Saturday
May282011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Engagement
May 28, 2011 Climate: other Eric Wolff has sportingly responded to Neil Craig's emailed list of questions and Neil has equally sportingly acknowledged that he could have worded things more delicately. So we've had a hiccup, but everyone is being grown-up about it and making an effort to engage constructively.
Eric's response is here at Neil's site. I hope everyone can keep a lid on things over there.
Reader Comments (35)
Does anyone know if BEST are going to provide an analysis of the rate of global warming using the method noted in Douglas Keenan's articles entitled "How Scientific Is Climate Science?"
I find him evasive, tribal and badly informed. Is it just me?
Yes Rhoda. It's just you.
I'll sit on the fence about him being evasive and tribal. But he is certainly badly informed if he is not aware of the Phil Jones quote. That said the BBC/Harriban rather hid it away on their website rather than make the story out it they should have. I wonder if Prof Wolff is aware of the many other problems with the IPCC - perhaps he should take a little time out from his ice cores to visit Donna's. Speaking of ice cores, it would be interesting to know why Prof Wolf prefers to go along with the dodgy tree-ring proxies for the last 1000 years, rather than the ice-core data, e.g. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
The Glacier error took 2 years from first identification to correction, it was not an immediate correction.
Plus what happened to the promise that it would only include peer reviewed material, good proportion is WWF/Greenpeace etc articles and Insurance company studies.
No Rhoda, it's not you.
Dr Phil's quote, Pachauri's "Voodoo science" when the glacier error was raised & Mann's evasion & refusal to answer his critics' questions are all well known.
Rhoda
The Indian Government commissioned and released the VK Raina-authored report on glaciers, with actual on-site data exhibiting that the expected rate of glacier melt was not at all evident. The journalist Pallava Bagla wrote an article in Science explaining the error. Both these sources appeared in late 2009.
You know what Pachauri said: Let them publish their objections in a peer-reviewed journal. We'll look into it then.
Eventually the IPCC issued a statement that they had failed to heed their own procedures in citing a WWF report, but not actually correcting the report text,....in January 2010. Two months after the error was reported directly to Pachauri, its highest elected official.
The IPCC had to be virtually hounded into admitting its error.
The error was noted, originally as soon as the error appeared. For instance, a reviewer for the IPCC draft pointed out that the figure 2035 did not sound plausible at all, but the authors refused to tackle his objection.
Hasnain the actual originator of the error, going all the way back to 1999 when his presentation became the source of this figure being put out in an Indian environmental magazine Down to Earth, himself admitted that he knew about the error but kept mum because he thought the IPCC was after all a big and powerful organization.
Yet, you look around and you'll see - Eric Wolff and Spencer Weart and so many others repeating strange and non-sensical statements about things which are clearly on the record in the media. The reason is simple: they all read Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt which portrays scientists as victims and concedes (very rightly so) that they are not the evil conspirators they are supposedly painted to be. It is a divide and rule strategy. No honest scientist would stand up to the kind of nonsense that Pachauri et al perpetrated with the glacier claims, the Amazon claims, the African crop yields, if they took the time to dissect out these issues.
The objective of many activists is to kick up as much as a shitstorm of citations, opinions, references, slurs and insults, that no outside person can make out the rough contours with any reasonable effort. Where the errors are egregious, i.e., has a sufficiently simple 'hook', - a number, a year (2035), there is some hope for breaking through and actually exposing the error. Where this doesn't exist, there will be no expose.
For example, Pachauri claimed about three days ago, that the IPCC 'corrected' (it has not) its glacier error within three days of being brought to its notice. At the height of controversy in Jan-Feb last year, Pachauri told Bagla to his face that he did not recieve any email from him, when reminded of the email Bagla sent. What can you do with people who openly lie?
No Rhoda. It's not just you.
Not wishing to feed the trolls but perhaps ZDB might like to comment on Shubs recent post?
Shub, it might be educational for Dr Wolff if you reposted your comment on Neils site
I find Rhoda tribal - because I have no knowledge of her, no memory of her past posts and now I read her making a negative comment about Eric Wolff, someone who has a real world reputation to lose, as she I assume doesn't - I assume that it's not the case that everyone apart from me knows which real person lies the name Rhoda when they read her stuff.
