Thursday
Sep022010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill WSJ on uncertainty
Sep 2, 2010 Climate: MWP Climate: WG2 The Wall Street Journal looks at the IAC report and considers one of its key findings, namely that the IPCC has downplayed uncertainties in the science of global warming. In the process they consider McShane and Wyner's paper on the reliability (or lack of it) of proxy-based temperature reconstructions and also a new paper on the sensitivity of the Amazon rainforest to drought. It looks as though this sensitivity is not really understood because nobody knows how the Amazon will respond to rising CO2 levels.
As the Journal puts it:
None of this proves or disproves anything, except that our understanding of how our climate works is still evolving. Is it too much to ask the climate establishment to acknowledge as much?
Reader Comments (71)
What is not uncertain is the lengths that the eco-loons will now go to.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1308138/Eco-terrorist-James-Jay-Lee-shot-dead-Discovery-Channel-HQ.html
The unsound alarmist rhetoric from advocate-scientists is having a more strained impact on society. The more sceptical people become, as they will, the believers will become more strident and extreme.
The greatest danger to the planet is not climate change but from the advocates of climate change.
Flawed science is pushing environmentalism towards eco-terrorism.
"What is not uncertain is the lengths that the eco-loons will now go to.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1308138/Eco-terrorist-James-Jay-Lee-shot-dead-Discovery-Channel-HQ.html"
Sep 2, 2010 at 10:21 AM | Mac
Your comment says far more about you than it does about people who agree with what 97% of climate scientists agree on.
This nutjob was no more representative of climate science than the Klu Klux Klan are of Christianity or Stalin was of left wing politics.
What is sure, is that people who take clear abberations like this and try to pretend they are in any way representative, are making judgements out of prejudice, and trying to increase division and hatred.
A very daft comment by you.
"Your comment says far more about you than it does about people who agree with what 97% of climate scientists agree on."
What an appalling example of pseuo-mathematical and post modern scientific claptrap. How many people agree with "97% of climate scientists". If 10 people per thousand agree and 990 disagree what does that mean? If the reverse applies what does that mean? Numbers please, sleeping near death in your bed.
97%? Where does that come from? A sample perhaps. Is an alpha quoted? UCL's and LCL's? If not, who has surveyed every known climate scientist in the world? Have other scientists/engineers been surveyed or don't they count?
Drivel sunshine.
Make that "pseudo"
ZedsDeadBed,
Surely you are aware that 97% of the statistics quoted in arguments are invented?
"97%? Where does that come from?"
Sep 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM | GrantB
Feel free to look at either one of these two studies which both come up with the same result:
Anderegg et al 2010
Doran et al 2009
Two different studies both coming up with about the same percentage of climate scientists who agree on AGW? That would seem to be a pretty good confirmation that they're correct.
Looks like you're the one who's talking drivel.
which one of those survey was the one based on 75 (not % but actual( climate sceintists) rather a self selecting group....
When do you stop being, say an atmospheric physicist, and become a 'climate scientists' )
"which one of those survey was the one based on 75 (not % but actual( climate sceintists) rather a self selecting group....
When do you stop being, say an atmospheric physicist, and become a 'climate scientists' )"
Sep 2, 2010 at 11:49 AM | Barry Woods
Here's a revolutionary idea for you, although actual research is probably anathema to this place.
If you want to know about the surveys, why not look at them and find out?
Ignore ZedsDeadBed. He's a well known troll who just keeps repeating the same unscientific nonsense. It doesn't matter what politically active "climate scientists" say. It's only the evidence that counts.
"Ignore ZedsDeadBed. He's a well known troll who just keeps repeating the same unscientific nonsense. It doesn't matter what politically active "climate scientists" say. It's only the evidence that counts."
Sep 2, 2010 at 11:57 AM | Phillip Bratby
I remember you from the Daily Mail messageboard. You had a very weak line in denial science and some seriously skewed evidence to try and support it.
We all know there are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate very effectively that AGW is a reality. I only know of two that claim otherwise, and both have been effectively refuted.
