by Judith Curry
This brief summary of the history of scientific understanding of the impacts of climate change is a peculiar history, as histories of science go. – Spencer Weart
Historian Spencer Weart has published a very interesting article in Physics Today: Climate change impacts: The growth of understanding. The whole article is well worth reading; here I excerpt text from the section A peculiar kind of science. Excerpts:
This brief summary of the history of scientific understanding of the impacts of climate change is a peculiar history, as histories of science go. Since the real work began in the 1960s, I have not had occasion to mention a single name of an individual: My actors were committees. I have not even cited any single landmark discovery paper; the committees were looking over dozens of papers, then hundreds, each contributing a little bit to the overall picture. Nor have I described any grand false leads, dead ends, or controversies, which are so common in the history of science. The seat-of-the-pants guesses that scientists started with in the 1960s turned out to be roughly correct; the story was one of adding to the list of impacts, putting numbers to each item, and becoming ever more certain that the things foreseen would indeed come to pass. And in this short article I have certainly not been able—any more than the IPCC in its lengthy reports—to present a convincing case, based on logic and observations, of why anyone should believe the consensus statements.
A closer look, if I had much more space, would certainly turn up plenty of individuals, along with lots of mistakes and controversies about details. Each new idea was first brought up by someone and then argued out at length. Our history of committees is like the swan that glides serenely on the surface while paddling furiously underneath. Still, I haven’t been telling a Whig history, reconstructing after the fact an understanding that never existed at the time. In this peculiar case a consensus was constructed by committees on the fly, a consensus that became increasingly detailed and certain decade by decade. The topic was so important that people recognized very early on that it could not be left to a few individuals making statements to the newspapers. Experts had to analyze the entirety of the peer-reviewed literature, even have elaborate computer studies done expressly for their use, and get together to hammer out conclusions that everyone could agree were scientifically sound. To be sure, in some areas they could only agree on the extent of their uncertainty, but that, too, was a genuine and important scientific conclusion.
On the other hand, many people have argued vociferously against the entire scientific consensus on impacts, right up to the present. For example, a Hoover Institution publication held that “global warming, if it were to occur, would probably benefit most Americans.” There would be lower heating bills and other energy savings. Others emphasized, as a Heartland Institute publication declared, that “more carbon dioxide in the air would lead to more luxuriant crop growth and greater crop yields” while taking no account of the likely heat waves and droughts. No careful study or hard analysis backed up such statements. Our mainstream history, the history of expert committees, stands aside from all that.
The public knew little of how the committees came to exist and nothing of how they functioned. The experts’ consensus reached ordinary people as a few paragraphs, at most, in a news story, boiling down an already much compressed executive summary.
I submit that a major problem in communicating climate realities to the public is that the media, and everyone else addressing the public, feature individual scientists and their discoveries and disagreements. We have scarcely come to grips with committee consensus, a different kind of history of science. You will find no account digging into details of committee deliberations. I haven’t been able to do it here, and I am not sanguine about prospects for getting it done. In fact, the IPCC and the NAS and their members have been highly reluctant to make public any documents or recollections about just what goes on in the committee deliberations. Only recently, under pressure from critics, has the IPCC made its review process entirely transparent to the public. Be that as it may, I suggest historians and social scientists should give more attention to those committees. If we did, the public would have a better idea of how “science” comes to say what it does say about global warming —and a good many other issues.
Weart’s characterization of climate science by committee consensus seeking seems to fall under the rubric of post normal science. In this framework, much of the tension in climate science seems to come from scientists who want to behave as physicists (i.e. ‘real scientists’) versus committee based consensus seeking and consensus supporting.
So why have climate scientists, coming from a heritage mostly of physics and chemistry, acquiesced to science by committee? I submit that the older generation (my generation and older) have come up through the traditional sciences and are relatively vocal in their opposition (the phenomenon of the emeritus faculty members who seem to object to the consensus). Whereas younger climate scientists have come up through the system more accepting of the consensus by committee approach.
Well this is certainly a rich subject for science historians!
Pingback: A peculiar kind of science | Enjeux énergies et environnement
Thank you, Professor Curry. I may post a short note on ResearchGate to see if anyone there has found convincing evidence.
Continued belief in that for which there is no convincing evidence is called “faith“ In religious circles and “self-centeredness“ in scientific circles. This was the same force that Copernicus and Galileo encountered after discovering convincing evidence that Earth moves in orbit around the Sun, rather than that the Sun moves in orbit around the Earth.
So far, none of the scientists on ResearchGate reports convincing evidence of AGW either:
A respected scientist at the Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Kenneth M. Towe, has an intriguing reply.
Something is wrong. Politicians, government and UN spokespersons all tell us AGW claims have 97% approval in the scientific community, but not one out of thousands of scientists on ResearchGate has stepped forward to offer convincing evidence of AGW. Something is wrong.
Is it not strange how many climate skeptics believe in God, despite a lack of convincing evidence. Is it not strange how many atheists believe in CAGW, despite a lack of convincing evidence. (Now you understand why I am a cynic.)
It’s going on a decade ago when I directly asked Spencer Weart when he was going to write ‘The Discovery of Global Cooling’, well directly in blog comments, anyway.
Fat chance. The globe is warming. Right now, at a very fast rate,
There you go again, cherry picking at a blinding pace.
Why don’t you take the longest average? Doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas?
What a pity. I believe that molten rock cooled, not warmed, to form the cool solid crust on which we live. You obviously think otherwise. Even my pet wombat knows the ground below his little feet is not terribly hot – certainly below boiling point.
How much molten rock is there in your vicinity? Maybe in Warmist World things are back to front, and the Earth was created at 0 K or thereabouts, and has warmed up a la heat creep! Don’t panic, I don’t expect an answer. Neither does my wombat, strangely enough.
He does predictions by the way. He predicts night is generally cooler than day, and Winter is generally cooler than Summer. Can a Climatologist do any better? Rhetorical question, sorry. Of course the answer is no, but you knew that, I guess.
When the Earth is ice free, be sure to let me and the wombat know. Neither of us think it is likely, but you can never be sure, can you?
Gee, I don’t know.
“The globe is warming. Right now, at a very fast rate.”
“Right now” it is not doing much anything. During the last 10 years, you can’t say. During the last 100 years, well it warmed up. During the last 1000 years, probably not. During the last 10000 years, definitely and luckily it warmed a lot. During the last 10,000,000 years, it cooled significantly.
Right now I’m having cold feet. I hoped the landlord turned on the heat, but I guess they rather let me suffer. Luckily, in the so-called ‘worst’ case, my place is gonna warm +10C during the next 100 years. So my children don’t have to work so hard. In the real worst case, my children will be forced to move south.
JCH: “Fat chance. The globe is warming. Right now, at a very fast rate,”
No it isn’t.
Stop making stuff up.
Your credibility is disappearing at a fast fast rate.
Well, truth is it disappear some time back.
“while taking no account of the likely heat waves and droughts”
A warmer world is wetter, and anything in waves and episodes is in the natural variability department and little to do with long term forcing of average global surface temperature.
That’s what I don’t understand. Even the IPCC models clearly show an on average wetter world. There is and will always be a lot of variability, but you can’t put faith in models that the world will warm sharply and then ignore them when they also predict increased rain. Picking and choosing is the art of cynically picking apart papers. However, this is the consensus we are talking about.
If I had a political agenda, I would portray that I had more uncertainty rather than less uncertainty, then I could scare you with both increased floods and increased droughts.
This is IMO a new and important contribution to the ‘history of science’. I wad previously greatly influenced by Kuhn, and (later, when first exposed) by Popper. In my simple minded understanding of them, observational facts stand supreme. Cue Feynman’s Cargo Cult speech. Cue Einstein’s aphorism about 100 ‘German’ physicists disagreeing with his relativity–‘Why 100 when one [with facts] would have sufficed?’.
The notion that ‘true’ facts are determined by committee is repugnant. Facts are determined by replicatiion– as many times as one likes. For the ‘pause’, two suffice–RSS and UAH. And so forth.
The notion that the meanings of ‘true’ facts are determined by committee is even more repugnant, since it intentionally stifles creative new thought and innovation. Copernicus, Galileo, and heliocentricity come to mind.
The observation of climate science by ‘consensus committee’ has long legs.
For the ‘pause’, two suffice–RSS and UAH. And so forth. …
Wrong. One man; no committee. Scientist at RSS.
JCH ???? Evidence? I count 9 at RSS
Blame the microwaves. What’s the frequency, JCH?
JCH and David H. The team contains a few non scientists but there seems to be at least 5 researchers who could be referred to as scientists.
Employing 9 people makes it a committee? Lol.
A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!). – Carl Mears, all by himself, and not a committee, the senior research scientist
“…The notion that the meanings of ‘true’ facts are determined by committee is even more repugnant, since it intentionally stifles creative new thought and innovation. Copernicus, Galileo, and heliocentricity come to mind.”
It’s good to be on the committee. Invitation only, I presume.
I agree. The notion that ‘true’ facts are determined by popularity or by committee is repugnant because it violates the most basic principle of science.
Apparently RSS has a committee of 9. How about UAH? What was the complaint about committees, again?
You could save yourself a lot of embarrassment by commenting a lot less frequently, yimmy.
It would be wonderful to have Feynman come back and do a speech about how his legacy was kidnapped by a clueless dude who thinks RSS and UAH indicate something factual about the hiatus.
facts dont speak for themselves.
take RSS and UAH. They don’t say “pause”
The only way you get a pause from those facts is by making decisions about what data model ( think linear fit ) to apply to the facts
And in reality RSS and UAH are not facts.
They are highly processed data products.
The FACTS are the sensor voltage.
In between the sensor voltage and the estimate of temperature is a whole series of decisions, assumptions, regressions, corrections, theory.
Look at the chain of customer between a voltage recorded at the sensor an the production of an anomaly value. you cant even FIND the real facts.
“The only way you get a pause from those facts is by making decisions about what data model ( think linear fit ) to apply to the facts”
Absolutely important to remember.
Rud forgets that data has no trend.
Models of data have trends
Thanks for the English lesson. I’m sure it was appreciated by all. /sarc
Now, if only Mosher would practice what he preaches. Can’t tell you how many times he makes statements of this sort:
“increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in temperature”
How silly of him to forget the all-important “… all other things being equal”.
Yet he lectures Rud on “forgetfulness”… amazing.
Steven Mosher: “And in reality RSS and UAH are not facts.
They are highly processed data products.”
So where does that leave BEST?
UAH is already on version 6. When they and RSS have figured out why they are missing the current El Nino hot area, we will have their next versions, but somehow I don’t expect that until after Paris.
Has anybody attacked the satellite data? I would have thought that, given the political debate, somebody would have gone through balloon and sounding rocket data, or whatever else they do, and checked the satellite calibrations.
I’m an engineer, supervised scientists during my career, and I never found any who sat on their hands if they had a hunch a large data set had weaknesses. Hell, finding such weaknesses was a career booster.
On the other hand, the climate field today is bizarre. The satellite data are there, more comes in month after month. And the crucial difference between the trend at the surface and in the air is ignored. The difference between that IPCC “ensemble mean” and the data is like a skunk sitting at the dinner table. Couldn’t you at least mumble something about the lapse rate?
What a tool!
David Springer: “What a tool!”
Oops, missed a bit!
Tools are useful.
The surface temperature series adjustors are highly envious of the steady stream of data of the satellitists.
Matt Ridley wrote: The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science
The same author, Spencer Weart, interviewed James Hansen in 2000 in which Hansen admits the lapse rate in climate models is just a “fudge,” and that he falsely assumed the lapse rate to be fixed (which artificially increases climate sensitivity as explained by Kimoto here):
Hansen also admits in the same revealing interview that he kept thinking “what is it in our model that makes it so damn sensitive [to CO2]?” and thinks it could be the “cloud scheme,” but doesn’t know. In the interview, Hansen also says his model cannot reproduce the paleoclimate data and blames the data for this, not his “damn sensitive” climate model. Hansen also says the US Dept of Energy concluded in 1983 that climate sensitivity was low and provides his false assumptions why he thinks that was “an error in their [DOE] thinking.”
You really wonder what sent these two and so many others wrong. They knew better, or really really really shoulda known better.
Hansen also must know or deny his CO2 “runaway greenhouse effect” on Venus was falsified long ago by measurements from the Magellan mission.
Simply plugging those observations into the ideal gas formula calculates the Venus surface temperature within a remarkable 2K of observations:
T = PV/nR = 92000/(65000/43.45*0.083144621) = 739K
vs. 737K observed! CO2 or GHG concentration makes no difference to this calculation of the true gravito-thermal, not radiative, “greenhouse effect” on Venus.
AGW falsified with a single basic physics equation dating from 1834!
Poisson, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, Feynman, 1976 US Std Atm, etc etc. all knew PRESSURE, not radiation, determines surface and atmospheric temperatures. Hansen et al led us back to the dark ages of the falsified 1898 Arrhenius radiative GHE theory.
Hockeyschtick, pressure alone does not determine temperatures. As your formula says, you also need specific volume or density. Then, according to the equation of state, the temperature is determined.
yes pressure determines temperature. its not the radiation .thats why temperature doesnt change when the sun goes down
or clouds pass over.
Its why a cloudy night sky is the same temperature as a clear night sky.
Of course pressure, after density correction, plus SOLAR radiative forcing and NOT “radiative forcing” from GHGs, is what determines surface and atmospheric temperatures. That is what the HS greenhouse equation does, and perfectly reproduces the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere temperature profile and surface temperature from a single equation:
Steven Mosher | October 21, 2015 at 11:34 am |
“yes pressure determines temperature. its not the radiation .thats why temperature doesnt change when the sun goes down
or clouds pass over.”
Are you really that dumb Mosher to not understand that I’m talking about “radiative forcing” from GHGs, NOT from the only energy source the Sun. Perhaps that’s why the radiative forcing/equilibrium temperature with the SUN appears TWICE in the HS greenhouse equation and “radiative forcing” from GHGs appears ZERO times in the equation, an equation that perfectly reproduces the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere temperature profile, and also for Venus and Titan:
Also note the NASA fact sheet says the diurnal change in temperature on Venus is ZERO, thus “when the SUN goes down,” the temperature DOESN’T CHANGE over the 28-DAY NIGHT. Why do you think that is, Steven Mosher? It’s because the temperature is a sole function of gravity/mass/PRESSURE as I just calculated within 2K of observations in the comment above.
“Its why a cloudy night sky is the same temperature as a clear night sky.”
Here’s why, and it has nothing to do with GHG “radiative forcing”:
Let me know when you get your Nobel.
I won’t wait
Yeah mosh..let me know when you get a bachelors in math, or an applied science.
theres that too.
Mosher, let us know when you finally read a high school chem textbook on basic physical chemistry & physics from the 1800’s: The Ideal Gas Law, Poisson relation, 1st Law of Thermo, & Newton’s 2nd Law are ALL that one needs to understand to derive the tropospheric temperature profile and surface temperature completely independent of ANY “radiative forcing” from GHGs whatsoever or GHG concentrations, and now verified theoretically and observationally on ALL planets in our solar system for which we have adequate data (8).
I won’t wait, or care.
In the meantime, waste your life and time of others arguing for a falsified non-problem.
How come my gas cylinders in my lab are not hotter than the temperature of Venus, after all, they are at higher pressure.
You need to retake freshman chemistry, to learn how to apply the ideal gas law, cause you are flunking right now.
bobdroege | October 23, 2015 at 2:31 pm :
“How come my gas cylinders in my lab are not hotter than the temperature of Venus, after all, they are at higher pressure.”
Uhhh, that’s because a gas cylinder PREVENTS air from adiabatic expansion, rising, cooling, followed by adiabatic compression, falling, and warming, which is what continuously occurs in an atmosphere to create the gravito-thermal GHE.
Apparently, you are unaware that if your gas cylinder had a leak (like a real atmosphere) and you had to continuously run a compressor to maintain the high pressure (like gravity does), the gas cylinder would in fact remain hotter than the ambient temperature, ad infinitum.
Same with the stupid tire analogy, that how come if you inflate a tire it doesn’t remain warm. If the tire has a leak, and has therefore to be continuously inflated with compressed air to maintain the same pressure, the tire will remain warmer than ambient temperatures ad infinitum.
“You need to retake freshman chemistry, to learn how to apply the ideal gas law, cause you are flunking right now.”
LOL hilarious, I have a degree in physical chem, but don’t take my word for it, here’s Maxwell explaining the gravito-thermal GHE, based upon the 1834 Poisson relation:
and Feynman, Carnot, Clausius, Boltzmann, Helmholtz, and 40+ others, & proving it applies to all 8 planets for which we have adequate data:
You bobdroege, flunk not only freshman chem, but elementary school chem with your false gas cylinder static analogy. It’s just one huge, amazing coincidence according to you that the IGL essentially perfectly calculates the temperature of Venus (and 7 other planets) right?
T = PV/nR = 92000/(65000/43.45*0.083144621) = 739K
If you are so adept at the ideal gas law, why are you not using the van der waals adjustments? Because the ideal gas law applies only to low pressure situations, not supercritical fluids.
Second, was the 65 kg/meter3, was that actually measured, or calculated?
If it was calculated, then your argument is circular, using the specific volume calculated from the temperature to calculate the temperature.
Third, and lastly, use your equation to calculate the temperature on earth, guess what, you get the wrong answer. Why?
Degree in physical chemistry my foot.
If you did, you would know to apply the ideal gas law to high temperature low pressure or make the appropriate adjustments.
I found this quote
“The publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed.”
LOL again, what’s up with that?
Little hockeypuck is spamming, again. If you don’t take the bait, he will go away.
If you are so adept at the ideal gas law, why are you not using the van der waals adjustments? Because the ideal gas law applies only to low pressure situations, not supercritical fluids.”
Because CO2 on Venus (and the other 4% of that atmosphere) is a gas and not a supercritical fluid, and a simple, straightforward IGL calculation based on the NASA Fact Sheet data is within 0.3% (2K) of the observed temperature. Apparently, that’s either a huge & amazing coincidence to you, or just not good enough. So, let’s see your mathematics proving that van der Waals adjustments make any significant difference in this situation.
