observations, Carrick. Those who fail to recognize that, fail to appreciate the difference between subjectivity and objectivity.
It is entirely possible to “observe” what we want to observe… and often we do:
Carrick –
And this before a lecture on the difference between subjectivity and objectivity?
Too funny.
And after inaccurate statements about reading my comments?
Even funnier.
Is it shame-based, Carrick? I mean objectively speaking, of course.
And notice how you skipped over the description of “good” parts – quote marks notwithstanding.
The moderators at RC don’t agree with your “objective” determinations of which comments are “deleted” (actually, they aren’t deleted if they were never posted, now are they), and which ones are “warped.” In fact, they don’t agree with the descriptor of “warped.”
You and they have different, and subjective, determinations about what happens.
And the funniest part is that “skeptics” regularly claim some vast difference in moderation policies without realizing that the distinctions they make are completely aligned with orientation in the debate.
Selective reasoning is selective, Carrick.
And Carrick –
This was my personal favorite part of your explanation to SS…
Seriously, bro, as an aficionado of unintentional irony – that was just beautiful.
You are carpet bombing another thread, joshie. One of the many reasons that nobody likes you. Try to restrain yourself, putz.
‘It is entirely possible to “observe” what we want to observe… and often we do:”
Kinda like when you “observe” what you think you believe about your attitude toward Judith.
And Joshua says Trolololo.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32UGD0fV45g&w=640&h=360]
Well, now, look at this. Mosher trots out the same lame-assed argument yet again. How many times is that now, steven, that you’ve ignored my responses to present the same flawed point?
Must be because you “don’t take me seriously” that you’re spending so much time trying, desperately, to prove me wrong.
I just love you boyz.
Carrick –
And here we have a point to take seriously, as a counterpoint, eh?
Keep ducking, Carrick. It fits you in with the crowd.
> Keep ducking, Carrick.
Is this a deshumanizing comment?
We’re all biased observers, steven. And in some situations we have better access to relevant information than others.
Now let’s turn your argument around. I quite often see explanations for you beliefs and behaviors at WUWT. Not very nice explanations. When I read them, I know that they are “skeptical” explanations – because they are founded on insufficient evidence. The same when I see pronouncements on Judith’s “integrity” at “realist” websites.
I don’t know what to believe about Judith’s integrity, steven. Sometimes I think that I do, but when I look more closely at the process by which I’m formulating my conclusions, I know it is motivated reasoning at work – because it is abundantly obvious that I don’t have enough information to judge Judith’s integrity.
This is really simple logic, my friend. But I guess you have to be “slime” to understand it, eh?
Mosher has got you upset again, joshie. Why do you let him do it to you?
Dehumanizing? I’d say not. Childish, juvenile? Of course. And so it goes in the climate wars.
Another part of the beauty of unintentional irony that we find so often here, is that people speak about what should be “taken seriously” in the context of “objectivity” in a forum that so broadly fits the descriptor of juvenile.
I thank Carrick for making the point so well.
Oops – looks like I pasted when I should have cutted. That hilarious quote from mosher should have been:
Joshua
‘We’re all biased observers, steven. And in some situations we have better access to relevant information than others.”
1. you argued you had an inside track and knew that we are wrong about your attitudes.
In short, this is not arguing that you have better access its arguing that you have exclusive access, and an access that allows you to assert that we are wrong without doubt.
Here is the clue. your access to your beliefs is no better than our access to your beliefs. and the reason for that is that you dont have beliefs
you have internal verbal behavior that explains some of your other behavior by positing a thing you call a belief. you posit beliefs to explain your behavior. you cant believe you question her integrity, even though you do.
Steven –
Jeebus, can’t you even get one thing right?’
Nope. I said you are wrong about what I believe. Your interpretation about my “attitudes” is entirely your own – it isn’t relevant to speak of them as being “wrong” or “right.” Your judgement of my attitude is all yours, baby. Enjoy it for all you can (and you certainly seem to be very focused on my attitudes, so I can only hope that you enjoy your opinions of them).”