As published peer-reviewed papers are the benchmark by which all branches of science are judged, it would seem that the balance of evidence suggests overwhelmingly that AGW is a horrible reality.
Stalin considered himself to be something of a statistician.
Quote, Josef Stalin "One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are a statistic."
All movements have their zealots, environmentalism is no different from christianity or communism.
Quote, Mark Twain, "Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight."
In pursuing fractious arguements over global warming, in the face of increasing public scepticism, aspects of the environmental movement will stray from activism and choose eco-terrorism. For if environmentalists cannot win the battle they will make every attempt to deny others peace - guaranteed.
One of the problems I have with ZedsDeadBed's arguments is that very few argue against the proposition that some warming is caused by CO2 and that some of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuels. What is at issue is the case for catastrophic outcomes and all the "save the planet hype". What I would venture, ZedsDeadBed, is that a majority of all scientists, if asked, would not support any of these scifi fantasies, but who knows? The questionaires aren't framed that way, are they?
Please can somebody tell me exactly what qualifications are needed to be a 'Climate Scientist'?
I have an MSc in Chemistry from a highly regraded University so I think I can reasonably be described as 'A Chemist'. My GP hs qualifications in Medicine, so she can reasonably describe herself as 'A Doctor'.
But AFAIK there is no such qualification in 'Climate Science', hence the definition is unclear. Is Steve McIntyre a Climate Scientist - he has certainly studied the subject in detail. Or AW Montford, when not on duty in his pastoral role. Or Doug Keenan?
I'd be marginally more inclied to tale the '97%' figure more seriously if I knew the answer to this little conundrum..and if anyone could tell me how 'Climate Science' differs in essence from bits Maths, Physics and Chemistry put together to study a large and complicated system
"Please can somebody tell me exactly what qualifications are needed to be a 'Climate Scientist'?"
Sep 2, 2010 at 12:27 PM | Latimer Alder
What did the methodology of the two surveys I listed tell you about what constitutes a climate scientist? Oh - hold on, like most deniers, you didn't actually bother looking at the evidence and doing research. You just made a few assumptions and tried to pick holes in something that disagrees with an opinion you've already formed.
Mac, I've made that very same point on this and other sites in the last couple of years. We are in the pre-Baader-Meinhof gang stage of environmentalism. The existential disillusionment is only just starting to kick in. They are just beginning to realise that they may not be able to get what they want: the end of capitalism and the beginning of their utopian dream.
A cursory glance of the comment sections in quite mainstream forums like the Guardian's Comment is Free, reveals quite alarming levels of barely suppressed violence. As soon as Warmism unravels and its advocates lose the easy access they currently enjoy to the media, political and financial classes, they will pick up the gun and bomb.
The precursors of this movement are already here: Plane Stupid, Climate Camps, Kingsnorth power squad etc
Remember, humans are unimportant when you are fighting for Gaia
So ZedsDeadBed do you agree that humanity should find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using oil in order to reverse global warming and the destruction of the planet?
"Mac, I've made that very same point on this and other sites in the last couple of years. We are in the pre-Baader-Meinhof gang stage of environmentalism. The existential disillusionment is only just starting to kick in. They are just beginning to realise that they may not be able to get what they want: the end of capitalism and the beginning of their utopian dream.
A cursory glance of the comment sections in quite mainstream forums like the Guardian's Comment is Free, reveals quite alarming levels of barely suppressed violence. As soon as Warmism unravels and its advocates lose the easy access they currently enjoy to the media, political and financial classes, they will pick up the gun and bomb.
The precursors of this movement are already here: Plane Stupid, Climate Camps, Kingsnorth power squad etc
Remember, humans are unimportant when you are fighting for Gaia"
Sep 2, 2010 at 12:33 PM | Stuck-record
I'm glad I stumbled accross this place, every other comment is comedy gold.
How deluded do you actually have to be not to realise that deniers are becoming more and more marginalised as the unarguable strength of climate science filters through to the mainstream.
