by Judith Curry
Should probabilistic qualities be assigned to climate model projections?
Are the approaches used by the IPCC for assessing climate model projection quality – confidence building, subjective Bayesian, and likelihood – appropriate for climate models?
What are some other approaches that could be used?
The following paper addresses the above questions:
Assessing climate model projections: state of the art and philosophical reflections
Joel Katzav, Henk Djikstra, Jos de Laat
Abstract. The present paper draws on climate science and the philosophy of science in order to evaluate climate-model-based approaches to assessing climate projections. We analyze the difficulties that arise in such assessment and outline criteria of adequacy for approaches to it. In addition, we offer a critical overview of the approaches used in the IPCC working group one fourth report, including the confidence building, Bayesian and likelihood approaches. Finally, we consider approaches that do not feature in the IPCC reports, including three approaches drawn from the philosophy of science. We find that all available approaches face substantial challenges, with IPCC approaches having as a primary source of difficulty their goal of providing probabilistic assessments.
forthcoming in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics [link to paper]
This paper covers a lot of the same territory that was covered in my paper Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster with regards to uncertainties in climate models. The part of the paper that I focus on here is the articulation of different approaches for assessing climate model projection quality.
Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the paper describe the main methods that have been used by the IPCC: confidence building, subjective Bayesian approach, and likelihood. These are summarized in section 7 as follows:
As we have noted, WG1 AR4 often uses expert judgment that takes the results of the approaches we have been discussing, as well as partly model-independent approaches, into consideration in assigning final projection qualities. Insofar as final assignments are model based, however, the shared limitations of the approaches we have been discussing remain untouched. In particular, insofar as final assessments are model based, they face serious challenges when it comes to assessing projection quality in light of structural inadequacy, tuning and initial condition inaccuracy. Moreover, they continue to be challenged by the task of assigning probabilities and informative probability ranges to projections.
The main focus of this post is Section 8:
Assessing projections: what else can be done?
We now examine approaches that differ from those that play center stage in WG1 AR4. The first approach, the possibilist approach, is described in the climate science literature but is primarily non-probabilistic. The remaining approaches are philosophy-of-science-based approaches. There are currently four main, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, philosophical approaches to assessing scientific claims. One of these is the already discussed subjective Bayesian approach. The other three are those that are discussed below.
JC note: I focus here on possibilistic and severe testing approaches, which I think are the most promising for the climate problem.
The possibilist approach
On the possibilist approach, we should present the range of alternative projections provided by models as is, insisting that they are no more than possibilities to be taken into account by researchers and decision makers and that they provide only a lower bound to the maximal range of uncertainty. Climate model results should, accordingly, be presented using plots of the actual frequencies with which models have produced specific projections . At the same time, one can supplement projected ranges with informal, though sometimes probabilistic, assessments of confidence in projections that appeal, as the confidence building approach appeals, to inter-model agreement and agreement with physical theory.
Informal approaches to assessing projection quality must address the same central challenges that quantitative approaches must address. So, insofar as the possibilist position allows informal probabilistic assessments of projection quality, it must address the difficulties that all probabilistic approaches face. However, one could easily purge the possibilist approach of all probabilistic elements and assess projections solely in terms of their being possibilities. Moreover, there are obvious ways to develop purely possibilistic assessment further. Purely possibilistic assessment can, in particular, be used to rank projections. Possibilities can, for example, be ranked in terms of how remote they are.
The purged possibilist approach would still face challenges. Presenting CMPs (climate model projections) as possibilities worthy of consideration involves taking a stance on how CMPs relate to reality. For example, if we are presented with an extreme climate sensitivity range of 2 to 11 K and are told that these are possibilities that should not have been neglected by AR3 WG1’s headline uncertainty ranges, a claim is implicitly being made about which climate behavior is a real possibility. It is implied that these possibilities are unlike, for example, the possibility that the United States will more than halve its budget deficit by 2015. Thus a possibilist assessment of projection quality needs to be accompanied by an examination of whether the projections are indeed real possibilities. The same considerations apply to ‘worst case scenarios’ when these are put forward as worthy of discussion in policy settings or research. The threat that arises when we do not make sure that possibilities being considered are real possibilities is that, just as we sometimes underestimate our certainty, we will sometimes exaggerate our uncertainty.
Nevertheless, the challenges facing purely possibilistic assessment are substantially more manageable than those facing probabilistic assessment. To say that something is a real possibility at some time t is, roughly, to say that it is consistent with the overall way things have been up until t and that nothing known excludes it . A case for a projection’s being a real possibility can, accordingly, be made just by arguing that we have an understanding of the overall way relevant aspects of the climate system are, showing that the projection’s correctness is consistent with this understanding and showing that we do not know that there is something that ensures that the projection is wrong. There is, as observed in discussing probabilistic representations of ignorance, no need to specify a full range of alternatives to the projection here. Further, state-of-the-art GCMs can sometimes play an important role in establishing that their projections are real possibilites. State-of-the-art GCMs’ projections of GMST are, for example and given the extent to which GCMs capture our knowledge of the climate system, real possibilities.
Severe testing, climate models and climate model projections
The remaining approach to assessing scientific claims that we will discuss is the severe testing approach. The idea behind the severe testing approach is that the deliberate search for error is the way to get to the truth. Thus, on this approach, we should assess scientific claims on the basis of how well they have withstood severe testing or probing of their weaknesses .
According to Popper, an empirical test of a theory or model is severe to the extent that background knowledge tells us that it is improbable that the theory or model will pass the test. Background knowledge consists in established theories or models other than those being tested.
A crucial difference between the severe testing approach and the approaches pursued by WG1 AR4 is that the severe testing approach never allows mere agreement, or increased agreement, with observations to count in favor of a claim. That simulation of observed phenomena has been successful does not tell us how unexpected the data are and thus how severely the data have tested our claims. If, for example, the successful simulation is the result of tuning, then the success is not improbable, no severe test has been carried out and no increased confidence in model fitness for purpose is warranted. Notice, however, that the fact that claims are tested against in-sample data is not itself supposed to be problematic as long as the data does severely test the claims. Another crucial difference between the severe testing approach and those pursued by WG1 AR4 is that the severe testing approach is not probabilistic. The degree to which a set of claims have withstood severe tests, what Popper calls their degree of corroboration, is not a probability.
How might one apply a (Popperian) severe testing approach to assessing projection quality? What we need, from a severe testing perspective, is a framework that assigns a degree of corroboration to a CMP, p, as a function of how well the model (or ensemble of models), m, which generated p has withstood severe tests of its fitness for the purpose of doing so. Such severe tests would consist in examining the performance of some of those of m’s predictions the successes of which would be both relevant to assessing m’s fitness for the purpose of generating p and improbable in light of background knowledge. Assessing, for example, a GCM’s projection of 21st century GMST would involve assessing how well the GCM performs at severe tests of relevant predictions of 20th century climate and/or paleoclimate. That is it would involve assessing how well the GCM performs at simulating relevant features of the climate system that we expect will seriously challenge its abilities. A relevant prediction will be one the accuracy of which is indicative of the accuracy of the projection of 21st century GMST. Examples of relevant features of the climate the accurate simulation of which will be a challenge to IPCC-AR5 models are the effects of strong ENSO events on the GMST, effects of Atlantic sea surface temperature variations (associated with the MOC) on the GMST and special aspects of the GMST such as its late 30s and early 40s positive trends. That these data will challenge IPCC- AR5 models is suggested by the difficulty CMIP3 models have in adequately 1359 simulating them.
How might the severe testing approach help us with the difficulties involved in assessing projection quality? The severe testing approach allows us to bypass any worries we might have about tuning since it only counts success that does not result from tuning, success that surely does exist, in favor of CMPs. The severe testing approach can thus, at least, be used as a check on the results of approaches that do not take tuning into account. If, for example, the subjective Bayesian approach assigns a high probability to a projection and the severe testing approach gives the projection a high degree of corroboration, we can at least have some assurance that the probabilistic result is not undermined by tuning.
Underdetermination in choice between parameters/available parameterization schemes might also be addressed by the severe testing approach. Substituting different parameterization schemes into a model might result in varying degrees of corroboration, as might perturbing the model’s parameter settings. Where such variations exist, they allow ranking model fitness for purpose as a function of parameter settings/parameterization schemes. Similarly, degrees of corroboration can be used to rank fitness for purpose of models with different structures. The resulting assessment has, like assessment in terms of real possibilities, the advantage that it is less demanding than probabilistic assessment or assessment that is in terms of truth or approximate truth. Ranking two CMPs as to their degrees of corroboration, for example, only requires comparing the two CMPs. It does not require specifying the full range of alternatives to the CMPs. Nor does it require that we take some stand on how close the CMPs are to the truth, and thus that we take a stand on the effects of unknown structural inadequacy on CMP accuracy. Popper’s view is that a ranking in terms of degrees of corroboration only provides us with a ranking of our conjectures about the truth. The most highly corroborated claim would thus, on this suggestion, be our best conjecture about the truth. Being our best conjecture about the truth is, in principle, compatible with being far from the truth.
JC comments: While many of these topics have been covered previously at Climate Etc.,
- Probabilistic(?) estimates of climate sensitivity
- Should we assess climate models in light of severe tests?
- Scenario falsification
- The culture of building confidence in climate models
I like this paper because it provides an integrated framework for assessing climate model projection quality. The IPCC has been mostly relying on confidence building, subjective Bayesian and likelihood methods. Of these, confidence building is a keeper (especially if it includes formal verification and validation), and this should be supplemented by possibilist and extreme testing approaches. The combination of possibilist and extreme testing approaches provides the basis for scenario falsification, which is an approach that I have been arguing for.
Moderation note: This is a technical thread and comment will be moderated for relevance.
You realize that there is actually a formal possibility theory? You also realize that you are advocating taking into account extremely improbable but turn off the lights and leave possibilities? How you gonna deal with them.
head.sand.bury.
Right. Scientists supported by federal research agencies have honed this skill into a fine art.
1. Neon (Ne) isotopes in dark regions of the Fayetteville meteorite, http://www.omatumr.com/Photographs/Fayetteville_desc.htm ,
first revealed evidence of severe mass fractionation in the Sun:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1964Data.htm
2. NASA paid scientists for the next sixteen years (16 yrs = 1980-1964) to manipulate the observations to promote the possibility that data along the dashed line of our 1964 graph might be produced by mixing together alphabetically labeled primordial neon components, Ne-A, Ne-B, Ne-C, . . . .etc.
D. D. Sabu and O. K> Manuel, “The neon alphabet game,” Proc. 11th Lunar Planet Sci. Conf. (1980) pages 879-899
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Neon_alphabet_game.pdf
Major participants in the “Neon alphabet game” included scientists at the Lunar Science Institute in Houston, the University of Chicago, Washington University in St Louis, the University of Bern, etc. None responded to our criticism.
Like modern-day climatologists, they ignored criticism coming from those outside the stream of federal research funds.
Instead of looking for the possibility of escape from the reality that is revealed by observations and measurements – no matter how unexpected – the basic precepts of science require us to follow Ralph Waldo Emerson’s advice:
“Place yourself in the middle of the stream of power and wisdom which animates all whom it floats, and you are without effort impelled to truth, to right and a perfect contentment.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson
http://www.authorama.com/essays-first-series-8.html
The sad state of society and government today are the direct result of giving pseudo-scientists public funds to promote the possibility that world leaders can control the fate of mankind and therefore do not need to submit themselves to “the stream of power and wisdom which animates all whom it floats”.
– Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-720
To avoid experimental evidence that “the entire solar system may have condensed primarily from a single, local supernova”, University of Chicago researchers suggested the possibility that
a.)in situ decay of a volatile superheavy element 115 (or 114, 113) might explain the enrichment of heavy Xe isotopes in mineral fractions of the Allende meteorite, and
b.)“isotopic fractionation by an unknown mechanism took place during trapping that enriched the light isotopes of Xe and the heavy isotopes of the other four gases.”
There are limitless possibilities to avoid reality; None of them work.
http://www.omatumr.com/archive/StrangeXenon.pdf
To avoid inescapable evidence of local element synthesis, when first revealed by these observations from the University of Chicago in 1975:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1975Data.htm
A well-known Harvard astrophysicist was inserted into the program already scheduled for the AGU meeting in April 1976 to proclaim the possibility that the explosion of a nearby supernova at the birth of the Solar System might explain the enrichment of heavy Xe isotopes in mineral fractions of the Allende meteorite.
That possibility was in fact falsified by the association of heavy Xe isotopes with primordial helium.
Here is a copy of my letter to Dr. Frank Press after the AGU meeting:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/LetterToFrankPress26Apr1976.pdf
axe. ground. again.
No, PDA, it is important that the public know the sequence of events that produced Climategate – from the time of the sudden deaths of thousands of innocent citizens on 6 Aug 1945 until the the release of Climategate emails and documents in Nov 2009 – but continued axe grinding benefits nobody. That ass the point of my recent comment in the New York Times:
http://tinyurl.com/9ea7ras
“John Paily of India is exactly right. Instead of instead arguing about differences of opinion, we should support these common interests of ordinary citizens:
1. We all want world peace.
2. An end to racism and nationalistic warfare.
3. An end to the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation.
4. Cooperative efforts to protect Earth’s environment and bounty.
5. Governments controlled by the people being governed, including.
6. Transparency and veracity (truth) of information given to the public.”
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-720
Oliver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear/Space Science
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://www.omatumr.com
Correction: That was the point of my . . .
Any animal cornered is extremely dangerous, even naked apes:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/wtf-national-weather-service-buying-hollow-point-bullets/
That is why we all need to support these common interests of ordinary citizens:
1. We all want world peace.
2. An end to racism and nationalistic warfare.
3. An end to the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation.
4. Cooperative efforts to protect Earth’s environment and bounty.
5. Governments controlled by the people being governed, including.
6. Transparency and veracity (truth) of information given to the public.”
http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-720
I don’t know. What are you going to do when the Klingon warbird decloaks?
The mere possibility of an answer different than eli has accepted leads him to question the very dangerous activity of looking at the problem from a different perspective. Almost as if he is certain that the current answer cannot be improved upon. the lack of curiousity is perplexing
Perplexing from a science stance. No so perplexing in other ways.
“The mere possibility of an answer different than eli has accepted leads him to question the very dangerous activity of looking at the problem from a different perspective.”
That’s one interpretation. Or you could look at what he actually said:
“You realize that there is actually a formal possibility theory?”
. . . in which case you realize ER is questioning not the act of looking at a problem from a different perspective, but the act of invoking a theory you know next to nothing about, which when examined with a modicum of alertness does not seem to support what the author thinks it does; i.e., the WUWT special.
I second the question.
you could actually look at what he says
‘You also realize that you are advocating taking into account extremely improbable but turn off the lights and leave possibilities? How you gonna deal with them.”
Regardless of whether or not Dr. Curry understands all the details of the formal theory, a point which is decidedly besides the point, the fact remains that she does realize that this approach advocates taking into account extremely improbable events. She has said as much, here and in person. His last question, “how are you going to deal with them?” borders on retarded. Dr. Curry is in no position to deal with these issues and has never suggested that she is in charge of dealing with these issues.
The simple fact is that when anyone suggests an alternative way of looking at problems there is a certain class of people ,heavily invested in the solution they believe with certitude, who question the very notion of looking at things from a different perspective. Anti intellectuals.
Doctor: we like to test you for polycystic kdeny disorder.
patient: oh crap, there’s no cure, what are you going to do if I have it?
I don’t want that test.
Like i said. head. sand. bury.
Steven, differentiate please between solutions and issues. It is irrational to believe that humans are not making massive changes to the atmosphere, the solid surface and the upper ocean, both physical and biological. (you can have a pass on the mantle and maybe as yet for the deep ocean). It is clear that many of these changes are dangerous, locally, regionally and globally. What to do is the question. If you have a better idea than others speak up.
Eli
Re: “extremely improbable”
What if the projections of the present GCMs turn out to “extremely improbable”?
If there are other substantially “lights out” scenarios that are more probable, should we consider them? e.g. see Near Earth Orbit
I have several previous threads that discuss possibility theory. See the post with the link scenario falsification. This is how I think it should be done. And yes this provides us a rationale for considering the plausible worse case scenario (as well as the ‘nothing’ scenario)
I don’t think there is a plausible ‘nothing’ scenario. It’s in the realms of possibility that we could see a net zero change of a particular variable (say, GMST) over a period of time, but that’s different from nothing happening. Whatever else may be the case, increasing GHGs will significantly alter the thermal properties of the atmosphere, which can’t fail to have some effect at the surface.
I’ve wondered for a while what would be the consequences of living in Lindzen’s world, where strong negative feedbacks through cloud changes dominate. It sounds like a fairly major alteration of the hydrological cycle, which may carry considerable effects.
True on both points. Since there is no plausible nothing or better scenario all possibility theory can do is widen the range of damaging scenarios. That is not exactly reassuring.
I’m going to recommend Fooled By Randomness 2nd Ed. by Nassim Taleb, as its commonsensical and self-effacing approach to the topic of probability and uncertainty with a possibilist point of view.
That said, possibilism is an extraordinarily hairy discipline, and not preferred in discussion of Policy without some very strong reasons; one such is War Games (all possibilities imagined by a group are contrived, and the strength and weakness of all responses to same are considered to see if there are any responses common to all possible scenarios that do well or poorly).
Yup. in war gaming everything is on the table
But we would not advocate using the worst case scenarios from war gaming to guide our policies at exorbitant cost. Although some have ……..
Not directed at you Steven.
Bill | August 13, 2012 at 10:07 am |
And yet, North Carolina’s approach of banning the use of anything other than ‘sunny day’ scenarios is distinctly intellectually unsatisfying, and might I also add fiscally bankrupt. Oh. Wait, am I talking about one single policy of NC, or NC as a whole?
Yes
It is striking that the assessment methods of Katzav, Djikstra, and de Laat (henceforth KDL) would be unaltered if there were *no* First Law and Second Law of thermodynamics — whose existence is nowhere accounted in the KDL article.
In practical terms, this means that KDL-type statistical methods are (perhaps!) reasonably suited to the assessment of local climate fluctuations … for the physical reason that in consequence of ubiquitous transport phenomena (like wind and rain and ocean currents) the First Law and Second Law do not hold locally, but hold only globally.
Conversely, KDL-type statistical methods are poorly suited to the assessment of global balance-type models as described in (for example) Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications. The reason is, that by their lower-order postulates, and concretely in consequence of their close-coupling to fundamental thermodynamic principles, balance-style global models are generically more reliable in their global projections, than local models are in their local projections.
Conclusion No one style of evaluation criteria suits all styles of climate models.
Thank you for a fine post, Judith Curry! :) :) :)
The Hansen paper you cited claims that they have measured the change in the HEAT content of the Earth, and also of incoming and outgoing flux.
They claim to be able to measure a change between the influx and efflux of 0.208% +/- 0.042 (an alteration of 0.5 +/- 0.1 W/m2 against a calculated levels of 240 W/m2).
This claim displays better accuracy than each of the individual components that went into its calculations.
The result is therefore, bogus.
Eli, the merits of a formal possibility/probability theory is of absolutely no use to those who hid, ignored or manipulated experimental data.
This is just another smokescreen to try to delay addressing experimental data and observations that were ignored out of fear and a deep sense of powerlessness and guilt for the “nuclear fires” that consumed Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 Aug 1945 and 9 Aug 1945.
World leaders established the United Nations on 24 Oct 1945 and paid government scientists to obscure the energy (E) stored as mass (m) in the cores of:
a.) Heavy atoms like uranium and plutonium
b.) Ordinary stars like the Sun
c.) Ordinary galaxies, like our Milky Way, and
d.) Some planets like Jupiter, Saturn, and perhaps Earth.
World leaders are in fact totally powerless over the “fountain of energy” Copernicus discovered at the center of the Solar System in 1543 to start the scientific revolution.
This “fountain of energy” – far beyond the control of world leaders – made our chemical elements, sustains our lives, and still exerts dominant control over Earth’s constantly changing climate.
The scientific method and the Constitutional form of government that we inherited at the birth of our nation in 1776 have both been undercut since 1945 to promote false delusions of grandeur in the minds of frightened world leaders who sought to reduce nationalism and the threat of destruction by “nuclear fires” by building a one-world government.
That is why the first step to restoring:
a.) Integrity to government science is
b.) Constitutional limits on government
Summary: http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-720
Forbidden Energy: “Neutron repulsion,” The Apeiron Journal 19, 123-150 (2012) http://tinyurl.com/7t5ojrn
Manuel, you are in great need of either a rest home or a posting limit.
Is it possible to validate/invalidate IPCC’s models with “severe tests”? Or will the projections again be published independent of “inconvenient” constraints?
Natural oscillations: ~20 & ~60 year
How about applying natural climate oscillations as a severe test? cf
Testing an astronomically-based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models
Nicola Scafetta, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 80, May 2012, Pages 124–137 (preprint)
Forecast/Hindcast
Can the global climate models forecast/hindcast based on tuning from half the data to predict the other half?
Cloud check
Clouds appear to have been underestimated by a factor of two. See:
Observations of stratocumulus clouds and their effect on the eastern Pacific surface heat budget along 20°S Simon P. de Szoeke, Sandra Yuter, David Mechem, Chris W. Fairall, Casey Burleyson, and Paquita Zuidema, Journal of Climate 2012 ; e-View doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00618.1
Abstract
The Hockey Sticht notes that:
Can the models be recalibrated to fit this actual cloud data?
CO2/Energy projections
Energy use CO2 emissions appear to be similarly exaggerated.
Höök, M., Sivertsson, A. & Aleklett, K. ”Validity of the fossil fuel production outlooks in the IPCC Emission Scenarios”
Natural Resources Research, 2010, Vol. 19, Issue 2: 63-81
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11053-010-9113-1
Test against >30 year temperature trends
Lucia Liljegren’s comparisons of the IPCC’s mean 0.2 C/decade projection indicates that it is about 2 sigma hotter than the red corrected satellite temperature trend (UAH TLT) of 0.138 C/decade [0.083, 0.194]. That suggests that the IPCC’s model mean exceeds 97% of all temperature trends based on UAH satellite data.
When will that count as F for Fail?
Will the scientific method be brought to bear and assign an R for Reject?
Or do we continue down the rabbit hole with Alice?
If you like scaffettas curve fitting I have a better one
Steven Mosher
I look forward to evaluting your results and how well they have
withstood “severe testing”.
Any ref/links? Any physical foundations? Any fore/hindcasting?
Any validation by more accurate predictions than IPCC?
Halley’s hypothesis was proved by its accuracy.
I find the IPCC’s projections unreliable for their inaccuracy.
Physical foundation? yep better than scafetta’s: C02 and volcanos.
Steven Mosher
I searched you blog, but nothing came up for CO2 or Volcanos (or volcanoes). Any suggestions for links to your paper/post?
On CO2, what evidence that the CO2 leads or lags?
i.e., which is the cause and which the consequence
What about solar forcing?
e.g. see David Stockwell Solar Accumulation Theory showing temperature lagging the solar cycle by ~ Pi/2 (90 deg.)
Until you link to / reference a paper/post, Stockwell and Scafetta are the best I have found for quantitative predictions closer to the data than IPCC’s 0.2C/dec.
PS compliments on strong Chinese interest in CRUtape letters. September 16, 2010 at 8:31 AM | #2. What languages has it been translated into?
Steven
I found your On Volcanoes and their Climate Response at The Blackboard. I see numerous requests for details of your method, and the code, but no particular response that I saw.
Steven Mosher: If you like scaffettas curve fitting I have a better one
“like” is the wrong word in this context. Is Scafetta’s model to be considered one of the “possibilities”? Should its model forecasts be tested by the future data? I think that the answer to both questions should be “yes”.
The cloud article is interesting. A quote from it:
Coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP3) simulations of the climate of the 20th century show 40±20 W m−2 too little net cloud radiative cooling at the surface. Simulated clouds have correct radiative forcing when present, but models have ~50% too few clouds.
Yes, that IS interesting and appalling if we’re just learning about the model deficiency this year. The research vessel certainly wasn’t doing anything earth shattering or using recently invented instruments to make measurements that weren’t possible before now. A fuller quote:
“Clouds appear to have been underestimated by a factor of two.” Wrong Mr Hagen. Try a factor of 19.
The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel.
Continuous measurements of the shortwave (SW), longwave (LW), and net cross-atmosphere radiation flux divergence over the West African Sahel were made during the year 2006 using the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Mobile Facility (AMF) and the Geostationary Earth Radiation Budget (GERB) satellite. Accompanying AMF measurements enabled calculations of the LW, SW, and net Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) and surface Cloud Radiative Forcing (CRF), which quantifies the radiative effects of cloud cover on the column boundaries. Calculations of the LW, SW, and net Cloud Radiative Effect (CRE), which is the difference between the TOA and surface radiative flux divergences in all-sky and clear-sky conditions, quantify the radiative effects on the column itself. These measurements were compared to predictions in four Global Climate Models (GCMs) used in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change fourth Assessment report (IPCC-AR4). Reproducing the SW column radiative flux divergence was problematic in the GCMs and SW discrepancies translated into the net radiative flux divergence. Computing cloud-related quantities from the measurements produced yearly averages of the SW TOA CRF, surface CRF, and CRE of ~ −19 Wm−2, −83 Wm−2, and 47 Wm−2, respectively, and yearly averages of the LW TOA CRF, surface CRF, and CRE of ~ 39 Wm−2, 37 Wm−2, and 2 Wm−2. These quantities were analyzed in two GCMs and compensating errors in the SW and LW clear-sky, cross-atmosphere radiative flux divergence conspired to produce reasonable predictions of the net clear-sky divergence. Both GCMs underestimated the surface LW and SW CRF and predicted near zero SW CRE when the measured values were substantially larger (70 Wm−2 maximum).
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00072.1
Critics will say this study was just one year in one region (2006 over the African Sahel) but if global climate models don’t understand cloud microphysics and the radiative effect of the condensed water vapor that covers 60% of Planet Earth, then they can’t predict the climate anywhere. The pretense that predicting climate 100 years in advance is somehow easier than predicting a single year is illogical. 100 years of climate modeling means adding up 100 years of errors. The errors don’t cancel out, they accumulate.
Markus
The abstract I quoted states:
“models have ~50% too few clouds”
In grade school I learnt that 1/2 = 50%.
When you cite another paper, that is new matter.
Please explain your 19x, as it is not in the abstract.
Yes Mr Hagen, I was spruking to catch your attention. Models not only underestimate # of clouds but also radiative effect. That’s ~19 times larger than the Co2 effect.
Miller et al 2012 find that some models predict clouds to have a net shortwave radiative effect near zero, but observations show it is 70W per square meter.
Markus
G’ day. Clear statements with sound physics would go over much better.
Cloud models have the highest uncertainty. See IPCC, and especially Nigel Fox of NPL’s TRUTH project.
PS Re spruking (sic) see spruik
It is impossible to invalidate the IPCCs models, because they don’t come with any statistical confidence intervals.
IPCC completely corrupts usual scientific standards of confidence by using weasel words insteads of Bayesian probabilities.
Some how we all need to keep in mind that the raw data that all this climate conjecture is based upon values from instruments never intended for or capable of providing that precision or accuracy necessary to measure a degree or two of global temperature change. Assuming that situation can be improved upon in any meaningful way by passing that data through statitical algorithms of any sort is our base falacy. A statitician may know a great amount about statistical methods. That does not qualify him to judge that raw instrument data meets requirements to make his analysis algorithms valid. The real world is not a simple random noise generator.
The original raw data uncertainty must be carried through to projection descriptions. Instead we continually see historic temperature values described to the nearest tenth or even one hundredth of a degree. Trusting those historic temperature values as a valid comparison to current temperatures is poor judgement at best. Trusting them to provide a basis for climate projections of the magnitudes and precision we are quoted is quite silly.
Amen.
“Instead we continually see historic temperature values described to the nearest tenth or even one hundredth of a degree.”
Satellites, buoys and land stations agree to within tenths of a degree.
So quite clearly we can measure the warming to tenths of a degree.
lolwot,
Well, too bad you cannot say the same for historic data that is used as a basis for claiming it is warmer now then way back then. Surely you are not claiming data from 1900 has an accuracy to tenths of a degree.
Our older manually read and recorded temperature records are remarkably good for their intended purpose. That was to be able to record climatic conditions for different parts of the country. The data collected showed the great variety of climates found around the world. The instrumentation and techniques employed were targeted for monitoring diurnal veratiation of tens of degrees and annual temperature variations in the range of sixty degrees celsius or more over the course of a year. They were never intended for or capable of providing accuracy to tenths of a degree, no matter how many statistical algorithms are run on the data.
Now if you want to limit your discussion to the few high accuracy stations that were placed in service in recent years, you might have a case for tenths of a degree accuracy. However, you must remember, at thermometer reading tells you only the temperature of the thermometer. Just cuz you intend to measure air temperature, does not mean you have configured it to do that to the accuracy of the instrument itself.
I’l just repeat what I said because you didn’t address it.
Satellites, buoys and land stations agree to within tenths of a degree.
So quite clearly we can measure the warming to tenths of a degree.
And here’s a picture to prove it
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/rss/offset:-0.0923176/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/offset:-0.247178/plot/gistemp/from:1979/offset:-0.350546
lolwot,
OK, we agree we can make measurements today to tenths of a degree accuracy, in some special cases. My point is that though we can do that today, we could not in the past. It is simply invalid to quote temperatures from a century ago to tenths of a degree. Is that something you disagree with? If you are using a historic temperature value with an accuracy of plus or minus a degree or two to compare with current temperatures, you cannot claim a trend accuracy any better than that one or two degrees per century. Even though you can measure today’s temperature at a good site to a tenth of a degree, that does not make your temperature trend line accurate to one tenth of a degree per century.
So you are saying the late 20th century warming happened but the early 20th century warming might not have happened? So the 20th century temperature record might look like a sharp hockey stick?
lolwot,
You must be trying to pull my chain. My statements are about the use of historic temperature measurements for determining LONG range temperature trends. I am pretty sure some warming has happened over the last century. I am enclined to accept the records from newer high accuracy stations placed around the USA at face value. They do, of course, cover a fairly short period of time climate wise. It is the records from those century old stations that I am taking issue with with respect to claiming a CENTURY LONG temperature trend.
