Bishop Hill Stocker in Oxford
May 12, 2012 Climate: IPCC Simon Anthony sends this report of Thomas Stocker's recent talk in Oxford.
Yesterday I attended a talk at Wolfson College, Oxford by Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the IPCC's AR5 WG1 on "Climate Change: Making the best use of scientific information". He's an intelligent, well-mannered and rational man, in a position of great influence. It's therefore all the more concerning to see the weakness of the evidence and arguments which have, it seems, convinced him of the reality and urgency of AGW and which he feels should convince everyone else.
Now one wouldn't expect the head of an IPCC working group to pour scorn on the evidence for AGW (after all, the Pope is unlikely to ask Richard Dawkins to write one of his encyclicals to the faithful). However, while nothing he had to say was novel, I think it's reasonable to assume that Prof Stocker brought along the very best evidence he had, not leaving the really good arguments back at home. So it's all the odder that what he had to say was so weak.
He told us that the IPCC's unequivocal view was that the climate had got warmer. He seemed to think that sceptics would disagree with this. (I suppose some might, but not many, so the statement rather obviously begs questions of speed, typicality and relative importance of the various causes.)
His main concern was with communicating key information so that non-specialists (public and policy makers) reached the same conclusions that he and his colleagues had. He therefore showed three graphs, of global temperature, sea level and snow cover which he thought were conclusive. The charts were all from AR4's Summary for Policy Makers and it's true they all showed the behaviour you'd expect in a warming world. Unfortunately the start dates for the data sets were 1850, 1870 and 1920 respectively, so giving no comparison with longer term behaviour and all therefore again begging the obvious questions.
He discussed the uncertainty in "forecasts" from various "scenarios" (or whatever they're called in climate science-speak) for future temperatures up to 2100. He described the difficulty in explaining the uncertainty in these "predictions" (I'm stuck in Oldspeak) due to the variations between and within the models. These included parameters, initial conditions, physical processes, natural variability, economic assumptions and so on. These factors were combined together "mathematically" and then subject to "expert" interpretation before being delivered to policy makers.
It was striking that not once did he suggest that the models' uncertainties (or "errors" in Oldspeak) should be established by comparing their "predictions" against measured data. The only sources of uncertainty with which Prof Stocker seemed concerned were between and within models. It seemed comparison with what was supposedly modelled was not relevant.
There was another troubling note in that Prof Stocker referred several times to "deniers". It was, at the very least, unfortunate that a man of such seniority should look on those who disagree with his views in such terms. It struck a discordant note from a man who otherwise seemed polite. It was also ironic in that he said that he and his colleagues mustn't respond in equivalent terms to the "provocations" of climate change deniers. (He seemed put out that he'd had to spend "several hours" responding to FOI requests. Apparently these mostly came from the UK - I don't know who's doing it, but keep it up. To his credit - or at least not adding to his debits - he did say, albeit reluctantly, that climate scientists should continue properly to respond to such requests.)
Also to his credit - or at any rate avoiding an obvious trap - in response to a question he insisted that scientists shouldn't take activist roles and shouldn't be influenced by WWF, Greenpeace or Heartland.
Something which has constantly surprised me is how otherwise intelligent and rational people can come to believe strongly in something for which the evidence is either lacking or, in some cases, absent. I suppose the most striking example is Newton who, judging by the amount of work he devoted to it, attached far more importance to alchemy than science and mathematics. I suppose in Newton's case it might have been, at least in part, because he lived quite an isolated life and didn't discuss his work much with others.
Now obviously the weakly grounded beliefs of modern climate scientists aren't in the Newtonian league (and nor, equally, is their work) but they do seem to have very strong beliefs based on weak or equivocal evidence. Of course they don't tend to spend their time in hermit-like isolation (see below) but they seldom if ever are obliged to engage directly with lucid sceptics. So I wonder if the reason for the strength of climate scientists' weakly supported beliefs is that not only are they similar to Newton in that they seldom or never face opposition, but they constantly reinforce one another's beliefs.
I also wonder (hope?) if, in some more rational future, "AGW" will be investigated mainly by psychologists as a powerful example of a recurrent and damaging aspect of human behaviour.