You are exposing your deep-seated bias confirmation by going to the Grauniad and looking for the angrier comments there. They pale into insignificance compared to the very real hatred, stupidity, madness and anger that is rampant on places like the Mail under climate change stories.
"So ZedsDeadBed do you agree that humanity should find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using oil in order to reverse global warming and the destruction of the planet?"
Sep 2, 2010 at 12:36 PM | Mac
As countries develop, they tend to take care of that themselves. Look at birthrates in most of the western world.
"How deluded do you actually have to be not to realise that deniers are becoming more and more marginalised as 'the unarguable strength' of climate science filters through to the mainstream."
A biblical response!
What next?
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."
Well ZedsDeadBead you have just agreed to a demand that James Jay Lee made before he was shot.
"Well ZedsDeadBead you have just agreed to a demand that James Jay Lee made before he was shot."
Sep 2, 2010 at 12:45 PM | Mac
That we help all the developing countries around the world to reach a level concommitant with western life so that they experience the same decline in birth rates that we have?
Didn't see that anywhere in his demands. I don't think you've got that right.
Mckitrick's submission to the IAC on the handling of proceedures, policies and scientific views of the IPCC shows where the problems lie.
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/iac.ross_mckitrick.pdf
"Didn't see that anywhere in his demands"
How would you possibly know what was in James Jay Lee's mind, someone you called a nutjob, unless you are a nutjob yourself.
bob ward supporter 'discovers' BH?
Zed: "You are exposing your deep-seated bias confirmation by going to the Grauniad and looking for the angrier comments there."
And you are here for, what?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Gentlemen
I think this conversation is off-topic on this thread.
Our little Troll appears not to have seen Dr Spencer's latest peer-reveiwed paper.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/our-jgr-paper-on-feedbacks-is-published/
"At this point, I think that belief in the high climate sensitivity (positive feedbacks) in the current crop of climate models is a matter of faith, not unbiased science. The models are infinitely adjustable, and modelers stop adjusting when they get model behavior that reinforces their pre-conceived notions."
Well ZedsDeadBead you have just agreed to a demand that James Jay Lee made before he was shot.
Sep 2, 2010 at 12:45 PM | Mac
"Didn't see that anywhere in his demands"
How would you possibly know what was in James Jay Lee's mind, someone you called a nutjob, unless you are a nutjob yourself.
Sep 2, 2010 at 12:54 PM | Mac
How's that self-contradiction working out for you? Complete switch in truth value of ability to know demands made by eco-nutter guy, in the space of 9 minutes.
Further comments on the subject of James Jay Lee will be deleted.
(Note: I think ZedsDeadBed is a lady, so it is "she" here)
Is it too much to ask the climate establishment to acknowledge as much?
Bringing it back on topic, ZedsDeadBed will allow no change in her belief system. Anything, the smallest thing, that effects that belief system she will attack. She could be Bob Ward's clone.
I am not sure anyone on the sceptical side has such beliefs that they will attack in such a manner.
The "climate establishment" (whatever than means) is full of people either like ZedsDeadBed/Bob Ward or supported by them or more importantly MONITORED by them (most people will naturally avoid conflict.)
Turning that ship will not be easy and is not a short term time frame.
The only weapon we have is democracy, because without it the "lunatics do take over the asylum"...
So I think ZedsDeadBed popped up at a very opportune time. Thanks ZedsDeadBed.
ZuluDelta Bravo - Relax, please stop your frenetic panting over the keyboard. It's unhealthy.
So do 97% of "Climate Scientists" agree with with the WSJs summary of the IAC report that -
"ZuluDelta Bravo - Relax, please stop your frenetic panting over the keyboard. It's unhealthy.
So do 97% of "Climate Scientists" agree with with the WSJs summary of the IAC report that -
None of this proves or disproves anything, except that our understanding of how our climate works is still evolving. Is it too much to ask the climate establishment to that we acknowledge as much?"
Sep 2, 2010 at 1:46 PM | GrantB
Hmm, so on the one hand, a vast body of published peer reviewed science from multiple independent sources. On the other hand, an excerpt from tomorrow's chip wrapper.
