The Consistent-With Chronicles
May 2nd, 2008Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Scientists are fond of explaining that recent observations of the climate are “consistent with” predictions from climate models. With this construction, scientists are thus explicitly making the claim that models can accurately predict the evolution of those climate variables. Here are just a few recent examples:
“What we are seeing [in recent hurricane trends] is consistent with what the global warming models are predicting,” Thomas Knutson, a research meteorologist at a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration laboratory in Princeton, N.J., said Friday.
link
In a change that is consistent with global warming computer models, the jet streams that govern weather patterns around the world are shifting their course, according to a new analysis by the Carnegie Institution published in Geophysical Research Letters.
link
Francis Zwiers, the director of the climate research division of Environment Canada, said research consistently showed the addition of sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has changed rainfall patterns in the Arctic. Zwiers and his colleagues made their findings using 22 climate models that looked at precipitation conditions from the second half of the 20th century. Writing in the journal Science, Zwiers said these findings are consistent with observed increases in Arctic river discharge and the freshening of Arctic water masses during the same time period.
link
The fact that we are seeing an expansion of the ocean’s least productive areas as the subtropical gyres warm is consistent with our understanding of the impact of global warming. But with a nine-year time series, it is difficult to rule out decadal variation. link
All of this talk of observations being “consistent with” the predictions from climate models led me to wonder — What observations would be inconsistent with those same models?
Logically, for a claim of observations being “consistent with” model predictions to have any meaning then there also must be some class of observations that are “inconsistent with” model predictions. For if any observation is “consistent with” model predictions then you are saying absolutely nothing, while at the same time suggesting that you are saying something meaningful. In other contexts this sort of talk is called spin.
So I have occasionally used this blog to ask the question — what observations would be inconsistent with model predictions?
The answer that keeps coming up is “no observations” — though a few commenters have suggested that a temperature change of 10 degrees C over a decade would be inconsistent, as too would be the glaciation of NYC over the next few years. These responses certainly are responsive, but I think help to make my point.
Others, such as climate modeler James Annan, suggest that my goal is to falsify global warming theory (whatever that is):”no-one is going to “falsify” the fact that CO2 absorbs LW radiation”. No. James is perhaps trying to change the subject, as I am interested in exactly what I say I am interested in — to understand what observations might be inconsistent with predictions from “global warming models,” in the words of climate modeler Tom Knutson, cited above.
Others suggest that by asking this questions I am providing skeptics with “talking points.” The implication I suppose is that I should not be looking behind the curtain, lest I find a little wizard at the controls and reveal that we are all actually in Oz. How silly is this complaint? If the political agenda of those wanting action on climate change is so sensitive to someone asking questions of climate models that it risks collapsing, then it is a pretty frail agenda to begin with. I actually do not think that it is so frail, and in fact, my view is that the science, and policies justified based on scientific claims, will be stronger by openly discussing these issues.
A final set of reactions has been that climate models only predict trends over the long-term, such as 30 years, and that anyone looking to examine short-term climate behavior is either stupid or willfully disingenuous. It is funny how this same complaint is not levied at those scientists making claims of “consistent with,” such as in those examples listed above. Of course, any time period can be used to compare model predictions with observations — uncertainties will simply need to be presented as a function of the time period selected. When scientists (and others) argue against rigorously testing predictions against observations, then you know that the science is in an unhealthy state.
So, to conclude, so long as climate scientists make public claims that recent observations of aspects of the climate are “consistent with” the results of “global warming models,” then it is perfectly appropriate to ask what observations would be “inconsistent with” those very same models. Until this follow up question is answered in a clear, rigorous manner, the incoherent, abusive, and misdirected responses to the question will have to serve as answer enough.
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:48 am
“So, to conclude, so long as climate scientists make public claims that recent observations of aspects of the climate are “consistent with” the results of “global warming models,” then it is perfectly appropriate to ask what observations would be “inconsistent with” those very same models.”
Roger, for the thousandth time- it depends on which models and which assumptions. Why don’t you ask those scientists you quoted which models they are referring to, and under what assumption were the projections derived?
“…the incoherent, abusive, and misdirected responses to the question will have to serve as answer enough”
You are choosing to make public statements about things that you apparently don’t have a good handle on. It’s not exactly surprising when that results in criticisms. From my perspective, you’re being treated rather lightly. For example:
“Others suggest that by asking this questions I am providing skeptics with “talking points.”"
It’s not the questions, Roger. It’s your baffling repetition of denier memes- “They’re predicting global cooling”, “I’m not allowed to question modeling”, “global warming is predicted to be monotonic”, etc.
I had thought that my initial post in the last thread where you butchered the findings of that Nature study may have been a bit harsh, but the more and more of your writing I read, the more I think it was too polite.
You either don’t understand what you are doing, or you do and are doing it intentionally. You are grossly distorting things and making claims pretty much indistinguishable from the kind of garbage posted in the comments on CA or Watts’s blog.
When you get called on it, you complain. You demand other people answer your questions while ignoring questions put to you by those kind enough to offer you a response.
And I see that you did in fact choose to move the goalposts when your claim was invalidated. (From the other thread:)
The thrust of your argument leads me to suspect that even if you were provided with specific examples that invalidated your assertion- “nothing is inconsistent with warming”- you would move the goal posts to a position that such examples aren’t meaningful.
“These responses certainly are responsive, but I think help to make my point.”
Roger, you have no point. You are demanding answers to a question that has been repeatedly pointed out to you is virtually unanswerable in its vagueness.
What would be an observation inconsistent with a model? Pick the model. Pick the assumptions. Run it a few dozen times. Then you’ll have a framework from which to compare observations.
To repeat a question posed to you by a different poster more than once:
What could you observe in the weather in the next week that would be inconsistent with the idea that summer is approaching?
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:10 am
Jon shows his true colors:
“repetition of denier memes”
“You are grossly distorting things and making claims pretty much indistinguishable from the kind of garbage posted in the comments on CA or Watts’s blog”
Jon says, “Why don’t you ask those scientists you quoted which models they are referring to, and under what assumption were the projections derived?”
Um, isn’t this exactly what I am doing?
Jon, I’ve heard your complaints, and you’ve aired them now several times. I think we can let readers judge the exchange on its merits. You are welcome to continue posting, but please do try to keep it civil.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 am
Roger:
I apologize for my frustration getting the better of my manners. It has been a long week for me, but that is no excuse.
RE: “repetition of denier memes”
I am not accusing you of being a ‘denier’, I was explaining that when others say you are providing cover for skeptics, it isn’t simply because you are ‘asking questions’, it’s because you are actively saying the same things the deniers do- claims of global cooling, that warming should be monotonic, etc.
