Christopher Booker has a new article in the The Telegraph called Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming. The title alone should be enough to convince anyone sensible that it isn’t really worth reading. I, however, not being sensible, read it and then called Booker an idiot on Twitter. It was suggested that rather than insulting him, I should show where he was wrong. Okay, this isn’t really right, as there’s only so much time and effort available, and it isn’t really worth spending it rebutting Booker’s nonsense.
However, thanks to a tweet from Ed Hawkins, it turns out that it is really easy to do. Booker shows data from a site in Paraguay (Puerto Casado) in which the data was adjusted from a trend of -1.37o C per century to +1.36o C per century. Shock, horror, a conspiracy? No, if you go to the actual station data you notice a couple of things that are illustrated in the figure below (credit : Berkeley Earth).
Unadjusted station data for Puerto Casado, Paraguay (credit : Berkeley Earth)
What the figure above shows is a number of data points that fail quality control, and it also shows two stations moves; one just after 1970, and the other just after 2005. Given that anomalies are determined relative to some long-term baseline, you have to remove any data points that fail quality control, and you need to adjust the temperatures to account for station moves (or for other non-climatic influences, such as time of observation changes).
If you look again at the information for this station the trend before adjustments was -1.37oC per century, after quality control it was -0.89oC per century, and after adjusting for the station moves was +1.36oC per century. Also, if you consider the same region for the same months, the trend is +1.37oC per century, and for the country for the same months it is +1.28oC per century. So, not only can one justify the adjustments, the result of the adjustments is consistent with what would be expected for that region and for the country.
Of course, this is really Victor Venema’s area of expertise, so I should probably double check with Victor before drawing any final conclusions. As it stands, however, it does appear that my initial assessment that Christopher Booker is an idiot was justified.
Update 4/2/2015 : It’s come to my attention that some are claiming that this post is misleading my readers. I’m not quite sure why, but it appears to be related to me not having given proper credit for the information that Christopher Booker used in his article. I had thought that linking to his article would allow people to establish that for themselves, but – just to be clear – the idiotic, conspiracy-laden, nonsense originates from someone called Paul Homewood, and not from Chistopher Booker himself. Okay, everyone happy now? 😀
...and Then There's Physics 
Amateurs! With so many stations to chose from, they should have been able to find some where the non-climatic changes are not documented and could only be determined statistically by comparison with its neighboring stations. In the mitigation-sceptic speak that is called “no evidence” (at least in the last similarly stupid case with two stations in Australia). But, no, they have to chose a station where all breakpoints (non-climatic changes) are due to known station moves.
Christopher Booker: “To fill in the huge gaps, those compiling the records have resorted to computerised “infilling” or “homogenising””
Amateurs! There are more than enough mitigation sceptics what would have been willing to edit this article and who do know the difference between filling missing data & removing non-climatic effects (“homogenising”).
Christopher Booker: “This belief [that temperatures has suddenly taken a great leap upwards] has rested entirely on five official data records. Three of these are based on measurements taken on the Earth’s surface, versions of which are then compiled by Giss, by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit working with the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, part of the UK Met Office. The other two records are derived from measurements made by satellites, and then compiled by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California and the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH).”
Amateurs! Booker thinks he is smarter than all scientists working on the quality of the station datasets, but he does not know the database of BEST.
Furthermore, both the dataset of BEST and the one of the Climatic Research Unit and the one of the International Surface Temperature Initiative contain large amounts of data that are not from GHCN. And he conveniently forgets the dozens of national weather services that all have their own temperature datasets, that all show an upward trend.
The scandals mentioned by Brooker in New Zealand and Australia are long debunked. Does that really need to be repeated? Just look on HotWhopper. Is he referring the to report of Anthony Watts? After which Anthony Watts co-authored Fall et al. with showed that the report of Anthony Watts was wrong?
ATTP: “As it stands, however, it does appear that my initial assessment that Christopher Booker is an idiot was justified.”
As a climate scientist I can naturally not agree with such a statement. But he does give the impression of being an idiot.
Maybe I should add, the problem is not Booker. On any topic you can find people with the most outlandish opinions. It is the job of a newspaper, of The Telegraph in this case, to make sure that these people do not become columnists. It is fine to write about them, but then the way you would also do about people who deny that HIV causes AIDS.
I call on all sensible people to stop buying The Telegraph. That is the only way to stop this.
Victor,
I agree. The Telegraph is not a tabloid, but a major British broadsheet. That it continues to allow a columnist who is regularly wrong does not reflect well on them if their goal is to present an honest representation of our understanding of a complex topic.
Amateurism may mitigate idiocy.
What are Brooker’s sources?
ATTP, the Telegraph has a tradition broadsheet anti-science to maintain to cling onto their ageing readership. It paid a rumoured six figure sum for Booker’s slur on Pachauri. It kept Delingpole on the books. It also has some good science too. But it is in the “fair balanced” reporting corner. For every piece of good writing we shall print some wingnuttery. Booker is a multiple count fruitcake who attracts flies.
These people are not idiots. They are driven by ideology, either pilitical or religious, and in their desire to be right they are willing to go to whatever lengths they can justify to show their enemies to be wrong. It doesn’t really matter if the specific attack is innacurate or flawed, what matters is stopping the enemy. They KNOW ACC is a scam, so it is justifiable to do anything to stop it.
Scratching my own itch:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/notalotofpeopleknowthat/
notalotofpeopleknowthat has not been mentioned in Brooker’s piece.
I just hate when people use their real names to hide their noms de plume.
If one hypothesised that Christopher Booker were an idiot, one would need evidence of a pattern of idiocy in his writing, not just one such instance.
Ah.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4550448/Charles-Darwin-zealots-have-made-science-a-substitute-religion.html
Oh dear.
Booker is often wrong but no more often than, say, yer typical Guardian eco columnist. Should all sensible people also boycott the Guardian?
Vinny – nonsense. You’ve utterly failed in the past to give convincing examples of where the ‘typical Guardian eco columnist’ is genuinely wrong about the science.
How about ‘typical poster at Tony’s”, Vinny?
Tony,
Possibly, although I prefer to think people like Booker are idiots than fundamentally dishonest. I may, of course, be wrong.
Vinny,
I’m sure we’ve done this before and – IIRC – the Guardian columnists you claimed to be wrong, weren’t quite as wrong as you first suggested.
Booker could make David Rose look sane.
he argues that asbestos, passive smoking[2] and BSE[8] have not been shown to be dangerous
In December 2009, Christopher Booker and Richard North had published an article in The Sunday Telegraph in which they questioned whether Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was using his position for personal gain,[27][28][29][30] with a follow-up Telegraph article in January 2010.[31] On 21 August 2010,The Daily Telegraph issued an apology,[28] and withdrew the December article from their website[29] having reportedly paid legal fees running into six figures
Booker has also argued in support of intelligent design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker#Views_on_science
> They are driven by ideology […]
I prefer the gut theory:
Tune-in at 2:30.
[Chill, or I send Gremlins. – W]
Booker has a long history of being wrong – on climate, evolution, asbestos – and of very poor reporting (a judge criticised his reporting of a family case where Booker made no effort to check what he was writing was true and did not attend the court).
Booker’s reply would be that he’s not a scientist. Well, if you’re not an expert, thinking you can do better than one is usually a bad idea.
The Telegraph website currently simultaneously features both this latest nonsense from Booker and the recent NOAA multi-age sea ice decline animation. A recent editorial seemed to welcome the US/China emissions agreement. The Telegraph doesn’t seem to know what it thinks and is catering to all views. That can’t go on.
Christopher Booker was at one time something of a ‘national treasure in-waiting’ in Britain. A humorist, author and journalist, he founded ‘Private Eye’ and was a key contributor to ‘That Was The Week That Was’ in the sixties—both benchmark satirical publications that have done a lot of good in puncturing the pomposity of the British establishment. So he was a worthy candidate for a mainstream newspaper columnist. Where of course he has carte blanche to deliver his own opinions.
The problem is he’s now using his position as a columnist to publicise increasingly crackpot views. So as well as rejecting climate science he also questions the scientific consensus on the link between passive smoking and cancer, the dangers posed by asbestos, and even evolution. In other words—despite having no training in science—he has a rather arrogant belief in his own superior understanding of issues and seems quick to condemn those whose views contradict his own.
Sad really; I was once quite appreciative of the guy.
Read more about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker
Why not? It’s perfectly fine and even desirable that all columnists do not agree with the views of the newspaper.
I have, however, learned long ago to give little weight even on the writings of the editorial staff of The Telegraph. At one time I did follow more closely finance and economics and concluded that Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, in particular, wrote regularly articles that seemed to be highly one-sided and selective in the selection of facts. He was then, and is now. working for The Telegraph as a member of editorial staff.
Can someone explain this?:
I read this:
it has been no greater than their upward leaps between 1860 and 1880, and 1910 and 1940, as part of that gradual natural warming since the world emerged from its centuries-long “Little Ice Age” around 200 years ago.
And I read this:
As near as I can tell, he’s saying that there has been an overall warming trend for the last two hundred years even as there has been a cooling trend overall, and in particular in Australia, for the last 80 years.
Is this more of: “Skeptics” don’t doubt that it’s warming and that anthropogenic CO2 emissions contribute to the warming, but there it is actually cooling and we can’t measure trends anyway and there is no such thing as global warming because averaged temperatures aren’t scientifically valid but there has been a pause in the trend of warming while last year was warm but not as warm as recent previous years and we know that the recent trend of warming was less than trends of earlier periods which can’t be measured because there aren’t enough data and the methodology is unscientific?
Something tells me that Booker might be a (f)rightwinger?
Not that his ideology might be instructive as to his views on matters of science.
I’m not sure the term idiot is warranted, or to be more precise, the term has a variety of meanings:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
Perhaps ATTP would articulate further the specific combinations of attributes come to mind?
After all, by writing such things, Booker presumably gets paid and retains a position in British society, whereas if he actually wrote about science, it’s unclear that his level if competence displayed would suffice for anyone to care.
This if course is a characteristic of many pseudoskeptics in US, UK, Canada, Australia, NZ, although via different publishers.
I think there is a distinction between fundamentally dishonest and ideological commitment. The lies and inaccuracies are ONLY to stop the enemy, and not necessarily to deceive. the deception is only to support the higher truth that ACC is a part of a conspiracy to (fill in the evil motivation).
Now I also believe there are opportunists who are quite aware they are being deceptive and that it is not justified. and most likely there is a spectrum between these extremes…………
aaaaaaand plenty of idiots who just accept what they are told with no interest or understanding of the issues involved, but I don’t think they are the ones writing blogs or media editorials.
Those who like “idiot” might also like:
OPatrick, ATTP, here’s John Abraham in The oceans are warming so fast, they keep breaking scientists’ charts:
It is?
Oh. Sorry. I forgot. Semantic quibbles aren’t allowed on this blog. (Except when they are.)
Other recent Graun examples, then: Kilimanjaro ice, Walport’s fracking thalidomide and sea levels rising faster than previously thought.
(And some fun faves from the past: tigers in the Virungas, mammalian dragonflies and someone from the past reporting on something in the future that has already ended.)
Willard, will you please explain ‘Willard Tony’. I have finally worked out who he is but have no idea why you call him that.
John M.,
To be fair, that was mainly because I RT’d his article, called him an idiot, and was challenged for being insulting. So, it’s quite possible that it isn’t the right descriptor, but he is at least wrong.
Tony,
Yes, you’re probably right, although I think I’d be I find the idea of being ideologically committed almost as disturbing as being dishonest. I’d rather just be wrong.
Booker (and many other pseudoskeptics) could play an equivalent role for the cigarette companies. I just saw this today, but in 2013 the Daily Mail reproted t’s never too late to quit! Birthday girl Clara finally gives up smoking at the age of 102 – after puffing on 60,000 cigarettes. Now of course she was a light smoker (a pack a day would be 7000+/year) and we find:
“Daughter Lynda Fowler, 69, who lives in Ontario, Canada, said: ‘The secret to mum’s long life is a cigarette and a cup of tea with whisky. That and hard work and poverty. She’s an inspiration.'”
Of course, it turns out she died in 2014
Following the usual cherry-picking strategy:
1) The claims of health damage from smoking are clearly exaggerated by the cabal of medical researchers who manipulate statistics to claim smoking causes disease.
2) She smoked 80+ years and was just fine, living far longer than most people, but after quiting smoking, died within a year and half. I’d think, via Booker logic, that could not be coincidence and this is strong proof of 1). 🙂
Vinny,
Yes, scientifically this is correct. Semantically, we often associate global warming only with the surface temperatures, but fundamentally it is really an increase in the total amount of energy in the entire system.
I think his name is Anthony Willard Watts.
ATTP: ‘To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases.’
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
I suppose it all comes down to what Abraham meant by ‘properly’. Or what the meaning of ‘is’ is.
Vinny appears to demonstrate that all his Guardian citations put together are still not as poor as one Christopher Booker.
ATTP: Thx for the Willard Tony explanation.
Vinny,
If one were being particularly pedantic, then the term “global warming” is indeed often associated with surface temperatures only. However, anthropogenic global warming is actually the trapping of outgoing long wavelength radiation causing the energy of the climate system to rise which continues until the surface temperatures have risen to the point where the ougoing energy matches the incoming energy. So, John Abraham is correct if you’re interested in the actual scientific position. Pedantically one could argue that his terminology is incorrect, but one would only make that argument if the goal was to confuse.
Rather than hide amongst the quote mines of the tubez, there are lots of differing definitions of global warming.
http://timeforchange.org/definition-for-global-warming-what-is-global-warming
Personally (and, like much of the GOP, I am not a scientist), the natural use of “globe” means the whole darn thing. If it’s the surface I’m referring to I say “surface”. Similarly for oceans “oceans”.
Usually it’s clear from context. Unless, of course, you don’t want it to be clear…
ATTP: OK. So he was wrong but properly he was right because only people who want to sow confusion would say he was wrong. Is that right?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
I would personally argue that that was the main problem with the Guardian article. Not the headline aimed at people who would normally not read climate science articles, which are exactly the people that the article wanted to reach.
There are many ways of looking at the climate system. The Ocean Heat Content has the advantage that it contains most of the warming and has a relatively smooth curve. That makes it ideal to study short term changes. But the dataset is very short, especially for the deeper oceanic layers. The Sea Surface Temperature data is fortunately longer, but contains holes in many regions, especially in the earlier periods.
The land surface temperature is of much more importance to humans and for the eco-systems we depend upon. Furthermore, these datasets are longer and thus help much better putting the changes in perspective. It is also available with daily resolution, which is important for questions around (changes in) extreme weather. And you can study its relationship with other climatic measurements, study circulation and so on (with daily data).
The paleo record has poor temporal resolution, at best yearly, but has the advantage that it is very long and can thus be used to study changes well beyond the last one or two centuries of the instrumental datasets.
And so on. One should study all datasets and assess the situation based on all of them. Not just pick one and especially not pick one because that fits best to your political prejudice.
Vinny,
No, the point I’m making is that if you really want to assess how our emissions are influencing overall warming, then the OHC is much better than surface temperatures only. John Abrahams article is entirely correct in pointing out that it is remarkable that our OHC has increased dramatically in the last year or so.
That SkS article you refer to is really just trying to distinguish between the terms “global warming” and “climate change”. Global warming just refers a rise in temperature (often surface only, but also the oceans). Climate change is clearly a somewhat different term that relates to how this warming will influence our climate.
Yes, I agree with Victor.
Well done, Vinny Burgoo, you’ve won the prize! You’ve found two scientists who’ve provided different descriptions of what ‘global warming’ means.
Big fucking deal.
> I have finally worked out who he is but have no idea why you call him that.
Ask Eli, Vinny, e.g.:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/09/willard-tony-plays-dr-who.html
When Willard Tony will extend the courtesy of calling Eli Eli, I’ll consider calling him the name he pleases.
johnrussell40: Michael Tobis at Real Climate in 2004:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/imprecision-of-the-phrase-global-warming/
(Note that he didn’t define GW precisely in the article itself, perhaps because people mostly thought about surface temperatures in those days. See comment #12 for his precise definition.)
“Well done, Vinny Burgoo, you’ve won the prize! You’ve found two scientists who’ve provided different descriptions of what ‘global warming’ means.”
I do not think we have other ideas of what global warming means, we may have somewhat different ways of expressing ourselves. That may be because we are thinking of different typical scientific studies on global warming. The selection of the most appropriate (mix of) observations for a specific study is normally quite straight forward and at least the reader will see exactly which observations have been used to study the problem
Semantics is a pitch. On which ClimateBall is played.
Does anyone know what Vinny is trying to achieve? Is he trying to justify Booker being a crank?
My ears are tingling. For those who find “idiot” a bit too harsh, there’s always:
https://twitter.com/NietzscheQuotes/status/559458220763516929
Guys, what John Abraham said is entirely correct. Read it again.
He then goes on to talk about the increase in OHC, because that’s where most of the heat goes. But Victor says (and ATTP agrees),
That’s the same thing John Abraham said. He just happened to focus on the area where most of the heat is going.
As for Vinny claiming that John A or anyone else at The Guardian is even remotely close to as constantly absurdly wrong as Booker, let alone “no more often than, say, yer typical Guardian eco columnist”, that’s just hilariously wrong. Especially since his example was one in which John Abraham was entirely (or at least almost entirely, if you want to get into nitpicks) correct. That’s like saying oranges are as yellow as bananas.
Vinny, the one example you give any evidence for is surely a joke on your part. Do you genuinely believe that what John Abraham has said is in any sense equivalent to Booker’s mendacity?
You throw in three more unsupported examples which, given that you presumably thought the Abraham example was your most convincing I can only assume are so weak that you realised it wasn’t even worth linking to them.
Some might consider that “Booker’s article is idiotic” would have made all the difference in the world:
dana1981: ‘entirely (or at least almost entirely, if you want to get into nitpicks) correct’
Well played!
I found better, Vinny:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/08/cognitive-dissonance-and-good-advice.html
Christopher Booker is also incorrect when he says:
Actually one of the largest adjustments is the ‘bucket correction’, which aims to remove a systematic cold bias earlier in the SST record which arose from sea temperatures being measured in buckets hauled up to the deck, rather than at engine intakes as more recent measurements are. The bucket correction reduces the apparent warming over the 20th Century – it’s very well-known, but Mr Booker seems to have either not heard of it, or somehow forgot to mention it….!
You mean Willard is not called Willard because of Willard?
Dana, I read it as somewhat of a claim that ocean heat content is more important than surface temperatures, but maybe working on surface temperatures I am somewhat oversensitive. Whatever the case, that would be complete inconsequential for the main message of the Guardian article, in complete contrast to the severe errors in the conspiracy theory of the Telegraph article.
How does Vinny think attacking Abrahams is a defence of Booker?
Glad I found this. I hate doing this on twittter
The station record has Multiple sources – GCOS, GHCN-D, GHCM M, version 2 and 3 and a specially edited location record.
The reconciliation of multiple records is one of the hardest problems in compiling a database.
It’s hard for several reasons first off because of the massive number of records available.
To give you an example Robert Way and I once spent a few months look at all the various records for labrador by hand. Even then you hit cases where on the evidence its hard to decide.
A metadata record typically consists of a station identifier ( there can be several) a station name ( with different spellings) and station locations ( with different accuracies)
The first step we take is to find all those stations that are duplicates. And the duplicate test
involves fuzzy logic. So you look at the locations and see how close they are, you look at the name and see how close they are.. and then we look at the first differences in data to see. how close they are.
There is second pass that looks for data similarily first, cause sometimes you get stations that have exactly the same data, but due to metadata issue the metadata is way wrong. These are really rare. I can’t recall one off the top of my head.
This particular record has multiple sources and multiple locations that differ very slightly.
When the location differs we ‘slice’ the record. In other words the record is NOT adjusted for a station move, rather its computed as three different stations.
Slicing has ZERO effect if there was in fact
A) no real station move
B) a station move that doesnt result in a change in temp
That is something most people dont get. That is, if you “over slice” or split a record that should not be split the effect is zero. In this case we have three difference locations given for a station with the same name. So we treat it (mathematically) as if it is three different stations. If there was a move and the move had an effect on temperature, then splitting the record will allow us to fit the final surface treating those segments as independent. Again, if the metadata was wrong and there was no move or a move that didnt effect things, then there is no adjustment to make.
Our approach to station moves is RADICALLY different than say the old SHAP approach of NOAA. in a other approaches you actually change the series based on a model of what effect the move would have. So for example if you changed altitude, then you might apply a lapse rate adjustment. call this “hands on, direct adjustment” These approaches depend upon you
A) trusting the metadata
B) having a model of the effect of change.
We dont do that. basically when we have an indication that instrument changes or station moves occur we split the record. there is no explicit adjustment.
in this was a station move that has no effect will still have no effect
an instrument change that had no effect will have no effect.
Finally we look for “empirical breaks” empirical breaks can result from undocumented station moves or other changes to observation. They are purely hands off statistically driven.
This removes the stupid claims that folks had there thumbs on the adjustment scale.
Point of clarification
“If you look again at the information for this station the trend before adjustments was -1.37oC per century, after quality control it was -0.89oC per century, and after adjusting for the station moves was +1.36oC per century. Also, if you consider the same region for the same months, the trend is +1.37oC per century, and for the country for the same months it is +1.28oC per century. So, not only can one justify the adjustments, the result of the adjustments is consistent with what would be expected for that region and for the country.”
we struggle with how to best describe what we mean by “adjustment”
records are not adjusted.
we take the records and fit a surface to the records that minimizes the error. You can think of this surface as the fitted value of the regression model for a given region. based on all the stations in that region the surface is the expected value. Stations deviate from this model. That deviation or error can be created by station moves, instrument changes, site changes, TOB ect. there is no allocation of error to specific casuality. Its a top down approach.
the “adjusted” value represents what our model predicts a perfect thermometer would have recorded..
of course we have to call it something so we typically call it homogenized or adjusted. but technically, in the weeds, in the details, it’s not an adjustment. The “homogenized values” represent what our model predicts for a perfect thermometer at that location.
Of course this approach can be tested. for example in the US we have over 100 ‘perfect’ sites called CRN. so you can use the model to predict what they would record based on the region they are located in. You just hold them out, create the model and use the model to predict them.
Similarly you can do this with newly recovered data. There are a few data recovery programs going on ( one in south america) that will allow you to test the model when this old data is recovered.
Lastly, getting the local detail correct is really not critically important to the global average.
The modelling approach we take will ( it must) sometimes get the local detail wrong.
However changes to the local record dont cascade up into the global record.
So I might compare say a version of a region ( the Alps is a perfect example) compiled by local experts and find differences between their detailed hand work and my algorithmic hammer. But these local details are a wash in the global record. You wanna really really understand the details of Alpine temperature? please go get a product that focused specifically on that region. Or Labrador.. For a really broad brush view use CRU. you want better, use Berkeley. you want the best.. you’d look at the detailed work that a local expert has done. if all local experts used the same methods then there might be an option to stitch it all to together and have the best local detail and a global record.. but that global record would not differ from what we have today in any scientifically meaningful way.
Which, for Vinny’s benefit, distils into this:
World land surface is where we live and farm. 0.9C in fifty years should catch the attention of lukewamers everywhere.
Don’t know that Eli would call CRN perfect. Optimal is perhaps better although, As Eli recalls, opinions differ.
Yes Eli. we dont disagree. pardon my hyperbole.
I find it so weird that skeptics who believe in an LIA would question evidence ( the temperature record) which largely confirms one of their favorite memes.. we are rebounding from the LIA.
Or even more weird is they claim the climate is changing ( we disagree on the cause sure ya ok) but they reject evidence ( the temperature record) which confirms their belief. weird.
I think they just want to drive me crazy err..crazier
Steven
I’m curious about how the 0.9C in 50y sits with the lukewarmer underbet. Given that we live on, and off, the land surface.
Anders –
Now that you have been “outed” I’ve decided that if it’s ok with you, I’ll refer to you by a different name. No, not unscientific f**kwit.
Depending on your permission, I’d like to use your real name now.
censorship master ATTP.
“BBD says:
January 26, 2015 at 12:48 am
Steven
I’m curious about how the 0.9C in 50y sits with the lukewarmer underbet. Given that we live on, and off, the land surface.
Fits just fine.
here is what we wrote.
In the simple linear combination, the anthropogenic factor, log
(CO2), has a weight equivalent to an e$ective response of 3.1 ± 0.3°C
at doubled CO2
(95% con”dence). However, this parameterization
is based on an extremely simple linear combination, using only
CO2
and no other anthropogenic factors and considering only land
temperature changes. As such, we don’t believe it can be used as an
explicit constraint on climate sensitivity other than to acknowledge
that the rate of warming we observe is broadly consistent with the
IPCC estimates of 2-4.5°C warming (for land plus oceans) at doubled
CO2
. !e purpose of the anthropogenic term is merely to show
that our extended temperature reconstruction is consistent with an
anthropogenic explanation, and not to try and detangle the details
for those changes”
Don’t look now, but here come’s another westerly wind burst…
I see, I disappear a for a couple of days and the blog descends into name-calling.
AT: Naughty corner, now.
Vinny: Your comments are off-topic and repetitive. We’re discussing Christopher Booker’s article. If you want to discuss mistakes in a Guardian piece then feel free to signup for your own blog here:
https://signup.wordpress.com/signup/
Rachel,
Sorry 😦
Joshua,
I wasn’t actually planning to start associating my real name with this blog, so I’d probably prefer to leave things as they are – for the moment at least. Although, I may eventually find it odd to be called by a name that isn’t mine, when everyone knows my name.
Steven
I was thinking about this on my low-carbon cycle in to work this morning.
As you pose this it makes sense from how you describe the methodology, but that plus the converse:
“Slicing does have an effect if there was a station move that resulted in a change in temperature”
Implies that the only inaccuracies introduced by the slicing procedure are those of under-detecting change – “false positives” bring no downside.
So, a thought experiment. Why not simply slice every record at a fixed time interval (say 10 years)? Moves would be picked up but equally constant records would be unaffected.
I presume this would bring in more inaccuracies through the processing in some way?
ATTP,
OT but noticed your tweet in the panel.
You motivated me to go to Curry’s, and I have to say from my reading of her post she’s alluding to poptech being in the sewer for outing you, rather than you being in the sewer in the first place.
At one time I was contributing to discussion at some Finnish (mainly economics / finance) sites using a pseudonym. I found writing comments of substance in that way problematic. It was also obvious that some people were able to guess my identity from the substance. I could not write much more freely using the pseudonym. That those were Finnish sites was, of course, the reason for the likelihood that comments of substance might have revealed my identity as Finland is a small country and as many of my thoughts were known to a number of people through other routes.
Anyway, I concluded that it’s better to write using my own name, but at the same time I stopped totally contributing to those discussions. Presently I feel much more comfortable with this approach.
When I comment on sites like this I address my comments to aTTP or SoD. That feels a bit strange and impersonal as these are site names rather than normal pseudonyms, but I think that I should do that as long as the person herself or himself avoids using the real name.
Pekka +1
VTG: I get the same impression as AT but maybe it’s a good idea to give people the benefit of the doubt and try to think better of them if we can. That way they might feel they need to live up to our expectations.
