by Judith Curry
[W]e present key messages for every American about climate change. – AAAS
The AAAS is the American Association for the Advancement of Science — the world’s largest non-government general science membership organization and the executive publisher of Science.
Excerpts from the blurb on the AAAS What We Know website:
The What We Know initiative is dedicated to ensuring that three “R’s” of climate change communicated to the public.
- The first is Reality — 97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.
- The second is Risk — that the reality of climate change means that there are climate change impacts we can expect, but we also must consider what might happen, especially the small, but real, chance that we may face abrupt changes with massively disruptive impacts.
- The third R is Response — that there is much we can do and that the sooner we respond, the better off we will be.
It is not the purpose of this paper to explain why this disconnect between scientific knowledge and public perception has occurred. Nor are we seeking to provide yet another extensive review of the scientific evidence for climate change. Instead, we present key messages for every American about climate change:
- Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now.
- We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts.
- The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do.
As scientists, it is not our role to tell people what they should do or must believe about the rising threat of climate change. But we consider it to be our responsibility as professionals to ensure, to the best of our ability, that people understand what we know: human-caused climate change is happening, we face risks of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes, and responding now will lower the risk and cost of taking action.
The report is written by the AAAS Climate Science Panel, co-chaired by Mario Molina, James McCarthy and Diana Wall.
Reaction from Michaels and Knappenberger
Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger are not impressed, in an article entitled AAAS’ Guide to Climate Alarmism. Excerpts:
But despite promising to inform us as to “what the science is showing,” the AAAS report largely sidesteps the best and latest science that points to a much lowered risk of extreme climate change, choosing instead to inflate and then highlight what meager evidence exists for potential catastrophic outcomes—evidence that in many cases has been scientifically challenged (for example here and here).
Somehow in its haste to scare us, the AAAS seems to have missed (or ignored) the two hottest topics in climate change these days—1) that climate models have done remarkably poorly in replicating the evolution of global temperature during the past several decades , and 2) that high end climate change scenarios from the models are largely unsupported by observations.
Thus, “what the science is showing” completely undermines the AAAS contentions regarding alarming climate change.
Add this all up and you realize that the AAAS report is the epitome of climate alarmism—long in hype and short in fact and aimed squarely at influencing policymakers. We should expect better, but they drank the ethanol years ago.
Time
Time reports on the AAAS document in an article Scientists sound the alarm on global warming but Americans sleep in. The title pretty much sums of the article, which provides this context:
Gallup released the results of a new poll on Americans’ opinions about climate change earlier this month. For those concerned about global warming, the data was not promising. On one hand, about two-thirds of Americans believed that global warming is happening or will happen during their lifetime—which, incidentally, happens to be the correct answer. But only about 36% of Americans said they believe that global warming will pose a “serious threat to their way of life” during their lifetimes. Climate change is also very low on the priority list for most Americans—51% of those surveyed said they worry about climate change very little or not at all. And 42% of Americans said they believe the seriousness of global warming is “generally exaggerated” in the news.
JC reflections
I am trying to understand the point of this document. The authors bypass any scientific explanations, and merely appeal to consensus. They then cite a bunch of catastrophic possibilities, many of which are very unlikely to occur on the timescale of the next century (as per the IPCC AR5), citing fat tail risks. Then they say that there is much that we can do to address the mitigation problem, without providing anything in the way of actual recommendations to accomplish this.
The members of the AAAS Climate Science Panel are a group of distinguished climate scientists, including one Nobel Laureate (Molina) and at least two members of the National Academy of Science. A hint to the rationale behind this document is this statement by co-chair James McCarthy:
“The real experts on this subject agree in a way that the public do not understand.”
Ok, I see, this committee somehow reflects the opinions of ‘real experts’? Well my main concern is that there are no experts represented on this committee related to risk management, economics and mitigation strategies, which is the topic of about 1/2 of the report. And these particular experts seem more alarmed than the expert authors of the IPCC report (well, the WG1 anyways), citing many very low probability events as something to be alarmed about.
So will another report from ‘real experts’ change the dynamic of ‘Americans sleep in’? I suspect not. A new article from Roger Pielke Jr entitled Technology was the key factor in saving the ozone layer. Pielke’s key points
- Public opinion not an important factor driving action
- Scientific uncertainty not an obstacle to driving action
- Technology enabled political action
When scientists become alarmists, I don’t think it helps public opinion. At this point, public opinion does not seem to be driving President Obama’s climate policy agenda.
Lets compare this document with the recent NAS/RS document and the document from the APS. For the population that has questions about climate change, the NAS/RS document was helpful in explaining the main scientific findings of the IPCC in an understandable and accessible way (although the uncertainty issue was not dealt with well IMO). For the educated public that follows the climate debate closely, the APS document provides a wealth of information, which was appreciated in this Quadrant article entitled Finally real climate science. Is the public interested in scientists appealing to consensus and making statements about risk and policy? I suspect they will continue to snooze.
What’s scientific the evidence for that statement?
To illustrate the problem posed by the AAAS and the lefty willing dupes who run it, we must examine the central thesis in Climate Alchemy, the main diagram in Trenberth et al. 2009 ‘Energy Budget’: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.210.2513
They add the 333 W/m^2 mean atmospheric ‘Radiation Field’ you get from an instrument from Meteorology, the ‘Pyrgeometer’, to the 63 W/m^2 IR part of 161 W/m^2 Solar SW converted to heat at the surface. This makes the 396 W/m^2 ‘black body’ surface RF. A pyrgeometer really estimates temperature. This is put in the ‘Stefan-Boltzmann’ equation to make the RF. They wrongly assume it to be a real energy flux when it is the potential energy flux to a sink at absolute zero.
This distinction is lost to most people. Willing dupes didn’t have a chance because radiative physics is only known properly to a few, mainly process engineers like me. Most science graduates are easily deceived. Hence Climate Alchemists push 6.3 times more IR energy into the modelled atmosphere. 2/3rds is offset by another Big Mistake at Top of Atmosphere, which hypothetically cools it. The net result is imaginary extra evaporation from the seas. They cheat again by using about 25% imaginary extra cooling by low level clouds in ‘hind-casting’.
The resultant imaginary ‘positive feedback’ easily deceived the AAAS. it takes real experts to sort out fraud. The simple fact is that processes in the atmosphere combine to make CO2-AGW near zero and the real AGW, from polluted clouds, slowed down over a decade ago. The willing dupes who have spent a lifetime dreaming of using fake CO2-AGW to destroy capitalism are now panicking and writing apocalyptic articles.
Figure 1 is conceptual, derived by various means and not really fundamental to anything but understanding energy flux in a rational framework.
Here’s another attempt – http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/05/uncertainty-in-observations-of-the-earths-energy-balance/
The claim a RF is a real energy flux is wrong. The concept of Forcing is wrong. These facts are indisputable; only real Physics is allowed.
The fact that there are 10,000+ peer reviewed papers saying the opposite is irrelevant. In the UK, Physics students at a top University were given an exercise; devise a ‘reverse heat engine’ to collect ‘back radiation’ to power vehicles. It was a spoof, designed to correct Climate Alchemy’s fake fizzicks.
Meteorology and Climate Alchemy textbooks and teaching must change to standard physics (the cloud physics is also badly wrong, going back to Sagan). The modelling must be corrected.
And yes, I have talked to modellers: the argument they put forward to justify the incorrect assumption of Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation at ToA is laughable. You can’t do it for a semi-transparent (to IR) gas.
Also, the discovery in 2010 that excess temperature is offset by exaggerated low level cloud albedo is prime facia evidence of wrongdoing. 13 of the last 14 World climate predictions have been too warm; we now know why.
13 out of the last 14 UKMO World climate predictions have been too warm; we now know why.
13/14 = 93% wrong!
But I guess 97% of scientists are confident they are right, and since 97% is more than 93%, the scientists win.
To save you time, you can now find the scientific evidence for climate claims at http://www.data.gov/climate/ — though that specific claim, enh.
It’s justifiably said 97% of climate experts agree human activity influences climate. Quibbling over that claim is truly desperate.
Yah, if we’ve warmed the Earth, what a benefit it has been.
================
Bart – the statement that humans have influenced climate is non-quantitative and trivial. It is an extremely weak statement. Meaningless.
Bart R | March 19, 2014 at 9:41 am |
“It’s justifiably said 97% of climate experts agree human activity influences climate. Quibbling over that claim is truly desperate.”
Ignoring the fact that natural variability may have contributed to a large part of what has been measured is also truly desperate.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/hadcrut_15_year_ctrm_and_75_year_s-g_curves.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/hadcrut_15y_ctrm_de-trended_with_s-g_75y_to_obtain_cycle.png
kim | March 19, 2014 at 9:45 am |
Yah, if we’ve warmed the Earth, what a benefit it has been.
http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/climate-change-could-reduce-crop-yields-worldwide-by-2030/
If someone walked up behind me on the street and ‘warmed’ me without my consent, that’s assault, not benefit. You can’t claim a benefit without consent on behalf of others, only for yourself. And if you find the risk of 25% crop losses beneficial for whatever skewed and selfish reasons, you’d be in a minority. Or do you think the food your mother serves you is free?
jim2 | March 19, 2014 at 9:47 am |
..the statement that humans have influenced climate is non-quantitative and trivial. It is an extremely weak statement. Meaningless.
It’s a premise, specifically. However, as that premise has thousands of documents for even the casually interested audience to inform themselves from, and soon to be an open public whitehouse data warehouse, the quantification of that premise can hardly be called trivial.
Given the two other statements of Risk and Response, the premise is hardly meaningless, except to someone in extreme denial.
Oh, wait. Forgot for a second whom I was corresponding with; carry on.
RichardLH | March 19, 2014 at 9:55 am |
Vomiting out links to WUWT is a waste of time on me. I long ago shook the dust of that vile place from my sandals, and do not give it my slim web traffic.
If you have a point to make, make it yourself in your own words, not parroting and linking the most desperate climate disinformers on the planet.
I don’t ignore natural variability. Natural variability however is not a bar of soap that washes clean the iniquity of the corrupt and rapacious.
Kim, that’s a big IF.
Bart R, jou’re just being silly.
Bart R: Snag.gy version of the two images so you don’t have to sully your computer or your mind
http://snag.gy/Sx85m.jpg
http://snag.gy/47xt0.jpg
Doesn’t alter the underlying observations though :-)
Heh, Bart R would deny the rest of the world the benefits of warming simply because he hasn’t given permission for the warming.
==============
Edim | March 19, 2014 at 9:59 am |
Yes, Ruductio ad absurdum is pretty much the definition of serving up just desserts by being silly to expose a falsehood or hypocrisy. Which is why people are just silly around kim so often.
RichardLH | March 19, 2014 at 10:01 am |
Wiggle lines are proof of nothing.
Claiming wiggle lines are natural (ie ‘are’) and vary (ie wiggle) is tautological proof of nothing.
Ignoring that the entire span of the wiggle lines is in a period under the most immense shift in human influences on the planet, thereby could hardly be called ‘natural’ in the first place is blinkered argumentum ad ignoratio.
Do you never actually listen to yourself?
kim | March 19, 2014 at 10:11 am |
Yes, kim; I would deny the rest of the world the benefit of a low calorie diet just because most of the world, myself included, doesn’t want to pay more to get less food.
Redefining ‘benefit’ to wriggle out of an assault charge is simply vile. Imagine if muggers, murderers, rapists and bankers tried that in court and got away with it.
Bart R | March 19, 2014 at 10:13 am |
“Wiggle lines are proof of nothing.”
Wrong. They are proof that the wriggle happened. You can try to explain the wriggle as a one off (i.e. chance) or as a cycle or as something else if you wish. Or you try to be ignorant and thus reduce your need to think.
The choice is yours.
Oh, yeah, Bart R has attribution all figured out; the rest of the world still wonders, poor fools.
=============
Just for the record, I’m one of the 97% who agrees there has been man-made climate change. However, it was not from CO2, which self-regulates, but via the effect of aerosols on cloud albedo.
Sagan got it wrong. Twomey warned of a 2nd effect but his work was buried by NASA in 2004.
I and others have identified that it is the real AIE and the opposite sign. It accounts for the amplification of delta tsi at the end of ice ages.
Let’s bury Hansenkoism and get on with proper science…:o)
@Spartacusisfree – Re: “I’m one of the 97%”
No, your “but” disqualifies you. However do not feel too bad. There are only 75 people in the “97%”. It is a very exclusive club – but for all the wrong reasons.
Just for the record -whenever people start rewriting something as conceptually simple as atmospheric physics it is time to move on.
Here is how it works – conceptually – http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif
The surprise is that it’s not 100%. As always the issue is around magnitude not whether its happening
kim | March 19, 2014 at 10:28 am |
Oh, yeah, Bart R has attribution all figured out; the rest of the world still wonders, poor fools.
The poor fools making up less than 3% of the world’s experts still wonder?
Is this argumentum ad ignoratio or argumentum ad populam?
Given that so far, kim scores lower on the truth scale than the SNL Pathological Liar, why do we bother to care?
RichardLH | March 19, 2014 at 10:18 am |
Proof of a tautology is proof of a tautology.. is a tautology. You tell us nothing. I can choose to ignore tautologies and lose nothing except obfuscation.
Do you never read out loud what you write before you hit Post Comment?
Bart R: Do you ever think before posting? Sure does not look like it.
Care to refute what the graphs clearly show. Or give any rational explanation for that trace? Or challenge the methodology? The wriggle occurred. Get over that fact that someone has pointed it out and at least try to explain it.
RichardLH | March 19, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
You must have missed the epic two-year-long discourse with Girma Orssengo and his wiggle line obsession here in the comments section of thread after thread.
A wiggle is just a wiggle absent a fit. The fit of a harmonic is just a mirage until a significant number of periods precisely fit the hypothesis.
You have none of this. All you have is a wiggle. Wiggles happen all the time.
Any competent first year Physics student has had the lesson where they are presented with unlabelled wiggles and tested on whether or not they are actually periodic, so any competent Physics student must know wiggles are really nothing to demand explanation.
In other words, you’re either showing incompetence, or .. huh; no, that’d be about all.
Bart R | March 19, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
“A wiggle is just a wiggle absent a fit. The fit of a harmonic is just a mirage until a significant number of periods precisely fit the hypothesis.”
And there you display your ignorance.
There is no ‘fit’ involved here. There is only whatever there is in a two octave span in the available bandwidth.
Two octaves allow for almost any wave shape to be clearly visible.
Now tell me why it looks like it does. And co-incidence better be a LONG way down the list.
Bart R: P.S. If we had to wait for statisticians to tell us what was actually there then most of the engineering signal decoding stuff we do would never happen.
RLH boasted:
Does this now remind you of anybody else?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/19/republicans-seek-review-of-john-beales-work-while-/
WHT and Bart R:
That you rather so obviously do not understand the difference between a ‘fit’ and a broadband low pass filter means your knowledge is a LOT less than you think it is.
RichardLH | March 20, 2014 at 9:37 am |
This topic has been covered in great detail previously on Climate Etc. We have whole months of discussions describing low pass filters and fit, going into the distinctions between them, and their meanings and uses. Heck, you were even part of some of those discussions. That you pretend now they never happened indicts either your honesty or your memory. Which is it?
A mere two octaves has zero significance in trendology, and ‘coincidence’ is the general description of all unfitted curves. So saying you have a low pass filter with two octaves explains nothing, demands no explanation, and is inseparable from saying coincidence.
Get me three octa.. Oh, wait. This just in. We have enough data for more than three octaves, the data merely doesn’t match the hypothesized harmonic!
Cherry pick much?
To show just how desperate ‘wavists’ are:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:5/mean:7/plot/best/mean:383/mean:385/plot/best/mean:89/mean:91
There was no ‘wave’ with anything like a regular form at all in the first half of the construction and until after 1900, and although we have too little data yet to construct the hypothetical after 1990, it’s clear from observations since the endpoint that for the supposed wave form to remain anything like regular would require the largest sustained drop in temperature in the Holocene for the next six decades. If anything, the pattern more resembles period doubling, which is proof of disruption of a complex system by external forcing. That’s not an explanation, merely a known phenomenon of Chaos Theory.
Better explanations that fit all the data require anthropogenic GHE, primarily CO2e and its direct feedbacks, volcano aerosols for sub-decadal spans (including some 17 suspect volcanic sources of stratospheric sulfates in the past 15 years), land use changes, ocean circulation, industrial emissions, and in the thin edge of the wedge at under 5% combined urbanization, interregional ‘stadium’ feedbacks, and solar changes plus the very slow, immeasurable on sub-millennial timespan orbital changes and all other suspected sources of variation.
Bart R: Oh I’ll get round to BEST at a later date. I have already been through their databases and was surprised at the lack of quality/validity checking.
There are significant questions that need to be answered about some of the early work that they have done.
I do notice that you failed to refute the work I did with HadCRUT and GISS which are the only two thermometer sets I have so far showed.
Want to try and do that or just duck out and waffle?
I also note that if we waited for statisticians to decide what was and was not ‘true’ then neither the computer nor the internet would work as well as it does.
Bart R | March 20, 2014 at 12:26 pm |
“This topic has been covered in great detail previously on Climate Etc. We have whole months of discussions describing low pass filters and fit, going into the distinctions between them, and their meanings and uses. Heck, you were even part of some of those discussions. That you pretend now they never happened indicts either your honesty or your memory. Which is it?”
Please do quote where I have ever said that low pass broadband filters are the same as a ‘fit’ of any sort. A ‘fit’ is the ultimate in narrow band choices. A low pass filter is the ultimate in broadband filters.
You really do need to get your thinking sorted out.
RichardLH | March 20, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
Failed to freaking refute?
What more refutation do you need than that the data doesn’t support your conclusion?
Go ahead, show us the projected global HADCRU or GISS data that would be required for your suggested harmonic to continue into the future for another few octaves, given how enormously the temperature has risen in the past 40 years.
Waffling on about arguments you’re going to get around to someday but can’t divulge to us yet about how shoddy Nobel Laureate work in an open and public process that has withstood the scrutiny of the world for so long is? You think it likelier that improves your credibility, or makes you sound like a nutbar?
RichardLH | March 20, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
Straw man. What you claim I said and what I said bear so little resemblance as to make me embarrassed for you.
Bart R | March 20, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
“What more refutation do you need than that the data doesn’t support your conclusion?”
The data is only long enough to provide what I provided. That shows a ‘cycle’. Nothing that you have offered has attempted to explain that ‘cycle’ You go figure.
“Go ahead, show us the projected global HADCRU or GISS data that would be required for your suggested harmonic to continue into the future for another few octaves, given how enormously the temperature has risen in the past 40 years.”
Time will provide the data (or not). All I can show is what the data so far shows.
“Waffling on about arguments you’re going to get around to someday but can’t divulge to us yet about how shoddy Nobel Laureate work in an open and public process that has withstood the scrutiny of the world for so long is? You think it likelier that improves your credibility, or makes you sound like a nutbar?”
So please tell me then in your own words why the BEST data fails to match the other two available sources during the earliest part of their overlap but matches almost entirely over the rest of their span. You HAVE checked the databases before you suggested I am wrong haven’t you? You understand the areas of mismatch I am talking about? No – I thought not.
One of the reasons engineers put more than one computer on a spaceship is the ‘tell me thrice’ principle. You discard as unreliable the one that does not match as soon as the combined outputs significantly differ. That is all I am doing. Requires no more logic than that.
“Straw man. What you claim I said and what I said bear so little resemblance as to make me embarrassed for you.”
And you are so transparently someone who SHOUTS without thinking. You do need to check your facts and you logic.
Bart R: Actually make that three to one now, HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC all show one set of answers, BEST shows another. You go figure. Which would you prefer and why?
RichardLH | March 20, 2014 at 4:33 pm |
You’re applying made up random filters and taking the shapes they manufacture as anything other than coincidence, absent any hypothesis or explanation of why you claim the result is interesting.
Given enough data and unlimited freedom to manipulate filters, I can generate almost any shape.
I even generated Judith Curry’s signature out of one set of temperature data, once, by careful selection of filters. Are you suggesting Judith Curry signed her name to the global climate, starting before she was even born?
The point is, any test of the robustness of your results fails to find something worth talking about in your octave-and-a-bit. We can find ample evidence from careful analyses to remove for volcano, ENSO, ocean decadal overturnings, and far, far more to remove for GHE. When these are removed, your octaves mutate out of all semblence of regularity.
Once upon a time, the Hale Cycle actually was worth looking at. There were something like a dozen detectable cycles in the data on BEST, but that correlation on the filters ended in the 1960’s, as some other effect (GHE) so overwhelmed the signal of solar changes as to erase the impact of the sun itself on the atmosphere.
Your claims are defunct, and your analyses superficial and insignificant. What’s more, they’ve been done to death, and dismantled, time after time online.
http://imageshack.com/a/img811/4619/tid.gif
Where exactly is this grand wiggle that RLH claims will take over?
Bart R | March 20, 2014 at 9:46 pm |
“You’re applying made up random filters and taking the shapes they manufacture as anything other than coincidence, absent any hypothesis or explanation of why you claim the result is interesting. ”
Wrong. The filter choices are made by the data, not me. The first choice of 15 years (by the way a 10 year Gaussian is very common in previous work, why is my choice of 15 years so badly wrong) is because if you do a low pass sweep up the available frequency band from 1 year to 75 years or so which is the length limited end point for full kernel filters, from about 12 years upwards the output ‘power’ changes very little until you get to about 60 years. In order to ensure that you don’t attenuate anything that might be of interest staying towards the ‘bottom’ end of that range is normally advised. Hence the 15 year corner. That will show ANY and ALL frequencies that exist in the spectrum over 15 years. ANYTHING. That is should shows so few frequencies of any power was a surprise at first.
“Given enough data and unlimited freedom to manipulate filters, I can generate almost any shape.”
You can make up stuff all you like. Just because you can make a mask, doesn’t mean people need to get frightened over it.
“I even generated Judith Curry’s signature out of one set of temperature data, once, by careful selection of filters. Are you suggesting Judith Curry signed her name to the global climate, starting before she was even born?”
Wowhee. You trashed someone’s else work/name by making a cartoon and calling it science. Give me a break.
“The point is, any test of the robustness of your results fails to find something worth talking about in your octave-and-a-bit. We can find ample evidence from careful analyses to remove for volcano, ENSO, ocean decadal overturnings, and far, far more to remove for GHE. When these are removed, your octaves mutate out of all semblence of regularity.”
Actually the work is all frequencies ABOVE 15 years in length. The four and a bit octaves (can’t even get that right can you, 15 * 4 + 5 = 75, two and a bit if you allow for roll-offs) is only if you decide to limit it to only containing the first discovered ‘cycle’.
“Once upon a time, the Hale Cycle actually was worth looking at. There were something like a dozen detectable cycles in the data on BEST, but that correlation on the filters ended in the 1960′s, as some other effect (GHE) so overwhelmed the signal of solar changes as to erase the impact of the sun itself on the atmosphere.”
You can do all the cycle fitting you wish to discredit what is most definitely there. As ‘fitting’ is at the opposite end of the spectrum (pun) to what I am showing you display your ignorance and prejudice, not mine.
“Your claims are defunct, and your analyses superficial and insignificant. What’s more, they’ve been done to death, and dismantled, time after time online.”
Yet you fail to address what I show by demonstrating how you would say that the wriggle was caused. Strange that, given that you are so sure of your position. No claims other than the playground ‘your wrong, I’m right’.
WHT: GISS for you
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/giss-monthly-anomalies-with-full-kernel-gaussian-low-pass-filters-of-annual-15-and-75-years-with-15-year-savitzky-golay-extension.png
You want I do the work to extract the ‘cycle’ for you or are you so blind you cannot see it. The answer in very, very nearly the same as for the HadCRUT work I have already showed.
Bart R and WHT:
Oh look, the proxy data supports the argument that a ~60 years ‘cycle exists, all the way back to the 1400s, does kinda ‘trump’ BEST doesn’t it?
PDO
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/pdo-reconstruction-1470-1998-shen-2006-with-gaussian-low-pass-30-and-75-year-filters-and-hadcrut-overlay.png
AMO/NAO
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/esrl-reconstructed-monthly-nao-rnao-monthly-anomalies.png
“The four and a bit octaves (can’t even get that right can you, 15 * 4 + 5 = 75, two and a bit if you allow for roll-offs”
Oops. Shouldn’t do this stuff in a hurry.
15 year start point. 75 years end point. 75 -15 = 60. 15 * 4 = 60. Four octaves. Probably should be 3 octaves to allow for roll-offs as above. Sorry for any confusion.
How many times do we have to cycle through this?
“a ~60 years ‘cycle” is not a cycle. That tilda means approximately, which could mean there is a fixed period somewhere near 60 years but you don’t know what the exact number is, or there are variations that sometimes are closer together than sixty years and sometimes farther apart than sixty years.
Well, if they are sometimes nearer together in time and sometimes farther apart, those variations do NOT form a regular cycle in a time series. They form nothing of note or of use, merely superimposed perception, confirmation bias of the worst sort.
Go ahead, play a track of the temperature as a piece of music, at any tempo. Does it please the ear? No? Then it’s not a cycle. By no test except seeking filters and plucking out sections that roughly agree with expectations until one has a sorta-kinda visual impression — in other words, deliberately trying to confirm one’s biases — does one get positive findings.
Give it up. The data says you’re simply wrong.
Bart R, the ~60 year climatic cycle is a cycle just like the ~11 year solar cycle is a cycle. The cycle length (or frequency) is variable.
Bart R | March 21, 2014 at 9:30 am |
““a ~60 years ‘cycle” is not a cycle. That tilda means approximately, which could mean there is a fixed period somewhere near 60 years but you don’t know what the exact number is, or there are variations that sometimes are closer together than sixty years and sometimes farther apart than sixty years.”
It is a single occurrence of a potential ‘cycle’ which has an approximate period of 60 years. (yes I do know what a ~ means and why I always include it thank you) The high quality data do not allow for any conclusion other than that to be stated at present.
“Well, if they are sometimes nearer together in time and sometimes farther apart, those variations do NOT form a regular cycle in a time series. They form nothing of note or of use, merely superimposed perception, confirmation bias of the worst sort.”
As I only have observed what a single ‘cycle’ definitely shows, I have tried very hard NOT to have confirmation bias. Indeed, I made no assumptions about what was present. I only show what IS present. Then we have any potential interactions, sums, differences, modulations, etc. from longer term things we cannot yet determine.
That can easily be, say, 55 + 65 + 75 years in some unknown combination. The data is not long enough yet to decide. Patience and all will be revealed.
I know and understand what are the limitations of what can and cannot be claimed.
You have a dogma, even a religion, which says you know it is wrong. No attempt to explain what is there. I have asked on many occasions, how do you think the wriggle was caused. So that your explanation can be examined for ‘truth’.
“Give it up. The data says you’re simply wrong.”
