Reading Judy’s recent post on The Lisbon Workshop I was struck by this request:
One scientist wanted an elite group of skeptics with whom to negotiate and debate.
I can understand why a scientists might want to find a focused group with whom to debate. Life would be so simple if those who disagree with your position could represented by a very small number of representatives who identities never change, and whose arguments and evidence are forever frozen in time. ( Sort of like the scientific community, right? 🙂 )
However, I find it odd that this scientist thinks that group should be identified by the group he identifies as skeptics. I think identifying the current group of elite skeptics is in the power of any scientists who elects to debate in public. His goal could be accomplished by his simply deciding which skeptic he considers elite in some important respect and starting to engage them. Suppose a scientist-blogger decides the qualities that make a skeptic elite consist of having a large readership, having their work be discussed by many in the (to use labels) luke-warmer / cooler / delayer / denier group. That scientist might then wish to engage Steve McIntyre. If you want to engage or debate Steve McIntyre or those who read his blog, read Steve’s blog, identify an argument Steve actually advanced and discuss it at your blog.
Doing so properly will require specifically stating that you are discussing Steve McIntyre’s post, linking to the post and quoting from the post so that readers can tell you are engaging a specific argument advanced by a specific person. Then, you wait to see if Steve (or possibly someone else) counter engages. Steve might concede some of your points. He might criticize some of your points. Conversation ensues.
It might seem obvious this is the way to go about it– after all, this is the way law blogs, political blogs negotiate and debate those with opposing views. Citing and naming is also common place in scholarly articles, where scientists are not granted the luxury of merely debating things “they said”. Back and forth conversation happens in scholarly articles. The difference is it happens at a rate slower than blogs and in language that is often inaccessible to the public.
However, for some reason I do not understand, public outreach by climate scientists running blogs seems to eschew the tradition of naming, citing and engaging actual arguments advanced by anyone in the group these climate scientists consiser to be “skeptics”. This reflects badly on those scientists-bloggers who do not link or name. It gives some members of the public encountering blogs the impression the scientists-blogger does not actually listen to counter-argument presented by those skeptic bloggers seen as elite. Moreover, failing to engage whichever blogger the scientist-blogger considers more elite, the scientist blogger ends up sitting outside public conversation.
Hence, even if his blog is publicly readable, he doesn’t speak to the public. Certainly, he doesn’t speak to those member of the public he might consider “more elite”.
It’s worth nothing that even if a scientist-blogger identifies the members of the skeptic community he considers to be elite, the debate and negotiation would take time. As the skeptic’s at the Lisbon conference evidently observed “skepticism is rather amorphous and anarchistic by its very nature. One person may be skeptical about one point but not about others, and may change their mind over time. ” This is clearly true. In fact, the observation is equally true of warmists of various stripes who have somewhat different views on whether it’s already proven that AGW increases hurricane intensity or the precise value of AOGCM’s or paleo-reconstructions in context of AGW.
Still, it seems to me the “other side” being amorphous and anarchic is the case in all nearly debates — be it the degree to which government should control or assure access to medical care or AGW. In those debates, convincing the masses generally necessitates that at least a few strong thoughtful advocates for a position engage the stronger arguments on the ‘other’ side, and this includes identifying who advanced that argument and and engaging that person and their readers.
Assuming I have convinced someone that maybe, climate scientists-bloggers or public advocates for action on AGW ought to just decide who they each consider the more elite skeptics and engage them one by one, the following question presents itself: who should do this engaging? It seems to me it ought to be the scientist above who said he wants to engage the ‘elite’ group of skeptics. After all, who better to do this than a scientist who has decided to present a public face, create blogs and engage the masses?
So, if you want to negotiate and debate the elite skeptics (or anyone), decide who you think they are. Pick your own metrics to identify who is “elite”: Traffic? Credibility among the more technically oriented? Willingness to listen on their part? Willingness to link back and present your arguments to their audience in turn? Whichever of these qualities or others you think makes an elite skeptic, find the skeptic that most fits the bill. Try to engage that person. There are several out there who will engage back.
That’s the way engagement has always worked in newspapers, conversation, politics and, yes, even journal articles. The climate blogosphere and internet climate forums are new. But they are now here. If you want to engage the e-chattering classes who, to some extent represent the portion of the public interested in AGW, you need to do so in the e-chattering venues that are respected by those who you wish to sway to your point of you.
Don’t ask those you consider skeptics to tell you who the “elite” are: You decide.
Lucy
As always, right in the bull (darts). It highlights the mentallity of the person making the demand, doesn’t it?
There is no ‘sceptic’ position, just a hodge podge of often mutually contradictory opinions. Anyone who wants to take sceptics seriously runs into the problem that there is a cacophony of opions, but that will not stop the originators of those opinions from feeling slighted if they are not paid attention too.
This is not ‘out of Africa vs Multiregional’ evolution or ‘steady state vs big bang’. Its not what most scientists would understand as a scientific controvosy. Its an endless series of moans about either minutia of current bodies of science or general sweeping attacks on the entire science itself.
Confusion is the hall mark of most pseudo sceptic thinking.
dorlomin–
If you are correct, then the strategy I advise is the only possible effective one. Instead of trying to engage “the skeptic position”, engage the specific arguments advanced by those skeptics who you think are listened to. That means: Identify a specific argument advanced by a specific person.
This is no different from how you engage the “pro choice” vs “pro life” groups, or “feminist” vs “non-feminist” positions.
In business, some important purchase decisions on large technology projects are driven by the desire to have ‘one throat to choke’ if something goes wrong, one company that is responsible for support, maintenance and repair.
If there is a set group of skeptical arguments that are advanced as the sum total of the skeptical position, then the climate consensus can focus on that set. And I think it might well be more arguments than people that are the focus of this.
At the end of the day, there is really only one argument that needs settling–what is the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2 within it. Sadly, there is no answer as yet to that question. So we all spend a lot of time faffing around about what is essentially trivia. This is all great fun, of course, and every day brings the outrage du jour for both alarmists and skeptics. But it’s pretty much sound and fury.
The climate consensus wants to drive political action before knowing the answer to the basic question. The skeptics want to wait for the answer. Umm, did I miss anything?
stephan
We don’t know context. It’s likely not a demand as we understand that term in English. It might be that he expressed a wistful desire that things could be that way. But… they can’t.
Heck, in science advancing a new theory–whether large or small –wouldn’t be that way. You present an argument to a wide audience. People interested by your notion engage back often presenting counter argument. You then discuss with them. If you want to convince those making the counter arguments you discuss with them.
(Of course, it may be that you can get what you want without engaging the ones who don’t accept your idea. That happens if they are in a minority, or are powerless etc. But… if you find they aren’t, well, you have to engage them.)
I understand their frustration. There are lots of zombie arguments out there – arguments that notable sceptical scientists eschew but which are encountered regularly. I find strawman arguments annoying – but is it a strawman attack on the “deniers” to focus on the musing of Lord Monckton? It is certainly unfair to tar Roy Spencer with the same brush as Lord Monckton – but then with powerful politicians clearly listening to Monkton proponents of the AGW hypothesis do have to spend some time refuting wacky arguments.
Perhaps what is needed is a better taxonomy of “sceptical” positions
e.g. there is a division between people who think the notion of a global average temperature is meaningful (Roy Spencer?) and those who don’t (Steve McIntyre?) {Apologies if I’ve got their positions wrong} That is a key distinction for starters.
Other distinctions culd include:
Those who think that, by and large, the temperature record is accurate (Spencer again) and those who don’t (Watts?) and those who aren’t sure…
Lucia,
There’s context missing there. The scientist was speaking in support of a proposal that, from memory, AMS and AGU should organise special sessions at which skeptics could be represented and present arguments. And then there is a practical need to identify, who do you mean by skeptics. Do you have sessions which include iron sun and barycentric folks, G&T etc. Or do you have to identify a reasonably representative skeptic position to discuss. If so, you need to identify people who can be accepted as representing that position.
But this issue did more broadly underlie the theme of the meeting – reconciliation. Between whom? It can’t be unanimous. I think that may be unresolvable.
One problem is that the issue is treated as a single issue
when there are really multiple dependent aspects:
Anthropogenic Emissions ->
GHG Forcing ->
Energy Imbalance/Natural Variation ->
Climate/Ocean Response and Feedbacks if any ->
Human Impacts and Ecosystem Impacts
There is an intellectual laziness in that the fact of warming is taken to mean disaster. I have taken the IPCC4 citation of the low end of global warming to be 1.1 K per century to mean that is the falsification limit – anything less means the theory is not valid. The MSU era is now more than thirty years old and the Middle Troposphere MSU measurements indicate trends less than the lower limit. Surface measurements for the same period exceed the lower limit,
but do not meet the ‘best estimate for the low scenario’ of 1.8 K per century.
We may agree that humans emit CO2 and that this likely is forcing energy imbalance and temperature rise.
But it is a matter of data that the ‘global warming’ is slight and not the stuff of disaster.
I gave a talk, recently, asking the Question:
“Is Global Warming Real, -or- a Hoax?”
My answer was “No!”
Global Warming is Real -AND- a Hoax.
Real in principle, but a Hoax of exaggeration.
I guess that makes me a luke warmer.
Can we get in the debate also?
Nyq Only
Not if you name Monckton, quote him and specifically engage his argument as presented. I’ve got lots of discussion of monckton under the tag monckton. I don’t consider those engaging strawmen.
I think both Roy Spencer and SteveMcIntyre think global avearge temperature is meaningful. It’s Andrew_KY in comments here who thinks it not meaningful. (Pielke Sr. says somethings that, taken out of context, can read to suggest it’s not “meaningful”. But, if I understand him correctly, all he means is that to individual people and communities, the ability to know and predict changes in local or regional climate would be much more meaningful. He laments that the focus in climate has been to try to predict global temperature trajectories.)
FWIW: Oddly enough, the leg work to engage the sorts of arguments about flaws in the temperature record brought up by Watts, D’Aleo, and EM Smith was done at both “lukewarmer” and “pro-AGW not-written by climate scientist” blogs. But many of the AGW scientists revile “lukewarmers” as “deniers”, and my guess is that the scientist at Lisbon likely lumps “lukewarmers” into skeptics. But, that’s a guess. It seems to me the “not actually climate scientists” have more patience with discussing details of the temperature record at blogs. That said, I could be mistaken.
Lucia,
Your points are very well taken – at least some on the AGW scientist side are stating to recognise that the debate is not over.
Your plan has occurred somewhat in an blog-engagement between Andrew Glikson and Joanne Nova (http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/no-dr-glikson/).
Re: Nick Stokes ,
Thanks for context.
