Bishop Hill An early leaving present
Mar 15, 2015 Royal Society As Paul Nurse heads towards the exit door of the Royal Society later this year, Mike Kelly has sent him an early leaving present, a withering attack on the society's handling of the climate change issue.
...Human-sourced carbon dioxide is at best one of many factors in causing climate change, and humility in front of this complexity is the appropriate stance.
Yet the Society continues to produce a stream of reports which reveal little sign of this. The latest example is the pre-Christmas booklet A Short Guide To Climate Science. Last year also saw the joint publication with the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of Climate Change: Evidence And Causes, and a report called Resilience. Through these documents, the Society has lent its name to claims – such as trends towards increasing extreme weather and climate casualties – that simply do not match real-world facts.
Both the joint report with the NAS and the Short Guide answer 20 questions on temperatures, sea-level rises and ocean acidification. But a report today by the academic council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes several Society Fellows and other eminent scientists, states the Society has ‘left out’ parts of the science, so the answers to many of the questions ought to be different.
I have personal experience of this selectivity. Last year, at the request of the president, I produced a paper that urged the Society’s council to distance itself from the levels of certainty being expressed about future warming.
I said it ought at least to have a ‘plan B’ if the pause should last much longer, so calling the models into still more serious question. I got a polite brush-off.
Reader Comments (167)
Taken from one of the comment threads under Kelly's piece:
Original sceptic comment: "since 1998 there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures at all". This statement says it all, despite the bleatings of government-funded scientists claiming the opposite.
1st Pause-denier: 'Nice cherry pick that gives inordinate emphasis to the largest El Nino event of the previous 50 years'.
2nd Pause-denier: 'Last year was the hottest on record, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about and is flat out wrong. But that's what happens when idealogically-motivated engineers start opining on a subject (climate science) they know nothing about.'
So the first pause-denier complains about cherry-picking of a hot el nino year and the second cherry picks a hot el nino year. Neither understands the phrase 'statistically significant'; ie starting at one hot el nino year and ending at another and finding no statistically significant trend.
Herewith is an encapsulation of the workings of the mind of a climate fanatic; hypocrisy, illogic, innumeracy, witless contradiction, sanctimoniousness and immorality - in that they don't seemingly care that the cure is demonstrably worse than the putative disease.
@ HAS
Ok decentish post compared to the ramblings of your RR (really someone needs to take him to one side - provides hours of hilarity...). Anyway back to your post - some comments and questions..
1 - what is this "willing to admit" re the complexity of climate science? What makes you think that I (and climate scientists) think the topic is easy at all? The modelling is very complex and intensive. For example
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/GRL_selection.pdf
There is a deep deep misunderstanding for example of climate modelling on the "skeptic" side. A misunderstanding of what it can deliver. Contrary to the myths regenerated on sites such as these the models have actually done reasonably well.
2 - my comment re there "could be negative forcings" refers to the fact that I have yet to find any. In any discipline you start with the simple (i.e. the 101) and layer on the complexity when that does not give you the 100%. In your cases the assumption has to be that there is a negative forcing. Unfortunately observations have not played that out and I'm still waiting on having your side deliver that to me. We both agree I think that CO2 causes warming and that the amounts are going up and (I would argue as the data is on my side) that observations corroborate that. I'm not really sure what then you can say but please do try. I would love there to be a paper that explains the recent warming over the past 150 years or so to be not due to human sources. Unfortunately the marginal impacts would be absent unless we did factor these in.
3 - in the same vein no doubt I could find many references on climate change on the inter-web thingy and indeed I have a vast reference list that I'm able to draw on. And guess what - there is a debate on various factors within the genuine climate science community. However I get very little (actually so far nothing that hasn't been peer reviewed) but hand waving from the "skeptics" when I do engage. I therefore invite you to do more than tell me that I could find things. Send me links yourself. You surely must believe what you do for a reason. I'm assuming here you are not being paid to say what you do with what appears to be such scant evidence so again I ask for you to follow the scientific process and share your evidence.
The denying community always feels that it is being done out of being included in any debate but when (as here) you are openly asked (again) for your rationale nothing ever comes back.
I await your science on the "pesky other things".
@Onbyaccident: no Climate Scientist can argue for a subject which is and always has been based on incorrect science, yet demands that standard science be republished to be peer reviewed by people taught incorrect science. This is the politics of the Madhouse.
Still with the ad homs, eh, Onbylying? How scientific. Please offer some constructive criticism of my comments to maintain any credibility (though your constant reference to “forcings” in a complex, chaotic system might also be helping keeping it in doubt).