Which data? You do know how many long term (>200 years) continuous thermometers there are in the BEST database don’t you? You do know what their geographic distribution is don’t you? You do know the percentage of the Land surface they cover don’t you? You do know how they compare to other data series in those earlier times? I thought not. So your ‘data’ is merely regurgitated pap. Not researched information.
Edim | March 21, 2014 at 9:42 am |
If the length of a cycle varies, it’s not a harmonic.
You can modulate the amplitude. You can modulate the frequency. But if you flat out vary the frequency, while holding no quality of the amplitude constant, you don’t have an octave, a wave, an oscillation, or a cycle, approximate or no: you have pulses and episodes.
That Richard LH must shift sneakily from global temperature to PDO, and even then can’t get a valid waveform but only another episodic string of dissimilar pulses of that component of the dozens of contributors to the global temperature profile disproves his claims.
What possible use is an ~cycle? We use cycles to predict. If we know there is a day night cycle, we know what to expect in periods of ~24 hours (and can indeed narrow that ~24 to an exact figure that slightly erodes over geological timespans due differences in rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun). We can predict the cycle of seasons in a year for the same reason. We cannot use the PDO in the same way, as the PDO is too variable, so in six or twenty ‘PDO periods’ we could find ourselves at any point in the so-called PDO pulse.
Six or twenty days from now, I know whether to expect night to be dark and day to be sunlit. Six or twenty years from now, I know whether to expect winter to be cooler and summer warmer. That reasoning doesn’t work for what you guys are calling a cycle, ergo you are using the word wrong.
That Richard ducks the predictive obligation of his claim, shrugging that only the future can tell what temperatures will happen, tells us he recognizes his claim for what it is: useless and false.
Richard’s so-called cycle is nothing more than a sum of episodes, a pair of pulses formed by constructive interference of other non-cyclic sums of episodes. At some level, sure, there are actual octaves involved: daily, (perhaps lunar monthly, though weak), seasonal, and almost certainly interglacially as the orientation of the Earth relative to the Sun changes to bring on glacial freeze and thaw on a 100,000-yearish long cycle. The octaves Richard claims fall apart in only a few pulses.
That Richard doesn’t even realize the three ‘different’ sources he uses are actually essentially the same source, just different screens on the same ‘computer’, and he’s auto-verifying bad interpretation from the same origin, pretty much says it all. To really validate his claims, he’d need to go to Cowtan & Way, BEST, and the GISS/HadCRU groupings to get to three different views, or the Marcott reconstructions for very long spans.
RichardLH | March 21, 2014 at 10:06 am |
Oh look, my football team won a game, lost a game, won a game, lost a game, won a game. That’s surely a ~cycle.
I can now confidently bet they will lose the next game and win the game after that, by your claims. Or, the ‘limitations’ on your claims mean I recognize the ‘pattern’ isn’t meaningful in any sense.
No one needs to explain a chance wiggle line. Most especially, no one needs explain a chance wiggle line that fully takes up all available data when one constructed it, but doesn’t match the vast majority of data unknown to us when we constructed it.
Bart R | March 21, 2014 at 10:13 am |
Edim | March 21, 2014 at 9:42 am |
“If the length of a cycle varies, it’s not a harmonic. ”
No, but it can be a mixture of closely time related ones. e.g. 55 + 65 + 75 years.
“You can modulate the amplitude. You can modulate the frequency. But if you flat out vary the frequency, while holding no quality of the amplitude constant, you don’t have an octave, a wave, an oscillation, or a cycle, approximate or no: you have pulses and episodes.”
See above.
“That Richard LH must shift sneakily from global temperature to PDO, and even then can’t get a valid waveform but only another episodic string of dissimilar pulses of that component of the dozens of contributors to the global temperature profile disproves his claims.”
Wrong. There is nothing in the data out there that supports or contradicts the observations. The closeness of the POD and ANO/NAO to the current temperatures allows for a reasonable conclusion that, as they are related now, they may well have been related in the past. Nothing more complicated than that.
“What possible use is an ~cycle? We use cycles to predict. If we know there is a day night cycle, we know what to expect in periods of ~24 hours (and can indeed narrow that ~24 to an exact figure that slightly erodes over geological timespans due differences in rotation of the Earth and its orbit around the Sun). We can predict the cycle of seasons in a year for the same reason. We cannot use the PDO in the same way, as the PDO is too variable, so in six or twenty ‘PDO periods’ we could find ourselves at any point in the so-called PDO pulse. ”
See the PDO reconstruction which says differently.
“Six or twenty days from now, I know whether to expect night to be dark and day to be sunlit. Six or twenty years from now, I know whether to expect winter to be cooler and summer warmer. That reasoning doesn’t work for what you guys are calling a cycle, ergo you are using the word wrong.”
Dogma does not trump reason.
“That Richard ducks the predictive obligation of his claim, shrugging that only the future can tell what temperatures will happen, tells us he recognizes his claim for what it is: useless and false.”
Because I am only prepared to state what has happened with full kernel filters which will never change their reports except to extend the series does not mean that the conclusion I draw are less accurate. Just conservative (small c).
“Richard’s so-called cycle is nothing more than a sum of episodes, a pair of pulses formed by constructive interference of other non-cyclic sums of episodes. At some level, sure, there are actual octaves involved: daily, (perhaps lunar monthly, though weak), seasonal, and almost certainly interglacially as the orientation of the Earth relative to the Sun changes to bring on glacial freeze and thaw on a 100,000-yearish long cycle. The octaves Richard claims fall apart in only a few pulses.”
Using what data?
“That Richard doesn’t even realize the three ‘different’ sources he uses are actually essentially the same source, just different screens on the same ‘computer’, and he’s auto-verifying bad interpretation from the same origin, pretty much says it all. To really validate his claims, he’d need to go to Cowtan & Way, BEST, and the GISS/HadCRU groupings to get to three different views, or the Marcott reconstructions for very long spans.”
Have done. Will publish soon. Not the result you will like.
Bart R | March 21, 2014 at 10:19 am |
“Oh look, my football team won a game, lost a game, won a game, lost a game, won a game. That’s surely a ~cycle.”
Duck and run. Straw man all you like.
The temperature data says that there was a wriggle in the data. Scientists, if they are to be believable, need to explain why that happened. Your explanation is…?
RLH must take us all for rubes.
He links to a graph with 4 and a half weak wiggles over the span.of 400 years and expects us to agree that is a 60 year periodic cycle. Yeah, right.
Bart R, the ~11 year solar cycle is variable in length (~ 9 – 13 years) and still everybody calls it a cycle (Schwabe or the double ~22 year Hale cycle). You can call it pseudo-cycles or pseudo-oscillations if you will.
The ~60 year climatic (pseudo)-cycle is everywhere. Here only one example:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/there-60-year-oscillation-global-mean-sea-level
WHT: Back to your potato peeler.
If you do not recognise the logic in seeking supporting data sets that may help to confirm or disprove then….
So I find two data sets that have similar periods in them. It is very, very unlikely that they will be exact. The mixture and interaction has not been determined.
Nothing disproves the observation of the current ‘cycle’ though. That still needs an explanation that also works at the longer time scales to match those other data sets as well. Any offers?
Bart R:
Which data? You do know how many long term (>200 years) continuous thermometers there are in the BEST database don’t you? You do know what their geographic distribution is don’t you? You do know the percentage of the Land surface they cover don’t you? You do know how they compare to other data series in those earlier times? I thought not. So your ‘data’ is merely regurgitated pap. Not researched information.
RLH can’t even calculate based on his own graphs
4.5 weak wiggles between 1500 and 1900 is a period closer to 90 years.
So RLH, are you now going to say 55+65+75+90 years is the combination?
You are the one that claimed your toy kernel filter reveals all. How deep is that hole that you have just dug yourself into?
Years ago we were bouncing possible solar mechanisms for the approx. 60 year cycle off of Svalgaard’s skull. My favorite still is the alternating shape of the peak of cosmic waves in each eleven year cycle, leaving a predominance of one shape in one phase of the PDO and of the other shape in the other phase. Leif calls it a lower order effect, though, and he’s probably right.
===========
RichardLH | March 21, 2014 at 10:20 am |
This is just Girma all over again.
No, but it can be a mixture of closely time related ones. e.g. 55 + 65 + 75 years.
Were it an epicyclic mixture of closely time-related actual cycles of 55 + 65 + 75 years, then we know by the mathematics of simple harmonic motion to expect constructive and destructive interference.
Well, that’s all well and good, except the peaks and valleys in the global mean temperature do not correspond AT ALL to the constructive and destructive sums of the major so-called oscillations.
Plot AMO and PDO (overturnings of rather random pulse length dependent on speed of current and length of sometime quite different paths due tipping points), and any other so-called ‘cycles’ and you will find nothing even remotely similar to your claims.
We know it freaking isn’t a mixture of closely time related cycles, because we know what episodic pulses it is a mixture of by careful analyses: rising CO2E, volcano aerosols, and so forth. As I explained quite clearly earlier.
There is nothing in the data out there that supports or contradicts the observations. The closeness of the POD and ANO/NAO to the current temperatures allows for a reasonable conclusion that, as they are related now, they may well have been related in the past. Nothing more complicated than that.
More unstated assumptions not supported by data. If these phenomena were truly cyclic, then their sum would take many millennia to realign (~ 55 x 65 x 77 years); if they are integrated so at some tipping point they affect each other toward synchrony, they could hardly be different lengths in any stable pattern, and the system would break down chaotically.
See the PDO reconstruction which says differently.
No, you see the PDO reconstruction, which says exactly the same as do I.
How long is each PDO pulse?
Which pairs of PDO pulses are exactly the same number of years? Is there a discernable pattern in the length of pulses that we could use to determine six or twenty pulse timespans in future what the PDO will be doing?
The same for the AMO. The same for virtually every candidate for ~cycles on ~60 year spans.
Dogma does not trump reason.
Which hardly benefits your case, and does mine no harm.
I am only prepared to state what has happened with full kernel filters which will never change their reports except to extend the series does not mean that the conclusion I draw are less accurate. Just conservative (small c).
What conclusion?
That there’s a pair of pulses?
Because if you’re not ready to extend your claim predictively past the observations, you’ve done nothing but assert a tautology in the form of a lie. You cannot have your cake and eat it too here; either you are calling it a cycle, and thus predicting that it will continue in the future and must have continued too from the past, or you are saying a set of observations are a set of observations with no meaning.
Well, we know from evidence of the past that the cycle you claim wasn’t there before the start of your filter, and we know from the evidence of the present that for the cycle you claim to be real the immediate future must exhibit the largest drop of global temperatures so far in the Holocene.
What more evidence is needed?
Using what data?
You question-beggingly dismiss BEST and cherry-pick PDO without actually looking closely at what it says. I’m using all the data available, and you’re ignoring anything that makes your wiggle look just like the random wiggle it is in context. If that’s dogmatic, it’s dogmatic adherence to Newton’s Principia, which argued the rational basis of Science.
Have done. Will publish soon. Not the result you will like.
If what you will publish soon relies on the same sort of fallacy as you have exhibited to date, it could not be called a ‘result’ so much as a fantasy. There is nothing in your claims.
The temperature data says that there was a wriggle in the data. Scientists, if they are to be believable, need to explain why that happened. Your explanation is…?
Scientists’ explanation has been set out for you over, and over, and over. The idiomatic wriggle in the data is the sum of episodic pulses such as GHE, feedbacks, volcano aerosols in the stratosphere, variable-length ocean overturnings, land-use changes, albedo, tipping points and random runs of atmospheric effects consistent with the same explanation applied to all prior episodic pulses, overlaid on a very few actual cycles that do not correspond with the wriggle you see.
Or didn’t you see that explanation any of the previous times it was laid out?
And sure, Edim, a lot of people abuse the word “cycle”, and where it doesn’t particularly matter, that’s fine with me. I’ll call the Hale Cycle a cycle, although clearly it isn’t, for convenience, because the harmonic isn’t central to sunspot claims. But for RichardLH’s wiggle line, it’s the only apparent claim, and it’s simply wrong.
If they peak differently, I suspect they are acting differently throughout the cycle, and thus two thirds of the time in each phase is spent in one regime and one third of the time in the other regime. The math is simple; my level.
================
WHT:
“RLH can’t even calculate based on his own graphs. 4.5 weak wiggles between 1500 and 1900 is a period closer to 90 years.”
I know exactly what it is. I have always been careful to state the uncertainty. Please do tell what the reason for it all tis though. The potato peeler?
WebHubTelescope (@whut) | March 21, 2014 at 10:43 am |
“So RLH, are you now going to say 55+65+75+90 years is the combination?
You are the one that claimed your toy kernel filter reveals all. How deep is that hole that you have just dug yourself into?”
I cannot be sure, precisely because the data is not long enough. Care to come up with some other combination or explanation. Or just insist it is all imagination and therefore no need to explain anything. I’m sure that works well for the potato peeler. Large spuds no problem.
Bart R | March 21, 2014 at 11:00 am |
“Were it an epicyclic mixture of closely time-related actual cycles of 55 + 65 + 75 years, then we know by the mathematics of simple harmonic motion to expect constructive and destructive interference. ”
Oh ye who will settle for noise free simple disproofs. Nothing like the amount of noise that is allowed for other ‘explanations’.
“Well, that’s all well and good, except the peaks and valleys in the global mean temperature do not correspond AT ALL to the constructive and destructive sums of the major so-called oscillations. ”
You see so clearly.
“Plot AMO and PDO (overturnings of rather random pulse length dependent on speed of current and length of sometime quite different paths due tipping points), and any other so-called ‘cycles’ and you will find nothing even remotely similar to your claims.”
Strange that they are so regular then. Your explanations for that is…?
“We know it freaking isn’t a mixture of closely time related cycles, because we know what episodic pulses it is a mixture of by careful analyses: rising CO2E, volcano aerosols, and so forth. As I explained quite clearly earlier.”
Co-incidental Volcanos, SO2 and CO2 in just the right timing and strength. Yes, I know the wonder world you live in.
“More unstated assumptions not supported by data. If these phenomena were truly cyclic, then their sum would take many millennia to realign (~ 55 x 65 x 77 years); if they are integrated so at some tipping point they affect each other toward synchrony, they could hardly be different lengths in any stable pattern, and the system would break down chaotically.”
And the Moons orbit is so trivially simple you can write it down with a simple equation. Only in your delusional fantasy. And that is just one of the potential influences.
“No, you see the PDO reconstruction, which says exactly the same as do I.
How long is each PDO pulse? Which pairs of PDO pulses are exactly the same number of years? Is there a discernable pattern in the length of pulses that we could use to determine six or twenty pulse timespans in future what the PDO will be doing?”
So which ‘cycle’ to you see in that then. Go on, be specific rather than dismissive.
“The same for the AMO. The same for virtually every candidate for ~cycles on ~60 year spans.”
Ditto.
Oh wait, if you admit there are any ‘cycles’ of any length then you are lost, so easier to say that none exists at all.
“Dogma does not trump reason. Which hardly benefits your case, and does mine no harm.”
You’re the one with the dogmatic, ‘there are no cycles of any form’. Not me. I expect theses thing to be present in a chaotic, partially ordered system. You believe in not yet proven ‘science’ and magic.
“What conclusion? That there’s a pair of pulses? Because if you’re not ready to extend your claim predictively past the observations, you’ve done nothing but assert a tautology in the form of a lie. You cannot have your cake and eat it too here; either you are calling it a cycle, and thus predicting that it will continue in the future and must have continued too from the past, or you are saying a set of observations are a set of observations with no meaning. ”
So your reasoning for the rather nice ‘cycle’ we have seen, given that any frequency above 15 years would be visible, is what then? Oh I remember, chance.
“Well, we know from evidence of the past that the cycle you claim wasn’t there before the start of your filter, and we know from the evidence of the present that for the cycle you claim to be real the immediate future must exhibit the largest drop of global temperatures so far in the Holocene. What more evidence is needed?”
The next few years should prove interesting then. Your prediction for the first two of those is what? Get off the fence and make a prediction. Any prediction. Something that will be refutable. Not something 100 years out that can never be refuted. Commit to something that WILL be checkable.
“You question-beggingly dismiss BEST and cherry-pick PDO without actually looking closely at what it says. I’m using all the data available, and you’re ignoring anything that makes your wiggle look just like the random wiggle it is in context. If that’s dogmatic, it’s dogmatic adherence to Newton’s Principia, which argued the rational basis of Science.”
No it is observation that requires explanation. That has always been the true science, explain what we see. So explain, other than by co-incidence/chance what we have seen.
“If what you will publish soon relies on the same sort of fallacy as you have exhibited to date, it could not be called a ‘result’ so much as a fantasy. There is nothing in your claims.”
Without seeing it you know it is wrong. Well done. By they way, got round to looking at the BEST database yet?
“Scientists’ explanation has been set out for you over, and over, and over. The idiomatic wriggle in the data is the sum of episodic pulses such as GHE, feedbacks, volcano aerosols in the stratosphere, variable-length ocean overturnings, land-use changes, albedo, tipping points and random runs of atmospheric effects consistent with the same explanation applied to all prior episodic pulses, overlaid on a very few actual cycles that do not correspond with the wriggle you see. Or didn’t you see that explanation any of the previous times it was laid out?”
I know your mythology. What I want is data that proves your science. Lacking at present – aka ‘the pause’.
Those BEST database answers when you get round to them.
You’re the one with the dogmatic, ‘there are no cycles of any form’.
READ HARDER.
I’ve alluded repeatedly to day-night, seasonal, lunar and interglacial cycles, even the Hale ‘Cycle’.
Your claim reverses the usual onus, as you speculate on a wriggle line and demand others explain its coincidental occurence where it falls out of the filter you arbitrarily impose but refuse to be pinned down on why. It is thus false, a superstitious practice of numerology, and not worth considering.
If you think some ‘stadium wave’ effect is going on, then say so. Curry’s stadium wave is uselessly complex and multiplies uncertainties into a spiral of meaninglessness; yours would no doubt end up the same.
If you think a set of regular component waves magically defy all the precepts of the study of simple harmonic motion to manufacture your wriggle, say specifically which ones they are and how you have invented a new mathematics completely at odds with all of Physics.
Or give it up.
Oh, and when you accuse someone of using a Straw Man, to support your contention you must show that (in this case), the reasoning by analogy does not properly characterize your argument within the parameters of the analogy. You haven’t shown this, you’ve just whinged that you’ve been faced by a football analogy.
Bart R | March 21, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
“I’ve alluded repeatedly to day-night, seasonal, lunar and interglacial cycles, even the Hale ‘Cycle’. Your claim reverses the usual onus, as you speculate on a wriggle line and demand others explain its coincidental occurence where it falls out of the filter you arbitrarily impose but refuse to be pinned down on why. It is thus false, a superstitious practice of numerology, and not worth considering.”
But you stop rather conveniently at Annual. Nothing in the 15 year and up bracket until we get to centuries or millenia.
I observe that there is something with some ‘power’ in it which has demonstrated a ~60 year ‘cycle’ in the recent high quality data and you say it is all down to chance combination of three factors, Volcanos, SO2 and CO2.
That fact that those same three factors don’t properly explain any of the other ‘cycles’ before very recently escapes your thinking, I wonder why?
Still no answer on the BEST questions I notice. So that is certain not researched data on your part.
RichardLH | March 21, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
But you stop rather conveniently at Annual. Nothing in the 15 year and up bracket until we get to centuries or millenia.
If by ‘conveniently’ you mean where the data says, then you are correct. There is nothing in the multidecadal and up bracket in the data until we get to many millennia to suggest evidence of truly cyclic behavior beyond annual. There had been evidence of a weak link between sunspots and global temperature, but that evidence has been void for over half a century, as the correspondence disappeared in the late 1950’s or so.
I observe that there is something with some ‘power’ in it which has demonstrated a ~60 year ‘cycle’ in the recent high quality data and you say it is all down to chance combination of three factors, Volcanos, SO2 and CO2.
You can ‘observe’ whatever higher power you imagine, but it doesn’t make it so. You’re exhibiting the Gambler’s Fallacy.
That fact that those same three factors don’t properly explain any of the other ‘cycles’ before very recently escapes your thinking, I wonder why?
Says who?
What do you mean by ‘properly explain’?
You’re not grasping that episodic pulses do not count as cycles unless they have an underlying time series mechanism, and you have offered none that withstand even cursory scrutiny. So whether the episodic pulses were recent or not, the same reasoning applies to dismiss your Gambler’s Fallacy.
Still no answer on the BEST questions I notice. So that is certain not researched data on your part.
Asked and answered, repeatedly.
As you fail to READ HARDER, I’ll spell it out one more time.
Which data? You do know how many long term (>200 years) continuous thermometers there are in the BEST database don’t you? You do know what their geographic distribution is don’t you? You do know the percentage of the Land surface they cover don’t you? You do know how they compare to other data series in those earlier times? I thought not. So your ‘data’ is merely regurgitated pap. Not researched information.
What is the point of your little diatribe here; apparently in the formulation of a volley of rhetorical questions you undertook to answer yourself (wrongly)?
BEST has been discussed at length here at Climate Etc. from day one. I’ve been part of those discussions quite frequently. Accusing me of not knowing BEST’s methods and limitations is simply ad hom smear, and not worth addressing.
BEST has been published and open to critique and review for a very long time, and your questions have all been asked and satisfactorily answered many times. Thermometers need not be in operation for multiple centuries to be the only valid source of data (indeed, one that old would be suspect on many grounds); geographic distribution of temperature readings is a problem BEST dealt with using diverse methods and diverse methods to check the validity, and amply founded uncertainty measures; that Cowtan & Way’s reconstruction tends to confirm BEST independently makes it clear BEST is the most suitable available measure of global temperature, and there is nothing in your mere questions and insinuations to diminish that. You “thought not” is apparently the only assertion you’ve made on which we can agree, based on the evidence you’ve presented.
I’m sure by now we’re all tired of your demeaning, incomplete, and fallacious comments.
Did you learn how to post stuff like this from WUWT?
Bart R
In your comment #498245, March 21, 2014 @ 3:46pm you write:
Not so fast, Bart. What you write is not correct.
The level of solar activity (expressed as maximum Wolf number) of the late 20thC solar cycles was much higher than that of early 20thC and highest in several thousand years.
According to Usoskin (2008) this
Average max. Wolf number for solar cycles (from-to) [data from Warwick Hughes (2008)]
Solar cycles 14-18 = 103 (1902-1955)
Solar cycles 19-23 = 147 (1955-2008)
Solar cycle 23 starting in 1996 (incl. above) was already less active with a max. Wolf no. of around 120.
And SC24 is starting off even weaker, with an estimated peak at around 70 (provisional estimate).
So the second half of the 20thC had a more active sun than the first half, and this has slowed down since around the end of the century.
Just to get your facts straight, Bart.
Max
Bart R
Huh?
No warming/cooling cycles of ~30 years each in the past record?
Take HadCRUT4.
Plot entire record from 1850.
Plot linear trend from 2003-2013 most recent decade = “pause”
Plot linear trend lines for 30-year periods working backward from 2003.
Observe what the record tells you.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1993/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2003/trend:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/to:1993/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1973/to:1983/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1973/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1913/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1973/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1883/to:1912/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1853/to:1882/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1853/to:2013/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:2013
It shows that rapid warming has been followed by slight cooling, in roughly 30-year half cycles, all with an underlying trend of warming of around 0.6 – 0.7C per century
This is pretty much a random walk.
At the same time CO2 has gradually increased (ice core data) to around 1959 and roughly exponentially since Mauna Loa started, levelling off at an exponential rate of around 0.5% per year since the 1990s.
The statistical correlation between CO2 and temperature is not robust; and where the correlation is not robust, the case for causation is also weak.
But, hey, causation is another question; I just wanted to point out to you that there have, indeed, been multi-decadal cycles of warming/slight cooling of about 30 years each in the HadCRUT4 temperature record back to around 1850.
Don’t deny what is obvious to see,
Max
Bart R | March 21, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
“If by ‘conveniently’ you mean where the data says, then you are correct. There is nothing in the multidecadal and up bracket in the data until we get to many millennia to suggest evidence of truly cyclic behavior beyond annual.”
Says you. In order to support your belief in convenient Volcanos, SO2 and CO2, If you admit to ANY cyclic behaviour of any sort in that sort of time bracket the case falls apart and you know it. I merely propose that some, only some, of the observed behaviour is down to natural cycles in some form and combination and you throw a hissy fit.
“There had been evidence of a weak link between sunspots and global temperature, but that evidence has been void for over half a century, as the correspondence disappeared in the late 1950′s or so.”
There has been an even weaker link to Volcanos, SO2 and CO2 which the current ‘pause’ is serving to weaken further. How much longer does it have to continue for you to admit that you just might be mistaken. One year? Two years? A centaury? We will have to see.
“You can ‘observe’ whatever higher power you imagine, but it doesn’t make it so. You’re exhibiting the Gambler’s Fallacy.”
And you are the opposite gambler. One who believes that a laboratory experiment can be applied to a wider field without question. ANd that nature takes no part, we bad humans did almost all of it. Bad Humans.
“Says who? What do you mean by ‘properly explain’?”
The pause. You know, the one that doesn’t exists in your mind.
“You’re not grasping that episodic pulses do not count as cycles unless they have an underlying time series mechanism, and you have offered none that withstand even cursory scrutiny. So whether the episodic pulses were recent or not, the same reasoning applies to dismiss your Gambler’s Fallacy.”
No I realise all too well what the risks are in proposing that this single natural ‘cycle’ is part of the main natural driver to the climate. I do not, and cannot, tell how this particular ‘cycle’ came about. The measurements required to do so are well in the future.
“Asked and answered, repeatedly.”
Wrong. I asked about how many thermometers are present in the database at 200 years. Ones that persist into the present as those will be require to form the backbone of any other, much shorter terms sets, that are then hung round them like baubles. You DO know how the algorithm works I suppose? It REQUIRES some long running series to form that resolvable backbone. One of the challenges to the methodology is that by chopping that longer series into shorter chucks, it makes it even more possible that the algorithm will cause warming in its own right. As has been mentioned elsewhere.
So I ask once again. Be specific. How many long term thermometers are there that form that backbone? Do you know? Do you care?
“As you fail to READ HARDER, I’ll spell it out one more time.”
And then fail to do so.
“What is the point of your little diatribe here; apparently in the formulation of a volley of rhetorical questions you undertook to answer yourself (wrongly)?”
Just answer the question. How many 1*1 degree land cells have actual measurements in them at 200 years? Do you actually know or are you just winging it? I have the databases to hand and can check your answer if you like. You can even specify the minimum length of records to form the backbone if you like. Go on, be daring, actually commit yourself to some real data rather than rhetoric.
“BEST has been discussed at length here at Climate Etc. from day one. I’ve been part of those discussions quite frequently. Accusing me of not knowing BEST’s methods and limitations is simply ad hom smear, and not worth addressing. ”
So you should be able to pull the answers out straight away. I can. Why can’t you?
“BEST has been published and open to critique and review for a very long time, and your questions have all been asked and satisfactorily answered many times.”