FYI http://mominer.mst.edu/2006/08/30/dr-oliver-manuel-arrested-for-multiple-counts-of-rape-and-sodomy-of-his-children/
In this context, I’d say: You decide. If part of your decision process is to ask me, I would say you don’t invite the iron sun guy or G&T. As far as I can tell they have no real influence or following.
First, who do you want to reconcile with? The people angry about climategate? Invite Mosher, McIntire, Jeff Id (before he quit blogging), Bishop Hill, Watts etc.
You want to reconcile with Monckton? You can’t. Period. Not possible. Don’t try.
Lucia
I was thinking in the French ‘demand’. Sorry, I didn’t see it as a ‘command’
There’s some quite good discussion here but I think Tom Fuler got it the way I feel. No proof, no evidence so yes if you want a debate you can but if you want a definitive answer, forget it.
stephen
I thought you might be. That’s why I worded my answer that way. Demand=>Ask is one of the tricky things from French to English. ‘Embarazada’ is the tricky one for English speakers trying to communicate in Spanish. 🙂
Lucia
Spanish gets even trickier at times and french is bad enough.
The too quick message keeps getting me. Oh boy is that frustrating.
I would like to see but one discussion that’s the one between real statisticians and the ‘team’; Now that would be worth a pricy ticket.
Ah, but Tom, the ‘Sound and Fury’ mark a desperate battlefield, rather than signifying nothing.
==================
I find it a bit tricky. Like trying to organize a fight between theories, instead of every theory against the data and known facts, uncertainties, maturity, capacity to provide “interesting” predictions, and so on.
Do you have sessions which include iron sun and barycentric folks, G&T etc.
Why not beginning with the most popular? For instance, CAGW. It doesn’t matter which one is the pet theory of a sceptic to address his arguments against CAGW. There is no need for solar, or barycentric, or whatever to be right, for CAGW to be wrong, or quite exaggerated. And, “we don’t know”, even if it’s uncomfortable, it may be a very reasonable answer.
I think the big question is not what is really driving the climate, but is CAGW a serious (mature, etc) science? And if so, the “reconciliation” should be about how to answer this question. This is what I think Lindzen and Spencer and Pielke are trying to do, without being heard.
I find that at Curry’s site, the ‘debate’ has been defined as one between ‘skeptics’ and ‘alarmists’. That is, between those who are rational and logical, and those who are not. That’s what the ‘skeptics’ wanted, and they got, the high ground. Only, that high ground includes a whole spectrum of decidely non skeptical and non scientific views that are mutually incompatible. It is pure hypocrisy.
bugs, that’s because of the righteous skepticism over the exaggerated alarm. It’s a natural consequence of the overhyping, and something the alarmists should have thought of before making themselves so vulnerable.
Weren’t they ever told ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf’ as children?
================
Thank you Kim, you prove my point. The skeptics are ‘righteous’. Even though many of them disagree fundamentally in what is actually ‘right’, they all miraculously agree it’s not CO2.
Heh, the skeptics righteously explicate the uncertainty. And you are blinding yourself to the fact that many skeptics perfectly accept that CO2 has radiative effect and that injecting an aliquot of anthropogenic CO2 has unpredictable effects. What many such skeptics object to is the exaggeration, even the invention, of effect in the absence of knowledge.
You don’t know the climate’s sensitivity to CO2. Observations, rather than modeling, are suggesting that it’s lower than the IPCC has trumpeted. Why don’t you believe what your senses are telling you, rather than what your imagination is saying?
========================
Lucia and Nick Stokes,
By the ‘iron sun’ guy I assume you are referring to Plimer or Manuel.
You are missing the point that they can actually be making very valid comments on aspects of AGW even though they entertain some ideas that you cannot comprehend. The latter does not invalidate the former.
Maybe the word “negotiate” means something different to them than it does to me, but how on earth does one negotiate science?
Dave A,
I’m not commenting on the validity of their views. I’m commenting on the wide range of arguments that might conceivably be proposed in a structured discussion between skeptics and scientists, and saying that no such structured discussion could take place without a selection process. Just practicality.
Apart from saying how unethical climate scientists are, and telling people all about his iron sun theory, Maneul doesn’t seem to say much at all about the science of climate. Plimer gets so much wrong about the science, it is hard to know where to start. His main message seems to be that because he is a geologist, and human beings haven’t existed for most of the course of geology, we can assume they don’t exist, so there is nothing they could do to climate since they don’t exist.
Sites like RealClimate and Climate Progress cite specific psuedoskeptics all the time. “Climate Denial Crock of Week” does so as an essential element of its formula. “Watching the Deniers,” well, watches the deniers. So this assertion by lucia seems disconnected from any actual reality-based set of observations.
How then should we parse it? Is this a backhanded way of blaming pro-science folks for the lack of rational arguments among psuedoskeptics (one can’t engage a rational argument that doesn’t actually exist), or for their habit of endlessly repeating, a la the “Big Lie,” assertions about the climate which have already been shredded by the harsh light of facts? Is it lucia contention that a fallacious argument endlessly repeated must be endlessly engaged?
Bugs, I cannot tell you how many times in one thread I have commented that I believe that CO2 contributes to warming, that I think we should do something about it, that I supported Cap and Trade until they larded it up beyond recognition, that I support a carbon tax now, that I think we should engage in technology transfer to the developing world and that $100 billion does not sound bizarre to me as a level of such aid, and have then been called a denier by other commenters in the same thread.
At that point it becomes clear that we are not talking about each others’ views on science at all. Just check out any one of a million threads at Tobis’ habitual place of lamentation.
All of this discussion is not really about the science. In part that’s because science does not yet have relevant answers to our questions. In part that’s because most of us are not qualified to say intelligent things about the science. But for the most part it’s because we have divided into political camps. The ‘alarmists’ recognise two camps. The rest of us think there are more. But however many camps there are, we’re all just playing Capture the Flag and indulging in mud-throwing contests.
It’s a fun way to spend a Sunday morning. Please try and convince me it’s anything more than that.
Monckton is an opportunistic hack. When will you be able to say the same is true for Al Gore?
Nick Stokes,
Well you are wrong in my experience. I participated in a lengthy discussion with representatives of the nuclear industry over a number of years.
We began from positions of total opposition. We never ‘fully agreed’
but we came to points of ,let’s call it consensus, and we moved the the goalposts, increased understanding and reduced the ‘them and us’ factor.
This discussion started out with very little ‘structure’.
Reposted for truth. In order to settle anything, there must be some agreement as to what the key points of contention are, and a willingness to have some sort of “argument memory” for the points at dispute. Psuedoskeptics once confronted with evidence that an argument is fallacious will most often causually discard it and throw up another in an endless series of poorly-thought-out objections. (Later, when the heat has died down, they will raise the failed argument from the grave and present it as a fresh idea.) Scientists trying to have a scientific debate with suh people will be endless frustrated, because these “skeptics” do not share a good-faith interest in improving our understanding — their only goal to to wage a political fight by proxy, and for that they need only sow endless confusion.
Oh, Lord, won’t you buy me, some reconciliation.
My friends bugs and Robert, all they do is whine.
Clear up the confusion, and all uncertainty.
Oh, Lord, don’t you think that would all be just fine.
======================
lucia,
I agree that engaging specific people on the arguments that they specifically present is the only option. And asking people what view they have is one of the most important things that needs to happen, I think. I think that many on both sides read things into what their opponents say that are not there, and miss things that are. While perhaps I will not be thanked for raising religion, I found that the best way to deal with religious arguments was not to argue in order to convince but to argue in order to understand. And maybe that applies here.
Re climate sensitivity, all the observations that I have seen tend to support the IPCC position of an equilibrium sensitivity between 1.5 and 4.5.
Robert–
By definition, Climate Crock can’t represent any example of anything climate scientists do because Peter Sinclair is not a climate scientist. If he is carrying the water for climate scientists, good. But this would be an example of someone who is not a climate scientist engaging arguments (assuming he does).
As for what he really does: I find his videos slow and ponderous, and the few I’ve forced myself to watch haven’t struck me as naming arguments by anyone specific, telling the audience where to find that person’s argument etc. As I watch very few, maybe he does that. If you could point to one of his videos that is particularly good at engaging a) a specific argument advanced by a named person in which he b) names the person, provides a link to that persons site or papers where their arguments are presented in their own words, I’d be happy to watch it and let you know whether I agree with you.
But once again: My understanding is he’s not a climate scientists.
If you have any examples of RC or CP citing whoever you consider a pseudoskeptic,naming, citing, linking, quoting what they said, please point out the examples, providing us the links so we can see what you mean. The only instance I can think of RC doing it is when Gavin linked me criticizing Monckton.
No. My impression is some people perpetually repeating this sort of claim-by-rhetorical question to avoid ever engaging the better counter arguments which are more difficult to engage than strawman arguments.
By way of backing up Lucia’s point, I see a lot of discussion of Monckton’s deficiencies, very little about McIntyre’s points (although plenty about his supposed lack of character).
Kim, you are Kool.
dolormin:
Ah, the old holier than thou BS from AGW munchkins.
You think your side is coherent? That’s effing hilarious.
bugs (Comment#67499) January 30th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
“Even though many of them disagree fundamentally in what is actually ‘right’, they all miraculously agree it’s not CO2.”
Dick Lindzen and Steve McIntyre concede the radiative physics of 1.2 degrees C from a doubling of CO2 all other things remaining equal. I think you would find the majority of skeptics concede this point. It’s the ‘settled science’.
What’s not settled is the ‘all other things remaining equal’ part.
Re: Robert (Jan 30 15:48),
“Reposted for truth.”
In my experience (as a blog reader), this is an actual problem faced by Establishment climate scientists and advocates.
If Climatology was a fully-functional science, the reverse claim would not be relevant. For instance, Establishment biology does not suffer from this problem when it comes to debating the merits of evolution with the advocates of evolution-must-be-wrong beliefs such as Creationism and Intelligent Design.
In contrast, prominent climate scientists and advocates have shown themselves to have a very difficult time dealing with arguments that have inconvenient implications for pro-AGW-Consensus dogma.
The small-example poster child is, of course, the
fourthree Tiljanderproxiesdata sets by Mann08.For Bugs’ and Robert’s reasoning on the subject, search the comments of Blackboard post Litigation? for “guest post”. More on Bugs’ stance surrounding this comment on a different Blackboard thread. Gavin Schmidt’s inability to frankly engage the issue was displayed last month in RealClimate’s comments on McShane & Wyner.
Skeptics, however defined, are not the source of this type of shortcoming of the climate establishment.
David Gould:
4.5 is on the high-side these days, I think.
Annan gives the 95% CL upper bound as 4°C/doubling, and an estimated cost of less than 3% of world GDP (see page 18).
