Avoiding the Painfully Obvious
November 9th, 2005Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Over at RealClimate Gavin Schmidt has written a post defending the IPCC against a critique by Nigel Lawson, a member of the British House of Lords and former chancellor of the exchequer. An exchange I had with Gavin in the comments aptly illustrates why some people agree with Lawson when he claims, “the IPCC’s apparent determination to suppress or ignore dissenting views, which has become little short of a scandal, is part of a wider problem.”
Lawson has some strong things to say, “The IPCC process is so flawed, and the institution so closed to reason, that it would be far better to thank it for the work it has done, close it down, and transfer all future international collaboration on the issue of climate change to the established Bretton Woods institutions.” For his part Schmidt, gives no ground in his defense, “The IPCC makes its assessments in a very thorough writing and review process involving hundreds of scientists, open to critics, with transparent and predefined procedures. That it makes no proclamations in between the full assessments is not a ’scandal’, it simply is sticking to its sound and transparent procedures.” An open discussion on the IPCC is worth having. But here I’d like to focus in on how an exchange I had with Gavin reinforces one of Lawson’s main complaints about the IPCC and the climate science community, an inability to admit error.
Lawson points to those making connections of global warming and hurricanes Katrina and Rita as an indication of scientific excess. Schmidt responds as follows:
“Just how much of an error is revealed by Lawson’s last paragraphs in which he, ironically, he uses the notion of a scientific consensus to combat (admittedly widespread) popular claims of a direct link between the individual impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and global warming. Since no scientists have made a claim of direct cause and effect (see our recent post on potential statistical links between hurricane intensity and tropical warming), any scientific assessment (such as the next IPCC report) will certainly not do so either. It is precisely because such anecdotal ’science’ is not a balanced picture of the state-of-the-art that IPCC exists in the first place.”
I agree with Schmidt’s general comments. But I pointed out to Schmidt that he was simply wrong is his assertion that no scientist has made a claim of direct cause and effect. In fact, Kevin Trenberth who, ironically enough, is the lead author of the IPCC chapter on hurricanes, made an explicit connection between global warming and hurricane Katrina just last week in a congressional briefing organized by the American Meteorological Society. In one of Trenberth’s slides (PDF), reproduced below, he asks, “how big is the effect from global warming?” and answers, “Implies 1″ extra rain near New Orleans” right next to a picture of flooding and damage.
Let’s state the obvious. Trenberth is making a clear attribution between global warming and hurricane Katrina, and is suggesting a connection to the flooding. This is troubling because, as I pointed out on RealClimate, “Perhaps there are good scientific reasons for making such a claim, but they probably should go through peer review before being announced as fact (with no sense of uncertainty!) before policy makers. Especially when other scientists, like Kerry Emannuel, assert that such precise attribution is not possible. And further, given that the IADWG has published in JOC May 2005 that attribution of trends in precipitation to GHGs has not yet occurred, it stretches the credulity of this non-climate scientist to think that such precise attribution is possible for specific events.” Yet when I pointed this out to Schmidt, instead of admitting the obvious, he says the following:
“… you appear to be putting words into Trenberth’s mouth. He does not claim that Katrina was caused by global warming, and I’m surprised that you continue to interpret his words now and last year to conclude this. He has claimed that global warming is changing the background in which hurricanes form (which is clearly true), but that can in no way be construed as arguing that Katrina can be directly attributed to global warming. Trenberth is as aware as we are that individual events are not attributable in the sense that Lawson implies, and any consensus statement on the issue will agree. Let’s not be distracted by semantics.”
I find this response amazing because Schmidt is telling me not to believe my own eyes. When pressed Schmidt himself falls back on semantics, “I read the slide, and frankly, even if the context in which Trenberth placed the comment is as you assume, it is still not a direct attribution of a specific hurricane to global warming. To keep belabouring this point, it is quite clearly not what Lawson is referring to.” Can Schmidt think that such parsing will be taken seriously? How about simply stating that Trenberth is a bit forward on his skis here? Why the denial?
This is exactly the sort of behavior that Lawson has concerns about (and incidently which was cited as a factor in Chris Landsea’s resignation from the IPCC.). It is no wonder that some people are losing faith in the IPCC, its leaders and defenders seem to be incapable of admitting the validity of any dissenting views, even when those dissenting views are obviously correct right before your eyes.
November 9th, 2005 at 10:32 am
You’re stretching, Roger. The IPCC should be shut down because one of the scientists involved, outside the rubric of the organization, showed policy-makers a slide that, if interpreted uncharitably, implies a stronger link between global warming and hurricanes than current science supports? Really? And the refusal of another scientist, outside the rubric of the IPCC, to agree with your interpretation demonstrates a tendency on the part of the IPCC to suppress dissenting views? Really?
November 9th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
I think the problem here is that people confuse the IPCC reports with the IPCC organization and the individual authors. Of course some individuals will make intemperate statements — they are human, after all. But those intemperate statements will not make it into the written reports. And it is the written reports, which come from the peer-reviewed literature and are themselves peer reviewed, that matter. Virtually all scientists view them as the gold-standard of what we know and how confidently we know it.
If one looks at the IPCC working group I report, and considers the fact that despite repeated attempts, no one has been able to show where it misrepresented our scientific knowledge, I think one must conclude that the IPCC is adequately fulfilling its mission of summarizing our knowledge of the climate system.
Regards.
November 9th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
>>Let’s state the obvious. Trenberth is making a clear attribution between global warming and hurricane Katrina, and is suggesting a connection to the flooding<<
Bad Kevin! Bad! Bad Kevin!
Didn’t I hear Kerry Emanuel say something similar on the radio?
Bad Kerry! Bad! Bad Kerry! Ummm…wait. Roger hasn’t mentioned that.
Bad Roger! Bad! Ummm…wait.
I can’t say bad Roger. I don’t know what the rules are. They aren’t written down. I don’t know if Roger is being good or bad.
And neither are the rules written down for what Kevin and Kerry can or can’t say. So why, Roger, are we focusing on “bad actors” rather than “bad rules”? Shouldn’t we be discussing what the rules are, rather than whimsically bashing bad boys?
Bad Roger! Bad!
Best,
D
November 9th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
FFS Roger, there are 3 “likely”s in that slide, which if correct, imply an expected increase of 1″ of rain. There’s also the attribution of warming to anthropogenic effects which is previously described in uncertain terms.
There’s a big difference between estimating the magnitude of a likely effect and detecting it in some statistical attribution process. If I toss a pebble into a lorry-load of gravel, I expect to increase the weight by a few grammes, and there is no error in asserting this even if the weight increase is not detectable on a weighbridge.
Really, was that so hard to understand?