@ NCC
There goes that conspiracy again. Ok - I ask again - what is incorrect about the science I have been taught (school and university) and pray send me a link to the correct science. Let's see where we get with this.....
@ JamesG
Nice try but no cigar. There are El Nino's and El Nino's. They are not all the same. The 1998 event was a monster in historical terms. The 2014 event has barely been recognised and failed to come up to predictions made when it first started to appear back in say Aprilish of 2014. Its impact on the 2104 record warming likely to be minimal if any (in fact may contribute more to this year's average).
Either the above is new to you (in which case "you're welcome") or you knew it but decided to post your disinformation anyway?
Onbyaccident
In your first post, you appealed to authority by (I paraphrase) asking how a critique by the GWPF, of a booklet issued by the RS, could possibly be taken seriously.
If you look at the GWPF critique, the authors/reviewers were:
Prof Robert Carter
Prof Vincent Courtillot
Prof Freeman Dyson
Prof Christopher Essex
Dr Indur Goklany
Prof Will Happer
Prof Richard Lindzen
Prof Ross McKitrick
Prof Ian Plimer
Dr Matt Ridley
Sir Alan Rudge
Prof Nir Shaviv
Prof Fritz Vahrenholt
Do you know who wrote the original RS booklet?
Onbyaccident, you write at Mar 16, 2015 at 11:12 AM
Please elaborate on what you think "reasonably well" means.1 "Reasonably Well"
The pause has not been predicted. The envelope of possible scenarios has not narrowed. The models have no predictive power - and as such are worthless for policy making.
They are not related to the real world and as such are not testable or falsifiable. If they were, they have been.
You need to clarify your terms.
2 Negative Forcings
Perhaps you should look for them in the real world instead of in one you imagine and program yourself. We all agree that there are positive forcings. Realists agree that he positive forcings aren't moving the climate at the moment. So there must be negative forcings - or CO2 is effectively saturated. Either way, the fact you haven't found the negative forcings is a weakness of the models - not the real world. If we only had pushes one way the world would have runaway to Venus with the first forest fire before man ever evolved. GIGO.3 Evidence
As an aside, I'm assuming you are paid to not abandon the failed models.Evidence is the real world. The emissions of CO2 lag temperature at long timescales (see the ice cores) - positive feedbacks alone are therefore disproven.
Over the twentieth century the world warmed at the same rate pre-1950 as post-1950 but emissions were far greater in the latter half. Either the effect of additional CO2 declines proportionality to the independent economic growth that leads to emissions (spooky coincidence), the CO2 effectiveness is limited by negative feedbacks that the models can't understand (Perhaps their insight is "clouded"?) or CO2 has no additional effect at these concentrations (Water vapour masking the spectral bands and Beer-Lamberts Law kicking in).
Either way, the evidence is clear.
The models don't work.
Discuss.
Oh, so instead of conceding no significant warming since 1998, now it's "no monster El Nino's" since 1998. The climate cult love shifting goalposts.
ObA
"the recent warming over the past 150 years"
And if it hadn't got warmer after the LIA, we would now be sitting in a slightly-longer one. Unless you are saying that none of the warming is natural, perhaps you can tell us what proportion is due to CO2? If you can't, the drawing board beckons...
ATTP says above
"In areas of science where you are studying something that is still being understood, expecting scientists to be legally liable for something that may turn out to be wrong is not only nonsensical but completely at odds with the idea that scientists are meant to be taking risks and studying things we don't yet understand."
"some thing that might turn out to be wrong"
"studying things we don't yet understand."
So ATTP admits that the whole conjecture about additional atmospheric CO2 causing massive environmental damage might turn out to be wrong.
Mike Kelly agrees and suggests that the Royal Society will look foolish is this conjecture is proved to be false.
This seems increasing likely as the temperature record 'pause' extends beyond 18 years despite rising atmospheric CO2.
It is to be regretted that an activist leadership is implying that the conjecture evidence is incontrovertible.
Its little wonder that senior members like Mike warn that proud reputation of the Royal Society will be harmed by this anti-science stance.
@
I use the term "reasonably well" deliberately as models are an approximation to reality. Always. Not just in climate science. Your camp basically imposes undeliverable criteria for success - in part because you misunderstand the science and modelling in general and in part as you don't like the "general" answers we are getting from them. If the models were saying "fill your boots - pump as much CO2 as you want it matters not a jot" you guys would likely be lauding them. Anyway tell me what you mean by predictive powers and how in any situation where future inputs are not clear prediction can be at all trusted. What can be trusted is "if we pump this much CO2 and this is the amount we will get naturally" this is the likely outcome. Not so sure what is difficult to understand here...try this paper
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/m-gws020215.php
On your -ve forcings maybe I need to be clear. There are both +ve and -ve forcings and these are modelled. Albedo changes are a classic case I'm sure you are familiar with. My reference to a -ve forcing though is the one you guys need to come up with to prove your position(s). Not seeing a significant one that contradicts both observation and model.