So it should be easy. Actually give me some answers.
“Thermometers need not be in operation for multiple centuries to be the only valid source of data (indeed, one that old would be suspect on many grounds); geographic distribution of temperature readings is a problem BEST dealt with using diverse methods and diverse methods to check the validity, and amply founded uncertainty measures;”
OK so now we are into picking tiny, straw man, arguments. No it wouldn’t be a single instrument. They are replaced on a regular basis. Checked against the previous instrument by dedicated people who do their best (pun) to try and make sure that the series is one contiguous whole. The people that the computer program tries to second guess and say that they did their work wrong and therefore we must make this into two series with different baselines.
I also know how you can bridge areas where you little/no data. You can even make a pretty picture whilst doing so. Nothing in that makes it true however.
Like comparing it in an local area with a separate, non included series for instance. Say CET for European thermometers.
“…that Cowtan & Way’s reconstruction tends to confirm BEST independently makes it clear BEST is the most suitable available measure of global temperature, and there is nothing in your mere questions and insinuations to diminish that. You “thought not” is apparently the only assertion you’ve made on which we can agree, based on the evidence you’ve presented.”
Hmmm. Cowtan & Way. The one which managed to get a larger trend in its answer than either of the two series it drew on. Mathemagical indeed.
“I’m sure by now we’re all tired of your demeaning, incomplete, and fallacious comments.”
So give me some real answers then, instead of continuously ducking and diving. And some commitment to a projection. Is it going to get warmer, stay the same or get cooler in the next year to two?
“Did you learn how to post stuff like this from WUWT?”
No I learned a lot from you and WHT.
manacker | March 21, 2014 at 4:37 pm |
Not so fast, Bart. What you write is not correct.
What you read appears not to be what I write. READ HARDER.
The level of solar activity (expressed as maximum Wolf number) of the late 20thC solar cycles was much higher than that of early 20thC and highest in several thousand years.
According to Usoskin (2008) this modern active sun episode, which started in the late 1940s, can be regarded as the modern grand maximum of solar activity Average max. Wolf number for solar cycles (from-to) [data from Warwick Hughes (2008)]
Solar cycles 14-18 = 103 (1902-1955)
Solar cycles 19-23 = 147 (1955-2008)
Solar cycle 23 starting in 1996 (incl. above) was already less active with a max. Wolf no. of around 120.
And SC24 is starting off even weaker, with an estimated peak at around 70 (provisional estimate).
So the second half of the 20thC had a more active sun than the first half, and this has slowed down since around the end of the century.
Just to get your facts straight, Bart.
Data from Warwick Hughes? And you didn’t verify it? Gullible.
I was matching point in the solar cycle to point in the solar cycle, not sum of all sunspots taken for an arbitrary number of solar cycles. If solar activity were really becoming so much more pronounced, one would expect the strength of the signal of solar activity to grow. However, let’s have a look at Warwick Hughes’ absurd claim in the data:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:101/mean:103/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:101/mean:103/normalise/from:1860
See? The correlation you claim is exactly not there.
You can use all the descriptive language you want, but the curves show them to be just false claims.
No warming/cooling cycles of ~30 years each in the past record?
Take HadCRUT4… blah-blah-blah snipped.
But, hey, causation is another question; I just wanted to point out to you that there have, indeed, been multi-decadal cycles of warming/slight cooling of about 30 years each in the HadCRUT4 temperature record back to around 1850.
Don’t deny what is obvious to see,
Except it’s obvious to see the claims don’t match up.
Look at your claim. Look at RichardLH’s claim.
Compare them on the same graph.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1993/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2003/trend:2013/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/to:1993/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1973/to:1983/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1973/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1913/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1973/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1883/to:1912/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1853/to:1882/trend/plot/best/from:1823/to:1853/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:89/mean:91/plot/best/mean:89/mean:91/plot/best/from:1793/to:1823/trend
Where you have more data, or better data, or where you split the global data by hemisphere, or where you drop out known and verified volcano influences, your claimed cycles degrade and disappear.
RichardLH | March 21, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
Says you. In order to support your belief in convenient Volcanos, SO2 and CO2, If you admit to ANY cyclic behaviour of any sort in that sort of time bracket the case falls apart and you know it. I merely propose that some, only some, of the observed behaviour is down to natural cycles in some form and combination and you throw a hissy fit.
Again with the ad hominem and false claims?
First it’s if I admit any cyclic behavior, then it’s if I admit any cyclic behavior that isn’t there.. what next in this infinite regress of added sekrit conditions?
You ‘merely’ propose some of the observed outcomes of applying filters to some collections of data is explained by a loose non-explanatory “natural cycle” that doesn’t actually behave like a cycle. It’s not a hissy fit to point out that you’re simply making ludicrous claims with no actual meaning other than that you reject explanations in favor of preserving the mystery by numerology and mumbo jumbo.
There has been an even weaker link to Volcanos, SO2 and CO2 which the current ‘pause’ is serving to weaken further. Whoa. Hold on there. Sunspots explained about half as much variation as volcano aerosols, and less than a fifth of what CO2e explains, and sunspots stopped representing even that much correlation in the 1950’s or 1960’s.
How much longer does it have to continue for you to admit that you just might be mistaken. One year? Two years? A centaury? We will have to see.
No. See, I don’t make bogus claims based on filters and superstition; I’ll be right that your claims are superstitious regardless of how long any run is; Gamblers always have trouble understanding that runs do end, when they’re betting on one. Which is all you’re doing. But you’re doing it with everyone’s money.
And you are the opposite gambler. One who believes that a laboratory experiment can be applied to a wider field without question. ANd that nature takes no part, we bad humans did almost all of it. Bad Humans.
Okay, that’s Twilight Zone stuff there. Do I really come across as a ‘without question’ guy? And by ‘nature’ it appears you mean God. Is that what you’re trying to say? Is this a veiled religious thing with you?
The pause. You know, the one that doesn’t exists in your mind.
You’ll have to expand on how ‘The pause’ renders observations of Pinatubo and a half dozen other volcano cooling episodes before ‘recently’, back to the Year Without Summer, moot somehow. Because that doesn’t even begin to make sense.
No I realise all too well what the risks are in proposing that this single natural ‘cycle’ is part of the main natural driver to the climate. I do not, and cannot, tell how this particular ‘cycle’ came about. The measurements required to do so are well in the future.
And again with a prophesied future. Are you saying you are a prophet? What whispers Its sekrits to you in your head, that you are the sole intepreter of Providence? You realise that risk?
Wrong. I asked about how many thermometers are present in the database at 200 years. Ones that persist into the present as those will be require to form the backbone of any other, much shorter terms sets, that are then hung round them like baubles. You DO know how the algorithm works I suppose? It REQUIRES some long running series to form that resolvable backbone. One of the challenges to the methodology is that by chopping that longer series into shorter chucks, it makes it even more possible that the algorithm will cause warming in its own right. As has been mentioned elsewhere.
So I ask once again. Be specific. How many long term thermometers are there that form that backbone? Do you know? Do you care?
Okay, so we’re definitely clear here; you weren’t asking rhetorical questions, you’re simply demanding regurgitation of material available from BEST. You’re holding a quiz, with yourself the self-appointed quiz master, and incrementally fiddling the questions with each pompous repetition.
That satisfaction, I’m not giving you. You’re not really qualified to judge answers involving numbers, as we have clearly seen.
Now that we do see that this is not a rational discussion, but merely you showboating and ego-stroking, I think we’re done. Thanks for demonstrating the sort of man you are.
Bart R
The point is very simple.
In your comment #498245 dated March 21, 2014 at 3:46pm you stated t
This was either a silly mistake or a deliberate lie, as I pointed out to you.
Solar activity as measured by Wolf No. was considerably higher in the 2nd half of the 20thC than in the first half. It has slowed down with SC23 and ever more with SC24.
You come back with an even sillier comment questioning the source I cited (Warwick Hughes 2008). How stupid of you when exactly the same data are available from Wiki. Duh!
Don’t be a dummy, Bart.
You screwed up by making a false claim.
I caught you and pointed out your error.
Just that simple.
Most of your comments are not too specific, but occasionally you make a claim that is blatantly false in order to prove a point.
I will continue to call you on those and provide you the correct information.
Consider this just a friendly good service on my part, Bart.
Max
Bart R
If you are unable to see the ~30-year warming/slight cooling cycles in the globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature record (HadCRUT4) which I posted, I can’t help you.
May an eye doctor could help.
Max
Bart R; What I was pointing out, which you seem to want to deny, is that there is good evidence that the recent temperature data supports the idea that the majority of the change has been driven by natural variance rather than very convenient, co-incidental time and magnitude, Volcanos, SO2 and CO2, in some cases with zero lag. And which just happens to come out to a surprising good single wave wriggle. When using the broadest of all possible high quality filters so that there can be no pre-conceptions about what is and is not there.
In your world, it would appear, the ‘pause’ is not happening. It the real world it would appear to most others that it is. Just as it would appear to others that there have been episodes in the past recorded data which look to be the same/similar in magnitude and spacing.
The point about BEST, which I am currently doing a study on, is that I have researched the database. I have it on the machine in front of me in all their glory. I can and do run queries against that database to determine various factors and answers to various questions.
So these are facts that I have to hand that support the conclusions I am drawing which, if you had them to hand as well, you would be able to indulge in intelligent conversation about.
This does not appear to be the case for you and you are not quoting directly from the source, but instead, offering some third party, regurgitated pap, rather than informed opinion.
manacker | March 22, 2014 at 3:34 am |
Solar activity as measured by Wolf No. was considerably higher in the 2nd half of the 20thC than in the first half. It has slowed down with SC23 and ever more with SC24.
.. Ad hom snipped
If you are unable to see the ~30-year warming/slight cooling cycles in the globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature record (HadCRUT4) which I posted, I can’t help you.
Solar activity as filtered arbitrarily by Warwick Hughes was considerably higher in one of his samples than the other, and then when compared to a much smaller sample arbitrarily was much higher, too.
Which tells us that if you cluster all your highest points out of twelve in two groups of five and a group of two, you can make claims about the middle cluster.. that are in no way meaningful.
You repeat similar methods on HadCRUT4.. but get caught out when the methods are looked at closely. Anyone can impose runs by setting down visual cues on short enough spans. However, your narrative and RichardLH’s narrative are mutually exclusive, as his curve and yours do not match each other, and also are not robust under examination.
All you’ve demonstrated is that if you want to badly enough, you can see what ain’t there.
A mirage makes for a poor eye chart.
Bart R
Sorry, but all the blathering on your part is not going to change two basic observations:
– Solar sunspot activity was higher in the second half of the 20thC than it was in the first half. These data are available from several sources beside Warwick Hughes (Wiki, for example).
– The 160+ year temperature record (HadCRUT4) shows alternating multi-decadal cycles of rapid warming followed by slight cooling of ~30 years length for a half-cycle (check the WfT chart I posted to see this).
Bart, you cannot make a lie become a truth simply with blather. The record is there for one and all to see.
Max
manacker | March 22, 2014 at 3:52 pm |\
‘Blather’ would be pretending to meaning when there is none.
So you can find a way to group solar cycles that has a hump in the middle.. OF LESS THAN TWO AND A HALF GROUPINGS. So what?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:191/mean:193/scale:0.01/offset:-0.6/plot/best/mean:191/mean:193/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:191/mean:193
I don’t see a correlation. Do you see a correlation? I don’t see a correlation?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:29/mean:31/offset:-350/scale:0.01/plot/best/mean:191/mean:193/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:191/mean:193
Oh. There’s the correlation. That’s what correlation looks like.
‘Blather’ would be perpetuating Simpson’s Paradox:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:191/mean:193/to:1880/plot/hadcrut4nh/mean:191/mean:193/plot/hadcrut4sh/mean:191/mean:193/plot/hadcrut4tr/mean:191/mean:193
Oh look. Before 1880, after 1980, or when looked at by hemisphere, the 30-year claims disappear.
Bart R
Yep.
Max
None , lets take come basic maths , to make this statement true you first have to know the total number of climate experts that way you can judge what percentage the sub-group ‘agree’ represents of the whole group climate expert.
Two issues with don’t now nor even have a good idea how many climate experts there are , and we have no even got a agreed definition of what makes someone a ‘climate expert’
The standard of evinced seen here is of the ‘nine out ten cats prefer’ type.
From day one this 97% was rubbish and its got no less so over time.
Red flag went off. For the AAAS to cite such a flawed number does not speak well of its commitment to science.
I don’t understand why this bullet point is is here. There is a small but real chance that the Earth will be hit by an asteroid in the next century (which would certainly result in “abrupt changes,” but I don’t see the AAAS recommending massive changes to the economy because of it. Why does the AAAS think that the probability of massively disruptive impacts from climate change deserves larger response?
That whole “much we can do” implies a lot. I haven’t heard much coming form the AAAS other than “reduce CO2 emissions,” which will have a minimal effect on the risk they cite above.
The whole thing reeks of manipulative propaganda, which is sad for an august institution like the AAAS.
Re: “there is much we can do” vs Wise stewardship
Start by restoring the scientific method with integrity rather than committing rhetorical logical fallacies.
1)Quantify the full range of NATURAL climate variation which is seriously underestimated by conventional global models.
2) Bound uncertainty by evidence and economics. The Right Climate Stuff quantifies Transient Climate Sensitivity with observations.
3) Recognize economic limits on future fossil fuel usage.
The Right Climate Stuff bounds future anthropogenic CO2 by economic limits on recoverable fossil fuels. Consequence – 1.2 deg C upper limit on warming – with potential for lower warming by natural cycles and low solar cycles.
4) Adapt as needed.
Recognize that when the risk premium exceeds the projected cost the best thing is to do nothing.
5) Focus on the most critical issues of providing replacement fuels for oil depletion with efficiency improvements, sufficient for population growth with economic growth. See presentations by actuary Gail Tverberg Our Finite World. and Robert L. Hirsch, The Impending World Energy Mess.
I asked the witch doctor,
he taught me what to say,
he said …
Ooo ee oo ah ah ting tang
walla walla bing bang …
Oo ee oo ah ah
Gotta stop that C-O-2 today.
Witch means yer
gonna hafta pay
‘n pay ‘n pay …
oo ee oo ah ah !
Actually, according to the (pro-global warming) American Meteorological Society, 70% of their members would be classed as “deniers” in their own survey when one looks at the key question. http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2013/11/70-of-meteorologists-are-deniers.html
I suppose when they quote discredited statistics on consensus it would be hard to think the report might get better. It’s amazing though how many good scientists are not aware that the quoted consensus isn’t real.
Its also amazing how many good scientists are unwilling to express their doubts about this in public or in front of their peers. This is probably because they are afraid of being seen as unscientific, even though in many cases their understanding of the science is better.
Finally, Though I am an expert in a few things, I would never use that epithet for myself. Instead I expect the depth (or shallowness) of my knowledge to become apparent in the content I espouse. So who are they trying to convince?
” It’s amazing though how many good scientists are not aware that the quoted consensus isn’t real.”
I don’t see any evidence that there are good scientists who are not aware that the quoted consensus is not real. First, almost be definition no one can be a good scientist and put his or her name on something like that without any investigation into the evidence. Second, anyone who did even the most cursory investigation knows the 97% claim is utter BS.
So I think we can conclude that those who signed on are either a) not good scientists, or b) dishonest.
[Repost with corrected formatting]
The claimed “Reality” is a furphy. And anyway, the fact that any number believe is not evidence.
– The “Risk” is about balance of probabilities. We should not put all our future at risk for some extremely low probability event. Especially given that the overall impacts of warming are probably net-good to at least 2 C and quite likely much more. Wasting money on the sorts of policies that CAGW alarmists have been advocating for the past 20+ years is seriously flawed advice. Continuing to push for such policies and beliefs is severely damaging the reputation of climate scientists and more generally of all science. The scientists are arguing for policy when it is way outside their area of expertise.
– ‘Response” yes there is much that could be done, but the same people who are the proponents of strong and urgent action are the ones who have been pushing for unacceptably uneconomic policies and blocking the policies that would allow the world to implement economically rational solutions. So genuine progress with pragmatic, economically rational policies has been blocked for well over 20 years.
Rots ‘a Ruck if anyone believes China, India, Brazil, Russia cares one wit about AAAS astrologers and numerologists. I know I don’t.
Amen!
Wagathon,
Breaking news – the AAAS co-chairs have threatened to hold their breath until they turns blue. If this fails to generate sufficient veneration for their august personages, they have threatened to pout and run in circles.
Oh no! Whatever shall we do?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Aw, c’mon Waggy, they will care! Just as much as Putin cares about Obama’s sanctions… oh, wait. Never mind.
“A new article from Roger Pielke Jr entitled Technology was the key factor in saving the ozone layer. Pielke’s key points
Public opinion not an important factor driving action
Scientific uncertainty not an obstacle to driving action”
——-
But it wasn’t for a lack of trying to sway both public opinion as well as sow the seeds of uncertainty by organizations like Heartland, was it?
Technology is already on the move to reduce fossil fuel use. If it wasn’t for the scientists sounding the warning, this would not have happened with carbon dioxide, ozone or acid rain, or myriad other reasons that air, food, and water have become safer. In the end, it is science that motivates technology to move forwards in particular directions, and public opinion and uncertainty monsters have little to no effect.
Ultimately the science has won the day with these major issues. It is interesting to see the reaction to the report and those who seem unable to fathom that some (okay, many) honest scientists have genuine concern based on very reasonable interpretations of potential negative outcomes from anthropogenic climate change. In their minds, public perception of risk isn’t matching the urgency, and if history teaches anything, it’s that the public is usually the last to see the urgency of potential negative issues. These scientists feel a duty to correct that uninformed and misinformed perception. This is the point of such a rather stark report.
Yes, I don’t recall the public, other than a minority of activists, jumping on politicians to save the ozone layer or prevent acid rain either. Thankfully public apathy doesn’t count for much when action is needed.
Jim D, if public opinion doesn’t count when action is needed, and I’m not saying you’re wrong, then why do they spend so much time, effort and money trying to discredit sceptics?
Come to that, why do you spend so much time “denier-bashing”? Haven’t you got more interesting things to do?
Jim D -“this would not have happened with .. ozone..” What are you referring to? To the fact that after an extremely costly ban on CFC’s (probably orchestrated by DuPont, whose patents were about to expire) the ozone holes are alive and well?
Jeez. Now, even when I see the “97%” in completely unrelated fields, I have to consciously force myself to disengage. Just who do they think they are are convincing with the 97% logo?
97% is a magic number.
It’s the one you pick when you don’t want to be completely unbelievable. 100%? Nothing is ever 100%. 99% is almost as bad. 98% seems wimpy.
But 97%? It seems so… scientific.
97% is the number you can’t argue with. Like the Crimean referendum. Or the Presidential vote in a dictatorship. It’s the number they use when the people running the polls don’t feel like arguing, but aren’t quite insane enough to pretend they got 100%.
Start off an article with “97% of all” whatever, and you have them hooked. All scientists, all cancer cases, et cetera, et cetera…
Perhaps they’re trying to convince themselves – just sayin’
97% of Crimean voters voted to break away from Ukraine and rejoin Russia. ;-)
100% voted for Kim Jung Un.
See Ray, and even the warmists think Un has no credibility. But had the vote been 97%…
One of the AAAS panel is Dr. Kim Cobb of Georgia Tech who also has this on the possible incipient El Nino for 2014.
http://cobblab.blogspot.com/
Oh no. Not again….
Who is this elusive 97%? (Yesterday I read it was 98% and a month ago it was 96%. Well let’s settle on 97% for the moment. How many people does that 97% represent exactly?
First, I want to see the list of names of all these “climate experts”. I also want to know what makes each of these individuals “climate experts”. What are their academic credentials, experience, publications, affiliations, primary areas of interest and study. Are they high-profile meteorologists or mathematicians? Possibly philosophers? I would also like to interview each of them to see exactly what they have to say about the subject (you KNOW some will hedge when confronted with direct questions).
I’ve been hearing about this 97% (95%, 96%,98% . . . whatever) for years. I suspect the 97% where mostly early bandwagon jumpers not enthusiastic about jeopardizing their tenure. Now — with more legitimate challenges to their (often) extremist scenarios in direct contravention to recent empirical findings (think “The Pause”) — I am wondering if that long held 97% number does not truly represent an objective 2014 talking head census. That’s why it’s important to find out exactly who is saying what. Especially since this ‘global climate change’ meme fits so nicely with a broader social and political agenda having little, if anything, to do with science.
Never have so many seemingly stuck their collective necks out so far only to find that — Hey! There really are interesting challenges to the received wisdom being proposed each day (yea, I know — from special interests — but also creditable investigators without an agenda or axe to grind).
Who are you men and women?
Henceforth I will not read anything that begins, ” 97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.” Rather I will dismiss it with contempt and prejudice.
IPMeng
97% is a pure fabrication.
It has nothing to do with the percentage of qualified climate scientists and meteorologists who fully accept the IPCC AR4 “consensus” premise of CAGW.
It does not because it cannot.
A total of 335 qualified individuals have publicly gone on record that they do NOT support the IPCC “consensus” premise (I have the list if anyone is interested).
These include:
88 atmospheric scientists/meteorologists
49 physicists
28 geologists
15 chemists
155 other sciences, mathematicians, environmentalists, etc.
If this group represents only 3%, this means that 10,832 qualified individuals fully support the IPCC CAGW premise.
How absurd!
Max
Manacker,
I am interested in the list. can you provide a web link to where I can see it?
Peter Lang, type in ‘john cook liar’ into goggle and you’ll find two articles on how he cooked the books and got Obama’s approval. If you like your climate change you can keep your climate change.
Or just type in 97% consensus. Nasa has the claim but doesn’t show any surveys. 97% consensus debunked has stuff and climate etc has two posts.
Peter Lang
On December 23, 2007 Eli Rabett posted a list on the Rabett Run blog of what he referred to as the “Denialist Society 400” or the complete “Nutters List”.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/12/makin-list-checkin-it-twice-here-is.html
This was apparently the list of individuals cited by US Senator Inhofe as being skeptical to some aspect or all of the IPCC position on AGW.
The numbered list contained names and brief CVs of 404 individuals, some of which were not directly involved in climate science or a related field and, based on comments to Eli’s post, were not deemed to be “qualified” to have a valid opinion on the matter.
I have gone through Rabett’s original list and removed those individuals not deemed to be “qualified” and have added several others, whom Rabett missed at that time or who have made statements after Rabett’s list was published, in order to come up with a revised list of “qualified” individuals who are skeptical of all or some aspect of the CAGW premise as specifically outlined by IPCC in its AR4 and AR5 reports.
The list now contains 335 names and is growing as it gets updated with new additions from time to time.
The numbers shown on the list are the numbers from the original Rabett list, names without numbers have been added to Rabett’s list.
I will send this in three separate posts (since it is very long)
These are the “so-called” 3%.
Which means there must be over 10,000 “qualified” individuals (the 97%), who completely support the IPCC CAGW premise. Hard to believe.
Max
Peter Lang
“3% List” part 1:
— Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, mathematician and astronomer, head of Space Research for the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia
— Dr. Steve Ackerman, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin
3. Alexandre Aguiar Meteorologist of Brazil’s MetSul Weather Center
— Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden
— Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia Geologist at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
5. Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, the former director of both University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center
6. David Aldrich Meteorologist TV Philadelphia
— J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.
9. Dr. Claude Allegre, French Geophysicist
10. Chris Allen Meteorologist of Kentucky Fox affiliate WBKO
— Bjarne Andresen, PhD, dr. scient, physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a “global temperature”, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
14. Dr. August H. Auer (deceased), past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming, previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand .
18. Donald G. Baker of the University of Minnesota
21. Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
22. Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Canada
— Douglas W. Barr, BS (Meteorology, University of Chicago), BS and MS (Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota), Barr Engineering Co. (environmental issues and water resources), Minnesota, U.S.A.
—James R. Barrante, Ph.D. (chemistry, Harvard University), Emeritus Professor of Physical Chemistry, Southern Connecticut State University, focus on studying the greenhouse gas behavior of CO2, Cheshire, Connecticut, U.S.A.
— Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
— Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD, Earth Science, Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
25. Vladimir Bashkirtsev, of the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
— Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
27. Dr. Franco Battaglia, a professor of Environmental Chemistry at the University of Modena in Italy
—Richard Becherer, BS (Physics, Boston College), MS (Physics, University of Illinois), PhD (Optics, University of Rochester), former Member of the Technical Staff – MIT Lincoln Laboratory, former Adjunct Professor – University of Connecticut, Areas of Specialization: optical radiation physics, coauthor – standard reference book Optical Radiation Measurements: Radiometry, Millis, MA, U.S.A.
30. Paul G. Becker, a former chief meteorologist with the Air Force and former Colorado Springs chapter president of the American Meteorological Society.
—Dr. David Bellamy, professor of Geography at University of Nottingham
33. Justin Berk, BS in meteorology from Cornell
34. Andre and Sally Bernier Meteorologists of WJW-TV, in Cleveland, Ohio. Andre has a BS in Meteorology from Lyndon State College,
—Edwin X. Berry, PhD (Atmospheric Physics, Nevada), MA (Physics, Dartmouth), BS (Engineering, Caltech), Certified Consulting Meteorologist, President, Climate Physics LLC, Bigfork, MT, U.S.A
— M. I. Bhat, Professor & Head, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
35. Dr. Edward F. Blick, Professor of Meteorology and Engineering at University of Oklahoma
— Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK, Editor, Energy & Environment.
42. Daniel Botkin, President of the Center for the Study of the Environment and Professor Emeritus in the department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California
—Ahmed Boucenna, PhD, Professor of Physics (strong climate focus), Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Ferhat Abbas University, Setif, Algéria
–Antonio Brambati, PhD, Emeritus Professor (sedimentology), Department of Geological, Environmental and Marine Sciences (DiSGAM), University of Trieste (specialization: climate change as determined by Antarctic marine sediments), Trieste, Italy-
44. Dr. Simon Brassell, of the Department of Geological Sciences at the Indiana University
— William D. Braswell, computer scientist, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama
48. Bob Breck Chief Meteorologist of WVUE-TV in New Orleans
— Dr. Paal Brekke – Solar Physicist, specialist in sun/UV radiation/Sun-Earth Connection, affiliated with the University of Oslo, Norway.
— Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review
— Dr. David Bromwich, head of Polar Meteorology at Byrd Polar Research Center
— Dr. Robert G. Brown, Physics Department of Duke University
— Stephen C. Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), District Agriculture Agent, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, Palmer, Alaska, U.S.A.
53. Dr. Reid Bryson (deceased), the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences)
—Mark Lawrence Campbell, PhD (chemical physics; gas-phase kinetic research involving greenhouse gases (nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide)), Professor, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A.
