by Judith Curry
Witnesses: John Christy, Judith Curry, Michael Mann and Roger Pielke Jr.
The hearing will be held next week, March 29. The announcement for the Hearing is [here].
I’ve completed my written testimony, I will post it Wednesday once the Hearing has commenced.
This Hearing is interesting on several fronts:
- It includes 3 of the Grijalva 7
- It is the first time I will be on the same panel as Michael Mann.
This should be high theater for climate geeks.
Get your popcorn ready.
Judith, Thanks, and good luck!
Yes good luck Judith although you won’t need it. The truth will always win in the end.
Would that “truth” include the fact that Christy’s assertions of low sensitivity are completely out of whack with all the relevant research?
That Curry’s certainty that some knowledge should be tossed aside because everything is uncertain is nothing more than hypocrisy?
“Would that “truth” include the fact that Christy’s assertions of low sensitivity are completely out of whack with all the relevant research?”
You clearly haven’t been keeping up with the “relevant research”, have you Craig?
Seems published estimates of climate sensitivity are becoming lower all the time.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4zzXOoVcAAC51w.jpg
It is interesting to extrapolate the ECS and TCR trend lines out to 2020 – 2025 at the latest.
Then go out to 2030…
Nice way to misrepresent Judith’s positions there Craig.
Guess it’s easy to sound superior when you make stuff up.
Craig: If, by ‘relevant research’, you mean the climate models, it appears that the data is out of whack with the climate models. Which is reminiscent of the poem ‘The Solution’, by Bertolt Brecht:
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
Clearly, we need to dissolve the data and elect another set of data that better obeys the climate models.
And if the data is out of whack with ‘the research’, perhaps it puts Christy in good company …
And don’t forget to take time to enjoy Cherry Blossom season in DC.
And last week’s Heartland warm-up act for Judy & co. by Christopher Monckton.
Reblogged this on Patti Kellar and commented:
“High theatre for climate geeks” in D.C. Wednesday March 29th…same day as Carmen Krogh’s talk on Industrial Wind Turbines in Ontario at University of Guelph at 10 am. (Davis Centre)
Congratulations. They invited you on the strength of your record, not on the strength of your tenure.
Certainly wasn’t on the strength of her recent record of conducting relevant research and publishing it.
Another troll in clown grease paint.
Why don’t you tell us we are all deniers in the pay of big oil and remind us of the 97% consensus Craig. Because, you know, that strategy is working so well for you.
I hope the House Science Committee is fully aware of what Empirical Evidence is , why it is so important in science and that it is so lacking with regards to the linkage between CO2 concentration and climate change.
They might be. Mostly, they’re aware of when they are up for reelection.
http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
“Modern empiricism has been conditioned in large part by two dogmas. One is a belief in some fundamental cleavage between truths which are analytic, or grounded in meanings independently of matters of fact and truths which are synthetic, or grounded in fact. The other dogma is reductionism: the belief that each meaningful statement is equivalent to some logical construct upon terms which refer to immediate experience. Both dogmas, I shall argue, are ill founded. One effect of abandoning them is, as we shall see, a blurring of the supposed boundary between speculative metaphysics and natural science. Another effect is a shift toward pragmatism.”
Let’s quote The Philosophical Review frequently.
Are you trying to make a point?
Always trying. Never succeeding. The definition of crazy.
Lamar Smith is more of a ‘biblical science’ kinda guy.
Ceist.
“Lamar Smith is more of a ‘biblical science’ kinda guy.”
Indeed – a “christian scientist”, whatever that is. It would also be ironic if he starts criticizing science.
You gotta love the US, more Kooky Kults than other places.
Christian Science followers believe prayer is more likely to heal than medicine, which indicates their attitude to science in general. They might have a similar view about prayer for climate.
Which word don’t you understand “christian” or “scientist” ?
Are Australians trying to corner the market on stupid?
Pingback: House Science Committee Hearing – Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method – NZ Conservative Coalition
I’m sure I’m speaking for more than just myself when saying that it is a great pleasure to see you achieve the prominence in this field that you richly deserve. Congratulations.
Popcorn’s in the pan, no doubt you’ll keep us posted.
Best to you and yours,
w.
I agree. Well said.
Good to see Pielke Jr. returning to the fray. His expertise advising the insurance industries on risks and costs is invaluable.
High theater indeed – it will be fascinating to contrast an accomplished, prolific, and active scientist – Michael Mann – with the others
Really? Michael Mann a scientist? Big claim. Got any evidence of his use of the scientific method?
I suspect that even you, Uncle Robot, would admit that at best, Mann is a statistical charlatan. If you don’t admit to that, it says a lot about you Uncle.
The robot is a troll who occasionally shows up to trash Judith. One can leave alone his description of Dr Mann and instead focus on his slur. That Robot cannot or refuses to acknowledge the credentials of the other three panel members, credentials just as impressive, possibly more so in Dr. Curry’s case, paints him as a clown.
Think Mann will wear his Nobel Laureate t-shirt or is he pretty well done trying to push that fraud?
Mann will probably chicken out. He knows that he is outmatched in intellect
and science. This should be good if Mann shows up!
Too bad Professor Richard Lindzen was not invited. Any reasons?
> It includes 3 of the Grijalva 7
… and chaired by Lamar Smith.
I am negotiating for the live streaming rights to this. Popcorn, hot dogs and souvenir hockey stick key rings will be available.
Throwing of rotten tomatoes is strictly prohibited.
tonyb
Any chance you could mention that CO2 emissions are steady since 2013 and they are far away from the “business as usual case” they used to justify the cost of carbon, etc?
This is a good observation.
As opposed to erroneously modeled scenarios, the real Business as Usual means decelerating global emissions.
Falling rates of emission are baked in the cake of Business as Usual from falling national populations, continual market tendency toward energy efficiency, and the relative market price of natural gas.
True and rarely mentioned as well as the US reached it highest emissions of Green House Gases in 2007 and has come down significantly since then, attributed mainly to the switch to natural gas for electrical generation. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04… There has also been a decrease of almost 15% of Methane leakage from natural gas operations below 1990 levels. (see above). So in reality, these facts should be widely celebrated because it suggests that we can effectively attack global warming without drastic changes to the economy and our society. The fact that these are not celebrated should suggest something about the importance of the problem over its solution.
I’m sorry the meeting won’t be live-streamed. Will it be video-recorded?
I look forward to hearing your measured, balanced testimony and hope that the other panel members (you know who I’m talking about) have the grace to address the hearing in the same rational manner.
Congrats and best wishes.
I am not so sure there will be “high drama”. I believe that Mann and company want to project a measured and thoughtful story, acknowledging some uncertainty. A flamethrower presentation, which was tolerated before by Obama kindred spirits would not go down well in the face of a Trump agenda of whittling away at the EPA climate budget. They will enter with an eye over their shoulder hoping that someone on the panel will have their backs as on previous testimony occasions. Smiles and agreeable behavior will be the script. Michael, Gavin, Kevin and others have a lot to loose at this juncture; ie. their jobs, and, of course, the existential problem of the century, can’t forget that.
Now suppose, some recent true fact was introduced at the last minute by the “good guys”, maybe, Mann and company, unprepared to acknowledge that degree of uncertainty raised by this new true fact, then maybe we will see reversion to form with a high degree of entertainment value.
Kettle corn, just a $1 a bag, hurry before we run out!
You mean like how water vapor regulates out half or more of any Co2 warming in a single night?
I’d love to hear your take on “settled science.” I hope somebody broadcasts the hearing.
This is better than Downton Abbey.
The reality TV version of Dallas…
But I wonder if any of this will be covered by mainstream media, no matter what happens.
That’s great to hear. Thank you for all your efforts.
Settled science vs. the uncertainty monster. I hope the subject of climate science agitprop also comes up, the New York Times, WaPo and mainstream television / news should be there to defend their one sided propaganda mission.
Thanks for all your hard work and professionalism.
Especially since 2010 Scientific American article where you cast the die.
We shall see where the observations lead.
Settled science projections and adjustments vs the observations.
Scott
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Steven,
Observations reign. I listen carefully to you about satellite models and adjustments but ultimately accept Christy as properly translating electronic signals into temperature estimates. But taken written temperature records and changing the data and then not publishing raw data simulataneously is not appropriate. Specially when the entire trend is less than the adjustments. Changing historical records.
JoNova often discusses the Rutherigan records going back to 1880 and how cooling the past has transformed a cooling trend to a heating trend.
Also the kriegging of Arctic temperatures 1200 km away from the nearest measurement makes the adjustments larger than the trends.
In general the ballohood increase of fraction of a degree for hottest EVER Global temperature records are below adjustments, estimates and simply political statements.
But I listen respectfully to you and Zeke.
Scott
For the 97,000th time. If the raw data set is more accurate, what are the adjustments for?
Andrew
For those interested here is the link from JoNova for Homogenized records correcting raw records.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/08/the-bom-homogenizing-the-heck-out-of-australian-temperature-records/
Scott
Scott – If you don’t particularly care for the Arctic temperature “observations” what do you make of the Arctic sea ice observations?
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/facts-about-the-arctic-in-march-2017/
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NSIDC-Max-2017.png
Jim Hunt:
The world did not begin in 1979.
To be sure, Arctic Sea Ice decline was modeled and predicted by Manabe’s 1979 paper for a 4xCO2 world and it is logical to expect such a trend with global warming. But the observations being only since the satellite era of 1979 makes them fraught with confirmation bias. How much of the Arctic Sea Ice decline is global warming? How much might be natural? Difficult to tell. But, Arctic Sea Ice changes leave a fingerprint in the temperature record. When Arctic Sea Ice is thin, Arctic winters are significantly warmer because the greater rate of re-freezing releases a greater rate of latent heat to the atmosphere. That is what has happened coincident with the satellite measured decline in sea ice since 1979:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/ArcticFingerprint.png
However, the same pattern occurred from 1910 through 1945, with somewhat of an inverse from 1945 through 1975. So some of the changes in the Arctic may well be natural as they were before.
This brings up another point. If Arctic sea ice fluctuates naturally, so too does energy imbalance from Arctic Sea Ice albedo feedback. To some extent, natural Arctic Sea Ice declined caused some of the past global warming.
TE and Jim Hunt
First, thanks TE for the ice response re 1979. It is great and helpful for your data and observations.
No Global trend can be discerned from 1979 to today given the long responses in recuring ice extent changes. Tonyb shows ice extent from records much greater in 1920’s, 1940’s and earlier exploration periods. So the ice records did not begin in 1979.
Judith, if you see this, I forgot Macie Watts?? from U Colorado collaboration with you on the wheel? or cycles that have 60 year, not 30 half cycles.
Jim, when you quotation mark arctic temperatures, you should say, estimates of one of the 3 thermometers covering x million square miles. The estimates from 1200 miles away are projected to show that 1200 mile apart “Florida and Maine” are similar climates and one can be estimated and projected from the other.
I support observations and am always interested in temperature readings. But estimating an increase from -90*F to – 80*F and that is the cause of world wide global warming is an ice flow too far.
Ask Susan Collings ? the arctic polar bear researcher about estimates of arctic flow polar bear polulations that leave our 1/4 of the surface areas.
Observations are observations. Estimates and kriegging are estimates.
Scott
Well Steve – if that is true we can throw out all of the adjusted data sets and go back to actual measurements. Can we still find all of the original data?
TE – Who said the World began in 1979? As Scott points out, the ice records did not begin in 1979.
However SMMR first flew in 1978.
JH – the point is there were evidently large decreases in Arctic Sea Ice in the past, which in part caused global warming.
Scott – Did you notice that my graph is of Arctic sea ice extent? Not temperature. The Arctic trend is clear to me. Why isn’t it to you?
There are lots of green thermometers here:
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_table.html
Which three have you selected?
TE – So there’s a positive feedback?
So there’s a positive feedback?
Of course.
But evidently one that we’ve experienced naturally in the past and one that may have, in part, a natural component now.
Jim Hunt
I acknowledge defeat on the arctic land temperatures. Just talking off the top of my head and will look into the surface temperatures measurements in the arctic. I did like your graph but given the short time frame it is interesting but one can’t draw conclusions from 40 years of around 200 years of records. But it is the best data from 1979 to 2017.
I also appreciated the buoy lists of water temperatures. I like to see data sources for observations. Tonyb has a post of past arctic ice extent I will look for but the your courtesy is appreciated.
Scott
JH,
Not an important point but I found only 6 long temperature records in the Arctic. I am sure the science stations also may have some.
http://www.climate4you.com/Polar%20temperatures.htm#ArcticLongMetSeries
But not enough to establish much of a trend giving the wide separations and estimates that heavily weigh the Hottest Ever year based on rises in those areas by kreiging estimates. The hottest of 2016 over 2015 over 2014 are fractions of a degree with massive estimates. The error bars must be large.
Scott
Scott – I have to admit that long term data on temperatures over sea ice is a bit hard to come by!
However you surely cannot argue with the premise that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet? Some of those buoys measure ice thickness as well as air temperature. From the Beaufort Sea:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/ice-mass-balance-buoys/winter-201617-imb-buoys/#2017A-Temp
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017A-2017-03-23.png
Ice thickness is still less than 1 meter, and Spring is on its way.
the raw dataset agrees better with models, especially in the early part
===============
it would be astounding if it did not, after all this was the training data. it would be a very poor model that could not memorize and regurgitate the data it was trained on. any neural net can do this, as can a host of curve fitting algorithms.
scott, re arctic air temps, there are more station records to consider.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/arctic-warming-unalarming/
Ron,
Thanks so much for the data and observations.
This is why I love Climate Etc.
Very interesting.
Scott.
Further,
Manabe 1979 pointed out that the decrease of thermal gradient imposed by declining Arctic sea ice meant:
1.) decreased kinetic energy ( less intense storms ) and,
2.) decreased temperature variability ( less frequent heat waves ).
So, is declining Arctic sea ice a good thing?
I think that declining Arctic ice means we are not yet sliding into the next ice age. Good news.
Eddie, Scotese puts the gradient temperature profile into historical context:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/fact-future-climate-will-be-flatter-not-hotter/
Counter to this is if the AMOC slows down, and some say that has already started. That leads to more extensive North Atlantic ice and larger temperature gradients, as Hansen has in his meltwater pulse scenario for increased Greenland melt rates.
Anything can happen in the future, but for now, Greenland is not melting, and AMO is still pulsing warm Atlantic water into the Arctic.
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/amo-pulses-2.png
It’s one of those tipping points we are pushing harder all the time. Could reverse everything you think could happen if it tips.
Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book on Tipping Points and said this:
“It’s that ideas and behavior and messages and products sometimes behave just like outbreaks of infectious disease. They are social epidemics. The Tipping Point is an examination of the social epidemics that surround us.”
The notion is about sociology, not physical science.
There are examples of meltwater pulses in recent paleoclimate, so it is not just theoretical. The AMOC can stop.
Counter to this is if the AMOC slows down, and some say that has already started. That leads to more extensive North Atlantic ice and larger temperature gradients, as Hansen has in his meltwater pulse scenario for increased Greenland melt rates.
Slight problems dredging up Hansen:
* Trenberth said his paper was pooh-pooh.
* The larger effect is certainly Arctic sea ice – probably can’t have both reduced Arctic sea ice and increased gradient.
* Manabe’s early papers predicted gradients would decrease
* Francis et. al. published that gradients have decreased
The AMOC has shown signs of weakness in recent times, so there is an observational basis.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2554.html
Jim D, speculation is not science. I wonder if the House hearing will touch on this? Environmentalism is the (political) science of scary speculation. You are a master, for sure. You know it by heart. Mann too of course. It is an art form.
Science is taking all factors into account, especially if they have a historical precedent, not ignoring the ones that are inconvenient. As it is, no one would be surprised by another AMOC slowdown, and it should be considered as a possibility.
Jim D., how does it serve you to be concerned with such possibilities?
I could ask how it serves you to say they are impossible. In planning for the future, we have to deal with all possibilities.
“The AMOC has shown signs of weakness in recent times, so there is an observational basis.”
That’s kindofa typical response – if disaster isn’t appearing, there must be something wrong with the measurements.
This has always been a canard because most of the poleward heat transport is via the atmosphere (AHT) versus the ocean (OHT)
http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/srep/2015/151116/srep16661/images/w926/srep16661-f1.jpg
You can ask people in Europe how important the Gulf Stream is. With no AMOC that gets replaced by cold water with seasonal ice floes.
Ron – So do you argue with the premise that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet?
Read the links Jim. The measurements show a slight warming in the winter at higher latitudes.
It is mostly just the different ratio of ice to open water, water being 32F, while ice and frozen ground can drop far lower.
But for all this panic about yet another period (same as the 50’s) of low ice extent, no one seems to consider that as a planet, it’s losing energy at a very high rate, the planet is in max cooling mode.