In 379 at bats I got 130 hits. I like the sound of .400. Say I hit .300, and I punch you in the nose. So lets settle on .343.
The Philosophy of modelling.
I used to believe years ago, that any complex dynamic system could be modeled accurately enough to provide useful information on its performance under the wide range of conditions to which it could be subjected. Where the system included human action with discretion extra difficulties arose, but non-linearities abound in nature and are included as is stationery randomness, or even defined non-stationarity, although systems with random elements will give probabilistic results. There are other instrumental problems like having a computer with sufficient memory and speed as well as a suitable programming language and a team of multidisiplanary experts.
In recent years there has been less discussion of computer power. Have we at last reached computer nirvana? As I watch each little cloud float over in the Australian summer I wonder about its effect on our climate. I remember the original Hansen models and reflecting that the smallest cloud would have to be about 300km. How useful was that? How do clouds join up to make larger clouds? Seems like you need to model the micro-climate in every cloud. Cell sizes in the oceans also have to be adequate.
I used to be known as the father of model validation before it was widely practiced in USA or anywhere else and always insisted that every dynamic process in the model be validated before the whole model was checked. I think that is still an important principle.
“I remember the original Hansen models and reflecting that the smallest cloud would have to be about 300km. How useful was that?”
Pretty useful (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm). Heck, Svante Arrhenius did a climate model with cell-by-cell hand calculations, and he did pretty well.
OT – read your Catalina Tales. Enjoyed them very much. Wished there were more of them. My father was a tail gunner in a B-26 Marauder. He completed his 25 flights over Nazi Germany and returned home. One out of three of all B-26 crew didn’t live to complete their 25 missions. My father didn’t talk about it much. He was an 18 year-old boy full of piss, vinegar, and pride on his first flight and a 21 year-old man humbled and thankful to be alive at the end. His best friend, a belly gunner, caught some flack that blew his body apart all over the inside of the glass turret. My father was the first to find him. For the rest of his life my father, who grew up on a farm, retched at the faintest whiff of sour milk because it smelt like the inside of that belly turret. I have nothing in my life to compare with that for which I am thankful. My hitch in the US Marine Corps 1974-1978 was peaceful and routine.
David Springer, Thank you for your comments on my Catalina Tales. It is a coincidence that our first air/sea rescue of the Pacific war was a B26 crew. One of them, a wireless operator, used to attend our reunions in Australia every year. I had a lot of respect for B26 crews – 2 very powerful engines and hardly any wing, so they flew like a brick, but they were fast. more like a rocket than an aircraft. Just taking off and landing were dicey.
Judith, this thread seems weird to me.
I am a mathematician. Statistics and probability as I know it is derived from basic principles, as all math is.
Only from deriving it from basic principles can we know that it works and is true.
I don’t see how we can have a discussion on model projections without it being mostly math. It seems to me that anything else is mostly heuristic (at best).
Am I wrong? And if so, can someone please educate me as to why I am wrong?
Adam,
You probably aren’t wrong.
But Judith now clearly feels she was wrong when she wrote: (2007)
…if the risk is great, then it may be worth acting against even if its probability is small. Think of risk as the product of consequences and likelihood: what can happen and the odds of it happening. A 10-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100 is not likely; the panel gives it a 3 percent probability. Such low-probability, high-impact risks are routinely factored into any analysis and management strategy, whether on Wall Street or at the Pentagon.
It sounds OK to me though. But I’m more a physicist/ electronics engineer than a mathematician, so what would I know?
But, if you are more qualified, maybe you could educate Judith as to why she was right then?
Perhaps Dr. Curry considered this: Sunstein, Cass R. “Throwing Precaution to the Wind: Why the ‘Safe’ Choice Can Be Dangerous.” Opinion. Boston.com – The Boston Globe, July 13, 2008. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/13/throwing_precaution_to_the_wind
Main point: “Yet the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent. It is of course true that we should take precautions against some speculative dangers. But there are always risks on both sides of a decision; inaction can bring danger, but so can action. Precautions, in other words, themselves create risks – and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously requires.”
“Yet the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent.”
I’ve been saying that for several decades.
tempterrain quoting Dr Curry: may be
How is it “clear” that she now considers “may be” to be “wrong”?
Its clear to me that Judith has changed the tone of her argument. But, Judith may (?) be somewhat more uncertain on the extent of that clarity to others.
Adam, perhaps statistics has changed a bit since you learnt it. Rather than using basic principles, probabilities are now sometimes assigned based on the opinions of ‘experts’, so-called ‘subjective Bayesianism’. This paper points out some of the obvious weaknesses of this approach (eg circular reasoning) on page 38.
Adam, I think you’re right. As far as I can figure, the most reliable statistical prediction of the future is a linear regression through all available data. Humans being the cognitively biased beings they are think they know better. People using computer models think they know better than everybody else.
I think bookies would have a better chance of predicting temperature outcomes that climate scientists because they have to put their money where their mouth is.
Nobody without a significant personal stake in prediction accuracy and the prospect of making a loss has the proper incentives to be right.
Blouis79, the history of science provides no support for this assertion, and every theoretical physicist in the world disagrees with it.
Ouch! :) :) :)
One way to appreciate the weakness of prediction-centric philosophies of science is to visit the celebrated mathematical website The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS).
Enter three-or-four random integers into the OEIS … the OEIS will supply a mathematical relation that predicts the next integer! Amazing! :) :) :)
Here the point is that the OEIS concretely supplies prediction-stripped-of-explanation … which is useful solely as a supplementary means for discovering true mathematical explanations … and lots of fun too! :) :) :)
Oops — here’s a working link to the (AMAZING!) predictive-but-not-explanatory website The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS).
The KDL philosophy narrowly depicts climate-science very similarly to the way that the OEIS narrowly depicts mathematics — which is to say, a too-narrow focus on KDL/OEIS methods totally misses the meaning, and the fun too, of what’s really going on, eh? :grin: :grin: :grin:
blouis79
You make an excellent point (which “fan” has missed completely).
Climate researchers in general have “a personal stake” in a high CO2 climate sensitivity.
The higher the better – for getting the public alarmed, politicians motivated and taxpayer funding flowing for (guess what?): more climate research.
A low climate sensitivity makes a large part of climate research redundant.
And which climate researcher would want that?
Quite simple, actually.
Max
“A low climate sensitivity makes a large part of climate research redundant.”
Which part?
lolwot
You ask: Which part of climate research becomes redundant with a low climate sensitivity?
Duh!
Think about it a bit.
If the “C” is taken out of “CAGW”, there isn’t much public interest in pursuing AGW-related research, ergo not much political incentive to fund AGW research, ergo funding dries up and AGW-related research stops.
Pop!
The bubble bursts.
Got it?
Max
Follow the Money!
We know that academia is very money-driven, however much they try to protest about their intellectual independence. Remember the ludicrous defence of Mann:
‘He brings a lot of money to us and if he were a bad boy then nobody would give him all that loot. Therefore he’s innocent. The big cheques prove it’
And no climatologit in their right f…g mind would even think about publishing a paper that finished:
‘The consequence of the demonstrated low climate sensitivity is that future worries about climate change/global warming have been wildly exaggerated. There is little need for further research at all’
They’d be torn limb from limb by the Union of Alarmist Climatologists before having their body fed to hyenas. Then ritually burnt with low CO2 fuel. Hansen might have apoplexy and Romm would likely explode all over a TV studio.
Max, more specifically, they don’t have *any* stake in measured prediction accuracy. It’s the same for stock brokers vs share market investors, investment bankers vs banks/governments. Who makes a real loss if the prediction is wrong?
Max,
You obviously are of the school of thought that everything in this world is driven by money. So, maybe you could advise climate scientists on how to maximise their research grants?
Aren’t they are making a big mistake? Instead of giving the impression of the ‘science is settled’, and advising the world to reduce their CO2 emissions, they should be taking a leaf out of Judith’s book and playing up the level of uncertainty. Of course, they’d also say this would be resolved in they only had a bit more money.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Adam
The proof of scientific pudding is in the validation, regardless of “expert” probabilities. See above.
For actuarial and statistical perspectives on more important trends see Gail Tverberg at OurFiniteWorld.com and William M. Briggs
Keep probing, testing and searching for gold refined by fire.
Adam: Only from deriving it from basic principles can we know that it works and is true.
I think that is wrong. Derivations from basic principles are always based on simplifying assumptions; only by testing the result can we know that the result works, that there was not, paraphrasing Einstein, too much simplicity. The Tacoma Narrows bridge disaster revealed post hoc that there had been too much simplicity. And some results that work were never derived from first principles, such as Kepler’s laws of motion, and Hooke’s law.
“Seek simplicity but distrust it.” –Alfred North Whitehead
Words to live by.
In climate science, there seems no need to use basic statistics
or experimental physics or in fact any method which might be too open to scrutiny from outsiders.
Adam, you might have more fun reading Claes Johnson’s blog and Garth Paltridges book “The Climate Caper”.
Mostly because you have to estimate the forcing scenarios and those have physical, biological, economic and political drivers. Even if you had a perfect global model, you would have a wide range of possible outcomes, and some of those drivers are not controllable.
DrJC, OT. I noticed Matt Ridley’s blog isn’t on your blog role. Intelligent, thoughtful, and knowledgeable guy, many thoughts on climate change, and an interesting recent piece on confirmation bias.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog
Long set of data showing certain repeatability (due to natural oscillation) as the CET is, it can be forward extrapolated by a short period (perhaps 10-15% of its total length) with a reasonable probability of the oscillations reoccurring
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
The physicist David Deutsch wrote a book titled The Fabric of Reality that is much-admired by practicing scientists, and is quite respectful of Karl Popper, and yet it is in many respects completely opposed to the philosophical view of climate-change science that is presented Katzav, Djikstra, and de Laat (henceforth KDL).
The bulk of Deutsch’s book is (rather technically) concerned with quantum dynamics, but the first chapter, titled “The Theory of Everything”, is mush broader in scope, and it is very charming and fun to read … and very fortunately this chapter is freely readable on Google Books.
Deutsch’s chapter is highly recommended for reading in parallel with the KDL manuscript. Here are excerpts:
According to Deutsch’s philosophical framework, the scientific work that seminally explained climate-change was the justly-celebrated 1981 article by Hansen and colleagues titled “Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide“.
All subsequent work, including the IPCC reports, are from a Deutschian point-of-view an extended verification and validation process, that has affirmed that the 1981 scientific explanation of Hansen et al. was essentially correct.
Can we tighten the confidence limits associated to our predictions of future climate change? Surely the passage of time, and the acquisition of more and better data, and perhaps even the statistical methods that KDL propose, will help us to do this.
But as for the all-important scientific explanation of climate change … heck … that is a done deal, eh? :) :) :)
A quote from Deutsch expresses the above point in one short sentence:
The KDL manuscript focuses solely on the assessment of predictive power, and has little to say regarding explanatory power, and thereby misses the essence of what modern climate-change science — indeed all of modern science — is really about.
If the predictions are wrong, the explanations are wrong and have no “explanatory power.” The explanations are the guts of how the predictions are generated.
No amount of post-normal, deconstructionist subjective Bayesian onanism, computer model intercomparison projects, infilling, change point algorithms, urban heat island cover-ups, erasures of the MWP and the 1930’s, late night rewrites of the summary for policy makers, circular reasoning or wishful thinking can obscure this, though it is certainly not for lack of trying every one of those and more.
Now that more people are noticing the comprehensive failures of prediction, we are being told that in real science, including climate science, “explanatory power” (TM) is more important than accurate prediction in testing theories. As if they were separate and as if this were a seminar in semiotics.
Quinn, as an example of vituperative demagoguery, your post is exemplary.
As an example of rational analysis, not so much! ;) ;) ;)
Do you see that, in the last week, Intrade’s Arctic sea ice extent prediction market has increased the odds of record melting this year from 30% – 40% – 50% – 60% – 70%? :eek: :eek: :eek:
So the odds that “James Hansen is right” are increasing too, eh? :grin: :grin: :grin:
The market has spoken, Quinn! :grin: :grin: :grin:
In a planet of of two halves,asymmetry often gets in the way of a good story.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1990/mean:12
/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:1990/mean:12/trend/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1990/mean:12/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1990/mean:12/trend
Hansen arguments are to downplay the early 20th century warming,such as the 1930s dust bowl.
Legitimate scientific debate on the natural variability,cannot unambiguously explain the early 20th century warming and its effects on polar ice. eg Semenov and Latif
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/6/2037/2012/
An interesting property of the ETCW is the antarctic,ie it was coolest 1920-1940 having been warmer prior,
Glad you liked it. I am no fan of deconstructionism, least of all in science, and this thread is about philosophical reflections, isn’t it?
It is a deconstructionist perversion of logic and the scientific method to say that “explanatory power” is more important than predictive validity when predictive validity is the actual test of explanatory power.
The predictions of AGW theory, including and especially those of Hansen, are so comprehensively refuted by empirical data that the theory can only survive where the refutation of a theory by the failure of its predictions is no longer decisive. Hence the ardent embrace of Deutsch, who lends a patina of respectability to the scam.
I’m not yet persuaded of Intrade’s explanatory powers or predictive validity. Maybe it’s just a comforting story with no basis in fact – lots of explanatory power, zero predictive validity. Does Intrade have bidding on the increase in antarctic ice? Or when Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster and the Tropical Upper Tropospheric Hot Spot will walk into a bar, pull back their chaps and see whose explanatory power is bigger?
Cheers!
As Robert Duvall and Michael Caine said in their family classic film Second-Hand Lions: This-here carbon-selling salesman is *GOOD*! :lol: :lol: :lol:
@Quinn the Eskimo
You write:
An excellent observation, which summarizes the current situation and explains the need for “philosophical reflections on the climate model projections” where they have been falsified by the actual observed empirical data.
Max
Mackacker, you and Quinn the Eskimo — and many other Climate Etc — sustain by the practice of personal abuse, cherry-picking, sloganeering, and demagogic denialism, a deliberate ignorance of the basic science of CO2-driven climate change that willfully ignores the striking daily verification of Hansen’s 1981 predictions.
Everyone appreciates that Intrade’s market-driven probability of a record Artic ice-melt in 2012 is looking more like a “hockey stick” every day. :) :) :)
In striking accord with Hansen’s predictions, of course! :grin: 2¢ :grin: 2¢ :grin:
That’s the common-sense reason why (what Robert calls) “industrial grade denialism” is nugatory! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now that more people are noticing the comprehensive failures of prediction, we are being told that in real science, including climate science, “explanatory power” (TM) is more important than accurate prediction in testing theories. As if they were separate and as if this were a seminar in semiotics.
Enough people recognising comprehensive failures in the prediction methods necessitated a change in tactics:
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf
GLOBAL WARMING: FORECASTS BY SCIENTISTS
VERSUS SCIENTIFIC FORECASTS
by
Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong
We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles.
Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.
So now to further distract from the IPCC bias to use science terms but not science disciplines to create global warming scares, we’ll get:
Sorry, the Green/Armstrong quote should have been in blockquote; it ends: “Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.”
““Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.””
Sure, if you don’t understand physics.
lolwot: Sure, if you don’t understand physics.
Actually, you can understand “the” physics and understand that the claims that the earth will get warm lack credence. All you have to realize and accept is that “the” physics is not complete or accurate. Consider the adiabatic lapse rate: is there an adiabatic process any where on earth, that has been shown to be adiabatic? It is a useful approximation, but it is an approximation, and the resulting quantitative relationship may not be sufficiently accurate to use in understanding what an increase in CO2 will effect, given the earth as it is now.
A fan of more discourse, quoting Deutsch: “Even in purely practical applications, the explanatory power of a theory is paramount and its predictive power only supplementary.”
Predictive accuracy is what tests the explanatory power. Neither one nor the other is entirely satisfactory by itself. To my knowledge, no one has an explanation for gravity, but the inverse square law us useful for guiding interplanetary exploration because it is sufficiently accurate. In like fashion, there is no explanation for why like charges repel and opposite charges attract. At bottom, science accepts some things that just are and have been used in accurate prediction without understanding.
Predictive power is the only thing of practical concern. We might have a theory that explains how an airfoil generates lift but if it predicts a takeoff distance of 1500 feet and we try it on a 2000 foot runway and find that that the takeoff distance was actually 2200 feet then Houston, we have a problem. Accurate prediction doesn’t prove an explanation but it can disprove it. Karl Popper is spinning in his grave at the lack of basic understanding of philosophy of science around here.
Deutsch gets it right–Fan is selectively quoting him. Deutsch says that prediction is the only way to establish explanation quality. But he asks for more than prediction, not less, when he demands explanations. Following Popper, he is an anti-inductivist. Deutsch points out that an unexplained data-fitting rule, or even a mysterious oracle that correctly predicted the outcomes of many experiments, would always leave us unsure about its range of validity–would it continue to work in new cases?
A chicken is fed by a farmer day after day and inductively fits the law “arrival of farmer leads to feeding.” It works perfectly until the farmer decides the chicken is fat enough to be slaughtered. The chicken didn’t have a good explanation of the farmer’s behavior.
Excellent analogy, climate skeptics and energy cornucopians are like stupid chickens .They will never realize what hit them when the inevitable occurs.
Web Hub Telescope: Excellent analogy, climate skeptics and energy cornucopians are like stupid chickens .
Why does the analogy not apply as well to extrapolators like James Hansen and the “Peak Oil” gang?
Personally, I almost always write “If present trends continue”, and specify a range such as 5 – 20 years. I think I recently wrote that “a trend continues right up until it ends” — but maybe in an email and not on a weblog.
Fan
So “climate science” has sunk to where prediction errors of > 150% mean “Hansen et al. was essentially correct”?
Linking to the “science” of WUWT is an automatic fail.
Try a credible source next time. ;)
One of the great mysteries of the ages is how WUWT ever got crowned as “Best Science Blog”. Naive passers-by can actually lose intelligence by reading that stuff. On second thought, that might be the objective of the blog.
Dear WebHubTelescope, in May 2012 WUWT found a fatal mistake in a Gergis et al. article that has passed peer reviews. The article was then withdrawn. What is your objective? What are your reading preferences?
That even a blind pig can find an acorn every once in a while?
People actually get stupider by reading most of that stuff.
WebHubTelescope: Naive passers-by can actually lose intelligence by reading that stuff.
They generally link to original sources, and they permit anyone to link to original sources in rebuttal. They address their attention to the cavities in the knowledge base. It is not that readers lose intelligence, but that readers risk losing belief.
Cavties? You may be right. Looking at that WUWT garbage is more like looking at a caveman’s tooth decay.
If you want to be engaged and challenged, I suggest following John Carlos Baez’s Azimuth blog or something similar. No? You don’t like the fact that smart people have political viewpoints that don’t match yours? Then go to Lubos Motl’s blog.
WebHubTelescope: John Carlos Baez’s Azimuth blog or something similar.
I’ll give it a try.
John Carlos Baez’s Azimuth blog or something similar.
He recently “discovered ” Symplectic geometry and suggested that it may have applications to thermodynamics.Next week maybe the wheel and fire and its application to transport solutions.
WebHubTelescope: That even a blind pig can find an acorn every once in a while?
What I can’t get from reading your posts is whether you do or do not believe that climate science, and in particular the science of climate effects of CO2, has serious limitations.
That remark tells me lots about your character. Baez has recently summed up his approach as trying to reveal patterns and increase understanding via his skills and facility with formal mathematics. He starts from first principles and works his way through the math in the hopes of finding something new. Certainly, he will often get to a place that someone has explored before, and some commenter will point that out. But then again, his path could take him to some unexpected place that actually reveals something novel. The fact that he does that in the open, with a Wiki and many collaborators, makes him very visible to trivial gaps in his knowledge. Big deal.
I think you are also practicing loads of projection. Baez knows more than anyone what it takes to become classified as a crackpot. His years of moderating the Usenet forum Sci.Math and his writing the Crackpot Index (Google it) puts him in a special position to understand the lay of the land in which the skeptics such as at WUWT inhabit.
Do the same for Lubos Motl, cause I ain’t going there.
Thank you. This is pretty cool: http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/category/climate/
Certainly, he will often get to a place that someone has explored before, and some commenter will point that out. But then again, his path could take him to some unexpected place that actually reveals something novel.
There is a deep literature,that is well researched on this from Poincare’s 1889 application to the n body problem,That it is an important aspect of Hydrodynamics and dynamical systems theory is neither a projection nor a novel application,that a mathematician can overlook an entire school of theory is alarming.That it has been set learning at specialist high schools in both the soviet and post soviet eras is also troublesome.
Whilst exploring new ideas and applications to problems is indeed a worthwhile endeavour, the application to the mapping problems on the rotating planet for example,however constraints are always within any theory (where problems have been clearly identified) it is only then can we state our limitations.
Robert – WUWT, in large part, is simply an aggregater. There are original posts, but typically even those link to the source article or data. I can see why you wouldn’t like it as it rejects CAWG religion.
Robert
Since you apparently find it difficult to follow the scientific method or scientific English (?!), here is the original Was ist eigentlich aus James Hansens Temperaturvorhersage von 1988 geworden? Zeit für eine Überprüfungby Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) (c/o Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning)
PS Don’t shoot the messenger. Examine all things. Keep what is good.
Your link to WUWT’s abortion of an argument is a fail.
So you think you can redeem yourself with un-reviewed, self-published denialist garbage?
That’s two strikes. Got anything credible?
Robert
Try a refresher on the scientific method:
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”— Albert Einstein
Science Says Rob Kaplan, or Attributed to Einstein. Quoted in Alice Calaprice, The Quotable Einstein (1996), 224
The burden of proof rests on Hansen to uphold his assertion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming over the null hypothesis of the full range of natural climate variations. No amount of ad hominem attacks on the messenger will every change that burden of proof.
To date Hansen’s hypothesis is Not Proven.
“The burden of proof rests on Hansen . . .”
The burden of proof to support your assertions with evidence rests with you. You have failed to support it. Third strike, better luck next time.
“his assertion of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”
Citation needed. We were talking about the 1988 predictions — you need to cite Hansen asserting in that context that there will be “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.”
Since that is a straw man invented by deniers many years later, I suspect you’ll fail. Again.
The burden of proof is on Hansen and his ilk.
“null hypothesis of the full range of natural climate variations”
Don’t you think a more narrow null hypothesis would be more appropriate?
Let’s not do anything until the Antarctic icecap has completely melted.
“If I can find my truck we could drive out!”
Bob
The Antarctic icecap is always below freezing on the average. It won’t melt in the lifetime of your grandchildren!
Natural variations includes the rate of change from natural causes.
Upholding the scientific method is foundational. ”
A more narrow” null hypothesis is not science.
David, whether or not the Antarctic icecap melts in the lifetime of my grandchildren depends on a number of things.
It depends on the boundary of the Antarctic ice cap, if you include the entire continent and the ice shelves attached to the continent, then parts of the icecap have already melted, as we have witnessed the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf.
Depends also on the rate of the mass loss from Antarctica as measured by the GRACE satellites, which is accelerating, and if that acceleration continues, we could well see significant global sea-level rise in the lifetime of my as yet unborn grandchildren.
If you want to keep the null hypothesis to +5 C to – 10 C from current global mean temperatures, by all means go ahead, but to call anything less unscientific shows your lack of rigor. Shows you don’t know what science is.
bob droege
Always conduct a reality check on alarmist global warming claims.
The “acceleration” in West Antarctica results in a loss of ice that is now about up to the level of the accumulation of ice in East Antarctica.
2006
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006GeoRL..3311502C
Compare 2012
Global sea ice shows a very small trend.
That does NOT include the bulk of Antarctic ice.
Total Antarctic ice is about “30 million cubic km of ice”
~ 3*10^16 t of ice.
Taking the W/E difference as about 10 Gt/30,000,000 Gt ~ 2.6 * 10^-6 per year. i.e., If I have my calculations right, it will only take about two million years till the Antarctic glacier melts at current rates.
(Please check the estimates. )
I don’t think I will hold my breath or have any nightmares about sea level rise in the near future.
Think that’s wrong, I get about 100,000 years and that excludes any acceleration.
“Please check the estimates.”
They’re wrong.
Please check your own source. It says mass loss from Antarctica is accelerating.
Robert
Re: “mass loss from Antarctica is accelerating”
Read more carefully. Note:
The 2012 “acceleration” was only:
lolwot
Please explain your calculation. 1 cu mile ice ~ 1 Gt. 30 million cu mi ~ 3*10^7 Gt. 10 Gt/30 Gt ~1/3*10^-7. or 3 million years – Assuming the difference between East-West Antarctica is actually loosing 10 Gt/year – with the large uncertainties listed, it could equally be gaining.
PS Whether Antarctica will melt in 100,000 or 1 million, both are well beyond the age of your grandchildren. Plenty of time to adapt – or enjoy.
Greenland glaciers naturally flow into the sea. For a dose of reality see:
Why the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets
are Not Collapsing
2012: The Year Greenland Melted (AKA Alarmists Gone Wild)
“So “climate science” has sunk to where prediction errors of > 150% mean “Hansen et al. was essentially correct”?”
This same subject came up on the other thread where David Springer, Edim, Girma, and Manacker were all trying to claim the real world followed Hansen’s scenario A and therefore we should have expected scenario A warming.
WUWT does the same thing. So does Jo Nova and countless other skeptics. Plus they never learn from the mistake. I don’t see any evidence the aforementioned bodies learned their mistake on the last thread and fully expect them to parrot and defend the same false claim in the future.
It’s wrong, real world emissions were below scenario B. Here’s a direct response to solheim’s same error:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1502
What then is the basis, if any, for concluding that Scenario B was the more “plausible”? I doubt whether Hansen was really thinking about differences between near-time Other Trace Gas concentrations when he said that Scenario B was “more plausible” for the near-time dispute with Michaels. The 1988 paper strongly suggests that he was thinking about “deep time” differences out past 2025 where exponential versus linear actually matters. … – Steve McIntyre
The above is why Girma’s 1.9% growth rate is meaningless. The astounding thing here is Max fully understands resource limitation as he often cites data that supports the notion of around 1100 ppm being the cap for the contribution to anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels.
Scenario A is totally implausible and cannot be BAU.
The real world more than followed Hansen’s scenario A regarding CO2 emissions only. That was my point and it’s correct.
It’s incorrect, not correct.
But thanks for stopping by.
No it is not. You are an incorrect contrarian. You don’t see a divergenence in 2012.
WebHubTelescope: You don’t see a divergenence in 2012.
I think a fairer statement is that the divergence is not statistically significant in 2012. If the trend in the divergence continues, then the divergence will become statistically significant. As it is, the divergence shows that there is no reason to think his projections provide a sound basis for policy.
You are right, lolwot. The real temperature increase is much less than scenarios A, B, or C.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/08/fun-with-summer-statistics-part-2-the-northern-hemisphere-land/
Fan –
Thank you for that post. In particular, I think that this quote is very useful:
This is the problem with the climate debate food fight writ large. I think it relates, also, to the discussion of post-normal science (and to the influence of motivated reasoning on the debate).
Agreed 100% Joshua.
Even a perfectly predictive climate-change theory, by itself, would convey no scientific understanding, just as The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS), by itself, conveys no mathematical understanding.
It is the understanding of how climate-change works that is the main “deliverable” of climate-change science, eh? :) :) :)
No amount of “philosophical reflections” can alter this key point! :) :) :)
Deutch should probably be spelled Douche. We have no explanation for gravity. Yet we can still make amazingly accurate predictions based upon observations of gravity so consistent and repeatable that we skip the hypothesis of gravity, the theory of gravity, and go straight to a law of gravity. Prediction isn’t everything but it’s the most important thing by far.
Eli apparently remembers from the distant pass something called the Higgs boson being found.
I do not think the models provide a lower bound on possibiliy, not until they show cooling as a very real possibility. Warming is built in at this point, as a certainty, which is completely unrealistic.
So in assessing the possibilities for a skydiver who has just jumped, what likelihood would you assign their flying upwards and attaining orbit?
Robert
You ask:
About the same as the 2K to 11K extreme climate sensitivity range mentioned in Juidith’s article (i.e.anything over around 2.5 to 3K).
GIGO = GIGO
Max
“GIGO = GIGO”
A fine tag line for you, Max. It describes your mind very well.
Robert
Duh! Yer so witty!
MIMO
David Wojick, please reflect that warming is built-in to the models because warming is build-in the the physics of heat transport in an enriched-CO2 atmosphere.
There is not much anyone can do to change that physics — and for the past thirty years, people have looked mighty hard for loopholes — because “Nature cannot be fooled.”
That is why the explanatory aspect of the climate-change debate is ending. Now attention is focusing (per the KDL manuscript) on refining the nitty-gritty predictive elements of climate-change science. Here there is no substitute for the grind-it-out strategy of more data, higher quality data, longer observational periods, and more refined statistical methods.
But barring some out-of-the-blue scientific revolution — which happen exceedingly seldom in science — the scientific explanation of CO2-driven climate change is a done deal, eh? :) :) :)
The thing is that this heat transport (?) is just a small part of the physics of climate, much of which is not well understood. The models should be experimenting with possibilities, not making forecasts. This is the institutional problem.
David Wojick, you are of course correct that there is still much to be learned about climate dynamics. And yet:
• If the sun’s energy input is relatively stable
(which is true), and
• increasing CO2 traps more of that energy
(which is true), and
• other processes conserve energy and increase entropy
(which is true), then
• the planet will get warmer
(independent of model details),
There are still plenty of uncertainties associated to auxiliary factors like clouds and aerosols (as the main examples), yet as our understanding of these auxiliary factors grows, and we observe no shockingly unexpected dynamics associated to them, then confidence in the above basic understanding of climate-change steadily increases.
It’s not easy, but neither is it complicated David Wojick! :) :) :)
Fan
Earth has also swung between ice ages and warm interglacial periods.
This raises the issue of how probable it is for earth to descend into the next glaciation in about 1500 years with the long term cooling from the Holocene climatic optimum about 8000 years ago.