VTG,
Yes, she pointed that out on Twitter and I acknowledged my misunderstanding.
If I understand this, I presume the problem would be that you want to match the means and ensure that the trends are continuous. So, if you use too short a time interval then you run the risk of being strongly influenced by variability and too long and you might miss some significant jumps/discontinuities. It would seem, therefore, better to actually look for what appear to be non-climatic changes (or to use station records for station moves and time of observation changes) than to simply try and implement some simple algorithm.
ATTP,
To be clear, I was not at all arguing that such an approach would be better, I absolutely lack the expertise to judge this. I was just trying to think through the implications.
If what Steve wrote is literally true, (slicing has zero effect unless there is a real shift in the station data) then it doesn’t matter how short you slice the records. I presume, as you imply, that there is actually a slicing period short enough that in brings other problems.
vtg,
Steven has more experience of this than I have, but I would imagine that there has to be some time interval where variability would dominate and slicing would be difficult to do in some kind of robust way.
Splitting the data at short intervals and keeping all the resulting short time series should not change the outcome much as long as the series are not all split at the same points. In that way most of the time series would be continuous at every point and allow for determining the longer trends. That would not remove either the errors due to the real changes that cause discontinuities.
Combining such splitting with discarding anomalously behaving short records is probably almost equivalent with BEST approach.
In both cases the large number of splits loses information and makes statistics weaker, but that’s not essential, when the total number of time series is large.
So, a thought experiment. Why not simply slice every record at a fixed time interval (say 10 years)? Moves would be picked up but equally constant records would be unaffected.
In the optimistic case, the answer could be that additional cuts do not make the estimated climate signal different, but only increase its uncertainty.
Unfortunately I am not able to understand the article on the BEST homogenization and interpolation method is sufficient detail. However, I would be surprised if additional cuts really did not affect the estimate climate signal. For the reasons mentioned above, you would at least expect small changes because two short segments fit differently to the signal as one long one.
Furthermore, while Berkeley’s language suggests that no corrections are made, in the end that is what is happening, just less visible. If you see the estimation of the right correction constants for every period between two breaks as a regression problem, you will see that adding too much breaks, missing breaks and getting the date of the break wrong, will reduce the explained variance of your correction estimates. Thus adding break where there should be none would lead to undercorrection of the true non-climatic changes.
Jo Nova has a piece on http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/man-made-adjustments-turn-cooling-in-paraguay-south-america-to-warming/ which links to Paul Homeward on https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/massive-tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/ Gavin Schmidt has retweeted Denial 101x’s tweet of the Kevin Cowtan’s video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA and Jim Steele has interesting take on the 2014 temperature http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/25/what-does-gavin-schmidts-warmest-year-tell-us-about-climate-sensitivity-to-co2/
I think the polite riposte to Christopher Booker is Kevin Cowton’s video for us non-academics but the other pieces are also of interest but I would recommend reading http://achemistinlangley.blogspot.ca/2015/01/does-climate-change-debate-need-reset.html if we are to have a mutually respectful debate at all
Victor,
Thanks, I just watched that.
Badgerbod,
I wouldn’t normally be happy with links to some of those sites, but I’ll make an exception. There are a number of issues I have with achemistinlangley’s ideas (over and above him managing to misrepresent and insult me on a number of occasions). IMO, one needs to distinguish between scientific discussions and discussions about policy. There’s no reason to trust a scientific result more just because the scientist involved is polite. There’s also no real reason to distrust it because the scientist is rude. To me, this whole “climate debate reset”, “mutual respect” idea is just a form of blatant tone trolling. A group of people who’ve been insulting scientists for years and have been promoting ideas that are almost certainly wrong, are now thinking that maybe the debate needs a reset. Well, if they want that, it’s easy. Stop maligning scientists. Stop promoting scientific ideas that are clearly wrong. Stop being rude. Job done.
Badgerbod,
Oh, and Jim Steele should be embarrassed by that WUWT post. It’s mostly nonsense. To end with
just illustrates the point I was making above. If people want to reset the debate and for there to be mutual respect, they’ve got to stop saying those kind of things.
The Jim Steele post is beyond anything. Even the Greek Homogenization Zombie from 2012 appears again. Could be a hot tip for The Telegraph.
The post is completely destroyed point by point in the comments by a few responders. Do you think that the “sceptics” welcome these good arguments, try to understand the arguments and at least concede that some minor points may have some merit? If you were used to scientific debates, you might think so. If you know the climate “debate”, you are less naive.
Victor, thank you for the response
If you moderate those who appose your views (provided they do it without insult or break the law) then your argument, in my humble opinion, becomes narrow. This post was generated because you were challenged on rebutting Booker merely by insult and you therefore generated a post that has further generated discussion. It’s your blog, you can limit as you wish but if you limit so far then your only preaching to the converted and healthy debate over issues ceases. I rarely express my own opinion, but I am very interested in hearing from all of those more qualified or experienced than I. Yet, if we label our debating opponents in a derogatory way and revert to playground name calling (as I see from pretty much most contributors with a few exceptions) then the argument is very much lost. It certainly is lost to the paying public who will quickly turn their back and refuse to listen. Ask any politician what happens to their argument once they caught in inflammatory comments, Gordon Brown a case in point.
But as I say, it is your blog, I am only interested in discussion and working through the rhetoric to decide what I consider to be correct. My opinion may change as new evidence comes to light, I consider this to be healthy if I discover what I considered to be correct has genuine, empirical doubt cast upon it
Thank you for allowing me to contribute
Badgerbod,
I mainly moderate people because they’re rude or unpleasant. I also moderate when what they present is clearly wrong, has been debunked many times before, and I can’t face doing so again.
Well, not really. Scientific truth doesn’t depend on politeness. I’m not against politeness and me calling Booker an “idiot” was relatively unusual for me (I think). The point I was trying to make above is that I don’t really care about resetting the debate. I have no problem with being polite and pleasant if it’s reciprocated, though. So, if some people are interested in resetting the debate, they can do so. It’s easy. Stop maligning and insulting scientists. Stop promoting scientific ideas that are clearly wrong. Stop being rude.
Yes, but this isn’t politics. Whether or not what Booker said about temperature homogenization was right or wrong has nothing to do with what I called him. I’m not trying to convince you that he’s wrong. He is wrong.
It is well nigh impossible to argue with conspiracy theorists like Booker, Nova, Watts, Homeward or Steele – or their audiences. They’re happy enough to accuse the scientific community of lying, but unhappy when the language is turned back on them.
Steven
0.9C increase in land surface temperatures in 50y is a very strong indicator that lukewarmers and underbets are wrong.
There is no wriggle room at all.
> Jim Steele has interesting take on the 2014 temperature
Why do you think it’s interesting, Badgerbod?
***
Also, you did not reply to this, yesterday:
https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/559499556862590976
SM
I forgot that you have your own private definition of ‘lukewarmer’. I was using the generally understood meaning of ‘nothing much to worry about under BAU’.
BBD,
I get the impression that Lukewarmer is a strongly time-dependent variable.
As to the politicization of climate science, it would be amusing to correlate the position of changes with political changes in various countries, wars and such. Perhaps this would better be described as the climate science of politics.
I appreciate you taking time to reply, my point on politicians is relevant only in that the debate appears politicized in the public arena and all contributors are on view to the public. But, no, this isn’t politics but the whole process ultimately has political implications. And my final point is: “Trying – and sometimes failing – to keep the discussion civil” is what attracted me to your site in the first place
Badgerbod,
Yes, it may have appeared to have become politicised. I don’t think it really is. I think there are some who would like you to think that scientists are being influenced by their political views so that you can discount it as more opinion than fact. Although this may be true for individuals, I don’t think it’s true for the field as a whole. Science is essentially self-correcting and it’s hard to see how a few politically motivated scientists can push their ideas when the available evidence does not support what they’re trying to present.
That’s an attempt to be as honest as I can be. I do try. I don’t always succeed 🙂
The scientific debate is the same in all countries. The climate “debate” varies from country to country.
The scientific position did not change under George W. Bush. The climate “debate” became a lot more virulent when the US right had live under a black president.
Which one would be the political debate?
Badgerbod:
What a load of codswallop. Healthy debate ceased in climate change when Fred Singer started taking money to promote a cause. It ceased when deniers started flinging around accusations of scientific fraud and data manipulation when they did not like the results. It ceased when they found it more convenient to entertain ideas such that humans are not responsible for the large build up in greenhouse gases in the twentieth century, or that the greenhouse effect does not exist because the science was inconvenient to their politics.
If you want to have a healthy debate on climate science, disavow as sources of information those who do any of the above, and either base your ideas on the balance of peer reviewed literature, or publish your disagreement in the peer reviewed literature. Otherwise your just playing politics, and the canard that if we just do this one thing or the other, we will suddenly get a healthy debate from people with no commitment to reason or truth just another infinitely repeated rhetorical sally in that political game.
> nothing much to worry about under BAU
That’s not part of the doctrine, BBD. The lukewarm doctrine is only an option put on something without any real prime. We don’t even know the upper limit to call it, there’s no time limit when the put ceases to exist, and the trade is in a more virtual currency than Bitcoins.
This is just what you hear. If you say that you hear this, you’ll be told that’s not what is being said. What is being said is the bet, void of any substantial contract. That’s all there is to the doctrine.
You may hear stuff about alarmism, ClimateGate alarmism, environmental alarmism, and how alarmists are mean to lukewarmers, but these are no corrolaries to the doctrine. Mere correlations, which mean their arguments must hit home. Ask any king of coal.
You are right, Willard. Let’s strip away the rhetorical smoke and mirrors and just leave the observations on the table: 0.9C in fifty years. That speaks bluntly yet also eloquently for itself.
Anders –
If i have to explain a joke, it means it was a bad one, but read my 7:01 again? I want actually asking about using your real name
Joshua,
Sorry, it was early and I hadn’t yet had my coffee 🙂
You know, i have to give some “skeptics” some credit. Before BEST they articulated problems with the methods used to determine global temps, and suggested alternative methods, and when BEST addressed those issues and found no significantly different outcomes compared to previous analyses, they accepted that their concerns were addressed and just moved on.
‘Cause if a significant number of them then hung on to constantly doubting the results of temperature analyses, and then alternately saying that the temperature records are invalid even as they refer to those records to say there’s been a “pause,” then I’d have to queston the consistency of their reasoning.
Hi Tom
I am not aware of anyone who states that our activity hasn’t increased CO2 nor that the greenhouse effect does not exist. Without either, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Who in the blogsphere is saying that? I haven’t come across anyone.
As a non-academic interested party (in that I share this sphere with you all) I seek to find information that explains what is going on. There was a time when I took a stance based on limited information and I have therefore learnt to take a bit of care to check. So I am not in a position to publish anything.
What I do find, however, that by inquiring I provoke a good deal of outrage and vehemence for daring to ask a question. So by your recommendation, am I not allowed to ask a question, seek clarification etc? Or is it that I have to produce a paper for peer review first?
I have been asked to disavow sources from all sides including highly respected scientists (one of which told me to avoid ATTP)
It may be codswallop but my general point is that nothing is served by bickering and name calling and if an error is made, show where the error is made
I believe this post was created by my challenge of ATTP on twitter, the result is a post with comments pointing out the error. So job done, politely and respectfully, by me at least, codswallop and all. Polite challenging and debate will usually realise a result, even if it wasn’t what you wanted
Hi Wilard
I think the Jim Steele post was interesting because he related to CO2 not just to temperature and it extrapolated the issue over 2014 in a slightly different direction. At no time did I say I supported it, only that it was interesting. As for your tweet I apologise, I wasn’t sure if it was directed at me directly and you’ll have to excuse my ignorance, I’m not sure what you are saying. Sorry.
Badgerbod,
You’re not trying very hard 🙂
I think I saw that. Yes, I seem to have annoyed some people, for reasons I have yet to understand and – to be honest – have no great interest in understanding. There are plenty of highly respected scientists that I haven’t yet annoyed, so I think I can happily ignore the few that I might have managed to annoy (and “highly respected” is clearly a subjective judgement).
True, I probably wouldn’t have bothered without that.
Badgerbod – You haven’t replied (certainly in sufficient depth) to this yet either:
Any chance?
Badgerbod,
I shouldn’t really explain what Willard was saying as I might get it wrong and it’s an adventure working it out 🙂 What Willard was highlighting were things that Booker had said in his article that would be regarded as insulting by scientists. Science isn’t politics. Accusing scientists of fraud/malpractice/bias is highly insulting and is typically not done unless there is uncontrovertible evidence to support such an accusation.
> That speaks bluntly yet also eloquently for itself.
To that effect, take example from Jim:
See how simple it is to have a debate? Don’t say anything. Present facts, then ask questions. Anything can do, including the political motivation of the scientists involved. You can always ask if we know everything we need to know before making drastic decisions that will kill millions of poor babies. That’s always a good one.
***
I’m starting to agree with Badgerbod, who so far politely ignores me. Jim’s interesting indeed.
Badgerbob –
=>> “I am not aware of anyone who states that our activity hasn’t increased CO2 nor that the greenhouse effect does not exist. ”
If you read Climate Etc., or WUWT, you will find a lot of people who make those arguments…if you read many right-wing blogs, also…
Willard –
=>> “You can always ask if we know everything we need to know before making drastic decisions that will kill millions of poor babies. That’s always a good one.”
You are making a straw man argument. I don’t know anyone who exploits poor babies when arguing in the climate wars.
If you said poor AFRICAN babies, you might have a point.
Hi Joshua
I do read WUWT and have never come across anyone stating CO2 hasn’t increased due to our activities or that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. Do you have any links as I would be interested to see? I don’t know Climate Etc is it worth a look?
“I am not aware of anyone who states that our activity hasn’t increased CO2”
Try to look up articles by Tim Ball – and articles that laud the work by Murry Salby (not those who criticize his work) and look careful at the message they try to convey. Invariably it comes down to “humans are not responsible for the increase, nature is”.
“nor that the greenhouse effect does not exist. Without either, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Who in the blogsphere is saying that? I haven’t come across anyone.”
Look up the “Slayers” – which ironically includes Tim Ball again (who is allowed to post regularly at WUWT, despite Watts claiming he doesn’t want any Slayer nonsense).I hope thiscomment does not attract Doug Cotton or any of his other friends at PSI…
> you’ll have to excuse my ignorance, I’m not sure what you are saying.
Thank you for your answer, which I just got, and your interesting question, Badgerbod.
There are things Booker says in his editorial that should insult scientists. Scientists tend to identify to insults made to the scientists involved (more or less directly) with the matters Booker discuss. Therefore, it’s pretty damn normal to take personally the crap Booker shovels toward scientists when you’re a scientist involved in these debates.
I agree that personal attacks, name calling, and overall incivilities are unwelcome. On the other hand, you must understand that Booker’s accusations may worsen the quality of a discussion faster than any kind of remark that are usually accepted in a collegial setting. This means, and this was my main point, that Booker should not be judged by the number of personal attacks he made, but by the number of serious accusations he proffered regarding an overall field of study.
Besides, I also agree that remaining polite gets you bonus points in ClimateBall ™. Not only it increases likeability over the audience, but it also helps being even more insulting. I think you can agree with me that one can be insulting while remaining polite. Finally, please understand that natural scientists are used to more collegial settings, and should not be penalized for their forthrightness whence they already are playing visitor on the field where good rhetors shine, like we can find in law, econometrics or, God may have mercy upon our souls, philosophy.
***
Also note that what you’re doing right now is usually called concern trolling:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll
The best advice I can give you is never to give any advice.
Thank you for your concerns,
W
BTW, Badgerbod, see
(yes, later corrected, but still)
Badgerbod – I can highly recommend one particular portion of Climate Etc, just at the moment, archived at:
https://archive.today/33Q5P#selection-14479.0-14509.58
A no doubt idle enquiry from “The sewer”!
Badgerbod-
=>> “I do read WUWT and have never come across anyone stating CO2 hasn’t increased due to our activities or that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. ”
Well, i think it would be “interesting” how you and i can read the same material and have such different opinions about what we find.
I have no interest in taking the time to find you links..my point of interest is why we have such different opinions rather spending time to try to reach some objective agreement about what the “truth” is.
Yes, i think that Climate Etc. is interesting to read, in part because the kind of opinions you say you don’t see at WUWT can be found there quite frequently. Give it a shot. It would be “interesting” to find out whether you never see those arguments being made there also.
Konrad at WUWT in response to Lord Monckton claiming that burning all fossil fuels will maximally lead to a warming of 2.2°C. That is too much for poor Konrad:
David Wojick:
(Followed by a long, long unbelievable discussion.)
https://twitter.com/pizzzzaman/status/544504161048727553
“We have no real-world evidence that ANY ghgs cause warming.” —Willis Eschenbach commenting at Judith Curry’s.
Thanks Wilard for the explanation, makes perfect sense. As for being a “concern troll” that’s a new one on me, and I will take your advice to not give advice. Scary
Marco, I admit to not reading all posts on WUWT and I tend not to read any guest post he makes due to earlier conclusions.
For the link, I never saw that post, but at least it was corrected but I do not doubt our influence on CO2 levels. I think there is carbon isotope evidence of fossil fuel CO2 isn’t there? I’m sure I came across a post or paper. Anyway, if I come across a post that states “it wasn’t us guv”, then I tend to ignore it.
Anyway, clearly off topic for this post. Apologies to ATTP
Badgerbod,
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/
Badgerbod,
I very rarely comment on denier blogs, partly because established facts such as the anthropogenic nature of the CO2 rise are not accepted.
But I did chuckle when I read that you
Oh my sides! Here’s what happens when you assert that the CO2 rise is anthropogenic:
Could I suggest you may need to exorcise your inner Morton’s Demon?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton's_demon
Rachel –
I don’t think that link shows either of those particular arguments being made…only that the GHE could be “close to zero.” they don’t state that the GHE doesn’t exist, although it could be “close” to not existing.
Perhaps Badgerbad agrees that he sees arguments being made that the GHE may for all practical purposes not exist.
BBD.
I think we’ve been through this before. A short recap.
Some folks thought I coined the term Lukewarmer. It was actually david smith.
bender and I popularized it.
1. It began as a statement about attribution. Lukewarmers assigned less than 50%
to humans.
2. The concept was raised again on Lucia’s. here it was defined as a projected warming
less than .2c decade typically in in the .15 C range
Some critic were still not happy with that so I offerred this
ECS is not less than 1.2C ( or basically a no feedback value however you want to calculate it
And
the probablity of it being less than 3C ( Hmm I’ve prolly said 3.2 in a couple places) is great than
50%.
Of course folks have tried to push a policy position into this but on my view the two are disconnected.
Joshua, I refer you to BBD
Joshua,
I thought the headline would be sufficient – “Man made global warming disproved”. But perhaps Badgerbod wants something more than that.
VTG –
Baderbob is unfamiliar with Climate Etc. Maybe now that you have provided that link he will start reading the site so that he can gain a fuller view off the climate change discussion.
Yeah, Rachel, i forgot to mention the headline…good point. But while the headline states a fact, there are not actually arguments presented in support of the stated claim,..so in that sense Baderbad might have read that post and still never seen those arguments made 🙂
On over slicing.
I know we did some experiments with over slicing ( playing with knobs on the emprical breaks)
I know there were some computational issues ( uncertainties take days to compute)
the thing a slice allows you to do is to assign a weighting to a fragment of the record.
based on a fragments agreement with its neighbors it is assigned a weight that is a function
of its agreement. So if you had a series that was in 100% agreement with its neighbors and you
just sliced it whereever the fragments would still be in agreement and its weight would still be the
same. The key then is to not miss breakpoints ( so fragments can be weighted) but not to introduce so many un necessary slices that your computational time blows up.
I’ll ask robert . we meet on tues.
Steven
A lonely furrow to plough.
Steven, thanks for the response on overslicing.
Now all I need to do is work out how you twiddled those knobs to massage the data to give you the trend you always wanted from the start 😉
Badgerbad…sorry for the many mangles of your moniker…my autotext finds it very confusing.
Badgerbod, may I ask why you find it so important that the two “stories” the mitigation skeptics promote this week are replied to?
Do you think that after decades of research, this week you enter the “debate” is exactly the week that after decades of research a bunch of politically motivated people with little skills, who do not know the scientific literature, but comment on every possible topic with climate science will topple the current scientific understanding?
Or do you just want to be able to judge how credible the political opposition is and how credible the scientists working on climate are? In the latter case, you can just read older cases and see which side you think has the better arguments.
Given that you have still to give any kind of judgement, where Christoper Booker or Jim Steele are right or wrong on any minor point irrespective of how clear the refutation was, I have somewhat the feeling that the only use of the requested refutations is occupational therapy.
Prior for Booker? Conspiracy ideation? Steve Goddard in a broadsheet?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
Hi Rachel, thanks for the link but with respect, Jo Nova never stated that that humans haven’t added to CO2 nor refuted the greenhouse effect.
Just so everyone is clear on my position as I seem to have provoked some response and found my mouth stuffed with words I did not utter: Fossil fuel burning contributes to the overall level of CO2 in our atmosphere. People can argue by how much but it seems to me that our increase in CO2 since the industrial revolution can widely be ascribed to our own activities. Yes there will be uptake and release from oceans and flora but the increase in CO2 levels as being anthropogenic is not disputed by me and arguing over actual ratios seems ludicrous and irrelevant. It’s there, whatever and for sure we keep adding to it
VTG, I appreciate I am not as widely read as others on all comments and discussions on all sites so whilst I say I have not seen any refutation of anthropogenic CO2 or greenhouse effect, I am sure it exists and whilst I am trying, as a non-academic interested party, to discover for myself what my answer to all this is in a balanced way, I cannot entertain an argument based on something blatantly false. Without either CO2 or the greenhouse effect, we wouldn’t be here, I get that from elementary astrophysics. Having read the comments you were involved in from the link, I think you made your point very effectively. I’m also aware on Maxwell’s Demon as a thought experiment and admit to being disappointed that you ascribe Morton’s Demon to myself. I consider myself to have an open mind but not rooted in fantasy, religion or dogma. But thank you for the concept.
And Jocular your apology is accepted 🙂
For some reason, I kept this:
and this:
Well, I am relieved. But, wait!
Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.” – Anthony Watts (June 2nd 2010)
WTF! But, wait!
“The world is warming. It has been for centuries. Rather than saying anything about anthropogenic global warming, all the BEST dataset does is confirms that. How that’s gotten twisted into some supposed “victory” for the AGW crowd escapes me.” – Willis Eschenbach, [I]Watts UP With That[/I], (October 22nd 2011)”
Some responses of the WUWT crowd about warming, or lack thereof. It’s like a physicist’s view of the wave/ particle duality – deniers accept that the globe is warming on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, on alternate days it is an arrant phraud, except when their spouse is wearing a green sweater.
Did any denier mention the word “skeptical” in connection with an alleged overnight sensation that made their wildest dreams come true?
Meant to post this with my last comment. It was around the time of the Muller brouhaha.
==> ” …Jo Nova never stated that that humans haven’t added to CO2 nor refuted the greenhouse effect.”
Well, that wasn’t terribly difficult to predict, now was it?
Badgerbod
If you look at the JoNova link you will see this:
How do we reconcile this with the observational temperature record (eg. BEST, above)?
Is it not obvious that the information at JN’s is centred on a blatantly false claim?
Badgerbod,
Jo Nova’s article has the title “Man made global warming disproved”. Of course I could be wrong but isn’t this the same thing as saying “refuted the greenhouse effect”?
Hi Victor
I do not follow avidly every article, nor read the press. I became aware of the Christopher Booker article via ATTP and his response to it. I did not have an answer to the article but ATTP and now others, have provided one. This is helpful when you are not fully aware of all the scientific data as most of the public are not.
I am the judge of my own opinion and I find I have had opinions unfounded by evidence over many years. I am trying to correct this. So I apologise if I offend you or anyone else by referring to another post I have read which is deemed unworthy, I would not necessarily know that but would hope it is explained why it is without ascribing it as my view. Trying to discover for oneself can lead you down some weird and wonderful opinions and world views for the unenlightened, so I ask. If you would prefer me not to ask, I won’t but what I don’t want to do is form an opinion that is unfounded and unsupported.
To date, I have found the whole process very uncomfortable as if I am walking on broken glass. I do not claim any specialist knowledge but REALLY appreciate when those that do share.
If this is occupational therapy then so be it
Hi Rachel
Its semantics really, Greenhouse effect has always existed (well, okay not always) I don’t think that is in dispute. My point has been taken out of context or more likely I misunderstood the original point. I am not of the opinion that Jo Nova is correct in her article if that helps
Hi BBD I don’t know if it is blatantly false or not, I’m not experienced nor qualified enough to judge, but I cannot agree with the post when it states AGW is disproven.
“Climate Etc. … a fuller view off the climate change discussion.”
Truer words…
Badgerbod –
==> “but I cannot agree with the post when it states AGW is disproven.”
Would you agree that the JN article states that AGW may, for all practical purposes, not exist (in other words have close to zero effect)?
Hi Joshua,
I am aware of Climate Etc, sorry, always in my mind as Judith Curry and I do find it very informative but confess to not reading the comments often. I’ll give it more attention especially in light of VTG’s comment
> Of course folks have tried to push a policy position into this but on my view the two are disconnected.
Sometimes by a few paragraphs. Here’s [from] the first:
Six paragraphs pass by, then:
http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-a-lukewarmer-against-dogmatism/
Simple.
Paraphrasing (Sumner, 1983): King of coal, I’ll always be king of coal.
“As a non-academic interested party (in that I share this sphere with you all)”
Hmm, pay attention much? There are some academics participating in this very thread, including some with considerable relevant expertise.
Badgerbod
Look at the BEST temperature reconstruction. Read what JN claims about negative feedbacks and climate sensitivity being 0.4C. The two are obviously and massively incompatible.
I really wouldn’t if I were you.
The two sites I would recommend (other than this fine establishment, obviously) would be SKS for a comprehensive interpretation of the science for laypeople, and Science of Doom for scepticism.
Hi Joshua, I agree she strongly intimates that effect is difficult to quantify especially via her link on point 7 to another post. One could construe no effect from her post but she doesn’t implicitly say it (probably for good reason)
Rachel
I think what JN is claiming is that feedbacks net negative, not that the GHE is refuted. The problem with the negative feedback / therefore climate sensitivity is low argument is that it is falsified by paleoclimate and observed modern climate variability.
Hi Steve I don’t dispute that. I point out I am not qualified but an interested party with due respect for everyone else and I am interested in the science and opinions. But by contributing, I have become a focus for comment without at anytime disputing any other comment made here. Would it be better for me (and perhaps you) in your (and others) opinion if I didn’t contribute?
If you have no expertise what do you propose to contribute, exactly?
Badgerbod,
I’ve just got home, so haven’t managed to go through the thread, but I’m guessing you’re picking up on some frustrations 🙂 Can I ask, how long have you been engaging on this online discussion about climate (as both a lurker and a contributor)?
An open-inquiring mind? A layman’s perspective? This blog post which has been so expertly commented upon? You decide, if this blog is only for the qualified then I am clearly intruding
Badgerbod : “I am the judge of my own opinion and I find I have had opinions unfounded by evidence over many years. I am trying to correct this. So I apologise if I offend you or anyone else by referring to another post I have read which is deemed unworthy”
Try not to take it too personally. Just because some subjects are new to you does not mean they are to everyone else. People involved in this argument for a long time tend to react poorly when a years old discussion points are brought up again and again and again. It tries everyones patience so there is a tenancy to be dismissive because ‘asking simple questions’ is often used as an argument technique by deniers. Keep plugging away.
