Roger Pielke Jr. on FiveThirtyEight and his Climate Critics
Earlier in the year, Roger Pielke Jr. was named as a contributing writer for Nate Silver’s newly re-launched FiveThirtyEight site. Shortly after that, Pielke, a climate policy scholar and political scientist at the University of Colorado, in Boulder, published an article at FiveThirtyEight headlined, “Disasters Cost More Than Ever–But Not Because of Climate Change.”
Critics pounced immediately in blogs and on Twitter. That harsh reaction was then reported and commented on at Salon, Huffington Post, Slate, the Columbia Journalism Review, and elsewhere.
I recently conducted a Q & A with Pielke about this episode and the aftermath. The links in my questions are from me. I asked Pielke to provide his own links.
KK: It’s been noted on Twitter that you are not listed on the main contributors page for FiveThirthyEight. Does this mean you no longer write for the site? If so, can you explain what happened?
RPJR: That is correct, I no longer write for 538. Last month, after 538 showed some reluctance in continuing to publish my work, I called up Mike Wilson, the lead editor there, and told him that it was probably best that we part ways. I wished them well in their endeavor going forward. I remain a fan. Since then I have joined up with SportingIntelligence, a UK-based website that focuses on analyses of economic and other quantitative aspects of sport. It’s a great fit. And of course, I continue to publish in places like USA Today and the Financial Times on a wide range of subjects
KK: What do you make of the uproar your FiveThirtyEight piece generated? I know it quickly degenerated into an ugly pile-on, which I and some other journalists found unseemly. But did critics have any legitimate points you want to acknowledge?
RPJR: Well, that first piece was written on a subject that I have written on many times before (and perhaps as much as anyone) – disasters and climate change. The short essay was perfectly consistent with the recent assessments of the IPCC. The fact that some folks didn’t like it was not surprising — most anything on climate change is met with derision by somebody. What was a surprise was the degree to which the negative response to the piece was coordinated among some activist scientists, journalists and social media aficionados. I think that took everyone by surprise. I learned some new things about certain colleagues and journalists — both really good things and some really pathetic things. Seeing a campaign organized to have me fired from 538 also taught me a lesson about the importance of academic tenure.
KK: If you could write the piece over again, what would you do differently, if anything?
RPJR: Looking back, probably the main thing I would do differently would be to simply not write about climate change at 538. When I was originally hired there was actually zero discussion about me focusing on climate or even science, but rather covering a wide range of topics. I made clear to Nate and Mike that I was looking to at least partially escape from the climate change wars by focusing on other issues. The climate change piece was an obvious place to start even so because the IPCC reports had just been released and the topic is also covered so thoroughly in the peer reviewed literature. Clearly, that judgment was wrong!
KK: Have you and Nate Silver talked about this ordeal? What was his reaction?
RPJR: I have not spoken with or corresponded with Nate since that first piece. Of course, I do wish that 538 had shown a bit more editorial backbone, but hey, it is his operation. If a widely published academic cannot publish on a subject which he has dozens of peer-reviewed papers and 1000s of citations to his work, what can he write on? Clearly Nate is a smart guy, and I suspect that he knows very well where the evidence lies on this topic. For me, if the price of playing in the DC-NYC data journalism world is self-censorship for fear of being unpopular, then it is clearly not a good fit for any academic policy scholar.
KK: The condemnation of your 538 piece quickly spiraled into ugly personal broadsides painting you (incorrectly) as a climate skeptic. This happened in various high profile venues, such as Slate. How did you feel when this happened?
RPJR: If you are engaged in public debates on issues that people care passionately about, then you will be called names and worse. It goes with the territory. It is not pleasant of course, but at the same time, it is a pretty strong indication that (a) your arguments matter and (b) people have a hard time countering them on their merits. Even so, it is remarkable to see people like Paul Krugman and John Holdren brazenly make completely false claims in public about my work and my views. That they make such false claims with apparently no consequences says something about the nature of debate surrounding climate.
KK: You say you were surprised by “the degree to which the response to the piece was coordinated among some activist scientists, journalists and social media aficionados.” But this response did not happen in a vacuum, either. For years, your work–or more specifically–pointed statements you’ve made about the climate science establishment–have been heavily criticized by a number of outspoken climate scientists and widely read climate bloggers. Looking back, it appears that animosity directed towards you stems more from sharply-worded commentary on your blog and elsewhere, than your research.