See Determining the natural length of the current interglacial 2012
Compare
Did Shakun et al. really prove that CO2 preceded late glacial warming? [Part 1]
Evaluating these issues will require understanding the causes of natural variations including glacial periods, and of anthropogenic global warming, and of the full uncertainties in both models – including Type II errors with the associated Unknown Unknowns!
a fan of more discourse: other processes conserve energy and increase entropy (which is true), then
Photosynthesis is a process with conserves energy and reduces entropy.
It seems not to account for a large amount of the total energy flow, but increase in CO2 will probably speed up the rate of conversion of CO2 to high energy carbon bonds in small structures.
Convection is a process that carries energy from the surface and lower troposphere to the upper troposphere; how CO2 increase will affect the rate of that transport is not known.
Far be it for me to take Fan’s side, but photosynthesis does NOT reduce entropy. If you think so, you’re drawing the envelope wrong.
“• increasing CO2 traps more of that energy (which is true),…”
This is far from true, it’s just a speculation. Radiative cooling is not dominant at the surface (evaporation/convection) and the atmosphere is cooled exclusively by radiation. Most of the total outgoing planetary radiation is from the atmosphere, not from the surface…
http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/images/Erb/components2.gif
On the face of it, CO2 cooling effect is more likely, but probably insignificant and easily overwhelmed by other factors.
P.E. | August 13, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
“Far be it for me to take Fan’s side, but photosynthesis does NOT reduce entropy. If you think so, you’re drawing the envelope wrong.”
Well, it does reduce entropy on the earth. You have a bunch of molecules rattling around in the atmosphere at random (brownian motion)which photosynthesis and other processes in the plant cell assembles into very orderly botanical structures. That is, by definition, a reduction in entropy.
Very good, David Springer! :) :) :)
Assignment Take out your pencil-and-paper, and calculate the entropy change associated to the sun’s incoming radiation (part of which lit the leaves of the plants) and the earth’s outgoing radiation (part of which was emitted by those leaves).
Prediction The net entropy change will be positive! :) :) :)
———————
Question What is the Bayesian probability that the above scientific prediction is correct?
Answer If you are applying Bayesian probability theory to answer the question, this verifies that your understanding of mathematical physics and the scientific process needs deepening. The lesson is that late-stage statistical verification cannot substitute for early-stage valid understanding, eh? :) :) :)
———————
Hopefully working this example problem will enlighten you regarding naturality in scientific validation and verification processes, Dave Springer! :grin: 2¢ :grin: 2¢ :grin:
fan of more discourse: Assignment Take out your pencil-and-paper, and calculate the entropy change associated to the sun’s incoming radiation (part of which lit the leaves of the plants) and the earth’s outgoing radiation (part of which was emitted by those leaves).
There is no doubt that the entropy of the complete Earth/Sun system is increasing. However, the tree splits the C-O bonds in CO2 and stores the energy and C in high-energy C-C and other bonds in compact structures like sugar, lignin and cellulose.
It is not a question of “whether”, but of “how much” and “when”. A preliminary question is what happened to the observed data on its way to model tuning and reporting.
That is why the explanatory aspect of the climate-change debate is ending. Now attention is focusing (per the KDL manuscript) on refining the nitty-gritty predictive elements of climate-change science. Here there is no substitute for the grind-it-out strategy of more data, higher quality data, longer observational periods, and more refined statistical methods.
The explanatory aspect is ending so soon? Does that mean the science is all known and settled? I was hoping there were still some details to work out.
As for refining predictive elements, I’m afraid lots of people are going to be very disappointed. Check back on this after they get fusion working.
More better data, legit stats, that I can agree with.
Prepare for this: even if a prediction turns out to be right, you won’t really know if it worked.
they do show cooling as a real possibility. Over the short run individual realizations show cooling. Over the long range since the laws of physics must be respected more watts in means a higher temperature.. whether those watts come from the sun or GHGs
The “laws of physics”? Are you nuts? You have no vague idea what is going on scientifically, do you? I rest my case. The models must warm. It is the law.
Watts don’t come from GHGs. They all come from the sun.
Trite. Changes in radiation wavelength come from interactions with matter — the earth and it’s atmosphere. Mosh can call it an effective power and be correct.
A thought experiment. Assume that a thin layer of shiny metal foil instantaneously covered the entire world. The interaction of EM radiation with the conductive skin layer would reflect the photons without heating. This is a change of absorbed power not due to the sun, but all due to changes in the earth’s composition.
I thought you were an engineer?
Steven Mosher: Over the long range since the laws of physics must be respected more watts in means a higher temperature.
You have decided that increased cloudiness is not one of the possibilities.
MattStat
If you design your model to match recent climatology (which includes cloud modelling of summer/winter/tropical/temperate etc. regions) then typically the model will not give you any increase in cloudiness with warming. And you need a lot of increased cloudiness to counteract the increase in humidity caused by the warming.
So presumably you would only get the necessary increased cloudiness if you “build it into” the models as David Wojick might say.
MattStat,
I can’t speak for Steve Mosher, but I suspect you are drawing too many conclusions from unsaid things.
Technically, Steve Mosher was only saying that it must at least be warmer with more Watts. If it is not even warmer with more Watts there is no change to cause a change in clouds to stop the warming! I think he was making this relatively trite point to undermine David Wojick’s implication that somehow building basic physics into the model is just not cricket. Robert’s skydiver example was similar.
That is a cogent point Steve Milesworthy! :) :) :)
Dave Springer, for example, is another exemplar of the burgeoning “basic physics into the model is just not cricket“ school of climate-change denialism.
Indeed, the article that Judith Curry posted — by Katzav, Djikstra, and de Laat (KDL) — is itself exemplary of “basic physics is no cricket” denialism.
We have seen Bayesian denialism before in history: “no one knows the true mechanism of lung cancer” … “the so-called evolutionary chain is missing many links” … and even “we cannot be confident that the world is round, as no-one has yet sailed around it.”
The KDL analysis had noble aspirations, but was crippled by the author’s failure to recognize that scientific validation originates in our understanding of natural laws, such that scientific validation is both prior-and-post to scientific verification which *is* (of course) susceptible to statistical analysis.
So try again, KDL! :) :) :)
Steve Milesworthy: I think he was making this relatively trite point to undermine David Wojick’s implication that somehow building basic physics into the model is just not cricket.
I don’t think that is it. What may be false, though “cricket”, is to limit the model to a subset of the basic physics. For example, to omit mention of the non-radiative mechanisms of heat transfer, or to restrict analysis to the approximate equilibrium cases, or to restrict attention to “adiabatic” approximations.
Steve Milesworthy: So presumably you would only get the necessary increased cloudiness if you “build it into” the models as David Wojick might say.
In order for the model to predict cloudiness, some mechanism by which the warmth predicts the increased cloudiness has to be built in to the model. On that we agree. Then the measured response of cloudiness to temperature change (or CO2 change) tests whether the “possibility” of increased cloudiness, represented in the model, remains viable in light of evidence.
I think that Steven Mosher rules out a priori any model that has increased cloudiness built in. That is, he excludes it from the class of possibilities to be considered.
You ought to clam up on the physics, Steve. I think you’ve got some talent for actuarial science but physics not so much. The only energy input of any significance is the sun. That’s where the Watts come from. GHGs are like putting on a sweater. They can only retain heat that is generated elsewhere. And the surface temperature that “must rise” can be the surface of the clouds instead of the land or water below them.
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
======================
“More watts in?”
From where?
(Obviously only from the sun – not from CO2.)
But how about the incoming energy from the sun that is reflected back out into space by clouds (i.e. the “watts” from the sun that never make it to the surface of the Earth to cause warming)?
Spencer + Braswell 2007 showed, based on CERES satellite observations, that the NET feedback from clouds with surface warming was strongly negative, IOW that the net increase in SW reflection from increased clouds with warming exceeded the added LW absorption from clouds.
These observations are in direct contrast with earlier IPCC AR4 model-based estimates of a strong positive feedback from clouds with warming.
IOW it appears that clouds act “as a natural thermostat” (as Kevin Trenberth concluded in a recent interview regarding the unexplained “missing energy” he had referred to as a “travesty”).
Max
I am sorry, but maybe I am just too simpleminded. The only way to validate any model is to have it predict the future in an unambiguous way, and then get the observed data to see whether the prediction was correct. You do this a sufficient number of times so that any apparent valid projection could not have occurred by chance. Until this is done, we can never actually validate any model.
We see the problem with Hansen’s predictions which are obviously so weasel worded that people like Steven Mosher can say, when it seems clear that the predictions did not come true, that what Hansen seemed to have said was not actually what he said, and his predictions were completely correct.. The sort of predicitons which we need are like Smith et al Science August 2007. This prediction was clear, unambiguous, and on a sufficiently short time frame that we will know whether it was right at the end of 2014. But we need many more than one such prediciton. If Smith et al turn out to be wrong, then we know the models cannot be made valid by hindcasting. But if the prediction is correct, it could still have occurred by chance.
You are way overrating the consequence of a decadal forecast being wrong.
JCH you write “You are way overrating the consequence of a decadal forecast being wrong.”
Why? I am looking at a peer reviewed study that claimed it had validated iit’s model for future forecasting by hindcasting the data. It then used theodel to forecast the future. It claimed that this forecast was valid for the time period considered; namely one decade. So, if the forecast turns out to be wrong, it seems to me that this proves that using hindcasting to “validate” a model is proved to be wrong. Why is this overrating the paper?
The only way to validate any model is to have it predict the future in an unambiguous way
So if the rain comes an hour later or earlier than the forecast predicted it the forecast model is invalidated? Not untrue if your validation demands perfection (eg. the Queen is having tea with the US President on the lawn at 2pm when the rain arrives). But untrue (in my view) if your model system tends to reliably predict rain to a certain level of precision.
The Smith et al paper promises only substantially improved skill by its attempt to predict “internal variability” – certainly it’s prediction is closer to reality than the ensemble mean of IPCC projections.
The observations are still just within the 90% envelope given by the forecast so technically it has not failed. That most certainly doesn’t rule out some unknown unknowns that have caused the model to go wrong, but it also doesn’t rule out some known unknowns, such as the effects of the weaker solar cycle, differences in emission rates of cooling aerosols.
So we’re some way off from scrapping the model, but if you don’t put your predictions out there for critical assessment you will probably never improve them, and you won’t have an incentive to continue to tackle the uncertainties.
It’s decadal. Described as difficult to impossible to pull off. It’s one of the first attempts. If it’s wrong they will figure out reasons why and go again. And they will ignore you because you are unreasonable and obstinate.
Smith et al correctly predicted natural variation would swamp the AGW signal in the years up to ~2010. They appear to be correct. Was it skill or was it luck? On the only temperature series that measures the temperature of the planet, they remain in position to be correct about the planet. On the region of the planet covered by HadCrut3, not so much.
Thank you steve and JCH. A few points. Smith el al, quite properly, put probability limits on their predictions. This should be true for all predictions. If the observations fall outside the probability range, then the forecast fails.
It is quite true we dont know, yet, whether Smith el al are correct. We will not know until toward the end of 2014. What we do know is that while Smith el al forecast the return to CAGW would occur around 2010, Keenleyside el al said this would not happen until 2015. Both of them cannot be correct.
Yes, we will have to wait until 2014 becfore we can make a judgement. I just want to make sure Smith et al is not carefully forgotten before that time. I am sure the proponents of CAGW will have all sorts of wonderful reasons why the forecast was in fact correct, whether it was or not. The religion of CAGW cannot afford to have this sort of prediction NOT be correct.
Jim,
The fact that the British government have invested an extra several million in resources for seasonal forecasting will ensure that seasonal and decadal forecasting in the UK will remain in the forefront of many people’s minds. I don’t think you need to worry about it being forgotton if temperatures stubbornly refuse to rise! My impression is that Smith et al is regarded as a better attempt than Keenleyside et al, but that could be because it was easy to see that all of Keenleyside’s hindcasts were biased cool in their early years.
JCH: You are way overrating the consequence of a decadal forecast being wrong.
The climate (at least as it is measured) has too much random variability for an incorrect decadal forecast to be statistically significant. If the disparity between the forecast and the measured record continues to grow at about the same average rate through 2050, then we’ll be on good ground for concluding that it won’t be accurate enough for 2100.
Judith Curry
Thanks for an insightful and interesting post.
Climate science is a “hairy” topic.
Philosophy is “hairy-fairy”.
I prefer things that are more fact-based.
As you point ou, the “possibilistic approach” you propose can only work if the input assumptions and their remoteness can be quantified objectively.
GIGO climate model projections, such as an extreme 2 to 11K climate sensitivity range, remain GIGO, no matter how they are analyzed.
The past 150 years have shown us that the observed temperature rise was around 0.7 degrees C.
Over that period, CO2 rose from an estimated 280 ppmv to a measured 392 ppmv.
We know from solar studies that solar activity during the 20th century reach a highest level in several thousand years (and is now on the decline).
IPCC tells us that forcings from other anthropogenic factors (minor GHGs, aerosols, etc.) cancelled each other out.
So we can estimate that the observations would lead to an observed 2xCO2 climate response of between 0.8 and 1.4 degC.
Let’s go along with Hansen’s circular “in the pipeline” logic and assume that up to half of the GH warming is still “hidden in the pipeline” (where we are unable to see or measure it). [Talk about “hairy-fairy”!]
Even then we end up with a range of 0.8 to 2.8 degreesC, NOT the totally absurd 2 to 11 degrees C.
You point out that the real threat “arises when we do not make sure that possibilities being considered are real possibilities”.
That’s what I just pointed out (WITHOUT resorting to “philosophy”).
Max
I don’t know what’s sadder; that you are trying to overthrow climate science with third-grade math or that you got the math wrong.
Robert
Sorry, but that’s what the physical observations and the math show.
If you are unable to confirm this for yourself, let me know and I’ll do it for you.
Max
Max, you write “IPCC tells us that forcings from other anthropogenic factors (minor GHGs, aerosols, etc.) cancelled each other out.”
Most of what you have written makes complete sense. I just dont like you quoting the IPCC as if what they say is valid. It is not. The effects of random noise do not cancel out unless the time constants of the nosie are short compared with the time over which the observation is being made. Since we have no idea of what these time constants are, we cannot know whether they cancel each other out.
But you are absolutley correct is pointing out that the ONLY valid way of arriving at what the climate sensitivity of CO2 actually is, is to calculate the value from the observed data. The hypothetical estimations are completely meaningless.
Jim Cripwell
I agree with you that there may not be any sound empirical evidence to support the IPCC model-based estimate in AR4 that all other anthropogenic forcings beside CO2 cancelled one another out.
I accepted this assumption at face value in order to simplify the CO2 to temperature effect. Had I assumed that there was no net negative forcing from human aerosols over this long period, the CO2 climate sensitivity would have come out even lower.
The other IPCC assumption was that solar (natural) forcing was only 7% of the total. Here IPCC concedes that its “level of scientific understanding” of solar forcing is “low”, so I have checked other sources. Several solar studies agree that around half of the warming (not 7%) can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity.
So, using the 7% to 50% range for solar impact with the balance from CO2 forcing and the observed changes in CO2 and global temperature, I arrived at the 0.8C to 1.4C 2xCO2 temperature response.
Using Hansen’s circular “hidden in the pipeline” logic to arrive at the upper end of a climate sensitivity range, I came up with a range of 0.8 to 2.8 degrees C.
I agree with you that there are already a lot of dicey assumptions required in order to reach an upper climate sensitivity limit of 2.8 degC.
But it could be considered as an upper limit of the range.
An upper limit of 11 degC (as Judith mentioned) is obviously a result of GIGO climate model projections and should be discarded as such.
Max
Thanks Max, we agree.
“I can give you links to the “several solar studies” which agree that around half of the warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity.”
You’re right to put “studies” in quotation marks. What garbage.
Please, link to that trash . . . it’s good to laugh. At the end of the day, the reality is still going to be 7% +/- a few percent. And incidentally, you’ve admitted you were lying when you attacked Hansen’s math . . . since the way you came to a different number was by pretending the solar forcing was seven times too large.
“So, using the 7% to 50% range for solar impact with the balance from CO2 forcing and the observed changes in CO2 and global temperature, I arrived at the 0.8C to 1.4C 2xCO2 temperature response.”
In other words, you exaggerated the solar forcing by a factor of five, using the excuse that it was uncertain. You did not, however, follow the logic out, and consider the possibility of a negative solar forcing, along the lines of 7% +/- 43%.
Another very basic mistake on your part.
“But it could be considered as an upper limit of the range.”
Nope.
By a factor of seven, excuse me.
Robert – In case you’re interested in understanding Max’s approach to accountability:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/11/week-in-review-81112/#comment-228259
Robert
You must learn to do a better job of reading before you post.
I can give you links to the “several solar studies” which agree that around half of the warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity.
From these and from IPCC’s estimate of only 7%, which it concedes is based an a “low level of scientific understanding” of “solar (natural) forcing”, I got the range of CO2 temperature response.
Got it?
It’s really not that complicated if you read what is written before shooting off a silly response.
Max
Max:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/11/week-in-review-81112/#comment-228259
there is no secular trend in TSI.
If you don’t believe warming can be “in the pipeline” (which is moronic, but you’re a moron, so let’s proceed) climate sensitivity is very easy to calculate:
Warming since 1980: 0.6C
Change in CO2 forcing since 1980: 5.35 * ln(392/340) = 0.75 W/m^2
(+0.6C) * (3.7/0.75) = 2.96 C/doubling
Wow, I just used your own unrealistic assumptions to derive a climate sensitivity of 3C. Perhaps you need more practice working through the logical consequences of your own arguments . . . maybe some training in logic . . . perhaps a philosophy class?
Robert
You are falling into the “short term” trap.
It makes you look like “the moron”.
My longer-term look (using data from 1850 and including Hansen’s circular “hidden in the pipeline” logic for the upper end) comes out at 0.8 to 2.8 degC.
As I point out to Jim Cripwell, the upper range is based on some dicey assumptions backed by circular logic and low level of scientific understanding, but I showed it anyway as an upper limit, which could be considered in Judith’s “posibilistic” approach.
Got it? (Or are you the “moron”?)
Max.
“You are falling into the “short term” trap.”
Nope. I’m taking an assumption I describe as moronic and showing some of the conclusions that follow from it.
“My longer-term look”
If there is no warming “in the pipeline” then there is no need for a longer-term look. If there is, then your method fails completely. So: 3C, or you’re just completely wrong. Those are the logical possibilities.
Robert
Sorry. You have not proven anything except that the “moron” label might fit for you.
The figures/observations still show that a CS of 0.8 to 2.8 degC seems to be a reasonable range and that the 2 to 11 degC range cited in our host’s post is simply a GIGO climate model projection.
Max
Sorry, little moron, but you’ve just proved you don’t understand your own argument.
You lose, little moron! Thanks for playing!
:):):):):):):):)
Just like Manacker is confused by where half of the CO2 is going, he is also confused by where the excess heat is going.
Heat diffuses just as CO2 diffuses.
A deep heat sink is exactly the same in diffusive terms as a deep sequestering site for CO2.
The math is very similar between the two.
For heat diffusion, one uses the heat equation. Normalizing the diffusion coefficient, it looks like this:
For uncharged particle diffusion w/o forces, one used the Fokker-Planck master equation minus the drift term. Normalizing the diffusion coefficient to unity, it looks like this:
The detailed science behind many of these phenomena is reserved for scientists that know what they are doing. Hansen has used this concept since 1981, as far as I can tell. From my perspective, it looks like he knows what he is doing.
I also understand why and how a heat sink works on a PC — obviously so that the excess heat doesn’t burn up your computer’s CPU. Manacker doesn’t understand this concept, and prefers to wax philosophically about where the excess heat is going.
This is all conventional science describing natural physical phenomena . I may sound harsh, but that’s the way it works. If you don’t follow, then you flunk the course. Ask Curry how this works, as I bet she has had to flunk a few.
wht,
“For uncharged particle diffusion w/o forces….”
You mean perhaps without gravity which causes particulates in a “sink’ to, well, sink?
And “an uncharged particle” doesn’t apply to a lot of things in the ocean, certainly not CO2 which is present as carbonate or bicarbonate anions.
In science and engineering you have “sources” and “sinks”. A heat sink absorbs the excess heat.
I didn’t add the drift term in the Fokker-Planck equation because the force (an electric field for charged particles and gravity for particles with mass) is pretty much non-existent. Heat does not have charge and has no mass. CO2 does not have an electric field forcing it anywhere. One can say that convection currents can carry the heat and dissolved CO2, but eddy diffusion is the main factor and subsumes convection.
Retaining only the diffusion term is a perfectly acceptable approximation, which.is what Hansen did 30 years ago.
BTW: What a retarded little Fokker you are.
WebHubTelescope | August 15, 2012 at 1:54 am | “Michael Hart | August 14, 2012 at 10:25 am |
wht,
“For uncharged particle diffusion w/o forces….”
You mean perhaps without gravity which causes particulates in a “sink’ to, well, sink?
And “an uncharged particle” doesn’t apply to a lot of things in the ocean, certainly not CO2 which is present as carbonate or bicarbonate anions.”
In science and engineering you have “sources” and “sinks”. A heat sink absorbs the excess heat.
======
In science and engineering we have properties and processes.
For example: Carbon dioxide is fully part of the Water Cycle which cools the Earth around 52°C to bring temps down to 15°C, think deserts, which means that carbon dioxide has the same mean residence time in the atmosphere as water, 8-10 days, in rain – all pure clean rain is carbonic acid.
For example: carbon dioxide is heavier than the heavy voluminous fluid gas which is our atmosphere, subject to gravity carbon dioxide will always sink to the Earth’s surface if no work is done to change this, it does not readily rise in air.
Therefore: carbon dioxide cannot accumulate in the atmosphere.
Myrhh is scary delusional. I didn’t this was common much past the 16th century. Maybe too much frankincense in his bong.
Robert,
[“If you don’t believe warming can be “in the pipeline” (which is moronic, but you’re a moron, so let’s proceed)…”]
This is a polite question:
Why do you say it is moronic to disbelieve the “in the pipeline” warming? Do you have any real (non-modelled) evidence to support such a belief?
If so, where is the evidence?
Thanks in anticipation.
“Why do you say it is moronic to disbelieve the “in the pipeline” warming?”
Because to hold that (dis)belief you have to be not only scientifically ignorant, but profoundly lacking in common sense.
“Do you have any real (non-modelled) evidence to support such a belief?”
Yes.
“If so, where is the evidence?”
Any undergraduate course in climate science.
“Thanks in anticipation.”
Glad I could help.
Robert,
Take a look at yourself dude. I asked a polite question which you have not only refused to answer (by not providing evidence) but have managed to infer I am scientifically ignorant, something you could not possibly know.
You mentioned common sense. Would you not agree that common sense would dictate that an inferred (or hypothesised, if you prefer) “pipeline warming” has had well over two centuries to show some sign of existence (the IPCC states that 1750 was the start of anthropogenic emissions). If there was “pipeline warming”, the warming should be increasing at an accelerative rate. In order to speak with any sort of scientific authority about said warming, you will have to produce evidence. Telling me to do an undergraduate course is a cop out. Either produce some real evidence or retract your remark.
Oh, and by the way, you weren’t any help, and you won’t be unless you can provide something to back up your opinion.
At least Steve Milesworthy was polite (see below).
Ah, but there’s the rub. If you do not, in fact, believe that there is warming in the pipeline, you could simply state that, and say why you believe that.
If you are not scientifically ignorant, you are aware of the argument you are asking me for, aware that it is widely accepted by the scientifically literate, and that the burden of proof fails on you to cast doubt on this element of a well-established scientific theory.
Hence, your question is fundamentally insincere. You want to challenge this aspect of climate, but you do not want to be put to the trouble of formulating an argument and supporting it with evidence. So you ask me to teach you this basic science — without, I might add, offering any compensation — but not because your intention is the learn, but rather to shift the burden of proof away from your challenge to the science.
This form of “weaponized ignorance” is incredibly common. Some people will play along with you, but unless I am in a very, very generous mood, I prefer not to.
Let me lay out for you what I think is an honest way of engaging on this question, one that would get a more data-driven response from me:
Actual Skeptic: I’m aware that climate scientists think there is warming in the pipeline. Their argument, as I understand it, is “x, y, z.”
Actual Skeptic: I think that argument is dubious, because of “a, b, c.”
Actual Skeptic: If you are still convinced there is warming in the pipeline, how do you respond to “a, b, c.”
If you are not scientifically ignorant, you should be able to summarize the state of the science now and explain where and why you disagree. If you pretend to be ignorant of the science in order to avoid the burden of articulating and supporting your own ideas, I will always take you at your word and treat you as ignorant. And this goes for anyone who deploys that “I don’t know of any evidence” crap. Rob, I’m looking at you.
Nicely done, Robert.
“Nicely done Robert?”
Are you serious?
Robert,
Take away all the “I-just-want-to-win-the-tangential-argument-that-I’m-inventing-because-I-have-actually-no-idea-how-I-can-answer-the-SIMPLE-question-without-making-myself-look-like-a-complete-buffoon.” diatribe and all you are left with is an inability to defend your own position.
I’m not interested in hand-waving gobbledeygook about what you feel about me; I’m interested in you answering the simple question.
“What evidence do you have that the “pipeline warming” actually exists?”
Stop playing silly games and either answer the question or retract the asinine insinuation that someone who disbelieves in “pipeline warming” is a moron.
Arfur –
I could do without Robert’s personalizing – but I think his point is valid.
IMO, the better way for you to frame your question would be for your to state what the theory is, which parts you disagree with and why, and ask for counterarguments.
Why don’t you just humor Robert, and go with that? Either he’ll be able to respond or not. If he can’t respond, then there will be no way for him to legitimately avoid that he’s failed your challenge.
Joshua,
Robert’s personality-driven argument is irrelevant to the question. IMO opinion it simply shows he is incapable of carrying out a rational discussion.
Thank you for your input. I agree that your, had I wanted to discuss a certain theory, I should re-phrase the question. However, the question I asked initially is perfectly valid.
Robert stated: [“If you don’t believe warming can be “in the pipeline” (which is moronic, but you’re a moron, so let’s proceed)…”]
I merely asked him to provide evidence of his assertion that [disbelief = moron]. That’s all. There was no hidden agenda. The fact that I may not agree with him is irrelevant to the question. It is a very simple question and, as Robert made the original statement, it is fair that he should be asked to back up his assertion. No deflection of the exchange is required or invited.
Either he provides evidence to back his assertion up, or he retracts the ad hominem.
Simples.
ps, I may not be able to answer for about 8 hours or so as I have to go to work…
Again, thanks for your input.
Joshua,
Sorry, typo. Second paragraph, second sentence should read “I agree that, had I wanted…”
Arfur,
Actually, I hadn’t read from the beginning of the kerfuffle. So I was missing context. I only jumped in at the level to which I responded – and in that I think that Robert was capturing a problematic dynamic that I often see in these debates – what he describes as weaponized ignorance.
Reading the full context, I have gained some sympathy for your position relative to his.
I think that “burden of proof” arguments in blog debates are mostly just games of confirmation bias (each side says the other side has a burden of proof to avoid having to make their own arguments legitimate) – but in this case, in one sense, I think he does hold the “burden of proof” for his statement.
In another sense, I think that there may be some truth that your question is insincere? The way that I read your question there is that you are familiar with the theory and think that the evidence in support is invalid. It seems that you are using a gambit here. I think that rather than entering into the “moron” debate with Robert, you’d be better to state your critique of the theory and see if he takes up that challenge. It seems to me that’s where you want to head – why put obstacles in the way or set up options for detours? Just to be clear, I agree it isn’t your responsibility if Robert throws out the moron challenge.
Joshua
“In another sense, I think that there may be some truth that your question is insincere?”
Insincere question.
What could be a Insincere question?
Asking what seems like a simple question?
The heat hiding in the ocean seems pretty silly.
But ignoring the ocean is the first place, sets the stage
for such silliness.
It’s laziness- if the task to resolve the issue
of global warming.
If the task is silliness, why not say the heat could have lost melting all that glacial ice?
In a warming world, most would assume ice melts and oceans warm.
So what is missing is Hansen didn’t choose to include these factors- in other words Hansen was *way out line* talking about earth becoming Venus like, because he failed to include basically all factors which were relevant.
Insincere question: something making it clear that Hansen’s modeling [and all modeling done all the climate geniuses to present] is not a comprehensive model of global climate.
But that is already a given, and why rub noses in it?
Hence the case of the insincere question?
Vaughan Pratt
If you wish to discuss the 2005 Hansen et al. “hidden in the pipeline” paper, the I suggest you READ it first.
Hansen’s logic is as I explained it above.
It is “circular”, as I pointed out.
His “arithmetic” is sloppy as well, but that is a minor point.
Max
Joshua,
[“Actually, I hadn’t read from the beginning of the kerfuffle. So I was missing context. I only jumped in at the level to which I responded – and in that I think that Robert was capturing a problematic dynamic that I often see in these debates – what he describes as weaponized ignorance.
Reading the full context, I have gained some sympathy for your position relative to his.”]
Thank you for having the good grace and integrity to admit that. I would do the same myself, so I appreciate the honesty.
[“In another sense, I think that there may be some truth that your question is insincere?”]
I can understand how you could come to that conclusion, and I’m afraid that is the way of the climate blog world! However, I can assure you that, although I am sceptical of cAGW by nature, if someone can provide suitable evidence to support their standpoint, I would welcome the chance to find out whether my scepticism is justified. Hence, there is no point in having a hidden agenda when seeking an answer. “Weaponized ignorance” is a very good term (I like it!) in some cases but, in this case, any ignorance I may have is not being used as a weapon. Why would I, if I genuinely do not know if the requested evidence exists? It would be ‘self defeating ignorance’ to ask such a question as a weapon, as the production of evidence will make me look even more ignorant!
I have simply never seen any ‘real’ evidence to support the idea of “pipeline warming”. I may have missed it, or forgotten it for some reason, but I ca’t think of any. Which is why the straightforward production of ‘yer actual evidence’ from Robert would have been met with either “Thanks for that Robert” or, possibly, an argument against the evidence because it was not empirical. Whatever.
Finally, as to discussing with Robert the validity of any theory, that was not the reason for the question. I’m not really into deflecting the point of debate. I saw his statement and simply queried the validity of it, that’s all.