So again - evidence/references please. Otherwise your post is another hand waving attempt.
onbyaccident -
Here is an astute observation on models:
The item of most public interest is the sensitivity of global average surface temperature to greenhouse gases. I contend that the models (as a group) are something like 50-100% too high on this metric. "Reasonably well"? Perhaps. It depends I think upon one's perspective. But more importantly, consensus climate scientists seem very reluctant to "delineate the limits of that correspondence."
Perhaps the item of next most interest is the sensitivity of regional temperature and precipitation to GHG. Models seem quite poor in this regard. Yet I see few scientists stepping up to object to planning based on such uncertain (and certainly unproven) forecasts.
P.S. I notice you haven't defended your "luddite" comment. Any particular reason?
Your camp basically imposes undeliverable criteria for success
Well quite.
Suggesting that the scientific method consists of coming up with hypotheses which make predictions which can be verified (or not) against reality, in circumstances where others can replicate both the methodology and result?
And suggesting that a hypothesis which doesn't make predictions, or whose predictions cannot be verified against reality, is not a scientific hypothesis - or that one whose predictions are incorrect may be scientific, but wrong?
Whoever heard of such a ridiculous criterial!
Onbylying: what you seem unable to understand or admit is that a model – any model – is only as good as the information entered into it; absolutely NO model can return any evidence other than whether or not the presumptions made in its construction were correct. IF the model is based upon the premise that CO2 is the sole driver of the climate, then – well, guess what? – it returns the information that CO2 is the sole driver of the climate! Colour me surprised!
It is increasingly becoming obvious that MCourtney is correct in his assumptions about you – you are paid to not abandon the failed models. Based upon my own observations, any denial of such by you should be dismissed as false, as the evidence is so heavily weighted against it.
@ WFC
Any list that includes Matt Ridley & Ian Plimer is bound to be considered weak. However some comments re others that I'm familiar with:
Prof Robert Carter
Prof Vincent Courtillot
Prof Freeman Dyson - renowned admitedly in his own field but his spoutings about climate science are hardly the stuff of diligent science. Trots out (with little evidence) that if there is warming it will be to our benefit. To quote " Most climate scientists say that Dyson’s views — including his claim that warming today is largely confined to the Arctic — are flat-out wrong. But Dyson, who readily admits that he is not a climate expert, remains undaunted, insisting that his skeptical point of view needs to be heard. "
Prof Christopher Essex
Dr Indur Goklany - oil & gas industry & heartland institute funded electrical engineer
Prof Will Happer
Prof Richard Lindzen - funded and serially debunked.
Prof Ross McKitrick - this is the guy I know of best. Looked at his work re the Hockey Stick work of Mann et al and found him to be wrong in many counts. Weak in my professional opinion and should have known that the attempt to debunk the PCA analysis used was incorrect and disingenous at best.
Prof Ian Plimer - thin ice here.....Australia's C Monkton.....
Dr Matt Ridley - really?
Sir Alan Rudge
Prof Nir Shaviv - familiar with this guy. Solar activity the cause but that has been serially debunked. Says half the warming in C20th due to sun when solar activity has been remarkably stable in that time. At least he seems to be non-funded by industry so presume he is at least honest but does not mean he is right.
Prof Fritz Vahrenholt
I'll be honest and say that I could google the rest but suspect I'll be wasting my time.
Onbyaccident
Thank you for that lengthy answer.
It tells me all that I need to know about you.
A couple of things: Firstly, I am a self-employed Chartered Engineer (Structural). I do not have any obligation to have or take out Professional Indemnity Insurance (PPI) at all. However, I am obliged under a very strict Code of Conduct Rule to disclose this "material" fact to my clients form the begining before I put pencil to paper (yes I still use one). In other words it is the honesty that counts here. I do have PPI as I don't wish to lose my home should befall any legal proceedings!
Secondly: I again refer to the use of the term Climate Scientist. I am sure (senior moment time) I have said this here before so apologies to one & all. There are as I understand it, at least 80 seperate but linked subjects requiring study of the climate. Assuming each degree takes for years, & that each has 3½ years of overlap (unlikely), requiring only a further study of those remaining 80 subjects, it would take another 40 years to complete the requesite degrees to become a "Climate Scientist". This means that anyone under the age of 61-2 could possible qualify! Just a thought.
