gcm

TED - Gavin Schmidt on climate modeling

illconsidered — Mon, 05 May 2014 10:19:37 +0000

TED - Gavin Schmidt on climate modeling

In the video below Gavin Schmidt gives a "TED Talk" on climate models, taking us from an overview of their construction to the resulting emergent processes and their skill at reproducing much more than a global average temperature trend.

Gavin is an excellent communicator and a true hero in humanity's fight against itself over the impending and tragic disruption of our global ecosystem services. Well worth the 12 or so minutes to watch!

illconsidered Mon, 05/05/2014 - 06:19

Tags

General

multi-media

Technology

climate change

It is very nice . thx

Relating to Japan's space solar harnessing project,http://www.iflscience.com/technology/japan-wants-put-giant-solar-farm-s… , If microwaves produced by limited energy supply can be deflected and redirected by HAARP within our atmosphere, and also when focused can open massive holes in the ionosphere and ozone layers, what can be done tenfold with unlimited energy from the sun? Microwave the entire planet if a malfunction were to happen, and tethering anything to the earth could result in claimed ownership of atmospheric regions beyond the mess of airspace regulations already in place as well as creating the idiotic opportunity of harnessing our planets water through these technologies in the future. Microwaves super excite water molecules, but they also cause what equate to lightning bolts if they encounter metals, and metals exist in dirt, rock, magma, and with chem-spraying barium, aluminum and strontium into the atmosphere. Very very dangerous path to pursue.

HAARP? (groooaannnnn - not another conspiracy)

Looks like we better get Sean Connery back - sounds like the plot of Diamonds are Forever.

What I sense in the video is the missing guidance of Gavin by his mentor and still mental superior Jim Hansen. Left alone now at GISS the guys there have a truly difficult life now showing own profile and credibility.

Has this blog already died? Where are the low-profile climate alarmists mandams, woew etc?

Is it really true that Gavin is the new GISS director? I cannot believe this since he is only a computer modeller and no meteorologist.

That's always been your problem freddy - your worldview is constructed around beliefs rather than facts and evidence.

mannda, you are plainly wrong. I rely only on facts. My question was, whether Gavin is really the new director of GISS?

".... I rely only on facts....."

Great joke freddy! You are a funny man!

Real time global wind map

illconsidered — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:49:04 +0000

Real time global wind map

Filed under "Wow, this is cool!" we have a global real time wind map! (click the image)

The "About" page is here. Don't miss the fact that you can zoom in.

illconsidered Fri, 12/20/2013 - 05:49

Tags

Thanks for the link to this map.

This is really cool.

coby,

I've been playing with that map since someone linked it on Jeff Masters' blog a few days ago.

It has some very interesting features - incredible zoom, ability to see airflow at various heights, etc. Just click on 'earth' in the lower left-hand corner, and a number of viewing options pop up.

Click on 'earth' again, after you've chosen your options.

Someone did an amazing job of integrating data with graphics. Does anyone out there know who 'nullschool.net' is?

This is a forecast map, correct? Not actual as-measured wind. But still one super-cool visualization of big data. Bravo!

Cameron Baccario from Tokyo made this. It is not forecast winds but current winds minus 3 hours. There are two tropical systems to the East of Madagascar which are worth viewing at this time!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/12/18/global_wind_map_came…

BTW you can look into the future by using the "control" area of the earth button. Global winds at 250 Hpa (MB) are your jet stream winds (generally) while 500 Hpa are your 'steering' winds. (Gives indication of where your weather systems are going and if they will strengthen or decline.) 850 Hpa is land surface winds and 1000 Hpa is only appropriate for water as this is near sea level and is therefore not properly measured over most land surface.

Hah! just clicked on the "about" button at the bottom and it has all this info on it including the GitHub source code.

(although it puts the 1000Hpa as sfc which really is not reliable if your station pressure is 997.0 etc)

Another "Hide the Decline" moment?

illconsidered — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 09:11:47 +0000

Another "Hide the Decline" moment?

The fallout from the BEST project results continues, with the denialosphere frantically trying to disown and defame Richard Muller. Marc Morano is at his shrillest pitch ever, and believe me that is as shrill as shrill gets! I guess it works at some level, because he did make me look at his website. That high pitched squeaking broke down all my intellectual safeguards and I followed a link from his almost daily inbox spamming.

Today's (approving) hysteria was about an article in the DailyMail which gives you the general flavour of the treatment Muller is receiving. Given his own rather vile treatment of other climate researchers, the very ones that BEST shows "had truly been very careful in their work" and had "managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections" (Muller's own, rather arrogant, words) I find it hard to be all that sympathetic despite being sure he is getting a true beating. (Morano makes certain his pack of mad dogs has Muller's email address close at hand). Kind of a "what goes around, comes around" moment, if you ask me.

Anyway, nothing too surprising in all that. I did, however, note with interest that the Daily Mail article quotes Curry extensively and on her blog she does not back away from very much of it. This is interesting because she is actully a named author on the BEST papers. "The direct quotes attributed to me are correct", she says. She denies saying this latest "scandal" "has to be" compared to Climategate, but acknowledges she probably did so anyway! In her view, looking at a 200 year record does not make it clear enough that the last decade showed little trend. This is of course not a relevant observation for a climatological analysis, one decade is not enough to describe the behaviour of a 30 year average. Does Dr. Curry really not know this? Would she say one thing in a mainstream media context, and another in a scientific context?

An interesting question, one that is informed by this additional comment:

This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all - though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.

'This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,' Prof Curry said. 'Whatever it is that's going on here, it doesn't look like it's being dominated by CO2.'

This is a pure crock of bull. Real Climate has a great discussion of just what it is that climate models do and do not say about short term variability here, I highly recommend it. The take away message is that, in fact, many individual model runs do show decades in which the natural variability temporarily masks the long term trend. There is no expectation that an enhanced CO2 forcing will dominate on that timescale. The actual temperature record over the last 40 years even contains examples of such "pauses".

I scare-quote "pauses" because they are not in fact actual pauses in the climatic trend at all, as evidenced by the eventual continuation of the global temperature rise. Such is almost certainly the case for the recent "pause" as well, at least there is no reason to think otherwise, and no evidence of any actual change in the situation.

Okay, so 'This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting' is just wrong, but does Dr. Curry know it's wrong? Well, here she is a while ago on her own blog quoting extensively from research exactly to that effect:

Because of the large effect of year-to-year variability on decadal trends, roughly 10% of the 10-year TLT trends in the 20CEN/A1B runs are less than zero (Figure 4A). This result shows that anthropogenically forced models can replicate the recent muted warming of the surface

So she is clearly aware of the truth of this matter, yet for her it is more important that the temporary noise in the trend gives her a hook upon which to hang her FUD than it is that the long term trend is as clear as it ever was.

The hardest thing I find to reconcile in Curry's writings is her active participation in avoiding the cessation of this insane experiment with our one and only world with her personal estimation of a ~5% chance that we may end up with a warming of 10oC or more!! That was a "WTF??" moment if ever she has blogged one, and she has blogged many.

Update: Tamino has a closer look at JC's embarassing intellectual follies.

illconsidered Sun, 10/30/2011 - 05:11

Tags

So thats twice in a week that the denyosphere has shifted it's position. Only a week ago Anthony Watts came out with 'The issue of âthe world is warmingâ is not one that climate skeptics question' Now this pits him against Judith Curry's position as stated in the Daily Mail. Oh wait she's claiming she was misquoted or something - sorry I can hardly keep up - still it's more exciting to follow the deny-o-skept-o-sphere than to read that boring and troublesome real science.

Yeah, JC is a puzzle.

I wonder if within a year we're going to see a Mulleresque recanting from her.

Because of our bout with the preposterous Richard Wakefield last year, I actually spent a lot of time on her blog (RW kept linking her mindlessly assuming she was backing up his horseshit . . . needless to say that was not the case.)

She at times seems like a disciplined and sober researcher. But it's almost as if she's adopted this Devil's Advocate identity and cannot relinquish it, diverting her from simple scientific/factual honesty. An amazing character.

Playing this contrarian role is the only thing that causes anyone to pay attention to her. That's why she does it. Narcissism, essentially.

The alarmist cry of "The world is warming!" is just as silly as the skeptic cry of "The world is not warming!"

Which world? Measured or modeled? Estimated? What are the error bands? Just the land? All of it? 51% of it? Oceans too? How deep? Where at? Average temperature rising or total heat content rising? (And no, they are not the same.)Big rise, little rise, catastrophic rise, negligible rise, historically common or unprecedented?

Until both sides stop name calling and discuss verifiable limits and data, nothing is resolved. But resolution is probably not the goal, and name calling is more fun for most people.

Bah!

Hey folks, this is NOT rocket science. Rocket science is simple by comparison. This is difficult, very difficult. The illusion that ANYONE has a deep understanding of the Earth's climate system will prevent any meaningful discussion. The best response to any dogmatic statement on climate is "Why do you think that? What is the data? How can we verify that? What would it take to disprove that?"

"The alarmist cry of "The world is warming!""

Hmm. Care to say what's "alarming" about "the world is warming"?

Heck even self-proclaimed skeptics who complain of "alarmists" are all saying that the world is warming and they never doubted it.

"Which world?"

Earth

"Measured or modeled"

Measured.

"Estimated?"

Measured.

"What are the error bands?"

Pop along to this graph:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

And note the green error bars.

"Just the land? All of it? 51% of it? Oceans too?"

Take a look at the title of the graph.

"How deep?"

Surface. Take a look at the title of the graph.

"Where at?"

This world. The land and ocean, surface. Or were you just restating your earlier ignorance?

"Average temperature rising or total heat content rising?"

Temperature. That's why the title is "Temperature" and why you asked about "the temperature graph" and "the world is warming" which is a temperature trend, not an energy trend.

"Big rise, little rise, catastrophic rise, negligible rise"

The expected rise. Rather large and since the last time the earth had this atmosphere we had no ice caps, catastrophic with the major cities in their current locations.

"historically common or unprecedented?"

Unprecedented.

"Until both sides stop name calling and discuss verifiable limits and data, nothing is resolved."

Since these questions were already resolved, but you "didn't know" the answers, it looks like verifiable limits and data being discussed isn't going to resolve anything, you're still gonna deny.

"The illusion that ANYONE has a deep understanding of the Earth's climate system will prevent any meaningful discussion"

How about the reality that we know enough about the climate system to meaningfully discuss our role? Will that help meaningful discussion? No, it hasn't so far, all that's happened is we get tone troll denialists who don't know a damn thing and think that their lack of knowledge is universal.

"Why do you think that? What is the data? How can we verify that? What would it take to disprove that?"

I would ask you the same thing about your statement: "The illusion that ANYONE has a deep understanding of the Earth's climate system".

Why do you think that? What is the data? How can we verify that? What would it take to disprove that?

Or are we just getting another denier in the house?

Until both sides stop name calling and discuss verifiable limits and data...

Um...in case you haven't been listening, one side HAVE done actual science, and have worked from verifiable limits and data. Can you guess which side that is? Here, I'll give you a hint: it's not the side who have stolen emails with no legal authority and lied about what those emails said.

PS, Jason those questions were answered on the very graph that was a large part of the posting. Seems like you didn't need to read the post before you could come to a conclusion about your questions.

Until both sides stop name calling and discuss verifiable limits and data...

Perhaps you could provide undeniable evidence that CO2 causes warming. Do we just accept as fact that temperature proxies and GCM's are undeniable proof of causation? Are you saying that scientists who don't believe in AGW haven't done the science? Please provide evidence to back that statement up. Are you saying the Climategate emails aren't factual. Provide the evidence.

Hey Wow, hey Raging Bee,

Thanks for taking the time and effort to reply. Here are some reasons why I think that the current discussion of climate is worth polite debate instead of name calling and dogmatism.

Let's discuss the "ten year pause" mentioned above. Here is what it looks like on Wood For Trees:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:2001/plot/best/from:2001/trend
Ok... a "ten year pause." What exactly does that mean? Does it mean a ten year period over which the ten year running average has a zero trend? Or maybe a ten year period where the five year running average is zero (as in the graph above)? Or maybe a ten year period where the raw data (or should it be adjusted data? Adjusted how?) shows a zero trend? Even if we agree on exactly how we are going to define a ten year pause, can we use a historical chart to do an existence proof? For example, the graph in the article above shows a period from about 1940 to 1950 (and remember that the five year running average distorts the ends of that time period)with a fairly steeply declining temperature. Is that natural? Are we sure? Maybe the extreme amounts of particulates put in the air during the process of a World War plus the effect of massive transocean shipping stirring up cold water from below the surface layer and cooled down the Earth. Add to that the effect of crude above ground testing of nuclear weapons. Who knows? Let's assume that it WAS natural. OK, then we have shown (if our assumption is correct) that the undisturbed climate system can, in fact, experience ten year pauses. Can we still expect ten year pauses in a system with rising CO2? In other words, if we wish to use historical data illustrating a natural variation that includes ten year pause events, wouldn't we need to find a ten year period with a negative trend at least as strong as the postulated positive trend being forced by the CO2? Yes, we would need to find such a negative trend -- but the strength, the value of that trend is exactly what is up for proof and discussion! It is the part that we are trying to find out! The article says that climate models show such pauses for up to 10% of the time. Does that mean that there is only a 10% chance of our finding the world having currently experienced ten years of pause? Does that make the skeptics 90% correct if they say the warming has stopped? And again, we are assuming that the models are accurate in their predictions, a prediction being made for a non-linear, self-iterative system, one guaranteed to jump between semi-stable states in a chaotic manner. Can you name one other branch of science where scientists claim to predict the behavior of chaotic systems for decades into the future?

Even the things that seem simple are not always so. You say that the current trends are unprecedented. Maybe so... But look at the graph in the article above. Look at the period of 1910 to 1940. Compare it to the period from 1980 to 2010. Is 1980 - 2010 truly unprecedented? I think we can say that for the last 100 years it is slightly steeper than the warming trend of earlier in the 20th century, but is it catastrophically steeper? I would say no. You may disagree.

