by Judith Curry
On the previous two threads, we had a lively, rollicking, illuminating and often frustrating discussion on the physics of the greenhouse effect. On this thread, I try to synthesize the main issues and arguments that were made and pull some of what I regard to be the highlights from the comments.
Posted in Greenhouse effect
by Judith Curry
On the thread building confidence in climate models , a small amount of text was devoted to verification and validation (V&V). In raising the level of the game, I included the following bullet:
• Fully documented verification and validation of climate models
Posted in climate models
This is a wide open thread, discuss whatever you like here. I am starting this new thread in an effort to keep the threads on greenhouse effect and skeptics make your best case on topic. Please keep your comments that are not directly relevant to these two topics off those threads, and post them over here. I will start deleting extraneous comments from the other two threads. Thanks for your cooperation in this.
p.s. I am really pleased to see the discussion interest transitioning from climategate to the actual science :)
Posted in Open thread
by Judith Curry
The skeptics thread has shown that it is plausible to be skeptical of a number of issues regarding the findings of IPCC WG1. However, whether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible.
Posted in Greenhouse effect
by Judith Curry
The Italian flag (IF) is a representation of three-valued logic in which evidence for a proposition is represented as green, evidence against is represented as red, and residual uncertainty is represented as white. The white area reflects uncommitted belief, which can be associated with uncertainty in evidence or unknowns.
Posted in Scientific method, Uncertainty
by Judith Curry
There has been considerable interesting discussion on the previous thread. I plan to follow up with thread on verification and validation of climate models, and am pondering how to deal with explaining the greenhouse effect. On this thread, I would like to see discussion on this thread focus on the following:
Posted in Open knowledge
This thread provides an opportunity to put forth skeptical arguments related to the topics broadly covered by the IPCC WG I Report The Physical Science Basis. This thread is designed for academic and other professional researchers as well as citizen scientists.
Posted in Skeptics
by Judith Curry
Documenting, understanding and predicting climate variability and change is an issue of substantial scientific and socioeconomic importance. The IPCC put forth a strategy for assessing the science that is based upon reducing uncertainty and building a consensus. This consensus was used to convince the public and policy makers of the IPCC’s scientific findings, which were linked with the UNFCCC treaties and policies to urge action on carbon stabilization. The partial success of this strategy was reflected by the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC.
Failures of this strategy in terms of the actual science are to overly focus the science on one aspect of the climate problem, marginalize dissenting voices, polarize the scientific community, and alienate a large segment of the educated public who have the desire, interest, logic, and often the mathematical and physical science skills to understand and even contribute to the science.
Posted in Open knowledge
by Terry Oldberg
This essay continues the argument which I initiated in Part I. To summarize, in Part I, I described a kind of model that was a procedure for making inferences. One kind of inference was a prediction from a known state of nature called a “condition” to an uncertain state of nature called an “outcome.” Conditions and outcomes were both examples of abstracted states. I pointed out that sets of conditions of infinite number could be defined on the Cartesian product space of a model’s independent variables and that each of these sets defined a different model. Thus, models of infinite number were candidates for being built.
Posted in Scientific method
by Judith Curry
The anniversary of Climategate has engendered much reflection on the climate change issue, specifically with regard to communicating and engaging with the public.
Posted in Communication
by Judith Curry
The previous thread is getting unwieldly, there seems to still be much interest in discussing this, and there are some new interesting articles that I’ve spotted:
Posted in Ethics
By Terry Oldberg
Introduction
In building climate models, climatologists generalize. Can the means by which they generalize be improved?
Yes they can. The means can be improved by replacement of intuitive rules of thumb called “heuristics” by the principles of reasoning.
Posted in Scientific method
by Judith Curry
On this one year anniversary of the unauthorized release of the emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, there have been a number of articles reflecting on what the impact of this has been on both science and policy, and what we might have learned.
Posted in Ethics
by Judith Curry
Here is further explanation why I think Michael’s testimony is significant, and why I think the issue of the attribution since 1950 will be the battleground in U.S. CO2 policy. Michaell’s stated purpose for conducting this analysis was:
Posted in Attribution
by Judith Curry
Pat Michael’s testimony has been generating significant controversy, both in the hearing and in the blogosphere.
Posted in Attribution
At the end of the Hearing Charter, under The Response section, is the following statement:
Posted in Policy
STATEMENT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Hearing on “Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response”
Posted in Policy, Uncertainty
Several people have asked for a new open thread. I hope that people can bring me up to date with what is going on elsewhere in the blogosphere, since I haven’t had time to check. I will have time starting next Friday to engage more in the comments and get back to writing some technical threads.
Posted in Open thread
by Judith Curry
Of the four IPCC assessment reports, I think the first assessment report (FAR) presents the case with the greatest clarity.
Since the FAR was published 20 years ago, it is worth taking a look to see how their conclusions and levels of confidence and uncertainty have stood up to the test of time.
Posted in Uncertainty
by Judith Curry
Some breaking news. I received an email from the House of Representatives staffer who invited me to participate:
Just an FYI – Republicans will be inviting a witness for each panel. This is a change from the usual practice of one witness per hearing, regardless of the number of panels.
Now this makes it much more interesting. I have no idea who else has been asked. Place your bets, make your recommendations!
Posted in Policy
Climate Etc. has now attracted a critical (and growing) mass of “regulars.” I would like to try what Jeff Id did over at the Air Vent on his Reader Background thread. I will eventually provide a button for this thread on the top bar (next to blog rules), so it is easy to refer to (and add to).
Posted in Welcome
by Judith Curry
On Nov 17, the U.S. House of Representative’s Committee on Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment is holding a hearing on “Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response.”
Posted in Policy
by Mike Zajko
This post addresses an issue that has been coming up recurrently since the start of this blog. I hope it might be a way to step back and reflect on the nature of science in general, as well as a place where we can think about the methods applied in climate science more specifically. I’ve broken the following down into sections that can be read together or individually. I’m hoping for come good discussion of these and additional approaches to the scientific method.
Posted in Scientific method
by Judith Curry
Many climate scientists have stopped engaging with skeptics, because they think it is either pointless or they don’t want to lend legitimacy to the skepticism. Those who think it is pointless seem mostly interested in protecting their time. Those who view this as lending legitimacy to skeptics would seem to be acting in accord with IPCC/UNFCCC ideology.
