In his freshly posted response to Gavin at Real Climate, Christopher Monckton, Lord M of B writes:
Monckton: Schmidt fails to point out that the author of the blog he cites, unlike Schmidt himself, subsequently did me the courtesy of asking for the basis on which my graphs were calculated, and published a correction, for she had made several mistakes and incorrect assumptions in her original posting.
Huh? Ok…My recollection of the history is this:
In my first post, responding to a reader who asked me if Monckton’s representation of the IPCC projections was correct, I basically said “No”. Then, I wracked my brain to figure out what the Viscount might have done to come up with a set of sois disant ‘IPCC’ projections that are clearly not the projections in the IPCC AR4. I guessed, and posted an image shown to the right.
The reason I guessed was that the documents Monckton provided up to that point did not describe how he came up with his figure.
I later saw another M of B graph at IceCap, investigated and I discussed it here. I made no assumptions about Monckton’s method nor did I make any “mistakes” I know of. I simply posted the the trends based on the multi-model mean for IPCC runs I have downloaded. That’s shown to the right.
Based on the lack of agreement I wrote “Do I think Monckton’s graph is a fair representation of the IPCC trends and their uncertainties? Nope.”
- My readers requested I email M. of B. to find out what he really did. I did so. We exchanged some private email, which I was not and am not at liberty to reproduce in it’s entirety. However, I obtained permission to give a summary of M. of B.’s method, as I could understand it.
I posted a bulleted discussion that gives the “skeleton” version of the steps Monckton took to create “Monckton’s version of the IPCC projections”. It turns out that he did not just draw connecting the current temperature to the temperature projected in 2100. He did something much more complicated which Monckton describes on page 4 of his current pdf.
My summary is available here. I made no endorsement or criticisms of the method as a means of creating a projection; to make such comments would be futile while the full paper remains private. I focused on simply trying to discover what he did to develop his trend.
I did let Monckton know that when I compare models to data I use IPCC projections that are “about 2C/century”; that’s the rate discussed in the AR4.
I think my post makes it clear that Monckton created a set projections using a method that differs from the one chosen by the authors of the IPCC AR4. The numerical values differ markedly from those in the IPCC. Possibly, by failing to use spunky adjectives, some readers failed to register that what Monckton calls the IPCC projections are not IPCC projections.
There is quite a bit of discussion in comments, where I say,
The reason Monckton’s trend line from 1980-to-now look different from the information in the AR4 is that Monckton’s trends are different from the trends in the AR4. That is: They aren’t the IPCC projections for the period illustrated.
- I posted a comment at RC pointing to my post discussing the “bulleted version” of Monckton’s method, but it was moderated out of existence. I was a bit piqued that the comment disintegrated into electrons, particularly after I took time to fill out the Captcha. I thought some might like to read what seems to be “the method”. [Update 5/13: Gavin tells me he does not know what might have happened to the comment. My spam filter sometimes acts up; presumably RC’s does too.
I think it’s safe to say that regular readers are aware that I often disagree with Gavin. However, I anticipate Gavin will agree with me that, whatever the projections in Monckton’s graphs may be:
- They are not “IPCC projections” in the sense of appearing in the summary for policy makers of the AR4.
- They are not “IPCC projections” in the sense of appearing in Chapter 10 of the AR4.
- They are not “IPCC projections” in the sense of being the average of the multi-model ensemble used to develop projections in the AR4.
- They are not computed by any method advocated or described anywhere in the IPCC AR4 or any previous incarnation of the Assessment Report.
- The numerical values of Monckton’s projections do not correspond to anything a reader with ordinary reading skills would consider to be “IPCC projections” based on the content of the IPCC AR4, the TAR, the SAR or the FAR.
If anyone anywhere wishes to call the lavender-pink region Monckton calls the “IPCC projections” in his graphs, I guess they may do so. However, I will also ask them to write a dissertation on the meaning of “is”, placing it in the context of recent American history.
As a final note, I will close by observing that Monckton, who complained that Gavin trimmed his web site URL from Monckton’s figure, failed to name me or link to my post when he described me as having published a “correction”. I think this omission on the part of the Viscount was a bit ungentlemanly.
Sigh-Monckton is getting embarrassing. He’s a smart guy but his over-reach and pathetic attempt to clean up the mess is less than noble for sure.
As I have said in the past, Monckton displays many of the traits he seems to enjoy criticizing in others. 🙁
I found a cool site. A visual thesaurus:
http://www.visualthesaurus.com/landing/?ad=mwcom.dict.txt1&word=jejune&utm_source=mwcom&utm_medium=dict.txt1&utm_campaign=VT
Gavin called M of B potty.
M of B called Gavin’s stuff jejune.
🙂 🙂 Awesomeness.