“Second, was the 65 kg/meter3, was that actually measured, or calculated? If it was calculated, then your argument is circular, using the specific volume calculated from the temperature to calculate the temperature.”
It’s from the NASA Fact Sheet, which does not provide the sources, but essentially what you are claiming is that NASA either measured it or NASA used circular reasoning in deriving the values! Good luck with that.
“Third, and lastly, use your equation to calculate the temperature on earth, guess what, you get the wrong answer. Why?”
If by “your equation” you mean the IGL, not the HS greenhouse equation above (which perfectly reproduces the atmospheric and surface temperature profile on Earth), the reason is that Venus has an opaque cloud cover at the TOA, and very little solar insolation reaches the surface, very different from Earth. That’s why just calculating the G-T GHE with the IGL is sufficient to calculate the surface temperature within 0.3% of observed.
It’s also why the diurnal temperature change on Venus is ZERO degrees, also according to the NASA Fact Sheet. Why do you think that is?
“Degree in physical chemistry my foot.”
I could care less what your foot thinks, or why you think Poisson, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Feynman, Boltzmann, US Standard Atmosphere, etc etc are wrong about the gravito-thermal effect.
Donnie Boy, the spammer-troll-in-chief is back with his funny fizzikx, so I’ll add his beliefs that a static closed cylinder is analogous to the 100km atmosphere, in addition to his long list including photons behave as steel balls, cold heats hot, CO2 creates a perpetual motion machine, all photons are created equal, etc. etc. among many others. LOL
“Simply plugging those observations into the ideal gas formula calculates the Venus surface temperature within a remarkable 2K of observations:”
it may be remarkable, as Bob D suggests, that the atmosphere on Venus so nearly obeys the Ideal Gas Law. But the IGL does not determine temperature in response to pressure. It determines, where applicable, the product of temperature and density.
On Earth, the surface pressure is much the same in arctic or tropic. Big temperature difference, but the IGL is still satisfied.
Hockeypuck spends most of his time on Venus, so he has a different perspective. Pretend that he is correct and he will go away.
The gravito-thermal effect is as wondrous as the CO2 greenhouse effect.
In the Antarctic, it can lower temperatures to -90 C. In the Libyan desert, it can raise temperatures to in excess of 50 C during the day, or below freezing at night.
Obviously, the effect of gravity varies widely from day to night, summer to winter, and is heavily dependent on latitude and elevation.
In reality, the gravito-thermal effect, the greenhouse effect, and orgone energy are equivalent, in the sense that none of them exist, except in the febrile minds of their proponents.
But keep believing. Newton was a firm believer in alchemy, and Lord Kelvin asserted the age of the Earth was, at most, 20 million years old. You are in good company.
“But the IGL does not determine temperature in response to pressure. It determines, where applicable, the product of temperature and density.”
Ridiculous. What part of T = PV/nR do you not understand? What part of Maxwell’s statement (specifically in regard to our atmosphere) do you not understand?:
“In the convective equilibrium of temperature, the absolute temperature is proportional to the pressure raised to the power (γ-1)/γ, or 0,29.”
In other words, temperature at every level of the atmosphere is a function of pressure, a restatement of the Poisson Relation – ever heard of that?
“On Earth, the surface pressure is much the same in arctic or tropic. Big temperature difference, but the IGL is still satisfied.”
And that temperature difference is solely due to the huge differences of SOLAR INSOLATION between the poles and equator. Of course, the IGL is satisfied everywhere, and completely explains the average 33C gravito-thermal GHE.
“The gravito-thermal effect is as wondrous as the CO2 greenhouse effect.
In the Antarctic, it can lower temperatures to -90 C. In the Libyan desert, it can raise temperatures to in excess of 50 C during the day, or below freezing at night.” “Obviously, the effect of gravity varies widely from day to night, summer to winter, and is heavily dependent on latitude and elevation.”
Look dumba$$, those differences in temperature are due to the huge differences in SOLAR INSOLATION and have NOTHING to do with the points about the gravito-thermal GHE I have made.
“But keep believing. Newton was a firm believer in alchemy, and Lord Kelvin asserted the age of the Earth was, at most, 20 million years old. You are in good company.”
I will indeed continue to “believe” in the force of gravity F=mg regardless of your mistaken beliefs about elementary 3rd grade-level science.
Yes dear Hockeyschtick,
the atmosphere of venus is a supercritical fluid
The surface of Venus is above both 304.25 K and 72.9 Atm so it is indeed a supercritical fluid, rather than a liquid or a gas.
Poisson, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Feynman and Boltzmann are not wrong, you are.
“It’s also why the diurnal temperature change on Venus is ZERO degrees, also according to the NASA Fact Sheet. Why do you think that is?”
This one is easy, the winds blow faster than the planet rotates.
Once again, bobdroege fails to meet the challenge of providing any mathematics whatsoever to support his claim that the IGL cannot be applied to the Venus atmosphere, despite the huge, amazing, unbelievable “coincidence” that the IGL in fact calculates the observed surface temperature within 0.3% or 2K!
“Poisson, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Feynman and Boltzmann are not wrong, you are.”
Hilarious, I used the exact same mathematics as these giants to derive the HS greenhouse equation, which PERFECTLY reproduces the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere, and the International Standard Atmosphere. According to bobdrege, who once again fails to provide ANY mathematical proof as I have, that’s just another amazing, huge, “coincidence.”
But, thanks for admitting Maxwell & Poisson were not wrong, and have now been verified with observations on all 8 planets for which we have adequate data:
“It’s also why the diurnal temperature change on Venus is ZERO degrees, also according to the NASA Fact Sheet. Why do you think that is?”
“This one is easy, the winds blow faster than the planet rotates.”
The primary reason is the opaque TOA on Venus, which allows very little solar insolation to reach the surface. That’s why there is also no difference in temperatures between the poles and equator on Venus, and which has nothing to do with the speed of rotation.
On Earth, winds also blow faster than the planet rotates, which does help equalize temperatures, yet there is a huge difference in temperatures between the poles and equator because of the differences of SOLAR INSOLATION.
Now you have really stepped in it Hockeyschtick,
The surface of the earth at the equator moves 24,000 miles each day or about 1000 miles an hour, and you say this
“On Earth, winds also blow faster than the planet rotates, which does help equalize temperatures, yet there is a huge difference in temperatures between the poles and equator because of the differences of SOLAR INSOLATION”
I thought I was on a website discussing science, but no, I am in a Monty Python sketch, having an argument with Doug Cotton.
Prove I am wrong.
bobdroege: “Prove I am wrong.”
Sure, will do, I have repeatedly:
“The primary factor that affects the formation of winds is differences in atmospheric pressure. As is true throughout nature, any fluid will try to move from a region of high pressure to a region of low pressure. The principal causes of these differences in pressure are related to the absorption of heat due to solar radiation.”
“But as you can see below, the region along the Equator [where rotation speed is HIGHEST] is referred to as the Doldrums because there is essentially no prevailing wind in this area.”
” wind cannot be explained by something as simplistic as the rotation of the Earth. It is instead a complex fluid dynamics problem that involves the Earth’s rotation, imbalances in the heating of the atmosphere caused by the Sun, and the absorption and radiation of heat by large bodies of water. ”
In addition, on Venus, there is no temp difference between the poles and equator, which has NOTHING to do with rotation speed of Venus, and everything to do with the gravito-thermal GHE.
bobdroege, all you are capable of if throwing up strawmen and red herrings to see what sticks, and so far, nothing has, including your ridiculous static gas cylinder theory of the 100km atmosphere.
Sure, we believe you bobdroege, it’s just an unbelievable, incredible, amazing “coincidence” that the HS greenhouse equation (derived from the IGL and 1st law, Newton’s 2nd law, and Poisson relation) PERFECTLY reproduces the 1976 US Std Atmosphere, and the International Standard Atmosphere, and that of Venus and Titan as well.
This may be more widespread than realized. Both the Bulletin of the Geological Society of America and its companion journal GEOLOGY are publishing more and more papers that are multi-authored, some with 10 or 12 authors. GEOLOGY publishes short papers (4 pages) so in many instances, this comes to 0.4 pages (or less) worth of text per author. Not bad for a days worth of writing. Clearly, some published papers in both journals are ‘geology by committee’.
In my experience, the paper was actually written by no more than two or three people. The rest are included as authors because they had some involvement in the funding.
When the authors are scattered amongst various institutions, they probably needed their names included to comply with the publication requirements of their own source of funding.
Not quite mestnichestvo, but not quite merit based, either.
Used to be, the person who ran the radio-dating might, at most, get an honorable mention in the acknowledgements.
Now, they get to be an author.
Science? Mr. Weart is an optimist.
An excerpt: “The seat-of-the-pants guesses that scientists started with in the 1960s turned out to be roughly correct.” I vaguely remember they predicted a catastrophic cooling back then. Roughly correct .. yes, always catastrophic. The Club of Rome has a plenty of money.
I’m reminded on your Personality type differences between Ph.D. climate researchers and the general public: implications for effective communication. I remember thinking then that perhaps the field had been packed with people of a different type: “world-savers” rather than real scientists.
It would be interesting to see how the mix of types differs between the old-school and “younger climate scientists have come up through the system”.
World saving is a big deal, especially if you happen to be an atheist. Atheism implies 100% certainty in science making science the atheist’s God. What is missing are agnostics that are smart enough to know there are unknowns.
Nice analogy, and a repulsive would be God, to boot, eager to enforce the ‘right’ way to do things, all in the name of ‘Science’, er, God. An absurdly controlling ‘god’.
@captdallas2: No. One can be atheist, scientist, and still know what the error bars mean. Skepticism is inherent to the scientific process, as is the acknowledgment of human nature to fool oneself and participate in groupthink. Painting with a broad brush is a bad idea, no matter which group you are slandering. Keep that in mind.
Micheal, ” Painting with a broad brush is a bad idea, no matter which group you are slandering. ”
Not using a broad brush would be dealing with an individual or small group. A consensus, religious organization, or anti-religious organization pretty much demands a broad brush. I could have said organized Atheism but isn’t that implied today or is there an 80/20 atheist sect that says God “likely” doesn’t exist? Between 75/25 to 25/75 would agnostic wouldn’t it.
Yes Capt. if you believe that Atheists, like believers, have to have 100% certainty in something. I kind of thought that was exactly the point of agnosticism at least. A reasonable willingness to accept that we don’t know. That we can stand, even prefer, the creative tension of uncertainty. I thought it was Climate Change believers who have a simple explanation for everything be it asthma, bee colony collapse, orang-utans extinctions in Borneo, more frequent volcanic eruptions, chocolate shortages, ad infinitum nauseum
‘Atheism implies 100% certainty in science making science the atheist’s God’
If you have a god of any sort you ain’t an atheist. You are a theist.
Chas, An atheist is a person that doesn’t happen to believe in God and doesn’t need to explain why he is of that belief. Atheism is a belief system where members of the group start defining and rationalizing what is required to be a member of that tribe. Once you accept your label the whole concept goes to something other than hell in the Atheist case. I am pretty so there are lots of atheists that don’t want to be Atheists but that is the price of popularity.
Latimer, “If you have a god of any type you are a theist”
@captdallas2: “…Atheism implies 100% certainty in science making science the atheist’s God…”
If you want to understand science, the first thing you must understand is there is no certainty of anything. All our understanding is based on the models we make of systems, and our models need constant examination, improvement, and/or replacement as the data dictates. If one thinks otherwise, they have missed the point.
In addition, yes, not painting with a broad brush is indeed dealing with individuals. This is what one has to do to be just. One can reject group platforms, but to decide you know all people in a category, and that one can label and treat them as one undifferentiated mass, is how you end up with racism, pogroms, separate treatment and many other evils. These things can be turned against those that wield them, as well. You can make an unfounded pronouncement based on your ignorance of atheists, but will someone do the same to you? Will they assume that you are a fanatic? Will they decide there should be special laws for fanatics? Perhaps some special camps? For safety. For the children. They will have good intentions, in their minds, but will still do evil. The road to hell, eh? Ponder it seriously.
“Atheism implies 100% certainty in science making science the atheist’s God. What is missing are agnostics that are smart enough to know there are unknowns.”
What is missing is that you can never, ever, know with 100% certainty what God is. Nor what He wants.
However, most reasonable scientists know that they’re only approximating reality. Except for some physicists – who don’t understand that maths is a human construction and only approximates the movement of sub-atomic particles. And statistics isn’t even pure maths – it’s more approximate then the rest. The equations continually separate out interacting processes – to make it simpler for us mere humans to think about -to detriment of predictability.
Note that Atheism takes just as much faith as Theism. An Atheist *believes* that god does not exist. He has no more (or less) proof than the Theist.
Thus I call myself Agnostic, since I don’t know. I’m kind of jealous of those so righteous that they think they know! I mean, how does one argue with someone who is certain they’ve seen god? Can one prove that something doesn’t exist? Sure, I’m prone to logic like “No rational god would allow mankind this kind of free will,” lol, but I also know that’s merely an opinion.
Micheal, “They will have good intentions, in their minds, but will still do evil. The road to hell, eh? Ponder it seriously.”
Oh I do, though I am more looking at the humor created by over confidence and unintended consequences. Like say,
“You can make an unfounded pronouncement based on your ignorance of atheists, but will someone do the same to you?” :)
“Personality type differences…”
The article mentions two types: intuitive (climate scientists) and sensing (the public).
There are are two types of people – those that separate people into two types and those that don’t.
And never forgetting that there are 10 types of people – those that understand binary numbers and those that don’t. ;-)
The scientific understanding of climate change assumes there is something scientific about noticing that the average of weather changes over time.
For example, should a drought in California continue for more than sixteen years, after sixteen years of non drought, (correct me if my figures are in error), then the climate has changed from non drought to drought.
Not much to understand there. Climatologists claim averages to have wondrous properties, but asking one to describe the average climate of California, is met with a blank stare, or a sudden need to rush to an urgent appointment.
A peculiar kind of science indeed. Great moments in climate science? Breakthroughs in climate science? Measurable benefits of climate science?
Let us understand weather first. The average will look after itself.
Weather is another word for stuff that you can’t understand. Climate you can understand. Weather is what’s left over
Yes Mosher, everyone knows you understand all about climate after you published some e-mails.
Even though as easily shown above you seem to have trouble understanding fairly straight-forward math.
You haven’t really got a clue about climate, have you?
It’s the average of weather. If you don’t know what the weather is going to be, you have no inkling of where its average will go.
So tell me, O wise and wonderful Mosher of exceedingly small intellect, what is it about the future climate of California that you understand, that is of the slightest practical import to man or beast?
Or are you going to tell me with a condescending sneer that you know nothing at all about climate until you have calculated the weather averages in a particular location?
I knew that already.
Maybe you could run away and play with your trivial toy algorithms, achieving nought, but feeling very proud of having done so.
I’m sorry, but your bald statement that you “understand” a calculated average in any meaningful way, is quite simply, extraordinary. As has been said, “. . . extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence . . . “.
I won’t bother asking you for such evidence. I don’t believe you have any. If you were to provide the excuse that nobody but yourself could possibly understand the evidence, that would sound a wee bit presumptuous, even to you, I would think.
Low solar periods increasing negative AO/NAO episodes (weather) through the next ten years will make for a wetter Cali average.
Ah – the fallacy that an average can be understood. Wrong. An average can help you understand the data (trends etc), but not what drives that data. An average is a TOOL to aid understanding Mosher, it’s NOT data.
“Climate is predicable, weather is noise” is complete crap – you can’t predict the average if you don’t have a model of what you’re averaging! Mike Flynn is more verbose, but is saying the same thing.
I really don’t think that cartoonish notions of “global warming” or CO2 being good medicine are sensibly offset by cartoonish assumptions which associate warming with drought. Nor does this subtle insinuation convince: “The seat-of-the-pants guesses that scientists started with in the 1960s turned out to be roughly correct…”.
The trouble with these vague mea culpa articles which blame communication etc is that you still cop small, sugared consensus messages along with the sack cloth and ashes.
The philosophy, sociology, psychology, and taxonomy of climate viewpoints grow needlessly more complex and tangled. Climate itself, which is fantastically complex and in infinite flux, continues to be viewed as governed by simplistic mechanisms. Ask a climate expert about the hot guts of our planet and its deep hydrosphere and you’ll be told that it’s not that expert’s field but some other experts said not to bother. Science.
Nope, sorry. Good try, warmies.
It is disarmingly simple to demonstrate CO2 has no effect on climate. It is demonstrated in a peer reviewed paper at Energy & Environment, Volume 26, No. 5, 2015, 841-845 and at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com which also identifies the two factors that do cause climate change (R^2=0.97 since before 1900).
Reported average global temperature is being temporarily propped up by short term uptrends in ENSO and AMO augmented by jiggering of the data. These should become downtrends before 2016 and, combined with the decline of solar cycle 24, should result in a prolonged (more than 20 yr) downtrend.
“propped up by short term upward trends in ENSO”
There are no upward trends for 2014-15 in ENSO, The El Nino is characterized as Weak
So what is causing the upturn?
ENSO data are presented here. This shows the uptrend. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
ONI=Oceanic Nino Index. The reported anomalies are wrt a reference trajectory.
This guy must be a special kind of ignorant.
Freeman Dyson agrees with Heartland and Heritage. “CO2 is so beneficial in other ways, it would be crazy to try to reduce it”. Weart thinks that this must be wrong because a committee of consensus believers have not seen fit to announce their agreement. I’ll take my chances with Freeman Dyson over a non-existent committee every time.
Is there any statement demonstrating more clearly his foolishness than “Our mainstream history, the history of expert committees, stands aside from all that.” Experts have never, ever demonstrated an ability to tell the future. And committees have been demonstrated to be even less accurate.
