The Copenhagen Diagnosis is an update to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to cover research published since then.
This is the science that the cracker who stole the emails from CRU wants to distract you from.
Via RealClimate.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Last week, hackers pulled a data heist on the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, releasing thousands of stolen documents and emails that purportedly exposed a scientific conspiracy to fabricate evidence of global warming. Climate change skeptics dug into the data with forks…
The Australian's coverage of the story of the emails stolen from CRU has been extensive -- my Factiva search found that there have published 85 articles so far that mention the matter, with repeated allegations that the emails showed that the scientists were corrupt, had acted dishonestly and that…
Another critical mass of climate change pseudoskeptics will be gathering today for an D.C. lunch event titled "The Climategate Scandals: What Has Been Revealed And What Does It Mean?" It features: Pat Michaels of the Cato Institute and Joseph D'Aleo of ICECAP and is being hosted by Ben Lieberman of…
Logging the Onset of The Bottleneck Years
This weekly posting is brought to you courtesy of H. E. Taylor. Happy reading, I ho8pe you enjoy this week's Global Warming news roundup
skip to bottom Another Week of Global Warming News Information overload is pattern recognition November 29, 2009…
"distract?"
Tim: I think that you are at your best when you take on the strongest arguments from the "other side" rather than the weakest ones. Consider two of the arguments made against CRU: from Willis Eschenbach and Eric Raymond. You should devote threads to these critiques rather than maligning the motives of the CRU whistleblower.
And what does CRU have to do with sea level rise?. Tim, is talking about distracting people other than deniers.
Check out those evil scientists using their trick of adding in satellite observations to the graph. I can think of no rational explanation for that since I'm too busy being "outraged". I demand they release all their personal emails regarding this fake report so we can peruse them and fill in the context gap that is inherent in such exchanges between scientists with claims of sinister motivations and conspiracy. If they don't release them, more power to the brave whistleblower who steals them. We shall not be taxed to death and taken over by a one world government because of these false prophets!
@David Kane
Eschenbach's criticism can be stricken down with one little fact: the raw data paid for by public money is fully available through GHCN. The remaining 2% of data in the HADCRU dataset is owned by other, commercial organisations. Reality vs deniers 1-0
Eric Raymond's criticism is also based on lack of knowledge, and has been explained in detail MANY places (hint: divergence)
Reality vs deniers 2-0
And you want whole threads for that?
My own confidence in this side has risen dramatically now that David Kane and ESR have weighed in on for the other side.
As Gavin explained, to you in fact, on RC, "Eschenbach was told in 2007 exactly why they couldn't release the stuff that included the restricted data from the NMSs but that the vast majority of the data was online already. Nothing has changed except that CRU have been harassed with perhaps 100 vexatious FOI requests for exactly the same thing, and which received (unsurprisingly) exactly the same response."
I remember Gavin also commented on the VERY ARTIFICIAL correction thingy somewhere in those two RC threads.
Yeah, I spent maybe 10 seconds looking at Eric Raymond's post, spotted the same old fallacious misunderstanding, and closed the page (I'm not fan of Eric Raymond, who's a far-right libertarian typical of a certain segment of software engineering).
David Kane, your task, should you accept it, is to learn why Raymond's not understanding what's going on.
However, David Kane's right that these are perhaps the strongest arguments from the "other side" - as pathetically weak as they are.
> Eric Raymond
Tom Myers:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447#comment-242885
That graph is science?
I agree with Tim Lambert. Those in denial want to distract the public from graphs like the one shown above. Why should we let them decide what science we choose to discuss. Those in denial wish to introduce doubt and confusion in people's minds, b/c they know all too well that people tend to do nothing when even the least bit confused or skeptical. It is worth keeping in mind that the latest report clearly demonstrates that the IPCC projections have, to date, been too conservative. So much for alarmist green zealots.
PS: And I doubt the person/s (if any) at CRU involved in the email hack are 'whistle blowers'. Correct me if I am wrong, but they still had to hack into the email server to obtain other peoples' emails. The only legal means by which they could have come by these emails is if they were actually on the email list (cc'd) and had legal authority to access to some of the data on a communal drive. Even then, removing those data files and providing them together with private emails to the general public is illegal and unethical. So stop treating these criminals like heroes. Had they come by the information innocently, they could have gone to officials directly, but probably couldn't because they obtained the material illegally. These people also hacked into the RC web server.
Let's talk about the report itself. I've read about half of it; it has some sidebars devoted pretty pointedly to batting away various sceptic talking points.
It clearly isn't as comprehensive a review as the IPCC report itself, but they admit as much. It's pretty good for an update of what's happened since then.
Ah, well, I've left a few posts over at ESRs blog. I guess his foaming-at-the-mouth symptoms aren't due to rabies after all, because if so he'd've died years ago.
Must be some other disease ...
Well, the person/s hacked into real climate, which is why it was down for a day last week.
That's not whistleblowing ...
A quick scan of the report indicates that something is missing.
Population increase.
3 billion in 1970, 6.5 billion today and UN modeling indicating in 2050 a low scenario 8 billion, mid case 9 billion and high case of 12 billion.
It appears that CO2e isn't the only thing that is doubling every 40 years with a doubling of housing and food production to support the population increase.
And since it is politically unpalatable for government to limit an individuals fertility there is no way to reduce this growth in population without one of the four horsemen visiting humanity.
Would you care to comment on the CRU code that is now appearing on other blogs, since this is your speciality and can speak with some authority.
Actually, the FOI requests were because CRU stonewalled on giving a simple LIST of what stations were used. Saying "the data's on the internet in GHCN" in insufficient unless you indicate which 2,000 out of 20,000 stations were actually used in generating the result.
And independent of that, if CRU posesses proprietary data that they cannot disclose, why can they not indicate which data is under contract? If we knew who it was, we and IPCC could ask them to open up.... or substitute public datasets instead. However, it seems that they 'lost the contracts'. For something this important, the utmost in transparency is needed. Should we trust a few dozen scientists who hide their data sources, data, methods, and analysis code when billions of people are going to be affected and trillions of dollars are on the line?
Global warming is not a game. Global warming is not something which ego's can be allowed to corrupt. Getting it wrong and overrestricting CO2 could put billions into poverty and then famine. Getting it wrong and underrestricting CO2 could put billions into famine and then poverty. What if the scientists are wrong, in either direction?
Whatever. Rejected. Rejection upheld on appeal. Neener-neener.
S seems to be claiming an awful lot of knowledge with no evidence added to back it up.
This is the old "What if everything we know about X is wrong?" angle, often used by the media.
The scientific method is not perfect, but it's the best method we have to understand reality. Let's hope it gets it as right as possible.
As you can see, they used the "trick" of putting the blue satellite line right on top of the red tidal gauge line so you can barely see it.
What are they trying to hide?
The Trooof !!!1!!
Does anyone know where I can download the UAH MSU code? Thanks in advance.
Eric Raymond is a douche.
The scientific method does eventually arrive at the truth. Of course, it can often go wrong for a while (eg, eugenics). Fortunately, independent scientists can replicate, reanalyze and correct errors. This takes a lot longer if the original science is kept secret. However, global warming isn't like a debate about the fall of the Mayan civilization. Policy issues affecting billions of people are resting upon its conclusions. Maximum transparency is needed, now, rather than having the replication be delayed by unnecessary secrecy. (And dhogaza, if you don't think transparency is important, then I have nothing further to say to you.)
If you want a writeup of one source of FoI evasions, read.
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/willis-vs-the-cru-a-history…
No one is locking up Nature, Science, GRL, etc ... they're all out there in the open for you to read. They're out there for McI and Watts to publish in. Yet they don't.
There's tons of data, code, etc available on the web - for all their screaming about wanting the small bits that aren't public, they do damn little with the vast amounts which are.
Which tells me something.
S,
The Willy E screed has already been dealt with [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/copenhagen_diagnosis.php#commen…).
Anything new to add?
When they do get the data, they distort it in ways that are unrecognisable to honest statisticians and scientists. Consistently. Every damn time.
They don't deserve it, really. There may be some legal obligation to give them the data, or a tactical one (they'll scream conspiracy otherwise), but the moral one has well and truly been extinguished.
"cracker"?
Maximum transparency is needed, now
I agree, but the the biggest source of resistance to transparency in science is the commercial system in which science is embedded. Funny that denialists are predominantly conservative and glibertarian. One day, when science is finally socialized, we can all have a good laugh about that.
12 dhogaza,
Good work. That blog's new to me but it's umm, a bit obvious in its beliefs, isn' it?
They don't deserve it, really. There may be some legal obligation to give them the data, or a tactical one (they'll scream conspiracy otherwise), but the moral one has well and truly been extinguished.
i agree. i expect them to get punished for their behaviour on this.
for example [Pielke sr](http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/comment-on-the-hacking…) does not waste a single word on the CRIME that was commited...
Jim Thompson pegged Eric Raymond accurately above - and it has nothing to do with ESRs views on climate science ...
30 dhogaza,
Ad hominem! AD HOMINEM!
take a look on Pileks's spin on the use "independent, GROUPS OF SCIENTISTS" by [Pileke](http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/an-erroneous-statement…)
what is happening is absurd theatre. they should ask people to pay, if they want to watch...
Sod, I can't look - how do you bear it? First WUWT, then RP Sr?
text above is supposed to end with:
... Phil Jones.
dhogaza:
all those scientists are under heavy attack at the moment. i think some masochistic part of me wants to share their pain.
I had a thought, when all glaciers have melted away, what will the ice core borers do for a living? ha ha ha ha ha
the biggest source of resistance to transparency in science is the commercial system in which science is embedded. Funny that denialists are predominantly conservative and glibertarian.
Is the first really true? Isn`t most of the climate science imbedded in universities and research institutes almost wholly reliant on public funds?
Conservatives and glibs` complaints on transparency and allegations of perverse incentives for publicly-funded scientists to find problems would end if a solid chunk of the research and modelling were done by industry groups, like insurers (Allianz, Swiss Re: etc.).
Likewise, conservatives and glibs should be directed to the support by insurers and even firms like Exxon on the climate science, even as arguments about policy will remain.
They will be very grateful to Lonnie Thompson, who got the cores in time, and they will work from the archived ice in the freezers at Ohio State and other places.
Same as many biologists work from collections of animals and plants that are no longer found alive.
If you believed the world was more than 6,000 years old, you'd understand why they do this, perhaps.
