Bishop Hill St Andrews debate
Apr 27, 2012 Climate: Sceptics John Shade, of Climate Lessons blog, sends this report on my debate at St Andrews.
On a wet and windy day, off to St Andrews, where the School of Geography and Geosciences was holding a discussion meeting on climate as one of its World Series Seminars. Speakers: Andrew Montford, and Tom Crowley, a recently retired professor of paleoclimatology. Chaired by Dr Robert Wilson, who said that he was a great believer in discussion where there was discord, and that there was discord in the climate world. He gave Andrew a pleasant and welcoming introduction, noting that he had been quoted in one newspaper report as believing that CO2, all things being equal, will make things warmer.
Before Andrew’s presentation Dr Wilson, tried a quick straw poll of the roughly 60 or 70 people present (my guess, and I also guess that most were undergraduate or graduate students). He asked who believed there had been global warming, and that man had contributed to it – which was a disappointing note since the crucial areas of debate are not on those beliefs, but on the magnitude and other details of climate change over the next 50 to 100 years or so. Then he asked who saw themselves as sceptical. I raised my hand both times, albeit a bit hesitantly the first time. Not many raised their hands the second time – a ‘few’ was how Robert described it.
Andrew’s topic was ‘The Global Warming Debate After Climategate’. He recapped the basic details of Climategate, and of the serious allegations that were raised about climate scientists as a result. He talked through each of the three enquiries and demonstrated that they were all inadequate and had failed to directly address the allegations, thereby earning Andrew’s epithet of ‘whitewashes’. He said people have noticed that these were not serious attempts to get at the truth, and this destroyed trust. He returned again to this theme of lost or damaged trust, noting the IPCC standing by the hockey stick plot even when it knew it was wrong, and of the sleight of graph involved in splicing instrumental readings on to a time series plots of reconstructed temperatures when the reconstructed values turned sharply down instead of up. He noted the curious amount, and direction, of adjustments to temperature records – always to make the present warmer and the past cooler. He did not know whether or not the adjustments were justified, but merely noted that they made him uneasy.
He maintained that trust needs to be rebuilt in climatology, noting that he did not believe all climatologists were corrupt, but that there were some bad eggs in there. He welcomed the willingness of some to discuss issues in a civilised way, and said that both sides need to work very hard to be nice to each other. As more recent development, he noted the facile claim of accelerating warming by doing successive straight-line fits to sections of the temperature record, showing the illustration (due to Paul Matthews) of how this worked in a similar way when done to a simple sine wave. Why did some talk of acceleration based on this?, he asked and noted it as an example of the sort of thing that has to stop. He recalled being told by one climatologist who had posted a 5* review of HSI on Amazon, that he had done so anonymously to avoid repercussions. Turning to recent global temperature reports, he noted that the lack of warming was catching the attention of such as Phil Jones, and of people he had met in the Met Office recently. He noted that climate models had not been working well at the global level, and at the regional level were even worse, and showed a plot contrasting predictions made through the IPCC in the year 2000 diverging up and away from the actuals which were fluctuating about an approximately horizontal trend (chart due to Lucia on the Blackboard blog). He asked if these such models were fit tools for government policy, and said he though not. In winding up, he reiterated that trust has been destroyed, and that the phrase ‘Trust Me, I’m a Scientist’ doesn’t hold water anymore.
Recently retired, Professor Tom Crowley was the other speaker, and his subject was ‘Progress in Understanding Climate of the Last Millenium’. He started by saying he was feeling as bit wrong-footed by Andrew’s talk being different from what he had expected, an observation he was to make again a couple of other times. I think he had been expecting Andrew to be talking mostly about the hockey stick plot.
His introductory slide was of a roadside sign for the ‘Chaos Café’, and this stayed up for quite a while until he got into his main materials. Before then, he invited us to be concerned about the recent high temperatures being reported in the States, with averages in March being 8.6F above normal. He said this was a colossal warming.
He spoke very highly of the IPCC reports, and returned several times to this later. He had used the 1st and 2nd assessment reports as core material for classes he had taught back then on climate. He said virtually nobody has disputed what they have said, and noted that some 50,000 comments on drafts have been responded to. He noted that government representatives had voted sentence by sentence on the Summary Reports.
He showed showed a new plot (not yet published) which had the hockey stick shape using tree rings from 1801 to 1984, constructed using simple averaging of the reconstructions used. He noted that while individual records may be flawed, this averaging helped produce a more reliable result. He talked to some of the major features on the earlier part of the plot, generally referring to volcanic eruptions as likely causes, and then later, from about 1900 onwards by aerosols due to industrial pollution. He showed a plot of sulphate depositions found in Greenland ice – in the flight path of the prevailing winds from the US. These showed a drop in the 1930s which he associated with the Depression of those years, a drop which was not recovered from on the plot until 1954, roughly following a similar performance in the Dow Jones Index. The Clean Air Act in the 1970s led to improvements, but before that there was a surge of readings from abour 30ppb to 200ppb at their peak. This he described as great wads of sulphur, having earlier asked any gardeners present if they would deliberately pack sulphuric acid powder around the base of their valued plants.