Amac, I think one could also rephrase dolormin:
They themselves can’t even agree on a rational, coherent set of statements to make. (But of course demand it from their varying critics.)
Dorlormin and Carrick,
I think that one of the problems is that it is always possible to have a definition of ‘they’ wide enough to encompass mutually contradictory opinions. While individuals do indeed hold mutually contradictory opinions, it is not really fair to blame one individual for the contradictory opinion of another who is – in one particular construction – on ‘their side’.
James Lovelock could be considered to be on ‘my side’, for example, but I completely disagree with his opinion that human population will collapse to around one billion by the end of the century, and you cannot really complain about the lack of consistency between my view and his.
As to demanding a rational coherent set of statements from critics, who is this ‘they’ that does that? I certainly would like *individuals* to be as consistent as possible in their statements, as I have spoken with individuals who have argued – sometimes in the same sitting – the following points:
1.) No warming has been observed.
2.) The observed warming is not caused by CO2.
3.) Some of the observed warming is caused by CO2.
And I am sure that many sceptics have come across people who make similar contradictory statements.
But there is no ‘they’ – no committees decide what the sceptic or alarmist position is. And, indeed, James Lovelock might consider me a sceptic, and I might consider him to be an alarmist (although I consider myself to be an alarmist, so I am not sure my spectrum extends far enough.
Carrick,
I agree that the IPCC 2007 report is outdated, given that it was based on science from the early 2000s. My only point is that, from my readings, there is no evidence that suggests that the climate sensitivity is outside that range. Observations seem to suggest, for example, that if 3.3 is used as the sensitivity in Hansen’s model rather than the 4.5 that he suggested then the model matches observations best. I think that science is homing in on the real value quite rapidly, despite claims by some that no progress has been made on this issue in decades.
lucia (Comment#67471) January 30th, 2011 at 12:43 pm
dorlomin–
If you are correct, then the strategy I advise is the only possible effective one. Instead of trying to engage “the skeptic positionâ€, engage the specific arguments advanced by those skeptics who you think are listened to. That means: Identify a specific argument advanced by a specific person.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Why? There are an almost unlimited amount of ‘sceptic’ arguments. Its not the duty of scientists in any field to become educators of the general public. A huge amount of “scepticism” is just poorly understood high school level physics and geography. Its not the job of scientists to correct that.
That said there are good and honest questions of the IPCC position that require answers and perhaps in some cases more investigation. Deluging the debate with every “I dont understand why” question as a serious point masks the real hard questions to be asked.
I read blogs like this (and dont involve myself) because I am keen to see what alternative opinions there are, it may suprise people but I am open to other opinions. I want the luke warmers to be right with a passion that is difficult to convey, make this issue go away please. I want you to be right.
But the idea that people who are spending their time pushing forward the boundries of science need to sit down and take every blog by the hand to explain basic physics and then be abused as part of a conpiracy for doing so is just not a tenable position.
Scientists job is to push forward the boundries of science. If people have questions its their responsibility to get up to speed with the science before hurling accusations.
Tom Fuller,
“At the end of the day, there is really only one argument that needs settling–what is the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of the concentrations of CO2 within it. Sadly, there is no answer as yet to that question. So we all spend a lot of time faffing around about what is essentially trivia. This is all great fun, of course, and every day brings the outrage du jour for both alarmists and skeptics. But it’s pretty much sound and fury.”
.
Yup, that is right. I would amplify what you said just a bit. The range of sensitivities (1.5 C to 4.5C per doubling, or whatever you like) is 100% dependent on assumed levels of offsetting man-made aerosol effects, and these effects vary over a huge range, depending on who you believe. Aerosol offsets are simply a way to make all models look good; the purest form of kludge I have ever seen in 40+ years in science. I find this kludge simply obscene, from a purely scientific POV, with ‘obscene’ being based on practical experience…. ‘I know it when I see it’, and I tip my hat to Justice Douglass for that very practical definition.
.
All models are not good, most are not good, and maybe none are even close to good. Ignore aerosol effects completely, and climate sensitivity must be quite low (<1.5C per doubling of CO2). Assume high aerosol offsets (eg. 1.7 watts per square meter currently offset), and diagnosed climate sensitivity must be frightening…. ‘much of the tropics become uninhabitable’, ‘Greenland will melt n 200 years’, ‘James Hansen is right’, etc, etc.
.
The technical argument will never be resolved until aerosol effects are clearly and unambiguously defined. Climate scientists could help their credibility by admitting that there is no possible way to currently diagnose an accurate value for climate sensitivity. That simple admission would do more for the credibility of climate science that 1000 diatribes by Jim Hansen or Kevin Trenberth.
SteveF,
In Storms of My Grandchildren Hansen states that aerosol research is the key and that his attempts to get satellites to investigate this in the 1990s were unsuccessful. Regarding accuracy, it depends on what you mean by accuracy and how much it matters. If climate sensitivity was known with absolute certainty to be 1.5, what would your policy response be? If climate sensitivity was known with absolute certainty to be 4.5, what would your policy response be? What about 3?
Hi David Gould,
.
We may have been down this road before. Short answer: I do not know what the public response would be to a clearly defined climate sensitivity. But a clearly defined sensitivity has to be the basis of a political discussion about costs, benefits, values, and priorities.
.
My personal preference would be to balance the need for rapid economic development of the poorest people against the ‘costs’ (in terms of CO2 emissions) of that development. I fear you miss my point. I am all for Roger Pielke’s ‘no regrets” actions, and I am all for research to better define aerosol effects. At the same time, I am strongly opposed to vast public action based on the poorest of information.
.
But the real issue is none of the above: what my personal priorities are matters not at all. Nobody’s personal priorities for public action are rationally founded in the face of not knowing what the real climate sensitivity is.
SteveF,
If you cannot define what the differences in policy response would/should be, how important can narrowing the sensitivity be?
My argument is that knowing that the climate sensitivity is some value between 1.5 and 4.5 is sufficient to build a coherent policy response, even if that policy response is ‘vast’.
I think that we can make rationally founded decisions on public action in the face of uncertainty; indeed, I think that we do all the time (indeed, we have no choice but to do so, as we rarely have certainty).
If I have misinterpreted or misunderstood your position, I apologise – hopefully you can clarify.
David Gould,
I completely disagree with your evaluation. If the true sensitivity is near of below 1.5C per doubling, I think the correct action is ‘do nothing’. If the true sensitivity is >4.5C per doubling, then it is easy to justify quite large public policy action. The value matters, really matters; it matters more that any arguments exchanged on blogs by well meaning people. Simply throwing up ones hands and saying “act like the sensitivity is very high” is, IMO, just as irresponsible as saying “do nothing, no matter what”. The sensitivity matters. A lot.
SteveF,
Now that you have given me your policy positions, I can see why it matters to you – in your previous post, you did not give me those positions. I also explicity asked:
“If you cannot define what the differences in policy response would/should be, how important can narrowing the sensitivity be?”
My argument would be: act like the sensitivity is 3, as that is where the evidence points.
If the sensitivity is in reality 1.5, we need to remember that there the effects of such a number are also uncertain.
As an example, the economic impact of a 1 degree rise in temperature might be (for example) somewhere in the range of .5 to 1 per cent of global GDP. It is unlikely that we are going to narrow that range much, as regional effects are more difficult to predict than simply a rise in global temperature.
And the ranges of cost for differing rises in temperature likely overlap to some extent, so for 2 degrees we might have a value of .75 to 1.5 per cent of global GDP, and for 3 degrees we might have a value of 1 to 2 per cent of GDP.
So, if we pick the central value for temperature and use the range of projected GDP impacts, we are likely to cover a reasonable proportion of the total uncertainty.
I would also ask this question: if we could with absolute certainty name the climate sensitivity but the economic impacts associated with that had a wide uncertainty (from ‘next to nothing’ to ‘a heck of a lot’), what would your argument be then? Should we take an extreme position (do nothing or do lots) or should we take my path – assume the central value?
Which approach is more rational in the face of uncertainty?
SteveF,
I would also add that sensitivity is not the only value of significance. The other amount is the actual emissions. If we learn that sensitivity is 1.5, it might be that that would take any brakes off (at least for a while) such that we would, say, get to 550 ppm by around mid-century. This would have similar effects to sensitivity being 2 and us slowing emissions to only be at 450 ppm by mid-century.
If we look at the end of century scenarios, the possible numbers for the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are much broader. We could be in some scenarios at around 1,000 ppm. Or we could have stabilised at 550 or 450, depending on what action is taken. Sensitivity of 1.5 and 1,000 ppm is roughly equivalent to sensitivity of 4 and 450 ppm.
Sensitivity matters. But the concentration matters, too, as it is really the temperature rise that we are interested in in terms of damage.
Add on top of that the ranges in projected values for the economic effects, and we have some difficulties in getting certainty for our decision making.
SteveF,
I would also argue that while there may indeed by different policy positions if we knew the value, if we do not know the value, we still have to make decisions. If you agree that doing nothing is only rational if we know the value to be around 1.5, then you would have to agree that at the moment doing nothing is not rational (we do not know that the value is around 1.5). Thus, the rational choice would seem to be: act as if the value is around 3; modify that action as more information comes in.
David Gould,
Unfortuantely, my last comment was held up ‘in moderation’… I don’t know why.
.
There are limited supplies of fossil fuels, and these will gradually become more costly as the easiest deposits are used up. There will be a gradual rise in prices, and a gradual decline in usage… there is no alternative with fixed quantities available. All this will automatically lead to substitution for less costly energy supplies (nuclear, maybe advanced solar, maybe others) Emissions will automatically fall with rising prices for fossil fuels.
.
Will the level of emissions between now and then be a problem? Who knows? That is the point, nobody knows. I have found that very often, the best action is no action… perhaps indefinitely, perhaps just until you understand the situation more clearly. If you do not see that as possibly the case WRT CO2 emissions, then I suspect it is not worthwhile to belabor this subject. I am an old scientist. I do not think the scientific case has been made to justify action on CO2. You may disagree. Vote the way you want. I will too. That’s life.
David Gould,
.
Here is the previous comment that was apparent held up in moderation:
.
People make rational decisions in the face of statistical uncertainty all the time. People play Blackjack (though it is statistically unwise perhaps). People choose to buy or not buy life insurance. These decisions are more or less rationally founded, not because there is certainty in the choice, but because the odds are well defined. The problem with making specific policy choices about CO2 emissions is that the effects are mostly undefined, for the size of both the direct and the indirect effects of rising CO2. Whatever consequences you might speculate upon for a given level of warming (eg 1% lower GDP growth for 1.5C wise in temperatures), that speculation should be rigorously and carefully founded in a rational analysis. Some would indeed argue that the world would be a better place if the average temperature were 1C higher (I expect the residents of Chicago are probably leaning this way based on the winter they have been subjected to!). Speculation of economic consequences piled on top of speculation about climate sensitivity does not make the case any stronger; I believe such an argument does not hold much sway with most people. Certainly none with me.