Oh, and this is somewhat BTW, and possibly unfair, but I looked at the website for WG1 and came across a list of the meetings and workshops for the group. The noble men and women in WG1 have, since 2009, endured travel to and stay in the following locations: Honolulu, Oslo, Venice, Geneva, Bali, Panama, Boulder, Hanoi, Kuala Lumpur, Stanford, Belgium (hmmm, someone slipped up), Geneva again, Kunming (China), Okinawa, Gold Coast (Australia), Lima, Brest, Kampala and Marrakech. They are plainly terrified of the effect of all those CO2 emissions.
Reader Comments (118)
Mydog,
Have a look at the stuff that Richard posted (e.g. the 2011 paper). If you have not already seen it, at first glance it covers many of the things that you have been talking about. It also gives grid sizes and integration times.
I am going to spend some time looking at this. I think it will also interest Martin A if he has not already seen it.
Plenty of stuff to get your nose into!
Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote
The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote, (Chaucer)
Mediaeval Warm Period, anyone?
"The aim of the weather forecasts is not to forecast weather, it's to maintain in the Public Mind that CO2-AGW is dangerous and is changing the climate."
Such a picture had formed in my mind when they gave 38 consecutive three monthly forecasts of sizzling summers and warm wet winters, even though none of them came to fruition. They then retreated from them, but couldn't resist telling us there was going to be drought, because we had only 70% of the average precipitation in the winter, so, yes you're right, it is the overwhelming desire to present the case for global warming that is driving the Met Office forecasts. Unprofessional really, I do hope our own Richard Betts isn't on the forecasting side of the house, although it's unlikely, given the quality of the weather forecasts I'm left with the impression that 99.9% of their resources are in proving global warming by humans, by hook or by crook. That's what happens when you let "religious" zealots into scientific establishments, especially human hating religious zealots.
What was that about back radiation again mdgnn?
A variation of "The Peter Principle" has it that good scientists are promoted to the point at which they become bureaucrats, not scientists. They no longer have time to actually do much science.
I have heard a visiting speaker at a University science department ask a full lecture theatre ( ~30% professors) "...And who here has time to read the primary literature?...." Nobody spoke. Much of their work is often done by post-docs and students, whom they have to trust to a greater or lesser extent.
I have read a part of the IPCC zero-order draft which appears to have been written by an author whose chemistry knowledge is less than that which could be expected of a high school student. I have also read that Angela Merkel is a Chemical Engineer by training, but I doubt that she will have time to read much from the IPCC, so she may not spot it either.
A final comment from me, lest the thread gets bogged down with technicalities.
The papers referenced by Richard Betts are facinating! For example, p. 21 of the 2011 paper shows them using low pass filters "chosen to preserve only the decadal and longer components of the variability". That may be how they stop the models becoming unstable (eg. pouring down during a drought) and not demonstrating the "forcings" that they are programming into the "experiments". If this is the case they will see only what they expect to see, and the models are being tuned to produce it.
However, I may be being unfair, and more objective people should comment on this.
When the IPCC issues a mandate that ALL of their future discussions and meetings will be conducted using Webex type technology, perhaps then they should be taken seriously.
On flying hither and thither (in the age of web meetings): Long haul flights lead to the emission of about 1000 kg of CO2 per seat per flight (see http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/jardine09-carboninflights.pdf) (plus the additional CO2 related activity required to raise the price of the ticket). So, about 2 tons of CO2 emitted per conference.
Given that cars 'only' emit 10 kg of CO2 per gallon of fuel, climatologists attending multiple international meetings are effectively operating multiple cars, in CO2 output terms). Assume the climatologist travels about 8000 miles per year in efficient cars at 40 mpg, that is about 2 tons of CO2 per car.
Barry
Good catch on that one.
@ michael hart
This comes as no surprise. It's perfectly clear that in climate science there are very many good, solid scientists doing real high quality science. The problem is that the original research was not done by people like that but by dodgy scientists using dodgy methods to analyse dodgy data using dodgy statistical methods.
If today's scientists could find the time to check out the original work by Mann, Jones, etc, they would be horrified by what they'd find. Even a brief perusal of Steve McIntyre's early blog posts or a skim through the HSI would be enough to make most self-respecting scientists have doubts.