GWPF recently published a report on the benefits of CO2 by Indur Goklany. The forward was written by Freeman Dyson. His final paragraph states:
“Indur Goklany has assembled a massive collection of evidence to demonstrate two facts. First, the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are dominant over the climatic effects and are overwhelmingly beneficial. Second, the climatic effects observed in the real world are much less damaging than the effects predicted by the climate models, and have also been frequently beneficial. I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence. Goklany and I do not claim to be infallible. Like the climate-model experts, we have also evolved recently from the culture of the cave-children. Like them, we have inherited our own set of prej- udices and blindnesses. Truth emerges when different groups of explorers listen to each other’s stories and correct each other’s mistakes.”
The full report is here: http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf
Ph.D. physicist and historian Spencer Weart is the leading expert on the scientific history of global warming. It takes “a special kind of ignorant” to ignore that while denigrating his expertise.
“Spencer Weart is the leading expert on the scientific history of global warming. ”
LOL–really? care to share your evaluation criteria?
Simple. I’ve read his book and his exhaustive and thoroughly-referenced website and compared it to his very few competitors in the field. Also, I’m not an idiot who writes ‘LOL’ in comments.
Simple. I’ve read his book and his exhaustive and thoroughly-referenced website and compared it to his very few competitors in the field. Also, I’m not an idiot who writes ‘LOL’ in comments
magmacc: Ph.D. physicist and historian Spencer Weart is the leading expert on the scientific history of global warming. It takes “a special kind of ignorant” to ignore that while denigrating his expertise.
That may be so, but this “peculiar” kind of science refers to committee consensus that exceeds what can be supported by the evidence. “Nullias in Verba”? Not for him.
There are so many jokes that have been told about the relative performance of committees in every walk of life that it is interesting that Weart would lay such an emphasis on it. I suspect we’ll see many of those jokes in this thread.
Committees are good at setting boundaries, limits. When those boundaries are realistic, it can be a good thing. When they are artificial and set prematurely they are not.
Committees vs. Dyson? My money’s on Dyson.
He speaks to Ents.
Kim — They need to replace the guy on the Dos Equis Ads as you are the most interesting person in the world. Thanks for coming back — You add so much. (P.S. — my next thought that you’ll probably disagree on but make me laugh & learn something in your comments is incubating in my head).
And you know, there’s trouble when the Ents call a committee.
You mean, mob?
No… he means the Saps.
Cli-Sci Committee Screening Process event today.
Walk-this-way ->. ‘ Eye of needle’ committee entry
The Russian word for “committee” is “soviet”.
If the Russian word for “committee” is “soviet,” then “consensus science” is really “soviet science.”
Intriguing! I had mis-named it as Stalin’s science.
wisdom of crowds beats dyson
Well, the wisdom of crowds is that this is not an important issue at all, pretty much last any time they survey it. Which crowd did you have in mind?
And as a former physics graduate student, when people like Dyson and Steve Koonin show up and say, Someone ought to take you people in hand and make sure that you are doing a competent job, that means a lot to me. Jose Duarte writes a lot about the non-wisdom of crowds in social psychology, and the same thing could apply here.
Anyhow, Curry has written about Italian Flag issues: this is a big complex issue, and deciding to put the world on a drastic CO2 starvation diet requires many things to be true. Weart kind of makes it sound like there are lots of committees in different parts of the field, all of which have come in with their wisdom and all pointing to the same conclusion. That just isn’t true. The further you get away from straight physics and temperature measurement, into biology and geology and even economics and politics, the farther you get away from any type of consensus at all.
Wisdom of crowds, well I didn’t expect much more from the Mosh.
Thankfully history at many turns has settled on the wisdom of a wise man instead of the collective foolishness of crowds.
you must think that no one remembers the effluvia you produce.
Wisdom of crowds only works when each estimate is independent. You should read the book. By the way, when estimates are influenced by the judgments of others, you get the madness of crowds.
The fact Mosher could type that without laughing so hard he fell off his chair tells you all you need to know about him.
Yes, crowds (say, every S&P 500 investor) are much more often correct than are individuals. That is because crowds encompass wider range of thinking, experience, and information.
A crowd is no committee… crowds are not “selected”. Committees are selected…. and usually very carefully selected, with an eye on the ‘desired’ outcome of the committee deliberations. Trial lawyers understand that jury selection is key to trial outcome. Trial lawyers are not the only people who are aware of this. The difference between juries and committees of those alarmed about GHG driven warming is that jury selection is adversarial, while committees of the alarmed face no adversarial selection process. The ‘fix is in’ when committees of the alarmed make long term projections of warming and its consequences. The public weighs evidence, costs, and benefits very differently than a committee of the alarmed, and looks at a much wider range of issues… including many ‘negatives’ which committees of the alarmed consider ‘positives’.
I think the ‘crowd’ of the wider public is more capable of evaluating credibility than any committee. Which I think is why little has changed since Kyoto. If “the science” in support of warming driven doom becomes more credible, then the (public) crowd will recognize that and support costly draconian changes in energy supply. It’s not sufficiently credible yet….. and based on what I have learned of “the science”, I honestly doubt it ever will be.
With yer committee,
facts are likely infinitely
compliant, dependent on necessity,
yer mission accomplishing.
Committees are fundamentally political. As a result, they are not good at evaluating factual evidence (consider the OJ Simpson jury was essentially a committee), and are susceptible to group-think. Committees and can, and do, ‘find’ a consensus which is anything but factually based. How susceptible a committee is to reaching factually absurd but politically comfortable conclusions depends on the uniformity of ‘social’ thinking of the membership. This is why I find the IPCC approach suspect….. those involved are too uniformly green and left.
Freeman Dyson, from a 2009 interview:
“I am not so much interested in global warming. [That interviewer] portrayed me as sort of obsessed with the subject, which I am definitely not. To me it is a very small part of my life. I don’t claim to be an expert. I never did. I simply find that a lot of these claims that experts are making are absurd. Not that I know better, but I know a few things. My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have. I think that’s what upsets me…
I am not an expert, and that’s not going to change. I am not going to make myself an expert. What I do think I have is a better judgment, maybe because I have lived a bit longer, and maybe because I’ve done other things…
I have a lot of friends who think the same way I do. But I am sorry to say that most of them are old, and most of them are not experts. My views are very widely shared.”
Science by committee may be “post normal,” but it ain’t science.
It’s a modern “Modest Proposal.”
If you do your work with meetings, the project gets taken over by people who like to run meetings. That’s true at institutions, anyway.
Overly social people usually aren’t the best scientists anyway.
Noble Cause Corruption by Lemming committees
The vision of impending doom and the noble cause of stopping it was picked up by the lemmings and corrupted and condensed by consensus. That has been amplified by political funding and entrenched by bureaucracies. With millions of jobs at stake and billions of dollars in profits to be made who or what will divert the lemming tide?
Yet our moral responsibility is to care for the poor, the widow and orphan, not to harm them.
Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance challenges us on What Threatens Liberty and Increases Abortion, Human Trafficking, Government Debt, and Poverty?
Pointman shows how we can upend postnormal science by committee by Working Together May 17, 2013.
Similarly Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus provides prudent financial perspective and economically rational proposals.
Globally, people now rank “climate change” dead last despite politicians’ alarmism.
“…who or what will divert the lemming tide?”
David, that’s a great question. My answer is, taxpayers who’s hard earned dollars are being used to support this crap against their will. I am FURIOUS beyond belief that my hard earned dollars are going to support this crap! I am an engineer, have generally leaned center to left politically, and supported specific well-audited government funded science. For all of you good publicly funded scientists out there, guess what? Your failure to reign in your climate zealot comrades has just screwed the pooch for all of science. I am so pissed, I am willing to cast my vote for Trump or Cruz so he can clean house on all of the government funded rent seekers. A lot of good science will also get thrown out with the bad. I am so pissed, I would support temporarily completely cutting off government funded science with the exception of military weaponry. If that means two million academics get fired, I’m fine by that, because only after the current leeches have been utterly destroyed can we begin to rebuild what we have lost.
Look at Trump’s poll numbers. What does that tell you? It says that there is a ground swell of anger out there the likes I haven’t seen in my lifetime. Immigration, obamacare, climate zealots, the list goes on. The silent majority center-to-right have had enough!
Thanks Tyler. Ben Carson has clearly identified the mortal danger we are in of mushrooming debt driving us into bankruptcy. See:
WHAT I’LL DO DAY 1 TO SAVE AMERICA
Our Debt per Taxpayer is already $154,000 that we are putting on our children. Soon interest on debt will force strong reductions in BOTH education and defense. Vote for sane stewardship to restore fiscal responsibility.
“In 2014 federal workers earned 78 percent more, on average, than private-sector workers. ” Steadily reduce federal wages back down to average US income.
This is far more interesting than what Judith notes;
“Not until its 2013 report did the IPCC grudgingly admit that the sea level might rise a meter and a half by 2100. And even then the IPCC gave scant attention to such impacts that did not seem pretty likely to happen, even if they would be catastrophic if they did befall us.
That cautious approach was different from the practice in many other kinds of impact studies. For example, the building codes of cities in earthquake zones and evacuation plans for people living near nuclear reactors dealt with problems that might have less than one chance in a hundred of happening in the next century. The IPCC, by contrast, was preoccupied with impacts that were more likely than not. Those were shaping up to be bad enough.” – SW
The important phrase is this one “The seat-of-the-pants guesses that scientists started with in the 1960s turned out to be roughly correct; the story was one of adding to the list of impacts, putting numbers to each item, and becoming ever more certain that the things foreseen would indeed come to pass.”
This is how science progresses. You start with ideas of what may be important. You quantify it as well as other possible factors, and the initial one is left still standing as the primary effect in this case after decades of such tests and quantifications with measurements. It could have gone another way if another factor had appeared quantifiably important, but none appeared while the main forcings were refined and between them account very well for the observed changes, which is how we now have a fairly stable account of the factors in climate forcing.
A little too rough for policy, still.
Unfortunately the world has cooled. This seems to have totally escaped the collective notice of the Wonderful Warmists. May they were blinded by their own effulgent brilliance.
One other minor problem is that nobody, anywhere, ever, has managed to demonstrate the miraculous warming effect of so called greenhouse gases. But no matter, phlogiston, n Rays, the indivisible atom and the luminiferous ether were never demonstrated to exist, either. Do you claim these also exist because their existence cannot be demonstrated?
You are a silly-billy, Jim D. Climate forcing? Surely you jest! Climate is the average of weather, nothing more nothing less. Try and change an average without changing the data in the series being averaged. Oh, you are going to force the weather to change to that which you desire? Good luck with that.
The world will fall at your feet! As if.
Whoops. Maybe, not may. Either blinded by my own effulgent brilliance, shaking with laughter, or just plain incompetent.
Take your pick.
“The seat-of-the-pants guesses that scientists started with in the 1960s turned out to be roughly correct” – they predicted a catastrophic cooling then.
You missed the immediately following punch line that Judith had bolded for your tired old eyes:
“And in this short article I have certainly not been able—any more than the IPCC in its lengthy reports—to present a convincing case, based on logic and observations, of why anyone should believe the consensus statements.”
The seat of the pants guesses form the 60s turned out to be convincing, according to “the story”, but “the story” ain’t convincing.
This is fiction.
we now have a fairly stable account of the factors in climate forcing.
“Stable” only in the sense that its failure to predict the Plateau is brushed under the carpet so as to rescue the political consensus.
Perhaps there is a correlation between funding pressures and the (conjectured) willingness of younger researchers to adapt to committee approaches?
In addition, the publish-or-perish mode of career advancement might explain at least a portion of the trend in multiple-author papers where most named authors contribute so little it would not merit separate publication.
The younger scientists came through school at a time that they would not pass if they did disagree. You cannot become a climate scientist, in many colleges, if you are skeptical. I attended a lecture by Michael Mann. Some of his former students were there. I did talk to them about Ewing and Donn Climate Theory and they had not heard about Ewing and Donn.
JC re: “older generation (my generation and older) have come up through the traditional sciences and are relatively vocal .. emeritus faculty members seem to object to the consensus. Whereas younger climate scientists have come up through the system more accepting of the consensus by committee approach.” This reflects the Kuhnian (preceded by Polanyi) philosophy that progress of scientific knowledge undergoes periodic paradigm shifts and the notion of scientific truth cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a “consensus” of the “scientific community …. that comprehension of science cannot rely solely on “objectivity” alone, but must account for subjective perspectives as well, since objective conclusions are ultimately founded upon a subjective conditioning worldview of its researchers and participants.”
The older generation witnessed many breakthrough discoveries that advanced theoretical science. Much work in climate and other fields (e.g., medical research) relies on statistical testing of huge volumes of data and modeling which suffers from definitional problems such as misspecification of models, quality of the database tested, missing variables, etc. I feel the younger generation’s consensus problem is much more than just being “more accepting” of this approach to science but has, in my opinion, an “ethical dilemma” stemming from the risk and hazard of going against the mainstream in terms of reputation, position, funding etc. Moreso, being exposed to this environment, normal people can over time become psychologically conditioned to “buy into” and defend their consensus positions as being absolutely correct and even defend them strongly. The consensus process therefore is not based on real science in the strict sense of hypothesis testing but on a conditioning process, yes a form of group think. I think this is the discomfort expressed by Weart in his terrific article.
Democratic Climate Scientists Impose Centralized Policy
Foundational to climate by committee is the dominant left political bent of climate scientists – who are imposing the Democrat priority that centralized government is the only solution.
Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That’s a problem.
Professor Schneider’s ‘double ethical bind’
comes ter mind.
> I submit that the older generation (my generation and older) have come up through the traditional sciences and are relatively vocal in their opposition (the phenomenon of the emeritus faculty members who seem to object to the consensus). Whereas younger climate scientists have come up through the system more accepting of the consensus by committee approach …. (quote from Judith Curry)
If the older traditional science generations dislike consensus science (and here I agree, we despise it), then WHO is teaching the younger generation coming through to prefer it ?
Academics from other, much softer disciplines, I suggest plus an approving MSM who like the freedom from knowledge that post-modernism allows. Andy Warhol missed the point – which is *being* famous for however short a time, especially if one is cast as a hero saving the planet … such a thrill
I have mumbled to myself “Well , you got your 15 minutes..” many times after reading a study that had obvious problems. Most recently the authors reviewed selected tide gauge stations that showed a dramatic rise in sea level for a period of years ending in 2009. So I looked at specific stations in the study. Of course, for the last 5 years they all went down dramatically. which is the norm.
But they got what they were after since the MSM ran with the story ad nauseam. Without, the Paul Harvey “rest of the story.”
Working to consensus by committee makes people more confident than they would otherwise be in a given situation, for example, when predicting that dire consequences are around the corner. It also discourages dissent, particularly as the committee members include the prestigious decision makers of funding and careers. None of this changes reality a whit. When your data fails to demonstrate deviations that are outside of a std dev or two, or even three, you have no real conclusions. You may have hypotheses, suppositions, or trends, but you don’t have an actual, actionable problem. You have guesses. Just as the author notes in the 60’s state-of-the-art. Climate science has a time constant of centuries, not weeks, and that tau does not make for career-advancing funding or publications. People whose ambitions desire short time constants for rapid advancement should go into engineering. It pays better. :)
@ opluso “…..the trend in multiple-author papers where most named authors contribute so little it would not merit separate publication.”
The lead author(s) only should be named on the paper while the others who merely agree with the paper should be relegated to a footnote.
Most of these papers have no lead author.
Most All of them are people who merely agree with consensus.
It takes a really lot of these papers to keep up the 97%.
Hi Alex. There has to be one or two that do most of the writing. I fail to see how 10 or more people can possibly do most of the writing.
Best paper I’ve ever come across had more authors than data point…
Most of these papers you refer to are not about “writing”–the many authors helped collect or analyze field data or did the modeling. Consider how many it takes to collect an ice core or to gather data from around the world.
That was how I got on the et el list of names after the lead author. I also did graphs, tables and charts and wrote some to the text associated with those.
WHO is teaching the younger generation coming through to prefer it ?
Liberal Consensus Education.
Mann, Dessler, Hansen, Hayhoe, Lefer, the IPCC, the Media, the list goes on, etc.
The Twenty who want to start an investigation and have the courts go after us skeptics. Those who want it to be against the law to be a skeptic.
Most who disagree are keeping quiet or get destroyed by the hysteria
The Alarmists try to link Skeptics to tobacco, oil companies, Koch brothers or anything that the liberal consensus hoard can think of.
“Weart’s characterization of climate science by committee consensus seeking seems to fall under the rubric of post normal science. In this framework, much of the tension in climate science seems to come from scientists who want to behave as physicists (i.e. ‘real scientists’) versus committee based consensus seeking and consensus supporting.” – JC
There’s nothing too much unusual about this, and it’s certainly far more developed in other areas such as medical research.
The idea of lone scientists making major breakthroughs by candlelight is romanticising some previous golden age that never really existed.
No, it really did exist. In some disciplines it existed not long ago. Consider computer science. So much of it was done in garages in Silicon Valley before it was named Silicon Valley it became cliche. Then it switched to college dorm rooms where Facebook and a legion of other killer apps were invented by lone wolves.
In theoretical physics lone wolves still operate too. Granted that in most disciplines the low hanging fruit is gone and breakthroughs require teams with a lot of money to spend.
Michael. Not too many posts back, there was one about a Japanese mathematician who labored alone for 10 years, then published a 500 page proof that fellows in his field couldn’t understand. After a few years, some believe they have verified it.
You are dreaming if you think the current batch of half-assed climate “scientists” know enough about climate to predict anything at all about it. The honest ones will admit it.
“Climate change impacts: The growth of understanding.” Why the assumption that understanding has grown? It’s not possible for a very rudimentary field of study to go backwards if politics, emotion and interest intervene massively? Actual climate change has become something of a taboo subject for many climate change experts.
When the kings and the pope have instituted a ruinously expensive crusade, when the money’s been allocated, when the armies are marching…it’s not a good time to be preaching thrift and practicalities. We are all expected to be on Team Crusade and to take one for the team.
