by Judith Curry
The American Physical Society (APS) is in the process of reviewing its 2007 Climate Change Statement. The process itself is remarkable, and I’ve been privileged to participate in the process.
The APS has a public website for the Climate Statement Review [link]. From the main text:
The American Physical Society formally reviews its statements every five years. In accordance with that process, the APS Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) formed a Subcommittee to review its Climate Change Statement. The members of the Subcommittee are: Steven Koonin (chair), Phillip Coyle, Scott Kemp, Tim Meyer, Robert Rosner and Susan Seestrom. The Charge to the Subcommittee was approved by POPA and the APS Executive Board and is included in the Supporting Documents links.
As part of the POPA-approved process, on January 8, 2014 the Subcommittee convened a workshop with six climate experts. The Subcommittee used that meeting to delve more deeply into aspects of the IPCC consensus view of the physical basis of climate science. In doing so, it hoped to illuminate for itself, for the APS membership, and for the broader public both the certainties and boundaries of current climate science understanding. The framing document, expert bios, and the complete transcript for the workshop are included in the Supporting Documents links.
The workshop was the first step in a deliberative process. As a membership organization of over 50,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous scientific standards in developing all its statements. If the Subcommittee recommends updating the existing APS Climate Change Statement, then, consistent with APS by-laws, all APS members will be given an opportunity to review the statement and provide input during a comment period.
Context
The text of the 2007 APS Climate Change statement is found [here].
This statement resulted in the public resignations from the APS of several high profile physicists (this was followed closely at WUWT). These resignations prompted additional commentary to be appended to the statement, with some clarifications and mentions of uncertainty.
The charge to the POPA Subcommittee considering the statement can be found [here].
Workshop
I was one of the experts invited to attend the January 8 Workshop. The other invitees were Bill Collins, Ben Santer, Isaac Held, Richard Lindzen, and John Christy. [link] for biosketches.
Several weeks before the Workshop, we received a framing document that posed a series of questions that had arisen from their reading of the IPCC AR5 WG1 Report. Not only did they carefully read the AR5 Report (they picked up some things that I hadn’t spotted), but their analysis and questions reflected a good skeptical perspective. None of the Subcommittee Members have any apparent expertise in climate science; rather they viewed the AR5 report through the eyes of physicists.
Each Workshop participant was invited to select questions to respond to in a 30 minute presentation. The Workshop format allowed for extensive questioning and discussion. My presentation can be found here [JC APS].
The APS produced a complete transcript of the workshop [link], with ppt slides embedded within. This is a remarkable document — more than anything else that I’ve seen, it provides in my opinion what is the most accurate portrayal of the scientific debates surrounding climate change. There was some fascinating (and new to me) science that was presented. In a future post i will discuss the scientific presentations. But one general reaction is that while the 6 of us agreed on the primary scientific evidence (apart from some tiffs between Santer and Christy on the satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends), we each had a unique perspective on how to reason about the evidence.
For now, lets focus on the closing discussion, starting on page 467. The Chair tried to nail down what we could all agree on versus what we disagree on. This didn’t get very far – anything meaningful ended up being the subject of debate and disagreement and labeled as ‘uncertain’. Much discussion on the ‘more than half’ attribution issue, also the role of expert judgment. And finally we discussed what we thought the scope of the APS statement be (starting on p 516), and how APS could make a contribution; all 6 agreed it should be on the science and not advocate for policies. In fact, Subcommittee members had all read my blog post on (Ir)responsible advocacy.
JC reflections
I have been harshly critical of the statements on climate change made by various professional societies, and the process by which those statements were crafted and approved (see my post (Ir)responsible advocacy). I give the APS an A+ for the process in preparing their statement. The thoroughness and transparency is unprecedented. And I like the idea of having relatively objective people write the statement, people without a dog in this particular fight.
That said, I have no idea what will actually transpire between now and when a new statement appears, and what the new statement will actually say. In any event, it was a real pleasure and privilege to participate in that Workshop. And I think the Workshop transcript is a superb resources for assessing the state of the debate on climate science.
Finally, while speaking of the APS, I have an invited presentation at the forthcoming March APS meeting in Denver, Causes and implications of the growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations
The final statement will be an excellent metric for the state of health of the Society.
============
No probability forecast is complete without an estimate
of its own irrelevance. ~Leonard Smith
Initial observations on the APS workshop transcript.
Model Fidelity Criteria
What happened to the scientific method where if the models do not match the data they are wrong?
Self Selection Model Bias
(p 81 #12 Dr. Collins: “Working Group 1 issues letters of invitation.”
Cf ‘Climategate’ scientist speaks out re Phil Jones:
Why did the IPCC not include any “skeptical models”?
Why are only those models shown that support catastrophic majority anthroprogenic warming?
Excellent news because the concepts of ‘Forcing’ and ‘Thermalisation of GHG-absorbed energy in the Gas Phase’ are outrageous breaches of standard physics, a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind.
No professional Scientist or Engineer properly trained in radiative physics and statistical thermodynamics can accept these claims. To teach them is a corollary of Gresham’s Law; bad science driving out good.
To promote easier reading, I have converted the APS transcript PDF into ePub format (https://db.tt/ISXut54q) suitable for tablets, and Mobi format (https://db.tt/lURThrE6) suitable for Kindle.
Indeed. JC has morphed into another 800-lb. gorilla in the APS’ living room.
I wonder if the “scientific consensus” will be as hard to steer as the Titanic was. Like most everybody here, I’ll be watching closely.
The Titanic was easy enough to steer. the disaster stemmed from the Captain and crew refusing to accept reality, i.e., icebergs further south than expected then leaving all the watertight doors open. Wonder if they had a model to follow?
grumpyoldmanuk
Experts are very busy now changing their opinions about solar energy, while diplomatically claiming they already knew the truth 40 years ago.
http://www.nature.com/news/bizarre-star-could-host-a-neutron-star-in-its-core-1.14478
Why is it necessary for the APS to say anything about climate?
Well, when you can’t talk about religion, or politics, what’s left but the weather?
========
well yes that is the question I asked around p 516
Donald
—–and having done so in the past, and the fact that the study of climate change is still in relative infancy, thus there is a recognizable constant change of understanding; therefore it behooves the APS to do a reanalysis periodically.
Actually, I find it something exciting to which to look forward.
Why is it necessary for the APS to say anything about climate?
Because they already did and if it was flawed, they need to fix it in the next release.
Why is it necessary for the APS to say anything about climate?
Because it is one of the most significant problems faced by society, for which the public looks to scientific societies for guidance.
and the fact that the study of climate change is still in relative infancy
Yes, if they were further along, they would understand that science must be skeptical and that 97% consensus means they cannot learn anything new if it disagrees.
Agreed. There’s very little physics in climatology – and it shows.
“Why is it necessary for the APS to say anything about climate?”
Why is it ‘necessary’ for any professional society to say anything about any topic wihin its’ area of expertise.
Because they can,and because they want to.
Next stupid question.
Whyis it necessary for people to come to this blog and say anything about climate science??
The behaviour of the climate is based on physical processes.
Because the social phenomenon of CAGW is only a function of the very many climate change statements made by organisations and individuals. A dominant narrative impels the storylines that preserve it. In the case of CAGW, climate worries were only the trigger.
This appears to be a dramatic change in the right direction, but CAGW will only dissapear when the statements fizzle down to noise level, e.g. a similar level of replicative attraction as say the minutes of the European parliament or a National constitution document – important words, but not wild. At which point science can reclaim the domain and we’ll be doing whatever (probably modest) actions are actually neccessary.
While many media statements are wild and go far further than those from the scientific societies; the latter enabled the former, which in turn enabled far wilder statements still from many thousands of influential individuals. A calming process has to start at the upstream end. I didn’t think we’d see anything like this so soon, but otoh the statement is not out yet. We shall see :)
There wasn’t any good reason, to start off with.
But now that they did (in 2007), it’s time to correct (and update) their earlier statement.
Max
That is so true, and many of these physical processes are just waiting to be analyzed completely:
http://contextearth.com/2014/02/21/soim-and-the-paul-trap/
David Appell,
Leaving aside the argument of whether a warming planet represents any sort of threat to human kind, stating it as one of the most significant does not help your credibility.
To date there is only one venue in which “climate change” has shown to represent a threat – modelling. There is a considerable distance to travel between the projection of a model extrapolated out 50 – 100 years and empirical evidence that projected threats are beginning to show themselves.
Which of the many threats can you provide evidence for?
Not tropical disease expansion.
Not rising sea levels.
Not increasing failures in agricultural production.
No 50 million climate refugees.
No increase in frequency of tropical cyclones or tornadoes.
No increase in droughts or flooding (at least in the US).
2007 Climate Change Statement. American Physical Society
If necessary, it will draft a new statement.
The subcommittee will prepare a short report summarizing its procedures and the findings leading to its decision and to the new or revised statement, if one is proposed. [1]
If a new or revised APS statement is recommended,
it will be reviewed by the Energy and Environment Subcommittee,[2]
then presented to POPA at its February 2014 meeting.[3]
If approved by POPA at its June 2014 meeting,
the standard APS statement approval process would be initiated.
Stage 2 will be the highest hurdle as when the word environment comes up
the only people with a passion for this area are lean, green and mean. Hopefully the energy side might have some compassion and with the help of an energy chairman and a positive recommendation to wind the cause back to the actual science some progress would be made.
Wouldn’t it be good if a pro and con pair of statements were put up to the actual membership with the background briefing
I have looked at your presentation Judith and at the APS Workshop transcript and find a huge amount of information to absorb. Congratulations to all concerned but in the final analysis the APS analysis is no substitute for proper scientific review processes.
It sounds superior to what happens within the field of climate science. Sometimes it can be very helpful for outside people to take a look at the state of a field. Since climate science is, in large part, driven by physics, this group seems pretty appropriate.
I would expect that the statement will be revised to something like “The evidence that human activities are affecting the climate is convincing. However, detailed predictions of future climate and its effects are still uncertain.”
You have got it right fizzymagic. Proper scientific review processes have not been evident from the field of climate science and that an external body needs to get down and dirty does not speak well of that field in general.
Climate science is largely driven by politics, more so than by physics.
I have read the workshop transcript with great interest. I applaud Drs. Curry, Lindzen and Christy for their participation. I am hopeful that the APS will listen carefully to what they said. It would be interesting to know what was said when the workshop went “off the record” as the dialog changed substantially when the transcript resumed.
Interesting that American Geophysical Union (AGU), a vocal advocate of anthropogenic warming, exited as a member society from the APS this year.
Maybe this had something to do with it:
AGU members = 61,000
APS members = 50.000
Does that 61,000 still include Anthony Watts dog? As I remember, the joining qualifications for the APS are somewhat more stringent than those of the AGU. Size isn’t everything, you know.
Anyone can join the AGU just by subscribing to their magazine. There are no qualifications.
grumpy
I think you are referring to Kenji having membership in the Union of Concerned Scientists, not APS or AGU – and corresponding qualification requirements.
You should not confuse the APS = American Physical Society with the
AIP = American Institute of Physics which is the Umbrella for the APS
and other societies, although many of these other societies have
recently departed.
Thanks – I missed the distinction.
I think some of you miss David’s point.
It could simply be that the AGU decided it is big enough that it doesn’t need to be seen as part of another society.
In otherwords, why try to read anything into the decision?
As always, the Great Wheel of History and human affairs just keeps right on rolling.
What was of today is gone tomorrow as the new day dawns.
It gives me considerable hope that at last, those of a mind such as yourself Dr Curry, are now being consulted on climate matters.
J.C. writes: “That said, I have no idea what will actually transpire between now and when a new statement appears, and what the new statement will actually say”
Aye, there’s the rub. I don’t think I dare hope that the new statement will actually reflect all that skeptical input. How can they walk back some of the claims in their first statement and maintain their credibility?
They proclaim: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
“Incontrovertible’s” a pretty strong word. A big boy, big pants word. Will take even bigger pants to admit that mistakes might have been made.
Growing out of short pants. Got too big for their britches, they did.
=========
The breeches (pants) are martingales,which also tell us of the constraint (impossibility) of probabilistic strategies ie you will go broke when you get too big for your breeches
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_%28probability_theory%29
Since they have new leadership they can walk back the previous work without losing credibility.
How can they walk back some of the claims in their first statement and maintain their credibility?
If you cannot change your opinion, based on more knowledge, you have no credibility. They must change if they determine something different is right. That is the huge problem with consensus, once you have it, you cannot fix anything.
They proclaim: “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
This is said, based only on Climate Model Output. Actual Real Data does not support this statement. If they cannot understand and explain why their climate models failed so severely, then I cannot believe they are right about what is happening and I cannot believe they know how to really fix a problem that, according to actual real data, does not really exist.
Incontrovertible is the correct word — global warming IS occurring. Why do you think ice is melting and the seas are rising?
@david appell
Does ‘incontrovertible’ apply to this part as well
‘If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”?
or is it the statement cleverly (or badly) written to be ambiguous.
He glides over attribution like an ice dancer. One of these days, David.
==============
David Appell:
“Incontrovertible is the correct word — global warming IS occurring. Why do you think ice is melting and the seas are rising?”
OK. I’ll go with incontrovertible. If you will.
I haven’t seen the graphic yet from AR5 equivalent to AR4 Figure 10.33 from page 821 of Chapter 10 yet, so I will presume the SRES marker series A1F1’s upper error bar that comes in at about +0.59 meters amsl is still the prognosis for 2099. If anyone here can advise of an equivalent estimation in AR5 I would be grateful.
But no matter. I’ll see your rounded-up +0.6 M amsl by 2099 and raise you +6.0 M amsl (the lowball estimate from the second warming event right at the very end of the Eemian). “….the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities…..(and) is marked by at least two warming events….indicate simultaneously a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last Glaciation.” That would be YOUR worst case scenario against MY least case scenario. http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf
At this point in the half-precession old Holocene game, I just raised the cost of “staying in” by an order of magnitude. I can go just shy of another order of magnitude in the betting with +52.0 M amsl http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf
But I don’t have to unless you raise AGW to at least +21.3 M amsl during the Holsteinian interglacial http://www.researchgate.net/publication/240752030_A_sustained_21_m_highstand_during_MIS_11_(400_ka)_direct_fossil_and_sedimentary_evidence_from_Bermuda._Quaternary_Science_Reviews_28_271-285/file/9c96051c7177e8b1b2.pdf
The thing is, David, I am not bluffing. The Holocene IS a tad over half a precession cycle old, and 7 of the past 8 interglacials have each lasted about half a precession cycle.
At the risk of repeating Boettger et al 2009 “The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. (link above)”, what kind of climate other than extreme would you be expecting at such a potentially perilous climate time?
The pot’s right, I saw your +0.59 bet and raised you to +6.0 M.
Cards (up to 2, 3 with an Ace)?
At a peer-reviewed +52 M amsl, I’m pat.
Re “incontrovertible”, near the end of the day (p. 571 of the transcript), Lindzen slyly stirred them up with the following:
“How should I put it, the one thing I feel and I think that you don’t want to use the word “incontrovertible” unless you know what you are talking about.”
21 DR. ROSNER: That was an early recognition.
23 DR. KOONIN: Yes.
24 DR. BEASLEY: A well-analyzed problem.
William McClenney (and other Pleistocene geeks),
1. Thanks for your contributions and links. They have stimulated many good hours of research for me.
2. Your humor/jokes are mostly lost on me – After a couple hours, I still don’t have enough context to understand and “catch” your references and ambiguities. If you could provide more context, I would personally appreciate it.
3. Do you have any resources you would suggest to learn the terminology and basic (dominant) theory/framework to understand/compare the interglacials in the Pleistocene? Your references are all trees and no forest to me (i.e., Greek). I’m clear that is intentional on your part (see #2) but if you could throw me a bone here, I would appreciate it.
thanks.
“Why do you think ice is melting and the seas are rising?”
Joseph Banks and the RS were wondering the same thing around 1817. Then Arctic ice stopped melting and the seas kept rising. Then there was altogether too much ice by the end of the 19th century…and the seas kept rising. Then the ice went all melty again…and the seas kept rising. Then we had Global Cooling scares in the 1970s and far too much Arctic ice…and the seas kept rising. Okay, by now the seas aren’t rising so much…but now the Arctic is very melty! The Antarctic, on the other hand…
What’s going on? I thought everything was supposed to be straightforward ( except when it’s all nuanced and counter-intuitive and layered etc). What made the seas start rising in the late 1700s and what makes Arctic ice go up and down like that? Please don’t tell me I have to find out through exhaustive and exhausting observation. That is so last millennium.
Bingo pokerguy.
Judith, if the panel is not important enough to review and discuss the actual statement, then I am not understanding why your input or anyone else’s for that matter is needed?
Mark Lewis | February 20, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
Mark, my apologies. I got knocked offline by an ISP fault of some kind for a day or two (cost me a new cable-modem which of course I don’t need now). Second, you are correct, I have not commented that much here and have presumed too much, as you say.
Hopefully you will see this and the following will provide context:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/
The gist of the matter is this. Everyone alive today, and for as far back as any written records exist throughout all civilization, we were all born during the Holocene and lived (or are still living) in this precious little interglacial. So far, as best we can tell, the Holocene has been one of the more stable interglacials, an interglacial being roughly 10% of the time for the past ~800,000 years or so. The other 90% of the time we are in glacial conditions, of some degree or the other.
Since what is known as the Mid-Pleistocene Transition (MPT) ice ages and interglacials have been happening at roughly 100,000 year intervals, which paces the eccentricity of earth’s orbit about the sun. You see every 100,000 years we go through a cycle where our orbit approaches that of a circle then out to an elliptically eccentric orbit. And every 4th such cycle (every ~400kyrs or so) we reach an eccentricity minimum, such as right now. At present, our orbit about the sun is as close to a circle as it typically ever gets.
By definition, that means that it will be another ~400,000 years until this happens again, 400kyrs since it last happened, and ~200,000 years backward and forward we will have been/will be at another eccentricity maximum.
The reason this happens concerns the other concentration of mass in the solar system, the Jovian system (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus). Sling all of that mass, and us, in conjunction about the sun (meaning all on the same side of the sun) and our orbit goes max elliptical (eccentricity maxima). Spread the wealth, I mean the mass, all about the planetary system, and we skew more towards a circular orbit than at any other time (eccentricity minima). A lot of this might be important.
For perspective, and from memory, our species, H. sapiens, has been around since something like ~200kyrs, give or take whatever the latest and best research shows. Or more or less since the last eccentricity maxima, just to give this discussion its true anthropogenic scale. There is a very interesting and particularly ominous aspect to that:
“An examination of the fossil record indicates that the key junctures in hominin evolution reported nowadays at 2.6, 1.8 and 1 Ma coincide with 400 kyr eccentricity maxima, which suggests that periods with enhanced speciation and extinction events coincided with periods of maximum climate variability on high moisture levels.” http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222396841_Trends_rhythms_and_events_in_Plio-Pleistocene_African_climate/file/9c96051a83a42b7ed0.pdf
The ominous part of that takeaway point is that “periods with enhanced speciation and extinction events coincided with periods of maximum climate variability on high moisture levels.” That means that on the personal, human level, we, meaning us, are actually dependent upon extreme climate change for our evolution. You see, we went from about 500cc braincase volume ~2.8 million years ago to about 1,500cc today in the most rapid encephalization of any mammal in the fossil record. But it didn’t occur in a straight line, it seems to have been associated with “maximum climate variability on high moisture levels”.
Again, the Holocene has been one of the more benign interglacials we see in the post-MPT record. So far, the Holocene is pretty much the poster-child of post-MPT interglacials. Starting out with a bang, meaning the interglacial climate optimum was achieved much closer to the ice age termination than towards its end (perhaps about now), and with a rather unremarkable climate decay to the present time after the climate optimum, it was populated with what we now call the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warmings, because it was during those global warmings that these civilizations arose.
The last interglacial back in the record, the Eemian or Marine Isotope Stage 5 (MIS-5), was somewhat similar to the Holocene (MIS-1) in its lifetime decay, but differed in that it was about 5 degrees C warmer, and also ran somewhere near 3 meters higher than our present day sea level throughout that length, and ended rather abruptly with at least two warming events, the second and last of which may have yielded somewhere between a +6 to +52 meter highstand, right at its very end.
And that might just be the larger problem……
Here’s why. Sea level is perhaps the most absolute climate gauge. If sea level excursions anywhere from +6 to +52 meters above present could have happened at the end of the most recent interglacial, meaning those may be low and high ends of the normal natural end-extreme interglacial climate noise, how would one go about detecting an anthropogenic climate sea level “signal” that might come in from 10 to almost 100 times less than the background “noise”?
A good low-end analysis for the end-Eemian may be found here +6.0M amsl:
http://archives.datapages.com/data/sepm/journals/v66-67/data/069/069002/0317.HTM?q=%2BtextStrip%3Ala+textStrip%3Aluna+textStrip%3Aformation+textStrip%3Amiddle+textStrip%3Amagdalena+textStrip%3Abasin+textStrip%3Acolombia (paywalled, put your money where your climate change keyboard is, like I did!)
a summary of 12 global Eemian sea level studies (+6.0 – +45 M amsl) may be found here:
http://350.me.uk/TR/Hansen/GlobalSeauow045009.pdf
and the upper end-member end-Eemian highstand (+52.0 M amsl) is here:
http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf
And it is pretty much the classic read ’em and weep scenario.
If anyone here can identify and isolate a certifiably unique signal one to two orders of magnitude below the noise, and for the very first time, before it has even happened the very first time, then you will be a very sought-after signal processing specialist. We, meaning all of us, have not yet caused any climate signal we are absolutely certain of yet. No one has managed to detect a signal which has not occurred yet, and might not occur for something like another 85 years, against a natural background noise level 10 to 100 times greater. Such would clearly be a singular achievement!
So here is the takeaway point. Seven of the last eight warmings to at least our level, and generally deemed a post-MPT interglacial, have each lasted about half a precession cycle. Since we are at the 23kyr end of the 19-23kyr range precession cycle, 11,500 is half. The Holocene is 11,717 years old this year. So approximately 2 centuries older than half a precession cycle at the 23kyr endpoint.
Should we be going into the next glacial? Well, the post-MPT math says the chance is 87.5% based on 7/8 x 100%.
http://www.geologie.uni-frankfurt.de/Staff/Homepages/Pross/PDF/Mueller_Pross_QSR_2007.pdf
Even if it is only 50%, like MIS-11, wouldn’t you be interested in what a glacial inception looks like, from the records? One problem with equating the Holocene (MIS-1) with the Holsteinian (MIS-11) ~400,000 years ago is:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/240752030_A_sustained_21_m_highstand_during_MIS_11_(400_ka)_direct_fossil_and_sedimentary_evidence_from_Bermuda._Quaternary_Science_Reviews_28_271-285/file/9c96051c7177e8b1b2.pdf
If the Holocene is supposed to go long, like MIS-11 did, and the 7 other post-MPT interglacials didn’t, MIS-11 did so with a sustained +21 meter amsl stillstand over many thousands of years. A peak at +21.3 meters would have to be conscientiously separated from a +0.59 meter AGW signal. That would only leave +0.29 meters as the “anomaly”. Meaning only one anthropogenic foot out of 69.88 (call it 70) feet above present.
At present, even attempting to ascertain an anthropogenic “signal” against the vast backdrop of interglacial “noise” is a fool’s errand.
Boettger, et al (Quaternary International 207 [2009] 137–144) abstract it:
“In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Gro¨bern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples). Results of palynological studies of all these sequences indicate simultaneously a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last Glaciation. This paper discusses possible correlations of these events between regions in Central and Eastern Europe. The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. Taking into consideration that currently observed ‘‘human-induced’’ global warming coincides with the natural trend to cooling, the study of such transitional stages is important for understanding the underlying processes of the climate changes.”
http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf
The obvious question here, which happens to be that takeaway point, is IF GHGs are as potent as proclaimed, why would one even consider removing them form what might very well be the end Holocene? Is there anything else, anything at all, we could possibly deploy to negate/delay onset of the next glacial inception?
We need to think about this very, very carefully……
The possibility exists that this may well be the most frivolous question ever contemplated by a sentient being. Do not deign to recognize or respond to, much less do anything at all about it, and end extreme interglacial climate madness might happen anyway, from maybe 1 to 2 orders of magnitude worse than even Al Gore thinks.
The thing is, if you like your current climateplan you probably can’t keep it. Period.
We may not even be able to detect our anthropogenic anthropogene impact against the normal natural end-extreme interglacial climate noise level, most recently 10 to 100 times our present worst-case predicted climate impact.
This is what makes the entire discussion on climate, at the half-precession old Holocene, more or less a rhetorical question.
I hope I have provided the needed perspective. Because, at the possible/probable end of the present interglacial, might it not be so unlike “It can be observed in Fig. 6 that class A cycles are completely unrelated to changes in CO2 concentration. We have observed some correlation between B and C cycles and CO2 concentration, but of the opposite sign to the one expected: maxima in atmospheric CO2 concentration tend to correspond to the middle part or the end the cooling period. The role of CO2 in the oscillation phenomena seems to be more related to extend the duration of the cooling phase than to trigger warming.”
http://einstein.iec.cat/jellebot/documents/articles/Phis.Lett.A_2007.pdf
Which makes removing it from the late Holocene atmosphere a very different proposition, doesn’t it?
-William-
This APS statement need not be long, two items would suffice.
1. No general physical understanding of irreproducible quasi stationary non equilibrium thermodynamic systems exists.
2. Terrestrial climate belongs to said class.
It’s great that you advise them not to stray beyond their area of expertise. There will be a lot less BS if they heed your advice. After all, smart people do dumb things every day.
They can and should call on the proper experts and listen to them and they can and must go beyond their own expertise. Juries do this everyday. When we first went to the moon, we had no one to advise us who had already gone to the moon. We went well beyond our expertise.
The problem with climate science is they have 97% consensus. They believe they know 97% already. Another 3% will not get them but 3% further along. A 3% advance from decades of failure is just a trace of more failure.
They can and must go beyond their own expertise.
The 97% Consensus Scientists should try this. The divergence of Climate Model Output and Actual Earth Data is not consistent with 97% confidence.
In any case, watch the increase in snowfall that happens because oceans are warm. They don’t understand it snows more when oceans are warmer and they don’t understand more snow stops and reverses warming. Roman and Medieval and Modern Warm Times end and reverse because this is when the snow falls to bring on the next little ice age. Look at actual Data.
I think you’re wrong there pope. They don’t have to go beyond their expertise. In fact, they probably shouldn’t opine on climate at all, other than those who might have some knowledge of it.
Also, I don’t know how often Santer and Lindzen get together, but I can see there could be some good cross-fertilzation there.
So according to Santer there are swarming baby volcanoes flying in to save the day. Since there are no long term optical depth records and most of the volcanic reconstructions can’t or don’t list the multitude of pre-satellite swarming baby volcanoes we are in the changing metric accuracy corner again just like that micro-canes that satellites see now but can’t be accurately estimated in the past.
Some how this improves confidence in models that miss all the glorious asymmetry in the warming by a well mixed gas and well mixed volcanic aerosols?
I guess Webster now needs to adjust his aerosols for all those factor of 10, 100 and 1000 baby blasts.
The baby volcano Anak Krakatau whose >28000 eruptions in 1927-28 had a neat result. It blocked by decreasing depth one of the main outflows through the Sunda Strait of the Indonesian warm pool.
maks, “It blocked by decreasing depth one of the main outflows through the Sunda Strait of the Indonesian warm pool.”
Ah, but that is a variation in the ocean heat transport which “cannot have” very much impact on climate. I mean, that if the models get the sign of the Ekman transport wrong and still work, how can a minor few Sverdrup change in THC have any impact on detection and attribution? /sarc.
What kind of ”experts” they are; when they all ignore the existence of oxygen & nitrogen in the atmosphere?!?!?!
O2&N2 / the horizontal & vertical winds are cooling the atmosphere by 10-15-20C in 10-12h, from midday to midnight !!! ignoring those factors makes everything else a sandpit job…/ expensive one, shame, shame: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/q-a/
“Also, I don’t know how often Santer and Lindzen get together”
Often, in Santer’s dark alley of the mind.
tingtg:
Brilliant +1
I think it’s interesting that, of the six experts APS invited, three are climate skeptics, one is an activist for AGW, and two are (sfaict) neutral.
True, perhaps one can sense a change in the air? Perhaps the APS is clearing the decks for a more sceptical view of the state of current climate science?
This makes sense in light of the fact that the non-skeptical view is readily available. And there isn’t any guarantee that APS isn’t in touch with AGWers elsewhere at other times.
stasis: n. the state of equilibrium or inactivity caused by opposing equal forces.
Equilibrium has an actual meaning, a system at its lowest energy state. However, a hovering helicopter would be described as being in ‘equilibrium’, even though it is in steady state.
It is rather easy to describe closed systems, but the description of open systems is in its infancy.
I’m really curious about this although it isn’t strictly on topic. I’m hoping Dr. Curry or someone who knows can answer if other proxies indicate a spike in CO2 around the Permian extinction event. (Or, are they just making things up again??)
From the article:
…
For example, the MIT team overlayed their timeline with data from previous research on carbon cycle changes. Scientists think that a drop in atmospheric carbon started before the mass extinction and believe that this represented an addition of isotopically light carbon into the ocean, as evidenced by isotopically light carbon seen in ocean sediments from that time. The addition of carbon into the ocean could have driven a hotter, more acidic ocean environment. Based on the new timeline, this carbon spike happened just 20,000 years before species started dying.
But how do you move from an acidifying ocean to a mass die-out? Scientists think that one of the key ways to kill marine creatures at the end Permian was something called a calcification crisis. Acidifying the ocean reduces the amount of carbonate in the water and makes it harder for organisms with lower metabolisms, such as some mollusk species, to make shells out of calcium carbonate and thus to survive. This, in turn, breaks links on the food chain, making other creatures vulnerable to death.
The shorter time scale also means that organisms would have had less and less time to react and adapt to these changes in climate, atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidity. Failing the ability to adapt, they died.