He showed another plot with global temperatures (mostly as per Hadcrut means as I recall) , with CO2 growth almost perfectly superimposed from about 1800 to the present, and once again invited our concern. A further, yet to published plot due to Levitus, showed substantial heating in the upper ocean. All this he described as rock solid.
He said the IPCC view was that doubling of CO2 would lead to global mean temperatures rises of 2 to 3C in 30 years from now, and these would be the highest in a very long time (I cannot decipher my notes on the actual time period). He repeated the assurance of the IPCC about continued warming, and his confidence in the IPCC.
My notes are a bit scrappy for the question and answer session which followed, and which was ably handled by Dr Wilson, since I was from time to time formulating questions or comments of my own.
An early question concerned differences in variability displayed on different sections of plots shown by Tom – described by the questioner as ‘huge differences in uncertainty’. Another questioner argued that a detailed re-analysis of tree-ring data was called for in general. The question of how much longer a period without warming would cause people to say something was wrong with the models and/or the claims of a warming threat. Tom suggested that if warming not resumed by 2020, that would cause concern. A questioner noted that there were massive leaps being made from projected temperature rises to talk about climate impact in general – impacts that have not been remotely justified e.g. talk of floods and droughts and famines and so on.
The excess winter deaths in Scotland were raised to illustrate more harm from cooling than warming here. An audience member claimed that climate scientists were intrinsically sceptical – that was part of science, and that it was very misleading to think of a simple divide between climate sceptics and true believers. The same person also praised peer review as one of the strengths of climate science, and urged sceptics to get engaged and try to get published. There was some mention of Arctic ice thinning, the high variability Arctic sea ice and thickness so that even a dramatic summer melt at the pole would not be unprecedented even in the last 100 years, of sub-tropical drought forecasts and poor guidance to the Australian government about permanent drought down there (with desalination plants build not long before floods due to very heavy rains appeared and the plants were mothballed).
The Clausius-Clapeyron relationship was raised to note airborne water vapour would increase with rising surface temperatures, and that led to questions about negative feedbacks involving clouds tending to counter such rises). Someone noted that economic models also needed a lot more examination. What should be done? Bets were bandied about about temperature rises in the near future. It was noted that the self-interest of developing states such as India and China may not coincide with greenhouse gas reduction. Tom said it would be in the self-interest of the States to reduce dependence on imported oil, and that in general people should try to do what benefits their own country. A questioner had asked if it seemed that global governance was the only way to go if greenhouse gas reductions were to be addressed.
The climategate scandal was mentioned, and Tom said that it had nto affected the science, and that anyway, scientists were human beings. He felt that if there was 1 dodgy paper out of 100, that one would be blown up out of all proportion by the blogosphere. A suggestion of massive oil funding by an audience member was greeted with derision by the ‘sceptics’ present, and when Tom started to talk of Exxon in particular, there was a remark from the audience to the effect that going down that line would make ‘us’ no better than the sceptics, and that produced an approving murmur in the audience and the topic was dropped. A questioner asked what would it take to change a sceptic’s mind – for example, if they saw there was only a 1 in 20 chance that the projections were right about CO2, what would they do? The case of the resigning editor and reviewers at the Remote Sensing journal was raised, by Andrew I think, as an example of something wrong with the science – if a weak paper gets through, why not simply print a rebuttal, why resign, and why, in particular, apologise to Trenberth – a man not in the speciality in question. Andrew raised the question as to whether peer review was adequate in climate science, and the politicised situation. I think there was consensus that peer review is not perfect and that moves to open peer review were a good development. Several people pointed out that both sides of the debate had been politicised.
The discussion had been, as they say, wide-ranging and often lively. But always temperate, and my impression was that everyone would have felt they had some opportunity to be heard. Dr Wilson helped keep an even keel, and invited us all to another room nearby for refreshments and further discussion. All in all, a worthwhile event with some good communication of perspectives and bits and pieces of ‘facts’. Would that such events, in such an open and courteous atmosphere, could be held far and wide. They weren’t in the past, and we were told by some that the debate was over. I think for most of us, it has in fact scarcely begun. Back to the car park to find some of the West Sands had been spread there by the wind to give a slightly Saharan look to the place."
Reader Comments (365)
"In my mind I cannot say “debate”, as for me, there is no debate w.r.t. the AGW hypothesis."
Perhaps that's where we differ, by "we" I mean the experienced ladies and gentlemen who haunt the Bishop's See.
Personally, I don't believe there to be a debate about intelligent design, because I don't believe it. Of course, I have no proof that it''s not true, it just doesn't make sense to me. Same for creationism, in terms of debate, but I believe there is plenty of evidence to disprove the hypothesis, it's just that when it's presented the creationists invent things, which makes it hard to disprove. Just like the AGW supporters in fact.