Maybe that’s what’s happened to our understanding of climate change post-Lamb. We’ve all been taking one for the team because it’s just too hard to accept that so much in the way of mental and material resources could have just been blown. When driving south from Sydney it’s not easy to contemplate that collapsed and rusting wave generator or that dead dry desalination plant costing half a million a day…So quick! Do me some climate science!
I’m curious about the desal plant. What happened?
During the last severe drought phase (which bore a striking resemblance to other severe drought phases, but sssh) experts like Flannery and David Jones of the BoM claimed it was never going to rain adequately again. Green/Labor premiers didn’t like the idea of scaring voters with recycled water so they opted for the most stupendously expensive and carbon intensive solution possible for eastern state capitals – of course! NSW’s premier Carr, a very green and urban fellow with a delicious collection of outdoor clothing and a penchant for declaring any old bit of ex-forestry scrub a National Park, promised that the whole thing would run on solar or sustainable whatever. (Ha, ha…he got us again!)
Now, Sydney’s driest year was in 1888 and NSW was driest in 1902. I mean, we’re a pretty humid part of the world with good rainfall this side of the Great Divide. Can you guess what happened?
Justin, I’ll leave you to guess!
Melbourne’s desal was actually delayed by the constant rain (which flowed uselessly out to sea instead of filling the proposed Mitchell River Dam which got unproposed because there would be no more proper floods according to Flannery.)
Sydney’s unused desal probably costs 600 thousand dollars PER DAY by now. I’m sure Qld and Melbourne are competitive with the costs of their unused or underused desals – I can’t bear to look.
Of course, I have to be making all this up. Waste and bungling on such a scale by climate and government authorities could never go under-reported by the MSM. Over half a million a day for an unused desal? No way that can be real.
Justin I should add that Sydney’s total dam levels in this withering El Nino are now at 96.7%, but with the rain falling again that might get nudged up overnight. Really, there’s too much water.
Of course, in the age of Big Green, nothing has been done to improve capacity or introduce comprehensive recycling of water for future droughts. Conservation is so last century!
The coal power which fuels the unused desal has not been modernised, though Sydney’s back yard is full of the finest Permian black, centuries of supply. Don’t know what rust and disuse are doing to the desal. Don’t want to know. Can’t bear to know.
Faith without works. We’re green and forgiven!
“NSW’s premier Carr, a very green and urban fellow with a delicious collection of outdoor clothing and a penchant for declaring any old bit of ex-forestry scrub a National Park, promised that the whole thing would run on solar or sustainable whatever. (Ha, ha…he got us again!)”
Yeah, that thermodynamics thingy is tricky, energy density and all that, but you can’t really discuss religion in polite company.
“Can you guess what happened?”
Uuuhhhh, lessee…it rained cats and dogs? The Holy Hydrological Cycle fools the high priests of Gaia…again! Consider the meaning of the verb “to fool”.
People don’t appreciate that water often appears to fall in cycles with prolonged decadal or longer dryish or wettish periods
We had a small river running through our garden which regularly dried up for a few weeks in the summer. it did so three years in a row, for most of the summer with a limited flow in between.
‘Climate change!’ the Environment Agency said. ‘It will now forever be a dry river.’
‘Not so,’ I said ‘get on and dredge it as there are trees growing in little islands and the whole thing is clogged up.’
‘No need ,climate change’ they nodded wisely.
I showed them the book from 1900 which detailed the periods of flood and drought throughout the previous hundred years but they were having none of it.
I don’t need to tell you what happened when the next wet cycle arrived and the water in the river had nowhere to go as it was impeded by trees on small islands…
Desalination plants come in handy, especially in the next drought.
Did they mothball it so it can restart?
New carbon nanotube osmosis cartridges and developments can cut the energy requirements by up to a factor of 10. Better than killing all the fish at dams to accept what we have built to date and work an alternate ways of responding to inevitable droughts.
Water running uselessly to the sea is of the same value judgment as using every part of the slaughtered whale except call. Some like whales to be in the sea even though we only interact on TV with nature shows.
We have lots of dams and collect lots of water.
tonyb I don’t need to tell you what happened when the next wet cycle arrived and the water in the river had nowhere to go as it was impeded by trees on small islands…
lemme guess! it was an Extreme Weather Event?
scotts4sf: It will be easy to retrofit the desalination plants with a new technology. The walls – the most expensive part of the plant – will be reused completely.
Some added hilarity.
Even Adelaide, whose geography and rainfall history might justify a desal, is paying a million dollars a day for no water. ZERO water. But at least desal can be justified as one solution to the famous SA and Murray water wars. Theirs really does run on 100% accredited renewable energy which is locally generated…and possibly the most expensive regional energy anywhere in the world, though Brandenburg or somewhere in Denmark may win that honour. I really don’t want to know some things. (Our Green Betters, by the way, have finally found a dam they can like…the barrages which keep the Murray mouth fresh. Anything to annoy!)
More added hilarity.
While convict Sydney’s desal is likely to be the shadiest, Melbourne’s is the most colourful in terms of special relationships. Talking about “labour” arrangements here. Nobody was able to work out why three times the needed cranes were present at Melbourne’s mothballed and money-gobbling desal. Then it was noticed that the cranes came from the company of one Mick Gatto. Now, if overseas people are wondering who Mick Gatto could be…think John Gotti or some such smooth, charismatic, media-friendly Mediterranean gent.
Melbourne desal, still generating NO water, is still costing something like a million and a half dollars a day.
Of course, I have to be making this stuff up.
Good for a laugh. Before I leave to waste my time elsewhere, I wonder if the construction and outcome of the desal plants supports my belief that “the devil’s in the detail, and the maintenance will bite you in the a*se”?
Ain’t life grand?
Mike Flynn, please address all future inquiries about maintenance to Mick Gatto.
Who you gonna believe, the committee or your lying eyes?
Hmmm. It seems to me to be similar to religion – like monks discussing how the world cam about and how the universe works – and pronouncing he truth. then group think and herd mentality are spread from the pulpit.
Maybe more like monkeys – grooming each other while talking gibberish. Sometimes you could swear they understand what is going on in the outside world.
You eventually realise they are only capable of very limited responses. Show them a chart showing temperatures going up, and they’ll all leap up and down, hooting and scratching themselves vigorously.
Turn the chart upside down, and they react the same way. Obviously, they have no real understanding of what they are looking at. A bit like many climatologists, really. The main difference is that Climatologists shriek more loudly when upset.
Obviously, I intend no disrespect to monks or monkeys.
Peter and Mike in furious agreement on the horrors of groupthink.
+1. Close to my thoughts today; the similarities of Summa Theologica and the IPCC AR series. How they moulded their religions with seeming logic.
Science by committee consensus, surely Psychiatry deserves a prize with the DSM-III.
This post, reveals a different perspective on the “scientific method” as described by Thomas Kuhn whereby the “norms” of normal science were imposed by senior scientists within academic and research institutions.
Now we have senior scientists as administrators regulating the output of committees. Or railroad engineers? Or economists supported by Green thinktanks?
We also have non-science administrators of government agencies using the output of these “science” committees to frame policies that will determine the future of the US and European economies.
Where is our modern George Orwell now that we need him/her?
Imposition = Inquisition
it’s not Orwell.
No one can properly assess impacts without taking into.account adaptation. Adaptation to slow chage is unpredictable.
Analysis of the many courses of climate change sensu lato is anomalous in itself. There is little introspection in the harder sciences. Such as there is, is mainly from those who teach formally.
Hard scientists tend to think that a viable solution deserves more time than how it happened, or did not happen, or how it might have happened or what a committee might have thought.
Perhaps introspection is crippling too many climate workers right now. Or lack of enough good, new data.
I will get the numbers, forget the flummery.
“It doesn’t matter how rational you think you are.
You have a brain, and the chemicals in your brain often force you to make irrational decisions. This affects everything from decisions you make in your love life to trades you make in your investment portfolio.”
Thanks for the PNS link. A paradigmatic example of post modern reasoning.
Making a caricature of whats always been there and offering a “solution” that
legitimizes ignoring real world constraints.
Post modern social decision theory masquerading as science.
One of the underlying problems is that when there are fewer resources per person/relevant subsystem the parts are increasingly linked, interact and everything becomes increasingly “complex” and less Gaussian.
In this situation the physical constraints on decision making become ever more important and the degrees of freedom of possible policies narrower
leaving less scope for subjective preferences. Quite the opposite of what
PNS seems to suggest.
Nothing new, only the absolute scale of the top level is different today which entails new problems on the global scale. On the community scale it’s same as it ever was.
There is carbon underground.
Every body loves dogs!
China wants to feed the world with the help of science. It looks like these are all weather dogs.The meaning of Moo will change soon too.
Yum! Disclaimer: not over the border ridin’ with the Colonel, Hell bent for huts. Do not send to know for whom the spurs shimmer and jingle.
i>I submit that the older generation (my generation and older) have come up through the traditional sciences and are relatively vocal in their opposition (the phenomenon of the emeritus faculty members who seem to object to the consensus). Whereas younger climate scientists have come up through the system more accepting of the consensus by committee approach.
My take on the lone wolf v. wolf pack method of doing science is also generational, but that in the old days senior scientists (at least in academia) tended to mentor only one or two juniors at a time while today there are herds of post-docs in labs working for a lead principle investigator. It’s a matter of both economics and politics. You survive if you can latch onto a successful program with lots of people producing lots of results because that’s where the money flows. Interdisciplinary collaboration that is more common today across traditional boundaries also contributes.
“It would be wonderful to have Feynman come back and do a speech about how his legacy was kidnapped by a clueless dude who thinks RSS and UAH indicate something factual about the hiatus.”
How about him pointing out that if you insist that the last 18yrs of the RSS record is meaningful then so is the first 18yrs.
So see this….
So we have a mean trend-line for the whole record (purple). … the sensible option.
We have the trend (blue) for the last 18yrs.
We have the trend (red) for the first 18yrs.
Now for there to have been a true hiatus then the red line when extended forward in time should be ABOVE the blue. Correct? Or else we are still “warming” above the initial trend.
Err, it doesn’t even cross the blue line until ~2025!
I do not intend this analysis to do anything other than to highlight the absurdity of calling the last 18yrs on the RSS record a “hiatus”.
If you wanted to argue anything by cherry-picking it out to confirm your bias then actually a warming step is more correct – that still remains above the initial long-term trend.
Clue: the big Nino of 97/98 biases things horrendously – a known satellite sensing anomaly.
Which is why UAH (err, which version) as well as RSS do NOT measure surface temps meaningfully.
Gotta wait another decade, now?
How about him pointing out that if you insist that the last 18yrs of the RSS record is meaningful then so is the first 18yrs. …
Feynman was clever enough to figure out this is false.
From that graph one could even suspect that almost all the observed warming over the last 36 years was due to one big Nino – and had little to do with CO2 at all.
Thanks Tony. Too many people on this blog are projecting their bias from short term data.
Nay, Peter. Too many are just projecting :O). Talk about tipping points.
Agree with you Mike. There is always a way one can be more selective in what they pay attention to and while food fights can be fun for some they are a turn-off for many visitors who are here to learn.
SW is Al “Ron” Gore’s ghost writer. The Discovery of Global Warming is his Dianetics.
A contrived text, a murder mystery with a what to do with the body problem. The problem? The body’s alive.
Yeah, and it has a fever.
Measured at an inadequate, nay, superficial, orifice. Central body and surrounding gaseous environment with stable temperature.
All addressed a zillion times, nothing changes. Thank gawd you’re not in medicine.
“Given the fact the Pacific Decadal Oscillation seems to be shifting to a warm phase, ocean heating in the Pacific will definitely drive a major surge in global surface warming,” Nieves said.
Just another way of saying there was a hiatus, but it went paws up.
JCH: “Yeah, and it has a fever.”
No it hasn’t.
if I’m hotter than that I have a “fever”
what is the normal for the planet?
no normal no abnormal
warmest year compared to what?
comparison with basis
meant to say
comparison without basis
I agree with Tony Banton’s point. The two periods are distinctly different and separated by a significant el Nino event. So it is illogical to look at the two 18 year trends as a single 36 year trend period with a correlation over the entire data set. A cross plot of temperature (or anomaly) against CO2 levels shows the same pattern and clearly demonstrates that during this period, temperature has zero correlation with rising CO2 levels variations in CO2 are due entirely to variables other than CO2. An argument that models cannot be used for short term forecasting is counter intuitive. Who said the long term is just a collection of short terms?
It points to an obvious deficiency at doing what it claims to be doing: estimating the temperature of the surface of the earth, which is why the lead scientist for RSS says the thermometer records are more accurate.
ARGOS is best metric, and is ambivalent at present.
ARGO is not ambivalent.
It’s OK, I listened to Josh and Roger.
No, you didn’t. Willis continues to write scientific papers. Have you read them?
“the lead scientist for RSS says the thermometer records are more accurate.”
Probably the reason some people are hard at work adjusting the thermometer records.
Anything by committee is only as strong as the weakest link; relative to AGW climate science there’s places without links at all; although there’s furious attempts to ‘forge’ them by committee.
Science by committee: a secret sauce, with no clue as to the ingredients. Am I supposed to swallow that?
Get it past your tongue and palate, but please not through your nose.
Convincing case for, why anyone should believe the consensus statements: Hot World Syndrome—fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat. It’s a Hollywood-Leftist-liberal thang like… burning your emails just before running for high office.
“On the other hand, many people have argued vociferously against the entire scientific consensus on impacts, right up to the present.”
For the present, I’ll stick with the argument that they cannot know/predict any of the minor details better than than the toss of a coin. So some kind of averaged grand “consensus” synthesis is moot.
The average temperature of the Arctic Ocean and the Sahara Desert is a statistic that is worse than useless, especially when calculated by the ignorant, the incompetent, the political, and the malicious.
True, true, they’re still not looking at the world except through thermometers in cities outside Western classrooms by air conditioners, parking lots and glass buildings. Some of them are still denying that there has been no global warming going on 2 decades and nearly 3 decades depending on the data set and method used to arrive at an average temperature of the entire globe. And, none of them understand that In the real and not digitized world of the global warming alarmists, the concept of a global ‘average’ temperature is nothing more than fallacious reductionist logic because temperature is an intensive variable: an average temperature has no more meaning than the average number of letters in all the names in a phone book.
was “it” cooler in the LIA?
an average temperature has THIS meaning.
The average global temp is 15C
That means… pick a random latitude, pick a random longitude.
go measure the temp there, X
Do the following 15-X
Do that as many times as you like.
record the errors
Now… Pick a number different from 15
repeat that process
no other number you pick will give you lower errors
This is easy to falsify.. just do the work.
Adopting an unusual method of English expression, may make your message harder to understand. This is a tip, not a clue.
Going back to the supposed substance of your post, I see you admonishing others to carry out a pointless task which appears quite laborious. What is the point?
That, of course, is an unfair rhetorical question, as there is no point all. Averaging or creating temperatures purporting to adequately represent the ever changing atmospheric conditions at particular locations for some arcane purpose, appears to be a complete waste of time.
The fact that many people carry out the same pointless exercise in an enthusiastic fashion, at great expense, means nothing. Anyone who has read Gulliver’s Travels, will probably remember Laputa. An excerpt from a précis of the story, relating to the philosophers of Laputa –
“The vast majority of their time is spent listening to the “music of the spheres.” They believe obsessively in astrology, and continually worry that the sun will burn out at any moment.”
Change a few words here and there, and Swift could have been writing about climatologists, their preoccupation with thermometers, and worries that we face imminent doom from an excess of CO2.
But not you, Steven. You’re a scientist aren’t you? You don’t believe a word of this CO2 warming nonsense, do you? Or maybe you do. Oh well.
“But not you, Steven. You’re a scientist aren’t you?”
He’s not a scientist.
Bad Andrew: “But not you, Steven. You’re a scientist aren’t you?”
He’s not a scientist.
He’s a salesman.
And not a particularly good one.
Of course Steven Mosher is a scientist! It says so clear as day on the berkelyesrth.org website. He’s right up there with Zeke Hausfather – who at least has MSc qualifications, in Environmental Economics.
I ask you, if Steven Mosher thought the description of him as a scientist was misleading or erroneous, he would have taken appropriate action, wouldn’t he? Or maybe not?
“I ask you, if Steven Mosher thought the description of him as a scientist was misleading or erroneous, he would have taken appropriate action, wouldn’t he? Or maybe not?”
By “appropriate action” do you mean trolling the internet and posting drive-by comments? ;)
That’ll be Steven kinetics-can-tell-you-nothing-and-don’t-worry-about carriage-returns Mosher.
Of course Steve Mosher is a scientist. He is doing science. I get enough of this nonsense from AGW advocates who think peer review is some kind of a gold standard.
Sure is a lot of bile in the thread here…devoid of content, nonsense assertions. Seeing more and more of that lately.
Mike Flynn, catweazle666, Bad Andrew, Mike Hart I didn’t notice the announcement of your appointments to the ANSI Scientists Certification Committee. Please accept my belated congratulations! (Oh, goodie another d@mned committee.)
Seriously, or just please, up your game. Hint or tip, here think algorithm, approach or recipe. Yes, it is rough but it is there. Also learn about sequential lists.
I didn’t know there was an ANSI Scientists Certification Committee. Thanks for informing me of my appointment.
I don’t know about the others, but I think I might start by certifying people like Faraday and Mendel for starters. Forrest Mims III could well be certified, but I’m not too sure about Thomas Edison. Do you think he qualifies?
And so on. I’m not sure about people like Steven Mosher or Zeke Hausfather. They could always write a submission, and if they can identify achievements of Mendel or Faraday, I’m sure I would support their certification.
Trofim Lysenko certainly satisfies the criteria, as does Svante Arrhenius, even though they certainly had some bizarre and eccentric personal ideas.
I can see a few problems looming. Have you seen any notice relating to my immediate resignation upon hearing about my appointment? I look forward to it.
Thank you for you kind advice to learn about sequential lists. In regard to computer programming, and devising algorithms using lists, I would preferentially use doubly linked lists, rather than a single sequential list.
Obviously, you have a preference for sequential lists, for reasons which presently elude me. Could you please expand on the type or form of sequential list which you are telling me to learn about?
