Bishop Hill Le whirling dervish
Jul 27, 2013 Climate: sensitivity New Scientist's Michael le Page is spinning so furiously on the subject of climate sensitivity he looks more like a whirling dervish than a responsible journalist.
Le Page asks whether there is any truth to sceptics' claim that climate scientists now believe that climate sensitivity is lower. He first cites Reto Knutti, as a co-author of the Otto et al paper, saying that climate sensitivity is 1–5°C and most likely 2°C. This is interesting. Let me quote directly from the Otto et al paper:
The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C, with a 5–95% confidence interval of 1.2–3.9 °C ... compared with the 1970–2009 estimate of 1.9 °C (0.9–5.0 °C...).
So as far as I can see, le Page has taken the the 1970-2009 estimate (rounding up to whole numbers) despite Otto et al arguing this was not their preferred estimate. As Nic Lewis put it in an email to me:
Otto et al argued that the more recent estimate is more reliable, as the average forcing was much higher and the period was unaffected by any major volcanic eruptions. The higher internal variability pertaining to a one rather than four decade period was fully allowed for.
Le Page then goes on to suggest that you can get broader ranges from paleoestimates and climate models. Well yes, I suppose you can, but this is unscientific drivel. Paleoestimates are barely able to constrain the climate sensitivity at all because almost every dataset included in such studies is so shot full of uncertainties. They therefore reflect their priors more than they do the data.
Similarly, we know the climate models are running far too hot. They are on the threshold of falsification already. Why would one possibly want to believe the models?
Le Page is essentially arguing that we should give as much weight to hypotheses and rubbish methods as we should good methods. This is spin, not science.
Reader Comments (83)
@Green Sand,
Sir, I will take your measured counsel.
Pointman
"Climate-sensitivity" is not a measurable quantity, it is an abstraction from the models. If you start discussing climate-sensitivity in the paleo-record this implies a degree of acceptance that it is a measurable quantity, that cause and effect are established, that confounding variables have been eliminated from the enquiry.
You have then taken another step down the rabbit hole. That is a choice open to all, but I would not go there without being armed with questions such as "So what is the heat capacity of this thing called climate?"
Don Keiller
I totally agree. Global warming isn't a political issue because no one cares. We are being railroaded.
Tony Blair says he need 5 million dollars a year to fund his his lifestyle. That's why he promotes global warming for banks and insurances companies.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tony-blair-to-earn-millions-as-climate-change-adviser-6473759.html
If anyone thinks Zurich Insurance or J P Morgan Chase are communists or hippies, they have completely lost the plot.
Zurich, the Swiss company, as an adviser. The appointment, thought to be worth at least £500,000 a year, comes less than three weeks after he took a similar role with J P Morgan Chase, one of the biggest investment banks on Wall Street. That was believed to be a package worth about £2 million a year.
He will assist Zurich on “developments and trends in the international political environment”. His key interest, according to friends, was in its climate initiative, announced last week, developing products and research to combat global warming.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3266329.ece
"My family comes from Jersey. (And my father was President of La Société Jersiaise.)" --Robin Guenier
Know anyone named Journeau?
What a pity Gilbert and Sullivan are no longer with us. What would they make of a green Conservative PM!, probably too true to be satirised. The broader picture of a majority in the Commons and the Lords who want the UK to be bankrupted by green policies which clearly can't work economically is a rich foundation ripe for satire. Maybe a new 'Yes Climate Minister' is called for. Cheers from rather chilly Sydney.
Les Crapauds v. Les Anes
Yes I know - this has to stop. So, to appease RC Saumarez, here's a Guernsey saying: Qui epouse Jerriais ou Jerriaise, jamais vivra a son aise. [Rough translation: anyone who marries a Jerseyman (or woman), will never have a quiet life.]
In WW2 the Channel Islands were occupied by the Germans. During D-Day, when an aircraft carrying US paras was fired at by flak batteries on Jersey and Guernsey, one para commented that it was ironic to get such a welcome from 'two islands named after nice moo cows'. Yes, they are nice - but Jersey cows are the nicer ... eh.
PS: sorry, jorgekafkazar, I don't.
As I have mentioned several times previously, climate sensitivity is unique amongst the unverified (and inherently so) concepts of climate science in that many AGW sceptics seem to regard it as a valid concept.