What does this mean, BBD? I don’t have any expertise and I’m sure you’re not saying that I’m unwelcome 🙂
Can we review Badgerbod’s contributions to date here and ask the question again?
Hi ATTP, I have followed the climate “discussion” for some time without contributing (a lurker?)but via limited blog sites with the rare contribution. I came to the conclusion that I didn’t know very much at all so sought to improve my knowledge. Today has been an education in more ways than one
Badgerbod,
No, that’s not the point. This blog is clearly not only for the qualified (whatever that may mean). The reason for asking my question (which you haven’t really answered) is that many here experienced this kind of thing before. Pleasant, polite, non-expert comes along and asks questions but at the same time promotes sites, articles and blog posts that are presenting information that’s not only wrong but has been debunked time and time again. Now either you don’t realise this, in which case I would suggest asking more questions and maybe finding some scientists you think you can trust, or you do and you’re kind of wasting people’s time. Some get frustrated by having to explain the same things over and over again. I don’t really know what else to say, but maybe you should recognise that some have been over this ground so many times before that they start to lose interest in doing so again.
BBD –
Not everyone has the same goal in being here. Seems to me that the evaluation of the benefit of someone’s contribution will vary. I’m sure you wouldn’t consider yourself in the position to judge for others. A vote seems impractical. I say let people make their own evaluations, and the only one that really matters to others is Anders’.
Badgerbod,
Hopefully not all bad 🙂 You should try writing a blog about this. That’s a daily injection of unintended (and sometimes unwanted) education.
Badgerbod
As a general rule, textbooks are better than blogs. They are organised and systematic; blogs are not (even SkS isn’t – you search it by topic).
This is a good start. Stay away from the denial sites which will confuse you and fill your head up with their distortions and nonsense.
Badgerbod –
==> ” Today has been an education in more ways than one”
What have you been educated about today that you didn’t already know, if I might ask?
Joshua
You too are invited to review the thread.
Point taken, I assure you mentioning or linking any other site was done out of naivety and only for the purpose of discussion. It seems I’m some years behind.
“Today has been an education in more ways than one”
Quite so Badger.
As you already know, I’ve created a forum especially for you where we can have a nice quiet chat about Antarctic Albedo, and hopefully improve your knowledge thereof. Here it is again:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1128.0.html
Feel free to pop in whenever the mood takes you.
Badgerbod,
It’s not really a problem. To illustrate the point a bit more. If you were to go and find sites with reliable information that you thought you could trust, spend some time (on Twitter for example) asking scientists questions, and developing a better understanding, you’d be the first I’ve encountered in the two years I’ve done this. The only other person I’m aware who has done such a thing is BBD, which might explain why he’s rather vocal about this (ex-smokers and all that 🙂 )
Badgerbod –
==>” One could construe no effect from her post but she doesn’t implicitly say it (probably for good reason)”
Here’s the thing, imo. I think that she clearly presents an argument that amounts to saying that there is no clear evidence that the earth is warming and that ACO2 contributes to that warming. She presents the argument that the effect of the GHE may well be nil. I don’t think it is a matter of what one “could construe.”
I often read “skeptics” make that or similar arguments even as they say that hardly any “skeptics” doubt that the earth is warming and that ACO2 contributes to that warming. So when I read your previous comments, it looked to me like you were playing out that pattern – which, IMO, displays a logically incoherent perspective.
I think it is difficult to have discussions if people present views that are logically inconsistent, and I think that when people hold on to logically inconsistent arguments, the discussion is likely about pursuing a goal other than a straight up discussion of the science.
FWIW.
Jo Nova unsceptically republishes Booker’s conspiracy theory.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/man-made-adjustments-turn-cooling-in-paraguay-south-america-to-warming/
Why do people read her?
Finished the Daily Mail and bored?
BBD –
==> “You too are invited to review the thread.”
I have yet to gain any value from Badgerbod’s contributions, and I could make some guesses w/r/t the value obtained by a few of the other participants – but I’m not in a position to judge whether s/he him/herself might have gained some value. S/he did say that s/he’s been educated, although s/he didn’t elaborate. Maybe that explanation will be forthcoming.
To me, at least, the debate has become “politicized” here in the US because one side refuses to acknowledge that the science says that climate change is a problem that needs to be solved and the other side does and wants to do something about it. Of course, there may be a small minority on the far left who want to use climate change to advance their own agenda, but it’s clear that they are having a small impact because very little is getting done in the Congress.
“[…] in more ways than one” no less.
I’m afraid I read this (given the context) as what you might call ‘sameolesameole’.
Badgerbod says: “Just so everyone is clear on my position as I seem to
have provoked some response and found my mouth stuffed with words I did
not utter”
After which we get some general remarks acknowledging that the CO2 increase is mad-made.
But still no reply to the story in The Telegraph and the arguments we have offered against it and no reply to the misinformation of Steele and the arguments offered against it in the comments below the line.
It is fully possible that you are not yet qualified to judge the misinformation or the arguments why it is wrong. In that case withholding opinion seems wise.
I only want to point to the general pattern that the misinformers do not change their minds when presented with counter evidence and their followers do not change their minds when presented with counter evidence. Maybe I am wrong to see this pattern in your behavior, but it fits snugly up to now. No matter how clear the counter evidence is, no matter how little science background is needed to see the mistakes, mitigation skeptics rarely change their mind based on evidence. For example, clear cases of misquotations.
More typical if confronted with strong counter arguments is to switch to another topic. Just like you, maybe out of naivete, did by pointing to Steele, when the arguments against Booker seemed to be too strong.
That makes it rather pointless to reply to the misinformation. If there is no real debate where people build their opinions based on the evidence presented, but rather stick to their old position no matter what.
Badgerbod, what you did not reply to is why these the two pieces of misinformation are so important to you? Why are you not able to base your impression of the “debate” on the thousands of older instances that were very similar.
Badgerbod says: “I have become a focus for comment without at anytime disputing any other comment made here.”
No disputing anything, nor acknowledging anything is exactly the problem.
Badgerbod says: “Today has been an education in more ways than one”
If it was, then you did not give any indication of that. What did you learn? Except that human patience and life time is a finite resource. And that ATTP has the patience of an angel; I would not have written the above post.
And I agree with BBD above , if it is education you are after and you are not well informed yet, the best place to start is with a book on the climate system.
Whoops. That was @Joshua
What kind of science are you going to get from a site where people mostly reject current climate science (many times for no apparent reason) and think the scientists are corrupt or inept?
> I’m afraid I read this (given the context) as what you might call ‘sameolesameole’.
Perhaps, but you have to give newcomers the benefit of the doubt.
There’s nothing wrong with raising concerns. We should be thankful for them. However, we need to explain to newcomers why they encounter the reaction they do.
Please bear in mind that entering ClimateBall ™ is played in a ClimateClub ™, and that the first rule of ClimateClub ™ is only to talk about ClimateClub ™.
It’s all very clever, said the old lady, but it’s inside ClimateBall ™ all the way down.
Hi Victor
I do not see why I have to defend myself or lay out my current position on the issue but if it pleases you:
1. I do not agree agree with Booker
2. I do not fully disagree with Jim Steele nor do I fully concur in truth I am still investigating his points
3. AGW is a reality
4. I know the greenhouse effect exists
5. I know CO2 levels have risen
6. I know man has contributed to a degree that is possibly quantifiable but it is certainly of significance
7. I know a huge amount of agonising work over many years has been carried out to produce the temperature datasets we have
8. I know the Arctic ice has decreased
9. I know the Antarctic ice has increased
10. I don’t know if there is a relationship as some argue and others refute
11. Overall sea ice is the same or similar to the start of the satellite record
12. The quality of the ice is not the same as the start of the satellite record
13. We are warmer now than at anytime since the established start of the record
14. I posted a link to the Cowtan video that explains Booker’s errors very well and even stated it was, in my opinion, the best riposte. The other stuff was for discussion and for me to understand why they were wrong in the learned opinion of all here. But I accept it was naive to put up other site links for which I’ve already apologised
I could go on. I was greatly encouraged to be invited by Victor to ask questions about his subject area. But frankly I will not. I am still working my way through understanding to the best of my ability the issues with surface station sites and homogenisation etc. and reconciling the information and mis-information. But I will draw my own conclusions based on the evidence without discussion
As to what my education has been today it is that some in a position of knowledge have no respect, time or consideration for those who do not. Perhaps that is why skeptic blogs are so popular? This blog post started from an insult, it has finished with one and I will have no more part in it. I thank ATTP for his patience and consideration and for those of you who accepted me as a novice but I will not read or answer any more comments but go and buy a book or perhaps re-read those I already have
Badgerbod,
A couple of comments.
This is only sea ice. Also, if you consider volume/mass (rather than area) then rate at which the Arctic sea ice is losing mass is probably about 10 times faster than the rate at which Antarctic sea ice is gaining mass.
Also, Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets (land ice) are continuing to lose mass at an increasing rate.
It’s really hard to see how there can be a relationship as they are in opposite hemispheres and the seasons are clearly different.
Badgerbod,
You should try commenting on a “skeptic” blog as a “warmist”. Then you’ll experience some impressive insults.
Badgerbod
That’s the spirit.
Badgerbod:
Seeing you mention that you read WUWT, on denial of anthropogenic origin of CO2 we have Murry Salby, Roy Spencer and commentators to inumerable to mention. They come out of the wood work, however, in response to Ferdinand Engelbeen, who is very well worth reading on that subject, and who is one of very few AGW skeptics who do not deserve qualification as pseudo-skeptics.
I need to mention, of course, that Salby and Spencer’s arguments are nonsense. In Salby’s case, dishonest nonsense, in Spencer’s case, just nonsense from which he later retreated.
Others have mentioned Tim Ball, who is still a regular contributor to WUWT, even though Watts has notionally banned those he calls “dragon slayers” and (incredibly hypocritically) “deniers”. To his name can be added everybody at Principia Scientific. Again, it needs to be said that their arguments are scientific gobbledygook.
Since ATTP is back, and Badger appears to have left for good, I wonder if I might take this opportunity to pose a question to the assembled throng, before we return to topic at the top?
Further to our lengthy discussions on Twitter, here’s a quote from Badger@WUWT:
“Hi Jim, my point on politicization is that TheGreatWhiteCon whilst providing data on the Arctic (not the global situation) does attempt to interpret the data to its own agenda, whereas Sea Ice data on WUWT is purely that, the data, updated from source without comment.”
“Anders”, can you (or indeed anyone else here) explain to me what on earth he’s on about? Please provide me with a link to where “GWC interpret[s] the data to its own agenda”, since Badger has so far singularly failed to do so.
Badgerbod, it is great to hear that you accept much of the scientific understanding, but I was not looking for a confession of faith with 14 articles. I was looking for specific statements and arguments maybe even new evidence about which one can have a reasoned debate. Those are the things scientists care about. Not about where you are on the scale.
I was greatly encouraged to be invited by Victor to ask questions about his subject area. But frankly I will not.
That is a pity. The more specific a question is and the better it fits to the work of the scientist, the higher will be the willingness to give a clear answer.
My apologies when that culture is off-putting. I am afraid that it would be hard to change. Because only about very specific well-defined questions is it possible to have a reasoned debate and to find an answer that all can agree upon (for now). Splitting up large questions into small answerable ones is the core of scientific progress. An enormous heap of such very specific questions and answer make up the building that represents our current understanding of the climate system.
That does not mean that we could not be more welcoming to newcomers. But responding to the nonsense of Booker or Steele also has its disadvantages. It suggests to the reader that there is apparently a debate about the questions raised by them. Furthermore, some people may write such outlandish pieces because they are in need of attention. Negative attention is for some still better than no attention and may stimulate them to continue.
That is why I would personally prefer that we ignore people like Booker and Steele and rather debate more reasonable people that make an effort to try to understand the climate. For example, I am happy to discuss the ideas of Ronan Connolley or work of Evan Jones. While their ideas seem strange to me, they put in work, do something new and make specific testable claims. Booker and Steele are just wasting everyone’s time.
Badgerbod –
==> “As to what my education has been today it is that some in a position of knowledge have no respect, time or consideration for those who do not.”
Don’t know if you’re still reading. I’m kind of surprised that you have spent time in the blogosphere previously, and still hadn’t been educated about the existence of that sort of pattern. It seems to me to be pretty pervasive.
I will say, however, that the extent to which you’re likely to experience that kind of reaction can be controlled to a large degree. When you weigh in with highly certain and provocative statements – such as that you’ve never seen it argued by “skeptics” that humans don’t increase anthropogenic CO2 or that anthro emissions don’t contribute to climate change, you’re not likely to engender a very positive response from an audience that believes strongly that they see those opinions expressed frequently all over the blogosphere. I mean really, what did you expect?
If you aren’t interested in getting guff, then it’s really up to you to know your audience. And if you don’t know your audience, start with exploring. For example, if instead of proclaiming that you’ve never seen those arguments made even though you have spent time in the “skept-o-sphere” (with the implication that they never are made), you had asked whether anyone here had seen those arguments made, it might have gone better.
If you start reading the comments over at Climate Etc., you will see that I, for example (if I ever get let out of moderation), get treated much more harshly by smart and knowledgeable people there than you did here – primarily because those who are so disgusted by me think that I have “no knowledge.” But I knowingly provoke those folks and thus, I think it would be kind of silly for me to be surprised by the reaction I get, or to see myself as some kind of victim. Again, maybe you have been victimized here – but I would suggest that you have some responsibility for not first observing enough to know your audience and act accordingly.
Jim,
I’m note quite sure what Badgerbod was getting at, but my impression was that he/she was suggesting that by providing an interpretation, you were being inherently political. I would regard that as fundamentally scientific, unless the interpretation includes some definite policy suggestions.
@aTTP,
It’s NASA data. Why don;t you wan’t it shown…?
🙂 Gotcha.
David,
Because I want some context. A list of numbers tells us little and if your intent is to go “see, they’ve changed the numbers…conspiracy…conspiracy…” then I’m not interested.
ATTP – That being the case, can you provide me with a link to a place where I “interpet the data”, whether “scientifically” or “politically”?
I certainly present a lot of data. A couple of folks over at Judy’s place have even thanked me for so doing earlier today, albeit rather grudgingly in one case! I certainly call out people who are “economical with the truth” about the data. Where’s all this oh so terrible “interpretation”? The “Us v Them” stuff is also factual. There’s plenty of hard evidence for that as well!
Jim,
I think he/she just meant that your site has words as well as data. I can’t see anything that I would describe as political. I guess you do debunk media misrepresentations which some might regard as political. I don’t agree with that, given that correcting incorrectly presented science is not inherently political.
Having said that, I can’t quite see what is different about your resource page and the data pages on WUWT (which is what he/she was comparing to) as they seem to mainly be data, so I’m a little confused myself.
ATTP – A quote from one of “Them” at Climate Etc.
“I am grateful to you, Jim; I’d not have found that chart without your direction. Yes, the recovery is ameliorated at lower latitudes. That would make sense. Much gracious, Jim; you’ve helped me and I did not expect that.”
In brief, there’s lots of data at GWC for the Arctic cognoscenti. Some of it only otherwise available via the ASIF, some of it unavailable anywhere else. Ever seen one of these before?
Jim,
Yes, I was just looking through it. Very impressive.
Does anyone reject human cause of modern warming?
Actually, last week a powerful US Senator made it absolutely clear that modern warming could not be human-caused … based on an anonymous Wall Street Journal Opinion piece that used a false citation of a not-quite image of IPCC(1990) whose curve originated in 1965 t ocover a 21×34-mile patch of England. See MedievalDeception 2015: Inhofe Drags Senate Back To Dark Ages.
Many Senators agreed with his position: not human-caused.
(Note: some OS/browser combinations seem to lose some images, don’t know why yet.. Win8.1 seems OK with Firefox, Chrome, IE; iPhone with Safari.)
Cheers ATTP, on two counts.
Getting back on topic with Booker and his recent economy with the truth. We’ve got the bit between our teeth again and are currently hell bent on hauling Rose/Mail and their Arctic coverage in front of the UK’s “Independent” Press Standards Organisation who claim “We uphold the highest standards of journalism”. We shall see.
Whilst we’re at it we figured “why not try for a hat trick?” and go for Rose/Mail/AGW and Monkton/Mail/UCM while we’re about it. ATTP has donated some text and proof reading to this very worthy cause:
Any other volunteers in the house? Wott about Booker/Telegraph/Son of ClimateGate also?
John M – Last time I asked this question I drew a blank, but….
Is there by any chance a US equivalent to our beloved IPSO?
Jim: good luck with that. is Mail editor Paul Dacre still in charge of the Press Complaints Commission?
my only dealing with them was a good few years ago, but back then at least they seemed singularly uninterested in anything less less than “a journalist immolated your entire family (pets included) and pissed on their still-smoking ashes”.
I think Gavin Schmidt is a little hyperbolic with that.
While a few may just want to tip over the board, for ideological reasons usually, many seem to be people who have played draughts or checkers and when you show then a chess game they assume their knowledge of a simpler game is sufficient to critique your strategy and tactics in this new game. When you try and teach them the actual more complex rules of chess and the emergent strategic dynamics it creates, they tell you are wrong because that does not happen in checkers….
Jim: sorry, I don’t know of any IPSO equivalent over here.
If badgerbod wanted to compare the relative levels of civility and politicisation practised by the different participants in this issue they could try posting at WUWT or at JoNova or ClimateEtc with a polite suggestion some options might be wrong and links to marginally related posts at SKS and Realclimate.
In the unlikely event the links and post got past moderation and they were not put on the block list, I suspect they would find that a degree of incivility is not confined to the mainstream science end of the debate.
It is also revealing that in one case it is a few fringe activist sites that are considered conspiracy ridden, politicised frauds. In the other it is the majority of mainstream science.
@ligne – Fortunately not in the circumstances! The PCC has laboriously mutated into the IPSO, which is only now flexing its fledgling muscles, and has a lawyer at the top. Here’s the committee:
https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/whoweare.html#Committee
@John M – I feared as much, but at this rate we may have more than we can handle in the UK alone!
@izen – See https://archive.today/BSm07#selection-16297.0-16313.159
Thanks for that Willard.
I was already laughing fit to bust, and now I have no idea how I will get to sleep.
Nonetheless I shall now bid you a very good night, and let us see what the morrow brings?
P.S. https://archive.today/dLKkV#selection-16363.0-16379.217
Jim Hunt,
Ellison aka Chief Hydrologist, Captain Kangaroo, Michael Mouse, Generalissimo Skippy, and a number of other sockpuppets . Google Larrikin.
Nice idea, but a cement chess board prevents the tipping over, but does not improve the learning.
Paul Dacre is chair of the Editors’ Code of Practice Committee, which collaborates with but is not part of the PCC.
He is also a good friend of Lord Lawson.
Jim Hunt: ah yes of course, i’d completely forgotten about that. i’m not entirely convinced it’ll be much better, but since it at least attempts not to look independent, i shall remain cautiously optimistic 🙂
izen –
Yes.. I posted a bit at Climate Etc when it first started. You’d notice some posters who seemed to do nothing more than look for anyone who was not a ‘skeptic’ just to post a few lines of abuse at them. You have to wonder at the mentality. Plus at the sanity of a host who can see this behavior whilst at the same time claiming to want a ‘balanced discussion’.
@WHT – Thanks for the heads up.
@BBD – But the PCC is dead? Long live IPSO!
@ligne – I’m certainly “cautious”. I wouldn’t go so far as “optimistic”. However if you never ask the question you never find out the answer.
@Andrew – Quite so.
@All – Rose’s managing editor is “out of the office” for 2 weeks. His PA is picking up the pieces.
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/08/has-the-arctic-ice-cap-expanded-for-the-second-year-in-succession/#Jan24
Cotty has delivered some unanticipated (but most welcome!) exposure for the cause:
Any chance of a retweet or two?
“I am afraid my almost infinite patience in this matter is exhausted”
Any chance of a retweet or two?
YMMV, but as far as I’m concerned this kind of issue ended with BEST. UHIs seemed like a reasonable suggestion till then; still is, but the data shows it’s not important. I have no further interest, nor any more patience with dealing with it. Let’s move on to sensitivity, and economics and politics.
Joshua says:
January 26, 2015 at 2:35 pm
You know, i have to give some “skeptics” some credit. Before BEST they articulated problems with the methods used to determine global temps, and suggested alternative methods, and when BEST addressed those issues and found no significantly different outcomes compared to previous analyses, they accepted that their concerns were addressed and just moved on.
miker613
interesting comment miker.
Why BEST and not HADCRUT, GISS, NOAA, or JMA?
Miker613,
Hmmm, yes I largely agree. I will add (you may disagree) that there is virtually no chance of us constraining the sensitivity much in the next decade or so. Given this, it should probably be “also accept the range of sensitivity and move onto economics and politics”.
‘Some “skeptics” ‘ – obviously not all. I don’t know that Anthony Watts recanted. But he did back quietly down with his paper and haven’t heard from it since. I guess that’s all I can expect, from either side of climate science.
And of course there are plenty of fools out there, always are. It would be nice if both sides could take on the job of tamping down their own fools, but probably no one thinks that’s a good use of their time. It’s no fun – it’s a lot more interesting and rewarding reacting to the fools on the other side. I feel the same way.
Not likely, because when it comes down to it, Then There is Physics. if this were a soft science forum of politics and economics, I think the blog would be named something else. Perhaps “And Then There is Rhetoric”?
WHT,
Yes, I wasn’t meaning me, specifically. Overall, though, the societal debate should be more about economics and politics than whether or not the temperature datasets are correct, or quite what climate sensitivity actually is.
I should add, though, that I’m not arguing that science shouldn’t be playing a role. I’m just suggesting that the societal debate shouldn’t be about the science, but should be more about what we should do, given the science. Clearly science should inform what we do.
Miker does his best to make it so.
“Why BEST and not HADCRUT, GISS, NOAA, or JMA?” Richard Muller, Judith Curry, Steven Mosher, Zeke Hausfather. And Anthony Watts. And Roy Spencer, for that matter.
Whatever – there were issues that seemed important, things weren’t in good enough shape that anyone could tell how important (except partisans who _knew_ – on either side), and I think everyone on that list felt that they needed to be addressed. Doesn’t mean I believed conspiracy theories, or needed them.
@ATTP “there is virtually no chance of us constraining the sensitivity much in the next decade or so”. Oy. Speaking personally, I’d rather spend a few billion dollars in the next decade trying, than a few trillion making really dumb decisions based on a factor-of-four range in the sensitivity. If ECS>6, I need to know it as soon as possible. If ECS<2, you need to know it as soon as possible. Spend a lot of money on better data: more ARGO, more satellites, more paleo cores. Much more and better meta-data. Is the BEST program interested in expanding into that area? [Since Steve Mosher is here, I wonder if he'd comment: I recall him saying that a lot of the long-term paleo data, and the sensitivity estimates that came out of it, is essentially uncheckable and therefore untrustable, as the authors just never provided enough information to go over their work.] If this is important.
Miker,
any learning you took from the fact that BEST showed the consensus to be accurate?
miker613,
I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t think it is actually possible. However good we can make the models, we can’t be sure of their strength until time has passed, and that would need to be more than a decade. We can always improve paleo estimates, but probably not enough to constrain sensitivities much more than we have now. We can do basic energy balance calculations (such as Lewis & Curry) but, again, these have assumptions and approximations that mean we can’t really know how robust their results are either. I think we have to work with what we’ve got. We could spend billions and discover, in ten years time, that we’re not much better off than we are now in terms of constraining climate sensitivity and we’re ten years closer to whatever problems we might face. Of course, I’m not arguing against improving our understanding. I’m simply suggesting that what we have now is probably about as good as it can be at the moment and it’s not going to get significantly better in the next 10 years.
The reason that I am not interested in understanding politics and economics from a scientific basis has to do with the intractable problem of Game Theory. This is known variously as the Lucas Critique, Campbell’s Law, and Goodhart’s Law and it boils down to the inability to model the behavior of humans.
These laws essentially state that the minute someone claims to have a model for economics, the reaction to that is to subvert the model. The model then immediately becomes invalid . This is also known generally as the principle of reflexivity. The name of this blog would then be “And Then the Answer Becomes Invalid”.
For a current economic puzzler, look at the roller coaster of gasoline prices. Knock yourself out if you want to study that ! All that really matters and what concerns me is what is in the ground. Everything else is up in the air.
Climate science also does not have this problem, and is the main reason that I am interested in it as a more tractable branch of science. It may look difficult, but it is less a hopeless muddled mess than figuring out economics.
So if MikeR has some idea about economics and politics, all I have to do is point to game theory and all his assertions are moot.
Miker
According to BEST, land surface temperatures have risen 0.9C in the last fifty years. We live and farm on the land surface. That’s the end of the fake sceptic argument about sensitivity, right there.
There you go. Here you have a chance to classify “Sensitivity” as a physics definition or an economic definition. Do you use the laws of physics to “constrain” the value or do you use economics laws to do that?
Game theory says that you have no idea whether any amount of guided monetary influence will have any impact at all.
@vtg “any learning you took from the fact that BEST showed the consensus to be accurate?”
Interesting question. Is the answer supposed to be, Ridiculous conspiracy theories should not be taken seriously? I never did. Or is it, consensus of scientists is right 97% of the time? Doesn’t seem this provides quite enough data for that conclusion. Maybe you just got lucky?
My impression from that list of scientists I gave was that they believed – and still believe – that this work was necessary because the issues that concerned them could not be addressed by trusting the consensus. Indeed, that there wasn’t really a consensus on those issues, because they hadn’t been addressed yet and not too many scientists even knew about the need for it.
Your turn: Any learning you took from the fact that so many prominent skeptics more-or-less accepted the BEST conclusions? I would suggest an important one: insist on showing all your work. Michael Mann and co. helped _create_ the modern skeptical movement by fighting tooth and nail to avoid releasing first data, then later code and methods. There’s a reason why climate skeptics hold Michael Mann in contempt, and it isn’t because of his poor statistical skills. The first decade of climateaudit reads as a very frustrating (and embarrassing for science) process of reverse-engineering paleo studies to try and figure out how in the world they got those results. “Why should I show you my work when your goal is to find something wrong with it?” Again, ask Steve Mosher. I mean, come on: http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/01/lonnie-and-ellen-serial-non-archivers/. If this is important.
Any learning you took from the fact that after close to a decade of hiding details and sneering at skeptics who didn’t trust the methods he wouldn’t reveal, Mann’s methods of the time have actually been abandoned as wrong? Any learning you took from the fact that even after they have been abandoned, I can still find commenters (and bloggers) who think that M&M was refuted long ago – because PAGES2K?
” Is the BEST program interested in expanding into that area? [Since Steve Mosher is here, I wonder if he’d comment: I recall him saying that a lot of the long-term paleo data, and the sensitivity estimates that came out of it, is essentially uncheckable and therefore untrustable, as the authors just never provided enough information to go over their work.] If this is important.”