On a more positive note, I was very pleasantly surprised that on the very recent cruise up the inside passage and into glacier bay in Alaska, the onboard naturalist and the park rangers in the bay didn't mention global warming once. Maybe this is because it really doesn't explain well the staggering 65 mile retreat the glaciers have done since George Vancouver spotted the glaciers at the end of the bay in the 1790's and the fact that a few of them are advancing over the last few decades. Surely some ocean current/precipitation change is needed to explain this well.
There actually was one throwaway comment about climate change to try and explain the large drop in Harbor Seal population recently but there was a huge amount of we really don't know why this is happening thrown in which is pleasingly scientific to me. I do think people actually working and having to go out in winter Alaska weather and count wildlife may have a slightly different view to people bashing at a computer all day in far off places stating opinions on it.
Beautiful scenery and having Killer Whales leaping in the wake of your boat is so cool...
geronimo: 'What was that about back radiation again mdgnn?' You're being a norty boy again. At ~ the IR you get 1.2 m from a 2 kW kitchen heater like the Beeston my mum had in her council house, you should be able to feel it easily using thermal sensors on the back of your hand! On a warm., clear, sultry night place 1m x 1m Al foil on your lawn to shield IR and hold out your hand 10 cm above the foil, palm downwards. If BR exists, you should be able to feel it easily.......:o)
[In reality , there's a feeling of coldness. Your hand is a crude pyrgeometer. This converts that temperature difference with respect to local temperature into an artificial W/m^2 characteristic of temperature and emissivity of the sky within the view factor, weighted heavily to longer path length. This is seriously bad experimentation but to climate science the data are the equivalent of the tooth fairy. Let's not tell them the truth because they'll be very upset.]
Just to add, 'The Little Ice Age' is mentioned many times throughout the National Parks Authority information. I can't remember what the consensus on this part of history is supposed to be at the moment (European, Northern Hemisphere or Global) or what the cause is supposed to be.
May 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM | Richard Betts
"We do work with the renewables sector in terms of providing weather and climate advice, but also with oil and coal too (and nuclear)."
The next time I see a BigCoal, BigOil, BigGas or BigNuke publication claiming the MET Office as "Sponsors" or "Partners" will be a first.
And, despite all the warmist agit-prop, all of the above are much more concerned to keep the lights on and industry ticking over than to lobby politicians and media luvvies to change the energy basis of the economy over to something which demonstrably can't possibly work by 2030. All of them may provide funding for the greenie alarmists but they have to preserve a reputation for at least a modicum of competence.
As far as my BigCoal spy is aware, yes the MET Office does provide information on forthcoming barometer drops (which tend CH4 emissions from mine workings shooting up) for a suitably fat fee. And he says the forecasts for more than two or three days hence are about on a par with the MET Office's weather prognoses. I'm sure your scenarios for 2100 are much more accurate.
Anyway, as you fly off to Tsukuba, San Francisco and Buenos Aires, just spare a thought for all those whose skyrocketting energy bills leave them with a guesthouse in Blackpool as their only hope of a holiday.
Still, as Caroline Lucas put it, "travellers who regularly jet off to the Costas are threatening the lives of others - and do as much damage as thugs who stab people in the street."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1169862/Air-travel-bad-stabbing-person-street-says-MEP.html#ixzz1ufua2KCp
You may have to rough it in economy class but at least you can feel superior to all those little people who have to pay for their own travel arrangements.
Let's stipulate for a moment that there is a model, perhaps the one our friend Mr Betts likes best, which accurately captures the forcings and feedbacks and consequences. The model shows us what happens next century if CO2 increases.
What if the sunspot activity dims?
What if aerosols and soot over China increase?
What if there is a volcano, or a small nuclear war, say somewhere in India?
What if a comet strikes and creates a big cloud -- Pournelle and Niven's "Hot Fudge Sunday" model?
If we've got a working model, aren't there interesting questions and scenarios to run through it aside from the -- relatively benign -- question of doubled CO2?
I'm thinking there are even commercial possibilities. "SIM CLIMATE" (tm) I remember when the Commodore 64 game/emulator for the Space Shuttle was used to demonstrate that, yes, it WAS possible to de-orbit and land without main engines and only steering thrusters. (NASA later confirmed the C64 results on their own, bigger, computers. Not, actually, with the shuttle. Still...)