If not, I have a fun little dice-rolling game I’d like to play. We’ll have 6 rolls of a fair die, and when a 6 comes up, I win $4000, otherwise I lose $1000. Sounds good to you? Great. Only problem is, I’m going to cheat and change the 4 to a 6. But this bias will not be formally detectable in 6 rolls, so according to you any estimate of the bias is premature and not scientifically supportable. Will you still play, and if not, what excuse will you give?
November 9th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Andrew Dessler writes, “And it is the written reports, which come from the peer-reviewed literature and are themselves peer reviewed, that matter. Virtually all scientists view them as the gold-standard of what we know and how confidently we know it.”
I challenge any scientist who claims that the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) represents the “gold standard” of assessment–or even a scientifically valid assessment!–to label the following statements as “true” or “false,” based only on the material contained in the IPCC TAR. The statements refer to the amount of warming expected, from the year 1990 to 2100:
1) The IPCC thinks that there is an approximately 50/50 chance that the warming will be less than 3.6 degrees Celsius.
2) The IPCC thinks that there is an approximately 50/50 chance that the warming will be less than 3.1 degrees Celsius.
3) The IPCC thinks that there is less than a 10 percent chance that the warming will be less than 1.4 degrees Celsius.
4) The IPCC thinks that there is less than a 10 percent chance that the warming will be more than 5.8 degrees Celsius.
5) The IPCC thinks that there is more than a 50/50 chance that the warming will be less than 1.4 degrees Celsius,
6) The IPCC thinks that there is more than a 50/50 chance that the warming will be more than 5.8 degrees Celsius.
7) The IPCC thinks that there is more than a 99 percent chance that the warming will be less than 1.4 degrees Celsius.
The IPCC thinks that there is more than a 99 percent chance that the warming will be more than 5.8 degrees Celsius.
The reality is that the emperors are buck nekkid. And all manner of hand-waving, and declarations about the golden sheen of their garments, isn’t going to change that fact. Let them find a pleasant nudist colony. Then set up a procedure whereby actual science will occur.
For example, establish a system whereby accurate ***predictions*** are rewarded, and inaccurate ***predictions*** are punished…and “projections” are dismissed for the unfalsifiable pseudoscientific rubbish they are.
November 9th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Mark-
Pls see the previous exchange between us at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000596revisiting_bob_palme.html. I think it will remind you why your request for these “probabilities” is completely ignored by everyone.
Regards.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Roger – this is a disappointing post, pushing your hobby horse. You fail your own test (re the democrats resolution).
Lawsons main point is junk – his complete confusion (or rather, deliberate misrepresenation) over the IPCC’s role. I’d have liked to see you condemn him for that. I still would.
November 9th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Thanks all for your comments! A few reactions:
1. Dave- Who said anything about shutting down the IPCC? Not me (I’ve got a paper in press linked here a few times supportive of the IPCC!). My post was about RC and their defense of the IPCC. If RC ignores the obvious, then their defense of the IPCC will be viewed less credibly by many folks. Particularly since the claims to authority of the climate science community (which includes IPCC and RC) rests on their credibility.
2. Andrew- You have pointed to IPCC WGI. Should we not treat WGII and III equally?
3. Dano- Amen. How about we apply the same rules to skeptics and IPCC scientists alike? The first of which should be to be open to evidence. My post provides some evidence why the climate science community is viewed skeptically, and not just by skeptics. Read my post again, RC said no scientists were making claims of attribution to Katrina, and that is false. No one said anything about good or bad people. Trenberth is certainly entitled (probably more than most folks) to his views on this, but RC should not pretend that his views don’t exist, especially when
presented with them. For better or worse, providing hypothetical, back-of-the-envelope calculations in a Congresional briefing is not a good recipie for credibility.
4. James- Your powers of interpretation are better than mine, as I didn’t get anything about probabilities and loaded dice from Trenberth’s slide! Your point is a completely fair one, but let’s be clear, it is your point. Of course, your analogy is flawed from a decision making perspective because you postulate a bias, known in advance. If the die is represented as fair, we probably both will play until the evidence suggests otherwise. I’ve discussed in detail here and in my papers the expected impacts of GHGs on hurricane impacts. The loading is more like 1 in 22 to 1 in 60.
Thanks!
November 9th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Andrew Dressler writes, “Pls see the previous exchange between us…”
Yes, I’ve already seen it. Let me summarize it for you:
You incorrectly wrote, that the IPCC TAR was the “gold standard” for assessment of climate science.
I responded, regarding the IPCC TAR, “1) There are absolutely no probabilities estimated, and therefore they are completely invalid, as a matter of science.
The most fundamental requirement for science is that it must be falsifiable (capable of being proven wrong). Since there are no probabilities estimated for any of the projections, they are completely incapable of being proven wrong.”
In the course of responding to my assertion that the IPCC TAR “projections” are not science, you responded,
“The mistake you continue to make is that you conflate scientific assessments with science. Scientific assessments are sometimes referred to in the literature as “transcientific documents” — they summarize science, but are not themselves experiments, nor do they attempt to produce new knowledge. Your insistence that they be “falsifiable” therefore makes no sense. I note, however, that assessments are entirely based on falsifiable peer-reviewed publications.”
You last sentence is patently false, so of course you provided no evidence to back your assertion that the IPCC TAR is “entirely based on falsifiable peer-reviewed publications.”
If the IPCC TAR was indeed “entirely based on falsifiable…publications” that would mean that those publications would have had to have some probabilistic assessment for the likelihood of the scenarios. They did not. If you think they did, you should provide evidence to back your assertion.
You also wrote, “And your argument about confidence intervals and falsifiability demonstrates that you do not understand the difference between science and scientific assessment. When you understand that, you will come to understand why you and your arguments are ignored.”
I responded by providing a quote from Jesse Ausubel’s website: “The IPCC’s 2001 Third Assessment Report uses 40 scenarios which show decarbonization and carbonization going in all different directions with no probabilities attached. Failing to provide probabilities is unscientific and reveals the political bias of the results, said Ausubel.”
I then asked you whether you thought it was plausible that Jesse Ausubel doesn’t know, “the difference between science and scientific assessment.”
You never responded to my question. I take your lack of response as your silent admission that it is NOT plausible that Jesse Ausubel doesn’t know, “the difference between science and scientific assessment.”
So…to summarize: I (and Jesse Ausubel’s website) still say the IPCC TAR projections are not scientific, because they don’t have probabilities attached. You have provided absolutely no evidence to refute that assertion. The reason you have provided no such evidence is that such evidence does NOT exist. The IPCC TAR projections are not scientific, and that’s a scientifically provable fact.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:32 pm
Mark-
1) please point me to a single peer-reviewed article cited by the IPCC that you do not consider “science”. in case your fuzzy on the concept, an example of what is not science can be found at http://markbahner.50g.com/
2) how do you falsify a probabilistic projection? if I say there’s a 15% chance that the temperature increase in 2050 will be greater than 2 deg C, and the increase is actually 2.5 deg C, was my prediction right or wrong?