I understand that you are not a skeptic insofar as you accept that anthropogenic increases in GHGs are warming the planet. One doesn’t have to be a denier of the science in order to feed others who are. I think, in some sense, you are aware of that.
Your questions aren’t the problem. Your unfounded claims and failure to incorporate the answers when given are.
“Um, isn’t this exactly what I am doing?”
I don’t know, did you contact Knutson, Zweiers, et al directly?
It may be that they were speaking about specific models and could help you answer your question. It may be that they were speaking beyond what is actually supportable. I guess my question is- if you are aware that there are indeed some things that would be inconsistent with most if not all models given current assumptions, what specifically are you after?
If you just flat out stated “models are not useful policy tools because they do not offer annual/multiannual/decadal (or what have you) forecasts” we could have something to sink our teeth into. I suspect you haven’t said that because you know the policy stakes are longer term, as are the IPCC (as an example) model projections.
It seems, in short, as though you are whinging and there isn’t anything anyone can say to satisfy your incredibly vague question.
As for my manners, if you’d like, let’s start the slate clean. You have my full apologies for the tone (vs. the substance) of my criticisms.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:31 am
Jon,
Why don’t you pick one model, appropriate assumptions, and any reasonable observation that would be inconsistent with that model. Then you can answer “Yes, there is an observation that would be inconsistent with this model and these assumptions.”
Argument over, you win.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
Roger — Come on. Type [climate, GCM, conflicts with model] into Google Advanced Scholar. Find “about 759″ hits, full of papers in which researchers acknowledge inconsisties and use them to improve their models. This is how it’s done, right? You could have done this yourself and answered your own question.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:35 am
Roger — Come on. Type “climate, GCM, conflicts with model” into Google Advanced Scholar. Find “about 759″ hits, full of papers in which researchers acknowledge inconsistancies and use them to improve their models. This is how it’s done, right? You could have done this yourself and answered your own question.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:39 am
It seems to me you could make a perfectly parallel argument as follows. Lets say we have a physical theory:
“If heat is applied to a pot, the water in the pot will warm.”
And with this we have the observations:
“The Water in Pot A cooled because ice was poured into it at the same time as it was being warmed.”
So Pileke Jr. argues that water cooling when heated is consistent with our physical theory, therefore our physical theory has no predictive value.
Which is ridiculous. But why is it different from the claim you are making?
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:44 am
rwvalentine:
“Why don’t you pick one model, appropriate assumptions, and any reasonable observation that would be inconsistent with that model. Then you can answer “Yes, there is an observation that would be inconsistent with this model and these assumptions.”
Argument over, you win.”
Doesn’t that depend on what your definition of “reasonable observation” is? I already said sustained global mean decrease in temps for 20 years would be inconsistent with the current (or at least used for the AR4 from my understanding) version of ModelE. I would also assume that sustained, significant warming of the stratosphere would be inconsistent with current assumptions as well.
Does this mean “I win” (which I don’t care to do, I’d rather just find out what the point of this line of inquiry is), or are my proposed observations not “reasonable”?
If we reduce extreme amount of vagueness inherent in the question, we can work towards a satisfactory answer.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:54 am
Jon,
I think you make Roger’s point. Sustained global mean decrease (I assume this means 20 years in a row of decreasing temps) has zero probability which I define as not reasonable. I think Roger is just trying to put some limits on the problem. As a newbie, this thread is very illuminating.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 am
“I think you make Roger’s point. Sustained global mean decrease (I assume this means 20 years in a row of decreasing temps) has zero probability which I define as not reasonable.”
What is “reasonable” if you accept that anthropogenic warming is and will be occurring? My example of significant stratospheric warming isn’t “reasonable” if you assume that anthropogenic warming is taking place, but isn’t the point to say what observations would be inconsistent with what we would expect?
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
Jon- Thanks, clean slate appreciated.
Lets look at this from another direction. Lets start with observations.
Since all of the discussion focuses on trends (and only surface temperature, but we’ll get there in a sec), is it safe to conclude that using the construction “consistent with climate model projections” is misleading if done with respect to particular events, such as “Hurricane katrina was consistent with what we expect based on climate model projections”?
This seems not controversial, but lets start there.
If we necessarily focus on trends then the next question is with respect to what variables? Mean surface temperature is on the list. Others? It seems clear that number of global tropical cyclones in not on the list because models project more and less. But what other variables? Stratospheric temperatures. Atmospheric moisture content . . . what else?
OK, with variables in hand, the next question is, what values of those variables would be consistent/inconsistent with model projections, over what time period, and with what certainty? This question needs to be addressed before observations are made so that the community doesn’t find itself playing defense, as some climate blogs do.
Now with respect to the model, Jon wants to use a single model. I understand his point, but my interest is with respect to the ensemble of relevant models. The IPCC report provides a authoritative delineation of what these models might be, but it is already dated, and there are already more models with different predictions (e.g., the Nature paper this week). So I would prefer to focus on climate model predictions generally, we can call this a consensus, or a spread, and it certainly has to be defined. This exact discussion is going on over at Climate Audit with respect to tropospheric temperatures, and there are clearly legitimate differences of opinion on how to aggregate a range of model predictions in a way to compare with observations.
To avoid cherry picking, selection bias and the like, all of the above needs to be mapped out before the observations are taken and compared to models.
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
“So I would prefer to focus on climate model predictions generally, we can call this a consensus, or a spread, and it certainly has to be defined.”
If it has yet to be defined, how can you so assert that NO observation will be inconsistant with it?
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
BCL- I’ve addressed your comments about theory on another blog. I have advanced a hypothesis, prove me wrong. That is the point of this exercise. Of course some observations are inconsistent (e.g., glaciation of NYC). I want know know what they are.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
It is not new that our blog has some comment problems (hence I’m surprised at all of this commenting!). If your comment doesn’t appear right away in the next few hours, please be patient. All in the queue will appear later today. As always, if you have an unresolvable comment problem, email me. Thanks
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
“is it safe to conclude that using the construction “consistent with climate model projections” is misleading if done with respect to particular events, such as “Hurricane katrina was consistent with what we expect based on climate model projections”?”
It wasn’t Katrina per se, it was Katrina picking up strength due to the above average ocean temps (IIRC it wasn’t that the warmer water itself was even claimed to be consistent with anthropogenic warming, there’s a loop of warm water in that area that has contributed to Atlantic hurricane intensity in the past, it was just a sort of consciousness raiser of warmer waters contributing to cyclone intensity)- but I myself would stay away from such examples of single data points, especially given the emotion involved. I am not saying one cannot say part of Katrina’s behavior is consistent with with regional modeling of ocean temps for that area or consistent with an uptick in intensity for Atlantic cyclones- just that I wouldn’t personally. It’s more troublesome than illuminating, at least from my perspective.
“OK, with variables in hand, the next question is, what values of those variables would be consistent/inconsistent with model projections, over what time period, and with what certainty?”
