It constantly amazes me how completely cr*p the climate septics are. I dont mean the skeptics – e.g. Lindzen, who is a better met man than me, though he has gone a bit emeritus recently – I mean flacks like Milloy. If you want to be skeptical of GW, then the only real point at issue is “will be be a (very) bad thing”. That encapsulates two points: how large is the climate sensitivity, and how will the balance of good and bad effects work out, regionally and globally (and, in a hat tip to RP, but also to others, how large are climate effects in the face of rapid societal change anyway?) (this isn’t [WP:BEANS by the way; I really wish the septics would learn this).

But one point of GW that is totally rock-solid is that CO2 is rising, which is why fools like Milloy fling themselves at it...

And the same tripe at CEI. Must be nice getting paid for junk twice over. Sigh. So what about Direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 taken by scientists during the 19th century - beginning around 1810 - ranged from about 250 ppm to 550 ppm, with an average value of 335 ppm, according to Dr. Jaworowski.

This isn't even "are the obs CO" rises anthropogenic" (which is also rock solid, though its one step further on). This is "has CO2 risen at all"? To be fair, Milloy hasn't thought of this himself, he is only parotting Jaworowski. It is best ripped to shreds by a single graph, that Tim Lambert helpfully provides. Notice... the enormous scatter on the early values, and how much they settle down once they have been appropriately massaged to fit political correctness reliable measuring instruments become available? If you're a septic, this is proof of some vast conspiracy; if you're sane, its proof that measurement has got better.

The Milloy article makes other equally stupid points. You can have fun shredding them yourself, or read Some are Boojums (and this earlier one with the all the gory details).

[Tip that got me started on this: MAY at RC, comment 139]

[Update: I added a category to this, "climate science", though not sure its quite right... Also, I've just realised that the Milloy pieces date from 16 *March* not April... sorry for being behind-hand -W]

[Update again: note that some sites (including the ever-reliable ;-) warwickhughes assert that what J said was Senate testimony. Note that JE points out that this just isnt true -W]

Comments

  1. #1 Brian S.
    2006/04/19

    Hey, what’s “cliamte science”?

    Uselessly,
    Brian

    (Man, I’ve been waiting for this opportunity.)

    [Its about my most common mis-spelling, thats wot :-). But I've fixed it now, so everyone else will be confused. BTW, I just read your non-betting with Carter. Good work, keep it up -W]

  2. #2 Dano
    2006/04/19

    OMG – the “Jaworowski sez ice cores are cr*p” argument again!

    It just goes to show, Wm., that the septics have nothing. Nothing. So they must recycle.

    And if you’re Milloy, you must take tobacco money.

    Best,

    D

  3. #3 coby
    2006/04/19

    I noticed that Milloy refered to that bit of crap as “testimony before the Senate”. Which of course it was not. It’s not like Jaworowski has the stature of, say, a Michael Crichton…

  4. #4 Dano
    2006/04/19

    Thank you, coby, for reading it so we don’t have to.

    Best,

    D

  5. #5 stephan harrison
    2006/04/20

    Hello everyone.

    Has anyone got a view on the problems over at realclimate? Does it make the 11 degree warming even less likely?

    Best wishes,
    Stephan

    [I admit to puzzlement as to what you mean. But no, 11 oC is not likely. See James Annan - http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/07/10c-not-likely.html in particular, but the most recent post too - for why -W]

  6. #6 Brian J
    2006/04/20

    In answer to “why fools like Milloy fling themselves at it…”, you have to remember that the aim here is to advance a particular policy. To do this one does not need to convince scientists, but to convince the general public, 99% of which know little about climate science and aren’t going to check it out for themselves. Despite it’s stupidity, many readers will simply lap it up uncritically, especially if they look at the world through an ideological filter…

  7. #7 stephan harrison
    2006/04/20

    Sorry. I mixed up realclimate for climateprediction! Silly mistake. Does my post make more sense now? Climate Audit are (predictably) making hay whilst the sun shines over the problems with the program.

    Best
    Stephan

  8. #8 Dano
    2006/04/20

    Brian J,

    What you say is true, however the decision-makers have to be swayed by the electorate in spite of the evidence in your case.

    Polls also show the electorate is concerned about environmental degradation. The slope of the line for the denialist ascendancy, IMHO, is negative.

    Best,

    D

  9. #9 Steve Bloom
    2006/04/20

    Stephan, it’s not exactly a secret that complex computer programs like climate models can have bugs. Just ask the richest man in the world about that if you don’t believe me. Bugs are important to distinguish from more fundamental problems in program design or in the underlying theory. It’s very clear from the decription of the problem that this was a bug (and one that affected only the current release of their software, which is to say it says nothing about prior results.) Is it embarassing for the CP modelers (programmers) to have been caught in public with a bug that they arguably could have caught before releasing it to their users? Yes. Does it mean anything else? No. The fact that the yahoos over at CA are trying to make anything of this other than an opportunity for a mild snark just shows how very little they have to work with. “They ain’t got nothin’.” — Dano

  10. #10 crandles
    2006/04/20

    As I understand it, the software was fine it was a header in a data input file problem. The programmers (all 2 of them) were given the file and told it was tested and correct but it turned out it wasn’t correct.

    >arguably could have caught before releasing it to their users
    Hmm maybe but only by delaying the release by a couple of months and missing out on lots of BBC advertising. I was a beta tester and couldn’t possibly have caught this problem in the limited time made available. With perfect hindsight, you could probably design a test that could plausibly have been designed and would reveal the problem without it taking 2 months of running but that is gift that few of us have in advance.

    Disappointing for users? Yes. Embarassing? Yes, it certainly isn’t something you would want to happen. Fortunate that the work turns out to be of some use? Certainly.

  11. #11 Steve Bloom
    2006/04/21

    Well, IMHO that just makes it a really simple software problem. But just out of curiosity (speaking out of near-total ignorance), wouldn’t it be possible for them to do a quick single run of each release on a much bigger machine just to make sure it’s not going to crash because of this sort of problem?

  12. #12 coby
    2006/04/21

    Dano, I didn’t read past that part so sorry, get back there and read the rest! ;)

  13. #13 crandles
    2006/04/22

    >”Well, IMHO that just makes it a really simple software problem. But just out of curiosity (speaking out of near-total ignorance), wouldn’t it be possible for them to do a quick single run of each release on a much bigger machine just to make sure it’s not going to crash because of this sort of problem? ”

    So no possibility that it should be considered a scientist Q&A problem then?

    From what I can gather, it wouldn’t be much quicker unless you substantially change the program so that it works with multiple processors working in parrallel on different cells. If you need to change the code that substantially do you really think it would provide sufficient comfort as to be worth the effort?

    [Ah, this is CPDN. OK. Firstly, this is no big thing. Some skeptics seem to think it affects published results. Of course it doesn't. Second, HadCM3 can and is run on massively parallel machines but I think the CPDN version is effectively crippled to run on windoze so can't -W]