Hmm I dont recall saying that. I do recall saying that improving paleo was really important because like hansen I think it’s got some benefits that are hard to match with GCM based approaches.
Muller did a lot of work in paleo. My sense is he disagrees with me about it’s importance so it would
be up to me to do some work and prove to him that I was right to be interested in it. Presently I’m working on some ways to improve the local fidelity of temperature fields. A lot of that is collaboration with one other guy not in our group.
It’s kind of hard to explain how ‘we’ get interested in stuff. First, our funders don’t ever direct the science or what we look at. Right now Zeke is interested in Natural gas questions and working
on stuff. Rohde is interested in PM 2.5
https://virtualoptions.agu.org/media/A23N-02.+Air+Quality+in+Asia+IV,+Presented+By+Robert+Rohde/0_cbukkskh
short answer nobody is working the paleo question.
“miker613 says:
January 27, 2015 at 4:27 pm
‘Some “skeptics” ‘ – obviously not all. I don’t know that Anthony Watts recanted. But he did back quietly down with his paper and haven’t heard from it since. I guess that’s all I can expect, from either side of climate science.”
His paper is now done. Lots of double checking is going on.
Should be interesting, but not policy relevant in my mind.
WHT, near as I can tell, you aren’t making any sense.
If you don’t want to discuss politics or economics, fine. You may be right that they are intractable. Now please get out of the way so those of us who need to work out policy can do it as best we can with very limited information.
@vtg again: “any learning you took from the fact…” I hope one thing people _don’t_ learn from this is, Never admit error. If you do, verytallguy will show up and imply that you were foolish to ask the question when smart people knew it all along. If you don’t, your own fans at least will keep claiming that the other side was refuted long ago.
Miker,
cmon, give the victimhood a rest.
There’s a much bigger lesson here than the insignificance of UHI.
It’s that a scientific consensus is probably correct.
If you take that into the politics and economics then you’ll be arguing for mitigation. And quickly.
> WHT, near as I can tell, you aren’t making any sense.
Chewbacca enters the room. Grabs a telescope. We hear squirrel squeaks.
What will he do next?
@vtg On climate sensitivity we have disagreement by a factor of four or so, which is bad. On economics we have disagreement by a couple of orders of magnitude, including whether the value of mitigation is huge positive or huge negative. There are economists with Nobel Prizes on both sides.
In politics, I think the “consensus” view is probably that China and India are going to keep burning carbon till they don’t need to, no matter what anyone says about it, and that that means that no CO2 targets will be met till mid-century, no matter what.
There is no consensus on the politics and economics. Not even close.
willard –
I’m going to offer an opinion in miker’s defense here. It is not a blanket defense, as I have had some “issues” with some of his stuff in the past…
near as I can tell is an un-Brandon-like qualifier, and I would say puts what followed in a non-Brandon category.
For one, I had trouble following where WHT was going – except in a very general sense. I would not phrase it as “you aren’t making any sense,” and miker might advance the ball by walking that part of it back.
———————
As for the bigger lesson. I would agree that instructive – not so much because it speaks to the probability that the “consensus” is correct, but because it shows us how invested people are in holding on to their views no matter what. As such, unless you think there is something fundamentally different about the psychology on one “side” as compared to the other (which I personally think is improbable), I think it should be lesson for all of us.
miker –
==> In politics, I think the “consensus” view is probably that China and India are going to keep burning carbon till they don’t need to,”
There’s a huge range there. As much as possible? For eternity?
==> “no matter what anyone says about it,”
Also, I think too broad to be of any use.
==> ” and that that means that no CO2 targets will be met till mid-century, no matter what.”
Progress might be made even if the targets aren’t met. Is that of any value whatsoever?
I don’t accept your parameters. I can’t say that interpreted as stated (without qualifiers) that they’re wrong…just that I don’t see a realistic basis for being so categorical.
Joshua,
Yes, I think that we have to be careful of our predictions, that nothing can/will be done, simply becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.
MikeR
No we don’t. There’s a range and there’s a best estimate of ~3C ECS / 2xCO2. Everything we know (including paleo) points to the best estimate being about right. Everything including BEST – don’t forget that the 0.9C increase in land surface temperatures in just 50 years blows the rhetorical under-estimators out of the water.
I notice that you blanked that comment btw.
Yeah, Joshua, I’ll walk that back if you think so. I just couldn’t follow his point. To me, gathering more and better information on a trillion-dollar question is a very good idea, as it may enable correct trillion-dollar decisions. He seemed to be saying that any money you spend on it has no guaranteed return, so you shouldn’t do it, or something. But (I expect he thinks) mitigation money has no guaranteed return, so we better do it right away. Anyhow, it was easier to ignore it than try to sort it out.
“For eternity?” Certainly not. China doesn’t want deadly pollution any more than anyone else. Sometime, sooner I hope than later, renewables will become actually truly cheaper than fossil fuels and China and everyone will switch to them.
“Progress might be made even if the targets aren’t met. Is that of any value whatsoever?” Maybe. Depends on the cost, and the value. Depends on the economist. I just don’t see the consensus. Which is why (not sure why I’m pointing this out) not much has happened in twenty years.
I was idly wondering if any local scientists or politicians might also be interested in taking down David Rose & The Mail on Sunday:
Any chance of a retweet or two?
miker613,
Yes, that does seem to be the issue. There seems to be little consensus amongst those who consider this from an economic perspective. Maybe that’s why some economists get so worked up when people illustrate a consensus in another field. They’re just jealous 🙂
@BBD Must I respond to every comment I disagree with? I noticed that the IPCC disagrees with you too. They don’t seem to have a best estimate for AR5, unlike AR4, and they expanded the lower side of the range. And everyone knows (for that I’m quoting James Annan) that estimates should be coming down even more because of the last decade. Aside from yours, I haven’t seen claims that BEST proves Nic Lewis wrong, though maybe I missed them. Certainly Judith Curry works with them both.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but I don’t know why I’m bound by it if the IPCC is not and if James Annan is not and if Judith Curry is not.
miker –
==> “For eternity?” Certainly not. China doesn’t want deadly pollution any more than anyone else.”
But there’s more in play than simply pollution. Although pollution may be a strong driver, there is also the recognition that at some point in the future being ahead of the curve will pay dividends. You can’t apply the mechanics of turning around an ocean liner (the U.S. political system) to a political system which has the capacity for the command and control to identify and target goals with greater efficiency. If, which might be unlikely but is possible, there is a less ambiguous signal in extreme weather or if there is a strong El Nino, there might be more than just pollution to drive China’s approach towards renewables. Seems to me that if we’re to adopt a comprehensive approach, we have to allow for such possibilities even while not blindly ignoring the economic incentives to push coal.
==> “Sometime, sooner I hope than later, renewables will become actually truly cheaper than fossil fuels and China and everyone will switch to them.”
Hmmm. “Truth” in the relative cost of different energy resource pathways is, IMO, so comlicated as to become pretty subjective. Accepting that the concrete and proximate costs of sourcing energy from renewables is higher than for fossil fuels is important but not sufficient for determining “truth,” IMO. But if one doesn’t want to engage that larger discussion, they can certainly lay claim to the hallowed ground of truthdom.
==> “Progress might be made even if the targets aren’t met. Is that of any value whatsoever?” Maybe. Depends on the cost, and the value. Depends on the economist.”
Yup.
==> “I just don’t see the consensus. Which is why (not sure why I’m pointing this out) not much has happened in twenty years.”
Consensus has to be derived through a process. The process is sorely lacking. No reason to expect consensus unless something about the process changes. In that I agree with you, and I wonder if we aren’t both agreeing with WHT?
Miker
I can think of few better reasons to respond to a comment.
That’s because there were problems synthesising the different methodologies, not because IPCC or anyone else has stepped back from the ~3C estimate. You are misrepresenting IPCC.
No, that’s just wrong. While some methodologies are over-sensitive to the short-term variability seen over the last decade, nobody is suggesting that estimates of sensitivity should be reduced because of short-term natural variability. Another misrepresentation.
BEST destroys under-estimator rhetoric, Miker. It blows it away. I repeat: 0.9C land surface temperature increase in just 50 years. And you retreat into denialist evasions, as usual.
miker613,
Can you actually quote James Annan. As BBD says, the last decade is not really evidence for lower climate sensitivity since even high sensitivity models can produce decadal periods with slowdowns similar to what we’ve experienced over the last 10 years or so.
ATTP, I know you said it’s unlikely that we can find out soon, but I personally would freak out if ECS turned out to be >6. By me, the economics is the driving force. Convince me that an planet-killing asteroid is headed for the earth and I will embrace whatever totalitarian measures might be needed to stop it. Convince me that it will just be difficult and expensive and I will probably decide to wait in the hope that it won’t. I think that I’m fairly typical, of course.
If it’s really important, maybe that ought to get you spending money with me on trying to narrow down ECS, just on the off chance of actually succeeding and succeeding politically – instead of continuing to scream that you’re convinced to a lot of people who aren’t, and continuing to fail?
Miker
I though ‘sceptics’ accepted BEST. You said they did. You said you did.
But as soon as we scratch the surface, you don’t. You start desperately trying to reject the obvious and destructive effect on lukewarmer rhetoric produced by a rise of 0.9C in surface temperatures in just 50 years.
The problem is you can’t.
Why don’t you admit that actually you *do* reject BEST? Because you clearly do. Be honest with us. Be intellectually coherent.
Miker,
I made no claim of a consensus on politics or economics.
Merely that the lesson of BEST is to take the consensus science as the starting point
That’s the consensus in all areas, not just those it is convenient to agree with
miker says –
==> “Convince me that an planet-killing asteroid is headed for the earth and I will embrace whatever totalitarian measures might be needed to stop it. Convince me that it will just be difficult and expensive and I will probably decide to wait in the hope that it won’t. I think that I’m fairly typical, of course.”
I think that to the extent that we can talk about established fact in the climate change wars, what miker describes is pretty much an established fact of how people approach risk assessment and hence the risk posed by ACO2 emissions.
But I don’t know that it is an immutable fact.
Miker talks of how “not much has happened in the last 20 years…” and in strict terms of altering the trajectory of ACO2 emissions, we might not be able to see a signal to show what has “happened.” There are clear metrics for evaluating that trajectory. Measuring the trajectory in how people are approach the risk posed by climate change is tougher. We certainly see sameolsameol in the climate-o-sphere, but trying to generalize from an outlier is inherently unscientific.
MikeR tosses around the trillion $ number. Is this money allocated to researching climate science, or is it allocated to mitigating adverse climate change impacts, or is it the potential damage done to society? He never said. I think he has to carefully set up his thought experiment here if he wants to follow the scientific method.
But then it doesn’t matter anyway because of what game theory says about trying to predict and control human behavior.
Am I trying to make this a dead-end discussion? Or am I trying to make other commenters aware of the intractable issues in modeling reflexive human behavior?
MikeR, If I tell you to “go away” (like you told me to), does that make you want to stay? Or is that dispiriting enough that you won’t come back? Who knows? Who cares?
I hate to sound like a broken record, but I think I told you before that China both agreed to cap their coal emissions by 2020 and their CO2 emissions by 2030 if not sooner. No one forced them to do it. Global emissions excluding China are pretty flat. Since the US is also taking action, I think emissions reductions are achievable as long as the EU joins in..
“nobody is suggesting that estimates of sensitivity should be reduced because of short-term natural variability.”
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/search/label/climate%20sensitivity
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html
“Clearly, the longer the relatively slow warming continues, the lower the estimates will go [my bolding]…I remain deeply unimpressed by the way in which this embarrassment has been handled by the climate science insiders, and IPCC authors in particular. Their seemingly desperate attempts to denigrate anything that undermines their storyline…do them no credit.” “the additional decade of temperature data from 2000 onwards (even the AR4 estimates typically ignored the post-2000 years) can only work to reduce estimates of sensitivity…[my bolding]”
@ATTP: “the last decade is not really evidence for lower climate sensitivity since even high sensitivity models can produce decadal periods with slowdowns similar to what we’ve experienced over the last 10 years or so.” No, it really is evidence. This is all obvious; I’m a little dumbfounded that it has to be explained. It is basic statistics. If theory A has an unlikely but possible event, and theory B has the same event with a much higher probability, then the occurrence of that event is evidence for theory B. It doesn’t prove it, but it forces us to downgrade our opinion of A vs. B.
In this case, by the way, the decadal periods with slowdowns were for much smaller forcings, i.e., from earlier. I don’t know that the models can produce a slowdown this long, with this large a forcing. Various studies seem to have shown failure to do so at <5%.
This is _exactly_ what we mean when we say that a hypothesis was disproven at the 5% significance level.
Oh, dear – last time I try bolding.
[Mod : I fixed it. You forgot the / before the b at the end of each bold segment.]
But miker – an observed 0.9C increase in land surface temperatures over the last 50 years trumps what I suspect is simply a poorly-expressed sentence by JA. JA may well have meant that methodologies unduly sensitive to their end-point will further under-estimate sensitivity if the relatively slow surface warming continues. It’s an odd thing to say really, because the rate of ocean heat uptake (OHC increase) is vital too. It’s also implausible for a decade or two of natural variation in the rate of surface warming to have a significant effect on TCR, never mind ECS.
> To me, gathering more and better information on a trillion-dollar question is a very good idea, as it may enable correct trillion-dollar decisions.
It would be interesting to know where MikeR got his trillion-dollar. Is this an engineer-level formal derivation or something?
Also, the whole idea that about “constraining sensitivity”: how do we do that exactly, and how will this impact in the trillion-dollar question aforementioned?
Finally, I think MikeR owes us an explanation as to why this “more research needed” is to be distinguished from other efforts we’ve seen to delay policy-making from happening.
Not that we’ve never had this “conversation” before. At this point in time, MikeR has switched to “your green kumbaya shall never pass anyway” or something along these lines.
The more I read what JA wrote, the more I disagree with it. He sounds like he is axe-grinding.
miker613,
Okay, this I agree with:
The longer it goes, the lower the estimates will go.
This I was surprised by, but he may have a point:
I’m not sure I quite get this, though, and I’m not convinced everyone working in the field agrees.
About this:
Hmmm, except I’m not convinced there is a theory A and B in this case. The climate models that we’re considering here are typically poor at reproducing decadal variability. Therefore it’s not clear to me that one should conclude that those with lower climate sensitivity are somehow now more likely, given the last decade, than those with higher climate sensitivities. If one could show that those with lower climate sensitivities are more likely to reproduce the last decade than those with higher sensitivity and that this produces a difference ECS distribution, then I’d agree, but I don’t think I’ve seen this illustrated.
It is astonishing to recall that Booker was one of Private Eye’s founders, and has characterized hiself as one of The Telegraph editorial board’s ” more eccentric contributors”.
miker –
Now I think that Annan was ladling out some hyperbole there, but even still, I read what you write in 7:54 – as in some ways the target audience (not particularly bright, not particularly well-informed)…and think it makes some sense to me
And then I see something like this
Here’s how to embolden quotes:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html?showComment=1360067118762#c114791641672328547
Where was Nic’s median, again?
Willard,
Yes, I think I’d seen that and I also read a recent Annan & Hargreaves paleo paper suggesting an ECS of 2.5K. So, maybe his “lower” is more a “from closer to 3K” to “closer to 2.5K” kind of lower, than a “from 3K to below 2K” kind of “lower”.
Miker
No, it really isn’t.
One only has to remember that the climate system ≠ the troposphere.
Then go and look at OHC.
There’s the energy, piling up. Lukewarmer rhetoric fails again.
WHT, I wasn’t telling you to go away. I meant that if you don’t want to talk about economics and politics because they are intractable, you might as well leave this issue to those who have to deal with them whether we like it or not.
Willard, I have no problem acknowledging that Annan does not have the same estimate as Lewis – something I never claimed. Now can everyone else acknowledge that their claim that “nobody is suggesting that estimates of sensitivity should be reduced because of short-term natural variability” is _directly_ contradicted by Annan?
miker613,
I’ll grant you that Annan did indeed appear to say this. I think others would regard it as too soon to make such a strong statement.
I’d go further than that, ATTP. I’d want to know how a decade or two of short term variability in the rate of surface warming can have a significant effect on TCR, let alone ECS.
Whatever the physical mechanism is, it is beyond me at present.
Sorry – to be clear – I’m not asking about the physical mechanism behind the recent slowdown in the rate of surface warming.
Game theory says that you would want me to respond to this in a certain way to provide an advantage to your rhetorical economics argument. No cigar.
So back to the science.
There really is no abatement of the expected temperature rise of 2C per doubling of CO2 globally and 3C per doubling on land. The observations confirm this when the natural variability fluctuations are removed from the global average temperature curve:
The last few years are really no different than the years around 1900 in terms of trend with respect to log(CO2) levels.
“I’d want to know how a decade or two of short term variability in the rate of surface warming can have a significant effect on TCR, let alone ECS.” That doesn’t seem surprising. It would be true if models that model surface temperature can only model this much variability if they have a low TCR. Sooner or later, if the forcing continues to go up and up, your variability gets swamped by the forcing and you wouldn’t get any more “pauses”.
Instead of us guessing, look at the GCMs. They cannot reproduce this long a pause with this much forcing. I.e., they are running too “hot”.
Pingback: Patience, or lack thereof: an illustration | …and Then There's Physics
Which models are running too hot?
miker613,
My understanding is that that isn’t true. It partly depends on the amount of internal variability in the models. This figure – from Ed Hawkins – suggests this depends on the model.
miker
The ‘models are running too hot’ is just another wrong-headed contrarian meme. In fact when CMIP5 forcings are corrected to bring them into line with what actually happened over the last decade, modelled temperature comes into much closer agreement with observations (Schmidt et al. 2014).
Models cannot predict the amount of volcanic aerosols a decade in advance, nor the state of the sun, nor the predominant phase of ENSO, nor variability in the Pacific Trades modulating ocean heat uptake. That doesn’t make them wrong, as Schmidt et al. shows. Further discussion here.
I wouldn’t argue with Ed Hawkins. But your graph is not too illuminating to me; the most common chart of how the models are failing to reproduce the “pause” is from Ed Hawkins as well.
Certainly some models will have more variability than others. But I had thought it was agreed that basically none of the current ensemble has enough variability to beat the large forcing of today’s CO2. Are you saying that isn’t true?
miker613,
Over a decade they can (I think) which is what I thought we were discussing. Over the last century, they can’t. So, a slowdown for a decade or so is entirely possible even in a model with high climate sensitivity, which is all I was suggesting. Bear in mind, that the trend for the last decade or so may still be around 0.1oC per decade.
Which models are running too hot?
See immediately above, miker. As I said, you are mistaken again. This is what happens when you get your information from contrarian blogs peddling misinformation.
Comment in moderation I’m afraid, ATTP. Not sure why.
@BBD, Annan from above, full quote: “And despite what some people might like to think, the slow warming has certainly been a surprise, as anyone who was paying attention at the time of the AR4 writing can attest. I remain deeply unimpressed by the way in which this embarrassment has been handled by the climate science insiders, and IPCC authors in particular. Their seemingly desperate attempts to denigrate anything that undermines their storyline (even though a few years ago the same people were using markedly inferior analyses of this very type to bolster it!) do them no credit.”
Do you think that Gavin Schmidt’s article is going to convince me otherwise, or subtract from his credibility: that he is doing exactly what Annan is referring to?
“Surprise”. “Embarrassment”. The corrections to the theory may still be correct, but no one who denies that it was a surprise, nothing to see here…, just a “wrong-headed contrarian meme”, can have any credibility.
“Climate Models Show Remarkable Agreement with Recent Surface Warming” – lovely title you sent me. Indeed, remarkable.
Note that Annan isn’t saying you’re wrong. He is saying that everyone in the field _knows_ that you are wrong, and that it’s embarrassing to be caught this far away from reality and especially embarrassing to refuse to admit it.
vtg: Any learning you take from this story?
http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming
That was in 2012; there have been two more years of stagnation since then.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/von-storch-et-al-stagation-in-warming/
more discussion
By the way, BBD, note that in that last link Michael Tobis took the advice I’ve been giving you, and went to Lucia’s blog to fight it out directly! Good for him. Didn’t stay too long, but then Lucia’s pretty sharp.
Ah – I see that on klimazwiebel Ed Hawkins shows up to discuss von Storch’s paper as well. http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2013/08/hans-von-storch-and-eduardo-zorita-on.html
Good for him too.
miker613,
Except that von Storch paper simply points out that there is a discrepancy between the observed warming trends and the range of ensemble model trends that were initialised with forcings that may not match reality. As BBD points out, if you correct by implementing the actual forcings, the match improves and considering the range of trends only, doesn’t really tell you whether or not a single model could have matched observations.
>I have no problem acknowledging that Annan does not have the same estimate as Lewis – something I never claimed
Neither I claimed you claimed it, MikeR. What I think the quote showed is that Nic’s low ball estimates might not be considered plausible. This may or may not matter to you.
James’ quote does not contradict AT’s claim, BTW: “it may be that P” is not incompatible with “It still is not the case that P”.
Don’t know the answer to this, maybe someone does: what does it mean that the models don’t include forcings like volcanic eruptions? Does it mean that they (/some of them) don’t assume any volcanic forcing at all? That would be silly; of course they would return results that are too hot. Does it mean that they guess at an average amount? Was there an unusual amount of volcanic forcing in the last decade or so that I didn’t hear much about? Are any of the models set to include later inputs, like when a volcano goes off?
> then Lucia’s pretty sharp
Here was her sole reply:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/von-storch-et-al-stagation-in-warming/#comment-118470
A bit later:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/von-storch-et-al-stagation-in-warming/#comment-118509
Seems that MT was not making any sense to MikeR at the time.
miker
Why not at least try to understand what is being explained to you wrt CMIP5 forcing updates and contrarian misrepresentations about “the models”.
I can simplify though, if the effort is too great:
You are wrong again.
@Willard. James’ quote does not contradict AT’s claim, BTW: “it may be that P” is not incompatible with “It still is not the case that P”.
Not exactly sure what you’re saying, Willard, but if I understand correctly, it’s wrong. Every _day_ of flat temperatures must bring down the estimate of climate sensitivity by some small amount. It must go down, if only a little. Each day must (slightly) increase the likelihood of the lower estimates over the higher estimates – as that day was a fractionally higher probability event for the low estimates.
Miker,
I’m very familiar with Annans position, and I think you may even see me in the comments on that post if I recall correctly.
And yes, I think there is a lesson there:
Scientists are no better or worse than other people. The process of science distills out the truth regardless.
Notes:
(1) Annan’s best estimate of sensitivity is close to the centre of the IPPC range.
(2) Isaac Newton was a total git who believed in alchemy
(3) The laws of motion still stand
Funny how it’s only Annan making the very strange claim that a decade or two of natural variation means that we have to revise sensitivity estimates down. Only him.
Just re-read my last post (currently in moderation ) and realised it could read as being critical of JA.
That was not at all the intent – quite the opposite in fact.
No. You really don’t understand this at all. Short term natural variability overprints the forced trend all the time. It is essentially irrelevant to longer term behaviour like TCR and certainly like ECS.
“Here was her sole reply:…”
And here was his reply: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/von-storch-et-al-stagation-in-warming/#comment-118463 “If this is an original result I congratulate you. It is interesting and ought to be peer reviewed.” Read more. There is other discussion there.
Nice that you noticed my contribution there; I am only an egg.
BBD,
have a careful read of Annan. He seems very reasonable to me. I think you are filling in the blanks incorrectly.
When considering sensitivity, you need to look at longer periods, eg. the last 50 years of increasing CO2 forcing when land surface temperatures rose by a remarkable 0.9C.
VTG
Help me out then. I recall reading that post at the time and – frankly – thinking ‘cobblers’.
“No. You really don’t understand this at all.” No. You don’t understand it. It is basic statistics, and I’ve explained it several times. It is not difficult, and your point is not a problem and is actually included in what I said.
Oh, and MikeR’s “embarrassment” quote comes from this post, not A Sensitive Matter:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2014/10/much-ado-about-sensitivity.html
There is this minor matter at the end:
MikeR’s ability to copycat between blogs might be useful to settle that minor matter.
VTG
You are right. I’ve been a victim of selective quotation by miker. Here’s what JA wrote:
Which I have no problem with at all. As you will have noticed I always use the standard best estimate of ECS of ~3C.
miker613,
No, that’s wrong. There’s a few ways to think about this. In some sense climate sensitivity is simply an idealised metric of how our climate responds to a doubling of CO2. It has a single value. Clearly how surface temperatures evolve towards the climate sensitivity value will not be smooth. Sometimes it will be faster than the mean trend, at other times it will be slower. You’re arguing that if warming speeds up climate sensitivity goes up, and if it slows down, it goes down. But this is wrong. It only has one value and variations in the trend as temperatures rise doesn’t change this value.
The models are running hot.
Interesting. Why do you not claim that the observations are running low? Most mitigation skeptics hold the observations to be very unreliable.
And there is no real discrepancy. The observations are in the lower part of the model spread. And the model spread is likely an underestimate of the real uncertainty. Even if it were not, the observations should be close to be lower part once in a while. Otherwise the uncertainty estimates would be too large.
I also expect that it will be very hard to reduce the uncertainty in the climate sensitivity estimates. A few centuries more data would help. But.
BBD,
I haven’t got time to look now, but I think I took away on politics:
AR4 was overconfident of short term projections (again I can’t recall the wording and I’m short of time but I think I’d agree)
These didn’t come about
That is seen as embarrassing and was brushed under the table
And on the science: the top end of the range is constrained by any slowdown, and the likely midpoint slightly lower. That, plus the use of inappropriate priors means the much talked about fat tail is bullocks.
None of which seems at all unreasonable. Just my interpretation mind. Why not ask at his place of you think it’s important?
Thanks, ATTP
I couldn’t think of any simpler way of explaining this than the one I used above and which miker seems unable to grasp.
MikeR,
I have a very basic thermodynamic model for global temperature that I call CSALT. It consists of 5 primary factors that account for natural variability and trend. The acronym CSALT spells out each of these factors.
C obviously stands for excess atmospheric CO2 and the trend is factored as log(CO2).
S refers to the ENSO SOI index which is known to provide a significant fraction of temperature variability, without adding anything by way of a long-term trend. Both the SOI and closely correlated Atmospheric Angular Momentum (AAM) have the property that they revert to a long-term mean value.
A refers to aerosols and specifically the volcanic aerosols that cause sporadic cooling dips in the global temperature measure. Just a handful of volcanic eruptions of VEI scale of 5 and above are able to account for the major cooling noise spikes of the last century.
L refers to the length-of-day (LOD) variability that the earth experiences. Not well known, but this anomaly closely correlates to variability in temperature caused by geophysical processes. Because of conservation of energy, changes in kinetic rotational energy are balanced by changes in thermal energy, via waxing and waning of the long-term frictional processes. This is probably the weakest link in terms of fundamental understanding but the research findings are mainly coming out of NASA JPL, FWIW ,
T refers to variations in TSI due to sunspot fluctuations. This is not too large a factor in comparison to the others but it is there, around the level predicted from basic insolation physics.
Taken together, these factors account for a correlation coefficient of well over 90% for a global temperature series such as GISTEMP.