On another subject of linked interest. Is it me, or has the reporting of the recent tropical storm Pam(?) on Friday by the diligent (?) BBC News, & on Breakfast this morning, becomg somewhat of a farce, in that I was convinved both Bill Turnbull (surprisingly as he seems such a synical old bugger) & Louise Minchin seemed utterly bewildered & dissappointed that only 12 or so bodies had been discovered after the devastation, & that they seemed equally keen that many more should be discovered asap? Instead of praising a possible miracle that so few had been killed, they were the opposite! Is this yet again another prime example of the BBC ratchetting up the scary stories?
Oba,
That's got to be the funniest thing I've read so far this week. So you looked at his work on the hockeystick and found it to be weak did you? He was incorrect and disengenious at best was he? Hilarious. Absolutely love it. I was completely wrong about you – I thought you were just a troll with minimal understanding of the rubbish you spout. In fact, you're not a troll at all – you're a clown sent to entertain us. Wonderful. More please.
OBY: Your self-serving critique of 12 leading scientists: What chutzpah you have!! What an incredible inflated opinion you have of your own position that you feel qualified to assess the abilities of your betters!
You are, quite frankly, not worth the candle and I reckon, not fit to lick the boots of the men on that list. I do hope you never come back to this site, you little pimple of a man(?).
BTW: Disqualifying all scientists who take 'oil money' would deprive the warmist tribe of many of their leading lights.
OBA - re: "references please":
Here's one that clearly shows climate models' total inutility for policy purposes:
http://www.euclipse.eu/Publications/Stevens,%20Bony_What%20are%20climate%20models%20missing.pdf
Onbyaccident ,
Meaningless waffle that is trivially true. You were challenged to define your terms. What is "reasonably well"? You say it is an approximation of reality. Well, a tabby cat is an approximation of a Bengal Tiger. But don't stroke a tiger on its tummy.I gave a justifiable definition of an approximation to reality that actually would be somewhere near reality. I said "The pause has not been predicted. The envelope of possible scenarios has not narrowed. The models have no predictive power - and as such are worthless for policy making."
This is just begging the question. In reality we know how much CO2 has been emitted and we know the world's warming paused. Why? Your model won't tell us. Reality will tell us your model doesn't work - it isn't reality in error. Yes, the world doesn't behave as the models say they do (as your paper so kindly explains). But that is why you need to define what the models are trying to do. As they aren't doing anything of value that I can see.That is, they aren't right at the moment.
They aren't getting any better.
They are of no practical value.
If any of those things were untrue you would says so... but they are all true. Thus I argue that models which are so far from reality are not a worthwhile approximation of reality.
Finally, the typical pseudo-sciecne attempt to shift the burden of proof. "It must be the stars that affect man's destiny unless you can show what else does". The astrologer's condemnation of anything happening by chance (or reasons so complex they are unknown). Here used for Climatology;
Obvious failure of logic this one. If you are run over by a truck but couldn't tell if the truck was red or blue... the truck still exists.
We know that their are negative forcings that exactly cancel out man's emissions (or man's emissions have no effect). we know this because we can see it in the real world. The pause is real.
Just because I can't model the climate any better than you can doesn't mean I should accept your word for it. A
t least I have an idea of what a climate model should be able to do to be related to reality. You still haven't got as far as specifications and defining testability in your climate modelling. I've asked for what "reasonably well" means to you and you aren't even that far in yet.
Indeed, you ought to acknowledge that the evidence of there being unknown negative forcings is enough to conclude they exist.
You don't need to know the colour of the truck that ran over your argument.
We now what Feynman would have said. Here he is saying it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
OnbyAccident
Thanks for the correction about el nino. It doesn't disturb the contradiction about cherry-picking single years versus measuring trends nor any other criticisms about the uncaged alarmism this mild warming trend of 0.6K/century has engendered based on premature conclusions and faulty assumptions.
Despite all the bluster, the only argument for a manmade contribution rests on the circular reasoning that the models cannot reproduce the 20th century trend without putative manmade warming, which is merely a reflection of the initial assumption that natural variation was in decline - an assumption now shown to be wrong! All of the other IPCC 'fingerprints' for manmade warming are missing. Hence scepticism is the only rational response! If alarmists could drop the faux-morality for a moment then they'd have to conclude the same. All that then remains is the argument that we are conducting an experiment with unknown consequences. To that I'd answer that we already did the experiment and it proved the alarmists wrong.
Note that the sea surface temps of the pacific largely contributed to the warmth of 2014 and these were not as accurate prior to the Argo floats in 2003 and so likely the satellite records, which had a higher temp level in 1998 than 2014 should logically be considered more reliable than the surface records over this period. In any event if you are another pause-denier then you are now the outlier / sceptic and not us, since the cause of the pause is the main focus of much of current climate science.