Is the first really true? Isn`t most of the climate science imbedded in universities and research institutes almost wholly reliant on public funds?
Of OECD countries, 2/3rds of science & technology R&D is corporate. Distressingly, much of it is in the biological & health sciences (thank god for the Human Genome Project or else weâd be buying subscriptions to genome databases from Celera). I imagine most climate research is funded by government, but universities do enter into complex funding arrangements with private sources just in order to survive.
David Kane:
Oh the irony.
I may have missed something, but my understanding is that it wasn't an inside job. That is, no whistleblower to speak of.
The Russian/Turkish connection is not taken seriously. Putin enjoyed being a spy, understands the meaning of espionage and still likes to keep his hand in the game.
Embarrassing the West was as simple as a hack.
Kudos for David Kane for a most excellent piece of threadjacking. Like the CRU cracker he wants to distract you from the Copenhagen Diagnosis. I will delete any discussion of the crimes against CRU from the this thread -- there are already multiple threads on that.
Oh yeah, Eric Raymond seems to think plotting the coefficients makes his case for him when he has no idea what variables the coefficients are being applied to. And he scales the graph to a vertical range of ~3 to make the rise seem more pronounced. Typical.
Once again, if this is the best the denialists have, their case is weak indeed.
Sorry Tim, missed your message because I didn't refresh the page.
Why bless you el gordo, despite your usual denialist shit, you've accurately pegged David Kane as being caught with his head stuck solidly up his ass.
You have at least some sense of honesty and honor. Too bad about the company you keep...
Tim, thanks for posting this up. It's a shame you can't keep this post at the top of the pile (along the lines of a "sticky" or "pinned" post like some bulletin board forums do), because IMO we need to keep the issues this summary raises at the forefront. We also need to remind the various trolls, denialobotomists, muppets and fossil fuel lobby activists that plague this site and others (RC particularly) that for all their caterwauling over the (illegal hacking of) CRU files, they still haven't provided a single coherent rival theory to anthropogenically induced climate change that even partially explains the phenomena observed and summarised in the Copenhagen Diagnosis document.
Again IMO the accessibility of the Diagnosis is a two edged sword. While on the one hand rank amateurs like me can read and digest it without feeling the need for the mental equivalent of a purgative, on the other it drives home how much of a fix we've put ourselves in.
Subsequently reading the denialomiasma leaking from the ethics-free zone that the anti-science platoon here and elsewhere inhabit:
1) makes the urge to beat their heads against something very big and unyielding irresistible; and
2) makes the urge to beat their heads against something very big and unyielding irresistible.
"David Kane, your task, should you accept it, is to learn why Raymond's not understanding what's going on."
The Inerrant Thought of Chairman Rand states as indisputable fact that the Dominion by man over Nature is a Good Thing, and nothing bad can possibly come of it.
Therefore, as the science behind the AGW hypothesis contradicts The Inerrant Thought of Chairman Rand, said science is now "junk science" propagated by the International Socialist Conspiracy to do something or other (Eric hasn't QUITE figured out what, though. It does involve Scary Brown People, though.)
Therefore as a Randroid First Class, ESR MUST denounce the science behind the AGW hypothesis, as it contradicts The Inerrant Thought Of Chairman Rand.
(I'm on a mailing list with that blowhard buffoon. You can't begin to imagine what it's like sometimes.)
On the topic of stories that got missed in the coordinated distraction, there was [this post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php#…) from LB:
>Meanwhile, in [other news](http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/317863), Mackie's main claim to spurious hockey stick data seems to have evaporated.
I need to make it clear that the last two points in this post are purely a rhetorical device.
More science missed due to the coordinated distraction :
[Warming increases the risk of civil war in Africa](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/20/0907998106.abstract?sid=87…)
The US and China have finally announced real numbers for their targets to reduce carbon emissions. Unfortunately these numbers, especially from the US, are far too weak. We need a strong agreement at Copenhagen, but this won't get us there. In many ways, a weak agreement at Copenhagen could be even worse than no agreement, as it would lock in targets too small to make a significant difference.
http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/11/emissions-targets.html
Tim,
Apologies! Not my intention to threadjack. Feel free to delete the comment.
On the Diagnosis Report, I am impressed with the high quality production values: gorgeous pictures, nice graphics and so on. Well done!
I've written a post in response to Eric Raymond's Hiding the Decline: Part 1.
Joseph, I left a lengthy comment to your post over at your blog ... hopefully you'll find it useful (at least the link to a review paper on the divergence problem, anyway! :)
Another counter-PR attempt?
Sea level has been rising since measuring began 300 years ago. It probably has been rising more or less steadily since the last great glacial melt. What it will do in the future is purely a guess... Although I think it will probably keep rising. How that relates to anthropogenesis is purely conjectural.
Next question.
The great issue some of us skeptics have is the same issue Freeman Dyson has stated; the models are full of highly advanced fudge and the people playing around with them, it would seem, don't have the insight to realize this (or guts to admit it?). What's that Goethe line, "the confusion of the real and the ideal never go unpunished."
Furthermore, while there is some beautiful science involved in the proxy techniques (clever use of isotopes and such), the overall verity of the data is utterly dependent on more or less static general conditions over great periods of time surrounding the proxy entity (tree, glacier). But there is simply no way to know the conditions surrounding the proxies, except by the data collected by the proxies, which are dependent on the surrounding atmosphere. In other words, one great windstorm might wipe away the data of hundreds of years on a glacier, and we can't know it by looking at the core data. The idea that these kinds of attempts can lead to anything close to accurate data sets is at best arguable.
And all the statistical tricks being used will not fool anybody who has worked with statistics for any length of time in a professional capacity. Statistics are guesses, pure and simple. And guess upon guess upon guess amounts to nothing, I don't care what values and equations are involved, how big or fancy or complex. And I don't care what is claimed to be the margin of error. Margin of error is a made up number as well. Equations aren't realities, unless they can predict reality. (Harry_read_me but please don't believe me.)
As Dyson says -- and it should be pointed out that Dyson is one of the great minds of our time, he is no crank, and he has pointed out that most of his scientist friends agree with him on this point (Institute for Advanced Study and Jason, anybody?) -- the climate modellers are all too captivated by their simulations. They have become isolated from the physical reality of cause and effect and true complexity (as opposed to the kind of simplified complexity that they model).
I do not assert a hoax. But nor can I trust the degree of physical insight and epistemology at the foundations of the discipline.
And please, do the entire debate a favor and stop saying all skeptics are funded by big oil or something. Its so childish. Do you really think if Richard Feynman were still alive he would blindly accept the assertions of the CRU? Hell no, he would be an absolute thorn in their sides. Just like he was to everybody else who made claims based on models and stats.
This is not to say that many of the skeptics aren't illiterate idiots, because they probably are. And clearly some of them are funded by oil companies in some part. But this is not some instant indictment.
Just as one oft-pilloried example, AEI has some good people on staff, and because they get %10 of their budget over ten years from some oil company, instantly everything they are saying is dismissed out of hand? This is purely absurd and childish. Which is to say, it is pure politics.
I want to make it clear, as well, that I am atheist, very pro environment and very pro-science. But I believe the way forward, environmentally speaking, is by developing the next generation technologies. All the money being funnelled to these computer-priests, IMHO really should be going to the scientists and engineers who might really get done what is required for a clean and sustainable future to happen.
Anyway, that is my opinion on the matter.
Arthur von N, you seem to believe that climate scientists know pretty much nothing about how the climate system works.
Given that, what makes you think the sea level "will probably keep rising", even though you the role of humans in that is "purely conjectural"?
Do you realise that, even though you claim to be a sceptic, this position you are taking (those scientists and their models can't tell us anything and, oh, yeah by the way, the sea level will just keep on rising and even though I have no idea whether we humans are causing it I just, well, I just *know* it somehow) sounds awfully like standard denial to me.
No, you don't.
In fact, reading you post, would I be right in concluding that you believe it's not possible to know anything about how the climate works or about how it has behaved in the past?
You want lots of money to go to "scientists and engineers who might really get done what is required for a clean and sustainable future to happen", yet you deny the possibility that those same scientists can know whether the future is sustainable given our existing technology?
Huh?
woops: "..even though you *SAY* the role of humans.."
I might say Arthur that yours is an interesting surname for one as dismissive as you are of modelling, simulations, complexity and computers. Personally I also really don't think that there's much "simple" about guesswork with statistics, and surely it's true that quality statistical work informs plenty of quality science in various fields? You are making some pretty extreme claims, I think! Have you looked through the Copenhagen Diagnosis report?
Interesting graph. Also interesting that Carl Wunsch of MIT said
.
Oh well, that graph showing a 4 cm sea level rise has me scared. I'm going to move to higher ground just to be sure.
Adding to Joseph's comment is a good description by Gavin in comment #712 of this post:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-cont…
Emails and code snippets lack context and have plenty of ambiguity - perfect for political hacks to concoct all sorts of sinister interpretations.
Gaz...
Re: Sea level rising: There's a trend. A very long trend, beginning before industrialization. As a human beings we see a trend and assume continuance. But a trend has nothing necessarily to do with a vector. That is a basic error of statistical projection.
No doubt, however, CO2 emissions will increase as China and India rise. This trend, I think, is a vector that can be assumed because we understand people as striving toward better conditions (as opposed to natural global forces, which act according to a physics that we don't yet understand.) So, the possibility that China and India will continue using CO2 emitting technology as they rise is very high.
I believe that the only way this inevitable rise in CO2 will change is to change the technology these countries use. As it stands, China and India are not going to keep millions of their citizens in abject poverty and misery because of first world statistical projections based upon, let's face it, incomplete understanding of the climate, and a lack of epistemological humility about the ability of simplified models to predict the future. Not to mention more basic questions about the validity of the claims made about CO2's role in things, the validity of proxies, the quality of the data collection, the integrity of the data storage, the sense of the statistical methods employed, the zealotry of the activists, the distaste for criticism and openness, and other reasons.
If you can't appreciate the above reservations, I submit that you simply have no appreciation for epistemology whatsoever. And the very foundation of science is epistemology.
Regarding the Von Neumann surname, surely you aren't suggesting that John Von Neumann would be less skeptical about the methods of climatologists than either Dyson or Feynman.
And surely you aren't suggesting that Hansen, Mann, and others at the top of the AGW food chain are scientists of the caliber of great physicists of our age? These people are run of the mill scientists. Smart men, but not geniuses.