I assume Gavin meant unimportant, which is probably an enormous case of projection if ever I have seen one. Like it or not, Gavin is simply not as relevant or entertaining!
Also, I’d never heard the term “Thunder Mug” before but won’t be able to drink out of a mug for a while now. Don’t be surprised if sales of the Lukewarmer mugs drop…
I love the “A personal note by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.” Sounds like a Christmas card. And anyway, there’s only one way to settle this; Chris and Gavin must DUEL! Ad homs at dawn!
Andrew_FL,
I also had never heard the word “Thunder Mug”. M of B is entertaining. However, I would not have used the word “correction” nor would I say I made “mistakes” describing the trends M of B calls the “IPCC trends. Had a link been provided, I suspect those who read the post would not consider what I wrote a “correction”.
Doug W-That’s an offensive stereotype about the English-they have dueled in ages! 😉
For the record, lucia, I completely agree-which is why I said he is embarrassing in my initial response.
“Do I think Monckton’s graph is a fair representation of the IPCC trends and their uncertainties? Nope.â€
I’m not sure what you are on about Lucia
here’s Hansen’s prediction
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/temp13.jpg
here’s how it fits with todays temperatures
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/temp15.jpg
don’t match do they. Surely that’s the point M of B was making.
Janama:
It’s important to separate these three issues:
1) What are the IPCC projections? and
2) Are the IPCC projections matching observations of the real earth?
3) Are Hansen’s projections matching observations of the real earth?
Now lets address these:
1) Monckton calls something “the IPCC projections” which are not the IPCC projections. This relates to question 1. My blog post discusses this point. What Monckton calls the IPCC projections are not the IPCC projections no matter what answer we get for questions 2 and 3.
2) I think the actual, real, honest too goodness IPCC projections are off relative to the real earth’s climate. This relates to point 2. The IPCC projections appear to be off. But even though I think the IPCC projections are off track, I’m not going to pretend any old made up thing that happens to also be “off” can be called “the IPCC projections”.
3) You are telling me that Hansen’s predictions do not match the real earth’s trajectory. This is actually a third point. I don’t disagree. But Hansen’s projections being off is irrelevant to the Monckton kerfuffle because a) Hansen’s projections are not the IPCC projections and b) the Monckton kerfuffle has to do with him calling something “IPCC projections” that are not IPCC projections. Whether or not Hansens projections are correct of incorrect is irrelevant to Monckton’s odd use of language.
fair enough Lucia but chapter 9 concludes:
Nevertheless, constraints from observed climate
change support the overall assessment that the ECS is likely
to lie between 2°C and 4.5°C with a most likely value of
approximately 3°C (Box 10.2)
Isn’t that what he is illustrating?
Janama:
You are citing values for the rise over the entire century. The IPCC specifically provides several tables and figures showing the trend is not linear over the century. (See the first one in this post.)
In the figures Monckton posted, he is specifically illustrating projections for the first 8 years of this century and comparing those to data. The values you cite do not correspond to the temperature trends for the first 8 years of this century. This is very clear based on figures and tables in the AR4.
this is how the IPCC AR4_syr projections tell it
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/temp20.jpg
looks like M of B’s chart to me.
Rule one of reasoned critique: the enemy of my enemy’s position is not necessarily my friend. Just because Monckton may be outspokenly (and over-prominently) critiquing climate change doesn’t mean you should necessarily align yourself with his positions. He has a habit of knowing just enough to make it seem to a lay reader like he is an expert at what he discusses while being often quite off the mark.
And while Gavin may be a tad snarky at times (sorry Gavin, but it is true!), Monckton raises it to an art form. Osamabamarama anyone?
I have to agree with Zeke. Monckton messed up one this one. Someone really needs to get him to see where he was wrong and have him admit it. Doing so in a polite, non-confrontational way would probably be best-the trouble is that he obviously doesn’t want to lose face. But I’m beginning to think we’d be better off…
Monckton is quite the mathematician. With no offense intended toward anyone, I’d like to get his side of the story directly from him.
I saw him in person recently and loved the way exposed the IPCC’s method of manipulating start points and end points to
create false trends that support their cause.
Mockton has nothing to be proud off in this case.
Possibly off topic, but I was slightly intrigued by the Hansen et al. figure provided by janama.
I suspect it is a matter of coincidence, but the “model C” seems to match the current temperature trends fairly well.
Could anyone dig out what the simplifying assumptions and forcings are for this model?
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Could anyone dig out what the simplifying assumptions and forcings are for this model?
CO2 levels remain the same.
TNX,
that is quite interesting indeed 🙂
The only model that seems to fit current temperature regime reasonably well is one with a fixed CO2-level !? (at year …..)?
Perhaps something to ponder when considering climate sensitivity to CO2?
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Janama–
Blow up the curve you show, add Monckton’s straight line and uncertainty intervals for the periods 2000-2008. They do not match.