–Rudy Candler, PhD (Soil Chemistry, University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)), former agricultural laboratory manager, School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management, UAF, co-authored papers regarding humic substances and potential CO2 production in the Arctic due to decomposition, Union, Oregon, U.S.A.-
—Alan Carlin, B.S. (California Institute of Technology), PhD (economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), retired senior analyst and manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, former Chairman of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club (recipient of the Chapter’s Weldon Heald award for conservation work), U.S.A
— Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., Arctic Animal Behavioural Ecologist, wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada
57. Dr. Robert.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist
— Dr. Phil Chapman, Geophysicist, astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
59. Dr. Christopher L. Castro, a Professor of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona **
— Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick, PhD, Geologist, dendrochronology (analyzing tree rings to determine past climate) lecturing, Southwestern Adventist University, Keene, Texas, U.S.A.
— George V. Chilingar, PhD, Member, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow President, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, U.S.A. Section, Emeritus Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
61. Tom Chisholm Chief Meteorologist of WMTW ABC Portland, Maine
62. Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville and NASA
63. Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
65. Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada
—Michael Coffman, PhD (Ecosystems Analysis and Climate Influences, University of Idaho), CEO of Sovereignty International, President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., Bangor, Maine, U.S.A
–Roger W. Cohen, B.S., M.S., PhD Physics, MIT and Rutgers University, Fellow, American Physical Society, initiated and managed for more than twenty years the only industrial basic research program in climate, Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.-
69. John Coleman, Meteorologist Founder of The Weather Channel
71. Joseph Conklin Meteorologist
72. Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
— Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom
—Cornelia Codreanova, Diploma in Geography, Researcher (Areas of Specialization: formation of glacial lakes) at Liberec University, Czech Republic, Zwenkau, Germany
— Allan Cortese, meteorological researcher and spotter for the National Weather Service, retired computer professional, Billerica, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
76. Dr. William R. Cotton of the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University
78. Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC peer reviewer, Founding Member of the European Science and Environment Forum, UK
—Uberto Crescenti, PhD, Full Professor of Applied Geology, Università G. d’Annunzio, Past President Società Geologica taliana, Chieti, Italy
— Susan Crockford, PhD (Zoology/Evolutionary Biology/Archaeozoology), Adjunct Professor (Anthropology/Faculty of Graduate Studies), University of Victoria, Victoria, British Colombia, Canada
—Walter Cunningham, B.S., M.S. (Physics – Institute of Geophysics And Planetary Sciences, UCLA), AMP – Harvard Graduate School of Business, Colonel (retired) U.S. Marine Corps, Apollo 7 Astronaut., Fellow – AAS, AIAA; Member AGU, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
81. Grant Dade Texas TV’s KLTV, a member of both the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association,
82. Joseph D’Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and was the Chief Meteorologist at Weather Services International Corporation and served as chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.
83. Dr. Robert E. Davis, a Professor at University of Virginia, a former UN IPCC contributor and past president of the Association of American Geographers
84. Luc Debontridder, Climatologist at the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI)
—Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
— Willem de Lange, MSc (Hons), DPhil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand
85. David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, U.S.
— James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas 1986, Earth/Climate Science), now in Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.
— James E Dent; B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant, Member of WMO OPACHE Group on Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England
— Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, Environmental Scientist and founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group
— Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska
89. Dr. David Douglass professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Rochester
—Geoff Duffy, DEng (Dr of Engineering), PhD (Chemical Engineering), BSc, ASTCDip. (first chemical engineer to be a Fellow of the Royal Society in NZ), FIChemE, wide experience in radiant heat transfer and drying, chemical equilibria, etc. Has reviewed, analysed, and written brief reports and papers on climate change, Auckland, New Zealand
— Silvia Duhau, Ph.D. (physics), Solar Terrestrial Physics, Buenos Aires University, Buenos Aires, Argentina
91. Robert W. Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A.
— Freeman Dyson, professor of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
94. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, U.S.
—Ole Henrik Ellestad, former Research Director, applied chemistry SINTEF, Professor in physical chemistry, University of Oslo, Managing director Norsk Regnesentral and Director for Science and Technology, Norwegian Research Council, widely published in infrared spectroscopy, Oslo, Norway
100. Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
102. Gary England, Meteorologist who pioneered the use of Doppler radar weather-forecasting
103. Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
— Dr. Chris Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario – focuses on underlying physics/math to complex climate systems.
106. Bill Evans New York’s WABC-TV Senior Meteorologist
107. Dr. Cal Evans, Geochemist a prominent researcher who has advised the Alberta Research Council, the Natural Sciences, and Engineering Research Council of Canada
— Dr. David Evans, worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, building the carbon accounting model that Australia uses to track carbon in its biosphere for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.
111. Dr. John T. Everett, a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administrator and UN IPCC lead author and reviewer
— Sören Floderus, PhD (Physical Geography (Uppsala University)), coastal-environment specialization, Copenhagen, Denmark
116. Dr. Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center
— Dr. Patrick Frank, Chemist
117. Stewart Franks, PhD, Associate Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
118. Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld, research scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes at the University of Colorado
119. Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
120. Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre
122. Ivan Frolov, the head of Russia’s Science and Research Institute of Arctic and Antarctic Regions
— Gordon Fulks, PhD (Physics, University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind, electromagnetic and geophysical phenomena, Corbett, Oregon, U.S.A.
— Dr. Samuel Furfari, Lecturer at the Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB)
124. Dr. Serge Galam, director of research at the National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS) and member of a laboratory of Ecole Polytechnique
127. R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa
— Dr. David Gee, Geologist and chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, currently at Uppsala University in Sweden
—Katya Georgieva, MSc (meteorology), PhD (solar-terrestrial climate physics), Professor, Space Research and Technologies Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
129. Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
— Dr. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Institute Professor at Rensselaer (RPI) in Troy, New York
131. Dr. Robert Giegengack the chair of Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania
136. Dick Goddard Ohio meteorologists TV
— Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mech, Eng.), Secretary General KTH International Climate Seminar 2006 and Climate analyst and member of NIPCC, Lidingö, Sweden
— Stanley B. Goldenberg Atmospheric Scientist at the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA
139. Dr. Mel Goldstein, a PhD Meteorologist on Connecticut’s TV News Channel 8
140. Sergei Golubchikov, Vice President of Russia’s National Geocryological Foundation
— Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments, Adjunct Professor, Senior Research Scientist, University of Ottawa, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
—Laurence I. Gould, PhD, Professor of Physics, University of Hartford, Past Chair (2004), New England Section of the American Physical Society, West Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A.
143. Brian van de Graaff Meteorologist TV
— Thomas B. Gray, MS, Meteorology, Retired, USAF, Yachats, Oregon, U.S.A.
144. Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, New Zealand
145. Dr. William Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU)
— Dr. Kenneth Green, Chief Scientist, Fraser Institute, Vancouver, BC – expert reviewer for the IPCC 2001 Working Group I science report.
149. Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
150. Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Part 2 to follow.
Max
Peter Lang
“3% List” Part 2:
152. Jeff Halblaub Senior Meteorologist of WSI Corporation
— Charles B. Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), systems/software engineering, modeling & simulation, design, Consultant, Coyle, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
— Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy
—Hermann Harde, PhD, Professur f. Lasertechnik & Werkstoffkunde (specialized in molecular spectroscopy, development of gas sensors and CO2-climate sensitivity), Helmut-Schmidt-Universität, Universität der Bundeswehr Fakultät für Elektrotechnik, Hamburg, Germany
156. Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
— Ross Hays, Atmospheric Scientist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.
— Wilco Hazeleger, a senior scientist in the global climate research group at Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institure
— James A. Heimbach, Jr., BA Physics (Franklin and Marshall College), Master’s and PhD in Meteorology (Oklahoma University), Prof. Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences (University of North Carolina at Asheville), Springvale, Maine, U.S.A.
161. Dr. Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona,
— Dr. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, researcher in the Institute of Geophysics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
162. Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry
— David Holland, member of the UK’s Institution of Engineering and Technology. Trained and qualified as an electrical engineer, he worked in the computer industry from 1970. He has followed the scientific debate over the human contribution to global warming for many years, and given evidence on it to the House of Lords and Stern Review.
168. Art Horn, Meteorologist currently operating The ‘Art’ Of the Weather business
—Martin Hovland, M.Sc. (meteorology, University of Bergen), PhD (Dr Philos, University of Tromsø), FGS, Emeritus Professor, Geophysics, Centre for Geobiology, University of Bergen, member of the expert panel: Environmental Protection and Safety Panel (EPSP) for the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) and the Integrated ODP, Stavanger, Norway
169. Douglas V. Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland 2
170. Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Perth
— Ole Humlum, PhD, Professor, Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
— Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Climate Change
173. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
175. Dr. Olafur Ingolfsson, a professor from the University of Iceland
—Larry Irons, BS (Geology), MS (Geology), Sr. Geophysicist at Fairfield Nodal (specialization: paleoclimate), Lakewood, Colorado, U.S.A.
— Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist and UN IPCC Scientist
176. Yury Izrael, the director of Global Climate and Ecology Institute, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and UN IPCC Vice President,
— Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London), U.K.
— Albert F. Jacobs, Geol.Drs., P. Geol., Calgary, Alberta, Canada
179. Craig James, Chief Meteorologist of a Michigan NBC TV affiliate
— Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
— Dr. Hans Jelbring – Wind/Climate specialist, Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit, Stockholm University, Sweden. Currently, Manager Inventex Aqua Research Institute, Stockholm.
181. Meteorologist Mark Johnson
— Terrell Johnson, B.S. (Zoology), M.S. (Wildlife & Range Resources, Air & Water Quality), Principal Environmental Engineer, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Green River, Wyoming, U.S.A.
— Bill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology), Storm Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist, Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.
—Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
186. Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
193. Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former Research Scientist Environment Canada; Editor “Climate Research” (03-05); Editorial Board Member “Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007
— Leonid F. Khilyuk, PhD, Science Secretary, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor of Engineering
195. William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology
197. Paul Knight Penn State Climatologist **
198. Dr. James P. Koermer, a Professor of Meteorology and the director of the Meteorological Institute at Plymouth State University
— Prof. Dr. Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Academician, Counsellor RAS, Research Centre for Ecological Safety, Russian Academy of Sciences and Nansen International Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre, St.-Petersburg, Russia.
— Jasper Kirkby, experimental particle physicist at CERN, author or co-author of some 250 scientific publications
202. Dr. Gerhard Kramm of the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks
— Gary Kubat, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), professional meteorologist last 18 years, O’Fallon, Illinois, U.S.A
204. Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University
—Leif Kullman, PhD (Physical geography, plant ecology, landscape ecology), Professor, Physical geography, Department of Ecology and Environmental science, Umeå University, Areas of Specialization: Paleoclimate (Holocene to the present), glaciology, vegetation history, impact of modern climate on the living landscape, Umeå, Sweden
— Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
206. Dr. A.T.J. de Laat, who specialized in atmospheric composition and climate research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
— Dr. Peter Landesman, PhD in Mathematics from City College of New York, specialized in solving complex differential equations and author of The Mathematics of Global Warming
— Dr. Theodor Landscheidt (deceased), Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Nova Scotia, Canada
208. Dr. Christopher W. Landsea NOAA’s National Hurricane Center who served as a UN IPCC
209. Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
—Rune Berg-Edland Larsen, PhD (Geology, Geochemistry), Professor, Dep. Geology and Geoengineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway
212. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary, Canada
213. David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, U.S.
— Jay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
—C. (Kees) le Pair, PhD (Physics Leiden, Low Temperature Physics), former director of the Netherlands Research Organization FOM (fundamental physics) and subsequently founder and director of The Netherlands Technology Foundation STW.
217. Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
— Nic Lewis
— Edward Liebsch, BS (Earth Science & Chemistry), MS (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University), Senior Air Quality Scientist, HDR Inc., Maple Grove, MN, U.S.A.
220. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S
— Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.
—William Lindqvist, PhD (Applied Geology), Independent Geologic Consultant, Areas of Specialization: Climate Variation in the recent geologic past, Tiburon, California, U.S.A.
— Dr. Philip Lloyd, Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer and UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author
— Dr. Craig Loehle is Principal Scientist with the National Council or Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI). His research interests include ecological modeling, landscape ecology, life history theory, and natural resource management. He is the author of over 100 scientific publications.
223. A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
—Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, Prof. Dr. , PhD (Physics), retired from university of appl. sciences HTW, Saarbrücken (Germany), atmospheric temperature research, speaker of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), Heidelberg, Germany
226. Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, U.S.
228. Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
— Björn Malmgren, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Marine Geology, Paleoclimate Science, Goteborg University, retired, Norrtälje, Sweden
229. Rob Marciano CNN Meteorologist
230. Dr. Richard Mackey Statistician authored a 2007 peer-reviewed study which found that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate. The paper was published August 17, 2007 in the Journal of Coastal Research
233. Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany 2
— Dr. István E. Markó, Professor at the Université catholique de Louvain (UCL)
234. Galina Mashnich of the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics of the Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
—Francis Massen, professeur-docteur en physique (PhD equivalent, Universities of Nancy (France) and Liège (Belgium), Manager of the Meteorological Station of the Lycée Classique de Diekirch, specialising in the measurement of solar radiation and atmospheric gases. Collaborator to the WOUDC (World Ozone and UV Radiation
—Dr. Henri Masson, Prof. dr. ir., Emeritus Professor University of Antwerp (Energy & Environment Technology Management), Visiting professor Maastricht School of Management, specialist in dynamical (chaotic) complex system analysis, Antwerp, Belgium.
236. John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand 2
237. Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economist, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K. 2
238. Peter McGurk, Senior Meteorologist with WSI Corporation, a provider of weather-driven business solutions to such clients as CNN, FOX, NBC, American Airlines, Delta, and FedEX
243. Bill Meck, Chief Meteorologist for an NBC affiliate
247. Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Canada
248. Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, research professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia 2
249. Dr. Daniel W. Miles, a former professor of physics who earned his PhD from the University of Utah
— Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA’s Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
Part 3 to follow.
Max
Peter Lang
“3% List” Part 3
— Dr. Asmunn Moene, Former head of the National Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
254. H. Michael Mogil, a 30-year veteran of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), who is certified by the American Metrological Society and currently owns the “How the Weatherworks” consulting firm
261. Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
262. Dr. Dick Morgan, former director of Canada’s Met/Oceano Policy and Plans, a marine meteorologist and a climate researcher at both Exeter University and the Bedford Institute of Oceanography
17. Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
263. Lubos Motl, PhD, physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
266. Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
— Dr. Nasif Nahle, Scientific Research Director of Biology Cabinet Organization. Residencial El Roble, San Nicolas de los Garza, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
— Robert Neff, M.S. (Meteorology, St Louis University), Weather Officer, USAF; Contractor support to NASA Meteorology Satellites, Retired, Camp Springs, Maryland, U.S.A.
— John Nicol, PhD, Physics, (Retired) James Cook University, Chairman – Australian Climate Science Coalition, Brisbane, Australia
269. Mark Nolan Meteorologist TV
270. Gary Novak Microbiologist
271. Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Canada 2
272. James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, U.S.
— Peter Oliver, BSc (Geology), BSc (Hons, Geochemistry & Geophysics), MSc (Geochemistry), PhD (Geology), specialized in NZ quaternary glaciations, Geochemistry and Paleomagnetism, previously research scientist for the NZ Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
274. Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
277. Jim Ott, Meteorologist formerly of WTMJ-TV in Wisconsin
279. Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2
280. Morgan Meteorologist Palmer of Texas TV’s KLTV
281. Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
282. R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Canada
— James A. Peden, Atmospheric physicist formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
284. Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota, U.S.
285. Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., presently senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder
286. Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
— Dr. Roger Pocklington, Ocean/Climate Consultant, F.C.I.C., Researcher – Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Nova Scotia.
—Oleg M. Pokrovsky, BS, MS, PhD (mathematics and atmospheric physics – St. Petersburg State University, 1970), Dr. in Phys. and Math Sciences (1985), Professor in Geophysics (1995), principal scientist, Main Geophysical Observatory (RosHydroMet)
— Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS (Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS (Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign); Weather Forecasting, Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, the public broadcasting station of the University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.
287. Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
— Dr. Alain Préat, Professor at the Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB)
—Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Professore-emeritus isotope-geophysics and planetary geology, Utrecht University, past director ZWO/NOW Institute of Isotope Geophysical Research, Past-President Royal Netherlands Society of Geology and Mining, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
290. Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
— Tom Quirk, MSc (Melbourne), D Phil, MA (Oxford), SMP (Harvard), Member of the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Australian Climate Science Coalition, Member Board Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
293. VK Raina, India’s leading Glaciologist
294. Dr. Denis G. Rancourt, Professor of Physics and an Environmental Science researcher at the University of Ottawa,
—Oleg Raspopov, Doctor of Science and Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Professor – Geophysics, Senior Scientist, St. Petersburg Filial (Branch) of N.V.Pushkov Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowaves Propagation of RAS (climate specialty: climate in the past, particularly the influence of solar variability), Editor-in-Chief of journal “Geomagnetism and Aeronomy” (published by Russian Academy of Sciences), St. Petersburg, Russia
296. Bernie Rayno, Senior Meteorologist with AccuWeather
— S. Jeevananda Reddy, M.Sc. (Geophysics), Post Graduate Diploma (Applied Statistics, Andhra University), PhD (Agricultural Meteorology, Australian University, Canberra), Formerly Chief Technical Advisor—United Nations World Meteorological Organization (WMO) & Expert-Food and Agriculture Organization (UN)
— Dr. John Reid, atmospheric physicist, Cygnet, Tasmania, CSIRO Division of Oceanography
298. William E. Reifsnyder Meteorologist Forestry
299. Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
306. Erich Roeckner of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
308. R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, U.S
— Curt Rose, BA, MA (University of Western Ontario), MA, PhD (Clark University), Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Studies and Geography, Bishop’s University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
312. Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C., Canada 2.
313. Arthur T. “Terry” Safford III, Meteorologist a retired Lt Col. of the U.S. Air Force
319. Mark Scirto Chief Meteorologist of Texas TV’s KLTV,
322. Bruce Schwoegler, former U.S. Navy meteorologist and Boston broadcast meteorologist
325. Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
326. Dr. Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences
—Milap Chand Sharma, PhD, Associate Professor of Glacial Geomorphology, Centre fort the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
327. Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA,
328. Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top, young, award-winning scientists
329. Glen Shaw, a Professor of Physics at the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks
—Thomas P. Sheahen, B.S., PhD (Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), specialist in renewable energy, research and publication (applied optics) in modeling and measurement of absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2005-2009); Argonne National Laboratory (1988-1992); Bell Telephone labs (1966-73), National Bureau of Standards (1975-83), Oakland, Maryland, U.S.A.
— Dr. Joanne Simpson, Atmospheric Scientist and PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
336. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
—Frans W. Sluijter, Prof. dr ir, Emeritus Professor of theoretical physics, Technical University Eindhoven, Chairman—Skepsis Foundation, former vice-president of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, former President of the Division on Plasma Physics of the European Physical Society and former bureau member of the Scientific Committee on Sun-Terrestrial Physics, Euvelwegen, the Netherlands
— Dr. Vaclav Smil, FRSC, Distinguished Professor of Geography; specialization in climate and CO2, University of Manitoba.
— Hajo Smit, Meteorologist and former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
— Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO
341. Dr. Joe Sobel of Accuweather, winner of the American Meteorological Society 2005 Award for Broadcaster of the Year
—Jan-Erik Solheim, MSc (Astrophysics), Professor, Institute of Physics, University of Tromsø, Norway (1971-2002), Professor (emeritus), Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo, Norway (1965-1970, 2002- present), climate specialties: sun and periodic climate variations
342. Dr. Willie Soon Harvard-Smithsonian Center Astrophysicist.
343. Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences 2
344. James Spann Meteorologist of Alabama ABC TV
345. Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S. 3
346. Chief Meteorologist Karl Spring of Duluth, Minnesota, who is certified by both the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association
— Walter Starck, PhD (Biological Oceanography), marine biologist (specialization in coral reefs and fisheries), author, photographer, Townsville, Australia
350. Bill Steffen Meteorologist of Grand Rapids, Michigan
351. Herb Stevens, Meteorologist one of the original meteorologists at The Weather Channel
—H. Leighton Steward, Master of Science (Geology), Areas of Specialization: paleoclimates and empirical evidence that indicates CO2 is not a significant driver of climate change, Chairman, PlantsNeedCO2.org and CO2IsGreen.org, Chairman of the Institute for the Study of Earth and Man (geology, archeology & anthropology) at SMU in Dallas, Texas, Boerne, TX, U.S.A.
352. Dr. Hans von Storch, the Director of Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre, a professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg
— Arlin Super, PhD (Meteorology), former Professor of Meteorology at Montana State University, retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
— Dr. Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London 354. Henrik Svensmark Danish National Space Centre
— Dr. Gordon Swaters, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University ofAlberta
—Edward (Ted) R. Swart, D.Sc. (physical chemistry, University of Pretoria), M.Sc. and Ph.D. (math/computer science, University of Witwatersrand). Formerly Director of the Gulbenkian Centre, Dean of the Faculty of Science, Professor and Head of the Department of Computer Science, University of Rhodesia. Most recently, Professor in the Department of Combinatorics and Optimization at the University of Waterloo and Chair of Computing and Information Science and Acting Dean at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada
356. Dr. Elwynn Taylor, Professor of Meteorology at Iowa State University and a former project scientist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administratio**
357. Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
— Dr. Peter Taylor, environmental science analyst (formerly for UN), author of “Chill – an assessment of global warming theory”
360. Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
363. Tim Thornton, who holds degrees in Meteorology and Computer Science, pub -lishes the website “The Global Warming Heretic.
—J. E. Tilsley, P.Eng., BA Geol, Acadia University, 53 years of climate and paleoclimate studies related to development of economic mineral deposits, Aurora, Ontario, Canada
— Frank Tipler, PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics, astrophysics, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A
— Edward M. Tomlinson, MS (Meteorology), Ph.D. (Meteorology, University of Utah), President, Applied Weather Associates, LLC (leader in extreme rainfall storm analyses),
— Dr. Eduardo Tonni, Paleontologist of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata
—Göran Tullberg, Civilingenjör i Kemi (equivalent to Masters of Chemical Engineering), Co-author – The Climate, Science and Politics (2009) (see here for a review), formerly instructor of Organic Chemistry (specialization in “Climate chemistry”), Environmental Control and Environmental Protection Engineering at University in Växjö; Falsterbo, Sweden
369. Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain
—Brian Gregory Valentine, PhD, Adjunct professor of engineering (aero and fluid dynamics specialization) at the University of Maryland, Technical manager at US Department of Energy, for large-scale modeling of atmospheric pollution, Technical referee for the US Department of Energy’s Office of Science programs in climate and atmospheric modeling conducted at American Universities and National Labs, Washington, DC, U.S.A
372. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
—Bas van Geel, PhD, paleo-climatologist, Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, Research Group Paleoecology and Landscape Ecology, Faculty of Science, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
371. Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
—A.J. (Tom) van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geologyspecialism: Glacial Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, former President of the European Association of Science Editors Poznan, Poland
373. Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa
—Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
—Michael G. Vershovsky, Ph.D. in meteorology (macrometeorology, long-term forecasts, climatology), Senior Researcher, Russian State Hydrometeorological University, St. Petersburg, Russia
374. Dr. Chris Walcek is a professor at the University at Albany in NY and a Senior Research Associate at the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center
— Gösta Walin, PhD in Theoretical physics, Professor emeritus in oceanography, Earth Science Center, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden
378. Dr. Fred Ward, who earned his PhD in Meteorology from MIT and is a former meteorologist for Boston TV
380. Anthony Watts, former meteorologist for KHSL-TV, a CBS-TV affiliate
381. Charles L. Wax, PhD (physical geography: climatology, LSU), State Climatologist – Mississippi, past President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor, Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, U.S.A.
382. Dan Webster, Ohio meteorologists
383. Dr. Edward J. Wegman, Bernard J. Dunn Professor, Department of Statistics and Department Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia, U.S.
—Carl Otto Weiss, Direktor und Professor at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Visiting Professor at University of Copenhagen, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Coauthor of ”Multiperiodic Climate Dynamics: Spectral Analysis of…“, Braunschweig, Germany
— Dr. Bruce West, A U.S Army Chief Scientist
— Forese-Carlo Wezel, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy
385. Chuck Wiese Meteorologist
389. Kevin Williams Meteorologist of the New York based WEATHER-TRACK and Chief Meteorologist at WHEC-TV in Rochester
390. Dr. Richard C. Willson of Columbia University’s Center for Climate Systems Research
391. Dr. Ian Wilson of the University of Southern Queensland, Australia, specializes in statistical analysis and astrophysics research, and was a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore, MD
393. Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
396. David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., UN IPCC Expert Reviewer, energy consultant, Virginia, U.S.
— George T. Wolff, Ph.D., Principal Atmospheric Scientist, Air Improvement Resource, Inc., Novi, Michigan, U.S.A.
— Dr. Rafael Wust, Professor Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University
—Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller –NASA (Ret) ARC, GSFC, Hdq. – Meteorologist, Ogunquit, ME, U.S.A
— Dr. Miklós Zágoni, Physicist and environmental researcher
404. Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy
— Stan Zlochen, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), USAF (retired), Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A.
405. Dr. Jeff Zweerink of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA)
That’s the list so far, Peter – but, as you know, it is growing daily.
You will note that our hostess’ name is not on the list, although she has openly stated that she is not in agreement with the IPCC premise on attribution of “most” of post 1950 warming to AGW due to the great uncertainties involved.
Max
manacker | March 19, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
How is this list getting longer?
One funeral at a time?
#1. wikipedia says: ‘Abdussamatov claims that ‘global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity.’ This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change as well as accepted reconstructions of solar activity.” He has no data to back his claims, and the overwhelming data counter to his claim that he cannot explain tells any scientist his claims must be dismissed.
#2. From Lesson 2 of Ackerman’s AOS441 course (http://profhorn.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/satmet/lesson2/spectroscopy.html): “ CO2 absorbs significantly in the 15 mm band from about 12.5-16.7 mm (600-800 cm-1. Itis these differences in the shortwave and infrared properties of CO2 (and atmospheric water vapor) that lead to the greenhouse effect.”
So, in other words you have one guy on your list who must be dismissed because he disagrees with the data, and one guy who teaches the opposite of what your list claims, and that’s just the first two guys.
How many more on your list are dead, last published in a previous millennium, or don’t know they’re on it?
Bart R
The “3% list” gets longer by new “qualified” individuals coming out with statements rejecting some or all of the IPCC CAGW premise.
Happens all the time.
People pass on. True. Happened to one or two on Rabett’s original list, as it did to Stephen Schneider. May they all R.I.P.
But the list keeps getting longer, Bart.
And if this list is the “3%”, I’d sure like to see the 10,000+ names on the supposed “97%” list. Can you provide it?
Ouch!
Max
manacker | March 19, 2014 at 5:47 pm |
If your list includes all those who reject some of the “IPCC CAGW claims”, then it’d have to include the full IPCC authorship, as the focus of no IPCC report is Catastrophe.
There’s like a page and a half about catastrophe in any IPCC section, as a sort of ‘by the way’.
So if you’re saying ‘ouch’, it’s because you have a splinter.
Your list is, essentially, a lie.