And not even geniuses can predict the future.
The climate models can't even predict the past. At least not without a glut of fudge factors "making things work."
Incidentally, such accusations as "you sound like a denier!" are really childish. Have some humility about your own intellects, please. Most of the AGW activists wouldn't know a path integral from a wiring diagram. So the great mass of good hearted folk who are demanding action now (!) on AGW are simply acting on faith. And masses of people acting on faith should scare the crap out of any sane person.
Is there anything to this? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123083704.htm
As I understand the news release, the argument is that nothing can be done about climate change which will not be catastrophic.
Yes Arthur I'd expect a John von Neumann to be highly skeptical and of course he'd also have a bit more of a clue than the so-called "skeptics" we typically hear from. He'd want to read the literature before publishing his criticisms of it. He would publish in the peer reviewed climate science literature itself, agreed? It's clear that this literature as it stands today gives us the grounds we need as a relatively advanced civilization to be acting urgently to lower the rate of our emissions from fossil fuels. In the peer-reviewed literature there's all the evidence we need. We should as a matter of urgency right now be taking a risk-based or "insurance" approach to this precious planet and our future on it.
On the strength of the material at your link Jim I think we can we see why no economics journal would touch it, it's on the "naive" shall we say level of economic analysis. The idea that economic strength is closely correlated to energy use is noncontroversial. His idea that increased energy efficiency actually feeds back into increased economic growth and also increased energy use is also supported by some good historical evidence. But if for argument's sake energy use were to be increasing at 5%pa while energy efficiency was improving at 10%pa then we'd be getting somewhere wouldn't we? It's not the end of the world yet, however we ought to be acting like there's a real risk of it right around the bend the way we're going. "Skeptics" would have you do nothing about risk mitigation, I don't know why.
One thing you could be sure of, though, unlike many denialists, Johnny von Neumann would *never* claim that monte carlo modeling is "unscientific".
(extra credit if you know why!)
I decided to add the missing links to the references of the Copenhagen Diagnosis.
First of all Monte Carlo stats is neither scientific nor unscientific, it is a mathematical method based upon a theory. I think you would agree that there is a significant and essential difference between math and science. And this difference just so happens to go to the heart of the matter in question.
Any time series analysis is only as good as the inputs. Monte Carlo is all well and good if you have sufficient recordings of strong integrity to match against the synthetic data. But proxy data is synthetic data as well. Where is the control? A few isolated temp stations in 1920? Some anecdotal diary entry in 1814? Extrapolations are hardly recordings. Our planet surface covers nearly 200 million square miles... the idea of extrapolating the global surface temps from stunningly incomplete data is absurd. So stop believing the numbers are real. They aren't. The equations themselves are merely models, highly simplified.
Do your really know what the margin of error is for a tree ring data bit from 1870 when you have no idea what else was going on that year except through other anecdotal data bits. Is teleconnection a direct linking of the specificity claimed? What surety do we have about teleconnections from 100 years ago when they can't even be simulated? I have no idea and neither does anybody else of proper skeptical bent. (Especially after appreciating the "divergence problem.") Rigor includes appreciating the overwhelming amount of data about the past that is necessarily unknowable.
Creating simplified models is not a workaround to this problem. Implying these toys have Markovian surety is a dubious assertion. The over-reliance on deductions in all this is worrying.
The various models are cleverly and intelligently designed methods of speculation, and that is all they are. This should be acknowledged.
What is going on here is the same phenomena that occurs when reading about history. A few books on the civil war gives one some general sense about what is going on, and compared to someone who knows nothing, the educated fellow is deemed an expert. But the actual reality of that time is so concrete, vast, and remote compared to what can be learned from books that the expertise of the expert is purely an illusion. Symbolic communication is always pretending it is complete. That is why it is so seductive to the ego.
In a physicists lab, conditions can be optimized, the system can be closed, the chain reaction controlled and analyzed. The equations can be compared directly with what they purport to model. If one wants to get a GENERAL SENSE of what the neutron diffusion might be, sure, run the numbers.
But don't believe your math. We should recall that the margin of error on the yields of the atomic bombs fluctuated somewhere between 10 and 20 percent. (Now that's about the range that the climate models should admit, I would suggest. But even a 2 percent margin of error, if admitted, applied almost anywhere in your simulation chain, would serve to give the more absolutist members of your congregation a proper appreciation of how dubious the whole apparatus is.)
The climate, unlike a physical reaction in a closed space, is not a controlled or controllable stochastic process. And it is huge, rather than at the atomic scale. So there is no way to arrive at the margin of error, because you can't run tests that resemble the macro system at work. You simply can't test the margin of error against reality. Declaring the margin of error based on maths isn't a workaround with any integrity. Reality is the source of integrity, first, last, and always. And if you cannot generate a margin of error honestly, how can you assume it would be non-trivial?
Which is all to say, I have grave reservations about how applicable atomic scale analysis methods are to global processes. And I'm not the only one by a long shot. (Unemployed Wall Street Quants, anyone?)
Epistemology, my friends.
Arthur von N:
Yeah, [right](http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html#fewthousand).
Pull the other one, Arthur.
Arthur: master of word salad with lots of sciencey sounding phrases.
So all that is to say then, Arthur, that things we can't be certain about in a lab-work and mathematical sense are things we're not to worry our pretty little heads about? You can't be certain that the sun will rise tomorrow so you make no plans based on an assumption that it most likely will? To cut a long reply short I'm guessing that you haven't troubled yourself to read through the IPCC reports or the Copenhagen Diagnosis which is the subject of this post by Tim?
Arthur, you sound like a proponent of the "we don't know everything therefore we know too little to do anything" school. I'm not able to do advanced analysis but I know that I trust the leading institutions and practitioners of science far more than detractors - who haven't shown serious flaws in climate science, can't provide alternate explanations of recent global warming that stand sceptical (ie scientific) scrutiny, contradict each other when they attempt to and use arguments that don't need any kind of degree to see through.
Ultimately, when a field is big and complex even the most clever people are unable to examine it all and expect to be able to properly critique it. So trust enters the picture. It's not blind faith on my part to believe the institutions and practitioners of science know this stuff better than me. Or you. The physics is sound according to peak physics organisations. The chemistry is sound. Multiple measures and indicators of what's happening to our climate, without resort to any modelling, show warming. Modelling has been extremely valuable and I think your assessment of it's limitations is less to be trusted than the science of model evaluation and validation that's done.
When multiple independent lines of research across the world's leading scientific institutions all support AGW, I can't help but be suspicious of people like you who are determined to convince people we know too little to act. Especially when the reasonable expectations of consequences of failure to act are so pervasive and persistent.
My paragraphs disappeared for some unknown reason.
My purpose is to create consideration. I'm not a hot head and I have a natural distrust of hysterics, hype, and sensationalism. And I know how the funding ecosystem works in the sciences and how the PR process works. If you don't understand this process, you are subject to the PR.
What I trust is skepticism and epistemological humility and real world simulations. Wherever these are absent, my trust wanes.
I think I can boil down my position to this:
We don't need gilded promises on paper from world politicians. This decorative scribblings seem to have one purpose only, to pacify Reuters and The New York Times and the few other large media corps, which will in turn dutifully report the fake treaty and pacify the armchair activists. These pacifications do more harm than good not just because they don't really do good at all, but also because the illusion of change substitutes for real change for most people. Most people aren't interested in rigor.
If you appreciate the fact that India and China are not going to forestall their rise to suit some populist-pacifying treaty, and they don't care about your cares, you should appreciate the reality of the situation: It will be the next generation of clean technology almost alone that will actually do the work of scrubbing down China and India's emissions. If this technology arrives at roughly the same time that China and India realize they have a serious pollution problem, all the better. Time, therefore, is of the essence.
The funds currently funneling into creating epistemologically dubious computer models are funds that are being used to discuss reality abstractly. That is, you are paying millions and millions for philosophy. These models don't change anything directly. This is a MASSIVE waste of money.
If these funds were instead diverted directly to Research and Development, (the actual change agent of history), we will be much better off and the desired change will happen at a much more rapid rate. (By desired change I mean to say, the reduction of pullutants, regardless of what they are or how much effect they have on real world situations.)
Speaking of the best use of funds... Next time you are part of some large gathering... let's say a global warming protest in Washington. Let's say there are ten thousand of you. Let's say each of you spends about 50 dollars to get there, do your thing, eat out, and get home... You have just collectively spent one half a million dollars together. Half a million dollars, that with a little intelligent organization could have been given DIRECTLY to scientists and engineers creating the next generation of technology.
THINK.
It is technology that changes the world.
So Arthur, you're saying we should divert a few tens of millions from climate modelling to add to the billions that are spent on technology R&D? I've got a better idea - why don't we divert a few billions from the global finance casino to science R&D instead. That would be far more worthwhile. Besides, without the modelling we won't know if the new technology is helping...
Arthur,
Considering the boreal tree-line divergence problem. If it were not a phenomenon unique to the late 20th century, would one not expect that prior to the late 20th century there would not only be non-linear divergence against the instrumental record, extending back 300+ years in some regions, but a lack of internal consilience between the individual series which collectively comprise the chronologies? Instead there is a remarkable amount of agreement, extending back millenia, increasingly convergent as new series are added to the chronologies.
Guthrie, I didn't mean to say we should only divert money from the climate modeling industry. And money isn't even the most essential aspect of my critique, truth to tell. The most important thing to usurp from the climate change industry (related to money, surely) is their PR machinery, which has directly coincided with the fall of integrity in the media... thus the "synergy" between the two. Its a perfect storm, pun aside, that disaster sells newspapers and ad time, and climate modeling can produce disaster scenarios on demand.
I would like this PR capital, most of all, to be turned to publicizing the heroism of the engineers and scientists who are working on the next generation technologies. So instead of mass hysteria and millions of man hours wasted on narcissistic blog postings of one's programmed fears, we have movement and hope. The emotionalism is completely antithetical to progress and causes an instinctive distrust in many.
Luminous Beauty, I agree that your question is sensible. I don't think there are good answers to the divergence problem yet. But I do know this, just on the divergence question alone, until we understand why the divergence is happening, and given that it is happening in an era when our instrumental recordings are at a peak of integrity and coverage (compared to earlier eras when there was more alignment and our instrumental integrity was far more sparse and suspect), I think the entire method should come with warning labels that say: We don't know why this works when it works, and why it doesn't when it doesn't. How can you calculate the margin of error at this level of ignorance? Anybody who says its within 1 degree is simply making an assertion.