This, is, I think where we are getting into loggerheads. You seem to be calling for standardization of inputs across many models? Is that right?
“my interest is with respect to the ensemble of relevant models. The IPCC report provides a authoritative delineation of what these models might be, but it is already dated, and there are already more models with different predictions (e.g., the Nature paper this week).”
Not to nitpick, but a bit of clarification- the model used in Keenlyside 2008 was the ECHAM5/MPI-OM model used in the AR4 (it’s a teal color in Fig 10.5). In that sense it isn’t the model itself that is different, it is the inclusion of variability relating to MOC and the short timescales forecast.
“So I would prefer to focus on climate model predictions generally, we can call this a consensus, or a spread, and it certainly has to be defined.”
How often should such a consensus be generated, i.e. are the IPCC ensemble projections too slow in coming for your needs? They are attempting to incorporate higher resolution modeling of regional and short term projections in the AR5.
This may be of interest: http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session28/doc8.pdf
“To avoid cherry picking, selection bias and the like, all of the above needs to be mapped out before the observations are taken and compared to models.”
This post has been worlds apart in tone and clarity from the initial post you made that I took such issue with.
Read the plans for the AR5 changes, and let’s go from there. I don’t think that anyone is going to complain about wanting to increase the usefulness of modeling- we just need to define the goals.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
And I would add that a great deal of this:
“using the construction “consistent with climate model projections” is misleading if done with respect to particular events”
is likely due to reporters asking/framing the question that way. In which case, then I don’t see why one wouldn’t answer in the affirmative if the event is consistent, provided the caveat is included that the dominance of internal variability in the system makes attribution for the event basically a non-starter.
I’ve seen a lot of media coverage that featured the “consistent with” part and buried the caveat at the end. That’s on the reporter, not the scientist.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Roger,
The most current version of your hypothesis is that some so far undefined consensus model will prove to be consistent with all observations. How is anyone supposed to refute a hypothesis about a non-existant object?
On Annan’s blog you seem to be arguing that the fact a theory produces no falsifiable claims is not a knock against it qua theory. Which is a little disturbing, frankly.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Jon, blaming reporters is old hat. If a scientist or any other person sees something reported about them that is wrong or inconsistent with what they actually said, they can write the newspaper or magazine or radio show and seek to have it corrected. Most newspapers have correction pages and take letters to the editor, and will especially publish those that are from people they report upon. Larger media have ombudsman who will make their reports. If this isn’t happening, I suggest that scientists contact the Society of Professional Journalists, Editor and Publisher, the Freedom Forum, Columbia Journnalism Review or numerous media watchdog groups. Don’t blame the reporter if the scientist leaves the impression he doesn’t give a damn.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Jon–
You fail to answer Roger’s question by resorting to vagueness. Also, I think, even in your choice, you are exaggerating what is required to falsify the theory of AGW, climate models or anything.
First: What’s a sustained 20 year down trend? Does you mean that if 20 years happen, and we do an OLS curve fit and get a less -0.0001C/century, you admit that’s inconsistent? Or do you mean, that every year must be colder than the previous one? The English language permits both interpretations.
Second: Either way, does the IPCC need to be *that* far off for you to consider them wrong? What if, in 20 years, the temperature increase is only 0.0001 C/century on average with no major volcanic eruptions to explain the cooling?
I also question your supposition that asking these things somehow gives skeptics cover. Skeptics don’t need or ask for cover. They just exist.
In my opinion, it is people who suggest we may NOT discuss these things openly who foster skeptics. The prohibition of discussion fosters skepticism for exactly the reason Roger suggests: it conveys the impression the theory is so weak that it might break.
For those who understand the science, this may not matter. They will read,ask questions and figure out what they believe even if you try to tell Roger not to ask these things. But for those who don’t understand science, the appearance of censorship will cause many to conclude that those advising silence and censorship have the weaker position. And the seeds of skepticisms will be sown.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
A scientist here in Québec gave an example that nothing is inconsistent with computer model.
In 2006-07, we had a warm winter with little snowfall. The first snowfall happened in late january or early february. This was a first, well since the last time it happened in the 1930’s. So the scientist went on to describe how computer model predicted this and how we would see much more of it.
In 2007-08, we had a cooler winter with a record snowfall. This was a first, well since the last time it happened in the 1960’s, The same scientist went on the same show to describe how AGW was to blame and that computer model predicted this and how we would see much more of it.
Is it just me or computer model predicts that we will see much more of what already happened in the past.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
“You fail to answer Roger’s question by resorting to vagueness.”
His question itself is so vague as to be meaningless. If he has a specific model or group of models and specific assumptions in mind, he can ask what would be inconsistent with them. The undefined way he uses the word “models” makes his question unanswerable short of gross exaggerations (e.g. 10C changes within a decade).
If you and he are using some pre-agreed upon definition of “models” that the rest of us aren’t aware of, define it. If you aren’t then you are making assumptions about what he is asking that I am not willing to do. He seems to be working towards a definition, but I still specifically can’t tell what he is looking for. Until then his question remains… not meaningful.
“First: What’s a sustained 20 year down trend? Does you mean that if 20 years happen, and we do an OLS curve fit and get a less -0.0001C/century, you admit that’s inconsistent? Or do you mean, that every year must be colder than the previous one? The English language permits both interpretations.”
I meant a twenty year running average of below a modern (e.g NCDC’s or HadCRUT’s) mean anomaly baseline. I would hazard that a monotonic cooling shorter than that would be inconsistent with most GCMs under current assumptions, but I’m not particularly comfortable speculating about “models in general”.
“Either way, does the IPCC need to be *that* far off for you to consider them wrong?”
No. I used an example I felt comfortable assuming would apply to the incredibly vague set “models”. Nor does “wrong” mean the same thing as “inconsistent”. It’s important to define terms.
“What if, in 20 years, the temperature increase is only 0.0001 C/century on average with no major volcanic eruptions to explain the cooling?”
IIRC that would be inconsistent with ensemble projections, yes. But don’t take my word for it.
“I also question your supposition that asking these things somehow gives skeptics cover.”
No offense, but in that case I question your reading comprehension. I explicitly stated it did not.
“Skeptics don’t need or ask for cover. They just exist.”
Sure they do. And in the other thread you can see them repeating Roger’s false claim of predicted global cooling. Would that user have done so in that thread had Roger not made that spurious claim? No one can say. I know that if I were interested in clear and open discussion, I would not have been so misleading in my terminology.
“In my opinion, it is people who suggest we may NOT discuss these things openly who foster skeptics.”
You are discussing it. Roger is discussing it. There seems to be a great deal of confusion between what you and Roger consider to be “allowed” versus being criticized. You are free to discuss whatever you want. But if what you are saying is incorrect or dishonest, others are equally free to ignore, criticize, or even mock it. Freedom is a two-way street.