As other scientists take the timeline and compare it to other data on climate and ocean acidity, they’ll get a better idea of the extinction’s play by play, and how quickly ecosystems fell apart. And Burgess thinks that the timespan for the extinction may get shorter still, as geological dating methods improve. “Maybe in 10 years from now, we’ll be able to see it to a higher resolution. The extinction might even be more abrupt than that,” says Burgess.
…
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-long-mass-extinction-180949711/
From what I’m reading there was a shortage of coal and oxygen before the P-T boundary. This seems more consistent with a large meteorite and concomitant fire.
The Public Policy Statement process of the American Chemical Society (ACS, 164,000 members) is no where as inclusive or open as the APS process described here. ACS revisits its policy statements every 3 years.
Don Rapp asked: “Why is it necessary for the APS to say anything about climate?” and the same question could be posited to the ACS. Both professional societies have expertise in the knowledge of their members, and a rigorous review and evaluation of the science is perhaps a proper role. Political recommendations, not so much,,,,
Very interesting post Dr. Curry. Amazing that the full workshop transcript was made available and though it is long, I’ve already started reading it. I would highly recommend it to anyone who’d like to get a very good insight into the real issues in climate science being discussed almost “behind closed doors.” This is a great learning opportunity for anyone- professional or not.
I’d love to attend your presentation out here in Denver as that’s my home area, but not being a member, the cost would be a bit steep to just attend that one presentation. Maybe they will make it available on the web after the fact? Seems it would be a great service to those of us from the general public who otherwise will miss it.
Judith,
Bill Collins seems blissfully unaware of the major changes that are coming in the fixing of the sunspot (and thus TSI) record.
Can you supply some links for the info on that?
Or maybe he understands that these hypothesized changes would hardly slow greenhouse warming:
Weakening Sun would hardly slow global warming, 03/10/2010
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/archive/2010/weakening-sun-would-hardly-slow-global-warming
Feulner, G., and S. Rahmstorf (2010), On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L05707, doi:10.1029/2010GL042710
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/feulner_rahmstorf_2010.pdf
David Appell,
“Scientists-for-hire” [Have lie, will travel] cannot even comprehend the incredibly talented engineering that allowed the whole universe to have life and breath:
1. The strong, short-range force of neutron repulsion is opposed by
2. The weak, long-range gravitational force of attraction.
Engineering completely beyond their comprehension.
What an engineering feat !
Well, if Rahmstorf’s name is on it. It must be legit.
The framing document seems to have some rather pointed questions, though I don’t know that you can read anything into that.
I’m looking forward to reading the answers, including in the comments here.
What struck me was the chart showing almost no movement in the range of sensitivity estimates over the past 100 years despite all the work on the question and the statements of certainty.
Thanks, Professor Curry, for your efforts to work within the system.
I wish you well and hope APS, ACS, AGU, etc. are able to regain the confidence of their former members.
One wonders whether these organisations are competent to assess the current output of climate sciencembut there again, I suspect few are and these are the ones that are keeping mum!
From the article:
…
The adverse weather is having a multi-billion dollar affect on our nation’s economy. Pipes are bursting in the Northeast, salt companies are running out of supplies to remove snow, and various businesses are running into more economic hardship, as a result of the weather. Florists saw national revenues fall 60% during the Valentine’s Day period, unable to deliver flowers to tens of thousands of loved ones.
Our $16 trillion economy can usually ward off a couple of snowstorms, but NOT the incessant nature of 3 consecutive months of brutal cold and near record snowfall, in which tens of thousands of flights are being cancelled every other week. Other industries such as plastic and rubber products, auto sales, etc. are also being hurt.
The drought in California (one of the top 8 economies in the world), could also have a trillion dollar affect on our nation’s economy as food bills could soar without widespread rains and winter snow cover in the next winter or two. If El Nino forms, this could all change. It’s something I am arduously looking into.
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2032701-world-weather-gone-haywire-effects-on-brazil-natural-gas-crb-index-and-the-economy
What great questions they are asking. About time.
@Ed Forbes
Indeed they are good questions.
But why does it need the APS to be asking them? Shouldn’t the climatologists have been asking – and answering – them themselves? Some, at least, have been common currency in the blogosphere for a while now.
And, – just for fun – does anyone know if any of the major statistical societies are planning a similar exercise? That might be worth buying a ticket for….or at least a giant bag of popcorn.
Thank you Dr. Curry. The transcript is a really fine way to avoid doing things I should be doing.
Exactly. Very absorbing.
This is quite refreshing to read, in several ways! I don’t know if the powers that be at the APS ensured that a similarly thorough and transparent process was conducted last time around; although from my recollection of the “dissensions” and “defections”, perhaps not.
At this point I’ve only read your presentation, Judith. But if my assumption that all the red text questions are formulations from the APS is correct, then this is very encouraging. Although I do recognize that the proof will be in the pudding which comprises the content (and “framing”) of their new, improved statement.
Once again, I applaud and appreciate your sharing with us the fact that the review is taking place (otherwise, who outside the organization would even know?!) as well as both your own presentation (saw a few typos, btw, but otherwise – unlike, for example, the recent Slingo/U.K. Met Office hasty pudding currently on offer – quite comprehensible to an audience of non-scientists) and pointers to other background material.
And if I might be permitted a few snarky asides … I can well imagine that Mann must be green with envy – and perhaps even spitting mad – that it is your uh… “fingerprints” (if I might be permitted to temporarily ride Santer’s hobby-horse!), as well as LIndzen’s and Christy’s which should appear in the new statement – rather than his.
Furthermore, I just scrolled through the Invited Speakers List for the APS’ March 2014 meeting. Apart from your own name, there were few that I recognized. Certainly no sign of Mann, Stocker, Slingo or other Big Names from the high profile SciAdvocacy crowd!
In fact, out of 907 Sessions (and speakers – among which a few appear to be presenting at more than one Session) only four contained the word “climate” – including yours.
Somehow, I doubt that this will mollify Mann’s mood; nor is it likely to please those of the “climate change is the greatest threat to the future of the planet” and/or the “must have a carbon tax now” crowds ;-)
If the APS withdraws their prior statement, even in part, I think that will be big news. It would be AFAIK the first time a scientific body moved away from the alarmist position.
“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”
1. This statement was made in the middle of the current “pause” in reported temps, without any recognition of the then 7-8 year stall up to that point. (You would think brainiacs would have noticed.)
2. For a bunch of physicists, perhaps they can find a more precise term than “global warming.” Like maybe “increase in the somewhat global mean of krigged, adjusted, inferred temperature anomalies from some areas of the land surface and sea surface, with little coverage of the deep sea, Antarctica, or vast swaths of the rest of the Earth.”
3. Perhaps they can do their next 5 year review in 5 years, rather than 7.
4. Perhaps someone other than the progressives who gravitate to “leadership” positions in any organization could have some actual input into the statement (input, not comments on a fait accompli) before it is released.
Gary, if someone talks about a problem and insists on giving it the name of a non-problem – eg “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” – they are being sly and manipulative from the very start.
Climate is nothing but change. You’re not living in climatic times like those of your grandfathers? That’s okay. Your grandfathers didn’t live in a climate like their grandfathers. (Actually, I grew up in an era a bit more like my grandfather’s and nothing like the hot and droughty early 20th century Australia my parents experienced.) Climate Change is about as meaningful as “wet rain” or “sweet sugar”.
The globe is warming? Well, it can only cool or warm through any era. More information please, climate authorities. Take your time, phone a friend…but give us a better term than “global warming”. Global warming is a non-problem. Define the problem and give it its full title every time…so we know you’re not manipulating.
If these people were serious they would have been in a rush to find terms to specify, rather than use terms which describe a permanent normalcy.
Then there are the words “record”, “extreme”, “increasing” and that gem of all gems “unprecedented”. Lay people talking about something they know well would hesitate. Scientifically minded people wouldn’t have a bar of these expressions without thorough examination of the particular case and qualification of the terms used. But there is nobody quicker with the lax lingo than the defenders of Settled Science.
We’ve looked hard at the findings and it’s worse than we thought. It is no longer possible to deny that manipulative language is increasing at record speed to unprecedented extremes. 97% agree, and the other 3% are in the pay of Big We’ll-Think-of-Something.
The statement “Global warming is occuring” is logically incoherent (nonsense) without the timescale. Both global warming and global cooling is occuring. At (multi)-milennial timescales it’s cooling, at (multi)-centennial it’s warming. At shorter multi-decadal timescales, the warming seems to be shifting to cooling (~60 year cycle). Furthermore, the longer cycle seems to be plateauing too. That means more cooling than in the ~1950s/60s.
moso, should that have been “the lax Slingo”?
+1 Faustino. No way to speak of a Dame?
Faustino, I think “lax slingo” refers specifically to a certain Jeffrey Thomson. You didn’t know where he was slinging but it was always very fast – and vaguely in the direction of certain English persons. Ah, that gratifying sound of red Kookaburra on English bone!
@mosomoso
Through the distant haze of many long ago beers, I always thought yer man’s name was Lillian not Jeffrey.
As in ‘the Australian attack led by Lillian Thomson’
(Those who don’t follow this line need not worry. It would just turn to Ashes if you did).
famous cricketing commentary;
“The batsman’s Holding the bowlers Willy”
Doc, your post comes more than 40 hours after I decided against a Johnson reference because of my understanding that that has a particular anatomical connotation in the US. Of course, as a doctor, you can freely use anatomical terms.
Confidence in the GCM would require not just correct replication of observed global average temperature, but also the distribution of temperature, by latitude, altitude. It is also necessary to examine confidence in the reason the models show the increase from 1975 to 2000, because if the underlying physical effect is not entirely correct, that might explain why 2000-2013 is off. Also, the models have been trained to replicate 1975-2000. What is the rational for claiming that it may not be accurate for 0-20 year periods but is accurate for longer periods when there is no baseline for this claim? Was this assertion made prior to 2000 or only after the discrepancy became evident? Einstein’s fame was greatly enhanced because his theory allowed a prediction to be made, that was later observed to be spot on. He would have looked silly had it been seriously off. So far, the AGW climate model is only able to model a limited range of past events.
The IPCC supports around 20 (different?) climate models but never throws them open to public inspection. WE, the public know nothing of what is inside the models, what physical principles, are upheld and what assumptions are made and how successful the programmers have been in translating the physics of this complex system into a mufti closed loop model. All this has to be on trust and there is no real external accountability in either physics or programing.
Now take a look at the problem. If you look at my theoretical model (underlined above) you will see that something very strange happened in 1940 to global average temperature.Between 1910 and 1940 temperature climbed steeply by 0.5C. Because it was unprecedented in history it had to be a product of the burning of fossil fuels, but CO2 is less than one percent of the atmosphere. How could it be? The heat absorbing powers of any substance is measured by its Specific Heat (SH) and we know the SH of CO2 is about 36 against 29 for N2 (70% of atmosphere) both below 25C. So how can CO2 have such an influence on global temperature?
The strange thing that happened in 1940 was that the global temperature fell just as fast as it rose; this despite that CO2 concentration continued to rise. This is a singularity in the temperature record that no one has bothered to explain. It tells me that we are dealing with a discontinuous system..So any simulation model that relies on continuous differential equations for solution (as most dynamic systems do), is bound to fail.
How could CO2 belong to a discontinuous system? Easily. Carbon in Co2 has isotopes in nature Evey isotope can have a different vibration mode and they can sum to increase or decrease the total energy absorption of the molecule. If you look at figure 2 of my paper (underlined above) and obtained from the Australian BOM. you will see that 14.9 micron mode had suffered almost 100% absorption. If 100% absorption were reached the CO2 molecule would be unable to absorb any more heat in that mode. and would account for the discontinuous nature of climate science.
The IPCC supports around 20 (different?) climate models but never throws them open to public inspection. WE, the public know nothing of what is inside the models, what physical principles, are upheld and what assumptions are made and how successful the programmers have been in translating the physics of this complex system into a mufti closed loop model. All this has to be on trust and there is no real external accountability in either physics or programing.
We don’t really need to know what is inside the models. All we need is two decades of Model output that does not match Earth Data. There is no need for trust in something that is clearly wrong.
Correct, HPA. The only debate really needed is about what constitutes reasonable and appropriate predictions.
Thank you Herman and Michael for replying to my post. The US Secretary of State has recently lectured a bunch of Indonesian student son climate science, although I don’t think he has such qualification. He seemed to stress the accuracy of the UN’s IPCC predictions. So the US Democratic party seems to have learnt nothing since the Al Gore days.
So according to them we have to stop burning fossil fuel or suffer damnation.. So, if we do nothing for 20 years, imagine the unemployment and billiuns of dollars wasted in a futile effort to cut CO2. Yes, Herman, you are right, but can the world afford it?
At least in the dataset I use (NCDC GSoD), there is a change in the number of station records during this timeframe.
Year Record Count
1929 2012
1930 6941
1931 9641
1932 10556
1933 14619
1934 16300
1935 23208
1936 43286
1937 72757
1938 46446
1939 59332
1940 86934
1941 106725
1942 138795
1943 220811
1944 244599
1945 260568
1946 142579
1947 144971
1948 275795
1949 417788
1950 462619
1951 466045
1952 525371
My take is that WWII disrupted data collection, but I’ve not investigated it any further than counting records.
During the peak WWII years there is an obvious ~ 0.1C warming bias. This disappears when the war ended.
The history of that time recounts that many maritime reporting duties were taken over temporarily by government entities such as the coast guard, and that measurement practices also changed on merchant ships to not call attention to their presence.
The other stuff by Biggie is drivel, IMO.
Thank you, Micro, for your comment and Webhub for your opinion. Yes, the sampling error may have decreased after 1940,but that does not explain the singularity of 1940. The latter is too great to be dismissed as sampling error.
Webhub: :During the peak WWII years there is an obvious ~ 0.1C warming bias. This disappears when the war ended”
No, It was not until 1980 that the global temperature regained its 1940 value. See my website underlined above. The data in the figures came frm the Australian BOM with 11year central moving average smoothing for the ‘anomalous temperature’
Nice post JC.
I agree the APS earn an A+ for such an exemplary dialectic approach and transparency to the process of writing an official policy statement. Now if only the Geological Society of America (GSA) could do the same.
The American Statistical Association has adopted the consensus position: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. … Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes, and wind patterns. The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.” Now, how is it within the professional competence of ASA, outside of perhaps a few members who could comfortably fit together in a medium-size elevator, to offer any kind of endorsement on this subject? Go at ’em, Dr. Curry.
Is it reasonable to believe that heating is well mixed, as you discuss in offering a 0.05K atmospheric warming from the oceans?
During the workshop, regarding heat being stored in the ocean, Dr. Curry said;
“So, the question is, to what
extent is this well-mixed or is it
indiscreet plumes or whatever? So,
this whole issue of ocean mixing, to
me is, like, one of the biggest issues out there.”
—–
Indeed! Is the additional energy just being mixed in some .05K harmless sequestration throughout the ocean at depth, never coming back to to the atmosphere? Or is there something else at play? Is it at all or none proposition– that is, could some heat be mixed, and some be stored more “pool like”, such as in the IPWP, or advected via ocean currents to the poles, to affect sea ice, and increase latent and sensible heat release to the atmosphere there?
Held brought up this un-mixed possibility as well. I don’t think he realized that it contradicts his confidence that the ocean has not been coughing up heat, because unmixed pockets of the ocean could well slip through the mesh of observing instruments.
I think it is a missed chance. Not because the APS want to draft a statement on Climate Change, but rather because the APS – like many other professional unions – avoid talking about ethics and values and proper professional conduct. The APS does have a nice summary of (minimal) guidelines for professional conduct (http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm). These guidelines appear to be violated by many climate scientists but also skeptics and alarmists alike (and more broadly: scientists in environmental studies), regardless of whether they are trained as scientists or not. Rather than worry about climate change a professional union like APS should worry about the integrity of science, as that should be on the top list of their priorities, as their primary task is to represent the science. As long as professional unions continue to avoid touching those issues and rather prefer to issue statements about issues like climate change not much will change in the way scientists (mis)behave.
As APS nicely sums it up here:
“Honesty must be regarded as the cornerstone of ethics in science. Professional integrity in the formulation, conduct, and reporting of physics activities reflects not only on the reputations of individual physicists and their organizations, but also on the image and credibility of the physics profession as perceived by scientific colleagues, government and the public.”
Why doesn’t APS follow up on that with regard to climate science? I continue to remain puzzled about that.
Pingback: American Physical Society Reviews Its Position On Climate Change | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
Judith, thanks for putting your time into this. Why was there no solar expert invited? Was uncertainty around quantifying long term solar variation and its terrestrial impact explored in the workshop?
Thanks – tb
Nothing dilutes the AGW consensus message like solar activity variations. They have to deny the connection or bring up the discrepancy over the last ~40 years, ‘the sun and climate going in opposite directions’. It’s concluded that the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming. Because CO2 must warm and there must be room for CO2.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
No, as I mentioned ABOVE Collins believes the solar record is known with certainty. despite our disagreements Rog I think we two amatuers are well aware of the unsettled status of the record and the fact that nearly every major expert is engaged in a review of it
The sun is settled. Happens every evening in the West. By morning we’ve dreamed up new ideas about it so it conveniently unsettles in the East for our further observations.
===========
Steven Mosher,
Are you reading some other transcript? I can’t see any indication he thinks historical solar variability is known with certainty, he clearly says the opposite. His point was that the numbers are small compared to anthropogenic GHG forcing even accounting for the full range of uncertainty.
‘Busy old fool, unruly sun,
Why dost thou thus,
Through windows and through curtains call on us?’
Shall I look to see if the unholo focus is still on TSI?
===============
tallbloke
For solar uncertainty, see discussions on the ACRIM gap. e.g. the latest appears to be:
Scafetta, N., and R. C. Willson, 2014. ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite validation versus TSI proxy models. Astrophysics and Space Science (in press). DOI: 10.1007/s10509-013-1775-9. PDF
Satellite uncertainties are an order of magnitude higher than they could be. See Nigel Fox, NPL Truths project.
Mosher sez:
“despite our disagreements Rog I think we two amatuers are well aware of the unsettled status of the record”
Ah, one of Moshers infamous false equivalences. You may have helped get the journal I published in axed, I don’t know, but Rasmussen didn’t have the balls to try and have the papers withdrawn too. So I’m published in the field, and your amateurishness is not my concern.
Mosher also sez
“and the fact that nearly every major expert is engaged in a review of it.”
Though none of those ‘major experts’ was invited to participate in this NAS panel, hmmm?
Rog, all known solar experts are too busy reviewing now to commit.
====
There’s no trustworthy solar expert.
The best are mistrusting their previous expertise.
==========
The CSALT model has the solar factor to global warming well quantified. With inputs from skeptics such as Scafetta, I applied their suggestions and showed that this class of natural variation is a wash in the greater scheme of things.
So Tallbloke and company are probably correct but in an inconsequential kind of way. That’s the way it goes. The massive control knob of CO2 continues to blow them out of the water.
“The massive control knob of CO2 continues to blow them out of the water.”
Funny you say that when it’s been broken for so long.
The so-called “CSALT” model has countless flaws that are easily detected by competent judges employing careful diagnostics. A few examples: Severe overfitting, multi-counting of variance, egregiously false spatial assumptions, egregiously false assumptions about aggregate phase (it’s not even possible, in a rigorously-logical sense), & component-amplitude estimates severely distorted by errors such as the preceding. There are elements of truth rolled into CSALT and it’s worthwhile for newcomers to study the model, as it encourages learning about important elements of climate, but if APS members buy CSALT as is, that will be informative (decisively indicating incompetence). FINAL WARNING: The solar estimates are out by more than an order of magnitude.
Note to Readers: “WebHubTelescope (@whut)” reliably distorts & severely misrepresents my comments, associations, & perspective and sometimes even lapses unacceptably into what I consider stalking & harassment. Judy has promptly snipped his comments on more than one occasion. If we’re going to discuss what’s wrong with CSALT, it has to be sensibly. If discussion parties aren’t willing to be sensible and if Judy remains unwilling to evict those who persistently stalk & harass (snipping isn’t good enough), I’ll walk away again. I’m here to help advance the discussion if parties can be constrained to sensible behavior (whether by themselves or by Judy). I don’t expect any improvement, but I like to give a fair chance.
PV, you are one weird character. Here we have a model that applies some of your suggestions and quantifies the effects, yet you get all uppity.
It’s almost as if you don’t want to know the truth, preferring to live in some physics la-la land where you can dream that your ideas will pan out.
Stalking? You are the one projecting. The truth hurts when it hits close to home. That probably explains your fragile disposition.
CSALT (severely) fails diagnostics.
Option A:
Fix it.
Webbed Wonder would argue that Tiljander implored Mann to use it upside-down.
Sun-governed portion of SST variance
= 82%
Take it to the bank.
I don’t fix what is not broken.
Certainly 82% of SST variance could be solar driven. It’s called daily and seasonal variation.
That’s the problem with you denialistas — you prefer to deal in terms of FUD.
“I don’t fix what is not broken”
Or fix what never worked.
About two years ago Steinhilber et al (with an impressive array of 13 scientists including Abreu, Beer, McCracken etc) published Holocene TSI reconstruction. Number of solar scientists and researchers consider the result as the Holocene TSI reference.
Not entirely sure that it should be so.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HCC.htm
@ vukcevic: that stuff is being misinterpreted – (same as ‘stadium wave’ (misnomer))
…but due to the political charge on the climate issues, sensible discussion remains impossible (for now…)
Misrepresentation — (yet again):
—-
WebHubTelescope (@whut)
| February 21, 2014 at 11:32 am |
“physics la-la land”
—-
Once again, observations I’ve brought forward do NOT support mysterious mag(net)ic / electric theories. (I’m NOT aligned with those people and their agendas. Instruction: Cease with the ongoing misrepresentation.)
What I’ve challenged climate modelers to do is a TRIVIAL extension of Milankovitch. I’ve rigorously inferred from a LAW-CONSTRAINED geometric PROOF that this work is needed to bring a minimal level of reality to mainstream climate modeling.
What I’ve illustrated is NOT physically mysterious at all.
What truly competent parties will learn if they check: New observations further clarify what I’ve already illustrated.
Misrepresentation:
—-
WebHubTelescope (@whut)
| February 21, 2014 at 11:57 am |
“you denialistas”
—-
I’m not associated with any such group.
You’ve been snipped by Judy for similar false accusations in the past. You’re again wasting our time on stuff that in no way advances the discussion.
Instruction:
Cease with the ongoing misrepresentation.
Rude Misrepresentation — (yet again):
—-
WebHubTelescope (@whut)
| February 21, 2014 at 11:57 am |
“It’s called daily and seasonal variation.”
—-
There’s no excuse for taking misrepresentation this far. If CE was my blog, I’d ban you for 2 weeks for wasting the time of more serious readers & commentators with such rudely defiant distortion artistry. There has to be a minimal level of civility; otherwise this blog is a complete waste of time. If all a person can expect when they come here is to have to bat down rude misrepresentations, why bother? If that’s all that goes on here, sensible parties can simply conclude that the blog is corrupt and then proceed directly to efficiently ignoring it.
More repetition of distortion artistry.
There’s more than one school of thought about what constitutes effective data visualization (e.g. Cleveland).
Anyone who wants alternative visualizations can take personal responsibility for generating them firsthand. (It’s NOT a problem for competent parties.)
—
Judy:
Suggestion:
CE blog rules need a serious overhaul.
Otherwise you might as well hand out clubs and we’ll decide the “truth” that way.
Seriously:
As it is, this is a total waste of time.
Sincerely
That seems a good analogy, Paul, but official responses to Climategate have exposed unanticipated problems in basic fields of science – like chemistry and physics.
You don’t label your units and you often don’t label your axes. That is chump stuff that would get you flunked out. Who is wasting whose time?
New — updated with most recent ~2 years-worth of solar data:
SST = 82% Sun
Background:
☼ Multidecadal Sun-Climate-Change 101: Solar-Terrestrial Spatiotemporal Aggregation Primer on Trivial Extension of Milankovitch ☼
Standard Fourier methods BY DESIGN CANNOT detect what I’ve illustrated (nor can methods used by respectable investigators like the Talkshop blog’s co-host Tim Channon, which although impressive, rely on assumptions which patently do NOT hold in this context).
I leave it as an exercise for competent parties to derive the SCD curve from sunspot numbers and use it to reconstruct the semi-annual LOD pattern illustrated by Jean Dickey (NASA JPL 1997). (Competent parties can rediscover a painfully simple solar-terrestrial geometric proof by doing so.)
Sober Academics:
Consider this an assignment — or an exam — with lots of generous hints given.
The answer key is NOT given.
Rather, it’s used TO JUDGE.
This communication and others like it are not aimed at regular climate discussion agents. (And they never have been.)
Sincerely
PV, I rest my case. You just linked to an epiliptic-fit-inducing graph that has no units on the vertical axis.
Time to file away your crayons.
Mainstream climate models are based on assumptions that FAIL careful diagnostics in a very specific way.
The sun’s influence on terrestrial climate is conventionally underestimated by a factor of 25.
[82% / 3.3% ~= 25]
The reason: Ignorance of the DOMINATING importance of solar-governed spatiotemporal gradients in large scale circulation.
Remember, we’re talking about SURFACE temperature. Most of the surface is sea water and it’s DISTURBED by wind stress. Although we cannot pin down local constraints, we can RIGIDLY pin down AGGREGATE constraints via laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum (see links above).
Die-Hard Intransigent Political Agents:
Warning: There’s nowhere to hide from these constraints, so overt deception is your only remaining option.
I’m restraining myself from saying what I really want to say to “WebHubTelescope (@whut)” because it wouldn’t pass moderation and it might even trigger an instant, permanent ban (even though it’s only 4 words long). In more polite terms, suffice it to say that my patience with dark climate ignorance &/or deception (particularly solar-climate ignorance &/or deception) has more than expired.
Paul, you write “I’m restraining myself from saying what I really want to say to”
Seems like you and Roy Spencer feel the same way. See
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/
I note that one of “WebHubTelescope (@whut)”‘s posts in this tree (the most offensive one) has been deleted without trace.
But this is not good enough.
—
Extended tolerance of stalking, relentless harassment, malicious misrepresentation, & aggressive thought-policing — along with the dark agents who reliably employ such devilishly creepy tactics — indicates a fatal problem with the integrity of CE & WUWT.
These are toxic environments due for a good cleaning one way or another.
I recommend government intervention — via law — to establish and ensure online civility on par with what’s legally demanded in person, as it’s crystal clear that we’re fools if we think blog hosts will ensure civility voluntarily.
I recommend forcing the shutdown of dirty venues that can’t or won’t ensure civility.
This is the way to ensure peace.
Paul, if you don’t make critical comments about WHUT’s posts, I suspect he won’t make comments back at you that you find objectionable. I delete any comments that I find in violation of blog rules, if I spot them.
Paul, you write “This is the way to ensure peace.”
Absolutely and completely wrong. The way to guarantee peace is to ignore anyone who you don’t like.
curryja wrote:
| February 22, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
“Paul, if you don’t make critical comments about WHUT’s posts, I suspect he won’t make comments back at you that you find objectionable.”
Extended observation indicated the exact opposite of what you suggest, so I’ve changed strategies. And I may do so again.
There’s (currently) no sensible reason to accept dark obstacles to enlightenment, so strategy changes as necessary to overcome darkness. (An example of a “sensible reason” would be allegiance to a good employer providing substantial, secure pay & pension.)
Putting the focus back where it should be:
82% is what matters (see above).
It’s informative (about human nature) observing who fails to acknowledge a simple law-constrained proof (about climate nature).
—
Those who are willing & able to restrain themselves — including those who are willing & able to run a clean online venue — need not fear the introduction of laws ensuring online civility.
Regards
Has it been established that TSI is the only solar variable with appreciable influence on the climate of the earth?
The confusion arises because TSI includes the word Total, which is all the sunlight reaching the earth. OF COURSE, that is the dominant factor influencing the climate of the earth. If Total Solar was shut off, we would all freeze to death.
The real factor is the fluctuations in the TSI due to sunspot activity, etc and how this affects the T anomaly. This has an effect of 0.05 and perhaps up to 0.1C, but since this is also cyclical, it still pales in comparison due to the 0.9C warming due to aCO2.
PV is totally misguided to think that this solar factor is 82%, and that because I call him on that, he wants me arrested by law enforcement.
@ WHUT
“The confusion arises because TSI includes the word Total, which is all the sunlight reaching the earth. OF COURSE, that is the dominant factor influencing the climate of the earth. If Total Solar was shut off, we would all freeze to death.”
I understand that the sun warms the earth and that it sets the ‘base’ TOE.
My question should have been ‘Is TSI the only solar variable that influences VARIATIONS in the climate?
Other factors that I had in mind were: variations in the spectral distribution of the TSI, variations in other em emissions from the sun that are outside the bandwidth of what is normally measured as TSI (primarily visible and near infrared), changes in the solar magnetosphere, changes in sunspots, changes in the magnitude and polarity of the solar magnetic field, CME’s, variations in the solar wind, and, not having much knowledge of what actually goes on in and around the sun, variations of a bunch of other solar behavior that I probably never heard of but that you and other commenters may have.
Do any or all of the above influence climate and if so, do we understand the mechanism, magnitude, and sign of their influence?
WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
| February 22, 2014 at 4:20 pm |
“TSI […] has an effect of 0.05 and perhaps up to 0.1C […] PV is totally misguided to think that this solar factor is 82% […]”
Total BS.
In order for this to be true, one or both of the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum have to be violated. With absolute certainty “WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)” doesn’t understand the proof I’ve outlined (most likely hasn’t yet figured out how to do the calculations, nevermind interpret them sensibly), which is a trivial extension of Milankovitch. “WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)” is making egregiously false assumptions about the role of insolation gradients in circulation. I suggest that more people call him on it. For those who haven’t figured it out yet, I’m restraining myself from saying what really needs to be said to “WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)”. I don’t think people realize yet just how serious this is.