3) Jesse Ausubel disagrees with me? holy crap! I’m sure the thousands of other geophysicists he also disagrees with are equally astounded!
regards.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
Mark-
1) please point me to a single peer-reviewed article cited by the IPCC that you do not consider “science”. in case your fuzzy on the concept, an example of what is not science can be found at http://markbahner.50g.com/
2) how do you falsify a probabilistic projection? if I say there’s a 15% chance that the temperature increase in 2050 will be greater than 2 deg C, and the increase is actually 2.5 deg C, was my prediction right or wrong?
3) Jesse Ausubel disagrees with me? holy crap! I’m sure the thousands of other climate scientists he also disagrees with are equally astounded and embarrassed!
regards.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
Roger-
First, sorry about the duplicate post up above. I thought my first post got sent into the ether.
Re: your question about WGII and III. Let me begin by saying that my expertise in in WGI. That said, in my opinion the same arguments about the strength and solidity of the consensus apply much less to the areas of climate-change impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation covered by WGII and III. These areas have harder questions to answer, less developed bodies of data and evidence, a much wider range of disciplinary diversity to integrate, and longer causal chains to analyze (e.g., socio-economic trends make emissions make global climate change make regional climate change make diverse impacts on ecosystems, resources, and human societies). Consequently, it is much harder to attain an authoritative consensus declaration about the state of relevant scientific knowledge in these domains than it is for atmospheric science. Moreover, WGII and III also address areas in which it is much more difficult to achieve separation between positive questions, which in principle are amenable to scientific investigations, and normative questions, which are not.
This is slightly off my point, though. The point I was trying to make is who cares what Kevin Trenberth or Bill Gray say? You cannot trust any one individual scientist because you do not know what biases or agenda that single person has. Rather, it is through an assessment process that you are most likely to get an answer that is consistent with the scientific literature. I would bet that when the AR4 reports comes out, you’ll not have a problem with their summary of the effects of climate change on hurricanes.
Regards.
November 10th, 2005 at 1:49 am
Roger–I was at the Congressional Seminar Series and was surprised by Trenberth’s assertion that global warming may have caused an extra 1″ of rain from Katrina. (He went even further and suggested that the extra water may have been the difference between levees being topped or not.)
I don’t necessarily have a problem with a researcher presenting preliminary research (or a back of the envelope calculation in this case) as long as he/she characterizes it as tentative, unpublished work. But Trenberth offered no caveats when presenting this — so I think it’s fair to take him to task. As you’ve documented, Trenberth has a history of being “loose” with his public statements, which is not becoming of a lead author of an influential, policy relevant report — his otherwise stellar credentials notwithstanding.
Having said that, I agree with Gavin’s point it’s unfair to claim Trenberth said global warming CAUSED Katrina. Trenberth posited global warming may have enhanced Katrina, but that’s not the same as cause. Even if it’s semantics, it’s an important distinction, which you could concede.
Ultimately, though, you’re right that Gavin comes across as overly defensive. It would be nice if the Real Climate bloggers and friends would speak up when one of their own goes astray. I think Gavin’s defensiveness helps to crystallize my one issue with RealClimate.
They attack, attack, attack their “enemies” but those within their own “circles” are mostly beyond reproach. They should learn the important lesson “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.” Rather than slamming notable figures like Nigel Lawson, Michael Crichton, George Will, Pat Michaels, etc, why not concede or dare I say highlight the valid points “adversaries” make (and they make some) while constructively criticizing their questionable assertions. Doing anything short of this establishes bias and when contrasted with a general lack of self-criticism, reveals hypocrisy.
As the contributors to RealClimate and their colleagues/collaborators/friends are publishing a great deal of the important work in the literature, there is no need for them to be smug, defensive and/or confrontational. Their accomplishments speak for themselves. Rather, they should be respectful of dissenting opinions, open, transparent and self-effacing. They have a lot to be proud of and, in my opinion, offer the most credible and useful climate science commentary on the web despite their flaws. But why not try to be better?
November 10th, 2005 at 1:59 am
The last sentence in my previous rant (last post) got dropped– it should end: “It could only augment their credibility”
November 10th, 2005 at 8:13 am
OnTheInside- Thanks much for your thoughtful comments and report from the briefing. I am happy to concede your point that Trenberth did not claim that Katrina was caused by GHGs. But this is very much a strawman in my view. Once you start talking about the difference between the levees being topped or not, you are talking about attributing the damages to GHGs. In reality, the levees apparently were not overtopped, but failed from within. Thanks again.
November 10th, 2005 at 7:57 pm
Andrew Dessler writes, “1) please point me to a single peer-reviewed article cited by the IPCC that you do not consider “science”.”
Tell you what…you point me to the peer-reviewed article cited by the IPCC that came up with the A1F1 and A2 scenarios:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm
Unless that peer-reviewed article says something to the effect of, “These scenarios have no more chance of coming to pass than Andrew Dessler has of being elected President of the U.S. in 2008,” then I don’t consider the article to be science.
“… in case your fuzzy on the concept, an example of what is not science can be found at http://markbahner.50g.com/”
Heh, heh, heh! You’re funny man, Andrew!
Tell you what…why don’t you, in the immortal words of Ron Bailey, “Put up or shut up”?
On January 30, 2005, I posted on my blog my “50% probability” predictions for methane atmospheric concentrations, industrial CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant lower tropospheric temperature increases, every decade, for the period from 1990 to 2100. If you think you (and any of your scientist friends) can do better, why don’t you take your best shot? I’ve provided my predictions, why don’t you provide yours? (I made those predictions before I knew that the Spencer and Christy evaluation of lower tropospheric temperatures was wrong. But I won’t even bother to raise my predictions for lower tropospheric temperature, just to make it easier for you.)
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/01/prujections_ipc.html
I tell you what, to sweeten the deal, I’ll even give you $20 to make your predictions. (I’ll “only” give you $20, because according to you, you should be able to simply look at what the IPCC predicted, since that’s the “gold standard.” Bwahahahahaha!)
Andrew Dessler continues, “2) how do you falsify a probabilistic projection? if I say there’s a 15% chance that the temperature increase in 2050 will be greater than 2 deg C, and the increase is actually 2.5 deg C, was my prediction right or wrong?”
Oh, good grief! And you have the unmitigated gall to question MY grasp of science!