“The prohibition of discussion”
If someone would like to point out where the Official Prohibition on Discussion of Climate Science is, I’d love to see it. I’ve heard so much about it…
“for exactly the reason Roger suggests:”
Doesn’t it strike you as somewhat silly, if not straining credulity for someone with as many outlets as Roger to be complaining about limits on his ability to discuss things- on his own site.
“it conveys the impression the theory is so weak that it might break.”
Open and honest inquiry as to the strengths and weaknesses of various aspects of climate science will lay bare the strengths and weaknesses. And this applies to other areas of science as well. Scientists are happy to talk about areas of uncertainty in their work when approached by someone without an agenda. They can get defensive when under attack by those that don’t understand the basics of what they authoritatively dismiss. The same phenomenon happens with biology and creationists.
“For those who understand the science, this may not matter. They will read,ask questions and figure out what they believe even if you try to tell Roger not to ask these things.”
I’ll say this for what I hope is the last time- it isn’t Roger’s questions that are the problem. It’s his spurious claims and seeming reluctance/refusal to accept and address the answers he does receive that are the problem. It seems that we are getting beyond that- I certainly hope so.
“But for those who don’t understand science, the appearance of censorship will cause many to conclude that those advising silence and censorship have the weaker position.”
*What* censorship?
Someone criticizing you isn’t censorship. This is Roger’s own website. Who is censoring him?? How does this not slap people in the face when they type it?
People like — some people enjoy propagating the illusion of censorship as though science has something to hide. This isn’t a tactic unique to climate skeptics. There’s a movie out right now alleging the same thing about evolution. It’s one of the oldest canards in the book. Surely you can see that.
Look at the dozens and dozens of skeptic outlets on the internet. Where is the censorship?
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Jon wants a specific list of models, how about those listed in Table S.10 here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10-supp-material.pdf
For variables, lets use the four cited in the media coverage above (coming from scientists not reporters):
Hurricane trends
Location of jet stream
Arctic river discharge
Size of subtropical gyres
Time frame? How about to 2020.
Over to you.
PS. Jon, I’ve not complained about censorship, (oh the stories I could tell;-) only rude behavior and we are now past that I think, so thanks for taking the high road.
As you know a few folks asked for corrections/edits to my original post, and I complied with edits. Lets keep that clean slate in mind, OK?
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Roger, you are quite right. There is absolutely nothing that could possibly falsify the settled science of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. The coming disaster of coastal floodings, hurricanes, droughts, floods, desertification, and total loss of Terran biosphere is already a fait accompli. The question is when? We do not deal in such things as fixed time periods, so you must excuse us for that. But we find that the freedom to predict within an open time frame allows us a great deal more latitude than if we were to confine ourselves to time frames within our lifespan.
I hope that answers your question.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
“PS. Jon, I’ve not complained about censorship, (oh the stories I could tell;-) only rude behavior and we are now past that I think, so thanks for taking the high road.”
It was in reference to the “allowed to ask” and “heresy” comments. I know that you did not explicitly claim censorship. Again, I apologize for my earlier tone. You do see how silly it is for someone else to allege that you cannot engage in the very discussion you have dedicated two posts in as many days on your blog to though, don’t you?
“As you know a few folks asked for corrections/edits to my original post, and I complied with edits. Lets keep that clean slate in mind, OK?”
I am not trying to offer a value judgment by saying “spurious”. I was offering my account of what happened. I am not trying to name-call in the process.
Anyway, I am off to visit family. I will take a look at the meat of this last post later tonight or tomorrow. If this thread is still alive, I’ll respond here or try to catch you in whichever thread is current.
Have a good weekend, all.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Jon when you write this:
>>I am not accusing you of being a ‘denier’, I was >>explaining that when others say you are >>providing cover for skeptics, it isn’t simply >>because you are ‘asking questions’, it’s because >>you are actively saying the same things the >>deniers do- claims of global cooling, that >>warming should be monotonic, etc.
You and others are appear to be advancing or endorsing the idea that Roger should self-censor questions or posts because you think it sound too much like something deniers say.
But in reality, Roger is asking valid questions about how the IPCC predictions and projections are communicated to the public. I think much of the confusion is due to the IPCC authors own choice of figures, and communication style (in the document and at blogs); if the IPCC authors did a better job, there would be less confusion.
Of course you are free to criticize Roger for ask reasonable questions. Or you could answer them. Or you could ignore them.
But in my opinion, it’s the criticisms that sound like calls to self censorship that foster skepticism and not Roger’s questions.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:52 am
The NASA surface temperature data is an outlier, but Hadley and the two satellite measurements (supported by the 3,000 ocean buoys since 2003) say that the annual temperature peaked in the strong El Nino year 1998.
With that as a given, then temperatures in 3 of the last 5 decades have been inconsistent with the climate models. Temperatures dropped in the 1960’s and 1970’s enough for some to worry about the beginning of the next ice age, while atmospheric CO2 steadily increased throughout the last 50 years.
Modelers recognise the inconsistency, and that is why new models are being developed, such as noted in this week’s press.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:52 am
The NASA surface temperature data is an outlier, but Hadley and the two satellite measurements (supported by the 3,000 ocean buoys since 2003) say that the annual temperature peaked in the strong El Nino year 1998.
With that as a given, then temperatures in 3 of the last 5 decades have been inconsistent with the climate models. Temperatures dropped in the 1960’s and 1970’s enough for some to worry about the beginning of the next ice age, while atmospheric CO2 steadily increased throughout the last 50 years.
Modelers recognise the inconsistency, and that is why new models are being developed, such as noted in this week’s press.
May 3rd, 2008 at 6:16 am
“You and others are appear to be advancing or endorsing the idea that Roger should self-censor questions or posts because you think it sound too much like something deniers say. ”
So expecting fact-checking and that someone read the article they devote a post to rather than rely on second hand media accounts is demanding “self-censoring”?
Just how far down the rabbit hole am I?
May 3rd, 2008 at 7:26 am
The temperature record of the past 50 years is inconsistent with predictions of the climate models.
The NASA ground temperature data is an outlier, but the other three authoritative sources (supported since 2003 by the 3,000 ocean buoys) show temperatures peaked in the strong El Nino year 1998. And so, this past decade joins the 1960’s and 1970’s as the 3 decades out of 5 to not follow the models’ predictions, failing to warm as atmospheric CO2 steadily climbed.
Climate modelers themselves rcognise the inconsistency, and that is why they are developing new models, as reported this week in the media.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 am
Jon
I’m a hard core skeptics on GW (not climate change). I believe that GW is anthropogenic in its source but mainly because the more alarmist rely only on surface temp which constant adjustment of the data would laudable in any other field of science.