Can a subject that regards the output of invalidated models as evidence justify applying the term 'science' to itself?
Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 1of 2 Bogus Climate Models
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU
What is your estimate for climate sensitivity Professor Dyson ?
LOL !!.
Ridley was the chairman of Northern Rock in 2007 when it was the first British bank to fail in 150 years. Who do you think was primarily responsible ?
Jul 27, 2013 at 7:00 PM | eSmiff
========================================================================
"Who do you think was primarily responsible ?"
Gordon Brown?
Jul 27, 2013 at 7:29 PM splitpin
========================================================================
And the prize goes to splitpin, who, like other intelligent, knows that bankers only do what politicians allow them to do.
10/10
And on the matter of Gordon "It started in America" Brown, it is worth noting that two of the major players in the financial collapse of 2007/8 were Lehmans and AIG. Oddly, both had earlier opened offices in the City of London (Lehmanns indeed being opened by Doofus Brown). Why did they open these offices? Because in the City, there were a whole range of derivatives transaction they could conduct which the SEC had banned on Wall Street.
And the rest is history. If I ruled the world, Brown would be in the nick for what he did to the UK.
Apologies - utterly OT, but...
The climate sensitivity debate stems from "feedback". When feedback is discussed in climate, there seems to be a basic problem of understanding what it actually is.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/10/climate-control-theory-feedback-does-it-make-sense/
Since the models appear to be running too hot, one assumes that climate sensitivity derived from these models is too high.
Having read Le Page's article, it seems that he is convinced by the CAGW hypothesis and is simply trying to dispose of anything that threatens this. (Whether he is a Guernseyman or not has no bearing on this!).
Dr Saumarez is too modest to mention that the article quoted is his own.
I'm going to read it carefully.
eSmiff says
"Ridley was the chairman of Northern Rock in 2007 when it was the first British bank to fail in 150 years. Who do you think was primarily responsible ?"
Ridley and Northern Rock were both relatively innocent victims of the general banking crisis.
The story of the Royal Bank of Scotland gets you much nearer to the real cause.
This Royal Bank was too big to fail and was effectively bankrupt.
That is its assets were far less than its liabilities .
Northern Rock on the other hand was solvent that is its assets exceeded its labilities as Alistair Darling confirmed on the day it was Nationalised he added the problem with the Rock was liquidity.
This can be shown by the decision of the Government to split the Nationalised Bank into two parts.
1. A good bank
2. A bad bank
The bad bank contained virtually all the mortgages and bond commitments.
Three years ago most people thought that this part would lose money and could not be sold.
Recently however the "bad bank" has been making a profit while the good bank has been sold to Virgin Money.
Northern Rocks model was to borrow against its existing mortgages.
It packaged bulk bundles of mortgages and issued bonds bought by other banks and pension funds and other investors looking for a steady income.
There was no defailt on these bonds and the system suited all players as long as the money market was still liquid
But when the AAA rated American Mortgage Obligation Bonds was shown to be worthless nobody would lend against mortgage backed credit.
Several of the major banks were technically insolvent particularly the Royal Bannk because they held large quantities of these by now worthless bonds.
One choice fact for those who believe in conspiracies.
The British Government was paying for advice from Goldman Sachs about what to do with Northern Rock.
Meanwhile Goldman Sachs had a massive hedge fund which was betting an a housing bond crash.
Goldman Sachs have been forced to pay compensation to other Banks because of this chicanery.
Northern Rocks mortgage book was always relatively clean as is now proved by the "bad" bank making a profit.
The only product of climate scientists who side with AGW are computer model generated predictions that don't come true.
One thing that can be used are ice core records, some going back 900 000 years. The continents were in the same place, and include the glacial and interglacial cycles that demonstrate how the 'real' climate operates.
When temperature went up, CO2 follows, and then seems to have no effect on the temperature, and it should if CO2 were the important greenhouse gas it is purported to be for the AGW theory.
On the subject of money and futures, James Annan, having already lost £100 to David Whitehouse, is exposed to the much larger bet of $10,000 riding on a bet struck in 2005 with Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev on warming versus cooling over a 10 year period.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/19/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment
Is his heat disappearing down into the deep blue sea?
Apologies - utterly OT, but...
