Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road... 43

[ewh]

What is the reputation of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a organization of 50 "top" scientists) in the engineering community? I really don't know how reliable they are, but a study (Climate Change Reconsidered II) produced by them and published by the Heartland Institute (an organization which espouses other ideas I disagree with) claims to be "double peer reviewed" and presents a seemingly well-founded arguement that AGW is a political red herring.
I am not a climate scientist, but thought that this was a good example of one side of the differing dogmas surrounding the issue. Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

or the summary

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[GregLocock]

Sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, the onus is on those who propose ridiculous notions to do the heavy lifting.

We walk into a lab. We measure various properties of CO2. We plug those proerties into a climate control model and tweak the gain on those properties by a factor of two three or four in order to match the historical record, and claim that the gain represents positive feedback effects. My eyebrow raises.

The reason I don't put a whole damn lot of effort into analysing your posts is mainly that I am fairly sure it won't make any difference what you say, what I say, or what the scientists say. The third world will continue to burn ever increasing quantities of fossil fuel until something better comes along.

As a matter of typical statistical cluelessness, taking the standard deviation of the output of a bunch of similar models as setting any sort of uncertainity in the real world is a joke. I know you didn't do that analysis in the first place, you are just regurgitating handy talking points, but it gives an imprimatur of statistical authority that doesn't exist. The climate boys originally came unstuck because of shonky stats, they are still doing it.





Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[cranky108]

Great charts and graphs. What's the solution other than more taxes?
Engineers aren't supose to yell about problems, they are supose to solve them. So propoes a solution or be ignored.

 

[beej67]

This needs to be highlighted from Greg's post:

We walk into a lab.

Science! So far so good.

We measure various properties of CO2.

Science! Still good.

We plug those proerties into a climate control model

Science! Right on track.

...and tweak the gain on those properties by a factor of two three or four in order to match the historical record,

Not Science.

Not.

Science.

Not without first proving causality in some other way. Calibrating models way past their physical properties in order to match historical record, while discounting other effects that also track the same historical hockey stick as carbon is not science. Not science.

...and claim that the gain represents positive feedback effects. My eyebrow raises.

Everyone's eyebrows should raise at that. Everyone's should. Doesn't matter whether the models look right or not. A model calibrated way outside the physical properties of CO2 to match historical data should, by all rights, prove that CO2 isn't the primary culprit, not that it is. In fact, if you have to triple some physical properties of the CO2 in your model to match the historic record, then that should be a very good indication that CO2 is about one third of the problem. And then, to make your models better, you should spend some time looking at what other effects also correlate well with carbon, and pay closer attention to how those effects are included in your model.

That would be science.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[2dye4]

""The "Positive feedback loop" of "snow causes colder air and colder air causes snow" is just laughable.""

Laugh away ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-albedo_feedback

http://umaine.edu/maineclimatenews/...dback-loops-that-drive-climate-change-part-i/

I doubt if highly refined fluid dynamics models were involved in developing this accepted theory.

""Sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, the onus is on those who propose ridiculous notions to do the heavy lifting.""

You mean the completely accepted theory of greenhouse gasses, without which our planet would be demonstrably colder ??
Extraordinary claim -> NO
Ridiculous notion -> NO

Why do you climate skeptics talk in circles, eventually coming back to positions you once went silent on.

BTW not all 'models' are partial differential equation models and thus don't need a grid size.

How about a one dimensional initial value problem model proposed in 1981 and proved surprisingly accurate.

https://atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf

 

[ornerynorsk]

It seems to me that AGW, at this point in time, is little more than a religion. One of my favorite sayings from Mr. Lionel Hutz, the n'er-do-well attorney from the television series The Simpson's: "Well judge, heresay and conjecture are KINDS of evidence!"

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[rconnor]

the onus is on those who propose ridiculous notions to do the heavy lifting

Climate scientists are doing the heavy lifting, hence all the papers, data and reports I reference. I have repeatedly said that although counter-theories fail miserably to account for the observed changes we’ve seen, that is not my primary reason for agreeing with the theory. It is because of the explanatory power of theory, validated by the empirical evidence, that is the reason I agree with it. It’s the reason why I changed from a skeptic to a “believer”. It’s the reason why I debate against the ignorance of “skeptics” and help provide information for skeptics.

You asked for alternative explanations, I gave them. They don’t work. If your working theory has some merit, I’d like to hear about it. If you don’t want to provide anything to support it then I’m, obviously, not going to be convinced.