Roger Pielke Sr and Jr did a lot more to soften my position than people like Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Gore and others will ever do.
Because of them, I would now accept some policy on mitigation though I would not go as far as they suggest.
The way you express yourself makes me reconsider my position to the extreme opposite of where you stand.
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
Sylvain: “The way you express yourself makes me reconsider my position to the extreme opposite of where you stand.”
And *where* exactly do I stand?
“Roger Pielke Sr and Jr did a lot more to soften my position than people like Hansen, Schmidt, Mann, Gore and others will ever do.”
Why wouldn’t your ‘position’ be dictated by the science itself rather than the opinions of individuals, regardless of background? No offense of course to any of said individuals.
Don B.: “The NASA surface temperature data is an outlier”
NOAA/NCDC has March as the second hottest month on record at .71C above its baseline, which is higher than GISTEMP’s (at +.63C). Demonizing GISTEMP is a convenient fiction. When NOAA, GISTEMP, and HadCRUT are plotted on a common baseline, they line up quite nicely.
I don’t want to argue with you, but I am happy to point you in the direction of non-biased information that addresses the rest of your post.
(Roger- I am not dodging you, when I get to an internet connection that lets me download a PDF at civilized speed, I will get back to you.)
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:38 am
GISTEMP had +.67 for March, not .63- my mistake.
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Yesterday, your father began a post on Climate Science with the following:
“The climate issue, with respect to how humans are influencing the climate system, can be segmented into three distinct hypotheses. These are:
The human influence is minimal and natural variations dominate climate variations on all time scale;
While natural variations are important, the human influence is significant and involves a diverse range of first-order climate forcings (including, but not limited to the human input of CO2);
The human influence is (dominant and) dominated by the emissions into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide.”
(Note: I added the parenthesis in the third hypothesis as I believe this more accurately describes the IPCC position and what RP senior meant to say.)
The question is: are any of the observations claimed to be consistent with the third (IPCC) hypothesis in your article above, inconsistent with the other two hypotheses? No, they are not! These claims of consistency are being used to suggest that the third hypothesis is the ‘correct’ one, when in fact, they do no such thing. The observations are just as consistent with the other two hypothesis (if not more so), and don’t shed any light on what is the ‘cause’ of the observed.
Furthermore, we should not be asking ourselves if any given observation is consistent with any given hypothesis, but what hypothesis is MOST consistent with ALL observations on all time scales. That is how the most accurate hypothesis is determined. That is how science is supposed to work.
Your father concludes that the observations fit the second hypothesis more than any other, while I lean a shade more towards the first. Now that the climate change community is being forced to admit that ocean cycles play a significant role in observed changes, I can not think of any observation that is more consistent with the third hypothesis than the other two.
On the other hand, there are many observations that are not consistent with the third (IPCC) hypothesis. For example, no Antarctic warming, insufficient upper-tropospheric warming, Spencer’s work in water vapor and clouds, regional step changes in temperature consistent with ocean step changes, the history of 20th century temperature change, the current lack of warming in the oceans and atmosphere, historical evidence of global climate change throughout the Holocene and so on…
Granted, elaborate excuses have been contrived, with little or no supporting evidence, to reconcile many of these observations with the AGW hypothesis, but those are examples of scientists defending a hypothesis in spite of the facts. No such spin is required to show that the other two hypotheses are more robust!
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Jon
“*where* exactly do I stand?”
From what we can read you stand right next to Al Gore.
“Why wouldn’t your ‘position’ be dictated by the science itself rather than the opinions of individuals, regardless of background? No offense of course to any of said individuals.”
This is quite simple, like the vast majority of people I don’t have sufficient knowledge to rely on my own comprehension.
This is why appearance of fair play and rigorous use the scientific method is very important.
When people and scientist refuse to debate, try to silence opinion, refuse to share data, refusal to publish updated data, adjustment of known corrupted data (surface station for example), one has no choice but hear the alarm ring. Sadly these phenomenon happens to often in climate science.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:08 pm
@Jim Clarke
“Now that the climate change community is being forced to admit that ocean cycles play a significant role in observed changes”
Tell me that this is satire. Please.
@Sylvain
“From what we can read you stand right next to Al Gore.”
Gore is irrelevant to the science.
“This is quite simple, like the vast majority of people I don’t have sufficient knowledge to rely on my own comprehension.”
If this is the case, wouldn’t it make sense to reserve judgment on the subject until such time as you do have sufficient knowledge to rely on your own comprehension? That way no one can ever accuse you of basing your opinion on misguided appeals to authority. Relying on someone else’s opinion can get a little dicey, especially if he or she is shown to have a financial interest expressing it one way or another.
“When people and scientist refuse to debate”
Science isn’t determined by debate.
“try to silence opinion”
There’s that censorship I keep hearing about and never see. Funny how that keeps popping up.
“refuse to share data, refusal to publish updated data”
You’d be surprised at the difference in attitude towards sharing data one encounters when it is requested without an agenda.
“adjustment of known corrupted data (surface station for example)”
What is your evidence that the balance of potential error is biased in a particular direction? While efforts are made to correct for observational error, why should the information already available not be used with the proper recognition of uncertainty?
“one has no choice but hear the alarm ring. Sadly these phenomenon happens to often in climate science”
They do? Because it sounds strangely as if you are citing allegations from Climate Audit and Watts’s blog rather than speaking from genuine familiarity. But that couldn’t possibly be true, could it? Surely no one would pretend that reading a few blogs with a similar ideological bent gives he or she the level of insight required to pass that kind of judgment on an entire branch of science- imagine the kind of hubris that would take.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I agree with you that Gore is irrelevant to science. Though he is much relevant in the process of politization of science.
“That way no one can ever accuse you of basing your opinion on misguided appeals to authority.”
There is not a single scientist with whom I agree at 100% with. I can agree with scientist A and disagree with B on one subject and agree with B and disagree with A on another. Like William M. Briggs like to say” people are too certain”. In too many cases uncertainties are under estimated.
I also have no choice to form an opinion, since I will be force to contribute to the solution, and in some case I’m already forced to contribute. The best example of unwise policy making is subsidies for Biofuel who were, at least in part, a solution to reduce CO2 output. Because of that the poorest people are paying a heavy price food. Not considering a 250 million$ taxes imposed to gas companies and a forced contribution on my drivers license to help mass transport that I can’t even access.
No science is not determined by debate. it is not determined by consensus either.
So when last summer Roger Pielke Sr asked Webster is data for his new paper (Webster and Holland 2007) and got for answer to search for it himself, I would have to believe that he has an agenda.
As for McIntire anyone can access any of is data and has a good reputation with scientist that are not related to the hockey team. They may not always agree with him and it should not be the case.