First of all, you might take a refresher course in probability distributions. (I could probably use one myself.) One can’t simply, based on one point and the probability associated with that point, say for certain what probability is associated with OTHER points on that distribution curve. For example, if the probability distribution is gaussian, then the 85% value represents the mean plus 1.04 standard deviations (if I’m reading my
“Experimental Methods for Engineers” correctly.) But you didn’t supply the value for the mean…or even indicate whether the distribution was gaussian or otherwise. So the answer to your question is that there is somewhere between an 85% and virtually 100% chance that you are wrong. (If the distribution was guassian, and the 50% probability value was 0.5 degree Celsius, then the probability that you’re wrong is close to 85%. But if the distribution was guassian, and the 50% probability value was 1.9 degrees Celsius, then the probability you’re wrong is virtually 100%.)
Now I have six questions for YOU to answer:
1) Suppose I told you that there was a chance that the temperature increase in 2050 would be greater than 2 deg C, and I did NOT give you the probability percentage, and the increase was actually 2.5 deg C…was my prediction right or wrong?
2) Now suppose I told you that there was a chance that the temperature increase in 2050 would be greater than 2 deg C, and I again did NOT give you the probability percentage, and the increase was actually 1.5 deg C…was my prediction right or wrong?
3) Suppose a weatherman told you that there was a 90% chance of rain tomorrow, and didn’t rain, was he right or wrong?
4) Now suppose a weatherman told you that there was a 10% chance of rain tomorrow, and it didn’t rain, was he right or wrong?
5) Suppose a weather man told you there was a chance of rain tomorrow, and did NOT give you a probability, and it didn’t rain…was he right or wrong?
6) Now suppose a weather man told you that there was a chance of rain tomorrow, and again did NOT give you a probability, and it did rain…was he right or wrong?
Andrew Dessler continues, “Jesse Ausubel disagrees with me? holy crap!”
Yes, Jesse Ausubel apparently disagrees with you. And *I* disagree with you, for the same reason Jesse Ausubel apparently does. You said the reason *I* disagree with you is because I don’t know, “the difference between science and scientific assessment.” Do you think that’s also why Jesse Ausubel apparently disagrees with you?
November 10th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Mark-
Here are a few thoughts:
1) You refuse to give me a citation of a paper cited by the IPCC that is “not science”. I can only assume that you agree with me that all papers cited are science. Son now the question is whether the IPCC misrepresents the science. Pls tell me what paper is misrepresented by the science.
Here is my prediction of CH4: I predict that in 2100, there is a 50% chance that CH4 will be greater than 2.334323423 ppmv, 50% less. FYI, I used the Bahner method to derive this: I made this up. And I defy you to falsify it!
You owe me $20, bucko. I hope you’re not a no-good welcher. I accept paypal, or you can mail me a check. (Let me know if you need predictions for any other years. I will provide them for only $10 each, or get 3 for $20).
3) Re: probabilistic distributions. You have no idea what the distribution of is, so I conclude that you cannot actually falsify any prediction. And even if one knows the distribution, a probabilistic estimate is not falsifiable if you only have one outcome. Here’s an example: Let’s say that I predict that I will roll a 6 on a six-sided die 16% of the time. I then roll it once and it comes up 3. Am I right or wrong?
4) Why is Jesse the arbiter of right or wrong? What credential does he have that you respect?
Regards.
November 11th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
Andrew, I thought I warned you about the Bahnerbot. See, there is no real, live person named “Mark Bahner.” It’s a cron job that searches for the term “IPCC” on this and a few other blogs and then when the bot sees the string, it posts a standard comment about probabilities of warming and such. If you reply to the auto-comment, it sends slightly altered comments to make it seem like it’s engaging you live. A pretty cool trick, but a bot nonetheless.
November 11th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Kevin-
Your hypothesis fits the existing data well. I estimate the probability that it is correct to be 50%. I wonder if that can be falsified??
In any event, I hope that the programming of Bahnerbot is such that it sends me the $20 it owes me.
Regards.
November 12th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
My own Bahnerbot was shut off, and I apologize sirs – it used to look for Bahner posts, and make a comment warning folk about engaging with the Bahnerbot.
If the Bahnerbots increase their number, which has a less than 50% probablity unless it changes it’s IP to an unbanned IP, I shall reactivate my Bahnerbot.
Best,
D
November 12th, 2005 at 4:27 pm
My desslerbot’s programming has produced an answer to bahnerbot’s recent questions:
1) Suppose I told you that there was a chance that the temperature increase in 2050 would be greater than 2 deg C, and I did NOT give you the probability percentage, and the increase was actually 2.5 deg C…was my prediction right or wrong?
Answer: Impossible to determine if the prediction is right or wrong.
2) Now suppose I told you that there was a chance that the temperature increase in 2050 would be greater than 2 deg C, and I again did NOT give you the probability percentage, and the increase was actually 1.5 deg C…was my prediction right or wrong?
Answer: Impossible to determine if the prediction is right or wrong.
3) Suppose a weatherman told you that there was a 90% chance of rain tomorrow, and didn’t rain, was he right or wrong?
Answer: Impossible to determine if the prediction is right or wrong.
4) Now suppose a weatherman told you that there was a 10% chance of rain tomorrow, and it didn’t rain, was he right or wrong?
Answer: Impossible to determine if the prediction is right or wrong.
5) Suppose a weather man told you there was a chance of rain tomorrow, and did NOT give you a probability, and it didn’t rain…was he right or wrong?
Answer: Impossible to determine if the prediction is right or wrong.
6) Now suppose a weather man told you that there was a chance of rain tomorrow, and again did NOT give you a probability, and it did rain…was he right or wrong?
Answer: Impossible to determine if the prediction is right or wrong.
November 12th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
My apologies to Roger Pielke Jr. for the length of my comments. Andrew Dessler has written many things I consider disrespectful and offensive, and I think it’s appropriate to respond to each of them.
Andrew Dessler writes, “1) You refuse to give me a citation of a paper cited by the IPCC that is “not science”. I can only assume that you agree with me that all papers cited are science.”
1) It was YOU–not I!–who made the claim that, “…it is the written reports, which come from the peer-reviewed literature and are themselves peer reviewed, that matter. Virtually all scientists view them as the gold-standard of what we know and how confidently we know it.”
2) I responded that the A1F1 and A2 “scenarios” in the IPCC TAR are NOT science…unless there is a statement somewhere that says they have absolutely zero chance of coming to pass.
3) If YOU think the A1F1 and A2 scenarios are backed by some peer-reviewed paper, then YOU should provide the reference to that paper.