Think I'll go with the former if that's all the same to you.
The assertions of climate alarmists and associated agitators do not bear much examination when they depart from the obvious and the banal. It is tiresome to follow up on their statements, but I have just done so for ZedsDeadBed's vague references to 2 studies (post at 11:43am) purporting to support her '97% of climate scientists' claim, and this is what I was able to piece together in 30 minutes or so:
1. Anderegg et al. (2010) is not a survey but a most peculiar literature search involving two groups: participants in the IPCC AR4 Working Group and various activist petitions (the CE group), and signatories of petitions and open letters critical of AGW alarmism (the UE group). It is a bit like checking out who has written in the church newsletters over the past few years (CE), and who has publicly supported petitions critical of some aspect of the church (UE). They are then screened to exclude those who have not published much themselves in those newsletters. The general direction of the results seems inevitable, and all the authors (Anderegg et al.) have done is quantify it and decorate it with statistical jargon. A shoddy piece of work, part of the sad decline of Schneider (one of the co-authors).
See: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract for the abstract and a download link for the whole, quite brief, paper.
2. Doran and Zimmerman (2009) is also not at all impressive. It was a survey of 'earth scientists' only, published in Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009 (available here: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf). They sent out their survey form to 10,257 people, and got 3,146 responses. Self-selection bias is the second question to come to mind - the first question being to ask for more information on the frame used for the survey. The source of the widely touted '97% of climate scientists' comes from the 77 so-designated by the authors, of whom 75 answered 'yes' to the question'Do you think human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?'. Well if you take the heat island effects and creeping urbanisation around weather stations, and if you take the selective ignoring of cooler weather stations and curiously 'same direction' temperature adjustments by some met offices, and if you take creative extrapolation over zones with no stations, then humans have had an appreciable effect from these sources alone. So I, a most definite sceptic, would have had to answer yes to that survey question as posed, albeit reluctantly given the ambiguity of the word 'significant' (the statistical and the everyday definitions being seriously different).
Here is a criticism published in the same journal in the same year (7 July 2009), by Roland Granqvist, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Dalarna University, Borlänge, Sweden:
'In a summary of their survey on the opinion about global warming among Earth scientists (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman conclude that the debate on the role of human activity is largely nonexistent, and that the challenge is “how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers” and to the public. However, I argue that neither of these conclusions can be drawn from the survey. For example, one issue that is much discussed in the public debate is the role of greenhouse gas emissions in global warming. Perhaps there is not much debate about this issue among scientists, but this cannot be concluded from the survey, in which nothing is said about such emissions. In the second question of their survey, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman refer only to “human activity.” Furthermore, even if scientists agree that the effect of human activity is “significant,” which is the word used in the second question, they can have very different beliefs as to how large, and how dangerous, this effect is.'
Source: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009EO270008.shtml
Zed: "...a vast body of published peer reviewed science from multiple independent sources. "
Multiple. Independent.
Oh Dear. you really haven't been keeping up have you?
Mr Cricket, as a woman I am frankly slightly offended that you would think that Zed is a lady. Getting facts and numbers wrong put together with frantic panting and a touch of hysteria is frankly not the sort of behaviour that I would expect from a sister. Zed, please come to my rescue and reveal that you are in fact a man. On the bright side just looked up “Gaia” (I thought it was a type of yoghurt or a Greek goddess) so have learned something new on this thread today.
"Our little Troll appears not to have seen Dr Spencer's latest peer-reveiwed paper.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/our-jgr-paper-on-feedbacks-is-published/"
Sep 2, 2010 at 1:15 PM | Adam Gallon
Gosh - he does have a new one out since his thoroughly rebutted 2008 paper. Thanks for pointing it my way, I'll have a look. I probably didn't notice it as I was looking over Dr. Spencer's work explaining how God created the World through Intelligent Design.
Is that something you believe of his as well?
"Getting facts and numbers wrong"
Sep 2, 2010 at 1:58 PM | H
Example please.
ZDB.
Go back to Real Climate.