The “appeal to authority” that TGS4 has talked about is comical. Since when is backing your statements with peer-reviewed literature an “appeal to authority”, while linking to WUWT is a scientifically compelling defense? This strange inversion (or, more aptly, perversion) of the standards of supporting evidence is just woefully unscientific. If the WUWT articles had something accurate and valid to say, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But when they are obviously false, I do.

You can always ignore the evidence or claim it isn’t compelling enough for you. Anti-vaxxers say the same thing. Young Earthers say the same thing. I can’t help any of you that choose to remain ignorant.

tweak the gain on those properties by a factor of two three or four in order to match the historical record

Blatant sophism. I have already addressed this false claim. You continue to be wrong.

The third world will continue to burn ever increasing quantities of fossil fuel until something better comes along.

I share the same skepticism that we can come together to find a solution (although I don’t blame the developing world for an issue we created and exacerbate due to our excessive and ever-increasing consumption). However, that is NOT an excuse to be ignorant of the science. If more people understood the science, we could start having a productive dialogue on solutions. As long as a vocal minority continue to spew ignorant arguments, that’s not going to happen. (Cranky, this addresses your comment as well. How can we have a discussion on solutions when you categorically reject the problem still? I will gladly engage in a dialogue about solutions if you agree with the theory.)

This just emphasizes that your contention with the science comes from the proposed solutions, not from the science itself. You then take your apriori rejection of the science and comb through reports to find ones that sound nice to you. Your credulity and lack of true skepticisms leaves you vulnerable to believe falsities such as “the “pause” disproves the theory” or “because ”it’s changed before”, the theory is invalid”.

I am continually charged with this same acquisition. As TGS4 believes, I “desperately want to believe the catastrophe foretold by these models”. Which is to say, I desperately want to pay higher taxes and have restrictions put on my consumption. The absurdity of such a statement is obvious. What is true is that I desperately want to avoid future damages caused by climate change and am willing to pay higher taxes and have restrictions put on my consumption. I don’t want to but I will. It would be so much easier to stick my head in the sand and say “it ain’t going to happen”. That is perhaps why I started off as a skeptic but that is not, for me, a valid excuse to continue to ignore the science. To quote Sagan, “our preferences do not determine what’s true”.

taking the standard deviation of the output of a bunch of similar models as setting any sort of uncertainty in the real world is a joke

The shaded area on the graph is the range of model runs and the bands are the range at 2035, the AR4 bands on the right are the mean of all runs at 2035, +60%/-40%.

Regarding my earlier question to GregLocock, you accused me of cherry-picking so I asked “what observed global climatic phenomena have I missed that are inconsistent with and unexplainable by the CO2 theory”? You haven’t responded to this. Did I capture your examples in the rest of my post?

It has failed to predict ENSO events? Yup, but it never claimed that it could.
It has failed to predict volcanoes? Yup, but it never claimed that it could.
It has failed to predict anthropogenic aerosol emissions? Yup, but it never claimed that it could.
When corrected for those three, models match observations extremely well. So, the aspects of climate where the theory claims to have predictive and explanatory power, it is able to predict and explain extremely accurately. Furthermore, the aspects of climate where the theory claims to have explanatory power but not predictive power, it is able to explain extremely accurately and that explanation can be used to correct for these factors extremely accurately.

[image

http://s23.postimg.org/vraz3r81n/Global_El_Nino_Solar.png

]

 

[rb1957]

that's a funny looking graph for global temperature ... it shows that in the early 90s things were cooling, and then things started to warm slightly, hic-cuped in 98, then increase slowed again. it shows about 0.4degC in about 20 years ... about 2deg in 100years ... no?



Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[2dye4]

Are these two statements contradictory.

1 Deviations from the model predictions over short time spans is expected and does not reflect model accuracy.
2 The climate model should be judged as matching observation only over a proper time interval determined by statistical properties.

 

[rconnor]

Seriously rb1957?

1992 – Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption
1998 – Largest ENSO event on record, which may have caused the shift into the negative PDO phase

2dye4, I agree, the argument is nonsense on every level…but it shouldn’t really come as a surprise.