4) I don’t think the A1F1 and A2 scenarios ARE backed by any peer-reviewed paper. I obviously can not provide a reference to something that I don’t even think exists! If you think that some peer-reviewed paper exists that supports the A1F1 and A2 scenarios in the IPCC TAR, YOU should point me to that “peer-reviewed paper.”
Andrew Dessler continues, “Son…”
1) I am not your son.
2) I graduated from Virginia Tech and began work in designing and analyzing advanced coal-fired and nuclear power systems when you were probably still in high school, but much more importantly…
3) The only man who has the legitimate right to call me “Son,” is a far, FAR better man than you are now, and probably ever will be.
“…now the question is whether the IPCC misrepresents the science.”
The question is whether the IPCC TAR is “science.” It is not, because there are absolutely no probabilities estimated for any of the “scenarios” (including an admission that the A1F1 and A2 scenarios have absolutely no chance of coming to pass). Once again, YOU are the one claiming that every part of the IPCC TAR is backed up by peer-reviewed scientific papers. So YOU should find the peer-reviewed paper that puts forward the A1F1 and A2 scenarios. Unless that paper says that the A1F1 and A2 scenarios have absolutely no chance of coming to pass, then that paper is not science. And if the paper DOES say that the A1F1 and A2 scenarios have absolutely no chance of coming to pass, then I assume you’ll agree with me that the IPCC TAR is misrepresenting the paper, by not including that important caveat?
“Here is my prediction of CH4: I predict that in 2100, there is a 50% chance that CH4 will be greater than 2.334323423 ppmv, 50% less. FYI, I used the Bahner method to derive this: I made this up.”
Your ignorance/misunderstanding of the “Bahner method” is total.
“You owe me $20, bucko. I hope you’re not a no-good welcher. I accept paypal, or you can mail me a check. (Let me know if you need predictions for any other years. I will provide them for only $10 each, or get 3 for $20).”
We have a failure to communicate…which I do NOT think is my fault. If you go to my weblog posting on January 30, 2005, to which I previously referred, I made predictions every 10 years, starting in 2000, for 1) atmospheric methane concentration, 2) industrial CO2 emissions, 3) atmospheric CO2 concentration, and 4) lower tropospheric temperature, as measured by satellite. That is a total of 44 separate prediction points (i.e., 4 for 2000, 4 for 2010, 4 for 2020, etc).
I offered you $20 if you gave me your predictions for all 44 of those points. But since you’ve given me your prediction for 1 of those 44 points, I will send you 45 cents on Monday. I will send you the remaining $19.55 if and when you ever give me your predictions for the other 43 points (i.e. methane atmospheric concentration, industrial CO2 emissions, CO2 atmospheric concentration, and lower tropospheric temperature increase for 2000, 2010, 2020, 2030, etc…up to 2100).
But that reminds me. I also think the IPCC is completely clueless with regard to world per-capita GDP in the 21st century. My predictions (see Long Bet #194) for world per-capita GDP in the 21st century are:
$7,200 in the year 2000, $13,000 in the year 2020, $31,000 in 2040, $130,000 in 2060, $1,000,000 in 2080, and $10,000,000 in 2100.
http://www.longbets.org/194
I’m offering an additional $5 if you can come up with more accurate preditions for those 5 future years. Feel free to consult the IPCC to get your predictions.
“Why is Jesse the arbiter of right or wrong? What credential does he have that you respect?”
1) My, my! You can sometimes be a supremely disrespectful, arrogant, and ignorant jerk, can’t you?
2) I never wrote that Jesse Ausubel WAS the “arbiter of right or wrong”…in this matter, or any other. If you INFERRED that from something I wrote, it’s likely because: a) you need a course in Logic, and/or b) you need a course in Remedial Reading.
3) What I DID write was that Jesse Ausubel apparently (based on his Rockefeller University website) agrees with me that the IPCC Third Assessment Report is “unscientific” because it does not contain probabilities. You wrote that I disagreed with you because I didn’t understand “the difference between science and scientific assessment.” I asked you, ” Do you think that’s also why Jesse Ausubel apparently disagrees with you?” You haven’t answered that question yet.
4) Here is a partial list of the credentialS Jesse Ausubel has that I respect:
a) Director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University,
b) An ORIGINATOR of the field of Industrial Ecology (if you knew anything about that subject, you’d probably already know that),
c) From 1989-1993, Jesse Ausubel “served both at The Rockefeller and as Director of Studies for the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government. The Commission, sponsored by Carnegie Corporation of New York, sought ways for the US government at all levels, as well as international organizations, to make better use of scientific and technical expertise.”
d) “From 1977-1988, Jesse Ausubel was associated with the National Academy complex in Washington DC, as a fellow of the National Academy of Sciences.” (Let’s see, in 1977, when Jesse Ausubel was starting his 12 years as a fellow of the National Academy of Sciences, you would have been graduating from junior high, and entering high school, right?)
e) “..a staff officer with the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate,…”
f) From 1983-1988, Jesse Ausubel was a Director of Programs for the National Academy of Engineering. (So he would have been starting as the Director of Programs for the National Academy of Engineering about the same time you started your undergraduate work, right?)
g) “During 1979-1981 he led the Climate Task of the Resources and Environment Program of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, near Vienna, Austria, an East-West think-tank created by the U.S. and Soviet academies of sciences.” (This was while you were in high school, right?)
h) “He co-authored the 1989 paper “Dematerialization” that opened the study of this subject and in 1991 published the first paper on the concept of “decarbonization” of the energy system.”—>Of course, it’s only because you are COMPLETELY IGNORANT of these subjects, that you don’t ALREADY know that!
i) “Reports for which he was main author include Changing Climate (National Academy, 1983), the first comprehensive review of the greenhouse effect,..” (Again, this is while you were starting your undergraduate degree, right?)
j) “Since 1994 Mr. Ausubel has served concurrently as a Program Director for the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.”
Which of those credentials do you NOT respect? And once again, do you think that Jesse Ausubel has (apparently) called the IPCC Third Assessment Report “unscientific,” because he does not understand “the difference between science and scientific assessment”?
November 12th, 2005 at 8:57 pm
Mark-
“Son now …” was a typo; it should have read “So now …”. I can’t believe you got so wound up over that. PLEASE don’t take these web interactions so seriously — I don’t want to be responsible for you having a coronary.