If - IFF -- we had a model that works, we could crowd source LOTS of scenarios and see what sorts of things are really dangerous, what a inconvenient, what are beneficial, and what sort of trade-offs of benefits, risks, and costs might be possible. Maybe CO2 and sulpher offset each other. Maybe soot is a bigger problem than sunspots.
If we only had a good model ...
It seems to me that the fact that such a model is not widely available is a proof of the models failings...
See just above; the claimed 333 W/m^2 energy flow from the atmosphere into the ground does not exist and the signal claiming it is an artefact of shielding the back of the detector from IR going the other way.
1000s of such instruments and associated technicians are beavering away just like Jonathan Swift's Academy of Lagado. No professional engineer or experimental physicist accepts this is a valid experiment.
I wanted to ask this:
What is the point of jumping on Richard for his statement about air travel? The fact that he would make such a statement only tells us about the kind of circles he has to confront in his day-to-day affairs.
"Air travel is bad". "No, open your freaking eyes - it is a part of everyday life."
May 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM | Roger Longstaff
"Richard Betts, Zed, anybody......
I just want to know how the models work. "
They don't.
@Richard nice piece of buck-passing.
"I really don't know much about palaeoclimate reconstructions, it's not my area at all so I'm not the right person to try to "defend" things in that field! Try asking Rob Wilson..... :-)"
Two things here.
1) You seem quite at home modelling vegetation changes when plant physiology "is not your area".
2) and quite happy to use palaeoclimate reconstructions to help "tune" your models.
Personally if I was doing your job, I would want to know a little bit more about the processes and data that I was using.
Now over to you Rob. Same questions;
Would you care to make a defence of Briffa's methodology, or discuss the dangers of type 1 errors in his analysis?
Cheers :-)
The models do work They are a marvel of intricate applied mathematics. Unfortunately, the Schwarzchild analysis is an incorrect representation of real radiative energy transfer at the Earth's surface so they can't predict climate.
"Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote
The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote, (Chaucer)
Mediaeval Warm Period, anyone?"
Well Chris, Alison would hardly have have got up to such mischief if it was too cold :)
Richard Betts
Thanks for those links to the model documentation. I think the second one is broken, could you check it please. (Any one else having trouble?)
That's the sort of thing that would be nice on the side bar as a general recourse as questions about what the models are doing seem to come up fairly regularly.
May 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM | Don Keiller
Hi Don
My formal qualifications are in physics and meteorology, but I have worked with plant physiological models as part of developing a global coupled climate-carbon cycle model, so I have worked closely with plant physiologists and published a number of papers with them.
No, actually, we don't use palaeoclimate reconstructions to help "tune" our models - the uncertainties are too large.....! We only tune using observational data.
And anyway it would take far to long to repeatedly run a thousand years in order to tune the model to the palaeo data. It takes months to run just a hundred years, even on a supercomputer.
We don't even tune the model against 20th Century warming either, as that would invalidate it's use for attribution (and would still be too expensive and time-consuming - running a hundred years again and again would add years to the model development time).
We only compare the model against present-day data.
BTW Are you going to be an expert reviewer of the AR5 WG2 FOD? Would be good to get your comments on my chapter ("Terrestrial and Inland Water Systems")
Cheers
Richard
eddy
You're right - try this.
If that doesn't work, here's the address:
http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/4/1051/2011/gmd-4-1051-2011.pdf
Cheers
Richard
May 12, 2012 at 1:17 PM | Barry Woods
Any document that begins by giving thanks to Dr John Abrahams is probably not worth reading. You pretty much know already that it's going to read like the SkS web site. It is intended for the dim-witted and the gullible.
"...I have always found it very amusing that the 'Sea Level Research Group' is located in Boulder. Colorado. Boulder has an elevation of 5,430 feet, and is about as far from any sea as it is possible to get in the entire USA." --Latimer Alder
Nevertheless, when I lived in Denver, there was a Coast Guard unit located there.
@Richard, thanks for getting back. I do appreciate straight answers.
I find your question intriguing "Are you going to be an expert reviewer of the AR5 WG2 FOD? Would be good to get your comments on my chapter ("Terrestrial and Inland Water Systems")"
If you are prepared to put me forward, I will examine any document objectively and without any preconceptions.
what is it with you guys who castigate Richard Betts for attending these events! Climate is a global phenomenon. You need global inputs. As long as the locations do not suggest excess, then that is fine by me - and by excess, how about if his flights had been to Las Vegas, Sun City, Monte Carlo, Shanghai...