But there is a lot more to say about the tree proxies.
It should be noted that tree rings are not a stable data sources. All the traces within are subject to outside conditions. What is trapped in the tree ring data for us to analyze is merely the data that makes it through the growing cycle until the set is "trapped" by the next year's growth. And even that is still not insulated from atmospheric forces coming from within and without: heat, dryness, UV rays, etc. As well, the tree is still living after the ring is established. We aren't talking about an archival situation. Which means, the longer a tree lives, the more its interior composition should change, the more its data is compromised.
If you want to assert that you can simply "fix" such data with some statistical mechanism, (which you are also merely asserting has scientific validity), I must dispute your integrity. There are not sufficient instrumental recordings with integrity to check the mechanism, so the mechanism itself will necessarily be a guess. (Which again, can not have a sensible margin of error value assigned to it.)
Obviously trees local to each other are highly likely to have gone through similar atmospheric experience... thus the "consilience" between them. There are grave problems in analyzing relative systems, however... the elements in a relative system relate to themselves quite well, but they defy absolute understanding because the full extent of the global factors are necessarily unknown because global factor can affect the system's ability to record itself correctly. System-wide biases can be easily introduced. And applying statistical methods to smooth over such biases without knowing what they are or why they happened is really just a way of discarding data. (Not all data is sought. Some data is purely about epistemology... that is, it is anti-data. That such data is routinely discarded, is telling.)
So the same questions arise... because we have no idea whether such proxy data accurately represents any particular year. How do you come up with the margin of error when you don't know how the system works? How can you use such sparse and dubious instrumental data from, say, 1820, and assume they constitute a legitimate check on the values you are getting from the tree rings of that same era. One simply can't.
This is why statistics and modeling and proxies are fascinating, but should not be mistaken for experiential data.
A cynic, distrusting of the statistical methods being used to "flesh out" the older instrumental records as well as those used to "recreate" climate data from proxies, might see the alignment of older instrumental data with proxy construction data as a direct result, simply, of two struggling students copying each other's answers on a test.
Arthur, whether or not you believe the ban on CFCs as one example or Acid Rain Program as another are Good Things, have they been effective in their aims? Without them what would have happened to the trajectories of CFC production and sulfur dioxide emissions from coal power stations - you'd have us believe that technology would long ago by now have produced the results of less acid rain and a mending ozone hole, would you? You're dreaming, just not realistic.
"If you want to assert that you can simply "fix" such data with some statistical mechanism, (which you are also merely asserting has scientific validity), I must dispute your integrity."
But of course. It wouldn't be denialism without unsubstantiated libel intended to derail debate.
"There are not sufficient instrumental recordings with integrity to check the mechanism, so the mechanism itself will necessarily be a guess."
Indeed. And how would Einstein have come up with Special Relativity without 'sufficient instrumental recordings'? Someone ought to tell the other Theoretical Physicists they're doing it rong thou.
Has it occurred to you Von Neumann, that none of what you've said in this regard amounts to anything greater than argument by assertion?
This is another patented denialist tactic- typically announced between baseless, shameless smears- establish rhetorically useful ground rules that are utterly devoid of veracity- on this planet at least- then argue to them. It helps when pointing out the manifest flaws in said doubles as a rhetorical trap. Thanks much for the quintessential case study, Mr. Von Neumann.
Jemima, I was very pleased by the banning of CFCs. I think it was an effective and smart thing to do. The mandating of catalytic converters was another important step toward pollution control... yet it had the unintended consequence of actually increasing CO2 emissions (from what I understand on the matter.) Unintended consequences and necessity are two essential considerations. I am just questioning the effectiveness of the next step. In order to fund the next evolution in technology and the changeover in infrastructure, the economy must be running full steam. And anything that damages that economy, even if in the short term it seems wise, is actually penny wise and pound foolish.
Majorajam... that was not a civil post, but one full of rage and invective. "Denialist!" is really up there with "Infidel!" for sheer religious fervor. And, of course, to question is not to smear. If you want to be on the side of science, you ought to cut that stuff out and develop a tougher skin.
Anyway, I intend to foster debate, not derail it. One way to do that is to offer food for thought. I apologize if the use of the word "fix" offended you. But I have a dim view of statistical meddling, as you may already recognize. The distinction between filtering a signal and exaggerating it or crafting it is without a difference to me. Especially as these processing filters are, it appears, intended to bring out the vector quality of the data sets, which is the most common way that statistical plots are misused as selling tools. Unless every factor and interaction is known with deterministic surety, it is impossible to extrapolate/predict the end of a non-cyclical trend using statistical modelling. Therefore it is equally impossible to extrapolate/predict the continuation of that trend.
Theoretical physics is, of course, an entirely different matter. I'm not sure I understand you point there. There are a great many mathematically beautiful theories that were demonstrated to have no basis in reality. This is why math is not science and why math-based modeling should be a priori distrusted.
I suspect another case of attacking what climate modelling is believed to be rather than climate modelling. Not the first to do so. From here it looks like an own-goal.
Despite the long established physics of absorbtion and emission characteristics of gases, ample evidence of real world warming, and plenty of good science linking the two we should act like the old, unproven belief that what people do can't change the climate stands and we should base our future energy policy on that?
Arthur, I think you are a climate science denier through and through; I see no evidence you've actually made any effort to find out what climate scientists do from climate scientists but plenty to suggest you have great faith in the arguments made by the critics of climate science.
Nick Griffin on Copenhagen, says it all about the septic case.
Arthur's criticisms of climate modelling remind me of Pat Franks a couple of years back with his graph showing the widening fan of uncertainty over the next few decades that he claimed was inherent in climate modelling. Actual results of real GCM's showed no such thing of course. He was criticising what he imagined GCM's must be, not what GCM's actually are. I recall a senior climate modeller (Gavin Schmidt) referring to Franks' efforts as a toy model. Not very flattering but actually a mild insult given the unsupportable criticisms Franks was making of Schmidt's work.
Arthur is just one more in a long line of critics who appear to be overly taken by their own cleverness but who don't have what it takes to get what to them appear to be clear and obvious flaws put together in a paper capable of meeting the standards of peer-reviewed publication. Or even pass the casual scrutiny of interested laypeople like myself.
Meanwhile in the real world emissions continue to rise and voices like his - whether deliberately or not - continue the tactics of doubt, deny and delay. There doesn't appear to be any real consideration that AGW could be possible, let alone be highly likely. Given the world changing scale of the consequences those who claim to be uncertain about AGW - ie think there's some chance it could turn out to be correct - should be strong advocates of emissions reductions just in case; most aren't because most aren't genuinely sceptical, have made up their minds that it's not correct and won't take the time and effort to get better informed.
Given that GCMs aren't statistical models making the above statement meaningless, and that John von Neumann, who invented monte carlo modeling wouldn't agree with the following statement:
Is there any reason at all for me to go through Arthur's suite of posts, ripping them apart, item by item?
Or have I already wasted enough of my time?
Mr. Fabos, that was disingenuous pair of posts. You didn't address a single point I made, and I made many. It is a strong filter indeed that is able to shield itself from every unrecognizable thought.
But I do enjoy the technique of dismissal... "oh this fellow here, we've run into his like before... merely a denier, easily dismissed."
It is sociologically fascinating that no matter what the education level of the contra-poster, from the scattershot 20-something to the gentlemanly layman, the form of counter argument still amounts to: Denier! Infidel! Heretic! Burn him!
Interested about the question, I'm sure you are. Interested enough to actually THINK about the first principles involved, about your efforts in that regard, patently, I'm a skeptic.
I should point out that I never said that there was no anthropogenic component to climate change. That would be as foolish as saying an ice cube can't melt in a person's hand. To be on the safe side, I would like to see CO2 emissions decreased.
BUT... you speak of "the real world"... well, in the real world, dear chap, NOBODY is going to reduce emissions in any significant way. No. Body. India and China have hundreds of millions of people in abject poverty. They will stop at nothing to continue their rise. And the west, unless they want to live in a world where China calls the shots, is not going to hold the door open for them to surpass us economically. We will do as much as they will. Which is nothing. That's the reality. Warts and all.
So, to be ACTUALLY safe in the long run, I would like to see the future technology arrive sooner, and I believe, in that regard, nothing should be done to impede economic recovery, which is the very thing that will bring the new technology to fruition.
Given this REALITY, massive constraints placed on the western economy would be detrimental... and if you believe that a cataclysm is on its way, suicidal.
In conclusion, if you want to be an excellent steward of the environment, (not just a pretend steward that accepts the mushy feel good activism fed to us by Reuters et al on behalf of photo-opportunist politicians), ALL THERE IS TO DO IS TO GET TO THE NEXT GENERATION OF TECHNOLOGY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE!
(Sorry for shouting. Adieu)
Dhogaza... Another quick zinger, eh?
Re: GCM: The models use an averaging version of Navier Stokes because the direct calculations are far beyond the computer's capacity. Averaging = Stats.
Beyond that there are problems with Navier Stokes as a formula set. The formula itself is a best guess. And we can't check its validity at global scales.
These models are ALL statistical approximations... from input to equation to graph.
Epistemology. Let's not pretend we know everything.
Does anyone do that? I don't think so, not in the scientific world.
Perhaps this technological revolution you seem to think will be delivered solely by economic recovery will lead to a better way of constructing a straw man.
Arthur you use the word like an incantation but the meaning of "epistemology" is not that because we do not know everything we cannot do anything to help ourselves. Your faith in consumerism is touching but misplaced.
On present scientific understanding, not limited to modeling - have you read the Copenhagen Diagnosis report much? - coal will be cheap to dig up and burn for longer than we've got left unless its negative externalities become priced into the market. Nuclear's been around for decades and some countries run cleanly on it despite coal being cheaper to dig up and burn. This economic observation of France and Sweden is an impossible reality according to the tenor of your comments - how could they possibly be wealthy countries today without burning cheap coal? Mystery!
We won't extricate ourselves from trouble with the same kind of unwise thinking that got us into it in the first place. Perhaps you believe fusion would be less than 20 years away if only we would fund more research into it? Dream on. In any case a carbon tax is the smartest way I can think of to fund research into clean energy technologies but you'd rather the money come from income taxes I suppose, economically ignoring the cause of the original problem the research was intended to address.