Do the SB math and compare 32F to -50 with a clear sky temp of -80 or -90 for the optical window, then add any amount of ghg forcing, the planet is cooling!
Ron – I did read the links. There seems to be a total absence of any data from the “Arctic buoys” I directed Scott’s attention towards?
This is no time to show mercy to the intellectually unarmed.
Gaia will know her own.
Science is a thought process.
Technology actually changes reality.
I’ll tune into RT or Sputnik and catch the highlights.
Best wishes Judith, you will have all my support and that of many others on your side.
Michael Mann because they couldn’t get Al Gore or Rajendra Pachauri or perhaps… Bill Nye, the Science Guy
There are three methods of heat transfer. They are conduction, convection, and radiant heat. Heat transfer to or from the earth can only be done by radiant. All material contains heat and is radiating it to cooler surfaces or absorbing it from warmer surfaces. The difference is the heat gain or loss of the material.
The earth gains heat radiated from the sun and loses heat it radiates to outer space, called black sky radiation. Outer space is considered absolute zero.
The amount of radiant heat hitting the earth from the sun daily is relatively constant. The radiant heat lost daily by the earth thru black sky radiation is constant since absolute zero is constant. The amount of heat gained by the earth’s surface depends on the surface area of the earth covered by water relative to that covered by land. Land area absorbs a larger percent of the radiant heat relative to the water area since the surface of the water reflects a percentage of the radiant heat back to outer space. The daily access heat, or loss of heat, is transferred to the oceans thru conduction and convection where it works its way to the poles and it freezes water adding to the polar ice caps or melts the polar ice caps thus keeping the temperature of the oceans, thus the earth, relatively constant. As the polar ice caps grow or melt, the surface area of the earth covered by land relative to that covered by water changes. This is the definition of global warming.
That radiant heat absorbed by oceans and land masses is transferred to the atmosphere thru conduction and convection. When it is winter in one hemisphere it is summer in the other and the same with spring and fall. I would think the average temperature of the lower 5,000 feet of the atmosphere changes about 10’F to20’F each day. This probably takes more heat than man has added to the earth in the last 50 years. That heat man adds to the atmosphere each day is radiated to the black sky and the infinitesimal amount left helps melt the ice during global warming, should be called Global Defrosting, . The scientists have taken core samples of the polar ice caps and know how close we are to the ice left at the beginning of the last ice age. That is how close we are to the end of global warming or we have already begun global cooling, should be called global ice making.
Absolute Zero is -459.68’F and the surface temperature of the sun is between 7,300’F and 10,000’F or an average of 8,650’F. If we could go back in time 12,000 years, the end of the last ice age, we would probable see that the average daily temperature of the earth was in the mid 60’F as it is today. You must understand the amount of heat gained every 24 hours is almost equal to that lost during the same 24 hours. Angle of the earth’s axis is 23.5’.
The average surface temperature of the earth is 63.5’f. The heat loss to black sky radiation every 24 hours is constant. The average radiant heat striking the surface of the earth is relatively constant. Because the sun is an active star the average temperature will change over centuries. As the surface area of the earth covered by water increases, the radiant heat reflected back to the black sky increases. When the daily radiant heat gained by the earth from the sun in 24 hours is less than that lost by the earth’s surface Global ice making will end, or has already ended.
The above chart is of an ice core sample from the Antarctic Ice. The red line, I believe shows, the CO2 level in the air trapped in the ice when it froze. The high point in the red line shows the ice formed at the beginning of the Ice Age. The low point is the ice which was formed near the beginning but is the top layer when the new Ice Age began. As you can see there are 5 high points, thus 4 Ice Ages. I believe that as the new Ice forms some of the CO2 in the new ice is absorbed into the old ice, thus the angle on the vertical line. I also believe the small ups and downs of the red line are due to the change of average temperature of the surface of the sun between the 7,300’F and 10,000’F. There is also an ice core sample from Greenland almost identical to the above. The Greenland core shows the increase in the CO2 level due to the industrial revolution in the northern hemisphere, thus the much higher CO2 level in year 0. Both core samples are taken of ice formed over land. The ice core grows from the ground and the reverse as it melts.
THIS CHART INDICATES WE HAVE BEGUN NEXT ICE AGE AND WE HAVE REACHED THE HIGH POINT OF THE OCEAN. I could not attach the charts but they are the ice core CO2 charts for the Antarctic and Greenland. The chart shows we probably started the new ice age a couple of thousand years ago.
Clark42@msn.com
You know, I’m not sure water absorbs less heat than land. I like to dive and there’s plenty of light down to at least 30 meters. So…it must depend on the sun angle, waves, clouds, water clarity, and the nature of terrain. For example, it’s possible to walk barefoot at White Sands, but beaches in Hawaii with crushed volcanic rock are too hot to walk on with flip flops. Think about it.
Congratulations Judy. Some sanity reigns in Washington.
For those wondering about the alleged credentials or expertise of one Michael Mann, see the systematic exposes published at ClimateAudit.org in the Hockey Stick Studies by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
For evidence of Mann’s current litigious penchant in all its gory detail, see Mark Steyn at SteynOnline.com on “Mann”.
Scholar lists Mann’s official publications.
(Summary: Most of Mann’s publications should never have seen the light of day in scientific, legal or civil circles.)
David, when you say that most of Mann’s publications should never have seen the light of day, are you aware of any at all which properly deserve the name science?
at least 190
http://www.met.psu.edu/people/mem45
I doubt whether you or david have read them all or can actually find any problems with any of them on your own.
Thanks for clarifying that Mossher the Great and Powerful. What is it about those papers which you say makes them worthy of the name science?
Forrest Gardener His thesis committee signed off on some indication of effort.
Yes, David. But does that make what he did worthy of the name science? After all there are thesis committees in all sorts of fields of study.
Mann in his dissertation remarkably identified 10-20 year, 60-100 year and ~ 200 year ocean/atmospheric oscillations in his dissertation. Why then did he try to hide the ~ 1000-1500 year millennial oscillations by hiding the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age? So some seblance of science but which has been politically corrupted by “climate change” funding/fame.
Thanks David. His thesis might be described as an exercise in statistics or computer modelling but the making of a falsifiable prediction is required before it can be described as science.
To adapt the definition of truthiness, his work might best be described as sciencey being the quality of seeming or being felt to be science, even if not necessarily science.
Ross McKitrick at RossMcKitrick.com has numerous publications evaluating econometrics and statistics of climate and models. Note his publications on Mann’s “hockey stick”.
Global Warming: Paleoclimate / Hockey Stick
“PROXY INCONSISTENCY
In 2009, Steve McIntyre and I published a letter in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences arguing that a recent paleoclimate reconstruction by Mann et al. does not provide reliable evidence about climate change over the past millennium, because their data are inconsistent and their confidence intervals are wrong.”
**McIntyre, Stephen and Ross R. McKitrick (2009) Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences February 2, 2009. 106:E10; doi:10.1073/pnas.0812509106
Presentation to the National Academy of Sciences Expert Panel, “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 1,000-2,000 Years.”
“M&M CRITIQUE OVERVIEW
The most important scientific paper Steve and I put out was also, probably, the least read:
**McIntyre, Stephen and Ross McKitrick (2005) The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications Energy and Environment 16(1) pp. 69-100.
Nothing that appeared in print thereafter added anything of real importance to what was in that paper. Some of the subsequent papers, like Ammann and Wahl’s submission to Climate Change, just re-hashes trivial arguments that were already dealt with in that paper.”
PS Steve Mosher
I have followed McIntyre and McKitrick’s scientific exposes of Mann. What errors have you found in their scientific critique that would withstand critical analysis?
THE M&M CRITIQUE OF THE MBH98 NORTHERN HEMISPHERE CLIMATE INDEX: UPDATE AND IMPLICATIONS
Stephen McIntyre 512–120 Adelaide St. West, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 1T1;
Ross McKitrick Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph Ontario Canada N1G2W1.
ABSTRACT
To my knowledge, Mann et al. have never redressed these systemic breaches of the scientific method.
David.
Mann has over 190 papers
Your question
“I have followed McIntyre and McKitrick’s scientific exposes of Mann. What errors have you found in their scientific critique that would withstand critical analysis?”
I’m not going to do your work for you. You “followed” someone elses work.
When you are able to do something on your own with all 190 papers
and make a case about all of them, then I will listen.
To put it another way. Most of Mann’s work is in the margin of the important science. Yes, he got some things wrong. And he was as bad as most skeptics when it came to sharing data and code.
I would not hold him up as a shining example. But thats a far ways from showing errors in every piece of work he did.
get crackin
Steven Mosher When McIntyre and McKitrick have done such a good job, its not worth wasting my time to duplicate it. I have far more important paradigm changing science that I am writing up.
After the EPA hearing Smith had, where he sticks with the pause over the latest science,
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/house-science-committee-holds-hearing-on-making-epa-great-again/
now Judith can correct him on what actually happened with Bates. Bates wasn’t opposed to the ERSSTv4 data (which wasn’t Karl’s) that overturned the pause. He said it had already passed all his data criteria, so he actually wanted it released faster than Karl, and was upset that Karl delayed it until he got his paper published. If Smith is using Bates to cling to the pause, he chose the wrong person. So if the anti-Karl talk comes up again, remind Smith that it was ERSSTv4, not Karl, that killed the pause, and Bates was fine with that data.
The only news item I can find on the upcoming hearing is this one.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/325240-house-panel-to-challenge-climate-science
There is much better science – and unless you understand the reasons for the pause its all just hot air.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
Natural variations, yes, and there is the paradox in skeptical thinking as pointed out by realclimate. Basically that natural variations should be large on century scales to account for a lot of the warming, while still disallowing them to be large enough to account for the difference between warming and climate models on 15-year scales. It’s “threading a fine needle” as Price said about the healthcare plan.
“A curious twist in Curry’s report is (a) her claim that climate models have exaggerated climate sensitivity because they did not reproduce the observed warming over the 2000-2015 period and then (b) her emphasis on natural variations having scales of ‘weeks, years, decades, centuries and millennia’.
If the claims hypothetically were correct, then how would she know that the temperature variations over brief intervals are not just a result of the natural variations that she emphasised?”
There is climate variability on all scales. And the problem with models is of a different order. But getting all your information from realclimate is perhaps the biggest problem of all.
Climate models do not produce a single deterministic solution. Perturbed physics models have thousands of starting points that are within the measurement error of initial conditions. Solutions diverge exponentially through time.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/ngeo1430-f1.jpg
Rowland et al 2012
It gives an envelope – an estimate of model imprecision – in which the real solution may fall. There is of course the additional problem of whether the processes and coupling in the model adequately reflect processes and coupling in the real system. The answer there would be no. That’s the essential problem of divergence of reality from the plausible envelope of solutions.
The IPCC opportunistic ensemble is very different. It consists of single deterministic solutions from a number of models each of which individually “gives misleading results and a dangerous illusion of exactness.” Together these arbitrarily chosen solutions converge on reality? That would be no as well.
It is not the PDO but the Pacific system as a whole. These 20-30 year regimes are in the records for a 1000 years at least – and the warm state peaked last century in a 1000 year high. The last shift was 1998/2000 – so another shift is due soon and I suppose anything could happen. It still has stuff all to do with global warming.
Oh – and it’s not clear that there is overwhelming evidence for net warming this century.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/argo-to-december-2016.jpg
The “phases” have varying lengths. Your negative phase is gone. You keep repeating the same nonsense… in the face of 38 straight months of positive numbers. So sad. You said “There is much better science” and linked to same article you’ve linked to dozens and dozens of times. The article quotes a JPL scientist: Bill Patzert.
Bill Patzert says the PDO has gone positive. Whatever… I suppose now he’s a bad Realclimate scientists. What a joke ur.
The PDO tends to peak quickly. In the 20th century the ramp up and peak and fallback has been lasting about one decade. 38 straight months and there easily could be 5-7 more years of rapid warming.
The current warming is rapid.
When 2017 started I said it could be another record warmest year… 4 in a row. Almost three months in, and the GMST for 2017, starting with La Niña conditions, is higher than 2016’s. This with much higher ONI on the way and possibly an El Niño starting in May-June.
So yeah, have these three clowns tell congress the PAWS is back. It’s hilarious. Or that El Niño caused the 2015 and 2016 records.
Peaks in WW2 and mid 1980s… call it 40 years apart. 1985 plus 40 years is 2025. It’s 2017. The stadium wave has come and gone. Its cooling zenith, the best shot it could get in, was 2006 to 2014. Spent. Used up.
The cooling wave of the stadium wave has waived, and now it’s resumed its seat. It has come and gone. Now the warm phase of the stadium wave is standing up and waiving.
http://i.imgur.com/U4Jy36i.png
Jim D stated “Natural variations, yes, and there is the paradox in skeptical thinking as pointed out by realclimate. Basically that natural variations should be large on century scales to account for a lot of the warming, while still disallowing them to be large enough to account for the difference between warming and climate models on 15-year scales.”
This is misdirection. The IPCC in AR4 stated what the natural variation could be without invalidating the models, and IPCC’s understanding of the results to be expected from warming that was to come from emissions already occurring and projected future emissions. For those unfamiliar with AR4, It was 0.1C to 0.3C warming “already in the pipe” depending on source, based on the CO2eq to date 0.2C to 0.3C for emmisions, with a 0.1C maximum natural variation at 2030. Thus the least possible is 0.3C per decade. Current rates are below the minimum of AR4, including natural variation. The confusion or paradox in thinking appears to be at realclimate as to what the argument is, and what the argument is comparing.
You continue with this misrepresentation to include our host’s position, but not what her position was based on.
It is not the skeptics, nor our host’s claims to the predicted response, it was the IPPC and the papers incorporated as sources. The statement, in AR4, is to date, invalidated by temperature measurements. She knew because it was stated by the IPCC. I would assume that realclimate just has not been following the argument.
Again it is not the PDO but the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. And his wood for dimwits interpretations are quite bizarre.
PDO and ENSO are in lockstep. The same periodicity found in both hemispheres is a clue to mechanism.
“This study uses proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data to investigate the long-term behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.”
This study uses proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data to investigate the long-term behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025052/abstract
But what we are looking at is the transitions between states that give the 20-30 year transitions.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
Predominantly blue to 1976, red to 1998 and a mixed bag since. The next shift is due in a 2018-2028 window.
I suppose we my have had a shift in 2012 – but it still has stuff all to do with global warming. And there is still no overwhelming evidence of an increase in global energy content this century.
Yes I provided the NASA link again – it provides a simple and authoritative overview – as opposed to JCH’s endlessly repeated wood for dimwits interpretations.
The IPO doesn’t change the reality of what is happening. It’s just another dodge out of you. Always wrong; always dodging.
The IPO is the reality. Including a 1000 year warm high last century.
http://i.imgur.com/WSH1icK.png
jfpittman, the expected rate, and that given by models, accounts for the warming until now. The current rate of change of the 30-year temperature has been a robust 0.17 C per decade for over 25 years now. This number equates to an effective transient rate of 2.3 C per doubling, which is well within the bounds of the IPCC range, actually near the center, and well above anything expected by skeptics. The so-called pause only appears in 15-year temperatures and not in 30-year temperatures, and this time-scale is also contributed to by the solar cycle in a significant way because that contributes 0.1 C amplitude oscillations to the surface temperature too. The 15-year trend centered on 2000 was 0.3 C per decade, and that was just before the pause where it dropped below 0.1 C per decade. Its variability is why I do not much any stock in 15-year trends for climate change. It is just too impacted by the solar cycle being 1.5 11-year cycles which is optimally bad.
Yes the PDO has the same periodicity as the IPO – 20 to 30 years – as do the shifts in frequency and intensity of ENSO events.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/tmp/gcos_wgsp/tsgcos.corr.182.239.184.57.81.19.5.34.png
Jimmy – https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/22/house-science-committee-hearing-climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and-the-scientific-method/#comment-843046
Jim D you stated “the expected rate, and that given by models, accounts for the warming until now.” The correct statement is that the models per AR4 have over-predicted the warming. Models themselves cover a large range of possibilities, but I was not discussing the range of models.
Jim D “The current rate of change of the 30-year temperature has been a robust 0.17 C per decade for over 25 years now. This number equates to an effective transient rate of 2.3 C per doubling, which is well within the bounds of the IPCC range, actually near the center, and well above anything expected by skeptics.” I did not make claims of this. I note some of the effective ECS in the literature since AR4 indicate 1.7 to 1.9C for midrange transient with estimated ECS substantially less than 3C that was the basis of AR4. Since the bounds of most likely in AR4 include numbers as low as 1.7C ECS and as high as 4.5C ECS, and a much broader range in the actual scientific works, using such a range and talking of skeptics is not addressing my comment about what the IPCC stated was expected between publication and 2030.