What I will not say, is that these questions are trivial, that you are ignorant, that skeptics are flat Earthers or Creationists, or that the science is settled. None of those are the general case. This is a very complicated subject and no one -- no, not even NASA -- has so much understanding that they can be arrogant or rude about it.

Here are some reasons why I think that the current discussion of climate is worth polite debate instead of name calling and dogmatism.

That's precisely why I accept the AGW hypothesis: those advancing this hypothesis have proven themselves credible by dong actual science; while those who oppose it have resorted to theft, hacking, lying, name-calling, and in some cases, actual threats of violence.

Perhaps you could provide undeniable evidence that CO2 causes warming.

CO2 is well known to be a greenhouse gas. The evidence is available for all to see; and the fact that you're asking ME for it -- rather than looking it up from actual scientists in the relevant fields -- kinda raises questions about your honesty.

Are you saying that scientists who don't believe in AGW haven't done the science?

Most of the scientists who don't believe in AGW are not CLIMATE scientists. So no, most of them haven't done the science, because that's not their field of expertise.

And if the opponents of AGW have ANY science on their side, then why are so many of them resorting to theft, hacking, lying, name-calling, and in some cases, actual threats of violence? Galileo didn't disprove geocentrism by acting like that.

This is a very complicated subject and no one -- no, not even NASA -- has so much understanding that they can be arrogant or rude about it.

You can't win the argument, therefore it's all just so complicated that no one really knows anything? That's an old anti-rationalist argument, routinely used by fools and con-artists after they've been debunked; and it does nothing for your credibility.

Can you name one other branch of science where scientists claim to predict the behavior of chaotic systems for decades into the future?

Straw man.

Climate scientists are not claiming to predict the "behavior of chaotic systems" writ large, but one general claim: It's going to get hotter.

(This in affirmation of Raging Bee's final paragraph.)

Hey Raging Bee, you say "and in some cases, actual threats of violence."

We may disagree on some other things, but like you, I do not believe in initiating violence. I will say -- just to keep the record clear -- that I think violence is justified in self defense, but that no one is justified to initiate violence. I do not think that even the wearing of caps, headgear, helmets, badges, uniforms or costumes justifies the initiation of violence.

If it becomes required to decrease human generated CO2 emissions, I can only hope that some method of reduction is found that does not require men with guns to kill those who disagree or those who choose not to pay so-called carbon taxes.

Thank you for admitting that your opposition to the AGW hypothesis is based, not on science, but on paranoid hatred of government and refusal to accept collective sacrifice for a common good. Didn't take you long to resort to name-calling and dogmatism, did it?

"refusal to accept collective sacrifice for a common good"

I know you are saying this in response to a silly claim by another poster, but there is no need to assume that reducing CO2 emissions will require collective sacrifice. You could easily design a carbon tax so that it is revenue neutral. The US at least can borrow at negative interest rates (adjusted for inflation), meaning the markets would pay us to deploy electric grid upgrades, efficiency upgrades etc. etc. At the same time we would be reducing our long term health costs, and preserving the many services provided by our natural habitats.

There are a few entrenched interests that would need to sacrifice, but it is clear that the "wait and see" approach entails far more collective sacrifice than a rational response to the known risks.

Ok, /rant off.

I absolutely love the hypocrisy of deniers like Jason Calley. He starts post #4 with "The alarmist cry...", then a few short sentences later he complains "....Until both sides stop name calling..."

So Jason, since you have clearly identified yourself as a denier and a hypocrit, let me address this paragraph at your post #10:

"....What I will not say, is that these questions are trivial, that you are ignorant, that skeptics are flat Earthers or Creationists, or that the science is settled. None of those are the general case. This is a very complicated subject and no one -- no, not even NASA -- has so much understanding that they can be arrogant or rude about it...."

Firstly, you are partly right. These questions are not trivial, but you are spectacularly wrong with your assertion that organisations like NASA are arrogant or rude about it. On the contrary, organisations like NASA and NOAA et al are busy gathering the evidence, doing the analysis, and publishing the results in peer reviewed, scientific journals. If you want to know the answers to your questions, how about you actually read some peer reviewed journal articles. The answers are all there you know.

Bu then, deniers like yourself and the idiots you worship (like Watts, Monckton et al) are busy writing blog posts and giving lectures that are totally devoid of any evidence or reason. They are worse than creationists - whose methods and rationality they share - because creationists are just harmless idiots that the vast majority of us can ignore. They barely even exist outside the USA.

But climate change deniers are harming the environment that we all rely on for our survival and prosperity. Quite frankly, I am sick of idiots like yourself who totally lack any education in science, but think you know far more that real scientists with real educations who have spent decades studying and analysing the issue.

Do you really think that ignorant people like you - and I use ignorant in its proper grammatical sense - who know absolutely nothing about the subject, have come up with a bunch of clever questions that scientists haven't thought of? Or are you one of these fools who accuses scientists of some sort of conspiracy to fabricate data in order to obtain research funding?

You made one correct and important point. Climate change should be discussed by polite debate without name calling. On the second part of that point, you have shown your hand and failed spectacularly to follow your own suggestion. "Alarmists" huh?

On the first part of your point, climate change IS being subject to polite debate in the forum where it counts - among scientists. Its only outside the realm of real science that the debate changes - because deniers keep putting forward zombie ideological viewpoints that are contrary to both the evidence and everything we know about science.

I wonder why you have chosen this particular field of science to be 'skeptical' about? Why don't you turn your 'skepicism' to quantum physics or astrophysics? They are both fields with huge unanswered questions, and both seems to operate way outside what we would consider common sense. The answer is obvious of course. You are ignorant of all three fields of study, but there is little ideology involved in questioning quantum physics or wondering about dark energy. But there is plenty of ideology involved in a viewpoint questioning climate change, especially if you are in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry, or are such a right wing nut-job that you will unquestioningly oppose everything that greenies or liberals support.

What is your reason for ignorantly questioning the expertise of scientists?

RE: Post#9
"Can we still expect ten year pauses in a system with rising CO2?"
From your own link from the woodfortrees site, put in the time period 1988 to 1998 (as one example).
See?
Now put back in the period 2001 to 2011.
See?
Now put in the period 1988 to 2011.
What does that indicate to you?

"Look at the period of 1910 to 1940. Compare it to the period from 1980 to 2010. Is 1980 - 2010 truly unprecedented? I think we can say that for the last 100 years it is slightly steeper than the warming trend of earlier in the 20th century, but is it catastrophically steeper?"
Plot the period 1910 to 2011.
Putting the similarity of the trend slopes for 1910-1940 and 1980-2010 aside, you aren't seeing anything unprecedented in that overall 1910-2011 trend?
Sorry, but you are deluding yourself if you are trying to assert that the climate has not warmed significantly and unprecedentedly over that period. And I say that as a former denier myself, so I know well how tempting that delusional mindset is.
I see nothing complicated at all in drawing sensible conclusions from a basic examination of the trends. You know, as well as keeping your eyes open, it's as important to keep you mind open when viewing these trends. It's hard to do if your natural political mindset doesn't accord with the facts. It's been a very hard transition for me to make, I can assure you, so I empathise with you if you are in the midst of your own philosophical struggle. Several regular posters here will help you "see the light" much better than I can, if you are open enough to engage with them. I suggest that, if your request is genuine, you ask them for help and they will treat you with respect and provide you with quality information. But believe me, if you are just a troll you will be treated as such - fairly and very harshly.

Hey Raging Bee, mandas and Mlax,

Just a few points before I move on, the first being a point of etiquette. Do you really find the term "alarmist" so very distasteful? It seemed to me to be a pretty accurate word; after all, you were obviously upset, disturbed, alarmed by what you see as a worsening climate, something with literally planetary disaster in the wings. I am a bit mystified. If, in fact, you find the term so very objectionable, I do here and now, very publicly apologise and promise you that I did not mean to give such offence. I understand why skeptics do not like the "denier" label because of its usage as "Holocaust denier." Seriously, what would be a good neutral term to describe someone who thinks that we are experiencing a climate disaster? (And please...no grade school response like "Wise and Knowledgeable Climate Scholars" or "We Are Factually Correct and Everyone Else is Stinky Climate Proponents.") Just a neutral term suitable for mixed (either pro or con on the subject) company.

Next, I am amazed -- unhappily so -- at the extreme polarization I see in the current climate studies. It is a darned shame, and more like something between opposing drunken soccer clubs than science. Too bad.

I read your responses and think, "What is this guy talking about?! That is not at all what I said, or even implied! Where the heck did THAT come from?! This is not even rational!" I read what you post and honestly, it is hard to find two sentences that do not make me say "No! That is a logical fallacy, that is an unwarranted assumption, that is simply not true, and that is a circular argument!" I have very little doubt that most of you feel the same way when you read my few posts above.

It is possible that with a few hundred hours of face to face conversation and lots of strong coffee we could come to a surprising number of mutual positions. I do not see it happening online though.

And lastly, I have no doubt that those of you who bother to post here are very sincere and very convinced that our planet is on the verge of an unparalleled disaster. I can only imagine how many times you have woken up in the middle of the night, sick to your stomach from thinking about it. Those of you who have children or grandchildren have an extra burden to bear. I am sorry for your pain, I really am.

Thank you for your input, my best to you and to yours.

And I say that as a former denier myself, so I know well how tempting that delusional mindset is. --Mlax

Is that what you were? I never picked up on it.

"I read your responses and think [the worst of the quality of your arguments]."-- Jason

You're of course welcome to think it. Can you document a specific instance of, for example, distorting your views or circular reasoning? That's the kind of rational argument the regulars here will take on at face value--and acknowledge where appropriate. Mandas, myself [not that I count myself in their company], Coby, and others have all backtracked when shown up.

So, specifics please . . . .

Jason Calley whined:

Next, I am amazed -- unhappily so -- at the extreme polarization I see in the current climate studies. It is a darned shame, and more like something between opposing drunken soccer clubs than science. Too bad.

Yes, there is polarization in this area but it is not between differences in science. The polarization is between honesty and the dishonesty shown by all AGW deniers and their supporters.

You have obviously chosen to support the AGW deniers. Can you give us a reason for this decision? You obviously cannot make your choice by evaluating the science since that is beyond your intellectual abilities. So, please tell us why you are an AGW denier. What did you read or someone tell you that made you decide that climate scientists are all wrong?

Spend more time reading the scientific literature or decent text books rather then wasting time on denier sites and you may learn something and perhaps understand a bit of climate science.

Jason

You asked:
"......Seriously, what would be a good neutral term to describe someone who thinks that we are experiencing a climate disaster?..."

The best phrase I can think of is "climate scientist". But for those of us who aren't actually climate scientists, then the term you should use is "someone who accepts the evidence".

You also stated:
"....Next, I am amazed -- unhappily so -- at the extreme polarization I see in the current climate studies. It is a darned shame, and more like something between opposing drunken soccer clubs than science. Too bad...."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me make this perfectly clear, so you get this. THERE IS NO POLARISATION IN CURRENT CLIMATE STUDIES. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None.

The ONLY polarisation is between scientists and non-scientists. Every single working climate scientist who publishes in this field agrees that the climate is changing, and humans are responsible. The ONLY disagreement in science is regarding the likely extent of that change - and even in that regard there is not significant disagreement.

So once again I ask. Why do you - who has no expertise on this issue - side with people with no credibility and disagree with the people who know what they are talking about?

Skip,
Yes, when I first happened upon this site three years ago (or more) I was a committed denier. I would come back regularly, here and elsewhere, in the hope that the pro-AGW crowd would be smited by some new research or evidence that showed AGW to be a crock. A lot of my denial was based on fear: surely humanity wasn't really in the process of committing very serious and potentially irreversible environmental harm?
I don't recall the exact moment I fully stopped pretending, but it wasn't all that long ago. I think a turning point might have been when you yourself admitted on this site that you had once been a Christian fundamentalist (or had held a belief system along such lines). I thought, Well, if an intelligent man like Skip can turn an ideological/philosophical corner, then maybe I can leave my AGW denialist b.s. behind and use my brain for a change. So I did; one can only ignore the evidence for so long.
But I fully recognise the motivations of people who post here like JC because I used to think like that. If he is an intelligent man at heart, then he will come out of it eventually, I hope.

And Jason, if you want to know why I think we are experiencing a climate disaster, let me explain.

I am a wildlife scientist. I study the ecology of wildlife species; their ecosystems, their biology and populations, and the relationship between animals and their environments. And I cannot begin to tell you just how bad things are in the world at the moment.

Things are bad enough because of habitat fragmentation and the over-exploitation of resources. Whole populations are undergoing sever decline, and trophic order collapse is underway in many parts of the world. Climate change is making this far worse. When species are forced into isolated fragments of their former range, they have nowhere to go if the circumstances in that fragmented habitat change. Whether it be by one-off disaster (drought, flood, fire), or the gradual change in vegetation or invertebrate populations because of climate change, many species around the world are going locally extinct, and many populations will go completely extinct in the very near future. Of that there is absolutely no doubt.

So why should you care? Well, the natural environment and individual species are like a game of âkerplunkâ (if you know what that is). You can pull out one stick (species) and nothing may happen. But pull out too many sticks, or the wrong stick, and all the marbles fall out. Thatâs whatâs happening all over the world right now. And guess what? We rely on these species for food, and to keep the rest of the ecosystem functioning properly.

We humans like to think we are so clever, and are somehow immune to the impacts that nature has on other species. I am here to tell you right now we are not. Have you ever seen a species undergoing exponential growth? It is a fairly common phenomenon when there is an abundance of resources and there are no pressures to limit population growth such as predation or disease. On every single occasion the population eventually increases at such a high rate that it grows beyond the natural limits that would be imposed by resource limitations. An extreme imbalance is created, and the resources that the population relies on for survival start to undergo decline and collapse.

Eventually, the limitations imposed by resource limitations take their toll. The population starts to compete internally for the few resources that are available. However, because there is simply not enough to go around there is no alternative other than for the population to undergo rapid collapse â normally far below what would normally be sustainable, because the available resources have already declined below what would be a ânaturalâ balance.

