Tuesday
Feb012011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill I am a number
Feb 1, 2011 Climate: Surface A propos of the post about the use of the word "denier", I was pondering the problems we have with referring to the different attitudes to global warming in the debate. Names like sceptic, warmist, denier are all bickered over endlessly.
Perhaps each of us should adopt a number, being the amount of warming we expect to see over the period 2000-2100. It would be more precise and less prone to use in a derogatory fashion.
It's an idea anyway.
What number are you?
Reader Comments (109)
At 17h25GMT (01/02/2011) it is a beautiful 'Bell' curve ; centred at about +0.2, with a little 'blip' at the very high end.
I wonder what it will be like tomorrow.
Phillip Bratby
42
I quite agree, and like Deep Thought I have quite forgotten what the Ultimate Question.
Now to the rest of you -- what are Phillip and I talking about? :)
Actually of all the ideas to self identify that would be the worst idea. Most sceptics deplore the term "denier" because of the connotations to Holocaust Denier. Well trying to turn us into numbers is even worse. That is what the Nazi's did to the Jews, they stopped having names, they were only the numbers tattooed on their arms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_in_Nazi_camps
Jerry
Do you work for Apple?????
Only joking - I tend to agree, but we live in a free world (I can't believe I typed that) where people write stuff and others either use it or they don't.
Do you have the same view of Microsoft ???
Don Pablo: ... what are Phillip and I talking about..
Chameleoid death flotillas?
I have no idea and neither does anyone else.
If I claim I do know, can I get a share of the grant funding bonanza??? - probably but only if I want to guess warmer than now.
Totally O/T - well not totally.
Have you seen this Bish and from a highly respected source
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/the-oceans-clouds-and-cosmic-rays-drive-the-climate-not-co2/
We postmodesrnists know global mean temperature is a social construct, an artefact and an expression of our belief systems, if not of our funding sources. So who knows how it will be constructed in the postfuture era of the year 2100? Perhaps we shall be in our caves, dancing occasionally around the stumps of longdead turbines on our moorlands, erecting stones in circles to catch the eye of the Sun to get a little more food, and trying to get the string tightened enough to ask the folks across the valley how their weather is going. But I daydream...
Emotionally, for the sake of my grandchildren, I'd like to see 2 or 3C up - a new golden era of warmth and a surge in human creativity and numbers, making me say, a 2.5.
Trendily, I extrapolate the gentle recovery from the LIA, and that makes me a 0.7.
Gloomily, I feel in my water that we are near the end of our glorious Holocene, our very own interglacial, and that could make me a -2.
Averaging this out using my supercomputer, I find myself to be a 0.4.
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
The answer to the meaning of life.
sHx, is this a serious statement?
John Shade, I knew there was something about you I resonated with...
Are we supposed to guess the REAL change in global mean temperature or the transmogrified result trumpeted by the 22nd century equivalents of CRU & NASA & NOAA? Sheesh, it's embarrassing having to ask that.
@Robinson: What I want is a button called "Random..."
In climate science random number generators are specialised pieces of equipment. The MET Office paid £33m for theirs!
I went for +0.5, as this is the trend of the past 150 years.
However, a pro-AGW person not just have to believe that the earth will warm by significantly this century. They also have to believe in the impending catastrophy. It is so big a problem that we need to take concerted global action - and this will be done by getting governments to sign an agreement. You also have to believe that the policies are sufficient, that politicians will live up to their promises and have the capacity to deliver complex, poorly defined projects within the budget constraints laid down by the IPCC or Lord Stern. You also have to believe that outside interest groups like the WWF and Greenpeace have a balanced view of the world.
If you doubt or question any of these things, then you could be called a skeptic or denier just as much as Lord Monckton or James Delingpole.
Don Pablo. "I have quite forgotten what the Ultimate Question."
I remember seeing a wonderful TV program by the Hitchhiker crew in which they went on a quest to find the question to which the answer was 42. After a long journey and many trials and tribulations, the team found the tablet on which was inscribed the question. Great excitement. Only problem is, the question was written in heiroglyphics that they couldn't decipher. So they set off to find someone who could decipher the heiroglyphics. Eventurally they found a long haired, long bearded wise man who could decipher it, but only after much time and much effort.