No bile here. It’s all good fun. If people want to take offence, I don’t want to interfere with their right to feel however they want. For my part, I decline to take offence. Pure laziness, I guess.
Thank you for your kind words. I certainly understand your concerns.
Obviously, you have a preference for sequential lists, for reasons which presently elude me. Could you please expand on the type or form of sequential list which you are telling me to learn about?
Steven Mosher | October 21, 2015 at 5:49 pm | — rough but it is there.
The global temperature has meaning because it is a metric — a calculated metric. Or if you wish it is a ‘statistic’, a single number used to characterize a population in some manner. Such things have meaning–the question is how good is any given statistic? Also how representative is the particular sample? Is the particular statistic appropriate for how it is used (certainly statistical context and sometimes physical context? Is uncertainty handled properly? and so on….
These sorts of things can be argued/discussed much more easily and productively than the overworked credentials game.
Yeah, lisps are fun.
Cheers back at you.
““On the other hand, many people have argued vociferously against the entire scientific consensus on impacts, right up to the present.”
The truth is in an ever changing climate there will be areas that get beneficial changes and other areas where the changes will be negative for those living there.
It might be worthwhile to develop metrics to evaluate the condition of the climate. This is no simple task. Is a location that gets 50 cm per year better of worse off if climate change results in 60 cm/yr?
When a horse is designed by a committee, you get a camel.
I like camels.
They are great in hot desert climates and can run fast as shown in the Saudi Arabia annual races.
Committees are neither bad nor good. Have to look at the underlying observations. Too bad that APS threw Dr Steve Koonin off the review before they could publish a set of findings from the presentations by Curry, Christy, Held, Santor and Lindsen. The open testimony was interesting and enlightening and could have led to a useful statement before the powers panicked and threw the scientific leader off the team.
a LGBTQ camel… and, there’s nothing wrong with that.
??? I normally enjoy your comments but the camel reference is obscure.
I did like the analogy of global average temperature equals the average number of letters per name in the phonebook.
I meant to say, a LBGTQIA camel, meaning that as a committee we cannot be too careful about being inclusive about what we or they may not be romantically, physically, or emotionally oriented or attracted to or desire to be, or even expected to be based on our or their anatomy and that we should embrace and be allied with the entire variety of preferences, orientations, and habits of other all other options and creatures irrespective of how many legs they may have.
And here’s NASA ignoring the consensus of numerous scientific committees.
The very popular NASA site called “Global Climate Change, the fourth section is titled, “Scientific consensus: Earth’s climate is warming;”
At the top of the above referenced web page, it is stated:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.
In question: the time frame, “trends over the past century.”
Generally speaking, the consensus among the warmists (IPCC summary included) to be that it is not until around the middle of the 20th Century – 1950 is often referenced (several, many decades later) – that AGW comes into play. It is not widely believed that until this time CO2 had not yet risen to a level where their might be any potentially observational evidence of a human foot (from anthropogenic greenhouse gases) to be present on global temperature.
In fact – among the various scientific orgs touted on the web page (w/ more referenced in the footnotes), I find very consistent views on the timeline:
” . . on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.” [ 2013-50 =’s 1963]
” . .that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.”
” It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities .”
“The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced . .”
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century . .”
“Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)” – GSA
“It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).” Joint Science Academies Statement.
“The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.” From Executive Summary “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009) – U.S. Global Change Research Program.
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
I’d suggest that at a minimum the summary regarding consensus on the “birth of AGW,” be changed to match your own expert witnesses, i.e., ‘somewhere between the middle of the 20th Century to the late 1970’s.’
NASA – making it up as they go.
Lest us not forget the Global Temperature anomaly graphic on the top of the page shows a clear global cooling cycle from about the 1940’s through the late 1970’s. It should be a bit awkward to sell the view that man’s footprint on GW occurred just as the Earth was getting serious – for 3-4 decades – about global cooling.
“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human
I suppose they consider Cook et al to be a scientific study…blind but not double-blind…
It would appear that way; however, I’d note – how many of the abstracts that Cook look at, actually took a position in regards to NASA’s fabricated timeline of, “over the past century?”
The comments over at Physics Today are worth a gander. It does not look like a 97% consensus for alarmism to me. A lot of people get it.
Did you notice the advertisement in the comments?
“Perhaps we can all agree that what’s really needed here is a focus on improving the climate-prediction models (to reduce their uncertainties), and funding research that provides input data for those models? “
And of course we all know the models have run consistently hot, and error bars have not reduced in 25 years. IMO “climate modelling” in the sense of running a 100-year weather forecast is a failed approach. The money should be going into understanding basic atmospheric physics, past climate, and natural variability. That would involve computer models, but also a lot more observation. We need to get back to real science.
How do you keep ’em down in the lab, after they’ve seen Paree?
Have them post a bond and risk forfeiture?
Data just in: NOAA says September 2015 is the highest temperature anomaly of any month in recorded history. It is now virtually certain that 2015 will break the previous record of 2014 as warmest year on record. (And by a long shot)
Hey, where did my pause go? I knew I saw it around here somewhere!
doug: “NOAA says September 2015 is the highest temperature anomaly of any month in recorded history.”
Yeah, of course it is.
And next September will be even hotter. And the September after that…
NOAA will keep on claiming that even as the glaciers are rolling over their supercomputer.
It’s all down to the Algoreithms, see?
NOAA. Most ridiculous hype recorded history. By a loooong shot.
NOAA provides high quality products that are made highly dedicated and exceedingly competent scientists.
JCH, their penchant for tendentious hype ruins their credibility.
Dedicated and exceedingly competent scientists should consider that.
“provides high quality products”
How so? They don’t produce anything useful.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Baby, you and me
Gotta Peculiar Kinda Science
I’m curious about something. For all those who claimed a pause in the temperature data, you had no problem using NOAA’s data right? And now that the same data shows an astonishing rise in temperatures, blowing any “pause’ confusion out of the water, do you suddenly not trust NOAA’s data?
Be careful now. I know deniers don’t like to be hypocrites, (no, of course not) so tread carefully K?
Didn’t trust NOAA’s data at any point.
Still confused, dougie?
NOAA September 2015 anomaly out a .90C. Believe it or not; doesn’t matter; nobody cares about dead enders.
Land #-1; ocean #-1.
the PDO is a beast
doug: “I know deniers don’t like to be hypocrites, (no, of course not) so tread carefully K?”
These days, it’s you credulous, scientifically backward AGW religionists that are the deniers, sunshine.
it doesnnt matter cause you get the same answer if yoou use data that doesnt come from NOAA
The NOAA data; is this the newly created data that erased the pause?
A pointless and possibly misleading answer is arguably worse than no answer at all.
Why bother asking meaningless questions, and then debating the correctness of the answer? If that’s your preferred method of wasting time, fine. I’m just not sure why you demand that others waste their time in the same fashion. Is there some personal emotional benefit?
Ther doesn’t seem to be any material benefit. Are you a Masochist, perchance? Many are. Maybe 97% of Warmists, for all I know!
Which data set?
As I understand it they are now all using Tom Karl’s new adjusted SST set. If you think that is any good, I recommend you don’t do your own taxes. Tom’s idea of manipulating numbers would be called evasion by the IRS.
BS. Write a paper and prove it.
“Write a paper and prove it.”
You mean, “Write a paper and THEN prove it.”
Because as we all know and climate papers have demonstrated: writing papers doesn’t necessarily mean anything,
JCH’s “write a paper and prove it”
Typical response. How many papers have you authored J?
And who wants to take bets that should I write the requested paper, JCH will then cry “But it’s not peer reviewed!” proving once again he doesn’t have a clue what the peer review process intails or means.
JCH, you may think that manipulating data is always appropriate and always accurate. I don’t. However if you want to arrange for the computing and staff resources guys like Dr Karl have at their disposal, I would seriously consider developing a proposal to rerun his analysis with different (and defendable) assumptions and see if the results support or discredit those of Karl.
Bottom line – his assumptions are not defendable and you implying otherwise is just further reflection on your lack of honest discourse.
Why don’t you explain why Karl’s methods were valid? No paper necessary. Just a couple of paragraphs explaining why it is valid to adjust one set of data based on another set, then weight the now adjusted data set more heavily on the basis it is more accurate than the set used to adjust it.
Does it make any difference that NASA, (well, Gavin Schmidt), stated that the probability of 2014 being the HOTTEST YEAR EVAH! was 38%. Or about 2 to 1 that it wasn’t, really, but there are no big headlines for that.
So tell me, what’s the likelihood of 2015 being the HOTTEST YEAR EVAH? More or less than the 2014 pronouncement? 5%? 10%?
I’ll point out that year 0, when the Earth was created, has never been exceeded in temperature.
You’ll find Mosher is your mate, here. If he’s not qualified enough for you, the Australian BOM an excellent track record of adjusting temperatures. They even determined all official Australian temperature records prior to 1910 are “unreliable”. See how easy it is?
I’m not sure why you are worried about temperatures. It’s hotter in Summer than Winter, hotter during the day, hotter in the deserts (if the Sun’s shining, of course), hotter next to a fire. What’s the problem?
Most now use UHI and RSS data. The NOAA and NASA adjustments have corrupted the historical record. Interesting to see what Dr R. Pielke Sr and the others come up with when they review the basis for adjustments.
In Australia, Dr Mahorrsey presented Ruthigan and a couple series temps which showed adjustments turning cooling trends to !.6*C heating over historical records. So we have to move back to actual observations and provide a written basis for projected changes in the past.
ARGO ;and SST temperatures are being adjusted furiously in the run up to Paris. All we can hope for is a LIA 2 to convince the public that something is rotten in Denmark. or Paris.
You get the same results using data that doesnt come from NOAA.
Not sure what you mean. Dr Marohasy states that changes to Rutherglen are not justified and changed a cooling trend of 1*C to a warming trend of 1.6*C over the period from around 1880 to present.. A major change in historical records. No identified site change of site characteristics and some homogenization results take temps from 1,000 km away to modify actual measurements. I keep an open mind but would like to see BOM provide both original temps as measured and changes with relevant justifications.
I read the Karl etc changes to SST and his justification for using sea water intake estimated temps to modify buoy temps upwards by a 1*C, which having spent time on a ship, seems to me unjustified.
I was favorably impressed by your and Zeke defense of BEST results but don’t think the same applies to all data modifications being floated about. Especially about ARGO measurements which I don’t see any justification for modifications.
“You get the same results using data that doesnt come from NOAA”
The answer is always the same. Seems a little suspicious to me.
I’m late to this party, but my recollection was this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/cowtan_way_2014_roundup.html
@doug: Hmm, so where is the ~0.35C of warming that should have happened since 1998? Is that all going to happen this year?
We have 0.4 warming since 1996 by GISS so what’s your point?
Surely we should compare an el nino year with an el nino year? We would not want to be accused of cherry-picking end-points would we?
Well then, why did you go back to 1998 when you cited a projection from a report issued in 2007?
So were you cherry picking or not?
If you insist on using UAH or RSS, we should wait until they show an El Nino peak for the current El Nino.
Spencer Weart is a wonderful writer/science historian. Good read is also “Money for Keeling:Monitoring CO2 Levels” https://www.aip.org/history/climate/Kfunds.htm
At the end he writes: “Mingled with this infighting came another trend: the politicization of some scientific decisions. . . . Such strong politicization did not appear in other advanced democracies. It appears to correlate with the unequalled rise to power in America of right-wing anti-intellectual, anti-elite attitudes. While increased bureaucratization of research support may be inevitable, interference for political ends is an error that should and can be opposed by all citizens.”
Weart is obviously an extreme left-winger politically who has let his politics affect his judgment.
Weart thinks the shiny reflective sphere and the black sphere in the sun and free to radiate to space would be exactly the same temperature. So while he may have a warming bias, he still seems to have a physicists brain….
Well, he had a bit more of a think and changed his mind…..
I saw Weart on a show about an unrelated topic and read a tiny bit of other off topic. I also read all of the print version of The Discovery of Global Warming. He mostly does a good job, but he has some major biases and opinions that leak into his work that just don’t jibe with reality. Particularly the gloom and doom. His obliviousness to the politics in science that agree with his biases is pretty flagrant here.
He’s a tool. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t do a lot of good work, just that he needs to be taken with a grain of salt on anything political or ideological.
He is a wonderful writer. And all his stuff is online, more than in the books.
Highly recommended reading.
@aaron you are right he does have major biases. All the more surprising that he can see the logic of radiative thermal equilibrium temperature being independent of albdeo/absorptivity/emissivity.
And now the Alt Right weighs in:
“In cross-cultural perspective, the unique thing about European culture is the tendency for individualism. Individualism is the basis for Western modernization”
“European-derived cultures are committed to multiculturalism, and they are being swamped by economic refugees from collectivist cultures, dispossessing their founding peoples. In the long run, in the absence of a political revolution against non-European immigration, it is highly doubtful that individualist cultures can survive.”
I should flush this out a bit:
Individualism leads to science and objectivity and the individualistic search for truth.
Collectivism punishes standing out (heroism in Oreskes words) and thus avoids and punishes things such as non-social objectivity. Therefore consensus would be the highest scientific goal.
And, of course, the West is the one that built airplanes, trains, and other apparatus since, as any scientist knows, nature does not bow to the collective.
Although, interestingly, this is another difference, the collectivist cultures view nature as something to be mastered whereas the individualistic society views nature as the purveyor of absolutes, something powerful and divine. Hence the western tendency to view innate forms and talents as valid, the collectivist to claim environment and transient response governs all forms and talents.
Good posts, not recognised by Australian academia (see below).
Nice letter to The Australian!
I’m studying the Hellenistic age a bit, I have a feeling this era will provide some clues on the conflict between these two different world and intellectual conceptions.
I like the Clark maps in the recent Thucydides.
” in the absence of a political revolution against non-European immigration”
which is happening now. There are increased noises against the EU Commissioners to the extent that the President, Jean-Claude Juncker, fears ‘The “dream” of a unified continent is at risk from “fissures and fractures” of national divisions and separatist movements,’
It’s the other way around, collectivist cultures won’t survive.
” ‘The “dream” of a unified continent is at risk from “fissures and fractures” of national divisions and separatist movements”
I think they call these ‘History’.
On the surface, it seems to make sense that climate science has been moved forward (or sideways) by large, anonymous, faceless, foggy committees. “The science” thus writes itself, and becomes unquestioned and unquestionable. But every once in a while some sharp political elbows are seen to poke. The “official inquiries” in the US and UK, following the 2009 Climategate revelations, were orchestrated and conducted in a manner which indicated some very strong guiding hands. “No wrongdoing uncovered” was the result, and presumably also the mandated requirement, of each of them — not a foggy committee process but a quick unconsecrated funeral. Some years earlier the same firm non-committee elbows were in evidence when the “Real Climate” website was initiated, and the hands guiding it have been nothing if not firm, in attempting to strangle skepticism about the “consensus”.
So are the foggy committees the moving force in climate science, allowing “the science” to move forward it its own manner and at its own pace? Or are they just part of a smoke screen? If the latter, then who is actually behind it? Perhaps Spencer Weart’s understanding is a little flawed.
Some peculiarly Australian peculiarity: it has just emerged that one of the first acts of the Turnbull government was to withdraw its support for a policy centre led by Bjorn Lomborg at an Australian university, something virulently opposed by hordes of so-called academics. My letter to The Australian:
The honeymoon is over (“Lomborg shift waves ‘white flag’ on freedom,” 22/10). For years, Bjorn Lomborg has been a great force for good policy based on facts, good data and top-class analysis, with the support and collaboration of many of the world’s leading economists. His treatment by Australia’s petty, insular, group-thinking academia is pathetic. The Turnbull government’s rapid acquiescence to that group is contemptible.
> The Turnbull government’s rapid acquiescence to that group is contemptible
Agreed, although it is not unexpected
However, the following link chronicles a most amusing piece of actual very recent history. I do hope the story is not over yet: Turnbull must be privately seething; Craig Kelly MP should wear cavlar as a Precautionary Principle, I should think
Yes, hilarious stuff.
Our favourite climate-conspiracist peddling her snake-oil on the evil BoM and it’s temp adjustments and models…….is on the other hand developing her computer weather forecasting model.
With respect, I would prefer resources devoted to improving weather forecasting models – possibly 70 billion dollars or so, thrown at short term weather forecasting might have helped – rather than useless toy models of fluid dynamics.
Nonetheless, as you probably know, I don’t think computers help to forecast weather significantly better than a naive persistence forecast, which you or I can do as well as anybody.
I believe that climate change was being discussed, not weather change. I make a distinction between the two, as climate is no more than the average of weather events which have already occurred.
Maybe you were a little over enthusiastic in confusing a climate conspiracy with weather forecasting.
Let me know if you think there is no significant difference between weather and climate, and I’ll keep it in mind. It’s all very confusing, because CO2 induced global warming (fantasy) has morphed into climate change (fact, obviously). Why not just stick with global warming? Why confuse the issue?
I’m not sure what you mean by a climate-conspiracist, but I assume others do. I’m not much of a fan of conspiracy theories, which is proof that there’s a conspiracy to make people like me think there aren’t a lot of genuine conspiracies out there.
By gum, it’s working!
models are evil……the denizens tell me so all the time.
BOM HAVE adjusted temperatures in as much those pre stevenson screen (roughly 1910) have been removed. Others have been seen as unreliable and removed.
I am not a conspiracy theorist and wish that those who believe the adjustments to modern temperatures, or the removal of old records, are fraudulent would submit a peer reviewed paper instead of sniping.
Mosh believes that data should speak for itself and would I am sure supply any material necessary. However, if the temperatures have been fraudulently adjusted you would have thought that someone involved in the ‘conspiracy’ would have come forward over the last decade or two.
Peer review or stop sniping would be my message
What was it again?
They moved to a new building, so it is very easy to believe. They have the improved product.
How much? What was it all? Were and how was it disposed of? These are basic questions that have never been answered.
Your faith in the integrity of climate temperatures as reported by the gov experts is touching. But as you said to JCH above.