It isn't very difficult to blow Mersey Tunnel size holes in the hypothesis of CAGW, there are a myriad questions left unanswered, not least of which is how the supporters believe they can foretell the future. Always a sign that your up against it when your dealing with people who tell you they can foretell the future.
Then there are the amazing contortions to keep the hypothesis going in the face of clear natural data showing nothing is happening despite a 0.75C increase in temperature over the last 150 years and a hiatus of 12 -15 years in warming despite increasing CO2, for which the implausible explanation of Chinese coal burning is being touted.
Finally, we old hands are faced with a new phenomenon, scientists, who think that putting data into models that run their equations is an "experiment". Quite apart from the difficulty of building models that can accurately describe the climate, there is also the effect of having people with a pre-formed view of the output of the "experiment" In my mind I cannot say “debate”, as for me, there is no debate w.r.t. the AGW hypothesis) inputting the data. You really don't need much nous to understand that if the "experiment" doesn't provide the already "known" result the modeller will assume they've got it wrong and change the data until the "known" output is given.
Rob, I don't want to be rude but you appear to be so unaware of the affects the words you've used have on mature adults, if you were I'm sure you wouldn't use them.
And talking of immaturity:
"I am afraid many of you sort of fell into my trap.
I purposely posted a goading statement to test the waters. I got what I expected which was a pity."
I'm not sure I understand what the "trap" was, for a start to my eyes at least your statement wasn't goading, it merely reflected your self-certainty. For most adults who've had the experience of raising teenagers it is relatively easy to filter out self-certainty and look beyond the bluster to the evidence. Of course confronting it is a waste of time, and we haven't all learned that lesson.
You see I'm not sure how the trap moved us on. My presumption is that you regard us as being wrong and to varying degrees stupid and you want to convince us of the error of our ways, but setting "traps" and gloating over your success isn't going to help you in that enterprise.
If there's no debate tO be had about CAGW then don't debate it, and don't play silly games setting "traps" for your intellectual inferiors.
A wonderful sentence from a thoughtful piece on William Briggs' site entitled "Love of Theory is the Root of All Evil" :-
When and if a theory describes reality without error it is no longer a theory but truth. If a theory does not describe reality perfectly, then it is not true. To love a theory over truth is the mark of madness. Or of Enlightenment. Or, nowadays often, of tenure.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5548
The video he links to is worth a look too.
[Stop it please]
geronimo
I suspect you and I might well have to agree to differ about Intelligent Design (always assuming that we at least agree on the definition) which is surely evidence of grounds for debate just as there are about AGW.
I could say "God exists" and provide you with "proofs" which would satisfy me and climate scientists will tell me that "AGW exists" and provide me with proofs that satisfy them.
That hardly moves the argument further forward since in each case we need proofs that satisfy the other half of the discussion — or at least give it pause for thought.
It seems to me that Wilson has run away from the debate: his proofs are good enough for him and my proofs are dismissed out of hand and if I don't accept his proofs then I am not worth his time. Your point about adolescents goes one step beyond what I described as 'Ivory Tower Syndrome' but it's essentially the same thing. Could it be that academics never actually get beyond the level of undergraduate debate and that, as you imply (I think), the hot house atmosphere of academe encourages the belief that the rest of us are thick and simply not worth engaging with?
Or could it be, as I suspect in some cases, that our arguments sometimes have a validity that they would rather not accept? There is very little more humiliating than being corrected by somebody who supposedly knows less than you do and I know enough academics who would sooner "trap their cock in a door" (have I heard that somewhere?) than admit that someone outside their 'magic circle' might be right about something.
Bish
what a bizarre thread. One of the undoubted plusses is the post from Mike Haseler. I don't think Rob Wilson has done himself any favours. But redemption is by no means impossible. I think it just underlines the difference between academe and the real world. Rob you need to get out more and learn some social skills.
The idea that 'they' are detached from real life is attractive as an explanation, but flawed. They live in the same world as the rest of us. They have to buy fuel and food, they watch the television and read the newspapers, they are subject to the same cultural influences. They just have different opinions, that's all.
Except I have met just a few who had been immersed in academe for decades, and in university towns it is possible to live entirely within that world, but I can't believe it is many who do. No, just being human is sufficient explanation for any apparently detached behaviour.
So, how's that old engagemnt with the warmists thing going?
Yeah, they have to cry hoarse about catastrophe every day and then walk home in just another bright sunny evening.
Heh, poor Rob Wilson fell into my trap. But if he'll discuss the apparent failure of modeling, I might let him open his trap.
==============
So, lob a grenade, then say "it's too noisy in here to talk", and then saunter off. What was the hoped-for result here?
lapogus, re your comments:
"Chris, I read your comments last night, but couldn't bring myself to respond. Did you really suggest that that 'changing rainfall patterns' are evidence of AGW? And that NOAA's GCHN and NASA's GISS datasets are credible indicators of global temperatures?"
