Bishop Hill Beddington's baloney
Jul 12, 2011 Climate: WG2 Sir John Beddington has published a new report that addresses "International Dimensions of Climate Change". The lead author team includes BH regular Richard Betts.
The headlines are going to be grabbed by the reports call for climate disasters overseas to be used as a lever for introduction of unpopular policy measures in the UK:
The onset of more severe climate impacts overseas may also open up temporary opportunities, or ‘policy windows’. These would allow legislators the licence to take specific bold actions which they ordinarily believe would not otherwise be possible or politically acceptable...
Given that individual weather events cannot be linked to climate change, this does make the report look (a) very political and (b) highly unscientific, but there is in fact much more in the report with which to take issue. For example, this is paragraph 2 of the Executive Summary:
Climate change is expected to act as a ‘risk multiplier’, interacting with other trends. It is likely to make it even more difficult to address poverty, disease, and food and water insecurity. In particular, rising temperatures and changing patterns of precipitation may affect the availability of food (including crops and livestock) and water, leading to more hunger and increased volatility in food prices, and heightened regional tensions, affecting international stability and security. An increased frequency of extreme weather events may adversely affect human health, disrupt the flow of natural resources and commodities, and threaten global infrastructure for transport and energy. Moreover, the inherent uncertainty of these various impacts is likely to increase risks significantly in the business and financial sectors.
I find this hard to equate with my knowledge of climate projections. If the world is going to get (a) warmer and (b) wetter then the impacts are most likely to be rather benign. In what way can there therefore be an expectation that things will get worse? And where are the expressions of uncertainty?
But again, it's the invoking of extreme weather that catches the eye. Here's what the IPCC had to say on the subject:
A synthesis of the model results to date indicates that, for a future warmer climate, coarse-resolution models show few consistent changes in tropical cyclones, with results dependent on the model, although those models do show a consistent increase in precipitation intensity in future storms. Higher-resolution models that more credibly simulate tropical cyclones project some consistent increase in peak wind intensities, but a more consistent projected increase in mean and peak precipitation intensities in future tropical cyclones. There is also a less certain possibility of a decrease in the number of relatively weak tropical cyclones, increased numbers of intense tropical cyclones and a global decrease in total numbers of tropical cyclones.
When we read the IPCC's words, the use of extreme weather as a bogeyman by Sir John and his team looks highly incongruous. There is certainly no sense of the uncertainties being portrayed to the reader, which is odd given that Sir John Beddington was one of those who criticised "some scientists" for exaggerating the effects of global warming.
The report is clearly going to provide a great deal of entertainment. Please, however, resist the temptation to rant or make rash accusations.
Reader Comments (117)
Shub quotes:
Why are natural disasters linked to climate change? Answers from a public relations convention
Quoting from their conference report:
“Moments of distress and disaster provide the best opportunity to change minds, a condition that advertisers and marketers have known for decades.”
Nice work, Shub. It shows that these advertisers and marketers view "moments of distress and disaster" as being the reality that we must deal with now, even though the "moments of distress and disaster" were created through propaganda put forth by the "advertisers and marketers."
I give no credence whatsoever to the claims of global warming. I give huge credence to the warnings of nuclear war. There will be nuclear war within five years or the Mullahs are not the Mullahs. There are powerful reasons for the latter belief. The Mullahs are willing to endure great unrest and unhappiness in Iran on the way to acquiring nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs have declared that Israel is a stain on the caliphate that must be removed, and so on. I am quite willing to spend big bucks to make sure that the Mullah's nuclear war does not happen. So, what is my point?
In the case of the Mullahs, our government authorities have powerful evidence that they ignore at their own peril and ours. In the case of global warming, there is no such powerful evidence of danger. There is a huge amount of propaganda, but no evidence. Now, here is the clincher.
In the case of the Mullahs, Britain, France, or the United States could delay the Mullah's nuclear capability for years, and probably cause their downfall, if it made strategic air strikes for one week. Compare that to the case of Global Warming. There is no one who claims that Britain, France, or the United States could reduce the effects of global warming even if it adopted the most severe mitigation strategy.
So, why is it that when a British government group publishes policy recommendations about government action, they do not put the matter in the larger context. If they did, it is evident to everyone that adopting a policy of carbon mitigation means all pain and no gain. That is highly likely and highly probable. You can bank on it.
To me this thing read in a somewhat similar way to the scam e-mail I got thismorning. I treated it the same way. I feel somewhat sorry for Richard Betts with the task he has set himself to do.
Just more of the insanity of the last 10 years.
Even if I accepted a 2 degree "on average" warmer world we know this is with warmer poles and hence less temp gradient which has to imply less windy weather 'on average' and more precipitation. You don't like 2 degrees warmer then move from Exeter to Liverpool then (guessing here).
On a different note, currently in San Francisco and there is a scary amount of 'global warming' info all over the place. Along the coastal walkway to the Golden Gate bridge there is a info board saying how 1000 lecturers have been trained to teach about the 'bad' things of GW around the world. Nearby is a sign with projected sea level rises, with attached markers. Even looking at one of the bad ones and a 6m rise (Greenland melting I think) you still have a perfect view of very hilly San Francisco behind it and can see that even that wouldn't effect this city much.
One last thing as I'm about to fly today and have a Lonely Planet in front of me(now BBC owned and really bad on this kind of thing, though I think all the guide books have the same blurb) but where do they get this from p728 California "...but planes are far and away the worst offenders, not just because of the sheer distances they allow us to travel, but because they release greenhouse gases high into the atmosphere. ..." Eh, can anyone explain that to me?? I think they got some things confused, here but that has been in the guides for years now with no correction.
