Bishop Hill AR5 - Lindzen's thoughts
Oct 8, 2013 Climate: IPCC Climate: Sceptics 
Richard Lindzen has published his conclusions on the Fifth Assessment Report. His statement is reproduced over at GWPF and it's fair to say that it's pretty scathing. I liked this bit, which is along similar lines to my own ones in the Consensus? What Consensus? report.
In attempting to convince the public to accept the need to for the environmental movement’s agenda, continual reference is made to consensus. This is dishonest not because of the absence of a consensus, but because the consensus concerning such things as the existence of irregular (and small compared to normal regional variability) net warming since about 1850, the existence of climate change (which has occurred over the earths entire existence), the fact that added greenhouse gases should have some impact (though small unless the climate system acts so as to greatly amplify this effect)over the past 60 years with little impact before then, and the fact that greenhouse gases have increased over the past 200 years or so, and that their greenhouse impact is already about 80% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 are all perfectly consistent with there being no serious problem. Even the text of the IPCC Scientific Assessment agrees that catastrophic consequences are highly unlikely, and that connections of warming to extreme weather have not been found. The IPCC iconic statement that there is a high degree of certainty that most of the warming of the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions is, whether true or not, completely consistent with there being no problem. To say that most of a small change is due to man is hardly an argument for the likelihood of large changes.
Reader Comments (52)
I picture a set of scales. In one pan, sits the entire opus of the IPCC to date. In the other the key points made by Lindzen over the years. The IPCC side is up in the air, since in these scales weight is proportional to the value of the guidance they have given us.
John, that idea would make a great Josh cartoon if you actually showed Lindzen in one pan and hundreds of IPCC peeps hanging on to the other pan up in the air ^.^
"Truth weighs heavier in the balance" maybe use the "scales of justice"
He even looks like Galileo, as well.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Justus_Sustermans_-_Portrait_of_Galileo_Galilei%2C_1636.jpg
The IPCC would do well to remember a quote from Albert Einstein.
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".
Insofar as there has been little if any warming since the inception of the IPCC,
maybe there is an equivilant of the gore effect operating globally.
Another inaccurate Gish Gallop.
Richard Lindzen has produced another wooly sermon preaching to the choir.
Entropic Man, I respect you when you make your detailed and specific arguments, but this is mere trolling....
I guess it's EM's denier alert bot generating responses.
entropic man says"Another inaccurate Gish Gallop".
Oh dear..another "keyboard climate warrior"..who owns a car and is connected to the grid..
You can almost sense the spittle hitting the computer screen as it types away in anger..
Brilliant and logical analysis and scientific dissection of a real scientists key points...your obvious a genius..
Anyway..Fail..again..
Albeit, couched as it is, in temperate phraseology and idiom most typical of this greatly learned professor, Doctor Lindzen's critique is a caustic review of what is undoubtedly a markedly impoverished scientific effort. AR5, which rambling on, ranges from weak analysis to downright scandalous postulation, all of it based on 'what if' scenarios - Doctor Lindzen indeed 'puts it to bed'.
Well said indeed Dr. Richard Lindzen - I'd have put it, maybe another way but we'd differ only in shades [;-)] of a veritable and harmonious consensus.
On the "set of scales" issue Lindzen versus the IPCC authors ,can someone answer a simple question that seems to baffle journalists here in Australia.How many Lead Authors, Contributing Authors,etc. actually compiled WG1 of AR5?
Our former P.M. Kevin Rudd famously addressed the Lowy Institute in December 2009,( before Copenhagen) and claimed "more than 4000 scientists" supported the "settled science" of AR4.A local newspaper columnist in Brisbane recently claimed that more than "2000 scientists" are behind the current consensus in AR5 of 95% certainty etc.
Interestingly, in his response to IPCC AR5 the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change ,Edward Davey says inter alia.-
" This Report is the most authoritative,credible analysis of climate change ever.It represents a huge amount of work by over 250 unpaid scientific experts drawn from universities and research institutes in 39 different countries around the world...."
Is this the correct figure and is it a reduction from AR4?
Cunning piece of slight of hand when Lindzen says "their greenhouse impact [all GHGs]is already about 80% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2". This is true in itself, but not a useful or relevant comparison.