Changing rainfall patterns
Yes, I think so. Intensification of the water cycle as the atmosphere responds to greenhouse-forced warming with enhanced water vapour concentrations is a prediction of enhanced greenhouse-induced warming. The increase in tropospheric water vapour in a warming world is pretty rock solid empirically, despite the assertions of Dr. Lindzen in the 1990's that atmospheric warming would cause the upper troposphere to dry. Lindzen was wrong and models were right as is apparent from direct measurement.
It's not very easy to make strong assertions about second-order effects of global warming like altered water cycle and precipitation effects but the evidence that we have is consistent with models (in fact the empirical evidence supports the interpretation that enhancement of the water cycle and precipitation trend changes are occurring faster than models predict). The evidence supports drying of Earth regions in the central latitudes and enhanced precipitation at higher latitudes. There’s quite a bit of published work on this now. Some of the empirical evidence can be found in:
X. Zhang et al (2007) Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends Nature 448, 461-465
K. Noake et al. (2012) Changes in seasonal land precipitation during the latter twentieth-century Geophys. Res. Lett. 39 art # L03706
And in yesterday’s Science:
P. J. Durack et al (2012) Ocean Salinities Reveal Strong Global Water Cycle Intensification During 1950 to 2000 Science 336, 455-458
Temperature datasets
Well, yes we’ve got four separate surface temperature analyses plus quite a few “amateur” compilations. Seems pretty robust to me, and the surface temperature data are consistent with the whole slew of other empirical data on sea levels, polar and glacier ice recession, atmospheric water vapour, changes in upper atmosphere (tropopause height, stratospheric cooling), precipitation trends and so on.
As for all those links to blogs, is that really interesting to you?! If those guys have something to say about the science why on earth don’t they publish it?
"I purposely posted a goading statement to test the waters. I got what I expected which was a pity."
A hypothesis, an investigation and a conclusion. The scientific method isn't dead yet!
Mike Jackson: "I suspect you and I might well have to agree to differ about Intelligent Design (always assuming that we at least agree on the definition) which is surely evidence of grounds for debate just as there are about AGW."
Mike I don't think there is any reason to differ, in so far as I respect the views of people that believe in it, it just doesn't make sense to me. I accept that I might be wrong, unlike the unself-loathing Rob, who cannot accept that anything he believes is true can be wrong. I don't want the argument because I don't think you could persuade me, but if I turned out to be totally wrong it wouldn't matter to me one way or the other.
Now if the people who are pushing CAGW are wrong, and nobody shoots their cooky views down, we can finish up with a world government, or at least, total control, exercised by wierdos, who will regulate the life of all the humans on the planet. And they're wrong, so wrong in fact that it's difficult to understand why they don't know it. But then this is only one scare suggesting the same solution, so maybe we're dealing with an unconscious conspiracy of greenie supporters, like Rob, who think they're blessed with outstanding intellectual capabilities, and those who question them are little more than worker ants, totally dispensible. Of course Rob and his cohorts think they're contributing to the debate, when they're merely providing the ammunition for cleverer, more evil, people.
"As for all those links to blogs, is that really interesting to you?! If those guys have something to say about the science why on earth don’t they publish it?" Chris
Posting comments on a blog is a very effective form of publishing. The comments appears almost immediately, and can be read and criticised by anybody in the world with access to the Internet.
Compare that to the long, slow process of publishing a paper in a journal, whose proprietors often charge a good deal of money for access to the article. There is also evidence that papers sceptical of AGW have been delayed and/or refused. Climate Audit revealed several such scandals.
As for "peer review", regular visitors to this and similar open-minded blogs like Climate Audit are all too familiar with the evidence - not least from the Climategate files - of the lack of honesty in peer reviews in climatology.
It's surprising that you are not aware of this.
Chris: I'm sorry in advance, I can hardly begin to exchange ideas with anyone who believes that models of the atmosphere can foretell the future, it's one of my prejudices I'm afraid. However I doubt that anyone would deny that a warming world will lead to more water vapour, you know, from the oceans, and in fact even George Monbiot, a considerable talent in the greenie campaign to conquer the earth was moved to tell us that the snowy winters were indeed caused by global warming because of the extra water vapour.
So, as I've not read the model output, can you tell me what constitutes higher latitudes?
Apr 28, 2012 at 3:16 PM | chris
"...but the evidence that we have is consistent with models".
So how are the models doing then:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/p/i/A3-layout-precip-AMJ.pdf
Chris - sorry to have to tell you this, but your models are broken. In fact, they are not only broken but they never worked at all. And they never will.