To fully appreciate just how stupid it is, let’s run down the number of ways the argument “models have failed to predict temperature trends, therefore the theory is wrong” is so utterly false:
1) The time period is too short to draw any conclusions (we should stop here…but there’s more)
2) Models have NOT failed to predict temperature trends (we should definitely stop here…but there’s STILL more)
3) The minor, short-term deviation is caused by effects that are inherently not predictable (by the theory, models or anything else)
4) When these effects are accounted for, model trends match observed temperature trends remarkably well

So, it’s 1) inconclusive and insignificant, 2) fundamentally and demonstrably false, 3) a non-sequitur and 4) actually validates the antithesis are its original assertion. It couldn’t be more wrong. And this argument is the foundation upon which “skeptics” use to (falsely) assert that climate models are rubbish and so is the anthropogenic climate change theory. It is the crux on which all other arguments are derived from. And it’s so utterly wrong. It’s so wrong it actually validates the models and the theory.

 

[zdas04]

In my actual experience, any statement that juxtaposes the terms "model" and "accuracy" is grossly inappropriate. Further, "the climate model should be judged ..." is implying that computer models can prove something. They can't. At their best (which can be very good) they can illuminate fruitful areas for further (non-model) study.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[2dye4]

""In my actual experience, any statement that juxtaposes the terms "model" and "accuracy" is grossly inappropriate. Further, "the climate model should be judged ..." is implying that computer models can prove something. They can't. At their best (which can be very good) they can illuminate fruitful areas for further (non-model) study. ""

A model is a hypothesis and as such cannot in itself prove anything, so you are correct on this basic facet of logic.

A rock dropped from your hand falls to the ground. That is a hypothesis and I defy you to prove it true.

If you think about if for just a bit there is no distinction whatsoever between a 'computer' model and any other type of model.
A computer is a calculating device and anything it does could be done by humans given enough time.

Now one can raise objections about the numerical accuracy of computer calculations given their fixed precision but other than this
a model is a model is a model.

Is a program that calculates your payments on a loan given principle and interest rate a 'computer model' and does it 'accurately' 'predict'
your payments.
Not all climate process require mathematical "note I didn't say computer" models that diverge into chaos after a period of time.
To the man that owns a hammer every problem looks like a nail.

Zdas and TGS4 are fluid dynamic modelers and they read their field into the very basics of climate estimation probably for dual reasons, one
they don't like the theory and the possible impact it would have on their lifestyles and vocation and two they want a seat at the table.

 

[TGS4]

2dye4 - you DO understand that the GCMs are finite volume fluid dynamic simulations that attempt to reproduce sufficient details to be relevant for forecasting purposes? Ergo, I have specialized knowledge and experience to provide review and evaluation. Et tu?

I have no rebuttal to the simple ODE from Hansen et al 1978 (I think) that you were kind enough to link to. Although, there has been sufficient time since to validate that simple equation as compared to the difference in CO2 concentrations. And volcanoes in the interim don't matter because they are short-term phenomenon.

Rconnor - my comment about you wanting the catastrophe is that you see absolutely no silver lining in any data. Is there not ANY good news?

 

[cranky108]

I can not in all honestly say I believe the theory of AGW.
I am willing to admit that increased CO2 can't continue without becoming a problem. So I am willing to entertain solutions, excluding taxes.
I just don't believe the politics have any goal than to reduce our freedom. And there agenda is more taxes.

The latest solution for stock market volitity, tax trading in the stock market (what a suprise).

So Rconnor, what solutions do you have?

 

[ornerynorsk]

Mt Pinatubo was 1991, for what it's worth. I have a tiny fraction of one of it's many cubic kilometers of ejecta sitting on my mantle.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[rconnor]

TGS4, the “pause” looks like a silver lining, I want it to be a silver lining, but it’s not a silver lining. That’s the problem – we all want this problem to not be true so it is easy to be tricked into thinking something shows the problem has gone away when it hasn’t.

I have explicitly stated what, in my mind, would cast doubt on the theory and, subsequently, the problem. They’re clear cut and very reasonable. Two of the three are invalidated directly by the data and the third one depends on the next major El Nino event(s). Experts suggest that there is evidence that such an El Nino could occur later this year (although we are still in a negative PDO).

Cranky, again, I can have this conversation on solutions but it would be meaningful if you have an apriori rejection of taxes. You can have non-consumer changes such as improved efficiencies of technologies, improvements to building practices regarding insulation/HVAC design, better city planning (no more urban sprawl) and continued R&D into renewable and utility scale energy storage. However, this is insufficient; changes are required at the consumer behavior level.

People will not make the necessary behavioural changes on their own. We are too good at following the “path of least resistance” - the cheapest, easiest, quickest way of doing something which is usually the most energy intensive. You need some measure in place to reward reductions in consumption or deter excessive consumption. Unfortunately, the stick beats the carrot when it comes to changing people’s consumption habits. Again, I wish it was the other way but it’s not. A mix of the two is nice (tax cuts for energy efficiency improvements to your home is one nice way) but there needs to be some amount of “stick”. Revenue-neutral taxes are the best “stick” I see.