Does any of this sound familiar to you? Climate change is NOT about it being a few degrees hotter, sea level rise or more extreme weather events. Climate change is about a fundamental change to the ecosystem that we rely on to survive.

You want to know why I am an âalarmistâ? Itâs because I have seen it before, and I know what is happening. Now, why are you a denier?

Those of you who have children or grandchildren have an extra burden to bear.

Yeah, life is more complicated when you give a shit what kind of world the next generation will inherit from us.

I am sorry for your pain, I really am.

Given the lengths you go to to run away from the truth, I'm sure you're being quite sincere in your sympathy here. Now if you could respond to your fear by joining in sensible action, instead of running away, you'd be helping us make things better...

"It may well happen that you enter a decade, or maybe even two when the temperature cools relative to the present level.

And then I know whatâs going to happen. I will get millions of phone calls: âEh, whatâs going on? So, is global warming disappearing?â âHave you lied on [sic] us?â"

Mojib Latif on prediction.

I note that Jason Calley decided not to tackle the theoretical physics behind CO2 - related warming...

Mlax

Oops, was going to direct a comment to Mlax but went to try & find some of his(her) older posts to check something first. Couldn't find them so hit Post without deleting his(her) name.

Did have a little chuckle reading back over some of the old crakar/snowman posts though.

"Here are some reasons why I think that the current discussion of climate is worth polite debate instead of name calling and dogmatism."

However, since you haven't bothered to actually educate and instead asked questions that merely wasted everyone's time because most of them were answered in the damn graph on the posting to which you were whining in, why would anyone believe you're here to do anything other than name call and promote your dogma?

A whine, as everyone else has pointed out, started off with name calling and dogmatism.

Irony. It' doesn't just mean "made of iron".

You are called a denier not because it's a name but because it is an accurate label.

You don't disagree being called "human" or "Caucasian", even though these too are as much labels as "denier".

This is because you don't like the science but have nothing substantive to debate, yet still must deny the evidence.

"Ok... a "ten year pause." What exactly does that mean?"

Nothing to a trend of global temperatures. You were asking what the temperature TREND was, remember.

"OK, then we have shown that the undisturbed climate system can, in fact, experience ten year pauses."

Pauses of ten year temperature averages have nothing to do with temperature trends of climate.

"You say that the current trends are unprecedented. Maybe so... But look at the graph in the article above. Look at the period of 1910 to 1940. Compare it to the period from 1980 to 2010"

Ten year means have nothing to do with climate temperature trends.

Is there something wrong with your noggin?

You were asking what the temperature trend was. A global temperature trend cannot be ascertained with any less than a 30 year average without having the noise be a large factor in the value calculated.

Jason, cutting through all the thicketry: you see before you a graph with an upward trend, and some fluctuations that mean of course, sometimes the line goes down instead of up. But overall, it keeps going up, as does CO2 (which rises in a more linear fashion since it is just an input with slow sinks, what else?) That is clear. Do you really want to bet our future against all that razz-mataz of yours?

BTW, whatever else we can say, "Climategate" is basically made obsolete by this latest affirmation of the warming, since the accusation was about fudging the data instead of theoretical claim of connection. True?

"Fine minds make fine distinctions."

It is tempting, Mlax, to say flattery will get you everywhere, but the truth is it is precisely because I recognize my *lack* of brilliance that I have applied the bitter intellectual lesson of being an ex-fundy to the climate debate. I do not want to find myself on the wrong side of the facts, and it's this posture of humility that I preach when engaged, as a non-expert, in the climate debate

I was during my evangelical years a . . . what's a good term . . . *preening faux intellectual*. The idiocy I believed and preached and buttressed with clownish arguments is exactly what I see climate deniers doing.

I do not want to find myself on the wrong side of the facts, and it's this posture of humility that I preach when engaged, as a non-expert, in the climate debate.

Welcome to the strange and shocking world of intelligence analysis. Or, as the denialists call it after they get debunked, "ad-hominem attacks."

If there is a 5% chance of a 10 C rise, isn't that enough to base extreme mitigation measures on? At a 10 C rise, everything melts and sea level goes up ~70 meters. What is the value of everything that would be flooded? Lets say it is only $100 trillion. 5% is $5 trillion. At a discount rate of 5%, that is $250 billion. Thus it is worth $250 billion per year to stave off a 5% chance of a 10 C rise by one year.

Hi Coby
This is great. Glad you brought up Curry's crazy views on climate sensitivity too. I had been on at her for some time about what her views were....she repeatedly failed to answer me and just let the usual deniers on her blog attack me. Finally, she gave the answer. Does she REALLY believe that climate sensitivity could be 0C? Or that it might be as much as 10? If the former, she'd have a hard time explaining the past climate record; if the latter even she must realize we are in deep sh*t.

I have had that utterance of hers in mind since she said it months ago. In addition to the sociopathic nonchalance about a possible 10oC rise, she apparently believes it is possible that climate sensitivity is negative!

If she is true to form, we will never hear any scientific justification whatsoever for either of those extremes...

Coby et al,

This issue of the 10 year pause and the comment made by JC that you referred to have been done to death so many times that maybe we should include them in the long list of zombie arguments that just keep getting resurrected over and over again by deniers. There was a very good paper released recently on the issue:

Santer et al, 2011, Separating Signal and Noise in Atmospheric Temperature Changes: The Importance of Timescale

here: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011JD016263.shtml

The paper concludes:

"....In summary, because of the effects of natural internal climate variability, we do not expect each year to be inexorably warmer than the preceding year, or each decade to be warmer than the last decade, even in the presence of strong anthropogenic forcing of the climate system. The clear message from our signal-to-noise analysis is that multi-decadal records are required for identifying human effects on tropospheric temperature. Minimal warming over a single decade does not disprove the existence of a slowly-evolving anthropogenic warming signal...."

Interstingly, this is what Pielke Snr (who is a 'skeptic') has to say about the issue:

"....I agree with Santer et al that â[m]inimal warming over a single decade does not disprove the existence of a slowly-evolving anthropogenic warming signal...."

source: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/comments-on-the-new-pa…

So to all you deniers out there, can you please, please, please come up with something new. Having to play wackamole with the same old crap is getting tiresome.

SkS has a long list of denier arguments. Someone once suggested calling them after their number in the list. E.g. "Polar bear numbers are increasing" is "a 37".

skip @29: "what's a good term . . . *preening faux intellectual*."

I believe the term used first was "interminable bore" was it not?

. . . preening faux intellectual . . .
. . . interminable bore . . .

Hee, hee, I may well have been looking in the mirror when I constructed those utterances. I was in the midst of quite an amount of ideological angst during those trying 'Wakefield Years'. Also, I am a committed a-hole, so am naturally vitriolic, inconsistent and irritating.

Keep up the good work on this site. It serves a purpose.

Pfft. Nobody's perfect, Mlax.

It's taking the chance of change that makes the difference between someone merely human and someone superhumanly ignorant.

I am a wildlife scientist. I study the ecology of wildlife species; their ecosystems, their biology and populations, and the relationship between animals and their environments. And I cannot begin to tell you just how bad things are in the world at the moment.

Same job as mine (most of my work is in the far north of Canada, mainly boreal forest but some tundra work). I had someone ask me what it is like to be a wildlife biologist. My answer was along the lines of, It is like seeing signs of death everywhere you look. You know what should be there and you know how it should be interacting, but when you look, it isn't there and everywhere you do look, you see signs of something very wrong. Just in my career I've seen decreases in many of the bird species. I've seen whole forests dying young. Our sustainable forestry initiatives are mainly unsustainable.

Reading colleagues papers and talking at meetings I'm made aware of what is happening in other areas (ocean fisheries, whole lake ecosystems, tropical forests).

Historically and in the present day, I see decline, sickness, and death and it alternately depresses me, angers me, motivates me, or demotivates me.

And I cannot begin to tell you just how bad things are in the world at the moment.

Just had to quote that again. I wish mandas was exaggerating. Climate change is just going to make what was already happening much faster and worse. I really would have liked to have seen Passenger Pigeons darkening the sky for days as they passed overhead, unaltered prairies, horizon to horizon buffalo, untouched old growth southern forests, Ivory-billed Woodpeckers and Great Auks and the waves of bird migration that are now just a fraction of what they once were....

by the way, I did counter-balance all that with the excitement of the work I do, the things I get to see, the places I do research, the beauty of quiet and remote areas that you have all to yourself (and another cranky biologist). I have a whole bunch of "jealous" pictures I post when I get back from the field that I take just to make people jealous (even if I can't wait to get out of there myself). :)

Hi Everyone

More on the deep pool of foolishness that Judith Curry seems to have fallen in to. I have just stumbled across a very interesting thread at her blog, here:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/07/two-new-papers-vs-best/

It seems JC has allowed a guest poster to put forward two papers that supposedly counter the BEST analysis. The papers conclude:

â...LL demonstrates that the 20th centuryâs global warming was predominantly a natural 100-year fluctuation. The leftovers are caused by UHI, the warming effect by increasing station elevation, changes to the screens and their environments in the 1970s, variations in the sunâs magnetic field that could influence the amount of clouds, warming caused by increasing anthropogenic CO2, and further unknown effects....â

Unfortunately for JC, the thread was read by Dr Richard Tol, who is a statistician and has a CV as long as your arm in climate issues. He destroyed the papers, pointing out a number of methodological flaws which rendered them useless. In the process, he took JC to task for making a conscious decision to publish rubbish on her website.

It would appear from her reaction that JC has now demonstrated that she is totally lacking in credibility and has completely lost the plot. Rather than accepting the criticisms, she defended both the papers and her decision to publish, and accused Tol of political motivation. You can read their discussion on the thread, or you can read a summary of it with the good bits highlighted here:

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2011/11/09/is-judith-curry-peddling-disi…

The exchange demonstrates conclusively that JC has very little credibility left, and seems to be taking active steps to destroy what little remains. Although she is supposed to be an atmospheric scientist of some standing, she is trying so hard to sit on the fence and lend credibility to denier arguments that she can no longer see what is credible and what is not.

For long time readers of this forum, there is an interesting side note to the discussion. Our old friend Dick Wakefield makes numerous contributions to the thread (as per his normal modus operandi), and he even tries to argue statistics with Tol. The farce is strong with that one!

Curry is making a mockery out of science. She says:

An argument is an argument. Given that Ludeckeâs arguments got published in reputable scientific journals, their merit (or lack thereof) should be discussed.

Good grief, one of the papers is published in Energy and Environment and the other in International Journal of Modern Physics C, which is where, I believe that G & T's piece of fish wrap debunking the greenhouse effect was published. It is quite obvious that she is willing to spread lies to feed are terribly engorged ego. Surely her academic institution must look into this and take proper steps to ensure the credibility and honesty of science and those espousing it.

Thanks for the heads up on this, guys.

Ian, close, but no cigar ;-). Gerlich and Tscheuschner made it into the International Journal of Modern Physics B.

Nah, don't believe it

stoat — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:26:12 +0000

Nah, don't believe it

Science (the mag, not the concept) sez:

Science is driven by data. New technologies... blah... publishers, including Science, have increasingly assumed more responsibility for ensuring that data are archived and available after publication... blah... Science's policy for some time has been that "all data necessary to understand, assess, and extend the conclusions of the manuscript must be available to any reader of Science" (see www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/)... blah... Science is extending our data access requirement listed above to include computer codes involved in the creation or analysis of data

Well, jolly good. I look forward to them insisting the full code for HadCM3 / HadGEM / whatever is published before accepting any GCM papers using them (which, amusingly, will now include all the papers doing the increasingly fashionable "multi-model" studies using the widely available AR4 data archives).

Come to think of it, it would also prevent S+C (but not RSS?) ever publishing in Science.

[Update: meanwhile, Werner Kraus, not content with being a tosser has decided that he is an idiot -W]

Refs

* One of James / Jules's posts pushing the appropriate model journal - Geoscientific Model Development.
* Eli comments on Nature's policy, which is more nuanced.
* Devil in the details Nature 470, 305-306 (17 February 2011) doi:10.1038/470305b To ensure their results are reproducible, analysts should show their workings - nice Nature article on Genomics trubbles, h/t NB.

It hardly needs to be said that the editors of Science, when writing an editorial entitled "Making Data Maximally Available", meant the whole thing to be maximally readable, but accidentally forced people through a tedious registration process to get to it. So, as a service to them, I'll reproduce it here.

Science 11 February 2011:
Vol. 331 no. 6018 p. 649
DOI: 10.1126/science.1203354
EDITORIAL

Making Data Maximally Available

Brooks Hanson1, Andrew Sugden2, and Bruce Alberts3
1Brooks Hanson is Deputy Editor for physical sciences at Science.
2Andrew Sugden is Deputy Editor for biological sciences and International Managing Editor at Science.
3Bruce Alberts is Editor-in-Chief of Science.

Science is driven by data. New technologies have vastly increased the ease of data collection and consequently the amount of data collected, while also enabling data to be independently mined and reanalyzed by others. And society now relies on scientific data of diverse kinds; for example, in responding to disease outbreaks, managing resources, responding to climate change, and improving transportation. It is obvious that making data widely available is an essential element of scientific research. The scientific community strives to meet its basic responsibilities toward transparency, standardization, and data archiving. Yet, as pointed out in a special section of this issue (pp. 692-729), scientists are struggling with the huge amount, complexity, and variety of the data that are now being produced.

Recognizing the long shelf-life of data and their varied applications, and the close relation of data to the integrity of reported results, publishers, including Science, have increasingly assumed more responsibility for ensuring that data are archived and available after publication. Thus, Science and other journals have strengthened their policies regarding data, and as publishing moved online, added supporting online material (SOM) to expand data presentation and availability. But it is a growing challenge to ensure that data produced during the course of reported research are appropriately described, standardized, archived, and available to all.