Dash RIPROCK III
When I corresponded with Monckton (as noted in one of my bullet points) he said he prefers not to debate at blogs. He also did not give me permission to post emails word for word. So, if you want to read Monckton’s position in his own words, you will have to email him personally. Alternatively, you can wait until his paper is published somewhere.
I’ve posted a bulleted version of the method. Whether sound or unsound as a method of projection,two things are clear: 1)it is not the IPCC method for creating projections and 2) the numerical values for the projections differ from the actual, honest-to-goodness, not-faux, not ertzatz IPCC projections.
Cassanders–
I’ve posted about Hansen’s projections many times. Projections based on the existing trend at the time of publication beat Hansen’s projections. My most recent post is this: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ordinary-eyeball-how-did-hansens-predictions-do/
Here are the projections compared to trends
@Lucia, yes I suspeced you had. And your take is definitley more elaborate.
My main point was really that Hansens lowest forcasting model C (If I understand correctly with CO2 locked at 1988 level) ALSO predict higher temperatures than observed.
…Which is kind of interesting.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Cassanders– Yes. Under all scenarios, Hansens’s model predict more warming than observed. The only way to make this not seem so is to shift the baselines so the model projections are “cold” during the 50s and 60s.
Robert of Benchley.
I’d much rather read him than
Monckton of Brenchley.
=======================
Cassanders (Comment#13547) May 13th, 2009 at 5:42 am ,
Hansen’s model assumes a large thermal mass for the oceans so that there is a lag between a ghg change and the response to that change. IIRC, there are at least two different layers with different time constants. The deep ocean, for example, having a time constant of ~1,000 years. So if CO2 levels are frozen in any given year, the global temperature will asymptotically approach the equilibrium temperature for those conditions. I believe he refers to this as heat in the pipeline.
Cassanders (Comment#13547) May 13th, 2009 at 5:42 am
@Lucia, yes I suspeced you had. And your take is definitley more elaborate.
My main point was really that Hansens lowest forcasting model C (If I understand correctly with CO2 locked at 1988 level) ALSO predict higher temperatures than observed.
…Which is kind of interesting.
Actually you don’t understand correctly, Scenario C gives constant forcing from 2000 onwards. Most of the predicted difference between B and C by now was projected to be from reductions in the ‘other trace gases’, CFC’s, CH4 etc which did occur
(actually more rapidly than H expected).
Lucia, I have some questions for you that I’ve reposted here from Climate Audit:
.
Concerning your Blackboard analysis of the latest episode of the Endless Schmidt-Monckton Kerfuffle, could I ask a favor of you?
.
Could you please enlighten me as to your understanding of the origin and intended function of the following graphic that Gavin Schmidt posted as part of his side of the kerfuffle?
.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/comp_monck3.jpg
.
More specifically, what is your understanding as to how the “IPCC Ensemble and 95% range” portion of the graph was generated? My quick look at IPCC AR4 does not yield a similar graphic, but maybe it’s there somewhere and I simply missed it.
.
Presumably, this graphic didn’t have to end at 2009; i.e., it could have been extended as far into the future as might be necessary to illustrate what the IPCC temperature projection is for the next twenty-five to forty years (or further) including the 95% range band.
.
Is my thinking on that score correct?
.
Now, it has been suggested on CA that perhaps I should be asking Gavin Schmidt himself these same questions, but that undoubtedly would prove a useless exercise.
The image link didn’t make make it across, but this is what it is:
Scott,
Gavin created that graph. I don’t know if he downloaded data from the climate explorer, or whether he processed data from PCMDI. He describes what he did here:
I have posted similar graphs. Here’s one I had handy in a recent spreadsheet. Like Gavin’s it uses the AR4 baseline.
No precisely similar graphic appears in the AR4. Their projections in Figure 10.4 shows 1 standard deviation bounds based on the model mean temperature anomalies. The graph above and the one Gavin shows show larger uncertainty bounds based on the spread of “all weather in all models”. For whatever reason, the authors of the AR4 choose a graphic that suggests less uncertainty in their “prediction/projections”; now that the temperatures have been flat, Gavin prefers to show these larger ones.
Yep. But if we showed this, it would be useful to ask this: The authors of the AR4 did not select the “all weather in all models” spread as their uncertainty bands. So, why should we believe that’s the uncertainty they believe exists? (I tend to think they did not consider that the correct uncertainty for reasons having to do with the unrealistic nature of “weather” in climate models. Those uncertainty bands are ginormous. )
I suspect Gavin would love you to ask this question. He appears to like the notion that we should use the largest possible uncertainty bands when deciding whether or not models are off track.
I can make those graphs for you.
“He [Gavin] appears to like the notion that we should use the largest possible uncertainty bands when deciding whether or not models are off track.”