I am also fully in agreement with you that climate prediction is not so simple and we don't know enough yet to be as confident about future climate as alarmists have been up to now. If you were to concede also that the current UK energy policy won't make any difference to the global temperature or emissions but could be very dangerous for UK residents then I'm sure there is no need to disagree on any remaining minor issues. If the glorious day comes that we are free of fossil fuels, without anyone having had to suffer for it, then nobody will be happier than me. However I'd suggest that the likes of Shell/BP/Exxon etc would likely be in charge of these new energies too. Meanwhile prepare for blackouts.
Plethora of posts. Am honoured. Will comment first on the more intelligent and/or relevant responses...
@ not banned yet
May not do you any favours here but thank you! I have actually read this before and this is a real and valid comment on difficulties that models will have. I could send others. Clincher though is that this does not make them invalid. Dr Bjorn Stevens is definately in the AGW camp but explains here (for those of you who won't bother reading it) difficulties that models have. First time ever on BH but hey had to happen sometime. Real debate (especially on this topic) does happen between scientists. As I said all models are approximations so there will be a debate on how to improve.
@ jamesG
I sense you may be more sceptical in the real sense of the word. However I note your use of word pause denier. I maintain that there has been no pause as that usually refers to the sea surface temp over the period and that has still increased albeit at a lower rate than say the previous decade or two. You can draw a flat line in the temp curve but only if you pick your points judiciously. Hence my problem with all of this. The oceans however have continued to heat which is where most of the entropy has gone (see recent paper by Mann et al here - don't have reference to hand).
Later to the rest of you.....
ObA
"Your camp basically imposes undeliverable criteria for success"
That pesky evidence, again.
"I maintain that there has been no pause as that usually refers to the sea surface temp over the period.."
Air temps not cooperating, then? All that missing heat...
(If true) That Paul Nurse is on the Grantham Institute board and so pays Bob Ward is important.
It would mean that Ward is not being open about his paid shilling. M. Courtney
He is on the Advisory Board so Nurse isn't paying Ward, I presume that is the Grantham Foundation.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/about/about-the-institute/advisory-board/
Here is the advisory board list, some well known names, in addition to Grantham and his wife. There is oil and "carbon" investment representation also:
Lord Browne of Madingley, (ex BP, now Cuadrilla and Riverstone Holdings)
Dr Simon Buckle, Policy Director, Grantham Institute
Professor Maggie Dallman, IC, Principal, Faculty of Natural Sciences
Dr Simon Dietz, Co-Director of Grantham Research Institute (Vivid Economics, member of Stern Review team)
Professor Samuel Fankhauser, Co-Director of Grantham Research Institute, (Climate Change Committee, Globe International, Vivid Economics)
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, Director, Grantham Institute, FRS, (IPCC, Climategate enquiry)
Professor Sir Peter Knight, IC, Senior Principal, FRS (TBC)
Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense Fund, US
Professor Klaus Lackner, Ewing-Worzel Professor of Geophysics, Earth Engineering, Columbia University
Gerard Lyons, Chief Economist and Group Head of Global Research, Standard Chartered Bank
Dr Tidu Maini, Science and Technology Adviser to Her Highness and Executive Chairman of Qatar Science & Technology Park
Vikram Singh Mehta, Chairman, Shell Companies, India
Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society
Sir Keith O’Nions, IC, Rector, FRS
Professor Judith Rees, Vice-Chair of Grantham Research Institute
Lord Rees of Ludlow
Carter Roberts, President and CEO WWF, US
Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, Chairman, EL Rothschild Ltd
Neil Sachdev, Commercial Director, J Sainsbury PLC
Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
Lord Nicholas Stern, Chair of Grantham Research Institute
Marc Stuart, Private Equity Investor, Allotrope Ventures
Dr Camilla Toulmin, Director of the International Institute for Environment and Development
Dr Paul Woolley, Centre for the Study of Capital Market Dysfunctionality
@and then there's physics
Mike Kelly wrote:
The great 20th Century physicist, Richard Feynman, wrote in his autobiography: ‘Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.’
Ok he got the context wrong. It was actually from Feynman's Caltech speech to a bunch of freshers. By the way, judging from your comment you also don't quite understand what Feynman is getting at here do you? aka the scientific method, beautifully encapsulated in under 2 minutes here. Maybe you and Gavin Schmidt might learn something from the great man
Climate models falsified by observation
The uncaring arrogance of these trolls fills me with disgust. They are a disgrace to the world of true science.
As a fellow New Zealander, I am very proud that N Zedder Prof Kelly is flying the flag of scientific honesty.