I repeat, Joshua, thank you for discussing in a mature and honest fashion.
Regards,
Arfur
It is your responsibility to understand what you are skeptical about, not mine to convince of something you have never bothered to learn.
If you have not seen any evidence, then I advise you to study the science. If by claiming you have not seen any “real” evidence, you mean you are familiar with at least some of the evidence but disagree with the science, then you should explain exactly what you disagree with and why. That’s your argument to make, and your burden to meet.
Oh, Arty, you got whipped good. You’re out on your feet.
The simple question is: what is the non-“real” evidence you’re referring to? What is your argument that the scientists are wrong about warming in the pipeline?
Actually, you misquoted me. I said the belief was “moronic,” not that all that held it were morons. You are, obviously, but it’s not necessarily universal.
So explain to me why I should teach you science. Especially when you won’t explain why you don’t think the evidence presented for pipeline warming is “real” (or maybe saw the real evidence and you’ve forgotten it; you aren’t sure.)
Robert,
[“It is your responsibility to understand what you are skeptical about, not mine to convince of something you have never bothered to learn.”]
So… no actual evidence to support your statement then.
[“Oh, Arty, you got whipped good. You’re out on your feet.”]
Thank you, Robert, for giving me the opportunity to practice the virtues of patience and tolerance.
Good day to you.
“So… no actual evidence to support your statement then.”
Arty, it’s not my responsibility to support your outlandish claims.
You claimed there was no evidence (or no “real” evidence) for warming in the pipeline.
You couldn’t prove that. You were too afraid to even try. Hence we’re left with the science as it was before you embarked on your evidence-free rant.
You’ve failed to support your claims with evidence, and lost every point.
Come back soon, an easy target is always welcome. :)
Serious as a heart attack. I should add, Nice Job, Robert.
Grade: A
BTW, I don’t think Arfur understands the principle of a heat sink.
He should try detaching the heat sink and fan from his computer’s CPU and see how much longer he can keep typing his ridiculous comments before his PC dies on him.
ha ha.
Arthur Bryant and Robert
Not to get embroiled in your exchange, but if one reads the Hansen et al. “hidden in the pipeline” paper it becomes clear that it is based on circular logic, to simplify:
Hansen’s models tell him that he should have seen a GH warming since 1880 of X, yet we have only seen around 0.5X.
Therefore he concludes NOT that his model was wrong, but that the balance (0.5X) must still be “hidden in the pipeline” somewhere.
His arithmetic is also a bit sloppy, but that is a secondary problem.
Max
manacker in = manacker out
You don’t understand your own argument — it’s no surprise your critique of Hansen is worthless!
I’m sorry to be blunt, but you’re just too ignorant and stupid to grapple with Hansen, and your laughable misreading of him underscores that.
Manacker,
Don’t worry about getting embroiled – it seems to be catching!
There is no logic to “pipeline warming” without some evidence. Its about as naff as the “oil tanker analogy”… :)
Hansen’s models tell him that he should have seen a GH warming since 1880 of X, yet we have only seen around 0.5X.
Huh? Why would you suppose Hansen’s “pipeline” entails a delay of any more than 15 years, Max? 1880 was 132 years ago, where did Hansen mention any delay remotely that long?
Or haven’t you noticed that rapidly rising CO2 is a relatively recent phenomenon that in 1880 was still a century away from having even the small impact of 1980-2010, let alone the coming crushing impact during the 21st century?
@Vaughan Pratt
(reposted in the right sequence)
If you wish to discuss the 2005 Hansen et al. “hidden in the pipeline” paper, the I suggest you READ it first.
Hansen’s logic is as I explained it above.
It is “circular”, as I pointed out.
His “arithmetic” is sloppy as well, but that is a minor point.
Max
2005 paper? You really have to read Hansen’s 1981 paper first. The concept of a ocean heat sink hasn’t changed for 30 years.
JCH
Yes, the oceans are large and very cool at depth. Do you agree that we have very poor information on heat exchange from the surface of the oceans to the ocean’s depths and that the idea of heat in the pipeline is only a theory? It is just as possible that the heat is effectively lost in the actual system.
Absolutely not. The warming/cooling in the pipeline is essentially our earth system interacting with future sunlight. There is nothing hidden about it.
There is this notion that “warming in the pipeline” is hidden somewhere in the earth’s system. It’s not. Not in the land, not in the sky, not in the water. Not here. Not anywhere here.
Future weather is in the oceans, and it will have its temporary influences up and down on SAT.
No one seems to be disputing that the surface temperature rose substantially between 1970 and now. What I understand JCH to be arguing is that the ocean is the heater. The opposite position would be that the ocean is the heatsink preventing the warming from being even greater.
If the ocean is the heater then JCH is right about no pipeline.
But if the ocean is the heatsink then it’s going to work like a heatsink on a CPU when there’s no fan. At first most of the CPU heat is soaked up by the heatsink, but after some time the heatsink warms up and stops doing its job so well.
The pipeline theory is that ocean is not the heater but the heatsink, and that in due course it has to warm up, at which point the surface temperature won’t be held in check so effectively and that will have to go up some more. That in a nutshell is the pipeline.
JCH may be right that the ocean is the heater, though I believe that among climate scientists this is a distinctly minority opinion.
Vaughan
You wrote what seems to be an overly simplistic comparison of the oceans to a heat sink to the point of being misleading. The oceans would be an exceptionally large heat sink that has the ability to continuously re-cool. Circulating water from the surface to depths where it is heated by the sun to depths of over 1000 M where it is pretty close to 4 C. Are you trying to suggest that the water temperature at over 1000 M will increase to over 4 C due to AWG? This is an interesting issue. The deep oceans seem to logically overwhelm any surface heating.
Rob, you’re reading things into my comment that I did not say. Just as we don’t have to know how the heat is distributed in a CPU heatsink (which is far from uniform) in order to know that the heatsink can’t cool the CPU forever, we don’t have to know how the heat is distributed in the ocean (which is also far from uniform) in order to know that the ocean can’t keep absorbing surface heat at a constant rate forever without itself heating up.
How long the ocean can function effectively as a heat sink is not something my comment addressed. It is however an excellent question that has been addressed by a score or more of theoretical ocean models.
I’m not convinced that we can learn much from such models because it’s very hard to do. A better approach in my view is to look at the Argo data and try to infer the extent to which the oceans can delay global warming.
My own approach is to look not at the ocean itself but at the HADCRUT temperature, from which I estimate that the oceans delay global warming by a little under 15 years. I’m looking forward to seeing how this stacks up against estimates of this delay based on the Argo data.
But let’s look at the question theoretically anyway, my misgivings about doing so notwithstanding. It seems to me that the ocean heat content is not relevant to this question, nor is the temperature profile itself since its basic shape is unlikely to change, but rather how that profile responds to warming. You presumably know that the profile goes more or less straight down for a couple hundred meters then at what I’ll call “corner 1” jogs sideways (to the left in the usual depiction) for the next kilometer down (the thermocline) to around 4 C and then at “corner 2” reverts to going almost straight down again into the deep ocean, getting slightly cooler but also more saline with each further km of depth.
Assuming this basic shape remains unchanged, and that the 4 C portion doesn’t change, the curve has three fundamental degrees of freedom in responding to warming:
1. “Corner 1” can move right. This corresponds to the surface layer warming (fixed volume of water with temperature increasing).
2. “Corner 1” can move down. This corresponds to the surface layer becoming deeper (increasing volume of water with fixed temperature, making the thermocline shallower as depicted).
3. “Corner 2” can move down. Similar effect to 2 except that the thermocline becomes steeper as depicted.
If 2 and 3 both happen then the thermocline retains its slope as the surface layer grows larger (i.e. deeper). If all three happen then the surface layer increases in both volume and temperature.
Not being a theoretical hydrologist myself I don’t have any thoughts on which of of 1-3 are more likely. If you do I’m all ears.
None of the concerns you raise rule out any of these three possibilities, which don’t involve any changes at all to the deep ocean. Such changes could happen, which would be a fourth degree of freedom, namely “corner 2” moving right, corresponding to the deep ocean warming. Even a 0.1 C warming of the deep ocean would profoundly increase ocean heat content, but already the first three possibilities (and their combinations) are a lot for a model to try to predict correctly. That’s why I’d prefer to look at the Argo data rather than try to play favorites with ocean models.
Note that using HADCRUT without ocean data involves no commitment to any of these profile changes since it is a direct measurement of the delay itself however caused (which moreover need not be 100% ocean).
Vaughan Pratt – in terms of 2100, I actually believe the opposite. I think the energy in the oceans can cause weather – natural variation, but it can neither warm nor cool the climate in any long term way because they’re cycles – what they add they eventually take away; what they take away they eventually put back. Pedal the cycles long enough, their tires will always be flat .
And it very much confuses the issue of the pipeline. Once energy is stored in the ocean it is a part of the earth’s system: its tank, and it most definitely is not in the pipeline. The pipeline brings sunlight, and the existent earth system will determine whether it replaces lost heat, or fails to replace lost heat, or adds additional heat (which is what I think Hansen is calling warming in the pipeline.) Because we’ve changed the atmosphere, the energy brought with future sunlight will be less able to escape, so it will be stored here – an additional amount in the atmosphere and a large amount in the oceans. Weather will slosh it back and forth, which is why so many have allowed themselves to believe there has been no warming since 1998, which is total bullchit. On average, there is additional warming every day.
When climate scientists say the heat will come back out of the oceans to haunt us, they should also add that cooling will come back out of the oceans to haunt them. Which is sort of what Tsonis and Swanson are saying. The weather is temporary. I don’t hang my hat on it.
So from our perspective, depending on the makeup and physics of our atmosphere, I think the pipeline can deliver one of three things: cooling, equilibrium, warming.
Vaughan Pratt, “My own approach is to look not at the ocean itself but at the HADCRUT temperature, from which I estimate that the oceans delay global warming by a little under 15 years. I’m looking forward to seeing how this stacks up against estimates of this delay based on the Argo data.”
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/hadsstversusRSSshinapproxWm-2.png
HADSST2 versus RSS southern hemisphere using 2002 to 2010 baseline in approximate Wm-2 based on the ARGO ocean surface temperature.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/RSSnhversusshinapproxWm-2.png
RSS NH versus SH same baseline and approximate Wm-2. During the first half, ~15years, the NH lagged SH in energy/temperature. In ~1995, the hemispheres appear to have become balanced. This coincides with the 1995 Stratosphere shift to neutral from cooling. The “~14.5 year lag” appears to be due to an internal oscillation, not GHE, IMHO
We may be talking about different lags (easy to do since there are so many things that can lag each other). What I had in mind was the delay between CO2–induced global warming and the resulting rise in global temperature as indicated by HADCRUT. Changing from HADCRUT3 to HADCRUT4 slightly modified other estimates such as climate sensitivity and preindustrial (more specifically c. 1700) CO2, but not that delay, which stayed firmly at 14.5 years.
Vaughan, “We may be talking about different lags (easy to do since there are so many things that can lag each other). ” I don’t think so. Using UAH NH land versus Mauna Loa I was getting a very good “signature” of CO2 with the typical noise. When I compared the ocean extratropics and tropics I was seeing a ENSO harmonic with a shorter NH lag than SH lag with what looks like a reflected return complementary wave. 1998 pretty much looks like a rogue wave signature and 1995 had the weird precursor signature. Remember I am playing with the chaotic pattern recognition or super tea leaf reading if you prefer :) You should see the same thing comparing Fourier transforms of the extratropic and tropical oceans.
That leads me to believe the NH CO2 was amplified by NH ocean lag of the SH oceans and land use. The two would look about the same, but the post 1995 coordination hints that the internal variability is the stronger signal. The major land use and black carbon impact in the NH starts around the time Khrushchev’s Virgin Lands Campaign went south with their version of the dust bowl.
There are a lot of lags and variables, but the internal natural variability appears stronger than expected with much longer pseudo cycle periods, much like A. M. Selvam predicts.
cd, let me define the lag I’m estimating at 14.5 years, which has nothing to do with chaos (as far as I know). But first let me set the context with the general methodology.
I jointly fit a model of CO2 warming, “AGW,” and a model of ocean oscillations, “SAW,” to HADCRUT (3 or 4). But in place of the usual least-squares criterion for goodness of fit, aka minimizing the unexplained variance, I first low-pass-filter the unexplained portion (the residue after subtracting the two models from HADCRUT) and minimize its variance instead. Since the filtered residue has a far smaller variance than the unfiltered residue, I get a more sensitive test for the best fit—the high-frequency components of the unfiltered residue magnify the contribution to unexplained variance of the low-frequency components in a non-uniform way that makes it harder to estimate.
So where does lag enter? Well, that’s one of three adjustable parameters in my AGW model, the other two being preindustrial CO2 and climate sensitivity. (CAGR of *anthropogenic* CO2 is also a parameter but I estimate that one using CO2 data from CDIAC data on land use changes and fossil fuel emissions and the Keeling curve from Mauna Loa, as a separate estimation task.)
I model lag by the simple expedient of sliding the non-delayed AGW warming model right to represent delay. Sliding it right 15 years is equivalent to using CO2 from 15 years ago (around 360 ppmv) in a model with no delay.
Exactly what physical delays are modeled in that way is a good question. I would imagine the time it takes for SST to respond to global warming is a big part of that, but I don’t have a precise answer.
What I do have is a precise notion of the lag my model claims to measure, namely the best fit achievable by sliding AGW sideways.
If the AGW model were a straight trend line, as would result by taking the log of an exponentially growing CO2 level, then all lags would yield exactly the same fit and lag in my sense could therefore not be measured even very approximately. But in the model I’m using, due to David Hofmann, CO2 doesn’t grow exponentially, but rather as the sum of a constant natural background level and an exponentially growing anthropogenic contribution. Taking the log of that gives a concave-upwards curve typified by y= ln(1 + exp(x)). Sliding *that* curve laterally gives varying goodnesses of fit, and the best fit then defines lag (along with the other parameters giving that fit).
With no lag, observed climate sensitivity is around 2.1 C/doubling. With a lag of 14.5 years a slightly better fit is achieved, and the observed climate sensitivity then rises considerably, as one would expect, namely to around 2.8. The 14.5 number is robust at least to the extent that it doesn’t change at all when HADCRUT3 is upgraded to HADCRUT4, though climate sensitivity rises to 2.9.
Vaughan Pratt, Interesting on the 14.5 year lag. I don’t have a great deal of confidence in SST prior to 1960, but I do see a northern hemisphere lag that may be what you are seeing. But is that global response to CO2?
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/joethevolcano.png
I was playing around with scaling the volcanic forcing that BEST used just to see how much it impact it had on things. The Northern Hemisphere is much more sensitive to Volcanic forcing, probably because the Volcanoes where north of the equator. Using the 2002 to 2010 baseline because of my doubts in the SST record, I still don’t see a strong “global” CO2 signature. The way your model match HADCRU4 with a little higher sensitivity, I am still thinking land use amplification of CO2.
I will look a little harder though.
Vaughan Pratt, Shifting CO2 by 14.5 years does produce a better fit with the global data, but with the Mauna Loa compared to RSS I don’t see a good reason to do that. With the land use flux, I do see the amplification though just as before. BTW, the Soviet Union land use data looks low to me, but there is an experiment in progress.
http://neespi.org/web-content/meetings/Jena_March_2008/Day2_6_Belelli.pdf
Vaughan Pratt, here is a little better explanation why I don;t think shifting CO2 is the right move.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/LandUseversusHADSST2.png
Since you were focusing on the oceans, that is the HADSST2 plot with the Land Use Flux anomaly. The yellow is a trailing 15 year moving average. Without doing anything fancy you can see a lag correlation. The difference is that using the land use CO2 flux as a proxy, is that land use has a legitimate physical lag, Soil degrades, gets compacted, holds less moisture and over time has a larger warming impact and can have an initial cooling impact.
Just my 2 cents
cd, the CDIAC’s estimates of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and cement production has reached 10 GtC/yr and is (somewhat) steadily climbing while that for land use changes has been hovering around 1.45 GtC and fluctuating. The year-to-year fluctuations of the latter are less than 0.1 GtC, whereas the former add another 0.3 to 0.4 GtC every year.
These amounts are in the context of a current total of 800 GtC atmospheric carbon. (Conversion: 1 GtC equals 0.47 ppmv based on 5.14 petonnes of atmosphere, so today’s 394 ppmv equals 394/.47 = 840 GtC.) We are currently emitting 1/80 of this per year, of which nature appears to be absorbing about half into the biosphere, land, and oceans (which acidifies them).
If climate sensitivity is less than 5 C per doubling of CO2 (I estimate 2.8-2.9 based on HADCRUT’s rise since 1850), you are not going to see any sign at all in the temperature record of year-to-year fluctuations of 0.1 GtC in CO2 as caused by land use changes. You need a much larger change over a much longer period. The only known contributor to atmospheric CO2 meeting those conditions is fossil fuel emissions.
Since 1958, nothing beats direct observation of atmospheric CO2 for inferring its level. For all practical purposes the level is rising perfectly smoothly.
Vaughan Pratt, Yes, I know that the forcing due to land use increases in CO2 is small in comparison with fossil fuel Co2 emissions. I was using the land use CO2 flux as a rough proxy of land use impact which is primarily water resource changes, increased soil temperature and changes in the rate of energy storage and release. The land use impacts would be amplified by overall CO2 forcing.
Admittedly, this is not a main stream consideration since the apparent impact is cooling based on satellite albedo estimates, but based on the conservation farming data, the change from conventional tillage to no-till has a large impact on soil temperature and moisture retention. Conventional tillage increases the length of the growing season by nearly a week and in high latitude farming, spreading peat dust, ash, compost and/or low albedo chemical sprays to melt spring snow can add weeks to the gerowing season. Surprisingly, one of the disadvantages of no-till farming is it reduces the length of the growing season by slowing soil warming too much in some regions.
I was using the land use CO2 flux as a rough proxy of land use impact.
Oh, I completely misunderstood where you were going with that.
So would it be fair to say you’re reverse engineering the analyses that obtained the land use CO2 flux in order to recover the data on which they were based? (It has to be obtained that way since it’s not feasible to measure the flux itself directly—there’s no separate Keeling observatory for it.) If so that’s a creative labor-saving approach, though it has the downside that the results of the analysis lose a lot of the original information.
If there were regional analyses each on a 5 x 5 degree grid you’d have a lot better basis for drawing conclusions about regions, but I’m not aware of such. What would be the point when CO2 diffuses too quickly within each hemisphere for regional estimates to be of much interest?
One approach might be to contact the authors of the studies to see what data they’re willing to share with you. This might turn up more of the sort of information you’re hoping to extract from the land use CO2 flux.
Vaughan Pratt, “One approach might be to contact the authors of the studies to see what data they’re willing to share with you. This might turn up more of the sort of information you’re hoping to extract from the land use CO2 flux.” That looks well down the road. The model I am working on is an attempt to reverse engineer or reanalysis the data. The plot I made was just to show you that even the rough land use proxy using the CO2 flux estimate can produce close to the same lag you are seeing and attributing to CO2 forcing. That is not really an indication that land use “done it”, as much as, an indication that a longer term natural variability can make land use, CO2 forcing, commodities prices, solar cycles or anything influenced by a non-linear relationship with another system, look like it “done it”.
V. A. Selvam has a lot of papers on the similarity of nonergodic systems, but not much on the why they are so similar. That requires a little less standard approach than currently used, which is what I am playing with.
A more polite answer would be to say that shortwave radiation absorbed by the earth (so warming the earth) and longwave radiation emitted by the earth (so cooling the earth) are both being measured. Although there are uncertainties in these measurements, they suggest that the former is bigger than the larger, so warming is still ongoing. Eg.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD012105.shtml
Or you could simply ask yourself how long it will take for the oceans to reach thermal equilibrium, since obviously until that point more warming is in the pipeline. Or you could ask yourself what it implies that the aerosols put out by volcanoes influence the climate for only a few years, while CO2’s residence time if measured in centuries. Or you could ask yourself if the ice sheets are in a state of equilibrium at present . . .
Steve,
Thank you for your sensible reply.
Please see my reply to Robert. If warming is ongoing, is it cumulative and, if so, why is it not accelerating?
Regards,
Arfur Bryant,
If warming is ongoing, is it cumulative and, if so, why is it not accelerating?
I think there are multiple sub-meanings of “in the pipeline”. Robert hinted on some of them. Maybe Robert can help me out with which of these he thinks is most likely. Assuming we accept at face value(*) that observations of an energy imbalance are correct, we know that definitely something needs to change to return the planet to balance, and that probably what needs to change is the surface and atmosphere have to get warmer (so it radiates more longwave radiation to space).
The things that could be stopping the surface from getting warmer *could* be that: oceans are taking up some of the heat at a higher rate than expected; there are a larger amount of aerosol emissions than we think; there is a bigger impact from the low solar cycle; there are other forcing changes that we’re unaware of (stratospheric water vapour?).
Whether the “warming in the pipeline” will accelerate soon depends on whether these processes are temporary or long term. If the aerosol levels are higher it’s temporary because aerosols don’t last for long in the atmosphere whereas CO2 does – eventually warming will accelerate (within a few years at the very least). If it is related to ocean heat uptake, then the impact *may* be more long term (lots of things affect the rate of ocean heat uptake – some will be short term and some long term).
* I think the alternatives to taking the observations at face value are that one decides the observations of the imbalance are wrong, or are not the full picture (eg. the imbalance is less or is temporary). One would then require that the climate will somehow adjust to the additional CO2 forcing such that, for example, changes in clouds will cause the reflection of more solar radiation – a negative feedback.
Steve,
Thank you for the post. There is a lot in there to digest!
The total warming since ‘accurate records started” (IPCC) is less than 0.9 deg C. That is 161 years. The IPCC states that anthropogenic emissions stated in 1750. Obviously the emissions were slight back then. However, any “pipeline” effect would start then, however small. Robert doesn’t say what the length of the pipeline is (decades or centuries?) but, however long it is, there should be some cumulative effect. There is no justification in assuming that ‘some CO2 molecules don’t interact because they are in the ‘pipeline’, so the justification might be that the residence time leads to the CO2 effect being effective for a longer period. Either way, as each year has passed, the effect of the previous year’s CO2 must – if the pipeline theory is correct – be added to the current year’s effect.
Therefore, the theorised significant warming effect must increase and, logically, increase at an accelerative rate. It was an accelerative rate of warming that was sold to the world with the publication of the MBH98 graph.
The problem now is… there is no acceleration and there is no indication of “pipeline” warming, unless someone can produce some direct, empirical, non-modelled evidence to support the postulation. To call someone a ‘moron’ (as Robert did) for not believing in said postulation is, at the very least, bad form, especially when the production of evidence could lay the argument to rest immediately.
If you wish to put forward the argument that the CO2 effect did not start until a later date (c1950 seems to be favourite), then you have to ask yourself why there was an entirely similar warming period just prior to 1950 (1910 to 1945). Any “pipeline warming” would have started at c1950. So, what has happened to that pipeline warming since 1998?
The logical answer is that any cooling factors (from whatever source) have outweighed not only the initial ‘significant CO2 effect’ but also the ‘CO2 pipeline effect’. Hmmm. This means that the warming period between 1970 and 1998 could have been due to the same unknown(?) factors that caused the 1910-1945 warming. But this would mean that the theorised effect of CO2 is far smaller than theorised. In science, the production of empirical evidence generally either supports or falsifies a theory. All I asked Robert was to provide some supporting evidence.
My point about the small and non-accelerating warming is in reply to your point about “what needs to change… to bring the planet back into balance…” and your point about “…observations being wrong…”.
I’m not sure I can see any significant imbalance in the long term data, particularly using coherent datasets. There is no doubt that warming has occurred since 1850 but the overall rate is less than 0.06C per decade with no current sign of acceleration. I would politely suggest that consideration should be given to looking into whether the theory is wrong, not the data.
Kind regards,
See, when you give your argument in a positive form, it’s much easier to correct it.
First, the warming has accelerated. You claimed 0.9C of warming in 161 years. That’s 0.055C/decade. The last three decades have warmed at more than three times that rate. So by your own numbers, there has been an acceleration.
Second, your formulation of what happens to the heat makes a simple mistake: “the effect of the previous year’s CO2 must – if the pipeline theory is correct – be added to the current year’s effect.” The blinding obvious thing that you miss is that if a certain proportion of the additional heating went “into the pipeline” last year, a similar amount will go “into the pipeline” this year.
You are attempting to apply logic to a process you don’t understand, and make very basic mistakes in the process. This makes your conclusions neither logical nor rational.
I would advise you to ditch the metaphor and think hard about what’s actually going on in the system: with the oceans, the ice, and the aerosols especially. If you understand what is really going on when you burn a ton of coal, you will understand equilibrium climate sensitivity and not need the metaphor.
Robert does not understand that he wishes people to change their behaviors, but is unable to demonstrate to them that there is a valid justification to implement what he supports.
No valid justification=no behavior change.
What rate is it warming at due to additional CO2? It looks like a doubling of CO2 will lead to somewhere between 1.0C and 3.0C of temp rise. Somewhere between no problem and a potentially problem.
What will be the net impacts to humanity of a warmer world? Will it be positive or negative for the world overall and the USA in particular? We don’t know, but Robert believes everyone should still do what he wants.
Heat up the grill. Throw on some chicken. If you do not believe in heating in the pipeline, eat it the second it hits grill. Yummy, cold, bloody chicken meat.
Are you writing that the sun got hotter but it has not yet warmed the planet?
Robert,
Again, you are being selective. You have selected a short-term period out of a longer-term dataset. If the overall trend is 0.055Cpd (I agree), then your argument of (the last three decades) fails to show overall acceleration. Since 1998, there has been NO warming (and, yes, I am using HadCRUt3). If the overall trend was one of acceleration, then the trend of 0.055 would be the highest. It is not. The highest overall trend was in 1879 at around 0.07Cpd. If the warming was accelerating, the linear trend would be increasing. There would have to be a very significant increase in order to reach that figure.
For the rest of your post, I will simply ask you to provide evidence to support your postulation. I have politely asked for this before with no result.
Either produce some evidence or stop making unsupported statements.
The sun cycle is what it is. We have slowed the rate at which heat leaves the planet. The oceans are a big pieces of chicken, and they’re still cooking.
Again, we see that asking climate “skeptics” to state their arguments pays dividends.
The idea that “Warming stopped in 1998” is a discredited fallacy. Let’s find you some links:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/global-warming-stopped
If you have a new argument that warming stopped in 1998 — please present it. For the moment, I’m unconvinced.
This is just nonsense, not even wrong. You aren’t doing your “But I’m not a moron!” case any favors here.
My position is that you haven’t convinced me the science is wrong. I’ve shown you several places where your argument went wrong — more than enough to falsify your “Instantaneous equilibrium” hypothesis.
I suggest you correct the mistakes I’ve pointed out in your argument, and then, if you want, try and make a better argument for your “Instantaneous equilibrium.”
Robert said, “The idea that “Warming stopped in 1998″ is a discredited fallacy. Let’s find you some links::
The shift was actually in 1995. The overall impact timing will vary with region. Most of the change should not be obvious in the global “average” surface temperature for another 10 to 15 years. Large capacity non-linear systems don’t turn on a dime.
Arfur Bryant
The “forcings” that impact the planetary energy balance are not just from rising anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as CO2. There are many other forcings including those from aerosol emissions, volcanic aerosols, dust and solar changes.
In the following, the first graph is a plot of all forcings as used in the latest set of runs done for the next IPCC report can be seen. The bit to the left of the 2000 period is the central estimate of all forcings (including volcanic). To me, there is very little change till, really, the 1950s.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/rcps/
Part of the reason for that is put down to the fact that as well as emitting CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, burning coal has caused emission of sulphate aerosols which act to cool the planet.
So nothing much was being pumped into the pipeline till fairly recently.
Little grammar error here:
Fixed!
I just used your own unrealistic assumptions
I just used your own unrealistic assumptions
I just used your own unrealistic assumptions
So you made two major mistakes: you substituted 0.8C for 0.6C for some reason, and you treated assumptions I described as unrealistic as things I was claiming were true.
Better luck next time! :)
Robert,
[“The idea that “Warming stopped in 1998″ is a discredited fallacy.”]
You attempt to provide evidence from two warmist blogs? Its pathetic.
Look at the HadCRUt3 graph since 1850. If I was a climber climbing the profile, the highest point I reach would be 1998. It is now 2012. I am currently ‘lower’ than I was in 1998. I have not been higher than I was in 1998 at any point since. Therefore, in the overall route I have taken, I have stopped ‘climbing’. I may be ‘higher’ than I was in, say, 1970 (and that is not disputed) but I am certainly not ‘climbing’. In fact, since 1998 I have ‘descended’ overall. Your attempts to deflect away from the specifics of the debate are puerile. There has been no warming since 1998. Deal with it.
[“I suggest you correct the mistakes…”]
I suggest you answer my original question about ‘pipeline warming’. That might get you some respect.
Steve,
Yes, I understand that that is what the models say, which is why I asked for non-modelled, empirical evidence. Modelling just does’t count as evidence. I’m not sure you read my last post to you fully. Maybe you missed this part:
“If you wish to put forward the argument that the CO2 effect did not start until a later date (c1950 seems to be favourite), then you have to ask yourself why there was an entirely similar warming period just prior to 1950 (1910 to 1945).”
If, as you suggest, the forcings did not start until 1950, then you are forced to concede that ‘something’ (or a compilation of factors) caused the earlier warming of the same amount. This being so, it cannot be stated with any conviction that the later warming was ‘due to CO2 etc’. It also cannot be stated with any conviction that any ‘pipeline warming’ exists without evidence to support that postulation, as the later warming (which may have been caused by other factors) has effectively stopped since 1998.
Like I said earlier, I am arguing from a standpoint of observations, not theory. Unfortunately, the data does not support the theory. No amount of modelling will change the fact that, eventually, the data has to support the theory.
“If I was a climber climbing the profile, the highest point I reach would be 1998. It is now 2012. I am currently ‘lower’ than I was in 1998. I have not been higher than I was in 1998 at any point since.”
not true
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/from:1980
“You attempt to provide evidence from two warmist blogs?”