Being sceptical is not the same as being stupid.
Air travel is a commonplace in business, I've spent many years travelling the globe and unless you're travelling in the style of an oligarch it soon gets tedious and is rarely excessively comfortable. I'm sure Richard B enjoys the 'trip' part of it, but why not as long as he's putting the effort, and the trip actually serves a directly useful purpose. I certainly would never contemplate a serious business relationship without having face to face meetings, and a couple of days of these can easily achieve things that just would not happen over the telephone or video.
What I do object to is the sort of extended political jamboree that leads to Euro800 a night hotels for the political hacks and hangers on that wouldn't recognise a fact if it tripped them up Those sorts of open ended boondoggles financed by the taxpayer and grossly unaccountable are, frankly, immoral.
Does anybody know why climate models are so much more accurate than weather models?
May 13, 2012 at 12:48 AM | curious george
Because they use the same universal model?
Because climate projections are couched in extremely vague terms?
Because there's lots of 'noise' in weather, filtered out in climate models?
Because GISS can always adjust past temperatures to suit your climate model results?
Yes, there is one rule for the people actually doing the work e.g. Richard, and another for their political masters. It is a sort of PC meanness to force Richard and his fellow scientists to endure the very real discomfort of prolonged air travel in cattle class, when so much public money is wasted in other areas, and the "carbon footprint" (ha!) is just the same in business class. Can anyone imagine Pauchari and his ilk flying anything but first class? I don't think so.
Zed,
Please tell me where I can find a logic flow diagram that explains the operation of the models.
May 12, 2012 at 10:47 AM | Roger Longstaff>>>>>
Oh dear, it looks as if our hermaphroditic friend has left the room, possibly gone over to Wiki to find out what a logic flow diagram is.
Stocker made a similar pitch here in Vancouver almost a year ago. The local CBC radio station billed him as "world leading authority on climate change" - which led me to wonder if, perhaps, he was about to unseat Pachauri, the previous title-holder.
I did not attend, but I did watch the webcast - and read the news coverage of his visit. He struck me as being considerably smoother than either Mann or Pachauri (not a difficult task, I agree!). Here are some excerpts of what he was saying then:
And in typical "non-prescriptive" IPCC fashion, according to the Vancouver Sun, Stocker put forth his "expert" opinion that:
Stocker was also the "lead" in drafting a good number of the IPCC's "responses" (such as they were) to the IAC's recommendations. It was Stocker's execution of some nifty verbal acrobatics that led to the IPCC disappearing their (previously unpracticed) "rule" that non-peer-reviewed material should be flagged in the references.
I appreciate thatt he IPCC is an international organisation, (the clue is in the I which stands for Intergovernmental), however in this day and age many large multinational organisations increasingly carry on their business with a minimum of ftf meetings where these involve ANY travel let alone transcontinental air travel.
Perhaps Richard could enlighten us to what proportion, if any, of IPCC working group meetings occur electronically, not necessarily by videoconferencing which has many problems with multiple users, but by audioconference/net meeting?
Beyond the issue of web meetings for the IPCC as a credibility measure for the reduction of society's carbon footprint, an internet-hosted meeting would make the whole procedure transparent and recordable for a larger number of observers. Conferences whether in Fiji or Blackpool, reinforce the cliche of a "back room deals".
The reason why FOI has been invoked over climate research is because of self-imposed insider secrecy. A mandatory web-based, open meetings for the whole world to observe, would help to address concerns over lack of transparency.
For the avoidance of doubt, I sincerely believe that Richard Betts is a competent and decent bloke who had a good job but unfortunately with an organisation that is riddled with people (let's start with Napier) that are greenie activists first & foremost.
And ANY organisation which sponsors / partners a greenie political advocacy outfit like ZeroCarbonBritain 2030, promoting the views of the most hard line lunatic fringe of ruinables and "demand management" fantasists at taxpayers expense deserves ZeroCredibilityEver.
There are plenty of other sponsor / partners. Not least a certain University of East Anglia. The same thing applies to them, probably with knobs on.