Instrumental temp poses a huge challenge since the vast majority don’t respect the CRN guidelines for proper location. From http://surfacestations.org/ you can see that 69% of stations are poorly situated while only 13% percent are correctly situated. The fact that the data is adjusted shows that is erroneous. Can you provide study for each and everyone of the possible error that proves that each error is correctly accounted for. In any other field of science this would not be accepted.
I never said that they were successful at silencing but there is many call made by alarmist to silence skeptics, example the current blog.
May 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 pm
If we’re talking about a collection of models that seem to provide a broad degree of scientific consensus, another study or model could certainly be inconsistent with that consensus, if such a study or model utilized an unbiased, science based set of variables and methodologies that used anomalies to explain why climate change is not occurring, and ideally, why other studies have gotten it wrong. That would certainly be inconsistent with the broader GW findings and deserving of consideration in terms of the evaluation of previous findings and/or modification of the previous conclusions. But observations on their own can be either consistent or inconsistent with models, depending on which variables are determined to most successfully explain the phenomena in scientifically persuasive manner. For example, the fact that Antarctica is not currently warming up in a manner comparable to the Arctic could, at face value certainly be considered to be inconsistent with the hypothesis that global warming is occurring. And it has been. However, if other studies show that that the Ozone hole very likely has an impact on the fact that Antarctica is not currently warming up, then presumably such findings make it much less likely that this anomaly is inconsistent with the broader consensus of global warming theories, and those who suggest that it is inconsistent might be considered to have the ball in their court, in terms of showing a satisfactory explanation as to why this explanation for anomalous Antarctic climate patterns are occurring does not satisfactorily exchange climate patterns there (for example), and thus does not negate the inconsistency of such patterns with the GW consensus.
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
oops, “exchange” at bottom of previous post should be “account for”.
May 4th, 2008 at 7:42 am
mb,
The argument that the Antarctic is not warming because ozone depletion is causing cooling is one of those ‘elaborate excuses with little or no supporting evidence’. It is a hypothesis generated to support another hypothesis that is failing to explain the observations. It is analogous to adding epicycles to the motion of the planets in order to keep the Earth-centric model of the universe viable. The only difference is that the epicycles did a much better job of matching the observations of planetary motion than the ozone hypothesis does at explaining Antarctic temperatures.
Aerosols in the mid-20th century are another such excuse. We have little quantitative knowledge about those aerosols and little understanding of their net impact on temperatures. It is just assumed that the aerosol effect was just the right amount to produce the observed cooling when the CO2 hypothesis indicated warming. Furthermore, no one has yet explained how those northern hemisphere aerosols cooled the southern hemisphere at the exact same time.
My point is that it takes a lot of these ‘atmospheric epicycles’ to make the AGW hypothesis fit the observed data. Without them, the AGW hypothesis is inconsistent with the observations. On the other hand, if we assign a much lower atmospheric sensitivity to increasing CO2, and acknowledge the natural climate cycles, for which there is ample observational evidence, the need for these atmospheric epicycles (contrived hypotheses) fades away, revealing a much more robust hypothesis as supported by RP senior and many others.
When scientists can employ any contrived hypothesis to make their model appear to be ‘consistent’ with the observations, policy makers need to ask which model is MOST consistent with the observations. Right now, policy makers are being led to believe that there is only one model, which obviously isn’t true. They are never given the chance to see which hypothesis of climate change is most consistent with reality.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:20 am
“On the other hand, if we assign a much lower atmospheric sensitivity to increasing CO2, and acknowledge the natural climate cycles, for which there is ample observational evidence, the need for these atmospheric epicycles (contrived hypotheses) fades away, revealing a much more robust hypothesis as supported by RP senior and many others.”
Please offer your quantitative estimate of sensitivity and explain how it is justified by paleo and observed data.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Jon= Up above a ways you wrote:
“Why wouldn’t your ‘position’ be dictated by the science itself . . .”
If you think political positions are dictated by science, well, do I have a book recommendation for you
May 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Jon said:
“Please offer your quantitative estimate of sensitivity and explain how it is justified by paleo and observed data.”
There is no correlation whatsoever between CO2 levels and subsequent temperature changes in the paleo record. There is a lot of temperature leading CO2 changes, but no statistical data supporting CO2 leading. What more do you need for paleo data?
As for observed data, “forcing” from equilibrium by CO2 is at an all-time high, yet has had no effect over the last decade (unless you quote the outlier reference, Hansen’s NASA).
I’m not quite sure I understand how you could be here and not get that.
May 4th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Sorry, delete that last sentence please.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Jon,
I think Harry has explained the how paleo data indicates little forcing from changing CO2, but I can expound a bit more on the observed data.
As scientists, we should start with what we know, which is that CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas that, all else being equal, will tend to produce warming as atmospheric concentrations increase. We also have a pretty good idea that a doubling of CO2 from around 300 ppm to 600 ppm would result in a forced warming of about 1 degree c, give or take, provided that the gas is well mixed and the skies are totally clear. Factor in the average global cloud cover and the number drops to about 0.6 degrees. That’s your answer.
While large feedbacks abound in computer models, we haven’t found any of them in the real world. Assuming that they are there because we think they should be, is more a matter of faith than science. The real interesting thing is that such a forcing from CO2, coupled with recognition of natural cycles, fits all observations on all time scales – no atmospheric epicycles required!
The obvious conclusion from this, although I am sure you are not ready to grasp it, is that the release of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels will have overwhelmingly positive effects on the biosphere, with no discernable, negative consequences. (Granted, real pollutants from fossil fuel burning will still be an issue, but not CO2.) Furthermore, all measures to mitigate the release of CO2 are not just useless, but counter-productive.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Jon,
Let me add one additional fact to Jim Clarke’s comments (with which I agree).
Warming due to co2 is a log function. Thus since co2 is increasing linearly (roughly, it’s not increasing exponentially) future warming due to co2 will be less than we have seen in the past. Thus we get the benefits of co2 fertilization for the biosphere and modest warming.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Jon,
Let me add one additional fact to Jim Clarke’s comments (with which I agree).
Warming due to co2 is a log function. Thus since co2 is increasing linearly (roughly, it’s not increasing exponentially) future warming due to co2 will be less than we have seen in the past. Thus we get the benefits of co2 fertilization for the biosphere and modest warming.
May 5th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Jon,
Let me add one additional fact to Jim Clarke’s comments (with which I agree).
Warming due to co2 is a log function. Thus since co2 is increasing linearly (roughly, it’s not increasing exponentially) future warming due to co2 will be less than we have seen in the past. Thus we get the benefits of co2 fertilization for the biosphere and modest warming.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Jim:
If what you are saying is about Antarctic cooling can be given credence, it would well answer the question that opened up this discussion. It would certainly on face be inconsistent with the global warming theories, right? Likewise, if the recent NASA-GISS study is a credible study then it would certainly provide reason for doubt re this set of observations as being inconsistent with global warming theory. Thus it is not the observations themselves, but the logic and persuasiveness of the scientific argument which ideally is based on the rigor and adequacy of the research design, the variables, and methodology.