Over time I have experimented with other factors such as tidal periodicities and other oceanic dipoles such as North Atlantic Oscillation, but these are minor in comparison to the main CSALT factors. They also add more degrees of freedom, so they can also lead one astray.
http://ContextEarth.com/2013/10/26/csalt-model/
My only surprise is that more people don’t do this kind of modeling. It might be too basic and not sophisticated enough to attract the GCM crowd.
VTG
I agree about the fat tail but never took it seriously anyway – not supported by paleoclimate behaviour. Miker’s essentially twisted what JA actually meant to make it look as though JA is arguing for a substantial revision downward in the central estimate – but he isn’t. TL;DR I’ve been somewhat tr0lled.
It’s worthwhile noting that as well as JA, there are a small number of others even more critical of aspects of the science and particularly of the behaviour of some involved. Jim Bouldin springs to mind.
Without commenting on whether they are right (how would I know) I think we can say that it would be very very surprising if some climate scientists were not behaving badly.
Scientists are just people, with the same flaws as other people.
The process of science, however, means that broadly speaking we can trust the overall output.
> I am only an egg.
Unless words for you mean what you decide they are, you’re not:
http://johnmacfarlane.net/135/humpty.html
There’s nothing much going on there except mere contradiction until Troy shows up, but then I’d have to remind you of this technical comment:
vtg,
I don’t think that JA and Bouldin are in the same league. AFAICT, Bouldin hates Michael Mann and hates anyone else who doesn’t hate Michael Mann.
> Clearly how surface temperatures evolve towards the climate sensitivity value will not be smooth.
James makes a similar point:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html?showComment=1360200789628#c8427319548463603949
And then we’d need to invest more years and more billions to feed economic models?
Give me a break. CS hurly burlies are entertaining pastimes at best.
“You’re arguing that if warming speeds up climate sensitivity goes up, and if it slows down, it goes down.” I am not. I am repeating what I said above: if you have a distribution of possible values of ECS, and a certain “day” is more likely under one of those scenarios than another, then that day increases the probability of that scenario over the other. Your probability distribution is going to shift (slightly) toward the values where that event was more likely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem
“Miker’s essentially twisted what JA actually meant to make it look as though JA is arguing for a substantial revision downward in the central estimate” I twisted nothing. He is arguing for a downward revision (maybe from 3 to 2.5). Obviously, he doesn’t go as far as Lewis and I never thought he did, and never implied it. I brought Annan to prove the point I was making and you were denying:
Find the subtle difference between these two statements:
(A) The pause in temperatures is surprising and extremely significant, it is dishonest to deny it, and we _obviously_ must lower our sensitivity estimates in response.
(B) The pause in temperatures is no surprise at all; indeed, the models are just fine with it. We _should not_ lower our sensitivity estimates in response at all.
One of these is a paraphrase from Annan, the other from BBD. To me they don’t sound _quite_ the same.
BBD:
“Funny how it’s only Annan making the very strange claim that a decade or two of natural variation means that we have to revise sensitivity estimates down. Only him.”
If you read more of what Annan claims, rather than miker613’s partial quotes and personal interpretation, for the most part he argues that it makes very high values (he’s mentioned “over 4C” at least once) increasingly unlikely. He’s been arguing against very high values of sensitivity for some time. He’s essentially arguing that the last couple of decades of data strengthens the argument for the range being about 2.5-4C, with his own bet on the low end (keep in mind that the version of NASA GISS Model E apparently yields about 2.75C, according to a comment made by Gavin Schmidt perhaps about a year ago).
There’s no comfort for policymakers here.
Nor does it match the impression that miker613 is trying to give, though my guess is that he’s just parroting someone else.
miekr613,
Yes, but you need to show that everyday (or every year) that temperatures don’t rise as fast as we had expected that this makes a lower sensitivity model more likely than it was before. My point is that I don’t think this is true. If we get to the point where we can rule out (or almost rule out) a certain set of models with high sensitivity, then this would be true. However, I don’t think this will evolve as fast as you seem to be suggesting. Having said that, what James Annan might have been suggesting (that we can rule out those with ECS > 4K) might be true, but that’s really close to the upper limit anyway.
miker
No, you brought in JA because you don’t want to admit that BEST destroys the lukewarmer rhetoric by showing an increase in land surface temperatures of 0.9C in just fifty years.
This entire exercise has been to distract away from that.
Willard is right: arguing the minutiae of sensitivity estimates is to miss the point, which is that land surface temperatures are rising significantly (observations) and will continue to do so on multidecadal to centennial timescales which is going to be a serious problem unless there is a policy response.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22i+am+only+an+egg%22
“He’s essentially arguing that the last couple of decades of data strengthens the argument for the range being about 2.5-4C.” I don’t know what he was saying in years past. His statements that his personal best guess is around 2.5 don’t fit with that statement. Don’t know what his current range is, but it must start below 2.5. Probably that’s either median or mode.
Googled this, interesting: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/weaker-global-warming-seen-in-study-promoted-by-norways-research-council/?comments&_r=0#permid=20 “A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.”
So I’d probably shift your range from 2-4, maybe, with 2.5 preferred?
0.9C in just 50 years.
“No, you brought in JA because you don’t want to admit…” As I asked earlier, does it matter that no one agrees with you? Sensitivity estimates are coming down, tho slowly. Is someone out there claiming that BEST changes that in any way?
BBD, how much pain has that 0.9C caused?
I want that pain in numbers and I want it now.
Thanks for your kind assistance on Twitter Vinny!
Here’s the latest update from the front line in our fearless battle to save the planet (or at the very least to save the planet from David Rose!)
Any chance of a retweet or two?
New data below the expected temperature for a given climate sensitivity would not reduce the climate sensitivity, but it would reduce the estimate of the climate sensitivity. I that respect I agree with Miker. The influence will be very small, however, compared to the trend of about 1 degree we have seen since 1900, a decade of data does not make much difference. The uncertainty in a trend goes with the square of the length of the data. Thus one decade of data only provides 1% of the information of one century of data. Short term trends are not important scientifically. Politically they are naturally very useful. Unfortunately.
> Googled this
“This” being Aldrin & al, the topic discussed by James in the post I just quoted. Here’s the first paragraph, where he even cites Andy’s:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html
Even eggs can grok that.
Vinny, not that much. Locally the variability in the annual means is about 1 degree centigrade. That is thus still something most systems are adapted or designed for. That people argue we should do something about climate change is not because of the effects we see today, but because of the effects that are already unavoidable today and because of the effects that are still avoidable today.
I want evidence of the future. Now.
“so far so good, so far so good” says the man falling from a 50 storey building.
Ligne’s results have been replicated:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/#!po=0.735294
It was my understanding that Mojib Latif showed, ten years ago, that a decade or even two without marked warming was entirely possible, given the then current understanding of variability and likely trend. I’m finding it hard to reconcile my understanding of Latif with expressions of surprise at just that thing happening. What am I missing here?
miker
What matters is that sensitivity isn’t going to be low enough for lukewarmer rhetoric to be anything other than a political deception.
0.9C in fifty years demonstrates that unequivocally. Your desperation – including this ‘nobody agrees with you’ rubbish that you have started to repeat – borders on comical.
BBD/Miker,
miker said
and it is important I think to acknowledge he was, at least to my understanding, correct, even though such a statement has the potential to be highly misleading.
As BBD and others have been pointing out, this is pretty insignificant quantitatively. Victor above (as often) gets it spot on I think
miker,
It is instructive to see if you have taken on board the lessons from BEST here or not – that the consensus is probably right.
Annan has fairly recently been on climate dialogue, in debate with Nic Lewis and John Fasullo.
If you feel that James Annan is your go-to expert for low sensitivity, it may be an eye-opener (all quotes following from JA):
Ouch.
An interesting scientific observation:
An interesting political observation
And to the numbers:
Consensus (AR5): sensitivity range 1.5-4.5 degC/doubling
Annan: “Overall, I would find it hard to put a best estimate outside the range of 2-3°C.”
Fasullo: ” I see no solid basis for rejecting an approximate range for ECS of 2.0 to 4.5 with a best estimate of about 3.4.”
Lewis: “The soundest observational evidence seems to point to a best estimate for ECS of about 1.7°C, with a
‘likely’ (17-83%) range of circa 1.2–3.0°C.”
Annan and Fasullo are clearly within the consensus, arguing for low and high side of it, respectively. Lewis appears to be teetering on the edge.
So, miker, following your learning from BEST, what range would you put on climate sensitivity, and what would be your best estimate?
Refs
http://www.climatedialogue.org/climate-sensitivity-and-transient-climate-response/
VTG
Good comments and thank you. One subtle, but (to me) important point needs to be clarified with Miker. Here are two correct statements (emphasis mine):
JA said:
Victor said:
This is exactly what I said at the outset: so-called ‘observational’ estimates are affected but not the thing itself (emphasis original):
Reviewing the thread, I think miker has exploited this confusion to the best of his abilities.
BBD,
I think Annan’s views on sensitivity are very clear in his climate dialogue blog and subsequent comments
I don’t think your 7:59 post you quote is representative of his views there.
I know you won’t like this, but I think miker has been correct in almost everything he’s said on Annan. And it’s important (to me at least) to acknowledge that.
As to whether miker is exploiting anything, I think the main thing he’s exploiting is the ease with which he can provoke a response which shows him in a good light.
Finally, just so as not to lose sight of the pea, recall that Annan’s best estimate of sensitivity is close to the centre of the IPPC range.
Thank you, Very Tall.
Don’t forget that MikeR does not necessarily agree with James. He just used it against AT.
Every egg who did not grok ECS in 2013 knows that Nic is the dog to have in the lukewarm fight.
Nevemind that we may never be able to constrain CS enough to his desire, that we’ll still be left with the uncertainty bars of the economic model, and that a lower CS may not change the policy response.
What matters above all is that Lucia’s sharp.
VTG
Miker conflated the estimate with the thing itself. Miker also implied that the change in the estimate somehow mattered enough for it to be worth talking about. I objected to both points and I still do.
Can you explain why not?
Willard, 2:35am: that paper is a thing of great beauty.
BBD,
“Miker conflated the estimate with the thing itself” – citation?
“Can you explain why not?” – probably not very well, but here goes…
Annan seems to have a couple of issues with Lewis. Firstly that there are inherent assumptions which may cause his estimate to be low. But secondly, and much more significantly, that Lewis explicitly refuses to consider other methodologies as at all valid – it’s his way alone.
Annan’s suggestion is to use paleoclimate as a prior for Lewis’s method. I suspect that would give you the 2-3 degree range Annan quotes for ECS.
But nowhere I can see anything which suggests Annan believes anything other than what Miker says – temperatures towards the bottom of the previously expected range should result in later revised estimates of sensitivity being lower as a result. (but not much lower).
I really don’t see anything controversial in such a statement.
vtg,
My main issue with what miker was suggesting was the idea that “every day” that temperatures don’t rise suggests a lower climate sensitivity. If we excuse him that as simply being illustrative, then I agree with what you say. The main point that JA is making is that a decade long slowdown will exclude certain high sensitivity models and make some low sensitivity models more likely. However, as Victor points out, the net effect is probably still quite small and doesn’t change that the ECS is probably somewhere between 2.5 and 3oC. Is that how you were seeing this?
ATTP,
I agree with you exactly.
VTG
Miker has morphed his position somewhat as he went along but his belief in low S is evident in everything he says, here and on other threads. I can’t trawl through it all for examples but I absolutely do stand by this statment.
Here’s the shape beneath the surface (my emphasis):
Oh yes, and there was this, too:
> Miker conflated the estimate with the thing itself.
There are no things in themselves, BBD. Or perhaps there are, but we only have instruments and theories to get to them.
I think you jumped on MikeR’s use of “constrain”. Your point seems to be that our instruments won’t constrain sensitivity: only reducing our dumping of CO2 like there’s no tomorrow will. MikeR’s point seems to be more epistemic: we’d need to know CS better before doing anything, except spending amore billions and more years lukewarmingly chilling.
Hope even eggs find this over easy to grok.
BBD/Willard,
let’s await a response to
> nowhere I can see anything which suggests Annan believes anything other than what Miker says
It’s not what MikeR says that matter, but what he does. There are two readings of “sensitivity is influenced by natural variability”. In the first, it’s incorrect, since it’s already part and parcel of CS, or at least it needs to be included within CS before saying the variability V in question is taken into account. In the second, the opposite is correct: any kind of variability should influence CS by definition. The first reading is operational, the second one is quasi-metaphysical.
I’ll try to simplify this later. In philosophy, we get that problem all the time:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_dicto_and_de_re
While we should always play the ball, it helps to look where the hips go.
There’s no need to wait, Very Tall. MikeR has made clear he only was the messenger here. He’s only an egg, if we know better than him all we have to do is to go at genial Lucia’s, etc.
In game semantics, this is called the copycat strategy. It’s unloseable:
Brown is wrong about the 20 moves ahead, BTW.
Very entertaining, willard.
So the remaining question is whether miker remembers how he was able to predict how he knew how many pieces would be left on the boards.
Between 2 and 4, Joshua, and since 4 is two times 2, we need to wait until we get 1,5 and 3, because that would be way less uncertain, and bad.
Bad to the bones. Ba-ba-ba-ba bad.
It doesn’t matter in so far as the physics is concerned. It is straightforward to physically derive the behavior that land will likely have double the short-term warming rate of sea surface temperatures just by looking at the difference in heat capacity of water versus dirt.
James Hansen showed this in 1981.
Vinny, you like MikeR want to turn this into a rhetorical discussion instead of physics.
In the canonical version of the CSALT model, a divergence is seen in the last couple of years. Here is an example of a typical fit applying the main factors:
The model fluctuation detail is really governed by two factors, the equatorial Pacific dipole known as SOI and any sporadic volcanic eruptions that may occur. The fit is rather compelling evidence that variability can cause a pause. This also means that any residual divergence could be another unknown natural fluctuation with a reversion-to-zero-mean property,
So the residual noise left could be just another dipole that is unaccounted for, e.g., an Atlantic ocean dipole to complement the Pacific SOI dipole, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation or the Arctic Oscillation. Dipoles are oscillations that are a nuisance to the underlying signal just as a 60-Hz hum is a nuisance in your audio system.
In any case, with this years record temperature, we have already seen that the pause has reverted to the mean trend and thus has been naturally compensated for and the ln(CO2) based trend of the last 130+ years is continuing.
Been away for a while and need to go away again. But vtg, I appreciate the kind words. It’s good to know that there are people who insist on dealing with truth wherever they find it.
In answer to your question, I don’t know what the correct sensitivity is, and am not in much of a position to guess. I hope it is very low. Given recent publications like Nic Lewis’ which shift the perspective of calculating it based on observations, in a way which wasn’t there a couple of years ago, there _may_ be a basis for that hope. Some other ways of getting ECS seem to give very different answers, as you and Annan pointed out. We’ll see how good the paleo estimate is; as I said, I’d like to see someone like BEST try to make it airtight. Though Dr. Venema doesn’t think so, every year of flat-ish temperatures is doing a good job right now of falsifying some or most of the current crop of GCMs that are failing validation badly – for that we don’t have a century of temperatures, we have less than two decades – so the estimate drawn from GCMs might be expected to go down drastically if (a) temperatures stay flat-ish, and (b) we start to draw those estimates only from GCMs that have not failed validation. There may be no GCMs left with estimates that are consistent with paleo estimates.
And those are the three ways of estimating ECS that are in AR5. If the paleo estimates don’t work out, perhaps a very low estimate is conceivable. We might get lucky.
(I should have noted that though AR5 used methods of estimating sensitivity that are observation-based, like Nic Lewis’s, his study and others since that find these really low sensitivity estimates were published too late to get into AR5.)
You really need to look at the obvious way of calculating TCR, which is to compose the measured global temperature from the significant factors. It’s not that hard to do.
Miker,
hopes aside miker, what ecs do you think policy should be based on Today?
In which miker repeats debunked denier crap and peddles a myth of low sensitivity while insinuating that he is an honest man and others here are not.
Thanks to VTG for facilitating this exchange.
Whence the peculiar idea that a refined estimate of sensitivity from paleo data has yet to be done? The PALAEOSENS Project completed in 2012 and the results were published in Rohling et al. (2012):
I leave it to you to work out the best central estimate for ECS.
BBD,
I understand where you’re coming from, but I think vtg has a point. Miker might have been over-emphasing the impact of the slowdown on CS and might have been somewhat mis-interpreting what JA was suggesting, but I still think this is the kind of discussion we should be willing to have. Damn sight better than the normal denier crap 🙂
ATTP
Models “falsified” models “failing validation badly” “the estimate drawn from GCMs might be expected to go down drastically” etc.
Denier crap.
BBD,
Okay, I grant you, that comment was pretty poor.
It was egregious peddling ATTP. The stuff about models was addressed above by you, VV and myself. Miker then dropped it for a while but now pops up repeating the same line. The incessant repetition of debunked talking points is not civil discourse.
Miker613 said:
“Every _day_ of flat temperatures must bring down the estimate of climate sensitivity by some small amount. It must go down, if only a little. Each day must (slightly) increase the likelihood of the lower estimates over the higher estimates – as that day was a fractionally higher probability event for the low estimates.”
…and Then There’s Physics said:
January 27, 2015 at 11:10 pm
“…..you need to show that everyday (or every year) that temperatures don’t rise as fast as we had expected that this makes a lower sensitivity model more likely than it was before. My point is that I don’t think this is true.”
Then miker 613 said:
“Though Dr. Venema doesn’t think so, every year of flat-ish temperatures is doing a good job right now of falsifying some or most of the current crop of GCMs that are failing validation badly – for that we don’t have a century of temperatures, we have less than two decades – so the estimate drawn from GCMs might be expected to go down drastically if (a) temperatures stay flat-ish, and (b) we start to draw those estimates only from GCMs that have not failed validation. There may be no GCMs left with estimates that are consistent with paleo estimates.”
This last part is false, but more on this in a moment.
ATTP, thank-you for saying what you said above.
It seems to me that those who make this miker613-like argument (1) discount completely or too much actual and potential cause and effect relationships that compete with the global cause and effect relationship between greenhouse gases and temperature, and (2) wrongly assume that if a cause and effect relationship does not express itself in real world data as a one-to-one function in which output correlates tightly with input, then that is necessarily evidence against the cause and effect relationships in question or its strength, even though in general cause and effect relationships due to competing case and effect relationships can and many times do express themselves in real world data as functions that are monotonic but not one-to-one, and even nonmonotonic. (To the reader: See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injective_function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonic_function
if you wish to see some examples.)
For example, they seem to discount completely or too much that we could have a long term upward accelerating trend since the late 1800s that exists within a multi-decadal cyclic fluctuation such that this underlying upward accelerating trend itself *is not influenced* by that which causes the fluctuation, and such that we are now in one of the “slowdowns’ within this cyclic fluctuation.
Please allow me to try to illustrate what I mean, where the trend of the increasing curve *is not influenced* by that which causes the cyclic fluctuation around the curve. It’s easy to create functions whose graphs are in the form of upward curves such that when combined with cyclic functions, the underlying upward curve of the new function remains exactly as before but with cyclic behavior around that original upward curve. For example, on the nonnegative real numbers:
Consider the one-to-one function f(x) = x^(1.9). (Note: In Google Chrome, the Google search engine will automatically graph the right side of this equation for us.) Now consider the cyclic function g(x) = 17cos(x). Now take the sum of these two functions, to get function h(x) = 17cos(x) + x^(1.9). (Zoom in or out to get a good look at all these functions.)
Note that in h we have a cyclic behavior around the trend of the increasing curve given by f, where the trend of the increasing curve given by h is exactly the same as that of f – the trend of the increasing curve of f *is not influenced * by g, which is that which gives the cyclic behavior around this trend around this increasing curve. (We know that the trend of the increasing curve of f and h are the same by comparing the outputs of the functions f and h for all those values of x such that g(x) = 17cos(x) = 0. They’re the same.)
Now, *for entertainment purposes only*, look at a standard graph of the global temperature trend in a longer term moving average of 10 or 11 years, and compare it to the graph of h via this mapping: Roughly speaking, map x=0 to 1880, x=3 to 1910, x=7 to 1940, x = 9 to 1970, and x = 13 to 2005. Note that the cyclic “ups” and “downs” given by h around the increasing curve given by f are such that the successive “ups” have a slightly longer “duration” while the successive “downs” have a slightly shorter “duration”. The upturn from 1910 to 1940 was 30 years, and it from 1970 to 2005 it was 35 years. (This sort of comparison works better on the longer term moving averages of at least 10 years.) Again, this is *for entertainment purposes only*.
This possible cyclic behavior I’m talking about has to do with the oceans as noted by recent papers like the one by Tung and Chen, which get reactions such as these:
“expert reaction to new research on ocean heat sinks and global average temperatures”
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-new-research-on-ocean-heat-sinks-and-global-average-temperatures/
Quote: “Prof Andrew Watson FRS, Royal Society Research Professor at the University of Exeter, said:
“It will be very interesting to see whether their finding that during the last decade the heat has penetrated to depth mostly in the Southern and Atlantic Oceans stands up. It does make oceanographic sense however, because we know these are the major sites for deeper water formation – water from the surface Pacific does not penetrate nearly so deeply into the ocean.”
Note: This last part on what makes oceanographic sense is I think an important point to consider.
In this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
the last study cited in the section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#Effects_of_oceans
was this paper:
“Surface warming hiatus caused by increased heat uptake across multiple ocean basins”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061456/abstract;jsessionid=84EA5AF818934D725A128F908FDCBC56.f02t01
“Oceans play key role in global ‘warming hiatus'”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Oceans-play-key-role-in-global-warming-hiatus/articleshow/45373371.cms
Quote: ” “This study attributes the increased oceanic heat drawdown in the equatorial Pacific, North Atlantic and Southern Ocean to specific, different mechanisms in each region,” professor Sybren Drijfhout from University of Southampton said. “This is important as current climate models have been unable to simulate the hiatus. Our study gives clues to where the heat is drawn down and by which processes,” Drijfhout added.”
Going back to functions f, g, and h above:
Note that as x increases in function h, the “signal” from sub-function f starts to overwhelm more and more the “signal” from sub-function g, so that in h there is less and less noticeable fluctuation around the increasing curve given directly by f and given as an underlying increasing curve in h. Now consider this article:
“No More ‘Hiatus’ – Human Emission to Completely Overwhelm Nature by 2030”
It seems to me that what they’re saying is that the increasing signal from CO2 may soon start to overwhelm anything that might be causing this potential cyclic multi-decadal behavior in question, just as we see in the shape of the graph of h.
I don’t know whether some modelers are creating models that cover the years since the late 1800s and that give cyclic behavior around an underlying upward curve that would be the same regardless of whether that part that gives the cyclic behavior is included.
But it seems to me that it would be a good idea to think about it, given that more and more of these papers are coming out showing that the oceans could be responsible for longer term cyclic behavior that could be manifesting around an upward trending curve, where the “slowdowns” in this cyclic behavior result in more and more people making what I think clearly are mistakes as to how to interpret these “slowdowns” – again, they seem to think that this slowdown must say something about that upward trending curve.
(I’ve put the term “slowdown” in quotation marks since it seems to me that it’s quite likely that that which causes these “slowdowns” could be simply creating cyclic behavior and says nothing about that upward trending curve.)
Deniers sometimes trumpet these new studies showing perhaps some long term multi-decadal cyclic behavior in temperature, but they seem to not get that these studies actually seem to argue against the denier position per what I’m trying to get across above.
And please note that this little exercise with functions f, g, and h is purely for illustrative purposes only, to try to help get across the points I’m trying to make.
BBD,
” The incessant repetition of debunked talking points is not civil discourse.”
So why choose to follow them??
The topic with miker was learning from BEST.
miker has yet to give an answer on what he learned from that regarding sensitivity, but as you point out, has thrown up controversial squid ink on a range of other stuff. You have followed the ink cloud, and offered some strong language in return.
The topic will now become (if miker returns at all) the ink and the strong language.
Now, note that Miker is in a bit of a pickle on sensitivity.
– He has acknowledged his own lack of expertise.
– He has acknowledged that BEST demonstrated consensus of science is probably right
He now has three options:
1) Acknowledge that logically he should follow the consensus of sensitivity, and base policy on a value in the region of 2.5-3.5 I presume this is your position (the consensus, Annan/Fasullo range).
2) Claim that Nic knows best, and therefore miker has more expertise than the consensus of the science.This would be risible
3) Throw up squid ink and hope his pickle is hidden (here I attempt to get the award for the worst mixed metaphor in climate blogs)
I offer that we should thank miker for his squid ink, which we can return to at a future date, and respectfully ask him to stick to the pickle and offer us his view on
what ECS do you think policy should be based on today?
An answer can either surprise us or condemn miker with his own words.
Miker? can you answer this?
If you can get MikeR to tell us the difference (2) makes in terms of policy response, Very Tall, that would be nice. My understanding is that it would give us a decade or two more of BAU to lead us at the same point. In other words, MikeR may need to commit to an impact hypothesis that is not only conveyed implicitly to the audience. Here are some:
The real issue is that the seeming logical method of removing the natural variability factors from the global temperature trend is not the preferred approach by consensus science.
Instead what we see is the contrarians latching on to the more sophisticated approaches such as GCM-based analyses and then showing an “unfrozen caveman lawyer” fear of computations that are waaaaay above their collective heads
Thus, you have people like MikeR and his classmates at Lucia’s BlackBored.getting restless and fidgety and so continuing to harp and snipe over inane details.
Also note the presence of (2) here:
The first sentence seems to imply that MikeR’s rooting for Nic and some Nobel prizes. In a recent comment, he said this was where his “hope” was. So he’s rooting for his hope.
But what do I know, I never make any sense. That’s a bit sad, for I’d never know if I have a point. If I did, MikeR would agree with it. MikeR follows truth wherever it comes from, including where he puts his hope.
pretty sharp?
The views expressed at the BlackBored are often mind-numbing, and only sharp in the sense that they like to needle. I recently noticed one guy that is a general pain-in-the-neck, Steve Fitzpatrick, claimed that a computer’s OS (Operating System!) can take care of programming language array indexing errors.
htpp://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/new-open-thread/#comment-134935
Lots of talk and not much action in that group I am afraid. Fitzy has not heard of modern programming languages with constraint checking and assertions apparently. An OS system call at this point will just bog the algorithm down.
The BB’ers also needle (sharp! ouch!) endlessly why something can’t be done. Like this other guy, David Young, who claims that doing fluid dynamics modeling is impossible. He knows this because he apparently helps design planes, and his planes must fly …. underwater (???).
miker613, quoting JA:
““A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.”
Annan made clear at one point that he thinks that it is extremely unlikely that sensitivity is actually below 2C. Drawing a straight flush is certainly more likely than drawing a royal flush, but either hand is extremely unlikely in five-card poker. His statement was really meant to ridicule claims of sensitivity > 4.5C.
Eliminating that possibility *is* important for policy. If ECS is really >4.5C, or 5C, or 6C, we might as well chuck it all in and play our violins while the world burns. Eliminating that possibility strengthens the argument that it is not too late to take effective action.
miker613 further states:
quoting me: “He’s essentially arguing that the last couple of decades of data strengthens the argument for the range being about 2.5-4C.”