"As for "peer review", regular visitors to this and similar open-minded blogs like Climate Audit are all too familiar with the evidence - not least from the Climategate files - of the lack of honesty in peer reviews in climatology. "
Always excuses! I suspect the bloggers are aware of the deficiencies in many of their ideas and are a little tremulous of venturing into proper science (and maybe it's more fun to get all hysterical on blogs!) I agree that peer review is a little warty but if your work is anywhere near decent it will be published and then one can assess its value to science.
A couple of things are odd about your point of view. It seems to me that the abuses of peer review are rather on the side of those that oppose honest scientific practices. Dr. Wegman’s appalling paper trashing Dr. Mann was waved into Comp. Stats. Data Anal. (subsequently to be retracted). A compliant editor waved a bunch of papers into Climate Science in the early 2000’s that were scientifically deficient (half the editorial board resigned and the publisher issued a statement regretting the publication of a sub-standard paper by Baliunas and Soon). Dr. Lindzen got his horribly flawed paper on transient radiative responses to changes in surface temperature into Geophys. Res. Lett. when it really shouldn’t have passed peer review; likewise with the John Christy paper in Int.J. Climatol. with it’s embarrassing statistical flaws….sadly quite a few of these examples.
These things are tedious (people have to go to the trouble of correcting shoddy work), and it’s unfortunate that some scientists bypass the “good faith” aspects of scientific practice. But they’re actually not that big a deal. The very nature of science means that incorrect work is highlighted and corrected by others (if it's considered worth doing so - oftentimes it isn't!).
The second thing that’s a little sad is that from the point of view of bloggers, it seems to be largely the pro-science side that is brave enough to venture into good-faith scientific publishing. There are quite a few examples of this in my experience. Bottom line: if you have something important to say scientifically-speaking, be brave enough to get it into the scientific literature. If it's good enough it will be published!
Apr 27, 2012 at 5:22 PM Rob Wilson
My own experience is that very few of the requests I have sent to climate scientists for a pdf of their published work has resulted in any reply. Maybe one in five, at best.
"Chris: I'm sorry in advance, I can hardly begin to exchange ideas with anyone who believes that models of the atmosphere can foretell the future, it's one of my prejudices I'm afraid."
I'm glad you recognize your prejudice, geronimo! The point is that models can and do foretell the future. It's a prediction (a prediction is a model, yes?) of models that in a warming world under enhanced greenhouse forcing, the water cycle will intensify and the precipitation pattern will alter such that the lower latitudes will increasingly dry while greater precipitation will occur at higher latitudes.
As the papers I cited indicate, empirical real world measurements support this prediction. To answer your specific question, the higher latitudes are broadly 50 oN and higher (NH) and 10-30 oS and higher (SH).
Likewise models predicted the enhanced tropospheric water vapour in a warming world before this was confirmed by direct measurements. You may say this is obvious, but a noted atmospheric scientist called Dr. Lindzen asserted in the 1990's that tropospheric warming would result in a drying of the upper atmosphere. He was quite wrong and the model predictions have turned out to be broadly correct.
And we know models have predictive power to a greater or lesser extent. We know that increased smoking enhances probability of contracting respiratory disease and lung cancer, and we can use this predictively to estimate the likely increased levels of morbidity and mortality under particular "smoking regimes". We can't say anything at all about the future without a model!
geronimo
That was only meant as an example of how the argument that "there is no debate about ..." (aka "the science is setled") falls at the first hurdle. There is always a debate to be had until such time as hypothesis becomes theory becomes a law.
I'm concerned that, with all respect to Rhoda, there are academics who may well be capable of buying groceries just as there are (allegedly) old Etonians who know the price of a pint of milk but who have never seen any reason to or are intellectually incapable of interacting with those they consider their intellectual inferiors.
And while we try to fend them off with one hand we have to overcome the stream of (un)consciousness people who just pour out the soundbite stuff: "sea levels", polar ice", "glaciers", "atmospheric water vapour", "tropopause height", "stratospheric cooling", "precipitation trends" which may have passed through their brains but sounds for all the world as if it hasn't.
Sorry, chris, but the idea that the surface temperature data sets are somehow independent of each other is a non-starter and the papers you quote do not provide any empirical evidence of a causal link between anthropogenic activity and climate variation sufficient to warrant the conclusions that are being drawn by climate scientists — which is what this is all about no matter how we dress it up.
"The second thing that’s a little sad is that from the point of view of bloggers, it seems to be largely the pro-science side that is brave enough to venture into good-faith scientific publishing."
You clearly don't see the problem do you Chris? Nobody is pro or anti science, you're simply making a cheap point that you feel puts you into a superior position. Like our friend Rob you appear to believe you and your fellow alarmist are blessed with insights into the workings of the universe, and anyone who challenges your "insights" is anti-science. I sometimes think I'm dealing with adolescents when I see this stuff, if you have scientific arguments and don't want them challenged, don't tell anyone.