I admit that I am really tribal against people who don't have the guts to use a real name and thus don't have have a real world reputation to lose as they stir up discontent on a forum like this. I really really hate it. But then, like much tribalism, that goes back to some very painful history for me.
I also have no knowledge of Eric Wolff, except that he's one of the first publicly to engage with the Bishop on these matters. I greatly respect him for that, no matter what. But I haven't had the time or made the time to read his stuff. It's just a gut-feel thing.
Tribal and badly informed. Yep, I'm both. But I'm also encouraged ... and I applaud Andrew and Josh for the lead they've been taking on opening up this debate.
Richard Drake
Well said.
I am interested in these responses.
Neil Craig, "Do you accept Professor Jones' acknowledgement that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995?"
Dr Eric Wolff, BAS, "*I have not heard this statement. However, because the climate system is inherently noisy, with alternating short runs of cold years and of warm years, there could NEVER be a statistically significant trend over just a few years. One can only determine a multidecadal trend by looking at the gradient over multi-decades. If you insist on taking trends over a decade, you will find periods with a positive gradient, a negative gradient or flat, but none of them significant. This was exactly my point about the analogy with months. There will quite certainly be a warming trend in temperature between January and July, but you will certainly find periods of 10, perhaps even 20 days, that have no, or even a negative, gradient."
From the Independent, Sept 2010.
Michael O'Leary, Ryan Air, "It used to be global warming but now, when global temperatures haven't risen in the past 12 years, they say 'climate change'."
Dr Emily Shuckburgh, BAS "It is wrong to say global warming has stopped in the past 12 years. The weather changes day to day, and even when the temperature is averaged globally and over a full year, there are still considerable variations from year to year. When this is taken into account, no reduction is found in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20C per decade."
So is Shuckburgh's global warming trend of 0.15-0.20C per decade a statisically significant multidecadal trend as demanded by Wolff, and is it unprecendented as stated by climate scientists?
Mac
Good question:
These trends are multi-decadal (1979 - present) and cover a period of more than 30 years (the internationally agreed length for a basic 'climatology'). So yes, they are statistically significant multi-decadal trends.
In the same BBC interview where Phil Jones agrees that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 ('but only just'), he gives trend comparisons for the various warming episodes since 1860.
1910 - 1940 (31 yr) is 0.15C/decade
1975 - 2009 (35 yr) is 0.16C/decade
So (as I know you know) it is misleading to present the trend and duration of these warming episodes as evidence that the recent warming was 'unprecedented'.
The decadal warming over the last century has elevated the GATA to what may be its highest level in 1000 years, which is certainly unusual, but not 'unprecedented' either. (Note: I am not arguing that the MWP was warmer than the present).
Also, where does the upper range of 0.2C/decade from? Not GISTEMP (0.16C), not HADCRUT (0.15C), not UAH (0.14C) and not RSS (0.14C) (all 1979 - present).
Only the multi-model mean referenced by AR4 runs at 0.2C per decade for this period. And we are discussing observations of T, not model output.
Who decided that short runs are 'noisy' but long ones are not?
Shub
The WMO originated the 30 year minimum for a 'climatology'.
Long runs are not less 'noisy' in the detail vs short ones. It's just much easier to discern broad trends from long time series:
HADCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS. Common 1981 – 2010 baseline
HADCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS. 1979 – present; common 1981 – 2010 baseline; trend
GISTEMP, HADCRUT, UAH, RSS. 1998 – present; common 1981 – 2010 baseline; trend
"Not wishing to feed the trolls but perhaps ZDB might like to comment on Shubs recent post?"
That aint going to happen...for obvious reasons... :)
Michael O'Leary, Ryan Air, "It used to be global warming but now, when global temperatures haven't risen in the past 12 years, they say 'climate change'."
I always find this meme puzzling. IPCC was formed more than 20 years ago, I don't recall it being called IPGW back then.
BBD,
I think you took my question literally.
The normal scientific method is for individual scientists to start from a well established set of facts and work at the edges to expand that body of knowledge into the unknown universe.
that is how knowledge has advanced over the last few hundred years.
In general it is a very good method, but it does have at least one big weakness.
The problem with AGW "science" is that the foundation is rotten and in some places non existent.