Gaz - Let's review our post sequence...
Arthur: The models are stat-fudged.
Gaz: The models have nothing to do with stats! You're clueless!
Arthur: Yes they do, here's why. (...) Let's not pretend we know everything.
Gaz: (Ignores own error) Who's pretending they know everything?!
Jemima: Consumerism? A functioning economy is about a lot more than consumerism. A functioning economy leads to higher tax revenues, sure, which can be used to fund basic research. But it also engenders faith in civilization, which leads to private investments in the future.
I don't think it is properly appreciated how quickly a tax on transportation will negatively affect the economy. The U.S. would be severely constrained if such a tax were to be put into effect because the U.S. has a great deal of spread and utterly relies on engine power to connect up. Even the threat of this tax will diminish investment.
And, again, China and India are not going to get on board anyhow and those countries, you will see, will rapidly become the real issue for those who are concerned with CO2.
The next tech may not be Hydrogen based, it could be solar, enzymatic or biological, or it could be an excellent method to scrub coal emissions and sequester or convert the waste. The research for all these technologies is going on now and is progressing rapidly. These aren't fantasies. Certainly they are less fantastical than the Manhattan Project or the Apollo program were in their eras.
Arthur Von Neumann:
Sequestering coal emission is always going to cost more than not sequestering coal emissions. No amount of research is ever going to change that fact.
AvN:
Despite your contrary assertions, there are big differences between statistical models and physically-based numerical climate models. Claiming "These models are ALL statistical approximations... from input to equation to graph," belies a lack of knowledge of physics-based modeling, and also a disingenuous definition of "statistics" in your arguments.
And one other thing - what you term as epistemological "humility" sounds a lot like epistemological nihilism. Nice debating tactic, but ultimately futile in reality. Still, it's amusing to watch your arguments founder in this blog - do continue! :-)
>As well, the tree is still living after the ring is established. We aren't talking about an archival situation. Which means, the longer a tree lives, the more its interior composition should change, the more its data is compromised.
Arthur, the interior wood isn't alive, but it is well preserved. Your knowledge of plant physiology is in the negative range.
Arthur's epistemology boils down to, "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien", or Agrippa's Trilemma. Though absolute certainty of inductive reasoning can never be rigorously proven, eventually Achilles gets close enough to reach out and grab the tortoise. AGW passed that point about ten years ago.
The Manhattan Project and Apollo Missions are two examples of things that came from government policy and tax monies, lacking either one of which they would not yet have happened.
It's fantastical to assume that without the right kind of monetary or taxation incentives, private enterprise and free markets could, should or would act in time to address the peril we face from AGW. The only question is which government mandated incentives you would prefer if you believe civilization is worth insuring. Private enterprise will insure your car for you - now how much is the Earth worth?
jemima,
Also the Finnish and Norwegian economies own much to government participation to swing to power of democracy in support of societies well-being and social justice.
Which also made the economic position of their populous very sound position.
Nokia, Ericsson, high royalties on natural resources (oil) for high dividend from common wealth.
Let's get something very clear, the subset culter of Global Warming comunity that spur the misrepresentation that has illegally falsified information that has been represented in government statistics and fraugently passed onto the public by unethical corperations build for the soul purpose of the enormous funals of money to the projects that have been created because of the hysteria that Climate Change experts and activists have gradually built upon over the decades, like a virus, infecting the whole of society with factual data, then incorperating false data and information that has been minipulated with lies and gradualy making its way into text books, education and finaly into laws that have placed comprehensive taxes and restrictions onto the colective in every contry that has values which make those responsible for corrupting a serious subject as the health and well being of our planet the true criminals of our time and not the hero of this converstaion that is taking place today. The wistleblower as everyone calls him, has not done anything that a true man of concious and the truth is now exposed to the world about the science. The truth is now clear, that over time, The Global Warming Hoax will be reasoned out through real science, even though their will be those, as theirs been since the begining of the Global Warming Alarm, those whose science is paid for by the Far-Left, through grants and creative business skeems that have made the producers of the Green Global Movement which has made its way into the manufacturing of Green jobs and companies taking in trillions of dollars through out the world, who will do everything in thier power, get every voice activated that can influinse the collective and the governments around the world to denounce and vilify the truth that has been exposed through the words of thier own corrupt society by one brave individual that did what needed to be done to expose the lies of some in the scientific community whos commitment to science is based only on profit and corruption. There could no other reason as to why such unethical manipulations and vidictive behaviors as to why a scientists would knowingly corrupt data and want to destroy information and honest emails that support honest findings and data. I'm sure there is so much more out there that is left to be exposed, but be clear in this fact; as we all debate, argue and post our comments, the lesson has been taught and the scientist of the global warming community that know their secret is out for the world to see are destroying the own documents and rushing to safe guard the databases so that this can not happen again! TO THOSE DEFENDING THIER OWN, as you go forth in trying to progress your subversion and corruption of honost science, your integrity is and should always be questioned and your sience dejected, by those of true integrety. You of true and honest science know in your heart who you are. You should stand up and speak out, no matter if if your scientific data has be compremised because of the corrupt science you've been lead to believe is true with ficticious data and papers by those that have been expoed and their collective community. You as a collective know who they are and should stand up, and as it is clear that is needed to be done, start over, no matter how frustating and angry you may be and want to just give in to the temtation that some of it must be true and your not willing to throw all you've contributed to the world away, all because of this little mess that those defending the corruption of the scientific data and rersearch that has been exposed through the words of some of your own, that you consider part of your own community; please remember, you who are honest and are true to science and the facts, where ever they lead, stand up, and and correct the community you love and respect, for you are the voice in which the world turns when the facts are needed for our future as a whole needs to turn to to make the best decisions that benifit mankind. We turn to you and need you! Your contribution is not questioned if your honest enough to correct the corrupt data inwhich your own honost science was built upon and believe, that the collective will stand with you if you DENOUNCE THOSE THAT HAVE CORRUPTED THAT WHICH YOU HOLD SACRID, SCIENCE AND SCIENTIFIC FACT! I will! And I call for those who too will stand with you, speak out and blog everywhere you can and call for the scientic community come forward and speak out on this and correct the corruption that has infiltrated scientific data that has corrupted the facts concerning Global Warming. Even if it comes out the same in the end, which scientific datat to date does not support, atleast the truth and fact will be what it is and will be built on honest science, not that by those whose integrity and honesty is based on lies and fraud.
#94 errm yes but you are not the real Janet are you.
#95 .... and your spelling, sanity, grammar and warm scientific sentiments Bernard are all ****BEYOND REPROACH****!
Thank GOD the truth is finally coming out. Although billions$ have been wasted and nearly three decades have been lost in exploration etc. we must now get the word out so that we can hold accountable, all those responsible for perpetrating this scam upon the west. Especially U.S. and UN politicians as well as the green movement etc. They were well on their way to a communist utopia.
Thank GOD the truth is finally coming out. Although billions$ have been wasted and nearly three decades have been lost in exploration etc. we must now get the word out so that we can hold accountable, all those responsible for perpetrating this scam upon the west. Especially U.S. and UN politicians as well as the green movement etc. They were well on their way to a communist utopia.
Thank GOD the truth is finally coming out. Although billions$ have been wasted and nearly three decades have been lost in exploration etc. we must now get the word out so that we can hold accountable, all those responsible for perpetrating this scam upon the west. Especially U.S. and UN politicians as well as the green movement etc. They were well on their way to a communist utopia.
Thank GOD the truth is finally coming out. Although billions$ have been wasted and nearly three decades have been lost in exploration etc. we must now get the word out so that we can hold accountable, all those responsible for perpetrating this scam upon the west. Especially U.S. and UN politicians as well as the green movement etc. They were well on their way to a communist utopia.
Thank GOD the truth is finally coming out. Although billions$ have been wasted and nearly three decades have been lost in exploration etc. we must now get the word out so that we can hold accountable, all those responsible for perpetrating this scam upon the west. Especially U.S. and UN politicians as well as the green movement etc. They were well on their way to a communist utopia.
Shorter Ken Zack - physics is wrong. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Mike shot never happened.
Science is a total fraud.
Evidence such as the existence of my laptop, and whatever Zack has posted from, to the contrary.
Arthur, I trust the scientist who actually do climate research more than I trust your criticisms of their methods. I think that's the bottom line. I certainly never called you an infidel or suggested burning you. What I do suggest for you is to get better informed.
I think the future costs and consequences of climate change are serious enough to warrant serious policy action now and it's false prosperity if economic development continues to be based on high emissions technologies with the uncounted costs to be deferred. Physics - the real world - means there's no defaulting on them.
Insisting action must wait on greater prosperity is an argument for delay. Your arguments, attempting to show climate science can't tell us enough about those costs to base policy on are arguments of doubt. Your insistence the tools science uses don't work and it's results are invalid are arguments of denial. Doubt, denial and delay. When it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
The immediate needs of economic development will always be with us; using the argument that action on climate change must wait on prosperity, it will never be the right time to act to reduce emissions - unless it's cheaper and easier (with those future costs ignored) to do so. I say we can't ignore those future costs any more than we can afford to fail to make R&D efforts to make the alternatives cheaper.
Lest there be any doubt at all, I am not the [Bernard](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/copenhagen_diagnosis.php#commen…) who is completely and utterly bereft of any knowledge of the use of punctuation marks, paragraphs, grammatical coherence, who has no acquaintance with fact, who couldn't differentiate science from the fairytales that I read to my 2 year-old, and who wouldn't recognise a sensible argument if it drove over him with a steam roller.
Just so that we're all clear...
Firstly, let me disassociate myself from the Ranter Bernard and Mr. Zack's zealous repetitiousness. Sometimes reading that kind of junk makes me want to be on the other side of the equation. Luckily, the skeptics are not all so frothy.
I'll take it a post at a time...
Chris, that isn't necessarily so. The history of technology does not bear out your assertion.
Former Skeptic, I think my characterization was fair. The equations are approximations, not just averaged, but also linearized, and this is a statistical method. Just because the method doesn't look like statistical sorcery, that doesn't mean it isn't. This is why a physical appreciation of the equations is just as necessary as a mathematical one. As far as epistemological nihilism, I could easily turn that around and say that it is far more nihilistic to surely cause harm in the hope that it prevents some future possibility of harm.