I would also like to point out again, that the public are never going to listen people who jet around the world to exotic, often warm, destinations to then tell people to not jet around the world to the same places. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
Also though I've not been in the UK hasn't the only 'good' weather really been around easter this spring/summer. It also annoys me that the forecasters will tend to use the word nice for that kind of weather when they should be saying 'catastrophically warm for this time of year' just to point out that it isn't good weather really.
Jul 12, 2011 at 10:45 AM | Richard Betts
Indeed please note the box "A word of caution" on page 18 - the authors specifically say "this report conveys the threats and opportunities to the UK from particular outcomes related to climate change, but does not attempt to assess the likelihood of such events. This is in a red box all by itself on a single page, I don't think it could be any clearer.
As you appear to have the ear of our Masters, would you please ask them, when they are delivering speeches on this topic, to start their address with the words contained in this red box.
Huhne has delivered two of a series of three speeches in the last 2 weeeks (third due this week) in which I detect much of the stuff contained in the report.
It is likely that all future speeches from Huhne, Hendry et al will draw heavily from this document why write a new speech when copy and paste is readily available.
Would you please let us know if you think this would be a more honest approach by Ministers if this caveat was read out before every speech on this topic?
Jul 12, 2011 at 12:34 PM | Richard Betts
Because there was only a relatively small amount of taxpayers' money available for the project so it could not have been done as extensively as some would have liked.
Ah yes, the old "lack of resources" problem.
Just watched several senior current/retired cops from the Met. trotting out the same excuse to a handful of gullible MPs looking into the News of the Screws difficulties.
Would you please let us know then, what was the actual amount spent on this - "relatively small" has different meanings mainly depending upon how rich you are.
'Because there was only a relatively small amount of taxpayers' money available for the project so it could not have been done as extensively as some would have liked.'
Even the cover of the report is loathsome. Most people of mature years could sketch a better representation of the UK blindfolded.
Richard Betts @ 2:05
If the "A word of caution" is deemed significant enough to be highlighted in red in the introduction to the main report I find it surprising that it is not a precursor to the Executive Summary.
Past experience leads me to suggest that it would definitely be so in any report written by an engineer.
Rob B
I like the "catastrophically warm for the time of year". Might use that one myself :-)
BTW I have never told people not to jet around the world to exotic locations. I actually quite like jetting around the world to exotic locations, and get annoyed when people say "surely you as a climate scientist should not be jetting around the world to exotic locations". The reasons I don't do it as often as I'd like are (a) it costs too much money (either for (i) me for holidays or (ii) my employer for work) and (b) it takes me away from the family, unless I take them with me, which brings me into conflict with (a)(i). Deforestation produces far more emissions than global air travel, and has other negative consequences too.
And incidentally, as I've discussed here before, the Civil Aviation Authority is a major customer for numerical modelling of the atmosphere and hence one of the sources of funding for us to keep improving the models....
Re: our discussion on another thread, I'm not aware of anyone having done a "pure N atmosphere" simulation with a GCM but it would be interesting. Was your supervisor at Reading Paul Valdes then? This is the kind of thing his group might be interested in, I might ask him next time I see him.
Maybe Richard and other scientists need to point out the red box to sir Beddington and the Times....
Front Page of the Times - (in the corner)
'Disasters should be used to wing the green argument'
"Droughts floodsand storms could be USED as 'policy windows', making it easier to take 'bold actions' that would otherwise be politically unacceptable"
That is on the front page of the Time, Beddington and the politicians do not get care for caveats and the climate scientists - they are just being used.
Useful, even if somewhat uncomfortable in some cases, to read all the views here.
Can I ask you folks for your opinion(s) on the following question:
Rather than not try to quantify probabilities at all, is it better to come up with some kind of relative level of risk based on "expert judgement", drawing on whatever information is available even if that is sparse or not quantitative? Or would that then risk being stepped-up along a chain of rising uncertainty as it is communicated up various levels?
Interested to hear your views.
RB
Obervations don't match the models.
All the excess heat, the increased temperatures, the dramatic rise in sea levels, the catastrophes are virtual.
Anyone exercising expert judgement would discount the models and stick with the observational reality.
how about the possibility that the world MIGHT warm 1-2 degrees, and be overall a nicer place to live.. what if it warms, sea level rise a foot, and no catastrophies happen...! As much a possibility as the extreme negative case. No mention...
of course a decade or 2 of possible cooling in the northern hemisphere (ie Professor Lockwood - Reading University) is far to a contentious place to go politically...
the scientists are being used to provide cover.. ie my earlier example of how a mild WHO report full of caveats, turned into 150,000 deaths ARE occuring due to climate change now. Second sentence of an executive summary for policy makers, with the reference not included, except in the bulk of the report..
When the predictions fail - the politicians are going to blame the scientists........ (caveats or not)
As many here know, I worked in the nuclear industry, where risk assesments were used in virtually every decision-making process. I talked about what we understand risk to mean, above. We used expert judgement as follows, in PSA (or PRA) and I quote from the NII Safety Assesment Principles:
I'm sure the climate change industry could take many leaves out of the nuclear industry book when it comes to how it should carry out its work, with specific regard to quality control, model validation, documentation, use of evidence/judgement etc etc etc.
To continue from above. To apply expert judgment, you need to have some agreed rules to determine who is an expert, and in exactly what clearly defined topics they have the required expertise.
The "nuclear industry" is an industry in that it actually produces something - something that keeps the country avive at that.