Jul 28, 2013 at 12:51 PM | jeremyp99
Apologies again for OT, but surely whoever was responsible at Northern Rock in 2007/2008 was responsible for issuing 125% mortgages at the very height of the housing/credit bubble. We've not yet seen the full repercussions of all this risky lending yet. I'm sure you can blame Gordon for many other things.
I used to use LePages glue to stick cardboard models together - off the back off Weetabix cartons as I remember. Joseph Heller knew all about LePages glue -
Yossarian sidled up drunkenly to Colonel Korn at the officers' club one night to kid with him about the new Lepage gun that the Germans had moved in.
'What Lepage gun?' Colonle Korn inquired with curiousity.
'The new three-hundred-and-forty-four-millimeter Lepage glue gun,' Yossarian answered. 'It glues a whole formation of planes together in mid-air.'
Later ...
Captain Black came stomping in from outside. 'Boy, are you bastards in for it!' he announced exuberantly. 'I just got a call from Colonel Korn. Do you know what they've got waiting for you at Bologna? Ha! Ha! They've got the new Lepage glue gun. It glues a whole formation of planes together in mid-air.'
'My God, it's true!' Yossarian shrieked, and collapsed against Nately in terror.”
"responsible for issuing 125% mortgages"
This is not as bad as it seems.
For instance a young doctor buying first home.
It is not geneally a good idea but can work in some cases
Northern Rock was just one of many UK banks offering these at the time.
Now in 2013 the government is offering to guarentee 100% mortgages.
The main point is that there has been no increased default rate in NR mortgages compaired to other UK lenders.
Wow. This is the most off topic thread I've ever seen at Bishop Hill. And I've lurked here for a long time. Just add a few obscenities and it could be Guido Fawkes...
But on topic: New Scientist used to be good. Back in the 1980s it was popular science and technology with no politicised agenda warping the stories chosen and interpreted.
As New Scientist has abandoned that niche is there now a gap in the market? Or is there a blog out there that is doing this already?
If so, let me know.
Thanks.
"Northern Rock was just one of many UK banks offering these at the time.
Now in 2013 the government is offering to guarentee 100% mortgages.
The main point is that there has been no increased default rate in NR mortgages compaired to other UK lenders."
Where do you get your default figures from. You need to remember the UK hasn't had it's housing price correction yet. Let's see what the default rates are when the base rate is back over 5%. I worked for a BS at the time (Working for a finance institution and previously being a climate modeller eh!) and was responsible for submitting the monthly figures to the FSA and CML. Also I think NR were pretty unique in the 125% mortgage world apart from maybe 1 or 2 very specific exceptions, unless you can point out you they were.
Again sorry for the OT post.
When temperature went up, CO2 follows, and then seems to have no effect on the temperature, and it should if CO2 were the important greenhouse gas it is purported to be for the AGW theory.
Jul 28, 2013 at 3:47 PM | Mike
You are looking at a positive feedback loop. The initial temperature rise triggers CO2 release and the two then rise together until a new insolation limited equilibrium is reached. The glacial period equilibrium is about 200ppm CO2 and 5C cooler than today. Interglacial equilibrium is present temperature and 280ppm CO2. The transition takes 10,000 years at 0.05C per century and 0.08ppm per century.
We are currently observing a rise of 0.6C per century and 92ppm CO2per century. With CO2 already 42% over normal interglacial levels and temperature rising past the Holocene climatic optimum, humanity has arranged for you an empirical demonstration of the effect of CO2,
"We are currently observing a rise of 0.6C per century "
Poppycock, as per usual from thee.
Athelstan
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
The temperature record show a global temperature rise from anomaly -02C (13.8C) to anomaly 0.6C (14.6C) in 130 years. That's 0.615C per century.
GISS, HadCRUt4, NOAA and Berkeley all show a similar rise.
If you have better data, plesase give me a link.
Do you have better data
There is no rational reason to believe that human CO2 drives global temperature unless you are a grant seeking 'scientist'.
As a student in the University of Glasgow, my class was advised not to do full time research or to be incredibly careful because the field of full of egomaniacs and rascals.
This all comes down one maniac eco fascist called James Hansen who got the attention of crooks like Gore and Soros. NASA tried to shut him up but they couldn't.
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/
Whilst this is an O/T conversation, I agree with many of the above commenst regarding the banking crisis and that it is far more complicated than the public havee been led to believe.