“The moment one has offered an original explanation for a phenomenon which seems satisfactory, that moment affection for his intellectual child springs into existence, and as the explanation grows into a definite theory his parental affections cluster about his offspring and it grows more dear to him…As this parental affection takes possession of the mind, there is a rapid passage to the adoption of the theory. There is an unconscious selection and magnifying of phenomena that fall into harmony with the theory and support it, and an unconscious neglect of those that fail of coincidence…
When these biasing tendencies set in, the mind rapidly degenerates into the partiality of paternalism. The search for facts, the observation of phenomena and their interpretation, are all dominated by affection for the favored theory until it appears to its author or its advocate to have been overwhelmingly established. The theory then rapidly rises to the ruling position, and investigation, observation, and interpretation are controlled and directed by it. From an unduly favored child, it readily becomes master, and leads its author whithersoever it will…
When the last stage has been reached, unless the theory happens, perchance, to be the true one, all hope of the best results is gone.” ~ T C Chamberlain
When one is wedded to the hypothesis of dangerous warming, you naturally want to use only the hypothesis tests which will fail to reject it. So the confidence intervals today are ginormous. In other matters they maybe narrower, whatever suits the need.
Granted, this doesn’t mean that Gavin or his hypothesis is wrong, but it is one explanation for why he likes the tests of models he is doing.
Andrew [13556]
As any parent knows, emotional bonding leads to the strongest forms of confirmational bias. It’s the single most salient factor when “good kids” turn out to be “bad kids”. Maybe the same thing applies to Gavin and AGW/ACC…
Well I’m not a parent, so I don’t know but I would have guessed!
Thanks Lucia. Your response is highly enlightening.
.
One could label the latest Schmidt-Monckton Kerfuffle as being “The Battle of the Bands”; i.e., what kind of music do the bands play, how popular are the bands, where do the bands live, whose band belongs to who, and how loud (oops “wide”) are the bands?
.
One reason I am so curious concerning the genesis of Schmidt’s graphic is that the plot of “IPCC Ensemble and 95% interval” seems to indicate an apparent visual correlation with the plots of HadCRUT3 and GISSTEMP.
.
The other reason I am so curious is the obvious point that if the uncertainty bands are wide enough, almost anything that happens in apparent temperature patterns over the next ten to twenty years, up or down, could be held to be “consistent with the predictions of the climate models.”
Dash RIPROCK III (Comment#13539)-No doubt he is smart guy:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Eternity.html
However he has step in it on this one.
lucia (Comment#13555)-Since we really are interested in comparing the weather in all models with the weather in the real world, maybe the weather could be removed by scaling the ensemble mean to each model and take the residuals as representing the model’s realizations of weather? That way one could compare the observations to the ~climate~ in the models, not their noisy obviously bogus weather.
Andrew–
If we use “all weather in all models” a larger number of weather events are consistent with models than if we compare the multi-model mean estimating weather noise based on the level of noise seen on earth.
I’m not sure what Andrew_FL is suggesting. But the IPCC authors computed the mean temperature over realizations from the runs for each model. Then they showed the standard deviation of that in Figure 10.4. In the limit that ever model has many runs, the uncertainty intervals in Figure 10.4 would be unaffected by “model weather”, and would only represent the uncertainty in the means from each model.
Okay, let’s see if I can explain the is better. Let’s say I want to a trend to my models. Let’s say I have two models. Whether the models have identical trends or differing trends, I don’t want to compare their noise. But they are full of noise. so if I take their mean, the noise should tend to average out. If, as I suspect, the trends in models are at least proportional to one another, the the trend signal in each model would correspond closely to the ensemble average multiplied by some factor. The residuals would correspond to each model’s weather
I’ve read that Moncton used the A2 scenario in his projections. This is often described as the “business as usual” GHG growth scenario which is perhaps why he used it (I’m not sure how it got this moniker).
The A1B scenario is closer to the actual trendlines and the actual emission rates. A1B gives a slightly lower temperature growth rate than A2.
Andrew_FL:
Unfortunately, Monckton’s “unsolvable” puzzle didn’t turn out too well (in fact, it cost him his house!): http://www.archduke.demon.co.uk/eternity/newsarticles/edarch2.html
Zeke-it was never asserted to be unsolvable, but that claim was actually a publicity stunt:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=3340554
Andrew_FL
If you had lots of realizations to average over, the factor would be 1 and the noise would be gone.
Santer’s method of testing models involves comparing the earth’s trend to the average over the models. So, your thinking along those lines.
Bill Illis–
Monckton has yet to make public his method of developing his projections. It does involve A2, but his projections don’t match the IPCC A2 projection either. He “Moncktonized” the projections.
Part of the issue appears that IPCC gives multiple projections. Monckton’s current description of his method (on page 6) is:
Assuming Gavin knows the language, in this context, ‘potty’ means slightly crazy.