I am not any kind of scientist, but it does not require a narrowly scientific education to understand the machinations of those who would justify what is probably the biggest and most egregious fraud of any era. Since the famous Hockey Stick of Mann's was unmasked as a con, the climate clique have defended the indefensible as they see their grants, their unearned kudos and their place in society endangered. Each successive year of 'the pause' adds weight to the fact that the entire concept of Man warming this planet is a scientific and intellectual dud, but no doubt cretinous apologists such as the our resident trolls will idiotically deny this.
kevin king: "Ok he got the context wrong. It was actually from Feynman's Caltech speech to a bunch of freshers."
Actually, Dr Kelly is correct on the source. "Cargo Cult Science" is in "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!" (his autobiography), where it is described as "Adapted from the Caltech commencement address given in 1974."
OBA: You said this about Prof Ross McKitrick
So, you're a statistician - and one who makes a living at it (you said it was a 'professional opinion'), so you can explain to us mere mortals where McKitrick went wrong - was less than honest (disingenuous) - in his 'PCA analysis' (tautology, but never mind)? I wonder, I've read a great deal on Climate Audit of McIntyre's critique of the HS and read our host's seminal work on the HS Illusion (have you, btw?), but I cannot recall in any blog, and certainly not in CA, where you have popped up your arrogant little head and had a pop at Steve Mc. Can you point me/us to somewhere we can find your glorious prose that will so enlighten us and deliver Mann's HS from the dustbin of history?Or are you just talking from your a*se again?
Onbyaccident Mar 16, 2015 at 11:12 AM
Good that you agree models are complex, and their usefulness widely misunderstood. I'm sure that when you say "models have actually done reasonably well" you don't misunderstand that as saying they do a good job of reproducing the climate either in or out of sample ( a good statistical reference on modelling will help you understand those terms if they are new to you).
I think you should read a bit more about forcings both negative and positive. You say here you don't think there is evidence for negative feedbacks, but change your mind a bit further down the thread. You also seem unclear that the issue in debate is the extent to which CO2 (and other human sourced forcings) are producing the temperatures we are seeing, not whether "the recent warming over the past 150 years or so [is] not due to human sources".
So I can see you are new to all this, I'm sure as you find out more about the complexities and uncertainties you will find it deeply interesting. You'll find for example that it isn't just sensitivity, detection and attribution but also the lags in the system that need to be thought about.
You have taken the first step by having "a vast reference list that I'm able to draw on".
The next step is to actually start reading them.
HAS
It seems clear (to me in any event) from his answer to my comment that the only "vast reference list" he has is either "Skeptical" Science or de smog - or, possibly, both.
WFC Mar 16, 2015 at 10:35 PM
No I'm sure it will all be good published papers from the peer reviewed literature. And stuff with a reasonably critical eye if his reference to Swanson [2013] is typical of what's on his/her reference list. It's just obvious it hasn't been read or understood. The abstract reads:
"Climate change simulations are the output of enormously complicated models containing resolved and parameterized physical processes ranging in scale from microns to the size of the Earth itself. Given this complexity, the application of subjective criteria in model development is inevitable. Here we show one danger of the use of such criteria in the construction of these simulations, namely the apparent emergence of a selection bias between generations of these simulations. Earlier generation ensembles of model simulations are shown to possess sufficient diversity to capture recent observed shifts in both the mean surface air temperature as well as the frequency of extreme monthly mean temperature events due to climate warming. However, current generation ensembles of model simulations are statistically inconsistent with these observed shifts, despite a marked reduction in the spread among ensemble members that by itself suggests convergence towards some common solution. This convergence indicates the possibility of a selection bias based upon warming rate. It is hypothesized that this bias is driven by the desire to more accurately capture the observed recent acceleration of warming in the Arctic and corresponding decline in Arctic sea ice. However, this convergence is difficult to justify given the significant and widening discrepancy between the modeled and observed warming rates outside of the Arctic."
HAS
You could be right.
Although his obsession with real or imagined "funding" - and his consequential belief that the source of, or motive for, a hypothesis is the slightest bit relevant to its efficacy - suggests that he is neither a scientist nor a statistician.
From memory the graphics in Swanson show very poor model performance. And IMO the graphic in the Bony and Stevens article shows more than just "difficulties" - it does in fact show that the models are useless for policy purposes.
Now to the lesser capable. Where to start - such a delectable feast of ignorance....I know...