They might appreciate you there.
We do not appreciate you here.
Thanks.
Sep 2, 2010 at 1:57 PM | John Shade
Hi John - I wouldn't agree with everything you've said there, but would concede that neither survey is perfect. I would say however, that no matter how much one quibbles and nitpicks at them, that they both suggest an overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists.
It is of course decided on evidence, not consensus, but consensus amongst the experts in the field can be a pretty good indicator.
The consensus is also reinforced evidentially by the vast majority of published peer reviewed papers supporting AGW - in fact, when I've had a look at the Spencer paper above, that would be only the third I've ever seen. Balance that against a body of hundreds, and the numbers alone are strongly suggestive, before you even look at the science.
Would you agree that the reality of AGW is the dominant view among climate scientists to a great degree? Are you able to provide anything that suggests otherwise?
"ZDB.
Go back to Real Climate.
They might appreciate you there.
We do not appreciate you here.
Thanks."
Sep 2, 2010 at 2:05 PM | John Carter
The evidence for your views is to weak to withstand scrutiny then?
@ZDB
As I thought...despite your huffings and puffings, we can agree that there is NO recognised qualification in 'Climate Science' apart from self-assertion that you are one.
And surveys based on a self-selecting group are worth no more than those on the telly for moisturising cream.
I note that you haven't passed your opinion on whether Montford, McIntyre and Keenan are Climate Scientists? Or me...my MSc was in Atmospheric Chemistry. If not, why not?
@ZedsDeadBed
Asserting that '97% of climate scientists agree with AGW' is meaningless.
Most scientists agree that the radiative transfer equations (eg Ramanathan) gives us a basic theoretical correlation of about +1C (global average temperature) for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 ppmv over the pre-industrial mean.
The PROBLEMS lie with the hypothetical assertion that a combination of self-reinforcing and mutually reinforcing positive feedbacks will result in significant or dangerous or 'runaway' warming.
On this there is much more debate. What really happens when modest CO2 temperature forcing meets the chaos of the climate system? Are all feedbacks of necessity positive? Or can modest changes in the hydrological cycle compensate? Nobody knows.
Anderegg's and Doran's naive 'certainties' expressed in precise percentage terms are entirely at odds with the true uncertainty regarding climate sensitivity to CO2. In other words, they are misleading.
The IAC has just explicitly critcised the IPCC for failing to present uncertainty in a scientifically appropriate manner. Consider the above 'statistics' again in the light of the wider issues with the IPCC. They are yet another example of the way science is being warped by the political and ideological pressure to promote a narrow CAGW agenda.
Let's look at the facts:
1. All data are suspect. Not from tampering but because we have such limited and unreliable records covering a relatively short span - 150 years; five climate data points. There is real uncertainty concerning the change in global temperature (surface temp + SSTs), ocean heat content, the rate of sea level rise, the extent of polar ice sheets etc.
2. Even the satellite data are tricky because of the problems with splicing together the records from a succession of instruments. This is especially relevant to attempts to calculate sea level change. More uncertainty.
3. Utterly vital factors are barely measured. I particularly stress the importance of changes in the extent and location of low cloud cover over the major ocean basins. While the ISCCP data on cloud cover are hugely valuable, they are far from definitive. More uncertainty.
Take the current interest in Wu et al. proposing changes in the analytical methodology for extracting meaning from the GRACE data. On the face of it, GRACE looks like very high tech (and implicitly accurate and 'reliable') science indeed. Behind the scenes, everything hinges on assumptions and guesswork about GIA.
None of this is to say that AGW is wrong as such. The climate has warmed, stepwise, since about 1850 and the warming from 1976 may well be getting a boost from GHGs. At the same time, it may also be largely natural in origin.
What it does say is that anyone who claims that catastrophe is certain and that we are its sole authors is either scientifically illiterate or dishonest.
There is absolutely no middle ground.
So which is it to be, ZDB?
Dominic
ZedsDeadBed
"Two different studies both coming up with about the same percentage of climate scientists who agree on AGW? That would seem to be a pretty good confirmation that they're correct."