For example, in his recently published book, “Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed–and What it Means for Our Future,” NYU’s Dale Jamieson wrote about you. Here’s an excerpt that was posted at Salon:
In a 2010 book, Roger Pielke Jr. claimed that “[c]limate science is a fully politicized enterprise, desperately in need of reform if integrity is to be restored and sustained.” “Climategate,” the episode in November 2009 in which thousands of documents were stolen from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, revealed scientists “who saw themselves as much as activists as researchers,” … “plotting to corrupt the peer review system.” According to Pielke Jr., the theft exposed a “clique of activist scientists” engaged in a “coup against peer review.” He went on to accuse a broad range of scientists and public figures of trying to scare people into taking action on climate change or advocating such scare tactics.
One remarkable feature of Pielke Jr.’s discussion is its shrillness. “Clique,” “coup,” and “plotting” are the kinds of terms usually reserved for organized crime syndicates, terrorist organizations, and other conspiracies against the public good. The repeated use of the word “activist” mobilizes a characteristic trope of right-wing ideologues. The term is typically applied to judges, who like scientists are supposed to be neutral when carrying out their duties, but all too often, on this view, betray their professional responsibilities. Even someone who is sympathetic to the claim that political considerations sometimes find their way into climate science might shrink from Pielke Jr.’s characterization of climate science as “a fully politicized enterprise.”
Perhaps you take issue with how Jamieson has characterized your statements. But even still, he appears to have identified the reasons for much of the animosity towards you that has built up over the years. This is the larger context that I think informs the ugly brouhaha over your 538 piece. What are your thoughts on this?
RPJR: Anyone following these debates over the years and has observed whose arguments have actually been vindicated will no doubt understand why some of the louder critics of mine have resorted to bitter personal attacks. More generally, however, there is a common strategy of delegitimization used in the climate debates. It seems that labeling someone a “denier” offers a convenient excuse to avoid taking on arguments on their merits and to call for certain voices to be banished.
I’ve known Dale Jamison for about 25 years, dating back to the time that he was a philosophy professor at Colorado and NCAR. I have always got on well with him and learned a lot from him during the years that we were colleagues. I am perfectly comfortable with my claim that parts of the climate science field are indeed “fully politicized.” At the same time, as I have often said, there are many brilliant and hard-working scientists in the field. It just so happens that some of the most fervent ideologues find themselves in positions of authority. I don’t think that this is at all controversial.
What is controversial is the question whether the ends justify the means. That is to say, is the climate issue so important that we should look past issues of scientific integrity among those whose heart is in the right place? Jamieson suggests that we should:
“I’ve known Roger for a long time, and he’s done a lot of work that I respect. Part of why I called him out in the book is because he’s not a climate change denier. He’s somebody who knows better, but the rhetoric that he’s used against scientists and the exaggerations and the kind of personal fights that he’s gotten into around the issue have really distracted from the broad consensus that actually exists around doing something.”
First, I’m flattered to see that Dale thinks that my views are so influential so as to distract from a broad consensus. I’d just disagree with that conclusion. As I document with evidence in The Climate Fix, there is a very strong and stable consensus in the US and worldwide about doing something on climate. But more generally, should an academic really be measuring his arguments by who they favor in a political debate? Or should I call things like I see them? I’ve chosen to call things as I see them, and I am quite happy with that career choice.
Second, many of the public debates that I have been involved in are associated with efforts to discredit or misrepresent my own academic work. The 538 episode is just one such example. I document in my book an episode when back in 2001 a leading climate scientist asked me to underplay my work for political reasons. Not only do I believe this to be unethical, I also think that it will be counterproductive for those calling for action. Trying to trick policy makers or the public to believe that — say, disasters are getting worse because of climate change or that we have all the technologies we need for deep decarbonization — will only backfire in the end. I am a big fan of playing it straight with the science, because over the long term that reinforces public trust and leads to more reliable policy recommendations.