@ Laurie Childs
If you knew anything about the history of that sorry episode then you would know it's been debunked many times. Was not making a sole claim. Look at this for example
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/?wpmp_tp=1
(Familiar to the BFC here methinx). My rationale for looking at the same analysis was borne out of the "trust but verify" approach - Mann et al were largely found to be correct (some quibbles for technical reasosn I won't bore you with) but the analysis by M&M found to be utterly wrong. Actually embarassing - whenever I see a "skeptic" quote them (yes you HP!) I know damn well they don't know what they are talking about. I've a PhD in mathematical physics so was not difficult.
Still laughing now chuckle-chops? ;-)
@ Harry P
read above. Incidentally PCA used by statisticians. Also economists. Also social scientists. So what is your background here? Pray tell.....keen to know how good a judgement you are able to make of it. Comment above applies specifically to you quoting M&M.
Did I publish? Of course not. I was probably interested mathematician number 97 who looked at it. Tamino (pops up often in RC and has his own site) did a pretty good job so why repeat publish? The reason for telling was that I did what many here have encouraged (but I suspect never actually do) - don't trust authority (in this case both Mann et al as well as the sorry M&M). Try it - critique that analysis by Tamino then. Tell me where he went wrong as I agree with virtually all of his conclusions. Open goal for you...surely :D
@jamesp
Pesky evidence? Quote some then. My reference to "undeliverable criteria" was to do with a "skeptic" who once quoted the fact that some hurricane had not been predicted by the models that the models were therefore incorrect. I kid you not. How do you deal with that level of stupidity. As far as models go - if you wanted utter accuracy in all before trusting then quite frankly you would never get in a plane again! Those fluid dynamics equations are a bugger!!
@ Mcourtney
in same vein as above I sent you a link. You clearly did not read. Your diatribe on models shows you barely understand the process so please go back to the link. The power of the models is that you can switch on and off particular variables and look at trends - both forward in time (difficult as inputs less clear) and backward regression (much more success - do some reading before you come back all hands waving). No links then?
@ HAS & sidekick WFC
Still no sources. No science. Just assumptions. Hand waving wafflers both.
Onbyaccident Mar 16, 2015 at 11:24 PM
A "PhD in mathematical physics". That's hard stuff. What was you thesis in?
Onbyaccident, I read that. I even understood that. Did you?
There is no point asking for Holy Texts to reference until you define your terms.
I could quote IPCC AR5 Box 9.2 on climate models or I could quote the Book of Proverbs 27 vs 1. But it would all be irrelevant because you haven't made a meaningful statement to challenge.
Define your terms.
How did the models perform "reasonably well"?
1) They do not reflect the real world.
2) They do not improve in their predictions
Note, if turning on and off parameters had meaning (not just fudge factoring) we would learn what parameters were meaningful and this would not be so.
But it is true that the models do not get closer to reality and so do not tell us about the importance of any factors.
3) They are worthless for policy making.
So, I ask a again. How did the models perform "reasonably well"?
What is "reasonably well"?
@ nba
The papers I sent and the one you offered were by scientists (Swanson/Stevens) who belive in AGW and yet see difficulties with models. We can disagree with what constitutes poor model performance. However tell me what do you think is good enough for "policy purposes"? I could here bring in the whole IPCC trail.
Incidentally would be good to get a paper on models by a scientist who disagrees on AGW and why he/she thinks the models are no good. Peer reviewed of course.
@ HAS - bless. You trying to find me? Applications of generic eigenfunction analysis to real problems in physics & biology.
@ MC
Your pedantry is tiring. Time wasting. Been here before when a statement is made and deniers land on it as you can't engage with the science. As requested I've asked a few times now for evidence of your 3 assertions - peer reviewed research. So far NOTHING. I've provided some which show model difficulties - however until you are able to properly engage with me then I just file you under irrelevant.
Onbyaccident Mar 17, 2015 at 12:31 AM
"You trying to find me? "
No just curious about how someone with that background had such an apparently limited grasp on statistical methods and modeling.
HAS
Curious? Really?
He'll be claiming to be a Nobel prize winner next!
Oba,
I've read most of the posts realclimate and Tamino have done on the hockey stick thanks (though I'm not sure why you picked Tamino's review without reading of our hosts book as an example). I've also read most of the CA ones, the tAV ones, the ones at this site and many of those on other sites. And not just the hockey stick posts. That's why I rarely comment – I'm always reading.
No,no, please – bore me. Explain the quibbles to me. Feel free to get as technical as you like. I'm no statistician, that's for sure, but I'll slowly work my way through and I'll get there in the end. Then give me your version of why M&M are “utterly wrong”. Your version mind, not someone else's.