Beg to differ. I would take your statement (not having read the specific papers) as a pretty good confirmation that the climate scientists agree - nothing more. To do otherwise would be un-scientific?
Zed, I did actually look up the papers you referred to just as John did and agree with most of his comments See? we sceptics do try to engage :o) “Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” So we are really talking about 97-98% scientist who are getting an awful lot published, probably with the funding to match. Hmmmmm. Now which scientists have been most successful in securing funding for their studies and getting their results published? How can you possibly just take that number and use it to say that “97% of all climate researchers…”? Now I have to go and work so best,
@ZDB
'Gosh - he does have a new one out since his thoroughly rebutted 2008 paper. Thanks for pointing it my way, I'll have a look. I probably didn't notice it as I was looking over Dr. Spencer's work explaining how God created the World through Intelligent Design.
Is that something you believe of his as well?'
ZDB, why smear the man and not respond to the science? I
Your attempt to delegitimise Spencer is repellent and revealing in equal measure.
Dominic
ZeadBeat
The referral to creationism is a dead give-away ...
As is your referral to the many publications finding evidence of ma-made global warming.
But you have not really accomplished anything here. Most of your ranting is just what CAGW cheerleaders unload whenever they can.
Appearantly you haven't even read Doran, or Spencer for that matter. Otherwise you wouldn't have made such claims. Presumably you just picked up som phrases at RealClimate, phrasesthat you hope carry some weight.
ZuluDelta Bravo - "Would you agree that the reality of AGW is the dominant view among climate scientists to a great degree?"
Again; arm waving, unquantifiable drivel.
You haven't answered Latimer's question as to how one qualifies as a "Climate Scientist" and therefore becomes an eligible candidate for these surveys. Is it by self-appointment? Is there a society that bestows this honour? Does Latimer qualify? I've a PhD in Theoretical Physics - do I qualify? Admittedly I have no peer reviewed journal publications - mine were refereed by my betters, not peer reviewed by my friends. And quite happy to check my list against yours by an agreed exchange of emails if agreed by the Bishop.
A$1000 (whatever that is in quid) to your favourite charity if you come out in front. The same to mine if you don't.
@ZDB
I am trying to gauge your intellectual honesty (see my first response to you above).
So, please answer this question:
Would you mock Spencer and deride his scientific standing if he were a Muslim?
Just curious.
Dominic
"You haven't answered Latimer's question as to how one qualifies as a "Climate Scientist" and therefore becomes an eligible candidate for these surveys. Is it by self-appointment? Is there a society that bestows this honour? Does Latimer qualify? I've a PhD in Theoretical Physics - do I qualify? Admittedly I have no peer reviewed journal publications - mine were refereed by my betters, not peer reviewed by my friends. And quite happy to check my list against yours by an agreed exchange of emails if agreed by the Bishop.
A$1000 (whatever that is in quid) to your favourite charity if you come out in front. The same to mine if you don't."
Sep 2, 2010 at 2:34 PM | GrantB
Grant - why not actually look at the papers I referred you, to rather than not bothering to do so and then chiding me for not handing you a definition of 'climate scientist' on a plate to see if you can have a pop at it.
Just once, I'll do the groundwork you don't seem bothered to do. From the Andregg paper:
We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers based on
authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on
multisignatory statements about ACC (SI Materials and Methods).
Not perfect, but also not a bad definition of a climate scientists either.
As for your bet, no dice. Chances of me ever revealing traceable details through a denier board? Zero.
"@ZDB
I am trying to gauge your intellectual honesty (see my first response to you above).
So, please answer this question:
Would you mock Spencer and deride his scientific standing if he were a Muslim?
Just curious.
Dominic"
Sep 2, 2010 at 2:43 PM | BBD
If he were a Muslim and kept his beliefs distinct from his professional work? No. If he were a Muslim and started making scientific claims based on that religion that were so risible and easily refuted that they fatally damaged his credibility? Definitely.
Spencer has largely done the latter but with a different religion.