Manacker,
Thank you very much. You’ ve done a lot of work. Have you considered sending you list to one of the widely read websites. It would be great to have access to it on a web site somewhere so it is easy to refer people to it. It would create more discussion and more people might be inclined to admit their concerns about the CAGW advocacy orthodoxy’s statements.
I’ve copied your full list and the explanation. Thanks again.
“Which means there must be over 10,000 “qualified” individuals (the 97%), who completely support the IPCC CAGW premise. ”
What makes someone “qualified” to be in your list? Just because you are a geologist or meteorologist doesn’t necessarily make you qualified to asses the conclusions of the IPCC. And I am willing to bet there are many more than 10,000 qualified individuals throughout the world that could potentially “qualify” for your list. So before you can say the 97% number “is a pure fabrication” you would have to know what the others thought.
‘Environmental scientist and flood hydrologist Robert Ellison, an expert on environmental risk assessment, the movement of pollutants through soils, water, and the atmosphere, and hydrology and hydraulics, noted the impact of natural climate factors on warming temperatures. “We have moved into a cool (referring to sea surface temperatures) La Niña Phase of the Pacific Decadal Variation – this should lead to lower global surface temperatures over a couple of decades. The lack of increase in average surface temperature over a decade certainly suggests that there is some other process in play – it is fitting the pattern of ENSO variation,” Ellison wrote to EPW on December 17, 2007. “Superimposed on the alternation of La Niña and El Niño are longer- term variations in the frequency and intensity of El Niño and La Niña. A period of more frequent and intense La Niña between the mid forties and 1975 was followed by more frequent and intense El Niño between 1976 and 1998. The pattern appears in centuries of proxy data – that is in tree and coral rings, sedimentation and rainfall and flood records,” Ellison wrote on November 28, 2007 in a commentary titled “ENSO Variation and Global Warming.” “Global surface temperatures have a similar trajectory. Falling from 1946 to 1975, rising between 1976 and 1998 and declining since,” Ellison explained. “It is difficult to explain how ENSO variations have been neglected by so many for so long. ENSO involves 97% of greenhouse gases. The surface temperature impacts are significant. Note the 0.25 0C difference between 1998 and 2000. ENSO variation goes in both directions. The indications are that ENSO variation added to global surface temperatures between 1976 and 1998. It has been almost 10 years since temperatures peaked in1998. The planet may continue to be cooler over the next few decades as a cool La Niña phase of the Pacific Decadal Variation emerges,” he concluded.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Eli obviously didn’t have the full list. Obviously he’s still a dollar short and a day late.
Thanks to Bob, above, for giving a demonstration of how vapid Max’s ‘list’ is – how many more such ‘climate experts’ are there? – Lots.
“You will note that our hostess’ name is not on the list, although she has openly stated that she is not in agreement with the IPCC premise on attribution of “most” of post 1950 warming to AGW due to the great uncertainties involved.” – Max
For good reason.
She does agree with ‘most’, but quibbles over what ‘most’ means.
Judith has said she accepts 50% +/- a bit.
So 51%, 52% are Ok, but seemingly 55% is not.
Really don’t like being called Bob at the best of times – with Michael it seems just another way to trivialize. As far as I can see – that is all he ever does with anyone who doesn’t share his vapid beliefs.
But me being right – and being well ahead of the curve – is probably what irks him most.
One should ALWAYS consider the opposite of what BobbIE claims is correct. It works because he promotes a defeatist attitude while the only way to make progress is to stay positive and keep grinding away.
Webby joins in with an eccentric observation that being right is being defeatist.
The particular prognostication was made on 2007 – and is going strong. How it must irk him – and it is not getting any better for them because they are ludicrously wrong.
Robert,
Apologies, thought I recalled, perhaps incorrectly, that one of your sock-puppets was Bob , so thought it was OK.
And I have to ask re: your middle name – were your parents hippies?
I always thought of myself more as a yippie – that’s a hippy with a sense of humour – and usually an acquaintance with the visionary poets from Blake to Ginsberg, the modern classic influenced Frank Zappa and the Furry Freak Bros. There was a sense of a distinct personal style and a bohemian chic. We were generally in it for the naked hippy chicks.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yippie
I gave away my middle name? I almost never do that . Idris is just so Welsh.
The “3% list” started with a list by Eli Rabett of what he called the “Denialist Society 400” or the complete “Nutters List”.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/12/makin-list-checkin-it-twice-here-is.html
There were several comments to his post, stating that some of those on the list were not “qualified” to have an opinion. I have removed these individuals.
Then I have added “qualified” individuals who have stated publicly that they did not agree with some part of the “consensus” hypothesis specifically outlined by IPCC in its AR4 report, which has become known as “CAGW” (although IPCC shies away from using the “C” word).
The list now includes 335 names and is growing slowly, as new scientists speak out and are added.
I have not seen a similar list of “qualified” individuals who totally support the IPCC “consensus” position (known as “CAGW”).
If these really constitute a 97% majority, this list should have over 10,000 names on it.
Wow!
Max
PS (I don’t believe such a list exists, IOW the “97% claim” is rubbish.)
Uh, uh, oh,
everybody now,
I heard it on the radio,
uh, uh, oh,
everybody know.
So much better when
its on – the – record –
not so easy ter distort
it or toss it
down the memory
whole.
Thx Max, a fellow serf.
97% fffffttt!
Joseph,
By definition, a climatologist is a person who can calculate averages of weather events. No more, no less.
If you believe otherwise, you have faith. Possibly misplaced, but people have a habit of slavishly following false prophets. Alternatively, delusional psychosis explains the passion of the afflicted to persist in their bizarre beliefs.
I am unable to understand the ability of otherwise rational people to completely ignore the simple fact that one cannot derive an average from numbers that do not yet exist. Good luck with justifying belief in the impossible.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I’d sure like to see the 10,000+ names on the supposed “97%” list. Can you provide it?
Sure. Go to IPCC AR#, go to list of sources, read the names of the authors. Search for other climate papers containing the same authors, and add any authors not on the original list. Repeat.
Along the way, if you want to become an interesting person, instead of just using fallacies like argumentum ad populam and ad hominem, you could actually read the contents of those reports and papers with understanding, and correspond with the authors where you have trouble grasping their work, which I am certain would lead to a very large set of exchanges.
You’ll be well past 10,000 names in no time. Some of them on your list of people who disagree with the other 10,000. Amazing how you manage to turn agreement into something disagreeable.
Bart R | March 20, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
I’d sure like to see the 10,000+ names on the supposed “97%” list. Can you provide it?
Sure. Go to IPCC AR#, go to list of sources, read the names of the authors.
————————
Approximately 800 names on AR5 list of “contributors” which, of course, doesn’t mean they agree. But let’s say they do Bart… only 9,200 to go! Good luck finding them!
k scott denison | March 20, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
READ HARDER.
~800 is the list of contributors, who _read_ and knitted the sources together that formed that particular report in that reporting round.
The list of sources far exceeds the number of contributors, and the list of authors in those sources and their bibliographic references lead to still more tens of thousands of names.
Expecting all the authors to all agree in every detail all the time is precious and impossible perfection to demand, a form of fallacy.
Get over your preoccupation with naming names; didn’t do Joel McCarthy any good, either.
What it takes to be a qualified Climate expert:
http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/factsheets/FS_ipcc_assess.pdf
Detailed steps:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf ANNEX 2, PAGE 17:
PROCEDURE ON THE USE OF LITERATURE IN IPCC REPORTS
This annex is provided to ensure that the IPCC process for the use of literature is open and transparent. In the assessment process, emphasis is to be placed on the assurance of the quality of all cited literature. Priority should be given to peer-reviewed scientific, technical and socio-economic literature if available.
It is recognized that other sources provide crucial information for IPCC Reports. These sources may include reports from governments, industry, and research institutions, international and other organizations, or conference proceedings. Use of this literature brings with it an extra responsibility for the author teams to ensure the quality and validity of cited sources and information. In general, newspapers and magazines are not valid sources of scientific information. Blogs, social networking sites, and broadcast media are not acceptable sources of information for IPCC Reports. Personal communications of scientific results are also not acceptable sources.
..
The author team is required to critically assess information they would like to include from any source. Each chapter team should review the quality and validity of each source before incorporating information into an IPCC Report. Authors who wish to include information that is not publicly or commercially available are required to send the full reference and a copy, preferably electronically, to the relevant Technical Support Unit.
Not someone who’s followed those simple steps to contribute to the worldwide consensus of climate knowledge?
Failure to meet such minimal standards of literature worth considering (accepted by the IPCC or not) doesn’t impress me much about your claims to expertise.
Because then I can’t trust that your expertise is subject to ANNEX 3 from page 19 to the end of the document, IPCC Protocol for Addressing Errors in IPCC Assessment Reports, Synthesis Reports, Special Reports or Methodology Reports
manacker | March 19, 2014 at 3:24 pm |
3. Alexandre Aguiar Meteorologist of Brazil’s MetSul Weather Center
Peer-reviewed publications: none found.
Qualifications: Television weather forecaster.
Arguments:
http://www.metsul.com/secoes/visualiza.php?cod_subsecao=33&cod_texto=947
“The largest ocean in Earth is much colder than average and global climate starts to feel the impacts of a moderate La Niña event that may reach the strong threshold.
NOAA’s Multivariate ENSO Index for September reached its lowest value for that month of the year since 1988. It was the second largest one-month drop on record for this time of year. The -1.1 value was last seen in late 1999 and early 1989. According to the RSS MSU satellite data, September 2007 was the 7th coldest month among 81 months since January 2001. It has made it to the 9% of the coolest months of the 21st century so far, ICECAP reported. The Southern hemisphere was 0.015 Celsius degrees cooler than the long-term average, fifth coldest month since January 2001. Brazil’s MetSul Weather Center chief-meteorologist says this is clear evidence that Joe D’Aleo and other scientists claim that the higher frequency of El Niño events promoted global warming and not the contrary is correct. “Al Gore declared ten years ago that El Niño episodes were a consequence of global warming while historic data prior and after that claim shows El Niño is in fact a cause to warming since the Great Pacific Shift in the 70’s”, said meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart. MetSul Meteorologia expert also stated there is no coincidence that this La Niña of 2007 is taking place right during the 11-year solar minimum cycle. “Major La Niña events were recorded around the solar minima in the last decades”, said Eugenio Hackbart.”
Which amounts to “we’ve had some cold years, therefore there is no AGW,” plus, “there’s some coincidence of the solar minimum and some La Niña events, so there is no AGW”.
However, we see from http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:59/mean:61/from:1970/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:12/normalise/from:1970 that the premises of this argument are fallacies. There’s nothing more special in the drops claimed after 2001 than the drops after 1990, or 1980, or 1970, other than that they are drops relative to much higher global temperatures given that each ‘drop’ is pretty much higher than the maximum of the trend even a mere decade earlier.
This is not an argument demonstrating greater climate expertise than a television sportscast or television celebrity report.
4. Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia Geologist at Punjab University
Peer reviewed publications: 19, all in the geology subfield of stratigraphy
Qualifications: Petroleum geologist; PhD (1981) Geology, and a long list of distinctions including television presenter and member of a UN committee, as well as http://www.spsti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Dr.-A-D-Ahluwalia.pdf
Argument:
Letter to the Editor, India Tribune
Global warming, wrongly attributed in an exaggerated manner entirely to man, is, in fact, largely natural. All the hype and projections about it makes most geologists wonder if the climate change has been hijacked from scientists by politicians, and some scientists in the IPCC have been bending backwards to conform to the politicians and gain grants and favours from the UN and various governments.
The earth has witnessed prolonged ice ages with much longer spells of global warming since the first ice age. The only issue to ponder over is if man during last 50 years of fast industrialisation has accelerated the natural process of global warming. The last word on this question as a simplistic cause and effect relation cannot be said with any certainty. The sun-earth system and atmosphere ocean system is too complex to make such generalisations.
Our biosphere may have a huge capacity to absorb the carbon dioxide generated. I was amazed to learn that climate was a political issue in the meeting. It is indeed a pity that in their haste to fleece the poor nations the Al Gores and the Obamas are twisting climate science to suit their political and economic agendas.
Let us restore our balance and sense of proportion in matters of global warming and environmental pollution. Over 1,000 eminent scientists across the world are debating if we are entering a mini-ice age and if global warming is waning. At times one suspects that the huge money involved in all other pollutions of soil, water, air and consequently our food chain makes the powers-that-be and their brokers all around create a hype around global warming and divert attention from real man-made pollution of the environment.
Indeed, we need to promote walking, cycling, better public transport and safety of pedestrians and cyclists. Look around if any of these do-gooders is bothered about it. None at all! They travel in chartered flights to preach car pooling! If there were a Nobel Prize for hypocrisy there would be tough competition for it. If anything, they are all in a mad race to promote the use of more cars, chemical fertilizers, pesticides and GM food, and to discourage organic farming systematically.
We do plant trees but never care to look back at the saplings after the ritual. It is time to call the bluff of the politicians-turned-pseudo-environmentalists and recreate respect for water, soil, air in the spirit of our gurus and Vedas and see the truth of climate change as well as environmental pollution.
Prof ARUN DEEP AHLUWALIA, Emeritus Geologist-Environmentalist, Planet Earth Centre, Chandigarh
PU Environment Outreach Incharge; Professor of Geology & Research Scientist
PURSE Project & Ex-CHAIRMAN & HEAD,Geology Dept; Director, Centre of Advanced Studies in Geology; Co-ordinator SAP; Panjab University, Chandigarh,India; (PDF)
EMERITUS GEOLOGIST-ENVIRONMENTALIST, PLANET EARTH CENTRE, Govt Museum Natural History & B.S.M & Centre of Performing and Visual Arts, Chandigarh,India
Member US National Committee & Ex Visiting Scholar, Geology Dept, University of Cincinnati,OHIO,USA
OUTREACH PROGRAM COMMITTEE(OPC), International Year of Planet Earth EARTHSCIENCES OUTREACH VOLUNTEER OF INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF PLANET EARTH OF UNESCO
“Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” – Socrates (470–399 BC)
In other words, he thinks AGW small compared to the scale of an ice age or all other pollution combined, and doesn’t like rich Americans, but thinks we should protect the environment from all those other pollutants anyway by every means possible (which would also decrease CO2e emissions).
Some sensible opinions. Kind of foot-shooting to enlist an environmentalist, as every action Dr. Ahluwalia commends (right up “To err on the side of caution let us presume man may be contributing a minor fraction towards warming of the earth.“) is pretty much the same as someone would recommend who supported the IPCC’s conclusions, except only for supporting the IPCC.
“97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.”
It is a fairly tame statement, even agreed to by a lot who would call themselves skeptics. Easy to see how 97% would agree to this because it mentions no magnitudes or dominance, just presence. The other 3% presumably would assert that human-cause climate change is not happening at all.
Jim D
That “97%” support the CAGW premise, as outlined in detail by IPCC in AR4 and AR5, is a flat out lie (see my post above).
Don’t fall for it, or you will look silly.
That “97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening” (as you put it) is another point. Almost everyone believes that, at some local or regional level, humans have changed our climate (even I would agree to that).
But that does not mean at all that they would support the IPCC CAGW premise as realistic.
And that’s the point here, Jim, not whether or not they have concluded that humans have in some way changed our climate.
Max
“The AAAS is the American Association for the Advancement of Science – the world’s largest non-government general science membership organization….”
And just how many of the panel members from this “non-governmental” organization receive most, if not all, of their funding from government? Looking at the report, all but one are at major universities. I wonder how many avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest by declining all government funding?
Let’s rephrase the lede:
“97% of scientists whose income, status and power depend on government funding, agree that James Hansen’s and the Democrat Party’s agenda of government controlled decarbonization of the economy is ‘correct.'”
Forgive me while I yawn.
Just a little more Chicken Little squawking added to the relentless but hopeless din of appeals to authority. The result of more hysterical expressions of 97% alarmist consensus will be that exactly no significant CO2 mitigation will take place during the lifetimes of jimmy dee, gatesy and birds of a similar feather. The pause is killing the cause.
The political leadership of the AAAS sold out to the politically correct consensus position without really worrying too much about the science..
Yawn.
97% is the mark of the Climate Cretin
Easier to spout some number that confirms one’s preconceived ideas than to engage in that painful activity known as thinking.
Hey, seeing as none of the other numbers are working for them, 97% is all they got.
“But decades of human-generated greenhouse gases are now the major force driving the direction of climate change, currently overwhelming the effects of [natural variability].”
Apparently, nobody told them about the pause.
If ACO2 is currently overwhelming natural variability, why are the models diverging ever more from reality? Even the IPCC admits that, despite their creative graphology in the revised AR5.
They seem to have lied about the sources of their 97% figure, which is extremely disappointing. I don’t count myself as a skeptic, but they need to get it through their heads that when they assemble these reports, they need to be COMPLETELY RELIABLE. Given the pause especially, there isn’t any slack for them to be lying to the public. Here is what they said, in full:
“Based on well established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging
stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field.”
I knew about Cook et al, and the controversy about their 97% figure. The arguments against the figure are quite strong, so I’m surprised the AAAS ignored the issue. But, they’re claiming more — that this 97% is derived from a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades. I looked up their sources.
One is Oreskes (2004). The figure given in that study is 75%. Like Cook, it looks at published literature, the abstracts. (Note that this figure includes papers classified as evaluating impacts, and mitigation proposals. It’s unclear if those papers were endorsements of significant AGW effects.)
Cook et al is one of their sources. Another source is Doran (2009). The figure there is 82% answering yes to whether “human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.” This was a survey of over 10,000 earth scientists, of whom only 30.7% responded. (Is there any research on whether there’s any selection bias in the response rates?) I’m not sure why they asked about change in temps instead of increase — maybe it doesn’t matter.
Doran also looked at a narrower slice — climate scientists who have “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change”. That’s kind of odd. I’m not sure what to make of it. Is there selection bias in people who publish most of their “recent” works on climate change? There, Doran gets a 97.4% consensus. (75 out of 77 respondents — how many climate scientists are there? Does anyone know?)
So they have 75%, 97%, 82%, and 97.4%, and they tell the public that 97% agree with a too-broad statement about climate change (lots of skeptics and lukewarmers agree with AGW — the issue is the size of the effect and the confidence we can have about different forcings and future probabilities, which is completely obscured by their approach.) Now, I can see giving more weight to more recent studies, so weakening that 75% figure a bit. I’m inclined to count the 82% figure, given the odd filter for the 97.4% figure. I think the Cook figure has huge problems, and I suspect the Doran figures have similar problems given the similar method.
Any averaging, even a favorably weighted one, will produce a figure well below 97%, so their claim cannot stand. I think some of these figures aren’t valid anyway, so their claim looks even worse. And their invocation of public statements by organizations, which they list as evidence for their 97% consensus claim, is completely irrelevant. Statements by organizations do not offer any quantifiable value that can folded in here.
Notably, on their website, they don’t say “about 97%” as I quoted above. That’s from their PDF. The ribbon at the top of their website says “more than 97% of climate experts”. Pick cherries much? This is bad. I feel like someone is trying to sell me a car.
Phronesis
It is clear that whoever wrote the AAAS “more than 97%” statement was simply lying.
That the AAAS was silly enough to endorse it without first vetting it is shameful and downright stupid.
[Brings to mind the eager endorsement with centerfold prominence of the subsequently discredited hockey stick by IPCC in its TAR report, without first doing the necessary due diligence to ensure its scientific validity.]
Such silly errors come back to discredit you.
Max
I’ve always found it amazing how they can’t get numbers as simple as this correctly. If they struggle at arithmatic, we are supposed to find them credible when higher level math is involved?
Let’s be clear that energy innovation is central to the classic liberal agenda and always has been. The primacy of economic growth has always been to the fore. Over the next few decades the population will increase by some 2 billion and the water, food, and energy need will rise by 50%, 70%, and 100%, respectively. So not merely is there a need to maintain supplies but an absolute need to lower costs and increase supply. The problem was never objections to technological innovation but to the additional costs imposed with the object of pricing carbon based energy sources out of existence.
To an extent price increases are a deliberate strategy based on both broader philosophies of limits and the Jevon’s Paradox in relation to energy and resources. There is a deliberate and conscious strategy to reduce – and even reverse – economic growth in the west. The problems with this are obvious to classic liberals who have realistic notions of what this would mean for interconnected global economies.
That they are hilariously wrong about the causes of recent warming – how long ‘hiatus’ is going to last – and the centennial trajectory of climate is icing on the cake and seems par for the course for progressive bozos and charlatans.
The sting in the fat tail remains abrupt climate change with finite possibilities of anything from mild to wild climate shifts several times this century. Mostly quite natural – but who really knows.
Good essay here on this..
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/michael-shellenberger-and-ted-nordhaus/the-great-progressive-reversal
Fat tails are a ridiculous arguement. Advocates have no concept of risk and uncertainty. Many bias’s creep in there. We have a tendancy to see any potential bad as plausible (the vast majority can easily be ruled out) and ignore all good, and ignore the fact that these risks exist regardless of whether we warm the surface or not and we cannot know which direction we will affect them. We are at least as likely to prevent catastrophes as we are to cause them (probably more likely).
It is a movie allusion Judith. Dirty Harry? I am sure the cultural reference is widely recognized.
At any rate – fat tails was used ironically and ignorance of consequences is not all that rational an argument. It may well be positive? It may well not be.
97% of Climate Scientists turned a blind eye to wrong doing as revealed by the controlled release of emails from the University of East Anglia
My 50 or so years of experience tell me that “generally exaggerated” applies to about 97% of everything that is reported in the news.
I also suspect that this value has been fairly constant over the last 8000 years or so.
Fat tail risk has always been the province of panic mongers.
The odds of something happening are small, but if it does happen the impact will be big.
Yellowstone IS going to blow at some point. Every living thing in the Western US will die as a result.
Why has the US/World Government not started resettling everyone that lies west of the Mississippi River now?
I know…I know…there is no research money available for the certainty that Yellowstone at some point will wipe out the Western US. The only research money available for panic mongers is when ‘uncertainty’ is a possibility.
+100
Just remind the Democrats supporting the fat-tail idiocy that it’s the same line of thinking that brought us the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
If they believe in CAGW they should all support Dick Cheney.
Harry Turtledove has a series of SF books on this. Maybe the alarmists should hire him as their publicist.
Several climate shifts are virtually certain this certury – with unknowable consequences from mild to wild.
What – Can -We – “Know?” The divine Socrates says
‘I only know’ that I ‘Know’ nothing. In science, only
uncertainty and provisional holding of theories makes
sense… Hume, Einstein, Feynman, Karl Popper, Nassim
Taleb, Judith Curry recognize that uncertainty prevails,
black swan events, in the fuchure, as – in – the – past.
Talking of Mr Taleb, his Twitter person is profoundly unpleasant – I presume there could be a lot to be said about that, concerning people who spend too much time among the most peculiar kind of swans.
97% could mean a lot of other things. Perhaps John Cook is only 97% convinced of AGW. This means that 3% of him is allowed to roam free sceptically [in both senses].
This means that there is a 3% chance of his conscious taking him over while he is asleep and when he wakes up he will convert to a denialist.
Hope springs eternal but if he did rationally I am afraid I would have to go to the other side.
Jim C Arctic sea ice extent peaking now? well past 10/3/2014 [Australian]. wish it would go up another week
“I am trying to understand the point of this document.” – JC
Well, they try to help by saying;
“We believe that our responsibility as scientists is to ensure, to the best of our ability, that people fully understand the climate realities and risks we face.”
A more interesting question might be ‘what is the point of Judith’s post’?
Another pointless exercise in simplistic false-balance? Yes, here is a report by a bunch of scientist with a vast research bacground on the topic and OTOH, a couple of guys with faily slim climate research credentials, but who are very strong on the political advocacy side.
Waaaaa. Waaaaaaaaaaa.
”
A more interesting question might be ‘what is the point of Judith’s post’?
”
Not really.
Red meat from Michaels and Knappenberger thrown to her denizens by a ‘science communicator’ who supports the GWPF and who never heard of Neil deGrasse Tyson until this week?
The post is slightly interesting only because it does not include several paragraphs of steamy, opinionated, pseudo-skeptical rhetoric from Monckton.
97% of the public doesn’t understand how ‘real experts’ have captured the narrative. But they will, they will.
=======================
So to counter the perception that they are exaggerating they exaggerate even more. Not very bright of them. Then they declare themselves experts despite not knowing why the unexpected hiatus in warming occurred and never having predicted anything correctly.
But what on Earth is to be gained by anyone with this ridiculous overhype? As far as the US is concerned they are actually reducing CO2 already – simply by performing business as usual.
For point 1 you could substitute 90% of expert economists agree (circa 1995) there is no danger whatsoever of global financial collapse. Hubris just leads to bad policy.
The most recent news to come out of the Gallup poll,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx
confirms that this latest propaganda exercise is a waste of time. Gallup says “Even as more Americans say they’re informed, blame on humans hasn’t grown”.
Over the last 10 years, the number of people saying they understand global warming well has doubled, while the number attributing it to natural rather than human causes has increased slightly.
“Instead, we present key messages for every American about climate change:”
4. The most recent temperature data shows that we may have passed a local maximum and have some time now to consider our position more carefully.
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters-1979-on.png
“The real experts on this subject agree in a way that the public do not understand.”
More arrogance! Not enough arrogance!
Who knew “agreeing” was such a complex term. Seems there’s regular agreeing, and super duper, highly expert agreeing.
pokerguy,
You don’t understand. Real experts possess the secret hidden knowledge, recorded in the Book of Warm. Of course, no member of the Public can understand the secret Rites of Warm Agreement. The Subject is so Secret that nobody is allowed to know what it is.
Bow down! Worship! We will do your understanding and agreeing for you!
Just keep sending money.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I’m surprised Pielke Jr. made an analogy between CO2 and CFCs. For the time being, production of CO2 is necessary for humans to thrive. Production of CFCs was not. Big difference.
People used to die before CFC’s were introduced in refrigerators; from food poisoning and refrigerant leaks.
Roy W Spencer,
Are you certain that “Production of CFCs was not” necessary for humans to thrive? I wonder where Medicine would be without refrigeration? Certainly the Internet would not run without massive refrigerative cooling of Data Centres.
Surely Pielke Jr’s point, as I understand it, is that new technology is the key to replacing fossil fuel based technologies (as surely we must, eventually).
To that end, wouldn’t it be sensible to support a massive increase in global investment in R&D. Roger Pielke Snr referenced yesterday his views on energy storage for example. Professor Brian Cox et al are big advocators of Fusion.
Shoud we not, rather, use the World’s excess capital now, when we have it, rather than hope for the best in the future. Surely as cheap energy disappears, so does the excess capital?
Just an opinion.
There is no such thing as World excess capital. People have and are capital and the world does not owe it so the world cannot use it.
“Somehow in its haste to scare us, the AAAS seems to have missed (or ignored) the two hottest topics in climate change these days—1) that climate models have done remarkably poorly in replicating the evolution of global temperature during the past several decades , and 2) that high end climate change scenarios from the models are largely unsupported by observations.”