If he's going to look at the total effect of all GHGs now then he should remember than when CO2 is doubled, the other GHGs will also probably still be there - so they should be included in the comparison on both sides not just one.
Also, the total human influence on climate (as quantified with radiative forcing) is smaller than the total effect of all GHGs, because of the net cooling effect of aerosols. So, we've not yet seen the effect of this "80% of doubled CO2".
Both these things make his statement misleading.
"Both these things make his statement misleading"
Without wanting to be rude to Mr Betts this does seem a trifle rich. The Climate Science establishment, of which Mr Betts is a part, has been making misleading statements for the best part of 20 years. To pick up Lindzen in this way seems to be a case of beams and motes (even assuming the criticism is justified).
Richard Betts- time to come clean. Are you a Climate Scientist, or Climate Science Activist?
These are direct quotes from Chapter 2, of the latest IPCC report. (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf) which deals with “extreme” weather. Among the findings:
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.”
“Based on updated studies, AR4 [the IPCC 2007 report] conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extra-tropical cyclones since 1900 is low.”
The basic fact is that the climate has always changed and always will. The only question of any relevance is whether Humans are actually causing climate change outside the boundaries of normal variability.
Do you agree with the IPCC's conclusions that there is no compelling evidence for "extreme" climate change, Yes or No?
Drapetomania (Oct 9, 2013 at 7:04 AM): there is no need for that. EM might have views at variance with many on this site, but he rarely can be accused of acting as you claim. To respond such as you have is merely to entrench his views, and alienate him further; part of the remit of sceptics is to guide those who will not see towards the light; your approach is more akin to the tactics used on the AGWist sites, where any questioning of “the cause” will not be tolerated. Skiphil’s minor chiding would probably be more appropriate.
@Richard Betts
Lindzen said that his observations were "consistent with" there being no serious problem. While I would agree that "consistent with" strikes me as a phrase that is hard to gainsay, the phrase "consistent with" itself does seem to be accepted as valid and used far more often by voices of climate orthodoxy.
If Lindzens use is misleading here then it seems it should be equally applicable to say many "consistent with" pronouncements from the climate orthodoxy are misleading too.
Richard, are you saying that the models are telling us we haven't seen the effect of this "80% of doubled CO2"?
Richard Betts
I'm sorry but I think I'm missing your point.
The entire "the only thing we can do to prevent catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" edifice has been built on CO2 and nothing but CO2.
It is far, far too late for the climate science establishment now to come along and say, "well of course there are other things that you have to take into account", especially bearing in mind that virtually everybody outside the tight-knit community of IPCC/GISS/CRU/MO has been saying precisely that for a decade and more and we have been roundly vilified, slandered, and in some cases even threatened for so doing.
All of a sudden the science appears to be not as settled as you were all trying to having us believe.
Well I think that the IPCC, MO, Richard Betts et al are doing a sterling job - due to their efforts (and a few hundred billion) we have had no globull warming at all for the last 17 years! And they have solved the problem - the effects of CO2 are exactly balanced by the combination of the effects of aerosols and the missing heat in the deep oceans.
Who'da thunk it? I'm surprised they didn't win the Nobel Prize for Physics!
J4R
I know just how you feel, but (in my best Estuarian), "E's not wurf it".
It think em's got a moth amongst his woolgathered, or perhaps a nettle under his saddle.
============
Well I don't think that the IPCC, MO, Richard Betts et al should get all the credit.
Don't forget the efforts of Ed Davey and the DECC. The DECC must be the most successful Department in the whole government.
By their policy of reducing the UKs CO2 emissions they have been able to control the world's climate, resulting in no global warming for some 17 years! This is an amazing feat, considering they weren't even in power till a few years ago. It just goes to show what can be done when you base your policies on sound scientific principles.
I just wish other government Departments were so successful.
I think it is inaccurate and impertinent of Richard Betts (9:17 AM) to accuse Richard Lindzen of a ‘Cunning piece of slight of hand’.
It is literally inaccurate in several ways. We have the mis-spelling of ‘sleight'. We have the redundancy of ‘cunning’ since it is implied by the other word. We have the misapplication of ‘sl[e]ight of hand’ instead of ‘sleight’ by itself. A ‘sleight of hand’ is a physical phenomenon such as displayed by magicians doing card tricks.