KK: I should say that I am in no way excusing or rationalizing the behavior of climate bloggers and others who have previously used slanderous language in an attempt to discredit you. But I guess what I getting at here is this: Do you feel in any way responsible for provoking the deep-seated anger directed at you over the years, which seems to have culminated in this mob-like attack on your reputation after publication of the 538 piece? I just wonder if you feel like, given the chance to go back in time, might you have phrased your own criticisms of the climate science community differently?
RPJR: It is a fair question. Hindsight is of course 20/20. But let’s say that all the criticisms Jamieson levies are accurate: I have been hard on some climate scientists. I have criticized some of their work in public, and even accused some of exploiting scientific authority for political ends. Sometimes I have used colorful language (“coup against peer review” — though for actual “shrillness” I would point Jamieson over to Joe Romm!). Some people have disagreed with my arguments. I have even been critical of the IPCC at times. Also, I have popularized my work on carbon pricing, decarbonization, energy, disasters, and the politicization of science. My work has occasionally been cited by the bad guys. I have also challenged claims that are seemingly widely accepted, but which my work shows to be wrong. I believe that policy debates deserve a plurality of voices, not a harmonization of views. I do not focus obsessively on the skeptics and deniers.
What part of the above would I change? Not much at all.
To be very clear, it is only a few climate scientists who have engaged in the “mob-like attacks” (it was actually mostly journalists and bloggers). Almost all the feedback I get from colleagues in climate science is overwhelmingly positive. Those climate scientists engaged in the climate debate are all big boys (mostly) and girls. If they cannot take the rough and tumble of public debate, then they should not be in public debate. There is “deep-seate anger” because of colorful language and apparent thin skins? Right. Tell me about it.
Ultimately, what I learned from the 538 episode is how small and insular the community of self-professed “climate hawks” actually is. Sure they made a lot of noise online and got John Stewart’s attention. But that was because of Nate Silver’s fame, not mine. Back in the real world, outside the climate blogosphere and the NY-DC data journalism circle virtually no one knew or much cared about the 538 brouhaha, even within academia. I found that encouraging.
I do wish the 538 folks all the best going forward. They were put in a difficult position. I have no hard feelings. There are some brilliant people there and they will no doubt have some great successes.
But in conclusion, let’s take a step back. Disaster losses continue to increase worldwide. Carbon dioxide continues to accumulate in the atmosphere. The world continues to demand ever more energy. Climate policies in place or proposed are not up to the task. In short, we need more ideas, more debate, more disagreement if we are to make intelligent progress. Efforts to demonize or silence unwelcome voices probably don’t move the dial very far on any of these issues Was this campaign to have me removed from 538 a victory for the climate movement? Was it the right battle to wage? I hope the climate hawks ask themselves these questions.
KK: I should say that I am in no way excusing or rationalizing the behavior of climate bloggers and others who have previously used slanderous language in an attempt to discredit you. But…
In other words, Kloor IS excusing and rationalizing. Rhetorically, that is what can be called the disingenuous ‘but.’ It acknowledges that the fact are on his opponents side, but….
Dude was railroaded for having politically incorrect views based on facts.
Good interview. It opened up a lot on things I was generally curious about and RPJ was as consistent on this subject as he has always been.
I’m biased here. Living in Florida the very first thing I looked into about climate was related to spiraling increases in homeowners insurance due to climate models predicting a sharp increase in hurricanes frequency and intensity. It didn’t take long to find RPJ’s blog and the statistical analysis and data on long term trends. There was a distinct difference in the actual trend data and how it was portrayed in the media and the insurance companies were happy to play along.
It’s always been my opinion that this “extreme events are already worse” meme was going to backfire. It is simply too easy to refute with data, and overstatements abound in the media. You would think credibility matters to some people, just apparently not the self elected climate leaders. Naturally they respond hostilely when their credibility is questioned.
My guess is RPJ probably single handedly brought sanity to the SREX report. And the latest IPCC AR5 was consistent with the SREX. I do enjoy directly quoting the IPCC every time this debate comes up, turning the consensus tables on its head so to say.
“Looking back, probably the main thing I would do differently would be to simply not write about climate change at 538”
…and here is yet another example of the toxicity of the climate debate. Many bloggers and journalists (including KK) has started to de-emphasize their climate coverage. It is easy to see how one would grow tired of playing in this swamp. It is repetitive, hostile, not career enhancing, and has devolved into a mentality of trench warfare using chemical weapons.