Then “I don’t know what he was saying in years past. His statements that his personal best guess is around 2.5 don’t fit with that statement. Don’t know what his current range is, but it must start below 2.5.”
There is nothing inconsistent between what I said and JA believes, as JA doesn’t not suggest that his best guess is *right*, and that the IPC range must be wrong, and that policy should be set based on his best guess. He, unlike Nic Lewis, isn’t claiming infallibility.
Like VTG, I don’t really have a problem with miker613’s quotes of JA, but he’s misinterpeting JA badly. JA (as quoted elsewhere above) thinks global warming is an important problem that should be addressed now, and doesn’t claim that 2.5C vs. 3C is important enough a difference to suggest we sit on our hands in hopes that consensus estimates of *lower range* of ECS will drop to a very low value in the future.
According to Gavin Schmidt, the NASA GISS Model E runs used for AR5 yield and ECS of about 2.75C. You don’t see people like miker613 waving Gavin’s name around the way they do JA’s. I suspect this isn’t due to the fact that an ECS of 2.5C vs. 2.75C (or 3C) is meaningful from a policy point of view. I suspect it’s because at times JA has been openly critical of the IPCC process and of work that leads to very high ECS estimates, which leads people like miker613 to believe that they can claim JA as “one of their own”. Despite JA’s making it abundantly clear that he’s not.
Geez, my command of written English is exceptionally poor this morning, need more coffee. Please excuse the typos.
@BBD “In which miker repeats debunked denier” Debunked meaning that Gavin Schmidt wrote a paper that disagreed. Well, as has been my experience so far, BBD thinks that a link at realclimate means it’s true. My experience of a decade of following the details of various issues is that a link at realclimate means it isn’t true – at least if it’s on a controversial subject. It just means that Gavin Schmidt found a way to present something that will satisfy his fans, without actually engaging with the other side. “Remarkable agreement.” It doesn’t seem to me that it’s “consensus” that the models are not failing validation. It seems to me that it is pretty close to consensus that they are. That was definitely my impression of the leaked IPCC Summary, before the politicians had a go at fixing it. I have posted links to a published paper by von Storch, and a link that leads to multiple posts by Lucia (that Michael Tobis liked). I think James Annan agrees with me on this point – that all the projections of post-2000 have failed badly, and it was a big surprise.
“The stuff about models was addressed above by you, VV and myself.” Addressed to your satisfaction, apparently. I don’t think the IPCC agreed: “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10–15 years. There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.”
@BBD “Whence the peculiar idea that a refined estimate of sensitivity from paleo data has yet to be done?” Uh, no. I’m not looking for a refined estimate, I’m looking for BEST. I’d like the paleo people to turn over the job to a group of people with statistical expertise and no political axe to grind. Again, a decade of following these things hasn’t given me a high impression of their competence.
VTG, that doesn’t mean their work is wrong, any more than this century’s temperatures were wrong. It means that if you want me to trust the results, let the work be done by someone I trust. In this case, we already know that a lot of paleo has been wrong. “We” means those of us who’ve been following both sides of the issue for a decade, not just reading realclimate encomiums.
Anyhow, that’s my personal take, which people seem to want to hear for some reason. The IPCC gets climate sensitivity from three sources. Two seem very dubious to me. The third has recently had Nic Lewis and co modifying its estimates way down. You can talk to me about whether this expert prior is better than that one (Nic Lewis’ language), but you aren’t going to convince me with estimates from paleo or GCMs, not until BEST redoes them.
@dhogaza “he’s misinterpeting JA badly. JA (as quoted elsewhere above) thinks global warming is an important problem that should be addressed now, and doesn’t claim that 2.5C vs. 3C is important enough a difference to suggest we sit on our hands…” I fault your reading comprehension. I made absolutely no such claim about James Annan. Stick with what I said, please. Annan said two things that I quoted, and (unlike what ATTP keeps saying) I didn’t misinterpret them or overstate them: 1) the modeling has failed embarrassingly in the last decade and a half, 2) that must cause a decrease in sensitivity estimates. A significant decrease, obviously, or he wouldn’t be mentioning and stressing it. Doesn’t mean he agrees w Nic Lewis, he doesn’t.
Willard,
On the couple of decades, I recall the same and I think it’s vs 2C target.
I’m mainly interested in miker revealing his heuristic for accepting scientific findings
miker –
I haven’t studied the food fight very closely (I am amused at how the discussion has slipped into well-worn tracks from the original focus of discussion we were having about politics and policy),but a brief scan suggests that you’ve been asked a question a bunch of times (about the implications of BEST) and I don’t see an answer (again, I haven’t really looked in detail).
Is that true? If so why?
“Note that as x increases in function h, the “signal” from sub-function f starts to overwhelm more and more the “signal” from sub-function g, so that in h there is less and less noticeable fluctuation around the increasing curve given directly by f and given as an underlying increasing curve in h.”
KeefeAndAmanda, you’re claiming that deniers like me can’t understand this point? https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/puerto-casado/#comment-45371
I made this point above. The difference was that, unlike your link, the current models apparently cannot have this large a pause _right now_ with this much CO2 forcing. No need to wait for 2030; that’s just moving the goalposts. That’s why the models are failing validation: because in the entire ensemble, pretty much none of them can have this big a pause at this point. Your remarks should be addressed to ATTP and others, who talked about long pauses in the past century _when there was much less forcing_.
Miker,
neither of your two conclusions vs Annan follow from your quotes.
But first, please, what ECS do you think policy should be based on today?
@VTG “He has acknowledged that BEST demonstrated consensus of science is probably right.” I certainly did not – see my response above. The BEST people themselves said, and continue to say, that the issues they were addressing needed to be addressed, and had not been addressed till then. That means that the work till then may have gotten the right answer, but that was luck, not because the consensus is so awesome.
I also mentioned (paleo) cases where “consensus science” has turned out quite wrong. Doesn’t mean that a consensus is usually going to be wrong. It means I have to use my judgment on whom to trust, especially in a field like climate science where there is so very much politics.
No, Joshua, I answered it. BBD seem to think (repeatedly) that BEST somehow proves a particular climate sensitivity, or at least a minimum. I don’t know why he thinks so, I haven’t seen that others are saying so, so mostly I’m ignoring him. I don’t even know why he is quoting BEST – I don’t think their temperature estimates are so different from the others.
miker –
==> “That means that the work till then may have gotten the right answer, but that was luck, not because the consensus is so awesome.”
“Consensus = awesome” is hyperbole – not really worthy of a response…
…but luck? They determined that UHI did not significantly affect temperature trends across the datasets..which is consistent with previous analyses that said that UHI did not significantly affect temperature trends across the datasets. It isn’t as if the question of UHI was not considered previously – it was that previous analyses determined that the effect would be insignificant.
miker613:
” 1) the modeling has failed embarrassingly in the last decade and a half, 2) that must cause a decrease in sensitivity estimates. A significant decrease, obviously”
How significant a decrease lies between Annan’s best guess of 2.5C and the NASA GISS Model E estimate of 2.75C?
What would be the policy implications of this “significant decrease”? Please be specific.
miker –
==> ” I don’t even know why he is quoting BEST ”
I think because his view that BEST shows “an increase in land surface temperatures of 0.9C in just fifty years.”
Do you agree that’s what BEST shows? If you agree – does that influence your view of S?
How about this?
How do you look at a chart like that and conclude that an estimate of S that was consistent with the first part of the graph would need to be adjusted to be consistent with the 2nd part of the graph?
Is the graph wrong? Where the estimates of S not actually consistent with the first part of the graph? Is it because the rate of growth of CO2 is higher than the trend the graph shows?
miker,
let’s summarise your position.
– your heuristic for choosing what to trust is arbitrary
– you feel perfectly justified in ignoring findings you deem untrustworthy
– this includes in fields where you yourself admit insufficient expertise to judge these findings
– the things you deem untrustworthy are those, exemplified by the consensus sensitivity range, which are inconvenient to you.
So here’s the thing miker. Your position is indistinguishable from:
I’ll leave you to look it up.
thanks for playing.
VTG, I have to pick one? The range is more important to me. But I guess I’d say 2.5, since Annan seems like a nice middle-of-the-road scientist to me, and that seems to be his rough best guess.
But as I said, the range is more important. 2.5 or even 3 would probably not induce me to support action, as the only action I can see having any real effect is to force the developing world to stop growing. I’d rather eat the cost and wait for renewables to become cheap. But if you show me that the real disaster scenarios are happening, that would be different.
I have the impression that Judith Curry has about the same attitude. She has said a number of times that she doesn’t trust the IPCC “very unlikely”s on the disasters, and that that is much more important to her than the median estimates.
“How significant a decrease lies between Annan’s best guess of 2.5C and the NASA GISS Model E estimate of 2.75C?” Seems significant to me. And of course you just picked one model; there are many others with much higher estimates.
“What are the policy implications?” Maybe none. Did I say there were? Given that I would probably do nothing in both scenarios, to me it would be good news because there would be less damage.
miker –
==> “…as the only action I can see having any real effect is to force the developing world to stop growing.”
So carbon taxes and shift to renewables in the developed would wouldn’t alter the trajectory of ACO2 accumulation in the atmosphere? Or they would cause the developing world to stop growing?
> I have to pick one?
On the contrary, MikeR. That’s Very Fall’s point. Eggs are in no position to pick and choose how they’re cooked.
Also, your question presumes you don’t choose, which is false:
Why would we trust an egg’s sense of obviousness, again?
This is where you switched to “but if you want to win my vote you’ll need to convince me” the last time you copycated here at AT’s.
I apologize in advance if what I’m saying does not make sense to you.
@VTG “– your heuristic for choosing what to trust is arbitrary
– you feel perfectly justified in ignoring findings you deem untrustworthy
– this includes in fields where you yourself admit insufficient expertise to judge these findings
– the things you deem untrustworthy are those, exemplified by the consensus sensitivity range, which are inconvenient to you.”
I deny the last claim. The first three apply to BBD as well as me, as well as pretty much everyone. He has chosen to trust a realclimate link, I have chosen to trust the IPCC leaked SPM. He has chosen to trust a realclimate link, I have chosen to trust Steve Mc’s work.
If there is any difference, it is that I have read the realclimate links as well, and I have been following both sides of these issues and seeing who wins the arguments. He has been assuming that realclimate won the arguments because they say so. He doesn’t want to believe that James Annan might say otherwise. Etc.
What do you _think_ someone who doesn’t have enough expertise to judge the work himself should do? When I have followed an issue from both sides and saw which side won the argument, doesn’t it make sense for me to conclude that they are probably right? Take the case on lucia’s blog from above. I posted a link, said she was pretty sharp, and that Michael Tobis showed up to argue. Others made fun of my link, as lucia didn’t respond much. I pointed out that Michael Tobis conceded the point and left. No one else showed up there to contest it. Lucia continues to post once in a while on how the models are failing validation and no one has anything to say, apparently. Tell me what I should have concluded? Same thing with the paleo stuff. Is that arbitrary, or is it what any rational person should do?
But you have ABSOLUTELY no evidence to support this statement. And is that really the reason you don’t want mitigation? Because of your concern for the poor?
Looks like VTG has arrived at the same conclusion as me.
Look it up.
You don’t know much about BEST then.
From Rohde et al. (2013)
Despite all the disclaimers that follow, this is strongly suggestive that the empirical evidence exemplified by BEST supports a sensitivity of about 3C for 2 x CO2.
“But you have ABSOLUTELY no evidence to support this statement.” Joseph, this has been discussed on other threads, and it’s way off topic. As has been acknowledged here and everywhere, on economics there is no consensus at all. There are economists, with Nobel Prizes, who feel this way.
I’d add that Richard Muller, head of the BEST project, who accepts the consensus and favors mitigation, has said this a number of time: nothing but China really matters. Everything else is feel-good theatre, though it may succeed in freezing some people to death in Europe this winter.
“And is that really the reason you don’t want mitigation? Because of your concern for the poor?” Uh – yes. But you know better?
> He has chosen to trust a realclimate link, I have chosen to trust the IPCC leaked SPM. He has chosen to trust a realclimate link, I have chosen to trust Steve Mc’s work.
Is the IPCC’s leaked SPM the Auditor’s work?
If I ever get a last meal, it will be eggs. Sunny side up, BBD.
Chill.
Miker, you didn’t pay attention to what I have posted earlier: And if you didn’t want to get off topic, you shouldn’t have mentioned it.
> nothing but China really matters.
At long last, this ClimateBall episode levels up to 3:
Well, they could follow the consensus of the experts or make a choice based on their own preferred outcome.
Tough call.
miker,
you claim to want two contradictory things
– to choose your own facts
– to move on the policy and economics
the policy and economics follows from the facts. Which is why it’s so important to choose only those that are convenient
Joseph, I’ve seen you post that statement before. I don’t believe it means anything at all; apparently you do. China will do what it needs to do; it has nothing to do with global warming. If the developed world could break/ignore the Kyoto accords as they needed to, China can do the same.
And let’s have a look at why it’s so important to address the issue, based on published facts.
Our bold.
Click to access pone-8-12-hansen.pdf
>. The policy and economics follows from the facts.
They also follow from values, and how we carve up facts reflect values.
CS hurly burlies are not about facts, but about estimates. Very rough statistical artefacts. Nothing very important, except if you’re a king of coal or something.
The difference that would fare Nic’s estimate in impact models has yet to be spelled out. Unless we show that the difference makes a difference, MikeR’s assertion that our uncertainty regarding these estimates are “bad” remains empty.
@VTG “Well, they could follow the consensus of the experts or make a choice based on their own preferred outcome.” Or they could try a third choice, which I already mentioned and you already ignored: they can do their best to judge _which_ experts on the subject are correct, by judging the results of discussions and debates among them.
I do not believe that there are any among you who automatically believe the consensus. Each of you has some experts that you trust more than others, whether it be realclimate or Trenberth or Paul Krugman.
But miker, you have explicitly said you lack the expertise to do this!
And the consensus includes experts at the ends of the distribution – that’s kind of the definition.
You, on the other hand are simply choosing “facts” convenient for your desire not to mitigate. Because the actual facts are inconvenient. Very inconvenient.
You’re providing plenty of supporting evidence that you are indeeed
Willard,
so, yes, I was not trying to claim that a given policy is inevitable result of a given fact, only that without an agreed set of facts it is hard to have a meaningful policy debate.
And again, yes, even if saint Nic is spot on, we do, indeed, still have a problem
So, continuing with inconvenient facts, let’s look at the spread of end of century outcomes projected if we continue our current RCP8.5 trajectory.
Let’s play climate bingo!
Do you fancy
(a) Big trouble?
(b) Catastrophe?
or
(3) Cataclysm?
(a) – Good choice. You are Nic Lewis!
His estimates at the very low end of the range of sensitivity correspond to an end of century rise of around 2.8 degrees. Well into “dangerous”.
(b) – Oh dear. You are James Hansen. You put the “c” into CAGW 100 years or more ago but they ignored you. 4.5 degrees already and plenty more in the pipeline.
(c) Buy guns and head for the hills, though careful to choose somewhere still habitable. The earth is nearly 8 degrees hotter than pre-industrial and climate apocalyspe has already happened, resulting in civilisational collapse.
All facts taken from AR5 WG3 table SPM.1
All artistic licence strictly my own.
I dunno VTG, it looks a bit like thread bombing to me but you made me laugh so I’ll let them stay 🙂
And what happened to (3) and where did (c) come from?
@VTG “you have explicitly said you lack the expertise to do this!” Uh, no. I think I have the expertise needed to tell who does well in a blog debate. (Most people do, unless they are such partisans that their hero is always right.) What I don’t have is the expertise to go inside and judge the value of various published papers.
You are ignoring what I actually said, and translating into some version you like better. Kind of like what you say I’m doing.
“consensus includes experts at the ends of the distribution”. I think that’s probably a mistake, or a different definition of consensus than any I can accept. If you have a distribution with experts saying very different things from each other, scientists have a different name for that than consensus. It’s called an _open question_.
Consensus should be reserved for issues where all the experts think that question is pretty much settled. “97%.” Doesn’t make much sense to ask me to accept the “consensus” on economic value of mitigation vs. adaptation, where estimates vary from large positive to large negative. I don’t see much of a consensus either that “the GCMs are doing a Remarkable Job”.
I would be _very interested_ in knowing if there is a consensus on the following question: If we tried very hard, could we get a much improved estimate of ECS in the next ten years?
@MikeR We are through the looking glass here people!
Rachel,
Mea culpa on threadbombing. Busy until weekend now so you’ve heard the last of me for a bit. Dunno where the 3 and c came from. Must check my butler’s typing more carefully next time.
Sorry, VTG, you’ve stepped out of your consensus realm and into economics. RCP8.5 is a silly projection. Somewhere around mid-century, renewables will probably be cheaper than fossil fuels by every measure. Countries like China will prefer them because of pollution and because they are cheaper and getting still cheaper. Other possibilities: Clean, cheap, next-generation nuclear power may be online. There may be a lot of Teslas. This is a temporary issue, if you don’t freak out.
Do you really take this stuff seriously?
MikeR : “that all the projections of post-2000 have failed badly, and it was a big surprise”
Can you provide any source to back up this claim? I do not recall seeing anything that that showed current temps fell out side the possible range of expected warming. They may be near the low end sure but that is not at all a problem. There are many variables that go in and if (when) the assumptions differ from reality the projections will be off. Why is that at all surprising?
AFAIUI, no.
Even if we could, it isn’t going to be low enough to make any difference. See upthread. Your hopes are already dashed. BEST, remember?
Richard Muller, as I’ve said, goes around saying that we ought to be massively supporting clean fracking (and nuclear power) and teaching it to China and India and anyone who will listen. That has decreased US emissions more than all of the Kyoto Accord countries. Not perfect, but a big improvement, and – this is a temporary issue, if you don’t freak out.
If you really think this is important.
Or you can insist on aggressive mitigation, and block nuclear power because Nuclear Waste and It’s Not Safe. Jane Fonda did terrible damage and only Hansen is saying so. And There’s No Such Thing as Clean Fracking. And spend another twenty years getting nowhere at all like the last twenty years. The rest of us will fight you, because we care about poor people and developing countries even if you think we must work for coal companies.
“BEST, remember?” BBD, contrary to your apparent opinion, repeating something many times is not very convincing.
miker613 I think that BBD’s point with the “BEST, remember?” is that if you accept their results (and you say you do) then it makes a super low sensitivity estimate ridiculously unlikely. So if you are going to back BEST you can not really also back a super low sensitivity.
pbjamm, there are sources linked above. Find “von storch”, “lucia”, “annan”, “hawkins” According to _most_ that I’ve seen, they are outside the 5% rejection range of the ensemble. This isn’t a one-time cherry-picking: as soon as the models were finalized, this drift began and has never stopped. Assuming that surface temperatures aren’t going to actually go down, they basically could not have failed any faster. Actually a classical example of what you expect for curve-fitting: agreement in-sample (they fit the last century pretty well), and immediate failure out-of-sample. Not encouraging.
miker613,
So much has been said in my absent that I don’t really know where to start. I do think you have the trust issue the wrong way round. You can, of course, choose to distrust some sources (with good reason, hopefully) but normally that would leave enough other sources to be a reasonable picture of our current understand. You appear to have thrown everyone out apart from BEST.
I clearly don’t know what JA was meaning when he said these things. If, however, your interpretation is correct, then I think he is wrong. Climate models are scientific tools used to understand how our climate might respond to changes in forces. They don’t really fail, nor are they the kinds of things that we verify or validate. Also, if JA is really suggesting that the mismatch over the last 10-15 years suggest a significant decrease in sensitivity then I think he’s also wrong about that. There are numerous reasons for the mismatch. It could be internal variability. It could be that the actual forcings were different to those used in the models. It could indeed suggest that the high sensitivity models are no longer plausible and that some low sensitivity models have become more plausible, but that does not suggest a significant change in the likely sensitivity.
“Actually a classical example of what you expect for curve-fitting:”
Apart from the fact that the models do not do “curve-fitting” over the whole range, as Gavin Schmidt showed, putting the actual forcings into the models makes them much, much, much closer to what we have seen. In other words, the “out-of-sample” just shows that we have trouble predicting short-term (10, maybe 20 years) forcing variability.
miker
And once again, you just blank the inconvenient bits.
BEST is an easy way to see that claims that ECS is super-low (<2C) are wrong. BEST is an easy way to see that the 2 – 4.5C ECS range is solid and the most likely value lies somewhere close to 3C. Paleoclimate evidence backs this up. Please remember that you have already admitted that you aren't qualified to reject the paleoclimate evidence before rejecting it all again.
Marco
Yes, but according to miker, Schmidt et al. (2014) is just a ‘Realclimate link’ and not to be trusted. Not the Real McI 😉
miker613 “It doesn’t seem to me that it’s “consensus” that the models are not failing validation. It seems to me that it is pretty close to consensus that they are. That was definitely my impression of the leaked IPCC Summary, before the politicians had a go at fixing it.”
This is conspiracy and not science. If this is what you truly believe then I will have a hard time taking you and your sources seriously. Sorry. I am entitled to choose which sources I believe as well.
@pbjamm That is his point. I just don’t know why. Neither he nor anyone else has bothered to justify the claim in any way. Just, this many years, this much temperature rise – repeated endlessly. I assume they have some argument or calculation in mind, but I’m not obliged to invent it for them.
Wait! Let’s see, 50 years / 0.9 C –> ECS=55.6. No, I guess that’s not it… never miind.
“Neither he nor anyone else has bothered to justify the claim in any way.” – You have not been reading the replies very carefully then. As BBD posted above BEST provides their own sensitivity estimate and it is in line with the IPCC estimates. If you accept their other conclusions about the temperature on what basis do you reject their other conclusions?
@BBD, which inconvenient bits: you mean the disclaimers that you disclaim? It isn’t too surprising that if someone sees what sensitivity you would get if you assume that CO2 did it all, will get a pretty high sensitivity. It’s also not surprising that if some of that is due to other causes, that you’d get a lower sensitivity.
This is your idea of a _proof_, which you’ve claimed repeatedly (just “blows it away”)? Those disclaimers must be really annoying. But what are you thinking?
Miker, if they didn’t believe they could do it, why did they say they would? What do they stand to gain from it besides clearing up the massive amount pollution they are producing on a daily basis. Do you really think that is sustainable?
> I was not trying to claim that a given policy is inevitable result of a given fact.
Again, I must disagree, Very Tall. Here’s MikeR about the Auditor, above:
Here’s what the Auditor says about his policy choices:
Last time I quoted that bit, MikeR declined to follow the Auditor that far.
So as you can see, facts do not seem to contrain policies. It’s a free world. We can pick and choose anything and copy-paste it on any thread.
China. China. China.
@pbjamm “This is conspiracy and not science.” What is conspiracy and not science? I didn’t mention a conspiracy. Are you talking about the leaked IPCC summary, and the modifications to the final version? I thought the going-over by the world’s politicians was well-covered in the news. What need was there to conspire?
miker
I never used the word ‘proof’. But BEST still blows the lukewarmer rhetoric out of the water!
How about listing all the other forcings responsible for C2Oth warming. Then we can work out if CO2 is by far the most significant. Then we can call a disclaimer a disclaimer.
miker613,
What other causes? CS estimates typically include all external forcings, so they aren’t even CO2 only in the first place. That only leaves internal variability. That could be as much as +-0.15oC per decade and averaging out over many decades. So, we could maybe be 0.15K warmer than in the absence of internal variability or 0.15K cooler than in the absence of internal variability. Given that we all agree that there’s been a slowdown, what seems more likely – slightly warmer, or slightly cooler? If so, which is more likely, the other factor is making CS seem smaller than it actually is, or larger than it actually is?
Willard, your point? If I trust McIntyre on statistics, I must needs accept his political judgments as well? Does that even make sense?
“facts do not seem to constrain policies.” Which facts? McIntyre’s opinion? – you’re right, that isn’t going to constrain policy.
Gosh – Willard, you seem to trust McIntyre! Can I assume that you think that PAGES2K is poorly done?
BBD, I fault your reading comprehension again. Rohde: “As such, we don’t believe it can be used as an explicit constraint on climate sensitivity…” BBD: [Mod: Paraphrasing BBD; not an actual quote] This is an absolute explicit constraint on climate sensitivity.
As usual, I am at a loss as to how you read things to say what you want them to say. Would it be too much to ask that you note when a source says exactly the opposite of what you’re claiming?
> Does that even make sense?
You tell me, MikeR. I’m not supposed to make any.
But wait. If facts don’t constrain policies, then why are you suggesting we should invest billions and years to contrain sensitivity?
Why all this fuss about sensitivity when you can always say “but China”?
It works quite well for out-of-sample as long as we can include the known strength of volcanic eruptions, erratic ENSO cycles, and to a lesser extent TSI. Then plug in an effective TCR of 2 C for doubling of CO2 and the projections are spot on.
Another clear case of MikeR’s admitted inexpertise showing.
This paper has got them spooked too:
http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11069-014-1571-z
Another proposed natural variability term that reverts to a mean of zero. Own goal courtesy of Scafetta.
“What do they stand to gain from it besides clearing up the massive amount pollution they are producing on a daily basis. Do you really think that is sustainable?” Good point, Joseph. It is not sustainable. On the other hand, China has half a billion people in dire poverty. They are going to die young if they are not helped. China is going to try to bring them out, and right now it is worth it to them even to be terribly polluted. They are still building about a coal plant a week, AFAIK. They didn’t even agree to stop, until _later_. Eventually they won’t need to, and they will slow and stop and hopefully be able to use enough renewables too, and clean their act up as the western world has done.
None of that has anything to do with global warming; it has to do with their own needs and politics. Part of their politics is how they appear on the international stage, and they pay attention to that too. That’s all there is to this.
“why are you suggesting we should invest billions and years to contrain sensitivity?” I explained that above. Billiions instead of trillions.
“I thought the going-over by the world’s politicians was well-covered in the news.”
Your claim that the IPCC results were changed for political reasons is indeed conspiracy unless you can provide evidence. (It is still a conspiracy at that point I suppose but a proven one) Do you have anything to back up the claim?
miker613,
And if you ever encounter a scientist who says “I can constrain sensitivity, give me billions” don’t give it to them.
What James Annan actually said as opposed to what @miker613 would have liked him to say. Or more likely, what @miker613 read on a “skeptic” blog about what Annan said.
In the post
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html
In the comments
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html?showComment=1359776188980#c4055746020692259831
As I understand it, Annan is critical of the “hypothetical long tail for the pdf of climate sensitivity”
It essentially does do it all by being a leading indicator for the GHGs. You think that methane and N2O and the other GHG’s will suddenly go in the opposite direction of CO2 ? That is hope and not science.
miker
The rough range from BEST is enough to show that Lewis is an underestimate. Nowhere did I say anything that could be construed as an “absolute and explicit constraint” blah blah. Stop verballing me. That’s twice now.
Where’s the list of forcings for the C20th?
“That only leaves internal variability. That could be as much as +-0.15oC per decade and averaging out over many decades.” ATTP, we’ve had this discussion before (MWP and such). Why can’t there be larger internal variability, but with time-scales more than decades? How can you tell that the whole last century wasn’t a period of slightly lowered deep-ocean-uptake, and around the beginning of this century it slightly increased (the “pause”). We have no ARGO floats from the last century.