“Freedom is the freedom to be our potty little selves.”
-G.K. Chesterton
David–
So from that can you tell precisely what Monckton did? Do you know how he got the constants one needs to use to apply the formula? etc?
I do. I have a 14 page pdf, but I don’t have permission to circulate it.
The quote you provides does give a synopsis, and the synopsis basically tells us he ignores heat capacity of the climate system. That is: in the “Montonized Non-Projections”, the billions of gallons of water in the ocean can change temperature instantly when a small amount of heat is applied. It happens there are other details to Monckton’s method which he has not revealed.
So let’s stick with the heat capacity issue. It’s important to understand that including heat capacity in an analysis is not a “defect”. Accounting for heat capacity (as the IPCC authors did) is required to avoid violating the first law of thermodynamics.
In anycase, even if ignoring heat capacity did not violate the physical laws of the universe, it happens that the IPPC authors chose to include the effect of heat capacity when creating their projections.
Whether or not Monckton likes the IPCC method, whether or not he thinks their method is “defective”, the method they used is “THE” IPCC method. The projections they published are “THE IPCC projections”.
Those Monckton came up with are the “Moncktonized Non-Projections”.
If Monckton doesn’t like the IPCC projections, that’s fine with me. Heck, I’m not too impressed with their performance myself. But making up a set of “Monktonized Non-Projections”, calling those the IPCC projections and comparing data to that is pointless. Who care if projections no one made are didn’t pann out?
Just have to wait long enough to see if global temperatures begin the never-ending trek upward to our oblivion…or perhaps…they will remain stagnant…driving the alarmists and skeptics to do battle over what will eventually happen!
Watch that grass grow with intensity people! YEUUH!
😉
The grass grows, unless a sudden frost kills it. That’s deep. Think about it.
Lucia [13576]
Akin maybe, but certainly not in the same league I would say, as the “Mann-o-matic Non-Projections” in which – while not violating any law of thermodynamics – reams and reams of multi-source historical data were systematically discarded, ignored or manipulated so as to eliminate both the MWP and the LIA from the climate record, all in order to produce the infamous “Hockey Stick”. Unfortunately, this “Hokey Stick” remains a core element of the official IPCC’s AGW/ACC file and has never been retracted.
Monckton’s lack of forthrightness in his reference to your exchange is poor behaviour, indeed.
Mannomatic non reconstructions.
Lucia, love your work. Sorry about the basic question, but when you talk about the IPCC models warming at “2C/century”, does that mean they project just 2C warming from 2000 to 2100, or is the “2C/century” just an initial rate happening early in the century, and increasing later?
Whether greenhouse warming is linear or exponential seems to be a fundamental bone of contention.
Braddles–
The answer depends on the scenario. The A1B and A2 scenarios both have “about 2 C/century” during the first few decades. One accelerates; one decelerates. If you scroll up you can see the figure by my first bullet.
I’ll have to tell you, my chief complaint with RC is the entirely sloppy, arbitrary and even capricious manner in which comments get handled there.
I don’t think this reflects well on the group that run that blog to be quite honest.
Andrew_FL
“Mann-o-matic Non-Projections” caused by “Mann-o-matic Non-Reconstructions”. Touch’e.. !
It is rather odd that the graph provided by Gavin shows the projections and error bars matching Hadcrut/Gisstemp so perfectly up til about 2005. Is this a real representation of the models that were created in 1980 or has it been recently improved to agree with the data? Does anyone have this exact graph that was time stamped circa 1980? I’m sorry but it looks fishy to me.
Mike
@DeWitt Payne
It is quite possible that JH includes oceanic “heat in the pipeline” as an explanation. But if he didn’t identify it in 1988 it look a bit like an ad hoc explanation to me.
While there likely may have been “heat stored in the pipeline” in the last part of the 20th century, it is post-2001 (with no observed increase in OHC) that the models lack skill.
The Argos data (after correction) does not to my knowledge indicate any “heat in the pipe-line” for 0-700 m which probably is the appropriate stratum for the timeframe we are discussing. While the accuracy of Argos data are still being discussed, even the NoArgos data from AcutaRao et al (2007) (figure 3) does not demonstrate increase in heat content, only a slight decrease as oposted to the profound decrease found in Lyman et al, (2006)).