At this point, steven, I’m going to have to cut you off. I have moved past initial, and fatal, flaws in your obsessive need to post comments to convince me of what I believe, but I see now that is a mistake.
You need to build from a solid foundation before you’ll be able to understand.
I suggest that you start with a few simple comments and then I’ll tell you whether they are correct or not. Let’s start with the one you screwed up at the very beginning of that post.
Try to rephrase in a way that has a hope of being accurate, and we can move on from there.
Remember steven, start with the little steps, and wait until you’ve mastered them before moving on. We can get to the follow-on logic later, it might be fun – but we can’t get anywhere if we don’t start with correcting your flawed understanding of the foundational components.
Think of Ashtanga Yoga.
And steven –
I did think of one more thing. There is on person on here, probably only one, that I do think I have some evidence to use in assessing integrity.
That would be you.
You posted my full name here, w/o asking me if I minded. That struck me as being pretty low on the integrity scale.
Now in reality, the impact was insignificant. It didn’t adversely affect my life in any way. But you didn’t know that, yet you took it upon yourself to do something that might have adversely affected my life.
I assume that it was an out-of-character action. We all, sometimes, drop our integrity when we are biased by our “motivated reasoning.” I assume that you believed, in some biased analysis, that you had a valid reason for doing something that could have adversely affected someone that you don’t even know.
So it certainly doesn’t give me sufficient evidence to judge your integrity. It is a piece of evidence, but as a matter of scale it doesn’t fill in the gaps in my knowledge nearly enough to reach a conclusion.
It is ironic, however, that in this mad attempt of you to prove that I have judged Judith’s integrity, you are the single person on this board that I have have even a small amount of relevant information on.
Can you prove that Steven revealed your name, joshie? You shouldn’t make such accusations without evidence. What would your parents think?
Don –
Huh? He revealed my name. Do I have evidence? I suppose I could dig through the threads, but I’m not going to bother. I think he has enough integrity that he’d acknowledge it. Maybe you should just ask him.
Are you asking because evidence that he revealed my name would change your assessment of his integrity?
I am asking you, joshie. You made the accusation. But you are not judging Steven’s integrity, which we all know is a lie. You should take a random sample of the comments you have posted here and carry them to a competent mental health professional.
The jonquil nodded
At the pond,
Admired self, but still
Why can’t I be more daffodil?
===============
Don –
I don’t need to find the evidence. I know that he did it. If you want evidence, ask him, I doubt that he’d lie about it.
It is evidence towards assessing his integrity. It is far from sufficient. I don’t assume that he is a liar. I assume that he treats his family and friends well. I assume he does nice things for people. I assume that he doesn’t falsify his research. I assume that he treats his colleagues in a professional manner. I have no evidence otherwise. If I had evidence on those matters, the gap might be filled in sufficient for me to get a handle on his integrity. One discretion is far from sufficient.
I don’t even judge your integrity even those you said that you deliberately do things to hurt my feelings (and interestingly enough, attributed the same behavior to steven). My assumption is that either; (1) that was hyperbole, and you know that none of your nonsense actually hurts my feelings or, (2) because you’re a “skeptic” and have a habit of drawing conclusions w/o sufficient information, you think that I am someone who deserves to be hurt in a deliberate manner.
In fact, Don, far from having a negative assessment of your integrity – I love you, man. You make me laugh practically whenever you post a comment, and there’s something cute about your obsession with me.
Well, nobody really cares what your actual name is; little joshie will do. And nobody really cares that you have made an accusation casting aspersions on Steven’s integrity, without offering any speck of evidence. Our collective estimation of your character will not change one bit. You are slimey. Carry on with your tedious and feckless carpet bombing. You are dropping stale marshmallows.
As usual, impeccable logic, Don –
Mosher cared enough about my real name to find it out. You cared enough about my statement that he posted my full name to ask me, repeatedly, for evidence..