I consider that it is today being used as an excuse to cover up bad government policy and failings. There is a lot of banking bashing in the MSM and particularly on the BBC. However, today's austerity programme is not caused by the banking crisis. The reason for high government debt and the fact that the government is spending more than it receives is rooted in the escessive size of government, welfare, foreign aid, excessive overseas interventions, and immigration policies.
It is doubtful whether the banking crisis will in the long run cost the government anything. Loyds can already be sold for a profit (although the mass dumping of shares would no doubt bring down the share price) and there is no reason to presume tthat RSB will not recover its share price given a few more years. The government's role was more to act as a guarantor, and to the extent that the government makes any payment, it is merely by the printing of money at no direct cost to the government (but may be at excessive damage to the oridnary citizen, and particularly those who are retired or are near to retirement).
As regards Gordon Brown, I consider that he is responsible for much of the high level of private debt. His intervention in pensions (taxing the dividends) directly led to people with private pensions cutting back on their pensions since it was only the tax free status of dividends that provided any profit to the pension (perhaps not unsurprising given that FTSE has had little growth from the heady heights before the dotcom bubble burst).
With all the stealth taxes, the cost of living was going up and people were not prepared to cut back on life style so they remortgaged and/or loaded their credit card to maintain their life style. Particularly as this co-incided with 9/11 which reinforced the view that you might not be around tomorrow so live for today.
The response of cutting back on pension provisions, savings and hiking debt with remortgages and credit card were quite foreseeable responses to the excessive hike in the cost of living which was being forced upon the middle class. No government gives a damn about the middle class and they are the mugs that fund the entire show (those on low incomes pay little tax and get tax credits, those on high incomes avoid paying much tax, but those in the middle on PAYE end up paying by far the most as a pecentage of their earnings).
But the job of Government is to see the consequences of its policies. The government deliberately fueled a housing bubble realising that this was the only way to fund its own activities and to keep the middle class on side. As long as house proces were rising the middle class could be squeezed with all sorts of stealth taxes. But all bubbles burst and the consequences were severe.
A lot of my friends were supporters of Gordon Brown. I couldn't understand why and why so many seeminly intelligent people were taken in by his mantra of having ended boom and bust. I also cannot understand why he was not called out on that mantra, the Tory party fell for it hook line and sinker. For my part, I wanted to know which policy and/or combination of policies did Gordon Brown consider had eneded the cycle of boom and burst and why did he consider the policy and.or policies collectively had ended boom and bust. If he had been asked that simnple question, it would almost certainly have been obvious that the man was either incompetent or delusional. What policy could he have identified? Eg selling the gold reserves at the then low market price an/or advancing his intention to sell the gold thereby depressing the low market price even further, was it the stealth tax on pension dividends, was it the employment of a million plus people in the public sector in none jobs who would sooner or later be recipients of unfunded public sector pensions, was it the PPI initiaitves which kept much government borrowing off the books, was it throwing huge sums of money on the NHS and education without improvimnd efficiency in either, was it the mass immigration which would sooner or later place a huge burden on already over stressed public services, was it the ballooning of the welfare bill, etc etc.
I certainly cannot identify a single one of his main policies that would end the cycle of boom and bust. None were prudent economic strategies, still less something that would end the cycle of boom and bust (which in any event is just as impossible to achieve as is perpetual motion).
Anyway, enough of that rant.
If there is such a thing as climate sensitivity conceptually it is impossible to measure until we first fully understand natural variation and the upper and lower bounds of each constituent forcing encompassed in natural variability. Until those forcings can be properly identified it will be impossible to seperate the signal of Climate Sensitivity from the noise of natural variation, and hence there can be no empirical observational measurement.
Since the concept of Climate Sensitivity is how the Earth's atmosphere in the real world responds to CO2, it cannot be assessed theoretically or by way of models but only by empiriical observation of the real atmosphere and how the real atmosphere responds. But that response is inevitably clouded by natural variation and we therefore need to be able to eliminate natural variation from the equation. We need to be able to look at every temperature change and identify whether that was caused by natural variation, or not. Presently, we cannot do that since we know so little about natural variation.
I personally have no time for discussions on Climate Sensitivity since presently with the limited data that we have available and the lack of understanding as to the full bounds of natural variation, it is quite simply impossible to know whether it is a real measurable concept.