.
Climate science and climate scientists need to do a lot better in terms of the scientific case to justify vast public action.
.
To put it more bluntly: the uncertainty about climate sensitivity is NOT a statistical uncertainty. It is an uncertainty based on poor understanding/poor data. Work on improving the understanding. Maybe an asteroid will destroy the Earth next year… but before we launch rockets to intercept the asteroid, let’s make sure the science is right.
David Gould,
.
Try as I might, it seems the spam filter is going to hold up my previous comment. I do not know why. Check back a little later to see if Lucia liberates this comment.
dolormin:
Wow. That’s a pretty arrogant attitude on your part.
It’s not the responsibility of scientists to communicate their results to the public???
Only if they want the funding in their area cut to zero.
David-
I probably have– thought I can’t think of anyone specific off the top of my head. Possibly, Monckton has– though his particular form of demogogary is to say things in ways that are often so ambiguous that you can’t quite pin point what there is to rebut. (This is why, for example, the Abraham video “rebutting” Monckton was not as good as Monckton’s detractors insist it was. )
dolormin
There’s quite a jumble to unpack in there:
First, I didn’t say all those people need to sit down and blog.
Climate scientists have every right to do what the overwhelming majority of people in all fields do: Not blog. Not write editorial. Not act as advocates. Just do their work, then go home and lives their personal lives.
What I said the ones who have decided to blog and already do so ought to consider doing things in a way that has some hope of being effective.
Second, I don’t know why you are complaining about “Deluging the debate with every “I dont understand why†question as a serious point masks the real hard questions to be asked. ”
As far as I can see, “I don’t understand why” questions are not the type troubling AGW activist. What’s troubling them is people saying they jolly well dounderstand something and climate scientists are, at least to some degree, incorrect, or mis-representing things.
Finally, I don’t think anyone has been abused as of being part of a conspiracy because they discussed basic physics. I don’t think climate science is one big conspiracy. I recognize there are some people who throw out various conspiracy theories. (These people exist on both sides.) But as far as I know the theory is not “Look. That guy explained basic physics. It’s a conspiracy!!!”
I think if you are going to rebut any particular conspiracy theory, you need to at least correctly identify what the conspiracy is then rebut that. It appears you at least do not understand what the conspiracy theory guys claim, and so clearly you are unlikely to rebut them.
Carrick,
“Only if they want the funding in their area cut to zero.”
.
Yes, that really is the point. Climate scientists who are publicly funded and who also insist on obvious policy advocacy, tread on very thin political ice. Stick to the science; stay out of politics.
Carrick
I think dorlomin is also incorrect.
Some skepticism is poorly understood radiative physics and heat transfer and the 2nd law thermodynamics- which I think is not a highschool physics topic. Or are they now covering heat transfer a radiative transport, including radiative convective models before introducing basic chemistry, mechanics (i.e. newtons law), introduction to electricity and magnetism and other topics.
When people suggest skepticism is owing to lack of understanding of high school physics, I tend to suspect the person who says that doesn’t know much physics.
Also– what in the world does skepticism have to do with misunderstanding high school geography? (I admit I don’t think I even had any geography in high school. What sort of misunderstanding of geography would make one either accept or fail to accept AGW? I’m just mystified by this. )
Lucia,
“What sort of misunderstanding of geography would make one either accept or fail to accept AGW? ”
.
Maybe a confusion about the geography of Venus versus Earth? 😉
SteveF,
The uncertainty in climate sensitivity may be due to poor knowledge and not simply statistics. But it is not easy for me to unpack the difference – uncertainty is uncertainty.
You have made the argument that if climate sensitivity is 4.5 or more, then we should do a lot; you have made the argument that if climate sensitivity is 1.5 or less we should do nothing.
But it seems that you are arguing more than that: you are arguing that we should do nothing not only if we *know* that climate sensitivity is 1.5 or less but if we do not know what it is. Doing nothing still poses a potential cost if climate sensitivity is higher than 1.5.
Now, I certainly understand that doing nothing can be a rational choice when you do not have suffient certainty. But I think that we can be sufficiently certain that climate sensitivity is somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 4.5. And you believe that if it is towards the higher end of that range that action should be taken; if the lower, then none. But when there is a range of possibilities, why is doing nothing (which will have a cost if sensitivity is high) more rational than selecting the most likely value according to the evidence that we have and acting as if that is true?
If sensitivity is higher than that, it costs as much as if sensitivity is low (assuming that we have acted correctly on the value, of course). This hedges our bets and makes it much more likely that we will minimise our losses.
And as we get more information, we can refine our actions. I would argue that it is much more costly and difficult to ramp up action if we find in 15 years from now that the sensitivity is 4.5 than it will have cost us if we find out that it is 1.5.
Why is doing nothing more rational than that?
From some of your comments, it would seem that perhaps you very strongly doubt the range published by the IPCC, and are inclined to believe that the range is lower begin with. This might explain our different views on the rationality of doing something versus doing nothing.
If you were convinced that the true range, with a roughly normal distribution, was 2 to 4 degrees (for example), would doing nothing seem to you to be as rational as acting as if the value was 3?
Just for clarification, I am not arguing to convince you; I am arguing to understand my viewpoint and yours. (people are very, very rarely convinced of anything in a discussion like this).
Carrick (Comment#67516) January 30th, 2011 at 5:03 pm
“You think your side is coherent? That’s effing hilarious”
Yes. It has the discipline of peer-reviewed publication. And above that, the coherent IPCC reports. There is nothing corresponding on the skeptic side.
Regarding a natural decline in emissions due to price, most coal producers are not seeing things that way. BP and Peabody all project a massive increase in consumption of coal over the next 20 years, with a concurrent increase in annual global CO2 emissions of between 25 to 30 per cent.
The global energy market is not really terribly responsive to slow changes in price, as building a power plant takes time and a nation is pretty much stuck with what it has for 20 or 30 years – or longer. Further, if people know that there will be no action taken on carbon, they will likely invest in building more coal power stations than they otherwise would have. There is not much point building a nuclear power station if you know that only natural price changes will affect it.
I would also point out that there is sufficient reserves of relatively easily accessible coal to power the world over the entirety of the next century. So it is unlikely that coal will get too much more expensive too quickly – especially as technology will make more difficult to get stuff easier to extract. (This kind of thing has been demonstrated with the Paul Erlich bet on metals – declining stocks and increasing demand do not necessarily cause prices to rise as human ingenuity fills the gap). Humans are smart enough to keep coal relatively cheap for a very long time – easily long enough to increase atmospheric concentration of CO2 to 650 ppm plus. Even at a sensitivity of 1.5, that is close to a 2 degree rise.
David Gould:
I’m not sure who exactly is claiming “no progress”. I agree with you… progress has been made, and on many fronts.
Even things like Zeke generating his own time-vs-temperature series and things, and the Clear Climate Code project are examples of progress. While the IPCC is not perfect, IMO, each time, they get the process closer to right.
And I think lots of progress has been made in the basic science. I happen to think the full-scale (“kitchen sink”) climate models still have a long way to go. The real trouble is, once you get outside of the basic science area (even the bio sciences and ecological impact portion), it just gets to be a hot, stinky mess in a hurry.
Nick–
Honestly, I don’t think I’d use the word “coherent” for the IPCC reports. I would also not call it “incoherent”. Large parts of IPCC reports are literature reviews, some stuff comes off as misleading or vague. But “coherent”? Not the adjective I’d pick.
Maybe “comprehensive”?
Some of the more fundamental aspects of AGW are coherent–CO2 should warm. It does warm. Historical evidence suggest it has warmed. That big is coherent.
But newer work is never really coherent because by definition some of the new work is on stuff that is not yet fully understood and some theories, explanation and evidence are in tension with each other. Some seems contradictory– and eventually some will be found to be wrong. Then the contradiction (i.e. incoherence) will be resolved in favor of knowing some of the notions discussed in papers included in the literature review were either not quite right or at least partially wrong. (Some may turn out to be flat out wrong).
The IPCC reports do discuss quite a bit of new work and so is not precisely “coherent”.
Nick Stokes:
This argument holds no water.
Not everybody on that “side” peer reviews, in fact, most aren’t even physical scientists.
lucia (Comment#67551) January 30th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Coherent in the sense that it all hangs together as consistent whole. Who are they to debate against? Monkton likes a debate, lukewarmers, G&T, Svensmark, WUWT regulars?
The uncertainty in the climate sensitivity is beggared by the uncertainty of the costs and benefits of various actions, including lack of action. The costs of warming are likely exaggerated and the costs of various mitigation schemes are most definitely hugely underestimated while their effectiveness is equally hugely overestimated. This is why ‘no regrets’ actions are so important. Also why there needs to be measures and go/no go levels associated with any policy proposal. If it isn’t working, like cap and trade in the EU, stop doing it. It it’s never going to accomplish anything significant, like the Kyoto Protocols, don’t even start. If that leads to complete inaction, so be it. Simply passing legislation that sets future goals without an engineering quality plan of exactly how those goals are to be met is politics at its worst.
Bugs
Exactly. If that is the sense of coherent, then I would not call the IPCC reports ‘coherent’.
As for this:
I didn’t suggest the IPCC debate anyone. Are you just throwing out random thoughts?
bug:
The coherency meme is a bit over used here. Progress in science is at the “edges”, where things don’t “hang together as a consistent whole.” The science is interesting to me precisely because it isn’t a coherent whole (yet).
Anyway, you’re conflating the science with its advocates now. We were discussing skeptics and the lack of coherency in their arguments. The same statement goes for AGW protagonists.
Climate is not weather…until it’s convenient to blame weather events on climate. Like a winter snow storm. What balderdash.
Re: David Gould (Jan 30 21:22),
It’s not the extraction cost, it’s the transportation cost. Trains and ships run on petroleum, not coal. As the cost of petroleum goes up, the cost of transportation goes up. Harrywr2 has several posts on the subject at Pielke, Jr.’s blog and elsewhere.
http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/10/coals_dim_future (first comment)
David Gould,
“I am arguing to understand my viewpoint and yours.”
.
My viewpoint is simple: humanity has a host of issues (all very real) that need to be prioritized: poverty, hunger, disease, lack of education, lack of access to energy, lack even of clean water, and many, many more. I do not believe that we have the luxury of wasting vast resources on actions to address problems which are so poorly defined that they may in reality amount to nothing. Expenditures for a problem that may in fact not be a problem means that real and pressing problems will be ignored, or at least given a lower priority. I frankly find the suggestion of any such expenditures for CO2 mitigation on the basis of existing science not just wrongheaded, but immoral.