Here are my predictions for CH4:
50% chance that CH4 exeeds: 1.84859874 in 2010, 1.8503476304 in 2020, 1.86490374593875 in 2030, 1.8795848759 in 2040, i.882835729385 in 2050, 1.89439587234895739457 in 2060, 1.9 in 2070, 1.9148990574858498 in 2070, 1.92+Sqrt[I] in 2080, 1.94 in 2090, and 2.334323423 in 2100. Here’s my prediction of surface temperature anomaly (referenced to 2005) (50% chance actual anomaly exceeds): 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0, 2.3, 2.6 for 2010, 2020, … 2100. For atmospheric CO2 concentration (50% chance concentation exceeds): 390, 410, 430, 450, 470, 490.343234234, 510, 530, 550, 570 for 2010, 2020, … 2100. For industrial CO2 emissions (50% chance emissions exceed): 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, … for 2010, 2020 …
Now you owe me $20.
I have to admit I do not understand the Bahner method of determining these trends. Do you use tea leaves or goat entrails? My method: I rubbed my eyes until I saw spots, counted them, and used those numbers as my prediction. While probably not the method you used, I’m sure it’s equally accurate.
Re: Jesse. I respect him. I really do. I’m sure he’s a terrific fellow and a fantastic conversationalist. But in 2001 a National Academy Panel reviewed the IPCC report for the White House and fully endorsed it. I think they understand things a little better than you and Jesse. They concluded that the IPCC report was an accurate portrayal of the state of climate science. Why should I believe Jesse over this blue-ribbon NAS panel? In addition, the AGU, AMS, AAAS have endorsed the salient conclusions of the IPCC report in policy statements. Why should I believe Jesse over these organizations.
Thus, I’ll say that it indeed appears (if you’ve quoted Jesse correctly) that he does not understand the difference between science and assessments.
Regards.
November 13th, 2005 at 8:48 am
“OnTheInside” writes, “Rather than slamming notable figures like Nigel Lawson, Michael Crichton, George Will, Pat Michaels, etc, why not concede or dare I say highlight the valid points “adversaries” make…”
My guess is that if they conceded or even highlighted the valid points that figures like Nigel Lawson, Michael Crichton, and Pat Michaels make, they know that climate change funding would drop precipitously. (My guess is that’s why both William Connolley and Andrew Dessler refuse to label the 8 simple statements I’ve made about the temperature projections in the IPCC TAR as “true” or “false.” See my comment of November 9, 3:12 PM.)
I will take one example of a point that Nigel Lawson made that I think is valid. I will quote, rather than summarize:
“The recent historical record shows a steady decline in this rate of growth, from 2.3 per cent a year over the past 40 years, to 1.6 per cent a year over the past 30 years, to 1.3 per cent a year over the past 20 years, to 1.2 per cent a year over the past 10 years.”
…
“What is surprising, however, is the IPCC’s assumption that this trend will now be reversed. Its six scenarios for the 21st century are based on an annual rate of growth in carbon dioxide emissions ranging from 1.4 per cent a year (appreciably greater, rather than less, than in the recent past) to 2.3 per cent a year (almost double the rate of the recent past).”
So why did the IPCC do that?
For example, my own analysis of the IPCC TAR projections produces these estimates for “50% probability” values for industrial emissions of emissions of CO2 (in Gigatons as carbon):
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/01/prujections_ipc.html
Year IPCC
2010: 8.7
2020: 10.3
2030: 13.2
2040: 14.9
2050: 16.0
See this Figure for reference. If anyone would like to know how I got the “50% probability” values from the Figure, I will explain. (It will take some effort on my part to explain, so please excuse my if I don’t get to the explanation for quite awhile, as I’m currently busy with real work.)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-5.htm
Contrast my estimates for the “50% probability” values from the IPCC TAR with Andrew Dessler’s recent “best shot” estimates for 2010 to 2050:
Year Dessler Bahner
2010: 7.5 7.4
2020: 8.5 8.6
2030: 9.5 8.8
2040: 10.5 8.7
2050: 11.5 8.3
Why are the IPCC TAR values so much higher? I think one possibility is that the IPCC TAR values are intended more to scare the public than to represent the true state of knowledge of industrial CO2 emission trends.
P.S. This is somewhat off-topic, and a bit presumptious, but I wonder why “OnTheInside” posts anonymously? Is it because of job security concerns, for asking reasonable questions in a ***highly*** politicized environment (no pun intended)?
November 13th, 2005 at 11:38 am
Mark-
You write:
“My guess is that’s why both William Connolley and Andrew Dessler refuse to label the 8 simple statements I’ve made about the temperature projections in the IPCC TAR as “true” or “false.”"
Rather than repeat myself, pls see the comments at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000596revisiting_bob_palme.html, particularly the October 6, 2005 12:02 AM comment.
Also, see comments above on the inability to falsify a probabilistic estimate based on a single outcome.
Finally, I’m still interested in why you discard the strong endorsement of the IPCC report by the National Academy Panel, as well as the endorsements of the AGU, etc. These organizations support the summary of climate science embodied by the IPCC report. Why do you pick Jesse over the NAS?
re: $20. You can mail a check to me c/o Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, TAMU 3150, College Station, TX 77843-3150.
Regards.
November 13th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
Andrew Dessler writes, “Here are my predictions for CH4:
50% chance that CH4 exeeds: 1.84859874 in 2010, 1.8503476304 in 2020, 1.86490374593875 in 2030, 1.8795848759 in 2040, i.882835729385 in 2050, 1.89439587234895739457 in 2060, 1.9 in 2070, 1.9148990574858498 in 2070, 1.92+Sqrt[I] in 2080, 1.94 in 2090, and 2.334323423 in 2100. Here’s my prediction of surface temperature anomaly (referenced to 2005) (50% chance actual anomaly exceeds): 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.8, 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0, 2.3, 2.6 for 2010, 2020, … 2100. For atmospheric CO2 concentration (50% chance concentation exceeds): 390, 410, 430, 450, 470, 490.343234234, 510, 530, 550, 570 for 2010, 2020, … 2100. For industrial CO2 emissions (50% chance emissions exceed): 7.5, 8.5, 9.5, … for 2010, 2020 …
Now you owe me $20.”
Heh, heh, heh! You’re certainly not encouraging me to use your services for environmental analyses in the future. You’re predictions are clearly deficient. And I have a bit of friendly advice…I wouldn’t be so eager to be paid soon, given the implications (see comments 2-6 below).
1) I told you twice to provide me with predictions for the LOWER TROPOSPHERIC temperature increases, not the surface temperature increases. Until you provide me with predictions for the LOWER TROPOSPHERIC temperature increases, there’s no way I’ll give you more than $15.
2) I told you to “hit me with your best shot.” In case you didn’t understand that slang, that meant that I was expecting your absolute best technical work. In other words, in order to meet the requirements for me to give you the $20, I require something for which you can certify that you simply aren’t capable of doing anything better. I don’t think a person in your position (professor of Atmospheric Sciences at a major university) wants to be in the position of admitting the answers above represent his absolute best technical work.