The "climate change industry" on the other hand produces nothing but propaganda. It has no tangible product and exist purely on government pork barreling.
The latter one requires little real competence at anything, no reliability in results, no deep understanding of staistics (according to Wegman), nothing.
But I suspect it pays better.It is useful to governmentbbecause they also depend on false fears so that the parasites can "protect" us. So long as we have a government that spends 50% of the country's money it will be infested by such parasites.
Perhaps the caveats on p18, should have been printed in bold, red, typeface on page 1? Arguably being the only thing on page 1 and perhaps italicized & underlined?
Richard Betts
Firstly let me say I appreciate you immersing yourself in this Den of Deniers. The only reason that I could imagine why you would do that is that you are genuinely interested in what other people think about climate science. Good for you.
I am a retired lawyer. I am used to reading English and understanding it. I read IPCC AR4 and could not see how the SPM related to the substantive reports. This has led me to the conclusion that IPCC is a political body that has hijacked the science for its own ends.
I have not read the Beddington report. Frankly my health and eye-sight will not permit. However, I have read the comments including your own. The thing that concerns me is your suggestion that Beddington uses the word ‘likely’ in a figurative sense. As another commenter points out there is nothing to suggest that this is so. In fact quite the contrary. You have also intimated that overall you think the report is acceptable. So, on the face of it we have a situation where Beddington is overegging the likelihood of adverse consequences of global warming and you are generally in support. That seems to me to be a political stance that you are taking. As a scientist I would have expected you to distance yourself from the use of the word ‘likely’ when it does not carry its normal meaning. Indeed you state that “I routinely advise people against the use of the word "likely" as it has probabilistic connotations.”
How often do we see a representative of some environmental NGO stand up and tell us he is a scientist and then proceed to act as an advocate.
So here’s the rub. Are you here as a scientist or an advocate (albeit a well-behaved and very civil advocate)? Do you even know when you cross the line?
As Barry Woods points out above, when the brown fibrous matter hits the air blowy thingy, the scientists will take the blame.
I thought that the scaremongering antics of the Chicken Littles was concisely summed up by the graph showing predicted against actual sea level rises that accompanied this article at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/03/the-ups-and-downs-of-sea-level/#more-42599
Richard Betts "Rather than not try to quantify probabilities at all, is it better to come up with some kind of relative level of risk based on "expert judgement", drawing on whatever information is available even if that is sparse or not quantitative?"
Well, there's the problem - the tyranny of the experts. And who exactly is an expert in this field? One definition of expert is 'someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain.'
Now, I'm afraid that under this definition (which is not bad) you cannot include climatologists. You see, climatologists might operate in a 'specific well distinguished domain', and they may very well have techniques and skill in making mathematical models, but since there is no evidence that such models are satisfactory models of reality then whatever 'skill' they have is not one that can be held to be a 'faculty for judging rightly, justly, or wisely'. So, of the essence of 'expert judgment' is this faculty for 'judging rightly, justly, or wisely'.
In many fields (engineering, for one) you can only hold down a job if you can exercise 'expert judgment', i.e. you can reliably use skills and techniques to judge rightly about things. If you get it wrong, everyone is going to know about it, you can be sure. I think the general public misunderstand this concept of 'expert judgment' and are deceived into thinking that if a person manages to hold down a job in climatology and gets promoted then he must also be able to exercise 'expert judgment', though this is in fact not the case. It is an abuse of the term 'expert' to ascribe such a term to a person who merely has formal qualifications and spends taxpayers money to produce outputs that may or may not have any relevance to reality, and whose judgment cannot be tested or verified in their lifetime or that of their peers. However clever or dedicated they might be, they are no more experts than futurologists are.
After a bit more reading and a bit more mulling over I am baffled. It is still unclear to me why this report was written, who commissioned it, what its terms of reference were or who its intended audience is supposed to be.
In particular, if it landed on my desk. I have no idea why I should bother to read it (it is far too long for a busy executive). And even if I did, I have no idea what actual actions I would take differently having done so.
As I mentioned before, I spent part of my professional career in commercial sales. We got to be quite good at putting together compelling reasons why customers should wish to part with their cash in return for our goods. And at getting those reasons listened to.
This fails on nearly every count. It is in essence an academic literature review with some poorly supported 'conclusions' tacked on here and there. It gives no sensible framework for policy making..nor for any other sorts of action. It just has the feel of 'going through the motions' rather than a document with any real conviction.
Perhaps its best use is as a quotation source for others in government to derive morsels for their won pet projects. Presumably they are looked upon with extra approval if they pay lip service to 'climate change'. just as ten years ago every proposal had to have 'community' in the name. Completely meaningless but an indication tha your were 'on message'
Richard..I have a lot of respect for your openness in coming here and debating the issues. But on this one, I fear your efforts have been wasted.
1/5 for content. 3/5 for presentation. It's Fired!
Jul 12, 2011 at 5:03 PM | Richard Betts
Useful, even if somewhat uncomfortable in some cases, to read all the views here.
"Views" OK, but what about the questions that just required a simple "yes" or "no" answer:
Would you please let us know if you think this would be a more honest approach by Ministers if this caveat was read out before every speech on this topic?
Jul 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM | Brownedoff
and
Perhaps the caveats on p18, should have been printed in bold, red, typeface on page 1? Arguably being the only thing on page 1 and perhaps italicized & underlined?
Jul 12, 2011 at 6:06 PM | Adam Gallon
and
So here’s the rub. Are you here as a scientist or an advocate (albeit a well-behaved and very civil advocate)? Do you even know when you cross the line?