Dr Maroharsy uses Rutheglen as a prime example of unjustified changes by BOM in Australia.
What is your take on that issue. Homoginazation from 100’s km away seems unjustified under almost any instances. Arctic krieging and SST adjustments from ship intakes to buoy thermocouples seem unjustified. Changes to ARGO thermocouples seem unjustified.
I want to accept the integrity of gov funded mainstream climate science but my confidence in the observations degrades with continuous changes to historical records.
What do you think.
I enjoy and trust your data and instincts.
Every time, a new building into which to move.
I think you know that I am dubious as to the overwhelming value or accuracy of a global average temperature as methodology varies so much and the instruments used and the observers foibles and the manner in which temperatures are borrowed from hundreds of miles away all need to be taken into account.
Combine that with the precision that is claimed for historical reconstructions and the nuances that are lost by concentrating on the global rather than regional picture, and the record that our policy makers set such store by is not one they should be basing far reaching decisions on.
However, having met some of the people who compile temperatures and having known mosh for some years, I find the Idea that such people are deliberately manipulating and falsifying data to be far fetched. Bearing in mind there are thousands of people ultimately involved in the temperature business it woud have to be a hoax on a massive scale.
We have Paul homewood in the UK, Steve Goddard in the US, Jennifer in Australia all crying foul. Let them prove it by looking closely at the available data and documenting it in a way that can be peer reviewed.
As far as I can tell we have enormous natural variability underpinned by a very small overall temperature rise since around 1700 with, it would seem, inflexion points downwards around 1570, an upwards inflexion point around 1400 and various other inflexion points both up and down in the preceding 300 years. So I do not see the current temperatures as being so far out of the ordinary that they warrant alarm. Historical context often seems to be missing from climate science together with an over reliance on models and lack of knowledge of the scale of natural variability.
It woud be useful if those that are alarmed would confirm what sort of climate they want to dial back to and in what year it Last existed.
The warming is most likely predominantly natural and convincingly beneficial. The cornucopic greening and the tremendous societal enriching of fossil fuel use far outweigh its moderate warming value.
| October 22, 2015 at 7:38 am |
Peer review or stop sniping would be my message
| October 22, 2015 at 2:39 pm |
Let them prove it by looking closely at the available data and documenting it in a way that can be peer reviewed.
Both sound good to me, Tony.
Michael (Oct 22 5:33am) predictably misses the entire point of the post from the Jo Nova website
Warmist scientists were at long last forced to debate non-warmist scientists in a genuine Parliamentary forum. The warmistas came off very badly. I’m quite sure there will be great pains to prevent that sort of confrontation from happening again. My amusement comes from the red-faced exposure of the data shell game
The Nova website merely reported the occurrence – Michael knots himself up over the *fact* of the reporting … such a tedious little person
Since Lomborg decided to lie to me, I don’t have much use for him.
The butler had the body but he disposed of it somehow. Any further questions?
Now you have a respect for being honest.
Everyone gets very angry being played the fool. We all get it.
Here on this website it was purported that the Pacific NE blob appears to be dissipating. I had the temerity to be skeptical about this speculation. I was assured by a skeptical know-it all that the blob is in fact dissipating.
So a couple of weeks later the PDO index went up.
As for the oft predicted negative phase of the AMO, and that alarming, utterly frightening, elderly killer cold it will bring…
It’s taking its time. October 2015… so far, unbelievably hot.
Looks like the liberal fascists are trying on their global warming jackboots.
Just a cotton pickin’ minute there!
What about us left wing deniers? I’ve been told on occasion that I’m a little to the left of Karl Marx!
This Whitehouse feller is obviously guilty of discrimination on a grand scale!
I might just as well decline to face the “greatest legal engine ever invented” if it was invented by the same crew who invented Global Warming.
Left or liberal, Freeman Dyson (“Obama ‘took the wrong side’…,” Register) asks a good question about climate change: “How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”
Maybe he’s 90 years old, and no longer fully understands what an unlikely thing it is that an entire generation of scientists is blind to facts.
Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.
The IPCC Assessment Reports were written by committees.
Coincidentally, the Torah and Bible(s) were written by committees.
And your point is?
Religious texts are compiled by committees.
Darwin, Newton, Einstein and numerous other pillars of modern science worked and published by themselves.
Got it. Good point.
I doubt you can find any documentary support for that nonsensical statement.
Are you truly that ignorant of history? Sad.
“The synod of 393 is best known for two distinct acts. First, for the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a Christian Biblical canon that corresponds to the modern Roman Catholic canon while falling short of the Orthodox canon (including the books classed by Roman Catholics as deuterocanonical books and by Protestants as Apocrypha). The canon was later approved at the Council of Carthage pending ratification by the “Church across the sea”, that is, Rome.”
“The French priest Richard Simon brought these critical perspectives to the Catholic tradition in 1678, observing “the most part of the Holy Scriptures that are come to us, are but Abridgments and as Summaries of ancient Acts which were kept in the Registries of the Hebrews,” in what was probably the first work of biblical textual criticism in the modern sense.”
Jeff speaks of synods that listed and approved various books but this doesn’t show how they had been compiled in the first place. the following list gives some idea:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy = Moses – 1400 B.C.
Joshua = Joshua – 1350 B.C.
Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel = Samuel/Nathan/Gad – 1000 – 900 B.C.
1 Kings, 2 Kings = Jeremiah – 600 B.C.
1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah = Ezra – 450 B.C.
Esther = Mordecai – 400 B.C.
Job = Moses – 1400 B.C.
Psalms = several different authors, mostly David – 1000 – 400 B.C.
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon = Solomon – 900 B.C.
Isaiah = Isaiah – 700 B.C.
Jeremiah, Lamentations = Jeremiah – 600 B.C.
Ezekiel = Ezekiel – 550 B.C.
Daniel = Daniel – 550 B.C.
Hosea = Hosea – 750 B.C.
Joel = Joel – 850 B.C.
Amos = Amos – 750 B.C.
Obadiah = Obadiah – 600 B.C.
Jonah = Jonah – 700 B.C.
Micah = Micah – 700 B.C.
Nahum = Nahum – 650 B.C.
Habakkuk = Habakkuk – 600 B.C.
Zephaniah = Zephaniah – 650 B.C.
Haggai = Haggai – 520 B.C.
Zechariah = Zechariah – 500 B.C.
Malachi = Malachi – 430 B.C.
Matthew = Matthew – A.D. 55
Mark = John Mark – A.D. 50
Luke = Luke – A.D. 60
John = John – A.D. 90
Acts = Luke – A.D. 65
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon = Paul – A.D. 50-70
Hebrews = unknown, mostly likely Paul, Luke, Barnabas, or Apollos – A.D. 65
James = James – A.D. 45
1 Peter, 2 Peter = Peter – A.D. 60
1 John, 2 John, 3 John = John – A.D. 90
Jude = Jude – A.D. 60
Revelation = John – A.D. 90
Conclusion: Not compiled by a committee at the same time.
Actually, it would appear to be you who is ignorant. What the 3-4th century CE synods argued, and put their stamp of approval on, was the selection of books that existed in pretty much their modern form long prior to them.
Most of the books of the “New testament” are generally accepted as having achieved their modern form, or close to it, by mid-2nd century CE.
The development of each book of the “New Testament” is generally accepted to have been done by many hands, but sequentially, and/or independently.
No “committee” involved.
For once a writer has come up with the same conclusion I had a long time ago. The older generation following the lines of traditional science, the younger by consensus.
Excuse me if the following has been aforementioned, but I think there are other motivators for the differences in approach by age.
First, I know our host may be the exception, :) :) but most younger scientists have career, financial, family, and other responsibilities which influence them to acquiesce to join the consensus, or else suffer the consequences. Older, or retired scientists may have some negative consequences, but much less to which to concern themselves…
Two, we are living in an increasingly divisive age. ( But not in U.S. Politics of course sarc ) By now everyone who contributes here have seen many examples of scientists who buck the consensus being verbally attacked or worse. Some would advocate jail time. college There is also, of course, some, but not as much, ad hominen attacks in the opposite direction. The attacks happen here, and I expect that most of us who have seen the sun rise more often see it as childish. Nothing is gained.
With that statement, I have am trying to determine whether a dominant cause is age tempering emotional swings, or is it paramount that we are becoming softer and more disrespectful as a society.. It is quite amazing when college students attack someone like Freeman Dyson. At one time I considered the science world the hallmark of objectiveness. The Spock and Data’s of society, Silly me!
Three, Media response is much quicker, greater in quantity, and most often skewed. News must sell, and bad news is good news, good news is no news Ike warned of the dangers of the Military-industrial complex and government controlling science in his farewell address. He intended to have the same warning regarding the media, but his advisers convinced him not to give that warning.
Repeat something often enough, and it is human nature to believe it.
I cannot see how any conclusion to the question of AGW is anything other than, it is possible there may be some, but it probably is insignificant.
It would not be worth concerning ourselves if not for the enormous magnitude of need being placed on the issue. A greater concern than the absolutely horrid acts of ISS?! Seriously??!!.
I find it abhorrent when our US Secretary of State tells citizens of Africa who are using dung for energy, to not move forward with development because of the concern of so called carbon pollution. Since when did a fundamental elixir of life become a pollutant?
I am reminded of a Charles Addams New Yorker cartoon I saw as a kid, where a father and son are looking at a statue of a group of men in suits, and the father says to the son, “There are no great men, my boy – only great committees.”
I found a reprint here:
I notice that immediately above that 1975 cartoon is the comment “But cleverness is its own trap, and never more conspicuously than when scientists play politics.”
Curt, that’s actually a pretty fascinating book you link to there:
“The National Research Council in 1979
Current Issues and Studies”
just glancing over the first couple of chapters:
– Some Comments on Risk Assessment
– Science. Politics and Mrs. Gruenberg
The subject matter is still relevant and the perspective from 1980 is interesting. The prose is also quite readable and there is an emphasis on objectivity – things that I believe many CE readers find lacking nowadays.
Hah hah hah for Mrs. Gruenberg: If scientists keep reminding themselves to never think politically, they will end up thinking politically just about the right amount of time.
From the article surrounding the cartoons.
Periodic Table –
Scientist’s like argon,
that noble gas, should be,
regarding politics and policy,
inert, innocent in a sense,
guided by curiosity,
we like to think.
Interesting Twitter link from Judith. I am sure we will see a comment on this some time. Sen. Whitehouse even refers to Judith Curry briefly. It is not clear whether this speech has yet been given on the Senate floor. It’s about RICO, Exxon, WSJ, climate/tobacco comparisons, etc.
Some silly little annoyingly hyperactive commenter is obsessed with Exxon. Like if we RICO Exxon, people will stop using fossil fuels. Oh, the humanity!
Lying through his teeth, the senator passes over that government-corrupted climate science with a budget perhaps five orders of magnitude higher, has relentlessly worked towards the opposite preconceived deception.
Jim D: It’s about RICO, Exxon, WSJ, climate/tobacco comparisons, etc.
Sen Whitehouse refers to the advantages of having people testify under oath. I think he’ll find that once Oreskes and others testify under oath and subject to cross examination that the whole case will fall apart. There is no solid case that global warming is a public health issue, and under oath all the promoters of divestment from fossil fuels will back off the extreme claims. That is dramatically different from the case of tobacco, where there was lots of evidence for the health effects of smoking (not so much for exposure to secondary smoke).
I recall from several years ago when the Gun Control crowd was all excited about using the tobacco model to try and shut down the firearms industry.
It died a quick death. Once the trial attornies looked into the annual revenues of the various manufacturers they realized any damages and fees they would garner (should they have won) wouldn’t have covered their lunch tabs for the duration of the case.
I guess they think that isn’t a concern with the oil companies. Then again the oil companies have far more money to fight back than the tobacco companies.
Aerosols cause cancer and lung disease, we even see, if we look hard enough to see, through the dungsmoke. But AnthroCO2 is not a net harm; it takes to deceit to conjure such a thing, and there the analogy fails.
The bet on the green mare,
They bet Stormy Lou.
Had they bet on Ol’ Carball,
We’d be free men today.
Kim, you are an endless delight.
Here’s a quick primer on what ICN reported.
Here is one of the gems unearthed from Exxon documents by ICN. Roger Cohen over 20 years later, after retirement, became one of the APS’s vocal opponents of their climate statement, but in 1981, as an Exxon manager, he thought differently.
Another one from Cohen urging Exxon to publish this research as an “ethical responsibility” and backing up the 3 C sensitivity.
A 1982 internal memo educating management about the greenhouse effect, and labeled not for external distribution. The plot thickens.
Re: Exxongate 1982 Cohen letter
“The consensus is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value could result in a global temperature rise of (3.0 +/-1.5)C. The uncertainty in this figure is a result of the inability of even
the most elaborate models to simulate climate in a totally realistic manner.”
This is startling, JimD. This letter in the old IBM Selectric courier font was three years after the Charney Report, which he is repeating without credit. It just boggles the mind that we spend billions on this and there has been zero progress in 35 years.
Some people even deny this much. They have made backward progress compared to 30 years ago.
And some people deny the benefits of carbon. And yet, society progressively enriches.
kim, it’s like the sea level trend. All the sea level you could ever wish for, and then some.
We’ll be sorry when it stops rising.
Catastrophic warming by 2030? Yes, I can see how ignoring that prediction is going to cause them trouble. I pity them for the punishment they will surely receive at the hands of the delusional.
The sea levels on the US Atlantic coast are indeed rising. They have been for some thousands of years. The rises, as I have mentioned before, are caused by isostatic rebound, and have been both measured and modelled by the USGS, Woods Hole, Virginia Marine a Institute and a few others.
Feel free to ignore peer reviewed papers written by earth scientists, oceanographic scientists, geologists and the like.
Maybe you believe that climatologists who seem to be slightly ignorant of tectonic plate movement, or chaotic fluid dynamics (discarding these in favour of CO2 voodoo science ), are more authoritative.
On the positive side, the relative sea levels will stop rising when isostacy is achieved. When this may be, is, of course, unknown, as is the future generally. I’m sure you will be able to quote some religious tracts to the contrary.
I hope you don’t mind my verbosity. I could just have followed the Warmist scientific communication manual and simply replied “Wrong. Read more!”
This is another example where averages are pointless. The sea level is rising in some places, static in others and falling in many.
All the ocean basins respond in different manners and such things as rebound matter very much in certain areas.
Here is the US, where depending on where you are you either need do nothing, build large walls or realise that in yeas to come some sea front dwellers will have to walk in order to get to the sea
Just to show I treat everyone equally, at least one of the papers (USGS, as I recollect), averaged subsidence rates to 1/00 mm.
This is less than half a thousandth of an inch. Pretty bizarre, considering the accuracy of GPS elevation measurements. There are limitations on accuracy, due to wavelength, atmospheric conditions, and so on. These limitations are usually brushed aside by researchers, who believe in the miracle of averaging known incorrect data, in order to come up with amazingly accurate metrics.
A big of commonsense wouldn’t go astray, given that the paper states that future rates of subsidence are impossible to predict.
A lot of these papers are interesting, but useless as a guide to action.
Science is like that sometimes, I guess.
Do you suppose by 2000 he decided that there was no unambiguous threat? That while possibilities remained, there was no demonstration that of “certain” threats?
Despite all the yammering by extremist “scientists”, there was no “unambiguous”, “certain”, threat in 2000. All anybody could say was “perhaps”, and point to the “precautionary principle”.
And what have lynch-mob alarmists been accusing Exxon, etc., of doing? Spreading uncertainty and doubt. All their “evidence” (like Jim D’s links above) ends up saying, in effect, “we can’t be certain we’re OK.” And what are they accused of saying? “We can’t be certain there’s a problem.”
I will admit I was unable to find any of the publications recommended, but the author of that statement, Roger W Cohen, says this in 2008:
Note this was after he retired and was no longer connected with Exxon.
You said it. He said it. Everyone said it. It’s time for a great group hug. We’re gonna be OK, after all.
He said it a lot earlier than I did. Before Climategate!
An Inconvenient, and oh, so annoying, truth.
Yes the government-climate-science / tobacco-company comparison indeed needs airing.
Exactly the same principles apply – vested interest of the monopoly funder corrupting the science. The ‘only’ difference being that government climate science corruption case involves incomparably more money and is incomparably more serious. And uses taxpayers’ own money to indoctrinate them.
The Bernie argument would be his government would make all the indoctrination money unnecessary; the revolution would give the central authority carte blanche to enact all restrictions to the economy necessary to save us all from evil corporations. Of course, they would spend the little money left after “the epoc-a-crash” on ingeniously blaming it on Bush.
It appears Senator Whitehouse supports the the use of “force” to extract the “truth”. And the “truth” seems to be what he wants to hear.
What sort of methods does he intend to employ to force the truth out of people with whom he disagrees? Red hot pincers? Threats of damage to health or career? Do you support the use of “force” to extract the “truth”?
Historically, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” has provided almost no useful intelligence, although I’m sure the chap who was waterboarded more than 180 times has by now confessed to the single handed commission of every crime in America since the dawn of time. I would.
Here’s a very short quote from the good Senator’s speech “Making them tell the truth forcibly silences them?” in relation to criticism that he might be attempting to silence Climate Change critics. It won’t silence them at all. He might hear them all shrieking in agony as he forces them to recant!
I’m glad he’s an American politician.
First thing the clown will have to do is dig up the dead old dudes who were in charge of Exxon in the 70s, when Exxon allegedly knew the “truth” about climate change. But they didn’t call it climate change then.
Don, there was an interesting push back from Exxon today. http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Industry/2015/10/22/Exxon-slams-report-for-cherry-picking-climate-legacy/6231445509659/?spt=su&or=btn_tw
This BS Exxon-RICO-tobacco meme is another story the little greenie loons will keep hammering. We can count on little yimmy to bring it up, daily. Here is the alleged evidence the goon senator cites for the basis of the RICO case:
“That was in 1977. That same year, James F. Black, a top scientific researcher at the Exxon Corporation gave that company’s executives a similar warning: “[T]here is general scientific agreement,” he told Exxon’s Management Committee, “that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.” According to emerging reports, Exxon executives kept that warning a closely guarded company secret for years.”