.
I am fully aware that increases in infrared absorbing gases certainly do lead to some warming of the Earth’s surface. The basic physics is clear. What is not obvious is the magnitude of that warming. The models that are used to support the IPCC range are based on a huge range of assumed aerosol offsets (a different one for each model, BTW) to match the historical temperature trend; and nobody has any honest-to-goodness data about historical aerosols…. it is 100% speculation. All the models can’t be right. in fact, we know that most all of the models MUST be wrong. What we do not know is if any of them are right. Based on the warming which has taken place since 1900, it is clear that all the models predict vastly greater warming in the future due to projected increases in forcing which appear similar in magnitude to the increase in forcing that has already taken place.
.
Now, there are 100 different ‘arm-waves’ which are used to explain why, but I simply don’t believe them. Good models do not use kludges like aerosols to fit the data. The simplest explanation is that the models are just wrong (IMO, most likely in how they relate clouds to warming), and climate sensitivity is much lower than what the models say. The other justifications/proofs of high climate sensitivity, and I have read dozens of these papers, (‘studies’ of glacial versus interglacial temperatures using climate models, for example) strike me as an odd combination of good intentions, rubbish and wild-eyed speculation. Honestly, I have never been able to understand how such papers ever get published.
Speaking of storms, the weathermen are predicting up to a foot on Tuesday-Wed. I’ve got the house stocked with food, beer coffee and cocoa!
David Gould,
“long enough to increase atmospheric concentration of CO2 to 650 ppm plus. Even at a sensitivity of 1.5, that is close to a 2 degree rise.”
.
If you count 1850 as the starting point the forcing would be 1.95 degrees. But compared to today, the rise would be only about 1.1C.
SteveF,
I agree with you that there are many problem around the world that need attention, and that working on one usually means not working on another. It is excellent that you see these problems and understand the importance of action on them.
Regarding the models, while I understand that they use that kludge – nice word – I disagree that the simplest explanation is that the models are just wrong. It is extremely unlikely that aerosols have no effect, for example. It is also extremely unlikely that aerosols were at the same concentration in – for example – the early part of the 20th century as they are now. While a model that made those assumptions might well be simple, that does not make the explanation a simple one, as it hand-waves aerosols away.
I have a very difficult time throwing out the paleoclimatic data. For me, these studies are compelling evidence for a relatively high value for the climate sensitivity.
So, I have a much better understanding of why our opinions on this matter differ: thank you. 🙂
SteveF,
Yes, I was talking about the total rise in temperature caused by a rise in CO2 emissions from 270 ppm to 650 ppm. I should have made that explicit – sorry.
DeWitt Payne,
Transportation costs may indeed become a factor. But that would affect lots of industries and processes, including manufacturing of nuclear plants, solar panels and wind farms. I cannot see a rapid transition from coal to other sources of power without some kind of enforced increase in price starting about now. And, obviously, neither can the coal companies, given their projections. The sunk costs in power stations are such that price increases would need to be massive. How many nuclear power stations have been built on the US Eastern Seaboard in the last 20 years? How many are planned for the next 20? Not too many is my bet.
DeWitt Payne,
I am sure that there is exaggeration on both sides of the issue, personally. I have my doubts, for example, that a $20 a tonne carbon tax would collapse the Australian economy; I also have my doubts that the global population will collapse to one billion by the end of the century due to climate change.
David GGould,
If each model uses a different assumed aerosol history to match the historical temperature record, and if each models predicts a different future trajectory of warming does this not then logically mean that most all MUST be wrong?
.
If you believe that two models which make substantially different projections and which require substantially different historical aerosol forcings to match the temperature record can possibly both be correct, then I have a Bridge in New York I would like to sell to you. Their differences tell us that they are mostly wrong. The only real question is if any are close to right. Averaging logically incorrect models doesn’t make a logically ‘right’ one either.
.
WRT paelo climate analysis: I find these studies to be little more than wild speculation. Sorry, they really appear to me to have only the most tenuous connection to science as I understand it.
Re: David Gould (Jan 30 22:43),
The cost of a nuclear power plant compared to a coal plant is determined largely by the difference in the length of time it takes to get permitted. Right now, that’s effectively infinite. When I see the vast majority of people who worry about future CO2 levels protesting about this and demanding their elected representatives actually fix the problem, then I might think about taking them seriously. Instead we see counterproductive things like recycling paper.
SteveF:
This is where you and I diverge.
We know aerosols were present in the atmosphere, that part isn’t being made up. You have to include the proper aerosol concentration versus time history to get the “right” answer, the problem being we don’t know what that history is.
I suspect a good economic model could give you decent bounds on aerosol releases over time, given knowledge of industrial practices and world GDP growth for those periods.
But I think it’s wrong to ignore it, just because it’s difficult to quantify it.
Re: Carrick (Jan 30 23:17),
Even if there were an agreed upon aerosol history, which there isn’t, the aerosol forcings themselves are very uncertain. That makes it a kludge rather than a hypothesis.
DeWitt:
I wouldn’t use the word “hypothesis” here.
There isn’t any serious doubt that aerosols force climate….all you have to do is look at response to volcanic activity to see that.
If the science isn’t worked out well, that’s an argument for improving the science….and not one for ignoring it.
DeWitt:
It will take more than that for me, I’m afraid.
When they stop using misapplication of the “precautionary principle” and start doing a cost/benefit analysis that includes the many other economic, ecological and social factors associated with development of the third world, then I’ll take them seriously.
Unfortunately it’s a lot easier to invoke magic bullet solutions like cap and trade than deal with the complex underlying issues that can’t be solved by magic anything. The IPCC could be expanded to include policy work that included these other areas. That would work wonders IMO towards gaining it much needed credibility.
Re: Carrick (Jan 30 23:42),
I should clarify. The way aerosols are used in models now is primarily as a kludge. That aerosols actually have an effect on radiative transfer is unquestionable. But aerosols cover a very wide range. The understanding of sulfate aerosols injected into the stratosphere by volcanic eruptions is moderately well understood. Everything else, and especially the aerosol indirect effect, is no better than a guess and every modeler gets to make their own guess. Kludge.
Re: Carrick (Jan 30 23:46),
Bjorn Lomborg tried to do just that. Look what that got him.
DeWitt:
Or Pielke Jr.
Until that sort of approach goes mainstream, the AGW conformists will continue to paint themselves as reckless fanatics, intent on pushing an extreme agenda down everybody’s throat and be damned the cost.
.
This approach was tried in the evolution debate as well. Some evolutionists (mostly philosophers rather than actual scientists) tried to engage prominent creationists such as Dembski and Behe. Michael Ruse went so far as to actually co-edit a volume with Richard Dembski, who uses information theory very much in the same way that Lord Monckton uses physics.
.
I’m not sure it pushed the science forward, but at least it did generate some revenue for everybody involved.
“One scientist wanted an elite group of skeptics with whom to negotiate and debate.”
One scientist?
Therein lies a problem. One out of how many?
The attitude of those at the top of the climate tree, is pretty well known.
McI’s offer to Amman to write a joint paper on where they disagree is rejected, as it would be bad for Amman’s career.
Mann’s attitude to debating with sceptics has been revealed via the released e-mails.
(Infact, Mann appears to reguard any who differ from his stance with disdain)
You also ignore those who are really pulling the strings, the politicians. What would be the benefit to them, should CAGW be disproven?
The need for carbon taxes & trading would be negated, thus a currently large and potentially huge source of revenue would be lost. (And not just to the fraudsters, who are currently making hay with VAT (Purchase Tax) and stolen bond trade frauds!)
If you ask the average climate skeptic on the street why they don’t believe in global warming, they’ll probably either say “It’s cold outside” or “it’s been hot in the past without humans.” So yeah, the problem is more high school logic than high school physics.
A lot of people seem to think their city/state/country represents the entire world. “Global warming? It’s a hoax–I froze my butt off yesterday at the lake!”
Boris
I would agree with you on the basic principle that if you stop someone in the street and ask them something the chances of getting a well informed, intelligent person is remote, much like many blog commenters, however, that is not the case at this blog. Many of the contributors here are well or very well educated, highly knowledgeable and very intelligent and if you ask them the same question then the answer would be NO EVIDENCE.
lucia (Comment#67564)
January 30th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
Climate is not weather…until it’s convenient to blame weather events on climate. Like a winter snow storm.
Don’t forget the wine, chocolat biscuits and a warming bottle of Cognac or Armagnac.
Lusia said: Some of the more fundamental aspects of AGW are coherent–CO2 should warm. It does warm. Historical evidence suggest it has warmed.
Really? Empirical Evidence ? CO² should warm yeeeh but … the rest?
“some of the more fundamental aspects of AGW are coherent–CO2 should warm. It does warm. Historical evidence suggest it has warmed.”
Yeah really? Fact is historical evidence from the geologic record says that when it has been at it’s lowest concentration in the atmosphere the entire Earth starts to warm again and when it’s been at it’s highest concentration the Earth starts to get cold again…but but but…orbital forcings are weak! 😉
DAvid–
The problem is not that the assumptions are simple. The difficulty is that the amount of aerosols is poorly constrained and each modeling groups uses different values with the values selected making a sizable difference to the results obtained. There is some evidence that the amount of aerosols used by each group is little more than a tuning knob to improve agreement with the thermometer record.
In other words: What is done is not simple it’s too complicated in an arbitrary, inconsistent, and yes… even incoherent way. (Incoherent because all groups use values that are different and so inconsistent with each other. All those different historic levels cannot be right!)
Boris
As far as I can tell, the fact that people do base some of their notions based on what they see around thme this has little to do with not learning high school geography.
And, in any case, wed after the snowstorm, I predict we’ll all be hearing “Look! Lots of snow in winter in Illinois! It’s global warming!” If that happens, will you suggest that’s due to ignorance about high school geography?
Boris demonstrates Kevin Trenberth’s use of high school logic and geography. The travesty. What’s happened to education lately?
==================
stephen
How very French of you. 🙂
And Boris, much of hoi polloi instinctively understand unfalsifiability. Humans have been conned since the dim past.
============
I think both Roy Spencer and SteveMcIntyre think global avearge temperature is meaningful. It’s Andrew_KY in comments here who thinks it not meaningful. (Pielke Sr. says somethings that, taken out of context, can read to suggest it’s not “meaningfulâ€.
.
I think that there are many people that consider that global spatial averages are not meaningful in any usual sense . At least I know many and am definitely part of this category too .
What could it be “meaningful” for ?
.