And yes, I'm still laughing. Chuckling my chops away as I type this. Why? Did you think a hand wavy “I've a PhD in mathematical physics” was going to send me scuttling off to hide in the corner? Well I'm a 7th Dan in karate, I'm better looking than Brad Pitt, I made my first million before I was 25 and the baby that Keira Knightley is currently carrying round is mine. See? We can all do that ;-)
Onbyaccident, You need to recognise that I have not made unsubstantiated claims and you have not made any sense at all.
I thought you may have read the IPCC A5 but as you are new to the subject;
So it is not pedantry to report that the vast majority of computerised guesswork is systematically hot (93 out of 114 modelled trends).
And mainstream science accepts that the systematic error may be due to not knowing the initial state (GIGO) or the models being wrong anyway.
You assert that that is doing reasonably well. I ask again, what does that mean to you?
And as my point that the models don't get anymore accurate seems to be novel to you I suggest you read the very first FAQ in the IPCC AR5,
The answer is that they don't work.
Note, we can't know what the natural variability "noise" is.
So, stop hand-waving about pedantry and talk about the science. Define your terms,
What do you mean by the models do "reasonably well"?
@ HAS
Ok so I've a limited grasp eh....you are qualified to judge? Given the generic topic - any link mayhaps to the PCA analysis? What is your background here?
@ LC
You have to be kidding right? If I thought that was a genuine ask I'd send you my old spreadsheets and data but I suspect that would be an utter waste of my time. I've no illusions about converting you away from your world of conspiracies....;-). Oh and that list.....yes we can all do that but my only one assertion is true. Yours? I suspect that even if you were a 7th Dan I'd still kick your arse....:D. Oh and reference to the AM book - no not read that - felt I'd gone far enough with the M&M work let alone then have to follow up with something which (and I mean no malice or disrespect here) has been described as just a blog of the M&M work..
@ MC
Bloody hell...have you been up all night?! I must have gotten to you - will read later if I can be bothered but I still see no direct links nor independent evidence apart from a judicious copy and paste job from IPCC (which is some progress I suppose.....).
Onbyaccident, It is exactly a copy and paste job from the IPCC AR5. Having read that (yawn) I know where the authoritative and useful facts are. Why do you want papers that have just scraped peer review when you can have the latest from the IPCC?
But the use of authoritative texts won't matter as you haven't engaged with the logic.
You need to say in what way (at all) the climate models do "reasonably well"?
It is impossible to discuss science with someone who doesn't define his terms.
What is a model for and does it achieve that?
What do you think climate models are meant to do? And do they do it?
Laurie Childs: In an earlier comment OBA claimed he was offering us his professional opinion about statistical data etc, yet has failed to show that he makes his living as a statistician - in any field. Whereas, he claims the 'sorry M&M' are (in terms) his inferiors (Steve Mc has a lifetime of statistics in mining to back him up), and will not explain why it is he prays in aid Tamino but has not read the HS Illusion or contributed to the debates in CA (considering your 'qualifications' I'm sure Steve Mc would welcome your input, no?).
My point to you, OBA, is the same as Laurie's: you claim that Mann's HS is safe and accurate, yet you do not say why. You beat us up with your (so-called) technical qualifications, but if only you had a diploma in English you might be able to write a coherent post about why you are right and we are so wrong.
BTW: As you're a fan of Mann, what do you think of a man who does not publish his data and code with his papers? Do you think that's wrong? Then consider, in case you don't bother reading CA, all the code and data that M&M use in their arguments are posted and made freely available. The two sides of the technical coin. Which side are you on?
Oba,
I didn't ask for your old spreadsheets or your data. I asked you to explain to me the “quibbles” that you had with MBH98/99 that apparently you think made no difference to the outcome. And then to give me your version of where you think M&M got it wrong. As it's “actually embarassing”(sic) and you hold a “PhD in mathematical physics”, this should be easy for you. And yes – it's a genuine ask.
Of course the list wasn't true you berk. Any more than your “only one assertion” was. I'm a 60 year old semi-retired builder who happens to mess around with cooking and taxis as well. And without going too far with the playground stuff, you might suspect you would kick my arse, but just like everything else you write here, you'd be very wrong.
I know you haven't read Andrew's book. People like you never do. You're a keyboard warrior who knows he knows bugger all, but thinks he knows enough to fool those silly sceptics. Well, guess what – you don't. When I called you a clown the other day, I meant it. Every time you comment here I sit and giggle. As I'm sure most of the other people reading this site do.
So keep up the good work. Keep those laughs coming. I'll give you a free tip though: your continual use of the term “PCA analysis” gives you away ;-)
Harry,
Now you just know what the answer to your question on Mann's data and code will be don't you? “Everything you need to replicate Dr Mann's papers is online and always has been.” Or some such variation ;-)