“The so-called pause only appears in 15-year temperatures and not in 30-year temperatures, and this time-scale is also contributed to by the solar cycle in a significant way because that contributes 0.1 C amplitude oscillations to the surface temperature too. The 15-year trend centered on 2000 was 0.3 C per decade, and that was just before the pause where it dropped below 0.1 C per decade. Its variability is why I do not much any stock in 15-year trends for climate change. It is just too impacted by the solar cycle being 1.5 11-year cycles which is optimally bad.” The IPCC was the one that made the projections for the coming decades.The so called pause is irrelevant. I included what the IPCC had stated about variability in the time scales of their projection. The IPCC used 30 years as the standard. But also included 15 years, being n/2, or even fewer years. These shorter time periods were used by the scientists, who wrote the articles the IPCC AR4 were based on, to predict accelerated warming when the apparent temperature cycle was going up. It is not just the skeptics who have shown certain advocate tendencies.
Yeah right Jim. As if Judith needs riding instructions from you.
Many are fuzzy on what Bates was actually saying about the SST data on this blog. They did not read it very carefully. ERSSTv4 was fine by him and he wanted it released earlier.
Jim, you misrepresent what Bates said. His prime complaint after recanting the more damaging accusations was that the data was not properly archived. Don’t try to pass off false statements.
Oh, and what I said was that Judith hardly needed riding instructions from you. Any response to what I said?
I don’t know what you mean by ‘riding’.
Anyway, Bates did approve the ERSSTv4 which was the one that did all the damage to the pause, and only had his quibbles about the land data that didn’t have much effect anyway. Many people missed this rather important distinction between the land and water datasets in Karl’s paper. The SST wasn’t Karl’s and had been internally accepted at NCEI already before Karl’s paper.
Jim, riding orders is a term from the horse racing industry. Before any race the owner or trainer will give the jockey instructions about how to run the race. I cannot see that Judith is in any way in need of your instructions or suggestions.
Oh, and the Bates thing? You have changed your story at least once and now seek to introduce new fake facts.
Come back when you have sorted your story out.
You can go back and read what Bates said about ERSSTv4. I have said the same thing three different times now with no acknowledgment that you know your ERSSTv4 from your GHCN-M-v4. Also, regarding riding orders I don’t expect Judith to correct Smith on the Bates stuff. I made the suggestion fully expecting that not to happen. Smith thinks Bates supports the pause and opposes the buoy corrected ERSSTv4 dataset, and is sadly wrong in that regard, and no one will offer him any enlightenment there, unless Mann does.
Geez Jim. First you issue a detailed set of instructions to Judith and then you say you don’t expect her to carry them out.
It doesn’t matter how much you want to walk away from what you wrote, what you are now saying about Bates is different from your first version and is just plain false.
Just a hint: try quoting what people say rather than inventing your own version of what they think.
Call it rhetorical to ask Judith to correct Smith. Got you thinking, didn’t it. I invite you to read what Bates said again. You won’t believe what I say anyway, but feel free to ask me if there is something you don’t understand there. Glad to help.
Jim, give up on the condescension and false statements.
You are right about one thing though, I do not believe anything you say. The reason is that you so rarely say anything believable.
Check whether ERSSTv4 by itself kills the pause (it does). Check whether ERSSTv4 is Karl’s dataset (it is not).
Jim, in your desperation you have wandered from a misrepresentation of what Bates said.
Making up a new argument cannot do anything but discredit your first attempt.
Do carry on.
Yours is the peter lang school of argument. No substance, just denigration. You learned well grasshopper.
Jim, it’s not my fault that you wrote what you did and now have nowhere to go other than crying foul.
But how exactly have I denigrated you? What have I written that was undeserved?
You keep saying that I am changing my position on the datasets, when I am not and you haven’t specified in what way or even that you know the first thing about the datasets Bates discussed. It has been completely substance free, but you wrote a lot.
Poor, poor Jim. No I did not say that you are “changing your position on the data sets”. Those are your words.
Hint: re-read your initial false statement about Bates. Here, I’ll help “He said it had already passed all his data criteria, so he actually wanted it released faster than Karl, and was upset that Karl delayed it until he got his paper published.”
If you don’t agree with that, you haven’t read Bates’s articles.
Jim. Your comments are just getting really sad now. Carry on if you want, or have a cup of tea and a nice lie down.
Then come back and post a direct quote of the words you attribute to Bates.
See where making stuff up gets you? No? Oh well.
I am not going to ask which part you don’t believe, but this is the link.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/04/climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/
Jim, just quote the words you attribute to Bates, or admit that you just made them up.
Just for you here they are again “He said it had already passed all his data criteria, so he actually wanted it released faster than Karl, and was upset that Karl delayed it until he got his paper published”.
Go ahead. Find the quote. Make my day!
“After discussion, the Science Council voted to approve the ERSSTv4 ORR and recommend immediate release.”, and the paragraph following.
Yes, it is technical and you may not have understood its implication, but there it is.
Jim, once again here are the words you attribute to Bates “He said it had already passed all his data criteria, so he actually wanted it released faster than Karl, and was upset that Karl delayed it until he got his paper published”.
Keep going.
You haven’t read it or haven’t comprehended it. Try again.
Once again Jim, here are your words “He said it had already passed all his data criteria, so he actually wanted it released faster than Karl, and was upset that Karl delayed it until he got his paper published”.
Astute readers will notice that there are three distinct elements you attribute to Bates, none of which are supported by your copy and paste.
You’ve dug yourself into a bit of a hole Jim. Keep digging.
Three parts. ERSSTv4 passed the criteria and Bates wanted it released as pasted above. Bates was upset that Karl delayed it until he published his paper, see “withholding”, “K15”, etc. in that paragraph. You really haven’t read this, have you? Glad to help. Any more questions?
Oh, I’ve read it Jim. What you now want to admit is that you manufactured what you claim to be his words. So what’s stopping you from admitting that you just made it up?
Now try again, with full sentences if you please as distinct from stuff you would like him to have said.
Hint: try finding some key words like “upset” and “wanted it released”.
I’m just sitting here waiting to eat my humble pie. Try me.
Was he delighted about the withholding of ERSSTv4? Clearly not. I use upset as the opposite of delighted. Perhaps you would have a different word. Miffed, riled, angered, frustrated, saddened, … I could have used any of these. If he wasn’t upset in some way, he wouldn’t have mentioned it.
Jim, now you have finally admitted that you just made it up.
Your rhetorical point about not mentioning it is just pathetic.
Huh? You are babbling now.
Jim, you must be getting tired. You claimed that I had not read Bates words. I asked you for quotes. You gave one which was irrelevant.
Now you have abandoned any claim that you are able to quote his words. Instead you switch to rhetoric.
Do you want to continue? Give me the quotes. Full sentences if you please.
Here again is what you claim “He said it had already passed all his data criteria, so he actually wanted it released faster than Karl, and was upset that Karl delayed it until he got his paper published”.
Yes, this is tiresome. Which part of that do you not believe or understand after reading the paragraph I pointed you to? I can’t answer unless I know what you are having trouble with specifically. I really am trying to help here.
Jim, here is what you wrote “He said it had already passed all his data criteria, so he actually wanted it released faster than Karl, and was upset that Karl delayed it until he got his paper published”.
I say that you cannot substantiate those claims using Bates words. Go ahead, with quotes in full sentences if you please.
Here. You can interpret what Bates said in your own words.
“The Science Council reported this recommendation to the NCDC Executive Council, the highest NCDC management board. In the NCDC Executive Council meeting, Tom Karl did not approve the release of ERSSTv4, noting that he wanted its release to coincide with the release of the next version of GHCNM (GHCNMv3.3.0) and NOAAGlobalTemp. Those products each went through an ORR at NCDC Science Council on 9 April 2015, and were used in operations in May. The ERSSTv4 dataset, however, was still not released. NCEI used these new analyses, including ERSSTv4, in its operational global analysis even though it was not being operationally archived. The operational version of ERSSTv4 was only released to the public following publication of the K15 paper. The withholding of the operational version of this important update came in the middle of a major ENSO event, thereby depriving the public of an important source of updated information, apparently for the sole purpose of Mr. Karl using the data in his paper before making the data available to the public.”
Dear, dear Jim. You miss the problem which is not how I might interpret his words but how YOU have interpreted his words.
Here again are your words “He said it had already passed all his data criteria, so he actually wanted it released faster than Karl, and was upset that Karl delayed it until he got his paper published”.
Nowhere does your quote say “it had already passed all his data criteria”.
Nowhere does your quote say “he actually wanted it released faster than Karl”.
Nowhere does your quote say “he was upset”.
Three strikes and you’re out. Unless you want to come back for another innings.
You can look at the paragraph above that for the part where they already accepted the ERSSTv4 data for immediate release (added below).
As for upset, maybe you think he wasn’t upset with Karl’s behavior. Fine, that is your opinion and you have stated it. I stated mine that he sure wasn’t a happy camper, and hence the mood that shows through his whole posting, but perhaps you don’t catch that sense from it.
Here (do I have to spoonfeed you this whole article?).
“The ORR for ERSSTV4, the operational release, took place in the NCDC Science Council on 15 January 2015. The ORR focused on process and questions about some of the controversial scientific choices made in the production of that dataset will be discussed in a separate post. The review went well and there was only one point of discussion on process. One slide in the presentation indicated that operational release was to be delayed to coincide with Karl et al. 2015 Science paper release. Several Science Council members objected to this, noting the K15 paper did not contain any further methodological information—all of that had already been published and thus there was no rationale to delay the dataset release. After discussion, the Science Council voted to approve the ERSSTv4 ORR and recommend immediate release.”
“You are right about one thing though, I do not believe anything you say. The reason is that you so rarely say anything believable.”
You’re not supposed to believe anything a tr0ll says, nor can you expect what it says to be consistent as that isn’t of consequence to it, you’re just supposed to keep feeding it.
http://bitsocialmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Internet-Troll.jpg
Thanks catweazle. I suppose that there must be a taxonomy for trolls.
There are those who drop a comment and then disappear but cause people to waste time preparing detailed responses.
Then there are the trolls who appear to be doing some kind of misguided missionary work.
There are the likes of Mosshher the Great and Powerful who seem addicted to displays of misguided intellectual preening.
Then there’s the like of poor old Jim D who makes things up as though he is trying to impress higher level trolls.
“Jim, you misrepresent what Bates said. His prime complaint after recanting the more damaging accusations was that the data was not properly archived.”
No.. his preferred method of archiving ( which is too slow) was rejected
so he pouted.
The method they used, WORKED. We got their data fast and were able to check it.. scientific method you know.
Bates proposed using the government method of sharing data… waiting years… and then posting out of date material
Thanks for driving by Steven. Do you consider what you do to be science? Why or why not?
The article that JimD links to in The Hill newspaper sports this headllne:
“House panel to challenge climate science”
Anyone care to join The Hill in claiming that what Christy, Curry and Pilke Jr engage in is not also “climate science”?
Mosh?
JimD?
Communicators talk about framing arguments. This article is intended to frame the hearing as “people you shouldn’t pay attention to dare to question science.” It’s curious, and sad, that scientists accept such framing. Even encourage it.
jeff, if they are not challenging climate science, what are they there for? Of course they want to challenge every aspect of the IPCC consensus. They want to argue that emissions should not be slowed down because of the uncertainty introduced by adding all this CO2.
There you go again Jim. You imagine that you know what is in the minds of your enemies. That my friend puts you on the path to insanity.
I frame the skeptical view the way I hear it. If it is not that, the skeptics are conveying it very poorly.
Jim, your use of the word sceptical is totally gay, if you get my meaning.
Put another way, I do not think the word sceptical means what you appear to think it does.
Oh, and remember that the opposite of sceptical is gullible.
“Thanks for driving by Steven. Do you consider what you do to be science? Why or why not?”
I’m breathing now sitting in Beijing. My body predicts that if I open my mouth and expand my lungs that life giving air will rush in. It retests that hypothesis many times. Under water such a hypothesis would fail. In beijing some days I feel the results are not so certain. Is what I am doing science? i suppose if valorized ‘science’ such a question would be interesting. I dont, so it’s not.
The vast majority of what I “do” is data analysis. If I call it data science, smart people understand and stupid people ask more questions. This is a cue for you to ask more questions.
The forms of data science I do are spatial prediction and classification or machine learning. Other stuff I work on is crypto currency. Not sure what meaningless box you would stuff that into.
I suppose any definition that excluded those would be a poor classifier, but the question is really beside the point. We have ways of knowing and understanding. It makes little difference how we label them. The important question is whether or not the ways of understanding are successful, measureably successful. You could call it knitting for all I care. Only folks who have not kept up with problems of classification would obsess about this.
Put another way.. there are no necessary and sufficient conditions for calling something science. Or yet another way… it’s not a natural kind.
It’s far more pragmatic and useful to describe our ways of understanding rather than prescribe valorized categories of behavior.
Mossshhher the Great and Powerful, you could just have been honest and direct and said NO.
Astute readers, which of course excludes you, will understand that without a null hypothesis and without producing a falsifiable hypothesis you are just a data fiddler.
Forrest, it is a kindness to use the word “skeptical” for people who clearly are not. True skeptics would happily believe the IPCC view if they saw more evidence. This lot prefer to deny that the IPCC view could possibly be true, but I don’t know good word for that, so I use “skeptics”, usually in quotes but sometimes I forget.
No Jim. It is not a kindness. It is a reversal of meaning for rhetorical purposes.
Say what you mean and mean what you say. Oh, and before you slip off to hide behind banal generalities, exactly who is “this lot” and exactly what do they “deny”.
Do try to answer, won’t you?
They deny that CO2 could possibly account for all of the warming so far with more in the pipeline. The consensus is very likely most and probably all the warming is from CO2, while this lot say very unlikely most, the complete opposite, and not what a true skeptic does. You may or may not be part of “this lot” depending on where you stand on the CO2 factor in warming.
Not bad Jim. Who exactly is “they”?
See how your rhetoric falls apart for a lack of precision? No? Never mind.
The people who call themselves “skeptics”. Keep up.
Come on Jim. Name names. There’s a good chap.
Oh, and speaking for what you now claim is a self-identifying group is about as lame as it gets.
If you don’t know that the hostess is in the category of those who think CO2 is more likely less than 50% of the cause for warming, you must be new here.
Oooops. And there goes Jim off onto another tangential distraction from his false initial statement.
Carry on.
Asked and answered as far as I am concerned.
… and having disappeared off into the rhetorical weeds, Jim declares victory.
As Bugs Bunny might have said, what a maroon.
Again with the insubstantial bluster, FG. You need to make more effort with facts because I find this boring.
Jim, here’s a hint. Look at what you wrote that I replied to.
You did write the words “Asked and answered as far as I am concerned” didn’t you?
Explain why my comment is not entirely appropriate. Remember you are the one who now wants to talk about substance.
You asked to name names. I mentioned the hostess, and you still insist I have ot answered. OK, then. Sorry if you misunderstood.
Jim, astute readers will notice that your claim was in the plural.
Keep going.
I suspect more than a few denizens here just agree with anything Judith says, so it is a safe bet there is more than one of them. Perhaps not, you tell me. We can also add Lindzen and others who think the net feedback could even be neutral to negative.
No Jim. You are hiding from your words again. Here is what you wrote “This lot prefer to deny that the IPCC view could possibly be true”.
Now, again, who is “this lot”.
Oh, and I’ll take up your claim about Judith later on but here’s a hint. If you want to claim that “Judith prefers to deny that the IPCC view could possibly be true” it is best to state what that view is and at least give either a quote or an example.
Otherwise you tend to look vacuous.
As I have already stated, the primary IPCC view is that very likely most and probably all the warming we have seen is from the increase in GHGs, including CO2. Some people just say no.
Another swing and another miss Jim
Again, who is “this lot”?
I believe your total so far is three. Do you wish to add anybody else to your list?
Almost every “skeptic”. You find the exceptions who agree with the IPCC attribution statement. It’s not easy.
Jim, you’ve just neatly arrived right back where you started.
Your use of skepctic is simply the misuse of a word for perjorative rhetorical purposes.
And still your false attribution to Bates is out there “He said it had already passed all his data criteria, so he actually wanted it released faster than Karl, and was upset that Karl delayed it until he got his paper published”
There are three elements in there. Tell me which ones you think you can establish with evidence and which are actually your words you wish he had said.
Asked and answered. Not doing it again.
Jim, I can hardly blame you for not wanting to repeat your circular argument. It was completely lame.
Circular questions.
Geez Jim.
I ask you exactly who is “this lot”. You reply sceptics.
I ask for names. You say Judith and two others.
I ask who else. You say sceptics.
Astute readers will agree that one of us is going around in circles, namely you.