NASA GISS clearly laid out their methodology and reasons for arguing that Antarctic climate patterns are related to the ozone hole, in a manner that does not seem over the edge. If there are reasons for skepticism about this they should certainly be part of the scientific discourse on this topic as long as they are based on scientific methodology and not name calling. Let peer review take its course. To paraphrase Lord Acton, peer review may not be perfect, its just that all other systems are worse.
As a political scientist rather than a climate scientist, interested in policy making and negotiations under conditions of uncertainty and possibly irreversible consequences, my concern is that historically science has been ill-served when outside vested private and ideological interests become too entangled in the discourse. From Gallileo to Lysenko, to tobacco and pharmaceuticals. When fossil fuel industries and right wing think tanks become key foundations for much anti global warming research, my first reaction tends to be one of deja vous all over again.
mb
May 6th, 2008 at 10:17 am
People like Jon use the derogatory term ‘denier’ to refer to those who follow a genuine scientific method that involves questioning, and yes, being ’skeptical’ about the research and claims of others. After 29 years in scientific research, not once would I say “don’t question our results or methodology or we’ll call you a denier.” This is flat earth science where no one is allowed to suggest that the earth is a sphere because models say it’s flat – A tactic intended to obstruct a debate that can’t be won.
Roger has been called a ‘denier’ or a ‘delayer’ for pointing out the scale of the problem regarding global CO2 emission reductions, and for testing IPCC sea level and temperature projections.
That said, the IPCC have climate got sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 well covered by a range of 1.1C to 6.4C for their modelled scenarios. Personally, I’d say 1.1C was the nearest to reality, and no one has published a definitive, proven sensitivity.
Recently, we have seen the emergence of new decadal models with much shorter term projections i.e. Smith et al (2007) who say natural climate variations will dampen the effects of man-made CO2 up to 2009, followed by at least half of the years between 2009 and 2014 exceeding the existing temperature record (1998), with a 0.3C warming by 2014.
Now we have a new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature (2008), suggesting that the Earth’s temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, to about 2015. However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020.
So, we have a couple of new model projections that both include natural cooling factors, but one says non-warming up to 2009, the other to at least 2015 to 2020.
We can test these models against observations without having to wait too long.
We also have Kerry Emanuel reconsidering the strength of the relationship between global warming and hurricane intensity. For Atlantic hurricanes, two of the seven model simulations Emanuel ran suggested that the overall intensity of storms would decline. Five models suggested a modest increase.
With so many models, giving such a range of projections – it’s difficult or impossible to falsify them all.
Furthermore, models can’t hope to replicate the complex climate system, which is far from fully understood – they are particularly poor where clouds are concerned, and at making predictions for the likes of ENSO and PDO.
Then we have the model for greenhouse warming itself, which predicts amplified Lower Troposphere warming compared to the surface, particularly in the tropics, and Stratospheric cooling (due to CO2 rather than Ozone). There is evidence that this model is falsified, particularly in the case of the tropical Lower Troposphere warming, or lack of it.
Models are useful diagnostic tools, but I wouldn’t stake my future on model projections that can’t be verified.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
The reason modelers hesitate to make decadal /multi-decadal and regional predictions is because they fully understand that GCMs currently have little to no predictive skill of the real climate system behavior in this time frame (from a numerical modeling standpoint, even finer grid resolution, more physical processes, ect. might yield only limited increases in real world predictive skill ). These types of forecasts are still in the domain of initial conditions, and skill (even of a model climate) is necessarily polluted by something called chaos. It haunts all non-linear dynamical systems, and the atmosphere/ocean is no special type of dynamical system.
The lack of decadal predictive skill is even more acute with regard to regional climates. No climate modeler disputes this in private. These limitations are the reason modelers squirm when asked to issue straightforward, verifiable predictions. Furthermore, many modelers also understand (but most are loathed to admit), that the lack of annual to decadal predictive skill also portends a lack of skill for longer term multi-decadal forecasts. It is a scientific absurdity to maintain that small changes in boundary values will somehow impart more forecast skill if one moves far enough out in time. The so-called prediction “sweet spot” is a completely untested hypothesis that is very likely mathematically untenable. The only way around this conundrum for the modeler is to make multi-decadal forecasts or projections which are so vague, as to render them practically meaningless. They say things like: “Models show warming of 1.5 to 5 C, for a doubling of C02 if run out over multi-decadal to century time spans.” For a prediction such as this, no real-world observation is inconsistent, because there is never really anything in the original statement but smoke and mirrors. If one makes the observation that over 10-20 years, mean global temperature is not rising, the apologist can always say, in the models, warming comes back with a vengeance just over the horizon. In this way, the beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. It is indeed a big Wizard of Oz machine. For those who choose to believe in the wizard, he is always right.
So Roger, you will not receive an answer to your question. To a climate modeler, your question is not well posed. I suspect you realize this however, and are rather using this argument to educate an otherwise uniformed public about what is really taking place here. If one can provoke these guys enough, they have two options. The first option might be to fess up about the limitations of what models are, and what they offer us in learning how the actual climate system works. The second option is to push the envelope and press onward to produce a forecast. Public demand for a forecast, I suspect, is exactly what has motivated the issuance of the new forecast in the recent Nature paper. The wizard has finally felt forced to do a trick. We will see how he does. In my opinion however, it is better for these guys to fess up clearly and publically now, and tell us precisely what they can and cannot predict with skill, rather than oversell them now, only later to lose face with the public. I believe that many modelers fear that if the public were fully educated about these forecasting limitations, it might inevitably lead to what many believe would be bad economic and energy policy decisions.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
mb,
Thanks for your comments. There are many reasons to doubt the validity of the NASA GISS explanation for the lack of warming in the Antarctic. Chief among them is that there model leaves no room for any natural warming or cooling of the continent. All the variables in there model are man-made. Do you think that in the absence of humanity, the climate of the Antarctic would never change? I don’t.
Furthermore, sweeping conclusions are being made on precious little data and rather large assumptions. Amazingly, we are asked to believe that steadily increasing CO2 and fluctuating amounts of ozone depletion always add up to no change in temperature year after year. One could marvel at this amazing coincidence or one could question whether or not these factors have any real influence at all. I think the latter would be wiser.
You wrote: “…my concern is that historically science has been ill-served when outside vested private and ideological interests become too entangled in the discourse.”