Finally he reported to the team what the question was. It was: What do you get when you multiply 7 by 8?
Philip Bratby:
Philip, what about a globally averaged temperature anomaly, which is what Richard Lindzen has taught me to call it? Is GATA a reasonable proxy for energy, as he suggested at the most recent Heartland conference? Lindzen specifically cited Christopher Essex's objections to the concept of global temperature, agreeing that this is meaningless. So does averaging temperature anomalies get round the problem? Does it give us any handle at all on the energy? Isn't that a fantastically difficult thing to measure any other way?
Those are very genuine questions, that I've had for quite a while. Answers on a postcard or anything larger that you may need much appreciated. Meanwhile I feel with those who say they don't know, for I don't any more than you do. But as the old saw goes, the Bishop made me do it.
P.S. boballab, lighten up. As I heard a well-known Rabbi say when someone he was debating made a unwise comparison with the Nazis, "But the Nazis also drove cars. Does that mean I shouldn't own a Volvo?" This sparky answer always resonated with me far more than Godwin. As always, you have to know the context - and the context here is very light-hearted. Well, unless Bishop Hill really is NUMBER ONE and we're all trapped in a strange-looking virtual Welsh village, with those white weather balloons (ARGO buoys?) stopping us the moment we try to think about anything else ... hmm, that could explain a lot :)
Thank you Kevin. Nice to see that you are well read. When I saw Phillip Bratby's post, I realized that he recognized the Ultimate Truth and knew that none of us had any idea what the Ultimate Question really was. I suspect that Phillip Bratby is indeed Deep Thought.
For the rest of you, consider the relationship of what Douglas Adams wrote in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy to this blog, and indeed the whole controversy about the climate. I think Phillip nailed it with the answer "42".
The book is still available and worth reading.
@Kevin
sHx, is this a serious statement?:
"I am a denialist. Worse, I am a gun-toting, tobacco-chewing, TEA Party-voting, ant-science, oil-shill and flat Earther."
It is real and serious from the twisted CAGW religious perspective. You know, the devil in disguise trick.
In reality, I am a skeptic not a denialist. I have never had a gun, never voted for any party other than Labor and Greens, have love and respect for the scientific method, and I have never been paid a cent by fossil fuel interests. I also believe the Earth is round. I smoke tobacco, but never chew it.
Surely, as sceptics, the only answer is that we haven't a clue - and don't believe anybody else has a clue, nor that science as currently understood can possibly make a meaningful prediction? Isn't this a key difference between us and those who have had the answer revealed to them on tablets inscribed on the mountain-top?
This is like placing bets at a casino - someone will 'win', but it will be by dumb luck!
We did this a few months ago on KK's blog - me and a few others from each side.
Of course, fundamentally, I'm against entertaining specific numbers. Predictions of climate sensitivity in the 21st century are unscientific, and the allocation of a number is a manifestation of *belief* rather than of scientific understanding.
The truth is that we don't know, and likely won't know until the end of the century, what the climate's range of climate variability in the 21st C will be. Furthermore, there is the risk that our predictions of climate change in the 21st century will be erroneously interpreted as climate sensitivity to CO2 where, in all likelihood, our predictions are no more based on CO2 than anticipated natural variation. Given the userbase here, probably more attributed to natural variation than CO2
Unless we explicitly stipulate our attribution of cause, the numbers we give here will be open to interpretation and, in my experience, wide open to abuse by those less interested in scientific discovery and more interested in the invention of political impetus.
If we are talking about the raw global temperature anomaly for 2100 then I am going for -1.5 +/- 0.5 (95% CI).
If you are talking about the adjusted temperature anomaly from HadCRU / GISS then I am going for +4.0 +/- 0.01 (95% CI).
However, since I do not expect to see the year 2100 I think a more interesting set of predictions from the audience here would be for, say, 5, 10 and 15 years hence.
Oh, and a winter prediction for 2011-12 would be fun - can our collective guesses outperform the Met Office?
42
Hahaha.