Energy content ?
delta Q = ∫ C(x) [∫ ∂T/∂t.dt] dV
where C(x) is the heat capacity (J/K/m^3) at point x and we don’t mention phase changes to keep it simple .
This would give a relation with an average volume (not surface !) temperature only if C was constant everywhere .
It is not , so the average temperature is irrelevant for energy content . This is also R.Pielke’s point as I understand it when he is saying that the average surface (!) temperature is not the right metrics for energy . It can’t even get the variation sign correctly .
.
Radiation ?
The total radiated flux is F = ∫ K.ε(x,y).T^4.dS . This has trivially nothing to do with an average surface temperature either .
So it is also irrelevant for radiation .
.
Of course it has nothing to do with fluid dynamics and Navier Stokes either .
.
So what is left ?
A construct that is uncorrelated to anything important like energy , heat or pressure&velocity field can hardly be meaningful in matters where energy , heat and pressure&velocity fields are fundamental .
The only thing it has for it is that it is correctly defined . But there is an infinity of useless correctly defined constructs .
.
But there is worse .
The average surface temperature is TAS = 1/S . ∫ T.dS on some arbitrary surface S .
This is not a function but a functional .
The variables of a functional G are not numbers but functions and that has important consequences .
Most importantly for a functional G , there is an infinity of different variables f such as G(f) = constant . In any neighborhood of f0 there is an uncountable infinity of f such as G(f)-G(f0) = 0 .
Clearly there is also an infinity of temperatures such as TAS = constant .
From that follows that functionals can’t be differentiated –
d(TAS) doesn’t exist .
A functional derivative can be defined but it has nothing to do with this discussion .
.
Expressions like dT/dx where T is a functional like an average temperature and x some real variable are mathematical nonsense.
For instance definitions of “climate sensibility” that I have read as “dT/dF” are mathematical nonsense . It becomes nonsense squared when the “forcing” F is itself a functional (average) too .
On top because G(f) depends on a function f , its time evolution
G(f(t)) is not uniquely defined .
There is an infinity of final states (with the same G(t)) to which leads an infinity of paths . The functional doesn’t allow to distinguish legal valid paths from illegal invalid paths .
Only the knowledge of the local (space dependent) dynamics allows to do so . Not a property one would want if looking for invariants , be they statistical or not , in a physical system or when one wants to understand the dynamics .
.
One could go on if one wanted to . What’s left is that considering the irrelevance of an average surface temperature for everything that matters and given its unpleasant mathematical form (functional) , one would have to believe in black magics to come to the idea that statistics or other kinds of operations on this construct could give anything very relevant for the system’s dynamics .
Kevin, please read Tom above for college prep math and logic.
====================
Tom, this is just nonsense.
The integral of T over the surface at a fixed time is a metric. It is a measure of surface warming.
As to Navier-Stokes, GMAB. T is a thermodynamic variable, of course it doesn’t appear in NS. It is introduced through the equation of state, not the purely mechanical NS equation.
We often look at how temperature change over time and relate that to other physical properties, such as pressure and wind velocity.
BTW, since when did integrals of a scalar function over a surface yielding a scalar quantity become a “functional”? IMWTN.
Uh, oh, there goes another day. I wonder if I can get credit for this, even though I’m just auditing this class.
============
Carrick take a little time to think , inform yourself and breath deeply .
Not a single statement I wrote is “nonsense” so I take exception to your vocabulary .
.
Not .
A .
Single .
.
Sorry but you have obviously not many if any notions about what a functional is . A definite integral is a TEXTBOOK example of a functional 😉
The kind of function (scalar , vectorial etc) is irrelevant .
.
But as what you wrote contradicts my statement 1 , show please that if TAS(2) > TAS(1) => E(2)> E(1) .
Where TAS is an average surface temperature and E internal energy of teh layer bounded by the surface (the thickness of the layer is your choice) .
I hope you will agree that I correctly translated in mathematics what you said , namely :
The integral of T over the surface at a fixed time is a metric. It is a measure of surface warming
.
I hope you will have noticed that I didn’t call your statement “nonsense” .
But I wait the demonstration with impatience .
Carrick
And just for fun , as the integral over a surface is for you “a metrics” , would you care to prove that :
∫ T1(x,y).dS = ∫ T2(x,y).dS => T1(x,y) = T2(x,y)
.
Because this is necessary to have a definite positive form which alone can define a “metrics” .
It is really not possible to throw around randomly words like “metrics” which have a precise meaning and not bothering to check if it makes any sense .
Carrick,
“This is where you and I diverge.”
.
I suspect we diverge much less than you imagine. It is clear that aerosols do have an effect on the Earth’s climate. What is not so clear is the magnitude of that effect, especially WRT indirect effects of man made aerosols. For example, albedo of a cloud does increase when the number of sulfate nuclei available increases, but:
1. The relationship between the sulfate nuclei concentration and cloud droplet size does not appear to be even close to linear… doubling sulfates does not double the number of droplets, and
2. The size of the albedo effect depends very much on the actual change in the number of droplets.
.
Doubling the number of droplets (a substantial change!) reduces the average size of a droplet by a bit over 20%. To get an idea of the albedo effect of such a change, look at: http://i51.tinypic.com/qysm0w.jpg
.
Note that the three lines on the graph cover a gigantic range of droplet number: 64 times. Lines that differed by a factor of two in droplet number number would be very close to each other on this graph. So it takes big changes in droplet numbers to make substantial changes in cloud albedo.
.
The ‘kludge’ is not the suggestion that man made aerosols may be important (they probably do have a significant effect). The kludge is how aerosols are used in climate models now as a band aid to make all models seem ‘right’. This makes it impossible to tell which model is more accurate. Were aerosol effects well defined, most (and perhaps all!) of the models could be quickly determined to be poor representations of reality. Aerosol uncertainty is the number one problem with most of the climate modeling. Applying models which can’t possibly be validated to “study” how Earth’s climate has evolved over geologic periods, or how it will evolve in the future, is such mindless fantasy (not to mention a huge waste of money) that it makes me blink in disbelief. Kuldges are ugly things in any field; in science they just shameful.
Tom, from Wiki,
This is generally the context where I see the word get trotted out. How does this relate to your use of the word?
I understand you are probably thinking the integration operation of a function looks like:
Tavg = F[T]
if that’s all you mean by it, that’s technically true, but I don’t know why you even brought it up. It’s a big “so what” throwing around of technical jargon where none is needed. Suddenly taking the integral of a function has some mysterious mathematical “oh wow!” factor. Phsssh.
The part that really brought out my nonsense radar by the way was trying relate a thermodynamic variable to Navier-Stokes. That’s a big WTF moment. As are things like this:
We can perform a weighted average of T over the surface [say a Hann-shading function with a radius r centered at geographical coordinate (theta,phi)] and arrive at a spatially smoothed version of the original surface temperature field by merely shifting theta, phi.
Is the resulting d/dx derivative of this meaningless? Nope, not in the least.
As to this statement:
Who said the mean surface temperature must say anything about enthalpy in order to be useful as a metric for warming?
Mean surface temperature relates to many quantities of interest to humans besides energy. Impact on agriculture, energy usage, conditions under which humans are placed under greater physiological stress are three examples that come quickly to mind.
Whether you like it for your particular problem is unrelated to whether, as a metric, it has meaning for people who use the metric for other things.
I would understand the attacks on Lord Monckton but nobody wants to engage him. This is similar to calling the world heavyweight boxing champion a wimp and saying you could beat him in a fight but then never actually fighting him. I would put Lord Monckton up against any scientist who promotes global warming. I don’t think anyone here could honestly say that Lord Monckton is not extremely well versed in the science of global warming and can recall many IPCC statements of the top of his head, including the page number. In addition, it is pretty funny that this guy wants to engage “an elite group of skeptics”. The skeptics have been putting their reputation on the line for years asking to debate the global warmers and they are routinely shut down.
Carrick
BTW, since when did integrals of a scalar function over a surface yielding a scalar quantity become a “functional�
.
Since about 2 centuries .
Just translated for you a part of my old textbook . Even if it is a translation from french , the mathematical content should be invariant .
.
Consider an M manifold representing functions f of certain kind .
A functional F is a map from M to R or C , noted F(f) for f element of M .
It associates a real or a complex number to a function .
I(f) = ∫ from a to b (f(x).dx) where M is a set of functions integrable on an interval [a,b] is the most useful example of a functional .
.
.
Feynman path integrals are also functionals of this kind .
Etc
Tom:
It is natural to expect when one integrates over a surface, that there are many different functions that yield the same value. So what?
Who said metrics can only have a one to one mapping relationship? Where do you get this stuff???
If we look at the temperature map for a human body: link
would you arrive at a similar conclusion that measuring the average core temperature of the person is not useful, simply because a one-to-one mapping does not exist?
SteveF, thanks for the clarification. I think this may be a bit of an overstatement however:
.
They also use kludged-up solar irradiance curves to get the models to seem “right”. Remember they “fix” 1945-1975 using aerosols, and 1910-1945 by using fudged up solar irradiance curves.
My only points are
1) I think the true aerosol emissions history is probably knowable,
2) its influence on climate (to the precision that is needed for our purposes) is knowable.
Neither are well known, and last I checked, even current estimates of aerosol emissions are just “guestimates”.
Pshaw…How can the temperature under my tongue accurately diagnose any problems with a system as complex as my body? Wacky scientists.
Shoosh:
Lucia has engaged him in the past. It has generally been a waste of time as far as I can see, he’s stuck on a set of facts he thinks are true, and that never seems to change regardless of how many times people point to factual errors in his arguments.
Carrick
As to this statement:
“But as what you wrote contradicts my statement 1 , show please that if TAS(2) > TAS(1) => E(2)> E(1) .”
Who said the mean surface temperature must say anything about enthalpy in order to be useful as a metric for warming?
Mean surface temperature relates to many quantities of interest to humans besides energy. Impact on agriculture, BLA , BLA , BLA …”
Who said it ? About every scientist since several centuries who had to quantify a thing called “warm” and “heat” .
So please stop handwaving about agriculture and similar generalities and try to put something substantial .
This kind of evasive manoeuvers you do , brings my BSmeter in the red so that I begin to suspect that you don’t know what you are talking about .
Or is calling statements “nonsense” and then running away when somebody calls your bluff your way to discuss ?
.
OK . If you don’t like internal energy or enthalpy as a measure of “warming” even if about every sensible person does , take for E whatever represents “warming” better for you . Just define it .
.
And then show : TAS(2) > TAS(1) => E(2)> E(1)
Also show that your “metrics” is definite positive . You carefully avoided this one .
.
Please avod the irrelevances and handwavings . Just put some maths where your mouth is .