Practising scientists like Dr. Wolff must take the established "facts" as read and work from there, on the unwritten assumption that the work that went before them, that they rely upon, is valid.
They know first hand that their own work is sound but never pause to ensure that it is not based on shifting sands.
This is why so many honourable scientists and scientific institutions have been misled.
They have assumed honest intent at the core of AGW "science".
No Rhoda, it is not just you.
Sorry Zed.
Tribal is a tad unfair considering the questions, and the history of this exchange, it's at least evens, and could be considered defensive.
You can have evasive or badly informed, but if he is badly informed how can he be evasive too? Either he is badly informed and his answers are inaccurate based on that bad information, or he knows the facts intimately and knowingly provides a false impression of the facts.
e.g. Dr. Wolff "The Mann reconstruction was a first attempt at doing an exceptionally difficult job. There are now numerous other attempts (shown in IPCC AR4) which all tell roughly the same story, but that have suggested better ways of doing some aspects of the job. This is how science works - someone does their best, then someone else comes along and shows you how to do it better."
"No scientist I know would accept fraud. Luckily so far no fraud has been proven in climate science."
Clearly Dr. Wolff is very badly informed.
I have to request, considering the venue here, that Dr. Wolf read the HSI before replying to pertinent questions in the future, this would save an awful lot of badly informed comment.
If Dr. Wolff has already read the HSI, evasive would be a more accurate description IMO.
Evasive? The answer to Q3, where he does not address the question of bad methods. Of course, if he were better informed, he might have known that there was also a question of cherry-picking chronologies,
Tribal? He seems to me (yes, this is subjective) that he is giving scientists a break, because they are scientists.
My pseudonymous contribution? I in no way set myself above Eric Wolff. I use a pseudonym so that people who wish to engage must deal with the comments I make and nothing else. The Bish has an email for me if he wants to use it. It is quite a common practice in blogs, you know, as is banging on about it when you can't agrue with the substance.
Reference question 1, I am puzzled by this graph apparently constructed by Phil Jones of CRU http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/hadley/Hadley-global-temps-1850-2010-web.jpg
It would seem to me that the upward gradient for 1980 to 2010 is no different from the gradient for 1860 to 1880 or 0.16C. Not sure how you can argue that CO2 is responsible for current warming if a similar warming took place nearly 150 years ago. Anyone with any ideas on how Phil Jones' brain works if he sees different forces at work here? Actually this graph should be as well known as the Hockey Stick, assuming it is genuine (from Jo Nova).
Shub
You asked (apparently rhetorically):
And later said:
I'm puzzled - what was the purpose of the original 'question' if not meant literally? I only ask as this sort of comment can confuse the less knowledgeable reader.
Which is why I went to the trouble of providing a 'proper' answer.
Perhaps it's sometimes better to say nothing when one has nothing to say?
The purpose of the original question was this:
What we call as 'trend' and what we call as 'noise' depends on our perspective and frame of reference. For example, there are lots of theories about the temperature changes occurring in the 20th century. Step back and look at some of the 'better' 1000 year reconstructions (forgetting about the 20th century for a moment), Esper, Moberg and others - there are clear ups-and-downs of the same magnitude or even more as the intra-20th century variations. Of course, these variations are superimposed on the larger, more gradual medieval warming and the little ice age cooling trends. Step back a little and you start seeing centennial and multi-centennial scale and ups and downs at the scale of which the MWP and the LIA variations look like small fluctuations. In other words, what is trend at one scale looks like noise at another.
Deciding that a 30-year frame is valid for 'climate' is a politically very useful, value-laden perspective (in addition to being a scientifically valid perspective) - for the practical purpose of the WMO (whose mission in the IPCC is to look for the 'human contribution'). The climate is most certainly noisy at the centennial-scale as well, but our 'significant trends' are, embedded within this 'noise'.
So yes, I had lots of things to say.
Shub
Then why didn't you say what you now claim you meant, instead of:
I read that again, then your haiku-to-epic 'explanation' at 3:06pm, and somehow I am not convinced.
Anyway, moving on.
Centennial-scale variation does not simply equate to an explanation for recent warming. You would have to account for the increase in energy within the climate system that caused the MWP, and show that something similar is happening now.
Can you do that?