Jul 12, 2011 at 6:12 PM | Dolphinhead
That you have ignored these questions speaks volumes.
ScientistForTruth
You approach this from a scientific angle; I come at it from the view of a wordsmith, but we are in agreement.
An "expert" is not someone who considers himself to be one or who, as you say, happens to have the relevant qualifications in his field.
I described Michael Mann some time ago as, in terms of his position in the scientific world, barely out of short pants when he published MBH98. To describe him as an "expert" is laughable. He had barely got his PhD at the time. He may be considered an expert now though I would still argue that there are a slew of scientists with better qualifications and years more experience who would not consider themselves as experts by any means though most of us, outside the incestuous little closed world of the climate science community, would claim that they are.
To say they are "no more experts than futurologists are" is to flatter them. From where I view the situation futurologists is precisely what they are. Climate Science has no firm base in the real world, unlike weather forecasting which has a current situation, an immediate history (be it 24 hours or a week) and historical patterns of seasonal weather behaviour on which to make a a reasonably confident judgment of what the weather will be broadly like over a period of one, two, or three days.
(As an example of how this can go awry, Meteo France have been warning us of possible thunderstorms at least three times in the last week; they've missed us both right and left and left us still praying for rain! Why? Because the precise track of thunderstorms is not that predictable.)
Climate Science has no such grounding in reality. There is no immediate history on which climatologists, meteorologists and other earth scientists are agreed. There are several interlinked historical patterns which those we are told to believe are experts are denying exist or are trying to convince us no longer apply. In some respects there isn't even a current situation since unlike honest weather forecasters who are trying to tell me what will happen tomorrow in Kinross or London or Burgundy they are trying to take a snapshot of the whole world and apply conflicting theories to it to produce ...... what, exactly?
So hardly surprising that they are unable to agree on what will happen or when except that it will be nasty and the only way we can escape is by sacrificing to the goddess Gaia and putting on sackcloth --------- sorry, got carried away there, but you know what I mean.
Except that at the same time from a different subset of the
sectcommunity we are being told that it doesn't really matter what we do after all because it will be too little, too late.Or, in other words, the whole thing -- if not actually a scam -- is a complete waste of time and taxpayers' money.
I repeat for the umpteenth time: WITE - Where Is The Evidence?
Dr Slop:
"This talk of literal and figurative brings Schopenhauer to mind. He points out that religious texts are initially claimed to have literal truth, and are so presented for consumption by the multitude. Once the inherent absurdities of the literal reading are pointed out, the claim of literal truth is reduced to a claim of allegorical truth."
Enter Maimonides
"Rather than not try to quantify probabilities at all, is it better to come up with some kind of relative level of risk based on 'expert judgement', drawing on whatever information is available even if that is sparse or not quantitative?"
I think this is an excellent idea. We could have different categories for different risk levels. I think it's really important to maintain the veneer that this is all really sciencey, and not just a bunch of paranoid guesses about how awful the future could be.
My suggested categories of risk, as judged by the experts:
1) Voodoo Science - equates to the level of risk that the IPCC gave to the imminent melting of the Himalayas.
2) Death Spiral - equates to the level of risk that Mark Serreze gave to the imminent melting of the Arctic.
3) Jellyfish Apocalypse - equates to the level of risk that George Monbiot attaches to his recent idea that jellyfish are taking over the world.
I live in constant fear of dying from climate change. I think we need some sort of regular announcement from the experts as to what the current level of risk is. I have no doubt that we could bring the BBC on board with this. When Fiona Bruce tells me that we have reached Jellyfish Apocalypse level, I'll still be scared, but at least I'll know what's coming.
My tuppence worth.
The report is frankly laughable. As Latimer points out, it is not obvious; why it was written? who will be informed by this document? and what, reading between the lines of waffle, is it actually trying to communicate?.
A few points;
1. I thought it was incorrect to refer to model outputs in any way as being "predictions" (Section 2.3) . I thought they were just useful "tools".
2. Beddington is now ODing on stressing uncertainties, can't get enough of them.
"Global Warming" -> "Climate Change" -> "Climate Disruption" -> now "Global Uncertainty"
There already is a word for "Global Uncertainty" it's called "the Future". Are we supposed to be afraid of that now too? just because it is unknown.
3. Is Bedders a communist?
Not sure what he is advocating here. It must be hell inside his head.
Could go on, but it is too awful to even attempt to read to the end. Wasn't Bedders a carry-over from the last government? Time for a change I think, to avoid further embarassment. Please, please, please, not someone from the UEA - there are too many of them "Advising" and "Pontificating" already.
Richard Betts do you endorse the drivel in this report?
What interests me most is whether Richard Betts and his colleagues agree that there is a huge opportunity cost to AGW mitigation. If we spend trillions on AGW, then those trillions cannot be spent again elsewhere.
How do Richard and others of like mind get comfortable with condemning the sick, uneducated, oppressed and poor of the world to years more of staying that way, with a definite cost in human death and misery, simply to address inadequately a supposed issue around which there is great uncertainty? It all seems a bit Maoist to me.
Richard Betts,
Thank you for engaging with us sceptics. A question, if I may:
In your view is the AGW theory subject to any form of falsifiability criteria?
@Justice4Rinka
'It all seems a bit Maoist to me'
The Climatical Revolution? or The Great Leap Backwards?
There was a time when people looking for an excuse for the introduction of unpopular policy measures in the UK would have pointed to some real or imaginary foreign enemy. Since Beddington is not suggesting that we prepare for war I suppose we should be grateful.