And Don, since you care, and I’m not going to bother to search for the evidence (because I already know the answer), just ask mosher in stead of asking me. If he lies, and says he didn’t do it, I’ll show you the proof.
That’s what I’m counting on, Don. It’s very convenient, because your emotionalism causes you and mosher and the rest of my much beloved “skeptics” to be entirely unskeptical – which in the end proves my point.
Well, thanks for the invitation, Don – and yes, I will carry on and you will continue to respond to my posts disproportionately. Because you are obsessed Don. What’s that about, anyway?
You are really naive, joshie. And you are delusional, if you really believe that serious people take you seriously. Mosher doesn’t care what your name is. You are just a nondescript disingenuous loudmouthed little putz. I don’t recall him doing what you claim he did, but if he did find out your real name it was only to use it to make you squirm, and I bet you squirmed plenty. Please find it for me.
Mosher just likes to jerk your chain. Most of the replies to your comments are from the guys jerking your chain. And you almost never fail to jump. Now let’s see if you can contain yourself, this time. Aw, but I bet you got yourself a 7 or 800 word smarmy-ass essay already prepared to defend your honor/ego. Carry on with your clowning.
Joshua,
You surmise:
> I assume that it was an out-of-character action.
And yet:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/25/hiding-the-decline-part-iv-beautiful-evidence/#comment-49095
As overheard at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130601073653/http://metaclimate.org/2011/02/23/the-jeanne-darc-of-science/#comment-4653
Hope this helps.
Still persisting with the same laughable logic, eh Don?
He made the effort to find my name.
You are just a nondescript disingenuous loudmouthed little putz.
Perhaps so, but I’m clearly in your head. I am the subject of the vast majority of your comments here at Climate Etc. Now as to why that is, I don’t know. Perhaps it is because you really are naive enough to think that you’re hurting my feelings – as you stated your intent. Perhaps it is because you think that somehow you are winning some battle with me. It really doesn’t matter. What matters is that you are obsessed, and that your obsession leads you into making a string of laughably illogical statements in post after post.
Heh. So now you try to walk it back? You obviously cared enough to ask me for evidence, twice; but you won’t ask mosher himself. Now why would that be? Your claim to not care is obviously false. As I said, if you ask him and he lies about it, I’ll find the proof. Are you afraid to ask him? Why?
Didn’t squirm a bit – but since you obviously like the idea of me squirming, go ahead and do some searching. It couldn’t be that hard to find. I’ll bet even someone as limited in Boolean logic as you could find it.
Sorry, Don – but if I gave into your pathetic pleading now, there’s no telling where it might stop. I mean you seem like a nice guy and all, but I think it’s just better if I don’t start satisfying your begging.
Maybe. Or maybe he also has a kind of obsession with me – because I point out how facile his thinking can be, such as his laughable arguing that he knows what I believe better than I believe. I mean seriously, Don, even you have to admit it is a ridiculous argument.
Maybe. Or maybe I like ridiculing you pathetic logic. Like I just did.
I’m not trying to “contain” myself, Don. I quite like highlighting your ridiculous logic. It serves a purpose and it’s fun (although not much of a challenge).
I dunno, Don – I don’t count. But maybe you do? Knock yourself out.
Nice work, willie. Little joshie is pretending he can’t find where Mosher outted him, but we know he just doesn’t want to go through the trauma and humiliation again. Please post a link to that thread so I can see how little joshie squirmed.
Scratch your own itch, Don Don.
You still mad, willy?
A smart guy like you, who apparently thinks this climate thing is serious, shouldn’t be playing a clown here. If you want to help the cause survive the pause, you should stop playing the silly troll and emulate the reasonable and respectable consensus advocates:
1. Fred Molten
2. Pekka Pirila
Short list, ain’t it.
That’s interesting, willard. Thanks.
So it isn’t out of character.
That leaves me with the assumption that he was somehow unaware that posting my name could, conceivably, have caused me some harm.