It is inaccurate in substance since there are no grounds in that essay to suppose any intent to deceive or mislead. The climate alarm bells have been rung for decades based upon an imminent crisis of rising air temperatures presumed due to our releases of CO2. The IPCC has of late decided to distance itself from the ‘catastrophe’ hype, and from the simple-minded CO2 hype, but it does so after the damage has been done. Or should I say, after the budgets have been spent which have provided us with bodies such as the Hadley Centre, and policies have been passed which have provided us with bio-fuel instigated starvation, and energy and educational policies which will surely be the subject of much mirth and wonderment in generations to come. Right now though, they are anything but amusing.
It is impertinent in attributing a wish to deceive or mislead to someone who for the life of me I cannot see as anyone other than someone who has been straightforward, consistent, courageous, and coherent in his overall assessment of what we might reasonably expect from rising CO2 levels. He has also been correct to date in noting, as he did at least as far back as the early 1990s as I recall, that the contribution of this extra CO2 to temperature variation would be quite hard to detect in the coming decades given the variation to be expected from other factors.
The track record of deception and deliberate attempts to mislead by such as the IPCC has been carefully documented by Laframboise ('The Delinquent Teenager', 'Into the Dustbin'). We might also note the notorious contribution of one of the most evangelical of climate alarmists in modern times, the late Stephen Schneider. His call for others like him to consider promoting ‘scary’, ‘dramatic’, and ‘simplified’ scenarios in order to further his chosen cause has given recognition, inspiration, permission, and sub-cultural respectability for one tall story after another getting into the media, and thence into the minds of politicians and other vulnerable groups.
John Shade, has no need of literary artifice, if I may though I feel rising some fancy of metaphorical device .............John - he kicks bottoms in open print and in plain sight.
Italics set - for those of hard of seeing and they who are impervious to mild reason for there are hosts of them abroad.
Don Keiller
I'm a climate scientist, not an activist.
I agree with the IPCC WG1 statements you quote on the lack of attribution of those extremes - indeed on drought, I was one of the first to question the AR4 conclusions, see here.
However, I also agree with WG1 that some other extremes (hot days, heatwaves, heavy precipitation, extreme high sea levels) have increased, and that these will probably continue to increase in the future, along with some of the other extremes becoming apparent as climate change gets larger.
None of this is relevant to my comment above about comparing total GHG forcing now with doubled-CO2 forcing - that's a specific scientifi issue that is not informed by whether extremes are, or will, increase or not.
Also, whether I agree with the environment movement's agenda is a separate issue. As it happens I think some environmental groups such Greenpeace take a rather anti-scientific attitude to issues such as GM crops, so I certainly don't blindly follow what they say. I'll agree or disagree with sceptics, activists or whoever on scientific issues simply on the basis of the science - people's opinions on policy will be informed by other issues beyond science.
Steve Y
No, I'm not talking about the models. I'm talking about the observed changes in GHGs, aerosols and climate.
John Shade
Thanks for spotting my spelling mistake - sorry about that. I was about to dash off to catch a train :-)
The point about it being sleight of hand is that Lindzen is making a comparison that looks like it's a fair one but is in fact two different things.
comparison that looks like it's a fair one but is in fact two different things.
A bit like Mike's Nature trick, then?
Richard, where is your evidence for any of these things in the context you are citing?
Assuming that we are at the peak of a 60-year cycle one should hardly be surprised that the number of hot days is higher than 30 years ago or that the number of heatwaves is greater than 30 years ago. But is that the case? How many new temperature records are actually being set compared with, say, 60 years ago or 100 years ago? And where is your evidence for heavy precipitation taking the long view — eg 200 years +? Where is your evidence for "extreme high sea levels" in the context of long-term trends?
Where is your evidence that these will "probably" continue to increase when so far you have provided no evidence of any long-term increase to date?
What are these "other extremes" you mention and where is your evidence for these?
Where is your evidence that climate change will get "larger"?
Has it not occurred to you, or apparently to anyone else in the MO, that CO2 is a busted flush?