Luminous Beauty, firstly, the xylem is not wholly dead cells. This seems to be a common misconception. On old growth trees, I don't think there's a foolproof method of knowing just when a ring becomes biologically inactive. Furthermore, I would direct you to the recent research on ion-mediated changes in xylem hydraulic resistance. Regarding Aggrippa's trilema, I think I indicated which courses of action I thought sensible. So, your claim that I am all about inaction is nonsense. I believe in positive action, rather than negative action. And the consensus formed 10 years ago, before the recent plateau and scrutiny of the research, is being reexamined by many science oriented people who want a green environment as much as any AGW hard charger. It would seem impossible to imagine that you have not revisited your beliefs on this matter, not even once, in the last decade, even putting aside the CRU revelations.
jemima, the manhattan project and the apollo missions were POSITIVE technological ventures. They were not punitive or restrictive. Thus my comparison between these heroic ventures and the next technological step, which also would be a POSITIVE step. Furthermore if government money goes into developing the next tech, that is all to the good. But governments make their money from tax revenue, and that requires a strong economy to create that financial base to foster the innovation. Its all tied together. The punitive tax and control stance, IMHO, shows very linear thinking and too much reliance on unsettled understanding of the extremely complex system of our global climate. Lastly, I believe Crichton was correct when he stated that as technology progresses it becomes less carbon-producing per unit of energy output. We shouldn't interrupt that trend, but instead, as the chip makers have sought to make Moore's law true by pushing innovation, we should seek to continue it by energy innovation as well.
Ken Fabos, I am trying to be better informed. Are you? Regarding my simplification of some of the attitudes around here to mere labelling, I was being half-serious. And I did not throw a big blanket over the tools of science. The question is the difference between a tool used with integrity and a tool used injudiciously or without a sense of the limits of the tool. I assure you I am fully aware of the extraordinary success of science, and more importantly how and why it became so successful. And as I said earlier, I am not for inaction.
AVN:
Sure. Just tell me a technology that is now ABSOLUTELY FREE TO IMPLEMENT. As I said, no amount of research will make sequestering coal emissions cost the same as not sequestering coal emissions, i.e. free.
Chris, mufflers and catalytic converters are part of every car at a completely negligible price.
Once the next technology is there in terms of effectiveness, and it is nearly cheap enough to be "just another part", THEN we can mandate it be part of our autos and factories and whatever. And the mass production required to meet the mandate will itself make the large scale production of the technology cheap enough to be economically feasible, which is to say, economically negligible.
It seems to always be the case that new technology increases its reach by exponential growth, starting out very small and expensive and then becoming so widespread and ubiquitous its cost becomes negligible. The usual example is that ENIAC filled a room and cost millions. Whereas, I got my iphone for free from Apple with the purchase of a new computer. (Much like a muffler comes "free" with a car.)
Arthur writes
>*I believe Crichton was correct when he stated that as technology progresses it becomes less carbon-producing per unit of energy output. We shouldn't interrupt that trend, but instead, as the chip makers have sought to make Moore's law true by pushing innovation, we should seek to continue it by energy innovation as well.*
The other trend you leave out Arthur is that we are on a trajectory of accelerating energy use faster than efficiency gain. Hence interupting that (monumental growth in CO2e emission) trend is precisely what is necessary.
We need to also correct/counter (as much as possible) strong perversions in the current markets that reward externalising cost and punish internalising them. That is the new growth and genuine adancement that will preserve civilisation longer and have the potential for enhancing it.
Arthur writes:
>*But governments make their money from tax revenue, and that requires a strong economy to create that financial base to foster the innovation. Its all tied together.
Which is why Norway is looking pretty strong with [78% tax and royalty dividends](http://www.secureenergy.org/files/files/1004_SAFE%20Intelligence%20Repo…) on natural resoruces and [green taxes](http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fin/Selected-topics/taxes-and-duties/T…) (which counter perverse externalization and allow economies to better internalize and respond to real costs.)
And why high taxing Nordic countries are so innovative gaining [more than 10 times more patents per captia]( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pat_gra_percap-economy-patents-gr…) than the USA.
Author continues:
>The punitive tax and control stance, IMHO, shows very linear thinking and too much reliance on unsettled understanding of the extremely complex system of our global climate.*
Arthur, can you define which âpunitive tax and control stanceâ you are referring to here? Are you referring to cost internalizing taxes such as a carbon tax as punitive? Or tax & dividend on unproductive speculation such as a Tobin tax? Or Royalties on natural resources such as Norway? Which specific taxes are punitive in your opinion and which are protective of a fair and balanced economic system?
AVN:
So you're telling me that the $215.33 it cost me to buy new mufflers, excluding the value of my labour, for my car was negligible or "free".
What other fairy tales do you know?
Arthur,
Though the application of catalytic converters were avaliable since the [early 1900s](http://indianhillmediaworks.typepad.com/energy_matters/2009/06/catalyti…), they didn't gain wide use until [effective regulation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_emissions_control) removed the perverse subsidy of opting out of pollution controll.
Now, as Chris points out, wide spread use has resulted in costs reducing to approx 1% of the cost of a new car.
What's with all the Norway ads?
The reality is Norway has massive oil deposits which amount to a 1/4 of their GDP!
Luck is not a strategy that is exportable.
Having money pouring out of the ground makes it easy to seem smart, and be green friendly, have a wonderful currency, and all that. They also have abundant gas fields. Not to mention, beautiful landscape. Luck, luck, and more luck.
Economies which must rely on their own ingenuity don't have the same luxury to play around with their economy.
As far as taxes, what matters to me in the overall is getting the U.S. economy moving again. And any rise in transportation costs instantly causes hiccups... essentially acting as a stress test. Now's not a great time for that in the U.S. or most anywhere else.
Regarding the Tobin Tax, I'm against any impingement of U.S. sovereignty by any outside bodies or institutions. This would include the ability of an international body to levy a tax on our global commerce. If some country wants to set a tariff, that's there business. It's there country. But the idea that an international body would seek to assert sovereignty over global trade, no way. If I don't elect a ruler, he doesn't represent me. Period.
Chris "Snarkmaster General" O'Neill... The price for a NEW muffler is $200. In ratio to the price of a NEW car, which, let's say, can go from $15-$50,000 this is negligible. Nobody buying a new car really worries about the price of the muffler on the itemization slip.
Similarly, if you purchased a used car for $5000, (which originally was, just for an easy example, $20,000), the cost/ratio of the muffler on that used car is about $50. (That should put it in perspective for you. I'm assuming in your example you are putting a new muffler on an older car, which is why the price doesn't seem all that negligible by comparison to the overall cost of the vehicle.) I should point out that my first answer was based upon a mistaken reading of your post. I didn't see "free" and can't really argue "free." But I can argue "negligible."
And of course, the noise coming off an unmufflered engine is a fairly obvious bit of pollution with a direct connection between cause and effect.
Janet Akerman - the point still stands that the effective technology existed already, before the implementation, and was not all that expensive to implement. Which made the regulation feasible. Also, like the muffler issue discussed above, the smog problem was a very clear case. The relationship between emissions and smog was incontrovertible.
Arthur, I'm afraid I must correct your grammar.
In order to be consistent with the tone of your latest post, you should amend this:
...to read..
Arthur, Norway demonstrates that a natural resource tax of 78% (or higher) is good! No trouble selling their oil, no trouble gaining investment.
I also notice you avoided the issue of reducing perversity by reguation to protect business that internalise costs.
And the successful reguation to bring on catalytic converters, and Finland, Sweden, Denmark patents per capita etc.
>the point still stands that the effective technology existed already, before the implementation, and was not all that expensive to implement. Which made the regulation feasible
The point that stands is that it was only regulation that brought en-mass. And en-mass production made it cheaper.
Repeat with seat belts, air bags and fuel efficency standards. Repeat with carbon.
Arthur writes:
>As far as taxes, what matters to me in the overall is getting the U.S. economy moving again. And any rise in transportation costs instantly causes hiccups... essentially acting as a stress test. Now's not a great time for that in the U.S. or most anywhere else.
The US economy is not going to be repaired by continuing to externalise transport costs. The US is leaking jobs due to its high debt burden and over consumption culture. Failure to properly price transport will only delay the necessary transition and deepen the debt with a few more millions tonnes of imports being trucked around. racking up excess miles.
Shift the tax burden from goods (such as employment and tax on the working poor) to bads, (excessive carbon use), driving innovation and jobs.
Arthur, there is no shortage of people, books and sites that us science knows less about climate than it claims to, that what it tells us is flawed and wrong and that expectations of the pace and extent of climate change are exaggerated. Rather than spend my time sifting through such material I prefer to take my lead on this from the scientists and institutions that study climate Data - and the reports and summaries they put together, such as the document that started this discussion. It shows that the pace and extent are faster and greater rather than less than IPCC estimates.
Taking the science to be essentially correct means the option of continuing to put off serious action to reduce emissions is very likely to make future action harder and more expensive and the damaging impacts more severe. I disagree that development based on further reliance on fossil fuels can provide the necessary prosperity to replace those new coal fired power plants with clean technology - especially not over the time scale that science is telling us is required to avoid seriously damaging consequences.
I certainly don't think Carbon Capture and Storage is a realistic option given the mass of CO2 is more than 3 times the mass of coal burned to make it, it's a gas that's bulky, difficult to separate, costly to transport and is unlikely to ever be cheap. Even coal reliant industry has failed to make serious investment in it except for PR purposes that, frankly, look like greenwash and delay tactics. CCS is unlikely to be able to be added to existing plants either.
Development that relies on greater use of fossil fuels will just be locking in ever greater emissions at least for the life of that infrastructure. Those emissions will make the problem bigger and the costs of reducing them greater. Prosperity that is dependent on greater reliance on fossil fuels is false prosperity.
Meanwhile the economic impacts of climate change will start to bite; in Australia, agriculture particularly looks to be impacted already. SE Australian agriculture may never recover, even temporarily. I don't see that the loss of agricultural export income should be reason to expand our reliance on exporting coal.
I don't see that failure to deal with this issue is optional. Too hard and too expensive has to be weighed against the longer term costs and consequences and those look to be capable of making our worries about rising energy prices pale to insignificance.
Gaz... Grow up.
Janet, I noticed you avoided the point that Norway can play around all it wants because no matter what, cash will still pump in. That's great that they can go 78% socialist. Better hope the oil doesn't run out, because that's what keeps it all afloat. And nobody has trouble selling oil, so nobody is going to pat them on the back for that.