The real question is of course, how to account for post-1950 warming using known forcings.
What about the known physical properties of CO2 leads you to think that increasing the atmospheric fraction significantly would:
- have no effect
- cool the climate
This is really important.
While I agree freely that there is a huge amount of politics mixed into the UN and the WMO cannot be treated as absolutely unbiased etc, IIRC the 30 year climatology was introduced in 1935.
Yup:
HADCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS. Common 1981 – 2010 baseline
HADCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS. 1979 – present; common 1981 – 2010 baseline; trend
BBD,
I knew, sort of, that you would move on to elicting 'causes' for observed trends.
However, what we characterize as 'noise' is very much a 'caused' thing as much as the trends are, you would surely agree.
So then, if you elaborate a theory for what caused a multidecadal trend, and I call it as just centennial-scale noise, how would you refute me?
Or, if we adopt a 50-year period as a frame of reference, Jones' decade-and-a-half trend that was not significant but by just only so much' would, absolutely, not reach statistical significance.
In other words therefore, when we start talking about 'causes' of trends, we should give the concept of noise - its only the logical conclusion. You cannot say, 'there is no trend', because of noise. You can perhps say: 'there is no trend yet, for some reason'.
Read above:
"In other words therefore, when we start talking about 'causes' of trends, we should give up the concept of noise.- ..."
Shub
I understand what you are saying, but in order to agree with it we have to get rid of the known physical properties of CO2.
You frame the argument solely in terms of natural forcings:
Refuting you is not the issue. A plausible null hypothesis is required. That depends on the answers to these questions:
If I say that what we have experienced in the 20th century is centennial scale noise, you have to get rid of the physical properties of the CO2 gas to agree with me?
How about a simpler 'explanation'? One that says: CO2 probably has contributed to the ongoing 'global climate' warming, but we cannot be sure by how much, if at all, because it is difficult to separate its effects from the natural noisiness of the climate on large timescales.
What physical properties of CO2 would "cool the climate" (as though that has any meaning)?
Why, when the CO2 was increasing in the 50s-70s, the 'climate cooled'. What nonsensical explanation have the climatologists come up with? Something about the aerosols supposedly cancelled the global warming, and turned things the other way around, and cooled the whole globe.
I wonder if the upper troposphere was cooled from all that thick sulphuric acid in the atmosphere in the 70s.
Shub
If you say that what happened in the C20th is just noise, you have to have a null hypothesis which explains why the estimated forcing from the increase in CO2 (derived from its known physical properties) is not the principle driver of the warming post-1950:
- You need to explain why the known radiative physics of CO2 stopped working for decades
- You need to show what else took over and drove the increase in T
If you say, 'CO2 has an effect but its small and really hard to quantify' then you are:
- Asserting that the attempts to quantify the forcing from CO2 going back a century are all incorrect
- Instead of detecting and correcting this error, modern climate science (eg since the 1980s) has refined an erroneous value
- Despite the Nobel begging to be taken for pointing out this terrible error, not a single scientist has the brains/courage/lust for fame to overturn the apple cart and point to the truth. Not one.
Are you serious?
The only argument that holds up scientifically is to say:
- The value range for climate sensitivity is wide because we don't know in detail how the climate system will respond to CO2 forcing (no-feedbacks estimate ~ +1C per doubling the pre-industrial level)
- The attempts to combine modelling and paleoclimate studies to quantify a median may have led to an over-estimate of ~ +3C per doubling
What you cannot do, as you seem to be attempting, is just wave the CO2 forcing away. The physics doesn't permit you to.
(I don't want to get side-tracked here, but while the cause for the 1940 - 1970 cooling is not clear, climatologists tend to agree that the effects of C02 forcing only become evident from the 1970s, and that internal climate variability has not stopped. Obviously.
So the slight cooling over the mid-century doesn't invalidate the hypothesis that CO2 is now the dominant climate forcing. )
Shub
I feel impelled to ask you (beg even) to read the synopsis of the physical science of CO2 as presented at Science of Doom:
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/
Everything you argue points to large gaps in your understanding of what is actually known, what is hypothesised, and what is not relevant at all.
'Scepticism' isn't carte blanche to stop thinking scientifically. It is essential to the process.
Please read more. Please.