Why are you assuming that the decadal wiggles are all that count, and average out? Why should they, when the surface is just a tiny fraction of the heat capacity of the ocean?
MikeH
Yes, miker has been shown that exact quote. But miker thinks everybody else has reading comprehension issues.
There could be, but it would require that the climate system was highly sensitive to radiative perturbation. As you say, we’ve been through this before. You have blanked the bits you didn’t like, as you always do.
miker613,
Well, yes, that’s kind of the point. The large heat capacity of the oceans means that not only can small changes in the rate of energy uptake in the oceans have a significant impact on the rate of change of the surface temperature, but – also – means that the surface temperature cannot move too far out of equilibrium with the ocean. So, the rate of change of surface temperature can be quite variable but the amplitude cannot be very large (i.e., 0.1 – 0.2oC per decade for a decade or so, averaging to zero over many decades).
*All* the OHC reconstructions show that this is not true and that OHC rose at least since mid-C20th. But no doubt they will all fall into the “untrusted” pile because some fake sceptic said so and the word of fake sceptics outweighs the expert scientific consensus.
@Mike H “Yeah, I should probably have had a tl;dr version, which is that sensitivity is still about 3C. The discerning reader will already have noted that my previous posts on the matter actually point to a value more likely on the low side of this rather than higher, and were I pressed for a more precise value, 2.5 might have been a better choice even then. But I’d rather be a little conservative than risk being too Pollyanna-ish about it.” You left that part out.
It’s really a little tiring. I said all this. I said nothing that Annan didn’t say.
Why is it so hard to say anything at all, without people jumping at shadows?
> I explained that above.
Hmmm. Here’s what you said:
How does it justify constraining CS, if constraining CS doesn’t constrain policy choices?
I only see two horns here, MikeR, and both should lead to an inconsistency. Something’s got to give.
Unless we add “you don’t make sense” and “but China” to the mix.
Oh, and what BBD said
Internal variability is essentially analagous to a feedback response. Internally driven changes in surface temperature, or the distribution of surface temperature, drive changes in atmospheric water vapour, clouds, etc and can produce short-term temperature variability. However, as BBD says, if you want to argue that internal variability can be large, then you’re essentially arguing for a large feedback response. This then become inconsistent. How can a large fraction of our observed warming be internal variability, if that would also imply a large feedback response. Given the known change in external forcing, the observed warming isn’t large enough for this to be the case.
‘ *All* the OHC reconstructions show that this is not true and that OHC rose at least since mid-C20th.’ Link? Pardon my doubting your word, but my experience so far is that you’ll show me something that says the opposite.
Remember that I referred to _deep_ ocean heat content. Thermometers on ships don’t count.
miker613,
Except you left a lot out himself. He himself is accepting that the sensitivity is still around 3K with his own personal choice of a more precise value being 2.5K. That’s not consistent with the recent mismatch producing a significant change in CS.
Of course constraining CS would affect policy. I have said so several times – including the comment you quoted! The only place I can think of where I said otherwise is that I would probably do the same policy for 2.5 vs. 3. Is that what you meant?
> You left that part out.
Then let’s quote the whole comment:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-sensitive-matter.html?showComment=1359776188980#c4055746020692259831
Do you agree with the emphasized bit, MikeR?
Perhaps you think it doesn’t make any sense, or that it’s irrelevant until China etc?
miker613,
What do you mean by deep? Most of the energy excess goes into the upper few hundred metres (about half into the top 300m).
ATTP, that seems significant to me! And constraining the upper limits/chopping off the fat tail is very very significant to me.
miker
OHC 0 – 2000m
Your turn.
* * *
What’s the policy difference between ECS = 2.5C and ECS =3C?
None? Almost none? Virtually none?
Willard, are you doing it again? Do I need to accept Annan as my political/economics advisor because he’s a good climate scientist?
Gosh, you seem to respect him too! Do you therefore accept what he said about the “climate science insiders” and “their seemingly desperate attempts to denigrate anything that undermines their storyline”?
Why do you think this makes any sense?
I don’t like your tone. Please link to whatever it is you mean by this.
miker613,
Well if you think “probably still 3K, but my more precise view is 2.5K” is significant, then our views of significant differs. Also, I don’t see how chopping of the fat tail is all that significant. The fat tail is essentially “completely screwed if true”. Nice to know it’s probably not true (and that’s for fast feedbacks only, so I’m just waiting for Steve Bloom to pop in and say “you keep saying that!!” 🙂 ) but even 2.5 – 3K is worrying enough for me.
> Of course constraining CS would affect policy. I have said so several times – including the comment you quoted!
I don’t think you ever said it, MikeR. Including in the comment I quoted. You may have implied it lots of time, but I don’t think you ever said it. Perhaps I just missed it. Let’s assume you did.
Now, where have you justified this claim? Pardon my doubting the justification of that central assumption, but my experience so far is that adepts of the lukewarm gambit just switch to another bait when we’re at this point of the conversation.
I’ve asked for that justification many times on this thread already. Perhaps I made no sense at the time.
Look! A Kung Fu master squirrel!
Here I said it, Willard: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/puerto-casado/#comment-45364
> [C]onstraining the upper limits/chopping off the fat tail is very very significant to me.
No doubt about it. After all, the Lukewarm main strategy is to portray those who use fat tails as alarmists, then to position as the rational optimist in between Sky Dragons and Alarmists. The libertarian shadow of the IPCC, which is divided in two.
It’s not that complicated. Computer scientists even has an algorithm for that kind of strategy. A strategy epitomized in The Prince.
Look! A squirrel eating a fortune cookie!
> Here, I said it.
Don’t be shy, MikeR. Use blockquotes:
In which sentence do you say that constraining CS will constrain policy, again?
I am so close to catching my tail! A few more laps and I will have it!
“I will embrace whatever totalitarian measures might be needed to stop it”? What is unclear, that I called it a “planet-killer asteroid”? That was a metaphor.
“After all, the Lukewarm main strategy is to portray those who use fat tails as alarmists,” – that’s me, the alarmist. And Judith Curry. And Nassim Taleb, for that matter. The fat tail is far more important to me than adaptation to several degrees C.
Actually, I just remember that I read something in Roe (2009) that mentioned the issue with a significant contribution due to internal variability. It says
“Please link to whatever it is you mean by this.” https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/puerto-casado/#comment-45761
miker613,
You’re linking to a comment you made with a quote attributed to BBD. I, however, cannot find BBD saying what you claim he did. You need to link to where he actually said it, not where you claim he said it.
In fact, the closest I can find is BBD quoting what the BEST team themselves said.
> That was a metaphor.
Then what I said is true: “You may have implied it lots of time, but I don’t think you ever said it.”
***
> What is unclear, that I called it a “planet-killer asteroid”?
No, that you used a counterfactual that lies beyond what we can know empirically.
There’s no way one can show you that a planet-killer asteroid “is headed for the earth,” if by that you mean that we know that it will hit the earth at time T. All we could say is that there’s a certain probability P that it will, and that this P is big enough that we should take care for it.
Nevertheless, let’s assume we could establish that a planet-killer asteroid will hit the earth at time T. What would you say to those all the timewarpers who would disagree that the T is well-constrained enough, and ask we spend a few more decades and a few more billions to make sure we have a better idea on T?
***
Wait. Am I starting to make sense out of sudden. MikeR? I hope this thought experiment about “timewarpers” does not confuse you. If you prefer, we could use a tried and true examples, like rain or snow tomorrow.
That’s because miker was verballing me.
BBD,
It certainly appears that way.
> that’s me, the alarmist. And Judith Curry. And Nassim Taleb,
Don’t forget Charlie. You might not like being an alarmist, MikeR:
Fine, Willard. Is there a probability P of ECS>6 that is big enough that we should take care of it? Or is that vanishingly unlikely? What is bothering you about my example? Say it’s one chance in a hundred, and I believe that dealing with it will condemn half a billion Chinese etc. to an early death. Should we do it?
Now what if it’s one chance in five?
Why is this unclear? What would you do in the two cases, if you agreed with me on the economics?
An apology would be nice, miker.
ATTP, I see that “0.9” appears nineteen times (so far) on this page, most of them from BBD. They are interspersed with quotes like “blows the rhetorical under-estimators out of the water.” “leaves no wriggle room at all” “That’s the end of the fake sceptic argument about sensitivity” and such, and links to BEST (https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/puerto-casado/#comment-45749).
He is claiming – more than a dozen times – that BEST proves his case. This is all _after_ Steve Mosher (from BEST) showed up above and mentioned the same thing that I said, that there was a disclaimer right there.
Is there nothing wrong with posting a link and saying, “this proves it”, when the link says explicitly it doesn’t? Why isn’t there an obligation that a link says what you claim it says – as opposed to the polar opposite? [Again, sorry to repeat, “this doesn’t prove it” is the polar opposite of “this proves it”.]
I have reacted pretty strongly to suggestions that I had misquoted Annan. Because I didn’t, and to the best of my ability I wouldn’t.
BBD, I apologize if I spoke harshly. But I don’t like what you did.
If the complaint is that I used quotation marks, maybe the moderator could do me the favor of removing them? Both quotes were actually paraphrases. I think both were accurate paraphrases.
ATTP:
“I don’t see how chopping of the fat tail is all that significant. The fat tail is essentially “completely screwed if true””
I do agree with Annan that it is significant, because it allows rationalists to focus on effective action. the “completely screwed” scenario – and I agree that would be the implication – forms a basis for arguing, as I said above, that we should just chuck it in and play our violins and watch the world burn. We already see this in the denialsphere, where some say well, it’s too late, and we can’t do anything about it, might as well keep on with BAU.
In other words, the fat tail hanging out there as a real possibility is a distraction.
miker613 seems to believe that a sensitivity of say 2.5C-3C can be ignored, based on his deep experience of being totally ignorant of all of the relevant academic fields that point to serious problems this century if that range is correct.
Meanwhile, he has argued strenuously that the fact that Annan seems to think that sensitivity is slightly lower than 3C, and that he trusts Annan, somehow supports a position that the consensus estimate will drop to at least 2C if not lower. That’s a logic fail, and a misreading of Annan that Annan himself has tried to correct (miker’s not being original here, he’s copying stuff written by others that misrepresent Annan). Also, of course, his interpretation of Annan fits his preconception of “CO2 doesn’t really warm much if at all”, while Annan’s statements about consequences doesn’t fit his preconceptions. Miker doesn’t accept Annan’s statements about consequences. Miker not only cherry-picks people to trust, but the subjects upon which he trusts them. He only trusts sources that agree with his preconceptions …
> Why is this unclear?
What is “this,” MikeR? I told you: there’s no way nobody could convince you that an asteroid will hit the earth for sure. Predicting is hard, especially the future.
What’s troubling with your example is that you seem to be tasking AT to convince you of lots of certainties, MikeR: “a planet-killer asteroid is headed for the earth”. This means: we know it will hit the earth; we know when; we know it will destroy the earth.
I think this provides a nice metaphor for the overall lukewarm gambit. Let’s take a random King of coal, and adapt his doctrine to an imaginary asteroid impact:
http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-a-lukewarmer-against-dogmatism/
Notice the argumentative structure?
***
How much fun we could have with science-fiction cases, MikeR, I suggest we stop. Last time I tried at Lucia’s got me somewhat banned. As you can expect, Lucia started by saying I was not making much sense.
So I’d rather have you answer my main question, which you have yet again evaded. Let me remind you:
Interestingly, that’s the only thing you have not addressed with your “how is my example unclear” and “but I am the alarmist!”
Look, a squirrel squirreling a noodle!
miker
What I did was point out that lukewarmer rhetoric is incompatible with BEST. I know you didn’t like that. I also know you cannot deny it directly because it is true.
I guess I don’t understand your main claim about “justifying” it. Are we moving into economics? Just not sure what you’re asking. You all seem to think you can mitigate with some carbon taxes and such. Since I think China/India/eventually Africa is the main problem, the only mitigation I can understand must force China/I/A to slow down their growth. Do you think that they can mitigate without slowing their growth _at all_? That seems very unlikely. Why do you think they are furiously building coal plants: do they like pollution? If you agree that it must slow their growth, can you also agree that any Chinese left in dire poverty for an extra year, say, are going to die at a much higher rate during that year? How many is that, a few million? Each year.
This all seems very likely and obvious. If I can’t prove it, does that mean that you don’t need to lose sleep over it?
But you didn’t answer my question: if you accepted my economics, what would you do with my moral issue about half a billion Chinese?
The disclaimer is meaningless in the face of any cursory examination of the major forcing changes during the C20th.
Please list them.
Anyhow, I do apologize, BBD. I don’t think you meant to misrepresent BEST. You misunderstood them. You don’t seem to notice the parts of their words that disagree with you.
“Please list them.” Please ask BEST; they said it.
Not good enough miker. Really not good enough at all.
What is Nic Lewis estimate for TCR?
How does that compare with the land surface warming 0.9C over the last five decades?
Come on, miker. Answer some questions for once.
No I did not, Miker.
“Miker doesn’t accept Annan’s statements about consequences. Miker not only cherry-picks people to trust, but the subjects upon which he trusts them.” Sure – because if I trust a climate scientist in his field of expertise, it just makes no sense to look elsewhere for information about economics or ecology. That would be cherry-picking.
This is the third person who made this point. It still makes no sense to me. What am I missing?
I’ll make it easier for you miker.
Which was the largest positive forcing increase during the C20th? Just name it.
> I guess I don’t understand your main claim about “justifying” it. Are we moving into economics?
No, we’re not. I want you to show me why contraining CS (say the Nic Lewis way) would constrain policy.
You can replace “show me why” by “give me your reasons to believe that,” “provide evidence that,” “arguing for”, etc. In other words, I want to know what difference would a low CS make in the grand scheme of things. Saying “it would because it would” does not count as a strong reason in my book.
Show me.
Steve Mosher, BBD? He’s from BEST? He said the same thing up above, in response to you? Are you like one of these Shakespeare scholars who thinks he knows better than the Bard?
What’s the problem, miker? Why are you refusing to answer a few basic, simple questions?
What was the largest forcing change during the C20th? We need to evaluate our disclaimers.
Come on.
> Steve Mosher, BBD?
He’s positive and forcing, but he’s not that large, MikeR.
You keep saying that!!
I live to serve. 🙂
miker613:
“Sure – because if I trust a climate scientist in his field of expertise, it just makes no sense to look elsewhere for information about economics or ecology. That would be cherry-picking.
This is the third person who made this point. It still makes no sense to me. What am I missing?”
For starters, you don’t trust the majority of climate scientists, because virtually none of them agree with your personal beliefs about the physics of climate change. That’s why you – and quite a few others much like you – have to repeat “Annan Annan Annan” over and over again, because he has said a few things that you misinterpret as to be congruent with your beliefs. McI isn’t a climate scientist, yet you trust him over what climate scientists have to say.
Cherry-picking in the extreme.
Now if these people claim that we do need to worry and do something, you reject that, and cherry-pick entirely different people based, again, on whether or not they say things which you can interpret (correctly or incorrectly) to be congruent with your beliefs.
In other words, you don’t seek expert opinion to learn. You cherry-pick expert opinion which agrees with your predetermined beliefs, even where you have no expertise, with no intention of trying to learn.
Which is why people here don’t particularly care for you. Your beliefs appear to be so strongly held that even if God hit you over the head with a stone tablet inscribed “ECS is 3C and that’s dangerous!”, you’d seek out the devil’s opinion …
It also makes you boring, frankly.
“Anyhow, I do apologize, BBD. I don’t think you meant to misrepresent BEST. You misunderstood them. You don’t seem to notice the parts of their words that disagree with you.”
yup. tons of blood was spilt over that paragraph.
There was one class of people who really took the two parameter approach as the end of all argument. and another group that merely saw it as an indication of things. meh?
what did the group of people think? nothing. there was no group think. hehe.
Funny.
Personally, I’m happy to accept 6C as a number.
on the policy side that just means we have to push for 100% nuclear faster.
hell lets stipulate 10C !!
then we can forget it all and just party.
Since this keeps coming up, some breaking science:
Claims that climate models overestimate warming are “unfounded”, study shows.
Source: Carbon Brief
I wrote On January 29, 2015 at 10:47 am:
“Note that as x increases in function h, the “signal” from sub-function f starts to overwhelm more and more the “signal” from sub-function g, so that in h there is less and less noticeable fluctuation around the increasing curve given directly by f and given as an underlying increasing curve in h.”
miker613 replied:
“KeefeAndAmanda, you’re claiming that deniers like me can’t understand this point?….I made this point above.”
This lessening of fluctuation would occur only when the CO2 signal becomes strong enough in comparison to all other relevant signals, and you are wrong when you say that it is strong enough. ATTP points that out here:
ATTP wrote:
“….the last decade is not really evidence for lower climate sensitivity since even high sensitivity models can produce decadal periods with slowdowns similar to what we’ve experienced over the last 10 years or so.”
Then, miker613, you wrote:
“No, it really is evidence.”
It is not evidence, miker613, since you’re wrong that the CO2 signal has become strong enough.
“The difference was that, unlike your link, the current models apparently cannot have this large a pause _right now_ with this much CO2 forcing. No need to wait for 2030; that’s just moving the goalposts…..Your remarks should be addressed to ATTP and others, who talked about long pauses in the past century _when there was much less forcing_.”
This shows that you don’t get my points at all. We can have this large a “pause” right now – perhaps even a much larger one, while the long term upward trend curve is preserved. ATTP pointed out this fact above.
But my point was that this “pause” may very well be caused by something with enough strength to cause a multi-decadal large oscillation around the long term upward trend curve. What I have in mind is that which has been proposed by Tung and Chen and others like them, and that which according to them has been there for centuries, namely a cyclic (45-60 year) phenomenon of increased and then decreased heat uptake by the oceans, mostly the Atlantic and Southern Oceans. I note again the quote I gave:
“Prof Andrew Watson FRS, Royal Society Research Professor at the University of Exeter, said:
“It will be very interesting to see whether their finding that during the last decade the heat has penetrated to depth mostly in the Southern and Atlantic Oceans stands up. It does make oceanographic sense however, because we know these are the major sites for deeper water formation – water from the surface Pacific does not penetrate nearly so deeply into the ocean.””
And again see
“Surface warming hiatus caused by increased heat uptake across multiple ocean basins”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL061456/abstract
for that newer modeling study I linked to.
That is, you wrongly claim that the signal from GHG has gotten to the point where it would overwhelm all other signals including those from mechanisms giving this possible multi-decadal cyclic behavior from the oceans. I linked to that article that said that certain studies show that the signal from CO2 might get strong enough to do this by the middle of the 21st century, specifically starting around 2030. These new studies address what could be the oceans’ long term cyclic behavior with quite possibly strong effects, strong enough to produce not only this “slowdown” but one lasting quite longer, but still due to the nature of cyclic behavior such that it has no effect at all on the underlying trend curve. There is no moving of the goalposts.
See also
“”It’s Worse Than We Thought” – New Study Finds That Earth is Warming Far Faster Than Expected”
https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/tag/equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/
for more on the idea that the oceans’ behavior here could be the basis of a cyclic phenomenon that has a strong enough effect to render your conclusions that due to present surface temperatures falling further and further below “expectations”, sensitivity must be lower and lower than previously thought.
What? Are you now going to deny Tung and Chen and others and all the follow-ups that might provide confirmation because what they may have found could very well argue against the denier position rather than for it?
More from miker613:
“Why can’t there be larger internal variability, but with time-scales more than decades? How can you tell that the whole last century wasn’t a period of slightly lowered deep-ocean-uptake, and around the beginning of this century it slightly increased (the “pause”).”
Grasping at straws? First, there is no mechanism known that could give such a long term variation strong enough to give the large enough effect. And due to what is already known about GHG, it could very well be that most any mechanism one could come up with would contradict some physics, as well as such mathematical science as the following:
“Is global warming just a giant natural fluctuation?
“http://www.mcgill.ca/channels/news/global-warming-just-giant-natural-fluctuation-235236
Quote:
“An analysis of temperature data since 1500 all but rules out the possibility that global warming in the industrial era is just a natural fluctuation……….
This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,” Lovejoy says. “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”……… “We’ve had a fluctuation in average temperature that’s just huge since 1880 – on the order of about 0.9 degrees Celsius,” Lovejoy says. “This study shows that the odds of that being caused by natural fluctuations are less than one in a hundred and are likely to be less than one in a thousand.””
And more from miker613:
“China will do what it needs to do….China has half a billion people in dire poverty. They are going to die young if they are not helped…….China is going to try to bring them out, and right now it is worth it to them even to be terribly polluted. “Do you think that they can mitigate without slowing their growth _at all_? That seems very unlikely……….Why do you think they are furiously building coal plants: do they like pollution?”
The idea that a China – or any nuclear power, for that matter – *must* kill its citizens at a rate *ten times* higher than the US to generate essentially the same amount of electricity is a moral obscenity. More on this in a moment, even though I will say now that yes, I documented that it’s a fact that a country that is a nuclear power – with all the technological capability that that implies – can grow just as fast with lots of climate mitigation compared to none.
We have worldwide now 7 million people per year dying premature death from air pollution, 1.2 million per year in China and 600,000 per year in India. This is increasing.
In China and to a large degree in quasi-democratic India, the people who are choking to death on ever-increasingly poisonous breathing air have no real say. If they had a real choice, then the history of communist dictatorships and quasi-democracies with all their cronyism vs. the history of human rights respecting democracies shows that the people living in these countries would have chosen *far less deadly ways* to generate electricity.
I documented this comparison in the second half of my comment January 8, 2015 at 12:35 pm
with many, many links, including some on crony capitalism. Here’s a quote again from one of the articles to which I linked and quoted:
“Another way to describe this human health energy fee is that it costs about 2,000 lives per year to keep the lights on in Beijing but only about 200 lives to keep them on in New York.”
Enough is enough of your false arguments that the world *must* kill upwards of 10 million people per year now and upwards of 20 or 30 or more million per year from air pollution in the future from generating electricity to allegedly save all those poor people – when the same amount of electricity could be generated in much cleaner ways, although that means less money for all those billionaire cronies in question running so much of the world directly or from behind the scenes. (See
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-national-peoples-congress-has-83-billionaires-report-says/2013/03/07/d8ff4a4e-8746-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html
and
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-02-26/china-s-billionaire-lawmakers-make-u-s-peers-look-like-paupers
and
for a tip of the iceberg.)
miker613,
The problem with your arguments about the impact of climate mitigation policies on developing countries is that they completely fail to acknowledge the likely impact of climate change on those same countries in the absence of serious attempts to reduce global emissions. What’s more, it’s not as though those of us arguing for such mitigation policies are unaware of the potential impact on developing countries – if you have even a cursory understanding of the COP negotiations you will be aware that finding a way to reduce emissions globally while allowing developing countries to continue moving their people out of poverty is absolutely central, which is why there are such proposals as the Green Climate Fund. It’s fair enough to point out the potential unintended consequences of climate change mitigation, it’s another to suggest that the “skeptics” are somehow the only people who are concerned or even aware of it.
Regarding your claim that a reduction in economic growth would lead to millions of deaths in China every year, if that’s the case then there must be many millions of people in China dying every year due to extreme poverty at the moment. Can you produce any figures to support this?
Which is, of course, ‘wealth redistribution’ (aka world socialism) and abhorrent to every single contrarian I have ever encountered. It seems that letting the poor choke on coal is just fine, but giving them actual financial/technical aid to help avoid this – and CC of course – is a vile crime against the fortunate.
Steven,
Maybe you’re just joking, but it sounds to me like you’re suggesting that being alarmist is fine if you’re using it to promote something that is regarded as sensible.
==> “Maybe you’re just joking, but it sounds to me like you’re suggesting that being alarmist is fine if you’re using it to promote something that is regarded as sensible.”
Good point.
Just goes to show how some folks work backwards from the policy implications to evaluate the scientific evidence.
There was a paper about that recently.
So the Climate ‘Alarmists’ are actually the moderates! Policy should be based on the science not the other way around. Even if a high sensitivity estimate would help your argument it is not ok to advocate the position unless the evidence supports it (and yes I realize Steve Mosher was joking). Imagine the outrage though if Mann or Hanson made such a statement either in public or in a private email.
I am very glad that I take the time to read the novellas that KeefeAndAmanda writes are they are consistently excellent.
So just to summarize, Miker, I asked you to provide evidence that China could not reduce their CO2 emissions without affecting growth. You provided none. I noted that China has already agreed to cap their emissions. You implied that China would not follow through with their commitments, again with no evidence. Given this implication, I asked you explain why they made those commitments and why pollution was not a reason for doing so. You failed to respond, except to say that pollution was a problem, but growth was more important.
BBD,
Yes, I can never remember whether “CAGW” is a plot to enrich the third world by transferring wealth from Western countries or a plot to impoverish third world countries by preventing them from developing their economies.
> I can never remember whether “CAGW” is a plot to enrich the third world by transferring wealth from Western countries or a plot to impoverish third world countries by preventing them from developing their economies.
It’s both. The trick is to go from one to the other very fast. At the end of the day, it’s a net zero, minus pennies that go into Grrrowth’s account, each time, in one direction or the other.
You can reduce the profit to an epsilon, but then traditional honest brokers are not fast enough. You need to build plotting facilities, with the latest in algorithmic trading. The fastest you can go these days allow you to trade epsilons between the two phases of the plotting scheme. Every micro-second adds an epsilon into the account. After a short while, infinite Grrrowth kicks in.
You’re welcome.
MikeR ought to read this blog post I put together this morning and start weeping
http://contextearth.com/2015/01/30/csalt-re-analysis/
Remember that this is an analysis that covers the entire ground, from 1880 to 2010. If MikeR really thinks that we can’t account for trend and variability via a handful of straightforward constructs, he probably won’t listen to anything. Eye opening evidence is not something that pseudo-skeptics want to see.
Willard,
Ah, thanks for the explanation – it’s entirely clear now!
Let’s also note that moving from “we can’t pull it without China” to “millions may die” indicates a level shift:
By tomorrow, we should contemplate how the future is bright.
By the end of the weekend, CGs will strike back.
I’d like to add that there’s an interesting linkage between the wealth transfer/my opponents are going to starve poor children in Africa reversal and the “there’s a limited pie/my opponents say that the pie is limited” reversal
VV quoted this:
The hierarchy of pseudo-skeptic lunacy is complex beyond belief. Each player can have a binary belief in each of several aspects of the AGW argument. So what happens is that Willis doesn’t believe in CO2-caused warming aspect but he does believe that excess CO2 is caused by man.
The mix of these hard-nosed beliefs by various skeptics cause endless head-butting in forums such as WUWT. What then often happens is that Willis looks temporarily sane in comparison to someone that believes all the excess CO2 is coming out of the oceans.
This forum is boring in comparison to WUWT as far as cat-fights are concerned.
==> “The hierarchy of pseudo-skeptic lunacy is complex beyond belief. Each player can have a binary belief in each of several aspects of the AGW argument.”
Actually, I don’t think that there is any valid hierarchy, although there may be a taxonomy.