You are, of course, going to reject this. If you’re unwilling to discuss taxes then we cannot have a meaningful conversation on solutions. I feel I’m better off explaining why the problem is a serious issue. Serious enough to validate some form of behaviour-altering “stick”.

ALL, the fundamental argument for the “skeptic” camp has been demonstrated to be inconclusive, completely false, a non-sequitur and is so wrong that it actually validates the antithesis of its original assertion and no one is willing to offer defense? Frankly, there isn’t one or at least not a rational, scientifically accurate one. But seeing as that doesn’t seem to deter “skeptics”, I expected at least something.

 

[rconnor]

(cranky, it should read "would NOT be meaningful if...". My apologies.)

 

[beej67]

TGS4, the “pause” looks like a silver lining, I want it to be a silver lining, but it’s not a silver lining. That’s the problem – we all want this problem to not be true so it is easy to be tricked into thinking something shows the problem has gone away when it hasn’t.

I'm not so sure everyone wants the problem to not be true. I think quite a lot of people really want the problem to be true, and have gambled a lot of money, time, and effort on it being true. I think that's why the IPCC isn't pointing out the good news:

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uplo...-IPCC-hid-the-Good-News-on-Global-Warming.pdf

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

…beej67, this is the second time you’ve posted this. It is still [link

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n4/full/nclimate2136.html

]n[/url] o n s e n s e (each letter links to a paper, not referenced in the report, that contradicts the conclusion of the report) from a shoddy institution and written by an “amateur” climate scientist and a freelance writer. Climate scientist, Steven Sherwood, described it well:

The report is standard cherry-picking. It offers no new evidence not already considered by the IPCC, relying very heavily on a few strands of evidence that seem to point toward lower sensitivity while ignoring all the evidence pointing to higher sensitivity.

It relies heavily on the estimate by Forster and Gregory, which was an interesting effort but whose methodology has been shown not to work; this study did not cause the IPCC to conclude that sensitivity had to be low, even though both Forster and Gregory were IPCC lead authors and were obviously aware of their own paper.

Or from Ed Hawkins:

Remarkably for a report published by the GWPF, the authors agree with mainstream climate scientists that significant further warming is expected ... It is great to see the GWPF accepting that business-as-usual means significant further warming is expected. Now we can move the debate to what to do about it.

Piers Forster, same Forster as above, even debunks the article. It’s kind of a big blow when the author of the paper that you use at the core of your argument says that your argument is wrong.

All, still no rebuttals to my post at 4 Apr 14 17:45? No one is willing to offer support for the core skeptic argument, that sits as inconclusive AND completely false AND a non-sequitur AND is so utterly wrong that it validates the antithesis of its original assertion?

 

[cranky108]

It has been shown over and over that electric customers don't respond very much to changes in the price of electricity, so the stick won't work except to create public outrage. The tax on electric customers is a political favarite, because it directs customer anger at someone other than the politications.
The problem is the customers are becoming wiser at where the price increases come from. i.e. the politations soon won't be able to hide behind the news media.

This will also increase the price of electricity, which makes price sensitive products, and jobs, move to being produced in lower cost countries, where they may not have the same AGW taxes. I.E. lost jobs, but no reduction in CO2.

 

[TGS4]

rconnor - adjusting actual data is a no-no. Adjusting, shifting time-histories to fit the hypothesis is antithesis to real science, although it is par-for-the-course for post-normal science.

For the actual CO2 emission trajectory, the models have over-estimated the temperatures. Period. You can try to adjust the data as much as you want, change the start-date, shift the temperature-profiles at the start-date, etc, it doesn't change the above-noted conclusion that the atmospheric models run hot.

Your ad hominem against Lord Lawson is pathetic, but very typical of the warmists: attack the person (Roger Pielke Jr. or Judith Curry, for recent examples) and not their arguments. Shut down debate (there is no debate, the debate is over, etc) and avoid and shun FOI requests to avoid the disinfectant of sunshine are all typical MO for warmists. Or, even sue for libel when opponents speak out (Mann v Ball, Mann v Steyne, etc).

Re: silver lining - you still understand that this is all about forecasts of doom 70-100 years in the future? Can you at least acknowledge that the warming observed from the end of the Little Ice Age has been beneficial? And the consensus is that warmth up to and including 2°C is beneficial, and that further warmth may be beneficial to some? Or is it all doom and gloom from you?