Roy
@James Evans
'Jellyfish Apocalypse - equates to the level of risk that George Monbiot attaches to his recent idea that jellyfish are taking over the world'
Both you and Moonbat are 100% wrong.
It is the Giant Lizards who have already taken over the world. How many times do I have to tell you?
James Evans,
However remote the prospect of a Jellyfish Apocalypse, under the Precautionary Principle
a UK Jellyfish Apocalypse Authority can be justified!
Professor Beddington need only say "Britain's coastline will likely [horrible Americanism!] become unnavigable due to the jellyfish menace", and an entire industry will be born. As with the green jobs boom, it will create its own economic logic: the equipment costs and salaries of the elite and highly-trained Jellyforce will trickle down to others. Wealth creation? That's sooo Last Century.
"Likely": adverbial mutilation of adjective. Newspeak. A non-numerical expression of probability intended to enhance the user's reputation in the event of the prediction coming to pass whilst leaving room for denial upon failure.
Ho Hum. One might have thought that, having experienced the backlash to the last steaming heap of lies, half truths, cherry picking and conflation, some might have learned a lesson. Apparently not.
[...] largely attributable to human activities, predominantly through the burning of fossil fuels, land use changes and agricultural practices, all of which increase atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Inherent natural variability in the climate system, variations in solar irradiance and volcanic activity are other factors which influence climatic conditions over a range of timescales.
When added to the WUWT (BBC) post yesterday
(They concluded that with a bit of help from changes in solar output and natural climatic cycles such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the growth in the volume of aerosols being pumped up power station chimneys was probably enough to block the warming effect of rising greenhouse gas emissions over the period 1998-2008.)
So. In the last two days alone we have 'scientific' reports blaming our (Executive Summary here) 0.7C over the twentieth century on ...
burning of fossil fuels
land use changes
agricultural practices
Inherent natural variability
variations in solar irradiance
volcanic activity
volume of aerosols
So that's just about seven unquantified influences in two days. However we apportion blame, there isn't much left for CO2 and, lest we forget, positive feed backs from CO2 which must, logically, apply to all CO2 warming not just hypothetical future CO2 warming. Some part of the CO2 (radiative physics) based model of earth is already proving very wrong. (put 1.4 billion cubic km of liquid water in there guys)
So, if I can give you a reasonable probability (dead certainty actually) that tens of thousands of UK pensioners, already driven into 'fuel poverty' by murderous 'green' policies, will die next winter due to high fuel prices and severe weather, your choice is to exclude that particular 'risk' from the report? Concentrating instead (4.3 - health) on Euro 2003 heat or disease ridden foreigners swamping our shores? You can't have it both ways. On the one hand claiming 'policy neutrality' and on the other allowing your name to appear (six times) as backing such a 'report'.
Richard - How many climate scientists do you think will feel comfortable being associated with this:
You are either with Al or against him...
How many at MetOffice/Hadley belive in the new 'normal' !?
Al Gore - Climate Reality project:
"Our world is changing. Rivers are overflowing their boundaries. Carefully tended crops have failed due to drought and severe storms. Forests are turning into tinder. Massive glaciers are melting at an alarming rate.
We have known about climate change for decades. Yet now, we are seeing and experiencing the extreme weather that scientists have long told us to expect in a warming world. Floods. Heat waves. Droughts. Historic storms. These cataclysmic events are occurring all over the world with increasing frequency. This is not normal. A“new normal” is emerging. And these events will only become more frequent and severe if we continue to pollute our air.
“24 Hours of Reality will focus the world’s attention on the full truth, scope, scale and impact of the climate crisis. To remove the doubt. Reveal the deniers. And catalyze urgency around an issue that affects every one of us.”
Al Gore- Chairman of the Climate Reality Project
Watch the teaser video ( Popcorn please, this is going to be an embarrasing own goal for Gore)
check out the 3,000 people 'trained' by Al Gore to give a slideshow. ;)
"reveal the deniers"
"cataclysmic weather events ARE occuring"
"big oil & big money"
Should be interesting. A world event, over 24 hours, Al Gore speaks! 64 days and counting..
http://climaterealityproject.org/
and they've deleted my blog comment allready...
RB's defence shows conviction, sincerity, courage. Hightly laudable. But totally wasted defending this piece of flotsum though. And the Beddington ilk. And the IPCC. It might provide the hackneyed soundboard for a handful of chosen ministers now, good for a few cut and paste MSM environmental space fillers, but scales have fallen, even for the party faithful MP's and certainly for the public, punchdrunk by rising bills. Observe the nifty footwork of Lockwood. Perhaps destined to become the Royal Society's loose cannon, as soon as the CERN Cloud Experiment reports.
Bloggsworth wrote:
quote
If I was to apply the same approach to my life, I would never get out of bed.
unquote
You say that like it's a bad thing....
Richard Betts wrote:
quote
Rather than not try to quantify probabilities at all, is it better to come up with some kind of relative level of risk based on "expert judgement", drawing on whatever information is available even if that is sparse or not quantitative? Or would that then risk being stepped-up along a chain of rising uncertainty as it is communicated up various levels?
unquote
Do you have in mind something like North's description of an 'expert' process? Here's what McIntyre said about this in 2006:
quote
North has a Texas A&M Seminar presentation here (deleted available here) . North is a nice and decent guy but this is a frustrating presentation in a lot of ways. At minute 55 or so, he describes panel operating procedure by saying that they “didn’t do any research”, that they just “took a look at papers”, that they got 12 “people around the table” and “just kind of winged it.” He said that’s what you do in these sort of expert panels. Obviously I suspected as much, but it’s odd to hear him say it.
unquote.