Jul 28, 2013 at 11:58 PM | Entropic Man
//////////////////////////////
But as far as we know, all of that rise is due to natural variation.
There is no convincing evidence that the entire temperature change or any part of it is due to some other cause
Rob Burton
Default Rates
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/761/mortgages/mortgage-default-rates-in-uk/'
Northern Rock 'bad bank' continues to make a profit after paying the dividend coupons as it has done right through the crisis.
If it had excessive defaults this could not happen.
Mortgage' lifetime' is surprising short around 3 years in 2008 so portfolio will have shrunk considerably.
125% mortgages
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-1604436/Watch-the-125-mortgage-trap.html.
Matt Ridley caused the financial meltdown - myth
Northern Rock caused the financial meltdown - myth
Gordon Brown caused the financial meltdown - myth
Some real villains are Goldman Sachs, Royal Bank of Scotland , US rating agencies who gave AAA status to total junk.
When this was discovered in 2008 and that Banks like RBS were holding worthless junk as assets this led to a liquidity crisis
The inept Mervyn King (Bof E) only discovered the cause late in 2010 and introduced quantitative easing to return liquidity to the markets.
Had this been introduced in 2008 Northern Rock would have survived.
Incidentally JPMorgan (paid by UK government for 'advice' on Northern Rock) picked up the best part of the Northern Rock portfolio ( the equity release section) for a knockdown price!
But as far as we know, all of that rise is due to natural variation.
There is no convincing evidence that the entire temperature change or any part of it is due to some other cause
Jul 29, 2013 at 9:06 AM | richard verney
There is evidence for CO2 as the driver of the long term trend that convinces most climate scientists. I would go over it again , but Mr Montford discourages discussion of radiative physics.
On your side of the debate, can you give evidence of whatever new type of natural variation you are invoking?
If you look at the temperature record as a mathematician it divides into five interacting processes.Four of them constitute natural variation. All five have evidence to supprt them.
1) Stochastic variation due to weather. This is energy driven and deterministic but appears random .
2) Year-to-years variation due to ENSO. This is cyclic, if rather irregular, and produces peaks like 1998.
3) The 11 year solar cycle, which generates a roughly decadal oscillation of +/- 01.C with some variation due to uneven timing and insolation.
4) A 60 year cycle of +/- 0.3C which matches the AMO in timing and energy budget.
5) A trend of 0.6C per century which matches the expected primary and climate sensitivity of anthropogenic CO2 production.
If you wish to ascribe 5) to another form of natural variation you would need to produce evidence for whatever it is, in terms of rate, mechanism and a corresponding energy budget. Without evidence, "natural variation " is semantically equivalent to "leprechauns".
I note that Otto, Lewis, Pielke and Montford all accept a CO2 climate sensitivity around 2.0C per doubling. By ascribing the effect of increased CO2 to another unspecified cause you are arguing that CO2 climate sensitivity is zero.
Perhaps you should be arguing with your fellow sceptics, rather than with me.
esmiff
How does an ad hominem attack change the value of climate sensitivity?
I ask you to measure the length of a piece of string.
I am unhappy with your measurement and accuse you of eating gerbils.
Does that change the length of the string?
Entropic Man
It has to do with Hansen not being a scientist, lying through his teeth for his whole career and getting away with it due to political support. Only geekwits and fanboys believe peer review is a guarantee of probity.
esmiff
The predictions of Hansen Goddard Institute have been a lot closer to reality than those of the sceptics. The 1981 paper is still valid after 40 years.
Perhaps you would like to present comparison data for his version of the post 1981 climate and yours.
Entropic Man
Hansen has retired from NASA to work on his cunning plan to rid the world of industrial civilisation. He is now professor of cunning and climate change at UEA.
Here is Roger Pielke senior severely critiquing a multi-decadal climate model projections paper on basic methodology.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00205.1
This is the reply
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00013.1
An hour ago on Twitter, Pielke wrote
Mearns et al "one would expect a fraction .. model skill demonstrated by the numerical experiments...to be retained." Really? Then show us.
On the basis of the above, I have estimated climate sensitivity at between
0.56435679 and 69.777777777777 plus or minus 18.6666666666
Don't take my word for it. Run it past you favourite house of lords climate scientist.