Every year that passes confirms the accuracy of the above statement.Climate models have failed to explain the on/off nature of climate change. They have assumed a continuous dynamic system when such an assumption is unjustified. They have ignored the possible om/off modes due to the many vibration modes of the CO2 molecule How else can the CO2 molecule absorb or not absorb heat energy? See my theoretical model underlined above.
Such an august body as the AAAS, and this is all we get? I would have expected a little more sophistication and a little science for starters. And all we get is this? The public is way ahead of them on the issue, not behind. If they want to impress, then bring something impressive to the party, not just the tedious and worn out cliches that no longer have credibility.
One can hardly take seriously an organization that cites a scientifically worthless (or 2 if they were referring to the Cook charade) number. The disconnect between the alarmists and reality is staggering.
Will one of those really important science organisations or at least the ones who think they are important and whose principals claim to represent the whole gamut of science and scientists of every discipline please tell me;
1/ What is the ideal temperature of the planet that we should doing everything possible to achieve.?
2 / As it appears that the major science organisations fear a catastrophic global warming, how much colder should be the global temperatures we should be trying to achieve ?
3 / What are the ideal atmospheric CO2 levels?
4 / What is the ideal sea level?
5 / What is the ideal amount of Arctic ice?
6 / What is the the ideal amount of Antarctic ice?
7 / What proven methods that are within in our technological capabilities should we use to achieve those ideals of temperature and CO2, global sea levels and Arctic / Antarctic ice amounts?
8 / What are the plans and the proven technologies that can be used to both achieve and stabilise and sustain the temperatures, CO2 levels, sea levels and ice amounts as outlined by the science organisations in the answers to questions 1, 2 , 3 , 4, 5 and 6.
9 / Who and what will take full responsibility if the unforeseen consequences of any actions taken to reduce global temperatures and global CO2 as dictated by the science organisations and their principals creates a drastic and / or deadly back lash leading the the destruction of untold numbers of human lives and immense amounts of property
10 / What will be the back up positions or what should we do if after doing everything according to the dictates of the global warming alarmist industry and the major science organisations such as the AAAS to reduce global temperatures and CO2 levels there are no detectable results or outcomes in either or both the global temperatures and / or the atmospheric CO2 levels for all the sacrifices imposed on the populace to achieve the goals of the science organisations ?
11 / Will the principals of those major science organisations take full total and personal responsibility and be prepared to suffer the undoubted consequences for any major reduction in the living standards for global citizens as a direct result of the effect of their proposed solutions to the supposed catastrophic climate situation that they claim to able to foresee?
Particularly if there are no effects arising from their proposed solutions to the problems they claim are a threat to our’s and the planet’s existence .
12 / Will the principals of the major science organisations who are demanding this action on the climate take the full and total personal responsibility and be prepared to personally suffer the no doubt drastic consequences for the deaths of millions if their solutions to the so far unobserved catastrophic warming of the planet entails the deliberately caused deaths of many millions in the attempts to apply the solutions proposed by those same advocating science organisations and their principals ?
________________
For the first time in history it is those who are very loudly lamenting that the “end is nigh” who are supposedly the “sane” ones.
Those who say “no it is not” are supposedly the nutters.
NZ Climate Science Coalition
The AAAS is just another left wing pressure group. Those of that persuasion (liberals) will cheer. The rest of us will snore.
Sad how these buffoons have and are destroying the creditability of all science.
Like many organizations, from AARP to the League of Women Voters, it appears the AAAS has been captured by liberal activists. I’m not sure what can be done about it. Most conservatives are out doing constructive things with their lives and don’t have time to protest or invade some organization in order to leverage it for political purposes.
This is an example of how the “climate change” meme is spread and used subliminally to scare people. It appears to offer proof that “climate change” is bad and is happening now. There isn’t one sliver of proof that anyone has been displaced due to CO2 emissions.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/14/week-in-review-16/#comment-494938
They can’t tell their AAAS from a hole in the ground.
===================
97% of ‘real scientists’ hold their noses and avert their eyes in horror at the site of climate science and its unholy marriage with narrative.
========================
‘site’, ‘cite’, ‘sight’, they all fit.
===============
‘The real experts on this subject agree in a way the public do not understand.’
Well, that’s a mouthful. Leaving aside the argument about ‘public does’ or ‘public do’, there’s a wealth of ridicule under the overburden of that sentence. First of all, give me liberty, or give me ‘real experts’. Secondly, if the public does not understand, give them more ‘communication’ of the likes of Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, David Appell, or Kevin Trenberth. ‘The public’ clearly hasn’t had enough of them.
Silly public.
========
Follow the leftwing money:…
A panel of 13 U.S. climate scientists, including oceanographers, ecologists and public health experts, worked with Climate Nexus, a communications nonprofit, to produce the succinct report and a website.
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-me-0319-climate-change-20140319,0,234455.story
ClimateNexus.org, who we are:…
We are a sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, with funding provided by a number of foundations and philanthropies.
http://climatenexus.org
So, the same money that was used to create this ‘science’ report was also used to fund other left-wing things such as the communist “Institute of Pacific Relations” and the UN (an $8 million dollar gift of land for the UN’s HQ).
Yeah, I trust this ‘science’ report…
LMFAO!
Clearly, ‘real expert’ money.
====================
Surveys of Warmers consistently show that 97% of them believe in Warming.
You can’t make it up.
Andrew
This report is a black hole of information. It’s a cartoon, frightening in its insidiousness. This is the stuff of enlightenment? Bah, it’s pure, unadulterated(99.44%) fear, guilt, and the imposition of a duty to obey ‘real experts’.
===========
“97 percent”
This is the beating heart of the alarmist position. Don’t think I’ve read an alarmist screed that does not mention it specifically, or at least refer to the supposed “overwhelming consensus..”
The case for mitigation is based on a risible lie. How to bell Cripwell’s cat? Expose the lie once and for all. If I had a few million bucks I’d go out and hire a respected polling firm, say Gallup, and have them design some sort of survey of credentialed scientists across the country, to get at their positions re catastrophic anthro warming.
I get very little support for this idea, and really don’t understand why.
It is the AAAS contribution to the current propaganda surge.
Yes, those are precisely the features of a propaganda campaign: Use logical fallacies and scare tactics to achieve strong agreement that “something” needs to be done. Terribly important to achieve the agreement before specifying the something.
As soon as they use the 97% they reject science at it’s very core. They are no longer scientists.
“Climate Science” is doing incredible harm to science’s credibility with the public because it is not science. It rejects science.
Feynman was very clear about this. You develop a model. You test the model against the data. If the model fails, you throw out the model because it is scientifically proven wrong. That is science. Therefor climate science is not science.
After reading the 28 page AAAS report, I have one conclusion: “It’s worse than we thought.”
The forecasted adverse impacts from Global Warming? No, the level of inanity and hyperbole in the report. With all that scientific firepower this is the best they could do. The more I follow this issue, the more cynical I become.
At least bring some new thoughts or new findings to the table.
Every time a report like this comes out, I think of that wonderful singer of jazz & pop music from the 50s and 60s, Peggy Lee, who had a hit song entitled “Is That All There Is.”
Is that all there is?
There is a fascinating Malthusian/”Walking Dead” impulse behind many of the warming studies and concepts. Basically, there are too many people breathing CO2 into the air, eating food and drinking water, driving to jobs, and we must put a stop to it or else.
I was reading a new study, partly funded by NASA -Goddard, that concludes civilization will collapse very soon unless we redistribute everything and or institute strict population controls.
The study came to this conclusion “using theoretical models to predict what will happen to the industrialised world over the course of the next century or so.”
You can read about the paper for yourself if you like.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasafunded-study-warns-of-collapse-of-civilisation-in-coming-decades-9195668.html
“The first is Reality — 97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.”
The mind boggles. I cannot understand how any small group of scientists could write such nonsense. Even more, I cannot understand how the scientific community can endorse this. I have read all the arguments. To oppose this nonsense means loss of funding, blighting of careers, etc. Our hostess has explained how her very small opposition has adversely affected her career, and how she has had to “fall on her dagger”. I know all this.
What is inexplicable to me is that no-one who matters is willing to shout in public, in words of one syllable, that this is sheer and utter scientific nonsense.
Jim Cripwell,
Has it ever occurred to you that there is a possibility that you do not understand the science as well as you assume? Of course not.
Could it be that you have spent so much time telling the rest of the denizens that your mind is boggled, that you haven’t actually understood the science as well as the people who actually DO climate science? Of course not.
Instead, you must conveniently assume that they are all (except, conveniently, Dr Curry and a few other blog-heroes!) incompetent or fraudulent. Psychological defense? Of course not.
And yet – all the climate science Galileos here cannot seem to find any hard evidence to falsify the science beyond rhetoric, innuendo, and cherry-picked short-term trendology.
That you ‘know’ Dr Curry as a victim of her own integrity is a sign that you have understood the aim of her popular narrative, but not her willingness to lend her credentials to pseudo-skeptical silliness.
Shouting out your incredulity in public is great fun and all – but it ain’t science.
Reverend, you write “Has it ever occurred to you that there is a possibility that you do not understand the science as well as you assume? Of course not.”
No, it has not. What I was taught in Physics 101 is that an idea in physics remains a hypothesis unless and until some form of actual empirical measured data shows that it is true. That is the fundamental concept of the scientific method. That is the principle on which all valid physics has been built, since the 17th century. That is behind The Royal Society choosing as it’s motto Nullius in Verba.
The fact that the AAAS states that the basis for claiming that CAGW is correct, is the OPINION of some arbitrary percentage of climate scientists, and NOT some actual measured, empirical data, is a fundamental violation of the scientific method. As such it is completely and utterly wrong, from a scientific point of view, to claim that there is scientific basis to try and mitigate the effects of something that has not come close to being proven to be true..
On that I will stake what little reputation I may have.
”
The fact that the AAAS states that the basis for claiming that CAGW is correct…
”
Fact? There is no occurrence of CAGW in the report.
Like so many other pseudo-skeptics, you make up a straw-man theory, proceed knock it down, and then claim that you are in a position to be an ‘honest broker’ between two sides of a false dichotomy.
You don’t get to define science. You just act like you do.
You are apparently more interested in defending your self-assessed scientific reputation than you are in the scientific truth.
”
On that I will stake what little reputation I may have.
”
Go for it. You have nothing to lose.
Reverend,
Just up the thread here: Phronesis | March 19, 2014 at 2:41 am | Reply
laid out why the 97% figure is bogus using their own cites. Can you please comment on that? I assume you do not agree with Phronesis? You do generally agree that the use of “97%” and “denier” memes is an example of science and integrity? Please spell it out for us holy one.
TVRJH pretends innocence at the implied catastrophe inherent in the urgency of the message. Ignorant or disingenuous? Always the same question, the same question.
===============
DayHay:
I don’t normally perform requests – and your request for me to quibble about the precise percentage of climate scientists who support the scientific consensus does not rate a serious response.
Do you really think that if the actual quantity is “only” 90 %, that it matters?
Do you honestly believe that the laws of thermodynamics give a toss about anything that gets posted on this blog?
It is not a quibble. The actual number is 75 of 77. Are you now contending that there are only 77 Climate scientists? or if it is 90%, that there are only about 83?
Doran is not scientific, nor useable for anything other than propaganda. That is not a quibble. That is a fact.
Whatever we can accumulate, it isn’t going to stop the end of the Holocene. Done well, the accumulation may ameliorate that catastrophe.
===================
Reverend, you write “Fact? There is no occurrence of CAGW in the report.”
That old, tired, excuse. Pedantically, you are correct. But the idea that increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause dire effects, because of rising temperatures, IS in the report. And CAGW is merely a convenient acronym to use to describe this idea.
kim | March 19, 2014 at 11:56 am |
”
TVRJH pretends innocence at the implied catastrophe inherent in the urgency of the message.
”
Not at all. Urgency does not imply catastrophe.
Why are you denizens always so alarmist?
Hah, hah, hah(that’s three of ’em, I measured). He knew or should have known it was an ‘old, tired, excuse’. Rev, you shoulda been a contenduh.
============
”
But the idea that increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause dire effects, because of rising temperatures, IS in the report.
”
You can refuse to accept that the net consequences of releasing hundreds of gigatonnes of GHGs will be negative. You have every right to your incorrect opinion.
Read the report. The scientific evidence is against you, whether you believe it or not.
Reverend, you write “The scientific evidence is against you,”
What I have pointed out, and you have given no evidence to refute my claims, is that there is NO science in the AAAS report. It is merely opinion, which is a violation of the scientific method. My accusation that the AAAS report does NOT follow the scientific method, you have, very conveniently, ignored.
You are clearly quite incapable of conducting any sort of scientific discussion. No wonder you use a convenient pseudonym, while I use my real name, and I am proud of what I write. You seem to be ashamed of your ideas. And no wonder since those ideas are not worth the powder to blow them to hell.
TVRJH-
Has it ever occurred to you that you don’t understand science-period. There will never be PROOF of a causitive relationship in the real world. Theory yes. Correlation sometimes, until there isn’t. Until you can control for all intervening variables, all you have is correlation, until you don’t. Run the models for 1,000 years and you will never have more than correlation. Infer from that to your heart’s content but it never changes it’s spots.
Some in climate science seem to have a reading impairment. When their eyes see “correlation”, their neuronal synaptic connections get all bungled up and their brain interprets it as “causation”. Remediative specialists are available.
nottawa rafter:
”
There will never be PROOF of a causitive relationship in the real world.
”
And I thought that proof only applied to mathematics and booze.
I bet no other person in entire history of science has EVER thought of that. Except maybe David Hume.
Try harder.
”
You seem to be ashamed of your ideas.
”
And you seem to be proud of your ignorance. That’s OK. You’re not alone.
Reverend, you write “And you seem to be proud of your ignorance. ”
It is interesting. You are in exactly the same position as the AAAS. All you have is an opinion. You think I am ignorant, but you have not produced one single jot of hard evidence that the science I have presented is wrong. Zero nada, zilch.
Where is my science wrong?
Jim Cripwell
Do not make the mistake of asking the “Reverend” to think rationally like a scientist.
He is a self-avowed “man of the cloth” and, hence, thinks in dogma.
“Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe…”
Max
“Where is my science wrong?” – Jim
Jim,
I’ve read this litle exchange, and i assume you meant to say “where is my science”?, because all I saw in your comments was opinion and rhetoric.
Michael, you write “I’ve read this little exchange, and i assume you meant to say “where is my science”?, because all I saw in your comments was opinion and rhetoric.”
How about critique of what I wrote above at
Jim Cripwell | March 19, 2014 at 11:31 am
Has the AAAS followed the scientific method?
What, your waffling about “the scientific method”?
There is no “the”, but many approaches and methods.
Inconventiently for you, we’ve measured CO2 levels, temperatures, sea-levels,and a bunch of other stuff that can’t be reconciled with your opinion on the matter.
Michael, you write “There is no “the”, but many approaches and methods.”
I don’t usually like Wikipedia for these sorts of things, but in this case, the message is absolutely clear. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
“many approaches and methods”
Creationism, for one.
Andrew
Jim Cripwell
Here’s how I see it, after reading your comments here and on other threads.
As a true rational skeptic, you insist on following the scientific method to falsify or corroborate scientific hypotheses with empirical evidence, from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation. This is the method described by Wiki and others and espoused by Feynman.
This standpoint causes a bit of annoyance with people like Steven Mosher, who place their confidence in models, which have been programmed based on theoretical principles of physics, laboratory determinations (for example of absorption characteristics) and assumptions regarding how these work out in real life in our climate. For Mosh a model estimate is the same thing as a physical measurement. But, despite his occasional annoying habit of talking down to his debate partner and his somewhat slippery nature, one can usually have a rational discussion with Mosh.
The trolls, like Michael and the “Reverend”, are the worst. They are not interested in debate, at all. They simply want to toss out their zippy one-liners. Once the discussion gets into the real subject matter, these guys disappear from the scene, because they really have nothing to offer.
It’s fun slapping them down from time to time, but engaging in a real debate with them is a total waste of time.
Just my observation, Jim.
Max
Max:
”
They are not interested in debate, at all. They simply want to toss out their zippy one-liners. Once the discussion gets into the real subject matter, these guys disappear from the scene, because they really have nothing to offer.
”
I cannot speak for Michael, but you are exactly correct that I am not interested in “debate”. I’m far more interested in facts. Debate is for people who think that opinions and rhetoric are science.
It is glaringly obvious to anyone who follows the scientific literature that 95% of the commenters here are in no position to sit in judgement of climate science. Most comments here are nothing more than a fascinating mixture of Dunning-Kruger and passive-aggressive psychological defense.
You denizens believe you’re onto something because Curry regularly tosses you innuendo that satisfies your deep craving to blame someone for scientific results that you don’t happen to like. It’s fun to watch you all jump onto the righteous-indignation bandwagon and sing your “I’m smarter than those ‘consensus scientists too!” song…
Ridicule is the only appropriate response to the ignorant twaddle that passes for “the real subject matter” here.
Just my observations, Max.
http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/keep-calm-and-eat-your-curry-4/
Michael, you write:
“…we’ve measured CO2 levels, temperatures, sea-levels,and a bunch of other stuff that can’t be reconciled with your opinion on the matter.”
If you were to follow the scientific method, you would realize that all of these measurements you cite can perfectly well be reconciled with Jim’s opinion. I suspect their are two reasons for your “reconciling” troubles:
– You are swayed by some of the logical fallacies put forward by Climate Science proponents (“97% of scientists agree that…”).
– You accept some of Climate Science’s unproven assumptions as facts.
Wow!
The “Reverend” enters the debate by emphasizing that he does not wish to enter the debate.
Thanks, Reverend, for sharing your observations.
You appear to have swallowed the IPCC CAGW meme hook, line and sinker, and chide those, like Jim Cripwell, who are rationally skeptical of this premise.
My observation, for what it’s worth, is that you are not the brightest light on this blog, but you make up for this with your attitude and repartee.
But, then again, that’s just my observation and others may disagree.
Max
I also presented this comment at WUWT
I recommend readers look at the minority AGU Statement I prepared and contrast that with the AAAS report’s statements in http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAAS-What-We-Know.pdf. My statement is
Pielke Sr., R.A. 2013: Humanity Has A Significant Effect on Climate – The AGU Community Has The Responsibility To Accurately Communicate The Current Understanding Of What is Certain And What Remains Uncertain [May 10 2013]. Minority Statement in response to AGU Position Statement on Climate Change entitled: “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action” released on 8/5/13. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/rpt-851.pdf
The AAAS report is even worse than the AGU and AMS Statements (and I thought that would be hard to do). I know several of the authors of the AAAC report, and respect their science within their immediate area of expertise. However, the blatant advocacy and absurd statements such as
“The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases.”
show that this report is just political theater.
There are no health benefits from smoking, only health risks. CO2 is required for life on Earth including plant growth and function.
Added CO2 is a significant climate forcing (both radiatively and geochemically, the latter of which I feel is of more concern), but to directly compare to the health risks of tobacco demeans the scientific stature of those who make such wild claims.
Another example (and there are many in this report) is
“decades of human-generated greenhouse gases are now the major force driving the direction of climate change, currently overwhelming the effects of these other factors.”
is counter to established research which shows, for example, the first order importance of other human climate forcings; e.g. see
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/r-354.pdf
and
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/
They also ignore the recent recognition of the heightened importance of natural climate forcings and feedbacks.
This AAAS report is an embarrassment to the scientific community.
“This AAAS report is an embarrassment to the scientific community.”
I’m not in the scientific community, and even I’m embarrassed.
”
This AAAS report is an embarrassment to the scientific community.
”
Oh dear.
Someone is Very Concerned for the integrity of science – again…
You speak for yourself, not the “scientific community”
What’s embarrassing is that “CO2 is required for life on Earth including plant growth and function” still passes as a scientific justification for anything.
“show that this report is just political theater.
There are no health benefits from smoking, only health risks. CO2 is required for life on Earth including plant growth and function.” – Roger
Shows that Roger should stick to what he knows.
There are some health benefits to smoking. It’s just that, over the long term, the risks far outweigh the benefits.
A bit like AGW.
Will Roger now retract his claim that the report is “political threatre”??
Curiously you seem to be correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_benefits_of_smoking
Vices appear to be your forte.
Dr Pielke Sr,
Thanks again for your efforts in the bias conflict. Your reputation and expertise are so important to nudge the science establishment back to objective analysis of the climate controversy.
Your links to past articles are useful and reqarding reading.
In one of your books you wrote of other human caused impacts to climate change. UHI impacts and removal of forests and vast grasslands and the replacement of them with monoculture agriculture.
Is there information you have developed since 2002 when the latest addition was published that may improve quantification of impacts to climate and temperature, positive and negative?
Scott
Michael
Of course he shouldn’t do so, just because of some snide blog comments by a few twerps like you and the self-appointed “Reverend”.
How silly.
Max
RP
Good comment. Thanks for posting it.
Max
“Of course he shouldn’t do so, just because of some snide blog comments by a few twerps like you” – manacker
Max,
That’s a new low for you – even David Springer can see that you’re wrong.
JC states – “I am trying to understand the point of this document”
Isn’t it obvious? It’s because this is bigger than climate change. Climate change is being used to achieve sustainable development and the eradication of poverty. It’s about the U.N. Millennium Development Goals, it’s about global justice, it’s about climate justice, it’s about fairness, it’s about equality, it’s about the rich developed nations paying for the development of the poor undeveloped nations…
Here’s Molina in his own words….”the reasons that justify this goal of securing a much needed renewed political commitment for sustainable development.”…..”it is truly a matter that is crucial for economic development throughout our planet, both for developed as well as for developing countries”…..”So, I want to use climate change as an example to elaborate to further justify the need for sustainable development”…..”postponing action and thus risking a temperature increase of four or more degrees could imply astronomical costs for future generations, threatening both our economic
systems and our governance systems, and making it truly difficult to eradicate poverty in the planet”…..”Our generation has the responsibility to address effectively the climate challenge as well as the other challenges I referred to at the beginning that are also related to sustainable development.”
http://centromariomolina.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/4.-Molina-Rio+20_May2012_fin.pdf
Here’s an ICSU report by James McCarthy about the “Environment And It’s Relation To Sustainable Development”:
http://www.icsu.org/publications/reports-and-reviews/priority-area-assessment-on-environment-and-its-relation-to-sustainable-development/ICSU_PAA_REPORT.pdf
Diana Wall co-chaired the Millennium Development Goals Committee of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment…
Wall is also the “founder and director of the School of Global Environmental Sustainability at CSU”…..”SoGES positions CSU to address the multiple challenges to global sustainability through broad-based research, curricula, and outreach initiatives in areas of food security, poverty, inequality, water management strategies and desertification, globalization, industrial ecology, sustainable engineering, population growth, and urbanization”
http://www.ncbr.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20131111/NEWS/131119991&template=printart
This is all very noble, however, none of it can be achieved without the cooperation and wealth of the rich developed nations….and the existence of climate change as the catalyst
Heh, the ‘rich, developed, nations’ have thrown away their excess capital on effervescent green bubbles, and we’re going to have to depend on the BRICs for further investment. Oh, wait, they’re busy nailing down every stray hydrocarbon on Earth.
The Western delusion gasps on, breathing the mad air of self-destruction.
=========
Except that the risk used isn’t plausible, hype breeds cynicism, mis-allocation or resources makes poverty worse, climate policy generally works against millenium development goals and makes us less able to adapt to changes.
@ Betula
“This is all very noble, however, none of it can be achieved without the cooperation and wealth of the rich developed nations….and the existence of climate change as the catalyst.”
And leave us not forget: The central precept of the ‘Sustainability Movement’ is that the maximum sustainable population is 1 +/- 0.5 billion. In other words, the sustaianilists maintain that human beings are currently around 6 billion in surplus.
If they are successful in drastically reducing or eliminating ACO2 in the name of Stopping Climate Change, sustainability will be achieved quickly.
Let’s review the main points of the AAAs
1. “Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now”-
Response- I agree that humans are impacting the climate
2. “We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts.”
Response-That is a pretty silly statement. There are always risks, but are they realistic? There is no reliable evidence that AGW is causing net negative changes to the climate. Might that happen? Yes.
3. The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost.
Response- Here is the point that I believe has very little rational support. You have do not know how long CO2 stays in the system or whether it will change the climate in a net negative or a net positive manner for humanity overall and certainly not for individual nations. There is no information that the vast majority of so called climate mitigation actions will do anything to make the climate better for our nation or the world overall.
The truth is that in the real and realistic world there is only so much money to spend. The truth is also that there are over 3 billion people worldwide who currently do not have access to electricity or personal transportation on a regular basis. The developing nations of the world WILL provide electricity to these people over the next several decades and the vast majority of the methods that they use to provide that electricity will release more CO2. So, given the indisputable fact that there are limited financial resources in the USA; doesn’t it make more sense to spend those limited funds on something that will actually accomplish something? The building and maintenance of robust infrastructure is the only known means to reduce the harms from adverse weather.
“We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts.”
And we are just as likely to be pushing away from such a change.
The triple A-S is not about science. It is about pushing insider politics for profit. Their faux rationales for ethanol has failed to help the environment in any way, has increased CO2, has increased the cost of food with harmful effects. But their Washington insider pals have made tons of money shoving the failed ethanol plan on us, at tax payer expense.
One can wonder why they took such an anti-science stance before, and it isclear they are taking an anti-science stance again on so-called climate policy.
“Mercenary” comes to mind when one ponders the shy’s of this sorry pattern.
.
“we face risks of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes”
For example, global warming has damaged the brains of all those who have worked on this report.
Western academia has become the Vladimir Putin of science. They believe if us folks only knew and were capable of understanding the climate change — as they do — we’d all be alarmed too but since we don’t get it, they’ll take it upon themselves to simply tell us what to think… for our own good.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but – I would think the AAAS would be the ideal organization to educate the public on the science involved with CAGW, rather than to just state their conclusions. For instance, where is the empirical evidence that supports the strong CO2/temperature link? Demonstration of this in a laboratory is one thing, finding it in the real world is quite something else. Also, “we don’t know what we don’t know” prevails in this scientific endeavour, the climate systems interract in very complicated ways – how do we know we have looked at all of the natural phenomena to such a degree as to be able to quantify their effects? Just one – the PDO – may have a greater effect on world-wide weather (and climate) than has been ascribed to it; has it been fully investigated so as to confirm the GACW crowd’s pushing it to the side, saying there is “nothing here to see”?
I am just an Engineer, and a member of the public. I want to know the truth. I have been asking since AR4, with little to show for it. Not one of the CAGW crowd has helped me uncover the science. Instead, they say: “go look for it yourself”. the little I have uncovered has led me to be even more skeptical and unconvinced.