There has been no global warming for over a decade in spite of continuing increases in CO2 levels.
Increasingly the warmist claim for positive feedback which will increase temperatures by 2 or 3 or 4.5 or 6 (any advance on 6? Do I hear 7? Gimme 7. Going once. 7? Thankyou, sir. Do I hear 8?) degrees is being challenged and the worst part of the whole sad story is that there doesn't appear to be one single solitary scientist in the climate science community prepared to take the proper scientific approach and take that challenge seriously.
It's got to be CO2 because we say so.
It's got to be getting warmer because we say so.
If it isn't getting any warmer on the top then it must mean the heat is under the sea even though there is no known law of physics that says this is possible.
Enough already with the handwaving.
And enough, please, of continuing to defend a position that is collapsing round you.
Very well said Mike, but I fear you are wasting your time with Richard Betts. As you have pointed out he talks nonsense that a child of 10 could see through, but his job depends on it. Tamsin Edwatds is another one.
If we have a cold winter, the lights go out and thousands starve to death they must take their share of the responsibility.
Hi Mike
The basis for my statements is in the IPCC WG1 chapters eg here (see, for example, figures 12.13, 12.23, 12.26, and several parts of section 12.4) and here (see figure 13.25 and section 13.7).
(NB. Figures are at the end of the documents)
Richard Betts: Thanks for spotting my spelling mistake'(1:25 PM). You are most welcome. I make such typos myself quite often. They are errors which are easy to fix once spotted. Would that were the case for matters of greater import. But for those in positions of influence close to policymakers and budgetmasters, the money may have been spent, the policies passed, before errors of judgement are spotted. What kind of a fix is possible then? Harm once done cannot always be readily repaired or reversed.
Richard - you wrote: "However, I also agree with WG1 that some other extremes (hot days, heatwaves, heavy precipitation, extreme high sea levels) have increased, and that these will probably continue to increase in the future, along with some of the other extremes becoming apparent as climate change gets larger." (my emphasis).
Where is the evidence that the number of extremes has increased?
The reason I ask is because the the statements you cited in the WG1 document refer to model results, e.g Fig 12.13:
Do you ever look at Steven Goddard's site or take a peek at someclimate history? Nothing we have have seen in the last 50 years in the UK or western Europe (droughts, extreme rainfall events, windstorms etc) is unusual or unprecedented. And if you want more details on a UK extreme rainfall event do some research on the Tyne Flood of 1771, which was estimated to have generated an astonishing flow of 3900 cumecs at Hexham from a catchment area 1970km2. [Archer, N (1993) Discharge estimate for Britain's greatest flood: River Tyne - 17th November 1771. Proc. Fourth Nat. Hydrol. Snyn. Cardiff September 1993]. Nearly twice the peak flow of the 1993 Tay flood which was from a much bigger catchment, and compounded by a very fast melt of high and low-level snow.
A while back Richard was the expert in detection and attribution. He was confident enough to lay the blame for warming on CO2. Today there is no definite indication of anthropogenic warming at all, and the magnitude of the known unknowns not to mention the unknown unknowns is still in doubt. Once you have been wrong a few times it is futile to say you are right THIS time unless your evidence and the logic of your argument can stand up to genuine adversarial examination.
I'll repeat my own null hypothesis. Nothing much is happening and if it does we can adapt.
Richard Betts
I'm struggling with your statement, "as climate change gets larger." What do you mean?
Richard Betts
Thanks for the reply. I'll be off and look at the links.
lapogus
When you said "Tyne" I immediately thought of the other Tyne, the East Lothian one. This link is a good visual of the effects of floods in 1775 and 1948. Nowt new there then!
For added interest try this link (goes to a .doc file) which gives a history of floods in the Severn catchment which goes back several hundred years. Nowt new there, either!
I really do despair of you, Richard.
There is much that I could pull apart with little effort in your riposte, but I will concentrate on "extreme high sea levels".
What weasel words. Of course they are "extreme" in the context of the last 10,000 years because sea levels have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age.
The point is rates of sea level rise have not accelerated recently.
You should be ashamed.
This is how badly the climate communicator are. I feel for them.
Even within a consensus.