I also said all “skeptics” who don’t believe that the IPCC attribution could be true. There are more than a couple of them, and as you say “skeptics” isn’t the right word them, because they oppose the statement while a true skeptic would hold it provisionally unknown until they have more evidence either way.
Oops. Jim wants to avoid his failure to enumerate “this lot” and prefers arm waving.
Ok Jim. If that’s all you’ve got I guess it is the best you can do.
You only think it is Judith and maybe one other person who disagrees with the IPCC attribution statement, and so can’t be characterized by “this lot”. Fine. That’s your opinion. I’ll take it for how you have defended it.
Jim you just get sillier and sillier, now you claim to know what I think. And you pretend that it is me who has something to defend.
You used the term “this lot”. I asked for names. You gave up at three.
It’s your problem that you can’t back up what you say, not mine.
As you are likely one of “this lot”, you seem to have taken offense to it. It is not meant as derogatory, just a collective I used for some bunch of denizens. Doesn’t matter if you don’t understand. Just move on. Don’t get stuck on those two words.
Jim, here’s how it works.
When you say “this lot” you get to say who you mean. That is doubly so when you want to put words into their mouths (as you did with Bates too).
Don’t be too upset that you can’t back up what you say. Just try harder next time.
That’s all.
This was how I defined the term when I first used it.
“This lot prefer to deny that the IPCC view could possibly be true, but I don’t know good word for that, so I use “skeptics”, usually in quotes but sometimes I forget.”
Either you think there are no such people, or if you think there are, you have answered your own question about who “this lot” is. Some of them may even be on the House Science Committee and panel.
Jim, your latest version of your argument is at odds with your earlier attempts to enumerate “this lot”.
You are going around in circles again and all because you sought to put words into Bates mouth.
Oh, and your dichotomy is entirely specious. Once again you try to put words into my mouth to make your earlier words go away.
Next?
You don’t agree when I say that Bates is upset with Karl. OK. We can just leave it at that.
Jim, you said more than that and you cannot back up any of the things you tried to put into Bates mouth.
You may or may not have learned something about making statements. Time will tell.
You disagree with a post on a blog. Get over it. Once again, all I said was.
“Bates wasn’t opposed to the ERSSTv4 data (which wasn’t Karl’s) that overturned the pause. He said it had already passed all his data criteria, so he actually wanted it released faster than Karl, and was upset that Karl delayed it until he got his paper published. If Smith is using Bates to cling to the pause, he chose the wrong person. So if the anti-Karl talk comes up again, remind Smith that it was ERSSTv4, not Karl, that killed the pause, and Bates was fine with that data.”
Jim, I know what you posted. You are yet to acknowledge that you were unable to back it up.
Imagining that you can speak for others in your case is just delusional.
Oh, and your attempt to diminish your error and the condescending get over it remark. That’s just pathetic.
Troll away!
FG, you weren’t able to refute with any evidence even one thing I said while I backed it up with quotes from Bates’ post.
What I posted was only a precis of a part of Bates’ post. There is nothing new in it, only things I think went unnoticed. If it is wrong, Bates was wrong. Also Bates would probably agree with the characterization that his post showed he was not happy with Karl because I think that was the main point he wanted to get across. It was personal, him against Karl. Maybe you didn’t notice. Most did.
For your information, all posts here, not just mine, are opinions around the facts presented, e.g. by Bates. You seem not to get this basic concept of posts. Can I dictate from a post? No, but you seem to think I do. Maybe I can suggest, but I can’t dictate. No one can.
Jim, you want to lose the argument on your terms. Tough luck.
You were simply unable to support your opinions . Tough luck again.
The only way YOU can end this is by acknowledging that you claimed that your opinions were supported by Bates article but that you cannot substantiate that claim.
Are you man enough to admit you were wrong?
Here is what I said 3 days ago now, and it hasn’t changed.
“now Judith can correct him on what actually happened with Bates. Bates wasn’t opposed to the ERSSTv4 data (which wasn’t Karl’s) that overturned the pause. He said it had already passed all his data criteria, so he actually wanted it released faster than Karl, and was upset that Karl delayed it until he got his paper published. If Smith is using Bates to cling to the pause, he chose the wrong person. So if the anti-Karl talk comes up again, remind Smith that it was ERSSTv4, not Karl, that killed the pause, and Bates was fine with that data.”
As for fact-checking with Bates’ article, you can do that part yourself. I tried to help for 3 days, but it was hopeless.
All your questions got deleted, because clearly someone else is as tired of this conversation as I am. Here is a quote that answers them.
“After discussion, the Science Council voted to approve the ERSSTv4 ORR and recommend immediate release.
The Science Council reported this recommendation to the NCDC Executive Council, the highest NCDC management board. In the NCDC Executive Council meeting, Tom Karl did not approve the release of ERSSTv4, noting that he wanted its release to coincide with the release of the next version of GHCNM (GHCNMv3.3.0) and NOAAGlobalTemp. Those products each went through an ORR at NCDC Science Council on 9 April 2015, and were used in operations in May. The ERSSTv4 dataset, however, was still not released. NCEI used these new analyses, including ERSSTv4, in its operational global analysis even though it was not being operationally archived. The operational version of ERSSTv4 was only released to the public following publication of the K15 paper. The withholding of the operational version of this important update came in the middle of a major ENSO event, thereby depriving the public of an important source of updated information, apparently for the sole purpose of Mr. Karl using the data in his paper before making the data available to the public.”
My shortened version of this was “He said it had already passed all his data criteria, so he actually wanted it released faster than Karl, and was upset that Karl delayed it until he got his paper published. “
What can I say Jim? Your confession above is warmly welcomed.
“Mossshhher the Great and Powerful, you could just have been honest and direct and said NO.”
That would be a lie
Astute readers, which of course excludes you, will understand that without a null hypothesis and without producing a falsifiable hypothesis you are just a data fiddler.
Well, then you dont understand science or spatial predictions.
In spatial stats we of course have null hypothesis and falsifiable hypotheses. But That is not a necessary and sufficient condition for call a behavior science. Any creature that behaves in the world, any self correcting sensory system ( even a robotic one) forms a null and tests it.
Further, you need to catch up on your philosophy of science. Your version of science has been falsified
Oh Mosshher the Great and Powerful you are suffering from a condition common among data fiddlers. That condition is an inability to argue your way out of a wet paper bag.
The necessary and sufficient thing attempts to put words in my mouth. At no stage did I say that the two criteria I mentioned were sufficient to call something science.
Try harder, or better yet come back when you are somebody.
” Oh Mosshher the Great and Powerful you are suffering from a condition common among data fiddlers. That condition is an inability to argue your way out of a wet paper bag.”
Wrong again. You seem to have misdefined science as requiring a null. And further you have not understood that spatial stats otherwise known as spatial prediction uses nulls and makes falsifiable predictions. Otherwise skeptics could not argue that our answers are wrong.
TOh Mosshher the Great and Powerful you are suffering from a condition common among data fiddlers. That condition is an inability to argue your way out of a wet paper bag.
“The necessary and sufficient thing attempts to put words in my mouth. At no stage did I say that the two criteria I mentioned were sufficient to call something science.”
At no point did you offer any definition. But go back and apply logic.
Fg. Mosher do you do x?
Mosher. I do z, and z is x.
Fg. Z doesn’t use a null nor is it falsifiable.
Logic suggested you think X requires a null.
Since you can’t supply the necessary and sufficient conditions to call something science you have zero standing to even try to engage me. Don’t bother responding until you know something .
Oh Mosssshhhher the Great and Powerful, read what you wrote. You set up a straw man argument and now seem intent on beating that straw man to death.
A scientist would never do such a thing but you can go right ahead.
Oh, and more than anything your response above just confirms that you cannot argue your way out of a wet paper bag. What ever happened to you?
We are talking 20-30 year regimes at identifiable periods rather than over random intervals. And I doubt whether the latest one – since the 1998/2000 climate shift – has run its course.
It seem to have ended at the 2016 step.
Neglecting that the atmosphere has 4% of global energy? Or that the 2016 surface temperature blip – if real – has no significance whatever. It seems par for the course for your types to celebrate El Nino and dismiss La Nina. Neither have anything to do with global warming – other than resulting in significant departures for mean global atmospheric temperatures.
I have my doubts. If real why don’t the satellites catch it?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/rss-temp.jpg
Of course – another standard ploy is to be completely oblivious of dissonant data. You know what the words are for that. Yes – that’s right – total nonsense.
Not sure about the satellite data because they use different instruments every few years and 1998 was many generations ago. The surface looks quite convincing that 2016 is and that comes from many thousand instruments averaged together.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12
Yes they average at 2m – where there is variable latent and sensible energy flux – and with limited spatial coverage. A number of different methods have been used – with widely varying spatial and temporal density requiring elaorate adjustments. They really need to add a drought adjustment for a start.
But we were talking about 2016 satellite data – which is the best atmospheric data available.
e.g. http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
And it doesn’t have the extreme spike of the 2m records? Which begs the question – if the surface spike had much relevance at all – is it real?
Oh – e.g. – https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/new-paper-climate-forcing-and-response-to-idealized-changes-in-surface-by-ban-weiss-et-al-2011/
What their experiment discovered might be the same effect I’ve been discussing. The .54K reduction in temp looks similar, I can show how a 5F increase in max temp equates to about 2F increase or less at the following min temp under clear skies.
March is not over, but it looks like it will have a very high anomaly. On GISS that will result in the first 1/4 of 2017 having a higher mean than 2016’s record.
This despite a La Niña ending sometime in January-February 2016, and negative ONI persisting possibly into March. Conditions that would normally result in low anomalies.
One wonders if honest brokers will be telling congress and the American people the truth. Somehow I doubt it, but past performance does not rule out the slight possibility this gaggle of fake skeptics will sober up by next week.
Another article on the hearing here.
http://www.ecowatch.com/house-committee-climate-science-2325356164.html
I may just come in to see this in person.
Will Mann bring his lawyers?
Judy
Malcolm Roberts was elected to the Australian Senate in last year’s elections. He is a highly disciplined skeptic. He then sent a formal letter to the Australian CSIRO, who are the government advisers on climate, naturally they are CAGW to provide documentation to support their stance. The meeting occurred with the CSIRO declaring that they had none.
Given the gravity of the CAGW claims, surely it is up to them to provide written evidence, supported by independent peer review. They will most likely try a merry chase of claims. Where is the evidence. This is always the key focus. Mights and ifs don’t count.
Is he even aware of this?
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Jim D from your source: “Attribution of observed impacts in the WGII AR5 generally links responses of natural and human systems to observed climate change, regardless of its cause.6”
Do you understand this statement and how it supports ozonebust? Looking at the range found in the models and uncertainties of attribution even assuming the impact is indeed caused by man is fraught with problems, uncertainties.
As a written source, it has many items that can and are used to support different positions with respect to policy. The evidence to date is that it is the assumptions that determine the extent of the claimed damage. This should not be a surprise! There is only one real experiment, and it has not been finished; we are adding tons of CO2 into our atmosphere. This goes back to something Mosher pointed out about the response at the dam in California. Exact knowledge is not needed. I would add however, the agreement to the extent of the problem and/or risks has to be agreed by someone(s) who can enforce a response.
WG2 isn’t there to attribute the cause, but the effects. WG1 is pretty clear on the cause.
“The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
As for the “experiment”, many have seen enough of it and at least want to slow down until we know what is going on. Continuation pushes temperature changes several times higher than now just in the next century. The tougher position to defend is to continue this without mitigation regardless of impacts.
Jim D, from the link “. Changes in both the climate system (left) and socioeconomic processes including adaptation and mitigation (right) are drivers of hazards, exposure, and vulnerability. [19.2, Figure 19-1].” It also includes projected costs that are not attributed to CO2, not just the projected costs of CO2. Yes, WG1 states their opinion of the cause, and their opinion of what the future impacts are; WG2 projected costs among other things. But ozonebust specifically stated CAGW. Though you may dislike the present trajectories, evidence of the catastrophic nature is in the projections of harm, not what the average temperature will end up as. To date there is little, to any evidence, of any large scale catastrophe that is harming people. However, there is repeated evidence that our environmental efforts are harming an estimated close to 1 billion persons from energy poverty in the EU to lack of electricity in Africa.
Proceeding without mitigation is not a tougher position to defend. The problem to date is that either path at present will result in a large number of deaths. However, we know and are measuring the deaths for lack of electricity. We are only speculating about the deaths caused by anthropogenic climate change.
Dr. Curry,
Will you be submitting, as evidence, copies of A Disgrace to the Profession?
https://www.amazon.com/Disgrace-Profession-Mark-Steyn-editor/dp/0986398330/ref=sr_1_sc_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1490251082&sr=1-2-spell&keywords=mark+steybn
https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/235ko6pvuo4jol5p/images/25-164cf099f7.jpg
The only thing that would have made this hearing better would be if Mark Steyn was also there. Granted, maybe making this hearing a blood sport spectacle would be a bit over the top.
In the previous article I proposed looking towards counterintelligence and antiterrorism for tactical source material to advance the interface between climate science and policy. I literally meant it. Mann would be an example for the need of antiterrorism tactics. Mann is a terrorist. What do I mean by that? Not terrorism in the conventional sense, obviously, but through what defines his tactics.
The purpose of terrorism is to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear. So while Mann isn’t a conventional terrorist, he is one none the less through his coercisive use of the courts and the media to both intimidate, terrorize opponents, and to advance his ideology. There are a select number of scientists who are like him who are not honest brokers. There’s a vast army of politicians and media like him.
What is counterintelligence? The branch of an intelligence service charged with keeping sensitive information from an enemy, deceiving that enemy, preventing subversion and sabotage, and collecting political and military information.
The reason so much peer reviewed science isn’t reproducible is because raw data used to develop papers isn’t readily available. There’s been much discussion on this blog about certain raw data being unavailable. Where the interface between policy and science breaks down is because the daylight behind the science is shaded. It’s intentional, once you realize that you can begin finding remedies. This is very much in the wheelhouse of counterintelligence. It requires counterintelligence and antiterrorism tactics to defeat deliberate obfuscation and political/media driven bloodless terrorist activities seen in the scare mongering driven CAGW punditry.
I believe the vast majority of scientists want to do the right thing, they’re honest brokers. There however is a powerful network of influential scientists aligned with politics and media that wield an unprecedented amount of power whom are capable of driving consensus through the means I’ve previously described. All the talk in the world won’t defeat this group, it requires real hero’s, determined grit, to unmask really what’s going on. BTW, It should be insisted all future peer reviewed work come with full disclosures of all raw data and all methodology, remove the shade.
I look forward to what will be said about the scientific method.
In particular, I am curious about which scientific method includes subjective levels of confidence (ref. figure 1), and consensus as endorsed by United Nations climate panel IPCC. (Ref. Principles governing the Work of IPCC §10).
1. The IPCC documents are not science nor do they purport to be science.
2. They are ASSESSMENTS or summaries of science, not the science itself.
As such it is important to adopt a consistent language to describe certain pragmatic decisions
‘These guidance notes are intended to assist Lead Authors of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in the consistent treatment of uncertainties across all three Working Groups. These notes define
a common approach and calibrated language that can be used broadly for developing expert judgments and for evaluating and communicating the degree of certainty in findings of the assessment process.
So, you’ve made several mistakes. the IPCC documents are not science. Even science papers are not science, but rather are advertisements for science.
In a science paper ( which merely advertises the science performed) it is customary to adopt certain pragmatic rules. Rules about graphs, rules about citations, rules about word count, rules about which statistical tests to apply. None of these pragmatics is ‘science’ or scientific. They are merely agreed upon pragmatics that have little if anything to do with the truth claims of the science. Similarly, in the IPCC summaries of science they do get to adopt pragmatic definitions. None of these have anything to do with the underlying science or truth of the underlying science any more than adopting a consistent type font does.
“As an intergovernmental body jointly established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environ- ment Programme (UNEP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has provided policymakers with the most authoritative and objective scientific and technical assessments.”
Ref.: Climate Change 2013; The Physical Science Basis;
Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Foreword page v
Can you please explain to me how a subjective judgment can be objective?
Maybe I should ask the secretary general of United Nations to hand mr. Rajendra Pachauri or any of the IPCC lead authors over to me so that I can perform some objective tests on their subjective levels of confidence!
The foreword continues:
“This Working Group I contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report contains important new scientific knowledge that can be used to produce climate information and services for assisting society to act to address the challenges of climate change. The timing is particularly significant, as this information provides a new impetus, through clear and indisputable physical science, to those negotiators responsible for concluding a new agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2015.”
What United Nations told the world in that foreword was that IPCC performed an objective scientific assessment. Under every reasonable definition of objective and subjective:
That is a lie.
This is how it should look:
“As an intergovernmental body jointly established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environ- ment Programme (UNEP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has provided policymakers with the most authoritative and objective scientific and technical assessments.”