Case closed. String ’em up!
As an ExxonMobil retiree (after 30 yrs) I am glad to see this formal rebuttal issued by Ken Cohen our Public Affairs Corporate VP: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/exxon-hits-back-on-ridiculous-rico-allegations-when-it-comes-to-climate-change-read-the-documents/
I doubt that it will make a difference to Jim D or the others of his ilk, but the truth’s the truth.
I am sure Jimd will realise he was wrong and will be along soon to confirm he had been misled by partisan web sites
Little yimmy is awaiting instructions from huffpo.
I just checked the huffpo web site and the rebuttal story is not up there yet. But any time soon I expect. Any time. any second…
Tony, the little fella has a receiver implanted in his little noggin so he will get the crap, before it goes up on the website at left-loon propaganda HQ.
Why is pointing out “mankind is influencing” with CO2 from fossil fuel is an indictment. Arrhenius postulated this ~85 years prior. Perhaps Exxon’s James Black was suggesting Exxon take credit in PR campaign for helping us forestall the coming ice age, which was the worry then.
on wattsupwiththat I read the comments below.
What I find interesting is it seems like climate modelling hasn’t advanced much in 30 years. Even with the exponential increase in computing power over those years the same issues seem to be raised about computer models and simulating the earth’s response to CO2.
If the code doesn’t change, all the super computers do is generate the same garbage out.. only faster.
rgb[at]duke has commented frequently on this. If you trust his opinion with regard to what would really be necessary to begin to attempt reasonably accurate modeling, computing power will need to go up by around 10^6 for the current best available super-duper computers.
+ differential equations don’t model well on sequential & linear digital computers. Faster processing doesn’t compensate for a flawed algorithm.
I agree that no matter how much computing power you have, if they are using the wrong equations, assumptions, and analysis, the only thing they will get is more of the same wrong predictions from the last 20 years. I think the proof that the math is wrong is in the constant failed predictions.
They wrote what I agree with, I will not add anything here.
“…no matter how much computing power you have, if they are using the wrong equations, assumptions, and analysis, the only thing they will get is more of the same …” …funding!
It’s the unscrewable pooch!
The models have been seduced, and worse, by the inherent H.A.L. within their innards.
Heh, and sick with redundancy.
I’m surprised how calmly many here have responded to Jim D’s RICO support. I myself have seen red, and gone into full blown tribal battle mode. I see Jim D’s support as a call for state violence, which moves the interaction from tribal bickering to all out tribal war. I see Jim D is a the classic Hayekian socialist who prefers murky law or creative interpretations of the law, so that in his Fatal Conceit, he can impose what he deems moral and just. Be damned with the Rule of Law, the Rule of Enlightened Great Ones like himself will impose what humanity needs. Inside each Jim D is little Lenin/Stalin/Castro/Chavez… just bursting to get out. It’s up to us who believe in the Rule of Law to slam his little tyrant back by any means necessary. Maybe a good start could be Republicans calling for RICO investigations against public institutions spreading “lies” to steal money from the American taxpayers? Whatever the answer, I fully support going nuclear if the other side goes there first. Lately I have been trying to lift myself from my own tribalism and listen to people like Jim D. But now that Jim D has crossed the line, I don’t deem him worthy for discourse (others currently in the category for me include ISIS members). Until he sees the light and humbles himself, Jim D should be left to Don Monfort. In the meantime, we should all remember to keep defending our 2nd Amendment rights and “stocking up,” just in case one of these little tyrants ever does burst forth and start getting to do what he REALLY wants. I could be overeacting, but, dang, I take these calls for RICOs, congressional inquisitions, etc. as a direct asault to me and my freedom, not much different than being threatened by some thugs in ally.
Jim D is like that little kid who keeps tugging at your sleeve going “But ….”.
He isn’t to be taken seriously.
Ha! OK. Talk of RICO’s etc makes it very hard for me to chill, but I’ll try….
Technocrats serve an Awful God.
Is a supporter of RICO statutes that Hayek would probably consider illegal really a “classic Hayekian socialist?”
“Hayekian Socialism” was the intentionally-provocative title of a 1999 essay by Charles Epstein. Referring to it as a philosophy to which adherents can be “classic” sounds like a progressivist perversion.
Hmmm.… I did not know about the Epstein essay. Maybe I could have said, “He strikes me as the type of socialist Hayek warned about, who prefers murky law…”. I’m basically just trying to say that I deeply fear people who have a tendency toward preferring the rule of supposedly enlightened men/women to the rule of law. It’s a fear I’ve had since reading The Road to Serfdom, The Constitution of Liberty, and the Fatal Conceit over 20 years ago after graduating from college. These three books were a “Hallelujah” phenomenon for me. After 4 years of discomfort studying at UC Berkeley (Political Economy of Industrial Societies), I felt I had finally found someone who made sense.
jorgietom, “Hayekian socialist” seemed a bit…murky. Murky law is made from murky words, like “State” in the absurdly mis-titled “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (a law that should have been nullified for obfuscation if not outright fraud).
Thanks for the clarification.
I’ve been pretty sure all along that he’s what you describe. But IMO it’s important to realize who his audience is: it’s not the regulars, who regularly see him refuted and know how ign0rant he is.
His audience, and that of other warmists who spread their illogical and deceptive arm-waving here, is the occasional visitor who comes because they’ve heard that this blog is the most “open” intersection of people with really different viewpoints. Their objective is to pollute the discussion with so much nonsense that most visitors will go away thinking it’s all a big confusing mess.
While doing so, they continually spout the same nonsense over an over, perhaps hoping that sometimes nobody will bother with a proper refutation, leaving them with a link they can use elsewhere as “proof” that their “ideas” haven’t been refuted.
Of course, it’s possible that Jim D really doesn’t realize specious nature of the viewpoint he espouses. Thus, for instance, perhaps he doesn’t realize how empty the case is against Exxon etc.
In any event, it’s sometimes productive to make that assumption, and refute the links he provides, for the sake of the visitors he’s aiming at if not his own edification (if any).
IMO Don Monfort’s efforts here are counter-productive, in terms of the target audience. In fact, they’re so counter-productive I suspect he’s really a warmist sailing under false colors. Though he could just be indulging his irritation.
Consensus is the politician’s game. It seldom produces truth. It only produces what we’ve agreed to SAY is truth.
The planet is warming. It is warming because of anthropogenic CO2. A large number of climate scientists have fallen for the AMO ruse, so climate sensitivity is likely going to turn out to be on the high end. October 2015 is hot as the blazes so far. Get used to the news.
Your religious faith is admirable. Or would be if you didn’t want to impose it on others.
Hot, where? In some places but certainly not in others
tonyb – irrelevant, and bazaar.
You are the one with the religion which you want to impose… the church of it’s not happening, or if it is, it’s all going to be good. Sounds like blind faith because it is blind faith. Pray for the AMO and the stadium wave, but hope for the Kimikamikaze wind. It’s at least real.
Bazaar??? As in horse trading from a market stall?
Certainly not irrelevant. It is by no means warm everywhere. Global averages hide the many nuances.
Anyway, you didn’t answer my question as to how Lomborg had lied to you?
Cry of liar.
Is it putz
Or fat in fryer?
Sorry, late for an appointment… bizarre.
There will always be parts of the earth that run counter to the trend, so it’s irrelevant. If the trend changed directions, that would be relevant. The pause could have become relevant, but it pooped out.
Rush to meet fulfillment.
Don’t be late,
Such a fate.
See you next installment.
According to JCH:
“The planet is warming.”
That’s pretty obvious.
“It is warming because of anthropogenic CO2”
“A large number of climate scientists have fallen for the AMO ruse, ”
Wouldn’t know about that. How about a paper documenting how much of the community has been duped by this?
“so climate sensitivity is likely going to turn out to be on the high end. ”
I must have missed where more recent efforts to calculate sensitivity are primarily dependent on what the AMO does.
“October 2015 is hot as the blazes so far.”
Not necessarily where I am at. And I bet the folks in the NE simply imagined that early snow they experienced last month.
“Get used to the news.”
Ah, there is the problem. JCH listens to news stories. From the people who came up with the line “If it bleeds, it leads.” Apparently J never figured out that “extreme” and “record breaking” are exactly the sort of headlines news outlets salivate over.
When it comes to climate, I do not tend to read news stories… even from science mags.
Google Scholar; AGW Observer.
I think we haven’t seen nothing yet. Winter 2015-16 will be a landslide hottest ever as massive amounts of precipitation and ice formation in the arctic release heat into the atmosphere. What happens after will be interesting. Do we see the usual spike, dip, step-change or do we see just a blip followed nothing, or cooling?
The planet is warming, because I, JCH, say so.
“Certainly not irrelevant. It is by no means warm everywhere. Global averages hide the many nuances.”
they dont hide any nuance
no more than CET hides any nuance over the area average it produces.
The planet is warming, because I, JCH, say so.
No, because the surface thermometer series are all in agreement that it’s warming. And there are other lines of evidence confirming evidence like sea level rise and melting ice. The AMO and the PDO are both positive.
GISS September – .81C
NOAA September – .90C
The NECEP numbers this month are awe inspiring, and ONI is still under 2.0. ONI could go above 3.0 in the coming months.
I don’t know if BEST has a September number yet. I wish Wood for Trees would update BEST data and add their LOTI.
timg56:“I must have missed where more recent efforts to calculate sensitivity are primarily dependent on what the AMO does.”
Nic Lewis’s ECS estimate of ~2C comes with two full cycles of hypothesized AMI oscillation as he stated here.
So AMO is irrelevant to published low estimations of ECS.
Assuming that the AMO is natural, and it has had a positive influence on the increase in GMST over the last few decades, it follows that estimation of anthropogenic warming rates and the transient climate response (TCR) from post-1975 temperature changes will be biased upwards, showing high sensitivity, fast-warming climate models (CMIP5 GCMs, in particular) in an artificially favourable light, unless the AMO’s influence is adjusted for. A paper under discussion at Earth System Dynamics, here, makes just that point. It concludes that, adjusting for the influence of the AMO, global warming over the last 30 years indicates a best estimate for TCR of ~1.3°C. That is in line with the results of several studies based on warming since the second half of the 19th century – the trend of which will have been much less affected by the AMO – but well below the 1.8°C average TCR of current generation CMIP5 GCMs…. – Nic Lewis
Tonyb, re nuances.
I think the temperature stuff is probably harder to handle than precipitation.
With precipitation we often see medium term (and longer) monthly/yearly averages increasing whilst medians are decreasing… or the other way around…and sometimes both increasing or both decreasing.
Then within each of those four regimes the dry season rainfall can be running opposite to the wet season rainfall.
Just knowing the average doesn’t tell us much at all.
Averages certainly have their place but they largely lose their meaning if applied globally. It is the country, regional or local area that most concerns us and those may not conform to the global average..
That applies to temperatures and Sea level change amongst other measures, but as further non climate examples, the global average for economic growth disguises the fact that some countries are booming whilst others are mired in recession and similarly with unemployment or jobless rates.
As Beth says you need to be careful if told to wade across a river that is on average four feet deep!
This is utter and complete nonsense. The same scientist who says sea level rose in the 29th century by an average of 1.2mm per year, globally, vastly improved the understanding of why sea level around Greenland will drop significantly in this century.
Averages have their uses but also limitations. Building a sea wall to provide protection will require information on the scale of any change and its location. No point building a 2 foot sea wall if the sea level is falling nor is it any good if the sea level is rapidly rising and will overwhelm it in a few decades
And if you can name one single climate scientist who does not understand this better than your do, I’ll build the wall around him/her.
Stone walls do not a sea wall make.
It is not climate scientists who make policy decisions is it? if the meme is of ‘global warming or ‘rapid global sea level rise’ the politicians will respond to it fuelled by public concern stoked by the MSM and activists.
As I say averages are obviously useful at times but need to used in the correct context.
Our own temperature is NOT rising and our own sea level is not going to rise by 2 metres by the end of the century and we need to plan accordingly.
Belief in this temperature rise has fuelled our govts frantic desire to be green culminating in high fuel prices, inadequate power supply and a nuclear power station deal with the Chinese whereby the investors will make their money through the imposition of an agreed absurdly high generating price guaranteed for decades.
JCH, if you can name one single climate scientist who will proclaim the truth about sinking islands then I’ll elevate him/her to a pedestal and issue him/her a bullhorn.
There’s no need for walls yet for your climate scientists. Well organized re-education camps should alleviate the need.
If there weren’t nuances in the global record you might as well have just one thermometer
Thanks for the response up thread.
Concur with the suggested evaluation but still unresolved is Dr Marohasy questions of BOM changes to Rutherglen and other long temperature records. That was a huge change from cooling to heating. Homogenization and step changes also seem so bogus from Homewood and Goddard comparisons.
Back to thumbs on the scale issues with adjustments. Without original data of min temp and max temp no adjustments seem justified anymore.
The Karl et al changes to SST and immediate modification of the long records seems too convenient to the coming Paris discussions.
Understand you meet with these professionals and have come to accept them but to outsiders it all seems so inside manipulation driven to arrive at the convenient answers.
Thanks for all your temp records. Sea level 2 & 3 have any plans or what current projects do you have under study?
Dr. Roger Pielke sr.and others had started looking into a study of temp adjustments but some of us think they will never get a fair peer review.
I agree. I’m not sure how an average captures nuances.
A couple of examples of which are probably aware. Recorded surface extremes encompass the range 50 C to -90 C. The average of these tells you precisely nothing about the range.
Likewise, a tropical desert can be over 45 C during the day, and below freezing at night. An example of the deadly effects of not capturing the nuances is shown by the experience of a British SAS unit inserted into desert country. The meteorological briefing was apparently based on an average temperature, with the result that members faced extremely high daytime temperatures, restricting their ability to carry out their task, while at least one member died from hypothermia at night.
Steven Mosher obviously thinks averages are wonderful. I don’t agree.
At present I am compiling information in order to extend CET back to 1088 .also working on temperature extremes which can be much greater than the record suggests what with such things as heat plumes.
Also looking at Those places that are Cooling rather than warmimg. This includes the UK and the US.
There are nuances. the global average doesnt hide them any more than the CET record hides the nuances of the multiple stations that it is comprised of.
read harder. I never said there were NO NUANCES I said the global record doesnt hide them. They are all there. In the same way that the nuances are in still in CET
Karl et al hot off the press fer Paris, a peculiarly
active science, discovery of new warming trends
via adjusting past measurements of sea temperature
… ‘s easy, upward adjust yer cooler buoy recorded
data to warmer ship recorded data, et voila!
There’s an added benefit when yer disregard that
inconvenient contra data like the satellite recorded
data, oh you smoothie you ‘n yr agile science.
“A couple of examples of which are probably aware. Recorded surface extremes encompass the range 50 C to -90 C. The average of these tells you precisely nothing about the range.”
1, Wrong. The global average says everything about the range. Pick a spot pick a time, the global average has your answer
” Likewise, a tropical desert can be over 45 C during the day, and below freezing at night. An example of the deadly effects of not capturing the nuances is shown by the experience of a British SAS unit inserted into desert country. ”
1. That is why when we design machinery we consider average climate as well as extreme climate.
2. Same goes for Ops
“The meteorological briefing was apparently based on an average temperature, with the result that members faced extremely high daytime temperatures, restricting their ability to carry out their task, while at least one member died from hypothermia at night.”
1. stupid brits, didn’t look at all the climate indices
Steven Mosher obviously thinks averages are wonderful. I don’t agree.
1. Averages serve a specific purpose.
2. averages are goo for some things
3. averages are good for everything.
you and tony of course use averages all the time.. You can’t even think or see without using an averaging process.
Or why nominalism cant be lived
“Karl et al hot off the press fer Paris, a peculiarly
active science, discovery of new warming trends
via adjusting past measurements of sea temperature
… ‘s easy, upward adjust yer cooler buoy recorded
data to warmer ship recorded data, et voila!”
1. Karl is not the only SST data. we dont use it
2. Actually over the entire record, the new adjustments cool the record.
“Dr. Roger Pielke sr.and others had started looking into a study of temp adjustments but some of us think they will never get a fair peer review.
Actually they promised to publish all the submissions they got.
but they didnt
Is this “cool the record” Karl paper the one where he adjusted Argo float temps to match ship measurements? That one?
You wrote –
“1. stupid brits, didn’t look at all the climate indices”
So only US military lives count? All others get dismissed with a supercilious sneer? Are all “brits” stupid, or only the military and Met Office Employees? What about climatologists at CRU?
In any case, don’t you realise there is a difference between weather and climate?
Do you really expect people to drive around with winter tyres or snow chains because it will snow occasionally?
You also wrote –
“1, Wrong. The global average says everything about the range. Pick a spot pick a time, the global average has your answer.”
12.5 S, 131E, 2015, October 23, 11:35 H – can’t seem to get an answer!
Same location, October 23, 23:35 H – Nope, no answer here, either. Blast, the Warmists are hiding the answers. Only joking, just like you obviously are!
You have an odd sense of humour, but it makes me laugh from time to time.
Global averages are only useful for researchers to establish a global anomaly. And no one experiences a global anomaly.
That statement reminds me of the time a nephew wanted to get a degree in philosophy. I explained to him that “philosopher” was Greek for “unemployed.”
He became a lawyer instead.
“the experience of a British SAS unit inserted into desert country”
The example you give is not one of the problems of using averages. It is a problem of extremely poor planning on the part of the SAS unit. Proof I guess that even the best people can screw up.
According to NOAA, California had by far the warmest annual average temperature on record in 2014—1.8°F above the previous record set in 1934. However, the average high temperature during Jun-Aug was 0.9°F below the record warm summer of 1960.
This is all helpful in clarifying the warmist position. The consensus doesn’t proceed in the old-fashioned, evidence-based way, that requires individuals to constantly check their biases, pursue evidence that goes against their favourite hypothesis, and try to root out “results” that are an artifact of the methods chosen. Instead you get the right experts in a room, they agree (remarkably easily, and even more easily once they get rid of critics), they often have difficulty describing exactly why they agree, but they know that if there are individuals with credentials who disagree, they are isolated and probably pursuing some purely idiosyncratic train of thought.