If human heat (warming) is told to us by scientific people, who have scientific methods, to show it effects the atmosphere some days in one way and causes - heatwaves and floods and droughts - but none of these can ever be predicted, but only declared afterwards when their predictions don't arrive...
That's fine.
But now it can go into the oceans...!!
then I say that is a bad start..
...then add the *FACT* that today - now - the hockey stick curve shown to us in 1998 doesn't have any realty today in 2013...?
So we are dumb obviously? It must be that..
Hey we now hear about how oceans absorb heat. I don't remember hearing that, Do you?
The thing is that Carl Wunsch said this in the Great Global Warming Swindle in 2007. Remember that?
Who are the communicators again?
Radical Rodent-"Drapetomania (Oct 9, 2013 at 7:04 AM): there is no need for that. EM might have views at variance with many on this site, but he rarely can be accused of acting as you claim. To respond such as you have is merely to entrench his views, and alienate him further; part of the remit of sceptics is to guide those who will not see towards the light; your approach is more akin to the tactics used on the AGWist sites, where any questioning of “the cause” will not be tolerated. Skiphil’s minor chiding would probably be more appropriate."
Sorry Radical Rodent..I don't agree.
It will never see "the light" because its eye`s and mind are closed.
As usual..It arrived here with snark and nothing else. :)
And the majority of "keyboard climate change warriors" do own cars/are connected to the grid and are just sanctimonious hypocrites who are scientifically illiterate…and are often praying for prisons for "dissidents"..and censorship.
Oct 9, 2013 at 1:59 PM | Mike Jackson
Well said Mike. Also it is strange to call only Lindzens statements misleading when you can probably gets thousands of other 'misleading' statements from both sides of the argument, rather than single out a specific 'opponent'. This is especially true when me and Richard had a common supervisor for our postdoc work who actually worked on the same stuff as Lindzen in the Eighties. I especially remember even then in a very technical paper about mid latitude dynamics he wrote about 10 times clearer (at least) than any similar author in the field. I also remember when he visited Reading in the early nineties it was allegedly controversial, though went over my head as I had nothing to do with climate change kind of stuff. Surely sensible people can see Lindzen talks sense, so I really do think Richard (Betts) here looks a bit stupid nitpicking minor holes here.
Drapetomania (Oct 9, 2013 at 10:42 PM): you are right, many of the “”keyboard climate change warriors” (good name!) are utter hypocrites, as well as pig-ignorant (or am I be offensive to pigs?). However, EM can and does offer good arguments; it is unfortunate that you picked on one of his less lucid moments.
However, it IS important that sceptics try to refrain from name-calling common to the AGWist sites – consider, would you prefer someone to point out your mistakes in a calm, logical manner, or in a snidey, sarcastic, offensive tone?
Sorry if I sounded sarcy. Flu makes me bad-tempered.
Sorry Radical Rodent..I don't agree.
It will never see "the light" because its eye`s and mind are closed.
Oct 9, 2013 at 10:42 PM | Drapetomania
It's curious. I've been reading some psychology while laid up, and this is a regular problem.
I see a lot of this in Northern Ireland, where religious programming among the Protestant sects makes it impossible to discuss concepts such as evolution or a universe over 6000 years old.
There are also five mutually incompatible versions of Irish history, each corresponding to a different cultural and political mindset. Proponents of one will react violently (sometimes literally) to any suggestion that their version of history is wrong. This can be a problem for a museum guide such as myself, stuck in the middle! One of the more extreme cases heard my English accent and accused me , personally, of killing a million Irishmen.
The discussions here are mild by comparison.
The psychology of all this is interesting. Most people's politics and values are set fairly early and change little during life. These determine the filter settings by which evidence is judged. For most of us any evidence we encounter emerges from the filter as supporting our existing world view, with further evidence strengthening it. It does not actually matter much what the evidence says.
Thus on the Left are people convinced that we live in a hard uncaring world mostly beyond our control and the struggle with the environment, unfair governments etc is all part of the deal. Climate change is just one more stick on the camel.
On the Right are those who believe in a world in which control of their fate, individual freedom, independance, etc are paramount. The prospect of climate change goes against those values, and is therefore rejected.