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
If the Lord has been rude to our host then some amends needs to be made. In respect of IPCC predictions, however, I think his heart is in the right place. Koutsoyiannis has shown these predictions are not worth a minor royal’s crest. Here is another take on them post 2000;
The yellow line representing the hypothetical cessation of CO2 increase is supposed to depict the pipeline effect. This storage of heat in the ocean has been the subject of a recent paper by Levitus et al;
ftp://ftp:nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
Fig S9 is instructive with the Willis and Dominques modeling showing drastic declines while the more orthodox pipeline trend continues unabated. The divergence is more stark is this graph showing the Willis and Loehe study of ocean heat content decline compared with the models;
If the Lord has been rude to our host then some amends needs to be made. In respect of IPCC predictions, however, I think his heart is in the right place. Koutsoyiannis has hown these predictions are not worth a minor royal’s crest. Here is another take on them post 2000;
http://i734.photobucket.com/albums/ww350/infomgr/TempsvsIPCCModelsWM.gif
The yellow line representing the hypothetical cessation of CO2 increase is supposed to depict the pipeline effect. This storage of heat in the ocean has been the subject of a recent paper by Levitus et al;
ftp:ftp:nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf [// excluded]
Fig S9 is instructive with the Willis and Dominques modeling showing drastic declines while the more orthodox pipeline trend continues unabated. The divergence is more stark is this graph showing the Willis and Loehe study of ocean heat content decline compared with the models;
http:climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/dipuccio-2.jpg [// excluded]
Mike Bryant
Lucia,
Since the majority of the Gavin graph has been “forced” to agree with reality, when will they correct the graph up to present day? Also, isn’t it just a little dishonest to publish a graph that makes it appear that the models were so prescient?
Thanks,
Mike
So why don’t you call Gavin’s bluff and post it again? And maybe post it here also for safe keeping. Did you keep a copy? Most skeptics who post at RC have learnt that this is often necessary.
There is a hint in your comment “…pointing to my post…” – RC usually censors any comment with an explicit link to a skeptic site, as Jeff Id has found. (Note the way they clipped Monckton’s graphs to avoid showing his URL!). But that is a bit strange because they did link to your first post in their post.
There is much discussion of the RC censorship policy here. The experiment conducted by Jonathan, #441, is particularly instructive.
PaulM-
The comment being lost is not that big a deal to me. I didn’t save it. It just mentioned that I had asked Monckton what he did and explained with a brief bulleted list.
That said: I have a negative opinion of RC’s comment policy. But hey, it’s their blog.
On the missing URL from Monckton’s graph at RC. I know they clipped Monckton’s graph. I don’t think much of any author taking active measures to make it unnecessarily difficult for readers to find the originals underlying the source someone is discussing. Gavin did that when he altered the Monckton’s graphic to remove the URL. Altering a graphic to make the source difficult to trace goes beyond just blog sloppiness that can sometimes result in bloggers forgetting to link.
Yep.
And as such reflects on what type of people they want to be seen as. I suppose there is a reason they have been hemorrhaging commentators, other than the “free pass” echo chamber type, over the years.
It’s one thing when a general author does this.
It’s another when a supposedly reputable scientist engages in this practice. So much for having any scientific integrity.
Cassanders (Comment#13596) May 14th, 2009 at 3:32 am ,
I’m hardly defending the skill of models. I was just explaining why a model with ghg levels frozen after a certain date could still show a temperature increase after that date.
Something has obviously been left out of the models. Either conditions are such that more longwave radiation is being emitted to space than expected (bender’s open window) or more incoming shortwave radiation is being reflected than expected or some combination of both such that there is currently no radiative imbalance as shown by the lack of increase in OHC. But is this effect temporary or is it the Lindzen iris or the Svensmark cosmic ray/cloud effect? If it’s some as yet unknown temporary effect, then the end of the effect will see OHC and temperatures accelerating to return to the long term trend, whatever that is. Whatever the effect is, though, it’s clearly not in the models as currently constituted.
“So why don’t you call Gavin’s bluff and post it again? And maybe post it here also for safe keeping. Did you keep a copy? Most skeptics who post at RC have learnt that this is often necessary.”
Are you aware of the fact that Steve McIntyre also censors posts he doesn’t like, by skeptics?
bugs–
We are all aware SteveM moderates his posts also.
SteveM moderates lightly, but does remove some posts afterwards using a process nicknamed “running the Zamboni”. Some of my posts have been Zambonied. Because the comments always appear before being scraped, we are all familiar with what sorts of things get Zambonied. There doesn’t appear to be any particular favoritism toward sceptics vs. true believers.
SteveM also generally tells people when he’s run the Zamboni and also posts with an explanation in comments.
Certain topics are also simply banned over there. For example, you can’t discuss the second law of thermodynamics, evolution or G&T at CA.
All bloggers moderate. We all do it in different way and ever blogger gets to chose. I moderate using my method, which I prefer to the RC method or SteveM’s. That’s why I chose my way (which required me to write a script to monitor for “Known- not -quite-Trolls” and moderate them automatically.)
I prefer SteveM’s method of moderating to RC’s mostly because SteveM’s moderation is more transparent to blog visitors. But SteveM’s way is labor intensive (which is why I wrote a script.) The guys over at RC get to make their own rules; they went for heavy moderation.