Re Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I guess 42 is the answer to any question one might wish to ask provided that he/she knows the right question. :)
Without belaboring the point that this is an attempt to inject some humour to the thread, below is one of my favourite dialogs from the TV version. Warning: It is not meant to be taken literally. It is a joke. It may or may not be seriously and/or ironically. I seek indulgence from His Grace on this. It has some relevance to the thread. Honest. Don't Panic!
"Hey, Wolfie! When we get our glorious revolution and the Tooting Popular Front takes over, we'll all be equal! We'll all be known by numbers! What number will you be Wolfie?"
"ONE, of course!"
Sadly, I suspect that we've had the best of the warming, so I'm cheating a bit and following a certain astronomical tipster.
'Annual average of the TSI experiences accelerated descent since the 1990s.
We are going through the period of unstable variations when till the 2014
the global temperature will oscillate around the maximum reached
in 1998-2005, then a new Little Ice Age will come.
We expect the beginning of the new Little Ice Age epoch in 2014.
In 2003-2005 I predicted a new deep minimum of both TSI and
sunspot activity in 2042±11 with a deep global temperature
minimum in 2055-2060(±11) and my predictions are
looking better and better with each passing year.' Habibullo Abdussamatov
On slide 14 from his powerpoint, downloadable from Heartland, he estimates a temp around -0.6 in 2100 rising slightly thereafter, so allowing a minor charitable positive CO2 effect I arrive at delta T -0.5
The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy used to have an entry for CO2 which simply said...
..."Harmless!"
After the combined governments of the world spent many hundreds of millions of dollars on mindbogglingly complex climate research, it now says...
..."Mostly Harmless!"
And here's another quote from noted environmentalist Douglas Adams, seeing as many of you seem to be fans. Dates back about 30 years, I wish some of you who profess to like him, had taken a bit more notice back then:
"The trouble with most forms of transport, he thought, is basically that not one of them is worth all the bother. On Earth--when there had been an Earth, before it was demolished to make way for a new hyperspace bypass--the problem had been with cars. The disadvantages involved in pulling lots of black sticky slime from out of the ground where it had been safely hidden out of harm's way, turning it into tar to cover the land with, smoke to fill the air with, and pouring the rest into the sea, all seemed to outweigh the advantage of being able to get more quickly from one place to another--particularly when the place you arrived at had probably become, as a result of this, very similar to the place you had left, i.e., covered with tar, full of smoke and short of fish"
I've voted +1°C, since my choice is structured - but my real guess would be 0.50±0.75
When people ask me if the earth is warming I say 'I fear it may not be'.
I went for 1.5, i.e. lowish IPCC but consistent with continuing (Little) Ice Age Recovery. Can I suggest that any extreme AGW type who uses the term "Denier" with obvious connotations should thereafter be called a "Climate Bolshevik"?
What a wonderful idea! I need some help in choosing my number. I want the number that the Warmista put forth as the increase in temperature since 1850. I choose that number because I believe that once the hands of Hansen, Jones, and the others are removed from the keyboard then the increase in temperature will be shown to be an artifact of their peculiar fingering techniques.
I am firmly of the view that there is a 99% + probability that in the year 2100, there will be people living on the earth and that they will be interested in the climate of their particular locality.
However, if asked about global temperature, they will look rather strangely at the questioner, then shake their head sadly, and walk away quietly, muttering about old fashioned superstitions.
Anyway, that's what I believe.
If I'm still alive in 2100 I'll still be the only one trying to convince everyone else that it is the last year of the 21st Century and not the first year of the 22nd.
andyscrase writes:
"If I'm still alive in 2100 I'll still be the only one trying to convince everyone else that it is the last year of the 21st Century and not the first year of the 22nd."
You are referring to January 1, 2100? Depends on your calendar. The communists have always talked about the year zero. On that calendar, you are correct.
@Theo Goodwin
"You are referring to January 1, 2100? Depends on your calendar. The communists have always talked about the year zero. On that calendar, you are correct."
Year Zero happened 1975 years after the real Year Zero.
Mondo
Finally he reported to the team what the question was. It was: What do you get when you multiply 7 by 8?