RPJ no longer writing on 538…who actually won here? Nobody. The loser is open scientific debate and science transparency. Diversity is not a prized goal in the climate debate.
“Seeing a campaign organized to have me fired from 538 also taught me a lesson about the importance of academic tenure.”
This growing trend of lobbying for firings is pathetic anti-intellectualism of the highest order. As a life-long liberal I’m ashamed of this burgeoning distaste for intellectual freedom. See also this recent incident at Scientific American: http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/07/scientific_americans_pc_police_dismisses_a_blogger.html`
Sad.
Roger on the money, as usual…
Looks like RPJ will get additional flak from European anti-GMO NGOs (Greenpeace etc.) by defending Anne Glover, Chief Scientific Advisor to the EU president. The said NGOs have asked the president to abolish the position and take advice from NGOs instead. The reason? Glover spoke in favour of GMOs, based on scientific consensus.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2014/jul/24/science-advisers-coalition-environment-ngo-europe
Agreed, his views seem guided primarily by who is signing the checks to him or which political party they support; sad that a scientist would use these types of “evidence” upon which to base their scientific opinion.
Those of us who go back to 2007 or so, remember the late Climate Feedback, effectively killed at birth by the first post, Roger’s, with exactly the same sort of parsing that got him, and 538, in trouble. You friend has form Keith.
Oh yes, this made it all worth while
Alarmists will do what they do, shout doom and gloom regardless of facts to gain control of more and more. The same folks did everything they could to kill nuclear power and even now will refuse to admit they were wrong.
RPJ and his colleagues who only speak for truth are heroes.
Pielke Jr reminds me of Kary Mullis. 20 years ago, after getting his nobel prize for PCR, he pointed out on a research project that AIDS research had become so politicized and backfilled with sloppy “race to cure” science that they’d never arrive at a cure because they still didn’t understand the cause – just correlations.
He was condemned and excoriated for this and was told his comments and ideas were utterly useless and counter productive and would prevent a cure (which was just around the corner).
20 years later? No cure.
The a***oles are often the ones that force advancement of our understanding of phenomena.
Charlie Johnson:
– As I recall the argument, Duesberg, Mullis and a few others claimed that the a) the theory behind HIV as the cause of AIDS was wrong, and b) that the drugs based on that theory would fail to work.
– I’m not up with the latest theories; but I see that the HIV+ people don’t seem to be dying at nearly the same rate as before; in fact, some of the folks that took out “reverse mortgages” to get the equity our of their houses are now in trouble, because they’ve lived beyond their expectations. The damn drugs have worked.
– So it looks to me like Mullis got that wrong.
– Nor do these prominent names fail alone: The idiot former President Mbeki of South Africa read and believed this negativism; based on which his entire country, for many years, based its preventative approach to AIDS on dietary guidelines, not even bringing in the connection with unprotected sex. The result? About an extra 1 Million people who contracted AIDS.
A Nobel Prize may give you the right to be heard, but it unfortunately does not guarantee correctness; and when a big tree falls, a lot of other bushes get crushed underneath.
So your problems with the 2007 article is what exactly?
The Arbor data is here:
http://www.arborday.org/media/map_change.cfm
This appears to show that from 1990 to 2006 that most areas experienced a 5F change in average low temperature (about a 0.5 hardiness zone change), and some areas experienced a 2 zone change (>10F) change. In 16 years?
I went here and looked around:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/city-list/
I looked in the areas marked as 2 zone changes and I couldn’t find anything that looked greater than 1F. The global temperatures would have changed on the order of 0.6F in this period.
This hardiness zone chart looks off by a factor of 5x to 10x.
What is the discrepancy?
“does not guarantee correctness”
Agree. Can’t think of anything that does.
“but I see that the HIV+ people don’t seem to be dying at nearly the same rate as before”
That doesn’t mean the cause has been identified. It can mean symptoms are being managed. I recall Magic Johnson decided years back that he was cured (HIV was undetectable), went off the meds, and HIV returned, so he went back on meds.