So I don't begrudge Richard his jollies. The amount of my taxes that pay for it is infinitesimal and if it was a hundred times as much it would be dwarfed by the £18.2 Billion a year we are wasting on solutions that don't work to problems that probably don't exist.
How he feels about all that is a matter for his conscience. But I fear he will have to expect a certain amount of justified criticism.
Richard Betts,
I hope your gardening went well.
It would be great if you had a moment to answer the question at the bottom of the following page:
http://evansjames.webs.com/
Thanks.
James Evans
"Does anybody know why climate models are so much more accurate than weather models?"
I think that the answer may have something to do with filtering, using filters selectively designed "chosen to preserve only the decadal and longer components of the variability". This seems to be how they stop the models becoming unstable after just a few days or weeks, which was the thing that I could never understand.
The problem could be that, as any electrical engineer knows, filters are designed for a purpose. If, for example, filters were designed to demonstrate the effect of GHG concentrations with all else being equal, that is what they will show, with all highly non-linear and chaotic effects filtered out.
It would be good to find references to the "radiation scheme" that is referenced. I'm sure mydog could get his nose into that!
I may have got this wrong - I am sure that Martin A could offer an expert view on the papers referenced by Richard Betts.
I think the earlier graph was released in error before the castrophisation filter had been applied.
Richard,
Many thanks indeed for the references that you provided yesterday. The logic of the models' operation starts to become clear.
May I ask if you could also provide references that deal with 2 particular questions?
1. A quantitative explanation of the low pass filtering techniques that are used by the models over decadal timescales, and,
2. A quantitative description of the "radition scheme" that is used by the models - in particular the modelling of albedo (cloud cover) within the grids, and an explanation of the of the radiation budget calculations (in particular with respect to the "dogged question" of "back radiation").
This thread may not be an appropriate place for such an exchange, in which case the Bishop may suggest an alternative, if others here would also be interested in the answers to these questions.
"Something which has constantly surprised me is how otherwise intelligent and rational people can come to believe strongly in something for which the evidence is either lacking or, in some cases, absent."
It all depends on what you mean by the word "something" whether evidence (mostly models and paleoclimate from the LGM) is weak, absent, or merely highly uncertain. If "something" means a climate sensitivity of 2, then "highly uncertain" might be appropriate. If "something" means the central estimate of climate sensitivity of 3, then the evidence is far from conclusive by the normal standards of science. If "something" means a climate sensitivity of 4 or greater - which the IPCC has convinced economists and governments they should include in cost estimates and prepare against - then "absent" is the correct description. The trick is that the IPCC has lumped all of these possibilities into one package labeled catastrophe and called anyone who doesn't believe in it deniers.
Another way of looking at this is to ask why scientists - who normally accept nothing short of p<0.05 as conclusive evidence - believe so strongly in this "evidence". Clearly their beliefs are not based on normal scientific standards. However, governments don't act only on the basis of evidence conclusive enough to convince scientists. If there is a 50%, or even 10%, chance that spending some money could prevent a serious problem, politicians are often happy to act even without a clear cost-benefit analysis. Scientist promoting action against climate change have clearly abandoned their scientific judgment and entered the arena of policy advocacy, without a clear view of costs and benefits.
@ Richard Betts
If you've got yourself back from the garden...
I followed up some of the references to which you linked. I found comparisons between observation-based data and model output. For example, a paper by Boer and Lambert (Climate Dynamics, 2001, 17: 213-218) compared data over 40 years.
Now, as I understand it, models have a number of parameters whose values are established by fitting model output to observed data. It may be due to an oversight of mine - or it may be thought to be so glaringly obvious that it doesn't need stating - but I couldn't find a statement in the B&L paper that the time period used to set parameter values is distinct from that used for comparison between observed and modelled data.
Rather than search through the innumerable papers on climate models to try to find a clear statement on this (it's not that I'm lazy, just that I'll lose valuable gardening time), I wonder whether you could provide a short-cut as you're a great deal more knowledgeable about the literature than I am. Perhaps you could direct me to a paper which compares observed and modelled data for which it's clearly stated that the period used for comparison definitely doesn't overlap with that used for setting model parameter values (an example may well be B&L 2001, if only I could find the words).