Stevie, all legitimate science is “warmist.” If you disregard evidence because it doesn’t come from climate deniers, you’ve created a little self-deceptive loop for yourself.
I don’t need to provide evidence that a discredited fallacy is still discredited. I provided some sources purely for your education. You claimed that warming stopped in 1998; the burden is on you to make a convincing argument for that. I would merely warn you that you’re unlikely to succeed, because the notion is bunk.
“Look at the HadCRUt3 graph since 1850.”
Cherry-picking a single data set out of several. Fail.
“If I was a climber climbing the profile, the highest point I reach would be 1998. It is now 2012. I am currently ‘lower’ than I was in 1998. I have not been higher than I was in 1998 at any point since . . .”
Cherry picking your start date. Elementary fail.
“Therefore, in the overall route I have taken, I have stopped ‘climbing’. I may be ‘higher’ than I was in, say, 1970 (and that is not disputed) but I am certainly not ‘climbing’.”
Logic and metaphor fail: you can certainly be climbing, regardless of whether you have been higher in the past. By your logic, anyone who flew to Nepal can’t climb Everest (presumably they descend to the peak?)
The world has warmed since 1998. Deal with it.
Arfur Bryant,
The plot I linked to are the *inputs* to the models. Other than that they are nothing to do with models. They are the central estimates of all the forcings that we’re aware of.
Aside from that, if you are against the models you are conducting a circular non-argument. The models encapsulate scientists’ understanding of the climate in formulae and algorithm. You cannot claim that scientists have internally inconsistent views and then reject the tools they use to validate those views. Now while I wouldn’t dogmatically claim that the models will be right about 21st century warming, I will claim that they are in the right ball park, and they are certainly good enough to demonstrate the “heat in the pipeline” effect.
lolwot,
[““If I was a climber climbing the profile, the highest point I reach would be 1998. It is now 2012. I am currently ‘lower’ than I was in 1998. I have not been higher than I was in 1998 at any point since.”
not true”]
Yes, true. As a climber, I do not have the luxury of smoothing out five years of my travel. My statement, as it stands, is correct.
Robert,
[“Logic and metaphor fail: you can certainly be climbing, regardless of whether you have been higher in the past. By your logic, anyone who flew to Nepal can’t climb Everest (presumably they descend to the peak?)”]
Oh dear. Splicing two datasets (flying and climbing) and coming up with a fallacy. Now where have I seen that before?
Still no answer to my original question, I notice. Ah, well.
Thanks for the discussion, Robert. It has been most enlightening. I wish you all the best for the future.
Arfur Bryant
If, as you suggest, the forcings did not start until 1950, then you are forced to concede that ‘something’ (or a compilation of factors) caused the earlier warming of the same amount. This being so, it cannot be stated with any conviction that the later warming was ‘due to CO2 etc’.
The warming at the beginning of the 20th Century is not the same as recent warming as it was preceded by a relatively rapid cooling event and succeeded by another relatively rapid cooling event. It is quite reasonable to assume that the apparent similar trend only exists if you carefully choose end-points.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:84/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1960/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1897/to:1948/trend
Once you try a trend of more than 40-odd years, the earlier warming trend starts to get less steep. Remember also that the recent warming is *on top* of past warming, so “climate cycle” arguments struggle to explain it, and I don’t buy the “recovery from the LIA” claims while no physical reason for such recovery is offered.
Obviously there are subjective judgements to be made – I’m simply pointing out that you cannot bank on the claim of similarity between the two periods.
We also have additional evidence that the current warming is less temporary than the previous warming was because it is accompanied by continued rises in ocean heat content – enough heat has gone into the oceans since 1998 to warm the atmosphere by 7 degrees C.
Steve,
[“The plot I linked to are the *inputs* to the models. Other than that they are nothing to do with models. They are the central estimates of all the forcings that we’re aware of.”]
The inputs to models are nothing to do with models? Are you sure about that? They are, indeed, estimates – or assumptions. As such, they do not represent evidence.
[“I will claim that they are in the right ball park, and they are certainly good enough to demonstrate the “heat in the pipeline” effect.”]
As long as you accept that it is just a claim. That claim is based on either an estimate or an assumption, or both. It still does not represent evidence.
Thanks for the posts. At least you are able to discuss the subject in a reasonable fashion, for which you have my thanks and respect.
Regards,
“Oh dear. Splicing two datasets (flying and climbing) and coming up with a fallacy. Now where have I seen that before?”
Poor Arthur. He doesn’t believe that the height of an airplane can be measured and compared to the height of a mountain.
Those are called facts, Arthur. Sorry if you’re unfamiliar with the concept.
“Thanks for the discussion, Robert. It has been most enlightening.”
Arthur, I’m glad you can recognize when you’re licked. Shows good common sense on your part. While you didn’t ever achieve any insight into your own mistakes, you did finally articulate some of them so that it was easy to see where you’re going wrong.
I hope in the future you can find the courage to face the facts you’re hiding from.
Arfur,
You attempt to provide evidence from two warmist blogs? Its pathetic.
Firstly, comments such as this somewhat undermine your “I’m just a guy asking questions” act. Secondly, if you won’t accept evidence from sources on the basis they disagree with your position then it’s rather pointless engaging in this kind of discussion at all.
I’ll let Robert and Steve continue to address the “heating in the pipeline” argument but I will say something about your “no warming since 1998” claim. Over the long term it is expected that the effect of increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will result in a steady warming signal, but in the short term there are other influences which can cause temperatures to fluctuate over peiods of a few years or even less. Sometimes this will counteract the warming signal from CO2, sometimes it will add extra warming on top. In 1998 there was an exceptionally strong el Nino event which had a pronounced warming effect and so resulted in that year’s average temperature being higher than it would have been due to CO2 alone. As always this effect was temporary and the following year temperatures dropped back down again and the gradual climb continued.
Therefore I hope it is clear that making a pronouncement about temperature trends starting in 1998 is misleading, especially when considering the long term effect of CO2, because you are beginning at a point when there was a temporary spike in temperatures which was nothing to do with CO2.
and one way of removing the enso spikes is to smooth the data, but arfur don’t wanna do that.
“Maybe Robert can help me out with which of these he thinks is most likely.”
They are all likely in the sense that, by some fairly immutable laws of physics, they “hide” heat from the atmosphere.
Probably the most important “hiding spot” in the near term is the aerosol forcing.
The amount of science you need to know to understand how the aerosol forcing puts warming “in the pipeline” is utterly trivial. It shouldn’t be beyond anyone who is not very determined to guard their ignorance.
Andrew Adams,
[“Firstly, comments such as this somewhat undermine your “I’m just a guy asking questions” act. Secondly, if you won’t accept evidence from sources on the basis they disagree with your position then it’s rather pointless engaging in this kind of discussion at all.”]
I’ll try to keep this straight and succinct, Andrew.
Firstly, my question was not an ‘act’, it was just a question. The question was simple, specific and quite polite. The question can be (one would have thought) easily answered by the person to whom the question was addressed. Producing some evidence would have been the easy way to answer the question. If you think that the two links posted by Robert in any way constitutes ‘evidence’, then please tell me why. Please also note that, in my original post, I asked “Do you have any real (non-modelled) evidence to support such a belief?” Where in either of the two links, do you find any such evidence?
I am perfectly entitled to question non-evidence. Evidence cannot ‘disagree with my position’ if it is factual. You might have an opinion that I cannot accept evidence but I’m actually trying to get to the truth. What I’m not going to do is just accept irrelevant bull because ‘John Cook says so’.
<["Therefore I hope it is clear that making a pronouncement about temperature trends starting in 1998 is misleading, especially when considering the long term effect of CO2, because you are beginning at a point when there was a temporary spike in temperatures which was nothing to do with CO2."]
OK, maybe you joined the discussion mid-stream. The only trend that I have espoused is the overall trend. I have used HadCRUt3 because it started in 1850 and was used by the IPCC. I totally agree that short term trends are relatively meaningless but saying that warming stopped in 1998 is not quoting a trend – it is stating a fact (as far as HadCRUt3 is concerned). The overall trend is less than 0.06Cpd, and the steepest trend was c1878/9. Trends are a whole different argument. ‘Warming’, as quoted by the IPCC, refers to atmospheric warming, not ocean heat. Nobody in the climate science cabal quoted ENSO effects as being the reason for the high temperature in 1998 – it was put down to CO2. Now, because the data does not fit the theory, warmists have started quoting ENSO spikes, ocean heat, thermal lag and pipelines as excuses why the theory is unsupported by evidence. If you can provide me with any evidence to support ‘the long term effect of CO2’, as you state, then please do so. But don’t give me models and don’t give me warmist opinion. I’ve seen plenty of both, thanks.
Ok, so maybe not that succinct! :)
Arfur, you completely evaded any discussion of the evidence. You simply resorted to the irrational (and circular) complaint that the evidence came from “warmists.”
Now you ask, pathetically, for someone else to tell you “Where in either of the two links, do you find any such evidence?”
It’s your job to grapple with the facts. It’s about your education — if you chose to maintain your ignorance, you can certainly do so.
By repeating discredited nonsense — “Warming stopped in 1998” and similar howlers — you have made yourself entirely unpersuasive on the subject of climate science.
You were given empirical evidence and immediately fled from it in a cloud of mealy-mouthed excuses. It was predicable, cowardly, and honestly, pretty funny.
It has been suggested here that “warming in the pipeline” came into being in a paper by Hansen in 2005. This pipeline warming was described as being hidden.
So do a search for James E. Hansen, “hidden in the pipeline”. Nothing.
There is nothing to hide, so I do not think he used the word “hidden” in the paper.
Nor was the concept invented to rationalize model failure in 2005. So far the earliest reference I’ve found using the phrase wrt climate change is 1989.
So look at this graph. Is this proof that in 1989 there was warming in the pipeline? How would I know? How about Arfur’s 1998 climbing zenith? Looks to me like maybe he should have taken up scuba.
Arf, Arf; it is embarrassingly obvious that Robert is in a position where is authority is rarely questioned. Imagine being at his mercy.
The recovery from the Little Ice Age, and the recoveries into the Minoan, the Roman and the Medieval Optima? Most likely millenial scale forces which we do not understand yet, but are probably solar in origin.
Three times in the last century and a half the rate of temperature rise was the same and only in the last of these was CO2 rising significantly also. I know this because Phil Jones heself admitted it. Granted, there are volcanoes, variable aerosol forcing and other knowns and unknowns, but the regular rise and fall into climate optima and little ice ages begs for an explanation, so far ungiven. Until these are understood, claiming CO2 for the temperature rise since 1750 is ignorant. It becomes slowly disingenous as the present lack of temperature rise becomes so prolonged.
And then we note that the temperature rise since 1750 has been accompanied by a great increase in civilization, expected in a warmer world. The next 1.5 C. of temperature rise will also grant similar widespread benefits, but just where is that pony under the Christmas tree? It’s gotta be there. They promised.
===========
‘Where ‘his’ authority is rarely questioned’. I once knew a doctor who thought he could change the diagnosis with an exercise of the will.
==================================
@Arfur Bryant: Firstly, my question was not an ‘act’, it was just a question.
Apparently Andrew understands you better than you understand yourself. A couple of years ago I came to the same conclusion: I got thoroughly fed up with your act, which made all attempts at communication pointless and which hasn’t changed one bit in the intervening two years. I don’t mind David Springer being snarky to me, at least he doesn’t pretend to be something he isn’t.
Robert,
You have proved yourself to be completely unfit to carry out a rational discussion. Make as much puerile capital out of that statement as you want. You haven’t provided any real evidence, and neither has anyone else. It is not remotely comforting that you and others are now trying to deflect the discussion away from the starting point, which was you saying it is ‘moronic’ to disbelieve in the “pipeline warming” of CO2, and then calling Manacker a moron. Why not comforting? Because, at the end, it serves no purpose to avoid the truth. Models are not truth. Opinions are not truth. Not all evidence may be truth but at least unmolested observational data is as close as we can get at the moment. I feel sorry that you are so immersed in your own mire of self-inflated hubris that you are unable to carry on a civil discourse. If I maybe so bold, I think you should take a real hard look at yourself.
JCH.
Thank you for that genuinely ineffective input.
Kim,
[“Until these are understood, claiming CO2 for the temperature rise since 1750 is ignorant. It becomes slowly disingenous as the present lack of temperature rise becomes so prolonged.”]
One of the more intelligent comments on the subject!
Thanks for the support. I agree with all that you have said, and I think I have covered the lack of logic (and science) used by warmists when discussing the earlier 20th century warmings in an earlier post.
Unfortunately, some folk just will not behave when their beliefs are challenged. I thought it was a fair question to ask Robert when he was rude to Manacker. Although Manacker can take care of himself, I was genuinely interested to see if Robert could back his claim up. Apparently not. The factors which have caused either cooling periods or not-warming periods since 1750/1850 (1750 start of IPCC ‘anthropogenic emissions’ and 1850 start of IPCC accurate readings) are obviously easily capable of combating not only the theorised effect of CO2, but also the much-vaunted ‘pipeline effect’. One has to wonder if a reverse of those factors (or different combination) could have caused the warming. No, that would necessitate a revisitation of the ‘theory’ of cAGW. Hmmm, curious.
ps, Did the doctor ever succeed?
pps, Still waiting for the Christmas tree! Isn’t it exciting?
Vaughan,
Again, thank you for a genuinely irrelevant and ineffective input. Your attempt at deflection is duly noted.
You keep saying that . . . as you keeping talking and talking . . . about everything except the facts. ;)
I’m still waiting for you to make a serious argument that “Global warming stopped in 1998.” This discredited nonsense had its moment in the stoplight in 2010 . . . even hardcore deniers rarely invoke it anymore.
So without cherry-picking the data set or the start date, can you prove your claim? And can you prove that the oceans haven’t warmed since 1998? If global warming stopped in 1998, the oceans shouldn’t be gaining heat . . .
But all its been is ducking and dodging from you. You demand that we educate you in basic science. Why should we? You haven’t shown any willingness to deal honestly with the sources offered you. The logical conclusion is that you’re willfully ignorant.
It all comes back to your willingness to learn . . . if you are willing to grapple honestly with the facts, you’ll find no end of people to discuss the science with you. But “If you don’t eat your meat, you can’t have any pudding./ How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat?”
[“Again, you are being selective. You have selected a short-term period out of a longer-term dataset. If the overall trend is 0.055Cpd (I agree), then your argument of (the last three decades) fails to show overall acceleration. Since 1998, there has been NO warming (and, yes, I am using HadCRUt3).”] Arfur Bryant
To anyone who is still reading this tennis match…
Let me remind you what started the exchange. Robert called Manacker a moron and said it was moronic to disbelieve in CO2 ‘pipeline warming’. I politely asked him if he had real (non-modelled) evidence to support such an assertion. No evidence ensued. Robert did produce a graph from John Cook’s skepticalscience blog which portrayed the increase in Total Heat Content for ocean and land/atmosphere and proclaimed “Voila”… pipeline warming! This, of course, was not evidence at all. There was no explanation of why Robert thinks it was evidence, and Robert has repeatedly avoided answering the direct question. He now tries to deflect the discussion because he can’t find any ‘real’ evidence. So be it.
As to the ‘no warming since 1998’ tirade, let me clarify things. The context of the discussion, at that time, was about the global atmospheric temperature. I specifically explained to Robert that I was basing my statement on the HadCRUt3 dataset (see quote at the start of this post). Now Robert wants to deflect the discussion toward Ocean Heat Content. I have made no comment about Ocean Heat. I am happy to accept that the OHC has increased but the graph shows that ocean heat has increased MANY times more than atmosphere. How this can be achieved by an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 115 parts per million over 162 years with no corroborating rise in sea surface temperature hardly constitutes proof of ‘pipeline warming’:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/to:2012
In addition, Robert has asked me to provide evidence to support my contention that warming stopped in 1998. Ok, unlike Robert, I will oblige. As previously explained, the context was atmospheric warming and, in particular, HadCRUt3, so here it is:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from/to
In order to avoid any suggestion of cherry picking, I have shown the entire dataset. Why do I consider this evidence of my point? Because, although I know there are other datasets which show a higher temperature after 1998, the HadCRUt3 dataset was the original one used by the IPCC and it is also the only surface dataset which is supported by both of the satellite datasets in showing no higher temperature than 1998:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:2012/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2012
For these graphs, I have chosen 1979 as the start date of HadCRUt3 for direct comparison. This does not constitute cherry picking as I have previously shown the entire dataset.
Now, in case anyone feels the need to talk about ‘spikes’, let me remind you that no-one talked about spikes when the MBH98 graph was sold to the world as evidence of anthropogenic CO2-induced warming. The graph was sold as evidence that global surface and near-surface temperature was accelerating and would continue to do so. I certainly didn’t hear any climate scientist put a caveat on the graph to the effect that “it’s just a short term high due to natural factors”. It is quite clear from the graphs linked above that the highest point reached was in 1998. The fact that ALL current global datasets show the present temperature as being several tenths of a degree below 1998 after 14 years of ‘pipeline warming’ and ‘enhanced greenhouse effect’ should make a rational person at least begin to doubt the cAGW theory. I don’t expect Robert to be one of those people.
I’ve probably said enough. But in case anyone still believes that ‘pipeline warming’ exists, ask yourself how come we have had over 161 years of pipeline and yet the warming is not increasing at an accelerative rate. There have been short periods of acceleration (along with periods of cooling) but certainly not since 1998. The overall trend today is lower than it was in 1879 (hence no overall acceleration):
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:1879/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/to:2012/trend
Robert,
I am away on work for the next two weeks. I will not be online except briefly but I will check this thread when I return. Please feel free to make whatever comments you think are appropriate for an adult discussion.
Bye for now.
Very lucid, Arfur; thank you for the precis.
========
Arfur – first, I think I’m the one who linked to the graph made by somebody at skeptical science from data from the Church et al (2011) paper, not Robert.
I said I do not know if it proves there was warming in the pipeline.
The first usage on Google Scholar I found of the phrase “warming in the pipeline” was in 1989, and I’m pretty sure it predates that. The graph indicates the earth has stored a great deal of energy since then, and great deal since 1998.
Can natural variation do that? I do not think so.
Imo, HadCrut3 is pretty much a total waste of time. I do not think it measures the surface temperature of a planet called earth. So yes, on the regions of the earth covered by HadCrut3 no year since 1998 has exceeded 1998. Since 2005 and 2010 clearly exceeded 1998 on planet earth, HadCrut3 is…
Do I think Max is a moron for not thinking there is warming in the pipeline? I think he’s very wrong.
I’ve read your various debates on blogs. You win. Nonetheless, the earth will continue to warm significantly because of man’s emissions of GHG.
Robert,
Your attempts to provide evidence from warmist blogs and WoodForTrees Kung fu is pathetic.
To talk about the 1998 meme, here’s how Pat Michaels himself likes that meme:
> Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all… If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/15396965101
Let us note the us all. Would that be a team?
Go team!
Just to prove I have kept my word and revisited this thread after my time away…
Kim Very lucid, Arfur; thank you for the precis.
Thank you, Kim. Coming from you, who I very much respect, I consider your words high praise indeed:)
JCH I’ve read your various debates on blogs. You win. Nonetheless, the earth will continue to warm significantly because of man’s emissions of GHG.
That sentiment, JCH, is a triumph of faith over rationality:) But thanks for your input.
Regards,
Arfur
ps, It was definitely Robert’s skepticalscience link to which I was referring, not yours:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/12/philosophical-reflections-on-climate-model-projections/#comment-229020
Arty, there are so many lies and logical fallacies in your screed, one hardly knows where to begin.
It’s helpful that you admit looking at the evidence for warming in the pipeline, but were unable to understand it. Makes things much simpler.
I particularly enjoyed your admission that you went to Skeptical Science, but were only able to look at the pretty picture (“Robert did produce a graph”), and completely ignored the article and the list of works cited. Unless you are literally illiterate and dictating these screeds, I’m afraid you’ve indicted and convicted yourself of gross stupidity.
You continue to reiterate your resentment of the scientifically literate, and declare you will ignore any evidence provided by the scientific literate. Unfortunately, I am scientifically literate, and so it is hard to see what point further discussion serves. Since you have not once but twice stormed out of the discussion declaring it served no useful purpose, and despite multiple attempts have totally failed to produce anything resembling a rational argument, I hereby invoke the mercy rule: you lose. But thanks for playing! :)
Robert,
[“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are
the easiest person to fool.”] Richard Feynman
I wish you all the best, wherever your path takes you.
Arfur
Robert you write “Warming since 1980: 0.6C”
I know I am wasting my timne asking this question, as you are clearly never going to answer it. But it needs asking. How do you prove that the 0.8 C warmimg since 1980 was caused by the additoinal CO2 in the atmopshere?
It’s not all CO2. Some of it is land use changes, black carbon, methane, or other greenhouse gases.
“How do you prove that the 0.8 C warmimg since 1980 was caused by the additoinal CO2 in the atmopshere?”
Attribution studies. What have you read so far?
Robert you write “Attribution studies. What have you read so far?”
How about a peer reviewed reference that I can read?
“Some of it is land use changes.” Your global attribution studies appear to indicate that land use change have had a cooling impact. Regional studies tend to indicate land use change has a warming impact.
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/06/siberia-burns.html
Happy to send you some links.
Just to be clear: you’re saying you know nothing about the science of attribution, have read nothing at all about it.
Is that correct?
Robert, you write “Happy to send you some links.
Just to be clear: you’re saying you know nothing about the science of attribution, have read nothing at all about it.
Is that correct?”
Let me be clear. What I want is a peer reviewed reference that proves that the 0.8 C rise in temperature was definitively caused by the additional CO2 in the atmosphere. That is all. I am not in the least bit interested in the science of attribution. I dont have time for irrelevances.
“I am not in the least bit interested in the science of attribution.”
That’s honest, at least. But if you’re not interested in science, I can’t help you. Try a church. :)
If you develop an interest in science, I’d be happy to start you on your way. ;)
Robert, you write “That’s honest, at least. But if you’re not interested in science, I can’t help you. ”
Of course I am interested in science. I want to get to the bottom of why you claim that all the rise of 0.8 C from 1980 was caused by the additional CO2. You refuse to provide a peer review reference that shows your claim to be correct. When I have seen the peer reviewed paper that does just that, then I will believe it is correct. Until them I have an expression for your claim. It is complete and utter scientific garbage. There is absolutely no science whatsoever to support the contention that all the warming you note was caused by the additional CO2. Period.
Jim, you just said you weren’t interested in the science. It may be the first honest thing you’ve said here.
Demanding proof, but rejecting science, leaves you with a Catch-22. The proof is scientific in nature.
Robert, you write “Jim, you just said you weren’t interested in the science”
As usual, when a proponent of CAGW loses the argument, he reverts to a personal attack, and neglects the science. You are putting words in my mouth. Of course I am interested in science. I am not interested in irrelevant science. When I ask how you prove that the 0.8 C rise since 1980 is all caused ny additional CO2, I do not consider an answer of “Attribution studies” a satisfactory response. I expect to be told HOW “attribution studies” prove that all the warmign was caused by CO2.
I know that no true believer in the religion of CAGW is ever going to actually admit that they were wrong. I have learned all I am going to from this exchange, and that is all I am interested in.
You have no science to show that all the warming you claimed was due to CO2. Period.
“As usual, when a proponent of CAGW loses the argument, he reverts to a personal attack,”
Jim, quoting you is not a personal attack. You said you weren’t interested in the science. Now you’re desperately trying to backtrack. If anything, you’ve insulted yourself.
What climate deniers are losing the argument, that like to trot out their fake theory of “CAGW,” which they invented when the failure of their attack on plain old AGW got too embarrassing.
“There is absolutely no science whatsoever to support the contention that all the warming you note was caused by the additional CO2.”
Now you’ve made a positive claim (an incorrect claim, but still . . . progress!)
Now all you have to do is support that extraordinary claim with some extraordinary evidence. Remember to show your work (cite and link!)
Robert, you write “Now you’ve made a positive claim (an incorrect claim, but still . . . progress!)”
I have NOT made a positive claim. I have made a NEGATIVE claim. It is inpossible to ever prove a negative claim. I cannot prove that there is no science to support your POSITIVE claim. In scientific circles, which you seem to be unfamiliar with, it is normal when you make a claim to provide the reference to support that claim. This you have studiously refused to do, despite my many attempts to, politley, request a peer reviewed reference to prove that all the 0.8 C rise was due to additonal CO2. This reference does not exist. Now, of course, I cannot prove this either. It is another negative claim. But you couild very eaasily prove me to be wrong. But you will not, because no such refeerence exists.
“I have NOT made a positive claim. I have made a NEGATIVE claim. It is inpossible to ever prove a negative claim.”
So you’re saying your argument is impossible to prove?
Sucks to be you, I guess.
Still waiting for your argument in support of this assertion:
“There is absolutely no science whatsoever to support the contention that all the warming you note was caused by the additional CO2.”
Citation needed. Show your work!
Because you made the claim. I didn’t. You claimed that:
“There is absolutely no science whatsoever to support the contention that all the warming you note was caused by the additional CO2.”
Prove your claim. I made no such claim. I offered to link you to some attribution studies, but you weren’t interested in the science. None of that constitutes a claim on my part. You made a truth claim. Prove your claim.
Sorry, Robert. You accuse me of not being scientific. If you dont understand the simple truth that it is impossible to prove a negative claim, then it is impossible to discuss anything scientific with you.
“If you dont understand the simple truth that it is impossible to prove a negative claim, ”
So you made a claim. You admit can’t prove it (and don’t want to try). You knew you couldn’t present any evidence for it when you made the claim.
So you’re both A) On the losing end of the argument, and B) By your own admission dishonest.
Are you done digging yourself in deeper, or would you like to keep going? :)
JIm Cripwell,
[“You have no science to show that all the warming you claimed was due to CO2. Period.”]
Of course. All anyone can say is that an unknown (and currently unknowable) portion of the 0.8C rise may or may not be due to CO2 increase.
Robert can’t give you an answer because then he would have to explain what caused the similar warming between 1910 and 1945. Then he would have to explain why that warming stopped and why the later warming has stopped since 1998 without invoking specious arguments about pipelines…
Regards,
That’s certainly all the scientifically ignorant can say.
Of course, to the scientifically ignorant lots of things are “unknowable.”
If you are claiming that people who know the science can’t say more than this, I wonder what evidence you have for that claim. It seems quite dubious. Why do you think your personal ignorance is a general state of affairs?
Citations and links, please.
Robert, you write “So you made a claim. You admit can’t prove it (and don’t want to try). You knew you couldn’t present any evidence for it when you made the claim.”
For once, you are absolutely correct. I knew when I made the claim that it could not be proven. That is the nature of negative claims. I made the cliam to show the difference between us. You made a POSITIVE claim, which can be proven. You have provided no proof for your positive claim. All I was trying to do was to demonstrate the difference between us. And you assiduously refuse to prove a reference to support your positive claim.
But I didn’t make a positive claim, so your argument fails apart.
You’ve admitted you made an assertion knowing you were unable to support it with evidence — that’s dishonest.
Your argument fails, and your integrity meter is reading zero.
And I suppose that’s where we’ll leave it.
Robert,
Asking me to prove that fairies don’t exist doesn’t excuse you from having to prove they do.
If you have some real evidence to suggest that the cause of the warming is additional CO2, please provide it.
Jim Cripwell
I read how you are painstakingly trying to get Robert to cite you some specific studies, which demonstrate based on empirical scientific evidence that most of the 0.6 degC warming he claims has occurred since 1980 is caused by CO2.
Your efforts are in vain. Robert sidesteps the issue with fancy footwork and hot air.
Robert cannot cite these studies quite simply because they do not exist.
Max
Robert, you write “But I didn’t make a positive claim,”
Garbage. What you wrote was
‘Warming since 1980: 0.6C
Change in CO2 forcing since 1980: 5.35 * ln(392/340) = 0.75 W/m^2
(+0.6C) * (3.7/0.75) = 2.96 C/doubling
Wow, I just used your own unrealistic assumptions to derive a climate sensitivity of 3C. Perhaps you need more practice working through the logical consequences of your own arguments . . . maybe some training in logic . . . perhaps a philosophy class”
If that is not a positive claim that all the warming of 0.8 C was caused by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, then would you mind explaining to me why it is not a positive claim. Maybe my science is not so hot, but if you are claiming that you do not assume that all the warming is caused by CO2, then you are not being honest.
Max, you write “Your efforts are in vain. Robert sidesteps the issue with fancy footwork and hot air.“
Thanks Max. I know that. But Robert has been very rude to me in the past, and it is fun pulling his chain, and seeing him squirm trying to explain the unexplainable.
He is making a wonderful ass of himself, and I am thoroughly enjoying it.
The difference being that you’re the one claiming fairies exist — magical energy-eating fairies.
But you won’t step up and make an argument.
Why do you believe in energy-eating fairies?
“But Robert has been very rude to me in the past, and it is fun pulling his chain . . .”
Poor little Jimmy! This is his excuse for getting whipped in the argument:
“I wasn’t really trying to win, I just wanted to waste Robert’s time.”
Nice excuse for losing, Jimmy!
Unfortunately to get there you had to admit you weren’t interested in the science and didn’t want to know about it. That’s going to come up again, I would think . . .
Doctor, Doctor, give me the news.
Got a sad case of believin’ youse.
===================
“Raypierre,
You wrote that, after an unforced change in climate state, there is
“a tendency for the state to relax back to an equilibrium with a certain time constant. What’s more, that time constant is proportional to the climate sensitivity”
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/07/there-are-no-steps-it-is-constant.html
Non-systems are complicated.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/07/strangely-attractive.html
“We know from solar studies that solar activity during the 20th century reach a highest level in several thousand years (and is now on the decline).”
De Jager, Cornelis, and Silvia Duhau. “Sudden Transitions and Grand Variations in the Solar Dynamo, Past and Future.” Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate 2 (June 25, 2012): A07. http://www.swsc-journal.org/index.php?option=com_article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/swsc/2012008&Itemid=129
Watts, Anthony. “Weak Solar Convection – Approximately 100 Times Slower Than Scientists Had Previously Projected.” Scientific. Watts Up With That?, July 9, 2012. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/weak-solar-convection-approximately-100-times-slower-than-scientists-had-previously-projected/
@Pooh, Dixie
There are many studies of solar activity from the 19th century to today. Here is a link to one:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
The study shows the average Wolf Number for solar cycles as follows:
SC 10-15 (1858-1928) was around 90
SC 18-23 (1945-2008) was around 148 (peaking in SC19 at 190)
(i.e. a 64% increase over the earlier 6 SCs)
Other studies have concluded that this solar activity was the highest in several thousand years and that roughly half of the past global warming can be attributed to it..