These attitudes show most clearly in US politics, but pop up here as well. It takes a trained mind, usually legal or scientific, to go beyond these ingrained habits and look at the scientific evidence objectively. There are several such minds commenting here regularly. We disagree on interpretation of evidence, but mostly accept the same numbers.
Drapetomania, before you throw around casual accusations that my own mind is closed, make damn sure that your own is open
entropic man (Oct 10, 2013 at 1:06 AM), I understand what you say and agree with you about the political aspects. However, I view this issue as one primarily about science and so try to apply 'the scientific method' as my metric for judgment. In this respect, I fail to see the relevance of your observation with respect to the verification/falsification of the CAGW hypothesis.
To me, Lindzen is simply trying to make a judgement call on the way empirical evidence stacks up against 'predictions' from theory, even when those 'predictions' seem to be rather fungible.. and I have to agree with him that the 'predictions' haven't done well at all (i.e. there is no 'C' in CAGW).
Richard Betts - re sea levels
The first link you gave me is a dead end.
As for the second ...
I'm sorry. I read 13.7 twice and ended up with the same conclusion each time — it's meaningless flannel which has all the hallmarks of having been written by a group of people (a camel, remember, is a horse designed by a committee) with interests to protect who are being paid by the word. It's what I called the other day 'intellectual masturbation'.
There is nothing in 13.7 which provides anything evidential on which anyone, governments especially, should be expected to make any long-term decision affecting the lives of other people.
What isn't
guessworksorry "computer projection" is apparently based on various assumptions which must also be model-based because they are being contradicted by observation.I am still with rhoda that the null hypothesis is "nothing out of the ordinary is happening; there is no cause for alarm" and the evidence being presented to me is not coming anywhere near overturning that position.
Richard - In his statement Lindzen covers the 'hiding' of the heat in the oceans. On the 'Report from the Royal' thread Dr Edwards engaged for a while on matters solar and oceanic, but rather avoided explaining why the heat had decided to start heading for the ocean depths 17 years ago, having previously been happy in the wide open spaces of the atmosphere.
Would you care to engage with Lindzens comments on the sea/air question?
EM, interesting to know the problems you have at work, and you are right that, on this site, Lindzen is “preaching to the choir”.
However, I do not agree that you have to have a mind “trained” by legal or scientific means. All you need is an open mind; you have to be willing to accept that your thought processes might be faulty; that knowledge you might have held dear could be wrong; that, no matter how strongly held your opinions, no matter how loudly supported they may be amongst your friends, you could be wrong! You constantly have to question everything, no matter its source – perhaps even more so if it comes from yourself!.
In past posts, have mentioned our intuitive grasp of logic; we hear something that we accept as a fact without feeling the need to pursue evidence for it. Perhaps the reason people get so aggressive when their precious ideals are challenged is that they intuitively know that they are wrong, yet refuse to accept it – and the only way to do that is to attack the “enemy” who reveals the truth. The doctrinal donkeys to whom you refer are excellent examples of this, as are the many who cling to the “global warming is all man-made” myth (though it could be a Mann-made myth). In both cases, the truth is far more complicated than many can understand, which may be why so many cleave to “simple” solutions.
Mike Jackson (Oct 10, 2013 at 9:05 AM): a poor choice of analogy, as a camel is so good a form of transport – possibly more so than a horse. It just looks a little odd.
Other than that, I have to agree with your replies to Richard Betts. Alas, it seems that he is brain-washed into accepting anything that he is told by those in charge of him; it is a shame he has little consideration for those who actually pay him – the tax payer (you and me)!
I do not understand why there is the insistence that weather extremes are getting more frequent and more… well, extreme. The only extremity I am aware of is the extraordinarily low level of hurricanes of recent years; that is not the extreme sort sought. After the embarrassment of last year, when we were warned, after the unusually warm March, of an oncoming drought, to then have the wettest drought on record. The models were jigged so that, well, yes, they did forecast the wet spell of 2012, and the summers would continue to be cool and wet for another 10 years. Then, along comes 2013, which, after a late start, has been extreme only in its pleasantness – rarely too hot, rarely too cold, rarely too wet, rarely too dry.