People can reconcile holding beliefs that are mutually exclusive. There needn’t be some coherent logic that unites those “several aspects” that you describe – and certainly there is no overarching logic (IMO), that arrange believes into some overall logical hierarchy. For example, a “skeptic” can believe that (1) there has been a “pause” even though from a hierarchical standpoint, they could only hold that belief based on a (2) lower-order belief, that global temps can be validly measured – something that some people who believe (1) don’t accept.
In regards to the Puerto Casado analysis, I have also noticed a huge resurgence in the disbelief in the validity of surface temperature records. I have no doubt that this is linked partially to the fact that 2014 is a record warm year, and the pseudo-skeptics are desperate to rationalize their prior belief system.
One intriguing aspect of the CSALT model is that a very good explanation of the temperature trend and natural variability can be had by applying various factors that are not measured with a thermometer. They may be thermodynamically related to temperature but they are measured by different instruments., e.g pressure is measured by a barometer in the case of SOI.
http://contextearth.com/2015/01/30/csalt-re-analysis/
It must be some well-oiled conspiracy machine that would make all these temperature records fluctuate in accordance with these non-temperature measurements. Amazing the gyrations such a conspiracy must have entailed !
The fact is that reanalysis in general cannot work unless the physical mechanisms of temperature, pressure, humidity, wind speed, etc lock together tightly. Yet the gullible pseudo-skeptics can overlook anything in their neverending snipe hunt.
It is absolutely a real hierarchy, because it establishes a pecking order in the participants in forums such as WUWT. It is required that somebody more ridiculous than Willis exists, because that gives him much more “credibility” in certain areas.
A taxonomy by itself will only categorize the beliefs but will not generate a precedence structure that obviously exists in such a forum.
OK – I was referring to the beliefs, if not the believers. Certainly, as bizarre as it is, Willis has demi-god status among WUWT “skeptics.”
Still, despite his view of himself, the vast majority of people who are “skeptical” about climate change (in the U.S., let alone the world), have never heard of him.
“Maybe you’re just joking, but it sounds to me like you’re suggesting that being alarmist is fine if you’re using it to promote something that is regarded as sensible.”
No. I’m illustrating something else.
and it fooled Joshua.. ok no great feat there
Okay, but care to explain what? I’ve learned Willard – I think. I’ve learned Rabett – I think. I’m not sure I have time to now learn Mosher too.
Poe’s law, Steven, Poe’s law!
Steven
Don’t go all gnomic on our asses, please!
Spell it out.
“Okay, but care to explain what? I’ve learned Willard – I think. I’ve learned Rabett – I think. I’m not sure I have time to now learn Mosher too.”
LOL, I’m not the only one.
I posit that as per usual, Steven isn’t in full control or fully aware of what he’s illustrating
ATTP:
““Okay, but care to explain what? I’ve learned Willard – I think. I’ve learned Rabett – I think. I’m not sure I have time to now learn Mosher too.””
Why would you want to?
[Mod: About moderation, contains threats]
[Mod: Refers to deleted comment]
[Mod: Refers to deleted comment]
Pingback: Temperature homogenisation | …and Then There's Physics
Joseph, I have answered you a few times. It doesn’t make sense to say that I haven’t “proven” anything. I don’t need to prove anything: this is my take on what I think will happen. My judgment is that the damage would probably exceed the gain, and more people would die than be saved. If you don’t agree, it could be because we listen to different economists. People who think these concerns are small aren’t proving anything either.
Think of it as an example of the precautionary principle. People worried about AGW don’t seem to think about the damage their policies might cause.
@BBD https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/presentation12.jpg
From the IPCC for 0-700m. Note that you emphasized: *ALL* reconstructions of ocean heat.
0-700m is pretty scrambled, but 0-2000m is really fuzzy. The IPCC goes from Very Likely to There Wasn’t Data. http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/21/ocean-heat-content-uncertainties/
“People worried about AGW don’t seem to think about the damage their policies might cause.” “If you like your policy you can keep it.” If I want to keep my tax breaks in Maryland, I need to move to a different health care policy this year. The policy that is similar to what I have now will cost _almost three times_ what my 2014 policy cost – from 1600/month to 4500/month. I’ve never heard of a health care policy that costs that much.
Could be good is being done for others, but: I was here when Obamacare supporters scoffed at the rest of us at the suggestion that their shiny new plan could hurt middle class people who are barely making ends meet.
Maybe consider the possibility that you don’t understand economics and unforeseen consequences as well as you think you do. It’s not that I would be anxious to implement mitigation for AGW anyhow, but I sure am going to be a whole lot more fearful when its supporters ignore the possibility that they might be doing damage. Doesn’t inspire trust that they all know so much.
==> ““People worried about AGW don’t seem to think about the damage their policies might cause.”
miker doesn’t seem to think that he has reason to say that he’s stopped beating his wife.
==> “Maybe consider the possibility that you don’t understand economics and unforeseen consequences as well as you think you do.”
Maybe consider the possibility that you don’t understand the full advantage of saying that you’ve stopped beating your wife.
==> “but I sure am going to be a whole lot more fearful when its supporters ignore the possibility that they might be doing damage. ”
I’m going to fearful when supporters of wife safety ignore the possibility that failing to say you aren’t beating your wife might be doing damage.
————————-
miker-
Really, I like to think you can do better than that.
Joshua – cryptic. Couldn’t follow.
As I said, maybe we use different economists. Your being oblivious to mine doesn’t inspire confidence either.
==> “Your being oblivious to mine doesn’t inspire confidence either.”
Yes. It is clear that you didn’t follow.
miker613 says:
“My judgment is that the damage would probably exceed the gain, and more people would die than be saved. If you don’t agree, it could be because we listen to different economists.”
Problem is, there is no economist who has actually worked out some numbers that actually said what you say, which is that the world must build massive numbers of new dirty coal-fired power plants over the next many years *instead* of cleaner ways of generating the same amount of electricity to save untold millions of lives per year from dying from,……from,……what did you say they would actually die from if instead cleaner ways of generating the same amount of electricity were implemented?
Of course, said phantom economist, when working out said numbers, must take into account the growing number of people in the world dying each year from air pollution, now at 7 million per year, 1.2 million China and 600,000 in India, never mind that these two countries don’t really have to do that, as I demonstrated in my comment in this thread on
January 30, 2015 at 11:59 am”
One of the most telling statistics that I documented shows that they really don’t have to kill so many people to generate the same amount of electricity is this: China is killing 2000 people per year to keep the lights on in Beijing while the US is killing 200 people per year to keep the lights on in New York City. That’s 10 times as many.
Cleaner and less deadly ways to generate the same amount of electricity could not have been implemented? What I documented proves this false. Cleaner ways to generate the same amount of electricity would have been more expensive? Then government subsidies to keep prices about the same for the common folk would have taken care of that, even if it meant a little less increase in riches for some crony billionaires. What? The desires of these crony billionaires come first? I thought this was supposed to be about saving lives.
“People worried about AGW don’t seem to think about the damage their policies might cause.”
It’s the other way around: Per the above that I documented, those who are not worried about AGW don’t seem to think about the damage their policies are in fact right now causing, to the tune of up to 7 million premature deaths per year from air pollution – and growing.
KeefeAndAmanda – see my comment above: maybe we use different economists. I respect the knowledge of climate scientists on climate science. I see no reason that I should have very much interest in their opinions on economics, even when they say that they have “documented” something. To me, this is the wrong venue for such a discussion. As you have sometimes said to me, publish an peer-reviewed article in a recognized journal if you wish.
You claimed that “there is no economist who has actually worked out some numbers that actually said what you say…” etc. Actually there are. In fact, there are some very good ones in China advising the government, which is why they are doing it. They can’t make the clean energy sources fast enough, or afford them, which is why they are not doing that nearly as much as coal plants. Do you think they are stupid? They are taking all sides of the issue into account, while you only see your own.
If I name economists, it will just give you an opportunity to knock the ones I name. But you could start with Lomborg’s group: several of them have Nobel Prizes, so they’re harder to knock. They consider airborn pollution to be a major killer, and they still say that cleaner fossil fuels/fracking are the way to go for the developing world right now. You will find no 97% consensus on this or any other macro-economics issue. Again, it doesn’t inspire confidence that you don’t know that.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/bjorn-lomborg-the-alarming-thing-about-climate-alarmism-1422832462
Bjorn’s op-ed can’t be read by non-subscribers, miker. A quote might be nice.
Beware Gremlins.
miker613 wrote,
“You claimed that “there is no economist who has actually worked out some numbers that actually said what you say…” etc. Actually there are.”
Nope. See the below.
“They can’t make the clean energy sources fast enough, or afford them…..”
Wrong. See the below.
“……you could start with Lomborg’s group…..”
First, it’s nonsense to say that China could not have afforded to generate electricity in ways other than that which has caused such a fantastic air pollution crisis in that country. (See further below for more on this, including what Chinese dissidents have to say on this – one would think that self-professed libertarians, who preach against government tyranny, would heed such things, eh?) China has roughly 2 *trillion* dollars in US government securities – that’s roughly *20 times* all the holdings of the US Treasury Dept. Those communist dictators couldn’t have afforded to treat their people better? Nonsense. Again: By the citations in my comment on January 30, 2015 at 11:59 am, as an example of how those people are treated by their government, they kill 10 times as many of their people to generate electricity for Beijing as the US does for NYC. I again say it’s a moral obscenity to say that the communist dictatorship running that country couldn’t have treated its people better than that. Lomborg himself would agree with me – unlike some other libertarians or conservatives, he is not an apologist for the mafiosos running communist dictatorships.
And by your own words, thank-you for proving me right – there is no economist that is not beholden to a tyrannical government like a communist dictatorship who says what you say.
Consider: It seems that Dr Bjorn Lomborg, perhaps stung by criticism that his think tank does not value human life as much as it should, is in the process of perhaps abandoning your philosophy that the third world must go ahead and create electricity in the cheapest way possible, which is to burn the dirtiest possible fossil fuels in the dirtiest and thus most deadly possible ways:
“Cleaner cooking, electricity can improve millions’ lives”
By Dr Bjorn Lomborg
http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2015/01/25/cleaner-cooking-electricity-can-improve-millions-lives/
Quote [and this by still using the low value for human life by the Copenhagen Consensus – more on this point below]:
“To provide electricity to everyone would need the equivalent of 250 more power stations but many rural areas might best be served by solar panels and batteries. This is not an ideal solution but would still be enough to make an enormous improvement to people’s lives. The overall cost is probably around $75bn per year, which still does $5 of benefits for each dollar spent……….the world spends $544 billion in fossil fuel subsidies, almost exclusively in third world countries. This drains public budgets from being able to provide health and education, while encouraging higher CO2 emissions. Moreover, gasoline subsidies mostly help rich people, because they are the only ones to afford a car. To phase out fossil fuel subsidies would be a phenomenal target, because it would cut CO2 while saving money for other and better public uses. The economists estimate that every dollar in costs would do more than $15 of climate and public good.”
(First this: Wow. Government spending more money on heath care is now good. Conservatives are trying to extricate themselves from the conservative libertarians, it seems.)
Note that the only way it would “cut CO2” would be to cut fossil fuel use – and this means cutting your favorite, the one producing the most CO2, which would be unregulated, dirty coal.
So much for your claim that the only way to maximize “saving lives” in China and India and the third world was/is to generate electricity in the cheapest ways possible – burn the dirtiest possible fossil fuels in the dirtiest possible and thus most deadly possible ways.
So much for your claim that the communist dictatorship running China *absolutely had* to kill so many of their own citizens to bring some of them out of poverty – again, never mind the poor record of the 20th century history of communist governments vs. the democratic countries in terms of air pollution. And never mind again the stat that China kills ten times more of its citizens per unit of electricity generated than does the US.
And this:
Chinese dissident Ai Weiwei joins outcry over pollution:
After watching this, one can only wonder why so many self-professed conservatives or libertarians in the western world – who are supposed to be not so fine and dandy with communist dictatorships – would become apologists for that communist dictatorship running that country, never mind the cries of the people choking to death by the millions per year on poisonous filth in their breathing air that the people themselves *know* didn’t have to be put into their breathing air in such great quantities, never mind that the history of communist dictatorships in comparison to the democratic West regarding air pollution has demonstrated that those dictators did not have to go anywhere nearly so far as they did in killing their own citizens to generate electricity.
Finally, this:
You mentioned the Copenhagen Consensus. They put a monetary figure on the value of a human life. OK. But, as to how much a human life is worth, why should I trust the value judgment by a bunch of conservatives or libertarians or both, when I could put my trust in a bunch of progressives instead, who value human life much more? Yes, it’s a fact: Progressives put more monetary value on human life than conservatives or libertarians of the conservative flavor. See this 2011 article:
“As U.S. Agencies Put More Value on a Life, Businesses Fret”
Quote:
“The Environmental Protection Agency set the value of a life at $9.1 million last year in proposing tighter restrictions on air pollution. The agency used numbers as low as $6.8 million during the George W. Bush administration……… The Food and Drug Administration declared that life was worth $7.9 million last year, up from $5 million in 2008….”
Yes, even though it reflects who is in power at the time (a Republican or Democratic president), the US EPA and FDA still are reflective of the progressive ideals of the progressive USA of the middle part of the 20th century that created them in comparison to the conservative or libertarian Copenhagen Consensus at least in terms of order or magnitude, which values human life at *2 orders of magnitude less than* that, or even lower, at only 100,000 dollars, or even less.
I say “orders of magnitude” since the value of human life according to the conservative or libertarian Copenhagen Consensus is *two orders of magnitude less than* the value of human life according to those parts of the US government created by progressives. That’s right folks. The Copenhagen Consensus says that human life is worth only on the order of 100,000 dollars *or less* while these parts of the US government created by a progressive nation say that human life is worth on the order of 10,000,000 dollars.
If the conservative or libertarian Copenhagen Consensus increased its value on human life to match those agencies in the US government created US progressives – two orders of magnitude greater, then what would happen to all those Copenhagen Consensus claims as to what would save the most lives? Hint: Far fewer recommendations for fossil fuels, especially the most dirty and thus most deadly.
Miker, I didn’t ask for proof just evidence supporting your “opinion.” i have already provided mine.
miker
Denying the validity of the OHC reconstructions?
Unwise.
Denying basic physics?
Unwise.
And miker
Please never, ever quote JC at me again when I ask you for a scientific reference to back up your crap.
Thanks.
Willard: “Bjorn’s op-ed can’t be read by non-subscribers, miker. A quote might be nice.”
ooh, ooh, let me guess! “it would be wrong for us to try to do anything about AGW until we’ve solved third world poverty. that we’re not doing anything about third world poverty is a trifling detail that’s not worth worrying about at this point.”
well, how did i do?
“Bjorn’s op-ed can’t be read by non-subscribers, miker.” Willard, scrape the title and Google it. Most sites will let you in if you come from google.
@BBD “Denying the validity of the OHC reconstructions?” BBD, I was paraphasing quotes from the IPCC. You showed me a nice sharp graph, but the IPCC graph is, as I pointed out, totally fuzzy and your conclusion just can’t be drawn from there. And that’s for 0-700. For 0-2000 they don’t bother trying to make a nice graph, there isn’t data.
Are you denying the consensus?
And I should never quote judithcurry? I’m not beholden to your rule that only realclimate can be trusted.
KeefeandAmanda, you wrote at great length, but I will content myself with what I said above: I don’t have to go to this site to learn about economics. I gave you a source for economists with Nobel Prizes who agree with me – Bjorn Lomborg’s group currently has four. (Instead, you insisted that there is no one except for the ones I mentioned from China.) I am not that interested in your certainty that you know better.
And you seem to think that it is evidence against me that Lomborg is worried about pollution. Check my words again, this was there: “They consider airborn pollution to be a major killer.”
@Joseph “Miker, I didn’t ask for proof just evidence supporting your “opinion.” i have already provided mine.”
Joseph, did you see the link from lomborg? I’m sure you were familiar with his group before. I don’t understand why you keep asking me; these kind of things aren’t hard to find. Why do you want me to explain it personally? I really don’t think a climate science blog is the right venue, nor am I the best one to do it.
“well, how did i do?” Uh – poorly. Does that matter to you? Lots of people seem to feel that as long as they are sure they understand the other side’s point of view, it doesn’t matter if they really don’t.
miker
Are you accusing Levitus and co-authors of fabricating data? Actually, you are. The problem you have is that the data (sparse – > dense in the ARGO period) shows a continual accumulation of energy in the ocean 0 – 2000m layer. Are you denying this? – sounds like it to me.
Are you denying the basic physics underpinning the GHE that would *inevitably* lead to an accumulation of energy in the ocean? – sounds like it to me.
Sometimes, miker, you need to think about what you are denying. About what it implies about what else you are denying. About what that implies about the level of your understanding.
Levitus et al. (2012)
> Uh – poorly.
Ligne’s prognosis was not far from that mark, MikeR:
Wait. Bjorn did not mention that we ought to invest millions to constrain climate sensitivity. Why is that?
Thanks for the G trick.
@BBD “Are you accusing Levitus and co-authors of fabricating data? Actually, you are.”
Uh, no. That’s kind of libelous. I’m accusing you of ignoring the fact that the IPCC isn’t nearly as impressed with the reliability of the results as you are. Quoting a link doesn’t change that.
If you had read the judithcurry post that you criticized me for supplying, you would have seen her comparison of AR4 and AR5 for 0-700m. The error bars _grew a lot_ between those two reports. It’s good to have a nice graph, but it’s better to know its limitations.
Willard, this was the quote from Ligne: “it would be wrong for us to try to do anything about AGW until we’ve solved third world poverty. that we’re not doing anything about third world poverty is a trifling detail that’s not worth worrying about at this point.”
It is very far off the mark from the very words you quoted. I can only fault reading comprehension, or an insistence on translating opponents’ words into one’s own caricature of them.
Fault whatever you want, MikeR. Bjorn played deaths from X against deaths from Y.
You still forgot to tell me about the importance of earnestly constraining sensitivity.
BBD
“Don’t go all gnomic on our asses, please!
Spell it out.’
Simple: ECS doesnt logically determine policy.
you might look at 4C and say TAX COAL
I might look at it and say Go Nukes.
Nocera looks at it and says artificial Leaf
That doesnt mean, as some imply,
“Just goes to show how some folks work backwards from the policy implications to evaluate the scientific evidence.”
of course some people ( like teller) did work backwards, but other folks look at the risk and
come to a different evaluation of how to mitigate the risk and price the risk and respond to the risk.
Willard will hate this but I think its always a fun exercise to see what you can logically deduce
doubling c02 will warm the planet by 4C.
Given.
now deduce a policy
Yes, Willard. He described what he thought is the best way to help them, and an inferior way that doesn’t help them much. I guess you think that’s the same thing as you said.
Seems to me that I’ve answered you on climate sensitivity, quite a few times. Different people will have different triggers, values for sensitivity at which they would favor changing plans. Mine happens to have fairly high sensitivities. Probably you, if you were honest with yourself, would also admit that there is some sensitivity that is low enough that you would stop pushing for mitigation if you were sure it is that low. Others will be in between. All of us could make better decisions on better information. I don’t see why this is hard.
miker
Read Levitus (2012).
Try to understand some basic physical climatology instead of denying it.
OHC 0 – 700m with error bars
Notice that the slope exceeds the uncertainty, decade for decade, at least since the 1980s.
ARGO data only for 0 – 2000m with error bars.
You can’t deny this. It’s real. The fact that Curry is trying to pretend that there’s too much uncertainty should clue you in to the fact that she is an unreliable source.
Here’s the AR5 figure you keep misrepresenting. Again, the slope exceeds the (diminishing) uncertainty. How can you keep this up?
Decarbonise electricity supply by displacing coal with nuclear and renewables. Electrify transport.
BBD, note that the important part of your claim about ocean heat was (a) deep ocean, (b) before 2000 – just the areas where your statement about slope is very unclear in the AR5 charts. Unless you are actually claiming that the second chart has less uncertainty than the first? Absurd. Obviously it will be far greater, only you have fewer studies. The spread in the first chart is a lower bound on the uncertainty in the second.
You forgot one important one: shift to a predominantly plant-based diet. The global livestock industry produces more greenhouses gases than the whole transport sector which includes trucks, planes, cars, buses, trains, and ships.
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
What rubbish. You can draw a straight line upwards through the 700m – 2000m OHC data (panel b above) from ~1980 – present. The trend is even more pronounced in the full 0 – 2000m data also linked above.
Why do you keep this silly denial up? In the face of clear, inarguable evidence?
miker613 said in reply to my comment not far above on February 2, 2015 at 8:27 pm (see the picture of the face in the gas mask):
“I gave you a source for economists with Nobel Prizes who agree with me – Bjorn Lomborg’s group currently has four.”
Not one of these four agrees with you. See the below.
“And you seem to think that it is evidence against me that Lomborg is worried about pollution.”
It is evidence against you. I recommend everyone read that very recent Lomborg article that I linked to in my comment above, that shows that he and his think tank most certainly does not now agree with the libertarianism or conservatism you promote, which to essentially have the governments of the world continue to turn their backs on the present and growing carnage – especially in the developing world – caused by air pollution. He and they now promote some meaningful worldwide public policy intervention in the name of saving lives from both indoor and outdoor air pollution, worldwide public policy intervention that your “free-market” libertarianism or conservatism is against – in fact, your “free-market” libertarianism or conservatism is the cause of so much of this 7 million deaths per year death rate, since only the right government intervention could have prevented so much of it. One of these meaningful worldwide public policy interventions is the recommendation to eliminate *all* subsidies *worldwide* for fossil fuels. That means tax increases since many of these subsidies are in the forms of tax breaks. Read the Lomborg article I linked to.
Unlike you, they now believe that there should be meaningful mitigation with respect to the ever-growing 7 million deaths per year from air pollution, presently at least 1.2 million of these in China and 600,000 of these in India, with most of the future increase of that total expected to occur in the developing countries, many of the devastatingly poor.
“Check my words again, this was there: “They consider airborn pollution to be a major killer.””
And this proves me right:
Unlike you, they now agree that China and India went way too far in creating so much death per year from air pollution, since:
Unlike you, they now hear the cries of the people in these countries choking to death – they now agree that so much of this suffering is so needless, since:
Unlike you, they now believe in heeding the claims of the people in these countries that not all of this air pollution was necessary – by that recent Lomborg article, Lomborg and his think tank are now hearing the growing present and future cries of the people in these countries suffering under the tyranny of governments who have shown little regard for the public health and public safety of their people with respect to air pollution and who will continue to ever-increasingly oppress these people with ever-more-deadly air pollution if little or nothing is done about it with *meaningful* changes in *public policy*. That is:
Unlike you, they are in favor of *public policy* that is *worldwide* that would do something *meaningful* about all that present death – and future death if nothing meaningful is done to change from business as usual – from air pollution not only in China and India but in the rest of the developing world. This inescapably means mitigation with respect to climate change.
And they disagree with you on all this even though, as I demonstrated with citations in my comment above, that two US government agencies put a dollar value on human life that is roughly 2 entire orders of magnitude larger than the dollar value put on human life by the Copenhagen Conesus. (Imagine what the conclusions of the Copenhagen Consensus economists would be if they used those much higher values for human life.)
I strongly recommend that all see that video in my above comment on February 2, 2015 at 8:27 pm, this video showing Chinese dissident Ai Weiwei joining the outcry over pollution in China.
Also:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/
Quote:
“Risks factors are greater than expected
“The risks from air pollution are now far greater than previously thought or understood, particularly for heart disease and strokes,” says Dr Maria Neira, Director of WHO’s Department for Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health. “Few risks have a greater impact on global health today than air pollution; the evidence signals the need for concerted action to clean up the air we all breathe.”
After analysing the risk factors and taking into account revisions in methodology, WHO estimates indoor air pollution was linked to 4.3 million deaths in 2012 in households cooking over coal, wood and biomass stoves. The new estimate is explained by better information about pollution exposures among the estimated 2.9 billion people living in homes using wood, coal or dung as their primary cooking fuel, as well as evidence about air pollution’s role in the development of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, and cancers.
In the case of outdoor air pollution, WHO estimates there were 3.7 million deaths in 2012 from urban and rural sources worldwide.
Many people are exposed to both indoor and outdoor air pollution. Due to this overlap, mortality attributed to the two sources cannot simply be added together, hence the total estimate of around 7 million deaths in 2012.”
Finally, there is a link to this article at Lomborg’s Facebook page about Obama’s recent visit to India:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-26/mr-president-world-s-worst-air-is-taking-6-hours-off-your-life
“Those levels translate roughly into an estimated loss of 2 hours a day in life expectancy, said David Spiegelhalter, a statistician at the University of Cambridge, who specializes in quantifying risk in a way that is understandable to the public.
Eight Cigarettes
“That’s roughly 8 cigarettes a day,” Spiegelhalter said in an e-mailed response to questions. “I think Delhi is a wonderful city, but this pollution is harming its residents.””
Rachel
Sorry – yes. Global livestock population needs to fall, not rise (as generally projected) over coming decades.
> He described what he thought is the best way to help them, and an inferior way that doesn’t help them much. I guess you think that’s the same thing as you said.
Constrain “them,” MikeR. I don’t think accepting to kill Xs because there are less than Ys is the best way to help those who belong to X or both to X and Y. It may only help those in Y.
Also note that Bjorn’s wording does not imply any best or inferior way. He says saving the poor is more about getting them out of poverty than mitigating climate change. You may notice that it’s trivially true: if you want to help the poor, you need to help the poor. The opposite also holds: if you want to mitigate climate change, you need to mitigate climate change.
What Bjorn does not say is if mitigating for climate change could also be a way to help the poor. He also does not say why we’d need to choose between helping the poor and mitigating. He does not acknowledge that right now we’re already mitigating and helping the poor.
Bjorn’s “more and less” trick may not be as caricatural as Ligne’s rendition of it, but it still is.
***
> Seems to me that I’ve answered you on climate sensitivity, quite a few times. Different people will have different triggers, values for sensitivity at which they would favor changing plans. Mine happens to have fairly high sensitivities. Probably you, if you were honest with yourself, would also admit that there is some sensitivity that is low enough that you would stop pushing for mitigation if you were sure it is that low.
That’s unfair, MikeR. You know how I’m never honest with myself.
So you’re saying that your belief that we should spend years and millions on constraining climate sensitivity rests on deep seated values about sensitivity?
That would make sense of Nic’s work, if we’re to believe David Young’s technical comment:
Let’s back up here, Miker, Follow our thread and find out what kind of “evidence” I was asking for. It had to do with China not this (which came out of nowhere and led to Lomborg):
And one other thing to consider, Miker, China is the second largest economy in the world. They may have a lot of people in poverty, but they are no longer considered a developing nation. I think are in a better position to control their emissions than the developing nations.
Pingback: Guest post : Skeptics demand adjustments | …and Then There's Physics
Brief thanks for the article, which was helpful in the latest trotting out of Telegraph/Booker nonsense now making the rounds.
Lomborg is well rewarded by Paul Singer.
http://www.desmog.uk/2015/02/09/exclusive-bjorn-lomborg-think-tank-funder-revealed-billionaire-republican-vulture-capitalist-paul-singer
John Mashey : Thanks for bringing the late great Birthday Girl to our attention. So inspiring a Bayseian prior may compell me to raise my cigarette consumption from three to four a day.
Reblogged this on Joseph Ratliff's Notepad.