Ref.: Climate Change 2013; The Physical Science Basis;
Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Foreword page v
Can you please explain to me how a subjective judgment can be objective?
Maybe I should ask the secretary general of United Nations to hand mr. Rajendra Pachauri or any of the IPCC lead authors over to me so that I can perform some objective tests on their subjective levels of confidence!
The foreword continues:
“This Working Group I contribution to the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report contains important new scientific knowledge that can be used to produce climate information and services for assisting society to act to address the challenges of climate change. The timing is particularly significant, as this information provides a new impetus, through clear and indisputable physical science, to those negotiators responsible for concluding a new agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2015.”
What United Nations told the world in that foreword was that IPCC performed an objective scientific assessment. Under every reasonable definition of objective and subjective:
That is a lie.
learn to read
‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has provided policymakers with the most authoritative and objective scientific and technical assessments.”
Can you please explain to me how a subjective judgment can be objective?
#################
Objective refers to the assessment.
an objective assessment can use agreed upon inter subjective terms
A subjective judgement can use objective methods ( well described and inter subjectively applied standards)
You simply do not know what it means to do an Objective as opposed to a Biased assessment of science.
Any and all assessments of science will be at their core assessments that dont use the scientific method. We dont count papers. We dont weigh ink.
Experts try to make unbiased assessments of the science. We call these assesssments Objective NOT because they are like science or like observing things that are independent of observers.. we call them Objective when and if we follow pre established transparent rules.
For example A delphi procedure.
Your problem is you think you know the meaning of words.
you dont.
“The IPCC documents are not science …”
“2. They are ASSESSMENTS or summaries of science, not the science itself.”
“Even science papers are not science, but rather are advertisements for science.”
To rephrase that set of statements: The IPCC report is a subjective assessment of advertisements for science.
This is getting more and more peculiar. Maybe you would be so kind to share with us your definition of science?
Here is my set of principles for science. I look forward to seeing yours.
“Objective refers to the assessment. an objective assessment can use agreed upon inter subjective terms”
Objective is not defined by IPCC, but the definition proposed by the dictionary included in my computers operating system sounds familiar:
objective: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts
the antonym of objective is subjective
subjective = not objective
hence:
subjective: influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts
There is nothing in-between objective and subjective.
Whatever assessment is supposed to mean within scientific conduct, an objective assessment should be an assessment that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions. However, the Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties impose upon the lead authors to assign levels of confidence to their findings:
«The AR5 will rely on two metrics for communicating the degree of certainty in key findings:
1 Confidence in the validity of a finding, based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., mechanistic understanding, theory, data, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement. Confidence is expressed qualitatively.
…
A level of confidence is expressed using five qualifiers: “very low,” “low,” “medium,” “high,” and “very high.” It synthesizes the author teams’ judgments about the validity of findings as determined through evaluation of evidence and agreement.»
Here is a comment to the IPCC practice in the report of the Inter Academy Council review of IPCC:
Climate change assessments; Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC
«IPCC authors are tasked to review and synthesize available literature rather than to conduct original research. This limits their ability to formally characterize uncertainty in the assessment reports. As a result, IPCC authors must rely on their subjective assessments of the available literature to construct a best estimate and associated confidence levels.»
Obviously, IPCC did not fix that problem.
Whatever IPCC was doing it was largely subjective and not objective as required by their principle and as promised by the foreword. That is easily seen by the abundant use of the level of confidence qualifiers in the IPCC WGI; AR5 report
“learn to read”
Why are you always in such a rush?
Learn to think.
Steven Mosher
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was founded on redefining “Climate Change” to be anthropogenic:
The UN’s IPCC claims to use an objective definition.
However its very existence depends on finding dangerous anthropogenic climate change. Consequently, the IPCC is inherently biased to report dangerous anthropogenic global warming by its need to justify its existence.
The scientific method requires objective evaluation of models again ALL the data, not just biased models against a biased selection of the evidence.
For reviews of the major portion of scientific papers and evidence ignored by the IPCC, see the reports by the NONgovernmental International Panel on Climiate Change (NIPCC) at Climate Change Reconsidered
It can be added that United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established to support UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change:
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as the IPCC or, synonymously, the Panel) shall concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and United Nations Environment Program Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process.
There is no doubt that the climate panel was biased.
If still in doubt have a look at how heavily biased IPCC was from the very beginning:
Report of the second session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 28 June 1989
The Principles governing IPCC work are more or less free from sound scientific principles – no mentioning of scrutiny or application of a sound scientific method there.
Rather than imposing scientific principles on IPCC, United Nations governed its climate panel IPCC by:
– the unscientific principle of a mission to support an established view(§1)
– the unscientific principle of consensus (§10)
– an approval process and organization principle which must, by it´s nature, diminish dissenting views. (§11)
Oops – missed on the link to the principles:
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
“ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the
scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with
scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
3. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body,
review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments. ”
Note. This is NOT science. But an ASSESSMENT or Review of the science.
It is NOT the science itself
The science ITSELF, the science qua science, of course must abide by the scientific method.
ASSESSING science, reviewing science, judging the science, compiling the science, distilling the science, and communicating the science to NON scientists, is not science itself.
10. In taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working
Groups and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavours to reach consensus. If consensus is judged by
the relevant body not possible: (a) for decisions on procedural issues, these shall be decided according
to the General Regulations of the WMO; (b) for approval, adoption and acceptance of reports, differing
views shall be explained and, upon request, recorded. Differing views on matters of a scientific,
technical or socio-economic nature shall, as appropriate in the context, be represented in the scientific,
technical or socio-economic document concerned. Differences of views on matters of policy or
procedure shall, as appropriate in the context, be recorded in the Report of the Session.
And better
The Assessment Reports and Special Reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) cover a wide range of disciplines in fulfilling the IPCC’s mandate of assessing
scientific, technological and socio-economic information in order to provide policymakers with a
clear view of the current state of scientific knowledge relevant to climate change.
The IPCC does not conduct its own research, run models or make measurements of climate or
weather phenomena. Its role is to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic literature
relevant to understanding climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation
and mitigation. Author teams critically assess all such information from any source that is to be
included in the report1
.
Author teams use calibrated uncertainty language to express a level of confidence in findings
based on the strength of the scientific and technical evidence and the level of agreement in the
scientific, technical and socio-economic literature2
.
And so ‘science’ tries (like everything else before it) to distinguish itself from ‘racket’ according to its own methodology (in this case ‘scientific’), and, like everything else that has previously made the attempt, fails dismally. And so the consensus concerning hubris is further advanced (but largely passes unnoticed).
Witnesses: John Christy, Judith Curry, Michael Mann and Roger Pielke Jr.
How did that Sesame Street song go again? Oh yes, One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn’t belong,
Don’t know about Pielke, but the other three are AMO believers. Sad.
Don’t know you say JCH? Well then you have hardly identified a way in which one doesn’t belong, have you?
Judith doesn’t belong? She’s now a proudly ex academic!
Correct Jim. That would be one way to identify the odd Mann out.
Or how about Roger Pielke Jr.?
He must be the odd one out since although he is an academic it would be rather difficult to classify “sports governance” as in any way climate science related?
Mann will be the only one wearing a ‘Nobel Laureate’ t-shirt.
Congratulations, Dr Curry – and best wishes.
Anyone giving odds that Mann doesn’t showup?
I say 50/50 he regrettably comes down with a cold.
Mann loves to testify. He thinks he is right and he is very aggressive, a bulldog. He runs an entire institute at Penn State, well funded federally. Why would he not show?
Has Mann done any congressional testifying since ducking the Q&A from the NAS Panel workshop?
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/looks-like-steynnrceisimberg-dont-get-their-anti-slap-dismissal/#comment-123101
I say he won’t show because he would have to debate Christy and Curry on the data and model shortcomings and Pielke Jr. on the lack of support for increased extreme weather being driven by CAGW. In addition, Lamar Smith is a bulldog in his own right.
We will know soon enough how this plays out.
Witnesses do not debate each other. They read prepared statements then answer a few questions from the Committee members.
At the NAS Panel, John Christy asked Mann if he computed R squared results. Mann almost certainly lied when he said he didn’t. In my comment above, I link to a comment by Steve McIntyre at The Blackboard where he has some fascinating details.
David Wojick:
Nobody told Mark Steyn:
David,
I understand what the witnesses do at these hearings. I have seen plenty of them. While they do not directly debate each other, they will be asked for comments on a number of important topics and perhaps to comment on the testimony of the other witnesses. Hence my casual use of the term debate.
I find your characterization of the hearing to be somewhat condescending. The process may not be ideal, but it is what it is.
My (organic) popcorn is in the pan ready and waiting!
However one hopes that the House Science Committee won’t be relying on any more evidence from the pages of the Mail on Sunday?
“Shock News! Mail on Sunday Silently “Corrects” Another David Rose “Porky Pie””
Not only that, but an entire paragraph concerning the alleged “pause” has evaporated into thin air.
Not only that, but the alleged “correction” included below the offending article is different to the “official” version published in print at the weekend.
Mine says ConAgra on the box. Is that organic?
Probably not JCH! Mine was a free gift in a veggie box from https://www.riverford.co.uk/
When do you suppose will be the optimum time to turn up the heat under the popping pan?
To reduce my carbon footprint, I eat mine raw:
http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000EAuHas.uWFY/s/500/W0050C-red-pig-and-indian-corn.jpg
JCH
Do you mean the corn or the pig?
tonyb
We once had a pet pig named Popcorn. A Hampshire. He was, until the day he disappeared, a house pet. Dad cooked him before we ate him. Those rural values…
JCH
Are you suggesting urban values involve eating their pigs uncooked?
Jim
If you look above you will see that I have already acquired the rights to the live streaming of the event and as part of the franchise am offering pop corn, hot dogs and souvenir hockey stick key rings. Obtaining these supplies from elsewhere will result in legal action.
Anyway you don’t want to buy from Riverford. They are busy raking in the subsidies from the govt as, with their celebrity friends they are busily erecting pointless solar farms on renowned beauty spots here in the south west.
tonyb
tonyb,
I have doubts about your investment. Listening to politicians prattle on with their sermons … err … I mean questions, will be hard to watch.
I compare it to fingernails on chalkboards, cat romance, and yours truly playing the violin.
But good luck anyway.
She who must be obeyed buys from Riverford Tony. For medical reasons she assures me.
Presumably you are aware of my largely successful campaign to take the p1ss out of Solar PV “farm” developers in Teignbridge? If not, then this may give you a chuckle?
http://econnexus.org/teignbridge-dc-refuse-second-application-for-fulford-solar-kettle/
Jim
I read your initial post too quickly. It was river cottage who colluded with other celebrity investors to foist a solar farm onto little haldon without it going to committee. We used to use river ford but found they were expensive and in our veg box there were always too many of the vegetable du jour they had a surplus of. We famously had around a dozen onions every week for several months.
I am not against solar power in the right place. That place isn’t in open countryside but on the roofs of industrial buildings of which there are thousands of acres available.
Mind you whether solar farms can ever be a viable proposition at our latitude is another matter. Two thousand years ago Tacitus recognised us as a cloudy and wet country.
Tonyb
Tony – I was appalled that the relevant councillor didn’t “call in” the Little Haldon application, and equally appalled that the relevant planning officer didn’t reject it.
However it seems “incompetent developer” and “technically useless” aren’t valid grounds for rejecting such a planning application, so maybe the so called “guidelines” were followed to the letter?
Anyway, back to the popcorn. When does your live streaming extravaganza commence. Can we negotiate over the Cornwall rights?
Jim
Your good friend David rose wrote an excellent piece on little haldon. I found him to be a good investigative journalist. He was concerned, as you appear to be, that no one knew of the application as the local councillor chose not to take it to the planning committee. Presumably the publicity would have seen it being turned down and any appeal dismissed out of hand. to this day it remains highly visible as the planting that was promised never materialised.
The planning officer concerned was a known fan of solar farms and
Politically the lib dem councillor concerned, who lived in exeter, was all in favour. A disgraceful abuse of the planning process.
The live streaming rights for Cornwall are still available but various parties are fighting over the rights. I can offer them to you for merely the price of a top end electric car, demonstrating my green ness and my generous nature.greasy pasties can be substituted for hot dogs
Tonyb
Wash your mouth out with soap Tony!
1) Pukka pasties aren’t in the least greasy. They have virtually no meat in!
2) Whilst I may agree with David about solar PV “farms” on Devon’s rich red soils and “biomass” imports I vehemently disagree with him on certain other matters. By way of one recent example see:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/shock-news-mail-on-sunday-silently-corrects-another-david-rose-porky-pie/
His cherry soaked porky pies are extremely “greasy”!
Policy
What if it’s really bad in 100-200yrs? V no regrets – no contest
Scientific method
Pal PEER review V scientific method – no contest
Assumptions?
Interesting one. Why is this in the title? The science is settled so why are assumptions necessary? Is it what scientists assume or is it what the public assume? Do we know what to assume or not? This troubles me sounds like uncertainty to me. Decision making with an uncertain outcome – just goes back to no regrets. I’ll just assume that it will all go well.
Hopefully there will be coverage for all Mann er of people to see.
Well, there is the assumption that the AMO can change the trajectory of the trend of the GMST…
I believe held by Mann, Curry, and Christy.
While I am thrilled to hear that the real physical world we live in will be represented by the faultlessly objective and honest Dr. Judith Curry, it seems very unfair that the imaginary world of hokey sticks and energy from unicorn farts will not be better represented. And how is it fair for the Mann to have to square off against intellectual giants armed only with a bag full of mannic regression statis-sticks.
It will be very interesting to see how Pielke Jr. handles this.
He appears to be a committed Progressive, but to his credit he has been unwilling to distort the facts to perpetrate a misleading message on extreme weather that is being pushed by the climatariat. He’s been wacked pretty hard by the “consensus enforcers” so will he double down or back track.
It’s hard to believe that Mann will actually show up. My bet is that he sends his flunky, Admiral what’s his name, that worked at NOAA.
29 March is also the day that Theresa May is going to “trigger article 50”, officially setting us in the UK on the path to leaving the EU.
This might not seem related to the climate debate, but in fact it is:
Climate change helped cause Brexit, says Al Gore.
Paul
As I have been to Syria several times I followed the emerging crisis with interest and concern.
It was the worst drought since the 1960’s. What had changed- and the same is true of so many countries living close to the brink-was the astonishing population growth.
In 1960 it was some 4.5 million. By 2014 it was some 22 million. The climate would have had to have been the most benign and cooperative in Syria’s history in order for a basically poor country, with a limited infrastructure, that had schisms in their society, to overcome a drought of a kind that was not that unusual
tonyb
If Al Gore said it, it must be true (Not.)
It’s sad that the representative for the alarmists is MM–there are far better people on that side of the debate.
I think he is representative– he’s essentially the titular head of Western academia’s fifth column.
Like who? Mann is one of their top guns.
Right off the top of my head, I’d rather hear from David Randall or Kerry Emanuel.
I do fervently hope there is some nefarious plan afoot to entrap Mann in a damning act of self-incrimination
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) Reports
The Scientific Method requires objectively comparing models against competing models and both against ALL the observed evidence. The NIPCC provides extensive reviews of the rest of the scientific evidence ignored by the IPCC – and comes up with substantially different results.
“NIPCC had published its Summary for Policymakers in advance of completing the underlying report. The first full report, produced with a new partner, the Center for the Study of Global Warming and Global Change, was released in 2009. It was titled Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
In 2011, NIPCC produced its third report, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2011 Interim Report. The volume summarized new research produced after the deadline for inclusion in the 2009 report as well as some research that had been overlooked when the first volume was produced. Both volumes have won widespread praise and been compared favorably to the reports of the vastly larger IPCC.*
In September 2013, NIPCC released Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, the first of three volumes expanding and bringing up-to-date the original 2009 report as well as offering a counter-point to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report. Also in 2013, four NIPCC scientists produced a Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 ‘Summary for Policymakers’.
In 2014, the second volume of Climate Change Reconsidered II, subtitled Biological Impacts, was published. It offered more than 1,000 pages of reviews of scientific research finding the impact of man-made global warming is benign and even beneficial to mankind and the natural world. Also in 2014, a team of climate scientists led by Robert M. Carter, a NIPCC lead author, produced a Commentary and Analysis on the Whitehead & Associates 2014 NSW Sea-Level Report, finding the Whitehead report does not provide reliable guidance to the complicated issues of measuring, forecasting, and responding to sea-level rise.
In November, 2015, NIPCC released Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus. The three lead NIPCC authors – Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer – reveal how no survey or study shows a “consensus” on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This short book is a preliminary version of Chapter 2 of the forthcoming and final volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered II series, to be subtitled Benefits and Costs of Fossil Fuels.”