By the way, the remaining 18% is natural too — that’s the interannual term. This isn’t supposed to be acid in your face. It’s just a fact that I realize a lot of people really aren’t going to like. Sensible Parties: It’s going to be a rough ride. Your help will be needed. No individual can do this alone. The political charge ensures that.
PV, you funny.
So no CO2 contributions to warming, eh?
It’s all a conspiracy, eh?
Dark forces at work, eh?
If there’s a CO2 contribution, it’s not detectable in the observational SST data.
PV,
Remove the fluctuation terms and all we see is CO2
http://imageshack.com/a/img823/7237/wif.gif
You seem to have very limited skills when it comes to time series analysis
It’s a common flaw among CE skeptics.
Sun 82%
Interannual 18%
Total 100%
The method you’re using makes false assumptions about the structure of the time series (which is a time series of spatial aggregates).
You’re severely overfitting and almost all of the components in your model fail careful diagnostics.
You don’t include the most important component (the one that accounts for 82% of the variance).
You egregiously misrepresent.
You intransigently ignore valid points even when they’re logically rock solid.
You’re unwilling &/or unable to be sensible.
Don’t waste any more of my time.
Your relentless rude distortion need not be tolerated.
You lack the competence & temperament to judge fairly & sensibly the law-constrained proof I’ve outlined.
Now let me be clear:
Stop harassing and step away.
Contextual note for readers: The rude comment to which I was responding has been deleted.
–
Judy: I’m keen to harmonize with all efforts you make to ensure civility. Clean visits help restore trust. Thank you.
Climate Change “policy” can achieve nothing. If you want to understand why it’s not carbon dioxide after all, consider the following …
The evidence on Uranus proves there is a gravitationally induced temperature gradient.
“The energy balance of Uranus is therefore E = 1.06 ± 0.08; ” [1]
The above is a percentage of about 3.7 W/m^2 of incident solar radiation at Uranus TOA. [2]
So energy imbalance on Uranus is a mere 0.04W/m^2
That’s quite a small amount, so if you think the 5,000K core is still cooling then I would expect far more imbalance than that.
But it isn’t still cooling and it won’t cool significantly in a billion years unless the Sun also cools significantly.
So how is the thermal gradient maintained (very close to the -g/Cp value) when no significant direct solar radiation gets down below the absorbing methane layer near TOA and the mostly hydrogen and helium atmosphere extends for thousands of kilometres above the small solid core that is about 55% the mass of Earth?
This is highly relevant to what happens on Earth, because physics is universal and we do in fact have a thermal profile that supports our surface temperatures also.
[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0019103590901553
[2] http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/uranusfact.html
Sorry – I should correct that reference to 1.06 ± 0.08. It is the ratio of emitted to absorbed flux for Uranus, but note that it could be less than 1.0, with more absorption. Neither does it necessarily have to reflect what is coming from the core, because it could be due to a small compression of the atmosphere.
Note this statement …
‘The temperature of Uranus’ atmosphere is consistent with heating only by absorbed sunlight … .’ [3]
[3] Fix, J.D., Astronomy: Journey to the Cosmic Frontier, WCB/McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 286, 1999.
Visiting Physicist,
You might care to give an example of where the gravitationally induced temperature gradient exists in bodies of water say 2 km in depth.
If that is insufficient for you, try 10 km deep.
As far as I know, gravity warms the ocean depths not at all. In point of fact, the temperature gradient shows decreasing temperature with depth, whilst the lithosphere shows the opposite.
No movement, no work, no heat. A powerful 100 kg magnet attached to the bottom of a steel beam generates no heat at all, whilst still managing to defy gravity. No movement, no work, no heat.
I may be wrong. I don’t think I am in this case, however.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Perhaps requiescat in pace, Hal Lewis.
Pointman
During the workshop, regarding heat being stored in the ocean, Dr. Curry said;
“So, the question is, to what
extent is this well-mixed or is it
indiscreet plumes or whatever? So,
this whole issue of ocean mixing, to
me is, like, one of the biggest issues out there.”
—–
Indeed! Is the additional energy just being mixed in some .05K harmless sequestration throughout the ocean at depth, never coming back to to the atmosphere? Or is there something else at play? Is it at all or none proposition– that is, could some heat be mixed, and some be stored more “pool like”, such as in the IPWP, or advected via ocean currents to the poles, to affect sea ice, and increase latent and sensible heat release to the atmosphere there?
But there is a difference between an interesting long term issue that should be investigated and one requiring urgent action in order to avoid disaster.
This is a very promising development. Atmospheric physics, until quite recently, was a tiny subset of physics and a rather messy one with few prospects of elegant theoretical or experimental breakthroughs. Other physicists, pre-occupied with their own corners, may well have given their atmospheric colleagues the benefit of the doubt, noting how few of them spoke out against the alarums being raised by others, and in all sorts of other fields as well, about CO2 as a major driver of the climate system. Furthermore that it was driving the system towards dangerous warming. This notion has had an astonishing political impact, and can now be seen as a serious threat to economic development, and to, for that matter, the sense of general progress and grounds for optimism that the industrial revolution has made possible. Perhaps that is enough to persuade more physicists to put aside their own fields of research for a while at least, in order to examine the climate one in more depth. I think that will take years rather than weeks or months, but I hope that this review in the APS is a straw in the wind suggesting that such activity getting underway.
+1
steve –
Careful there.
Keep up with the “denier” stuff and Judith and company will get very upset with you. They take great offense when someone gets labeled a “denier.”
It’s a comparison to holocaust deniers, don’t you know.
Wrong subthread and not getting the obvious tu quoque joke. This bot needs a software update.
In reading Santer’s remarks from the workshop, I will be very interested to see his upcoming paper on the the general increase in optical depth from the increased volcanic activity during the “pause”. I can understand why he wanted these slides removed prior to publication.
it promises to be a barn burner!
hehe, nobody wants to sneak me an advance copy.. but from what I hear it promises to be a good argument.
If they cannot get a reasonable estimate for the levels of atmospheric aerosols over the last decade, then it is rather damning of the whole field.
If they have screwed up the recent aerosols, the all the estimates going back a thousand years are completely bogus.
I knew they were going to pull the ‘aerosols are higher than we thought’. Typical of the field, postulate, measure, find they are different, change the data until the postulate stands.
“If they cannot get a reasonable estimate for the levels of atmospheric aerosols over the last decade, then it is rather damning of the whole field.
If they have screwed up the recent aerosols, the all the estimates going back a thousand years are completely bogus.
I knew they were going to pull the ‘aerosols are higher than we thought’. Typical of the field, postulate, measure, find they are different, change the data until the postulate stands.”
—–
We have a pretty good idea of volcanic aerosols and optical depth changes going back a few thousand years. The ice cores are pretty excellent sources in this regard. We’ve been measuring increased aerosols from general increased volcanic activity for many years.
In the end it is likely the “pause” will be a combination of factors: increased natural aerosols, slightly lower solar output, a reduced rate of latent and sensible heat flux from ocean to atmosphere.
If you are grasping at straws then a barn would be a good place to go. Not sure how burning it down would help.
Santer said his micro volcanoes might take care of 25% of the canceling out of GHG forcing during the pause. Even at that it looks like fundamental selection bias–nobody is going back to look for additional forcings that exacerbate the pause conundrum.
At least this discussion has further marginalized the pause deniers.
25% for the contribution of volcanic aerosols would be the high side for Santer. The other possible contributions are mostly likely cool phase of the PDO (lower ocean to atmosphere energy flux), and a sun that is at the least active point in a century.
What ius actually amazing is how well the tropospheric temperatures have maintained themselves when all the other natural forcings are pointed toward “cooling”. CO2, methane, and N2O increases are keeping the troposphere pretty warm (warmest decade on instrument record) considering the natural forcings would all point toward a stronger cooling. If somehow 2014/2015 does see a moderate or even strong El Nino, and we get that big flux of energy moving from ocean to troposphere, the probabilty is high for new record global tropospheric records. Fake-skeptics won’t be pleased.
R Gates: “CO2, methane, and N2O increases are keeping the troposphere pretty warm”
It’s energy coming back out of the ocean which is maintaining air temperatures. OHC is falling, but this is being masked by the dropping of rapidly cooling ARGO buoys which are presumed fauly, and dropped from the datset by Sid Levitus.
So big el ninos are likely to happen, as they did in the late 1880’s and 1890’s as solar activity slumped, but they will cause a further loss of upper ocean heat content. That will make the winters colder – in exact opposition to the enhanced greenhouse effect theory.
Judith,
What a breath of fresh air!
Firstly, congratulations on your appointment to the expert panel.
Mostly, congratulations to the APS for producing a document of such clarity and openness. It’s amazing what first-rate thinking can do.
I also find it an interesting development that a blog was referenced in the framing document (http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/) alongside peer reviewed papers.
I wish you and the APS every success in this endeavour and am optimistic that a good structure can be built on such solid foundations.
Thanks for spotting the CA reference, I remember being amazed when I saw this (favorably so)
And, by the way, I’ve been saying these things since 2012 and no one has proved me wrong with valid physics …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8YbyfqUvfY&feature=youtu.be
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/radiated_energy.pdf
I’ll email a copy back to you before I remove it from my server. Which of your 20+ email addresses do you want it sending to Doug?
It was Ben Franklin who said “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” The good ship CAGW is sinking. The first to get to the lifeboats might make it safely to shore. Maybe, just maybe, the APS will come to it’s senses, save it’s own skin, break with all the other learned scientific societies, and put out a statement on CAGW that is based on physics and empirical data.
Maybe the APS will bell the cat.
Upon hearing Obama and Kerry et al, I hear nothing that makes me think that they believe the rust bucket CAGW is sinking.
How many of the combined 100K plus members (or more specifically their leadership) of the APS andAGU depend on the government teat?
Until the funding side of this massive excuse for more taxes and control changes, I don’t expect to see any changes in the product. And it’s not just directly from the gov..Indirectly from the gov. we have Tom Steyer, a 56-year old Democrat from California who is going to match his own donation of 50 million to other donations of 50 million to candidates that will push CAGW. Not to mention the Tides Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and countless others.
As far as APS is concerned, I’ll wait ’til the release of their new position to see how much, if any, the propaganda has changed. It will have to be a damn large improvement to vindicate Hal Lewis.
Richard Lindzen, p. 299:
“In any event, the greenhouse part of it is interesting because that is already about much greater than CO2 alone and pretty close to what you would expect for a doubling of CO2. So, it is not in some remote future we are looking at a doubling.”
Why isn’t this the solution of the main problem? – The “experiment” of doubling greenhouse gases is already done. We have to look at the results, and that’s it …
Richard McNider and John Christy address consensus and John Kerry in the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266
Both reproduced at WUWT
Why Secretary of State John Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate Change
Posted on February 20, 2014 by Anthony Watts
By Dr. Richard McNider and Dr. John Christy
There must be many physicist, like myself, deeply embarrased with APS 2007’s statement:
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. […] The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”
APS could now pretend to adapt their statement to the observed hiatus in global warming. But this is not enough. As I explain in:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2VHpYemRBV3FQRjA
it is inaccurate to take only 15 (or 20) years: 30 is the statistical relevant number. And after averaging G.S.Temp. in this 30 years of base-period, they should be compared with the next 30 and the next 30 … until GST measurements in 2850. Then, by that year 2850, mankind will be capable of using statistical tools to evaluate if the hypothesis of man-caused global warming is incontrovertible or not.
Why did I say that “this is not enough”?. Because physicist knew all this statistical requirement by the year 2007 (as well as the problems with those equivalent CMIP5 models I will be commenting below): that statement should have never been made.
Antonio (AKA “Un físico”) | February 20, 2014 at 9:17 am | Reply
“There must be many physicist, like myself, deeply embarrased with APS 2007′s statement:
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. […] The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”
APS could now pretend to adapt their statement to the observed hiatus in global warming. But this is not enough. As I explain in:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2VHpYemRBV3FQRjA
it is inaccurate to take only 15 (or 20) years: 30 is the statistical relevant number.”
As an engineer I concur. In fact a simple treatment of the available data to date shows that there is an ~60 year ‘wriggle’ (mustn’t call it a cycle) in the temperature records that most just ignore.
Antonio
As an engineer who was a former APS member (BS in Physics) I concur.
For >30 year comparisons see: By Dr. Richard McNider and Dr. John Christy
Why Secretary of State John Kerry is flat wrong on climate change.
See the detailed comparisons of models vs data as provided by Roy Spencer. for 34 years. i.e. > 95% of > 30 year model projections are running “to hot”. i.e. a major systematic bias. That means we cannot rely on current 100 year projections!
PS Note the 30 year is a “convention” on “climate”. If there is a 50-60 year PDO or “Stadium Wave”, that the comparisons have to be over that cyclic period to find the mean trends.
David:
“Note the 30 year is a “convention” on “climate”. If there is a 50-60 year PDO or “Stadium Wave”, that the comparisons have to be over that cyclic period to find the mean trends.”
There is significant cyclic ‘energy’ in the system at shorter than 75 years going all the way back to the 1500’s in the available data/reconstructions. So anyone looking at things at under 60 years is always going to be reading only part of a ‘cycle’.
Judith Curry, I have read your abstract to the APS March meeting.
Your “stadium wave” hypothesis is arguable: that attempt to explain climate from weather re-scalations, might end up in nothing.
My approach is less constructive. I analyze CMIP5 models and I explain why they are not reliable. The main idea of this refuting relies in that linear formula: N = F – cfb·T. The climate feedbacks (cfb) within there, are invented values non observationaly supported (there are many other issues with this formula, for example, it should be used only after demonstrating that GHG drives climate change).
So Judith, if before March we can discuss reliability of CMIP5 models (with those three easy-to-read post I sent you) in this blog, you will get and additional solid argument to include in your talk in front of those APS physicists.
Judith’s Stadium Wave paper is supported by lots of other evidence that shows similar periodic features in climate data, world wide not just in the Arctic.
Ok Richard, as a follower of this blog, I know that:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/
Stadium Wave is not a fool theory. This theory could have some range of validity.
But that paper is fundamented in Wyatt thesis, and talking about proxies (no matter if we discuss about Mann’s or Wyatt’s proxies) there is always the same issue: uncertainties in measuring Global Surface Temperature. Do you see figures 3.18 to 3.21? What happens with uncertainties from the year 2000 to the 1700? Even the most friendly physicist would expect these uncertainties to grow and, may be near the year 1700, becoming much greater than that difference, 2-(-2) = 4, of that kind of “internal variability” represented.
In contrast, the way I refute CMIP5 models is very easily understandable by any physicist.
Antonio:
I just tend to look at proxies since 1800 – adds just another 50 years to the widely available temperature record to 1850 – so as to not get into the problems with them further back into the past.
That analysis of the data says that the cyclic (short term anyway) nature of the figures occurs a lot more than in just the Arctic.
@ RichardLH: ‘stadium wave’ (a misnomer) isn’t just about arctic (…so the appearance is that you’ve not looked carefully at Wyatt’s work, but rather only read the title of her most recent paper (where Curry was invited on as co-author)). Marcia’s work is worth a look for newcomers to the discussion. For those with deeper understanding and little time to spare, I would summarize all of Marcia’s contributions with one sentence and one image: With computational tutoring volunteered by Sergey Kravtsov, Marcia Wyatt (originally a geologist) learned via MSSA what competent climate scientists have known for many decades, which is simply that everything is coupled. Figure 4 in WKT 2012 summarizes concisely. Caution: There’s no “network” in the real world. The only network is in crude, computer-assisted human conceptual approximations of a physical continuum. I would recommend Wyatt’s writings as a light introduction to multidecadal waves (it’s written at a level accessible to elementary school children), but for those who are ready to be more serious and more realistic, go straight to the writings of Jean Dickey (NASA JPL) & Nikolay Sidorenkov (Russian HydroMet), who write at levels inaccessible to wide, general audiences.
By the way: I would recommend to the United States government that in future they only accept formal climate testimony from contributors of the caliber of Nikolay & Jean. (As it is currently, USA has set the bar of formal climate testimony so low as to make it transparently meaningless. This is not the way to earn trust.)
Dr. J. Dickey of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena:
“One possibility is the movements of Earth’s core (where Earth’s magnetic field originates) might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously. ”
hence:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HCC.htm
@ vukcevic
Let’s hope that Jean is now free to express the clearer thinking that has evolved since those (darker) days.
Paul:
“@ RichardLH: ‘stadium wave’ (a misnomer) isn’t just about arctic (…so the appearance is that you’ve not looked carefully at Wyatt’s work, but rather only read the title of her most recent paper (where Curry was invited on as co-author)).”
You do me a great disservice. I have read the paper and looked at the work Wyatt’s other work as well.
The shorthand I used to suggest that other people had not understood the true meaning of what is implied, stands.
As you note, the whole of the system is driven by such rhythmic patterns as can be seen if you look at some of the figures I have demonstrated also.
http://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/combined/
I would welcome your comments on that presentation.
Richard:
SST = 82% Sun
Best Regards
Paul: You may well be right – but I will observe that the Lunar influence on such things is 3 times as strong as any Solar component. I suspect you would be unwise to rule it out completely.
Richard:
If you think I’ve overlooked lunisolar nudging of large-scale circulation, you’ve not carefully digested the materials to which I linked.
There’s a whole section that includes a detailed derivation of interannual-to-decadal lunisolar aggregates. Also, be aware that I’ve done a detailed lunisolar decomposition of high-frequency LOD components in the past, so I’m well-aware of where the lower-frequency turbulent spatiotemporal aliasing comes from. It’s the aggregation criteria that interest me most, as that’s where the mainstream has gone catastrophically off the rails.
Solar influence exceeds lunisolar influence by a factor of ~4.
Caution: Standard methods based on assumptions that are decisively false in this context (e.g. standard Fourier) will get the proportions severely wrong.
People seem to forget that the time series are spatial (more specifically spatiotemporal) aggregates. They apply time series methods without interpretively taking into consideration the impact of regional spatial phase reversals (e.g. that due to vertical near-surface ocean mixing in the equatorial Pacific) on standard (statistical) inferential assumptions about global temporal evolution.
Keep in mind that sampling occurs only at the surface. This is a nonrandom sample from a spatiotemporally-autocorrelated, turbulently-coupled (air-sea) system with nonuniform gradients.
An easy way to work around this sampling problem is via law-constrained global constraints. That’s what I’ve shown. Seen through a carefully tuned, bifocal lens, the multi-axial differentials are balanced in central limit.
Please invest careful effort to digest this key point.
Mathematically it’s no different than the steering on a car, except that there are more axes & also more types of axes (don’t forget about water state transition axes) and there’s turbulent fluid coupling. Everything’s coupled to driving in a globally-balanced manner no matter what the local differential allocation due to steering evolution, but since sampling is nonrandom (always at the surface), aggregate deviations are biased enough to account for ~1/5 of the measured variance.
Without background such as that provided by Dickey & Sidorenkov on equator-pole gradients & heat engines, intuitive understanding of the centrally-limiting attractor won’t be possible. An explorer needs at least that much awareness of annual large scale circulation — plus basic awareness of hemispheric geography differences — to understand the nature of the sampling & aggregation problem.
If you do the bi-focally scale-resolved wavelet calculations on sunspot numbers and LOD firsthand, you’ll effortlessly realize you’re looking at a law-constrained geometric proof and that in a strictly logical sense it literally can’t be any other way. (To be any other way, one or both of the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum have to be violated. The standard mainstream climate narrative demands such violation.)
It’s painfully simple, but the political charge on the climate discussion is interfering (extremely) with recognition. That is the reality of this highly entertaining situation. I recommend that you bring a healthy sense of humor along with any increasing awareness you achieve, as you’ll need it to deal effectively with the extensive militant forces of ignorance & deception.
Regards
Paul:
“There’s a whole section that includes a detailed derivation of interannual-to-decadal lunisolar aggregates.”
As the work I’ve done is only interested in multi-decadal effects and analyses those longer periods from 15 years upwards that shorter range (i.e. less than 15 years) is not one I have addressed.
figure 4 WKT 2012 line 1406 p.63
http://www.wyattonearth.net/images/1WKT_2012_author_manuscript.pdf
That’s the most concise multidecadal multivariate climate index visual bundling I’ve seen to date.
Top marks for that brilliantly concise picture, but even after WC 2013 (which unfortunately left out the best picture) I remain unimpressed with the authors’ (childish IMHO) interpretation.
This idea that the wave — which is a wave MSSA detects in VARIABLE space, NOT physical space (must be underscored harder at this point — even though I find the lead author delightful — since too much time is passing without author progress) — can self-perpetuate itself is dreamy (based on assumptions born out of the imagination as so often seems to happen and obstructively dominate in physics & climate science) and it’s patently inconsistent with observation (that’s something that can’t competently be ignored (…but it remains ignored)).
The authors have not yet acknowledged that the sun is the pattern driver, even though it has been proven rigorously. The authors neither fathom the proof nor know how to do it independently. What’s worse: Their conceptualization of how solar-terrestrial relations work is not even remotely consistent with what observations indicate and it appears at least in part based on a severe misinterpretation of TSI “reconstructions”, which are widely severely misinterpreted (stern caution: tons of truth-deflecting misinformation in the supposed “leading” literature on this — and frankly it’s disgraceful that “leaders” in that field aren’t admitting it (they must be terrified about the potential impact on their funding)).
This long-stalled situation still needs correction and — quite unfortunately — the authors decisively do not appear capable of taking responsibility on this front, so others have to lead and the authors are spectators in the audience. Alternatively: They find a way to straighten out. I’m sorry to say it’s crystal clear by now that this won’t happen without substantial outside assistance.
Climate science is moving ridiculously slowly. One can sensibly describe it as moving backwards. This incompetence & abdication of responsibility leaves a void that’s being filled by outsiders.
It’s an ugly situation. I believe it’s possible that alarmists will eventually resort to bloodshed if not put in stern check by sensible, superior parties. Instability in the human population is undoubtedly a top threat to the terrestrial environment. Alarmist accounting does not take this into account.
It’s an ugly situation that calls for calm, serious, competent, careful workers who can remain focused objectively despite the blistering torrent of emotional political advocacy to arrive at infinitely more sober judgement.
Any APS members thinking about “helping”:
Don’t bother if you’re unwilling to acknowledge the primacy of data when it’s in stark conflict with false-assumption-based models.
In the work I’ve done with physicists I’ve noticed that when there’s a conflict between observations and theory, physicists have a tremendously difficult time admitting there might be a problem with their conceptualization.
My academic colleagues concur.
Naturally we’ve lost trust in physicists as a group as a result, but fortunately there is always the possibility that there’s a helpful, sensible individual buried like a needle in the group haystack.
Needles are welcome, but only if decisively divorced from the haystack of false assumptions.
We definitely won’t tolerate any more false-assumption-based BS pushed by devilish abuse of falsely-assumed authority.
—
Richard: Thanks for stimulating discussion. See you around…
Paul:
“Richard: Thanks for stimulating discussion. See you around…”
I find that a little patronising.. but I have a thick skin.
So far you have addressed nothing I have offered. Care to do so?
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters1.png
As an observation of a ‘cyclic’ pattern in the data that needs explanation.
Unfortunate misunderstanding. No offense intended Richard. The “thanks” was genuine. The trailing off (“…”) is because I need to rotate focus elsewhere (paid work). I’ve shown you the source of the multidecadal wave about which you inquire. It’s trivial.
Regards
Paul: No Problem. I am sorry I could not find it in the work you referred me to. I regard 25% (approx.) of the temperature variation in the observed data to data to be rather non trivial.
Please just point me directly to what it is you say provides such a ~60 year variation.
Updated (a few days ago) with the most recent ~2 years-worth of solar data:
SST = Sea Surface Temperature = 82% Painfully Simple Solar-Governed Pattern
The residual 18% is natural interannual variation.
That leaves nothing else to explain.
Law-Constrained Proof:
☼ Multidecadal Sun-Climate-Change 101: Solar-Terrestrial Spatiotemporal Aggregation Primer on Trivial Extension of Milankovitch ☼
It’s a lot simpler than anyone seems able &/or willing to admit. The proof can be confirmed by competent parties in a single sitting. The political charge on the climate discussion is (apparently) absolutely corrupting. Watching the ignorant &/or deceptive reaction to the revelation of multidecadal-to-centennial climate nature is a sobering lesson about the dark side of human nature. I conclude that there are no good, competent agents participating in the climate discussion.
Alert & Clarification: The 15% of the variance I previously (August 4, 2013 & December 20, 2013) left allocated to a linear component is actually part of the solar-governed variance. I had set a parameter arbitrarily to force that leftover, knowing that militant climate discussion agents would apply extreme social force to unfairly shut down a proof that did not leave wiggle room for CO2. It was a negotiating tactic. My sense was that at best militants would be willing to budge only in baby steps and that they decisively would not be willing to jump straight to the truth. Competent parties doing careful diagnostics will discover that there’s no justification for arbitrarily forcing the 15% linear leftover. It was stolen from the solar component to engineer an olive branch, afford a face-saving climb-down, and help smooth a period of trying social transition, but it was not appreciatively received with good will, so I’m promptly giving full disclosure and withdrawing the offer of a graceful climb-down.
Paul: I can see the lines in the graph. I fail to understand the mechanism for translating those lines to actions that occur here on Earth. Do you have such a linkage?
Richard,
If you’re having trouble understanding the proof, that indicates missing background knowledge. I’m not going to try to guess what ingredients you’re having trouble with. It could be something to do with wavelets. It could be that you lack familiarity with terrestrial circulatory topology & heat engines. Or maybe you’ve never studied Milankovitch basics. It could be that you’ve never studied aggregation criteria at an advanced level. I can’t guess. You’re one of countless individuals I’ve encountered in the climate discussion. Obviously we can’t sensibly assume that others we encounter in the multidisciplinary climate discussion have the exact same background. You’ll have to be far more specific about exactly where you’re stuck if you require assistance. I mean no offense. This is about communicating efficiently. We may have to spread this out over time (weeks or months), as other obligations leave me with grossly insufficient time for the type of immersion in discussion that many blog participants seem to (naively IMHO) assume should happen.
Regards
“It could be something to do with wavelets.”
I understand what they are, what they are used for and the limitations that can apply when using them. They are particularly bad (IMHO) at extracting half wave cyclic information in the presence of a very large amount of noise (as are all full wave based tools) or asymmetrical wave combinations of any sort.
“It could be that you lack familiarity with terrestrial circulatory topology & heat engines.”
I understand these also (reasonably well)
“Or maybe you’ve never studied Milankovitch basics.”
Again yes, I have looked at this and what it implies.
“It could be that you’ve never studied aggregation criteria at an advanced level. I can’t guess.”
A understand how filters work and what aggregation in that sense means. I do have the odd letters to my name so we can talk at whatever level you feel is appropriate.
“You’re one of countless individuals I’ve encountered in the climate discussion. Obviously we can’t sensibly assume that others we encounter in the multidisciplinary climate discussion have the exact same background. You’ll have to be far more specific about exactly where you’re stuck if you require assistance. I mean no offense. This is about communicating efficiently. We may have to spread this out over time (weeks or months), as other obligations leave me with grossly insufficient time for the type of immersion in discussion that many blog participants seem to (naively IMHO) assume should happen.”
What I need is some mechanism for translating the lines that can be drawn on a graph, though some defined physical process, to a provable outcome. Step by step poof.
So how do the lines get from being a plot to an outcome?
Richard,
Asking for a step-by-step is not a reasonable request (unless you represent the local university and you are offering secure long-term pay & pension).
It’s unhelpful & misleading when people continually misrepresent what I’m illustrating as having unknown mechanisms. What I’m showing is about aggregation criteria, not mysterious physics. Painfully simple aggregate constraints were overlooked.
I’m not applying wavelets the way you suggest — far from it. Please look carefully at what I’ve done so that you can self-correct this revealing misunderstanding, which indicates unacceptable neglect on your part and inclines me to spare no more time for this exchange with you.
I’ve given the law-constrained proof and considerately pointed to background materials. It’s up to you to decide whether you’re going to independently take the needed steps to understand. I suspect you will not.
Paul:
Now you do me another disservice. I find it surprising that you cannot even lay out an outline of the steps involved. Do we jut go from here to there with nothing in between? That requires WAY too much in of ‘suspension of disbelief’ to be acceptable in science.
If you have not already joined the dots in outline at least, you are just hoping they will be there.
As to wavelets, I did rather understand what it was you had done, and my reservations about using them still stand.
I misrepresent nothing, I ask for simple clarification, which for some reason you seem unwilling to provide.
Saying that I need to study more without providing clues as to what it is I am so obviously missing is a futile exercise on everybody’s behalf.
Richard,
You’re so far off in your ridiculously simplistic expression of what I’ve done with wavelet methods that I’m a fool if I discuss this further with you.
Neither knowledge of mechanism details nor lack thereof has any relevance to the law-constrained aggregate proof. You’re misrepresenting the nature of what has been proven.
My patience with this exchange has expired.
Bye then. No further knowledge or enlightenment has been conveyed. Whatever you mean by a “law-constrained aggregate proof” or the relevance of it to the world we live on will have to remain a mystery.
http://imageshack.com/a/img203/3609/3vkq.png
Judith You are obviously concerned about OHC. The best analysis of the basic data is at
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf
Lyman and Johnson in Table 1 show that the uptake of heat in the 0- 300m depth declined almost 90% when the period 1983 – 2011 is compared with 2004 -2011. Significant declines are also shown at deeper levels .In short on a cooling globe the shallower ocean levels are cooling first as one might reasonably expect. These data destroy Trenberth’s last hidey hole for the “missing” heat
As you probably know from previous comments on your blog I have been saying for some time that the GCM approach is inherently useless for forecasting climate and that another method ie pattern recognition or to use the NOAA jargon the “constructive analogue” approach is required . For a series of posts and forecasts of the coming cooling based on the 60 year and 1000 year periodicities in the temperature data see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com.
Finished the transcript, and for those with less time at their disposal, I can recommend the amazing slides John Christy showed of the failure of the models to get the tropospheric hot spot (and associated stratospheric cooling) right. So sharp it stung Santer and Collins into losing their cool.