Science's policy for some time has been that "all data necessary to understand, assess, and extend the conclusions of the manuscript must be available to any reader of Science" (see www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/). Besides prohibiting references to data in unpublished papers (including those described as "in press"), we have encouraged authors to comply in one of two ways: either by depositing data in public databases that are reliably supported and likely to be maintained or, when such a database is not available, by including their data in the SOM. However, online supplements have too often become unwieldy, and journals are not equipped to curate huge data sets. For very large databases without a plausible home, we have therefore required authors to enter into an archiving agreement, in which the author commits to archive the data on an institutional Web site, with a copy of the data held at Science. But such agreements are only a stopgap solution; more support for permanent, community-maintained archives is badly needed.

To address the growing complexity of data and analyses, Science is extending our data access requirement listed above to include computer codes involved in the creation or analysis of data. To provide credit and reveal data sources more clearly, we will ask authors to produce a single list that combines references from the main paper and the SOM (this complete list will be available in the online version of the paper). And to improve the SOM, we will provide a template to constrain its content to methods and data descriptions, as an aid to reviewers and readers. We will also ask authors to provide a specific statement regarding the availability and curation of data as part of their acknowledgements, requesting that reviewers consider this a responsibility of the authors. We recognize that exceptions may be needed to these general requirements; for example, to preserve the privacy of individuals, or in some cases when data or materials are obtained from third parties, and/or for security reasons. But we expect these exceptions to be rare.

As gatekeepers to publication, journals clearly have an important part to play in making data publicly and permanently available. But the most important steps for improving the way that science is practiced and conveyed must come from the wider scientific community. Scientists play critical roles in the leadership of journals and societies, as reviewers for papers and grants, and as authors themselves. We must all accept that science is data and that data are science, and thus provide for, and justify the need for the support of, much-improved data curation.

stoat Thu, 02/10/2011 - 11:26

Tags

climate communication

One the one hand... ridiculous. On the other hand... it would be nice to have a version of the code used for a given paper archived properly (not that I've done that for my own papers - but sometimes I've wished I had done so). The problem being that GCMs are just so huge. Also, that in some cases the code is proprietary, though I think more and more groups are making their code public (though in at least one case, the code authors aren't allowed to make their code public to anyone who hasn't passed a basic background check for security reasons).

[Oh I quite agree: it would indeed be nice to have the code archived, and visible. But does Science alone have the power to make it happen, or will they have to cave? -W]

I think authors of papers based on AR4 data archives can argue that the archives themselves serve as the appropriate repositories necessary to understand and/or extend the paper conclusions, rather than the model code underlying the archives.

-M

[They could indeed argue that, but if Science read their own policy they will be forced to say "but we ''include computer codes involved in the creation or analysis of data''". Of course, I'm sure Science has carefully thought this though :-) -W]

And yet, M, "computer codes involved in the creation or analysis of data" seems unambiguous, even as applied to the AR4 archives.

Re S+C, I doubt there was much remaining prospect of them being considered for publication in Science.

Harsh criticism of one of the top science journals in the world...when was the last time you published in Science? Just curious.

[Google scholar is your friend: 2006 is your answer: Science 31 March 2006: Vol. 311 no. 5769 pp. 1914-1917
DOI: 10.1126/science.1121652, Significant Warming of the Antarctic Winter Troposphere J. Turner*, T. A. Lachlan-Cope, S. Colwell, G. J. Marshall and W. M. Connolley.
I'd have expected someone with a .edu address to be able to find that out for themselves ;-) -W]

"...when was the last time you published in Science?

Is this relevant to Stoat's criticism? If so, how?

Nature's policy is more nuanced

As for software, the principle we adopt is that the code need only be supplied when a new program is the kernel of the paper's advance, and otherwise we require the algorithm to be made available.

and, not what McIntyre said it was

Anyhow, at least some of the GCMs are publicly available including GISS E and the Community Earth Model, but making the code available does not mean helping to make it run.

Do you mean to ref this?
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/11/isi-for-gmd.html

[Thank you, yes, that is what I was looking for -W]

And in other news, 'replication' in science still doesn't mean "copying my code and requiring me to teach you how to run it".

Well, this should warm up the debate nicely.

Multi-model studies won't need to submit HadCM. They need to link to CMIP5 (or wherever they are getting their results) and submit their own code.

It's when the Met Office want to publish yer acshwul HadCM results that they will run into trouble. Or choose another journal. Or they could just publish the model code (in GMD, natch). The sky has resolutely failed to fall on, say, CESM.

[Yes, them publishing the code would be best. But suppose they don't? Then, according to Science's logic, no-one can publish and CMIP studies. There is no get-out clause that says "of course, if it was someone else's model, you don't need to bother": it says "computer codes involved in the creation". HadCM3 was involved in the creation of CMIP data, so accoding to Science it *must* be published -W]

And as for "the mag, not the concept": what Science-the-Concept says is "publish your methods".

I can't read the article you link to (with "sez"); it's behind a paywall. But assuming your quoting is accurate, I applaud.

But as you imply and other commentors point out, it's a completely unworkable policy in the current climate.

Who knows, maybe Science can change policy.

[Yes, them publishing the code would be best. But suppose they don't? Then, according to Science's logic, no-one can publish and CMIP studies. There is no get-out clause that says "of course, if it was someone else's model, you don't need to bother": it says "computer codes involved in the creation". HadCM3 was involved in the creation of CMIP data, so accoding to Science it *must* be published -W]

I don't think that follows - and certainly Science is not constraining anybody else's publication policies. Of course, I can't read the article in Science, so I can't actually tell. But suppose I use CMIP5 data to do an analysis of likely effects on leprechaun populations in the 21st century, and submitted that to Science. Then I would expect Science to require me to link to CMIP5, and to my own leprechaun model code, and to my leprechaun data, but not to code which was used (by someone else, somewhere else, at another time) to make the CMIP5 data.

[First off, reading the whole article: it is only behind a free-registration-wall, not a paywall, though it is easy to miss that. But as a service to the world, I've copied it here. I'm sure Science will thank me :-).

Second, weeeeeeell, I think it is arguable, and I won't be surprised if Science does indeed weasel out, but for myself, I can't see why what Science has written doesn't imply that the code used to make the CMIP data should be available. Doubtless they will clarify this important point to avoid confusion. Of course one could regress further: is the code that allowed you to run the code (viz, your computers OS) included? In which case Windoze users are stuffed -W]

Surely you need to archive not just the code but the environment it was compiled and run in.

...In which case Windoze users are stuffed -W]

Ah, but the easy way around that is to ensure that a legacy machine with legacy OS used to generate/analyse the data is archived at the same time :-)

That'll get the computer industry moving again.

And whilst we're doing that, we might as well archive the researcher(s) who operate said legacy machines as well. Have you tried getting someone who knows how those holey cards work? My optical drives don't seem to recognise them, and they come out a bit mangled.

Here endeth the flippancy. ;-)

Software Preservation is a serious business. Yes, sometimes it involves archiving actual hardware. More often one is into the Configuration Management realm, which can vary from keeping a VM, through keeping some installers, through recording detailed version numbers and managing version changes, to jotting down "GNU Fortran 3.6, Python 2.4", to basically not recording anything and trusting to luck.

I'd be in favour of generally moving science software from one end of this spectrum towards the other, much as I've spent a lot of the last twenty years doing my part to shift the software industry in the same direction. I remember one client where the prevailing views included (a) "SCM is too much trouble" and (b) "why would we keep a copy of the executables we ship?"

Regarding "weasel out", yes, there is a long and sorry history of fine words and broken promises on publication policies, at journals, institutions, funding bodies, and agencies. I still welcome these fine words - I think the tide is running in this direction, and sooner or later fine words will be followed up by actual action (i.e., for a journal, a paper being rejected because the code is not available). We shall have to wait and see.

[Based on my memory, I think a lot of the actual scientists working n the code would be happy to see it published. Typically, it is the mgt layer that is the problem. So Science having some fine words might help push things the right way, and that would be good all round -W]

Software Preservation is a serious business.

Yes. However, software preservation is different than reproducibility. Isn't science far more interested in reproducibility than preservation?

However, software preservation is different than reproducibility. Isn't science far more interested in reproducibility than preservation?

Yes, it is, but it has an interest in both. Otherwise, for instance, there would be no papers describing gene sequencing techniques, only papers describing gene sequences. What's your point?

Nick, I don't know enough about gene sequencing to comment on your example.
My point is that there is a key difference between algorithms and programs. The former can be described in many ways, and the latter is a very specific implementation of one or more algorithms.
Science (the method) needs to care a lot about algorithms, and need only care about programs to the extent that they aid in the understanding of algorithms and their implications. Software preservation is all about about preserving programs, not algorithms.
Or at least, that is how I see the issue. Am I missing something?

"the latter is a very specific implementation of one or more algorithms"

A quick response to this as I am in bit of a hurry this evening:

The code actually used to produce the results in any given paper implements a particular function, C (for code). The paper may or may not describe a function, P (for paper). Differences between P and C include various classes of bug (where the intention was P but the programmer, compiler, libraries, and OS combined to make C), writing errors (where the intended function was in fact P' and it is described incorrectly in the paper), and limitations in precision or expression (for instance, where C would implement P in an ideal world without rounding error).

More often the paper implies an function, I (for implied), or really a family of functions {I1, I2, I3, ...}, because usually papers are very skimpy in their descriptions of mathematical methods. C may or may not be a member of this family, but in this case the paper really isn't providing enough information to reproduce C.

Often the maths in the paper is so skimpy that the interested reader has to guess at a function, G (for guess), and the relationship between this function and C is even more sketchy.

But the results, as presented in the paper, actually depend on C. Readers interested in the results may well want to know what C is. The most efficient way to convey it to them is to show them the source code. It isn't perfect (I could go on at more length) but it is considerably better than P, I, or the commonplace G.

Nick, if I pick up a paper with an algorithm I need professionally, I expect to be able to match the results reported.
I do understand there is a class of problems where an implementation is the the most concise statement of the results. For such problems, the code is the paper. But at least so far, this class of problems is fairly rare.
I'm very well aware of limits in precision and rounding issues, which can be problems in their own right. I deal with these professionally frequently. But such limits should be understood by any serious implementer. They put limits on what can be computed, and any interpretation of the results must take these limits into account, and the bare code only helps if the original implementation had a problem.
What I expect is that the results are reproducible from the paper, and general understanding of the field. If the results are only reproducible from the code (or on a specific OS or computer or ...), then there is a problem. A big problem.
If the results are reproducible with different programming styles, OS, etc, then they are valuable.
For example:
http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Tietsche_GRL_2011.pdf
and see paragraph 5.

@20

To add my 0.02$, I totally agree with Nick, and I think you miss the point. Often, papers simply do not contain enough information to reproduce the results. Problems I have personally encountered so far:

Paper says that a parameter x has some value, but I cannot reproduce it. After querying the author, he mentions that the parameter is probably some different value. With this, it works.

Paper says that Optimal-Control algorithm X has been used, but does not specify enough details to actually run the algorithm. By having some code snipplet from the author, I can see that probably algorithm Y has been used. Still not enough information in the details to reproduce results.

Paper uses some potential energy surface from another paper, given as expansion coefficients. After implementing the expansion, I figure that this surface is totally screwed up, so probably the coefficients are plain wrong. Now what is the potential energy surface?

Same problem as above. After contacting the author, he replies that probably the potential energy surface is wrong, and sends the one he used. Works roughly after that.

I figure that in each of the above cases, supplying the code or the raw data would have helped tremendously. So supplying the code/raw data has nothing to do with abstract discussions about implementations and algorithms, it is simply about reproducability due to missing or wrong data.

Of course, it's not just climate science: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/470305b.html

[Nice, thanks. I've added it as a ref to the post -W]

Useful tool for checking British media:
http://churnalism.com/

Hat tip (see this for good discussion):
_youknowwhatgoeshere_www.metafilter.com/100893/Cut-paste-cut-paste

"âChurnalismâ is a news article that is published as journalism, but is essentially a press release without much added." Churnalism.com is a site created by the British charity Media Standards Trust, which lets you input the text of a press release to compare it with the text of news articles in the British media.

See also http://www.fivechinesecrackers.com/2011/02/churnalism-we-so-totally-don… and the Grauniad for more.

Validating Climate Models

stoat — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 14:39:56 +0000

Validating Climate Models

SE has an excellent post about Validating Climate Models. It is all good, but I particularly liked

when we ask climate scientists for future projections, we're asking the question of the scientists, not of their models. The scientists will apply their judgement to select appropriate versions/configurations of the models to use, they will set up the runs, and they will interpret the results in the light of what is known about the models' strengths and weaknesses and about any gaps between the comptuational models and the current theoretical understanding. And they will add all sorts of caveats to the conclusions they draw from the model runs when they present their results.

stoat Thu, 12/02/2010 - 09:39

Tags

Steve is getting better and better. The thing that Curry and Co. are missing is that he is probably THE expert in Verification and Validation from his time at IV&V

[It is very silly that Curry is writing all this stuff without having a clue, or without even knowing that she doesn't have a clue, and without knowing that the person who does is blogging just next door. Still, she seems happy to attempt to re-write Climate from the ground up on her blog. It won't work, and it isn't interesting to watch, but it keeps her followers happy. Perhaps in part because if you do it like that, you can never leave the basic level, so it all remains very easy to understand -W]

http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/this-weeks-finds-week-30…

---- brief excerpt follows -----

... Nathan Urban has been telling us about a paper where he estimated the probability that global warming will shut down a major current in the Atlantic Ocean:
â¢ Nathan M. Urban and Klaus Keller, Probabilistic hindcasts and projections of the coupled climate, carbon cycle and Atlantic meridional overturning circulation system: a Bayesian fusion of century-scale observations with a simple model, Tellus A, July 16, 2010.
... itâs also very interesting how he and Klaus Keller got their answer. As youâll see, thereâs some beautiful math involved.....

---- end excerpt ----

[Very sweet but a complete waste of time. We already know that the AMOC collapse behaviour is totally different between simple ocean models and full ocean GCMs; wrapping it all up in advanced probabililty doesn't make it any more meaningful, alas -W]

Hm. Did we also know their conclusion? I didn't. Watching a blog of physicists talk this stuff over is ... different. I'm not clear on what's new to them but old and boring here.