3) You have consistently been insisting, to me and the entire world, that the projections in the IPCC TAR are the “gold standard” of analysis. So if you really believe that (laughable piece of nonsense)…you should simply be estimating what the “50% probability” values are, from the projections in the IPCC TAR. If you do NOT do that, essentially you are falsifying your OWN statement that the IPCC TAR projections are the “gold standard” of analysis. AT BEST, the IPCC TAR projections would be the “silver standard,” where YOUR OWN “best shot” projections are the TRUE “gold standard.”
4) To repeat the logic: a) IF you are giving me your “best shot,” and b) your “best shot” does NOT resemble something that could plausibly be called the “50% probability values” from the IPCC TAR, then you YOURSELF are admitting that the IPCC TAR projections are NOT the “gold standard.” If you continue to maintain that the IPCC TAR projections ARE the “gold standard,” but your own “best shot” projections don’t resemble any reasonable approximation of the “50% probability” projections in the IPCC TAR, you are deliberately telling a falsehood (i.e., a lie) when you say that the IPCC TAR projections ARE the “gold standard.”
5) Look at your atmospheric methane concentrations. Taking out the ridiculous false precision, we have the following values for the period from 2010 to 2100, in ppm: 1.84, 1.85, 1.86, 1.88, 1.89, 1.9, 1.91, 1.92, 1.94 and 2.33. Unless you are an absolutely shameless liar, how can you represent those numbers as being in any way compatible with plausible “50% probability values” from the IPCC TAR?
6) Also, the increase in methane from 2090 to 2100 is a whopping 0.39 ppm (390 ppb)! Again, how else but as a blatant lie can you represent that as being compatible with projections in the IPCC TAR? And can you honestly claim that you can’t do any better than that at prediction (regarding the 390 ppb jump in the last decade)?
7) You have the industrial CO2 emissions increasing linearly (1 gigaton as carbon every decade) from 7.5 gigatons as carbon in 2010. That is, 8.5 gigatons in 2020, 9.5 gigatons in 2030, 10.5 gigatons in 2040, and 11.5 gigatons in 2050. These values appear considerably below most projections in the IPCC TAR. It looks to me like, at least for the 2000 to 2030 time frame, you agree with ME more than the IPCC TAR.
You have CO2 emissions increasing linearly at 1 gigaton per decade up to 16.5 gigatons in 2100. But your CO2 atmospheric concentrations increase completely LINEARLY at 20 ppm per decade throughout the entire century. Is your “best shot” really that clueless about the relationship between emissions and resultant atmospheric concentrations? Or do you have some special knowledge that the CO2 “sink” is going to dramatically increase as the 21st century continues. (And if you do have such knowledge, how can you say the IPCC TAR is the “gold standard,” if it doesn’t mention that dramatic increase in the CO2 sink?)
9) Your atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and methane are at the very low end of the IPCC TAR projections, not anywhere near what could plausibly be called the “50% probability levels”. And yet your predicted surface temperature increase (again, please provide lower troposphere predictions, or you will not be paid the $5) is 2.6 deg Celsius (as compared to 1.4 to 5.8 deg C in the IPCC TAR). How do you justify that as: a) your “best estimate”, or b) compatible with the projections in the IPCC TAR? This is particularly puzzling, because hasn’t ***your own research*** indicated that water feedbacks are likely to be less than was expected at the time of the IPCC TAR publication? To what do you attribute the temperature increase, if your CO2 and methane atmospheric concentration values are so low?
Summary:
1) I will send you $15….or $20 if you can provide me your “best shot” predictions for ***lower tropospheric*** temperature increases. But first I want you to,
2) Certify that this is indeed your “best shot” at the analysis (and if you later try to claim otherwise, I will expect you to return the money in full), and
3) Understand that, if you do not change your predictions to something that might plausibly correspond with “50% probability” values from the IPCC TAR, every time you claim that the TAR projections are the “gold standard,” I will point out that your “best shot” predictions reveal that you are being dishonest. (This applies particularly to the methane atmospheric concentration predictions. YOUR predictions–other than the ridiculous increase from 2090 to 2100–match MY predictions, not the IPCC TAR’s predictions. So it appears you have agreed, when I’ve **repeatedly** told you that the IPCC TAR’s methane predictions are bogus. You apparently simply haven’t had the honesty to admit it.)
November 13th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
Kevin Vranes writes,
blah, blah, blah. Nothing technical/scientific, of course.
Kevin, when we last corresponded, I asked you my standard questions, which have never been answered by anyone, including these questions:
then asked 9 questions about the various probabilities that could be determined from that statement and the IPCC TAR, e.g.:
7) Does the IPCC think there is more than a 99 percent chance that the warming will be less than 1.4 degrees Celsius, or
Does the IPCC think there is more than a 99 percent chance that the warming will be more than 5.8 degrees Celsius?
Your response was, “The questions you ask just aren’t interesting to me, nor is the debate you’re fishing for. Truthfully, I think your questions are irrelevant.”
I responded on my blog, “You think it’s *irrelevant* whether there’s virtually 100 percent chance that the warming will be LESS than 1.4 degrees Celsius, or virtually 100 percent chance that the warming will be MORE than 5.8 degrees Celsius?(!!!) How can that possibly be?”
You never answered that question. So pardon me if I ask it again: How can it possibly be “irrelevant” whether the IPCC thinks there is a virtually 100 percent chance of warming of LESS than 1.4 degrees Celsius, or the IPCC thinks there is a virtually 100 percent chance of warming of MORE than 5.8 degrees Celsius?
Wouldn’t the appropriate policies be dramatically different if the predicted warming was so dramatically different?
November 13th, 2005 at 10:49 pm
Mark-
You said in your earlier post:
“I tell you what, to sweeten the deal, I’ll even give you $20 to make your predictions.”
You have my predictions. Pay up. Your requests for continued info sound to me like someone who doesn’t want to pay. In other words, a welcher.
Just to be clear, I completely made those numbers up over the course of 30 seconds. See the description of my method in a previous post. I wasn’t joking.
Finally, I note that you’ve failed to respond to two questions I posed to you: 1) how can you falsify a probabilistic projection with only one outcome, and 2) why do you reject the expert opinion of the blue-ribbon NAS panel review. I’d be interested in your answers to those.
Regards.
PS: You can substitute my projections for surface temp to be my predictions for lower trop. Again, those projections are certainly as accurate as yours.