Probably there is no other field of applied science in which so much money has been spent to effect so little progress as in weather forecasting. ~H. C. Willett, The Forecast Problem, Compendium of Meteorology (1951)
I have read 76 pages of what Dr. Collins said: I picked out some bits and made my comments: I post this now.
It is virtually certain that internal variability alone,” because just heating the ocean alone will not produce this dipole, “cannot account for the
21 “observed warming since 1951.”
Now that you know that natural variability cannot cause warming, explain the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.
What stopped happening that has been causing warming and cooling for ten thousand years?
You don’t understand what has happened. We cannot trust that you know what is happening.
You are not comparing actual temperatures to historic actual temperatures.
They are comparing actual model output to historic model reconstructon.
You have created a ten thousand year hockey stick that holds steady temperature for ten thousand years and suddenly goes up. The modern warming is the only warming in your output. You have averaged out all the warmings and coolings in the past ten thousand years. Your models cannot reproduce the actual climate cycles that warms and cools.
Now, the reason why this is a tough problem for us, this internal variability, is that some of the modes of it are quite long. They have long periods of 60 to 100 years.
Where is the natural cycle with a period of 1000 years? You totally have left out the cycle that took us between cold and warm periods. Where is the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods?
Anyway, the IPCC concluded, “Internal variability is unlikely the explanation.”
You don’t show any data that supports the idea that internal variability has stopped. It worked fine for ten thousand years and now you say it has stopped and whatever warmed earth, many times before has now been replaced with manmade CO2.
Again, let’s be very clear. These statements hinge on the fidelity of models. That’s the reason why I included this statement. We did look at this issue. How badly would the models have to be wrong for these statements of attribution to be blown?
Apparently, being totally wrong for 17 years is not enough for them.
And chapter 10, which deals with detection and attribution concluded that we have to be underestimating the variability by a factor of three. And we don’t see any evidence for that.
You have got to be kidding. You take out the natural variability of the last ten thousand years and yet you don’t see.
There is a real departure between a run with and without anthropogenic influences, especially in longer time periods. Again, this is the evidence that we think we are getting variability about right.
So, take out the anthropogenic influences and you match the past 17 years and you could match the Roman and Medieval Warm periods and the current Warm Period so far is just like those of the past.
And the forcing, as I pointed out, is much less certain than claimed.
YES!
I will repeat this:
According to the charts Dr. Collins presented, If you take out the anthropogenic influences, you make the climate model output correlate much better with actual earth temperatures.
Steven,
It boggles my mind. What could explain it?
1. they think observations are not important
2. they think other stuff is more important
3. they see no hope of getting it done.
4. The spy network you’ve setup to simultaneously track the activities of all climate scientists at all times has been hacked and you’re getting false feeds.
On Page 80
But there is a statement. One of the
12 statements in this good guidance
13 document [next page] is that there is —
14 so, I will be honest with you. It sort of
15 shocked me.
16 One of the statements in this
17 good guidance document, and you can
18 find it yourselves, so I am just
19 going to quote it to you, “There is
20 no minimum fidelity requirement for
21 inclusion in the ensemble.”
On Page 332
This was written:
The only way to tell how much is human vs. natural is through model simulations.
You only want to trust something that has showed no skill for two decades. How stupid is that?
There is no minimum fidelity requirement for inclusion in the ensemble.
I am also SHOCKED!
Just put it in, it does not matter how bad it is.
Page 333:
Well, the only way to tell how much global warming is due to human or natural is basically through model simulations because we found out that we can’t put a thermometer out there that will say this much was due to Mother Nature and this much was due to Mankind.
We just don’t have instruments like that. So, using models is the way to do this.
The actual data shows that the models don’t work so you really don’t really know.
Page 342, compare models to data.
They will most likely fix the data, but they should fix the models.
Look at page 346
Page 347
And I think you can see that,
3 for this particular system, there is
4 a lot of concern because none of the
5 models were able to come within the
6 range of observations there.
7 And the general rule is, if you
8 have a good, confident understanding
9 of a system, you ought to be able to
10 at least replicate what it does and
11 then predict what it does.
12 And I think can you see here
13 that really none of the models were
14 able to do that. And most, a great
15 majority of them did not do it
16 closely at all.
17 DR. KOONIN:
BREAKING NEWS
Watts/WUWT affirm Curry/Climate Etc
Oops. The Watts/WUWT analysis was issued in 2011, not 2014. Never mind!
Needless to say, as most Climate Etc readers will appreciate, the Watts/WUWT 2011 analysis has proved to be utterly wrong … although Anthony has not (to my knowledge) ever acknowledged this.
Three Common-Sense Questions
Q1 If James Hansen’s prediction of a probable record global temperature in 2014 or 2015 comes true, will Hansen’s prediction suffice to falsify the Stadium Wave hypothesis?
Q2 More generally, what climate observations WOULD suffice to falsify the Stadium Wave hypothesis?
Q3 Will/won’t Watts/WUWT ever admit that the much-touted (by denialists) 2011 sea-level “pause” was ephemeral?
Conclusion The too-common practice of founding climate-change skepticism upon fluctuating cherry-picked measures has substantially lowered the scientific reputation of Watts/WUWT. Judith Curry/Climate Etc would be well-advised to avoid Anthony Watts’ /WUWT’s oft-repeated mistakes in this regard!
Funky Fandancer says:
“Q1 If James Hansen’s prediction of a probable record global temperature in 2014 or 2015 comes true, will Hansen’s prediction suffice to falsify the Stadium Wave hypothesis? ”
but also says
“Conclusion The too-common practice of founding climate-change skepticism upon fluctuating cherry-picked measures ”
Q1 What is a probable record?
Dear god Fan.
Here is EXACTLY what hansen wrote
“Assuming that an El Niño begins in summer 2014, 2014 is likely to be warmer than 2013 and perhaps
the warmest year in the instrumental record. However, given the lag between El Niño initiation and
global temperature, 2015 is likely to have a temperature even higher than in 2014. ”
That is not a prediction.
Case 1. There is no el nino. If 2014 is warmer then, Hansen will claim
that he is correct, despite the absence of the proper antecedent
If 2014 is not warmer, he will say his prediction does not apply as the
antecedent is not met
Case 2 There is an el nino
A) 2014 is warmer
B) 2014 is not warmer.
In case A he will claim to be correct.
In case B he will say “I only said it was likely”
Note what is MISSING. the conditions under which the observations would compel hansen to say he was wrong.
Absent CLEARLY SPECIFIED CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH YOU WOULD CHANGE YOUR MIND you have no prediction.
“Assuming…..likely…..perhaps…..However….likely”
Care to find a definite anywhere in that.
Mosher,
Good analysis. Admire your use of rigorous logic.
I’m afraid there’s no hope for otherwise I’m sure, well meaning people like Fan who wrap themselves in a comforting blanket of dead certainty. They divide their time and energy equally between congratulating themselves on their good sense and keen intellect and superior morals, and castigating with bottomless contempt the poor, blind defectives who would disagree.
I’ve never seen Fan so much as back up a quarter of an inch on anything he’s asserted in the face of contrary evidence. Not a whisper of a doubt has he… and many others on both sides it must be fairly said… ever admitted to. Considering the level of Fan’s comment making, there must be at least several thousand statements of supposed fact and strong opinion which he stands by with unshakeable confidence.. Assuming he participates in other blogs as well with similar energy and dedication, we can assume likely many thousands more over the years which he stands by utterly.
Fan, I know you believe the Pope’s infallible, and maybe Hansen too. I guess you’d put yourself in that category as well. Congratulations on being more than human.
al,
thanks.
Hansen’s document is interesting because of one unanswered question.
That un answered question ties directly to the APS transcript
The largest uncertainty is aersols. We planned a platform to measure.
It went splash in the ocean. Hansen asks “why havent we planned a replacement”
Answer me this. If I believe in climate science, if I believe the world is at stake, if I believe that we will be managing this problem for decades to come
if I believe that models form a PART of that management, if I believe that aerosols are the largest uncertainty, if I believe I have an obligation to the future, they why are the wholesale degradations in the observations network NOT on the top of my list for things that science can DO to help solve the problem?. Why does hansen strap himself to a coal plant rather than pound the table for better observations. Crap what does he know better? taxes or observations? Now some will argue he can do both.
That’s not the question. The question is why aren’t climate scientists screaming bloody murder about the degradation of observation networks.
They have a bully pulpit of sorts. They get to choose which words to speak in the limited time they have. Where is the demand, strident demand, for better observations. Where is the protest? our grand children will need these observations to manage the problem. demanding better observations isnt sexy.
Yeah, it’s a travesty. It really is. Has anybody called it a travesty? Somebody should have.
steven makes an excellent point –
Clearly the answer is that in reality, Hansen (and like-minded climate scientists) either:
A) Don’t “believe in climate science”
or
B) Don’t “believe the world is at stake,”
or
C) Don’t “believe that we will be managing this problem for decades to come”
or
D) Don’t “believe that models form a PART of that management,”
or
E) Don’t “believe that aerosols are the largest uncertainty,”
or
F) Don’t “believe I have an obligation to the future,”
because nothing else could be a sufficient answer for Steven’s incredulity as to why Hansen and like-minded climate scientists aren’t doing as Steven decides they should be doing.
Steven Mosher: Here is EXACTLY what hansen wrote
Thank you.
Mosher asks with what amounts to a devastating indictment: ‘:Where is the demand, strident demand, for better observations. Where is the protest?”
Of course you know the answer as well as I do, they’re afraid of results that might weaken their status as climate priests. Many climate scientists see themselves, or at least want the world to see them, as having a profound understanding beyond that of mere mortals, that is positively oracular in nature.
More bluntly, it amounts to, “Let the world go to hell…and screw the grandchildren…as long as we get ours..”.
I often find myself asking a version of the same question as yours: If they’re really so convinced of the coming apocalypse…I mean deep in their hearts…wouldn’t they not just not agree to debate, but demand it? Even they can see that at most all they can hope for with their current Mannian tactics is continued stalemate.
Matthew, very good point.
If they’re right, then engaging in open, transparent debate would serve to silence the sceptics once and for all.
So why are they not clamouring for one.
…Sorry, I meant Al
Very good question Steven Mosher.
I believe many climate scientists are asking for more money for observation networks (I saw plenty of that in the transcript Dr. Curry just posted).
However, scientists like Hansen are more advocate than scientist,
More observations will actually hurt the advocate, imo.
“Note what is MISSING. the conditions under which the observations would compel hansen to say he was wrong.
Absent CLEARLY SPECIFIED CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH YOU WOULD CHANGE YOUR MIND you have no prediction.”
_____
As an honest skeptic, I am always asking myself what would cause me to move from “most likely” in my stance on AGW, to “less likely” a “minor” effect, or even “unlikely”. The evidence could come from many sides (all of them assuming no large volcanoes going off), but over the next few years, many possibilities for refutation of my current warmist stance could come from:
1) We get a strong El Nino in 2014-2015 but no new surface temperature records in either year. Again, this would also assume no large volcanoes going off.
2) Arctic sea ice actually makes a strong, real multi-year recovery in area, extent, and volume. (A 5-year sustained recovery)
3) Ocean Heat Content takes a multi-year decline. (Again, a 5-year sustained decline would do the trick)
Any one of these would cause me to do a major revision of my warmist leanings, but all of them happening would cause me to completely abandon my stance.
BREAKING NEWS
James Hansen and Steven Mosher AGREE
Conclusion It’s good to see that in regard to the urgent requirement for global-coverage climate data, Steven Mosher and James Hansen are on EXACTLY the same page!
Willfully ignorant & TeaParty-fearing faux-conservatism, not so much, eh Climate Etc readers?
BREAKING NEWS
!!! R. Gates posts common-sense to Climate Etc !!!
Please let me say that R. Gates’ post is (as it seems to me) outstandingly well-reasoned, respectfully stated, and lucidly expressed.
Conclusion FOMD for one endorses Gates’ Criteria 1-3 without reservation!
Question Supposing that further surface-temperature records are set, and the polar ice-melt continues to increase year-on-year, and the ocean continues to heat year-on-year … then how many Climate Etc skeptics will become Hansen-worldview believers?
Beuhler? Anyone? The world wonders!
Al,
I dont know why they are not.
They know the uncertainty is greatest there.
They planned a mission to help resolve it.
It failed. they made a few squeaks, then nothing.
It boggles my mind. What could explain it?
1. they think observations are not important
2. they think other stuff is more important
3. they see no hope of getting it done.
Now clearly they get to act however they want and I get to observe that their actions make no sense in light of their known skills and the problem at hand.
Fan
you quote an old document and IGNORE what Hansen wrote in the newer document which you provided BUT DIDNT READ apparently
“The tragedy about the unknown aerosol climate forcing is that the first satellite mission capable of
measuring global aerosol and cloud microphysical properties with the accuracy needed to assess changes
of aerosol climate forcing4
should have been in place for a few years now, but because of a launch failure
it ended up in the Antarctic Ocean instead of in space. As yet there are no plans to replace.”
Incredulity just doesn’t get old, does it?
Jesus the stupid is deep today
“Criterion 1 We get a strong El Nino in 2014-2015 but no new surface temperature records in either year. Again, this would also assume no large volcanoes going off.”
If there is an el nino but no record, the claim will be “its not strong”
here they define strong as big enough to set the record.
This is not CLEARLY SPECIFYING CONDITIONS.
############################
Criterion 2 Arctic sea ice actually makes a strong, real multi-year recovery in area, extent, and volume. (A 5-year sustained recovery)
1. define strong
2. Define sustained. if yearly gains go 1,0,2,0,4 is that sustained?
is 1,2,3,5,4 sustained? is 0 0 0 1 2 sustained?
if area and volume go up and extent is mixed, then what?
Criterion 3 Ocean Heat Content takes a multi-year decline. (Again, a 5-year sustained decline would do the trick)
decline? decline from current rate? decline from current value?
and what does sustained mean.
There is a reason why people dont give clearly specified conditions under which they would change their minds
That reason is ( on both sides) that their belief is UNDERDETERMINED by the measured evidence. They hold the beliefs they do for more reasons than they can articulate, therefore when it comes to articulating the evidence required to “undo” their beliefs they must of course be less than specific. In other words if their belief were determined by the evidence it would be a simple logical affair to specify the conditions. The lack of specificity in stipulations about when folks will change opinions is due to the very structure of their reasoning about why they believe what the believe in the first place.
For me, the ice can do whatever it wants in the next 5 years. I dont beleive in AGW because of what the ice is doing or because of what OHC is doing.
hmmmm.
This leaves one to wonder what stipulations would be required to define “global warming?” Would such a definition stipulate that OHC be excluded from such a definition? Or would the oceans increasing in heat content be stipulated as a sign of global warming?
What do you think, Steven?
And depending on your answer, what would you think about a scientist testifying before Congress and repeating statements about a “hiatus in global warming,” w/o considering uncertainty about ocean heat content?
I agree with the basic thesis of your comment. Are you willing to apply that thesis on a uniform basis?
“Of course you know the answer as well as I do, they’re afraid of results that might weaken their status as climate priests. Many climate scientists see themselves, or at least want the world to see them, as having a profound understanding beyond that of mere mortals, that is positively oracular in nature. ” – pokerguy
There are meds for this kind of delusional paranoia.
“Al,
I dont know why they are not.
They know the uncertainty is greatest there.
They planned a mission to help resolve it.
It failed. they made a few squeaks, then nothing.
It boggles my mind. What could explain it?
1. they think observations are not important
2. they think other stuff is more important” – mosher
Jeez,
The stupid runs really deep today.
Or maybe there are other launches scheduled and budgets allocated already up to 2020, and a preceeding crash in 2009 has really scr*wed the pooch in terms of timetable and $$, while at the sametime congress wants to cut NASA budgets and there are even questions as to why NASA is doing ANY earth obs.
Meanwhile, in magical-fairy-mosher-land, everyone has a pony.
Steven Mosher: That reason is ( on both sides) that their belief is UNDERDETERMINED by the measured evidence.
Well said.
BREAKING NEWS
Steven Mosher respects James Hansen-style
multi-decadal climate-change predictions
James Hansen’s 33-year track record looks pretty good, eh Steven Mosher?
How Hansen succeeds Hansen’s predictions are theoretically grounded in energy-balance thermodynamics and radiation transport theory … *AND* observationally affirmed by multiple independent lines of climate-change evidence … including rising seas, melting ice-caps, heating oceans … *AND* further affirmed by the predicted “opening of the fabled Northwest Passage” … just as James Hansen predicted.
Historical Fact In 1981, when Hansen published his seminal climate-change predictions, Al Gore was a small-potatoes junior congressman from Tennessee.
Conclusion There’s small-and-shrinking likelihood the “Stadium Waves” — or any other statistics-based climate-change theory — will match Hansen’s solid multi-decade record of successful thermodynamics-based climate-change prediction.
Micheal you miss the point of the argument.
of course their might be other priorities.
that’s not the point.
The question is this. Its a simple question so perhaps you or Joshua can answer it.
Hansen is faced with people who have other priorities. other priorities on taxes and other priorities on observation systems.
THAT my dear dimwit is the GIVEN of the problem. Restating the given is not an answer.
The question is: Hansen has a limited amount of capital ( personal time, personal credibility, professional authority ) to spend.
He chooses to spend that capital fighting ( and losing) for a certain form of taxation. He chooses NOT to spend that personal capital fighting for better observations.
It is a GIVEN that others have different priorities. It is a Given that both of these battles are difficult and hard, maybe even futile. The question remains: why choose one battle over the other. Why? Now clearly he gets to choose which battle he likes and clearly we get to judge the wisdom of that choice. As some one who relies on observations, I note That I want hansen spending his personal capital on issues that make the science better. I dont want him talking about taxes EVEN THOUGH I AGREE WITH HIM ABOUT TAXES.
Its like michael jordan playing baseball JC SNIP, you remember that.
Mr. Mosher missed two other possible explanations for the lack of outrage about the degradation of observational capabilities.
Hansen et al may believe that the science is settled and doesn’t require those observations any longer.
Hansen et al may be worried that further observations will conflict with their political position on the issue.
Mosher, may I ask why they don’t just measure the spectral properties of moonlight?
I would have thought that the maximium amount of reflected sunlight would be easy to model, and could be compared with the actual attenuated light.
Interesting Steven –
So you would ask me or Michael to explain Hansen’s priorities? Or even better, express incredulity that you just can’t imagine what might explain Hansen’s priorities?
Maybe Michael can help you out. I don’t think I’m in a position to judge someone else’s motivations. I see that your bud, Tom Fuller has suggestions for Hansens’ motivations. Looks to me like it might be a case of confirmation bias on Tom’s part, but who knows?
Maybe Hansen knows? Eh?
Try shooting Hansen an email. You know, since you’re obviously just dying of curiosity.
R Gates said:
“1) We get a strong El Nino in 2014-2015 but no new surface temperature records in either year. Again, this would also assume no large volcanoes going off.
2) Arctic sea ice actually makes a strong, real multi-year recovery in area, extent, and volume. (A 5-year sustained recovery)”
How strong an El Nino? It doesn’t take a very strong El Nino to break the record.
Has all 3 same time together been your metric for doing the opposite?
“THAT my dear dimwit is the GIVEN of the problem. Restating the given is not an answer.
The question is: Hansen has a limited amount of capital ( personal time, personal credibility, professional authority ) to spend.
He chooses….” – mosher
And you’ve answred your on asinine question.
He chooses. A private, retired individual citizen. I’m sure he’s well aware of the ongoing efforts within the agencies to address observational shortcomings, and might just think there’s little to add.
Just like you’ve choosen in the past to be a annoying twit, pestering people and banging your tiny fist on the table over absurdities like ‘the raw data’.
“Mr. Mosher missed two other possible explanations for the lack of outrage about the degradation of observational capabilities.
Hansen et al may believe that the science is settled and doesn’t require those observations any longer.
Hansen et al may be worried that further observations will conflict with their political position on the issue.” – Fuller
Trust Fuller to stomp all over it with with his self-serving verballing of other people.
Typical of the self-proclaimed ‘honest’ brokers.
“So you would ask me or Michael to explain Hansen’s priorities? Or even better, express incredulity that you just can’t imagine what might explain Hansen’s priorities?” – Joshua.
Joshua,
Really, who cares about the blogivating idiocy of these fools?
It was Hansen who set out the need for Glory way back in 1992 and coninued to advcate or this over a long period of time.
After the launch failure – Hansen had a journal article publishd just months later pushing the case for the urgency of a replacement, and, IIRC, was seeking out private backers to launch a replacement.
These iditos inpugning Hansen – not worth the dirt under his little fingernail.
Hansen was right about one thing though, temperatures did indeed follow almost exactly the dotted line drawn by Scenario C. I’m not sure he wanted to be right about that though :-)
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HansenUpdated_zpsb8693b6e.png
Even scenario C will be too warm soon. They will need negative human CO2 emissions in their models.
Edim:
“Even scenario C will be too warm soon. They will need negative human CO2 emissions in their models.”
Well these graphics do kinda suggest that they may well have to :-)
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/fig-6-hadcrut4-monthly-anomalies-with-full-kernel-gaussian-low-pass-filters-annual-15-and-75-years-with-a-15-year-savitzky-golay-projection.png
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/cet-monthly-with-full-kernel-gaussian-low-pass-annual-15-and-75-years-filters-with-a-15-year-savitzky-golay-projection.png
Regarding Hansen’s lack of drive for aerosol observational data:
It’s alike to Ship of Fools journalist and his banana peanut butter milkshakes.
With no milkshakes, damn the observations! Get me out of here!
Hansen’s interest in the observational data on aerosols was when things were all rosy and confirmatory-like
Now, what with the pause and all, his grandchildren’s FUDGEsicle is at stake.
In his valiant quest for ‘the protest’, an outraged and grandchildren-defending Steven Mosher has apparently discovered the shift key.
Stand back all you lesser concern trolls – it’s capital punishment!
Too funny, Rev.
+1
Micheal
“Just like you’ve choosen in the past to be a annoying twit, pestering people and banging your tiny fist on the table over absurdities like ‘the raw data’”
Huh. You dont read much. I’m on record all over the place arguing philosophically against the concept of raw data. That is, that all data is theory laden. When lying about my positions pick an obscure one.
one time I pounded my fist on the table about data was when Jones wouldnt turn it over. That tiny fist got the attention of an extraordinary individual who liberated the climategate mails.
######################
‘He chooses. A private, retired individual citizen. I’m sure he’s well aware of the ongoing efforts within the agencies to address observational shortcomings, and might just think there’s little to add.”
1. he is hardly private.
2. the question is not whether he is aware of the efforts.
the question is why does micheal jordan try to play baseball when he is a basketball star.
the question is why does Hansen try to play tax advocate when he is a science star.
We get to ask that question. To date nobody has a good answer.
How does this play in the larger argument over adocacy in science.
Rev –
Mosher has been relying on the Caps Lock key to fortify his weak arguments for quite a while now.
Incredulously, I might add.
Tom
‘Mr. Mosher missed two other possible explanations for the lack of outrage about the degradation of observational capabilities.”
At one point Jones suggested that he wanted us to do nothing about climate change to prove the science correct.
At the bottom of this is a debate about advocacy and science.
On one side you have Judith advocating for better science “method”
ethics, transparency, etc etc. and better weather modelling.
On the other side you have folks advocating for specific policies.. taxes etc
My issue is not that scientists shouldnt have views on poiicy and talk about them. I dont share Judiths concern about the loss of trust and objectivity
My critique is practical. Most scientists suck ass at communicating policy positions. can you say death trains, I knew you could. But, when they advocate for what they do, better science, better observations, more computers, etc, then it is my observation that they hit on all eight cylinders.
In short they advocate best when they advocate within their area of expertise.
I don’t think one needs to impugn Hansens motives by arguing that he doesnt want to collect the data to disprove his hypothesis. This is not like “update the proxies” which the paleo guys refuse to do. Maybe there is no glory in pushing for another Glory mission.
There are other interesting aspects here.. we will see what plays out
My point is this. If Coach Mosher looks at his players he wants to say
Hansen, stop trying to play baseball. you’re a great basketball player, time to give up baseball and get back to what you know.
Mosher: the answer is simple, the money is in policy with a scientific patina. While you think science academics suck at policy, it’s just because you are assuming that physical reality is the “bogey”. Look at all of the money spent in every other science plugging in thermostat climate models to predict gloom and doom. That’s real power and success. Hansen and the rest of the climate leadership get an A+ in steering policy… even if it is now stuck on the shoal.
”
My point is this. If Coach Mosher looks at his players he wants to say
Hansen, stop trying to play baseball. you’re a great basketball player, time to give up baseball and get back to what you know.
”
Jesus, the irony is shallow today.
That’s not a ‘point’. That’s just a super-ego in search of an id.
Maybe it’s time to declare a blog-victory and hit the showers, Coach.
“Huh. You dont read much. I’m on record all over the place arguing philosophically against the concept of raw data.” – moshpit
Some of us have been around long enough to recall your boorish behaviour stemming from your profound ignorance and massive ego.
“the question is why does Hansen try to play tax advocate when he is a science star.” – mosher
Writing a journal article re-stating the science basis for the Glory mission and calling it’s absence “untenable’ and trying to drum up support for a privately funded replacement is Hansen doing nothing on the science side how exactly?????
Why don’t you get the facts straight before you run around maligning scientists who’ve achieved more in one minute of their careers than you have in all your years of on-line pontificating and preening.
Steven Mosher: If I believe in climate science, if I believe the world is at stake, if I believe that we will be managing this problem for decades to come
if I believe that models form a PART of that management, if I believe that aerosols are the largest uncertainty, if I believe I have an obligation to the future, they why are the wholesale degradations in the observations network NOT on the top of my list for things that science can DO to help solve the problem?
i think your concerns about Hansen’s motives and choices (or anyone else’s) are misplaced. It’s just a variety of ad hominem argument/discussion/speculation when the more important questions are whether his overt predictions have been accurate, his forecasts for the future should be credited, or his policy recommendations given serious consideration. People on all sides of every issue have mixed motives. But sometimes people with mixed motives are correct on the issues.
To me, Hansen’s actions smack of desperation, a felt need to have the most general impact in the little time he feels he has remaining. That is how I speculate on an answer to your question of “Why”; but it’s no more on point than any other speculation about his motives. Whether I am right or wrong on his motives has no bearing on whether his predictions have been accurate, his analysis reasonable, or his policy recommendations sound.
When it comes to acknowledgement, it is advisible not to hold one’s breath waiting on fan to acknowledge his constant mis-application of links and quotes.
Mosher,
RE the stupid being deep.
No wonder, considering you have fan, Josh and Michael teaming up. That’s a stupid all star team when the field of play is reasoned discusion.
Steven Mosher | February 20, 2014 at 5:52 pm |
Re: “Jesus . . . ”
I recommend you clear that up with him today rather than waiting until your trial.
Hansen? Have pity. Coal trains of death clang cold steel in the Hell he inhabits. Mummified trees groan.
================
Hansen can’t even agree with himself!
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HansenUpdated_zpsb8693b6e.png
A prediction of a probability of a record being set?
How brave a second sight!
Pingback: The American Physical Society | Transterrestrial Musings
Viewed by most (necessarily casual) observers, a statement issued by the APS appears to mean that it is the position of most of its members. Not true. So why should the APS be taking any position at all? And, if it is taking a position, shouldn’t it also issue an accompanying statement reporting a poll of its members’ support?
Has the APS issued public statements on F = ma? V = IR? E = mc^2? No? That should tell you something. No one tries to reach a consensus when the issue isn’t in doubt.
Fascinating. But am I understanding this correctly: Six experts interviewed, of which three were Curry, Lindzsen, and Christy? That seems pretty far on the skeptical side of the distribution of climate scientists. Or am I missing something? I’m a skeptic, more or less, but I would like to understand what the APS is doing here.
By the way, I knew Steve Koonin in college, a long time ago. Scary smart. I think he explained Poincare maps to me.
Check out this comment from Foxgoose over at BishopHill:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/2/20/aps-shows-the-way.html#comments
I read some of the APS workshop proceedings after Judith Curry referred to them earlier and was struck by the same passage of Collins’ statement that thinking scientist reproduced above.
I couldn’t help thinking about the thread at Andthentheresphysics blog where the resident catastrophiliacs, lead by uberscientist Dana, proved conclusively to each other that no kind of hiatus had ever existed – except in the stunted imaginations of gullible denier untermenschen like us.
So I decided to point out this new development to the consensus crew over there and, just in case my post doesn’t survive anders’ stringent moderation/mutilation/annihilation procedure, I hope Bish won’t mind if I repost it here:-
I hesitate a bit to re-enter the fray here, since my contributions always seem to cause so much angst, but it appears there have been some developments at the recent American Physical Society Climate Change Statement Review Workshop which might concern some here.
A panel has been convened including IPCC stalwarts Santer & Collins and, interestingly, more sceptical souls like Lindzen, Christy & Curry – to review the society’s position on climate change.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf
In his presentation, William Collins (Berkeley Climate Modeller) included a statement on his current view of the warming “hiatus” – which has attracted some attention. Commenter “thinkingscientist” at Bishop Hill extracted the key wording as follows:-
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/2/20/aps-shows-the-way.html#comments
DR. COLLINS:
“Well, yes. That actually was dealt with by chapter 9, which is the chapter I was on. I think you accurately captured the state of the field currently. We are unsure about what — we know that there are several possible causes. And they are stated in the report. And also, you capture them correctly as well. They could be errors in the forcing. It could being a mode of natural variability that the models are not correctly reproducing. And it could be cases or it could be that the models are overly sensitive. And so, all three are noted in that the IPCC report and will be actively investigated. I do not have an opinion. We thought while we were writing this report that it was aerosols. And there were a number of — people became very alarmed. There were four meetings that went into this report, four face-to-face meetings. As of the second, we were having these frantic meetings between people like myself on radiative forcing and the later chapters that were looking at these projections saying oh, my God. The models are running hot. Why are they running hot? By “running hot,” I mean running hot for 2011, 2012 as we were writing the report. So, there was a lot of speculation that the projections had sort of overcooked the level of air pollution controls that were going to cause aerosol loading to decrease in the near future. That is a plausible explanation. Other people have looked at subtle amounts of volcanic activity that have since gone undetected. This is work by Susan Solomon, other changes in the stratosphere. This is one of those topics that I think is going to have to be sorted out. Now, I am hedging a bet because, to be honest with you, if the hiatus is still going on as of the sixth IPCC report, that report is going to have a large burden on its shoulders walking in the door, because recent literature has shown that the chances of having a hiatus 18 of 20 years are vanishingly small.”