The Right Climate Stuff
They have no sense of the rapidity of capitalist creative destruction.
With Mann as a witness and “Scientific Method” in the title, it is likely that there will be an emphasis on hypothesis testing and climate statistics generally. It is a pity Steve McIntyre isn’t a witness although I doubt the Hockey Stick will come up. Neverthless other phony statistical arguments may well be presented, e.g. that there has been a statistically significant upward trend in global average temperature (GAT) since records began and that there is a very high correlation between GAT and atmospheric CO2.
Both of these statements are false. They do not taken into account the quasi-random-walk (“red noise”) character of the time series involved. Such spurious trends and spuriously high correlations were identified in Econometrics more than 30 years ago (Nelson and Kang, 1986, Granger and Newbold, 1974). Stochastic modelling of GAT shows no significant trend; the observed increase over the last century and a half can be fully accounted for as a red noise fluctuation. By Occam’s Razor there is no need for any further explanation. Likewise the apparent correlation between CO2 and GAT is a similar red-noise effect although the trend in CO2 itself may be significant.
The only “evidence” of significant climate change comes from OAGCMs. These models are deterministic because the underlying equations of fluid dynamics are deterministic. Placing confidence limits on the average of a number of model predictions is not a valid procedure because the models contain a large number of adjustable parameters. These parameters are set to similar values in different models to keep the models realistic and stable. Hence they cannot be considered independent in a statistical sense.
OAGCMs are deterministic and, at times, chaotic while the real world is clearly turbulent and stochastic.
My paper on this has been accepted by Energy and Environment and will be published later this year. A preprint can be found at http://blackjay.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/MS1.pdf
I will prefer an alternative view,
“Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.” http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751
As indeed the non-linear climate system does – and it is deterministic and not random.
Robert Ellison your statement, that the climate system is deterministic, is an assumption. It is not based on observation. You are saying that because the atmosphere can exhibit “seemingly random change” it must therefore be deterministic.
That does not follow. Lorenz showed that a mathematically deterministic system can be “seemingly random” which implies that a real system exhibiting such behaviour CAN be deterministic. It does not imply that it MUST be deterministic. Fluid dynamicists assume a fluid to be a continuum so that it can be described by the Navier-Stokes equations. By definition a continuum is continuous and differentiable almost everywhere.
It follows that no real-world fluid is a continuum. A single experiment, in which a suspended pollen grain exhibits random velocity changes when observed under a microscope, is enough to show this. The atomic theory is a valid description of the real world; the Navier-Stokes equations are, at best, only a useful approximation.
Fluid dynamics is trapped in the 19th Century, pre-Boltzman, pre-Planck. Chaos theory has not helped. It is a description of the pathological behaviour of certain systems of non-linear differential equations. It does not necessarily apply to the real world and in the field of climate dynamics it has been a red herring. Kolmogorov turbulence spectra demonstrate the stochastic nature of real fluids.
They were of course not my statements but a quote from leading edge modelers of atmosphere and oceans. Let’s just start with all climate models are chaotic – and that is just mathematics. They are based nonlinear equations of fluid transport in three dimensions. These are not the Navier-Stokes equations – which may describe macroscopic turbulence – but simpler equations that simply conserve momentum across cell boundaries. But they are chaotic – just as Lorenz’s simple convection model was. Chaos is recognised by properties – sensitive dependence, structural instability, abrupt shifts in state space. But it is all just words for the behaviour.
http://d29qn7q9z0j1p6.cloudfront.net/content/roypta/369/1956/4751/F2.large.jpg
All climate models have multiple solutions that diverge exponentially from slightly different – within measurement error – starting points. I linked to the study for a purpose – to inform. To be ignored and continue to be argued with from a position of ignorance is a trifle annoying. Your understanding of model dynamics is completely inadequate.
Quantum indeterminancy leaves me cold. We can’t know both an electron’s position and momentum because electrons do not have simultaneous determinate positions and momentums? Radioactive elements may decay or not and you don’t know whether the cat is in trouble until you open a box? A tree falls in the woods… Like many worlds – thought bubbles for physicists with too much time on their hands.
Brownian motion (red noise) is caused by molecular level collisions. It is completely mechanistic and could by completely described by a Pascals demon using Newtonian physics.
It is completely wrong headed to imagine that either of these are at the root of climate variability. Currents, eddies, turbulence are properties of the macroscopic world and are completely deterministic. They are caused by wind, sun, currents and a rotating planet imparting momentum to particles.
With changing physical macro properties – density, viscosity, salinity, etc. – adding a certain dynamism.
Chaos is recognised as abrupt change in the climate system at all scales. As indeed seen in Nile River Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics. The property of “persistence is related to the observed tendency of annual average streamflows to stay above or below their mean value for long periods.”
– http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000WR900044/epdf – Like the Atlantic and Pacific origins of the Nile flows – the system changes abruptly, persists for a while and then shifts again. It is in other words completely deterministic but apparently random regime shifts.
“Large, abrupt climate changes have affected hemispheric to global regions repeatedly, as shown by numerous paleoclimate records (Broecker, 1995, 1997). Changes of up to 16°C and a factor of 2 in precipitation have occurred in some places in periods as short as decades to years (Alley and Clark, 1999; Lang et al., 1999). However, before the 1990s, the dominant view of past climate change emphasized the slow, gradual swings of the ice ages tied to features of the earth’s orbit over tens of millennia or the 100-million-year changes occurring with continental drift. But unequivocal geologic evidence pieced together over the last few decades shows that climate can change abruptly, and this has forced a reexamination of climate instability and feedback processes (NRC, 1998). Just as occasional floods punctuate the peace of river towns and occasional earthquakes shake usually quiet regions near active faults, abrupt changes punctuate the sweep of climate history.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/3
Here I argue that the dominant dichotomous logic reflects a naıve and inconsistent view of randomness. It cannot help us see the unity of Nature. Are the movement of planets and that of dice qualitatively different natural phenomena? Do they not obey the same physical laws? Abandoning this
logic and seeking a more consistent view, I propose to identify randomness with unpredictability. Randomness exists in processes that we may understand, we may explain, but we cannot predict2. In other words, randomness and determinism (which, in turn, could be identified with predictability) coexist in the same process, but are not separable or additive components. It is a matter of specifying the time horizon and scale of prediction to decide which of the two dominates. This view, which will be illustrated in the sequel, is consistent with Kolmogorov’s and Chaitin’s views of mathematical randomness, as well as with K. Popper’s (1992) indeterministic world view.” https://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/923/1/documents/hess-14-585-2010.pdf
https://incarnationalist.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/banner_jb1.png
Thus I refute it – and you need a more working definition of random.
There are quotation marks missing – “here I argue…
More contemporary working definition…
Robert, you seem to know very little about fluid dynamic modeling and yet you accuse me of ignorance. See my article on this topic (Google: “john reid quadrant 2009”). You have misunderstood the thrust of my paper which shows that, when well-established statistical techniques are used, there is no significant trend in global average temperature. I did not propose that quantum indeterminacy and the Brownian motion are the source of climate variability, only that they cast doubt on the universal validity of the deterministic Navier-Stokes equations. I understand that, yes, there have been large abrupt climate changes in the past, but I fail to see thow this is evidence for chaos theory. There are plenty of other explanations, orbital variations being one. Regarding “a more working definition of random”: I did not use the word “random”, you did. I prefer “stochastic” which means “governed by the laws of probability”.
I appreciate your little cartoon. I am the guy on the left saying “Is this thing real? Show me the evidence”. You are the guy on the right with a Mystical Explanation of Everything, only, in your case, it is Chaos Theory not God.
I have spent 30 years in hydrodynamic modelling – and working with stochastic hydrology. And no I think I have `the thrust of your paper without reading it. It is just random noise without any causality for warming last century.
Coincidentally – I have written on climate models at Quadrant.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2010/02/ellison/
So – according to you – Brownian motion and quantum indeterminancy are just metaphors for a mysterious, random behaviour of global temperatures. No causality there at all. As I said originally – I beg to differ. As the quote I provided says one of the world’s most eminent climate scientist – and Julia Slingo – it is all completely deterministic but seemingly random.
I recommended the Koutsoyiannis paper “A random walk on water” for more modern thoughts on random and deterministic where he equates random with unpredictable and deterministic with predictable. He uses the classic examples of planetary orbits as predictable and dice as unpredictable. But the former is only true in a two-body problem or over limited periods – and dice are predictable using only classical physics given enough information. Nor is any of it random in any rational sense – merely unpredictable beyond a close horizon.
“Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/3#14
It is not all that mysterious – and really – I insist that I am Samuel Johnson.
Robert, thank you for the reference to the excellent paper by Koutsoyiannis. I am in complete agreement with his assumption of a “prediction horizon” to reconcile the deterministic and stochastic dichotomy. I also agree wholeheartedly with his conclusions. This paper is the best indictment of deterministic modelling that I have ever read.
His approach differs from mine in that, being a hydrologist, he uses a hydrological model to illustrate the application of his ideas. My background is in electronics, radio astronomy and statistics so I adopted a signal processing approach using ARMA models and frequency domain displays. This has allowed me to take Koutsoyiannis’s ideas a step further by allowing standard statistical tests to be used to distinguish between the deterministic and the stochastic, i.e. to assess the prediction horizon from real-world data.
You say: “So – according to you – Brownian motion and quantum indeterminacy are just metaphors for a mysterious, random behaviour of global temperatures. No causality there at all.” What nonsense. I do not say that at all. I am not dismissing causality. What I am doing is dismissing the absolute, rigid determinism of Laplace and showing that the world is not a clockwork mechanism as climate modellers seem to believe.
Perhaps you could now do me the courtesy of actually reading my paper. You may find it is not quite so different from your own ideas as you may think. Have a look at Figure 6 where a 10,000 year long time series is displayed which is statistically similar to the observed global average temperature. A short, 160 year long sample from this series gives the impression of a rising trend, even though no such trend is really present.
Koutsoyiannis next step was to posit that the difference between random and deterministic was the difference between predictability unpredictability. Everything in the macro-world – to avoid quantum indeterminancy – is deterministic. You raised Brownian motion and quantum indeterminancy as models of the real world. You don’t even understand Brownian motion mechanics – imagining it to be random rather than as a result of molecular collisions. You don’t understand quantum indeterminancy – no one does.
My paper, as accepted by the journal, can be downloaded here:
http://blackjay.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/0958305×16686447.pdf
Robert, why don’t you read my paper and criticise what I have actually said instead of what you think I have said.
In 1963, Lorenz published his seminal paper on ‘Deterministic non-periodic flow’, which was to change the course of weather and climate prediction profoundly over the following decades and to embed the theory of chaos at the heart of meteorology. Indeed, it could be said that his view of the atmosphere (and subsequently also the oceans) as a chaotic system has coloured our thinking of the predictability of weather and subsequently climate from thereon. op.cit.
Only the authors of the IPCC summary for policy makers and recalcitrants like Jimmy have not caught on.
Good grief, you continue to confuse predictability with solvability.
With any of Lorenz’s butterflies you can always draw a box around the butterfly and predict that the trace will stay in the box.
It’s unlike;y that we can imagine the multi-dimensional climate ‘box’.
http://d29qn7q9z0j1p6.cloudfront.net/content/roypta/369/1956/4751/F8.large.jpg
Looks like two broken off butterfly wings. Does this mean that a future Ragnarok can work back in time to cull a butterfly?
Judith See the forecasts in the 2 papers discussed here. http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/23/russian-scientists-dismiss-co2-forcing-predict-decades-of-cooling-connect-cosmic-ray-flux-to-climate/#sthash.OI8LqaAV.k21OB7Vx.dpbs
Here is the Abstract of the 2nd paper Page-2017 repeated for convenience
“This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future, unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60 ± year and, more importantly, 1000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver are discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak – inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.” – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.TLL6AXYp.dpuf
For an accessible earlier blog version of my paper see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
A case of trillion $ policy built upon sand…
‘Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for
constraining the future projects, consequently a set of
models metrics that might be used to narrow the range
of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate
sensibility has yet to be developed.’
IPCC Ar4 SPM Section 8.64 Paragraph 4.
Judith: I do wish that one of the “Republican witnesses” would be brave enough to say that the case for AGW doesn’t depend on the temperature record, which certainly could be distorted by natural and unforced variability (and adjustments). Reproducible, accurate laboratory measurements of the absorption spectra of GHGs guarantee that rising GHGs will slow radiative cooling to space and thereby warm the planet. Hopefully the other two will agree.
The important question is: How much? There is no good reason to believe that AOGCMs produce the right answer. It could easily be half as much as models project, perhaps 1/3 or 1/4? The IPCC admits this via their likely range for ECS.
If the possibility of half as much warming (or less) and half as much damage per degC of warming (or less) implies that CAGW is a “hoax”, then then those who call it a hoax may be correct. If the word hoax implies zero warming or zero cost per degC of warming, thenAGW is not a hoax.
Good luck trying to communicate in a forum where those who know the least do most of the talking and no one wants to discuss what everyone agrees upon.
This the root of the fake consensus, it has a spectrum.
The problem, which does require knowledge of surface data is co2’s forcing is mixed with other forcings, and in fact water vapor on clear nights allows half or more escape to space.
The system is active, and self regulating.
Micro: CO2 has no direct effect on water vapor; its effect is mediated through temperature. That makes water vapor a feedback that amplifies warming where liquid water and water vapor are in equilibrium. Whatever you think water vapor does on clear nights has already been accounted for when the forcing for 2XCO2 is calculated.
The existence of ice ages (which are produced without significant net global forcing) is evidence that our climate system is not self-regulating – at least in the colder direction.
If you need additional evidence that GHGs slow radiative cooling to space, consider the larger our all temperature range of deserts compared with more humid regions.
Franktoo, you’re wrong. At least bother to read it, or keep your uninformed comments to yourself :)
Including the related paper.
Micro: I read your comment carefully and provided a thoughtful reply. Your claims about interactions between water vapor and CO2 were unfamiliar. Without a link (preferably to a publication), I was unable to understand why this interaction would not be properly handled by traditional radiate transfer calculations, particularly in AOGCMs which calculate fluxes every 15 min, 24/365. AOGCMs have many flaws (boundary layer clouds, for example) that might distort their output, but I’m not familiar with any that might totally negate CO2 forcing. If you have reliable info about something new, I’ll approach it with an open mind. I corresponded with Dave Evans about some of his ideas, but wasn’t convinced. Haven’t followed him lately.
Whether my opinions are informed or uninformed remains to be determined, possibly with your help. In the meantime, my “uniformed opinions” currently appear to be at least as well informed as yours (IMO).
http://wp.me/p5VgHU-2A make sure you read the paper I reference.
Outgoing radiation is regulated by water vapor, likely as it starts condensing water vapor. High rates of radiation, then slow. The reduction is a temperature effect. It slows at the same point under clear calm skies, because the set point is air temps relationship to dew point. Because of this, say it warmed an extra 5F during the day. At the radiation rates in the chart, that 5F causes 2F of warming, not 5. Cooling is nonlinear, and temperature regulated.
Micro: I read the arguments you linked. When the decrease in temperature at night slows or stops near the dew point, we experience radiative loss of latent heat (condensation of water vapor) rather than radiative loss of simple heat. In either case, rising GHGs will slow down loss of that heat.
Yes, but the this form of cooling rate change is temperature enabled.
Because of that any extra warming is preferentially radiated first, before the slow down. This is a nonlinear regulator.
Take the temps, the 2 different cooling rates, use the same temps for when the rate switches, if you do that, you can match the chart. Then do everything the exact same, except add 5F to the starting temp, and by morning it warmed only 2F, a second night would reduce most of that 2F.
You can’t accumulate warming, if morning temps have rejected to space any excess warmth from co2 already.
Judith: For balance, I just finished reading Mann’s latest book. I was struck by how deeply Mann (and presumably others) believe that skepticism has been bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, the Koch Brothers, (poor) conservative think tanks, and other liberal boogie men. Every aspect of his book is shaped by the fantasy that skepticism has been purchased. You three would all be much better off and comfortable supporting the concerns us. Nor are Mann’s views bought and paid for by the far richer environmental groups ($1B/yr), Al Gore’s investors in renewable energy, liberal foundations, Tom Steyer, George Soros or other conservative boogie men.
Michael Mann did that
one-tree-to-rule-them-all
-thingy, Michael Mann did that
hockey-stick- maker-stat thingy. Do not
conclude ‘belief,’ as motivation, it is
more likely ‘guile.’
I doubt the author ‘believes’ anything.
Just pure propaganda, all about the effect and pushing the narrative.
“You three would all be much better off and comfortable supporting the concerns us.”
Huh?
RK: You three would be much better off supporting the consensus (not concerns us). You aren’t being rewarded for your skepticism.