"Although we calculate a negligible probability that the AMOC will collapse by the end of this century, the probability that, in this century, we will commit later generations to a collapse (by 2300) is almost 5%. The probabilities of "triggering" rise rapidly, to almost 20% by 2150 and about 33% by 2200, even though the probability of experiencing a collapse by those dates is about 1% and 10%, respectively...."

They're arguing for running scenarios to 2300 or later?

Curry is attempting to use an infinite number of monkeys at typewriters to redo climate science. It will be interesting to see how long it takes, only I won't live that long.

Still it could be an interesting learning experience for her. Each thread follows the route of a swift descent into chaose, along with Oliver Manuel touting his iron sun theory. When the chaos is complete, Judith starts another thread. Rinse repeat.

Don't write off monkeys. This is reminiscent of Bob Newhart's classic classic:

"In âAn Infinite Number of Monkeys,â he imagines that although an infinite number of monkeys given enough time would type out âall the Great Books,â someone must check their work to see if they are âturning out good stuff;

in the sketch, after reading through much gibberish, one of the monitors exclaims: "Hey Harry, I think this one has got something â To be or not to be, that is the gazorninplat.â"

What does Climate Model output look like?

illconsidered — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:29:24 +0000

What does Climate Model output look like?

Lots of FUD about climate models get thrown around in the Climate Wars, but what is it they are really doing anyway?

The contrarians would have us believe they just take in a bunch of contrived parameters and spit out the worst case possible scenario for global average temperature increase. But the truth is the kinds of models the IPCC report on are very complex and nuanced.

Since I'm no expert and pictures are worth thousands of words, I would like to offer a few beautiful video realizations of GCM output.

The first is from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) CCSM climate model and shows a single month of global weather in 25 seconds. Aside from being a beautiful thing to watch, I find it very fascinating. (h/t MT)

(source - and a larger image area)

Notice the incredible detail of weather patterns, the circumpolar wind current in the southern hemisphere, the flowing storm fronts, the tropical cyclone forming out of the Indian Ocean near the end, the daily pulsation of tropical precipitation over middle Africa and the Amazon rain forest. These things are not painted in after watching satellite feeds, they arise from the physics that is programmed in. I don't claim that all the resolution and nuance you see is right out of the numbers, I am sure that graphic "dots" were connected to smooth the coarseness of the grids the model work out of. But the general correctness of the large wind patterns and storm tracks means they are doing something very right.

The next one takes much longer and is output from Japan's Earth Simulator running the Hadley Centre's HadGEM1 model. Unfortunately it is too long for YouTube's 10 minute limit (I tried). You can find and view it here. (I wonder if this is the project James Annan is involved in.)

I prefer the other from a purely visual standpoint, but with this one you can watch the arctic sea ice grow and retreat.

The last is the Nonhydrostatic ICosahedral Atmospheric Model (NICAM), a cloud resolving model and shows a one week period.

(Source and description here

Imagine how much care and work has gone into building these virtual worlds. Now imagine the ridiculous notion of building these while artificially ensuring that no matter what else, they will scare the world into ceding control of our lives to the UN. There is no line of code in there that says IF CO2 > 450 THEN Fry(world).

illconsidered Thu, 07/16/2009 - 02:29

Tags

Those are great videos, thanks for digging those up.

The level of confusion over how GCMs actually work just astound me at times. For instance, from WUWT we have today:

Nothing in current climatology considers irregular flows of energy between sea and air and between air and space underpinned by another level of irregularity in solar input. The models currently work backwards from meteorolgical observations rather than forward from measurements of net energy flow in and out of the different sections (oceans and air) of the system.

What does this person think the "C" in "GCM" means, if not "coupling" in the sense of modeling "net energy flow in and out of the different sections (oceans and air) of the system", with the physics in the model being driven by observation and theoretical work to explain the observations?

In my early days as a climate change advocate, I heard a lot of yelling about computer models, so I assumed they were just "okay" and that the other threads of evidence were more reliable.

But then I saw this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

It's like James Hansen had a time machine or something.

I'd love you guys to come check out my blog about climate change in the scientific world compared to the popular press. Link on my name, or go to ClimateSight.org

Thanks.

@2: The original acronym expansion of GCM is "General Circulation Model". The earliest had no radiation and little or no energy flow (condensation, for instance, was absent). They served to get us started with understanding the dynamics (circulation) of the atmosphere.

Then, for decades, and to the present if you look to the right authors (probably), GCM = atmospheric model. i.e., add radiative inputs, condensation/evaporation, and such to the atmospheric circulation model. Ocean was a swamp; it supplied water to the atmosphere, and was a heat source/sink, but the water never moved. The only degree of oceanography involved was to decide whether this swamp was 25 or 50 (or whatever) meters thick.

The quote you respond to, on the other hand, could not have been written by anybody even vaguely aware of how climate modeling is done, or has been at any time in at least the last 40 years.

Watch out, the top video features weather. Soon there will be a "Models don't predict weather 100% right therefore don't predict long term trends right!!!11!!1" post.

The original acronym expansion of GCM is "General Circulation Model".

Oops, thanks. I was confusing that with the HadCM[n] - where the C does stand for "Coupled".

Ocean was a swamp; it supplied water to the atmosphere, and was a heat source/sink, but the water never moved.

From what little I've read of HadCM4 (and I guess 3) the ocean model used is a dynamic, gridded one nowadays, but since the ocean changes relatively slowly they use observed local ocean temperature data rather than the dynamic model when using the atmospheric half for weather forecasting in the UK. I had a great link to HadCM documentation about a month ago but lost it, wish I hadn't.

Reading the GISS Model E documentation, they have several models that can be used.

One is the simplified kind you mention above, with the actual surface temps modified periodically during the model run from files of observed data.

On the other hand the GISS Dynamic ocean model is a complex, gridded dynamic model. I find the way they get around the fact that some straits connecting oceans are too small to be resolved by the grid system interesting:

The model contains up to 12 variable depth subgrid scale straits which contect ocean grid boxes, which would not be connected at the resolution used. In particular, the Straits of Gibraltar, Hormuz, and Nares straits are so modelled

I assume the coupled model is run with one ocean model or another based on what research questions are being explored, as clearly the dynamic model will run much more slowly than the "change the temp array via datafile" one.

Allow us to politely disagree with the straw man in this article at TheChillingEffect.org. We think science is our best bet but these models are not working -- and it's not necessarily that they have to have been corrupted from malice on the part of modelers.

Allow us to politely disagree with the straw man in this article at TheChillingEffect.org. We think science is our best bet but these models are not working

Well, yes, but the paper you cite shows the opposite of a "chilling effect". Rather, it suggests that climate sensitivy might be *underestimated* by models by a factor of two. That it might be 5-6C rather than the current best estimate, 3C.

Mounting evidence that CO2-forced warming is WORSE than we currently believe is, through a form of mental gymnastics that is incomprehensible to knowledgable people, twisted into an argument that CO2-forced warming doesn't exist at all.

On your site you ask

Could those dire predictions of global warming be wrong?

The answer, if the paper you've fallen head-over-heels in love with is correct, is "yes, they're wrong. It's going to be twice as bad as we think".

Ta-ta and cheers, old boy.

I'd agree you can't infer too much from the models.

This is a bit more mundanely due to the chaotic behavior of Navier-Stokes. But also the nature of the solvers used for numeric simulation which are themselves chaotically-inclined, starting with Newton-difference routines, which are about as simple and straight forward as one can get. And when they aren't chaotic they are accumulating error like an SOB over the long haul!

There are no other areas of science or engineering where these same numerical simulation algorithms can miraculously go long periods of time into the future without going wrong - they can't here either. The trick used to avoid error is to not extrapolate in time very far.

When I hear "the simulation proves X" I get nervous because no one should never be that comfortable with the output of a computer simulation. I know simulations in 0D, 1D, 2D and 3D well enough to have seen them badly misused by naively generalizing the result.

The fidelity of the model is so utterly critical to the result - it always needs to be minimally physics-based and proven to have all the critical effects. Numerical simulation codes are excellent error amplifiers: you can take a small error or mistake and multiply it up far faster than a hand calculation ever could. Things like omitting cloud albedo, which has incredible sensitive effect, and then making politically charged claims and predictions are unconscionable wrong.

In engineering only fools believe the simulation is truth first, second or third time around - you can kill people by doing that. Yes, there are more than enough engineers who are such fools.

Here we're dealing with physical time constants that are beyond human intuitive comprehension - this makes using intuitive a dangerous thing if not tempered by extreme rigor. Politics is utterly without rigor and is based on a good deal of intuition. This is what makes politicization of Global Warming very, very dangerous. People get sloppy on both sides of the political argument.

And yes. I've generally not seen evidence in the arguments that most climatologist understand the numerical simulation limitations they are using.

Things like omitting cloud albedo...

Bzzzt. Wrong.

If you don't understand what you're criticizing, those who do understand ain't going to pay much attention to you.

Just sayin'

Ctrl+F: "Convection"

No results found.

Climate models fail!

Ctrl+F: "Convection"

No results found.

Climate models fail!

Bzzzt

dhogaza, you write "The answer, if the paper you've fallen head-over-heels in love with is correct, is "yes, they're wrong. It's going to be twice as bad as we think"

Actually, we haven't fallen in love with any particular paper. We do prefer a more sensible take on the world than throwing away scarce economic resources for the unlikely event of catastrophic global warming.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, though it seems difficult to support the notion that climate models are correct precisely because they've actually *underestimated* the negative impact. Incorrect is incorrect. Accepting a fault as evidence of success is a phenomenon seen in cults, not in solid science.

You are certainly entitled to your beliefs, though it seems difficult to support the notion that climate models are correct precisely because they've actually *underestimated* the negative impact.

No one argues that they're correct - the old saw about being useful holds, here.

Accepting a fault as evidence of success is a phenomenon seen in cults, not in solid science.

1. This is one paper, which may or may not hold up to scrutiny.

2. If it's right, then this:

We do prefer a more sensible take on the world than throwing away scarce economic resources for the unlikely event of catastrophic global warming.

is an incredibly stupid thing to say, because it means that things are going to be much worse than is currently thought.

Incorrect is incorrect.

Actually, the authors of this paper are arguing that the models are *incomplete*. Not "incorrect" in the sense that the physics being modeled are wrong, or the model implementation wrong.

Specifically, they're suggesting the models are incomplete because they don't include the impact of increased methane in the atmosphere due to the melting of clathrates from permafrost.

This is an *additive* effect to what's already being modeled. That means the number for CO2 sensitivity can only go one direction if the authors are correct - UP.

Your argument that a paper stating "things are worse than we believe" suggests "we should do nothing" is breathtaking.

As to why models don't include the impacts of increased methane from the melting of clathrates frozen in permafrost ...

The models are *conservative*. They model what's known, rather than speculation, and thus far the proposal that permafrost melting will lead to a surge in atmospheric methane has been speculative.

This paper you cite adds evidence that the speculation might be correct.

Atmospheric methane recently increased for the first time in (IIRC) a decade, also evidence that the speculation might be correct.

There are reports of direct measurements in Siberia that would be evidence that the speculation might be correct.

When or if the speculation becomes accepted as real, and can be quantified in relationship to temperature in the arctic, *then* the models will take this into account.

Not before.

The fact that modelers are conservative as to what they include isn't a "fault". it's the sound, scientific way to do models.

Regardless, there are two possible outcomes:

1. permafrost melt won't progress rapidly enough to cause methane to be added to the atmosphere in large amounts in the time frame we're currently mostly interested in (now until 2100). In this case, the model outputs of CO2 sensitivity in the 2C-4.5C range are right.

2. permafrost melting will be more aggressive than thought. In this cause, additional methane will be added to the atmosphere and model outputs of CO2 sensitivity will rise accordingly.

Either way, the current accepted figure for CO2 remains a LOWER BOUND.

"No one argues that they're correct..." and then quibble with "incorrect is incorrect"? Interesting. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Incomplete does not have to be, but can be, incorrect. However, incomplete in one area means there's no reason to suspect it is fully complete in another. To assume that there is only one problem with models is to assume a greater degree of scientific wherewithal than we currently enjoy, but to each his own assumptions.

The logic of refusing to act based on troubled models -- whether they are incorrect to the upside or downside -- is fairly apparent to those who prefer common sense and rational economic behavior.

Those demanding rush to action on climate change rarely seek rational policy and frequently prefer immediate action of any kind, even if it causes greater long-term suffering. Many feel the need to "do something" even if something is worse than nothing. Indeed, even those most accredited scientists investing in anthropogenic global warming recognize that catastrophe is a possible, but not guaranteed outcome. The economic consequences of rash policy, though, have a negative guaranteed outcome.

Judging by the way your converse with commenters here and elsewhere on the net, I don't suppose I could convince you of much. And that's cool. I do think your behavior helps convince more people to listen to me, though, and for that I thank you.

"No one argues that they're correct..." and then quibble with "incorrect is incorrect"? Interesting. Thanks for helping me make my point.

No model is "correct" in any absolute sense, that's a given. Yet, many are useful, as the old saw goes.

The primitive model used to evaluate "gun" designs for fission weapons during the Manhattan project were extremely primitive by today's standards - the "computers" who executed them were *people* pulling handles on mechanical calculators.

Yet, the model results were so robust that

1. They didn't bother testing the uranium "gun" design. Only one - "little boy" was built, and dropped on Hiroshima. From model results, the physicists knew that the only thing that would keep it from blowing up would be a mechanical failure of some sort. Not the modeled physics.

2. They didn't bother testing any plutonium "gun" design. Model results made it clear that a plutonium "gun" design could not be made to work.

"Incorrect" - in the sense of incomplete, just as climate models are today - but *useful*.

Same was true of the somewhat more sophisticated models used to design the first hydrogen bombs. By then (1950ish) there were early computers available. Modeling results showed that Teller's first design could not possibly work. By the time of the Mike shot, modeling had convinced researchers the bomb would work. Instrumentation was used to gather experimental results to fine-tune the models - fusion being rather hard to do in the lab, modeling totally led the way until real data from a real hydrogen bomb could be gathered.