SC23 had already slowed down to 120 and current SC24 is starting off very inactive, but who knows what the future will hold?
The paper you cite by De Jager and Duhau does not expect that there will be another Grand (Maunder Type) Minimum (to throw us into another Little Ice Age), but that SC24 will have a maximum sunspot number of 62±12, IOW be a fairly inactive SC.
But it’s all speculation and I wouldn’t count on it.
Max
Max: I was too brief. The paper is contemporary, using a technique unavailable for most of our sunspot history. Also, it focuses on what is happening now — no history to it.
My understanding of this may be faulty, being a bear of little brain. Anyway, here goes. The poloidal component is mostly “vertical” to the sun’s direction of rotation. From the surface, it descends into the interior, picking up heat energy. It then ascends, where some of the energy can be radiated to earth. It stands to reason that the slower the poloidal motion, the less surface energy available for transfer/radiation.
Although it is true that the authors exclude a Maunder minimum, they do not address the possibility of a Dalton. Having expended reserve capacity on such things as ethanol, that would be bad enough.
If I have read the paper wrongly, I am open to correction. We live in interesting times.
This is an interesting concept w/r/t thinking about uncertainty.
It’s would also be interesting to see how some “skeptics” might apply this thinking to their certainty about other various issues, such as:
Certainty about the positive benefits of increased atmospheric CO2
Certainty about the economic impact of a carbon tax
Certainty about the impact of ACO2 emissions on the chemical properties of ocean water.
Certainty about the cost going into the future of alternative energy sources relative to fossil fuels (especially given the negative externalities in addition to climate impact of fossil fuel – particulates, environmental impact, socio-economic impact of keeping oil flowing, etc.)
Certainty about the impact of climategate (Judith gets a special call-out for that one).
Certainty about what drives public opinion on climate change
Certainty about the motivations of the AGW cabal
Certainty about whether Muller is a “skeptic.”
Certainty that the Earth is warming even though – apparently – they feel that the data recording that warming is unreliable.
Certainty about the universe being created by a supernatural being (Roy Spencer gets a special call-out on that one).
That should do for starters.
Certainty about the motivations of the AGW cabal
“Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.” Nicholas Stern. Is there a vegetarian bacon?
Certainty about the universe being created by a supernatural being (Roy Spencer gets a special call-out on that one). A supernatural “being” is a product of uncertainty. If there were no uncertainty there would be zero possibility of a supernatural entity existing. To some, Microsoft Corp. is GOD.
Seems interesting, but I can’t quite follow your point.
Some “skeptics” are absolutely certain about the existence of a supernatural being (not sure why you have a problem with that word. I’m fine with entity – but it doesn’t accurately describe their beliefs).
So, I wonder how “skeptics” who, based on the philosophical tenets offered in the article Judith linked think that AGW theory is too uncertain to instill confidence, reach their level of certainty about the origin of the universe.
I would imagine that some aspect of their certainty about the origin of the universe is because they find other explanations too uncertain. Is that your point?
But that doesn’t explain why their acceptance of their particular explanation passes a test of skepticism, given the philosophical tenets of the linked article. Further, it doesn’t account for other factors influencing their belief such as faith, the underlying psychology of humans, cognitive biases, etc.
My point is that these philosophical considerations, like much in the climate debate cafeteria food fight, are applied selectively to confirm biases.
Along similar lines:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/08/the-perils-of-reason/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
“My point is that these philosophical considerations, like much in the climate debate cafeteria food fight, are applied selectively to confirm biases.”
Most intelligent people pick their battles carefully. “Never discuss religion or politics at the dinner table.” That is because both subjects require rationalization. To me there is not difference between Spencer rationalizing religion and BartR rationalizing revenue neutral carbon policy. Both fill a void created by uncertainty. Ideology is ideology.
The more relevant question, Cap’n, is whether you see any different between BartR rationalizing revenue neutral carbon policy and Spencer rationalizing the economic outcomes of carbon policy, or in rationalizing his skepticism about the impact of ACO2 on the climate.
Your question reveals much. Give it some thought. My question was whether or not some “skeptics” are selective in their application of the tenets of the philosophical considerations discussed in the article. If they are, why is that? Of course, the same question is applicable to “realists.” I would never, ever, question that.
The only difference I see between Spencer and BartR rationalizing carbon policy is that Spencer tends to have a little bit more realistic grasp of the situation. That is likely due to my own biases I.e. I am more certain that land use – natural variability are larger factors than CO2 and that governments are wasteful when they try to usurp markets.
Joshua | August 13, 2012 at 10:22 am |
There’s a difference between rationality and rationalization.
Also, you overlook some nuance. In mathematics, there’s such a thing as mathematical certainty. We can be absolutely certain 7×13=28.
Bart –
I hope you realize I was only accepting Cap’n’s use of you as an example for the sake of argument.
In reality, as opposed to “skeptics,” you would never rationalize anything and all your opinions are completely rational.
Joshua | August 13, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
Uh.. there’s a difference between ‘utterly detached from reality’ and ‘cites Abbot & Costello on Mathematics’.
I readily recognize that to many, my arguments may always, mostly, or sometimes sound like rationalizations. They certainly sound that way to me, but then I’m rabidly hostile to my own opinion. And opinion in general. Though I recognize my fellows’ right to hold opinion, I hope it differs from my own. I know where mine have been.
A revenue neutral (to government, on first order) Carbon Cycle fee and dividend system is, however, not the rationalization. It’s the conclusion of a set of inferences and reasonable conclusions from the data available and the principles of Market Capitalism.
The rationalizations I put forward within the proposal are along the lines of, ‘why should I set a price, when the Law of Supply and Demand will do it for us all?’
That’s a bit of mental laziness on my part. Were I willing to undertake the research, and reconstruct some now long-forgotten upper year Managerial Economics coursework, I could estimate the prices of the fees one would expect the Market to set. I suspect as a ballpark the average US citizen with a paycheck would gross on the order of $200 per paycheck from Carbon Cycle fees. 70% of the dividend recipients would come out ahead by somewhere between $10 and the full $200 per paycheck as the costs of Carbon Cycle fees make their way through the Market.
Think about the impact on the USA of every wage earner’s taxable income going up $200? Or of the relative growth in the US Economy of GDP when the price of the Carbon Cycle is figured in? Those aren’t rationalizations. Those are hard Economic possibilities. Am I certain of them? I’m above 95% certain this is how things would come about, given the experience of two dozen other sovereign systems implementing some variation on carbon taxes, at least two endeavoring to be partially revenue-neutral, and moreover the experience of every other form of privatization of Commons in history, from Cell Phone Bandwidth on back.
The rationalization is when I don’t go into those details, or do the work, on the lazy excuse that this stuff is pretty obvious, and only a thick dimwit would need to be led by the hand to understanding because the average person ought see it right off. See the difference between (ir)rational and rationalization? ;)
Now, the ideology of Market Capitalism, that I agree with you about, somewhat. Except of course for the nuance that many claim the banner, from literal bullionists like Ron Paul, to neobullionists for whom the glitter and spark of burning fossils is as good as gold, to mercantilists and other corporate charity chasers who expect government to hand them everything in exchange for providing a trough for unelectable politicians to sidle up to between campaigns.
Bart –
I think this is one of those occasions where sarcasm didn’t translate over the internet.
That wasn’t supposed to be your voice, it was supposed to be mine, or a stereotypical “realist” argument, or actually the structure of most blog posts.
I wasn’t saying that you rationalize your rationalizations. I was mocking myself, really (it’s a Jewish thing) – to suggest that I could never admit that someone on “my side” (whatever the F that means) would engage in the behaviors I was identifying in “skeptics.”
I was serious about going with your “rationalizations” just for the sake of argument.
For me, the starting point for evaluating the revenue neutrality of a carbon tax needs to begin with a comprehensive evaluation of the negative exernalities of fossil fuel. If we eliminated those externalities, there would be a lot of room for economic loss over gain before we’d hit a point of neutrality. At that point, then I think that your argument does, indeed, kick in. Who really knows what an honest market price would be? The “concerns” about government interference in the market in the form of a carbon tax ignores the reality that the government has already shaped the market.
And we see similarly blind arguments about “spending” on public education or transportation, when the returns when viewed comprehensively (fewer people in jail, economic stimulation from transportation hubs, decrease commute times, fewer people on welfare, etc.) are better than we’d ever get in the market unless we were CFOs leveraging our assets 40-1 to buy bad debt and pass if off on someone else.
We can be absolutely certain 7×13=28.
Sorry, this is the integers mod 62 club. You’re looking for integers mod 63, next door on your right. :)
Joshua | August 14, 2012 at 1:40 am |
Sometimes I miss irony. Sometimes I miss it on purpose; this may just be a rationalization. ;)
I’m not a believer myself, but it seems like bringing belief in god into the conversation is a stretch. Most agree that it requires an act of faith, that it is a belief and not proven that god exists. Therefore it is outside the realm of science and not relevant to this conversation.
Bill –
I agree with you, but in fact, “most” people disagree with you. “Most” people consider the existence of a creator as proven. Personally, I view it is a product or logical thought – but with one particular starting condition (that the bible is infallable, that a creator must exist, that a creator has spoken to them directly, that they have seen evidence of a guiding hand in their life, etc.).
Two additional, related, points:
The first point is that if you read what Spencer says, he doesn’t agree with the dichotomy you are creating. He says that his opinions about the creation of the universe are based on scientific reasoning processes. Our much beloved denizen. David W., says that anyone who thinks that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory doesn’t know anything about science.
The second point is that I think that you are creating a false dichotomy between science and faith. The product of human cognition is not so cleanly differentiated.
Actually, Dr. Skeptical Gates had a good example of rationalization a while back. He linked to a study that indicated that charred hamburger consumption is linked to cancer. Charring or caramelizing is the more relevant link to cancer. Heat in general causes changes that can lead to cancer. Hot tea is carcinogenic. Hot herbal tea can be just as carcinogenic as passive smoke. Hamburger though appears to hold a special place of bias in Dr. Gates rationalization process.
Only Gates does this?
Or is there some reason that his rationalization sticks out in your mind?
Joshua, everyone does it :) It is whether they realizing they do or not than matters.
I met Bruce Ames back in 84-5. He was telling us how he developed the ‘Ames’ Test for mutagens and potential carcinogens.
I asked the question, he must have been asked 1,000 times before:
Me: What is the most mutagenic thing you have found.
Bruce: Chinese herb tea.
Ames is an example of a scientist completely changing his view. In the 70’s many people speculated that man-made chemicals were more likely to be muta/carcenogens than natural compounds; as we had evolved with the latter and not the former.
When Ames discovered that many ‘natural’ compounds were mutagens, he completely changed his view on mans place in ‘nature’ and the origins of cancer.
Doc said, “Me: What is the most mutagenic thing you have found.
Bruce: Chinese herb tea.”
Yep, and Chinese green tea supposedly triggers a hormetic response, at least in Asian genetics. A Caucasian health nut drinking copious amount of hot green tea would not likely enjoy that effect. Damn non-linearity relationships are a certainly a challenge for a linear no threshold society…
OT.. but you might like him
Nice. I like the concept of mixing non-legacy solutions with social capital. I
It reminds me of managers who fail to realize that the “power” in their company is in their employees. They try to squeeze them as hard as they can to extract as much power out of their employees as possible, thereby debilitating and enervating their most generative resource. Instead, they should be providing nutrients to that resource because if you think things through without over-complicating them, you see that with a little bit of sunlight and water, your employees can very efficiently output huge amounts of energy.
Such a simple and obvious reality, but for some reason people have such a hard time seeing it.
The same obstacle applies – the legacy of wrongful thinking.
Thanks for the clip.
No sweat Joshua. The first time I saw his manufacturing curve was years ago when I worked in aerospace so that part of it appealed to my experience.
during 800 k years of ice core data, there were major warming that were relatively short and major ice ages that last about 100 k years. During the last major warming, the ball game changed and since then we have had smaller warming, like the medieval warm period and the current warm period and smaller cooling, like the little ice age. There is nothing in modern data that exceeds the max or min bounds of the past ten thousand years and modern data is not headed toward getting outside the bounds of the past ten thousand years. The largest probability is that the next ten thousand years will follow the pattern of the last ten thousand years inside the same bounds. The only thing that says we have a problem is the Models and they have not been right so far. The past 15 years have not warmed as the Models predicted.
@HAP: The past 15 years have not warmed as the Models predicted.
Now that we have Muller’s BEST climate data we can check your claim, HAP. The
BEST data for 1970-2010 shows not the slightest abatement of global warming during 1995-2010. Where is your data contradicting this?
Climate skeptics keep repeating the mantra that the world is cooling in the hope that mere repetition will cause it to happen. Lots of luck with that. :)
Vaughan Pratt
BEST data are for land only.
“The world” (as you put it) includes the sea.
The “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature (HadCRUT3, for example) has NOT warmed since mid 1997, i.e. over the past 15 years.
Max
Gosh, and I’d just upgraded to HADCRUT4. I’ll have to switch back to HADCRUT3 to keep you guys happy.
The only other alternative I could think of was NASA GISTEMP but that didn’t pan out any better than HADCRUT4. Ok, so HADCRUT3 it is, Max.
But isn’t this all moot given that the Santer minimum for avoiding cherry-picking is 17 years, not 15?
(Oops, sorry about that GISTEMP data, it should have been this GISTEMP plot. My bad.)
minimum for avoiding cherry-picking is 17 years, not 15
That works for me. keep a link to this around for a couple more years. If we both live long enough, we can revisit this every 5 years or so. Or, every year.
I’m all for that, HAP. Every year is fine by me.
Vaughan, the lack of a trend in water vapor would seem to contradict warming since 1995 unless there is a reason why I shouldn’t be able to use water vapor as a proxy for temperature?
@steven: unless there is a reason why I shouldn’t be able to use water vapor as a proxy for temperature
Certainly if temperature wasn’t available I’d look for proxies for it, while acknowledging that a proxy is rarely as good as the real thing.
Are you talking about a situation where the temperature itself is not available? If not then I don’t understand the point of substituting a proxy, unless it’s to exploit a difference between the proxy and the real thing, in which case there’s your reason right there.
steven is bat crazy. If the ocean did change by 1C then with a heat of vaporization of around 0.4 eV, the partial pressure of H20 would only change 5%. Since 1995, the change is even less. How measurable is that? If the oceans change by 3C, then the humidity would rise by closer to 20%. This is the positive feedback effect that climate scientists are worried about.
Differential CO2 levels are actually a better proxy for ocean temperature variability:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/isolate:60/derivative/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1960/mean:12/isolate:60
This is also a positive feedback,
Do the same plot for water vapor and you will see a similar correlation I bet.
Vaughan, you toss out a land only series comprised of data that may be contaminated by UHIs, land use, and boundary layer turbulence and refer to that as “the real thing”? You asked for data that would support no warming. I gave you a series that would. What you decide to do with it, like ignore it since it doesn’t fit what you have decided is true, is none of my concern.
You asked for data that would support no warming. I gave you a series that would.
You did? Then I have four questions.
1. When did you give me a series, and where can I find it?
2. What trend did this series show for 1970-1995?
3. What trend did it show for 1995-2012?
4. In the case of temperature, 15 years is not quite long enough to obtain stable values for estimated trends. Is water vapor better or worse than temperature in that regard?
Without 1 there is no data to work with.
Without 2 there is no way of interpreting 3. (If there was no change during 1970-1995 then what bearing does your answer to 3 have on warming.)
Without 3 there is no way of evaluating your claim of no change in water vapor during that period.
Without 4 there is no way to evaluate your claim that water vapor is preferable to temperature for deciding whether warming has occurred.
Vaughan, the IPCC states there should be a 7% increase in water vapor per 1 C increase in temperature. The coverage prior to satellite measurements would not have been global so even if they didn’t show a trend, and I believe at least the majority if not all studies did show an increasing trend, they would have been disregarded as not being global because without a correlation between water vapor and temperature we would be spending all our time arguing over ocean acidification instead of the meager amount of warming that CO2 could cause without an increase in water vapor. I still have no reason to fall back on prior time periods because the only options are the satellite measurements are wrong, the temperature measurements are wrong, or the models are so far out in left field we can ignore them completely.
Here is the series
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/new-paper-weather-and-climate-analyses-using-improved-global-water-vapor-observations-by-vonder-haar-et-al-2012/
Since I made no claim for 1970 to 1995 I don’t see where that matters to my argument. Perhaps you have an argument it matters for in which case you should state it and provide your supporting material.
It showed no trend for 1995 to 2010.
You say 15 years is not long enough to determine trends for temperature yet this paper states it is long enough to falsify models at the 95% should there be no warming.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/j/j/global_temperatures_09.pdf
I don’t know if water vapor would require more time or not. Preferable or not will only be known when we know which is closer to the truth, water vapor or land temperatures. I don’t know which one is closer but you seem to. I just don’t know why you know. How do you know?
The ocean has increased about 0.3 C since 1989, according to HADSST3.
If water vapor has an activation energy or heat of vaporization of 0.42 eV, then an increase of 0.3C will raise the partial pressure of water vapor by about 1.6%.
So 1.6% of the partial pressure they show in Torr (or mm Hg) is 0.016 of ~25 mm or 0.4 mm. The question is whether one can detect that small a change when the seasonal fluctuations show noise and can go +/- 2 mm. The water vapor readings have certainly gone up. If it went up too much, I wouldn’t be able to explain it from the thermodynamic properties of water vapor.
Wolfram Alpha equation of vapor pressure activation
Does everyone understand this? This is essentially a homework exercise.
Are you asking me a question Web? If so I would state that AR4 claimed a 0.4mm +/- 0.09mm accuracy. I assume our ability to measure has not degraded since then.
So the uncertainty is about the same delta change expected from outgassing.
The pieces fit together like a jigsaw puzzle and any one piece can’t deviate too much or something is very wrong. Just have to wait it out.
@steven: Since I made no claim for 1970 to 1995 I don’t see where that matters to my argument. Perhaps you have an argument it matters for in which case you should state it and provide your supporting material.
I already gave my argument in the paragraph “Without 2” above. Putting it another way, if B doesn’t change when A does, B would be a terrible proxy for A. If water vapor changes only a little when temperature changes a lot, and you have no way of defining what “a little” means, no calibration in other words, then it’s a completely useless proxy for temperature. An uncalibrated instrument can’t be relied on.
Granted the series in the Pielke page does not show an obvious trend between 1989 and 2009. But so what? Had it shown a strong upward trend for the preceding 20 years then we could look at the whole 40 years and declare that water vapor had slowed down (though that would still leave open the question of whether it was an adequate proxy for temperature).
If on the other hand the previous 20 years were just as flat then the series would have told us nothing.
@steven: You say 15 years is not long enough to determine trends for temperature yet this paper states it is long enough to falsify models at the 95% should there be no warming.
I agree with the paper. Moreover, 18 months before Santer et al offered 17 years as a lower bound for trends, I calculated on a different climate blog on Feb. 19, 2010 (well before Climate Etc. began) that 15 years is necessary to determine a trend. This calculation was based on a detailed analysis of 3120 windows of widths between 5 and 17 years within the period January 1979 to December 2009. So I’m not at all opposed to the 15 year figure.
What I wrote here was “15 years is not quite long enough to obtain stable values for estimated trends” (emphasis added). Without the stability requirement I’m comfortable with 15 years as I calculated 30 months ago. The 95% confidence level means one mistake in every 20 judgments, which I wouldn’t exactly call “stable.” With the stability requirement I’d lean towards Santer’s 17 years.
Vaughan, you Say: Climate skeptics keep repeating the mantra that the world is cooling in the hope that mere repetition will cause it to happen. Lots of luck with that.
Thanks! Earth is providing the data and the data is on our side!
Pay real close attention during the cold part of 2012-2013 to the massive snow and cold that will occur because the oceans are warm and the Arctic is open.
Pay real close attention during the cold part of 2012-2013 to the massive snow and cold that will occur because the oceans are warm and the Arctic is open.
One year? You’re kidding. The only thing I pay attention to is the temperature difference between years that are 15 years apart or more. Less than that is statistically meaningless because the fluctuations drown out the small drift over shorter periods.
EARTHWEEK, in the Houston Chronicle, Sunday, August 12, 2012, “Climate changes heat” quotes Hansen: “severe droughts in Texas last year were caused by our greenhouse gas emissions.”
There is nothing unprecedented about the modern drought in Texas.
Look at the actual data. What is likely to happen in Texas is bounded by what has happened in Texas and worse droughts have happened and can happen again with or without manmade CO2.
Here is some peer reviewed information about drought in Texas that says there were droughts before 1930 and 1950 and 2011 that were worse.
http://journals.tdl.org/twj
http://journals.tdl.org/twj/issue/view/199
http://journals.tdl.org/twj/article/view/2049
This next link is the PDF
http://journals.tdl.org/twj/article/view/2049/5840
Texas Water Resources Institute
Texas Water Journal
Volume 2, Number 1, Pages 54–96, December 2011
Extended Chronology of Drought in Texas
By the way, the Texas Water Journal is peer reviewed.
Psychology of Intelligence Analysis
Richards J. Heuer, Jr.
This book is easy to understand and uses straight forward examples which a layman/woman can understand. It really helps the individual to analyse his or her own thought processes. It is available for download from the CIA’s website for free, though it would be well worth paying for if it were in the shops!
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/index.html
There are intriguingly simple chapter titles including:
Chapter 1: Thinking About Thinking
Chapter 2: Perception: Why Can’t We See What Is There to Be Seen?
Chapter 4: Strategies for Analytical Judgment: Transcending the Limits of Incomplete Information
Chapter 5: Do You Really Need More Information?
Chapter 6: Keeping an Open Mind
Chapter 8: Analysis of Competing Hypotheses
Chapter 9: What Are Cognitive Biases?
Chapter 10: Biases in Evaluation of Evidence
Chapter 11: Biases in Perception of Cause and Effect
Chapter 12: Biases in Estimating Probabilities
Chapter 13: Hindsight Biases in Evaluation of Intelligence Reporting
Dr Curry,
Something seems wrong with the fact that your inital post is ‘Philosophical’, but you are going to moderate for ‘Technical’.
I know we live is confused times, but this is rather blatant.
Andrew
We have just this problem in our own philosophy department at Stanford. There is an ongoing split between the fuzzies and the technicals. So far it hasn’t gotten to the point reached by our anthropology department over a decade ago, fingers crossed.
Hi Dr. Pratt
Nice to see you back. When I was at university (electronic engineering) two year philosophy course (classic & modern) was compulsory. It was taught by certain Dr. Hann (ex German?!), no fuzziness was tolerated.
Something wrong with just calculating the percentage error?
There is a delightful book that deals with models gone wrong titled “Structures: Or Why Things Don’t Fall Down” by JE Gordon, an engineer. It has many examples of things which failed or did not work even though they were derived from models that showed that thy should be stable structures or function well. Models are not reality, that is why they are called models; no amount of statistics or computer power or statistical manipulation can obviate the need for verification in real time and real life. I recommend that JE Gordon’s book be read by all who work with models including climatologists. It is a good antidote to human hubris.
The flip side is when you have a simple model that is faithful to reality. Your ability to predict what will happen rises dramatically.
Vaughan
And when models are shown that can accurately forecast the weather 1, 2, or more years into the future it will be easier to not be skeptical about claims that someone KNOWS what is happening in the system
WARNING: SCIENCE CONTENT
Rob, consider a cup of coffee with a temperature of 160 degrees, in a climate controlled room which is maintained at 70 degrees.
The temperature of the coffee in five minutes turns out to be a non-trivial problem involving fluid dynamics. The equations are non linear and are fairly difficult.
The temperature of the coffee in 24 hours, however, is easy to calculate: 70 degrees.
Moral: predicting short-term fluctuations is different from predicting long-term trends. Predicting the equilibrium state can be quite a bit easier than predicting the short-term fluctuations.
Robert
It would not be difficult to calculate what the temperature of the coffee in the cups will be if one understands the volume of coffee, the mass of the cups, the size of the opening exposed to the air and the material that the cups were constructed from. That is science and we could easily test our model to validate the accuracy of our cooling forecast.
Robert- The earth is a complex system, why should people do what you think makes sense, when you acknowledge that you do not understand the key attributes of the system.
You do not know how much CO2 is causing the system to warm, but fear it will be harmful.
You can provide no reliable evidence to demonstrate that a warmer world will be worse for humanity overall, or for the USA specifically, but you want people to suffer by paying higher taxes because of your fears.
You do not know how much emissions will be reduced due to the taxes you wish to impose.
You cannot even determine what will happen to the feared conditions as a byproduct of imposing the higher taxes you support.
Will the conditions you fear be avoided or lessened if we impose the taxes you advocate? You don’t know! All Robert does know is that he has fears and that we should do what he thinks makes sense.
Actually, it’s not that simple at all. Initially the top of the cup, exposed to the air, will cool faster than the coffee in the interior. This creates a temperature gradient. The rate of cooling at that point depends upon the mixing of the layers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_mixing.
You’re confused; I acknowledge that you do not understand key attributes of the system. This is to be expected, as you’re not a scientist and haven’t learned the science.
I can’t pick next week’s lotto numbers. It doesn’t mean I don’t know how the lottery works. :)
Robert
You are wrong regarding the temperature gradients impacting the temperature of the cup of coffee during cooling. The effect would be very, very minor and if they developed at all they would redistribute quickly in something the size of a cup. You are no engineer or scientist.
Robert compares the lottery to the climate. You can’t predict the lottery tomorrow and you can’t predict with any accuracy how much more CO2 will warm the planet or if that is really a bad thing, but you do advocate that CO2 emissions need to be taxed.
@Rob Starkey: You are wrong regarding the temperature gradients impacting the temperature of the cup of coffee during cooling. The effect would be very, very minor and if they developed at all they would redistribute quickly in something the size of a cup. You are no engineer or scientist.
Spoken like a true theoretician, Rob. :)
Since these trivial heat distribution problems present no challenge to you, you should have no trouble predicting the outcome of the experiment pictured here. This photo (whose EXIF info shows it was taken this evening at 10:56 pm Pacific Daylight Time) shows a glass pitcher about 10 cm diameter filled with water to a depth of 20 cm, initially at 25 C, into which has been inserted a thermometer and 300 watt immersion heater, which you can buy for less than $8 if you want to do the experiment yourself.
The boiling just barely apparent in the photo started 8 minutes after turning on the heater at 10:45 pm (the photo was taken 3 minutes after boiling commenced).
At 11:10 pm, 25 minutes after turning it on, I read the thermometer. According to your understanding of these things,
1. Would you expect the thermometer to have registered more or less than 30 degrees C when I read it?
2. 10 minutes later (i.e. 11:20 pm, 35 minutes after turning it on), would you expect the thermometer to have risen more or less than 50 degrees C during those 10 minutes?
Your portfolio manager produces outcomes that are better than random?
Of course not. My concern with DLH would be that they were worse than random.
@Rob Starkey: And when models are shown that can accurately forecast the weather 1, 2, or more years into the future it will be easier to not be skeptical about claims that someone KNOWS what is happening in the system
This is an impossible condition.
1. No matter when you raise it, we will not know what the future holds at the time you raise it.
2. Even ten years is impossible to forecast, let alone 1 or 2, it is too short a time period to obtain stable values. Models that can forecast 20 years into the future on the other hand are more feasible.
(This may seem counterintuitive until you consider that we can’t reliably forecast whether next Thursday will be hotter or colder than today. However we can pretty reliably forecast that next February will be colder (or hotter in the case of the Southern Hemisphere) than this month.)
@Vaughan Pratt: “… we can pretty reliably forecast that next February will be colder …”
The reason we can do this reliably is because year after year we, and our ancestors, have experienced colder weather in February as compared to August. We are confident in our prediction because odds are good next year will follow the same pattern that we have seen in the previous thousand years.
Our confidence in this prediction doesn’t come from an untested hypothesis springing from our imagination.
Your analogy sucks.
There is nothing “untested” about my claim. It is an undeniable fact, based not on hypothesis but on direct observation, that for the period 1970-now, trends in periods shorter than a decade fluctuate up and down at random while every trend in periods longer than 15 years points upwards. (The Santer et al paper proposes 17 years for a more robust outcome but the idea is essentially the same.)
Climate skeptics go LALALALA when confronted with this data. They refuse to accept it and cry “untested hypothesis.” It is no such thing. Anyone who doubts this is invited to submit the results of their own investigation demonstrating otherwise.
So far no skeptic has ever done this, they simply refuse to accept this easily demonstrated fact. This is pure antiscience.
LALALALA yourself. I don’t dispute your data, but I do dispute your calling it the equivalent of test results. In my opinion, all you have in the way of data right now is sparse circumstantial evidence supporting an untested hypothesis.
Look, between 1970 and now you have at most three independent data points showing 15-year upward trends. (I doubt you even have three.) So you have in effect seen a coin flipped three times and witnessed it come up heads three times in a row. Now you’re saying based on that result you have proven this is a two-headed coin.
I think you’re jumping to conclusions.
all you have in the way of data right now is sparse circumstantial evidence supporting an untested hypothesis.
Recall that my hypothesis was in response to Rob’s remark “when models are shown that can accurately forecast the weather 1, 2, or more years into the future it will be easier to not be skeptical.” My hypothesis was that although short periods like that were impossible to forecast, for the period 1970 onwards, significantly longer ones were.
Before we can test my hypothesis we need to formulate it more precisely. Let me claim that, starting in 1970, we can reliably predict each year that the annualized HADCRUT3 global land-sea temperature in 20 years time will be hotter than this year’s. You were ok with a forecast that in August of any year we (in the NH) could reliably predict that next February would be a colder month. Moreover your basis for your confidence was that we’d observed this many times in the past. You then claimed that 20 year forecasts of annual climate were an entirely different thing.