It is odd to me that the main points of the CAGW have not changed since they started blaming CO2 for the global warming they have measured. It is also very odd to me that the world has been through a major recession since 2008, altering manufacturing in major ways, changing energy production and use, and yet – the atmospheric CO2 concentration has barely moved from its historic annual increase; a curiously stable rate of growth.
Two things:
1. Prove that H2O vapor is a strong positive feedback, not a neutral or negative one.
2. Prove a higher average global temperature is a net negative. It is likely to be a net positive.
Jeffery, you write “Not one of the CAGW crowd has helped me uncover the science.”
Of course. There isn’t any science to support CAGW.
“2. Prove a higher average global temperature is a net negative. ”
Well, warming trend for the satellite era is about 1.3K per century.
That’s 130,000K per million years.
The absurdity of that statement still applies even at a century.
If the next century tacks on another 1.3K, that’s something for future generations to decide is that’s tolerable or not.
Another 1.3K probably IS a net benefit, but it’s foolish to try and ‘predict’ farther than a few generations.
“The first is Reality — 97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.”
Oh no they don’t.
Pointless reading any further.
What is the AAAS apart from the people who produce Science Magazine?
To become a member you only need a credit card. To enroll your dog (as Mr. Watts did with the Union of Concerned Scientists) will cost you $310 per year.
Jim, if an inquisative reader, such as myself, continues to have doubts about the CAGW conclusions, why is the ‘general public’ still engaged with them? And the political leaders continue to give the CAGW theories so much credance that vast sums of public money continue to be spent in pursuit of the CAGW goals.
Here in America, the people either don’t care about the science, or assume that the CAGW scientists actually speak the ‘truth’ and should continue to be funded.
Very frustrating!
tekguyjeff you write “Jim, if an inquisative reader, such as myself, continues to have doubts about the CAGW conclusions, why is the ‘general public’ still engaged with them?im, if an inquisative reader, such as myself, continues to have doubts about the CAGW conclusions, why is the ‘general public’ still engaged with them?”
If I am the Jim you are referring to, then the answer is quite simple. For some reason that I do not understand. just about all the learned societies. led by The Royal Society, and The American Physical Society, have completely endorsed the myth of CAGW. The MSM print almost nothing but reports which say that CAGW is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread. No wonder John Q. Public believes in CGW
Heh, missed an early one. ‘Key messages’ found under the only lamp lit on their street.
========
Did they really find them? Or only claim they did?
Found ’em alright. See them brandishing them and dancing around with glee? Now see if they work.
============
I have been floundering around for a long time with niggling doubts about the whole next immanent ice age/global warming/climate change (yes I am that old I can recall the first one). I am scientist with a PhD but my training is only in genetics, statistics and epidemiology not climatology so I hesitate to judge outside my field, unlike many other scientists in many other diverse fields who have signed on to the global warming – err excuse me climate change, cause. I am sitting in a space where I can’t say I “believe” in global warming. First of all, I don’t think belief has any place in science and secondly, I have never felt skeptics deserve to be publicly flogged. I do, on principal, get very alarmed by anyone who seems to do science by consensus instead of being able to explain to me what they are doing. I like to think I am slightly more intelligent and numerate than the average J Q Public so it should be possible for me to at least get a fuzzy wuzzy understanding if the explanation is good. (This is not the case for this AAAS statement.) Unfortunately my fuzzy wuzzy understanding tends to have me leaning more with the skeptics although I have to admit some of their arguments are flawed as well, according got my fuzzy wuzzy understanding. I get very alarmed, in principal, whenever I hear portions of any eminent group saying scientists who disagree with them should be fired/jailed/have their grants cut off/be denied publication. I also get very alarmed and suspicious whenever I see a scientific position apparently aligned with a particular political movement and claiming all those who do not agree with their science are obviously disagreeing solely because they are aligned with another political and particularly evil movement on the opposite side. Since I am now retired, you can feel free to dismiss my niggling doubts by writing me off as senile. I wish I were getting big oil money, as I have been accused of when I have publicly expressed my doubts with the Great Consensus, but I haven’t gotten any more money out of Big Oil than I have out of the World Control Zionist Cabel. If my niggling doubts about the Great Truth of climate change are not due to senility, then perhaps I can be a stand in for poor stupid John Q Public who is obviously too impaired to be able to grasp anything but a American Association for the Advancement of Science statement of key points which, obviously, should be taken on nothing but 100% pure trust because they know so much more than we poor stupid public do. (And yes there is a lot of sarcasm in this post.)
With training in statistics, you are a welcome addition to a lot of these discussions, Natalie.
Some need help.
I was attracted to the debate by the ad homs against the skeptics. Reminded me of the body language I observed while asking too many probing questions long ago.
Natalie, you write “I have been floundering around for a long time with niggling doubts about the whole next immanent ice age/global warming/climate change (yes I am that old I can recall the first one). ”
Welcome to the mad house. Don’t denigrate your education. I hope you will continue to have niggling doubts, and you will continue to query the conventional wisdom that CAGW is real.
A couple of minor points. It helps the reader if you break your comments into separate paragraphs. I think I can claim to be older than you are. I am 88.
Given your long career as a scientist, I bet that you have never engaged in a conversation with a scientist who in some way appealed to a consensus in support of a point. I haven’t. Some philosophers, yes, but not philosophers of science.
If some scientist had offered such an appeal, I would have been simply flabbergasted.
The scientists I have known have been more prone to argue against the ideas of others, not condone them out of hand. The arguments, along with experiments/data/observations, comprise the crucible of science.
Having actually read the report now, I can’t say it’s as bad as it’s being made out to be. Although the original framers appear to have intended it to be a clarion call for mitigation (emissions reduction) by making energy much more expensive, it appears to have received some last-minute edits that (IMO) make it well suited for people like me who favor remediation (deliberate CO2 drawdown using new technology developed partly in response to the potential threat).
In the conclusion, III. CLIMATE RESPONSE (p. 19), we find the following:
These paragraphs (IMO) reflect the efforts of the original framers of this document: to encourage “a concerted effort to curtail the burning of fossil fuels” at the cost of major increases in energy prices. However, there are at least two points buried in the body of the report that contradict this summary, specifically the false claim that “the effects of any additional CO2 emissions will last for centuries”. On page 4 (my bold):
[…]
And on page 14 (my bold):
Anyone familiar with semantic analysis will note that what this sentence actually says is that the “fact” that “temperature change due to CO2 emissions is essentially irreversible for several hundred years” is “important to remember”. It doesn’t actually say that fact is true, although it implies it, which is good for them because it clearly isn’t, as demonstrated by their own immediate caveat: “by natural processes.“
Putting these two carefully buried points together, this whole document could be taken as a justification to preparing “a large- scale, cost-effective way to scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere” as the primary approach in dealing with the fossil carbon problem. Even a really massive societal investment in R&D leading to such technology would probably be orders of magnitude cheaper than “solutions” that substantially raise the price of energy, as well as probably paying for themselves in “spin-off technology” even if the core technology turns out not to have been needed. And with this approach we will have several decades more for science to improve and tell us whether the added pCO2 is really that much of a risk.
I really would like to have been a fly on the wall listening to the back-and-forth that went into preparing this document.
AK, thank you, a nice analysis. Your quote contains a favorite word “inescapable”, which APS spells “incontrovertible” and I have seen “indubitable” somewhere. That seems to establish a consensus of at least 97% in favor of “in-…” words. Clearly they have an almost identical taste, and probably an identical financing.
I just read this whole thing.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf
Where did the 97% come from or go to? It is not in here.
DR. LINDZEN said: Why did the cycle of glaciations begin about 700,000 years ago?
There is a simple answer to this question.
Continents drifted oceans currents changed, and put warm water in Polar Regions. The Polar Ice Cycles evolved and mutated and brought about this wonderful tight regulation of temperature.
I was extremely disappointed that the warm oceans causing more snowfall was not a part of this discussion. If you don’t get the snowfall and albedo right you will never get the models to work.
Ewing and Donn told of this, sixty years ago!
READ WHAT THEY WROTE!
97% came from a different statement.
HAP, I find your theory compelling for long term glacial flux.
But to me, the main question to consider about AGW is:
can the albedo feedback act on short enough time scale, and at level materially enough to contribute to current observations?
Sensitivity = Forcing x 1 / ( 1-feedback_constant )
OR
Sensitivity = Forcing x 1 / (1 – feedback( Time ) )
Time in {10 yrs, 10,000 yrs}
Scrolling through some of the typically disingenuous and fallacious comments from the usual alarmist suspects, it occurs to me yet again how grateful we should be to them for exposing the idiocy of many of the alarmist arguments. Day in and day out they provide the invaluable service of exposing the very fraud they so determinedly struggle to hide.
Could we have an alarmist appreciation day here at Climate etc?
Irony. It’s what’s for dinner.
For me the crux is here
“The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do.”
This is the attitude that has supported plowing huge amounts of dollars (sunk cost) into renewable schemes that are not ready for prime time.
It is not a scientific fact that the sooner we act the lower the risk and cost.
If you plow dollars into say ,solar, before it is ready, that is money which could have been used for research into better solar. When you demand action now, you end up plowing resources into bio fuels and shipping wood chips from the US to the UK. Money spent there was better spent on storage research, solar research, hell adaptation. In short, we have plenty of examples where acting sooner has increased the cost and risk.
Dollars into Solyndra? That company was a predictable FAILURE to anyone who has competed with China. Those dollars are gone. Dollars that could have been spent on resilience. Dollars that could have been spent on researching energy effieciency, better solar, cleaner fracking, safer nuclear, better storage, smarter grids, Co2 extraction from the air, bio engineered bio fuels, white roofs, green roofs, better water management.
so
‘”The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do.””
Wrong.
“The smarter we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do.”
The dialectic parallels waterfall vs. agile approaches to software development.
The (US) money could have been better spent evaluating new nuclear reactor designs, including small ones. That is a real energy source. Reliable, dependable, and safe.
The sooner we start acting smarter, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do without any significant downsides.
perhaps, Reny
beware applying software metaphors to a hardware problem.
The first phone I did the head guy was an agile software type.
When ES1 came off the line and was a brick, he noted that
“recompiling ” hardware was a different beast than recompiling software.
he noted that while one could re use, recompile, refactor bad code, that a bricked phone made a good paperweight and not much more.
Germany looks to have “bricked” their system
Hawaii is a good example of a “bricked” system
UK.. will be bricked
China, unless they handle to the pollution problem, will be a brick
California.. could brick itself– hard to say.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hawaiis-solar-grid-landscape-and-the-nessie-curve
Hurry up and do something! If we don’t, the concentration of a trace gas might increase by a few more percent! Such statements are a political hustle. “Climate urgency” is an oxymoron.
@Steven Mosher: don’t be a pessimist. California will be a brick. Getting there at a bullet train’s speed. Did you notice that hydro is NOT “renewable” in California?
Hurry up and do something! If we don’t, the concentration of a trace gas might increase by a few more percent!
Just wondering — do you know the concentration of the “trace gas” we call ozone? It’s 0.6 ppm of the atmosphere — about 600 times more of a “trace gas” than CO2.
And without it you’d be dead.
The dose makes the poison.
And without a bit of magnesium, you would be dead. Non sequitur.
is that the nickname of your blog? Non Sequitur?
Actually the ozone “without” which “you’d be dead” is in the stratosphere with a concentration of “two to eight parts per million”.
Ozone in the troposphere is pretty much bad all around.
Averaged over the atmosphere, ozone is 0.6 ppm.
Even where it is concentrated, it is less than 10 ppm. A few percent of CO2’s average concentration. And without it you’d be dead.
Seems “trace gases” can be quite important after all.
+100
Thinking in averages is a big part of the problem.
PS
That “+100” was for Mosh’s comment above
AK
“Thinking in averages”
In his Black Swan Nassim Taleb writes about the man who drowned crossing a river that was “on average” 3 feet deep.
Max
@David Appell: Do you still maintain that the hockey stick doesn’t go past about 1970-1980, due to the divergence problem?
RE: negative sensitivity
Sensitivty is: deltaC / deltaW( latitude, catch-all)
as the Milkanovitch establishes that DeltaW (60N insolation, Sept 1 ) is more important than TSI_W.
Over all forcing inputs vectors, Sensitivty could vary, even change signs.
AK, sounds like you have bought into the CO2/Temperature meme. It has not been shown to me that temperature increases are caused by the increased CO2. So, reducing the CO2 won’t help. As Trenberth stated: “Where has the heat gone?” Any increase in the cost of energy due to following this meme is a great harm to humanity, especially the poor among us.
I’m with Mosher, put my tax dollars into better R&D. When we get a cost reducing solution, implement it. Keep searching for the temperature “thermostat” – let me know when you’ve found it.
So am I. And we don’t really need “my tax dollars”, IMO. Subsidies come in many forms, including tweaking the IP laws. And I’ve also suggested allowing large businesses to allocate some fraction of their tax payments to R&D of their own choice, within legislated limits. In return, they would get limited IP (patent) rights to the results: more than nothing but less than if they actually funded the research with money not owed in taxes.
Bottom line, we need much more thinking things through, and much less getting rushed into the grand hurrah.
“Bottom line, we need much more thinking things through, and much less getting rushed into the grand hurrah.”
Yes, of course. Are we going to get it? No. Collectively, we don’t have the ability to act sensibly in our own self-interest . Never have, never will. Too many competing agendas, exacerbated by a government that by its nature is corrupting..
I’ve learned you can’t be cynical enough in this world. The “climate debate” has taught me nothing if not that,
@tekguyjeff…
Actually, I’m one of the few around here who has suggested that there’s some small probability that the “sensitivity” is below zero. To the extent it’s anything but a myth that is.
Why is it anybody’s job to show you? Study it for yourself or pick somebody to trust what they say about it. Most voters and even politicians seem to think the latter is enough.
Doesn’t follow. Just because you haven’t been shown there’s an effect doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
And anyway, there are other risks associated with digging up gigatons of fossil carbon and dumping it into the environment, when we don’t even know where at least a third of it is going, much less what route it follows and how much damage it does along the way.
Probably. Which is why I’m against it. Not only that, but I’ve often expressed the opinion that a lot of those pushing increased energy prices are actually using “global warming” in pursuit of an ulterior (probably socialist) agenda.
AK,
climate sensitivity cannot be below Zero.
If you spew nonsense about science, no one will listen to the sense you make about policy.
Sensitivity may well be negative if the feedbacks are negative – e.g thermohaline circulation. Another annoying – and ill considered – little Mosher ultimatum?
Ellison.
Climate sensitivity is Delta C/ Delta W
If you want to argue that increasing watts will lead to decreasing temperatures, then make that argument.
There is no theory to support your notion, no data to support your notion.
Steven Mosher: climate sensitivity cannot be below Zero.
If increased watts produced increased warmth (or increased evaporation) which produced increased clouds then the climate sensitivity can be below 0. If increased CO2 produces increased watts, the result could be an oscillation between increased temp => increased clouds => decreased watts => decreased clouds => increased watts etc. Given the climate as it is today, it’s possible that doubling CO2 will increase slightly the oscillation between high and low cloud cover.
You have in the past drawn an equivalence between clouds and unicorns. That’s a mistake. Whether water vapor has a net positive feedback or a net negative feedback is debated.
@Steven Mosher…
“climate sensitivity” is a myth.
No, “Climate sensitivity” is conceptually defined as something like “Delta C/Delta pCO2”. Different animal entirely.
Same for you Steven…
It’s clear to me that you don’t really understand how complex non-linear systems work. Anybody who does will realize that I’m right, although they may argue about the size of the tail of the PDF that crosses zero. OTOH, I’ve never made any claims for the size of that below-zero tail, just that it exists, at the current point of our (uncertain) knowledge of the specifics of what kind of complex non-linear system the climate/ocean/ecosystem/continental structure represents.
Right now, everybody in the policy sphere thinks scientists who don’t understand how complex non-linear systems work know what they’re talking about despite that. As more and more people understand, word’s gonna get around that they don’t.
@ Matthew R Marler…
Not for a system composed of global-sized factors (global average temperature, global evaporation, global watts, etc.) This is easily demonstrated. The problem is that many people don’t understand one of the key implications of non-linear dynamics: you can’t interpolate between values on a curve. You can’t use an “average” of local values to predict how another “average” will behave. The increased downwelling IR produced by increased pCO2 has a specific effect at a specific local place and time. The effect of more evaporation at one place/time can be more clouds, and thus less Watts, at another, with magnification factors of up to several orders of magnitude. To understand “feedbacks” you have to treat the various factors (temp, evaporation, irradiation, etc.) as independent nodes in a network down to the level of millimeters (at least) and milliseconds.
There’s no such thing as “feedback” between averages. References to such things are myths, based on crude analogies to electrical (etc.) systems where they are real effects. Such crude analogies have very restricted limits.
As Trenberth stated: “Where has the heat gone?”
Did you miss his 2013 paper with Balmaseda and Källén?
It’s noted here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/03/missing-energy-claimed-to-be-found.html
‘Climate sensitivity is then defined mathematically as the derivative of an appropriate functional or other function of the systems state with respect to the bifurcation parameter.’
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf
Sensitivity is γ -http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf – and may indeed be negative with cooling as a result of a positive control variable μ. AMOC was the clue for the clueless.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Ghil_fig11_zpse58189d9.png.html?sort=3&o=79
David Appell
The heat is “missing”
It’s a “travesty”.
Maybe it’s being reflected out into space by “clouds”, acting as a “natural thermostat”
Or maybe it’s going down into the “deep ocean”, where no one can measure it.
Or how about, maybe it was never there in the first place? (Occam’s Razor)
Max
Steven Mosher says:
“Climate sensitivity is Delta C/ Delta W”.
I admit it is unlikely to be negative.
But if you apply your change of forcing (which we can assume is positive), wait for equilibrium to happen, measure the change in temperature, and get a negative number than the climate sensitivity would be negative.
It is theoretically possible for it to be negative.
I doubt it will be negative – but we will have to wait to see.
Right now delta T is .8C – so what will delta T be when CO2 hits 560 ppm (TCR)? It is certainly positive at the moment – but who knows what global mean temperature will do over the next 160 ppm of CO2? It could drop .8C or more or rise .8C or more. All we can do is wait and measure.
I know – I know – even when CO2 hits 560 ppm, people will quibble about the other forcings having changed – but it will be the best we can do.
I propose a new term and a new definition:
Measurable climate sensitivity (MCS) is the change in global mean temperature resulting from a doubling in CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm, regardless of changes in any other forcings.
Matthew you might get an instantaneous negative sensitivity, but not over any significant period of time. doubling the output of the sun and tell me how the temperature goes down. show your work
False analogy.
AK: The increased downwelling IR produced by increased pCO2 has a specific effect at a specific local place and time. The effect of more evaporation at one place/time can be more clouds, and thus less Watts, at another, with magnification factors of up to several orders of magnitude. To understand “feedbacks” you have to treat the various factors (temp, evaporation, irradiation, etc.) as independent nodes in a network down to the level of millimeters (at least) and milliseconds.
I agree but that does not contradict what I wrote that you replied to. the combined effects of all the feedbacks could be to produce the increased oscillation that I described. As Robert I Ellison writes in the next post, the appropriate way to think of this is the derivative of a functional (such as the mean of the distribution of all feedback-mediated temperatures, or the variance.) What happens can only be understood fully via analysis of changes in specific times and places, but it still makes sense to consider whether an increase in CO2 starting now will produce an increase or decrease in global mean temperature.
I guess MCS (using my new definition) will be 1.2C, so I guess MCS will be a positive number, with .4C more of warming over the next rise of 160 ppm of CO2. I bet 5 quatloos.
manaker: at least read the paper before spouting falsehoods about it.
‘On the timescale of decadal changes in the North Atlantic the 8.5-yr length of the 26 N
array observations is still short, but the results demonstrate the capability of the ar15 ray to detect changes in the magnitude and structure of the overturning circulation. We
have shown that there was a slowdown in the AMOC transport between 2004 and 2012
amounting to an average of −0.53 Sv yr−1 (95% c.i. −0.06 to −1.00 Sv yr−1) at 26 N,
and that this was primarily due to a strengthening of the southward flowing gyre in the upper 1100m and a reduction of the southward transport of NADW below 3000 m. This trend is an order of magnitude larger than that predicted by climate models associated with global climate change scenarios, suggesting that this decrease represents decadal variability in the AMOC system rather than a response to climate change. Further observations from the 26 N array will in time allow a better understanding of decadal variability of the AMOC and its relationship to the climate of the North Atlantic
25 region.’ http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/10/1619/2013/osd-10-1619-2013.pdf
A sustained negative impulse from Arctic freshening is not merely possible but observable.
Steven Mosher: Matthew you might get an instantaneous negative sensitivity, but not over any significant period of time. doubling the output of the sun and tell me how the temperature goes down. show your work
Why? That is a different question from a doubling of [CO2] to produce a slight increase in net downwelling LWIR. Do you have a definition of “significant period of time”? I wrote of the possibility of an oscillation in which, depending on the state of the climate, the sensitivity oscillated between positive and negative. Your claim that sensitivity to a small change, given the climate as it is now, can’t be negative is false.
If there is a policy implication for human behavior relevant to our risk of doubling the output of the sun you have not made a case for it. Do you want to?
Steven Mosher
Theoretically the 2xCO2 long-term sensitivity could be “less than zero” – IF there were long-term negative feedbacks that are strong enough to cancel out any positive greenhouse effect, which could result from the increased CO2 itself.
Never say “never”, Mosh.
Max
David Appell
Did read it.
It provides another hypothetical rationalization for the “missing heat”.
Yawn!
Max
manaker: No, clearly you did not read it.
RickA wrote:
Right now delta T is .8C – so what will delta T be when CO2 hits 560 ppm (TCR)
Temperature is on the track of 1.5 C of warming per trillion tonnes of emitted CO2, as per several published studies (for a review see Swart and Weaver, Nature Climate Change, 19 Feb 2012).
So if you know when the atmo will hit a concentration of 560 ppm, and the amount of CO2 emitted then, you know the warming, and can work backwards.
David Appell
“Reading” is not “believing”
But to the question of how much global warming we would theoretically see from an increase to 560 ppmv CO2:
Using the estimates for “transient climate response” to a doubling of CO2 of 1.35C warming from the many recent observation-based studies, we would theoretically see global warming of:
1.35C * ln (560 / 395) / ln(2) = 0.7C
Using the higher estimate for “transient climate response” to a doubling of CO2 of 1.9C warming from the model-based predictions of IPCC, we would theoretically see global warming of:
1.9C * ln (560 / 395) / ln(2) = 1.0C
Above is the theoretical GH warming if we ASS-U-ME that all other things are equal (which, of course, they never are).
Max
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy,” Paul Ehrlich wrote in 1975, “would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” …
“In short,” says Klein, “climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative.”
As such, global warming is our most wicked problem. The end of our world is heralded by ideologues with specific solutions already in mind: de-growth, rural living, low-energy consumption, and renewable energies that will supposedly harmonize us with Nature. The response from the Right was all-too predictable. If climate change “supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand,” as conservatives decided long ago, then climate change is either not happening or is not much to worry about…
There is thus, in the fanaticism of the apocalypse, equal parts misanthropy and narcissism, self-loathing and self-aggrandizement. “Behind their lamentations,” Bruckner writes sardonically, “the catastrophists are bursting with self-importance.”
In the end, it matters not a whit what we say; the world ignores our cautions. The United States and Europe rose to wealth and power by industrializing agriculture, burning fossil fuels and manufacturing for export. Now, as China, India and Brazil get rich the same way, the West stands in judgment, “The prophet is not a great soul who admonishes us,” writes Bruckner, “but a petty fellow who wishes us many misfortunes if we have the gall not to listen to him.”
The remedy to such nihilism, Bruckner argues, is the celebration of abundance, resilience and life itself. Bruckner demands that we not project our neuroses upon China, India and Brazil, but instead embrace their emergence as modern, powerful nations. Perhaps we have some wisdom to offer. But some humility is probably in order as well.
Since Ehrlich made his famous prediction, the global death rate declined from 13 to 9 deaths per 1,000 lives, and India’s fertility rate declined from 5.5 to 2.5, thanks not to forced streilizations and cutting off food aid, as Ehrlich advocated, but due to the continuing development and modernization of Indian society.
If there is to be a solution to global warming, then it is as likely to come from the rising powers of the global East and South than the superannuated precincts of the West. “Old men like to offer good advice,” Bruckner writes, quoting the 18th-century philosopher François de la Rouchefoucauld, “in order to console themselves for no longer being in a position to give bad examples.”
JamesG directed me to a couple of essays – http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/michael-shellenberger-and-ted-nordhaus//the-great-progressive-reversal/
Ehrlich’s pal, Dr. Holdren, now has Barack Hussein Obama’s ear.
@ Robert I. Ellison
Jerry Pournelle has said often, and accurately, that cheap, plentiful energy is the key to freedom and prosperity.
Erlich and his acolytes say ‘“Giving society cheap, abundant energy,” Paul Ehrlich wrote in 1975, “would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” …”.
For at least the last 60 years the entire Progressive_politician/Green/Climate_science Complex has worked tirelessly, using every power of government, academia, the legal system, and the media, to ensure that the ‘idiot child’ never gets his hands on the machine gun. I. e., EVERY policy that they implement or recommend, most specifically including the drive to control ACO2, has the (intended) effects of raising the cost of energy and reducing its supply.
Is no one curious WHY?
“BHO’s ear?”
That’s a pretty big subject. (Both of ’em.)
Max
AAAS: “The second is Risk — that the reality of climate change means that there are climate change impacts we can expect, but we also must consider what might happen, especially the small, but real, chance that we may face abrupt changes with massively disruptive impacts.”
The developing world can not afford to worry about “small, but real, chance” of catastrophe, when they already LIVE under conditions the developed world would consider a catastrophe. Buying insurance against catastrophe under these circumstances is impractical, they can’t afford the cost and can negate anything the developed world does. China’s emissions went from equal to the US’s to double in the last decade and the rest of the undeveloped world is desperate for the same economic growth (and resulting emissions increase with today’s most cost-effective technology.) If the US had cut back CO2 emissions 80% since the CAGW became fashionable, the Chinese would have negated our cutbacks in less than a decade. If we cut back now, it would take only a further 40% increase in Chinese economic growth (less than a decade even with their projected 3% per year improvement in efficiency) to negate our 80% cutback!
AK, I told you I’m a nobody,
so I’ll put my conspiracy hat on….the Western World Governmental Cabal owes me nothing, and they could care less what I think. That is why they will do whatever they want to do – with impunity. I would like to think this CAGW stuff is in the public square, and financed with public funds to accomplish something to help the public. As such, I would like to think they have a vested interest to get the voting public on their side – we still have elections in this country. So, I imagine I would be able to read the reports (the entire AR4 and others) and find out (for myself) what they are basing these claims on. Problem is, I can’t find it. So I ask (nicely) and get no help, even though these same people claim they are trying to educate the public. I go to local meetings where they are talking about building Wind Farms. I send letters to my Congressman, I ask (nicely) for help from scientists. I suppose it comes down to who you believe. I would like to see the empirical science.