Now, modeling wasn't the only thing going on, there were experiments to establish basic parameters regarding the physics, etc. Same is true with climate models, though, there's constant physics work going on which leads to improvements in the models.

Incomplete does not have to be, but can be, incorrect.

Handwaving on your part won't convince anyone, though. If you think the models implement physics incorrectly, or that the physics in the models are incorrect, the source to GISS Model E is online and you're free to *prove* your point rather than make handwaving assertions.

However, incomplete in one area means there's no reason to suspect it is fully complete in another.">However, incomplete in one area means there's no reason to suspect it is fully complete in another.

Modelers are very clear on the fact that modeling of clouds is incomplete. Regardless, given that the source to GISS Model E is online, there's no need to speculate as to where it is, or is not, complete. It's right there for you to look at.

I do think your behavior helps convince more people to listen to me, though, and for that I thank you.

People who are convinced by handwaving arguments typically have already made up their minds.

Fact is, thus far you've shown no understanding of how models work, what they might get right, what they might get wrong.

Your argument boils down to: OK, here's a paper that suggests models are wrong by a factor of 2, that climate sensitivity to CO2 is far higher than computed. Therefore, society should act as though CO2 is not a problem.

Dumb. Just ... dumb.

Thousands of lives depend upon the accuracy of models daily. Cruise ships, fishing boats, NASA launches, the Air Force and Navy and others depend on these models to report accurately. To dismiss models completely is a naive and ignorant choice.

Not all models are made the same, however. Most use real weather observations to correct their forecasts as time progresses, some don't and are purely theoretical and statistical. Then, there are boundary conditions. What happens when the location of interest is at the edge of the model? In most models that I've seen, the boundary region produces inaccurate predictions.

Finally, there's the issue of resolution. You can't use a global model to predict the weather in your city. You can't use a 48hr forecast to predict at exactly what time it will start raining.

The idea behind forecasts and models is to look for trends and apply those patterns to your real experiences. If you've noticed that the lake in your town is getting lower year after year, and the climate models tell you it's going to continue to get warmer, you can expect that your lake will eventually dry up. Hundreds of lakes in Minnesota have disappeared in the past 20 years, and I expect many more to go away in the next 20 years.

Paul,

I concur on the usefulness of models and the importance of examining real-world events. That's why models have been problematic for global warming, which has taken a decade-long hiatus.

"Dumb. Just ... dumb." Interesting way to convince others you're correct. I assume you're a hit at parties.

I've not claimed to be an expert on models, but I have addressed the logic used in the post above (which you have meticulously failed to address), the costs of just "doing something" (which you have generally failed to address), and your overzealous defense of inadequate models.

Think models are great but can be improved? That's a logical position. Your seemingly endless love affair with imperfection -- which, if used to drive policy will be costly -- is less logical.

You may invest as much as you like the validity of models. You may convince yourself of your righteousness. But data -- incomplete or incorrect -- without the application of real-world decisions on cost/benefit are essentially meaningless at best or misguided at worst.

That's why models have been problematic for global warming, which has taken a decade-long hiatus.

Not really

(you meant to say ELEVEN years, you're supposed to cherry-pick to include the super El NiÃ±o year of 1998)

Your seemingly endless love affair with imperfection -- which, if used to drive policy will be costly -- is less logical.

All models are imperfect. To say that one can't do anything based on models unless they're perfect is to say that models can't be used, ever.

You've heard of the nuclear test ban treaty, right? Since we can't test weapons any more ... guess what's used?

Why pick on climate models? I know! I know! Because you don't like the political implications that you fear will follow once our political leadership has figured out that climate scientists aren't really fraudulent green-helicopter flying commies after all.

But data -- incomplete or incorrect -- without the application of real-world decisions on cost/benefit are essentially meaningless at best or misguided at worst.

Ahhh ... the classic denialist goal-post move. Now it's "cost/benefit analysis" ... now where did I say such analysis is a bad idea? Or mention it at all?

I should state right upfront that I don't particularly enjoy wading in on climate change debates, since I am not exactly qualified to debate the issues, but there does seem to be a large and quite frankly scary misrepresentation of the science behind these models. Having sat through enough seminars and lectures on the issue (I'm right around the corner from the Center for Atmospheric Science at Cambridge), the thing almost everyone fails to mention is the HUGE error margin on these models. And I do mean huge. As in, if you select slightly different parameters, the earth enters an ice age.

I realise this debate is important, and the results are potentially catastrophic, but the climate change debate is quite possibly the worst poster child for proper science I can think of. We are dealing with a massively complex system, which we can't perform controlled experiments on, and our best predictions are based around simulations with unimaginable numbers of interrelated variables. Even in situations where we can perform experiments, the system is governed by simple equations and there is abundant data to generalize from, our simulations are poor. I speak primarily as a chemist; numerical modelling of chemical behaviour is a comparatively simple problem, yet we still pretty much keep tweaking the parameters of the simulation until it gives us what has happened in the past. I'll admit you have to publish papers somehow, but it doesn't make for great science.

My problem throughout this is not that the models are right or wrong, but that they are misrepresented. Real science deals with uncertainty. You investigate a problem, build a model, test it, report where it succeeded, and most importantly where it went wrong. Science is built on falsifiability, not confirmation. You give an indication as to the likelihood that the models are correct, but over-representing the power of the model is bordering on misconduct. Sadly, people who should know better bow to political pressure to make a judgement one way or the other. The IPCC (in earlier reports at least), instead of making a nuanced judgement and report, stating that while global warming is the most likely outcome of the model, the conclusions are not solid, instead adopts a political position of almost certainty. Admittedly recently it's been a bit more subtle, but even so, you don't really hear about that on the news - "climate change a possibility" is not something a journalist wants to hear.

The correct way to test these models is to make a prediction, and then test them. Testing on previous data doesn't count - you can just fiddle the parameters until they fit. Note that this fiddling is often unconscious; you make your model, and if it doesn't fit, you leave it and try another. If it does fit, you have no need to tweak it. Richard Feynmann famously said that the easiest person to fool is yourself; once you've made sure that you're doing good science, not fooling other people is a simple matter of honesty. Unfortunately, too few people check themselves in this way, and these tests take time. They're hard, and you don't publish many papers while you're waiting for results. Consequently, the debate is shaped by those less honest members of the academic community, who publish anyway. As I said, hardly a poster child for good science. The worst thing is, of course, if global warming doesn't occur, one side will say it was because it wasn't real, and the other will say it's because we took steps to avert it. We won't have actually learned anything.

My problem throughout this is not that the models are right or wrong, but that they are misrepresented. Real science deals with uncertainty

You mean like this? "Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is in the range 2C-4.5C"?

over-representing the power of the model is bordering on misconduct.

Consequently, the debate is shaped by those less honest members of the academic community, who publish anyway. As I said, hardly a poster child for good science.

Oh oh ... another accusation of science fraud. Ad hom on the field at large.

Tch tch.

I saw exactly these same words on another site recently ... hmmm ...

The worst thing is, of course, if global warming doesn't occur

It already *has* occurred. And *is* occurring. By the end of '09, 9 of the ten warmest years on record will have been in the 21st century. How people label this as "evidence of global cooling" is beyond me.

The correct way to test these models is to make a prediction, and then test them.

Which, of course, has been done. For someone who claims to know so much, you seem to know little.

Testing on previous data doesn't count - you can just fiddle the parameters until they fit. Note that this fiddling is often unconscious; you make your model, and if it doesn't fit, you leave it and try another. If it does fit, you have no need to tweak it.

Someone else who doesn't understand how GCMs work. They're not statistical models juggled to fit past data.

massive_hair,

The correct way to test these models is to make a prediction, and then test them.

This goes on all the time using various things, eg large volcanic eruptions or some previously unobserved aspects of the climate system like radiation at the TOA (top of the atmosphere). Read more about models and tested predictions here and here.

If however you mean we need make a thirty year projection and then wait, this is not a realistic option.

Testing on previous data doesn't count

What is this, some kind of collegiate sporting event? There is no reason to exclude using hindcasts to test models and every reason to do so. The past is an excellent source of test data involving all kinds of very different climates and climate changes.

Unfortunately the rest of your comment is a confusion of journalism criticisms and actual research with no acknowledgement of the difference that it can not be untangled enough to be answered. Your statement "everyone fails to mention is the HUGE error margin on these models. And I do mean huge. As in, if you select slightly different parameters, the earth enters an ice age." is both wrong and confused. No papers are published without uncertaintiies. And your assertion about entering an ice age, if true, would imply great sensitivity, not great uncertainty.

You should fix the initial problem you identified ("I am not exactly qualified to debate the issues") by asking questions rather than opining at such great length!

How come no one will address the basic logical error in this post, which is that criticism of climate models -- even if you think that the critic is "dumb" -- must be wrong since so much work goes into models? A ton of work can go into building bridges, and unfortunately sometimes they have structural problems.

Personally, I would have just chocked it up to a hasty blog post -- everyone does it and there's no shame in wishing to take a mulligan.

But the defensiveness shown in the comments is telling. Does the average scientist become irate if he thinks a neanderthal misunderstands gravity? If one is so convinced that their position is scientifically valid, there is no reason for such hostility. It is usually when one's religious beliefs are under attack that such reactions are seen.

... and still no one has addressed the simple logical error of this post. Coby and dhogaza may be in good supply of confidence -- and, perhaps even a good supply of knowledge -- but appear lacking in grace and logic.

How come no one will address the basic logical error in this post

A second moving of the goalposts.

even if you think that the critic is "dumb"

I don't think you're dumb, indeed, when defeated on a point, moving the goalposts is smart.

Because it's your only hope of maintaining any semblance of credibility.

Boy, didn't take long to break you down from your triumph claims of victory into being a goal-post moving troll, did it?

Does the average scientist become irate if he thinks a neanderthal misunderstands gravity?

Glad you identify with the neanderthals. But ... no, the average scientist gets irate when the neanderthal tells him that the *scientist* misunderstands gravity. And when, even after repeated references to the success of ballistic tables to guide accurate cannon shots that destroys the neanderthal's village, the neanderthal *still* says the scientist doesn't understand gravity. While digging his own wife and children from under rubble.

Thanks for the analogy, it's entirely fitting.

How come no one will address the basic logical error in this post, which is that criticism of climate models -- even if you think that the critic is "dumb" -- must be wrong since so much work goes into models?

This statement is, of course, a lie.

Coby didn't say criticism of climate models is wrong because so much work goes into them.

He says this:

There is no line of code in there that says IF CO2 > 450 THEN Fry(world).

In other words the typical, widely-stated, accepted-by-denialist shits, complaint that the climates "assume" global warming is total bullshit. In other words, that ignorant, dumb criticism based on having no idea as to how they work is bullshit.

He's right. He could've worded it better so liars like you couldn't intentionally "misunderstand" his statement, but it's not his fault that you choose to lie.

Oh, and it might be nice if model critics spent even 0.001% of the time understanding models vs. the time spent building them. Because criticizing them based on total misunderstanding of how they work is totally unscientific.

Indeed, one might suspect it's ideological ... and I suspect that, of you.

Coby,

Re your post #26, Could I ask you one simple question - can you put a figure on how certain you are that the recent global warming is due to anthropogenic CO2?

Good supply of knowledge? Yes
Good supply of logic? Yes

The only one you might be anything near right on is grace. And, hell, having to answer the same denialist bollocks over and over again, and having them repeat the same argument as if no one had said anything, is incredibly frustrating.

If one is so convinced that their position is scientifically valid, there is no reason for such hostility. It is usually when one's religious beliefs are under attack that such reactions are seen.

Actually, this type of reaction is fairly typical when it comes to dealing with denialists. You see the same hostility directed to evolution deniers, AIDs denialists, holocaust denialists, and justifiably so.

Richard, the IPCC is 90% certain. I think they are being cautious and conservative and are afraid to overstate the case. I am personally 99% certain that the recent global warming of between .1 and .2 oC per decade is primarily caused by anthropogenic factors, foremost of which is CO2 emissions. You should prefer their conclusion over mine, as I am not an expert.

Bret, perhaps you are unaware of the very vapid criticisms of climate models that are out there, especially the continuous insinuations that they are simplistic contrivances designed solely to show increased CO2 will cause severe warming. This post is offered to address those arguments only. I put a little bit more thought into defending model results on the two pages I linked to in comment 26.

Unsophisticated arguments don't require sophisticated debunking.

Notwithstanding the above, yes of course you are right that the fact they are complex does not mean they are above criticism.

Can you acknowledge one or two of dhogaza's points rather than changing the subject? I am specifically interested in whether or not you accept that a paper saying there is evidence the models are underestimating the climate's response to CO2 by half (your offering) is not a compelling reason to conclude we should just continue as we are til the models get better.

Coby,

You say "the IPCC is 90% certain. I think they are being cautious and conservative and are afraid to overstate the case. I am personally 99% certain that the recent global warming of between .1 and .2 oC per decade is primarily caused by anthropogenic factors, foremost of which is CO2 emissions. You should prefer their conclusion over mine, as I am not an expert."

Why should I accept either of these conclusions? Neither of these opinions are founded on science. The IPCC's conclusion is purely political, and yours purely based on faith.

Can you show me in the scientific or technical analysis of the IPCC HOW THEY HAVE ARRIVED AT THIS FIGURE?

The technical report of the IPCC 2001 has this to say when it examines the question of "WHETHER A HUMAN INFLUENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE TO DATE CAN BE IDENTIFIED.":

"The SAR concluded that âTHE BALANCE OF EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS A DISCERNIBLE HUMAN INFLUENCE ON GLOBAL CLIMATEâ. It noted that THE DETECTION AND ATTRIBUTION OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE SIGNALS WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH A GRADUAL ACCUMULATION OF EVIDENCE. THE SAR ALSO NOTED UNCERTAINTIES IN A NUMBER OF FACTORS, INCLUDING INTERNAL VARIABILITY AND THE MAGNITUDE AND PATTERNS OF FORCING AND RESPONSE, WHICH PREVENTED THEM FROM DRAWING A STRONGER CONCLUSION."