Mosher seems to say it is not only difficult, but impossible to know objective truth. All that can be known is some kind of statistical artifact, yet once that is known, it can be presented to governments as the basis for expensive actions, and anyone who questions it can be denounced as a bad person who doesn’t care about the children, and is anti-science. He seems to respond to the hockey stick fiasco not by looking for better proxies, and applying more rigorous methods to them, but by concluding or assuming that there is no “evidence” better then BEST, which is constantly being adjusted.
To say warming might have bad effects, therefore it is simple prudence to try to reduce those by reducing certain emissions, is to look through the wrong end of the telescope. Is an increase in CO2 likely to be more good than bad, whether or not it leads directly to a temperature increase? Is there any way of making a temperature increase of 2 degrees C look entirely bad without adding some very questionable assumptions?
You need to read harder and meticulously check your own biased view of me.. A lukewarmer.. And your own biased view of the so called evidence based way.
===> “…for expensive actions…”
Rather ironic, under the circumstances.
you may be well served by reading your prior posts, and attempting to maintain some sort of consistency from thread to thread…that might help everyone.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’”
“Mosher seems to say it is not only difficult, but impossible to know objective truth. ”
1. If I were to say this it would make me an acedemic skeptic.
As I have said many times, if I had to choose a skeptical
system. it would be Pyhronism. Just google me and mentions
of ataxaria. Or look for discussions willard and I have had
about the ability to live skepticsm.. with references to my old
college aquaintance Peter Suber.
2. Google coherentism. and then go back to my first discussions
on RC circa 2007-2008.
“All that can be known is some kind of statistical artifact,”
1. Note the inconsistency of the claims made by the OP.
At once I am said to believe and disbelieve. He;s the humpty dumpty
“yet once that is known, it can be presented to governments as the basis for expensive actions, ”
1. No, Ive consistently said that climate policy cant be derived from
climate fact. Is/ought
2. I’ve advocated no regrets policy. things we would do anyway.
3. I prioritize adapation first, research second, and mitigation 3rd.
basically hold off on expensive action. focus for example
on NG and black carbon.
“and anyone who questions it can be denounced as a bad person who doesn’t care about the children, and is anti-science.”
1. huh? the three sides in this debate are not bad. two of them happen to be stupid, but not bad
:He seems to respond to the hockey stick fiasco not by looking for better proxies, and applying more rigorous methods to them, but by concluding or assuming that there is no “evidence” better then BEST, which is constantly being adjusted.”
2. If you look you will find me recommending more spending on paleo
to re do it from the ground UP. Just google my name on sensitivity and paleo. You will find it here on Judiths. dollar for dollar money spent on better paleo is a better investment than GCMs
3. Actually I think C&W might be better at least in the arctic
4. Constantly adjusted? Our last update was Jan 2015.
There have been a few major updates. also, one way you improve
is by finding mistakes and fixing. I found 15 last week.
What is NG?
Natural Gas, his half-saviour of the future.
Long Green is still the valid picture.
Bias is as bias does, it’s a pattern.
@Mosher – Keep up the good work on BEST.
I’ll second that. Also you’ve brought a lot of solid topics and insights to the blog tables for discussion over the last several years.
Advice to newbie. Always listen to moshe; let some of it run out the other side of your head.
I tend to follow kim’s advice on this.
Though I’ll admit that at times I wish Steven would write easier than make me read harder.
No doubt. In addition, always think ‘sandbox’ — note the phrase ‘for discussion.’
It makes life interesting.
I should’ve pointedly added that the ad hom’s do not have content worth discussing.
I deeply regret that I can’t spend more time explaining things. You seem like one of the curious few. And for that audience I’d gladly take the time to make it more clear.
Don’t give it another thought Steven.
When it is something I am interested in I usually do try reading harder.
The real work horses are Rohde and Hausfather
Mosh: I reply to your comment upthread.
“At once I am said to believe and disbelieve. He;s the humpty dumpty…”
Perhaps his perception is caused by your adoption of contradictory positions within and between threads…
Sometimes arguing that you dont care if an article has 50 cites, that its the quality of thought that is important, other times on this same web site, maintaining that the wisdom of crowds trumps the thoughts and views of one of the greatest physicists who lived during the 20th century… an acknowledged peer of fermi, oppenheimer and einstein.
Now really Mosh…isnt your shell a little thin for you to be hanging out on a wall..?
Thank you, Wagathon. Please post a link for the above quote Freeman Dyson quote. Thanks.
In response to the esteemed Senator Whitehouse from RI, “Carbon dioxide levels have risen inexorably since the 1700s. Yet despite this, climate sensitive indicators of human and environmental wellbeing that carbon dioxide affects directly, such as crop yields, food production, prevalence of hunger, access to cleaner water and biological productivity, and those that it affects indirectly, such as living standards and life expectancies, have improved virtually everywhere. In most areas they have never been higher, nor do they show any sustained signs of reversing.” (Full report)
That was a really good link! Thanks, again!
Apart from this official IPCC spokesman:
In an interview published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 14 November 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, said “The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. one must say clearly that de facto we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…. One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns.”
…I have not had anyone criticising this calculation of mine:
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/eating-sun-fourth-estatelondon-2009.html especially not in the light of this:
The energy found in a hurricane could be harnessed it would power the US for years… if it could be harnessed and stored; and, the same thing applies to solar and wind energy. It’s silly to think that driving a Tesla requires less energy than it takes to manufacture electricity but that’s what the EPAe MPG numbers (propaganda) would have us believe.
We harness energy to perform work. Using less energy to perform the same amount of work is a measure of energy efficiency. Economic efficiency is a measure of the amount of economic outputs that result from a given amount of inputs (some of which will be energy/work).
Using less energy, or using more economic inputs, while producing less work/output, does not produce an improvement in efficiency.
Of course we have science by committee in the modern era. It’s not like any individual is going to deploy a global network of thermometers including a couple thousand Argo sensor, pop off a few satellites, and do paleo work on the weekends.
Relevant examples from other fields include some of the larger human genome studies, or high-energy particle physics studies conducted at CERN. The paper announcing the discovery of what is interpreted as the Higgs Boson was credited to the CMS Collaboration, with more authors than I’m willing to count. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269312008581
In fact, the CMS Collaboration was so large that they dedicated the paper to its deceased former members, none of whom were named individually.
I submit that a major problem in communicating climate realities to the public is that the media, and everyone else addressing the public, feature individual scientists and their discoveries and disagreements. We have scarcely come to grips with committee consensus, a different kind of history of science.
Weart seems to give as much credence to these committee consensuses as he would to bland summaries of cited evidence, without considering the possibility that the consensuses actually exceeded what was reliably known. For climate sensitivity we know at least part of the mechanism: scientists were asked for their prior probability distributions for the climate sensitivity, and they gave uniform and other priors that had non-negligible in high regions, such as 8C – 12C. The Bayesian estimation procedures calculated from those priors produced posterior distributions whose means and medians and upper percentiles were substantially higher than the estimates derived solely from data. Another part of the mechanism was explained by Stephen Schneider, who said that public attention depended in part on the scientists making exaggerated claims. These mechanisms bias consensus away from data and toward “alarming” conclusions. Weart gives them no consideration at all.
This brings to mind Feynman’s aphorism: Science is basically the belief in the ignorance of experts. Weart seems to give little credence to the role of scientific evidence in showing up the ignorance of experts. It’s as if, when considering the departure of the Earth surface temperature trajectory from Hansen’s predictions of it, he were to give more weight to Hansen’s prediction than to the measured temperatures.
“The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence [i.e., that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does far more good than harm].” ~Freemen Dyson
Matthew, this seems to be a problem in Academia and especially in Climate Science. At Jo Nova’s blog there is a discussion of Jennifer Maharosy’s visit to a climate committee at the Australian Parliament, where it was clear that the “experts” were presenting computer simulations and projections as “data”. When she presented the UAH satellite temp series, one of the “experts” said it should be ignored because they didn’t know where it had come from!
Then after it was pointed out, they talked utter nonsense about how all the atmospheric layers put together show warming. Ignorance of experts indeed!
Proof that global warming exists…
The whole video is pretty cool. A dog’s day in Ruskieville.
Hmmm, is this a WordPress thing?
The WordPress thing is that you simply type the video URL on one line with no encompassing tags of any kind. But maybe there’s an issue with .mp4 or the source address. Finding out…
“So why have climate scientists, coming from a heritage mostly of physics and chemistry, acquiesced to science by committee?”
I think it is characteristic of geoscience rather than climate alone. And it is a consequence of having only one Earth. Data has to be collected by large enterprises. Satellites, Argo networks etc. You don’t, generally, mount a field trip to study climate, and you certainly can’t do it in the lab. Where smaller scale experiments are possible, as with ice core drilling, you do tend to hear of individuals.
And, field trips can be dangerous. We quickly figure out it’s icy cold in the Arctic and Antarctic when some greenies set off on an expedition to prove the Earth is doomed by global warming. This sort of hubris usually ends in some Herculean rescue effort, amputated and frostbitten fingers and eco-whackpots being rescued by copters or an oil tanker.
Climate field trips are exceptionally boring. Sitting in one place for thirty years averaging weather seems pointless.
Might as well just the calculate trivial averages from an air conditioned office.
Or like Michael Mann, you might sit in an air conditioned office, because you don’t like the arduous work, mosquitos, primitive living conditions, or anything else that real field scientists have to endure.
Climate science appears to be an oxymoron.
The field trips are to castles, Paris, Rio…
Some go, we all pay.
But the prostitutes are grateful.
Both those accepting money for sex, and those accepting money for pseudoscience, I presume.
Indeed data has to be collected by large enterprises, but that does not mean that the results have to be evaluated by committees which then tell society what the “settled science” is.
One way “science by committee” creates consensus is by adding an author to gain access to pre-existing data compilations (think M. Mann paleo). By taking this attractive short-cut you save a great deal of effort that would be required to create an independent/similar/identical data base.
However, no co-author is going to share data if you refute or challenge his/her prior conclusions (think M. Mann paleo). Therefore you are restricted to “extending” the work of the previous papers.
Science by committee can become science by incest.
The forcing of consensus is the perversion, a self-destructive one, despite the force.
I’ve been thinking about a way to show that the consensus argument is wrong. I think most people equate a figure of “97% scientists believe” with something being “97% true”. That is, we are 97% sure that what we say about this is right.
But maybe the way to think of it is to say:
– Suppose you have 10 scientists, 9 of whom suspect something might be the case at slightly greater than 50% confidence level.
– It does NOT mean that their consilience of confidence ADD together to make greater confidence. You have to AVERAGE their confidence.
– That means if they are all at confidence levels of about 55%, then the average confidence something is true is 55% and not 90%.
So the thing to say is; even if it were true that 97% of scientists think something is so, it does not mean that it 97% so.
As for settled science: if science was settled, it would stop – Dara O’brien.
Eat your pencils and pads — strongest hurricane in the Western Hemisphere ever could make landfall in Mexico later today. Hurricane Patricia could rewrite history.
Presumably it is feeding off that warm blob (JCH referenced this chart earlier)
Lets hope people have been able to take precautions.
Will this subsequently lower SST in that area?
That’s SSTs of 86-87.8 °F. Possible heads-up to up Texas.
Some 99.5% of the hurricane force cause no harm and is naturally dissipated — every second, “some 2 million metric tons of air are circulated in, up, and out of the hurricane” — where heat energy is radiated to empty space — which every day equals, “the energy released by the fusion of four hundred 20 mega-ton hydrogen bombs” (See, Rice University’s Hurricane Trivia at Houston TeacherTECH Archives).
Thanks for the response up thread re next articles.
CET back to 1088 will be interesting and useful.
You really think US and UK have been cooling?
Everything I read says hottest temps ever, except Steve Goddard web site.
Except for adjustments what data indicates cooling and over what period?
Also, sea level rise vs 7″ /per century average over last 100 years. Hard to tease out the real numbers on sea level with sinking land, raised land from glacial rebound, water aquifer depletions causing sinking and satellite measurements plus all adjustments. We need ground truth.
But thanks for all your work.
It rained like crazy in DFW this morning. I had to go to the airport and pick up a stranded relative. They say some of it is from Patricia.
Hurricanes do cool the ocean, but the ocean is really big, deep, with a large heat capacity, and I don’t believe it will matter much. I think you can see Hurricane Olaf in this animated gif near Hawaii.
The “strongest hurricane in the Western Hemisphere ever” while the pCO2 is higher than its been in 6 million years.
Just in time for Paris.
We should be more worried about Maine — nothing can stop this catastrophe in the making. We’re doomed!
there you go again.
An excellent essay in Quadrant online. Here’s an amuse bouche:
“Led by corrupt UN agencies, unaccountable NGOs, wealthy foundations, mendacious politicians, opportunistic academics, and Third World kleptocracies, the eco-apocalypticists are committed totally to re-shaping the world and its people into a Gaia-friendly and easily administered mass.”
Here’s a ink to the essay: http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/10/scared-silly-road-green-salvation/
Key question: Despite what the author calls, “The apocalyptic mood [that] intensified further in the 1980s with the appearance of AIDS, which brought the ‘Sexual Revolution’ of the Sixties to a screeching halt and led celebrity opinion-makers to proclaim the approach of a carnal Armageddon,” and scientists like William Gray who are among, “Thousands of scientists from around the globe who have closely followed the IPCC statements [who] believe that they have grossly exaggerated the influence of CO2 rises on global warming,” and given that global warming obviously is a Left vs. right issue, why does a majority of the voters continue to cast their ballots to maintain and grow the Leftist/liberal establishment and why do they listen to biased MSM that demonizes politicians like George Bush who not only loves his country but also did all anyone could ever do to save the country from Al Gore?
Good question Wag.
Have you read Jonah Goldberg’s book, “Liberal Facism”?
Oh sure, according to the tropical storm-pacific hurricane, cut-off-low-pressure system doomsday tracker — it’s only a matter of days…
More dunno. Sure seems like an intercession for the damages to have been so merciful. Mebbe the Vulkans got involved.
The analysis cited never mentioned the logarithmic nature of CO2 sensitivity. If the increase is 2.23 c per century, where on the curve are we? If the author is excited about this increase there is no mention that the current sensitivity is less and continually decreasing. Lastly, debunking an argument adds no value to another. Only a reproducible experiment in the real world and not inside a computer can prove a hypothesis.
“The analysis cited never mentioned the logarithmic nature of CO2 sensitivity. “
They never do, Elliott.
Beautifully, and often florally colorfully, the beneficial plant food effect is more linear, and perhaps peaks around two or three doublings of pre-industrial CO2 levels. Which, practically speaking, is never.
One point being that the net beneficial effect of rising CO2 will enlarge as benefits of greening outpace the benefits of warming.
I still wonder if the anthropogenic warming will even be effective against the longer term cooling, which has an inevitable downward course from the peak of the Holocene through to extensive glaciation.
I guess we’ll see, ‘cuz I fershur dunno.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #202 | Watts Up With That?
”So why have climate scientists, coming from a heritage mostly of physics and chemistry, acquiesced to science by committee? I submit that the older generation (my generation and older) have come up through the traditional sciences and are relatively vocal in their opposition (the phenomenon of the emeritus faculty members who seem to object to the consensus). Whereas younger climate scientists have come up through the system more accepting of the consensus by committee approach.”
As far as I have experienced the older generations have learned better to know potentential solution of any complex, multiscientific problem – like climate problems – than younger generations. However, in addition, it seems to depend on interdisciplinarity of examination and experience related to any person. For instance, only by chance, a politician, an economist, a physicist, a chemist or a matematician, in accordance with his/her one-sided knowledge, is able to solve any multiscientific problem on climate changes. Any biassed view makes that be even worse. And these biassed views may be various: social, institutional, political, economic, ideological, discplinary etc.
On the basis of my career of about 40 years as researcher of really multiscientific, metallurgical prosess problems, in order to find really working solutions, I have experienced what kind of qualifications any complex problem of climate change may require: you have to know the problem well enough; empirically you have to know the circumstances where the problem appears; you must have knowledge multiscientific enough that you could be able to find all potentential causes of the problem; by empirical observations – including potential tests – you must be able to find the the most essential cause or causes of the problem; and thereafter you are ready to solve what kind of actions are necessary.
As to the recent climate warming, already during 1980s I listened to some academic lectures concerning changes of climate temperature during Ice Ages and between them situated warm, interglasial periods. Because the temperature changes seemed to correlate with the changes of CO2 contents in atmosphere, the temperature changes were assumed to follow the changes of CO2 contents in atmosphere. Later on there have been proved that during glacial and interglasial periods trends of CO2 content in atmosphere follow changes of climate temperature and not vice versa. According to geologic observations the situation, with 10 million years periods, has been this kind even at least during last 100 million years. According to my comment http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 this has been valid even during the last century.
UN politicians have set up IPCC in order to prove that anthropogenic CO2 emissions as green house gas are the cause of recent warming of climate. As IPCC has not managed to prove that, there for instance in the Rio report 1992 was written:”In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradatio”. The Kyoto protocol was born on the basis of that precautionary principle, with the object of mitigating climate warming cost-effectiely by cutting anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
As for instance Eija-Riitta Korhola has in her doctoral dissertation proved, until now cutting of Anthropogenic CO2 emissions has caused only harms, whereas the CO2 content in atmosphere has further increased. Some ones try to explain that the CO2 content in atmosphere has still increased because the CO2 emissions in some developing countries have increased. However, as I have proved in my comment above, the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere has been caused by warming of seasurface, especially on the areas where seasurface CO2 sinks are; and the share of anthropogenic CO2 emission in the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere has been only about 4 % at the most. This means that there are no ”threats of serious or irreversible damage” related to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. I hope this shall be understood next December in Paris, too.
Pingback: Kinetic Theory of Gases Explains Gravito-Thermal Greenhouse Effect | The Drinking Water Advisor