I thought this statement might be of interest here since it’s only a few days since you guys proved to your evident satisfaction that there had never been any kind of warming “hiatus” except in the fevered imagination of the “anti-science denier brigade”.
What’s going on here?
Has the APS been infiltrated by knuckle dragging denialist morons – or are more subtle issues at play?
Maybe Dana should ask to address the next session and put them back on the right track.
Very interesting that Collins is wondering in the stratosphere, and at vulcanism.
=======
It is interesting that Foxgoose recognizes that “subtle issues are at play” at least to some extent. It was my impression from reading other comments of his that he might be in the “hoax among climate scientists to fool the public into being overly concerned about climate change” camp.
It is interesting, however, that on the other hand he seems to reject the view that “subtle issues are at play” w/r/t the scientific analysis underlying a conclusion that there’s been a “hiatus”
Oh, and speaking of Foxgoose’s appreciation for subtleties, I have noticed that Foxgoose defended Montford’s explanation for misstatement he made on BBC radio (when called on them by Richard Betts) – that the reason for the misstatement was that he (Montford) (1) is not a climate scientist and, (2) can’t keep figures in his head.
Very subtle explanations, indeed.
I’ve come to the sad conclusion that Joshua has only the slightest bit of interest in the science.
================
kim –
You asserted that conclusion a while back. You were wrong then, as I explained then, just as you are wrong now.
DR. COLLINS:
“…It could being a mode of natural variability that the models are not correctly reproducing…”
I’ll go with that as a first suggestion!
Joshua, try understanding what Collins has said here. It’s dense stuff but you’re not incapable of drilling through. You might have to replenish the diamond tips now and then.
=================
kim –
I have a basic grasp of what Collins said, and I think what he sad is significant.
My objection is with how what he said is being exploited by Foxgoose, and by extension Judith to score points in the climate ward.
Shell-shocked to bedrest.
===================
kim –
A question for you.
In her Congressional testimony, Judith neglected to mention any uncertainty w/r/t the importance of OHC or factors in assessing whether there’s been a “hiatus in global warming.” Apparently, for her a short-term decrease in the longer-term trend in the mean of GSATs was sufficient to make a determination of a “hiatus in global warming.”
Do you gather from Collins’ statements w/r/t the influence of aerosols that he would similarly be dismissive the uncertainties involved?
I object to your framing, your definitions, and your insufficient understanding of the use of aerosols as fudge.
===============
Judith,
I didn’t realise that the “hiatus” was in dispute.
This is evidence from Professor Sir Brian Hoskins to the UK Parliament Energy and Climate Change Committe on 28th January, 2014
“I was not part of it, so I will not say “we”, but let me say that the models were not in the position to predict the hiatus, because that would have been an initial value problem where they would have needed the observations over the whole depth of the ocean as well as more of the whole climate system to start the model off, like a weather forecast if you like. That information was not available and so they were just running and would not expect to predict that behaviour. There is no way that counters the model. It is the sort of variability one would hope that the long runs of the models would show and I suspect that the models do not quite have enough of that sort of variability in general, which means that climate can change faster in one spell and less fast in another spell. They are probably slightly too uniform in their behaviours. There was no attempt and, in fact, there would have been no ability to predict the hiatus at that time. That was a decadal prediction problem for which the initial data were not available, but perhaps I can hand over to you.
The pause was as far as I could see, vehemently denied from most alarmist quarters up until a year or two ago.It seems to me the damn broke in a big way around the time “The Economist” article came out. Think that’s been about a year now.
Prima facie evidence of bad faith? Or perhaps merely the stubborn blindness of desperate people. Not sure which is worse.
There was an exchange that made me laugh. The workshop was winding down, time for concluding remarks:
Thank you, Professor Curry, for the information.
The ending to this drama was written many years ago:
“Truth is victorious, never untruth!”
So relax and enjoy the re-enactment of this classic drama.
DR. COLLINS: The asymptote.
DR. SANTER: Hiatus.
The Asymptote is a significant constraint on various assumptions in CS,I suspect that Collins is not aware of either the literature or the discussions arising ( a good answer for how much mathematical knowledge Physicists require, is more )
KAM theory (a counter intuitive theory ) suggests that a large number of physically significant dynamic systems may behave asymptotically rather then periodically the theorem (as Hamiltonian) dependent on the hidden symplectic symmetry between the kinetic and potential energy (Gromov)
The Proposition (Rulle) is that systems being far from equilibrium,may exhibit historical behaviour rather then being recurrent.
Judith, in your abstract, what does the ” 2\% confidence level” mean? Is it a typo?
I’m awaiting the APS Official Position on Clock Radios.
Andrew
And if they could do it calligraphically, that would be great.
Andrew
And maybe if I could get a signed copy mailed…
Andrew
We’ll get the calligraphic transcript of the dialogue of a kabuki play.
==============
This looks to me like progress.
Shouldn’t the first point be “Why doesn’t the AR5 include the multitude of literature which disagrees with with AGW?”
”
I give the APS an A+ for the process in preparing their statement.
”
Awesome.
I give Dr Judith Curry A+ for issuing a letter-grade to a professional society as though she is some kind of widely-respected meta-teacher grading a collective mid-term.
The APS’s parents will be so proud.
I believe they have bumper stickers announcing that their children are on Judith’s honor role.
I’m hoping the APS members will be proud of the finished product.
=================
I’ll settle for Hal Lewis being proud of it.
=======
Interestingly, Judth appears to have had a change of heart over whether there is even any point in having an APS statement on climate change;
“So what is the point of the statement? Apparently, to ‘inform the public’ on this controversial issue by appealing to the ‘authority’ of the society. Does anyone pay attention to the APS statement as their primary source of information (e.g. rather than the IPCC or the NRC)? I suspect that no one paid any attention to the APS statement…”
That was 18/12 ago.
The Very Reverend gives a chilling taste of what Joshua would be like if he had any brains.
Damn good thing that’s something we don’t have to worry about.
PG –
But if I were smart, consider how much less you would have as reasons to post your comments.
APS = Aggressively Posturing Salespeople
Andrew
‘Thus, once an episode has developed in early northern summer, forecasting its evolution through the remainder of its life cycle is not difficult. A much harder task is to forecast what will happen between March and June, when a forecast is being made in the preceding January through April. The difficulty in forecasting at this time of year is often called the “spring barrier” (in the Northern Hemisphere), or the “autumn barrier” (in the Southern Hemisphere).’ http://iri.columbia.edu/climate/ENSO/background/prediction.html
Forecasting an ENSO event once it is established seems simple indeed – although much is unknown still on intensity and duration.
Using the SOI as a 7month leading indicator has some support – i.e. http://www.auscsc.org.au/images/PDF/influenceofenso.pdf
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi2.shtml
The SOI suggests that yet another La Nina is on the cards. In the cool multi-decadal Pacific mode – the cards are stacked on the side of more frequent and intense La Nina and less frequent and smaller El Nino. As I have said – the modes persist for 20 to 40 years.
I am inclined to think that these – and longer – quasi periodicities suggest an external driver. Such as the changes in the Southern and Northern Annular modes – these are connected to lower latitudes through storm tracks moving more or less into lower latitudes. As in the recent excursion into negative territory pushing storms onto the US. Both SAM and NAM are trending negative this century.
The recent negative excursion of the SAM and NAM are pushing cold water north and south in the Peruvian and Californian currents respectively – with upwelling in the eastern Pacific. The is what causes the pressure differences that manifest in the SOI and
set up feedbacks that intensify La Nina conditions.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomnight.2.20.2014.gif
ENSO models are useless this time of year – but perhaps relevant indices are somewhat more useful.
But the question is not whether we have an El Nino or not this year – but the influence of the ongoing multi-decadal cool Pacific mode.
@ Mike Flynn | February 20, 2014 at 8:00 am |
“You might care to give an example of where the gravitationally induced temperature gradient exists in bodies of water
You should not expect to see the thermal gradient where the Sun shines on a body of water. The rate of absorption in the thermocline completely overrides the slow diffusion process as you should have anticipated.
Go to the smallest natural lake in the world, Don Juan Pond in Antarctica in July and there you will find beautiful, still, clear and very salty water (not frozen) where it is quite deep enough for you to measure the expected gradient.
Until you do so and prove me wrong, let’s drop the red herring shall we and concentrate on the valid physics which, as I have explained in great detail in my book, shows us beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is the gravity-induced thermal gradient which explains all measured and estimated temperature data in the Solar System, above and below planetary and satellite moon surfaces. The greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture explains nothing.
,
Gravity creates a lapse rate in an atmosphere.
LR = g / Cp
LR is lapse rate. g is acceleration of gravity. Cp is heat capacity at constant pressure. As g becomes smaller so does LR. When g reaches zero so does LR.
What to argue about?
‘As we discussed earlier in this class, a key feature of thick atmospheres (where thick means atmospheres with pressures greater than 100-200 mb) is temperature decreases with increasing altitude at higher pressures defining the troposphere of these planets. We want to understand why tropospheric temperatures systematically decrease with altitude and what the rate of decrease is. The first order explanation is the dry adiabatic lapse rate. An adiabatic process means no heat is exchanged in the process. For this to be the case, the process must be “fast” so that no heat is exchanged with the environment. So in the first law of thermodynamics, we can anticipate that we will set the dQ term equal to zero.’
This doesn’t come with a download link in my browser – but can be found as the first item in the Google list.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dry+adiabatic+lapse+rate+Arizona+course+notes&l=1
The derivation dry adiabatic lapse rate involves both the hydrostatic and the thermodynamic components.
In the troposphere I would pretty much assume that g is constant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erdgvarp.png
It explains nothing at all excepts perhaps for indicating whether real air columns are stable or unstable by comparing with data on actual lapse rates.
Visiting Physicist,
I won’t ask you to tell me what the measured temperature gradient due to gravity in the Don Juan Pond is, because there isn’t one. I am surprised that you would suggest that an extremely shallow super saline pond demonstrates the miraculous warming power of gravity.
If this be true, then the force of gravity acting on a 10 km depth of water should cause it to warm considerably at depth, and it doesn’t seem to. Or have I misunderstood your premise?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
David Springer,
With great respect to you and all the Loschmidt fans, there is no argument. You are merely suffering from a delusion.
From the core of the Earth to the near vacuum of space surrounding the Earth, there exists a temperature gradient of some 5,000K or more.
Calculate the lapse rate if you wish.
In relation to a column of atmosphere reaching from a point on Earth at say 288K, to the aforementioned outer space at around 4K, there is a gradient of around 284K. Divide that gradient by the height of the column, and you have your lapse rate. If you have some magical physics that allows the atmospheric column to remain isothermal whilst being 284K hotter at one end than the other, I admit defeat, and wish you all the best.
One might as well claim that the observed lapse rate on a piece of firebrick exhibiting white heat on one side, and barely warm on the other, is due to gravity.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
I can neither confirm nor deny my identity etc. Hi ho Shibboleth and all that stupid rot.
The equation to obtain dry adiabatic lapse rate is what it is.
LR = g / Cp
What happens to lapse rate as acceleration of gravity g changes isn’t rocket science it’s 3rd grade arithmetic. If you’re a larrikin from Queensland then you might need more help with it of course.
So gravity is required for a lapse rate. It doesn’t go away if the atmosphere is non-convecting. If you want to argue about something choose something else.
The so-called Sky Dragon Slayer argument is that the temperature at the base of a gravitationally confined column of air is hotter than it would be absent gravity and that is where they leave the reservation. Acceleration of gravity causes gas at the top of the column to be cooler than it would be absent gravity but for each Joule less of kinetic energy at the top of the column there is a Joule added in gravitational potential energy.
Confusion results from conflating a thermometer reading with total energy. Gravitational potential energy is part of total energy whereas a thermometer measure only kinetic energy.
There is one genuine Generalissimo – and I can be distinguised – inter alia – by being able to distinguish between tropospheric processes at under 20km and the lapse rate in outer space.
http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/educators/resources/scisat/high-factsheet3.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erdgvarp.png
‘If the expansion process is reversible, meaning that the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium at all times, it is called an isentropic expansion. In this scenario, the gas does positive work during the expansion, and its temperature decreases.’
As the gas rises it does work against gravity and – as a reversible adiabatic process is assumed in the lapse rate formula – it is isentropic with no net change in entropy. Kinetic energy in converted is this case to potential energy.
The energy is of course supplied by sunlight or combustion and not gravity.
The dry lapse rate calculation is still just a first order approximation to the real troposphere. Useful for thinking about stability in an air layer.
e.g. http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aalopez/aos101/wk10.html
Accept no substandard substitutes.
‘However, although the evaluation of global steric height in Fig. 3 is more or less based on the same data base, differences are clearly visible. These differences lead to a large spread of the estimation of global steric trends ranging from nearly 0mmyr−1 to about 1mmyr−1. This simple exercise already shows that a sensitivity study due to data handling is vital…
Comparisons of global steric height trends based on different gridded fields of Argo in situ measurements show a range of 0–1mmyr−1 which can be lead back to data handling and climatology uncertainties. Our results show that GOIs derived from the Argo measurements are ideally suitable to monitor the state of the global ocean, especially after November 2007, i.e. when Argo sampling was 100% complete. They also show that there is significant interannual global variability at global scale, especially for global OFC. Before the end of 2007, error bars are too large to deliver robust short-term trends of GOIs and thus an interpretation in terms of long-term climate signals are still questionable, especially since uncertainties due to interannual fluctuations are not included in our error estimation. This will certainly change with the growing set of Argo measurements as also denoted by our calculations.’ http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/8/999/2011/osd-8-999-2011.pdf
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/vonSchuckannandLeTroan_zps45e82e5b.png.html?sort=3&o=0
Judy reproduced the Lyman and Johnson (2014) chart.
It is not clear that sea levels are rising this century – or indeed what the source of short term variation in the AGRO record is. CERES suggests it is largely SW variability.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/AdvancesinUnderstandingTop-of-AtmosphereRadiationVariability-Loebetal2011.png.html?sort=3&o=123
That’s Xmm/yr.
test
At long last – a rational proposal from Joshua.
Heh. Stopped clock and blind squirrel.
And monkeys at a keyboard.
‘roos loose in the top paddock?
BTW –
Given that this post is at least partially about the importance and benefits of dialog between those who disagree about the science, I thought I might post the following comment from WUWT – left by one Rud Istvan – someone who Judith said she learns form (paraphrasing) in the wider debate about climate change:
[replace the * in the first word with a “u” and the *’s in the second word with a couple of “o’s”]
So, Rud advises Pielke Sr. to tell Piekle Jr. to not converse publicly with Trenberth, because Trenberth is “st*pid” and a “m*r*n.”
This, much beloved Climate Etc. brothers and sisters, is I believe a very nice example of how some self-described *skeptics* approach debate. It is also a nice example of their views on the importance of civility, respect, avoidance of name-calling and insulting, avoidance of ad-hom arguments, etc.
What makes this example all that much more interesting is that Rud has been on here many times to talk about his “disgust” with the incivility he finds within the climate ward.
In case you happen to read this, Rud – thanks for providing Judith some evidence about the consistency in how some of the folks she respects approach scientific disagreement.
Given that this post is at least partially about models, I thought I’d say that Kate Upton is a sight to behold.
See. I’m on topic!!!
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Mark Twain
There is – as I have argued before – no possible rapprochement with sp@ce c@dets.
There are a number of elements of groupthink that preclude the possibility of substantive dialogue.
1.Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
97% consensus – science is on the side of the believers no matter what.
2.Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions.
Discounting anomalous information.
3.Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
Overweening confidence in their intellectual and moral superiority.
4.Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary.
Examples abound.
5.Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views.
Expressing a different view leads to smarmy denunciation on blogs around the world.
6.Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed.
Do they have any doubts?
7.Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.
Again 97% of scientists agree that this is the worst threat to the planet ever and that we will all die if we don’t immediately don sackcloth and repent – the other 3% are moral reprobates and shoddy scientists whose work is for sale to big something.
8.Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions.
Mindguards abound.
All in all – the simulacrum of discourse is all there is.
There is only the drive to recruit more people to the AGW spaceship cult. You either believe or you don’t – and the don’ts are obviously sub-prime specimens.
Real science is much more nuanced.
At least he’s only going to avoid conversation and not beat the crap out of him or have talk with him in a dark alley. :-)
Ben Santer in climategate emails:
Bob, maybe you’re wrong.
No – Michael – that was Mark Twain who suggested not arguing with a fool. Perfectly correct as far as I can see.
And thank you for reminding me why that is sage advice.
Nice duck, Reny.
Now back to Rud’s views on scientific debate…. Any thoughts?
Duck? Reny? On persons duck is another person broadly informed opinion.
Do I have an opinion on insults flying freely across the blogosphere? Can we improve discourse with sp@ce c@dets by eschewing the pejorative? Unless done within the rules of Allinsky it is a wasted effort.
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”
It has to be clever and focused on persuading the broader community. On that count I would probably discount both Rud’s subject and substance. On the other hand a good tactic…
Discourse with sp@ce c@dets is a waste of time. It is all a matter of talking past them to as broad a community as possible with a message. Something along the lines of a classic liberal utopia I would suggest.
‘We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty (including the trade unions), which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible…Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this has rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost. ‘ F.A. Hayek
In contemporary terms the classic liberal utopia involves the solution of environmental and social problems within the context of sustained economic growth. While retaining and enhancing personal and economic freedoms.
[Climate “Auditors”] seem to have no understanding of how science is actually done – no appreciation of the fact that [goons in dark alleys] is an integral part of what we do.
Wandering free in a new city, I’d tried an alley, which soon crooked, then petered out. I didn’t like the looks of the three goons ahead, clustered around an oil drum. It was too late to exit gracefully, so I came up to them to brazen it out and maybe share a cigarette. To my surprise, they cowered and retreated. I didn’t understand. One of them finally stammered out ‘Please, mister, please, just give us two steps toward the uncertainty’
============
Suggested APS statement:
We don’t know. When climate science projections perform half as well as the Farmer’s Almanac, we will revisit the issue.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/20/report-farmers-almanac-more-accurate-than-govt-climate-scientists/
Michael –
Surely you must know that all the doomsayers and alarmists, who speak with great concern about how the world will end if we focus on switching to renewables, must have taken into account that the price of oil will only increase as the price of renewables will only decrease (unless god starts charging for use of the sun and the wind). And that would include external costs of fossil fuels like the geoplolitical and resources costs of keeping the oil flowing, the human capital opportunity costs of enriching despotic rulers that keep their citizens in poverty as they reap in the oil dollars, and the costs related to the human health outcomes of particulates in our air.
I mean they have taken that into account haven’t they? The are “skeptics” after all.
Interesting, but perhaps not at all surprising, Chritsy and Lindzen both stated policy preferences for adaptation over mitigation.
You sound like you’re opposed to adaptation.
What are your arguments?
Can’t oppose adaptation – we are already on the road to climate change and the existing ACO2 isn’t going to magically disappear.
Adaptation is one necessary response. But just one.
Mitigation another.
Ever heard of this? – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
If many alarmists are to be believed, the prevention horse has already well and truly bolted
michael, “Ever heard of this? – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
True, but knowing the disease first is pretty helpful. The most effect prevention could be on the carbon sink side instead of the carbon source side. The sources themselves are the result of swamps, shallow lakes, river deltas all of which have been extremely modified for human enterprise. Stimulating natural sequestration while restoring wet lands and estuaries might be a much more potent ounce of prevention than chaining yourself to a hair brained energy policy. Probably be more acceptable than demonizing prosperity.
@ Michael
“Ever heard of this? – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Actually, I have. I am however interested in exactly how many ounces of prevention we are actually talking about.
For example, I have asked these questions several times and the only response that I have received so far is from Max, who pointed out the obvious: ‘ We don’t know.’ He seemed confident.
In the faint hope that a ‘preventionist’ will eventually answer them, I’ll ask again:
a. If we take absolutely NO action to control ACO2 and simply derive our energy from whatever sources are most convenient and/or cost effective, what will the Temperature of the Earth (TOE) be in 10, 50, and 100 years?
b. If we take all possible measures to control ACO2, as mutually agreed upon by Climate Science and the politicians who fund it, what will the TOE be in 10, 50, and 100 years?
c. Why is the TOE achieved by maximum effort control of ACO2 ‘better’ than the TOE resulting from ignoring ACO2 completely?
d. What evidence do you have that ANY measures to control ACO2 will have any MEASURABLE and UNAMBIGUOUSLY ATTRIBUTABLE effect on the TOE?
If those questions cannot be answered with scientifically supportable confidence, what justification is there for paying any attention whatsoever to ACO2 when addressing energy policies?
And one final question: Since Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming has morphed into Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change, does Climate Science claim that if stringent measures are taken to limit or eliminate ACO2 the climate will cease changing and become stable?
Bob,
a. 10yrs – who knows. natural variation is quite strong over short time periods. 50yrs – 0.5-1 deg higher, 100yrs 2-4 deg’s
b. 1o yrs- a/a, 50- 0.5-1, 100 – 0.5-1.5
c. closer to our historical range of temps, where we know we can sustain advanced civilisation in the face of known threats.
d. paleoclimate records means we KNOW increasing CO2 has a warming effect. Not increasing it anthropogenically, means we are back to the status quo of any changes being intrinsic to the climate system.
Final question – last sentence above.
The questions for the adaptationist are much harder to answer – given that the models preclude any regional forecasting ability, how can you rationally argue for adaption to the entirely unprecedented non-natural perturbation of the climate system, where the type of adaption may not be clear, and the degree is not known?
The not-rational answer seems to be – we just do.
@ Michael
So the difference in the TOE between ignoring ACO2 and controlling ACO2 will be indistinguishable for 50 years, then the TOE will ramp up rapidly over the next 50 years, to a maximum rise amortized over 100 years of 4 deg relative to today. If we control ACO2, the temperature will cease rising in 50 years and remain stable at 1-1.5 C above today, indefinitely. It will not fall below the current temperature at any time after ten years. Controlling for ACO2 will change the TOE in 100 years by .5-2.5 C compared to ignoring ACO2, according to your figures.
And the ounce of prevention we are talking about is reducing ACO2 by how many percent? What are the tradeoffs in the world living standards given cheap, plentiful energy and uncontrolled ACO2 compared to the restricted supply of expensive energy required to reduce ACO2 enough to make a difference (postulating for the moment that reducing ACO2 will in fact make a detectable difference in the TOE)? Are you willing to give up fossil fuels so that, based on the prediction of ‘Climate Scientists’, your great grandchildren will be spared the horror of living on a planet 2.5 C, worst case, warmer than it would have been if you had used fossil fuels as needed? I’m not, but I am not going to be given a choice. And exactly what are those horrors that we are sacrificing modern civilization to avoid? A navigable Northwest Passage and DC as warm as Raleigh, NC? Maybe?
You state as an axiom that the TOE is directly proportional to CO2 and, by implication, that we can control the TOE by controlling atmospheric CO2. What paleoclimate records do we have that show that the TOE is strongly correlated with CO2 and that the CO2-TOE time history shows that the changes in CO2 preceded the changes in TOE, as would be required if CO2 were the driver of the TOE? In recent years, since we have been measuring TOE (a subject for another thread) and CO2, the plot of CO2 shows that the slope of the trend line for CO2, except for seasonal variations, has been monotonically upward, while the TOE has fluctuated wildly, with the slope of the trend line strongly dependent on the choice of end points. This would appear to me to indicate that if CO2 had an effect on the TOE it was negligible relative to other causes of TOE variations and that as a corollary, controlling the anthropogenic subset of CO2 would have an even more negligible effect. Jim Cripwell and others maintain, convincingly to me at least, that there is no signature in the time history of the TOE that can be unambiguously assigned to ACO2, since during the time that we have been monitoring ACO2 and the TOE, the TOE has not behaved in any way out of the historical norm.
“So the difference in the TOE between ignoring ACO2 and controlling ACO2 will be indistinguishable for 50 years….” – bob
Not indistinguishable, simply to be likely in the same range. I’ve assumed decades to make meaningful reductions in emissions, hence the similar range (also assumed you weren’t imagining a zero emissions overnight scenario).
This time lag is the reason why people like Hansen have a sense of urgency – we are already committing ourselves via inaction.
“If we control ACO2, the temperature will cease rising in 50 years and remain stable at 1-1.5 C above today, indefinitely. ” – bob
No, CO2 has a lifespan in the atmosphere – just not a short one, and it’s not clear exactly how long natural reduction would take.
“And the ounce of prevention we are talking about is reducing ACO2 by how many percent? What are the tradeoffs in the world living standards given cheap, plentiful energy and uncontrolled ACO2 compared to the restricted supply of expensive energy… ” – bob
What planet are you living on??
Oil price increase over the last 10 yrs? – what is it, 300%?. What do you think it will be in 50 yrs??
“I’m not, but I am not going to be given a choice. And exactly what are those horrors that we are sacrificing modern civilization to avoid? A navigable Northwest Passage and DC as warm as Raleigh, NC? Maybe? ” – bob
And this is exactly the problem with AGW, but more so – everyone is being subjected to a radical experiment on the climate system, with only vaguely knowable outcomes; ranging from certain (slr), likely (increased tropical cyclone strength) to possible (significant changes in rainfall pattern). I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we now have over 6 billion mouths to feed. That’s really pushing resource management and adding increased risks of flooding and drought is something we really don’t need.
The conservation position is to stick with the status quo – the climate system we know and in which civilisation has developed in. Pushing it into different state and then just hoping that it will be OK (or even better!!) is deeply radical.
“What paleoclimate records do we have that show that the TOE is strongly correlated with CO2 and that the CO2-TOE time history shows that the changes in CO2 preceded the changes in TOE, as would be required if CO2 were the driver of the TOE? ” – bob
There’s heaps. Google is you friend.
And this just a hoary old denier myth, that gets trotted. We know that orbital forcings are responsible for initiating transitions to inter-glacials – and also that the forcings is far to weak to account for the total temp changes. We know that ghg’s account for much of the rest.
“In recent years, since we have been measuring TOE (a subject for another thread) and CO2, the plot of CO2 shows that the slope of the trend line for CO2, except for seasonal variations, has been monotonically upward, while the TOE has fluctuated wildly ” – bob
Oh Bob,why did you have to descend into these silly old denier talking points? For a while I thought you were serious.
There is no expectation, anywhere, ever, from anyone, that temp’s were expected to rise in lock-step with rising CO2 -just the opposite; we expect short time fluctuations to mask CO2 effects over anything under 20 yr time spans.
Bob, abandon your radicalism, come back to the conservative side!
Arrrghhh.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/19/aps-reviews-its-climate-change-statement/#comment-462566
@ Michael
“Not indistinguishable, simply to be likely in the same range. I’ve assumed decades to make meaningful reductions in emissions, hence the similar range (also assumed you weren’t imagining a zero emissions overnight scenario).”
and
“No, CO2 has a lifespan in the atmosphere – just not a short one, and it’s not clear exactly how long natural reduction would take.
Having read your response to my post and others in response to other posters I have concluded that for the most part you concur with John Kerry’s opinion of the direness of our straits if we ignore ACO2. Because of the extreme consequences of ACO2 and its long life in the atmosphere I naturally assumed that you would therefore advocate turning off the Human Carbon Volcano (HCV) asap.
“What planet are you living on??
Oil price increase over the last 10 yrs? – what is it, 300%?. What do you think it will be in 50 yrs??”
And it has gone down 25% in the last 6 years. So you expect that heavily taxing and regulating energy produced from fossil fuel will somehow make energy less expensive and more abundant than ignoring ACO2 and deriving our energy from the most convenient and cost effective sources available? As far as the cost in 50 years? No idea and it doesn’t matter. Remember: most expedient and cost effective sources available.
“And this is exactly the problem with AGW, but more so – everyone is being subjected to a radical experiment on the climate system, with only vaguely knowable outcomes; ranging from certain (slr), likely (increased tropical cyclone strength) to possible (significant changes in rainfall pattern).”
So raising the price of energy while restricting its supply, with 100% certainty, by taking measures whose efficacy cannot be predicted to ameliorate vaguely knowable outcomes in the distant future which only exist as the outputs of models which have had NO skill in predicting the climate in the near term makes sense to you?
As for “ranging from certain (slr)”, Certain?? The seas are currently rising around 0-2 mm/year, depending on who you believe. Just how much of that rise can be unambiguously attributed to ACO2 and why does that represent a problem that demands a solution?
“I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we now have over 6 billion mouths to feed. That’s really pushing resource management and adding increased risks of flooding and drought is something we really don’t need.”
Of course I have noticed that we have over 6 billion mouths to feed (decreasing to under a billion, if the sustainable development folks get their way). And the cheaper and more abundant our energy supplies, the more likely we are to be able to feed them. As for increased floods and droughts, are those axiomatic along with ACO2 as the control knob leading to CAGW? Are they impervious to data, such as the actual observed number of hurricanes and such?
“The conservation position is to stick with the status quo – the climate system we know and in which civilisation has developed in. ”
What IS the climate system which civilization has developed in? In the course of our civilization there have been multiple periods that were both warmer and colder than currently, with no obvious help from ACO2. Are you maintaining that if the politicians tax fossil fuel heavily and regulate its production and use strictly that our climate will stabilize? As the MWP? Maunder Minimum?
“And this just a hoary old denier myth, that gets trotted. ”
What is this ‘this’ that is the hoary old denier myth that gets trotted?
“We know that ghg’s account for much of the rest.”
We know this how? And what are the total temperature changes? With all the data adjusting, are we sure of the sign, starting when and ending when, never mind the magnitude? Given that the current TOE is within historical limits what evidence do we have of an ACO2 signature in the current temperature variations?
