Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« New Yorkers want to secede to ensure their homes are destroyed by earthquakes and their drinking water poisoned | Main | Countdown to alarm - Josh 317 »
Tuesday
Mar032015

Climate Change by Numbers

I almost gave up on Climate Change by Numbers last night. By ten o'clock I was flagging fast and not really getting a lot from it which is a pity because it could have been brilliant.

The presentation was really well done. I thought the decision to have three different presenters paid off in spades and the producers did well to come up with three such engaging people - Norman Fenton, Hannah Fry and David Spiegelhalter - to front the show. I liked the style of having them completely separate and avoiding the cheesy infills that TV people seem to like so much. The decision to get just a little bit closer to the maths was a good one and the radical step of showing equations on screen seemed like a bit of a breakthrough.

But at the end of the day it was not the programme I'd hoped for and not the programme that the climate debate needs. There are two types of people who are interested in science - those who get excited by what science can do and those who get excited by what it is merely trying to do. Climate Change by Numbers seemed to me to be firmly in the first camp, with many familiar lines from the mainstream case for climate alarm set out in an accessible fashion alongside unusually technical explications of techniques such as kriging and homegenisation. For those of us who are interested in unanswered questions and scientific controversies there was nothing. This was, at the end of the day, a recitation of the global warming catechism with added geekiness.

Only occasionally did we get hints that there might be some interesting questions to examine. For example, just as almost every other climate programme has done, the presenters invited us to be impressed by the match between greenhouse-fuelled climate models and observations. But, and also just like every climate show before them, the presenters skipped past the tuning and the fudging and the impact of the pause. Norman Fenton's allusion to the extreme complexity of GCMs did suggest that there might be something interesting going on but there, unfortunately, the show moved swiftly on. Fenton's blog post on the show hints that he too found this frustrating, listing a whole series of interesting areas that he would liked to have examined and on which I think his statistician's brain could have shed a great deal of light. I guess none of us are fully in control of our own destiny.

In similar fashion, we were invited to be impressed by Hansen's Pinatubo predictions, a case that I have always seen as rather deceptive since it relates largely to the base greenhouse effect (which almost everyone agrees on) and not the long-term feedbacks (which they don't). This could have sparked an interesting exploration of the areas that climate scientists are just beginning to scratch the surface of, but this too was an opportunity spurned.

Clearly this was not a programme directed at me. But I'm not sure who the producers were directing it at either. I don't think it really cuts the mustard as a propaganda piece. Recitation of all these familiar arguments is not going to persuade anyone. And to misquote JS Mill, you really need to have a public clash of ideas to demonstrate the validity of your case and persuade people. Perhaps it was just a geek piece; something that climatologists can coo over and say "isn't the stuff we do cool". If so that's all well and good, but I hope my climatologist friends can understand that this is not for me: I'm from the "what we don't know" school of science.

And no matter how nice the presenters and how whizzy the graphics, I'm going to find the recitation of the climate litany rather dull. Even if they show me some equations.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (262)

I couldn't get past the flying 'circle of terribleness' monster.
==================

Mar 6, 2015 at 6:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Ken, Josh, Richard, come running quickly. Are you responsible for this? Tamsin?
=============

Mar 6, 2015 at 6:47 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

@Daimon Walker

There is nothing 'wrong' with what you write and yes science must eventually win out. The problem as I see it is that climate scientists are ducking their responsibility. It is no good claiming that we are all doomed unless we stop burning fossil fuels without proposing a solution. In this sense scientists have become the prisoners of the doctrinaire policies of the green anti-capitalist movement. They are now too afraid to bite the hand that feeds them. They keep their heads down. One who doesn't believe it or not, after retirement, is James Hansen who now speaking out in favour of nuclear power. That's because he is still a scientist who can work out the numbers.