"In past posts, have mentioned our intuitive grasp of logic; we hear something that we accept as a fact without feeling the need to pursue evidence for it. Perhaps the reason people get so aggressive when their precious ideals are challenged is that they intuitively know that they are wrong, yet refuse to accept it – and the only way to do that is to attack the “enemy” who reveals the truth."
Radical Rodent
Intuitive judgement is dangerous. Think how many people in the past have accepted a flat earth or an earth-centred universe because it is "clearly" true. I have a book of mathematical puzzles. One chapter is filled with problems in which the obvious common-sense answer is always wrong. Always distrust simple solutions!
Your sugestion would certainly explain why so much of the climate debate is a slough of insult and ad hominem attacks.
"the 'predictions' haven't done well at all (i.e. there is no 'C' in CAGW)."
I've seen CAGW used as standing for "CO2 induced Anthropogenic Global Warming" by the scientists and "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming " by the sceptics. I presume you mean the latter.
AR5 was good news in that respect. The really high-end possible outcomes are looking less likely as understanding improves.
Prediction is always difficult. The modelling uses well defined data where available and plugs in different possibilities for less well defined areas. Some of the models come out well above current conditions, some actually predicted less warming than observed. You might run a model 75 times and get a range of outcomes.
Unfortunately there is only one planet. Comparing the actual outcome to the models, gives the temptation of assuming that that model which comes closest this year is right and all the others are wrong. In practice the whole thing is stochastic. If you throw two dice and get double six, would you assume in retrospect that was inevitable?
The climate predictions from IPCC remain probabilities, operating over longer timescales than most people have patience for. It is to early to jump to conclusions, no matter how much either of us might wish our view to be true.
David Salt
This is the part of AR5 relevant to my comments on short term forecasting. Look particularly at the graphs on page 120.Note that the obseved data is still within the range predicted by the ensemble of models, with margin for a number of "flat " years yet. I dont think either of us can claim "case proven" for a while yet.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter11.pdf
Entropic man, you have actually hit the nub of my argument; we do work on intuition; your reference to the flat earth believers is a case in point – the flat earth theory is a recent invention, possibly to give “ourselves” a sense of superiority over our ancestors. Columbus knew the Earth was round; he just hadn’t realised how big it was; several thousand years ago, a Greek (can’t remember his name) actually calculated the diameter of the Earth, and has since been proven to have been remarkably accurate.
Most of us accept given information as fact, and, as much of it has little relevance to their everyday lives, do not demand proof. Occasionally, someone may make an extraordinary claim, which might goes against the consensus; however, it might ring true intuitively. Galileo found that – he intuitively realised that the Copernican theory of the planets was a more logical explanation, despite not having a shred of evidence to support it. While not infallible, Occam’s Razor does hold true for most cases – the simplest explanation is most often the correct explanation.
As for global warming, the original idea was that the world was warming because of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, and this increasing CO2 was being caused by humans. We must do something or we are all doomed! Quite why an increase in temperatures is such a catastrophe, I have not yet figured out; all the evidence so far suggest that the increase we have had to date has been beneficial.
Since the turn of this century, the CO2 levels have continued to rise, yet the temperatures have not. Logic has to dictate that the original idea was flawed; but, no, it is still valid – it is just that there is more interference from humans that is causing the disruption, or (even more bizarrely) the heat has stopped going into the atmosphere, and is going down into the deep ocean; they know this as the deep ocean temperatures have been estimated to have risen 2/100ths of a degree in 20/30/pick-your-own-term years. How anyone can listen to that logic and believe it is beyond me; deep ocean measurements are very recent, the ocean is very, very large, and I do not know of any field thermometers acceptably accurate to anything less than 2/10ths of a degree.
You are right, there is only one planet, and we do have to look after it so that we may continue to live upon it, and to enjoy its rich treasures. However, that does not mean that we cannot use the resources that the planet holds for us, or that we should embark on massive depopulation (an idea that some of the more extreme postulate). As we progress, we do become more efficient, and use fewer resources; as wealth grows, population growth stabilises, and does decline. One key indicator of wealth is the availability of energy; the more energy is available, the wealthier the nation. We should be encouraging the growth of developing nations, so that energy and resource use becomes more efficient.