Mike,
They will just claim that allowing air travel to become such an essential part of modern society is just another example of where civilisation has gone wrong and that we must all take even stronger and more urgent measures to reverse the process.
May 12, 2012 at 10:54 AM | John Shade
[ ... ] but I do believe that the best thing that could emerge from this shameful period in science and politics is an improved understanding of how patently competent people come to be not just swept along by a point of view, but actively promote it, when the supporting evidence is so weak, or indeed absent, and in circumstances where this p of v promises to be (and now can be seen as being) enormously influential. Even better, would be if this insight was such that we would be appreciably less likely to see this kind of thing again since a great deal of avoidable loss, suffering and waste has already been caused by it, and I suppose the bill is by no means yet complete.
----------------------
Stockholm Syndrome
mydogsgotnonose. Its not even that simple, your temperature centres in your hand send their action potentials to the spinal cord which routes them up to the higher centres. Your "impression" of heat is a construct of your frontal cortex and all the other interconnected higher centres. Your ability to sense heat is dependant on your environment, your state of mind and as we have seen from AGW your emotional state. Mad dogs and Englishmen and all that. In your analogy your ability to sense heat will be,probably, non-existent if, say, a polar bear wanders into your back yard looking for all the sea ice. You may, on the other hand feel all toasty if you had just watched "The Day After Tomorrow". Unfortunately the warmistas are right, if you keep saying its getting warmer you will probably start to think it is, despite what your body is trying to tell you. Propaganda 101.
However, another frigid winter al la Romania or heaven forbid a Siberian front stationary over Western Europe and reality cannot be ignored, when survival is at stake, despite how muddled your perceptions are. The time for reflection, however, can only come after the immediate threat is gone. Thats why the warmistas have been so successful, keep people scared and most people just cannot rationally process information about the subject. The primitive brain just keeps getting in the way. The more angry and self righteous the believer the less likely they are to be able to see any alternative to their position. That is also why the debate must be kept civil, reasonable and calm, only then will the majority of people be able to see what has always been in front of their senses.
I had a similar experience when Chemistry Nobel laureate spoke in my fair city a few months ago: the graphs he used were incomplete at best. He made outright incorrect claims regarding weather extremes.
It was a bit sad to see an experienced elder statesman trading on his reputation and allowing himself to be used rather badly.
From Steve McIntyre (h/t Jeremy Harvey):
On May 11, 2009, I reported my request for CRUTEM station data from the Met Office. In a comment, David Holland noted that the AR5 Working Group 1 TSU was in Switzerland and that Switzerland was in the process of adopting the Aarhus Convention on freedom of information.
Jones read this comment and became worried about the prospect of IPCC being subject to the Aarhus Convention. Jones immediately emailed Stocker (May 12 – [CG2] 4778)
Jones also notified Peter Thorne of the Met Office that he had alerted Stocker to Holland’s comment.
The next day, Stocker (May 13 – 4378) replied, telling Jones (cc Pauline Midgeley) that allowing access to climate data under laws prescribing “open access to environmental data” would be a “perversion”...
Steve McIntyre's post is well worth reading in its entirety. I get the feeling there is an iron fist inside the velvet glove here.
May 12, 2012 at 10:39 PM | Don Keiller
Hi Don
For details on registering as a reviewer for the WG2 First Order Draft, email the Technical Support Unit at tsu@ipcc-wg2.gov
The review lasts from 11th June - 6th August but I'd recommend registering early in order to make sure you can download the chapters as soon as they come out.
Cheers
Richard
May 13, 2012 at 9:17 AM | James Evans
Hi James
Yes that was a genuine decadal forecast, produced earlier than the later graph.
The starting point of the central thick blue line is the "central estimate" for the forecast for 2010, with the thin blue lines showing the error range (within which the temperatures are expected to be for 90% of the time). Your lower overlaid graph seems to shows that the actual observed temperature for 2010 was just about within the "90% of the time" error range, but then fell below it (which is fine at long as that's only for 10% of the time!!!).
Your second plot shows the more recent forecast, starting from a later year which was cooler than 2010.
Apart from the first couple of years, which are affected by different starting points (being different years) the two forecasts are fairly similar for the period over which they overlap. The reason the second one looks steeper is that it is starting in a cooler year, and the initial rise is just natural variability giving a recovery from that cool year.
Cheers
Richard