I mean if he were aware of that, why would he post my name? Why would he willingly, potentially cause harm to me merely because I write comments expressing opinions on a blog? It’s not like my posting my opinions, here in these threads, could possibly cause anyone else any harm. I mean on top of the fact that they are mere comments in a blog, it is also obvious to everyone here that I’m stupid, slime, want kids to die (preferably poor ones), etc. People have to shower after reading my comments. People only read my comments by accident. They never read past the first paragraph, as Carrick said (even though it wasn’t true when he said it and he then went on to directly contradict his claim).
Mosher’s wise buddies have determined that my comments are worthless, not even worth reading, tedious, and painful. We know that mosher places great significance behind the “consensus” opinion formulated about me here on this blog. He has written comment after comment for days, now, explaining the wisdom derived from that “consensus” process.
So it isn’t like there could be a justification for deliberately causing me, someone who has no impact whatsoever, to potentially suffer some personal harm.
He must just not have understood. It was probably too complicated for him to figure out. He probably just couldn’t put together the hypotheticals.
Right?
I’m sure he’ll be along any minute to clear things up. He will certainly explain how, obviously, he didn’t realize that by posting my name he might have caused me, someone he’s never even met, and who doesn’t have any impact, some harm.
I mean he’s not like Carrick, who ducks and then hides after making a laughable argument about how his subjective judgements (and those of Tom Fuller), are actually objective judgements.
Nah. Mosher doesn’t duck. He’ll be by any minute. And to top it off, he’ll probably explain to Don how he did indeed post my full name after taking the time to find it.
Well, there’s a shock.
After days of chasing me around with the ridiculous argument that he knows what I believe better than I know what I believe, mosher now has not shown up.
Surprising.
Although he has posted elsewhere in these threads, it must be an oversight. I’m sure he’ll be by any minute.
Carrick,
Minor correction if I may. Josh takes himself seriously.
(Though he’ll say he doesn’t.)
> I’m sure he’ll be along any minute to clear things up.
Why would you think that, Joshua?
It is a matter of public record that:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/08/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-vi/#comment-40597
You have no reason to expect anything, even perhaps if your real identity is known: you posting under a pseudo makes the conversation a pseudo-conversation.
”
Climate researchers, Marotzke adds, have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth. “That obligates us to clearly state the uncertainties in our predictions as well,” he says.
”
Us? Sounds like a consensus to me.
If only the IPCC stated their conclusions in the form of confidence intervals…
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-3.html#ts-3-1
etc.
Reverend
Stating “confidence intervals” is NOT necessarily the same as telling “the truth”.
As a man of the cloth, you should know the difference.
Max
Here was the quote:
Something about the obligation to clearly state uncertainties.
Confidence intervals.
What were you saying about telling the truth, MiniMax?
I would say one criterion for honesty is to state the confidence intervals with as much accuracy as one can, not just to (knowingly) “clearly state” erroneous confidence intervals.
One of the slams the IPCC has been getting all along is to continually overstate certainty. This tendency appears to be getting worse over time, not better, and does threaten to undermine the relevance of the IPCC reports.
Wee Willie
Read the quote again – closely.
It’s about the “truth”, including (but not limited to) stating uncertainties in predictions, as well.
Max
> It’s about the “truth”, including (but not limited to) stating uncertainties in predictions, as well.
Not “including”, but “obligates us”. And this “including” is not necessarily the same as “is NOT necessarily the same”.
Nor is “is NOT necessarily the same” necessarily the same as “obligates us”.
One does not simply conflate modalities and expect to reach Mordor.
Dr Jochem Marotzke:
“
That obligates us to clearly state the uncertainties in our predictions as well.
”
Dr Judith Curry:
”
I don’t care what anyone else says this week, this statement by Marotzke should be hung around the neck of everyone in Stockholm this week for the IPCC meeting.
”
Dr Judith Curry should hang a sign around her neck that says:
“IPCC confidence intervals are not confidence intervals.” and go to Stockholm to advocate for integrity.
Or better yet – Get a t-shirt done up and then parachute into Stockholm, a la Monckton.
What fun, this ‘climate science’!