Perhaps, Dr Betts, you are unaware of much of the backstory which leads to suspicion of even polite and well-intentioned posters such as yourself. Initially people accepted the word and trusted the intentions of scientists, but experience has removed much of that naivety.
An expert panel? Nuts.
JF
liberally paraphrasing Michael Crichton:
"Hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, blizzards, heat waves, droughts, swarms of locusts - it's not the end of our world, it is our world. I think it's time we [grew up and] accepted it."
Remarkable how often he was dead-on.
. . . . . . . . . .
BTW, it may be baloney, but it's scary baloney - these aparatchiks, always looking for an opening . . .
Richard Betts.
Hansen came up with scenarios A, B and C for something or other rising, C being the scenario involving us do a lot of expensive stuff which we did not do.
Reality has not even led to Scenario C levels occuring.
A bit of probability theory bult into the predictions would only be of use, if it was based on some form of science, rather than guesswork, however this would require Hansen to admit he got it wrong.
Climate science seems immmune from self correction, and has lost public confidence, just like MP's over expenses,and now journalists and the Met Police
ROFL. ROFL.! :)
Brownedoff:
"That you have ignored these questions speaks volumes."
Sorry if you thought I was ignoring these questions - hopefully you will not be too surprised to learn that I do actually have a life outside of the blogosphere! I was at work all day, managing to check the blog a few times and answer a few questions (either the most recent ones, or ones that particularly caught my eye on a quick skim through), and then when I got home I spent the evening with my family ... hope that's OK :-)
But I'm here now (briefly) and my answers to the questions you highlight are as follows:
So here’s the rub. Are you here as a scientist or an advocate (albeit a well-behaved and very civil advocate)? Do you even know when you cross the line?
Jul 12, 2011 at 6:12 PM | Dolphinhead
I'm here as a scientist, and I don't believe I've crossed the line into advocacy. I do think that the science was well-represented in the report, although I would have rather the word "likely" had not been used in a few places. I have no comment either way on any policy messages of the report.
Perhaps the caveats on p18, should have been printed in bold, red, typeface on page 1? Arguably being the only thing on page 1 and perhaps italicized & underlined?
Jul 12, 2011 at 6:06 PM | Adam Gallon
Personally I don't think that was necessary - I think that (apart from using "likely" twice) the language of the Exec Summary conveyed the uncertainty in the science sufficiently.
Would you please let us know if you think this would be a more honest approach by Ministers if this caveat was read out before every speech on this topic?
Jul 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM | Brownedoff
As a scientific civil servant it's not my role to comment on the speeches of government ministers. However, as a general comment, I do of course think that everyone should be open and honest about the scientific uncertainties concerning climate change (with some aspects being more uncertain than others).
Oh and by the way I don't actually know how much this report cost, I can just make the reasonable assumption that it was less than other "Foresight" reports (since it took less time and fewer people) and much less than other scientific research such as the Met Office Hadley Centre programme, NERC programmes, etc etc. I would estimate that my personal contribution probably cost somewhere in the region of £10,000 although I don't do the accounts so I don't know for sure.
I see there've been quite a few other comments, some of which relate to the science of the report (and quite a lot which don't), but I hope you'll forgive me if I don't specifically address them all! I'll just finish with a brief re-iteration of my position:
I am happy with the scientific basis of the report. I personally would not have used the word "likely" in the few places that it was but I don't think this substantially affects things. I neither endorse or oppose any policy messages - that's not my role.
Been good talking to you. Goodnight all!
Richard Betts: “Rather than not try to quantify probabilities at all, is it better to come up with some kind of relative level of risk based on "expert judgement", drawing on whatever information is available even if that is sparse or not quantitative? Or would that then risk being stepped-up along a chain of rising uncertainty as it is communicated up various levels?”
Actually, I think you’d be better off saying nothing at all. Really. If the data is so sparse that you can’t reasonably quantify possible effects (and it is!) then what possible point is there in saying anything other than “The climate might change”? In what way does it help to produce laughable reports like this one? Having just wasted an hour of my life skimming through it, I’m afraid I’m with Latimer and others on this one. Just who, exactly, is this aimed at and what use would it be to them? The report has nothing new to say. Ok, it’s an overview, but we’ve already got loads of them, there’s a new one released by somebody or other every week. Is it aimed at business? If so, I can pretty much guarantee you that a report of this standard would be next to useless and laughed out of any boardroom in the country and the person responsible probably sacked. As Dr Phillip Bratby has already pointed out, as a risk assessment that would be in any way useful to industry or investors, it doesn’t even get off the ground. Is it for our politicians? Now, I know our lot are pretty dense, but I think they’ve all heard of “Climate Change” and it’s possible impacts a few more times than once. And telling that lot what maybe, possibly, potentially, might (or might not) happen in other countries that maybe, possibly, potentially, might (or might not) be caused by climate change is a complete waste of time. They don’t even understand what’s going on in their own country. No, I’m afraid that this is yet another propaganda exercise in a long, long line of propaganda exercises. It’s another copy/paste source for our wonderful “investigative” journalists.
Dr Richard, I have no doubt whatsoever that you are a good and honest person and I respect you greatly for not just coming here, but for coming here willing to engage. I understand how difficult it must be to see your life’s work criticised (actually though, most of us are only criticising the premature assumptions made on your work, not the work itself). On another thread, you said you were unhappy with the way politics has spread through the field of climate science. Well, I’m afraid that Beddington has “done you up like a kipper”. This is a political document, produced (with our money again) for political purposes and you have been conned into putting your name to it.