The most important thing in my mind in the above is the uncertainties that the IPCC admits in THE RESPONSE to these forcings, which I believe from the evidence is to mitigate and offset the effects, in other words a negative feedback, as the climate has always behaved in the past.

When there are a large number of uncertainties, which there are in climate models, as you are probably aware the uncertainties are multiplied with each other so that the end result is even less uncertainty and not more.

Nothing in the technical analysis suggests a 90% certainty and most importantly nowhere have they shown a working on how they have arrived at that certainty.

nowhere have they shown a working on how they have arrived at that certainty

Am at a loss as to how to answer this, the entire report is how they have arrived at that conclusion! It is a ridiculous question.

You should read it, start with the summary for policy makers (large PDF) and you might want to focus on the section about attribution(large PDF).

As an unqualified general statement this is false. Multiple, independent uncertainties can in fact work to constrain each other. Consider multiple independent measurements of the same property as a simple example. If your uncertainty on each measurement is 10%, 100 measurements will get you a much more constrained range of values, not less. Likewise, if you have a number of uncertain factors, but you know they must add up to 100%, you can actually reduce some of the individual uncertainties.

The IPCC's conclusion is purely political, and yours purely based on faith.

The IPCC is a political body, but its assessment is a scientific one and has been reviewed by national academies and scientific bodies all over the world. With the exception of a more lukewarm statement from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, all of this various scientific bodies concur with the IPCC's conclusion.

You are not obligated to accept their or my conclusion, but both are based on the scientific evidence. Considering all the evidence I have compiled on this site, agree with it or not, your dismissal of my opinion as purely faith based is much more a reflection of you than it is of me.

Coby -
"Am at a loss as to how to answer this, the entire report is how they have arrived at that conclusion!"

I will accept that you are at a loss as to how to answer the question. But to tell me to read the whole report is a cop out.

Certainty or uncertainty is a mathematical computation. Where exactly have they worked this out? Or even claimed to have worked this out? You have given explanations of various questions on your website. Give one on this also, or admit frankly that there is none.

Richard,

Try following Coby's link. That's where I found this, which explains how the IPCC defines its probability estimates.

The IPCC in part calculate certainty quantitatively where possible and estimate it with expert opinion elsewhere.

You say:

"The IPCC's conclusion is purely political, and yours purely based on faith."

That's an unfounded slur. At least, it seems to be, given that you provide no supporting evidence.

You also provide a quote referencing the TAR which discusses the previous IPCC report, the SAR, and conclude that this says something about our current state of knowledge. There are two things wrong with this:

1. The reference you quote in the TAR to the SAR speaks nothing of the TAR's conclusions.

2. Why are you quoting the TAR when we've got 4AR? Which, btw, states the following with regard to attribution of greenhouse gas forcing:

"Most of the observed increase in global average
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very
likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
greenhouse gas concentrations."

If you disagree with this certainty estimate perhaps you should explain why? It's not clear to me why anyone would think this statement is false.

Paul H,

Thank you for your comments.

When I said "The IPCC's conclusion is purely political, and yours purely based on faith.", I did not mean it as a slur on Coby and I stand by the statement that the IPCC's conclusion is purely political.

Their conclusions are always political vetted line by line by the political bosses of the IPCC.

But this is not the only reason why I say this.

In the link you sent me, (which are Guidance Notes for the Lead Authors of the IPCC), on making expert judgements they have advised: âBe prepared to make expert judgments AND EXPLAIN THOSE BY PROVIDING A TRACEABLE ACCOUNT OF THE STEPS USED TO ARRIVE AT ESTIMATES OF UNCERTAINTY OR CONFIDENCE FOR KEY FINDINGSâ

No where have they explained their key finding that global average temperatures have "very likely" increased due to increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, much less provided a traceable account of the steps by which they have reached this conclusion.

As for Coby's belief - I think it is mistaken, and hence ultimately founded on faith rather than science.

The document I linked to expresses how the IPCC scientists use evidence to arrive at conclusions of differing certainty. If you read the IPCC chapter on attribution the evidence is laid out in a manner which enables you to see how they reach the conclusion we are discussing.

e.g. the document says "Be prepared to make expert judgments and explain those by providing a traceable account of the steps used
to arrive at estimates of uncertainty or confidence for key findings â e.g. an agreed hierarchy of information,
standards of evidence applied, approaches to combining or reconciling multiple lines of evidence, and
explanation of critical factors."

It's clear to me, at least, that chapter 9 carries this out when attributing late 20th C warming to GHG increases and other sources of RF. For instance, they indicate that the consistency of conclusion from multiple independent lines of evidence creates a robust overall conclusion with regard to GHG radiative forcing attribution i.e. in the IPCC's language, a series of conclusions derived from independent sources, indicating the same overall conclusion, with more limited certainty (only likely), add up to robust conclusion with high certainty. The chances of all of these lines of evidence being flawed is very low. If you only read part of it, read the summary 9.7, which is a great example of this method in action. Now you know that this statement is derived from the certainty placed on the interpretation of other lines of evidence why don't you look at how those conclusions are reached. It's explained in detail in this chapter.

As a matter of fact:

1) The 19-page AR4 IPCC SPM is a political document, since it has to be agreed on, sentence-by-sentence by all governments, including for example, the USA, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

That tends to water down the conclusions. Actually, it's pretty amazing that anything gets through, especially when one talks to the scientists who participate.

2) Of course, that is why the *scientists* write not only the full reports, but for each a Technical Summary, which for WG I is 73 pages, or one can go to the full report, which is ~900 pages, or the peer-reviewed references, which are vast. They even do a pretty good job of introductory material (FAQ's, boxes). Even the TS alone ought to answer most rational people's questions.

3) Coby is quite right.

It seems to have been forgotten that chaos theory got its (recent) start through the problem of climate modeling. Tiny disturbances can have huge effects.

In addition, if the models are run backward, do they "predict" the past well over the last, say, 100 years?

It seems to have been forgotten that chaos theory got its (recent) start through the problem of climate modeling.

Sigh ... the confusion of weather with climate extends even to this?

"An early pioneer of the theory was Edward Lorenz whose interest in chaos came about accidentally through his work on weather prediction in 1961.[37] Lorenz was using a simple digital computer, a Royal McBee LGP-30, to run his weather simulation. He wanted to see a sequence of data again and to save time he started the simulation in the middle of its course. He was able to do this by entering a printout of the data corresponding to conditions in the middle of his simulation which he had calculated last time."

See? Weather prediction, not climate modeling.

We can make many, many climate prediction like ... this January in Portland, Oregon will be on average colder than next July. Even though I can't predict the weather for each day in either month.

In addition, if the models are run backward, do they "predict" the past well over the last, say, 100 years?

Someone doesn't understand how models work. You don't run them backwards.

However some models do a pretty good job of hindcasting not only in the recent past but various paleoclimate scenarios, too.

Breaking news from Marc Morano

illconsidered — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:24:58 +0000

Breaking news from Marc Morano

Marc Morono (sick) breathlessly announces that Gavin Schmidt has finally admitted that weather is chaotic and GCMs can not model it.

And yes, that is about as shocking an admission as water is wet.

Here is the incriminating quote:

"The problem with climate prediction and projections going out to 2030 and 2050 is that we don't anticipate that they can be tested in the way you can test a weather forecast. It takes about 20 years to evaluate because there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can't predict -- the chaotic component of the climate system -- which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically. That is something that we can't really get a handle on,"

Pretty shocking, eh? Climate models can not predict short term natural variability (aka weather).

But wait, I thought the (statistically nonexistent) short term stasis in warming was a failed model prediction. Denialist cake is the best, the more you eat it, the more of it you have.

Or something....

illconsidered Tue, 07/07/2009 - 08:24

Tags

and don't forget water is a pollutant!
Thanks for a good laugh. Morano gets far more attention than he deserves though...

Dan

It's not the ignorance of people like this that bothers me, it's the willfulness of the ignorance. If he actually tried to understand what Gavin Schmidt was telling him, he might learn something. But no.

Morano aside, that was an interesting (the actual interview) read. Thanks for pointing it out.

Wow, I actually had no idea that Gavin Schmidt is English. Whoops!

...ok, so this person is not the poster child for an intelligent conversation. Does this change the fact that current climate models CAN'T be checked with real data? Or that there isn't a 'control' regime from which to extract a truly background-free CO2 signal in the global mean temperature?

You guys should sure-up your argument a bit before picking on those you see beneath you.

Aaron:
"Does this change the fact that current climate models CAN'T be checked with real data?"

This is not a fact.

"Or that there isn't a 'control' regime from which to extract a truly background-free CO2 signal in the global mean temperature?"

You mean like another earth to play around with?

How is it not a fact that the climate in 2050, as being modeled today, can be checked with real data? As far as I can tell, my physics department has not mastered the science of time travel. Please let me know if your department has. The only period of complete data is the past 20 years or so. Some of that data agrees with models, but it's hard to say why it agrees. It is a several thousand parameter model for a 9 or 10 order of magnitude larger parameter space. It's not hard to press the right buttons when the wrongs ones aren't in your model.

As far as 'control' goes, yes, it would be nice to have another earth to goof around with. It's so nice that every other scientific field uses such a 'control'. The vast majority of global mean temperature signal is 'flooded' by CO2 since the industrial revolution. So how to we deconvolute the CO2 signal if we can't control for it?

The answer from your other posts seems to be 'well, science is hard' which is true, but completely off the point. If it is indeed so hard to find such a signal, and in infinitely simpler systems it can be, why make the argument that it's importance relative to other contributions (solar flux, el nino, cloud cover, etc.) is undeniable? It's a very poorly constructed scientific argument to say the least.

What seems to be the most baseless aspect of this and many other arguments for policy change in the US and elsewhere is the importance of models. Well, the over importance of them really. Models for different scientific systems are used in every field, but in all of them one still needs to verify predictions with real data. 20 or 30 years worth of suitable data doesn't cut the mustard to predict 50 or 100 years into the future. Especially since one cannot parse out the true contribution of CO2 to the global mean temperature signal from 'the noise'.

How is it not a fact that the climate in 2050, as being modeled today, can be checked with real data? As far as I can tell, my physics department has not mastered the science of time travel.

It's called "paleoclimatology", and models do a good job of recreating much of what we know about it.

Aaron:

"How is it not a fact that the climate in 2050, as being modeled today, can be checked with real data?"

Sorry, this is not what you said at all. However, this new statement is certainly true. The best way to test current models is by hind casting and comparing modeled results with actual measurements. Hind casts of the 20th century are very successful for the crude indicators like global temperature averages. There are many other features of modeled climate that can be compared with actual observations, such as diurnal cycles, lapse rates, stratospheric temperatures, seasonal cycles, response to large volcanic eruptions, major ocean currents and precipitation patterns. These are the kinds of tests I was thinking of when I disagreed with your very general dismissal of testing climate models.

"As far as 'control' goes, yes, it would be nice to have another earth to goof around with. It's so nice that every other scientific field uses such a 'control'."

Sure, "every scientific field". Evolutionary biology, cosmology, geophysics etc, etc... They all have control systems to play around with. I don't think so.

"The vast majority of global mean temperature signal is 'flooded' by CO2 since the industrial revolution. So how to we deconvolute the CO2 signal if we can't control for it?"

The only way is through modeling. If you reject the concept of modeling then you do not have the first most basic grasp of what science is. No one says it's easy and no one says our understanding is complete, but you need to come up with much more informed objections that demonstrate a grasp of what is understood if you want to be taken very seriously.

Climate models do not have to be very complex to be generally informative. You should check out Robert Grumbine's series on simple climate models. This is a summary post with links, though it may not include the latest articles. I also recommend Spencer Weart's History of Global Warming. This concept did not arise out of opaque and complex computer models.

"The answer from your other posts seems to be 'well, science is hard' which is true, but completely off the point. If it is indeed so hard to find such a signal, and in infinitely simpler systems it can be, why make the argument that it's importance relative to other contributions (solar flux, el nino, cloud cover, etc.) is undeniable? It's a very poorly constructed scientific argument to say the least."

Well, I do not recall making the argument that it is simply undeniable on its face that other influences are dominating. However, massive amounts of hard work have in fact been done, and the only persistent arguments out there are in fact no more than pure denial. There is certainly the possiblity of new dramatic findings overturning some very basic conclusions, but at this stage it is vanishingly unlikely that the current climate change is not anthropogenic.

"What seems to be the most baseless aspect of this and many other arguments for policy change in the US and elsewhere is the importance of models. Well, the over importance of them really. Models for different scientific systems are used in every field, but in all of them one still needs to verify predictions with real data. 20 or 30 years worth of suitable data doesn't cut the mustard to predict 50 or 100 years into the future. Especially since one cannot parse out the true contribution of CO2 to the global mean temperature signal from 'the noise'."

If this were an abstract scientific question then I would agree we should all just keep up on the journals and wait to see if the planet warms dangerously or not, but the fact of the matter is there is a great deal at stake. Frankly, I find it hard to understand how anyone can not see that uncertainty is not your friend in determining what action to take in the face of risk. Right now, the relevant action is actually well underway: we are dramatically increasing CO2 levels. If there is great uncertainty, then this action should cease until the models are good enough to be 99% confident there is no danger. Practical concerns and political realities aside, what your argument should be advocating is a cessation of CO2 now, wait 50 years to see if the models are correct, and then decide if we can safely pump CO2 into the atmosphere or not.

Back here in reality, we have no rational choice but to judiciously chose our course of action based on the knowledge and understanding we have right now.

Thanks for the comments.

Coby,

there are a great many presumptions you make in this argument. First and foremost is that there is a great deal at stake. But there is a great deal at stake in many fields, yet we do not say 'well the scientific method should be bypassed because of the importance of this issue'. Say cancer research. Couldn't we just bypass some clinical tests and get 'experimental' drugs right into the market where we could see if they work or not? Certainly cancer is a pressing issue to humanity.