“Oh Bob,why did you have to descend into these silly old denier talking points? For a while I thought you were serious.
There is no expectation, anywhere, ever, from anyone, that temp’s were expected to rise in lock-step with rising CO2 -just the opposite;”
What silly old denier talking points? I am told by Climate Science that ACO2 is the master control for the TOE. You also say that we can stabilize the climate by controlling ACO2. Now you tell me that Climate Science says that the TOE is expected to wander around all over the place while the control signal is being increased monotonically? What that tells ME is that if ACO2 has ANY influence on the TOE, it is insignificant in relation to whatever DOES strongly influence climate.
The whole climate science proposal of ‘I’ll give you a perfect climate in 50 (or 100 or sometime) years for worldwide taxes and regulations on all energy production and consumption today.’ sounds an awful like J. Wellington Wimpy’s famous offer: ‘I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.’. With equal believability.
“I am told by Climate Science that ACO2 is the master control for the TOE. You also say that we can stabilize the climate by controlling ACO2. Now you tell me that Climate Science says that the TOE is expected to wander around all over the place while the control signal is being increased monotonically? ” – bob
I’d be fascinated if you could produce any quotes to this effect; “ACO2 is the master control for the TOE”
The last sentance raises the important philosphical question of whether you can/should help people who are deliberately ignorant or stridently stupid.
@ Michael
“I’d be fascinated if you could produce any quotes to this effect; “ACO2 is the master control for the TOE””
The entire 25 year and counting ‘climate change’ (nee ‘global warming’) discussion was precipitated when Climate Science announced that ACO2 is causing the TOE to rise precipitously, that the rise will prove catastrophic, and that the catastrophe can only be averted by implementing strict control over all sources of ACO2. Emitting ACO2 causes the TOE to rise; stop emitting ACO2 and the TOE will stop rising. Sounds to me like a pretty good description of a ‘master control knob’ for the TOE. If ACO2 is NOT the dominant influence on the TOE, why is it important that we take drastic, coordinated, world wide action to restrict or eliminate it?
Bob,
So that’s a ‘no’ on a quote.
A sceptic might then wonder what other misunderstsandings and false assumptions their opinions are built on, and do some crticial reflection.
Are you a ‘skeptic’, or a sceptic, Bob?
@ Michael
“I’d be fascinated if you could produce any quotes to this effect; “ACO2 is the master control for the TOE””
Michael | February 23, 2014 at 7:31 am |
Bob,
“So that’s a ‘no’ on a quote.”
Well, after typing my fingers to the bone and searching the internet diligently for going on 15 seconds, I was able to come up with this:
“NASA’s Lacis: “There is no viable alternative to counteract global warming except through direct human effort to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level.”
A study by GISS climate scientists recently published in the journal Science shows that atmospheric CO2 operates as a thermostat to control the temperature of Earth….
CO2 is the key atmospheric gas that exerts principal control (80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing) over the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect. Water vapor and clouds are fast-acting feedback effects, and as such, they are controlled by the radiative forcing supplied by the non-condensing GHGs….
There is no viable alternative to counteract global warming except through direct human effort to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level.”
Now I will have to admit that never once did they mention”master’ or ‘control’ but the did mention ‘thermostat’, ‘no viable alternative to counteract’, and ‘no viable alternative’. I figure that is close enough.
Aside from quibbling about semantics (master control vs thermostat, etc.), you never did get around to answering my question as to whether you believed that the TOE can be adjusted by controlling ACO2 and if you believe that the measures being recommended, taxing and regulating the emission of ACO2, will have a measurable efficacy.
@ Michael
“The last sentance raises the important philosphical question of whether you can/should help people who are deliberately ignorant or stridently stupid.”
Well, Dr. Curry runs a pretty much laissez faire blog and has left it up to her correspondents to make their own determination as to whether you are worth the effort or not. In reviewing their exchanges with you on recent posts it appears to be a good news/bad news situation. The good news: Several have ‘given it the old college try’. The bad news: They have had little obvious success.
control knob
richard alley, salesperson
Pingback: La ciencia “establecida” del calentamiento global acojonante, en la APS. | PlazaMoyua.com
Mike Flynn, David Springer and others
The temperature gradient induced by gravity in any solid, liquid or gas can be calculated from the negative quotient of the acceleration due to gravity and the weighted mean specific heat of the matter. But we then need to reduce it a bit (usually about a third) because of the effect of inter-molecular radiation. For example, in Earth’s outer crust it works out at about 40C/Km which we then reduce by a third and derive a result which matches observatons in boreholes in the outer 10Km or so. Likewise, we could calculate the value in Don Juan Pond, Antarctica and thus calculate the expected difference in temperature between top and bottom. Modern instruments would be able to detect this difference of a fraction of a degree.
Mike writes: “Or have I misunderstood your premise”
Yes, you have greatly misunderstood the very valid physics and the diffusion process involved which enables the temperature gradient to evolve slowly provided there are no external energy inputs of course, like Sun warming the ocean thermocline. There are actually measurements of warming at lower temperatures well below the thermocline in winter in calm regions of the Arctic ocean near the Norwegian coast.
Now, how about any of you make use of this physics to explain, as I have, how the required energy gets into the surface of Venus in order to raise its temperature by 5 degrees during the 4-month Venus day?
Visiting Physicist,
You say you could calculate the wondrous warming due to gravity in respect to the Don Juan Pond. I say you cannot. Once you have done it, and verified the result by observation, let me know. Until then, enough of could, would, should, reduce a bit, and so on. Facts are facts.
One would be surprised if the ocean depths actually managed to freeze to any extent, given that the crust is at its thinnest under the deep ocean – apart from surface vulcanism, and so on.
So, the bottom of a body of water sitting over molten rock, insulated by a few kilometers of rock, is unable to freeze by virtue of radiation from its surface, given a reasonable depth. And this is observed in reality.
In relation to Venus, maybe you could revisit the physical structure and behaviour of the planet’s components, and its proximity to the Sun. I cannot see any need for nonexistent warming due merely to the stationary effects of the force of gravity.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zm_-NOB4Rk
Warm air rises – work against gravity is done – air expands and cools. There is no great mystery or revelation. Temperature and pressure go together like…
Nor is the 0.03W/m2 flux from the surface from radioactive decay and core cooling all that significant compared to 165W/m2 warming of the surface and oceans from the Sun.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif
It is all a bit odd.
Robert I Ellison,
And the air heats due to gravity? I think not. Nor do the oceans.
With regard to your energy losses from the surface – if a body is losing energy at the rate of 0.03 W/m2, is the body : –
a) warming
b) cooling, or
c) maintaining a constant temperature.
I point out that the total insolation reaching the Earth is unable to compensate for the heat being lost. Given a few basic assumptions, the isothermal equilibrium temperature of the Earth is around 255K, I believe.
At the present slow rate of cooling, humanity is unlikely to sense any change before it becomes extinct.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Mike Flynn | February 20, 2014 at 9:24 pm |
“And the air heats due to gravity? I think not. Nor do the oceans.”
It certainly does! It is a major factor in regional climates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind
Corrected.
Mike Flynn | February 20, 2014 at 9:24 pm |
“And the air heats due to gravity? I think not.
Nor do the oceans.”It certainly does! It is a major factor in regional climates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind
That’s not what I said Micky Flynn. Do try to pay attention.
Robert I Ellison,
I must have missed the part where you wrote about the temperature gradient in the oceans due to gravity. You said that temperature and pressure go together like . . . Like what? Like the depths of the ocean? It seems the higher the pressure, the colder it gets!
With compressed gases, if you have a bottle of air at say 150 bar, it will be precisely the same temperature as a bottle of air at 1 bar, after the heat due to the initial compression has radiated away. Checking the temperature of your SCUBA tanks on a dive boat will not tell you whether the gas in them is highly compressed or not.
You didn’t answer my question. I don’t blame you. Wriggle and squirm all you like, the Earth has cooled for the last few billion years. No amount of pontificating will cause it to start warming again.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Both air and water can be compressed and thus have a potential temperature change due to this compression, though the compressibility of air is obviously much higher. This compression however adds no net energy or change in heat content. See:
http://sam.ucsd.edu/sio210/lect_2/lecture_2.html
Correctamundo Gates! I’m gladdened to see you at least understand the ideal gas law. It’s possible that someday you might even understand that a glacier at -36C, the average surface temperature of Antarctica, has a radiant emittance of 179W/m2 (minus a few Watts because it’s emissivity isn’t quite 1.00). Once you understand that then we can work on back radiation from teh atmosphere and how that negates some of the upwelling radiation and then (drum roll) you have a chance of chance of grokking how an increase in greenhouse gases increases back radiation and hence how much radiative cooling takes place from teh glacier surface. If evaporation can’t take up the slack in cooling then the surface temperature rises and the surface temperature rises instead to take up the slack. Et viola – the greenhouse effect.
On lapse rate, see detailed analysis by Robert Essenhigh and Sreenath Kolan
“Ever heard of this? – an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”
Most penetrating analysis I’ve ever seen. I think you should add “A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.” In this spirit, you could hand out free sticks of gum to the millions of people who will no longer be able to afford to heat their homes if ideologues like you get their way.
Or how about, “When life give you lemons, make lemonade,” whereby you can simply tell the shivering masses to “buck up” because they’re all freezing for a good cause.
We still have a lot of filing cabinets full of global warming junk science to burn before we freeze.
Spiked says, “Earth is not as warm as it was expected to be. For many years, this deviation was denied, but it has recently been accepted by mainstream science. This is progress. But it has proven to be inconvenient to the political agendas attached to the climate-change narrative. In response, many theories have been proposed to explain where the ‘missing heat’ may be hiding out…”
I think we know where it’s hiding out. AGW is hangin’ out in some sleazy motel off the strip just waitin’ for a packed house of Democrats — like we see in California — and, then it’ll raise its ugly red head, like before.
The most popular of these theories [about where the ‘missing’ heat is hiding out] is that, somehow, the heat that should be appearing at the planet’s surface has instead found its way to the deep ocean. But this hypothesis suffers from three main problems. First, there is very little data – the ocean is vast, and unlike the land and sea surface which can be viewed from space, its depths are especially difficult to monitor. Second, the effect, even if it is real, is so small it may not be practicably measurable at all. Third, there is no clearly understood mechanism by which energy may have been transported through the atmosphere and upper layers of the ocean, undetected, to heat the water beneath. (Spiked)
Mike Flynn
For a more comprehensive explanation of ocean temperatures I have copied below what I wrote over a year ago in Section 14 of my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” …
14. Rebuttal of Counter Arguments
Sometimes it is argued that the gravity effect is not evident in the oceans, but we must recognise that the processes of adiabatic diffusion and convection are very slow indeed, and are easily over-ridden by local weather conditions such as winds, ocean currents and even by an excessive supply of new absorbed energy, such as is observed in the stratosphere.
Just as we see a temperature inversion in the stratosphere, where the Sun warms the top, so too do we see it in the top layers of the ocean. Solar radiation penetrates the top layers of the ocean, but more of it has already been absorbed the deeper it goes. So this produces a steep cooling in the thermocline, whereas the temperatures are fairly homogeneous at deeper depths. You can see a typical plot here [25] and learn more about the thermocline on this [26] page, where we read Thermoclines may be a permanent feature of the body of water in which they occur, or they may form temporarily in response to phenomena such as the solar heating of surface water during the day. Factors that affect the depth and thickness of a thermocline include seasonal weather variations, latitude and longitude, and local environmental conditions.
So it is evident that currents and variations in Solar radiation play havoc with ocean temperatures, and they over-ride what would be a much less steep gravity gradient because of the much higher specific heat of water. In a nutshell, there will be a supply of extra energy from the Sun which, even beyond the depth where radiation reaches, will continue to warm from the top by current flow and downward convection, just like the “heat creep” in the atmospheres of Venus and even Earth.
Wagathon | February 20, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
Visiting Physicist,
I like your downward convection. Where can I see this verified experimentally? To my knowledge, denser water descends, less dense water rises. It would be a neat trick for the denser water to allow lighter warmer water to fall through.
Gravity is obviously causing reverse warming in the oceans, according to you. I leave you to it.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
— APS Climate Change Statement of 2007
— In February 2012 the Panel on Public Affairs recommended four minor copy edits
“Matthew England, accused them [skeptics] of lying about the hiatus as recently as 2012. In the space of less than a year, England changed his mind about the stall in global warming, made it the object of a study, and found a way to explain it. It seems that climate scientists like England lack the cool, rational, and value-free approach necessary to investigate the material world.” (Spiked)
Hi Judith,
It took a while, but I read the transcripts of all the presentations. There did not appear to be a lot of agreement among the presenters beyond the simplest of facts. The impression I got from the presentations by the ‘consensus’ participants is that they believe a) there is little or no change in the most likely climate sensitivity value (in spite of the recent slower warming), b) that they do not believe natural cyclical variation is important over multi-decadal periods (they reject your suggestion that the early 1970’s to early 2000’s trend was perhaps increased by natural variation), and c) there is virtually no evolution of measured temperatures over the next few decades which would weaken their belief in high climate sensitivity. That is to say, they will find one reason or another to discount ANY measured trend which falls below the models.
I would like to say that I was surprised by this, but honestly I wasn’t. People who have made a huge personal/intellectual investment in climate models are not ever going admit that they have not been using their time wisely. Or as some have noted, science progresses mainly via the participants growing old and dying, not by them ever being convinced they were mistaken.
One small technical critique of Ben Santer’s graphics of atmospheric temperatures versus latitude: a more accurate presentation of the relative contributions of different latitudes toward the global mean would be to use for the x-axis the sine of latitude rather than latitude (that is from -1 to +1 rather than -90 to +90). Santer’s graphs grossly overstate the importance of high latitudes, which in reality contributes only a very small fraction of the total surface area.
The psychology of criminal prevents them from admitting to their crimes even after being convicted and sentenced–e.g., isn’t everyone in prison is ‘innocent?’
wouldn’t it be loverly if the APS goes from El Nino to neutral
Cats and Pigeons.
JOshua writes with his usual staggering lack of self-awareness: “I don’t think I’m in a position to judge someone else’s motivations”
And yet you do it all the time, only taking what appears to be a more principled position when it’s convenient.
And yet you do it all the time…
You know, PG – one sign of “skepticism” is when someone makes the same claim over and over even when they have no evidence for the claim and, in fact, have been proven wrong.
Do some research on the term “mot*v*ted reas*n*ng.” The adjective motivated modifies someone’s reasoning, not their motivations.
It’s really quite fascinating that y’all have such trouble with such a simple concept.
PG –
Sometimes, what you “hear” does’t match what was said.
What the APS is finally responding to Happ, Dyson and Giaever, among others? Quite frankly, the APS is losing the science community by advocacy so they are being forced into this. AGW might be happening and might possibly be able to be estimated sometime in the future. CAGW is so far into an assumption that any scientist who advocates that position should be removed from their APS credentials because there is no supporting data.
Hum
But 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong!
“Do some research on the term “mot*v*ted reas*n*ng.” The adjective motivated modifies someone’s reasoning, not their motivations.”
I was almost sure this would be the gist of your “rebuttal.” And yet you exceeded even my low expectations with your usual awkward syntax and fuzzy language. Writing clearly is difficult because thinking clearly is difficult. More for some than others.
What you’re trying to say is that while you’re equipped to somehow ascertain that someone’s reasoning is motivated, you can’t say what those motives might be. It’s a weaselly, disingenuous argument, but if you’re going to make it, at least try to do so clearly.
PG –
It’s essentially no different than pointing out confirmation bias in someone’s reasoning. There is no statement about their personal motivations. It’s essentially no different than saying that their reasoning is flawed, or biased. It is essentially no different than saying that their reasoning is illogical. ‘
You seem to think that I am ascribing motivations to, say, Judith. What motivations do you think I am trying to ascribe to her? That she’s motivated to be correct about her previous conclusions? That she’s motivated to get the science right? That she’s motivated to help society understand climate change so as to maximize the benefits of policy choices? Sure, in that sense she’s motivated just like you are, or mosher is, or Don is, and not knowing her, and not knowing you, or mosher or Don, I make some assumptions about motivations unless something proves otherwise.
Everyone’s reasoning is m@tiv@ted, PG. It’s a function of basic attributes in our cognition and our psychology.
Of course it would be the gist of my response – because it focuses on your fundamental misunderstanding. If you didn’t get it wrong, that wouldn’t be my response.
Wow.
What an excellent transcript. This is by far the best thing I have ever read on the state of the science.
I’ve gone though about 300 pages of this thing (it’s a quicker read then you would think) and find it compelling. To some degree this is because they are presenting to the APS (i.e. peers of science) and there are no attempts to gloss over uncertainty.
This whole discussion of how some AR5 models scaled the greenhouse gas forcing by 0.50 or 0.75 (i.e. tuning) to match historical observations, but then *** set the forcing back to 1.0 *** for the centennial projections struck me as significant, and pretty clearly an improper thing to do. Temperature projections for RCP8.5 may have been over-estimated by as much as 30% in some models. Very odd.
Amazing that the APS picked that up. This seems like a bit of an embarrassment. Look forward to further discussion on that decision making process.
Anyway, the APS providing this transcript was a very wise decision on their part.
Wow!
Yet more evidence how libruls and mainstream scientists are trying to hide legitimate scientific controversy.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/anti-science-nc-leaders-no-laughing-matter-162715715644
Rachel maddow – the answer to rush Limbaugh.
The only wow here Josh is you utilizing Maddow as a valid reference.
tim –
I should remind you that attacking the source (as opposed to arguing against the information presented) is something that “skeptics” often disparage of.
You can call it whatever you want Josh.
It still comes down to referencing a media talking head.
Pingback: SOIM and the Paul Trap | context/Earth
No one remarked about the final comment of Sue Seestrom (An APS/POPA climate subcommittee member) on the last page:
DR. SEESTROM: So, something I didn’t hear you pose in your set of statements that people might agree on, but I think could be useful, comes out of the interaction between the climate models and the natural multidecadal oscillations, is the fact that there is complexity there that makes it hard for the models to be predictive on one- or two-decade time scales, because I think for people who haven’t studied this as a newcomer, the fact that you hear a lot about this hiatus.
And it seems to me the hiatus has a high probability of being able to be described by interactions with these natural oscillations, just pulling that out and telling it to the membership I think would be useful.
That is the statement that Sue wants to APS to issue.
572
Heh, just leave implied the lower sensitivity. I love it.
===========
Santer sure twists himself into a pretzel to state a lot of problems in the models vs. observations issue are observation or forcing errors. It started to sound like a broken record. I would say he was a bit defensive in this respect. He rarely touched upon climate science’s third rail, sensitivity being too high in the models.
All in all it was a fair hearing. Points scored by all sides.
Santer eventually admitted that all the stuff he talked about could only go 25% toward rescuing the GCMS from the hiatus. Don’t know why he made such a big deal of these missing forcings given that limit.
Pingback: Kerry sågad i Wall Street Journal och American Physical Society omprövar sitt "klimatstatement". - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen
The policy is wrong because the models are wrong
YOU CANNOT USE S-B TO CALCULATE EARTH’S SURFACE TEMPERATURE
A blackbody, by definition absorbs all incident radiation and does not reflect or transmit any radiation.
Now, about 70% of Earth’s surface is water and the temperature of the air just above is closely linked with that of the first millimeter of water, because there are a lot of molecules colliding at the interface and most come from that first millimeter.
But plenty of solar radiation penetrates a long way below the first millimeter of the surface. That means the ocean surface is transparent and thus nothing like a blackbody. The solid surface also absorbs solar energy that conducts well below its first millimeter of soil or rock etc. So even the solid surface acts in the same way as the transparent water surfaces, in that far more energy is needed to warm the lower depths than the top millimeter.
Hence the Earth’s surface does not reach anywhere near the temperature that the S-B calculations indicate because most of the energy in the incident solar radiation is leaking out the back door and going down into the depths of the ocean or solid surfaces.
Climate is measured using the maximum and minimum daily temperatures, and so the maximum temperature would be far less if it were only radiated solar radiation heating the Earth’s surface.
It isn’t. And nor is it only radiated solar energy heating the Venus surface.
As is so obvious on Venus, so too on Earth it is totally incorrect to assume direct solar radiation determines our surface temperatures. This is even more obvious when you understand that the back radiation which the models add to the solar radiation (in order to calculate 288K) is not raising the temperature at all, contrary to the incorrect assumptions made by climatologists.
“As is so obvious on Venus, so too on Earth it is totally incorrect to assume direct solar radiation determines our surface temperatures. This is even more obvious when you understand that the back radiation which the models add to the solar radiation (in order to calculate 288K) is not raising the temperature at all, contrary to the incorrect assumptions made by climatologists.”
——-
Really? Please proceed to dragon exit.
R. Gates, He is actually right, but his observation isn’t very useful without specifying a degree of “wrongness”. The problem is what is the actual “surface”.
On Earth since the land “surface” averages around 700 meters higher altitude than the sea “surface”, you have an ~5 C degree difference in absolute temperature and around a 10% difference in the “surface” air specific heat capacity. To add insult to injury you have different “measures” of the effective surface temperatures, SST is a simple average and land is a 2 meter +/- a few hundred meters average of Tmin, closely related to SST and Tmax not much related to SSt at all. Since solar is absorbed and reflected starting 100s of kilometers above the “surface” and around 100 meters below the sea “surface”, you don’t have the neat, tidy, ideal radiant blackbody “surface” that all the radiant physics models are based on.
The radiant models are indeed “wrong” as all models are, the question is how wrong. Since there can be up to 3% difference between the effective solar impact “surface” area and the idealized “surface” area you have on the order of +/- 8 Wm-2 uncertainty as an absolute mininimum (Stephens et al. estimates the “surface” uncertainty at +/-17 Wm-2).
Basically, one the the largest model problems is the one size fits all dT=lambda*dF since solar active forcing and GHG reactive forcings are not even close to being equivalent.
If the models were not diverging from reality, many might have more confidence in the Willy Nilly use of idealized models for ridiculously small variations in “surface” “forcings”.
Thanks, Cap’n for that second to last paragraph. Useful insight.
==========
Kim “Thanks, Cap’n for that second to last paragraph. Useful insight.”
Trying to explain it to all the genus’ is a challenge so I have been toying with an optic analogy. The atmosphere creates a convex lens which solar “sees” and the GHGs mirror that lens creating a concave mirror. Solar is impacted by both the lens and the reflective mirror while GHG forcing responds to only the mirror. Solar and GHG forcing cannot be equivalent.
How does that work your ya?
Now let me see if I’ve got this…
Earth is the water planet,
70% of it awash with seas
that upset those SB black
– body calculations by
reconstructing – models thereby
creating deep uncertainties …
and that’s not including clouds …
Looking forward with anticipation to a physical analysis of the constraints imposed by the unheralded “Convective Adjustment” on both thermal gradients and convective energy flux – iape.
The British MEP, Roger Helmer is one politician with enough technical training to perhaps see through sixty-eight years (2014 – 1946 68 yrs) of deceit in nuclear and solar sciences.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/tidal-power/
Like others, I found this transcript rich in information and insight into the range of perspectives on climate dyamics. Among many other exchanges, I was struck by a couple involving Dr. Collins.
P77
DR. ROSNER: “Let me add something to it. I asked earlier about the models because obviously, there are two kinds of errors, right, the errors with the data that you spoke about and then the errors having to do with model uncertainties.”
DR. COLLINS: “That’s correct.”
DR. ROSNER: “And to me it’s completely unclear which dominate, especially if you don’t have really good estimates for what the model errors would be.”
DR. COLLINS: “That’s right.”
P92
DR. KOONIN: “All right. I have got to say, I come away, Bill, and thanks for being so clear, that this business is even more uncertain than I thought, uncertainties in the forcing, uncertainties in the modeling, uncertainties in historical data. Boy, this is a tough business to navigate.”
P94
DR. COLLINS:
“But I think to come away with the fact this whole thing is highly uncertain, we fail to recognize both the insight that Arrhenius had, which I think still holds true today, and the fact that the climate models, despite the fact that they have those uncertainties, have on a number of cases predicted behavior that was subsequently verified, which is certainly a nice thing to see in cosmology. And it’s very nice to see in the climate.”
Then, toward the end, a statement by Collins of the environmental movement’s belief system:
P528
DR COLLINS: “We have changed the chemistry of the earth’s atmosphere. We have CO2 levels that are as big as they have been in three million years. If we double that again, they are going to be higher than they have been in 34 million years. We know the CO2 is anthropogenic because of isotopic analysis.
We know exactly what it does to the radiative transfer budget. It’s been verified by satellite. It’s been verified at the ground. We know
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that we are draining the energy budget out of the earth’s system appreciably. ”
So much certainty expressed despite the uncertain foundations.
Scientists outside Western academia like climatology to the ancient science of astrology.
The models of the global warming alarmist are like Magic 8 balls that only give answers the modelers want to see.
At this point, a refresher on what is magical thinking, and what is logical thinking, is of value.
Logical thinking relies on the principle of direct causes and effects with every intermediate step explained, and no assumptions (ie digressive issues that are not themselves logically complete) between cause and effect. Within strict logic, one can withstand any degree of regress so long as one avoids Russell’s Paradox.
Magical thinking relies on reasoning using some other principle than logic; popular foundations of magical reasoning include the principle of contagion, which posits that once together, always together. This is the reasoning of guilt by association, of voodoo, of patriotism and of epidemiology. So it is not unreasonable to encounter magical thinkers who apply the precept that once there is uncertainty on observations, that uncertainty could spread by contagion across a whole field, corrupting all conclusions. This, however, is mistaken reasoning, and fails on logic.
So no, the fact of uncertainties in some observations relied on for some inductive reasoning does not pollute with those same uncertainties other conclusions of other inductive reasoning from other observations that do not have those selfsame uncertainties.
So where Dr. Collins cites some of the most reliable conclusions in all of Physics based on data with extremely low uncertainty, to point out that other less confident conclusions are consilient with these highly confident conclusions, he is correct in his reasoning. Where Dr. Curry and others do the opposite, and suggest somehow the uncertainty in some poorer or more ambitious model or observation makes less logical a conclusion the uncertainty has nothing to do with, they are practicing #voodoo.
Bart:
Is it voodoo reasoning to say that something is so because no other explanation (other than their hypothesis) explains the data?
When you boil it all down – that is the argument. It must be human caused because no other explanation works – even though the current temperature excursion is within historic norms – just ignore that.
I think that is very faulty logic – especially when the observations show other instances within the last few thousand years in which the climate has been warmer than our current warm period.
Why was it warmer during the Roman warm period – even though CO2 was much lower than present? Obviously there are other factors which influence climate (we call it natural variation) and that is the null hypothesis (still).
Why was it warmer during the medieval warm period – even though CO2 was much lower than present? More and more data show this was a global event.
Why was it as warm as present during the 1930’s (maybe even a little warmer in the USA – until the data was “adjusted”) – even though CO2 was lower than present?
Was the LIA caused by a large drop in CO2? Clearly not – other factors came to bear (we call them natural variation).
Who is to say that all of these other factors, which combine into natural variability, are not causing some portion of our current warming? Maybe 1/2 to 3/4 could be natural and not human caused? No one knows yet – the data is still ambiguous. We need more data.
The sea has risen 120 meters during the last 20,000 or so years and only 1 meter of that has happened as humans caused CO2 to rise from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. That is only .83 %. Of that 1 meter, no one knows how much of it is human caused or natural (yet).
I think the logic of those who want to ignore the null hypothesis is faulty or voodoo. To just ignore the fact that the null hypothesis has not been shown to be incorrect – but lets just pretend it has because if we wait for actual proof it might be to late – that is faulty logic.
DR. COLLINS:
“…It could being a mode of natural variability that the models are not correctly reproducing…”
I’ll go with that as a first suggestion!
RickA | February 21, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
No. You are simply wrong.
When you boil it all down, Science says we hold to be accurate or very nearly true that explanation by logical inference of all observations to date which is simplest with regards assumptions, most parsimonious with regards exceptions, and most universal as regards applicability until such time as new observations require new or amended explanation.
If you think it all boils down to “we can’t think of anything else,” then you’re not part of a discussion of Science, or of logic.
You’re off in some other discussion, in the world of fiction.
Which is why you’re #ignored.
Bart R
“When you boil it all down, Science says we hold to be accurate or very nearly true that explanation by logical inference of all observations to date which is simplest with regards assumptions, most parsimonious with regards exceptions, and most universal as regards applicability until such time as new observations require new or amended explanation.”
So your explanation for the apparent long term ‘cyclic’ variability that shows up in just about all the climate data (but is not well represented – if at all – by the models) is what?
“So where Dr. Collins cites some of the most reliable conclusions in all of Physics based on data with extremely low uncertainty”
could you detail these?
let’s get specific. I’ll let you know in advance that Bill has a hard time actually supporting his views when pressed for citations.. but thats just my personal experience with the man.
So, go ahead, start the list
RichardLH | February 21, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
Non sequitur.
‘My’ explanation is in http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/15/week-in-review-13/#comment-459330 — the world is filling with people who are not as bright or as deep as they once were. Thanks for being part of the dimming-shallowing mechanism.
Steven Mosher | February 21, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
Really?
You want an enumerated list of the most reliable conclusions in Physics, and the ranking of the conclusions within that list Dr. Collins referred to?
Or will citing Ron C.’s list suffice as a sample?
P528
DR COLLINS: “We have changed the chemistry of the earth’s atmosphere. We have CO2 levels that are as big as they have been in three million years. If we double that again, they are going to be higher than they have been in 34 million years. We know the CO2 is anthropogenic because of isotopic analysis.
We know exactly what it does to the radiative transfer budget. It’s been verified by satellite. It’s been verified at the ground. We know
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that we are draining the energy budget out of the earth’s system appreciably. ”
However, the general principle that a bad or ambitious execution of data gathering in one experiment does not impeach the confidence of an unrelated experiment holds. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy once removed, or #voodoo Uncertainty.
Bart:
You said:
“If you think it all boils down to “we can’t think of anything else,” then you’re not part of a discussion of Science, or of logic.”