The Very Reverend
You said;
‘Dr Judith Curry should hang a sign around her neck that says:
“IPCC confidence intervals are not confidence intervals.” and go to Stockholm to advocate for integrity.’
Can I buy my ticket to watch that from you please?
tonyb
tony b
Don’t worry about the Reverend.
He has confused telling the “truth” with stating “confidence intervals”.
Poor chap has difficulties with the English language, despite being a man of the cloth.
Max
> He has confused telling the “truth” with stating “confidence intervals”.
Not at all. Reverend only remarks that what Marotzke claims we should do has already been done.
Perhaps restating Marotzke’s claim with this meme could help MiniMax:
Hope this helps.
Meaning no disrespect to Marotzke, and perhaps something was lost or gained in translation, but, “Germany’s highest-ranking climate researcher”?
Is that an appeal to authority, kind of like “Sturmbannführer Marotzke”? Are climate researchers given ranks and titles in Germany?
Pingback: Two Minutes to Midnight « Climate Audit
Note that according to the here quoted article in Spiegel Online International German politician Hermann Ott said:
“Climate policy needs the element of fear. Otherwise, no politician would take on this topic.”
Hermann Ott is speaker for climate politics of the parliamentary fraction of the Green Party in Germany. According to his homepage, he is also a climate scientist.
TRUTH (IPCC style)
Tropical cyclone activity and intensity increasing
Record droughts, floods, heat waves, cold spells, high tides occurring
Unequivocal warming of the climate system observed with very high confidence that human activities are to blame
Temperature rising even more dramatically in Arctic, threatening ice loss and extinction of species
Halving human CO2 emissions immediately might save the planet from catastrophe.
Judith Curry:
”’ – – – Marotzke, who is also president of the German Climate Consortium and Germany’s top scientific representative in Stockholm, promises, “We will address this subject head-on.” The IPCC, he says, must engage in discussion about the standstill in temperature rise.’
I don’t care what anyone else says this week, this statement by Marotzke should be hung around the neck of everyone in Stockholm this week for the IPCC meeting.”
‘The standstill in temperature rise’ can not be regarded as any surprise. It takes place in accordance with natural laws, which at the same time proves that any recent kind of increase of CO2 content in atmosphere is not able to cause climate warming distinguisible in reality.
In addition, in the comment of mine http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/20/the-ipccs-inconvenient-truth/#comment-384095 I have stated:
”a) Natural warming dominates an increase of global CO2 content in atmosphere, where a share of anthropogenic CO2 emissions have not been empirically found.
b) The CO2 content in atmosphere is controlled together by all CO2 emissions to atmosphere and by all CO2 absorptions from the atmosphere to the other parts of environment. According to calculations the anthropogenic share in the current atmospheric CO2 content is about 4 % at the most.”
How does the natural warming dominate the increase of global CO2 content in atmosphere?
As I in the point b above have stated, in accordance with natural laws, the anthropogenic share in the current atmospheric CO2 content is about 4 % at the most, e.i. nowadays about 16 ppm at the most, whereas in the model calculations adopted by IPCC there is wrongly assumed that it is a little bit over 100 ppm. This proves that during the industrialized era the increase of CO2 content in atmosphere is dominated by natural increase of CO2 content in atmosphere. The statement agree with what even Segalstad and Salby have claimed; e.g. http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.htm , and http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions .
There are plenty of observations which prove that during the recent decades global sea surface temperature has controlled the CO2 content in atmosphere. However the complexity of sea surface makes for instance any application of Henry’s law be too uncertain, even impossible, to reach any quantitative results concerning the influence of global sea surface temperature on the CO2 content in atmosphere. Concerning empiric observations for instance Lance Endersbee has expressed how the global sea surface temperature regulates the CO2 content in atmosphere; ”Oceans are the main regulators of carbon dioxide” http://www.co2web.info/Oceans-and-CO2_EngrsAust_Apr08.pdf , and http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/10/lance-endersbee-1925-2009-civil-engineer-academic-scientific-sceptic-mentor . Although this proves that global sea surface temperature controls CO2 content in atmosphere, the mechanism has not been known.