If you could rephrase your questions regarding "internalised costs" and "perversity by regulation" and "externalising transport costs." that might be helpful. I'm not familiar with the jargon you're using.
And I have no idea how "patents per capita" factors in. My first question would be, what are the patents? Lots of patents are for nothing important. And really, I don't know what your obsession with Norway is. Its a lucky country. And luck can't be distributed.
Regarding your misunderstanding of the point I was making, catalytic converters, seat belts, slightly better gas mileage, air bags... these are not high tech problems that need steep tech advanced in order to be solved. And they all solved clear problems, with clear causation. And nobody cared about catalytic converters before cars became ubiquitous and smog resulted. So your point about how long it took catalytic converters to become a mandate is disingenuous. And, besides, carbon reduction is a different kind of issue to deal with.
Your opinions about why the U.S. is "losing jobs" are spurious. There's a host of reasons economies slump, just as there is a host of reasons other countries are slumping.
As far as your advocacy to control everything you think is bad through taxes, I don't think you're an arbiter I would trust to make such decisions. I don't see that you understand how either innovation, markets, or economies function. (Thus your advocacy for a Norway-style economy for all!) But this is just my opinion of course.
Ken Fabor, if I thought the science and the implications generally bandied about by AGW advocates had unimpeachable merit, I would more forcefully advocate for Dyson's recommendation to plant a lot more trees.
You also have this great assumption that doing some grand Carbon emission limit is going to affect something about climate change in Australia or whatever. Its purely speculation on your part, and frankly seems really far-fetched. You don't know what's causing problems in Australia and neither does anybody else.
What isn't far-fetched is how such an idea would negatively affect the major world economies. My great worry is that a bunch of greens with no experience in science outside of AGW propaganda, and no experience either in economics or business, will enact economically unfeasible emission standards that cripple the major economies, throwing millions into poverty and starvation... and then the climate isn't affected one way or another. Certainly a possibility.
Lastly, your negative predictions about the future of carbon sequestration demonstrate a failure of imagination and a failure to appreciate the history of technology. Never say never. Especially with the nanotechnology revolution quickly coming down the pike.
Arthur you claim that I ignored the point you made about the Arthur you claim that I ignored the point you made about the Norwayâs fortune in oil, but on the contrary I addressed it by raising the success of Finland, Sweden, Denmark that do not have the same wealth of oil. The answer to your claims about Norway's success being all about oil are countered by the similar economic success of other countries with similar social-democratic policies.
The fact that 78% tax on natural resources is successful is highly relevant to any country with natural resources. Many countries are giving up their irreplaceable inheritance too cheaply.
Patents per captia is a proxy measure of innovation. When Nordic countries have an order of magnitude higher rate than the USA that says something about innovation and culture. You can quibble, but without counter evidence, your case is not strong. This proxy is also backed-up by the high-tech manufacturing output of Nordic countries (Nokia, Ericsson, etc.)
Arthur I again note you have not substantively addressed my point about âreducing perversity by regulation to protect business that internalise costs.â Feigning ignorance doe s not suit you.
You then state:
>* Regarding your misunderstanding of the point I was making, catalytic converters, seat belts, slightly better gas mileage, air bags... these are not high tech problems that need steep tech advanced in order to be solved. And they all solved clear problems, with clear causation. And nobody cared about catalytic converters before cars became ubiquitous and smog resulted. So your point about how long it took catalytic converters to become a mandate is disingenuous. And, besides, carbon reduction is a different kind of issue to deal with.*
This response reads as disingenuous. You have not made the case that I have misunderstood the point, nor that my response was in anyway disingenuous.
[My point]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/copenhagen_diagnosis.php#commen…) was a clear rebuttle to your claim that it was the simply the cost that made the regulation feasible rather than the regulation that allowed that costs to come down.
>> the point still stands that the effective technology existed already, before the implementation, and was not all that expensive to implement. Which made the regulation feasible
>The point that stands is that it was only regulation that brought en-mass. And en-mass production made it cheaper.
>Repeat with seat belts, air bags and fuel efficiency standards. Repeat with carbon.
Many low carbon alternatives are available now but are suppressed by perverse pricing on dirty fuels. Internalising parts of the cost through regulation of carbon price, will make feasible a whole range of further market responses. Which inturn will bring further improve the availability of options.
Arthur writes:
> Your opinions about why the U.S. is "losing jobs" are spurious. There's a host of reasons economies slump, just as there is a host of reasons other countries are slumping.
Let looks at exactly what I said:
> The US economy is not going to be repaired by continuing to externalise transport costs. The US is leaking jobs due to its high debt burden and over consumption culture. Failure to properly price transport will only delay the necessary transition and deepen the debt with a few more millions tonnes of imports being trucked around. racking up excess miles.
Shift the tax burden from goods (such as employment and tax on the working poor) to bads, (excessive carbon use), driving innovation and jobs.
I have not doubt that people raise many spurious reasons for the collapse of the US economy, but are your seriously going to argue that the US âhigh debt burden and over consumption cultureâ is one of the spurious variables? I could list a few more contributing factors but few are as uncontroversial as âhigh debt burden and [the] over consumption cultureâ
Your final paragraph seemed to deteriorate even deeper into a blamange of non-specifics and strawman rants. If you believe Iâve misrepresented this paragraph please state your case again clearer.
AVN:
Sorry, I just get tired of being told the same old crap over and over and over again.
Perhaps it might actually affect them directly unlike, say, power station operators who dump their CO2 into the atmosphere.
You're missing the point. The noise coming off an unmufflered engine is a fairly obvious bit of pollution to the driver that he himself does not want to put up with. With a power station dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, there is no significant direct effect on the power station owner so, as they all do now, they dump it into the atmosphere. You are failing to understand this difference.
In any case the cost of CO2 sequestration cannot avoid but be substantial. The cost of handling waste CO2 will be at least as much as the cost of handling the coal that it came from and that is not negligible. Coal handling does not have additional costs that CO2 handling will have, such as the enormous amount of energy required to compress the CO2 down to the sequestration reservoir or the pumping and infrastructure costs of transporting the CO2 perhaps hundreds of kilometers to the sequestration reservoir.
There is just nothing about your argument that stands up. The cost of CO2 sequestration will never be "negligible" and even if it was there still needs to be some motivation for people to do anything, even if the cost is "negligible".
Arthur, you are back to denying the validity of climate science. Doubt, Deny, Delay. That's climate denial tactics in a nutshell. If you thought the science was valid you would be arguing for urgent action to reduce emissions. That you have no problem with - and advocate - putting off urgent action on emissions makes it clear to me you really think the science is wrong and the consequences aren't that serious.
Enough time wasted. Bye.
Corrected format:
Arthur you claim that I ignored the point you made about the Norwayâs fortune in oil, but on the contrary I addressed it by raising the success of Finland, Sweden, Denmark that do not have the same wealth of oil. The answer to your claims about Norway's success being all about oil are countered by the similar economic success of other countries with similar social-democratic policies.
The fact that 78% tax on natural resources is successful is highly relevant to any country with natural resources. Many countries are giving up their irreplaceable inheritance too cheaply.
Patents per captia is a proxy measure of innovation. When Nordic countries have an order of magnitude higher rate than the USA that says something about innovation and culture. You can quibble, but without counter evidence, your case is not strong. This proxy is also backed-up by the high-tech manufacturing output of Nordic countries (Nokia, Ericsson, etc.)
**Arthur I again note you have not substantively addressed my point about âreducing perversity by regulation to protect business that internalise costs.â Feigning ignorance doe s not suit you.**
You then state:
>* Regarding your misunderstanding of the point I was making, catalytic converters, seat belts, slightly better gas mileage, air bags... these are not high tech problems that need steep tech advanced in order to be solved. And they all solved clear problems, with clear causation. And nobody cared about catalytic converters before cars became ubiquitous and smog resulted. So your point about how long it took catalytic converters to become a mandate is disingenuous. And, besides, carbon reduction is a different kind of issue to deal with.*
This response reads as disingenuous. You have not made the case that I have misunderstood the point, nor that my response was in anyway disingenuous.
What was my response:
>>[Arthur writes] the point still stands that the effective technology existed already, before the implementation, and was not all that expensive to implement. Which made the regulation feasible
My response:
>The point that stands is that it was only regulation that brought en-mass. And en-mass production made it cheaper.
>Repeat with seat belts, air bags and fuel efficiency standards. Repeat with carbon.
[My point]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/copenhagen_diagnosis.php#commen…) was a clear rebuttle to your claim that it was the cost that made the regulation feasible rather than the regulation that allowed that costs to come down.
Many low carbon alternatives are available now but are suppressed by perverse pricing on dirty fuels. Internalising parts of the cost through regulation of carbon price, will make feasible a whole range of further market responses. Which inturn will bring further improve the availability of options.
Arthur writes:
> Your opinions about why the U.S. is "losing jobs" are spurious. There's a host of reasons economies slump, just as there is a host of reasons other countries are slumping.
Lets looks at exactly what I said:
> The US economy is not going to be repaired by continuing to externalise transport costs. The US is leaking jobs due to its high debt burden and over consumption culture. Failure to properly price transport will only delay the necessary transition and deepen the debt with a few more millions tonnes of imports being trucked around. racking up excess miles.
Shift the tax burden from goods (such as employment and tax on the working poor) to bads, (excessive carbon use), driving innovation and jobs.
Are your seriously going to argue that the US âhigh debt burden and over consumption cultureâ is a spurious variable? I could list a few more contributing factors but few are as uncontroversial as âhigh debt burden and [the] over consumption cultureâ
Your final paragraph seemed to deteriorate even deeper into a blamange of non-specifics and strawman rants. If you believe Iâve misrepresented this paragraph please state your case again clearer.
Here we go again... Denier! Denier! Strawman! You misunderstood me! Ranter! Blamage! You forgot to address every tendentious point I made! I'm sick of listening to CRAP! Norway Norway Rah Rah Rah! I refuse to admit error or doubt! I'm smarter than you are! You aren't specific enough! You're no scientist! Its your fault you didn't understand my jargon! You're playing dumb!
etc. etc. etc.
What a pathetic irrational display of babble tactics.
This is exactly why I want nothing to do with your co-religionists and I dearly hope you NEVER gain the power you so desperately crave.
I stand by what I have written. For those who are new to the thread, or the argument, and have an open mind, they can read what I have written so far for themselves and decide for themselves the quality of the content. And whether I sufficient answered the nags.