I don’t see much difference.
If we actually look at HADCRUT3 we find that in 1970, 1990 will be 0.320 C hotter.
Move on to 1971: 1991 will be 0.384 C hotter.
Checking every year from 1970 to 1991, the closest our hypothesis came to failing was in 1973 when 1993 was a mere 0.045 C hotter. The biggest difference was in 1978 when 1998 will be 0.590 C hotter. On average for that period, 20 years hence was 0.315 C hotter.
So we have a well-defined hypothesis, one that can be tested, and one that passed with flying colors, every bit as well as the hypothesis that next February will be colder than this August. (Maybe better for all I know: has there been a recent year in which the NH have an August colder than next February?)
Look, between 1970 and now you have at most three independent data points showing 15-year upward trends.
For the record I repeated the above for 15 years instead of 20. The closest my hypothesis came to failing was in 1981 when 1996 was only 0.029 C hotter. The average was 0.246 C hotter in 15 years time.
For the latter test, that’s 27 data points, 1970 to 1996 inclusive, not three. (22 points for 20 year forecasts.) I don’t know what you mean by “independent,” but is there any sense in which the annual temperature from year to year fails to be independent in a way that does not apply equally to the temperature in August from year to year?
If there’s a relevant difference from the hypothesis that February will be colder than August, I don’t see it.
So you have in effect seen a coin flipped three times and witnessed it come up heads three times in a row.
The way I see it, I flipped a coin 27 times and it came up heads 27 times in a row. Calculate the odds of that!
Vaughan
It is not impossible, it is simply not within our current capability today using the current approaches.
I won’t write that your forecasting approach is wrong. Let’s see how well you do over time. Will your approach be more accurate than Girma’s? Time will tell
@Rob Starkey: Let’s see how well you do over time.
Well, assuming say the 15-year forecast (which has a higher chance of throwing tails than the 20-year one), so far we’ve flipped heads 27 times in a row. I like the idea of continually flipping the coin year after year to see whether we ever flip tails. Based on the Laplace Law of Succession applied to the specified period, 1970 onwards, the odds of tails for next year are 1 in 29. And if it’s heads the odds of tails for the following year drop to 1 in 30.
Will your approach be more accurate than Girma’s? Time will tell.
The nice thing about my approach is that it lets you flip the coin annually to see if it keeps on coming up heads. Assuming temperature from year to year varies randomly instead of climbing steadily, which the temperature record bears out pretty well, next year’s flip of the coin should be independent of this year’s.
What exactly is “Girma’s method”? He keeps coming up with all sorts of arguments why global warming doesn’t exist, or isn’t serious, etc. And how do you define “accuracy” for the method you have in mind? I have yet to see even one statement from Girma that could be called “accurate.” Girma creates curve fits with WoodForTrees the way artists create paintings with Photoshop. He clearly has never encountered the concept of R2 in connection with his fits, which invariably have uselessly low R2 values, making them the antithesis of “accurate.”
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/Whathappened.png
That might be interesting. It is a plot of all 15 year trends for HADSST2, GISS LOTI, GISS Land only, RSS NH and RSS SH. There have definitely been a lot of heads tosses. The problem with coin tosses though is there are only two options.
The problem with coin tosses though is there are only two options.
That doesn’t seem to have been a problem for computers. 27 bits corresponds to a numerical precision of 8 decimal places. That’s already more than 3 times the amount of data that the world’s largest quantum computer to date can represent, and at the present rate this ratio looks like it’s only going to increase.
@Vaughan Pratt | August 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
“I don’t know what you mean by “independent,” …”
By independent, I mean don’t count the same coin flip more than once. I believe your method counts the same coin flip many times more than once. Calculate the auto-correlation coefficient for a one-year time step on 15 years of temperature data. If you get a value quite different from “0”, then your two flips are correlated and you need a bigger time step to get an independent flip.
Vaughan Pratt
Re: “next year’s flip of the coin should be independent of this year’s.”
Ah, but next year’s weather isn’t independent of this year’s weather because of climate persistence, technically known as Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics. See Koutsoyiannis et al. at ITIA
e.g.,
Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics in paleoclimate reconstructions Markonis, Y., and D. Koutsoyiannis, Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics in paleoclimate reconstructions, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2010, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 12, Vienna, EGU2010-14816, European Geosciences Union, 2010.
With persistence, the natural standard deviation evaluated using Hurst Kolmogorov dynamics is about double that of classical statistics. Thus Hansen’s 3 sigma turns out to be 1.5 sigma taking into account the full range of natural variations with persistence.
@DLH: next year’s weather isn’t independent of this year’s weather because of climate persistence
I don’t understand. Are you saying that the average temperature for next year is not independent of this year’s, yet the average temperature for this year’s August is independent of next year’s August? Is this because Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics applies to climate averaged over 12-month periods but not over one-month periods?
Recall that willb was fine with predictions of monthly weather six months into the future, with the tests being spaced 12 months apart (from one August to the next), but objected to predictions of annual weather made 15 years in advance, with the tests again being spaced 12 months apart (from one year to the next). We seem to have narrowed the difference down to that between monthly averages and annual averages, there being no other difference here.
Is this difference studied and/or explained in some article or book about Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics that you can refer us to?
You are replying to your own post with superstitious babble Pratt. If today’s weather was not even is some small way related to yesterday’s weather then a monkey throwing darts would be as good predicting future weather as any climatologist. While that is true, still, knowledge of the past does make for more accurate predictions of the future–at least among those who are not ideologically motivated to appreciate nothing more than their own preconceived notions about reality.
@Vaughan Pratt
If there is persistence in a time series, consecutive time steps won’t be independent. And there is all kinds of persistence in the year-to-year temperature record. The low-frequency patterns over time are plain to see without doing any rigorous statistical analysis. What you are doing with your year-by-year 15 year delta measurement is counting virtually the same data point over and over again. You see a head come up on the coin flip, you blink rapidly 15 times and then you say “Wow, 15 heads in a row! Amazing!”
Look at your example of August to February temperatures. What if you applied your technique on a day-by-day basis to predict the temperature six months into the future? Temperatures from one day to the next look somewhat random and unpredictable. So you compare Aug 1 to Feb 1, Aug 2 to Feb 2 and so on for 20 consecutive days. At the end of twenty days you say “Holy sh*t! It’s always colder than today if we wait six months! I have twenty data points! What are the odds of that! I confidently predict that it’s going to be colder than today in six months!” Alas, it is now Feb 20. In six months it will be August and you’re going to have egg on your face.
(Oops, should have come back here sooner, sorry.)
@willb: In six months it will be August and you’re going to have egg on your face.
But you were the one who accepted the August-to-February prediction while rejecting the y to y+15 year prediction. Now you’re arguing against what you previously accepted. How does that shoot down my y to y+15 year prediction?
(No need to apologize. It’s a blog.)
@Vaughan Pratt: “But you were the one who accepted the August-to-February prediction while rejecting the y to y+15 year prediction. Now you’re arguing against what you previously accepted. How does that shoot down my y to y+15 year prediction?”
What do you mean? I still accept the August-to-February prediction and I still think your 15-year prediction is nothing more than a wild guess. Why do you say I’m arguing otherwise?
Look, you made the rather bold statement that you could confidently predict temperatures 20 years into the future. You went on to support this prediction by applying some butchered statistical analysis. I’m simply trying to point out why your statistical analysis is crap.
To paraphrase Vaughan Pratt (August 19, 2012 at 2:08 pm above): You are going LALALALA when confronted with this and you refuse to accept it. This is pure anti-mathematics.
You went on to support this prediction by applying some butchered statistical analysis.
But your statistical analysis was just as butchered. In response to my “we can pretty reliably forecast that next February will be colder …” you said “The reason we can do this reliably is because year after year we, and our ancestors, have experienced colder weather in February as compared to August.”
The objection that 1970 and 1971 are not independent applies equally to one August and the next. The August-February example consists of examining the temperature difference T(m) − T(m+6) for a number of values of m corresponding to August. You argued thousands, but suppose I’m 30 years old and haven’t read the literature but have observed that this difference between August and February had been positive for every one of the 27 values I could remember. It seems to me that it would be reasonable to expect that next February would be colder than this August on the basis of those 27 values. In fact an extreme skeptic would only trust the evidence of his own eyes. Yet it seems to me you would have to argue that this extreme skeptic is committing a statistical fallacy on the ground that this August is not independent of last August.
I don’t see how this independence thing can demolish one argument without demolishing both. Please explain how statistics distinguishes these two situations.
To paraphrase you again: “Suppose I’m 7 months old, born August 1, and haven’t read the literature but have observed that this difference between six months ago and today had been positive for every one of the 28 days in February? It seems to me that based on these 28 values it would be reasonable to expect that six months from now it would be colder than today.”
This is in effect what you are doing, except you have spread out the prediction time from six months to 15 (or 20) years and the sampling interval from one day to one year.
Yes. I agree that comparing August 1 with February 1, then August 2 with February 2, and so on, is closer to comparing 1970 with 1985, then 1971 with 1986, and so on. Provided, that is, that every such comparison goes the same way (there is no n for which February n is warmer than August n).
But explain to me what statistical fallacy I’m committing if I find that February n is colder than August n for every n from 1 to 27, and infer that February 28 is therefore extremely likely to be colder than August 28. How does the lack of independence between the days of August invalidate that inference?
If anything, any lack of independence should strengthen it, not weaken it. As an extreme failure of independence, August 1-27 might be the same temperature every day, and likewise February 1-27. In that case I’d be willing to put more money on my prediction, not less.
Vaughan Pratt
There are natural cycles to weather. e.g. the annual cycles you observed. So to a 1500 year cycle from which we see about a linear increase from the Little Ice Age. See Loehle & Singer Holocene temperature records show millennial-scale periodicity. Thus next years climate is more likely to show this underlying cycle than stochastic variations (noise).
See the predictions of Nicola Scafetta at Duke U. showing that natural cycles dominate. e.g., Scafetta N., 2012. Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models. (Science and Public Policy Institute).
See publications on Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics. by by Koutsoyiannis et al. at ITIA.
Hurst Kolmogorov Koutsoyiannis c/o Google Scholar
Koutsoyiannis clearly show that climate is not “white noise” about the annual cycle.
Koutsoyiannis is working seeks to establish a mathematical/physical basis for HK dynamics: Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics as a result of extremal entropy production Demetris Koutsoyiannis
On the credibility of climate predictions
Note also: Koutsoyiannis, D., A. Efstratiadis, N. Mamassis, and A. Christofides, On the credibility of climate predictions, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 671–684, 2008.
Predicting the Feb 28 temperature on Feb 27 is a one day prediction. That is not the equivalent of your original claim. The equivalent of your original claim is that, on Feb 27, your series of 27 6-month data points would allow you to confidently predict the future temperature 6 months ahead. That would be Aug 27, not Feb 28. Unfortunately, your methodology predicts that Aug 27 will be colder than Feb 27.
Predicting the Feb 28 temperature on Feb 27 is a one day prediction. That is not the equivalent of your original claim. The equivalent of your original claim is that, on Feb 27, your series of 27 6-month data points would allow you to confidently predict the future temperature 6 months ahead. That would be Aug 27, not Feb 28. Unfortunately, your methodology predicts that Aug 27 will be colder than Feb 27.
My original claim concerned the following comparisons where year y was 1970.
y + 0 — y + 15
y + 1 — y + 16
y + 2 — y + 17
…
y + 26 — y + 31
and I claimed that if all 27 of these comparisons were the same then the comparison
y + 27 — y + 32
could be reliably predicted.
The comparison I thought you were describing was day d being August 1 in the following:
d + 0 — d + 183
d + 1 — d + 182
d + 2 — d + 183
…
d + 26 — d + 209
allowing the reliable prediction of the comparison
d + 27 — d + 210
meaning the comparison of August 28 with February 28.
Please explain how you were able to turn this into a prediction of August 27. You seem to be scrambling two different things by taking bits out of one and bits out of the other, which makes no sense.
@David L. Hagen: There are natural cycles to weather. e.g. the annual cycles you observed.
Say, aren’t you the one who was claiming recently that probabilities had to be computed from infinite series? You clearly have no idea what a sample space is. Thank god you’re not managing my portfolio.
Your portfolio manager produces outcomes that are better than random?
Your portfolio manager produces outcomes that are better than random?
Of course not, at least after his commission. My concern with DLH would be that they were no better than random before his commission.
@Vaughan Pratt
When you say ‘forecast’, what exactly do you mean? In the comment of yours that I keep replying to, you say:
“Models that can forecast 20 years into the future on the other hand are more feasible.”
Does this not mean you are talking about making a prediction 20 years into the future? In your time series, if
y + 31
is the present, is that not equivalent to
y + 31 – y + 46
and not as you suggest
y + 27 – y + 32 ?
What do you mean by ‘forecast’ when you say this?:
“However we can pretty reliably forecast that next February will be colder … ”
Does this not mean you are talking about making a prediction 6 months into the future? In your time series, if
d + 209
is the present, is that not equivalent to
d + 209 – d + 392
and not as you suggest
d + 27 – d + 210 ?
HK statistics are simply fat tail, caused by a variant in the denominator. That’s why mainstream science is not interested in it and why DK can’t get his papers published. He is barking up the wrong tree. How else to explain it? You tell me? He certainly can’t, other than magically pulling a magic power-law exponent out of the air, which is the essemce of HK.
@willb: In your time series, if
d + 209
is the present, is that not equivalent to
d + 209 – d + 392
It would be if (a) the previous observation had made the comparison
d + 208 – d + 391,
and the one before that
d + 207 – d + 390
and so on back for 27 comparisons, and
(b) if all 27 of those comparisons had turned out the same.
If that was the case then I’d feel very confident predicting the outcome of the comparison
d + 209 — d + 392
But you seem to have something else in mind, whose relationship with what I described earlier is unclear to me.
Another arrogant, nasty comment from Vaughan Pratt who has a habit of accusing others of being rude. What a hypocrite.
Ok Vaughan Pratt, just how far down the rabbit hole do you live?
When I asked you if, in your time sequence example, Day 209 represented the present, you replied:
“It would be if … the previous observation had made the comparison
d + 208 – d + 391 …”
So you are claiming you can get an observation from Day 391 when Day 209 is the present? Through what sorcery are you acquiring this observation from 182 days into the future? And if you can in fact observe the future, why are you even bothering with models for predicting future temperatures?
Or am I misinterpreting what ‘Observation’ means down here at this level of the rabbit hole?
Another arrogant, nasty comment from Vaughan Pratt who has a habit of accusing others of being rude. What a hypocrite.
Peter, if you would kindly indicate the offending sentence you had in mind on this occasion (or the most offending if several) I will try to do better in future.
Through what sorcery are you acquiring this observation from 182 days into the future?
Ah, I see the problem now. It’s equally a problem for my original statement when worded as, knowing that the temperature 15 years hence would be hotter than this year for the 27 years 1970 through 1996, one could very reliably predict the same thing in 1997.
To remove the element of sorcery bothering you, simply say the same except taking the present to be the 27 years 1985 through 2011, with the observation being that it was colder 15 years ago than this year. Having made that observation correctly for all 27 years, I would feel extremely confident predicting in 2011 that next year would be hotter than 1997, even though I had not yet seen a day of 2012.
The corresponding modification to the August-February thing is that on February 27, having observed that every day this month had been colder than 183 days ago, I would be very confident in predicting the same thing for tomorrow, even though February 28 had not yet begun.
That’s equivalent mathematically, but without the sorcery.
Vaughan Pratt: “Having made that observation correctly for all 27 years, I would feel extremely confident predicting in 2011 that next year would be hotter than 1997 …”
No doubt.
On the planet surface, where I normally reside, what you are doing is called making a one-year over-under prediction, relative to an adaptive threshold. Only at depth would this be considered a 15-year forecast.
On the planet surface, where I normally reside, what you are doing is called making a one-year over-under prediction, relative to an adaptive threshold. Only at depth would this be considered a 15-year forecast.
While “over-under prediction” is common in sporting circles, the idea of measuring anything relative to an adaptive threshold has only emerged within the last half decade as far as I know, though I’d be happy to learn of earlier uses of the idea.
But your terminology and its provenance is beside the point here. I think we agree on the basic concept. If I’ve understood you, what’s at stake is whether it’s reasonable to refer to T(y) − T(y − 15), namely the difference in temperature between two years that are 15 years apart, a “15-year forecast.” I will readily agree with you that it is different from the notion of making a prediction of an event 15 years in the future, and that some other term for the concept I had in mind would be preferable.
Looking back at my original informal comment, it occurs to me that I may have formalized what I originally had in mind wrongly, leading us up a garden path. I think what I may have had in mind is something quite different from a mere sequence of 15 observations, namely a model based on all the data solely up to 1970, going back to 1850, that actually did predict that T(y+15) − T(y) would be positive for all y from 1970 onwards. Given that there was little hint of this happening in 1970, such a model would seem extremely unlikely at the time, if not so unlikely now in 20/20 hindsight.
Fair enough.
Possibilistic approach requires judging what is “real possibility”. What does that mean? The only way of making that relevant for practical considerations is to give effectively a lower limit for the probability of the outcome. That’s the only way I can imagine of making a difference with alternatives that cannot be proven to be impossible but that are obviously so unlikely that everybody agrees on their irrelevance.
Severe testing requires judging what is severe. That has a natural role in Bayesian approach but what is severe if we do not want to discuss probabilities.
We are bound to consider probabilities, also prior probabilities. All approaches come back to that when a serious attempt is made to apply them in practice. It’s not necessary to search for precise values of the probabilities but without some feeling on them we cannot get anywhere.
The paper of Katzav et al discusses many important issues but for me those fall rather in the questions of methodology than philosophy of science. They are issues that are considered by competent scientists independently on their interest in the philosophy of science.
I like to read philosophical considerations but reading this paper I get irritated when very many things that I would not classify as a philosophical problems are discussed as such.
Pekka, I still cannot figure out why you think that a human judgement about an unknown future event, such as it being “very unlikely”, must be translatable into a probability. There is no basis in mathematical probability theory for your claim, as probabilities are based on infinite series if identical random events. This mathematical model simply does not apply to scientific guesses about the future. It applies if you are playing poker, or worried about your house burning down, because these are part of a large set of random events, which at least roughly approximate the mathematical case of an infinite series. It does not apply to scientific speculation.
The human concept of likeliness is hundreds of thousands, if not a million, years older than probability theory. That the latter should explain the former is a wild guess, and a bad one at that.
David,
My argument is that no decisions can be made that don’t imply a preference and the preference can be translated to a inequality which involves a combination of values and their probabilities.
Decisions provide an ordering. That’s mathematically less than providing values but a larger number of orderings bring us closer and closer to having numerical values.
I’m perfectly aware that the process is not precise and that intuition is involved, but my claim is that all progress towards more reason and less random and unjustified choices implies also more understanding and better estimates of the expectation values.
There simply is no other alternative as long as the concepts are not forced to something more restrictive than what I try to explain.
@David Wojick: There is no basis in mathematical probability theory for your claim, as probabilities are based on infinite series if identical random events.
So when you took Statistics 101, David, they taught you to compute the probability of snake eyes in rolling two dice using an infinite series? You and I should shoot craps sometime to see whether the finite approach they taught us works faster or slower than the infinite approach they taught you.
I was re-reading some of Issac Held on the S&B paper and I think he stated something that I think should be used as a way of looking at the post Dr. Curry has given us. He stated to the effect high frequency noise is not necessarily a problem if the model is well constrained and behaved. I am reminded of the Tebaldi and Knutti Royal B paper examining what possibilities existed for showing that attribution and respone had been done correctly. I think some of these could be used in severe testing, or should be considered.
Cooling has been predicted. Some look to when no if.
Question: Shall prospects of global cooling be considered a disaster too?
Answer: Note: Nikola Scafetta believes that, “The partial forecast indicates that climate may stabilize or cool until 2030-2040.” Scafetta’s forecast is based upon, ‘physical mechanisms’ and ‘the phenomenon of collective synchronization of coupled oscillators,’ such as for examples, ENSO effects and solar activity. Qing-Bin Lu believes that, “a long-term global cooling starting around 2002 is expected to continue for next five to seven decades.” Humanity will adapt and global cooling need not necessarily be considered a disaster for everyone. Even so there will be many challenges, as for example, Canadian wheat production. And, there always is the possibility of disaster. Walter Starck noted that if only humans really were able to heat the globe, “and it helps to prevent another ice age, this would be the most fortunate thing that has happened to our species since we barely escaped extinction from an especially cold period during the last ice age some 75,000 years ago.”
http://evilincandescentbulb.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/answer-key-to/
Projection in a graph => http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GmstModel.png
“Should probabilistic qualities be assigned to climate model projections?”
Disappointing to see this question even being asked.
Answer:
Only as a form of creative ART.
Here is an example of searching form error:
IS THE NON-FEEDBACK CLIMATE SENSITIVITY 1.2 OR 0.6 DEG C?
Using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation
Q = kT^4 (Equation 1)
Where Q is the radiation energy emitted by the surface of the earth and k = 5.67 x 10^(-8) W/(m^2 K^4)
Differentiating Equation 1 with respect to T gives:
dQ/dT = 4kT^3 = 4*(kT^4)/T = 4Q/T (Equation 2)
Taking the reciprocal of the above equation gives:
dT/dQ = T/(4Q) (Equation 3)
From the above equation, the small change in global mean temperature dT as a result of change in the emitted radiation energy dQ by the globe may be calculated using the equation:
dT = T*dQ/(4Q) (Equation 4)
At equilibrium condition, the radiation energy Q emitted by the earth is assumed to be equal to the solar energy absorbed at the earth’s surface:
Q = (1-a)Sp/2 (Equation 5)
In this equation, Sp is the solar constant of 1370 W/m^2 at the mean distance of the earth from the sun distributed on its projected area Ap = Pi*r^2. Instead of the projected area, the solar energy from the sun is actually distribute around half of the spherical surface area As = 2*Pi*r^2. As a result, the solar energy distributed around half of the spherical surface area is given by Ss = Sp* Pi*r^2/(2*Pi*r^2) = Sp/2. The solar energy Ss does not reach the surface of the earth because part of it given by a*Ss is reflected by the atmosphere, where “a” is the albedo of the atmosphere. Therefore, the solar energy that reaches the surface of the earth is Ss-a*Ss = (1-a)Ss = (1-a)Sp/2.
Equation 5 could also be written as:
4Q = 2*(1-a)Sp (Equation 6)
Substituting Equation 6 into 4 gives:
dT = T*dQ/(2*(1-a)*Sp) (Equation 7)
The increase in forcing for doubling of CO2 is estimated to be dQ = 4 W/m^2. The global mean temperature is T = 288 K, the earth’s albedo is a = 0.3 and the solar constant Sp = 1370 W/m^2. Substituting these values into Equation 7 gives an estimate for the non-feed back climate sensitivity:
dT = 288*4/(2*(1-0.3)*1370) = 288*4/(2*0.7*1370) = 0.6
This means that the non-feed back climate sensitivity of the earth is 0.6 deg C for doubling of CO2.
Do you mean that somebody should point out, where you made the error that resulted to the wrong result of 0.6?
Yes Pekka
Why? Isn’t that simple enough for everybody – and more instructive to figure out independently?
OT – Pekka, Tamino has a new post on Hansen.
JCH,
Thanks. I checked Tamino not long before that post, but didn’t know about this yet.
I have tried to make it clear that my strongest criticism is on the value of the paper as a scientific contribution and on it’s claims on the change in variability. On these points Tamino’s new post tells that he agrees that the problems remain. It’s understandable that Tamino is careful in his wording, I don’t have the same need to moderate my statements but I try to my best to avoid exaggerating the problem. Doing that, I continue to believe that the paper should not have been published as it is, the authors should not have written it that way and the reviewers should have stopped the publication. Tamino obviously agrees that the new discussion paper does not answer at all his main criticism.
Tamino notes then exactly the same point I mentioned in one of my recent comments. (Point 1) here ). Whether it’s true that the heat waves have got stronger and increased regional differences or not is not studied properly by Hansen et al. Neither has Tamino made any studies on that. Tamino just observes the same one or two incidents as I did. My second point notes that such few episodes have very little statistical significance. We have the opposing evidence that tells about more warming at high latitudes and specifically more warming in the coldest periods (winter nights) even there. Is there some increase in the frequency of heat waves at middle latitudes is not answered by any of these observations.
Concerning Tamino’s disagreement with Cliff Mass I see some merit in that but I see also very much merit in the argument of Cliff Mass. Tamino is correct in noting that the likelihood of events of some fixed high temperature has increased by a large factor. At the same time Cliff Mass is right in stating that there’s no evidence that the temperature of an one-percent event would have increased more than the average temperature has risen.
Every reasonable person should agree on Tamino’s point (and he writes at the beginning of the new post that there’s nothing new in that). The paper of Hansen et al is supposed to show the opposite of of what Cliff Mass tells, but it doesn’t because an severely erroneous analysis cannot say anything on that until it’s corrected. Tamino probably agrees on this, but does not like the way Cliff Mass states his points.
@Pekka August 13: Why? Isn’t that simple enough for everybody – and more instructive to figure out independently?
Ding. Girma, you’ve had a week to find your error and you still haven’t. If no one else is going to clue you in then I’ll give a hint.
The problem comes where you say “the radiation energy Q emitted by the earth is assumed to be equal to the solar energy absorbed at the earth’s surface: Q = (1-a)Sp/2 (Equation 5)”
Since the earth’s surface is 4 times that of the surface intercepting the insolation, Equation 5 should be Q = (1-a)Sp/4.
In your explanation you reasoned incorrectly that the Earth’s surface is only twice the surface intercepting the insolation. Perhaps you were thinking that you shouldn’t count the part of the surface that the Sun wasn’t shining on, but why would you ignore the half of the surface that is getting no sunlight at all? That would make no sense.
Hansen et al, 2011
Earth’s energy imbalance and implications
If the CO2 amount in the air is doubled, the forcing is F = 4W/m^2. The opacity of a greenhouse gas as a function of wavelength is calculated via basic quantum physics and verified by laboratory measurements to an accuracy of a few percent. No climate model is needed to calculate the forcing due to changed greenhouse gas amount. It requires only summing over the planet the change of heat radiation to space, which depends on known atmospheric and surface properties.
I am wrong.
In Equation 5, I equated W/m^2 instead of W. A tricky mistake. Non-feed back climate sensitivity is 1.2 deg C for doubling of CO2 concentration.
Sorry, didn’t see this before I posted the above. I deduce from your agreement that nonfeedback CS is 1.2 that you figured out where you lost a factor of 2, even though you didn’t say so. (W/m^2 instead of W does not explain a factor of 2.)
A philosophical remark is that “modellers are entrenched and
obstinate”…”.they do not want to go one step BACKWARD although
their results of simulating around is only probabilistic… ”
this is “post-normal”…..
“I like this paper because it provides an integrated framework for assessing climate model projection quality.”
The paper and post in question are simply on large Question Begging exercise. In science one assesses ‘projection’ quality by empirical replication. Full stop.
If there is any manner — with any sense of propiety — to establish ‘correctess’ or ‘quality’ outside and completely separate from empirical affairs? Then that needs to be proven. But this post and paper are starting with the assumption that we do not need empiricism at all. That we may assume our way to The Truth by avoiding empiricism, relying on Authorities and Priests, or by using our Biases circularly to show our Biases are Acceptable. Or any of the above. But this isn’t anything passing as rational, and so not acceptable to Pure Philosophy either.
For I should sorely like to see you demonstrate that you can demonstrate truth without demonstration… by failing to demonstrate it. The entire notion is absurd even if we’re not having contentious arguments about thermometers. But better to have the right argument about the right topic rather than skip two paces ahead and obfuscate it.
dT=255*4/(2*.7*1341)=0.54 ?
dT = 288*4/(2*(1-0.3)*1370) = 288*4/(2*0.7*1370) = 0.6 ?
Notice something?
You can estimate TOA emissivity all day long, but there is latent, convective and conductive energies from substances with different thermal capacities that are not part of the radiant only estimates.
That was for Girma
Given that GCMs have not been tested and shown to be reliable at projecting future climate – an elementary requirement in science – I don’t see how you can hope to quantify uncertainty. And spare me the hindcasting – you tune and retune until you get correlation, and then you claim you understand something?
I think the best they can say today is that they’ve done their best to understand the working of planetary climate, and that GCMs are the field’s best guess as to what will happen decades in the future. That statement would be reasonable, rational and properly constrained by the existing level of uncertainty. Anything beyond ‘best guess based on the evidence and our current level of understanding’ is just pseudo-quantification.
MarkB | August 13, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Reply
“Given that GCMs have not been tested and shown to be reliable at projecting future climate”
Not even close to reliable. What makes you think that?
Sorry. Misread that. Thought you wrote GCMs are tested and reliable.
I agree with half of that. The models ARE tested. That’s the part I disagree with. They’re not reliable. That’s the part I agree with.
Running a model doesn’t test a model. Models are not tested/verified against what they purport to project – future climate. We are told by climate scientists that not enough time has passed yet to test whether models are wrong yet.
you tune and retune until you get correlation, and then you claim you understand something?
That would be silly wouldn’t it. Good thing that’s not the way it is done.
If I ever post on here again, I will change my user name, so as to avoid confusion, as I am not the same person as you.
Good post though!
Yes, I ‘m quite sure that you are not the same person as me. Unless it was true what they said about those drugs I took back in the 70s. ;-)
Scientists can’t write for crap. Judith excepted.
Don, I know what ;you mean. I am not a scientist and I have just been here for a few days. There have been some good posts by knowledgeable people, but the majority are made by people who just want to win arguments and ridicule people who disagree with themselves, or by people who stray completely away from the subject in question. Both of these are of things that Judith specifically asked people not to do.
Compared to other forums, message boards etc., this one fails to meet its objectives by more than any other that I have seen, which is a shame because the concept of it is so good and the subject manner is so important. And furthermore Judith is working so hard to put new material on here everyday.
This forum makes the contributors on some other forums, such as chess.com and betfair, seem like gentlemen and saints, when we know that this is not the case with most chess players and gamblers.