Sounds like you have been using the Met Office computer. Do the math by hand.
ZedsDeadBed
And here's another quote from noted environmentalist Douglas Adams, seeing as many of you seem to be fans.
Since Truro as well as the rest of Earth was demolished for the hyperspace by-pass, what difference did it make in the end, which is my point all along. You missed my point completely. You are not in charge, the mice are.
sHx
Thank you for the quotation. You clearly understand, unlike ZDB.
If I approach this like the unaccountable IPCC scenarians, then the ensemble results give 0 C,. +/- 10 C by 2100, compared with 2000. However, further research is needed to flesh out the dire impacts of a +10 C temperature increase. We have thousands of otherwise unemployable scientists in dire need of climate research grants. Send money early and often.
given the complete dedication of your government to making everyone poorer, the temps are certain to decline!
1 Feb : UK Daily Mail: Greenhouse gas emissions plummet by 9% in a year as struggling Britons use less fuel and energy
by Daily Mail Reporter
Energy Secretary Chris Huhne warned the figures were not a cause for celebration.
He said: 'Yes, emissions were down in 2009 but so was the economy so this is no time for back-slapping.'...
Friends of the Earth said that, despite the fall in greenhouse gases, the economy remained heavily addicted to fossil fuels, and early estimates for 2010 suggested emissions were likely to have grown again last year.
Its head of climate Mike Childs said: 'The Government must take urgent steps to wean the country off coal, gas and oil by investing in green energy and slashing energy waste - the Energy Bill, currently before Parliament, is a golden opportunity for action...
'We must build a clean, low-carbon economy out of the rubble of the old to create a safe and prosperous future for us all."...
The two figures include trading of allowances bought to cover greenhouse gases emitted by power plants and heavy industry under the EU carbon trading scheme, but for the first time the UK was a net seller of such credits...
(Huhne) 'A low carbon approach has to be a vital part of kick starting and future proofing our economy, getting us off the oil hook and on to long term green growth.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1352521/Greenhouse-gas-emissions-drop-9-Britons-use-fuel-energy-recession.html
Retired Dave said
I hate Flash because it's crap. One of the many wasted 3 years of my life was spent trying to get Flash 'artworks' to display in public spaces. The coders were crap, the players were crap. Still are.
I also hate flash as it's a mechanism to control the viewer. You see what you see because it lets you. That's why most car companies run all-flash sites to manipulate your user experience.
Long live WebM, HTML5, and ECMAscript.
A propos, you should be warned that some people are not happy with all the "cranks" "holding back" progress on global warming:
http://bit.ly/fOT2NW
You've been warned! :-D
[BH adds: I've swapped long link for short one]
I wonder if the Bishop will prove to have the best forecast in the world - due to his patented prediction market system?
Sorry your Emminance but you blew it on this one.
How much the temp rises in the next century is meaningless. What matters is why.
A possible decent yardstick might be
"What do you believe is the probability that mankind's contribution to global warming is significant?"
This would at least limit my number to a normalizable range.
I have to leave it up to Id or Watts or Spencer or Pelke or etc or etc or even Briffa to define significant
Oops.
Forgot to mention that I be a west coast American.
Inasmuchas (my favorite Spanish word) I spent a few hours on a website that claimed it understood english phrases and roughly 100 percent of them had some kind of sexual connotation I feel I should stress that the American English idiom "you blew it" only means you made a serious blunder.
I say ~+1 C to ~-1C from uncertainties at around 2010 in the paper 'McShane and Wyner 2010' figure #16.
John
Mr Eugenides -
Interesting article. "Climate cranks" is an excellent expression, but should be applied to author of that piece and any others who might consider (ab)using their children to make cheap political theatre.
I'll be a 1.2 thank you very muchly.
Bill S. I weesh to fundle your butt ox.
I'm with Pharos & Abdussamatov - 0.5
@lapogus : "Enjoy the Holocene while it lasts!" too funny !!
Andyscrase: 'If I'm still alive in 2100 I'll still be the only one trying to convince everyone else that it is the last year of the 21st Century and not the first year of the 22nd.'
Of course this is simply a question of word use - the majority will thus have it!