Mike I'm sorry I missed your point.
fair enough Mike Jackson, you're not willing to address the science. It's not very difficult to comprehend the physical understanding, predictions and empirical evidence relating to atmospheric effects (water vapour concentration; tropopause height, stratospheric temperature), surface temperature effects, polar and mountain ice dynamics, water cycle responses, sea level responses and so on...
to my mind if you're interested in this subject you may as well make a little effort to get to grips with the science.. you prefer insults...but that's O.K.... insults are a fine way of addressing "science" on blogs! :-)
"I'm glad you recognize your prejudice, geronimo! The point is that models can and do foretell the future."
I think I'll leave it there, even the IPCC describe the model outputs a "scenarios".
Let me get this right, you believe models can foretell the future of a coupled non-linear chaotic system and those that don't agree with you are anti-science?
that's silly geronimo! If models predict that tropospheric water vapor concentrations will rise in a warming world, and lo and behold when we have the means to address this with empirical measurements we find that's exactly the case then the models were predictively correct. If models predict 30 years ago that in a warming world that warming will be focussed in the high Northern latitudes and that Antarctic warming will be delayed, and lo and behold that turns out to be the case then it's clear that the scientific knowledge used to parametrize the models is rather reliable for that particular phenomenon.
...and so on. You can pretend that things that are rather predictable are not predictable by referring to "coupled non-linear chaotic system", but that's a semantic illogic! Some elements of the climate system are chaotic, but some are less so, and there are many examples of predictable deterministic behavour arising from chaotic phenomena. You might as well say that you can't predict the macroscopic diffusion properties arising from dropping some ink in a bucket since the motion of the humungous amount of unseen molecules exhibits chaotic behaviour!
So chris who has previously claimed citations as evidence of quality now states that bad quality papers get into the literature, but if we have nothing to fear we should publish ( despite the ample evidence of gate-keeping in climate science).
I don't think chris knows enough about science or has enough experience of it to know what he is talking about.
Have our embryonic wide eyed with admiration academic ever considered that the scientific literature is possibly amongst the worst ways of synthesising and storing knowledge? And lately has merely become a rather grand and expensive form of vanity publishing.
Can models be correct but be incorrect chris? Right for the wrong reasons? How would you know?
Mike Jackson: "I suspect you and I might well have to agree to differ about Intelligent Design"
Why on earth would your Intelligent Designer decide to design a man's urethra to pass through his prostate, with all the problems it causes him in later life?
I asked this same question to a Jehovah's Witnesses on the doorstep recently. His answer: "God hadn't realised people were going to live so much longer" I kid you not.
So much for Intelligent Design, if you can believe in that, you may have to question what else you believe in.
GW
"as for me, there is no debate w.r.t. the AGW hypothesis."
Dr Wilson the hypothesis is that man made CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming.
The hypothesis has been falsified and you are therefore correct that in so much as there is no need for a debate :-)
"Can models be correct but be incorrect chris? Right for the wrong reasons? How would you know?"
Well yes, of course that's possible Andy! However in practice models are based on our understanding of the physical world which has some associated "depth". So just as our model of increased morbidity/mortaliy with enhanced smoking contains a strong contribution from somatic mutations in susceptible tissue (and we can assay for these mutations and confirm the causal relationships inherent in our model)......so our model of enhanced water cycle intensity in a warming world (say) contains understanding of the expected distribution of increased and decreased rainfall over land and salinity variability in oceans, and these can be assayed for by empirical measurements in the real world.
The beauty of scientific understanding in every sphere is that it encompasses a whole range of expctations that can be assessed. If one wants to understand phenomena in the physical world (e.g. response to hugely enhanced atmospheric greenhouse gases), we consider the full range of evidence that beards on the subject. That contrasts with the efforts of those that wish to misrepresent the science who tend to focus on one particular (often tiny) sub-issue (one single scientist's paleotemperature reconstruction, say!) and pretend that trashing this will overthrow our entire composite understanding of a subject!
'Dr. Robert Wilson, who said that he's a great believer in discussion where there is discord', drops a discordant note and then doesn't discuss.
=====================
Chris - when you said that rainfall patterns had changed I assumed that you were going to cite some bollocks about increasing frequency and magnitude of floods in the last 20 years. Fair enough, I can accept that a slightly warmer world / atmosphere will probably result in more atmospheric water vapour. But do you really think given the paucity of reliable rainfall data around the globe any change can be detected in noise? I very much doubt it.
As for the temperature datasets if you think the adjustments which have been made to them are valid then there is not much hope for you. As you don't like links to blogs, how about this one (which was among the links I posted), it is from NOAA, and clearly shows the adjustments that NOAA have made to their dataset in the 20th Century:
Clearly any adjustment for UHI should have gone the other way. Or do you think not?
Speaking of UHI, just compare the following two graphs in the GISS dataset for Norfolk Int. airport (USA), and for Norfolk City only 20 odd miles away. How many airport stations are used in the GCHN datasets? You call that high quality? Did you look at the adjustments NOAA and GISS have been making to the Arctic stations recently? I suppose because these dubious station selections and adjustments were first noticed by bloggers you won't have read about them. Just how deep down is your head in the sand?