TomVonk & Carrick:
I gather that Pielke Sr has a number of reservations about the usefulness of global average surface temps including (a) it blurs understanding of regional climate change; (b) ocean heat content is more a meaningful and reliable measure; and (c) there are still lots of issues about how we measure surface temps.
I have always found it odd that someone with such a reasonable, empirical approach is regarded as an anti-Consensus outlier in some circles, such that his work needed to be excluded from IPCC compendiums (per Climategate emails) on the grounds of anti-Science heresy.
SteveF, as to the utility of global climate models given the uncertainties in their inputs, it depends on what you are trying to measure.
If what you are looking for is the change in global surface mean temperature over time due to CO2 forcings, where you are getting “right” the basic AO circulation patterns and feedbacks such as water vapor, then the models have some (limited) utility. They can compute the expected delta T more accurately than other less-detailed methods would be able to. They just can’t do much else well (including addressing the all important question of the degree to which “all other things being equal” actual holds, especially as you allude to, cloud pattern shifts associated with anthropogenic forcings).
In my opinion, the AOGCMs aren’t reliable for predicting things like changes in Hadley cell circulation, shifts in ocean currents, strengthening of hurricanes, change in probability of land-fall of hurricanes, shifts in regional scale temperature and precipitation in response to all anthropogenically-forced changes (not just CO2, you need to include aerosol emission patterns, and land usage changes too).
TomVonk:
No I tried to give you an out so you quit making yourself look silly.
Didn’t work.
Lucia, you make an important point with this thread in that you cite the gradations of the “skeptical” argument. However, I would go much further in a criticism of an offer to debate/discuss the “skeptical” position from what I suspect is someone who very broadly and generally fits the “consensus” group position.
To me offers like these are simply political tactics and have little to do with the underlying science. I do not even see people attempting to define the consensus or skeptic positions in the matter of AGW and mitigation policy of either specific individual members of the group or some all encompassing position that fits the group generally. Debates in and of themselves do not and will not determine the truth of science but rather simply determine who is the better debater.
The better approach in my view is to discuss the specific evidence presented in published papers in these matters. I think this approach certainly allows for what you, Lucia, suggest is an important point in these discussions and that is a dynamic that allows for changes in judgments and views, at least to certain specifics.
I think also that simple and relatively polite exchanges like the one above between SteveF, Carrick and DeWitt Payne on aerosols, where the terms of disagreement/agreement have to be better defined for the sake of the discussion going forward are examples of the kinds of discussions, and not debates, that can be an important ones in leading to better understanding of the science by the participants and bystanders.
A debate by “elite” spokespersons from two “sides” would be a big step backwards and encourage what I dislike about the blog discussions when the threads get away from the science and become partisan name calling and generalizations.
I’m running away? To where? Maybe to work… I’ve better uses of my time than deal with people who have no real background in measurement theory and think they know more than people who do.
OK, one reference please.
Carrick I know that Lucia has put a few posts about Monckton up, I have not seen if he has responded to anything she has said or not. I’m talking though about an auditory debate though, preferably a visual one, too. And I think there a lot of people that are stuck on there own set of facts. I have huge problems with some scientists like Richard Alley still defending Michael Mann’s graph that erased the MWP. So clearly there are global warming scientists who are still trying to claim that the todays temperatures are warmer than the MWP. I don’t know why it’s such a big deal.
Carrick
It is natural to expect when one integrates over a surface, that there are many different functions that yield the same value. So what?
Who said metrics can only have a one to one mapping relationship? Where do you get this stuff???
I am generally a polite person but you begin to try my patience .
I have difficulty to decide if you are trolling or if you really don’t know what a metric is and why it is NECESSARY that a metric be definite positive .
Because if it is not , it is not a metrics . That’s why ! And this “stuff” is in every good math book but you have apparently read no good math book to ask such questions .
If you attempt at trolling then please stop it , it is really annoying for everybody – you just make me waste my time to answer on trivial questions .
.
As for me , so that I stay polite , from now on I will only comment if your post contains something rational , well informed and preferably mathematically correct .
Boris, @ 10:11.
Please send me the name of your doctor. One who can make an accurate diagnosis of pathology in the complicated system that is the human body from the temperature under the tongue can be very useful. Probably even life saving. Don’t be chary, now.
================
The fact that there is a perception of “sides” rather than a spectrum of opinion on particular issues with varying degrees of certainty indicates there is already a problem with how climate scientists have organized themselves. The search for an opposing orthodoxy is merely a form of projection.
McIntrye, Lomborg, Pielke Jr and Sr neither deny the physics of greenhouse gases nor the fact of 20th century warming yet routinely get lumped in with “denialists†because they have made substantive observations that proved to be inconvenient to perceptions created in service to the political project with which climate science is a junior partner.
Maybe those comfortably within the Consensus need to first examine the basis for their self-identity and figure out how much is science versus political and social memberships. The inability to make those distinctions within The Consensus is the problem, not the existence of criticisms by Monkton or Morano.
Carrick,
“1) I think the true aerosol emissions history is probably knowable,
2) its influence on climate (to the precision that is needed for our purposes) is knowable.”
.
I agree that some estimate of aerosols from fossil fuel use could be made based on aerosols being proportional to historical estimates of CO2 emissions (Heck, I even have a spread-sheet ‘model’ which does exactly that.) The problem is: that is not anything like what the climate models appear to use. When I raised this issue (at Bart’s blog, I think it was) the response from the CAGW denizens was much as I expected… “Stupid man, of course that is the case; with changing fuels and technologies, why would the aerosols be proportional to fuel use?” When I pointed out that the aerosols used by different models are all different and seemingly arbitrary, they just became angry, and would not give me a meaningful reply; they did demand that I produce published research to ‘prove’ every statement I made… even the logically obvious ones like “You known, they can’t all be right if the assumed aerosol effect varies drastically.”
.
I do not think it would be possible to get any agreement on what the historical aerosol forging levels were, since there really is very large uncertainty in the importance of current aerosols, and because there are too many modeling groups with a vested interest in making sure their model is not determined to be crap. But I would be happy if you could show me I am wrong about this.
Carrick
OK . If you don’t like internal energy or enthalpy as a measure of “warming†even if about every sensible person does , take for E whatever represents “warming†better for you . Just define it .
.
And then show : TAS(2) > TAS(1) => E(2)> E(1)
Also show that your “metrics†is definite positive . You carefully avoided this one .
.
Please avod the irrelevances and handwavings . Just put some maths where your mouth is .
Waiting . I am sure everybody is impatient to have your definition of heat and then the demonstration that the average surface temperature is its metrics . Something tells me that you’ll duck and run as usual .
What to do, what to do? I trust both Carrick and Tom Vonk, but I don’t know which one is setting my exam.
================
Who were the actual climate scientists at this meeting? Anybody who contributed as an author on IPCC WG1 besides Curry and von Storch?
Carrick,
.
One final comment on the utility of CGCM’s: They are probably useful in trying to understand how different parts of the climate system interact (Hadley circulation, trade winds, and ENSO for example, or wind patterns and ocean circulation).
.
Where they seem (IMO) basically useless is in addressing the most policy relevant questions: What is the true sensitivity to forcing? How much warming at 500, 600 or 700 PPM of CO2? What will be the regional effects and consequences (sea level rise, rainfall patterns, growing seasons, etc.) that follow? Yet this is where model projections are regularly applied to provide ‘answers’, and those answers are used as justification for enormously expensive public policy changes. I find this use of CGCM’s wrongheaded at best, and willfully deceptive at worst.
TomVonk:
Let me start from the beginning.
In measurement science, a metric is simply a measurable quantity relating to some internal property of a system. That’s it.
The utility of a metric is determined by its explanatory power not by whether it is on an ordinal scale versus an interval scale for example. By “utility” we are not necessarily measured a strictly Bayesian statistical sense, it can also mean in an economic sense of “do I get wealthier if I use it” or in the sense of measuring patient prognosis in medical science in the “is this patient more likely to live if I use it.”
Global mean temperature need not be a e.g. measure of internal heat energy of the climate system for it to be a useful metric used to measure something about climate change.
For example this curve contains loads of information about the change in climate, even if we can’t infer the internal heat energy of the system from it. We can grade its utility by the fact it correlates with other measurable, such as periods of glaciation, changes in fauna and flora etc.
Having said all of this, let’s get back to the question of whether global mean temperature is a metric of something.
You point out reasonably that more than one temperature field can yield the same value of the surface global mean temperature. This is true but irrelevant, if the purpose of determining mean SAT is to establish a metric relating to climate change, and not some other application chosen exclusively by you.
In fact, the problem is worse than many to one. It is also a one-to-many problem. There are multiple values of the SAT for the the same climate…this is due to the influence atmospheric ocean oscillations: Simple model:
T(t) = T(0) + alpha * t + sum(k) T_k sin(w_k t + phi_k).
That’s why we look at e.g. 30 year trends (or like Lucia try and remove the short-period climate fluctuations before trying to estimate “alpha”).
Now you’re making up things.
I have never made any claim about a one-to-one relationship between internal heat energy and mean surface air temperature. Nor is it necessary to do so before SAT is a useful metric for measuring long-term climate change.
Tom:
One example where I “ducked and ran” Tom?
TomVonk:
.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/warming
.
” 1. A small rise in temperature.”
.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metric
.
” 1. A measure for something; a means of deriving a quantitative measurement or approximation for otherwise qualitative phenomena.”
.
Some of us do speak English.
toto:
And some of us understand something about measurement science. That’s not Tom.
Still waiting for his response to this:
I’m also getting a kick out of Tom thinking I duck and run. He’s probably the only person on the planet who thinks that I don’t get overly argumentative and refuse to let somebody else have the final word on a topic.
I also expect Tom to patiently keep repeating the same strawman argument that I never made, demanding that I explain why I think something is true that I never said was.
And I don’t expect him to find many examples where I fled an argument. (Lucia wisely closes threads after a certain point. She may have done so because of me. lawlz.)
SteveF:
I think the proper way of characterizing this is modeling historical climate is not a particularly high fidelity method for testing the skill of a climate model in predicting future climate.
Not only are prior aerosol releases poorly known and understood (albeit knowable in some sense), future releases of CO2 and other anthropogenic activities are intrinsically unknowable. The best we can do is choose a scenario, hope our models reliably predict the response of climate to it as the third world develops.
However, that tells us nothing about how probable that scenario is. The unknowability of future anthropogenic and natural forcings is actually the real elephant in the china shop, IMO.
(That said, I actually do expect dramatic increasing in anthropogenic forcings of climate in the coming century, as the third.)
But the believer strategy currently is to ignore skeptics completely.
hunter:
Most skeptics ignore what the science actually says too, in favor of popularized accounts of it. So this goes both ways to some extent.