Second, if you don't know the ability of these models to predict the climate properly because you are using ill-conditioned and indirect data whose uncertainty and associated propagated errors in such climate models is poor-defined, how do you even know that there is so much at stake? Maybe there is a 1 in 100,000 chance that what you think is at stake is truly at risk. Maybe it's more. But to make such a claim as though it is a fact of some kind doesn't seem complete truthful nor is it consistent with the message you give on your other posts. If this science is truly that difficult, and I think it's even more difficult, how have we come to a point where we know what's stake without enough direct, well-conditioned and useful data?

Third, and this is the kicker, you conflate modeling with theory. There is nothing basic about modeling. It is the utilization of computer algorithms to calculate stuff. Theory is basic. It's just as basic as experiments for that matter. But modeling is not basic. It's what climate researchers do because there is little else to be done. If that were true, could we say that Newton or Einstein or Euler didn't have a form grasp of science because they didn't model physical systems?

Fourth, this whole argument boils down to 'what else can we do?' and you know what, I have no idea what else to do. But at least I admit to the uncertainty in my position. All this about so many people working hard to make it work is great and all, but it doesn't make them right. The ONLY way to test a model is with real, direct, well-conditioned and understood data. Not data that is just lying around. That's the way science is done in reality. If you would like, I can give you a tour around my lab. We'll show you how it's done...

Coby, while gratuitous snark may not advance the scientific argument, I did get a wicked chuckle out of "Marc Morono (sick)". Snap!

If that were true, could we say that Newton or Einstein or Euler didn't have a form grasp of science because they didn't model physical systems?

But they did build models. Newtonian mechanics *is* a mathematical model of how objects interact ...

The ONLY way to test a model is with real, direct, well-conditioned and understood data.

And who are you to say they don't?

The entire anti-model rant is a bit disgusting. The basic approach used by climate models is no different than the early, primitive models used in the Manhattan project and later during research into the hydrogen bomb. Modeling showed that Teller's first design for the hydrogen bomb wouldn't work. Modeling based on better physics pointed the way to the first "Super", the Mike shot. Earlier fission work depended less on models, but that had more to do with available computing power (rooms full of computers - i.e. *people* - computing on mechanical calculators, then the very first general-purpose computers) than any aversion to modeling. Today, our nuclear weapons program is entirely dependent on modeling, as we no longer test.

The way experiments are formed to test climate models varies from they way lab experiments are designed, by necessity. But experiments have been run, nonetheless.

I love it when bloggers wander into the house claiming to be know more about climate science than those working in the field, displaying ignorance right and left.

The confusion still abounds.

This is not a rant for one. Second, it's most certainly not anti-models. Models are very important for determining what happens in experiments.

But what Newton came up with is not a model.

It is a theory.

There is an inherent difference that you seem to be missing between these two concepts. There is no new theory contained in global warming research. It is the application of known theory to a particular part of a physical system. More specifically, it is the model of carbon dioxide forced increase of the global mean temperature using the laws of spectroscopy, statistical physics, atmospheric physics and thermodynamics. But this is very different from what Newton did. He made very general statements about the world around us and how those statements manifest themselves in phenomena we see. F=ma does not necessitate a model system in which to be true.

What is becoming entertaining to me is that you are making my argument for me. The example of the atomic bomb and the Manhattan project is exactly what I saying needs to be done with respect to climate research of global warming. The models proved to be useful because Fermi and others could do controlled experiments on the chain reactions that lead to an atomic explosion. Do you think they built that giant graphite neutron reactor at the University of Chicago for fun? No they did it to test the models that were being produced. They also did numerous other tests there and Los Almos. And I'm sure the models showed that taking theoretical steps in certain directions might not be fruitful, but I am also certain that just as often the models themselves didn't work. This is research we're talking about.

Climate research is inherently different in this respect. It is the application of theory to a particular model and assessing the results of the outputs of such models. What I am saying here, and you continue to be unable to refute, is that if one does not understand the uncertainty in the data used to make such assessments, how does one know if the models really work?

Such uncertainties, in the form of errors, must be properly propagated to completely understand the implications of outputs from such models. Since there is no control on the vast majority of data for this purpose, paleological or not, it is very hard to assess uncertainties. Given that, how does one come to the conclusion, scientifically, that we are playing with the fate of the world?

There seems to be a logical jump being made here that is not taken lightly in other fields but is acceptable with respect to this issue because of it's grave importance. There are two main problems with such an approach.

First, because we don't have well-conditioned data one can't completely assess the outputs of these models as true or not. This I will keep repeating until you can provide the uncertainties associated with measurements like those of CO2 from tree rings from thousands of years ago. Is it plus/minus 50, 80 or 500 ppm? It would be nice to have some sources for the calculations of such uncertainties.

Second, if the climate is as sensitive as these models would lead us to believe, then we must be extraordinarily careful with our response to warming. By not knowing exactly what is happening and simply acting on what we know now can create unforeseeable problems with more uncertainties. The analogy of the car driving in the fog near a cliff is apt, except that there are 50,000 pedals, 49,999 of them accelerate the car and only one is the brake. Are we really going to just slam on them randomly given what we know at this point?

It has also come to my attention that a very simple model has been produced, only two phases, in a paper that was published a little over a year ago. Here is the link to the pdf. The researchers show that such a climate system, very simple mind you, will display a 'memory' of the forcings. This is known as hysteresis and is how most magnets are made these days. So even if we reduce carbon in the atmosphere, the temperature might stay the same.

As for the quip about bloggers, they bother me too. It's unfortunate, however, that your comment reflects much more on your standing in the conversation than my own. As of tomorrow, I will be a PhD candidate in the Applied Physics Program at the University of Michigan.

More than that, my work is on the interaction of light with matter, which may be of some use with respect to this issue. On top of that even, Professor Marc Ross who is an environmental physicist here at UM served on my qualifying exam committee asking me several questions on this topic ranging from simple to very complex. He also told me, point blank, that is has been very, very hard for anyone to say exactly what is causing what we see in terms of warming on this planet.

It may serve you well, since your work is with computers seems to be overwhelming your take on this topic, to open your mind's eye to what some people who work with physical systems have to say. Again, I will most certainly express that there is a great deal about this that I don't understand. But the questions about data used to assess these models are very simple and you seem rather persistent in ignoring them and lambasting me as some ignorant person. That is unfortunate. It really says much more about you than me.

Mmm Aaron sounded quite reasonable (lots of big words in the correct order at least, not like some other deniers who have trouble with English syntax) till it all fell apart when he said:

"This I will keep repeating until you can provide the uncertainties associated with measurements like those of CO2 from tree rings from thousands of years ago. Is it plus/minus 50, 80 or 500 ppm? It would be nice to have some sources for the calculations of such uncertainties".

WOW, a whole new discipline, CO2 concentrations from tree rings:-) Were they found frozen in the ice cores by any chance?

Aaron:

Congratulations on becoming a PhD candidate and I trust Professor Ross is an intelligent and educated man, but if this information is offered to give authority to your views, I think we would have to defer to the expertise of these folks. Myself, I have never claimed any authority of my own, nor do I offer my own personal theories or conclusions (at least not intentionally and not on the major points). I merely try to communicate what the latest scientific information is. I don`t mind opining, I am a blogger after all, but I do insist that we get the facts straight.

You are clearly arguing from a great deal of ignorance, and therefore from a different set of "facts". I highly recommend that you get yourself familiar with the latest IPCC report. You would also do well to check out the link I offered to Weart`s history of global warming. Did you yet?

About what models are or not I must insist that you do not own the word, nor do I, and it has it own definitions independent of your or my intended meaning. I will be clear and tell you that when I say model in the comments above I mean a physical, mathematical, or logical representation of a system of entities, phenomena, or processes. I consider e = mc^2 to be a model. I am happy to revisit our modeling meta discussion above if you reread what I wrote with that definition in mind. If you wish to shift the topic to another kind of model please be specific and we can start again.

Regarding your objections to data used to feed or verify GCM`s please be specific. Exactly what data are you thinking of and exactly what is wrong with it. I have to agree with Ian that your confusion about tree rings betrays an ignorance of this material that is not well matched to the strength of your apparent convictions. The same goes for other issues you are raising, you are giving us very broad characterizations and nothing specific to examine!

(Side note: we are in the comments section here and you are dialoguing with more than one person. It is not clear to me who "you" is referring to above.)

Ian,

it is a wonderful thing when someone makes an accusation that they can neither backup nor even bother to check themselves.

You might be interested in this PNAS (that stands for Proceedings of the National Academy) article. In it the authors detail the importance of tree rings given that some species can live thousands of years (bristlecone pines et al.) There is also no discussion of uncertainties in this paper.

And all I had to do was Google "CO2 Tree Rings" to get that. Google is very useful for information. You might want to look into using it.

I would also not like to be given the moniker 'denier' seeing that at no point have I mentioned that global warming is not happening. It is most certainly happening. I merely disputing the presentation that it is scientific fact garnered from the scientific method, as applied in other fields including my own, that CO2 is the most responsible forcing. Maybe you could come up with a more fitting negative description of my position that actually reflects that reality of our situation rather than ignoring it.

Aaron Rury, please re-read that PNAS paper you quoted. I did read it and it does not say what you are claiming. The majority of the researchers who looked for a CO2 effect on tree rings did not find such a relationship. The only "scientist" who did find one was Idso. Have you ever heard of him? He is one of the more notorious "scientists" who are typical deniers. He has a web site (CO2science, but I'm sure you know that)) which is full of dishonest comment, misinformation, cherry picking and other examples of scientific malfeasance. If you don't want to be called a denier I suggest you broaden your list of sources for quality information on climate science.

I hope you are more careful and honest with your own graduate work, I would have very harsh words for anyone who reported in a thesis what you just did with that PNAS paper. That could be considered scientific misconduct but at the very least shows that you are not very careful in your interpretations of scientific results.

But what Newton came up with is not a model.

It is a theory.

it's both, and physicists know it. For another example of "both" look up "Standard Model".

Good luck correcting them ...

And, yes, I understand what was done during the Manhattan Project. The development of the hydrogen bomb was much more grounded in computer implementations of models of nuclear physics than the earlier fission bombs, but this was mostly due to the rapid increase in the speed of computation and the more limited ability to do lab experiments on fusion. Still, the models implemented and computed on mechanical calculators and later in the project when making the two fission bomb designs, very early electronic computers, were extremely useful.

Remember, they didn't bother testing Little Boy.

Also, climate scientists do run experiments using their models, you can lie about it until you're blue in the fact, but it won't make your lie true.

It may serve you well, since your work is with computers seems to be overwhelming your take on this topic, to open your mind's eye to what some people who work with physical systems have to say

I do. Atmospheric and solar physicists are very active in the climate science community. Why should I ignore them and pay attention to people who aren't specialists in the field?
Why would I expect some random applied physics prof to know more than they do? Why would I expect a freshly-minted undergraduate (you) to know more than they do?

On the seemingly-ever confusing notion of a 'model', I will say this. Equations are MATHEMATICAL models of a physical system that allows us to understand how different physical parameters affect each other. Newton's laws or Maxwell's equations are great examples of this type of model.

In science research, such mathematical models are applied to scientific models like climate models, that also use math in some contexts, but there is an inherent difference. When the laws of physics are applied to a scientific model, we already know the parametric dependencies in the physical system. We just want to know how those dependencies mean TO THAT SYSTEM IN PARTICULAR. A good example of this is the standard model, which does not necessitate new dependencies between particles other than QED, but gives us a coherent picture of how different particles can be divided up with respect to similarities and differences. So I would say that climate models are a SCIENTIFIC model as opposed to a MATHEMATICAL model, despite the fact that impressive amounts of math used in such models. Can we all agree on this assessment?

Ian,

You seem to be misunderstanding the argument the PNAS paper provides with respect to your comments. You implied that my previous comment concerning the lack of well-understood uncertainty in tree ring research was inconsequential since such research doesn't exist. The citation of the paper merely provides proof that it does exist. The fact that this particular paper is more critical of such a technique is neither here nor there. It is simply the fact that the research exists. Some researchers, not all of them can be named in such a publication, do find what they interpret as a connection between tree growth and CO2 concentrations. My simple question is, 'what's the uncertainty associated with such measurements?'. Why don't we stick to one argument at a time rather putting words in my mouth?

Coby,

I admit that it is very hard for me to keep up with all the 'data' that is used to check the output of models. The one example that comes to my mind is from chapter 6 of 'Statistical Analysis in Climate Research' where the authors discuss signal processing in general and applying such rules to the CO2 signal. You check out most of the chapter on Google scholar. But the analysis of this research points out that the big systematic problem is the lack of a true 'control' regime. In describing how researchers get around this fact, the authors point out there is no method which can be reliably applied. So I don't think it is necessary to make a table of the different data and why each one of them has issues. They all seem to have the same issue of being ill-conditioned with respect to an unknown uncertainty that is very difficult to properly propagate error in these climate models.

The fact that you bring up my 'convictions', again, I think only serves to further cloud this discussion. My simple conviction is that there should be a strict application of the scientific method to produce scientific information. That means models have a place next to theory and experiment in importance, and not above them simply because all we can do is scientifically model our climate. I have a similar skepticism of ideas like string theory although there is a community of researchers who push its importance. It just doesn't seem like science if they can't tell us experimentalists how to prove or disprove the theory's implications.

dhogaza,

Newton laws are a mathematical model. I will agree with such an idea. But climate models are SCIENTIFIC models which are, in their nature, very different from the Newtonian laws they use to 'make' data. I think you need to better appreciate this difference.

That you are willing to distrust my opinion and frame my knowledge as 'undergraduate' despite the fact I graduate 6 years ago and have done research since is not shedding the best light on your position. Also, one doesn't gain PhD candidacy right out of undergrad. Why bring up such things if you have such a strong argument? Just explain the answers to the questions I have posed. Ultimately, is the push of this plan to just destroy the reputation of those who disagree with you?