I'm fairly sick of the hard-bitten mentality on display here, and I don't have the time to argue endlessly with people who aren't interested in honest discussion, so I'm going to withdraw from the thread. This will mean that, yes, YOU HAVE WON THE CONVERSATION.
I repeat, YOU HAVE WON THE CONVERSATION.
Congratulations, all you unhappy media consumers.
Begin snarky counter-attacks now:
AVN, you're projecting. No doubt you have a high opinion of yourself and we're excitedly anticipating your post-Deltoid victory lap, probably over on such hotbeds of intellectualism as WUWT. Far be it from us to pour water over your ritual self-affirmation by pointing out the manifestly ignorance and logical fallacy which is your stock and trade. Feel free to redirect your considerable faculty for suppressing dissonant cognitions toward your experience here. It might ease the pain.
>Luminous Beauty, firstly, the xylem is not wholly dead cells. This seems to be a common misconception. On old growth trees, I don't think there's a foolproof method of knowing just when a ring becomes biologically inactive. Furthermore, I would direct you to the recent research on ion-mediated changes in xylem hydraulic resistance.
Red herring, Artie.
The number and size of woody cells either phloem or xylem is entirely dictated by the vascular cambium and highly constrained by the rigidity of their non-living cellulosic walls. The effect of some small number of xylem cells continuing some limited biologic activity on TRW is zero to none.
luminous beauty, I don't you have it exactly right either. You're not a dendrochonologist, are you?
>*"What a pathetic irrational display of babble tactics."*
Well at least AVN got that bit correct. A useful tactic it might seem to him, employed when it is expedient to avoid dealing with evidence and facts that conflict with preconceptions.
Arthur Von Neumann loses the arguments and can only come back with nothing but snarks.
Arthur, you lost the debate as soon as you started making erroneous statements like "The climate models can't even predict the past. At least not without a glut of fudge factors "making things work.""
Not to mention the lack of substance in your allegations.
Climate change industry my arse. Whilst greedy money chasers will jump on any bandwagon to make money, that has nothing to do with the science, nor with the alleged Pr industry, which is certainly outspent by the think tanks who attack the scientists and their work.
The fall of the media's integrity, (Not that they had that much to begin with) was triggered by the owners chasing excess profits. Here in the UK the rot set in in the 1980's, long before climate change became popular in any way. It accelerated in the 1990's, such that many newspapers were cutting reporters and staff even whilst still making good money. Add that to deliberate dumbing down of their reports, and you have the modern media.
Whilst the "disasters sell papers" critique is to some degree valid, it ignores the actual reality underpinning the research.
You know, if people on our favourite anti-climate science blogs actually did sit down and do some real science as you suggest, it might help. Also it would help if we could turn the social culture away from making a quick buck and back towards a more sustainable interest in science. But the resources needed to do so are being siphoned off by the rich right now.
guthrie, do you have example of climate models that if you run, say from 1965, can accurately predict 2007?
No, I no think so.
So I think Mr. Neuman is not the liar you say. You should not call people so liars. Lot of people say, "no, no, no, all your arguments wrong and no substance" to Mr. Neuman. And you think by saying this, you win the argument. But it is more like children that close the ears, I think.
This is only my opinion of this.
"Pedro Passada" AKA "Arthur Von Neumann"?
With interesting twist use of English, but similar projection pathology expressed by Arthur.
Odds on: 8 to 1.
Pedro expects natural variation and short term unpredictability to disappear for warming to be real. A bit like expecting the transition from winter to summer to be predictable day to day. A more direct and simplistic kind of denialist argument than Arthur's.
Ken,
Feigned naiveté?
Its quite surprising that Pedro would use terms like; "liar" (never used in thread), and ""no, no, no, all your arguments wrong and no substance" which only sounds like "Arthur's" breakdown [posts here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/copenhagen_diagnosis.php#commen…).
But most striking was "Pedro's" phrase:
>"*and you think by saying this, you win the argument. But it is more like children that close the ears*
That has has strong consistency with "Arthur's last post, which was overflowing with self projection, was non-factual and did not represent well any of the previous discussion.
I don't know many people who would be convinced by the [this type of breakdown](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/copenhagen_diagnosis.php#commen…).
Would be quite a coincidence.
I think the most authoritative sources Arthur cited were novelist Michael Crichton and once-was physicist Freeman Dyson. Oh did he also call Lindzen the greatest dude in climatology, everrr?
Arthur: stop cherrypicking bits of nonsense from such fringe contrarian characters and spend the time you save doing more reading of the original literature! That might help you lose the attitude too. If you think you've been roughly dealt with here then you have an awful lot to learn just about the blogosphere.
Pedro Passada:
Climate is not just one year. Climate is the statistics of at least about 30 years of weather. Saying a "climate model" can predict an individual year is like saying a "dice model" can predict an individual dice throw.
Pedro - you do know the difference between making an erroneous statement and lying? I am quite confident that Arthur is convinced of what he says and has just got it wrong. Last I read, I'm sure it was the IPCC, they had indeed run climate models from early century starting points and got an output that fitted the evolution of 20th century climate. See page 800 in Chaper 8 of the FAR for an example figure:
"FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean
near-surface temperatures over the 20th
century from observations (black) and as
obtained from 58 simulations produced
by 14 different climate models driven by
both natural and human-caused factors
that infl uence climate (yellow). The
mean of all these runs is also shown
(thick red line). Temperature anomalies
are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950
mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the
timing of major volcanic eruptions.
(Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure
9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for
further details.)"
I apologize for my blow up. I did enjoy it, however. And while it seemed necessary at the time, it was fruitless.
The idea that Chrichton and Dyson should be discounted, is laughable. Don't like what they say? Well then, call them amateurs and ex-scientists. Heretics! Really bad faith argument. VERY political of you. Anybody highly intelligent person who disagrees, DEMONIZE AND CRUSH THEM! Who cares that Dyson is one of the most brilliant scientists of the last 100 years, regularly consulted on the most difficult scientific problems of our age. Forget that Chrichton spent his entire life researching, was a Harvard trained M.D. and had a fellowship at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. (I'm sure everybody on here is aware that the bulk of the scientists who signed on to the IPCC were not climate scientists. Those folks are OK, though, because they agree with your ideology, eh? More bad faith argument. Yuck!)
I think Pedro's point is actually valid. To say a climate model can't predict a future year's temperatures is essentially to admit it has no competence to predict the future. Very simple. So why the excuses? These models ARE NOT SACRED. Get over it.
This is the equivalent of meeting a fortune teller. She says, I see great things in your future, you will meet an attractive stranger, you will come into a sum of money, someone close to you will die. And then you ask, "will I get the job I interviewed for last week?" And the teller says, "well, my powers aren't that specific."
I don't think this can be argued. These climate models cannot model any NEW forcing trend that originates below the grid size or outside of the atmosphere, thus they cannot model the creation of a trend that isn't already known. Since trends begin all the time, the models are wholly ineffective for predicting the future. It is really very very simple to understand this point. Even the FAQ you directed me to admits it only models "aspects" of the climate. The faith exhibited by the believers is absurd.
And, my god, Figure 1... say,... let's cherry pick 14 math models that make results close to the temperature we have (discarding the other 37 models that don't fit) let's put (the equivalent of) a slight randomize filter on there, then average the results, thereby removing the randomization... and voila! What great science!
Love that they didn't bother with vegetation. And don't tell me those models predict volcanic eruptions? And don't tell me volcanic eruptions can't begin a climate trend.
The amount that these models cannot know is staggering. The information about initial conditions necessary to even begin a true modeling is wayyy out of reach. Averaging and guessing from extremely limited data from the early part of the 20th century is not sufficient. Its fudging all the way up and down. Your holy book is just as spurious and tendentious as the bible.
(I love all the hype words in the 8.1 FAQ. "powerful" "skill" "consistent" "significant" Funny stuff. Advertising pure and simple. If you have any experience with advertising or public relations, you know most graphs are simply selling tools. Trends aren't vectors.)
The circular argumentation going on is unbelievable... "look how well we model the past when we can, at whim, choose the maths that recreate what we already know." The user bias is hilarious. This is not predictive modeling, this is simply crafting maths to the known values and then calling it predictive. Nonsense.
MAIN POINT: If these models were truly robust, a scientist who DID NOT ALREADY KNOW the data he is supposed to replicate with the models, would be able to take a SINGLE CORRECT MODEL into a dark room and run an accurate simulation in ONE shot.
Otherwise you are dealing with toys. Or fortune tellers.
AvN
Artie old bean,
Like all your 'arguments', your diatribes against GCMs are red herrings. GCMs are not premises upon which the theory of climate depends. To the contrary, the utility of models is that they provide some, admittedly limited, additional insight into complex processes not available to what we can confidently predict simply from radiative physics, empirical observation and basic principles of system dynamics. Certainly it is a weakness that specific annual predictions cannot be made because of the chaotic behavior of weather, but it is a strength of their long term projective power that we know that chaotic behavior is bound by strange attractors. A further weakness is that the handful of empirical parameterizations they employ make them conservative in their ability to predict emergent non-linear behaviors, i.e. tipping points, though this is a concern that is less than reassuring. As Wallace Broecker has long pointed out, "The climate is an angry beast, and we are poking it with sticks."
The postdictive explanatory power of GCMs can readily be semi-empirically demonstrated without [computer models.](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/not-computer-models/)
Sorry Pedro, I was just assuming that you think AGW isn't real, where you were actually talking about climate modelling. Essentially the same argument applies; short term variability in climate - and in climate models - make expectations of accurate prediction of year to year global average air temperatures unrealistic - a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of both what climate models do and the short term unpredictabilty of climate. That variability is around a longer term underlying warming trend of course and modelling does show that clearly. A lot similar to expecting summer to be hotter than winter but being unable to predict day to day and week to week temperatures.
I do suggest that people who really have genuine scientific questions about any aspect of actual science start with information from actual institutions that do climate science. If there's more required than reading can provide, take it to actual climate scientists. If it's just ignorance of actual science and repetitions of the same old denialist misconceptions you won't get polite agreement, but people seriously interested in the nuts and bolts of climate science will probably get civil responses.
Janet, I don't know if Pedro is a sock-puppet. I do know that endlessly refuting the same old false arguments feels like running on a treadmill - worse, as I'm not burning unwanted fat or getting fit in the process of going nowhere.