Mark, this is what it’s always like when the projections are based on just-so stories and believers want policy decisions that effect everyone are made based upon the stories. Big money is at stake based upon the strength of the narrative. Narratives aren’t science. At least not the science that policy decisions are based upon. Policy decisions need to be based on experimental science – stuff that doesn’t need a “consensus” but rather rests on repeatable experiments. The earth’s climate isn’t amenable to experiment and there’s nothing that can change that fact.
Well, I’m just saying that the prose excerpted above is just poorly written regardless of its content. Perhaps they should always take their papers and pass them through the English departments before publishing.
Then, “How might one apply a (Popperian) severe testing approach to assessing projection quality?” might become “How can projection quality be rigorously tested in a manner consistent with Karl Popper principals?”
or something even more straight forward.
How do you falsify something without a quantitative value?
One more thing: determining how something relates to reality before you test it is circular. The question of the models already affirms what it is looking for.
Run it by disinterested (good luck finding them) people with PhD’s in probability. I know one. Double PhD in fact – one in probability and another in Philosophy of Science. I already know what he’s going to say. There’s not enough data nor understanding of the system being modeled to provide probability estimates. What’s the probability for instance, that solar magnetic fields throttle cloud formation? Multiply the level of uncertaintly in that by the probability that you know the polarity of feedback from clouds.
It’s a joke, Curry. Global warning science is a cottage industry for academic rent-seekers and opportunists in politics and business. It’s all about money and power. The science is nothing but narrative. Just-so stories.
“when a proponent of CAGW loses the argument, he reverts to a personal attack”
Welcome to Robert.
JC
Correlation data analysis as shown below:
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GmstModel.png
This pattern is established by the oceans and has lasted since 1895 and with a high correlation coefficient is not going to change in the next two decades.
Very high correlation coefficient of 0.997 between the observed and model smoothed GMST curves.
Correlation with smoothed data?
yes bob.
Lolwat
Is not CO2 AGW’s villain?
Has not the mean CO2 concentration growth rate per year increased from 1.5ppm in 1988 (Senario A of Hansen et al.) to 2.1 ppm now? For CO2, isn’t the observed growth rate now greater than that for Scenarion A of Hansen et al, 1988?
Here is the graph that shows atmospheric CO2 concentration growth rate now is greater than that in 1988 => http://bit.ly/PlhcsI
CONCLUSION:
For CO2, the current observed annual CO2 concentration growth rate is greater than that for Scenario A of Hansen et al, 1988.
#—————————————————-
#Data from NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
#http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
#—————————————————-
#
#File: co2_mm_mlo.txt
#
#Time series (esrl) from 1958.21 to 2012.62
#Selected data from 1978
#Selected data up to 1998
#Least squares trend line; slope = 1.47795 per year For 1988
1978.04 335.107
1998.04 364.666
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 349.887
#—————————————————-
#Data from NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory
#http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
#—————————————————-
#
#File: co2_mm_mlo.txt
#
#Time series (esrl) from 1958.21 to 2012.62
#Selected data from 2002
#Selected data up to 2012
#Least squares trend line; slope = 1.96214 per year NOW
2002.04 372.897
2012.04 392.518
#Data ends
#Number of samples: 2
#Mean: 382.707
As engineer working for both European and French Space Agencies, I recently attended a conference given by 2 NASA veterans, dealing with “Lessons learned”. They described and “husked” 42 cases of failures in huge programs (mainly NASA ones of course) trying to extract from those failures the main keys for success. One of those few keys lays in these 3 words : TEST TEST & TEST !
All NASA successes in space exploration have been built upon extended testing experience and on models that have all been anchored on these test data, and thus duly validated. NASA has developed strict and powerful technics, rules and standards for assessing the quality / reliability / confidence level of models and of their projections, and of course for verifying and validating those models. They mainly consist in confronting and rescaling models outputs for different “test cases” using various sets of initial / limit conditions, with the test results obtained with the same conditions.
Those technics and standards are widely recognized and used in almost all fields of science… Almost because climate science remains the only but remarkable exception! As a travesty it may appear, none of the nice climate models has even been subjected to any verification and validation process. And none of them is even close to pass such a process since none of them is able to hind-cast / reproduce past climate data and patterns.
Even NASA/GISS totally failed applying the agency’s own standards for assessing and validating its own GISS-E model ! This is exactly why NASA “49ers” wrote to C. Bolden, just asking GISS to make real good science and to apply the rules and standards on which NASA has built its successes and reputation, especially bringing Man to and safely back from the Moon.
Model consistency is important.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/29/tisdale-on-the-17-year-itch-yes-there-is-a-santer-clause/
Since Bob Tisdale picked the 1995 starting point because of Santer’s 17year trend requirement, you can’t tell how skillful the models were prior to the 1995 climate shift from those graphs, but since then they seem to pretty consistently run warm. some might think that the shift is due to the ocean heat uptake slowing as a thermal capacity limit is approached.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/are-climate-models-spatially-consistent/
Then building model consistency would probably require a better understanding of past climate. Some might think that flat and then a hockey stick blade might not accurately represent past climate unless you lived under or near an ice sheet. Possibly using tropical or ocean reconstructions could be of use.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/60000yearsofclimatechangeplusorminus125degrees.png
Then that might require considering natural variability with cycles on the order of hundreds maybe even1470 +/- 500 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event
An ocean model could have some advantages since the majority of the heat is absorbed and contained in the oceans, if anyone was curious. Curiosity though doesn’t seem to be a climate science forte..
Hey, cd, would you buy 14.5 years for the delay attributable to the ocean for the impact of radiative forcing on surface temperature?
If you ignore this delay the climate sensitivity seems to be around 1.8 C/doubling. Taking it into account gives somewhere between 2.8 and 2.9 C per doubling.
Vaughan, There are several lags or delays that make the puzzle interesting. The 14.5 appears to be a combination of the ~11 year solar cycle and ~3.5 year ENSO harmonic. The ENSO harmonic varies with the OHC of the northern versus the southern oceans. If I use 1900 as initial conditions, I would get around 3C, 1951-1981 about 1.8C. If I use 21.1 C average SST, I get about 0.8C. In other words, natural variability appears to be 1.9C with harmonics.
The 1.9C appears to be due to salt versus fresh freezing sink temperature. Ice amount and location appears to be a fairly critical energy budget consideration :)
Vaughan, since Tamino has a post on the issue of whether there is a trend or not, here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/fifteen/
I thought I would play.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/HADSST15.png
That is 60 year, 45 year, 30 year and 15 year trends for HADSST2. Of course, a fifteen year trend is just below the cutoff of being “significant”. The last 30 years would be significant but the variation between that trend and the 45/60 year trends is not significant.
Notice though that with the exception of the 1998 El Nino, the variance in the last 30 years is significantly less than the variance in the first 30 years. That could be because the early data is crap compared to the later data. That also could be because the oceans are approaching a heat capacity limit.
ARGO hasn’t been around long enough to be of much use yet, but
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/WabbitsFolly.png since the ENSO cycles is kinda important NOAA has about 30 years of ENSO region heat capacity that is pretty flat.
Personally, I am pretty sure that land use change has a grossly underestimated impact making the “global” temperature average nearly worthless for estimating climate change due to CO2 enhancement, so I tend to use the oceans and southern hemisphere for a base line for attempting to predict future climate.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/RSSSH15.png
Breaking the more politically correct RSS into similar lengths for comparison, the 1996 to present flatness seems to agree quite well with the HADSST2 and the ENSO region data. That could also be a remarkable coincidence :)
In order to get the ~2.8C of sensitivity you estimate, it would seem that rate of ocean heat uptake reducing rather dramatically might tend to be an issue. I am sure you have a good deal of confidence in your model, but what margin of error do you think is appropriate for your estimate :)
Since there seems to be some newer paleo versions getting archived at ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/Kobashietal2012.png
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2-temperature2011.txt
According to the authors, -29.9C is the 2001 to 2010 average temperature at the site. So it was warmer for around a century during the MWP and about as warm as today during the Roman Warm Period . Notice that the coldest temperatures precede the modern warm period and the Roman Warm Period appears cooler than the MWP in Greenland at least (interesting huh? tonyb might get a chuckle out of that. ).
“So it was warmer for around a century during the MWP”
I hope you aren’t calling that bump around 700AD the MWP. A bit early isn’t it?
According to that data Greenland was cooler than today when the Vikings settled in the 10th century AD.
That “bump” is before the “MWP” as it is defined, “Evidence has been accumulating in many fields of investigation pointing to a notably warm climate in many parts of the world, that lasted a few centuries around A.D. 1000–1200” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/Kobashietal2012from600ad.png
That may indicate that the MWP wasn’t all that exceptional, the Little Ice Age may have been the exception.
Eric Ollivet
Input from another NASA veteran: from 1995-1999 – lead scientist at the NASA Independent Verification and Validation Facility in Fairmont, WV, USA:
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?page_id=2
He’s rather more complimentary than these unnamed veterans you cite.
As a travesty it may appear, none of the nice climate models has even been subjected to any verification and validation process.
Wrong.
And none of them is even close to pass such a process since none of them is able to hind-cast / reproduce past climate data and patterns.
Suggests you don’t really understand V&V. Did Curiosity fail in its mission because it missed its target by 2.4km?
Steve Milesworthy
“unnmed veterans” are not as anonymous as you claim.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
S. Easterbrook is a well known AGW activist. But he remains unable (as well as you are) to provide any reference of a validation report for any climate model, because none of them has ever been duly validated.
I will be definitely wrong once someone would have provided with a validation report for any of these nice climate models : I know I can wait for years and even decades.
As you obviously have no idea about what could be a relevant pass / fail criterion, I guess you are even more understand what V&V means.
Eric Ollivet
S. Easterbrook is a well known AGW activist.
Do you have a substantive criticism of his review of the V&V of climate models, or only unsubstantiated ad hominem.
As you obviously have no idea about what could be a relevant pass / fail criterion, I guess you are even more understand what V&V means.
Your idea would fail even a perfect replication of Earth, because our knowledge of forcing data is imperfect, and because internal variability would result in differences. So clearly your idea is not adequate – unless you’d like to provide more details.
Steve Milesworthy,
That seems rather hypocritical of you. You refused to consider what Roger Pielke Jr says claiming he is an untrustworthy source. You weren’t even prepared to consider what the the Kaya Identity demonstrates because Pielke Jr. had used it.
Aren’t you being rather hypocritical calling out others for making ad hominem comments?
Peter Lang,
I did not say he was an untrustworthy source. I said that I thought that you linking a lot to Pielke Jr was an indication of not being objective – remember that at the time you were criticising someone else for not being objective.
If we were specifically discussing a view expressed by Pielke Jr I’d be happy to address the particular view if I felt able to and I wouldn’t summarily reject him. If I recall a recent discussion, I disputed a plot you linked to (on rates of decarbonisation) because there was no explanation of how one calculates what a measure of decarbonisation was, not because it came from Pielke Jr.
Steve Easterbrook as discussed quite clearly and openly the methods for validating and verifying climate models, why these methods have led to quality codes, and why other methods for V&V would not be appropriate. There is plenty for Eric to get his teeth into if he could be bothered.
Steve Milesworthy,
Now you are being untrustworthy. You said “I do not trust Pielke”. I’d referred you to these two links:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/decelerating-decarbonization-of-global.html
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/reality-check.html
and you would not read then or take any notice of them because you did not trust Pielke.
So much for your credibility and integrity.
So much for you calling out others for ad hominem attacks.
Peter Lang,
You would seem to be as untrustworthy as Pielke. One you missed off the second part of the sentence where I said why I did not trust the decarbonisation link and two saying that I do not trust Pielke is different from saying Pielke is untrustworthy for some unsubstantiated reason. Further, Pielke is a a well-known political operator whereas Easterbrook is not, so I’m entitled to distrust him.
If you want to know why I don’t trust him is because he is completely US-centric. If the rest of the world loses 20 billion and the US gains 1 billion, he will be happy. That’s a succinct summary of my first interaction with him some 5 year ago.
One of the most commonly used technic for probabilistic analysis / assessment of complex processes is the Monte Carlo approach. But you need a probabilistic law characterizing (quite faithfully) each of the parameters… Not easy…
What observations would be sufficient to serve as falsification of anthropogenic global warming?
What’s the climate science equivalent of the Precambrian Rabbit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit
Too much is at stake here, and agw is not even wrong to be falsified like that. The ghg/aerosol game can be played for a long time. IMO, a rapid cooling in this decade (and the next) will do it – they cannot postulate increasing aerosols (or whatever negative forcings) ad nauseam.
For the record, I expect rapid cooling at the latest after the sc24 plateau (2014/15).
And we come full circle, as if we’d made no progress in a year.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/18/climate-models-as-ink-blots-2/#comment-113686
Correct me if I’m wrong, wasn’t your prediction last year rapid cooling at the latest by this year? Wait. I am wrong. I was thinking of Mr. Orssengo’s not dissimilar claims, two years ago. Or Mr. Ellison’s.
It’s so hard to keep track of all the people predicting cooling; if only some journalist or website did it for us. http://www.durangobill.com/RogerCohen.html
But here, let me help you research how to get rich with your confidence in solar cycles: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climate+derivatives
Good luck.
I think we’ve made some progress. The paradigm is getting weaker. Yes, you’re wrong about my prediction.
Edim | August 14, 2012 at 2:26 am |
The paradigm is getting weaker.
The paradigm. It surprises you even know Solow and Hartwick’s paradigm of weak sustainability. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_sustainability_(ecological_economics) ); how it relates seems.. dubious, however.
Still, this is important philosophical stuff. Carry on.
Yes, you’re wrong about my prediction.
Which makes two of us!
Edim
I’m more interested in what “The Team” would accept as falsification not what skeptics will accept. It’s their hypothesis and as such they get to set the criteria for falsification. Inability to define what constitutes falsification disqualifies the hypothesis as scientifically valid.
Lack of falsification criteria is best summed up IMO by the expression “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.” If the AGW hypothesis encompasses and explains all possible observations then it is not valid science. As analogy God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis through the definitive statement “Through Him all things are possible”. Any observation can be explained as an Act of God. If any observation of climate can be explained by anthropogenic causation it ceases to be scientific and becomes a belief system not unlike religious belief systems. I believe for many AGW pundits it has already crossed that line which is why I’m asking for specific falsification criteria. Curry wanted philosophy of science and I’m well prepared to provide it. She may not like what she gets. One should be careful what one wishes for.
@ David Springer | August 14, 2012 at 11:06 am
“I’m more interested in what “The Team” would accept as falsification”
“The Team” have *zero* interest in falsification.
1. Propose a testable hypothesis for a physical mechanism of greenhouse warming – The Team: the atmosphere is so complex we can’t possibly perform any valid experiments on parts of it (JC is still in this camp)
2. Propose proper statistical tests for prediction accuracy and assess the GCM predictions statistically over time – The Team: GCMs provide projections, not predictions, so they can’t be formally assessed, but we know they’re liell to be reliable.
3. Propose an experiment to demonstrate: the thermalization of IR by GHGs, or the radiative blanket effect, or surface IR emission delay in the atmosphere or whatever – The Team: It’s already been done in the radiative transfer data and radiative transfer models.
Progress will only be made when people *not* on the team propose hypotheses for how they think The Team’s greenhouse effect might work and test them experimentally. When The Team’s chairs and tables have no legs left to stand on, those not on “The Team” will be able to declare “The Team” was wrong. “The Team” will forever proclaim the models are right but we need to further refine the parameterisations (fudge factors).
David Springer | August 14, 2012 at 1:24 am |
What observations would be sufficient to serve as falsification of anthropogenic global warming?
There we must get into philosophical definitions. Do you mean to falsify all hypotheses of AGW, or just one particular one?
If you can rigorously state the hypothesis (es) you wish to falsify in the language of strict inference, then you only need to decide on the appropriate type of test.
For some types of inference, there are simply applicable tests that rely only on a single outcome of the experiment to falsify a particular hypothesis. This is what Rutherford was referring to when he is said to have asserted, “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”
If you can show a thin film of gold reflects back some alpha particles and lets some through, then you’ve disproven a great many hypotheses about the structure and nature of the atom.
However, to get to the real interesting details of that structure, statistics become a powerful toolset to apply, and in the substructure of the substructure, CERN for example is almost all statistical inference in the search for the Higgs Boson. It would be inappropriate to dismiss the results of CERN simply because there is currently no Boolean test for the Higgs particle.
So, which AGW do you mean? What’s it’s strict inferential description? I’m unaware of any interesting AGW hypotheses that haven’t exhausted the available straightforward tests (thereby ‘passing them’) without falsification; the ones that remain have the problem that we only have one planet, and it looks like the lapse rate for CO2 and other climate-related parameters and dependencies combine to require about two decades to entail a single observation, on top of which we have horrible data gathering.
Paleo reconstruction that combine higher precision than is currently available (for the most part) over many more regional climate basins (at least 30) than currently produce usable paleo proxies for 600 years at a granularity of monthly observation could get you enough temperature observations for the feat. If the observations were so far out of line with your AGW hypothesis as to falsify it statistically (ie, in a Bayesian sense, reduce your confidence in your belief below some threshold value). But then that’s always hairy.
More to the point, Newton addressed the real import of this question. Until so much new data is available as to unseat the current hypothesis, we ought treat the best of the AGW mechanisms as accurate or very nearly true, in order to avoid falling into the trap of standing for nothing and becoming susceptible to all untested hypotheses, that Richard M. Nixon so succinctly characterized as, “who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”
Bart R | August 14, 2012 at 1:53 am | Reply
David Springer | August 14, 2012 at 1:24 am |
What observations would be sufficient to serve as falsification of anthropogenic global warming?
——————————————————————–
“There we must get into philosophical definitions. Do you mean to falsify all hypotheses of AGW, or just one particular one?”
No, the philosophy ends at the point where we agree that any hypothesis must be falsifiable, at least in principle, for it to be considered a valid scientific hypothesis. The second sentence there is a valid question. The specific hypothesis is that continued anthropogenic generation of CO2 through fossil fuel combustion without abatement or mitigation will result in catastrophic warming.
“If you can rigorously state the hypothesis (es) you wish to falsify in the language of strict inference, then you only need to decide on the appropriate type of test.”
Yeah okay. I did. Unfortunately we can’t test. We can’t take one earth and put in experimental controls to isolate the variable of interest (anthropogenic CO2) and compare the climate change results at different CO2 levels. So given we can’t perform repeatable experiments with the planetary atmosphere we can only make predictions based upon the hypothesis and say that these predictions, if they don’t happen, falsifies the hypothesis.
So what observation or set of observations would constitute falsification?
David Springer | August 14, 2012 at 10:44 am |
.. the philosophy ends at the point where we agree that any hypothesis must be falsifiable, at least in principle, for it to be considered a valid scientific hypothesis. … The specific hypothesis is that continued anthropogenic generation of CO2 through fossil fuel combustion without abatement or mitigation will result in catastrophic warming.
A couple of dubious points here. There’s going to be philosophy throughout, no matter how we try to avoid it. And you’re blurring the distinctions between ‘scientific’ and ‘experimental’ an awful lot. There are Mathematical hypotheses, Aesthetic hypotheses, Philosophical ones and so forth, I’m sure. The standard of their validity varies; almost none of the hypotheses of String Theory are experimentally falsifiable. Does this make all of Physics after CERN non-Science or invalid?
Also, you don’t demonstrate much rigor in your statement of your hypothesis. What do you mean by catastrophic? If one person’s death is to them a personal catastrophe, or the death of their favorite garden plant to be ludicrous, does that count?
“..Unfortunately we can’t test.” | “We can’t take one earth and put in experimental controls to isolate the variable of interest (anthropogenic CO2) and compare the climate change results at different CO2 levels.”
These two statements are far from equivalent. We can — and people have exhaustively — test the underlying mechanisms and assumptions of hypotheses, in particular the AGW hypothesis you have proposed, and competing or contradictory ones. And AGW still stands. What you’re talking about appears to be a form of proof by exhaustion, also known as brute force and ignorance. We don’t need to take the most ignorant possible approach to science to achieve confidence. That’s the whole point of having Science in the first place.
So you set an impossible standard, knowing you’ve already seen sufficient and necessary proof by the accepted standards, as a way to avoid the logical outcomes of the decision process. For shame.
What’s the climate science equivalent of the Precambrian Rabbit?
Excellent question, Dave. How about the core-mantle slip of 1960?
It is well-known that tidal friction has been continually transferring angular momentum from the Earth to the Moon, absorbed by the Moon by moving away from the Earth so as to increase its moment of inertia without changing its angular velocity. However the tidal forces slowing the Earth’s crust need to be transmitted to the Earth’s core via the mantle in order to slow the whole planet, which over time builds stress in the mantle.
Eventually that stress results in a seismic event at the core-mantle boundary that results in a temporary redistribution of heat in the mantle, raising the temperature of the upper mantle. Such a slip happened in 1960, resulting in a dramatic rise in surface temperature over the next half century. We’ve now hit the peak of that rise and can look forward to a restoration of the default distribution, which will cool the surface back to its pre-1970 temperature.
Good enough?
(Between you and me, I suspect the slip actually happened around 1900 and is responsible for the impressive rise between 1910 and 1940.)
The slip that happened in 1960s was solar system wide:
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wnosuf.html
I don’t think that answers my question, Vaughn. The Precambrian Rabbit is an allusion to what physical evidence the AGW believer would accept as falsification of the AGW (CO2-causation) hypothesis. Evidently the satellite record showing no global warming at all since the year 2000 despite unabated growth in production of anthropogenic CO2 during that time. Evidently the lack of warming at all in Antarctica in the decades of measuring temperatures there is not sufficient despite the rise of CO2 in Antarctica matching the rise elsewhere on the planet.
So I’m just curious as to what observation or observation they would accept as falsification of the CO2-driven AGW hypothesis. If no falsification criteria can be stated then the AGW hypothesis is no hypothesis at all and is nothing more than a just-so story which is immune from the consequence of failed predictions.
The fallacy in your objection to my example, David, is that you are asking AGW believers to accept your argument based on a mere 10 years of temperature data. That would be fine if one could see global warming in a single decade. To see that you can’t, look at the land temperature for 1980-1990 (smoothed to 1/40 the width of the plot, namely 3 months, for the clearest possible picture). Then change the From-To dates to see the other three decades. You cannot tell them apart, they all look equally flat.
But when you look at all four together (again smoothed to 1/40 the width for a clear picture) it becomes obvious that each of the four decades is rising, and by the same amount: 2000-2010 is not the slightest bit different from the other three decades when seen in context. Every decade is clearly rising.
Focusing on one decade at a time is the climate debate equivalent of an art historian arguing that the Mona Lisa is not smiling based solely on the relevant corner of her mouth, without showing the context of the rest of her face.
A more immediately relevant example would be Benjamin Wells’ ten arguments against evolution, which are too easily refuted by those familiar with the science. Evidence for a precambrian rabbit on the other hand would (so that argument goes) constitute legitimate evidence that would not be as easily refuted as Wells ten arguments.
(Actually Wells’ second argument is that all major animal groups appeared fully formed at the Cambrian explosion, which he apparently believes. This is about as close as anyone’s come to actually asserting the existence of precambrian rabbits, not counting the biblical literature. So far no one’s found a rabbit anywhere near the first three hundred million years of the Cambrian explosion, but if one were to be found Wells would suddenly be the proud owner of a strong argument against some core aspects of evolution. Such a rabbit would not need to be strictly precambrian to support Wells’ case, just early Cambrian.)
The point of my seismic event in 1960 was that evidence for such would constitute a scientifically plausible explanation for why the temperature rose thereafter. To shoot it down you would need to refute the evidence itself, just as you would need to shoot down the evidence for a precambrian rabbit were such to be adduced. This is because if the slip had actually happened and stirred up the mantle, you would have a scientifically valid explanation of the last four decades of rise as an alternative to the hypothesis that CO2 caused the rise.
In contrast, your evidence against AGW consisting of a single decade is too easy to shoot down. That you cling to such an easily refuted argument shows how weak the supposed scientific evidence against global warming is. You flatly refuse to accept that you can’t see global warming in a single decade, it happens too slowly for that. Muller made this point in his interview. Ben Santer et al made this point in their paper calculating 17 years as the minimum window needed to see global warming. The graphs above should make the point vividly clear.
But as long as your 10-year argument remains your strongest one I predict you will continue to cling to it, no matter how many people point out to you why your argument doesn’t work.
Vaughan, I agree somewhat, but you”ll need a lot of warming to catch up in the next few decades. What will you say when we have 30 years of no warming? The same argument? Don’t forget, the alleged anthropogenic forcing is highest ever and it will increase further.
@Edim: I agree somewhat, but you”ll need a lot of warming to catch up in the next few decades
Regarding “catch up,” which dataset did you have in mind, Edim? If you agree that more than a decade is needed to make a meaningful forecast, is there a dataset whose last say 20 years does not show a strong warming trend? Or even last 17 years (the Santer minimum)?
What will you say when we have 30 years of no warming? The same argument?
I would say “thank god climate science got that wrong.” There are a lot of people out there, particularly those much younger than me, who really do not want any more of this damned global warming.
It would also be great if climate science had overstated the impact of increasing CO2 on decreasing ocean pH.
I suspect a lot of climate skepticism amounts to projecting those kinds of wishes onto reality. Wouldn’t it be great if climate science was seriously wrong on global warming and ocean acidification?
“If you agree that more than a decade is needed to make a meaningful forecast, is there a dataset whose last say 20 years does not show a strong warming trend? Or even last 17 years (the Santer minimum)?”
I see no logic here. Forecast? I forecast rapid cooling after ~2015 and 30 years of no trend (flat) by ~2020.
three records since 1997.9-1998.9
And we’re likely going to get another one 2012.9 to 2013.9.
JCH
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.9/mean:12/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.9/to:1998.9/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2004.9/to:2005.9/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2006.9/to:2007.9/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2009.9/to:2010.9/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.9/trend
What wags the tail? That’s right pilgrim, the big dog wags the tail. I bet you are good picking stocks :)
As I have said before, I think the UAH satelite data is already sufficient to falsify AGW. It shows no GHG warming for the last 32 years, just a single step warming coincident with the 1998 super ENSO. But the believers are simply not prepared to disbelieve. Under such circumstances, theory saving is always possible. In the short run there is always a way around the data. Falsification takes time.
I disagree about the step. It’s arbitrary.
There is no warming before, and none after. How is this arbitrary? Science is about specific observations. This pattern is clearly there.
These steps do seem to be real, but I don’t know how to explain them.
I assume one gets if cooling also.
David,
The data has far too much variability to provide any credibility for your view. The oscillating line that Spencer shows on his page looks a little better but that and your step are just two alternatives out of very many that agree equally well.
Only two things can really be concluded from that amount of data:
– there has been warming of some kind
– there’s a lot of variability on the time scale of a few years (certainly affected by ENSO, but the data alone does not tell that).
Everything beyond that requires supporting data from other sources or is empty speculation as your step interpretation clearly is.
All of the warming is in the discontinuity between the flat trends. The timing of the step(s) is arbitrary. Here for example there’s some cooling until 1994 and strong warming since:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/to:1994/trend/plot/uah/from:1994/trend
Pekka, I do not agree. The first flat period was about 20 years, the second over ten. Of course it is an oscillator as well, but the step pattern is clearly there. Something happened in the super ENSO and it does not look like GHG warming.
Edim, sorry but I do not understand your point.
The usually excessively verbose gbaikie says this:
Now we know his thought process. He doesn’t understand science but that doesn’t prevent him from making unwarranted assertions.
How can an El Nino in 1998 heat the SAT in 2000, or any other year? You analysis is hopelessly flawed. You are saying an El Nino instantly heated the SAT, and then the heat essentially stayed there. It obviously did not. It mostly goes to outer space. The 1998 El Nino made the atmosphere very hot in 1988. Making trend lines from that crest is like getting lost in the woods.
Both prior to the 1998 El Nino and after it, AGW marched ever upward.
The UAH series starts in a period of El Nino dominance, and it totally distorts the trend to 1998. Starting the trend in 1982 clearly shows it is little different than GisTemp.
Even if we only allow at most one step every 25 years on average, we can use the “it was just a step” argument to show that except for the occasional step the world has been steadily cooling ever since 1850. This can be seen from this graph. Moreover the cooling is accelerating, with the (barely visible) yellow line starting in 2001 being the steepest!
This exploits the fact that by picking the start of the decade appropriately one can find plenty of decades that support any trend hypothesis you want.
In bygone times this also worked for periods much longer than a decade. But once we embarked on the period of strong global warming, over the past half century, there ceased to be any 20-year periods showing a decline, only single decades, half of which go up and (slightly less than) half go down.
@gbaikie: These steps do seem to be real, but I don’t know how to explain them.
Well, all five steps in the above graph certainly seem to be real, though I’m sure explaining them would be an easy exercise for a creative writing class. :)
David,
You can see the step change from the 1998 ENSO occur in Arctic sea ice about 18 months later. The pulse of warm water took about 18 months to make its way along the conveyor belt and began an accelerated ice melt at that time which culminated in about 1 million square kilometers less ice several years later. Ice extent then settled in moving marginally above or below that new point.
David Springer said, ” The pulse of warm water took about 18 months to make its way along the conveyor belt”
And the “reflection” of that pulse can be seen in the tropics 18 months later. A 36 month pseudo-cycle. The southern hemisphere “pulse” is smaller and with a longer period. The internal harmonics of the system are fascinating
Yes, they are fascinating. The speed and volume of the conveyor belt in all directions isn’t well enough characterized IMO but certain sections of it, especially the surface currents like the Gulf Stream, are well studied.
One of the biggest questions I have in this regard is how did the global ocean acquire an average temperature of 4C, taken top to bottom, without that being the long term average of the surface temperature. The lower 90% of the ocean’s volume is a pretty constant 3C from equator to pole. Sea water reaches its greatest density at -1.9C which also happens to be its freezing point. Most people don’t happen to know that the salt content of the ocean alters its temperature/density profile. So given that the bulk of the ocean below the mixed could be colder than 3C because that’s not its point of greatest density then how did it get that way? And what keeps the mix rate between the warm surface layer and the frigid deep from accelerating in a positive feedback scenario which causes a rapid end to the interglacial warmth? That frigid ocean