China and India are currently committed to expand coal based energy for another 10 years. The IEA write

Over the next six years, additional coal production capacity of a half million tonnes per annum will be added worldwide each and every day. More than 60% of the rise in CO2 emissions since 2000 is due to burning of coal to produce electricity and heat. This rise in emissions is occurring in ASEAN countries. In China, the scale of coal in the economy is simply incomparable to fuels elsewhere. Replacing coal with gas in Chinese power generation would require twice the volume of all global LNG trade. Coal therefore will continue to play an important role in economic growth and energy security worldwide.

Whenever you see the Keeling curve of ever increasing CO2 levels just remember that nearly 2/3 of that is due to coal burning in Asia.

So whatever we do in Europe or the US cannot stop increasing CO2 emissions. There is not really a hope in hell of the Paris summit reaching agreement on reducing emissions from developing countries. So what should we be doing?

If you do the sums renewables energy alone cannot possibly work and will eventually cause even more damage to our fragile environment. Who will decommisiion the thousands of turbines after 15-20 years? Like it or not a nuclear future is the only route to maintaining any reasonable living standards long term. Yet the greens oppose that as well. The green movement has become the equivalent of the anti-science taliban. If just 25% of the subsidies handed out to wind energy were instead diverted to nuclear fusion research we might stand a chance of getting out of this mess before 2100.

Mar 6, 2015 at 7:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterClive Best

CO2 has risen? Well, blimey. Who knew?

Everyone but the thermometers, it seems.
They didn't rise as they should have done if CO2 has the effect that the understanding of climate science embodied in the models was right.

But we know that DayWalker doesn't care about science (or people).
Or integrity as he shows from his deceptive approach here.
And he does that to kids too!

Mar 6, 2015 at 7:55 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Yes Daimon, all very interesting but not very convincing. See that word I used? ‘Convincing’. It’s not the same as true or false. If AGW science was convincing then Tamsin’s BBC programme would have been a helluva lot less about walking the dog and a lot more about graphs and facts. They wouldn’t hesitate to show the inconvenient bits (like previous warm periods) because their explanations for why this time it’s different would be sound. Because they know their case is so weak they can’t risk putting the sceptic side and try to repackage the same failing pap.

How do I know it’s unconvincing? Well that’s why I asked you why warmists don’t go first. People like you happily volunteer the West to go first. You say, forget all the questions you have or fears that China, etc will just use this to leapfrog us into prosperity, with no intention of cutting CO2. Forget the huge costs of renewables that don't work. Which is exactly why warmists won’t go it alone. You don’t like the idea of sceptics having a financial advantage and doing whatever they want while you guys suffer. So what’s the difference? What percentage of the global population taking a lead is ok and what isn’t fair? Ever hears the phrase 'do as I say, not as I do'?

If the science was convincing then the Greens would have to abandon their fear of nuclear wouldn’t they? They’d have to shelve their plans for a utopian society and deal with the one most of us want instead.

People who should know better would have to admit that trying to lead while having bigger CO2 footprints than the rest of us is doomed to fail. The feckless prats haven’t even figured out how to use video conferencing.

You guys are paying lip service to your own religion. Excuse the rest of us who don’t want to join a cult, regardless of how ‘interesting’ their ‘facts’.

Mar 6, 2015 at 8:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Even the Guardian has noticed.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/06/climate-activism-doomed-left-only-issue

Needless to say we don't agree how to fix their problem.

Mar 6, 2015 at 10:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Christopher Booker also chimes in.

Mar 8, 2015 at 4:37 PM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

Much more convincing is the skeptics proof... Oh wait... They don't need to prove its not happening, it's down to science to prove it is happening.

Again, I've read very little of the comments on here as I know what the response will be.