I disagree. That is what Peter Stott is doing in this paper:
http://wires.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WiresArticle/wisId-WCC34.html
RickA | February 21, 2014 at 11:42 pm |
It may be we’re suffering a semantic failure to connect.
If logical inference draws a conclusion so strong that no other explanation could explain the data, which happens regularly in logic, then it is NOT voodoo reasoning — which can never assert no other explanation than ‘contagion’ could explain data — but logical reasoning.
Do you see how that works: voodoo reasoning is _different_ from logical reasoning.
Which is why the logical arguments of science that come to conclusions that say by logic no other explanation satisfies the data are considered stronger than the voodoo arguments of magical reasoning.
So it would be very faulty logic to assert “no other explanation could explain the data” to be equal to “we can think of no other explanation”, or “voodoo makes it happen, and that’s all the explanation we need”.
That you can’t tell the difference startles and amazes. How do you count? Do arithmetic? Apprehend that your actions have consequences? Do you think it’s all magic?
So if instead of handwaving at a link to a paywalled abstract, you could actually quote the words you specifically think support your absurd claim.. enh, you’re still likely to be ignored, but you’d at least have some small foundation for feeling your reply was only being ignored because your past comments have proven so inadequate in general, and that it’s guild by association.
Bart R:
I am still waiting for you veer so logical explanation for the (nearly) regular oscillations that take place in almost all the climate data. Any time you’re ready.
RichardLH | February 22, 2014 at 6:11 am |
Oh. I get it. Thanks for almost making coherent by veiled reference that you’re not asserting the belief out loud (perhaps for shame?) that magical cycles rule the universe.
For Pete’s sake, if you’re trying to get me to explain that numerology is just a superstition with no place in a discussion of science, then spit it out. Stop being coy.
“For Pete’s sake, if you’re trying to get me to explain that numerology is just a superstition with no place in a discussion of science, then spit it out. Stop being coy.”
Your the one reaching for a numerology reference. I’m the one reaching for a solid engineering one. You must be desperate not to answer the question, just bluster as always.
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters.png
RLH truly has a myopic view of the situation, filtering out everything but his beloved 60 +/- ??? year oscillation. How very quaint.
Here is the Stadium Wave LOD variation over the past several hundred years:
http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/earthor/ut1lod/lod-1623.jpg
The observed correlation is that up is cooling and down is warming.
RichardLH | February 23, 2014 at 6:37 am |
Dude. May I call you dude? Duuuuuuuuuude. That is just so wrong.
Are you familiar with the Cathode Ray Tube hypothesis of planetary arrangement?
The coincidence of the distances of planets from the Sun with the ratios of the components of a standard CRT were noted, and from that published as a hypothesis which correctly predicted .. uh, nothing.* But something in the sky looked like something in electronics, so it had a “solid engineering” basis.
*Truly, the theory is too bizarre to explain, so I’ll just provide a link instead: http://www.adamskifoundation.com/html/News3.htm
Similarly, belief in cycles being the cause of or explanation for something is just irrational crap. Cycles at best describe phenomena and provide insight into underlying mechanisms. Day/night cycles tell us the Earth spins roughly once every 24 hours and a single Sun so distant as we can consider all light from it effectively parallel illuminates the Sun-facing side of the globe. Lunar cycles tell us the Moon orbits the Earth (and the Earth-Moon system in turn orbits the Sun) according to principles such that in equal periods of time an equal area is described by the arc of that motion and the center of orbit for each relationship: the Moon orbits the Earth in approximately a lunar month, each day sweeping out the same imaginary area as the prior; the Earth-Moon orbit the Sun in approximately one solar year, each day sweeping out an area (much larger than that described by the Moon about the Earth) the same imaginary area as the previous day. Those are descriptions, not causes nor reasons nor explanations. We had the increasingly precise descriptions first, in an era when any mystery as to cause was ascribed to a Prime Mover, then due Newton we had explanations of more immediate causes.
The thing is, you’re relying on DECREASINGLY precise descriptions to enact your cyclic fantasy. Is it sixty years exactly? No? Then approximately sixty years? Then approximately sixty years for about 130 years but some other cycle before that?
Curve fitting is a good and useful body of techniques in science and engineering. Reasoning by Curve Fitting is merely a form of numerology. It’s simple superstition no different from tossing salt over one’s shoulder or belief in leprechauns. It has zero place in a serious discussion of Science.
“Dude. May I call you dude? Duuuuuuuuuude.”
No.
“That is just so wrong.”
A simple filter is wrong?
“Are you familiar with the Cathode Ray Tube hypothesis of planetary arrangement?”
No – I’m sure it’s not relevant – but that won’t stop you.
“The coincidence of the distances of planets from the Sun with the ratios of the components of a standard CRT were noted, and from that published as a hypothesis which correctly predicted .. uh, nothing.* But something in the sky looked like something in electronics, so it had a “solid engineering” basis.”
Thanks for the lack of insight and thought.
“Similarly, belief in cycles being the cause of or explanation for something is just irrational crap……blather….blather…”
Not belief, an observation that such a periodicity exists. Which you continuously ignore.
“The thing is, you’re relying on DECREASINGLY precise descriptions to enact your cyclic fantasy. Is it sixty years exactly? No? Then approximately sixty years? Then approximately sixty years for about 130 years but some other cycle before that?”
I don’t know. The LP filter I have is at 15 years. Any ‘cycle’ you see in the results is yours, not mine. All frequencies above 15 years are present. ALL. If the data says 61, 59, 75, 83 years, if the data say 100+ years, it will be there.
“Curve fitting is a good and useful body of techniques in science and engineering. Reasoning by Curve Fitting is merely a form of numerology. It’s simple superstition no different from tossing salt over one’s shoulder or belief in leprechauns. It has zero place in a serious discussion of Science.”
As there is no curve fitting involved – except in your own mind – I’ll take that as the straw man it is.
So the question remains – what is the REASON for the apparent waviness in the data to date? Chance? Yea right.
RichardLH | February 23, 2014 at 11:47 am |
How many full waves are you claiming?
One?
Two?
Three?
Certainly not more than two apparent waves.
What exact period are you claiming? Sixty years exactly? Well the numbers don’t bear that claim out.
“About” sixty years? Well, if it’s “about”, as in no two periods are the same (out of TWO!), then it’s not periodic. It’s aperiodic.
So, yes; apply tens of thousands of filters and eventually you will find a coincidence of an apparent waves with “about” a meaningless number. The Universe is full of numbers, so a coincidence of two ‘waves’ that have “about” the same period with some random number barely qualifies as coincidence.
What I’m stating outright, as in _not_ suggesting, is that anyone who claims a sixty year (or “about”) cycle in the weather explains anything, is practicing mere superstition, and as such can be dismissed completely. Period.
Bart R says: the most reliable conclusions in all of Physics
The Hothouse Limerick
There was an old man named Arrhenius
Whose physics were rather erroneous
He recycled rays
In peculiar ways
And created a “heat” most spontaneous!
Timothy Casey, 2010
Appeal to #rhyme is so much better than appeal to #voodoo.
Do you have anything else utterly meaningless to say?
Ron C said: ”Open the vents near the roof, and quickly the space matches the outside temperature”
Ron, you ”almost” hit the nail on the head!!!
in a normal greenhouse – sunlight goes trough ”transparent glass” and heats up the ground = same as the sunlight goes trough ”transparent” oxygen & nitrogen in the atmosphere and heats the ground – then that transparent glass roof prevents / slows down cooling / same as O2&N2 are slowing cooling because they are perfect insulators; therefore: oxygen & nitrogen are the greenhouse gases, not CO2
CO2 in the atmosphere is NOT as the glass roof – because CO2 represents as a postage stamp, small amount of the imaginary nature’s greenhouse; it’s only 350ppm, on the other hand O2&N2 are 998999ppm of that imaginary roof. Therefore: all GLOBAL warming science is back to front!: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/climate/
Ron, CO2 doesn’t cover the atmosphere – they are all working on atmosphere without oxygen & nitrogen = that’s the precursor of all evil and confusion
Yes. I am amazed that Dr. Collins would appeal to Arrenius as a basis for believing in global warming.
Arrhenius made many mistakes:
1 Arrhenius believed that glass enclosures trapped infrared radiation, thus raising the temperature inside. We now know that the absence of convection is the mechanism of greenhouse heating.
2 Arrhenius also believed that CO2 had the same property as glass. But glass absorbs thermal infrared, while CO2 ABSORBs and EMITs infrared.
3 Arrhenius used measurements of radiation limited to 9.7u and was not measuring the heating effect of CO2 which absorbs primarily at 14.77u; he was in fact measuring water vapour’s heating effect.
4 Arrhenius used as the source for his thermal radiation a source that was at 100C; the radiative spectrum from this source includes the 4.2u wavelength of CO2 that is not part of the Earth’s radiative spectrum, outside the lip of a few volcanoes.
Still Arrhenius was a good scientist and measured the log decline of the heating effect of incremental increases of CO2, something AGW disavows.
Ron C. | February 21, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
“Arrhenius made many mistakes:”
Probably not as many as RonC.
“1 Arrhenius believed that glass enclosures trapped infrared radiation, thus raising the temperature inside. We now know that the absence of convection is the mechanism of greenhouse heating.”
They actually do trap infrared which raises the temperature inside. That doesn’t exclude other modes of heating. Blocking convection is dominant mode of glass-greenhouse warming.
“2 Arrhenius also believed that CO2 had the same property as glass. But glass absorbs thermal infrared, while CO2 ABSORBs and EMITs infrared.”
BZZZZZZZZZZZZT. Wrong. Glass both absorbs and emits thermal infrared. Kirchoff’s Law. Look it up. A good absorber is a good emitter.
“3 Arrhenius used measurements of radiation limited to 9.7u and was not measuring the heating effect of CO2 which absorbs primarily at 14.77u; he was in fact measuring water vapour’s heating effect.”
Same principle.
“4 Arrhenius used as the source for his thermal radiation a source that was at 100C; the radiative spectrum from this source includes the 4.2u wavelength of CO2 that is not part of the Earth’s radiative spectrum, outside the lip of a few volcanoes.”
Same principle.
So that’s probably where David Suzuki derived his idea that carbon in the windshield of a locked up car is what raises the temperature inside!
if arrenius said 1+1=2, and the moon was made of green cheese
And collins pointed to him to backstop his claim that 1+1=2,
you’d be stupid to point out the mistakes Arrenius made.
dont be stupid
As I said, Arrhenius got the logarithmic part right, the other points are where the green cheese is.
Ron C. | February 21, 2014 at 4:38 pm |
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Arrhenius made mistakes in some places, therefore all conclusions of Arrhenius are wrong?
Why are you bothering people with this crap?
Bart, you have it backwards. Arrhenius was no doubt a genius, a genuine Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry, and often said to be the father of physical chemistry. Unfortunately people think that his sound conclusions in his field can be taken as proof of his ideas on a side interest, the mistakenly named “greenhouse effect.”
And of course he also thought that warming was a good thing – as did Guy Callendar. Exactly when the army of pessimists came along and moreover, why, is uncertain.
RonC you fail to grok how the greenhouse effect works as revealed by this:
“But glass absorbs thermal infrared, while CO2 ABSORBs and EMITs infrared.”
First of all Kirchoff’s Law states that good absorbers are good emitters which makes both glass and CO2 good thermal emitters. But then you compound the error by implying that CO2 being a good emitter somehow negates its ability to trap infrared. This is incorrect. The greenhouse gas effect happens because CO2 absorbs upwelling thermal radiation from the earth and then emits it equally in all directions. Because almost half of the absorbed upwelling thermal radiation is pointed back down towards the surface that impedes the upward radiative cooling path from the surface. This causes either the surface temperature to rise, evaporation rate to rise, or both depending on whether there is liquid water available for evaporation on the surface.
It’s the evaporation part which confounds modeling of the earth’s heat budget. The radiative part of the budget is both well understood and well modeled. If the earth were a rock with no water then climate models would be doing an excellent job. But the earth is a water world and that adds orders of magnitude of complexity to the modeling. Clouds and convective cells in particular are hugely problematic because they aren’t well understood in the first place, they can and do throttle a major fraction of the sun’s energy from reaching, or not, the earth’s surface to warm it, convection accounts for a majority of how absorbed solar energy is removed from the surface, and they are smaller than the grid cells used by even the most computationally intensive coupled ocean/atmosphere climate models. Climate models are constrained by grid cell size as smaller cells require more numeric processing on each tick of the clock. So clouds and convective cells are parameterized (characterized using rules of thumbs; gross estimates; averaged behaviors) instead of being precisely modeled like radiative transfers. Therein lies the rub with climate models.
Hey David, maybe some semantic difficulties here.
You and I both know that actual greenhouses work by preventing convection. The structure itself, roof and sides and objects within, are heated by the sun, the air convects the heat upward and is stopped by the glass. Sure everything above 0K is radiating, but this is insignificant in the greenhouse. If the warming was caused by trapped radiation, you could open the walls near the ground to drop the temperature. But that doesn’t work. Open the vents near the roof, and quickly the space matches the outside temperature.
Of course, the earth’s atmosphere is not enclosed, and heat from the surface moves by convection, and also by evaporation. So the “greenhouse effect” is false and misleading.
Last time I looked infrared radiation is part of the light spectrum. A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs infrared light, not heat. Such gas molecules are in excited vibrational energy states. The only way that this light energy can be transferred as heat is for those excited greenhouse gas molecules, primarily water vapor and CO2 molecules, to collide with N2 and O2 molecules around them. It is the N2 and O2 molecules that mainly warm. True, if an excited greenhouse gas molecule collides with another CO2 molecule, it too will warm, but at a concentration of 0.03%, they really do not contribute much to the warming.
Ron C. | February 22, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
“Hey David, maybe some semantic difficulties here.”
Yeah, you not understanding that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is not the same as a glass greenhouse effect.
“You and I both know that actual greenhouses work by preventing convection.”
That’s the primary means which I already affirmed. Why are thermos bottles silvered? Does that help stop convection? Why are emergency blankets (“space blankets”) silvered? Does that help stop convection?
“If the warming was caused by trapped radiation, you could open the walls near the ground to drop the temperature.”
You could? How would that release upwelling radiation?
“Of course, the earth’s atmosphere is not enclosed, and heat from the surface moves by convection, and also by evaporation. So the “greenhouse effect” is false and misleading.”
Maybe for someone who slept through science class in grammar school or doesn’t remember what they learned.
“Last time I looked infrared radiation is part of the light spectrum. A greenhouse gas is a gas that absorbs infrared light, not heat.”
If by “heat” you mean kinetic energy then you’re wrong as greenhouse gases can be warmed kinetically. What sets them apart is they absorb thermal radiation whereas O2 and N2 do not as it generally requires 3 or more atoms in the molecule to be a good thermal absorber.
“Such gas molecules are in excited vibrational energy states. The only way that this light energy can be transferred as heat is for those excited greenhouse gas molecules, primarily water vapor and CO2 molecules, to collide with N2 and O2 molecules around them. It is the N2 and O2 molecules that mainly warm. True, if an excited greenhouse gas molecule collides with another CO2 molecule, it too will warm, but at a concentration of 0.03%, they really do not contribute much to the warming.”
The amount they contribute to warming is known precisely. These are properties that can be measured and given non-condensing greenhouse gases are well mixed it’s not overly difficult to calculate roughly what the global effect would be if it didn’t interfere with the water cycle.
Ron C. | February 22, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
A greenhouse prevents convection out of the greenhouse system.
Just where do you suppose convection carries the atmosphere to, that it goes out of the Earth system?
What vents do you believe are in the ceiling of the sky?
Bart, the whole point is that the atmosphere does not have a glass ceiling. At the top of the troposphere, energy radiates out to space. At some frequencies, energy leaves directly from the surface.
But don’t confuse this with “heat”. Arrhenius, as a man of his time, was stuck with the caloric theory of heat and the notion of heat “flowing” from warmer to colder objects. Since then, science has evolved, and today we understand that heat is a property of matter, whether solid, liquid or gas,. More precisely, heat refers to the kinetic energy contained in the atomic structure, and temperature is an indication of KE. When 2 objects are in thermal contact, energy is in flux between them, and over time the colder one increases KE and the warmer one has a lower KE.
Also, as air rises, KE is converted into PE (potential energy). Thus, its temperature is lower, since the overall energy is conserved. Then, as I said, energy leaves the system into space.
You’re ignorant when it comes to history of thermodynamics too.
John Tyndall circa 1860 published a book “Heat: A Mode of Motion” which you obviously haven’t read. I suggest you read it.
You revealed the depth of your ignorance with the statement that glass is a good absorber of thermal radiation but the greenhouse gases both absorb and EMIT (your emphasis) thermal radiation. Kirchoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation, which I cited once already, states that good absorbers are good emitters. Thus if glass is a good absorber it is also a good emitter. You’ve just been trying to save face and doing a poor job of it since I corrected you on that point. Kirchoff’s Law was also formulated in the Golden Age of Thermodynamics circa 1860.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation
Ron C. | February 23, 2014 at 8:37 am |
Point being, your disputations over the greenhouse analogy remain specious.
Where more extremely dissimilar in nature on particular components of analogy, the whole Earth system and a greenhouse are obviously not being compared by the analogy, so as convection is not a good objective correlative between a greenhouse and the sky, seeking to emphasize that particular component of the analogy is simply an error of reasoning.
Where more alike in nature on particular components, the simpler form (i.e. the greenhouse) acts as model of the more complex form (i.e. the atmosphere) in specific and narrow ways which confine the utility of the analogy to reasoning correctly only within those parameters.
Thus, the “Greenhouse Effect”, based on the common understanding of the era which spawned the phrase, clearly communicated then, as it does now, the idea of a mechanism of containment of heat. The accidents of history and language that pay tribute to bygone misunderstandings by persistence of old names retained with new understanding are not strange nor unexpected. North American First Nations continue to be called Indians, though we long since recognized that Columbus had not found India on his voyages. Structures on the Moon retain the labels “Sea of..”, though we now know the Moon to be practically waterless. The “Tea Party” is neither a party nor does it have much tea drinking going on.
Get over it.
David,
Tyndall ascribes communication of molecular vibration into the aether and communication of aethereal vibration to molecular motion. Must we resuscitate the aether hypothesis in order to support the “greenhouse effect?”
As for Kirchoff, you must remember the conditions. In Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook is the following statement:
“According to Kirchhoff’s law, the emissivity and absorptivity of a surface in surroundings at its own temperature are the same for both monochromatic and total radiation. When the temperature of the surface and its surroundings differ, the total emissivity and absorptivity of the surface often are found to be different, but, because absorptivity is substantially independent of irradiation density, the monochromatic emissivity and absorptivity are for all practical purposes the same.”
Note that
CO2 is a gas, not a surface; The surroundings are not in equilibrium; and
The radiation is not monochromatic.
Judith,
I noticed this statement you made in the transcript:
Yet two weeks later you were writing on this blog:
and
Could you explain if you think these statements are consistent. I don’t really get how you can go from considering it a big issue to not even believing there’s any evidence it exists in the space of two weeks.
‘Global integrated time series from in situ observations are a useful model benchmark and an important diagnostic for changes in the Earth’s climate system (Hansen et al., 2005; Levitus et al., 2005). But differences among various analyses and inconsistencies with other indicators merit attention (Trenberth, 2010). Lyman et al. (2010) have
performed a detailed error analysis on long-term OHC estimations helping to determine the confidence in the results. Their conclusions provide a valuable caution for users of these data. Due to its global span, the Argo global observing system clearly opens up new scope to observe climate related changes. Comparisons of global steric height
trends based on different gridded fields of Argo in situ measurements show a range
of 0–1mm/yr which can be lead back to data handling and climatology uncertainties.’ http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/8/999/2011/osd-8-999-2011.pdf
A critique of one particular reanalysis doesn’t mean that there isn’t more heat going deeper due to increased wind stress over the past decade or so.
Nor is it quite as simple as this even.
If JC is in the explainig mood,I’d like to see an explanation of the following;
– Judith was dubious of the >50% man-made warming, arguing it was suggestive of too high a figue (a mis-reading of it, imho), instead arguing for her prefernce of 50% +/- “a bit”, which implies a much greater level of certainty than ‘over 50%’.
I would like to hear what Judith has to say about that as well, but I suspect it comes down to the same position she has on indirect solar effects – in that it is a known unknown. For example, the Svensmark GCR theory may prove to be true, or it may not. If it is, it could be very significant and therefore can be characterised as a “big issue”. Likewise, the sequestration of heat to the deep ocean. If it is true then it would also be very significant, so working out whether it is or not is important – a “big issue”.
I agree that the case for sequestration is really not very convincing, but I am prepared to be open minded about it. None-the-less, I also agree she could do with clarifying this point. Could she be saying that she agrees with the observation and the modelling is not representing it, or could she be saying that there is uncertainty in the observation or that they are unexpected and dubious?
‘A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics. Moving toward higher resolution, eddy resolving oceanic models should help reduce this deficiency. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
Sensitivity here is dynamic sensitivity γ of Michael Ghil – http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf .
This is the most succinct statement I know of the most current state of understanding of the climate system.
‘In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions.
This rule should be followed so that arguments based on induction be not be nullified by hypotheses.’
Here we are talking about observations that make propositions more exact. You need to play with the full deck of observations – or the wrong big picture will emerge.
Robert I. Ellison: Sensitivity here is dynamic sensitivity γ of Michael Ghil – http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf .
Be sure to let us know when Ghil or someone else publishes a model of the climate system in which γ has a measured/estimated value, is the coefficient of an actually measured attribute, and the model has been shown in tests to be accurate. To date, Ghil has not done that, and the paper you cite is an exposition of a modeling approach that may eventually actually produce a model of climate variables.
‘Climate sensitivity is then defined mathematically as the derivative of an appropriate functional
or other function of the systems state with respect to the bifurcation parameter.’ MichaelGhil
That is – γ in the attached sketch.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/Ghil_fig11_zpse58189d9.png.html?sort=3&o=73
Sensitivity is variable with respect to proximity to the tipping point. It is implicit in the definition of abrupt climate change from the NAS.
‘What defines a climate change as abrupt? Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.’ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=14
I am not interested in arguing whether or not the climate system is deterministically chaotic. I suggest instead that they argue it in the journals or internally in the NAS.
What the NAS definition says is that small changes initiate large responses in the climate system over a short period at a tipping point. Thus the value changes not only with proximity to the tipping point but at different tipping points. Thus a highly variable and sensitive system.
The variable is indeterminate in any realistic sense and insisting on a single one size fits all value misses the point entirely. What is important is the underlying dynamical process – a wild climate system in essence.
Robert I Ellison: The variable is indeterminate in any realistic sense and insisting on a single one size fits all value misses the point entirely. What is important is the underlying dynamical process – a wild climate system in essence.
Your “one size fits all value” is meaningless. But an actual value for the sensitivity of the current climate to a change in one of its inputs, downwelling LWIR or CO2 for example, would be valuable.
Santer really comes off defensive again in the discussion at the end about a red team investigation of climate models. The more he disputes this need, the more I think it needs to be done. One of the weakest links in climate science is the models (I think this is almost universally agreed on) and he comes off as saying no help is required, or necessarily welcome.
I understand this is probably a typical academic pissing match, but any answer other than “we welcome any help we can get” just feeds the cynic’s view that these models are built by teams with the same agenda, and it isn’t all science. The obvious thought being, what are you worried about? The reality is he is probably worried about political interference in his science, which is justifiable, but it doesn’t come off that way in the transcript.
Santer’s proclamation that model discrepancies with observations are not “swept under the rug” doesn’t square with the discussion on why Christy’s plots showing poor performance were not included in the IPCC report. Santer basically says this is old news, well so is the temperature trend and expert judgment on human influences. I thought this part of the discussion went badly for them.
Reading between the lines it seems like they may recommend increased scrutiny on the models, and that is a good thing.
Another thing that struck me was this total lack of information of discriminating between which models are “better”, a qualitative assessment of different models. All you got here was a lawyerly statement on different models perform better at different things, no information provided. The cynic in me says that there is a dearth of info here because many of the “best” models happen to show the least future warming (and how could this not be the case given they are all running hot?). Non-transparency for political reasons.
Tom, you write “Another thing that struck me was this total lack of information of discriminating between which models are “better”, a qualitative assessment of different models.”
Of course. When to comes to predicting the future, NONE of the models are worth the powder to blow them to hell. They are all completely and utterly useless, Therefore, there is no use trying to say which one is better, or rather worse, than any other.
@ Jim Cripwell
“Of course. When to comes to predicting the future, NONE of the models are worth the powder to blow them to hell. They are all completely and utterly useless, Therefore, there is no use trying to say which one is better, or rather worse, than any other.”
At this point it may be a good idea to remind folks that if we have a LOT of climate models (we do), if their predictions vary wildly (they do), if ALL the climate models assume, as an axiom, that CO2 is the primary driver of the TOE (they do), and if the actual climate in its natural habitat varies dramatically over any time frame examined (it does), it is inevitable that over the relatively short time spans which are cited in claiming a planetary climate emergency one or more of the model outputs will match observations reasonably well. At which time headlines worldwide will announce that this proves once and for all that the Climate Scientists were right all along, that the superb match between the model output and data proves that ACO2 is controlling the TOE. The science is settled and it is time for (taxing and regulating) action. Tout de suite.
Jim Cripwell: Therefore, there is no use trying to say which one is better, or rather worse, than any other.
How do you know that? Studying the difference(s) between the least accurate models and the most accurate models may be very useful in the development of a really accurate model, which if it can be developed will be extremely valuable.
Squiggly Line Matching?
Are you serious?
Andrew
Mathew,
Couldn’t agree more. Why don’t model studies evaluate performance vs observations. Then down select the worst performance adn evaluate the better ones delta with observations.
Scott
Matthew, you write “How do you know that?”
I suppose I don’t really KNOW that, but I suggest there is a lot of evidence to indicate that it is true. There are very few occasions where models have been used to predict the future in a manner that can be really tested scientifically. Most predictions are so weasel worded that almost any interpretation can be put on the outcome.
But we do have at least one prediction that can be properly tested, namely, Smith et al Science, August 2007. Here the authors gave complete details as to how the model was calibrated by hindcasting data, and then a proper quantitative prediction was made. We know, qualitatively, that this prediction was wrong. On 24 Dec 2012, the Met Office quietly removed the prediction from it’s web site, and replaced with another one. But we have seen no analysis as to why Smith et al was wrong, nor do we know on what the new prediction was based, so far as I am aware. That way, it is difficult to know whether the new prediction is going to be right.
Smith et al forecast the temperature for 2014. Soon, we will have the first data point, when HAD/CRU4 for Jan 2014 is published. Then as the year progresses, we will be able to see just how bad Smith et al was.
If you know of other predictions like Smith et al, I would be interested to know about them.
Matthew R Marler,
I hope you don’t mind my interjection here.
One thing I can say with confidence about the models is that if they all produce different results, at most one is accurate.
So, if 132 models are used, at least 99% are demonstrably wrong. Comparing the model output to the past is an exercise in futility. The future is unknowable, despite the intense effort since the dawn of mankind to demonstrate the opposite.
I am baffled by the number of highly qualified and presumably rational people who seem to be obsessed with the intense and expensive examination and divination of weather averages.
Nothing of benefit appears to have resulted. Maybe it is time to allow the truly possessed to waste their own funds in pursuit of their bizarre hobby.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
At present, no model has been demonstrated to be accurate to a pre-specified level of accuracy: say MSE <= 0.10C over 20 years with independent errors, compared to global mean temp. With pre-specified accuracy, it might be possible to have more than one model at least that accurate. I merely asserted that such a model might be created taking current models as experiences in model building and evaluation, and that such a model would be worthwhile.
To Mike Flynn, I would say that a model that gave accurate mean and standard deviation forecasts for regions would be more valuable than a model that merely forecast the global mean trend, but the global mean trend is itself a good first quantity to aim for. The global mean trend is most diagnostic for evaluating the hypothesis that more CO2 will cause more net energy accumulation.
Steyn fights back. Countersues Mann or 10 million. I dearly hope this goes to trial.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/21/steyn-countersues-mann-for-10-millon-dollars/
The use of the courts by Mann for no purpose other than to interfere with acts by Steyn and others that are, “in furtherance of the right of advocacy on an issue of public interest,” Steyn claims, “violates the Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Act (Anti-SLAPP Act)… [Mann’s lawsuit is intended only, “to silence those who disagree with him on a highly controversial issue of great public importance.”
The Piltdown Mann silences himself in Canada.
=========
In his much awaited autobiography, “Letters from the State Pen,” the author finally comes clean on the hockey stick.
So, where’s the beef?
Dr. Bill Collins: “So again, I don’t want the community to come away with the fact that there is this — model is resting on a large amount on mystery meat. They are not. There is mystery meat for sure. But there is a very large amount of process modeling and process observations and backstop data that we can’t incorporate simply because of computational limitations.”
Heh, the steers were loaded up with water before market.
==================
How much do we want to admit that most of what we believe is shaped by government employees and a brainless media of blubbering talking heads spewing regurgitated nonsense through bleached teeth like sausage through a meat grinder?
I well remember efforts to hide the mixing of proxy and thermometer data… To use a current analogy: it’s like putting horsemeat into Swedish meatballs that advertise beef. In the case of the meatballs, the DNA evidence betrayed the addition of horsemeat. ~Dr. Fred S. Singer
If Dr. Collins is asking for more computational horsepower, I say open the funding floodgates. At this stage of the game, I want more physics, modeling and observations.
Funding would come with a catch, however, a catch that unfortunately would contribute to the massive cost: complete (anal) documentation of every physical premise, corresponding algorithm and corresponding code (or pseudo-code) to be open-sourced BEFORE release of hardware funds.
I’d prefer documenting after the fact as part of a strategy of lowest cost, fastest development and highest quality for a leading edge system. But that went out circa Skunk Works SR-71. And we’d not want to risk documentation never materializing.
He’s not actually asking for more funding. Rather, he is admitting there is not enough computational power on Earth to actually model the climate. And, that is if we actually knew all of the variables that effect climate; and, how the variables were related.