Yes, I have posted dozens of comments at CA and never once been censored or even snipped. Let alone Zambonied. Steve M frequently makes it very clear what the rules are. RC doesnt – that’s the difference.
RC does more than just moderate. They will edit comments, which can have the effect of changing the original author’s intent.
Their policy is random and capricious and does not well represent people who are supposed to be objective scientists.
However, the part that is really stunning to me is that comments that have real “meat” get snared, but voices from the Choir don’t seem to have any problem getting published.
If the purpose of their commenting is to discourage no-content entries, why do these get allowed through?
At least McIntyre discourages the “me-too” comments, especially ones that are just “piling on”.
Carrick–
When I’ve been Zambonied at CA, it’s always been comments in the middle of a food fight or a discussion of prohibited topics (like the 2nd law of thermodynamics).
I’ve been moderated exactly once at RC.
I’ve had a number of comments (at least four) just disappear on RC without any explanation. And the thing was, like your post, they weren’t particularly provocative or anything and were in each case on topic. I’m extremely skeptical that either your or my “disappeared” (or if you prefer “Los Desaparecidos”) comments were done accidentally.
I’ve never been moderated on McIntyre, though I was warned once for responding to someone’s comment on the future availability of oil.
I’ve seen Steve shut people down when they get too “science fictiony” (like posting about a layperson’s idea of how climate really works). But he’s always shut them down with a comment, not just “disappeared” them.
I think if you are going to remove comments, as a moderator you should note why they are removed. Simply disappearing comments that aren’t from the Choir just seems inappropriate to me.
Beyond the “Los Desaparecidos”, I’ve never had problems with their blog. Anytime Gavin has commented on anything I’ve posted, it’s always been reasoned and cordial.
It’s their blog, but they are representing “real scientists”, so I’m a bit touchier about this than I would were it run by laypeople.
Lucia: What is “G&T”? Never heard that one.
SteveF:
Gerlich and Tscheuschner
Eli seems to have devoted huge amounts of time rebutting it. Any discussion of that opus involves the 2nd law of thermodynamics and so is automatically banned at CA. (G&T spout nonsense about the second law. I permit discussion but will simply say they spout nonsense about the second law.)
G&T is a perfect example of why limiting debate can be counterproductive. While what they are saying is “a bit off”, it also provides a forum for discussing how we know for example that the greenhouse gas effect is real.
Monckton is useful that way too, because I doubt you would have gone into any depth about how the IPCC actually does their projections. (It also brings up the question as to whether their approach is the best approach too.)
Carrick–
But if you’ve ever read people going off on the second law of thermo….
Seriously, there are people who have never taken a single thermodynamics course who want to decree all sorts of things violations of the 2nd law of thermo.
Now now, the preacher who came to my public highschool in rural Georgia many years ago told our biology class that evolution violated the second law of thermodynamics. How could he have been wrong? :-p
Lucia,
Seriously, how can you tell if an idea violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Does someone have a video of such an occurance?
Andrew
Andrew,
Hows’ this for a sufficiency condition?
Anything that violates causality violates the 2nd Law.
That may or may not be true, but it is probably how Steven “Arrow of Time” Hawkings would put it.
I think the biggest problem that laypeople have is they don’t understand the distiction between the entropy of an open versus a closed system, otherwise you wouldn’t hear the argument about evolution violating the 2nd law.
Anyway, it’s not really a “law” except on a statistical basis. This means you can have violations of the 2nd Law as long as the violation occurs over a short enough time scale or over small enough distances.
Experimental Demonstration of Violations of
the Second Law of Thermodynamics for
Small Systems and Short Time Scales
Zeke–
I’m an atheist. One of my coworkers was a born again Christian with a Ph.D. in aeronautical engineering. So, he heard this claim one weekend. So, he dropped by my office and admitted that he’d like to believe it was true. But, he thought before he did that he’s ask me if I knew the obvious disproof to the argument.
Naturally, the argument went like this:
1) “higher entropy means more disorder”.
2) “something about the second law says entropy must always decrease” (let’s not bother our silly little heads with the full statement about closed systems or heat transfer etc.)
3) ” evolved animals must somehow be more ‘orderly’ and therefor lower entropy” (ROFLMAOF.)
So… I pointed out my window and said: See that nice pile of leaves. It’s more orderly than yesterday when they were scattered all over the place. The 2nd law doesn’t say we can’t get local increases in entropy.
Perry said, “Yeah. I knew you’d have heard the argument and quickly point out what was wrong”.