As I have expressed above CO2 content in atmosphere is controlled together by all CO2 emissions to atmosphere and by all CO2 absorptions from the atmosphere to the other parts of environment. Every one of those emissions or absorptions of CO2 can influence the CO2 content in atmosphere if they are changing. We know how seasonal changes of CO2 emissions and absorptions of biosphere influence CO2 content in atmosphere. Also we well know how ENSO events cause changing CO2 content in atmosphere when tropical sea surface temperature is changing. Concerning decadal changing trends of CO2 content in atmosphere I have expressed that they are caused by changing temperatures of sea surface water on the seasurface areas where seasurface CO2 sinks are. For instance since 1970s these as CO2 sinks acting sea surface areas have continuously warmed because then El Niño events of ENSO oscillation have dominated and caused the continuous sea surface warming, with a certain kind of lag, on these CO2 sinks areas. This kind of warming makes the partial pressure of CO2 in sea surface water exponentially rise. In consequence of that absorption of CO2 from atmosphere to sea surface sinks gets slower which makes more CO2 from total CO2 emissions stay in atmosphere; e.g. comments http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 ; and http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/16/hansen-on-the-standstill/#comment-287036 .
Surface and lower tropospheric temperature trend since 1999:
GISTEMP: 0.091 Kelvin/decade
NOAA: 0.063 Kelvin/decade
HadCRUT4: 0.071 Kelvin/decade
RSS: 0.034 K/decade
UAH: 0.144 K/decade
Standstill?
Land only surface temperature trends since 1999:
BEST: 0.179 Kelvin/decade
NOAA: 0.137 Kelvin/decade
Standstill?
I agree with this statement. What about 15 to 17 years that allegedly make a “pause”, then? This is not an arbitrarily selected number?
Both a red herring and a loaded question, I suspect for the purpose of distracting from what I am actually addressing in my comments.
How long can reality continue to grossly underperform against the models before you stop fudging the reality and start admitting that the models are falsified?
###################
models are not falsified. A model is a combination of a series of mathematical equations connected by logic. As such when a model is in conflict with data you only know the following
A) Somthing is wrong somewhere in the logical chain of mathematical formula ( or inputs )
B) something is wrong with your data
C) some of A and some of B
lets take a simple model. model the velocity of an falling object
velc= the square root of ((2*m*g)/(ρ*A*C))
m = mass, g is gravity, p = density, A= area of object, C = drag
so, you do some experiments and you find out that this model doesnt match observations.
Is the model falsified?
If so what part? you entered 32 ft/sec^2 for gravity. is this part falsified? did you discover that our notion of gravity is wrong?
the model used multiplication and division.. are these falsified?
What part is wrong? you look at your input for Drag. And you realize that you had to estimate drag, You do some wind tunnel tests on the object and it turns out your dragas the model estimate was off. You fix it. You re run the model and its performance improves.
So, was the model falsified? nope. In fact you dont ever falsify a model. you improve it or start over. And even when you start over there are huge parts of it that you dont reject.
Mosher,
models are not falsified.
Some of them are. Others are not. Only the ones capable of being falsified are of value.
A model is a combination of a series of mathematical equations connected by logic.
No. A model is a hypothesis. That hypothesis is “This captures how the world works, insofar as this purpose requires.” Some models involve mathematical equations. Others do not. All are hypotheses. Those that demonstrate robustness in the face of challenge may graduate to being considered theories, which is simply the word we use to denote that demonstrated robustness.
As such when a model is in conflict with data you only know the following
That your model is wrong. That is what you know when your model does not matchyour observations. “Your model” necessarily subsumes its assumptions.
“In fact you dont ever falsify a model. you improve it or start over.”
Nonsense. How do you know when to improve it or start over, except by knowing that it is false?
Why, moshe, how technical and formal. There’s a vernacular for ‘falsified’ and it is from extensive, megamillenial, human experience.