I was watching another of the lovely BBC programs that most of you seem to abhor and the overriding question in my mind was why are we still debating the upward temperature trend? It seems most are in agreement with that (Kim goes into rapture at this point). So if it's rising and everything is all good with you lot it begs the question, why trouble yourself with trying to disprove science? I expect the answer is money again... I'm hearing that a lot. Thing is I am pro NOT WASTING MONEY on it. We should not be wasting money. You're right. To that extent we all agree so why arent your efforts directed toward changing that rather than bashing the science? You can actually use the science to your advantage. Put it to the governments. Ask them why they're throwing money at wind farms, why are they not sinking money into efficiencies? Instead you choose science bashing and the governments can fan the flames on that by chucking your hard earned tax money at the issue. An issue most of us (not Kim) agree upon.

Mar 13, 2015 at 3:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaimon walker

I think you may have gotten a little bit of good out of this. Who's bashing science? It's the mistaken policies founded on fantasy catastrophe that bear the bashing. Nice to see you're going to do your part.
=====================

Mar 14, 2015 at 2:05 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Tamsin's preview here was strange but The BBC can't say they weren't aware of any issues with the prog before it was broadcast, as people her on BH pointed out a numbers of important flaws.

- How can such an open piece of crusading propaganda be broadcast ?
Where are the progs producers,Tamsin Edwards, Betts, Spiegelhalters etc. strange views coming from ?
Seems to me that there are 2 scenarios where people could have such certainty in CAGW Theory
1. An honest and rational one made from a particular viewpoint, but then you'd speak about people on your own side damaging credibility by using unrobust virtually "made up" numbers" 97% of climate scientists say", the IPCC using the "95% certainty level" and that wind/solar are rubbish at reducing CO2
2. A cult like mind set where you believe you have to support a side
That's the more likely explanation I can find for addressing a complex issue, but not addressing more fundamental numbers that the public would be interested in
#1 Close to zero : the published figures for the Global temperature trend over the last 17 years
#2 the amount of CO2 that has been emitted over the last 17 years
#3 The spending on CO2 mitigation & measures and the cost benefit analysis of effectiveness
#4 The unrobustness of that 97% figure
The narrative does seem like a Nazi propaganda film portraying "the Jews" as responsible for all evil etc.
.. If the BBC made a documentary on a different topic and left out half the important concerns then that would not be acceptable ..and neither is it on Climate. It's not a GreenDogma advertising agency is it ?

.... The attitude of fellow BHers here shows what an optimistic open-minded lot they are. Many genuinely believed that
1. Horizon with a strong record for Green propaganda was suddenly going to make a fair and honest prog
2. That commenter Damian Walker was really an open minded individual ..not the normal devious troll not actually interested in real debate. I wish they'd got him to move issue to a new discussion instead of clogging the comments here

There could be a scemario wher Tamsin and Damian's input were deliberate skeptics distracted and keep us from disrupting the warmist CAGW PR narrative

Mar 15, 2015 at 11:28 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

There could be a scenario where Tamsin and Damian's input were deliberate tactic to keep skeptics distracted and keep us from disrupting the warmist CAGW PR narrative.

- I note that @DizzyRingo (on the previous thread) also drew the cult/religion analogy ..perhaps comparing politicians to Catholic priests who know there isn't really a God
"The appalling thing is that some politicians don't believe in the guff but are frightened to say so. "
- Yes Half the planet have certainty about the existence of "the afterlife" and what it's like ... with zero evidence at all yet it has been this way for hundreds of years. So again I think skeptics are optimistic to think they can use logic to conquer the reality denying cult of Global Warmism.

Mar 15, 2015 at 1:11 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Seriously, are we all going to sit here pretending they are wrong, I work with attribution studies frequently, I have no doubt that humans are the biggest contributor to over 50% of earths warming as for 0.85 degrees, this is controversial and a data set I have also independently worked with, and I reached 0.81 degrees, which supports the statement made in the show that the earths temperature had risen by just under a degree since 1880, the fact is all any of us can do is estimate because the data is both incomplete and inaccurate, but the fact remains earth is warming and we are the cause, like it or lump it, Global warming is here to stay.

Jul 19, 2017 at 6:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterChris

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>