November 14th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
I know Mark, silly me. I leave the blogging for the blog and I leave the “technical/scientific, of course” for the refereed science literature, institutional reports, AGU and AMS meeting presentations, department talks, etc. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but as a starting point for future discussions why don’t you publish something – anything! – in a peer-reviewed journal and then we’ll talk science? Then we can evaluate statements from you like, “I have done solid scientific research of my own. In my own spare time, over a mere couple hundred hours…” You can also send me unpublished manuscripts and I’ll be happy to provide a first-cut review for you. But doing “science” through blog comments just isn’t where I’m at.
November 14th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” – Bertrand Russell
November 14th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Andrew Dessler writes, “Just to be clear, I completely made those numbers up over the course of 30 seconds. See the description of my method in a previous post. I wasn’t joking.”
I’m not clear. On November 10 at 7:57PM, I wrote, “If you think you (and any of your scientist friends) can do better, why don’t you take your best shot?”
Was this your “best shot”?
November 14th, 2005 at 8:52 pm
Andrew Dessler writes, “Finally, I note that you’ve failed to respond to two questions I posed to you: 1) how can you falsify a probabilistic projection with only one outcome, and 2) why do you reject the expert opinion of the blue-ribbon NAS panel review. I’d be interested in your answers to those.”
I don’t have time to respond to the second question, but here is my response to the first:
I’ll respond with a question. Suppose Wigley and Raper publish a paper in Science on July 20, 1001, titled, “Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming.” Suppose they are writing about the IPCC TAR.
And suppose they make the comment, “As noted by Schneider, Jones, and Moss and Schneider, giving only a range of warming results is potentially misleading unless some guidance is given as to what the range means in probabilistic terms. The purpose of this paper is to provide such guidance.”
Now suppose that they have a Table 1, that gives the following probabilities for warming in deg C, relative to relative to 1990:
2030: 5%–>0.48, 50%–>0.80, 95%–>1.31
2070: 5%–>1.29, 50%–>2.17, 95%–>3.34
2100: 5%–>1.68, 50%–>3.06, 95%–>4.87
Now, suppose Mark Bahner has the following probabilities for those dates:
2030: 5%–>0.02, 50%–>0.36, 95%–>0.75
2070: 5%–>0.02, 50%–>0.82, 95%–>1.75
2100: 5%–>0.02, 50%–>1.20, 95%–>2.45
Now suppose the temperature rises for 2030, 2070, and 2100 are 0.36, 0.82, and 1.20. Or suppose they are even 0.48, 1.29, and 1.68.
Who is right and who is wrong?
Now, maybe “scientists” can’t tell from those results who is right and who is wrong. But I’m an engineer. IF those are the results, I say, “Mark Bahner is clearly right, and the IPCC is clearly wrong.”
November 14th, 2005 at 10:37 pm
mark-
I’ll make this quick:
1) have you mailed my check yet? (and don’t give me any baloney about how I need to do a few more things before you pay up … I already provided additional info to satisfy your first request. people will lose respect for you if you do not pay up.)
2) you don’t have time to tell me why you reject the NAS report? you certainly seem to have time to write a bunch of other drivel. perhaps you can find the time in the near future. I’m interested in your thoughts of Jesse vs. the NAS.
3) you didn’t answer my question about falsifying a probabilistic estimate with only one outcome. instead, you simply tell me that it’s obvious. that’s not an argument that convinces me.
(btw, your example fails for this reason: assume that I predict that I’ll roll a 6 on a six-sided die 16% of the time, and you predict a 6 will come up 0% of the time. I roll it once and it comes up 3. did we just prove you’re right?)
kevin: I also suggested to mark that he try to publish his work, like M&M did w/ the hockey stick. they engaged the community, and now their ideas are being tested in the crucible of science. but then I took a look at mark’s “science” (http://markbahner.50g.com/) and decided that it probably wasn’t such a good idea. I’m not sure science is ready for the bahner revolution.
regards.
November 15th, 2005 at 10:46 am
Any high school science student can discern the IPCC “projections” were included to scare the public and are not backed up by science.
James Hansen (one example of a serious scientist and a true AGW believer) states this explicitly.
“Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate…scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.”
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html
November 15th, 2005 at 1:33 pm
“Any high school science student can discern the IPCC “projections” were included to scare the public and are not backed up by science.”
Suuuure, Charles. Can you give us an example?
Best,
D
November 15th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Andrew
I’ll make this quick:
“1) have you mailed my check yet?”
Answers:
1) Have you given my your “best shot” yet?
2) Have you learned how to read yet?
But let’s stop dancing around. We both know the answers to all three of these questions is “no.”
I just thought of good way to stop the dancing. You claim my predictions aren’t science, and that the IPCC TAR projections are the “gold standard.” I’m willing to put $20 of my money where YOUR mouth is.
This is the link to Long Bets #181:
http://www.longbets.org/181
Here is the prediction:
Mark A. Bahner predicts: “I predict that my projections for methane atmospheric concentrations, industrial carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and atmospheric concentrations, and resultant lower tropospheric temperatures will be more accurate than those found in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Third Assessment Report (TAR).
The following are my (MB) projections and the IPCC TAR projections for methane atmospheric concentrations (in ppb, worth 1 point), industrial CO2 emissions (in Gigatons as carbon, worth 1 point), CO2 atmospheric concentrations (in ppm, worth 1 point) and lower tropospheric temperature increases (in degrees Celsius relative to 1990, worth 3 points). The projections are for the years 2030, 2070, and 2100.
2030, MB: 1790, 8.8, 425, 0.36
2030, IPCC: 2060, 13.2, 438, 0.80
2070, MB: 1825, 7.0, 527, 0.82
2070, IPCC: 2300, 16.4, 610, 2.17
2100, MB: 1840, 4.0, 558, 1.20
2100, IPCC: 2450, 16.4, 720, 3.06
Lower tropospheric temperatures are as measured by satellite, in a 3-year average around the year in question (e.g. 2030 would be 2029, 2030, 20310. This bet is only open to members of the IPCC.”
Go to that website, register, and vote AGAINST the prediction. The vote is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FREE. All you have to do is register. It will take you less than a minute, and I’ll send you $20.
Now, when else in your life have you been PAID to vote?
“regards.”
Mark
November 15th, 2005 at 8:07 pm
Mark-
Ok, I bet against you. Pls send me my check. Address is in a post up above.
Also, I note that you continue to not respond to my two other questions: 1) how can you falsify a probabilistic projection with only one outcome, and 2) why do you reject the expert opinion of the blue-ribbon NAS panel review.
I remain interested in your answers to those. In a previous post, you claimed that my silence on the Jesse question meant that I must tacitly agree with you. Should I assume that in this case?
Regards.
November 16th, 2005 at 9:51 am
Dano,
I’m assuming of course the high school science student can read Hansen’s paper and at least understand what he says about “projections” and “scenarios” that are not “realistic under current conditions”.
I assume you can.
Charles