We then discussed all the other problems associated with even trying to use the 2nd law of thermo to disprove evolution. ( Hey, using the structure of argument like 1-3, we could prove that babies can’t develop in the womb! )
Andrew_KY It is sometimes possible to show an idea violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. For example, if you’ve ever seen a hydraulic jump in a river, the jumps can only happen “up” and can’t go “down”. Also, normal shocks can only happen in one direction with the Mach number lower on the downstream side of a shock. You can’t have “normal unshocks”.
I recall that my analogy at the time was building things out of legos, but a leaf pile is an elegant example as well.
I always thought G&T was a good litmus test for climate skeptics: arguing with those who blindly accepted it because it fit their preconceptions was usually an exercise in futility.
Carrick– Yes. The second law is only a law when we can apply a continuum approximation. But those claiming evolution violates the 2nd law of thermo are rarely making the error of trying to apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the behavior of very small numbers of atoms.
Personally I’m an agnostic theist (yes, there is such a thing) but I have felt uncomfortable about pointing out the flaws in arguments made by fundamentalists I know. I don’t want to unintentionally shatter their world. But sometimes the arguments are absurd. I don’t get the same feeling with AGW and bad skeptic arguments, though. Don’t really know what the psychological difference is…maybe I’m not afraid to shatter misconceptions about purely scientific topics, but religion is to, um, sticky?
Anyway, G&T is total nonsense and I cringe whenever I encounter someone touting it.
Lucia,
“I’m an atheist.”
This gives us something to work on, doesn’t it?
Andrew_FL,
“I’m an agnostic theist”
Thought-provoking, my well-named fellow poster.
In any event, everyone have a nice weekend! I’m almost outta here! 😉
Andrew ♫
Lucia: But those claiming evolution violates the 2nd law of thermo are rarely making the error of trying to apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the behavior of very small numbers of atoms.
Personally I think you are giving more credit than is due here, but that may be just me
Carrick– What I mean is their error is on a much lower level than that. They usually don’t know anything about the 2nd law and have never applied it to anything beyond highschool chemistry, if that.
Hi all,
Lucia, I’m now writing on climate change issues at Examiner.com. It’s not much different from blogging–and the pay is similar (sigh).
I’m looking for existing graphs that I can present to readers that explain what’s been going on. I don’t want to get into the Monckton controversy, but I don’t want to be grabbing charts at random because they make a point in a specific article. I’ve been burned that way once recently.
What I am looking for are charts that:
a) Show projected and actual CO2 emissions
b) Show projected and actual CO2 concentrations
c) Show projected and actual temperatures for each IPCC scenario
And then put all the information above on one chart for each IPCC scenario.
Lucia, I don’t want you to make these charts for me (unless you have all the data and can do it with one click–then by all means, I’ll take it). However, if these charts already exist, can you point me to them?
Many thanks
Tom,
I don’t have (a) or (b) handy becaus I don’t do that.
On (c) I have temperatures for the IPCC scenarios under A1B and show these all the time in various forms. I think the best form for you is using the 1980-2000 baseline, and comparing “apples to apples”. My graph in Comment#13554 is slightly better than Gavin’s in this regard. Here’s the link.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/reflections-on-continuuing-monckton-kerfuffle/#comment-13554
Gavin’s graph in the same comment is a bit “Fuji’s to Red Delicious” because he shows monthly data on top of a projection for annual average data. I show 12 month lagging averages on top of projections for 12 month lagging averages. (His graph is fine in gist though. But you’ll notice none of my temperatures go outside the ±95% bounds and his do.)
Other than that, the only issue choice of colors. He filled in the uncertainty region with gray, I added the actual traces for the scenarios runs. As you see, they are similar, but my data are “smoother” because they are averaged just as the projections are and my data don’t pop out of the ±95% uncertainty intervals.
Unfortunately, I don’t have the other scenarios. I downloaded the A2 scenarios, but I need to track down which A2 scenarios go with which 20th century runs for a few cases. (This may have been done by now. Geert Jan at KNMI is great about making stuff available)
I don’t have easy access to the other scenarios. (I get all these from The Climate Explorer at KNMI. I suspect Gavin downloads from PCMDI and creates the averages himself.) I’m planning to make a chart for the A2 scenarios when they exist.
Lucia, thanks very much. I appreciate it, and will certainly mention your help. If I can return the favor, let me know.
Hi Lucia,
Obviously, errors in the commentary are mine (feel free to correct). But thanks for your help.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m5d16-Global-warming-by-the-modelssadly-not-the-Giselle-Bundchen-sort
Very nice. Thanks Tom!
Tom one minor correction. You said
Mean is the same as average. What you meant to say is median projections.
Thanks–I’m going blind. I thought it said median, and I’m curious as to why they didn’t use median instead of mean, actually… I fixed it in the article–many thanks.
Tom– Mean just happens to be what they used.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a pressing issue. Read the nearly complete works of Lord Christopher Monckton and become enlightened.
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/LordMonckton.html