Freeman Dyson just does not believe climatologists “understand the climate,” and says, ”their computer models are full of fudge factors.” The academics’ GCMs, ”are extremely oversimplified,” says Dyson. “They don’t represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds.”
Wagathon – He’s not actually asking for more funding. Rather, he is admitting there is not enough computational power on Earth to actually model the climate.
Ok. you may be right. But, what I got was that to include small scale physics into the models would increase execution time to 1000’s of years. So, if that interpretation is correct, then money, a decade or so and perhaps some advice from an intelligence agency (IT) and you know, we’d be good to go.
‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.’
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
‘AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best. This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices (some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair) but not correct or best ones. The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long
Climate models are chaotic without any doubt at all – but there is very little understanding of what this means for how models are used.
‘In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.’ TAR s14.2.2.2
Here we are talking about probability distribution functions from perturbed physics ensembles. This is the only possible way that models can be of any utility at all.
The alternative we have at present is an ad hoc collection of solutions each qualitatively chosen from an unknown range of possible solutions on the basis of how ‘plausible’ the solution is to an ad hoc community of climate modelers.
I started reading Santer’s material and he immediately started talking about the tropospheric temperature structure and models. It was not convincing.
Santer’s was by far the most interesting section.
Removes ENSO, stasis still present. Up until now, people who remove ENSO show ______________?
Jim Cripwell > maybe, the APS will [] put out a statement on CAGW that is based on physics and empirical data.
You mean like actual, absolute units of energy entering and leaving the earth system, the difference mapped to CO2 levels ?
Katisha, you write “You mean like actual, absolute units of energy entering and leaving the earth system, the difference mapped to CO2 levels ?”
Not necessarily. At the moment the case for the hypothesis of CAGW is based on hypothetical estimations and the output of non-validated models. The values attributed to climate sensitivity and nothing more than guesses. What I hope is that the APS will rely on what little empirical data we have in coming to it’s decision on what to say about CAGW. The empirical data that shows that no CO2 signal has been measured in any modern temperature/time graph, indicating that the climate sensitivity of CO2 added to the atmosphere from current levels, is probably 0.0 C to one place of decimals or two significant figures.
Jim,
What I meant was : perhaps we could now see a change away from estimations and hunches and models that defy the thermometers, towards trying to measure actual energy in and out. At bottom, that’s what it’s really all about isn’t it?
An improved measure of what has been poorly estimated.
============
Katisha, you write ” At bottom, that’s what it’s really all about isn’t it?”
Absolutely. I am metaphorically shouting Eureka!!! For years I have been beating this drum on Climate Etc. and anywhere else I can. ALL we should ever rely on in physics is the empirical data.
As I have quoted over and over again “To the solid ground of Nature, Trusts the mind that builds for Aye ” William Wordsworth. These were the words on the cover of the magazine Nature, when I used to read it during and just after WWII.
Sorry, Katisha, I realise that I have misinterpreted what you are trying to say. I get enthusiastic if anyone uses the word “measured”. The difficulty with CAGW is the problem with measuring what you want, with sufficient accuracy. You are correct that if we could measure energy in and energy out with sufficient accuracy, that would provide a definite answer on the subject of CAGW, I simply do not know whether such measurements can be made with sufficient accuracy.
Last month was the fourth-warmest January since recordkeeping began in 1880. It was also the 347th consecutive month with above-average temperatures compared to the 20th century average, which has been fueled in large part by climate change. That streak is one month shy of 29 straight years.
Global average temperatures were also among their top 10 warmest for the ninth straight month, according to data released Thursday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Global average temperatures over land and sea in January checked in 1.17°F above the 20th century average. This is the 38th consecutive January with above-normal temperatures and the warmest since 2007.
There has indeed probably been slight warming since 1880. The open question is why? By the way, record keeping did not begin in 1880.
Attribution, she’s a bitch;
Don’t know why, just scratch that itch.
Puff the Magic Model
Lived by the CO2.
Nature turned and bit him, someplace rich.
=====================
And during the MWP there were several hundred years of temperatures that ran above the “average”.
BREAKING NEWS
Hansen is right:
NO COOLING IN SIGHT
As of early 2014, James Hansen’s now 33-year-old predictions of climate-change are continuing to look mighty solid, eh Climate Etc readers?
Common Sense Reason Statistical fluctuations regress; energy imbalance doesn’t; and that’s why the world’s land-temperature “pause” is ENDING.
More Broadly Hansen’s 1981 predictions were theoretically grounded in energy-balance thermodynamics and radiation transport theory … *AND* have observationally affirmed by multiple independent lines of climate-change evidence … including rising seas, melting ice-caps, heating oceans, heating land … *AND* further affirmed by the predicted “opening of the fabled Northwest Passage” … just as James Hansen predicted.
Conclusion There’s small-and-shrinking likelihood the “Stadium Waves” — or any other statistics-based climate-change theory — will match Hansen’s solid multi-decade trans-disciplinary record of successful science-based prediction AND integrated science-based explanation.
@ Fan and Earth
I read your posts reporting the Monthly Temperature of the Earth (MTOE) and ocean surface temperatures with a precision of .01 C and accuracies of +/- .08 C and .04 C.
The combined resources of Climate Science, world wide, couldn’t divide into two teams, have each team instrument my granddaughter’s grade school independently, collect data for a month, each publish the ‘Monthly Temperature of the School’, and have the two results agree with the accuracy claimed for their measurement of the entire earth or surface of the oceans.
It also seems a bit implausible to think that records of world wide temperature of the earth for the entire 20th century exist that allow meaningful comparisons to current data to be made with error budgets of a few hundredths of a degree.
Whubby says:
“With inputs from skeptics such as Scafetta, I applied their suggestions and showed that this class of natural variation is a wash in the greater scheme of things.
So Tallbloke and company are probably correct but in an inconsequential kind of way. That’s the way it goes. The massive control knob of CO2 continues to blow them out of the water.”
Thanks for acknowledging the probable correctness of our theory. I have to admit I’m not unhappy to be unable to return the compliment.
Your titchy ‘control knob’ is in fact twerked by Jupiter and Venus’ big asses.
“Your titchy ‘control knob’ is in fact twerked by Jupiter and Venus’ big asses.”
Webby, knobs, big asses, and gas giants… could you be more specific about how these three things differ?
Tallbloke,
You could probably make some progress if you would simply acknowledge that climate scientists know what they are doing — at least to some degree.
Why such resistance to the “Borg of CO2”?
Face the facts. What you and Scafetta, Wilson, Mörner, and others are doing with orbital studies are probably correct to some degree, but they are simply slight corrections to the strong influence of the CO2 GHG control knob.
You are letting the blinders of your anti-green (or whatever) agenda get in the way of pursuing the low-resistance, high-output scientific path.
Here are some words of advice. If you let the hypotheses flow naturally instead of trying to crowbar them into a “motivated reasoning” mindset, you may actually come up with some scientific results that you can publish. You won’t get far when everything you find supports the idea of CO2 as a strong influence, but then you have to reject that path because it does not follow your iron-cast political agenda.
If you don’t want to follow this advice, fine. The 3-ring circus between you guys and the WUWT crowd is as entertaining to watch as Godzilla vs Mothra fighting it out.
WHT: The massive control know that is CO2 seems to have run out of steam recently and has feedback loop excursion s written all over it since we have been recording temperatures.
http://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/hadcrut-giss-rss-and-uah-global-annual-anomalies-aligned-1979-2013-with-gaussian-low-pass-and-savitzky-golay-15-year-filters.png
RLH,
Remove the fluctuation terms and all we see is CO2
http://imageshack.com/a/img823/7237/wif.gif
You seem to have very limited skills when it comes to time series analysis
Whubby: I’m sorry you think the ocean ate your warmng. It didn’t. Nearly all the late C20th warming was actually just the strong Sun plus the positive phase of the AMO/PDO. Although the near surface air temperatures have been pretty flat since 2003, the ocean heat content has (as Josh Willis admitted before he got his wrist slapped) declined, although if Sid Levitus keeps dropping the rapidly cooling ARGO buoys from the dataset because he believes as Kevin Trenberth does that “the data are surely wrong”, there’s not much hope you’ll realise the truth of the matter.
The ‘missing heat’ is somewhere past Alpha Centauri by now.
The model Scafetta put together using our planetary-solar theory is bang on track, no co2 effect needed, or wanted. See where it has led the ‘consensus’ on the same plot.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/nicola-scafetta-planetary-harmonics-derived-forecast-on-course/
The oceans affect the temperature of the adjoining air via molecular collisions at the interface. Bearing in mind the length of the free path between collisions, it is more than adequate to treat just the first 1mm of the oceans (and the solid surfaces) as being a 1mm high “body” but that body is transparent in the oceans. Think about how much solar radiation passes through 1mm. So, because a black or gray body is not transparent (by definition) any temperature calculations of surface temperatures using the Stefan-Boltzmann calculations are meaningless and straight out wrong.
Radiative balance is not what determines mean surface temperatures on Earth or any planet.
Instead, gravity sets up an autonomous “lapse rate” which is just the gradient of a plot of temperature against altitude in the troposphere. The whole plot moves up and down (in parallel positions) during the day and night respectively and where it intersects the surface represents (roughly) the minimum temperatures usually occuring at night. The Sun can then raise temperatures from this “springboard” temperature, but conduction and back radiation will slow cooling at night, but not determine or alter the temperature where the plot intersects the surface. Inter-molecular radiation causes the plot to rotate so that the surface temperature is cooler – as has been measured in regions with higher rainfall than other similar regiions with similar latitude and altitude. That’s it in a nutshell. Carbon dioxide, like water vapour, cools rather than warms.
CONGRATULATIONS TO ALEX HAMILTON
The Reason To gain a solid appreviation of energy-balance climate-change science, Alex need only read-and-understand Spencer Weart’s The Discovery of Global Warming, specifically the chapter The Theory Restored (1950-1958) and the subsequent chapter The Computer Models Vindicated (1990s-2000s)!
You along with many Climate Etc readers are making good progress toward a mature scientific appreciation of climate-change, Alex Hamilton!
Now, isn’t that better than the willfully ignorant ideology-driven denialism of Big Carbon shills and/or nutjobs?
Quotes of the Week
• Liddell Hart “There is no excuse for any literate person to be less than three-thousand years old in his mind.” (Why We Don’t Learn from History, 1946).
• Tony Zee “I strongly believe that any self-respecting physicist should learn about the history of physics, and the history of quantum field theory is among the most fascinating.” (Quantum Field Theory In a Nutshell, 2010).
Conclusion It is well to study both energy-balance thermophysics *AND* the history of that thermophysics, Climate Etc readers!
It seems a Fan of More Pseudo Science hasn’t lived past the year 2,000 when he or she thinks that cited paper vindicated the computer models. The current slight cooling until the year 2028 is just too hard to take..
You’re not a fan of Dinosaur Comics, are yah VP?
Observation STEM folks (students especially!) mostly *love* Dinosaur Comics willfully ignorant denialists, special-interest shills, and short-sighted self-centered cultists, not so much!
Will Ben Santer be invited back at the end to rewrite it when everyone has gone home? Something along the lines of:
“Despite legitimate uncertainties in the scale of the problem, the overwhelming majority of active climate scientists agree that there is overwhelming evidence that humankind has changed the climate system irrevocably and that our best method of finding how bad it will get are the ensemble Global Circulation models, which are based on sound physical underpinnings and which are in remarkable agreement with each other.”
It’s just too boring to admit the truth that the model runs are obviously based on wildly pessimistic assumptions, do not agree with reality and that without those models;
a) nothing unusual is going on beyond an extremely mild and beneficial 0.6K/century,
b) there is no way to separate manmade warming from total warming (which in any event stopped 17 years ago, contrary to all “expert” opinion), and,
c) no climate catastrophes are therefore imminent,
Energy policy is far too important to be dependent on already disproven, pessimistic guesswork.
Which should be their real statement. Furthermore they should once and for all declare that the wildly popular notion that extreme weather events are made worse by any warming at all, never mind the manmade variety, has no basis in fact or theory and most certainly cannot be derived from models, contrary to what too many dishonest scientists claim.
Dr. Collins: “We know that we are draining the energy budget out of the earth’s system appreciably.”
——-
Can someone explain what he meant by this? It seems to make no sense on many levels. Human activity is “draining” the energy “budget”out of the Earth system? It seems quite poorly worded and confused.
May I suggest that Dr. Collins may be referring to our use of fossil fuels. We are draining the reserves of fuel. Just a guess.
I have no idea, but you may be able to find out from your fellow warmists – they seem to accept whatever he says without question, so they presumably know.
Whenever I change positions, its usually to make myself more comfortable. If I am sitting in an airplane in steerage class on an international flight I have very little room to move from one sore spot of my body to another. If I am watching TV at home, there are no sore spots that need to be addressed, just lean forward to reach the munchies.
When I am confronted with a challenge to a long held belief system, I find I have very little wiggle room and the need to constantly adjust to new information and ways of thinking is vexing and seems so interminable; tiresome really. I find myself defensive, easily agitated and exaggerating points that I really know, deep down inside, are far more nuanced and “iffy” than I state in public.
Enter the “pause” in climate science; a challenge to a long held belief system: climate is linear; CO2 is a control knob; models give data. Now this challenge is not like a sudden event, “poof, up in smoke.” Rather, it is more agonizingly drawn out like my international flight. We are watching a monotony of satellite measured global temperatures not moving spectacularly up or down; just kinda, well, just there. From this lack of catastrophic confirmation bias, we can see the publications and organizations with their metaphoric squirming and wiggling and constantly adjusting, seat back up, then down, curl left then right, lean on one’s neighbor, etc etc etc. In climate science there are similar gyrations: deep ocean heat uptake, unmeasured but presumed; sea level rise, if not, then measurements added to; the stratosphere’s ozone is playing tricks with our models, etc etc etc.
Some climate science enthusiasts, to avoid the unpleasantness of the long term discomfort of having to change positions, have leaned upon like-minded billionaires to spring for an upgrade to business class with its Bose sound canceling headphones, softer, larger and fully reclining seats allowing a less annoying journey to climate change. These climate scientists don’t have to hear what some other scientists have to say; endure the questioning of their results at meetings; or bare the consequence of their prognostications.
Meanwhile, many of us in steerage are confronted with “the mind can absorb what the seat can endure.” Business class can avoid to some degree the physical discomfort. But we’re all on this plane together, steerage, business and first class, and if this thing goes down, we all go down with it.
A Fan of More Assertion likes to call upon authority, and laps it all up, citing references he or she thinks we don’t understand, despite about half a century of studying and teaching physics.
Of course I understand what their arguments are, and I understand exactly where their arguments fail. It only takes one weak link in the chain, you know. The 1mm thick layer of water at the top of the ocean is not heated by the Sun to anywhere near the temperature that a 1mm layer of black asphalt would be. If the difference is, say, 20 degrees, then your climate predictions from models based on false physics could be out by as much.
I posted this comment on the week in review thread.
It belongs here also, but you can read it over there.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/22/week-in-review-14/#comment-462695
Yes indeed, H.A.P. Your linked comment about the reality of the 1,000 year cycle makes me H A P P Y and you may be interested in the analysis in the Appendix of this paper I had published two years ago, where I show that the rate of increase in the long-term 1,000 year cycle has decreased from 0.06C/decade a hundred years ago to 0.05C/decade in recent times. The plot also shows the superimposed 60 year cycle and we are in the middle of 30 years of slight net cooling arising from these two main cycles.
Late to the party, but reading nearly 600 pages and doing other things will make that happen. Here are some thoughts and comments on the APS transcript, a document the likes of which I really didn’t expect to see in my lifetime:
* Nice to see that everyone wants better observational data, wants to not have the satellite and balloon networks continue to degrade, but rather, we need to improve them. APS must make this a major recommendation.
* Santer says, if we are going to do a red team approach on the models, let’s also do it for satellite and balloon systems. That seems fair, as long as the red teams are in each case independent and highly qualified.
* Why or why not are observational data not good enough (Christy vs Santer/IPCC). APS can certainly explore whether the observational data are good enough, that should be solidly in their area of expertise.
On page 506, Held says this: “You can’t get a model to depart from the moist adiabatic very much. As far as in the atmosphere, the models are very stiff.” Questions: (1) please describe specifically how this might cause models to get temperature predictions wrong, other predications wrong, or whether this is minor, and (2) Lindzen maintains that in a warmer world, there might be an increase in surface heat radiated to space in the tropics, because some parts of the atmosphere in the tropics will be less moist, and he says that observations confirm this (infrared iris effect, I believe). Is Held saying that the models cannot produce the kind of effect? Or is he saying that Lindzen is wrong about observations? This particular area — moisture in the tropics in particular — seems like something within the panel’s clear expertise.
* What is Held’s view for the sharp run up in temperatures from about 1918 through about 1936, concurrent with the sharp increase in sea level rise of that period? Ask Held if ENSO events explain these anomalies?
* To what extent are Held’s view of reasons for the hiatus (ENSO events) compatible with Curry’s view (Stadium Wave)?
* When comparing sea level rise in recent decades, vs. those in the 20 century, shouldn’t the addition to sea level rise of irrigation water from aquifers (water previously sequestered from the oceans) be subtracted from the entire record, before comparisons are made? (See pg. 424). APS should explicitly make a point about this, to show sea level rise on a consistent basis, for the last century.
* Santer provided a graphic in his presentation which showed that models produced more increase in heat in the tropics than observations showed, but less heat increase in the Arctic than reality showed. Is this prima facie evidence that something like the Stadium wave, or some similar natural variability, is correct? (pg. 187)
* The IPCC claim is that 51% or more of the warming from 1950 is due to human influences. Since 1950 happened to be the coldest year of a decade that goes from 1945 to 1954, shouldn’t the statement – and calculations of temp increases – actually refer to the average temperature from 1945 to 1954? (see pg. 424)
* I had thought that the two regions where surface water is exported to bottom or intermediate layers were around Antarctica, and in the North Atlantic (thermohaline effects), but that tropical waters had more stable isothermal layers. It didn’t seem that you would have massive transfer of heat to thousands of meters below the surface, in the hottest tropical areas. Is the physics of tropical oceans compatible with massive transfer of heat to 2000 meters or so, one of the suggested reasons for the hiatus? What tests can be done to determine whether warm water, to the extent that it is sequestered in the tropical Pacific, is well mixed or not?
* On pg. 535, Coyle says this: “There is a view, I think, that it doesn’t matter what experts think, that the threat from global warming has become accepted by the general public, by the media and all and internalized by the general public and the media.” That isn’t what the polls say, as far as I can tell. So if Coyle wants the APS to do something, based upon this understanding, I don’t think his understanding is correct. See: http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/climate-change-key-data-points-from-pew-research/
* On pg. 549, good statement by Santer: “It’s not sufficient, again, just to show some discrepancy between models and observations and say models are wrong. We need to understand why those differences exist.”
* On pg. 572, Seestrom has a strong point: “And it seems to me the hiatus has a high probability of being able to be described by interactions with these natural oscillations, just pulling that out and telling it to the membership I think would be useful.
@ John
“* On pg. 549, good statement by Santer: “It’s not sufficient, again, just to show some discrepancy between models and observations and say models are wrong. We need to understand why those differences exist.”
And I’m sure that they will move heaven and earth, testing every theory, adjusting every data base, purchasing ever more powerful super computers, and leaving no grant dollar unclaimed in their tireless effort to understand the discrepancy between models and observations. As long as NO ASPECT of their efforts casts doubt on the Central Axiom of Climate Science: That ACO2 is driving the TOE upward precipitously, the rise in the TOE will be catastrophic unless action is taken to halt it, and that the ONLY way to avert catastrophe is to use taxes and regulations to drastically reduce or eliminate ACO2.
Since the empirical evidence indicates that if ACO2 has ANY effect on the TOE it is relatively insignificant compared to other physical variables that combine to dominate changes in the climate and there is essentially zero probability that ‘Climate Science’, writ large, will tolerate ANY challenge to the central axiom, it seems unlikely that the climate models based on it will become significantly more skillful, no matter how much computer power and climate scientist salary is thrown at them.
To Bob Ludwick:
Yes, I agree that Santer and company will move heaven and earth to show that their models’ views of how our climate system works are still largely right.
I don’t actually find that an issue, as long as they do so transparently, AND that the red team approach advocated by Christy and others is used. Science moves forward because advocates try to prove their theory, that is why I don’t object to Santer and company going forward. They might prove their theories, they might not.
The two flies in the ointment are (1) the red team approach to the models has yet to occur, and (2) there doesn’t seem to be $ to allows those more skeptical to establish their own models with their own parameters. The latter would be extremely expensive. But if the red team approach looks at the models, and suggests different parameterizations, different inputs, then the second fly in the ointment might be considered swatted. We just have to have the ability to run reasonably parameters that Santer and company haven’t yet considered.
For instance, I wonder what would happen if the Stadium wave forcings are input to the model?
@ John
“Science moves forward because advocates try to prove their theory, that is why I don’t object to Santer and company going forward. They might prove their theories, they might not.”
I absolutely agree with you about generic science. That is the way it has worked traditionally and continues to work as a general rule. As it should.
Unfortunately, Climate Science (as opposed to climate science) has collectively pronounced ex cathedra, as an axiom rather than a theory, that ACO2 is driving the TOE upward precipitously AND that the rise will prove catastrophic unless halted by taxing and regulating any activity with a ‘carbon signature’. Which, in a modern technological society, would be for all intents and purposes ALL activity. Furthermore, as you found out by making an innocent comment at a party, it will instantly initiate an all out attack on anyone who in any way questions ANY of its dogma. Your example was a comment at a party questioning whether a rise in sea level at a rate of 0-2 mm/y, for whatever reason, was a looming catastrophe that required drastic corrective action. As you pointed out, the attack on you had little to do with data and its implications. Nor is it with wayward scientists, like our hostess, who stray near the EDGE of the reservation, never mind actually leaving it. Any scientist in any field who openly questions The Axiom or any of its corollaries WILL have their reputations trashed and WILL find themselves subject to derogatory attacks on their motives and competence. If they are academics and do not have tenure, their chances of gaining it go to zero, instantly. Even in the private sector, there is zero tolerance for apostasy. How long do you think that a weatherman on the weather channel or a major commercial channel would remain employed if he went on the air and openly questioned that ACO2 dominated the climate?
Climate Science is accurate about one thing: the science is settled. And has been since day one. Throughout our education system, from elementary through grad school, in an environment where relativity and quantum mechanics remain THEORIES, ACO2 as an existential threat is FACT. It is unquestioned and unquestionable. It is not subject to falsification, as EVERY undesirable weather event is presented as confirmation of the theory: too hot, too cold, too wet, too dry, too much snow, too little snow, insufficient Arctic ice, record Antarctic ice, hurricanes and tornados, NO hurricanes and tornados, ad infinitum. ALL proof positive of The Axiom.
On pg. 549, good statement by Santer: “It’s not sufficient, again, just to show some discrepancy between models and observations and say models are wrong. We need to understand why those differences exist.”
The differences exist because they increase temperature in the Models as CO2 goes up and Mother Earth does not increase temperature as CO2 goes up.
The sensitivity of Temperature to CO2 is much closer to zero than they think. The disconnect between Temperature and CO2 started several thousand years age.
This is not new. Look at Actual Data. This is NOAA’s Data.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page38.html
When the Climate Model Temperature Range Lowest Point is above Earth Temperature and they keep preaching totally the same sermon, it is time to retire them from pretending to be scientists.
“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. ”
I don’t think anyone could disagree with this. Of course it does not say if the effect is large, small positive or negative.
“Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases.”
Again, completely okay statement.
“They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.”
Duh.
“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.”
This is simply a restatement of the first sentence.
“If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. ”
The biggest problem with this is the use of the word “likely” and the use of “disruption”. I don’t know whether disruption is likely. Since this seems to be the main operative phrase of the statement it seems it would require some additional scientific statements, like a description of something specific they think is likely to happen. If they can’t say anything specific then what is likely?
I can say for a fact there will be disruptions in the future regardless of CO2 production. There is constant technological change, environmental disasters, bad things happen. Nations have leaders who cause catastrophic results for their countries. I don’t have any idea if these disruptions they are talking about are more serious than say a couple of people are inconvenienced or billions die. I don’t know if these will occur 20 years from now or 200 years.
“We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
It’s an opinion. It’s not scientifically justifiable statement because they have not said anything that would indicate the type or level of disruptions. We don’t even know if the disruptions are positive or negative according to this statement. We also don’t know the cost of mitigating greenhouse gases and the effects of those mitigations.
Many people might have a reason for agreeing with this statement regardless of climate change beliefs. For instance, greenhouse gas production involves a lot of dirty processes which are harmful to humans. Just based on the cost to humanity in the production of fossil fuels I would argue the above statement is good but it has nothing to do with climate change. There are limits to how much fossil fuel can be extracted. Many might believe that we should reduce greenhouse gases just because it’s unsustainable. It’s a low bar to say we should reduce fossil fuel usage. But also they don’t connect the previous statements other than to say there are likely to be disruptions. Almost everyone might agree with that in principle but in reality it is a lot harder to achieve and it doesn’t give any consequence for not doing such other than there will likely be be some unknown, unspecified, not clear what cost “disruptions” in the future.
“Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms.”
Nothing to argue with here. They want more money. What science org doesn’t?
“The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.”
Simple enough restatement of the ungrounded opinion above. Shouldn’t scientists be brief? They have repeated themselves at least 2 times above. The statement doesn’t indicate any “catastrophic” consequences. They say likely but I don’t know if it is 51% likely or 99.9% likely.
The statement is benign and meaningless enough to be pointless.
If I read this statement according to my previous analysis then they are basically arguing it’s possible (they say likely) there will be some disruptions so give us more money to study it. It seems a more scientifically accurate less controversial and completely reasonable statement to say:
Since our measurement and predictive systems are still infantile and not very good we should spend money to understand if the effect will be large or small from the large amounts of the earths resources we consume. It’s prudent in this period where there is uncertainty to whenever reasonable and not disruptive itself to reduce greenhouse gas production and for other materials we are not certain of their effect on the environment. For many reasons use of fossil fuels is less than ideal. In general we should continue to invest in technology to eventually eliminate our dependence on a fuel source which is problematic.
Such a statement accomplishes their objective, doesn’t tie them into an embarassing and basically untrue statement of things they don’t actually know. We don’t know if the effect of CO2 will be a small change in temp or large or if the effect of that temperature change whatever it is will be positive or negative on humanity. However, who could argue that it is prudent to take the position that if it does not disrupt our lives to reduce our usage it makes sense to do so. Also it provides significant rationale for continuing funding the science since we all know the state of the science is less than is capable of making definitive statements we ought to try and study everything more.
I seriously doubt if APS could undo the damage done to science after WWII, even if it’s leaders wanted to.
My research mentor was a faculty member at the Imperial University of Tokyo during WWII.
By following his directions I learned that the spirit of Stalin survived the end of WWII, has an insatiable appetite for tax funds, and will not be easily defeated now.
In 1946 George Orwell started writing his warning to us.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
In 1946 Fred Hoyle said the internal composition of the Sun was changed from iron (Fe) to hydrogen (H) and was unanimously adopted without debate or discussion. See pp. 153-154.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/093570227X
Precise experimental data on pages 19-27 of my autobiography identify many of the falsehoods that led us into slavery after WWII ended.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf
Just heard Santer plugging his volcanos paper on NPR. Now he has them explaining only 15% of the pause instead of the 25% bruited in the APS meeting.
Hmm UK Royal Society of Science appears to have co-operated with US National Academy of Sciences to produce a climate change statement
http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/
Unfortunately, that is not surrising.
The US NAS, the UK’s RS and the UN’s IPCC have been working with the Swedish and Norwegian NAS to make science into a tool of government propaganda.
Pingback: NAS/RS Report on Climate Change: Evidence and Causes | Climate Etc.
In the American Physical Society (APS) review of its Climate Change Statement, while speaking about reducing the uncertanty in climate sensitivity for projections by global climate models of impacts from CO2:
Finally, and this is perhaps the core thing for a group like this, we don’t have a first-principles theory that tells us what we have to get right in order to have an accurate projection.”
p88, APS CLIMATE CHANGE STATEMENT REVIEW WORKSHOP
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf
Simplified English translation: For predicting the future climate, We don’t have the know-how; we don’t even know what we need to develop the know-how.
Analogy from celestial mechanics: We’re at the stage of development that we have some useful predictions based on models that use epicycles and we’re awaiting a Newton to develop concepts tying together physical concepts into a mathematical model.
Have I understood this comment correctly?
Judith given the discussion of the role of models and future direction of model research, I thought this new paper is an interesting one.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00080.1
A paper that looks at how model research should progress. An interesting point they make is that they believe the present use of models has essential only explored the “plausible”. And they believe with the focus on uncertainty and tractability(??) this might move to actual projection. An interesting and rather basic critique!
No wonder there was so much confusion re: prediction, projection, scenario; the ambiguity gave rise to verbosity.
==============
Pingback: Simplicity amidst complexity (?) | Climate Etc.
Pingback: AAAS: What we know | Climate Etc.
Good news.
What they did in 2007 was embarrassing—I’ve often said most “climate scientists” weren’t scientists in the same sense that physicists are, hinting strongly that physicists tend to be smarter.
That’s what I was hinting at; that’s what I meant.
So it was both not surprising that so many more physicists protested this abomination of a position in 2007, and disappointing that the committee which is the APA took it.
Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
Global food security is the most pressing issue of our time, not CO2 Catastrophic Climate Change Theory whose Models do not reflect reality. The real question is will CO2 levels be high enough to grow enough plants to feed the world. http://www.co2science.org/educ…
Pingback: Climate Conversation Group » APS turns to face the tiger
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
Pingback: Äntligen en vetenskaplig diskussion - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen
Hi! Quick question that’s entirely off topic.
Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My weblog looks weird when viewing from my iphone4.
I’m trying to find a theme or plugin that might be able to resolve this issue.
If you have any recommendations, please share. Thank
you!
Pingback: AGU: Enforcing the consensus | Climate Etc.