I got nowhere, and I suspect anyone else who has tried also got nowhere. The politicians and scientists hide behind this wall and keep doing whatever it is they are doing. The ball gets shoved along the path they like.
And then Mother Nature intervenes (like the present pause) which throws them off their game. They scramble to maintain their momentum. In the end, either they got it right (or not). Politicians will make their moves. All I get to do is ask questions and vote. It is fun to discuss these issues on a forum like this one, though.
BTW, i guess you could call me a “Green”, being a member of The Sierra Club and I also burn wood for heat. I separate out the recycles from other garbage, and I use cloth bags to take home food from the store.
tekguyjeff: I told you I’m a nobody
I suspect that you are really in the uncomfortable social class in between being “nobody” and being “somebody”.
IF there is a “pause” — and the Cowtan & Way data suggests there isn’t — we can be thankful this “surprise” worked out in our favor.
Will the next one?
@tekguyjeff…
Since you addressed me, I’ll respond, although I don’t really have anything to say in response that’s of global importance.
This isn’t the “Western World Governmental Cabal”, it’s the Internet. A GAME CHANGER! Specifically, it’s a blog owned (and lightly managed) by one of the preeminent Kuhnian revolutionaries among climate scientists of our time. (IMO.)
I don’t really care what you think, but when you say something here, anybody can respond, and anybody can read your opinion and the response(s).
Neither governments nor people involved with them making decisions really have impunity. Except in their own imaginations.
Yes, but you misunderstand the nature of the documents they produce. They aren’t intended to convince anybody scientifically informed, they’re intended to provide buzz-words for spin-mongers. At most, they produce an arm-wave towards being able to withstand an “audit” of the sort McSteve produces, but even there they rely on spin-mongers to cover up the inevitable objections of such auditers with BS.
You get to ask questions on the Internet, where anybody can see them, and the responses. This gives you influence, but how much depends on how well you understand the subjects you’re discussing. And how well you understand how to influence the opinions of those who read you.
The first is Reality — 97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.
The second is Risk — that the reality of climate change means that there are climate change impacts we can expect, but we also must consider what might happen, especially the small, but real, chance that we may face abrupt changes with massively disruptive impacts.
The third R is Response — that there is much we can do and that the sooner we respond, the better off we will be.
That’s truly deplorable. Those ideas have been debated here, and the case in support is awful. There is an ambiguity in the third R, however. I think they mean “respond” by reducing CO2, not “respond” by building enhanced water control systems.
Most standard house insurance covers damage from falling objects – like planes, meteors and asteroids. So I think you are covered.
Judith wrote:
They then cite a bunch of catastrophic possibilities, many of which are very unlikely to occur on the timescale of the next century (as per the IPCC AR5), citing fat tail risks.
Which ones won’t occur?
Do you buy fire insurance for your house? If so, why?
Do you really not understand the difference between “very unlikely to occur” and “won’t occur?”? Do you buy insurance against asteroid collisions for your house?
David,
Do you really believe Earth’s climate is immune to successive coronal mass ejections, like those reported yesterday in Nature Communications 5, Article number: 3481 ?
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140318/ncomms4481/full/ncomms4481.html
As per the AR5, very unlikely to occur: Complete melting of Greenland, tipping point re methane release from permafrost
I buy fire insurance, but I do not buy earthquake insurance, given the relative likelihoods and cost/benefits. I don’t buy asteroid strike insurance either.
Insurance is normally only available when the event is certain (with a relatively predictable frequency) to occur but to whom is unknown. Otherwise it cannot be priced. There is no parallel with conjectural catastrophes. so the analogy is bogus.
The person holding the mortgage requires you have sufficient coverage to cover the mortgage. Do you think they’ll let you burn the place down and walk away leaving them holding the bag?
Darn it – replied to the wrong post:
RickA | March 19, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
Most standard house insurance covers damage from falling objects – like planes, meteors and asteroids. So I think you are covered.
Judith wrote:
As per the AR5, very unlikely to occur: Complete melting of Greenland, tipping point re methane release from permafrost
In other words, unless we have something like 6 C of warming you don’t think we should bother to care.
Yes. But there are many types of insurance.
You can self insure.
You can spread the risk (insure through an insurance company).
You can fire protect your whole house from top to bottom.
You can fit smoke alarms and a sprinkler system if you’re really paranoid
Probably what you don’t do is stop using electricity.
You asked which ones won’t occur. At least be consistent. Six degree C is also quite impossible. Tales of looming catastrophes are intended to implicitly support far reaching green socialist goals that stand in stark contrast to the legitimate ambitions of global humanity.
There are ways and means of caring which way the world goes that go well beyond fantasies of bucolic beatitude. So Appell and the many others of his type can keep their moral posturing to themselves – the world moves on and we are no longer persuaded.
In the La-La-Land, everything is possible. Appels ripening in spring.
Dr. Curry wrote: I buy fire insurance, but I do not buy earthquake insurance, given the relative likelihoods and cost/benefits. I don’t buy asteroid strike insurance either.
I buy fire insurance, but I do not want the EPA to make me pay for CO2 Insurance.
David Appell,
I don’t buy fire insurance for my house. Nor do I insure the contents. I have no life insurance. I also do not give money to casino proprietors.
The concept of insurance is relatively recent. You may choose to take a chance that you will benefit at the expense of some other policy holders, I don’t. If you wish to finance the high salaries, bonuses, and other benefits accruing to executives of insurance companies, you have my sympathy.
What was the point of asking whether I had fire insurance on my house?
Obviously you have ways of agreeing with yourself that I do not understand.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
“I don’t buy earthquake insurance.”
I bought it once on impulse about 10 years ago when I read that my area which is thought not to be at much risk, actually had a few large and destructive earthquakes several hundred years ago
But it’s relatively expensive given the small odds and I came to the conclusion it had not been a smart purchase. But then I thought, “yes, but if I cancel it now and we end up getting an earthquake, I’ll be very upset.” So I ended up renewing, as I’ve done every year since. Now with all the premiums I’ve paid, I’d have to hang myself if we got one….
Sometimes I think I need professional help….
popesclimatetheory wrote:
I buy fire insurance, but I do not want the EPA to make me pay for CO2 Insurance.
Why? Do you care about the well-being of future generations, who will live in a different world due to your pollution? Or do you only care about getting through life paying the absolute least you can for what you take?
Robert I Ellison wrote:
Six degree C is also quite impossible.
Prove it.
Judith wrote:
As per the AR5, very unlikely to occur: Complete melting of Greenland, tipping point re methane release from permafrost.
Judith: Greenland contains about 7 meters of sea-level equivalent ice.
What is the threshold for melting all of it?
50% of it?
Judith Curry
Lemme sell ya a good deal policy covering unicorn damages to your front yard. Real cheap.
Max
David Appell
You ask:
What’s the threshold for melting all of the Greenland Ice Sheet?
– 8,000 years +/- 5,000 years?
– Atmospheric CO2 concentration of 3,000 ppmv +/- 1,000 ppmv?
Take a guess, David.
Max
How much CO2 to get to 6C GH warming?
Try 3500 ppmv, David
Ouch!
You prove it Appell – this is a figure pulled out of your arse.
Do you create fire conditions in your home and then try to collect the insurance?
In the Catholic Church this class of pronouncement is done by the Pope who is said to be ‘speaking ex cathedra’. I. e., with infallibility.
Does the Church of Climate Science use the same term? Did Mike Mann assume its Papacy on the retirement of James Hansen? Or did it replace a singular Pope speaking ‘ex cathedra’ with a distributed authority speaking via ‘peer review’, but with the same infallibility?
Based on the warm reception of the paper by Dr. Lawrence Torcello in the MSM and within the hierarchy of The Church of Climate Science, is the new ‘Inquisition’ imminent? Will the charge be, as often advocated, ‘Crimes Against Humanity’, or will there be another more specific charge for which ‘deniers’ will be tried and convicted? (Whaaat? You didn’t think that deniers would be tried and EXONERATED, did you?)
The oft maligned Middle Class. Neither Here nor There. Running as hard as I can, just to stay in place.
Yep, that’s me.
Judith,
Hasn’t anyone taken the time to explain to members of the august AAAS committee that the “consensus of 97%” is a fallacious concept discredited years earlier?
HL Mencken
AAAS makes abundantly clear that the “reality” they address is not physical, but polito-sociological!
@David Appell: Do you still maintain that the hockey stick doesn’t go past about 1970-1980, due to the divergence problem? Apparently you do not,
I asked you at March 19, 2014 at 6:21 pm. I quote you: “at least read the paper before spouting falsehoods about it.”
My faith in the common-sense of the American people is restored. But the TIME story sure sounds like the sour grapes of an editor thinking: “We tried and tried to sell this stuff, but dagnabit, they didnt buy it!”
To wit:
TIME: “But only about 36% of Americans said they believe that global warming will pose a “serious threat to their way of life” during their lifetimes.”
That belief by 64% who see ‘no threat in my lifetime’ is more than reasonable. And factual. Since I’ve been alive (50 years), the earth has warmed about 0.6C. No noticably bad effects, and 0.6C rise in another 50 years? Pffft, that happenes … every. single. morning. in a matter of minutes! (0.6C rise). it would be an irrational faith to believe this trend poses some great danger. Notably, they said the “man influences climate” was the ‘right answer’ but didn’t think to suggest “not a serious threat” was ALSO the ‘right answer’.
TIME: “Climate change is also very low on the priority list for most Americans—51% of those surveyed said they worry about climate change very little or not at all.”
Yup. compared with what? 15 million unemployed or unemployed? Crimea / venezuala /Syria / crisis of the day? Economic and cultural turmoil? Crime? Meanwhile, 50,000 die from car accidents in the USA each year. Is that a bigger worry or smaller worry? In the next 20 years, thats 1 million people lost to car accidents, and in all likelihood, around 0 due to ‘climate change’.
” And 42% of Americans said they believe the seriousness of global warming is “generally exaggerated” in the news.”
I guess Americans got tired of the TIME cover story hyperbole …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/time-magazine-and-global-warming/
Patrick M
And this despite a relentless barrage of alarmist doomsday stories regurgitated by the sensationalist press and the climate hucksters.
It looks like the US public has gotten immune to the kind of propaganda being spewed out by the likes of AAAS (and simply hit the mute button).
Max
And 46% believe in ‘creationism’…despite a relentess barrage of facts about Evolution for the past century or so….
i guess the US public has gottne immun eto this kind of propaganda being spwed out by the likes of scientists and their ilk….
“Michael | March 20, 2014 at 5:13 am |
And 46% believe in ‘creationism’…despite a relentess barrage of facts about Evolution for the past century or so….”
Actually 46% of Americans don’t believe in creationism. There are very few Young Earth/Adam & Eve, Noah believing ‘Creationalists’ in the USA; about 10%
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/10/how-many-americans-actually-believe-the-earth-is-only-6000-years-old/
The majority of the ‘Creationalists’ have moved into the God of small places realm already and believe in ‘Theistic evolution’. So that God is now the cook, not clay sculptor, who created the biotica with nudges along the way.
The answer you get, depends on the question, so the 97% consensus position on climate change includes ‘deniers’ who believe that the impact of atmospheric CO2 on temperature is going to be low.
This one’s for DocMartyn:
http://www.abeka.com/HomeSchool/SubjectInfo/Science.aspx
Start with Unit 1, Meteorology and Oceanography
Doc, Young Eatherism and creationism aren’t the same thing.
In the US, almost half the pop. believe in creationism.
I suspect there is a strong link betwen creationism and AGW-denial.
Michael
Not really, Michael. I “suspect” that what you “suspect” is, itself, suspect.
But let’s first make sure we both understand what is being discussed here.
It is not “AGW denial” on one hand, but rather “rational skepticism of the CAGW premise as outlined specifically by IPCC in AR4 and AR5”.
That’s where I would fit in (Jim Cripwell and others here, as well).
We do not deny that climate has changed (or that it has done so frequently over the ages).
We also do not deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that it is emitted by human activity or that higher CO2 concentrations could theoretically result in global warming (the AGW hypothesis).
We are simply rationally skeptical of the CAGW premise as outlined specifically by IPCC in AR4 and AR5, namely that warming from AGW is strong enough to represent a serious potential threat to humanity and our environment unless actions are undertaken now to dramatically curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2)..
So much for “AGW denial”.
Now to “creationism”.
“Creationism” refers to strict belief in the Biblical version of the Creation, occurring a few thousand years ago.
There may be a few religious believers who hold this belief, but I am not one of them.
I think the scientific evidence has been shown which corroborates the validity of the evolutionary process and efforts to scientifically refute evolution have all failed.
Then there is the version of “scientific design”, where an all-powerful hand guided the evolutionary process.
There may be even more individuals who hold this belief, but again I am not one of them.
So for my specific case, I directly falsify your argument.
And I am certainly not alone.
Max
PS “scientific design” is more commonly known as “intelligent design”
Continually harping on about “CAGW” is irrational. It’s your own little straw-man that love to play-fight with.
And, has been demonstrated severla times in the just the last few days, you appear to have a strong need to distort and lie about what the IPCC says about AGW. That’s irrational.
Deniers and creationsts; birds of a feather, Max, birds of a feather.
Web, I have a B. Sc., M. Sc. (research), a Ph. D., 60 peer reviewed papers, 2 book chapters, four Patents in the pipe and a h-index of 28.
I have studied steady state kinetics and non-equilibrium thermodynamics for 20+ years.
I also have dyslexia, the writing age of a teenager and have never passed an English exam in my life, if I were an American I would never have been awarded a High School Diploma.
Michael
Just because you say something does not make it true.
“CAGW” is not my term. It is a frequently used term for the IPCC hypothesis, as specifically outlined in AR4 and AR5 that most of the warming since 1950 was caused by increased human GHG concentrations (principally CO2) and that this could represent a serious potential problem for humanity and our environment unless actions are undertaken to dramatically curtail human GHG emissions (principally CO2).
This is the hypothesis (or premise) which I would reject, as it has not been corroborated by empirical scientific evidence following the scientific method.
Hope this clears up your apparent confusion.
Always glad to help.
Max
Max, that’s a real word salad you’ve created there. Utter confusion.
Naturally, you’ll find nothing like that in the IPCC, no mention of ‘CAGW’ anywhere, yet you contrive to imply that’s the origin.
Max, ‘CAGW’ is a denialist meme / straw-man (take your pick) created for the purpose of a self-fulfilling circular, fact-free argument that they can have with themseles where they always win.
Enjoy your delusion.
” ‘CAGW’ is a denialist meme / straw-man (take your pick) created for the purpose of a self-fulfilling circular, fact-free argument that they can have with themseles where they always win.”
Actually, CAGW is a classification like “denier” or “lukewarmer” used to point out the extreme “warmista” position. Extremists in general are nutjobs and every group of nutjobs deserve a descriptive name.
Michael
No “word salad”, chum – just the facts.
IPCC is selling a premise of potentially deleterious effects from future greenhouse warming, based on a hypothetical model-derived prediction of the rise in global average temperature which could result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
This specific premise is outlined in detail in its AR4 and AR5 reports.
I’ll be glad to post an outline for you, in case you are unfamiliar with the AR4 and AR5 reports that have been issued to date.
This premise is often referred to (not by IPCC, of course!) as CAGW – for potentially Catastrophic Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming.
I can’t help it that this abbreviation is frequently used for the IPCC premise.
That’s the way it is, Michael.
Your tantrum isn’t going to change anything.
Accept it and move on.
And grow up.
Max
“I’ll be glad to post an outline for you, in case you are unfamiliar with the AR4 and AR5 reports….” – manacker
Max,
As you’ve found out recently, I’m quite familiar with them, enough so to keep picking up on your fabrications and distortions about what they say.
Max, your cat is belled.
Catastrophic is not the same as “deleterious.” A “catastrophe” would occur, if a super volcano were to erupt.
Now ain’t that sumthin’?
After I let all the hot air outa his balloon, Michael sez he has belled my cat.
Duh!
Grow up, kid.
Read down the thread for a reminder of the kind of dishonesty Max indulges in when it comes to his ‘claims’ about what IPCC reports say;
http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/12/the-art-of-science-advice-to-government/#comment-487713
If Max said the sky is blue you’d want a second opinion.
Note how Michael just above can’t actually produce an example of Max’s alleged dishonesty, wriggling out by asking others to pour through some lengthy thread.
Is there already a word to describe the dishonesty of baselessly attributing dishonesty to others? If not, how about to michaelize someone?.
Michael will not have a bad word spoken about the IPCC.
Why is that, Michael?
Is it some deep-seated emotional attachment?
Or are you really secretly worried about some possible catastrophe?
Michael’s catastrophe scenario is central objective of the IPCC, which he shares – to agitate for bigger government – not being realized.
phattie,
Just interested in the facts.
I can accept people making honest mistakes, being confused, or mis-remembering something. Even putting the best possible spin on a weak case (the kindest interpretation of what climate ‘skeptics’ routinely do), but the kind of deliberate dishonesty practiced by Max is something else.
If there are so many problems with the IPCC reports, why is there any need to fabricate?
The last of the desperadoes do it for love. Michael, bitter though ye be, I drink to thee.
====================
“Note how Michael just above can’t actually produce an example of Max’s alleged dishonesty, wriggling out by asking others to pour through some lengthy thread” – katisha
Note how katisha says I didn’t give an example, then admits that I did, but simply couldn’t be bothered reading it, so accuses me of ‘wriggling out’.
That’s the quality of ‘skepticism’!
Yet, incredibly, somehow katisha managed to read all the way down to this point in this sub-thread, when the delicate petal couldn’t manage reading half-a-dozen posts on the link I gave.
Michael:
Nonsense. You’re in attack mode over semantics.
Michael
The simple facts : you accused Max of being dishonest, but supplied no hard facts or argument. That means you are dishonest, by virtue of using the brand of dishonesty that now bears your name – to michaelize someone.
Science is not about concensus.
Risk is determined by assessment through observation. Climate models, that are to drive policy, have obviously failed. Hence, subsequent policy driven by such failure has no choice but to follow the same path to failure.
Action plans based upon falsehood and bias opinion have no place in science.
Steven Goddard explains the physics of global warming clearly:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/understanding-global-warming-physics/
One thing to keep on mind is that blog site arguments are perceived as controversy. The method of manufactured controversy and uncertainty is a time-honored technique used to thwart progress. In fact, society has the assessments from experts in climate change and the conversation is over for those not engaged in that research.
“The method of manufactured controversy and uncertainty is a time-honored technique used to thwart progress.”
The method of manufactured crisis and alarmism is a time-honored technique that goes back to Chicken Little and beyond.
Andrew
Pingback: “As scientists, it is not our role to tell people what they should do…. But…” | Man the Measure
Hey all — I contacted AAAS about their strange claim that a well-established stream of evidence over the last two decades yields a 97% consensus, and I heard back from them.
I mentioned earlier that I looked up their three sources and they reported 75%, 82%, and 97%. The mean is 84.7%. However none of these studies are rigorous enough to do anything with, and we wouldn’t find this kind of research adequate in any other field. The consensus criterion is too broad (humans impact the climate) to be useful, and it’s miles and miles removed from the urgent call for political action that the AAAS quickly leaps to.
The AAAS reports that they are treating the 75% figure from Oreskes (2004) as unanimous, that this paper is “often viewed as providing near unanimous support…”. Why? Because “none of the papers she reviewed refuted the consensus statement”. They want to convert no opinion or neutrality to endorsement, as a defense of their desired number. Where I come from, we call this data fraud. Well, it would be if they had any procedure or method for integrating these findings, even just taking a mean of the papers, but they apparently have no such procedure.
It may be helpful to mention some things about the Oreskes paper. We don’t know what the methods were, because they are not described in the paper. The paper is only about a page long. The entire study and results is described in 126 words — the bulk of the paper is background and implications. We know that any paper in the following three categories was included in the (uselessly broad) consensus category, the 75%: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, and mitigation proposals.
We don’t know how papers were judged to be in any categories, because we don’t know the methods, who the raters were, how many there were, their protocol, interrater agreement, etc. We also don’t know if some papers that “evaluated impacts” yielded small impacts — they would be included in the consensus. We really know nothing. But AAAS implies that they’re treating the reported 75% consensus in this study that **we know almost nothing about** as unanimous.
There are ways to evaluate a body of research, multiple papers, and glean an integrated, comprehensive truth from them. It’s called meta-analysis. That what scientists do when they want to integrate multiple findings. None of the papers here would survive the meta-analysis filtering process. We know that a number of scientists have affirmed that Cook wrongly classified their papers, we know that one study relied on 77 people, and we know that we know nothing about the Oreskes study. There’d be nothing to analyze — a meta-analysis would have to continue its search to find papers of sufficient validity and quality.
I am absolutely stunned by what AAAS has done. This is not science. This is not curiosity or serious inquiry. They apparently don’t want to know what the consensus is, or its texture, what points spark more or less agreement, what people estimate the likely warming to be over various intervals. They don’t even care if the studies they cite are remotely adequate or accurate, and they’re even willing to arbitrarily revise figures upward. They need to become the AAA-something else if this is who they are. This is not science.
What’s behind the green door?
==========
This whole rodeo raises a lot of issues for me. It might be old hat for many of you. I’ve never dug into the consensus before. I’m a social scientist — I’ve simply assumed that there was a consensus, and that it was strong. I remember not liking the fact that so few scientists responded to the surveys, but I’ve never had any reason to believe there was selection bias, that lukewarmers or whatever would be systematically less prone to respond (I still don’t have any reason to suppose that).
But I didn’t expect to find what I found. These are horrible studies. I don’t understand what is happening. No one has any business claiming a 97% consensus, because there is not a single credible study out there that actually polls a representative sample and gets that kind of result. And the only studies that would be useful would ask detailed questions. Why is no one asking **specific questions**? It’s trivially easy. It’s 2014 and these studies are asking whether humans impact the climate? That’s the state of the art? I’m confused.
In the world, there are standards. People have standards. JD Power would do better studies than this. Gallup. And any serious social scientist. We can’t just do whatever we want. We can’t infer answers from silence, or have coders rate whether papers “implicitly” endorse AGW. There are solid ways to find stuff out, stuff like this. It’s not very hard, as science goes. We need a whole new set of studies — apparently we know very little about what climate scientists think.
The most recent study I found that actually polled scientists instead of divining the ideology of abstracts is here: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/
41% see extreme danger in AGW, 44% moderate danger, 13% little danger. There’s also an interesting PNAS study from 2010, which showed 97% consensus, but it wasn’t cited by AAAS and it didn’t ask any specific questions.
It is notable that Science magazine steered clear of mentioning, in this weeks issue of Science mag., the AAAS branded position paper endorsing urgent action on climate action. Judith?
I’m learning so much today. Cook et al stated that they used independent raters. Apparently, they didn’t: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/
Is this correct? Have they responded? That’s a nontrivial methodological claim for a study that rests entirely on raters. Independent means independent of other coders. You can’t say you had independent coders if you didn’t. You have to retract. And there are no relevant statistics, no intraclass correlations or tests of independence.
There’s another sense of independence. I didn’t realize until now that the authors were connected with the website Skeptical Science, which I’ve visited a few times in the past. On the SS page for this paper, they open with:
“After all, the fossil fuel industry, right-wing think tanks, and climate contrarians have been engaged in a disinformation campaign regarding the expert climate consensus for over two decades. For example, Western Fuels Association conducted a half-million dollar campaign in 1991 designed to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact).’”
Is it normal for scientists to talk this way? This is goofy. What is this? They’re going in with some sharp knives, thinking that they’re fighting a vast disinformation campaign, explicitly situating themselves in opposition to a major part of the political landscape. This looks like a political alley fight. And what is this business about some oil association in 1991? Who cares about what anyone did in 1991? What does any of this have to do with the facts, with science, with the study?
Now, I’m not a climate scientist. Maybe some of you have had some terrible experiences with climate skeptics, citizen scientists who can’t cut the mustard, random flakes, even weird oil company schemes. I can see how a few such experiences could harden a person. Possibly the worst argument I’ve ever heard on any issue came from an AGW skeptic — I think I might have suffered brain damage just from hearing it. It paralyzed me for several minutes. But that was just one dude. (I can’t repeat it — it’ll give me a rash.)
But if these people, who write stuff about “denialists” and conspiracies and the right-wing — which seems to pepper several of their pages — were the raters, then it would be hard to argue that they weren’t biased. They’re not independent — they’re too motivated, too political. It can’t be any less of a conflict of interest than Exxon doing such a study — the things these guys write are just bizarre, totally distracting. Use graduate students who haven’t drunk your Kool-Aid yet, or people who aren’t political. But they didn’t use independent raters in the normal methodological sense either, which scratches the study. Don’t they need to retract the study? In social science, we can’t do this — and this is more of a social science study than anything else. What they’ve done is impossible. You can’t contaminate your raters. You can’t not report the stats. You can’t judge “implicit” endorsement as your main driver. They have to retract right? Did they respond to the rater issue? If their raters were not independent, this would be understood as borderline fraud in social science. Certainly the AAAS report would be, given what they said about preferring to see 75% as unanimous.
And for the millionth time, a coarse study of unspecified human impact is not useful — we need specifics, the voters need specifics. I’m sure you’d persuade more people if you reported specific beliefs and gradations and options rather than a broad trivial question that gets you a 97% value that immediately triggers suspicion — I’m betting lots of unversed laypeople see the 97%, see all the political baggage, and tune out. In you have a 97% consensus in science, then you’re probably not asking an interesting question.
”what we don’t want to know” is that: earth’s atmosphere is 98,9999% made of oxygen & nitrogen = shouldn’t be compared with other planets! : http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/q-a/
“On March 16, Crimea’s election committee said that 97% of voters backed a union between Crimea and neighboring Russia.” USA Today, 3/21/14
“97% of climate experts have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening.” AAAS What We Know.
As we know, appearance of the magical 97% twice is merely coincidental and any attempts to draw analogies are totally childish and puerile.
“It is not the purpose of this paper to explain why this disconnect between scientific knowledge and public perception has occurred.”
Cut from the original … ?
“Being government employees ourselves, it is indeed it is our purpose to carefully hide the obvious explanation – that the public has wised up to government science producing what is good for government, in preference to what is good for the public.”
Government come and go but the people abide. Well, no, uh, nevermind.
=============
The 97% meme shows the AAAS to be a political body, using this number shows such ignorance as to put them in the same category as the Skeptical Science web site,. When you put a blatant lie in you name no one takes you seriously.
You could certainly see your enthusiasm within the work you write.
The world hopes for even more passionate writers such as
you who aren’t afraid to say how they believe. Always follow your heart.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: The American Physical Society | Transterrestrial Musings
Pingback: Tail Risk vs. Alarmism, by Kerry Emanuel
Pingback: Worst case scenario versus fat tail | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Judith Curry: Worst Case Scenario Versus Fat Tail | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
Pingback: Worst case scenarios versus fat tails: a discussion about climate change | Fabius Maximus