By the way everyone, at the end of the report is the usual lists of those that contributed to the document in one way or another. Just look, not at the names, but their affiliations. Carbon this, carbon that…. No wonder AGW can’t be allowed to fail.
"The onset of more severe climate impacts overseas may also open up temporary opportunities, or ‘policy windows’."
Yes. Reichstag Storms, Riechstag Floods, Riechstag Heat.
The joke of the scientific facade is over and gone. They have effectively admitted that this 'climate crisis' is just WMDs for the Watermelon cause. This state-financial-industrial-"research" complex sells fear the way the military-industrial complex does.
Richard - thanks for engaging with us engaging with us darksiders, it really is appreciated. On page 1 you ended a response to BH with:
"You've focussed on storms, but there's also heatwaves, droughts, wildfire etc. And as you quoted, precipitation is expected to come in more intense events."
Okay lets take droughts - http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/romm-hysterical-about-the-drought-blames-it-on-global-warming/ - clearly nothing to worry about there then, at least in the north American context.
As for precipitation is expected to come in more intense events, since when?
The 'muckle spate'of 1829 on the River Findhorn (2400cumecs), or the River Tyne flood of 1771 (c. 3900cumecs) ?
Both these summer rainfall events generated higher flows (in much smaller catchments) than the infamous 'Great Flood of 1993' on the River Perth. [ More details on these any other extreme flood events at: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/17/myles-fludd.html ].
It strikes me that a key problem with climate scientists is that very few if any of them seem to bother to research historical records or accounts - and hence they are very quick to label any contemporary event as 'unprecedented'. I can accept that people and journalists have short memories so don't have any recollection of extreme events more than 40 or 50 years in the past, but climate scientists should know better not to base claims on such ignorance.
By the way, Treberth and Stott have now completely lost any sense of reality wrt extreme meteorological events -
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/extreme-weather-link-can-no-longer-be-ignored-2305181.html
I suggest that this loss of rationale is a symptom of increasing desperation over the missing hot spot, and the planet's lack of warming for the last 15 years etc. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this (as well as whether you still think recent rainfall events are in anyway related to increased CO2 concentration.
p.s. for anyone interested, this is a good source for info on historical weather events in the British Isles:
http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/wxevents.htm
Richard Betts>
In the first place, let me express my displeasure at the tone of some of the comments here; it seems that some people are so used to this debate being a fight that they've forgotten how to behave politely.
Now, to answer your question:
“Rather than not try to quantify probabilities at all, is it better to come up with some kind of relative level of risk based on "expert judgement", drawing on whatever information is available even if that is sparse or not quantitative? Or would that then risk being stepped-up along a chain of rising uncertainty as it is communicated up various levels?”
Consider the question of what happens when one dies. Is it possible that we'll all end up in some warm fluffy heaven somewhere? I don't see that one can say otherwise, since we can't rule it out. Is it likely? We can't say one way or the other. It may seem more likely to us that, say, a major world religion is correct than that we'll all be turned into purple energy beasts of the planet Smee, but in actual fact this is an illusion. We have no basis on which to assign probabilities, because we have no data of any kind, so in this case it would be better not to try.
Climate science is at least based (in theory, etc etc, yada yada, insert snark to taste) on things we can observe, so it's not quite in the same camp in terms of the possibility of assigning probability as the invisible flying spaghetti monster or some such, because we _could_ gather the data. If that job hasn't been done properly, though, and we don't have any reliable data, then we are just as unable to assign probabilities.
My personal view is that we should be striving to make the question unnecessary. We can say with absolute certainty that the world will either continue warming, stay at today's levels, or cool. If we simply plan to decrease the susceptibility of our society to long-term climactic changes by increasing our adaptability and resilience, then instead of trying to guess what's coming, we can be confident that we're ready whatever happens.
@ Dave Jul 13, 2011 at 1:32 AM
Firstly, I've read every comment in this thread and I don't see the "tone" that you refer to. I see some pretty stiff questioning going on, which I'm sure Dr Betts would expect, but I don't see any rudeness. On the contrary, most commenters have thanked or congratulated him for coming here.
"If we simply plan to decrease the susceptibility of our society to long-term climactic changes by increasing our adaptability and resilience, then instead of trying to guess what's coming, we can be confident that we're ready whatever happens."
But isn't adaptability what the human race has always specialised in? Hasn't that been the key to our success? Don't we all adapt to our surroundings and circumstances on both a moment by moment and a longer term basis? Do we really need reports like this to tell us what anyone with two brain cells to rub together already knows? Will any future temperature increase (or decrease) fry our brains (or freeze them) and prevent us from figuring out work-arounds? What would any "plan to decrease the susceptibility of our society to long-term climactic changes" actually involve? Do you have any specifics in mind? In what way do you feel our society is susceptible to LONG-TERM climactic changes?
Judy Curry has an interesting post up on historic sea-levels. It illustrates the point about adaptability perfectly in my view.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifcations and only half a mind.
Both the report and you good people's views are far too long for me, so I can merely hope I am not repeating thoughts that others have alrady contributed.
Just some thoughts, then:
Come on Bishop, it does not seem consistent to head your introductory peice with a phrase that includes the word Baloney and then ask us not to rant!
However ... ...
This report is extremely important because it emerges from government. It is government and not the IPCC that sets policy.(I know the report quotes the IPCC copiously but do not think that makes the government subservient. To be sure, the government and the IPCC have a close relationship (incestuous?). However, it is the governments that have the senior role.) This report should be dissected at least as thoroughly as the Assessmsnt Reports have been. We disregard it at our peril.