I would agree completely, but then you single out right wing think tanks and the fossil fuel industry as examples of said ‘interests’. In the debate on climate change, these organizations spend less than a few percent of all the monies involved in the debate. Do you think that governments have no vested interest in promoting another crisis, for reasons that have nothing to do with the advancement of science? Do you think that universities, where most of the research is done, have no vested interest in keeping the climate crisis alive and well, for reasons that have nothing to do with the advancement of science? If man-made global warming is shown to be a non-issue, governments will lose power and universities will lose face, not to mention millions annually in grant monies.
There are ‘vested interests’ on all sides and even in the peer-review process, largely controlled by academics and government employees. I don’t mind you questioning the motivation of right wing think tanks and oil companies, but the real power and motivation to corrupt the science exists in government funding and academic control of the research.
Ultimately, one must return to the science itself and determine which hypothesis explains the observations the best. The AGW/IPCC hypothesis doesn’t even come close to being the top contender.
One final note: You wrote the phrase “When fossil fuel industries and right wing think tanks become key foundations for much anti global warming research…” Does that mean that the vast majority of research into climate change is PRO global warming? Hmmmm
May 6th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Jim,
Thanks for your feedback . I tend to be rather leery about seeing the governments as in this case artificially manufacturing a crisis here. Particularly in the U.S., in view of the fact that if anything the government has a number of times taken positions to water down reports of scientists, both in government employ and by the National Academy of Sciences (which tends generally to be well regarded as a scientific arbiter). I have met researchers who were ahead of the ball on the ozone hole (at a time when many were saying that there was not enough evidence to warrant action) who have come to the conclusion that a similar situation exists with regard to climate change and I don’t think they were just sounding the bell to get a few extra grants. Does that mean that it’s a settled issue –not necessarily but I would say there does seem to be growing consensus in peer reviewed literature. And again, that could be wrong but in scientific matters peer review does seem like the best indicator for policymakers. I brought up the right wing think tanks and private interests in previous post because I have been particularly offended by the attempts to offer money for scientific anti GW research by the AEI not that long ago, and because the Exxon-Mobil support for anti GW work to me seemed very reminiscent of various previous tobacco and pharmaceutical company downplay risks that could lead to regulations that might be costly to them.
Re natural v. anthropogenic causes of climate change, very possibly both are at work, but it is the human induced factor that we have some power to do something about.
mb
May 8th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
mb,
You expressed an idea that is very popular these days, but has always perplexed me. You wrote: “I tend to be rather leery about seeing the governments as in this case artificially manufacturing a crisis here.” Why? The nastier side of human history is nothing but governments artificially manufacturing a crisis of one kind or another, in order to extract certain behaviors or wealth from the populace. Every despot starts by adopting a ‘noble cause’ then exaggerates the threat to that cause, making a crisis. The last two administrations, though not despotic, have resorted to similar behaviors quite often; Bush on Iraq and Clinton on a series of social issues, each issue proclaimed to be a crisis, requiring immediate action. Perhaps because the behavior is so common, people don’t recognize it.
On the other hand, private companies and corporations are often guilty of using persuasion to get individuals to buy their products and services, but rarely does this rise to the same level that is almost routine in world governments.
Preventing an AGW crisis would certainly be a noble cause if the threat was well established, but it isn’t. Exaggeration of the threat has been routine since the beginning, with constant attention to the direst scenarios, no matter how unlikely. The hostile treatment of those offering a different view is also a clue to what is happening. The consensus view has shut out hundreds of scientists with a different viewpoint, ignoring their evidence and restricting their resources. When these scientists turn to alternate sources to get their message out, they are further vilified by those who forced them to do it. (I am not talking about the scientific community per se, although they are compliant. I am talking about the political and environmental community that is pushing the issue.)
You can be leery about governments artificially manufacturing a crisis if you want to, but it is SOP most of the time. And while governments can force compliance regardless of the will of the individual, private corporations can only survive by pleasing their customers. While I do not have complete trust in either entity, it is the work of government that has earned the lion’s share of my skepticism.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:33 am
“Logically, for a claim of observations being ‘consistent with’ model predictions to have any meaning then there also must be some class of observations that are “inconsistent with” model predictions.”
Though I agree there’s a risk (and examples) of attributing too much to AGW, there are spatial and temporal patterns in the climate which are consistent with warming due to addition of GHGs, and *inconsistent* with other processes which might have caused decadal-scale warming, esp. the trend from the ca. 1960s to ca. 2000.
First, there’s the stratospheric cooling trend, due a combination of tropospheric GHG buildup and stratospheric ozone depletion. Surface warming driven by aerosol reduction would not be accompanied by stratospheric cooling.
Second, there’s the temporal pattern of surface change through the 20th Century. This pattern, especially the warming in the latter ~ 40 years, is inconsistent with forcing by aerosols, volcanic activity, and solar variability by themselves, and can only be reproduced when these forcings are combined with GHGs.
Finally, IPCC AR4 shows data from daytime/nighttime temperatures saying there was a decrease in cold nights and increase in warm nights over three intervals 1901-1950, 1951-1978, and 1979-2003. This pattern of diurnal temperature change seems to me to be another fingerprint of GHG-driven warming and inconsistent with other forcings.
Of course I suppose it’s always possible there are other still-undiscovered forcings which would give rise to these patterns, and/or they arise from natural variability.
But it would seem to these “fingerprints” constitute a class of observables which could provide falsification of at least some hypothesized forcings.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Received by email:
“Logically, for a claim of observations being ‘consistent with’ model predictions to have any meaning then there also must be some class of
observations that are “inconsistent with” model predictions.”
Though I agree there’s a risk (and examples) of attributing too much to AGW, there are spatial and temporal patterns in the climate which are consistent with warming due to addition of GHGs, and *inconsistent* with other processes which might have caused decadal-scale warming, esp. the trend from the ca. 1960s to ca. 2000.
First, there’s the stratospheric cooling trend, due a combination of tropospheric GHG buildup and stratospheric ozone depletion. Surface warming driven by aerosol reduction would not be accompanied by stratospheric cooling.
Second, there’s the temporal pattern of surface change through the 20th Century. This pattern, especially the warming in the latter ~ 40
years, is inconsistent with forcing by aerosols, volcanic activity, and solar variability by themselves, and can only be reproduced when
these forcings are combined with GHGs.
Finally, IPCC AR4 shows data from daytime/nighttime temperatures saying there was a decrease in cold nights and increase in warm nights over three intervals 1901-1950, 1951-1978, and 1979-2003. This pattern of diurnal temperature change seems to me to be another fingerprint of
GHG-driven warming and inconsistent with other forcings.
Of course I suppose it’s always possible there are other still-undiscovered forcings which would give rise to these patterns, and/or they arise from natural variability.
But it would seem that these “fingerprints” constitute a class of observables which could provide falsification of at least some hypothesized forcings.
Posted by: WHoward