=============
Most climate models have been built and verified in a way that justifies stating that they cannot be falsified in general terms. It’s known that they are far from perfect, but it’s also known that they have a lot that’s correct.
Going to more specific questions we may ask, whether a model can produce projections to the future at a level of accuracy that makes the projections useful. Comparison with earlier data may well prove that we should not assume that a specific model can do that. Thus it may be possible to falsify the model as an useful tool for predicting future temperatures while it’s not possible to falsify the model in more general terms.
The observation that recent temperature trends are barely consistent with the present models, does cast doubt on the projections these model produce. For the global temperature trend it’s reasonable to conclude that simple extrapolations based on estimated climate sensitivity are at least as reliable projections as results from climate models that have problems in explaining past behavior.
There are many other questions on the future climate for which the models do provide better information than any other available approach. There are certainly large uncertainties in such conclusions, but even so the model results add to our understanding.
Where the models are most certainly useful is as tools of climate research. Many specific questions can be studied through model calculations, but such results should be taken as internal to science rather than projections ready for use outside of science.
The rationales for coupling are to investigate potentially significant feedbacks (e.g., radiative properties for different airborne crystalline ice structures, changes in air and water inertia due to suspended dust and sediments, and water and other material exchanges with plants and biome evolution) and to achieve ever fuller depictions of Earth’s fluid envelope. Besides adding to the overall complexity of AOS models, coupling increases the number of processes with a nonfundamental representation (i.e., similar to a parameterization), because, for the most part, the governing equations are not well determined for the model components other than fluid dynamics. When adding a new coupling link, there is no a priori guarantee of seeing only modest consequences in the AOS solution behavior.
Of course, models can be formulated that eschew these practices. They are mathematically safer to use, but they are less plausibly similar to nature, with suppressed intrinsic variability, important missing effects, and excessive mixing and dissipation rates.
AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best. This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices (some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair) but not correct or best ones. The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full
The essential problem in projecting solutions forward is that there is no single deterministic solution to the nonlinear equations and no expectation that future states can be modeled at all. The situation is shown schematically here by Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751/F8.expansion.html
The best that can be achieved is PDF’s from perturbed physics ensembles – something still in it’s infancy. It is not a matter of validation but of understanding the nature of nonlinear models.
Perhaps in the next life we can move on to understanding nonlinear climate?
Not ad hominem at all.
Act like a scientist. Provide your criteria of falsifiability WRT the models that you stump for here and elsewhere. It is a simple question, and one that you have no trouble at all chastising others (including Judith) for not answering.
How long, Jan? How long?
If answering is more difficult than evading, perhaps you should come to terms with why.
How long?
Jeff Nesbit
How long? Heh, too long. Done been falsified at some(X) confidence level.
=======
Jan,
Merely questioning your scientific integrity would not constitute an ad hominem argument – perhaps you should learn what that term means before employing it. At any rate, I have not questioned your scientific integrity, I have simply asked you to demonstrate it. Thus far, you have simply refused.
How long can the models continue to grossly overestimate observed warming before you admit that they are false?
You claim to not like arbitrarily selected numbers. Is a non-arbitrary period of gross underestimation of observations that would result in a verdict of “false” determinable? Or are the hypotheses of the models not falsifiable?
Aside: BTW does Santer agree with that characterization of his minimum value as “arbitrary”? Do you find it odd that he was able to publish a paper in a respected journal, when that paper merely presented an arbitrary number?
How long?
Pingback: The WUWT Hot Sheet for Sept 26th, 2013 | Watts Up With That?
Well the truth is that nothing unusual or bad seems to be happening. Some natural wild weather as always, a gentle warming of the planet, more green growth despite deforestation, including in the sahel. Only th models project a doom and they only reflect the pessimistic assumptions made in the inputs. This of course puts every climate researchers job in jeopardy.
So you rail against his ad hominems and then proceed to use them yourself. Classic.
Pingback: Marotzke’s Broken Promise « Climate Audit
Easy for you to say…