The 129 pages is,of course, overwhelming, but I do not think of that as a criticism. Different parts were, I expect, written for different readers. I have written such reports myself in my time.
But who was it written for? Goverment bureaucrats or quasi-bureaucrats like the UEA people and others funded by the government, or true outsiders? To be sure, it will actually be read in its entirety by polemicists for the green religion (I expect Bob Ward has ordered multiple copies for his office.) and I expect we will see their thrilled reactions over the next few days. Privately, they will have their caveats concerning the government's mealy mouthed uncertainties, but like readers here, will realize that govenments rarely achieve coherence (To misquote Newton: For every government policy there has to be an equal and opposite government policy.) and that that is a cross they have to bear, just like us.
Re Dr Betts' declaration that [his] role was to make sure [the report was] consistent with the science, I take it that that means that if one of the authors wrote something that the good doc thought not to be consistent with the science he had a duty to step in and have that part corrected. But if the good doc thought that a relevant scientific point had been missed, would he have had a duty to have the omission corrected? Then, did the authors do what the good doc wanted? And, in the exercise of his duties relating to the report, did the good doc ever feel constrained by his perception of government policy?
Lastly, the report opens with scenarios nicely illustrated by graphs. Were any based on the heat storage considerations expounded by Rojer Pielke (and others, I expect) or were any in any adequate way responsive to them? (Apologies if that is clear from the text.)
Jul 13, 2011 at 12:07 AM | Richard Betts
Would you please let us know if you think this would be a more honest approach by Ministers if this caveat was read out before every speech on this topic?
Jul 12, 2011 at 4:02 PM | Brownedoff
As a scientific civil servant it's not my role to comment on the speeches of government ministers. However, as a general comment, I do of course think that everyone should be open and honest about the scientific uncertainties concerning climate change (with some aspects being more uncertain than others).
Thank you for staying up late to write another contribution to this thread.
However, I did not ask for you to exceed your role as a scientific civil servant and make a comment on the speeches of government ministers.
Also, I did not ask you to extend my proposal for honesty to "everyone", although of course, within the set of everyone, it must include by definition, a sub-set made up of Ministers.
You say that "everyone should be open and honest", why not "everyone must be open and honest"?
So, if you will not answer directly yes or no as to whether the caveat should be read out before every ministerial speech on this topic, what alternative mechanism would you propose so that Ministers make it clear that their speeches contain messages which are scientifically uncertain?
Hi Richard
I hope you can look past a robust tone of questions. I percieve it as no more than in business than a customer asking some tough questions of a supplier, with a multi-million dollar contract at stake.
Tough questions, perhaps made more robustly than in academia.
However, when a politcian like Sir John (no mistake he is a politician) has a front page story in The Times saying things like this:
"These would allow legislators the licence to take specific bold actions which they ordinarily believe would not otherwise be possible or politically acceptable..."
I would expect some very tough and searching questions, not necessarily polite ones either. Is he tryig to sneek through policies like carbon rationing (energy ratioioning TEQs) without a democratic mandate
I would like toask you about the health impact, ie the consequences of energy policy and winter deaths because of fuelcosts, this shoud be in the report as well.
Please stick around, there are many points of view.
Make no mistake, the politicians and media will blame the scientists, lest the public blame them, when scary predictions fail after vast cost to the public.
Dr Richard Betts
Like others, I appreciate your action in coming to this blog and giving your point of view.
However, I do not see that the report that you support is at all satisfactory.
It is a report in support of a certain line of policy action.
That action is to combat a perceived problem that may or may not occur.
Therefore there should be a thorough analysis of the various possibilities and a cost benefit analysis of each.
Namely:
What is the likely possibility that the climate will not be far too different than has been experienced during the lifetimes of the human race so far on this fair earth?
What is the cost and benefit of taking absolutly no action to attempt to change this situation in the future?
Ditto for the possibility of a rising temperature and a falling temperature (seperately).
Ditto for the costs and benefits of attempting to change these possible outcomes.
You will be aware that the CSIRO is (possibly still) regarded as the premier Australian scientific organisation.
They have very recently attempted to provide concrete advice as how your supposed "global warming" will affect various places in Australia.
From memory they have frightened us no end, that we in Sydney will eventually be forced to endure a climate similar to those poor wretches in Brisbane (not flooding I hasten to say, but much hotter summers than we are used to).
Shocking I say.
Particularly shocking at the moment as I write with my feet aching from the cold of a particularly cold winter, despite the radiator close at hand, switched on full blast.
But I digress.
Please provide us with the probabilities and the costs and benefits of all possible alternative outcomes.
Then we will be in an informed position to decide whether to support or oppose the plan being marketed by the UK chief scientist.
What am I saying?
how has it come to this?
Marketing ?
Chief scientist?
Enough said.
Rather poor scientific facts here.
Page 28, Box 2.1 Tipping points
Why accelerated or irreversible, couldn't you be a bit more specific?
Reference 56 is to Rahmstorf, S., Schellnhuber,J. , well known glaciologists themselves
An those are old data, I hardly ever hear a study by Ettema, Bamber and others that shows the Greenland Ice Sheet to be healthier than expected, with a large positive surface mass balance (http://www.phys.uu.nl/~broeke/home_files/MB_pubs_pdf/2009_Ettema_GRL.pdf)
To be fair, there was a short article in the Guardian: 'Greenland ice tipping point 'further off than thought' but I've also heard rumors that the author is now in Guantanamo.