I could see a scientist as reluctant to engage with somebody who is attributing things to him that he never said or wanting to just say “Shove off, you wanker.”
One thing I notice with many skeptics is the utter lack of humility many of them bring to the table. They start with the immediate belief that their limited exposure to the problem gives them some insight not available to the rest of us poor sods.
Many “believers” just parrot popularized trash science literature too, instead of making a real attempt to understand the science. One of them actually defended this behavior as “you have to trust somebody”. For him, apparently the media is more authoritative (esp the NYT) than what scientists actually say and agree to as a group (e.g., IPCC findings).
Carrick,
“Not only are prior aerosol releases poorly known and understood (albeit knowable in some sense), future releases of CO2 and other anthropogenic activities are intrinsically unknowable. The best we can do is choose a scenario, hope our models reliably predict the response of climate to it as the third world develops.”
Fair enough. But I am more than a little unhappy with just hoping models make good predictions because there are no good ways to critically test/validate them… even today (forgetting the historical uncertainties). We just don’t have the data needed for quantifying aerosol effects, and to a lesser extent, ocean heat accumulation (although this is improved by ARGO). Within the credible range of forcings for aerosols, and assuming (for just a moment) that Kevin Trenberth is right about >0.6 watt per square meter going into the deep oceans (all missed by ARGO), we can make simple heat balance calculations of climate sensitivity that range from modest to essentially infinite, while if Trendberth is wrong about deep ocean heat, then the credible range for climate sensitivity is from quite low to extremely high.
.
Myself, I will hope for a Pinatubo size volcano in he next few years, which (with ARGO monitoring ocean heat) should greatly constrain the credible range for climate sensitivity. I will not place any hopes on climate models.
“He’s probably the only person on the planet who thinks that I don’t get overly argumentative and refuse to let somebody else have the final word on a topic.’
That may be right. 😉
Hi Carrick,
I can´t enter into any debates about the correct use of mathematical terminology but I was struck by this remark.
“I have never made any claim about a one-to-one relationship between internal heat energy and mean surface air temperature. Nor is it necessary to do so before SAT is a useful metric for measuring long-term climate change.”
Over the years I have come to see science as away to discover relationships between observations. In this particular case it seems that this computed global mean surface temperature does not appear to have any known relationship to any other observable. It has no direct connection to any particular surface temperature let alone global or local precipitation. It is of limited value in calculating global heat balances or saying anything about the kind of observables that most of us think of as associated with our local climate.
If I am correct in this it looks like you are, in fact, treating the relationship between global surface temperature and climate change as a definition rather than an observed one. This is not unreasonable as no other clear definition of climate change seems to exist.
Jorge, I would agree with you if what you are saying is surface air temperature is an operational definition, and no direct correspondence to underlying more “fundamental” physical quantities exists. But what it lacks in specificity, it makes up for in being a relatively easy quantity to measure.
There are much better quantities to measure, in principle, such as changes in radiative balance, but these are both much more difficult to do, and there is no data available for them prior to say 1970 (let alone back to the Pliocene or even further back in time).
It’s also important to remember that just because you can’t work backwards from global mean temperature to the underlying physical processes, that the reverse is also not possible: Far from it, it is a routine thing to compute the predicted change in surface air temperature in global climate models.
So you have a measurable and a way of predicting changes in it associated with anthropogenic activity. That’s what you need in order to do experimental science. It’s also the case that some things are easy to measure and hard to model, and others much easier to model but very difficult to measure.
The result is the inevitable tension between the experimentalist, who sees himself as performing heroic efforts to get the “easy to measure” quantity, and the disgruntled theorist, who often complains of having nothing to use to test his model against. (Many times, what this really means is the theorist is too lazy to understand how the experimental measurements are performed, and how to incorporate that “observational” step into his model output.)
DeWitt Payne,
And that is my point: we are not going to magically transition to nuclear even if the price of coal rises dramatically. There is no pathway to low carbon emissions *without significant government leadership and intervention*. On the nuclear side, this is definitely the fault of the environmental movement. But whose fault it is does not alter the reality: nuclear will not happen on a significant enough scale to make a difference until well into the last half of the century (and this will only be the case if the debate has changed due to the environmental movement coming to realise that without nuclear there is no solution).
So, the problem being solved without direct and strong government action is not feasible, in my opinion. Assuming that we want to avoid 2 degrees of warming (for example), even if climate sensitivity is 1.5, we need to avoid going over 650 ppm. I cannot see us avoiding that on some kind of natural progression.
And further to the transportation cost rises, as the oil price rises, coal to oil becomes a viable alternative. With lots of coal available, coal would be used to power the transportation of coal. We would rapidly get to high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. While there are some on my side of the debate who think peak oil will help, I cannot see it.
Carrick,
Regarding economic modelling, the Stern and Garnaut reports are two examples of serious examination of these issues, Stern with a more global look and Garnaut focussing on Australia. Lots of people are involved in the debate, but governments are going to take advice from their bureaucracy on this issue and not the average guy on the street (or on the web).
lucia,
I understand that our knowledge of aerosols is not brilliant. But we know that they have an effect on temperature. Simply ignoring the effect in a model is not a better approach than making some assumptions about what they do. If people with different models make different assumptions, I am unclear that that makes things incoherent.
Rather, it gives us a range of results for what current science suggests aerosols likely do. Is there certainty there? Of course not. Is it likely that one model has it correct? No. But for a range of values and different types of models we seem to get a range of forcings that roughly matches observations from both the paleoclimate record and modern times (and, yes, a fair bit of that match in modern times is a consequence of tuning, so I understand that we should discount most of that).
Re: David Gould (Jan 31 15:57),
That’s all very well and good as a vision statement. But what’s the actual plan? So far, every suggestion I’ve seen is either magical, politically impossible or both. I think I’m going to have to buy a copy of Pielke, Jr.’s The Climate Fix.
The Stern Review is controversial at best. See for example Richard Tol’s critique published in November, 2006 before the recent economic unpleasantness.
DeWitt Payne,
‘Politically impossible’ is probably where I see things. However, something that is politically impossible can become possible. This is why I am going to be aiming my efforts at convincing those on my side that nuclear power is needed to solve the problem.
Re the Stern review conclusion, critiquing obvious hyperbole does not address the economic assumptions and conclusions. And even if the Stern review is controversial, that does not mean that it is not a serious attempt to quantify the economic costs of climate change. Economics is controversial, and economics on top of climate change means that you have a controversial controversy.
As an example of a solution to the nuclear impasse, if both major political parties in Australia agree to remove barriers to nuclear investment (and provide incentives, in fact) then nuclear investment will occur despite the environmentalist opposition. If the Liberal Party agrees for business reasons and the Labor Party agrees for employment reasons (with a sop to climate change) then we can move forward.
Re: David Gould (Jan 31 16:32),
It wasn’t hyperbole, it was an important assumption for calculating the net present value of future courses of action. Try reading the whole piece rather than just the part I quoted. The most controversial part of the Stern Review is the assumed very low discount rate for money spent now rather than in the future. That strongly biases upward the relative value of mitigation now compared to adaptation later. Effectively it assumes the conclusion.
DeWitt Payne,
I know that the discount rates are the controversial part. All I am suggesting is that serious attempts to examine the costs and benefits of action and inaction have been made, whether or not you or I agree with their conclusions.
SimonDavidI didn’t say that models need to be ignored. Well back in the thread, people introduced the notion that the IPCC somehow has the unique feature of “coherence”. But models are an example where each groups makes assumptions that cannot be collectively true to drive their models. This is an example of “lack of coherence”.
Coherence has it’s advocates. I think it’s not the be all and all of everything that is science. But, more importantly, those who claim to advocate “coherence” as some touchstone that suggests a theory is right don’t get to pretend that everything in the IPCC’s explanations, predictions etc. is actually coherent. Part of the argument is to accept that some arguments and sub-theories are mutually exclusive (ie incoherent) but that we should ignore this.
I’m ok with that argument. But what I’m not ok with is afterwards having people say, “Now, let’s pretend it’s all perfectly coherent and only the criticism contain aspects that are incoherent. “
lucia,
I think that you were replying to me, not Simon. 🙂 Fair enough – I agree with you regarding that notion of coherence and the bad argument.
David:
It’s not just a matter of agreeing/disagreeing with the conclusions. Like DeWitt, I disagree with the methods used for arriving at those conclusions. Better studies are needed.
Carrick,
Can you give me some idea of what kinds of methods that you would agree with? Pointing me to a report that analyses future risk (not related to climate change) in a way that you agree with would be a good way to do this. (I should note that my understanding of economics is … limited – I did a couple of units on it when I studied marketing, but that is all.)
@ dorlomin
you say – “I read blogs like this (and dont involve myself) because I am keen to see what alternative opinions there are, it may surprise people but I am open to other opinions.”
really, this surprises me, given your CCGW/AGW rants for years on the guardian envero posts calling most commentators on blogs like this denxxrs, George will not be happy (or was it his idea?)
seems to be a theme, happening at various blogs now, naw can’t be.
“Maybe those comfortably within the Consensus need to first examine the basis for their self-identity and figure out how much is science versus political and social memberships. The inability to make those distinctions within The Consensus is the problem, not the existence of criticisms by Monkton or Morano.”
In a nutshell, George Tobin – well said.
David Gould,
.
I have not formally studied economics much either, but I have been involved in evaluating the economic viability of capital investments, ranging in size from a few million US$ invested to a few hundred million US$.
.
When I first got involved in this sort of thing I was shocked at the short investment payback periods that investors would insist on to approve funding: 3 to 4 years for smallish projects was not unusual, and maybe 7-8 years for major projects; and sometimes even solid looking projects with 7-8 year paybacks were not approved.
.
It was only after seeing some of these projects through to completion that I began to appreciate the very real need for short paybacks: some projects (even when done with the best information available and the very best of intentions) never really payed back what was expected. Large projected returns on investment are required to compensate for this ‘risk’ in every case. Nobody (and I mean nobody!) will make long term investments on the basis of uncertain, but certainly low, rates of return on that investment.
.
Low discount rates are simply not realistic, because they ignore uncertainty. Very few people voluntarily make that kind of investment; those that do usually lose their money.
SteveF,
Sounds reasonable. I am going to read Garnaut’s rationale for using low discount rates to see if he discusses that issue at all.
Very constructive thread, my thanks to most discussants.
Boris (Comment#67586)
Interesting perspective Boris, but believe it or not, there is actually peer-reviewed literature proving (proving I say!) who the feeble-minded are.
Feeling warm makes people more likely to believe in global warming, study finds
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-people-global.html
It has actually succeeded in practice with the US Senate and the reporters who cover it.