Just read the essays by Tony Brown, you may learn something about historical climate variability. And once you have done that, have a look at this graph, and let me know if you can identify the CO2 signal, thanks.
wood for trees
As I have said above, all I see is a long slow thaw out of the Little Ice Age.
"So chris who has previously claimed citations as evidence of quality now states that bad quality papers get into the literature, but if we have nothing to fear we should publish ( despite the ample evidence of gate-keeping in climate science)."
Don't be such a scaredy-cat on behalf of poor science practitioners, Andy! Of course bad papers get into the scientific literature. They're either "shot-down" by robust rebuttal or left to moulder unnoticed and un-loved. A scientist like Dr. Mann with a whole bunch of highly-cited papers (his h-index is over 40, which is pretty spectacular, I'm sure you agree), is clearly publishing papers that are influential. Of course we might keep an eye out for any papers that tend to contradict his work (that would be interesting!), but perusal of the scientific literature indicates that his work is standing the test of time. If I'm readdressing a scientific subject I always do a literature search of work citing the work I'm interested in to see how the field has developed - I'm genuinely interested to see how things are progressing in paleoclimatology, for example. If you want to find stuff out you shouldn't be scared of addressing the scientific literature.
You think publishing science is a poor (amongst the worst!) was of synthesising and storing scientific knowledge.That's an odd notion to me considering that it's worked rather nicely for a couple of hundred years and is continuing to do so. Of course publishing practices are changing: there's more electronic depositions of datasets now that electronic storage facilities are virtually unlimitless; there's a move to bypass the rather greedy scientific publishers who bundle unwanted journals into expensive journal packages; there's a continuing extension of open access models and so on...
...there is a real world out there, which is infinitely more subtle that is encompassed in unsupported assertions about "vanity publishing" and such like. That sounds a little like an attempt at trashing something that isn't quite to your taste!
chris have you any notion of how daft you sound? Let's assume that models can model the climate. Then let's look at weather forecasts, (maybe you don't) are they accurate over 2 days?
You clearly don't understand what a chaotic system is so I'll leave it there, except for asking you to consider only people who believe in religion believe the future is defined. But I suppose you do have religion. And you cannot, whatever you say forecast the future, if it was that easy more practical people would have figured out how to bet on the winner of the Grand National, a typical non-linear chaotic occasion.
Chris; 16:11: 'So just as our model of increased morbidity/mortaliy with enhanced smoking contains a strong contribution from somatic mutations in susceptible tissue (and we can assay for these mutations and confirm the causal relationships inherent in our model)......' Poor comparison, Chris. The current view on genotoxic carcinogens (e.g. tobacco smoke) and its role in smoking-related cancers is that there is no 'safe' no-effect level. If you transpose this analogy to the supposed anthropogenic cause of climate change, then any human contribution to increased CO2 levels, however small, would be causal?
"chris" has turned up as a "warmist" who initially appears quite open to debate. I thought the style familiar and when I read his 4.20 p.m. post dismissing Wegman and Lindzen in a couple of sweeping statements, I realised it is Chris Colose [he's got a google ref.]
He used to be a regular on Judith Curry's blog but rarely appears nowadays. It's sadly a total waste engaging with him as like so many "warmists" he will not concede even the most minor of points. So I would say to lapogus and geronimo, a) unless you like the challenge for it's own sake it's simply not worth it and b) he will derail any post as he already has this one.
Temperature datasets
Well, yes we’ve got four separate surface temperature analyses plus quite a few “amateur” compilations. Seems pretty robust to me, and the surface temperature data are consistent with the whole slew of other empirical data on sea levels, polar and glacier ice recession, atmospheric water vapour, changes in upper atmosphere (tropopause height, stratospheric cooling), precipitation trends and so on.
As for all those links to blogs, is that really interesting to you?! If those guys have something to say about the science why on earth don’t they publish it?
Apr 28, 2012 at 3:16 PM | chris
COLOSE Real Climate ????
Chris: "A scientist like Dr. Mann with a whole bunch of highly-cited papers (his h-index is over 40, which is pretty spectacular, I'm sure you agree), is clearly publishing papers that are influential."
You beclown yourself every time you post things like this here, Chris. That you think readers of the Bishop are ignorant of Yamal, 'Caspar and the Jesus Paper', Tijlander, "hide the decline", and all the other Lysenkoist drivel that "supports" CAGW says far, far more about you than anything else.
Thanks to real scientists like Steve McIntyre (and writers like The Bishop), anyone with a clue now knows that Michael Mann and his IPCC teammates are anything but scientists. Real scientists follow the Scientific Method. Mann and his fellow "climate scientists", as POLICY, refuse to do so. Secret data, phoney statistical methods like short-centered PCA, cherry picked proxies like strip-bark tree cores, turning inconvenient data upside down, etc. etc. etc, makes that clear to any honest individual. That Mann's "work" is cited by people with the same lack of scientific ethics is not exactly a recommendation.