Beth: Mann did badly flawed work that made him famous and advanced a larger cause only a few years into his career as an independent scientist. Recognizing and admitting his mistakes under these circumstances would require a remarkable individual – like our host.
Nickels: Mann’s book shows a deep and irrational belief in a massive conspiracy promoting denial of and skepticism about CAGW. Challenging the rationality of this position might be useful.
“RK: You three would be much better off supporting the consensus”
Oh, you meant monetarily–now I get it.
REPOST:
It is extremely important to communicate knowledge uncertainty with respect to climate change. It is clear to me that the numerical modeling component of the climate change controversy has completely lost uncertainty of knowledge communications. The uncertainty of the models and their results from their origin to the communications of the model results to policymakers and the public is woefully inadequate. Admittedly, the public and policymakers may not understand uncertainty very well, if at all. That is where uncertainty communications is crucial. We, as scientists, must learn to make uncertainty understandable to the public. We must also communicate the growth in model uncertainty as model predictions of the future advance farther and farther from the present climate state.
It should be understood that the degree of knowledge certainty and confidence in numerical models increases the further away from the actual model creator the knowledge communicator is. In other words, a scientist that has little or no knowledge of the actual details in a numerical model should show some amount of knowledge skepticism concerning model future predictive results. However, the reverse occurs. A scientist from another discipline may show complete confidence in a model without fulling understanding the uncertainty that is built into it. In effect, the scientist suspends his scientific skepticism in favor of a particular knowledge outcome. This thrusts the scientist into acting in the role of an advocate. This advocacy is likely based on the presumed epistemic authority of the knowledge generators, under the assumption that they are not acting as scientific knowledge outcome advocates, continued research funding advocates, or policy advocates.
Policy advocates also minimize knowledge uncertainty in order to achieve high knowledge certainty for the expressed purpose of achieving a political goal. This is where scientists must counter the uncertainty minimization effort of political and scientific outcome advocates.
In essence, it is essential for advocates that uncertainty about an outcome be lost in advocacy communications. We, as scientists must recognize this and counter it.
In the scientific community: 30 realists for every denier
At this meeting: 3 deniers for every realist
How anyone could take this seriously is beyond me. Does Mann get ninety minutes to refute each minute of time given the other three? That would keep the ratios correct.
Chad- How do you define denier?
I hope he is prepared for the Gish Gallop.
The first thing they will all say is they’re in basic agreement with the consensus.
What wouod that agreement be, pray tell? The so-called consensus is a deliberately vague political device.
There seem to be two consensus’. The 97% that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas – and the 2% in agreement with the IPCC summary for policy makers. 98% are not – or don’t give a rat’s arse.
They won’t all agree on the attribution consensus that very likely most and probably all of the warming is from GHGs. They might agree that CO2 has some warming effect, but that is weak tea even though the “skeptics” will surely make a big point of it, and it was even the subject of a congressional vote that passed easily too, while they would not vote on a majority human effect. So it depends what you mean by consensus.
If the El Niño forecast is right, then 2017 is positioned to be very warm, maybe even a new record warmest. An El Niño staring mid-year 2017 could last well into 2018. Meaning 2018 could also be very warm, maybe even another record. If the notion that Matt England’s anomalous trade winds, the cause of the PAWS, were caused by Chinese pollution, which has been dampened by reduced economic activity and reduced coal usage, then there is no relief in sight.
Yes Jimmy – the 2% politically mediated consensus that warming from an arbitrary year is 50% to 100% anthropogenic – for which there is significant and legitimate dissent – including from the uncertainty monster.
2%? That’s one of your fake facts that makes the rest of what you say somewhat dubious. Care to elaborate on that number or is it just made up?
Jim D,
You take umbrage with Rob over his 2% figure, yet have constantly brought up the 97% consensus number. That is a number which has thoroughly been debunked as a fabrication. Why is it you expect people to meet a standard you can’t or won’t?
97% applied to a statistic, and they showed how they got it, while 2% is made up, fake.
The consensus is restricted to IPCC main authors – it is probably less than 2% of the total.
Elsewhere – there is a broad range of opinions.
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf
Very to somewhat concerned is over 90% in that link you provided (Figure 12.2). Where do you see 2%? Did you misread the data?
You insist on misunderstanding plain English?
I have been reading more and posting less at Climate Etc on and off for a few years and like my participation with other blogs of this kind I am almost exclusively interested in any analysis of published climate science papers and particularly those related to AGW. Those analyses can be greater or lesser in scope and are most appreciated when the analysis turns up new evidence or a new and better way of looking at a problem. I can provide here two examples interesting developments that have arisen from both sides of the AGW divide.
The first involves the comparison of the global temperature series between observed and modeled series where often the ocean part of these series were apples to oranges with the observed being derived from observed SST temperatures in the ocean and the modeled from SAT above the ocean. This comparison would be reasonable if the ocean SST and SAT temperature trends were nearly equal. Unfortunately for the most models this is not the case with the SST trending at a lower rate than that for the ocean SAT – even though it needs to be kept firmly in mind that the ratios of warming vary from model to model for CMIP5. Using the observed SAT ocean temperature appears out of the question due to the lack of spatial and temporal coverage with that measurement and therefore an apples to apples comparison requires using the observed global temperatures as normally observed and comparing it to the models series that uses the SST data. It should be further noted here that the dearth of observed ocean SAT data makes a comparison of the observed ocean SST to SAT trend uncertain even though one would like to determine how well the models on average agree with the observed. The upshot for me is that my modeled to observed comparisons are apples to apples.
The second example of an enlightening for me, at least, came out of my communications with some of the authors of the Karl paper whereby they attempted to show that with the new ocean data set ERSST v4 when combined with the observed global land series the so called global warming hiatus was not statistically significant at a 90% confidence limit. That Karl had nothing to do with the ocean temperature data set adjustments that lead to the authors paper was quickly realized in my discussions as I immediately had doubts that those changes were well understood by the Karl authors with which I exchanged emails. The changes are not simple nor easy to track through to the final effects on the temperature trends. That part of the discussion was mostly ignored in favor of more fundamental issues such as how appropriate it is to use linear regression in determining various period trends and what are the most appropriate time periods to use in a trend comparison to show a warming slow down or lack thereof. The adjustment changes from ERSST vb3 to v4 have remaining interest for me in that HadCRUT makes similar adjustments on the ocean data and comes to significantly different results and without a good explanation of the difference available. Using ocean night time air data to make adjustments in v4 also adds questions with regard to whether the end results is more ocean SAT than ocean SST (as I think it is meant to be).
The real enlightenment for me finally came out of my discussion with the Karl authors on the issue of the secular trend in the global observed temperature series being nonlinear and even nonstationary. I was initially pushing for an analysis using Singular Spectrum Analysis (SAS) and the Karl authors for Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD). What came out of this discussion was that SAS and EMD would provide much the same trend if no added effort was made to identify the reoccurring cyclical components. I find out later with simulations that SAS was not capable of separating the cyclical component in series like that of the new Karl global temperature series, but that EMD and its improvements using ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD) and complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition (CEEMD) can make the separation of the cyclical component and further show that it is statistically significant. This separation was obvious when I was working with the Karl authors and we reached a disagreement on the proper way to show the decomposition of the series. They wanted to combine the cyclical and trend components and call it trend. Separation of trend and cyclical leads to a whole different view of the warming trend that with separation starts around 1900 and with some increase later continues into present time. Subtracting out the reoccurring cyclical component on an approximate reoccurrence of 70 years reduces the trend most attributable to GHG level increases significantly. At this point in our discussion the exchange of emails with the Karl authors from their side ended.
In the mean time I have done some rather detailed analysis using EMD and its variants to separate the components in the 102 model runs of CIMP5 RCP 4.5 scenario global temperature series. I have found that most of those series contained reoccurring cyclical components with lower frequencies – that do not exactly match those from the observed series – and that the trends have similar appearances to the observed series. Overall there are fewer models that can be shown to have trends significantly higher than the observed series than with linear regression, but where generally, as in the observed series, the trending that could be attributed to increasing GHG levels would be smaller and significantly reduce the Equilibrium Sensitivities and the Transient Climate Response calculated from these trends. Interesting also that the models with multiple runs do not show statistically significant differences in trends between runs when the confidence intervals are determined using simulations of an ARMA model of the red and white noise after extracting the separated trend and cyclical components.
I plan to shop my analysis around for at least comments by scientists that I have contacted previously in the climate science community and have thus not given much detail here. There are published papers that cover some of this ground that are readily available to the reading public. My great wonderment at this time is why more climate scientists have not shown more interest in the EMD analysis in either refuting or using the results. It is difficult for me to believe that these scientists are not aware of these methods even though their use is rather new. I could see that some of the Karl authors were getting their feet wet in applying an EMD method – even if not properly in my view.
In ending my post I have to make a comment on the posts that have been made at this blog about the Karl paper of which I feel I am rather well (but not completely) informed wherein some valid information could be extracted from them but where far too many were involved in one-upmanship at a personal level to point of sometimes a vendetta. I know that controlling these battles can be a problem, but I sure that the frequent occurrences can really turn off those who might come to the blog to learn and even contribute some insights and corrections to existing evidence. Need for self control for a poster should be rather obvious when the posts without new information become personal and dominate the entire thread.
I’ve done work with surface data looking at dT/dF where T is temp in F and F is Solar forcing at the station driving that change in temp. It shows it is regional and nonstationary.
I have been shamelessly promoting this.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/
It’s showing measurements from an atmospheric nonlinear temperature regulating functionality based on condensing water vapor under clear calm skies at night..
Forgot the first link https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/
Ken,
Thank you for your interesting and informative comment. I concur with what you say in the final paragraph.
One point about ERSST4. You say:
“Using ocean night time air data to make adjustments in v4 also adds questions with regard to whether the end results is more ocean SAT than ocean SST (as I think it is meant to be).”
On all but sub-decadal timescales, the end resultof the adjustments is that ERSST4 essentially follows HadNMAT2 (and hence reflects SAT not SST) until approaching 2000, when SST starts to have more influence as the average proportion of observations in each grid cell that are from buoys rather than ships becomes significant. IIRC, the buoy observations are more concentrated in particular areas than are ship measurements, so the proportion I refer to is substantially lower than the buoy proportion of the total number of measurements.
Ken, how is it possible for models to contain reoccurring cyclical components similar to those in the observed data? The data may well have inbuilt cycles but the models should not have cycle incorporated into them other than from where they were programmed to copy the preexisting data.
Either you are detecting cycles where they should not exist or someone is playing games with the programmes, inserting natural cycles in the programmes.
Nic, your point on SAT/SST is well taken and as I recall without looking at the data again the HadNMAT2 and v4 series had similar shapes in recent times. I thought at one time I had made the connection between buoy adjustments and the use of night time air temperatures in doing these adjustments, but I cannot recall it now. I also could see interesting periodic trends in the difference plots between v3b and v4 that cried out for an explanation that I could not provide, but that I thought might provide insight into the uncertainty of the adjustments.
I should contact the authors who wrote up the v3b to v4 changes and also those scientists doing adjustments to the HadCRUT ocean series – which leads to different trends than seen in ERSST v4. There are a lot of analyses required here to better understand these adjustments and the end result. Too bad we have only one Nic Lewis.
“The adjustment changes from ERSST vb3 to v4 have remaining interest for me in that HadCRUT makes similar adjustments on the ocean data and comes to significantly different results and without a good explanation of the difference available.”
wrong.
From the Zeke Hausfather paper we have the following comments:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207
Also of interest in the ensemble simulations for noise is the non symmetry around the 50% probability estimate for v4 trends. I have seen this situation in simulations that I have done for other series and without a good explanation for its occurrence.
The lack of a good explanation for data set differences comes from this comment. The authors of the ERSST v3b to v4 had a similar comment in their paper as I recall.
The difference is not significant. It is minor.
Nothing in the science that drives policy cares about these minor differences. Zero.
It’s entirely ordinary to have no explanation for differences that are not significant meaningful or operationally important.
Technicians find these differences interesting but not significant.
Reposted:
Steve Mosher commented:
“The difference is not significant. It is minor.
Nothing in the science that drives policy cares about these minor differences. Zero.
It’s entirely ordinary to have no explanation for differences that are not significant meaningful or operationally important”
And I commented:
The difference in series ending trends for this different data sets is.the motivation for the Karl and Hausfather papers. What am missing here Steven? Are you saying those are not important papers?
Steven Mosher said, March 25, 2017 at 8:38 am:
Wrong:
https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2017/03/25/the-ship-buoy-bias-correction-excuse-hadsst3-and-ersstv4/
This is REALLY INTERESTING. if i have a minute today, i will start a discussion thread on this.
I am attempting to determine or at least rationalize why the ERSST4 global temperature ending series looks so much like the HadNMAT2 when while ship temperatures were adjusted using HadNMAT2 the buoy temperatures were not, at least, directly. The portion of buoy measurement of all measurements have increased dramatically in recent years. The buoy temperatures were adjusted by I am assuming the adding 0.12 degree C from the HadNMAT2 adjusted ship dated. The question I cannot reconcile is does not this assumed path to adjustment mean that the buoy temperatures are in effect adjusted to HadNMAT2.
If the buoy data trends, which are ocean SST, agreed with HadNMAT2, which are ocean SAT assuming that the night and day time SAT trends are nearly the same, without any adjustment to either then the model data that in general shows a larger trend for SAT than SST would not be in line with these observed SST and SAT trends.
I should point out here that the differences between ERSST v4 and ERRST v3b series ending period trends only show as significant when the more conventional least square regression is used to compare the series trends. When the series ending trends for these two series are determined using Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) or the improved version of Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition (EEMD) or Complete Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition the differences are no longer significant and most of differences end up in the red/white noise components.
Therefore to those of you who like me might have been pondering the v4 to v3b differences I would suggest the EMD and its improved version analysis be used to determine trends and to Steve Mosher I would suggest that his statement that there is no significant series trend differences difference is correct, providing that he is referring to an EMD analysis results and that he allows that the HadSST3 to v4 differences are like the v3b to v4 differences. I would have a difficult time making that interpretation of Mosher comments posted above as I would many of his posts that I find a bit too much like quips and not direct replies.
Angech: Ken, how is it possible for models to contain reoccurring cyclical components similar to those in the observed data?
Recurrent or cyclical components can emerge from the inherent nonlinearities in the system.
kenfritsch: I plan to shop my analysis around for at least comments by scientists that I have contacted previously in the climate science community and have thus not given much detail here
I look forward to reading a fuller version of your paper.
My great wonderment at this time is why more climate scientists have not shown more interest in the EMD analysis in either refuting or using the results.
The fields of climate science and statistical time series analysis are rather vast, and few people have sufficient relevant expertise in both fields. Even the use of extreme value distributions in modeling extremes has been applied very recently, but only by a few researchers in climate science, and they are more than a century old. Even the concept that the climate system might not be stationary or in a steady-state comes as news to some otherwise well-informed people.
It’s telling that anyone would think it’s ever in a steady state, it’s asymmetrical in multiple dimensions and over time.
And why oh why is that the first thing anyone does with data is average all of the dynamics out of it?
Dr. Curry, my comments on the subject are many and can be found on my blog post here: http://co2doom.com/blog/2017/3/24/house-science-committee-hearing-next-week-what-will-we-learn
I think this is a good opportunity for you to tell policymaker Lamar Smith that climate science is not a fraud.
You can’t promote a better interface between science and policy until you open his mind.
I’m guessing it is more a matter that Smith hears all the weasel words, and knows there’s a lot of smoke getting blown by some. All while wanting a lot of big checks signed.
“I think this is a good opportunity for you to tell policymaker Lamar Smith that climate science is not a fraud.”
Getting worried are you, Mosher?
Climate science isn’t, but climate “science” such as Mannipulating temperatiure databases using AlGoreithms in order to cool the past and warm the present in accordance with the directives of your political masters most definitely is – as I’m sure the open-minded Representative Smith is very well aware.
Have you heard that old saying about being able to fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time?
Your time’s up.
Worries. . Btc is above 1000.. no worries.
Pingback: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/03/24/house-science-committee-to-hold-climate-change-hearing-from-which-well-learn-nothing/?utm_term=.3dd232bc8ad5 | Bruce's Blog
Pingback: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/03/24/house-science-committee-to-hold-climate-change-hearing-from-which-well-learn-nothing/?utm_term=.3dd232bc8ad5 | Bruce's Blog
Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method
I’d recommend that you avoid abstract discussions of what constitutes “true” scientific method, and focus on specifics relevant to the climate change and CO2 relationships.
Make a list of 8 – 12 important bullet points, present the best available recent quantitative estimate, and the best confidence intervals.
for example:
A. Earth surface mean temp has risen about 1.25 C over about the past 135 years, give or take 0.25 C (of course, you will choose what you think are the best values.)
B. The increase in temperature has been accompanied by an increase in CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 400 ppm (plus some uncertainty limits.)
C. The net change in precipitation over that time has been an increase of 3% – 6%
D. Doubling the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is projected to producve warming of about 1.5C (range 0.5 – 3.5C), but again your judgment of best estimates, with references.
E. Doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration, if it happens at all, will take 150 years (give or take about 50).
F. Increased atmospheric CO2 will change ocean pH from about 8 (+/- 0.5 across the ocean regions) to about 7.7 (+/- 0.5, across the ocean regions.) it will not change the ocean to vinegar or dissolve chalk.
G. Increased upper ocean CO2 concentration has been shown to enhance the growth of populations of organisms for which CO2 (and derivative compounds) is an ingredient.
H. Increased CO2 since around 1880 has enhanced terrestrial and marine plant growth where these have been measured.
I. warming since 1880 has produced no measurable change in intensity, duration or frequency of cyclonic storms.
And so on. These are illustrations of the style that I am recommending. I don’t propose exactly these bullet points.
All with references, estimates of main effects, and estimates of uncertainties. Quote the peer-reviewed literature. Avoid abstractions and stay close to data. We have way too many abstract presentations of proper decision analysis and so on. For each bullet, list as well something important that remains uninvestigated or otherwise poorly known.
Do not address Michael Mann. Usually he contradicts what he has previously written and engages in ad hominems. You can leave it to others to document the contradictions, if he purveys any.
Lamar is convinced that climate science isnt a science.
Judith, Pielke and Christy should not be amused.
But they wont say anything.
truth to power ya know
Grow up Steven. If Smith really believes that, it is because of those scientists who have pushed the theme that climate change is a serious and immediate threat to human kind. Has it occurred to you that by presenting information in a professional manner, Dr’s Curry, Pielke and Christy might adjust Congressman Smith’s view of climate science?
So Smith is not responsible for his beliefs. Someone made him believe nonsense.
> If Smith really believes that, it is because of those scientists
Scientists Made Lamar Do It
Alternatively to these statements, you can reference IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM and then list which items you disagree with in there and why.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
Being as it is about the scientific method, disagreements would need scientific arguments not just bluster.
Jim D: Alternatively to these statements, you can reference IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM and then list which items you disagree with in there and why.
Not too bad an idea, but the SPM is biased toward sensationalism, and AR5 is outdated.
Also, my idea would be to illustrate the uncertainties with all the main points with the actual best estimates of the uncertainties and principal parameters — not to highlight her disagreements. Disagreements with AR5 SPM can be brought up if questioners cite it.
It is not biased towards sensationalism. Many say it is too dry and conservative because it caters to the middle.
The SPM for AR5 is actually quite sober (and sobering). However, this is in sharp contrast to stark and scary language used in previous SPMs.
I’m happy they seem to have learned their lesson. I would not be quick to judge skeptics who remember past performances.
AR5 SPM figure 5 says that all the forcings since 1750 are anthropogenic, except for a negligibly small variation in direct solar irradiance. Moreover, they seem to claim that only forcing can cause warming (see figure 6).This is ridiculously biased as an assessment of the science because they are ignoring numerous major potential causes of warming. See my prior post:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/29/refocusing-the-usgcrp/.
How many of those other mechanisms also lead to a positive imbalance?
Here’s a nutshell on chapter two:
“Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability”
“There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
Seems like the IPCC says there’s no evidence of climate change but people keep saying so anyway.
The temperature rise has only now passed 1 C. Most of the time it has been less and the reliable data also doesn’t go far enough back for assessments of climate-change statistics, especially for extreme events. That is not to say that at 3-4 C there wouldn’t be some major effects on extremes, and most people would reasonably expect them.
Mathew,
Those are good points. I would like to see some of TE points that CO2 emissions go down in US as economy develops and family size reduces.
Also the point that third world poverty and dung fires in huts contribute to real health impacts all over the world.
Higher priorities are sewage treatment, clean water and economic development with affordable fossil fuels.
Scott
I like this approach and particularly in ignoring exchanges with Mann – he gets way too much attention and becomes a distraction in discussions.
I think you should have the courage of your convictions. The US emits 6,900 million metric tonnes CO2-eq/year. What should be done when faced with uncertain futures?
Land use and forestry are a significant sink.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-05/sources-lulucf.png
US soils have lost 80 +/- 14.4 billion metric tons of CO2-eq. Some 390 million tonnes have been returned to soils. Small bikkies but a start.
http://www.c-agg.org/cm_vault/files/docs/Chambers_Paustian_Lal_Soil_Carbon_and_4_per_1000-1.pdf
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/us-soil-conservation.png
And of course there is always a natural gas-advanced nuclear transition.
Pingback: Lamar Smith lays out political strategy at climate conference | Tallbloke's Talkshop
A Washington Post preview of the hearing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/03/24/house-science-committee-to-hold-climate-change-hearing-from-which-well-learn-nothing/?utm_term=.43dcf0f6de66
It is certainly true that author Samenow will learn nothing. He says this: “The hearing, titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method,” is an act of gamesmanship from a body intent on manufacturing doubt on scientific issues which have long been settled.”
“Samenow” is too funny. No doubt? I doubt it.
I think he has it right. They’ll all gang up on Mann, and that will be the aim of the show.
Huffington Post on the hearing. GOP Congressman Turns Science Committee Into Platform For His Own Anti-Science Views –
Rep. Lamar Smith has invited three climate change skeptics to discuss the issue at a hearing this week.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-house-science-committee-us_us_58d94964e4b02a2eaab64c3b?
Alarmst claims about warming since the 1800s are ignoring their own conflicting argument about the Medieval Warming Period not being a global event because it was not “multi-decadal”. There were several coolings after the 1800s which would seem to disqualify the claims of current global warming, if that same argument is used by alarmsts against the MWP. In fact, the most recent cooling (only recently acknowledged by alarmists) was from the 1940s to about 1975. Since that ends any claim of an earlier period being globally warmed, the only warming the alarmists can now hang their hat on is the period from 1975 to 1998. However, even that appears to have ended, at least according to satellite (RSS) data which shows no statistically significant warming since 1998. (That’s hardly cherry picked, since it spans the most recent two el Ninos.)
There are also other reasons why 1800s warming cannot be blamed on fossil fuel burning. Our current warming period (such as it is) actually began at the first low temperature experienced during the LIA, by definition, which would be in the mid 1600s. That’s two centuries before our industrial revolution and also before co2 began rising. Even in the mid 1800s, co2, at about 2ppmv per year, would not have registered any impact on thermometers for many decades. That early warming beginning at the first low point in the LIA had to have been NATURAL, until almost the 1900s.
Phil Jones (one of the original players during the ClimateGate exposure) admitted publicly, that “if the MP was a global event, then that’s a whole new ballgame.” That admission was because co2 level had not yet increased, so the warming must have been caused by other NATURAL forces. (Also, the computer models cannot explain it. They need increasing co2 level.) Finally, and not to be taken lightly, there is the ClimateGate email which suggested that “we must get rid of the MWP”.
If the MWP was global and as warm, likely warmer, and co2 had not yet moved off the dime, that warming had to have been NATURAL, which renders those “scientists” noncredible who claimed “there is no other reason for this warming”. It is entirely possible, and perhaps likely, that our current warming might also have been caused by NATURAL forces.
Finallhy, an amateur looks at some of the exsting evidence demonstrating that the MWP was global, and was warmer than it is now.
First, there is data from 6,000+ boreholes. Boreholes are spread around the globe and can pick up temperatures anywhere, so not restricted to just those locals where ice core data is available. Check Joanne Nova’s website for a thorough analysis of the borehole data. Dr. David Evans is Joanne’s spouse and is well acquainted with climate modeling. In any event, the borehole data speaks for itself and conclusively shows that the MWP trend was global.
Next, there is the Greenland (gisp2) study (google it) which indicates that Greenland also experienced the MWP trend. That study also shows that it was warmer during the MWP than it has been since. Please note that Greenland is remote from Europe where the MWP is a well -documented event. The graphs depicted in early IPCC presentations also recognized that the MWP was warmer than now.
Next, the receding Mendenhall glacier (Alaska) recently exposed a shattered 1,000 year-old forest, still in its original position. No trees have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since then. That region obviously experienced the MWP trend, and it had to have been warmer back then than it is now. Alaska is remote from both Greenland and Europe.
There are hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies, many of which (?perhaps most) are cataloged by co2science.org. These studies are independent of co2science.org, and were performed by 40+ countries involving numerous researchers and organizations. Co2science merely acts as a librarian, offering names, organizations, and summaries. A subset of these studies specifically address temperatures. Co2science also provides links to the various studies by region. Interested readers may pick a small sample of such studies, being sure that each is remote from all others selected and in different regions than Alaska, Greenland, and Europe. Don’t forget the Africa, New Zealand, and South America in the southern hemisphere. (I’ll leave this exercise for the interested readers.) These studies confirm the borehole data, and vice-versa, which demonstrates that the MWP was global and as warm, likely warmer than now.
Compare this large collection of studies with Mann’s “hockey stick” which has been debunked and proceeded as if all that conflicting data did not exist. (You need lots of $$ to get away with that.). Mann used 12 trees. McIntyre used 30+ trees which contradicted Mann’s study. How could any scientist not have first reconciled his conflicting results before making such a declaration?
Are you going to believe Mann’s hockey stick graph or your own lying eyes?
I think you should just show them this graph and explain that no matter how much we spend, the probability is that spending will be wasted on bureaucracy. Who needs that? Let’s spend money on infrastructure instead.
Link to chart: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7qn6rMVAAEqMmP.jpg:large
Pingback: House Science Committee Hearing – Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method | privateclientweb
2016 GMT highest on record. Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent at record lows. Global average sea level rise unabated.
I wonder what they will discuss in the hearing?
Harry – I cannot help but speculate that Judith’s “white paper” for the GWPF on “climate models for laymen” may be mentioned?
“A Report on the State of the Arctic in 2017”
Lamar Smith et al. certainly seem to qualify as laymen, and Judith’s conclusion that:
“There is growing evidence that climate models are running too hot and that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is at the lower end of the range provided by the IPCC.”
will no doubt be grist to their climate science bashing mill next Wednesday.
Alternatively perhaps I merely have a hyperactive imagination?
JH
I vote b. alternatively speaking. :<)
Scott
“Growing evidence”?
Well that is a easy one. Produce the “growing evidence”. Let other peer climate scientists look at the “growing evidence” and give their evaluation and conclusion.
I still have a tiny amount of hope that the hearing won’t just be a science-bashing exercise. But considering the Republican witness stack, that is a very tiny hope.
It will be an ironic situation having credentialed scientists bashing science.
Here’s evidence it’s lower than their minimum CS
http://wp.me/p5VgHU-2A
Peer review it all you want.
And a picture of measurements for those to lazy to click the link
https://micro6500blog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/1997-daily-cooling-sample-zoom-with-inset1.png
Since you asked Micro, click this link:
Greenhouse Effect Explanations”
then watch the videos. Then explain what you think your experiment proves.
It shows exactly what I said it shows.
They are measurements, what do you think it shows? The problem Jim, is you don’t understand the emergent behavior is an active regulator.
Micro – I asked “what you think your experiment proves”, not “what it shows”.
You’re right, I don’t understand what “the emergent behavior is an active regulator” means. Please feel free to explain it to me slowly.
How we might have narrowly avoided glaciers returning to bury NYC under a mile of ice?
Most likely they will point out that only 3 years ago Antarctic sea ice was at “record” high and warmists were falling all over themselves dreaming up excuses why sea ice was at “record” highs. Apparently those excuses were not accurate since only 36 months later we are no longer at “record” highs.
Funny how sea level rise is still doing what it has been doing since fishermen left their docks 4,000 years ago in Jaffa, Israel. If you hold your breath long enough Arctic sea ice will be turning around as well.
Nothing unprecedented in any of the 3 instances.
Most likely that is what Judith and the other 2 bright ones will say.
“In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.” AR4 4.2.2.1
And what caused late 20th century warming? If real?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/wong2006figure7.gif
There are far more fundamental issues. Has there been any warming this century that isn’t ENSO and cloud related.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/argo.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed2-8_anom_toa_shortwave_flux-all-sky_march-2000toseptember-20161.png
Something a little bit more sophisticated than the 2016 surface temperature spike – if real – one would hope.
It shows up in the surface data, and these sensitivity graphs are based on measured solar, and land surface station records, not the junk published as temperature series.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/
Here’s the change in measured sensitivity to the day to day change in solar.
https://micro6500blog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/latband_n20-30_sensitivity.png
And
https://micro6500blog.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/1980-series1.png
You can see the step in temps, it just follows the increase in dew point as the amo went positive.
Oh, I needed to note the sensitivity was for the band of 20 to 30 N Lat
I have some simple graphs. Argo to 1900m with a 13 month running mean and showing the annual variability due to north/south asymmetry. Net top of atmosphere outward energy and ocean heat in the 1990’s from ocean temps and ERBS data. Shortwave up from CERES which shows less energy out in the last couple of years due to cloud.
I don’t have a clue what you are on about. Your graphs are poorly formatted, axes are unlabeled and data series labels are unexplained. Everything is inexplicable. Sensitivity to what for instance? Generally science builds on ideas – and a presentation without citations raises doubts. At the very least it needs to be in a traditional scientific format to facilitate communication. There is nothing in this as of now that remotely suggests credibility.
I do know that it is the oceans and not the atmosphere that regulates climate – so I suspect it is all nonsense. In general and on average both CO2 and water vapour concentrations will be higher in the atmosphere and energy content will be higher as well. But at any rate – I am too simple minded to keep bothering with this.
Everything is obvious, or there is a link to someplace that tries to explain it. For instance, the X axis is marked by the modern era, do i need to tell you it’s years? Temp in F, Rel humidity in %? The sensitivity is complex, why I led with a link. It’s all my work, based on NCDC surface data, and a few other published data sources (sat tsi, and the Aus field data), all listed. I provide all the data I chart, as well as the code if you’d like to verify the numbers.
Yes I calculate values and give them funny labels, but most of the time I am not doing the same thing as everyone else, do we really need another group adjusting temps to estimate the temp for someplace that has never been measured?
And I present data, based on measurements.
But I did figure out clear sky cooling has an emergent nonlinear cooling phenomenon, that is effectively a dew point temperature based regulator, and over land extra Co2 warming doesn’t really raise dew points.
I know so far, almost none of you have a fricking clue what I keep talking about, but I’ll keep trying to explain it, and sooner or later people will figure it out, and slap themselves in the forehead.
And yes this chart doesn’t have an X-axis, I have tried. But it’s 3 and a half clear days, temps go up at sunrise, and they peak late in the afternoon, and net radiation is negative after the Sun has set.
https://micro6500blog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/1997-daily-cooling-sample-zoom-with-inset1.png
Y Unit’s are Temp F, Rel Humidity %, and Net Radiation in W/m2
Judith Curry, I have a comment in moderation.
I’ve completed my written testimony, I will post it Wednesday once the Hearing has commenced.
We’ll be rooting for you.
https://media.giphy.com/media/dnP2VxYVlW2NW/giphy.gif
97% of creation scientists believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
True believers are attracted to the field.
Which of you wants to be the first m0r0n to claim that climate scientists were climate skeptics before they became scientists?
Retired Rear Admiral David Titley has his popcorn at the ready:
“Should Climate Scientists Boycott Congressional Hearings?”
Despite sending many skilled science communicators to testify at the hearings over the years and even when scoring tactical victories, the strategic effect of participating at these hearings has been to sustain the perception of false equivalence, a perception only exaggerated by the majority’s ability to select a grossly disproportionate number of witnesses far removed from mainstream science.
David explicitly includes Judith in that final category!
Jim Hunt.
Yes, I have the sinking feeling that “false equivalence” is the point of these hearings. Also it doesn’t matter how good the testimony is, it will just be written off as the work of “the conspiracy”.
But Dr Mann is not shy about fronting up anyway, his choice and more power to him. He has his own style when it comes to advocacy and getting his point across.
Mann will walk out. is this allowed?
Angech – Absolutely not. Lamar Smith will have him strapped into a comfy chair!
https://youtu.be/7WJXHY2OXGE
Will the hearing be televised?
I couldn’t find a link at cspan.org.
I would love to watch the hearing.
Anyone have a link to the hearing live?
Here it is:
https://youtu.be/WM86Bl4jSEI
NOAAGate part 2 Cap!
Pingback: House Science Committee Hearing Pits Three Fringe Climate Deniers Against Mainstream Climate Scientist Michael Mann – Enjeux énergies et environnement
Pingback: This Famous Climate Scientist Just Endured A Washington Inquisition – Brain Sock
Pingback: This Famous Climate Scientist Just Endured A Washington Inquisition - Big Box of Action