Why is this chris guy spamming here?
"I purposely posted a goading statement to test the waters. I got what I expected which was a pity."
Dr. Wilson, I confess I find this admission shocking. Why do you think it a "pity" that you got a (desired) reaction to an intentionally provocative statement that you are essentially 'in the tank' supporting AGW theory? What is your motivation for this stunt? That you can through provocation short-circuit meaningful debate of issues and preremptorally claim some kind of supposed moral victory?
This speaks loud and clear detriment to your character, sir, not that of those you 'pity'.
Shub
I'm not entirely convinced Chris is 'spamming' as you put it. In fact, I find his posts are by and large the most informative, most straightforward and least confrontational on this thread.
Perhaps the most enlightening response to his views comes from Andrew SanDiego:
I think Chris is more concerned that those things are the only things that some people who post here are not ignorant of.
And he's trying, very politely as far as I can see, to present the big picture. It really is important to understand that the issues mentioned by AndrewSanDiego are frankly insignificant when compared with the rather substantial edifice of physics and observations that support the basic AGW theory. Of course there is room for debate, especially around sensitivity and the uncertainties surrounding some of the feedbacks.
If you want to debate Chris, that's where you should be doing it. I'm afraid insulting him isn't going to work, and actually looks rather undignified.
Best wishes
Paul
chris,
Based on predictions borne out, I'd take a gypsy fortune-teller over a GCM every time.
BTW, why is it the average of the 2 surface and 2 satellite measurements over 30+ years is +0.3C -- less than that directly attributable to CO2 by itself, without any accompanying positive feedbacks? As opposed to, say, predictions of +0.3C PER DECADE?
Chris should read the NAS report - they agreed with Wegman that Mann's maths wasn't up to snuff.
Here is a link to a very informative referenced blog post by a published author which details relevant comments and background:
http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/06/the-wegman-and-north-reports-for-newbies/
It'd be a shame if Chris was arguing from a position of ignorance.
John Hewitt
I wondered why I felt I was being patronised. All is explained.
Paul Butler
Insulting us is equally undignified. When he grows up and learns that treating us like kiddies that have been allowed to stay up and listen to the grown-ups pontificate on subjects they like to think they are experts on is counter-productive, then he might be worth engaging with.
Mike
Feeling patronised is not the same thing as being patronised. Chris is speaking (as far as I'm concerned) from a position of authority. Now, you may think he's talking rubbish, but you need argue your point with equal authority. Just saying he's talking rubbish doesn't convince.
Cheers
Paul
chris, undoubtedly you'll find these 2 videos with Dr. David Evans instructive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plr-hTRQ2_c&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSNW0LC32wU&feature=player_embedded
Bish, am I right in thinking that during your talk you took the opportunity to promote Bishop Hill?
Lapogus
I too am most enthralled in historical climate variability - in fact it was this (MWP, LIA, crops in Greenland and Grapes in North of England) which first alerted me to the scam of unprecedented warming. Can you give me a title/s of the Tony Brown essays you had in mind, and where they are published.
BTW, I am chasing up references to figs being exported from Buckie, of all places!
As Mark Twain said, "We learn from history that man never learns from history"
Are you reading the same blog as the rest of us Paul?
Chris's 4.20 post was pure alarmist politics & ad homs from beginning to end.
"Dr Wegman's apalling paper"
"Dr Linzen's horribly flawed paper"
"John Christy's embarrassing statistical flaws"
"The pro-science side..."
If "Chris" is indeed Chris Colose this would be par for the course - since we've all got used to his hysterical warmist verbosity at Judith Curry's & Real Climate (although of course we're not able to repond at the latter) - but I can't see how you could confuse it with scientific debate.
Paul Butler:
"...Of course there is room for debate, especially around sensitivity..."
Really?
"The envelope of uncertainty in climate projections has not narrowed appreciably over the past 30 years, despite tremendous increases in computing power, in observations, and in the number of scientists studying the problem."
Roe and Baker 2007
There can *be* no debate about sensitivity. People have put bounds on it, and whatever observational evidence exists - the IPCC doesn't have the fortitude to accept. You know what they did with Gregory and Forster, right? - they stretched out the tail of their graph - artificially.
On the other hand, it is true that you might think it is good to have a debate about sensitivity. As long as there is a sliver of a chance for the higher sensitivities you'd want to 'debate' it because that is where alarm resides.
HuhneToTheSlammer - the links to Tony Brown's essays were in my first comment in response to Chris, but were not hyperlinked. Here goes:
Historic Variation in Arctic Ice, guest post at the Air Vent. June 2009.
A short anthology of changing climate, guest post at WUWT, November 1, 2011.
The Long Slow Thaw - guest post at Judith's, December 2011.