So the meds can make the HIV go away to the point that the virus can’t be detected (does it hide somewhere?) but the virus will return once the toxic soup that kills it is removed.
“President Mbeki of South Africa read and believed this negativism”
So Kary Mullis prescribed this diet cure? Or did Kary Mullis simply point out that the cause had not been pinned down? I don’t see how Mullis is responsible for Mbeki’s idiocy, nor is any scientist responsible for people misinterpreting criticism of another scientists work.
Anyways – I agree that the “drugs have worked” but that doesn’t advance our understanding of AIDS. Remediation of symptoms doesn’t signify progress towards a cure just as chicken soup doesn’t cure the common cold.
Correlation isn’t causation.
– If you believe Mullis, you then have to ask, “Why are all these people suddenly living longer? If they don’t have their hands on the right cause, why is the medication helping?” ‘Cause if the cause of dead chickens is really racoons, why has shooting the foxes been effective?
– Kary Mullis is not responsible for formulating Mbeki’s program; but he should be aware that his right to express himself on what is possible is not without consequences, in this case for 1 Million people, who were at the mercy of Mbeki. Mbeki spent many hours reading Duesberg and Mullis, convincing himself that they had “the truth,” and formulating the AIDS program for South Africa accordingly.
The coordinated ad hominem attack against Prof. Pielke is clear evidence of how little evidence climate alarmists actually have and weak are their arguments. e.g. > 95% of 34 year predictions by global climate models are hotter than actual temperatures. . Ross McKitrick shows a step change explains tropospheric temperatures better than CO2. etc.
Except climate models don’t predict “a sharp increase in hurricane frequency and intensity.”
This is from the IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch14 pg 1220:
“Based on process understanding and agreement in 21st century projections, it is likely that the global frequency of occurrence of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in both global mean tropical cyclone maximum wind speed and precipitation rates. The future influence of climate change on tropical cyclones is likely to vary by region, but the specific characteristics of the changes are not yet well quantified and there is low confidence in region-specific projections of frequency and intensity.”
and
“There is low confidence in the projections of future changes for the tropical Atlantic, both for the mean and interannual modes, because of systematic errors in model simulations of current climate. The implications for future changes in Atlantic hurricanes and tropical South American and West African precipitation are therefore uncertain.”
For example, see:
“Modeled impact of anthropogenic warming on the frequency of intense Atlantic hurricanes.”
MA Bender MA et al, Science. 2010 Jan 22;327(5964):454-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1180568.
From the abstract:
“The model projects nearly a doubling of the frequency of category 4 and 5 storms by the end of the 21st century, despite a decrease in the overall frequency of tropical cyclones….”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20093471
The point wasn’t about whether Mullis of 1994 is to be “believed” as an article of faith. The point is and was that scientific sanitation requires people to keep assertions and blithely held assumptions in check. Someone has to be the jerk.
Mullis was a jerk. And he was right to be one. 30 years ago the assertion was made that HIV causes AIDS and that a cure would therefore come in 2 years.
HIV is now attacked much like most cancers are – with toxins. That isn’t a cure. It’s a therapy. People who are ‘cured’ of cancer know that they are actually in remission – there’s no guarantee that every cancer cell was killed and they are cured.
As it turns out the of the many billions spent on AIDS over the last 30 years only the parts that went to creating the cocktails of toxins that suppress HIV were productively spent. Everything in the “cure” bucket has been fruitless. Yes – we learn things along the way, but we’d have learned things spending the billions differently.
Mullis didn’t advocate eliminating therapies or ignoring the epidemic. He wanted the billions that were going toward “finding the cure” to be directed based on science rather than jealously defended platitudes from celebrity-researchers whose findings couldn’t be questioned (nor replicated). That is the entire point. Science requires gadflies that point out the risks and costs of taking shortcuts. When such people are attacked as anti-science rather than have their arguments rebutted, then there isn’t much science left to defend, is there?
… and what you fail to get is that, in the real world, when a “big name” says something, it can have an effect way out of proportion to the intention and degree of consideration expended.
When a small child stands up in a small boat and waves his arms around, it’s cute. When a grown man does exactly the same thing, it can over-turn the boat. 1 Million people in SA alone took a dive because some people didn’t understand that.
Roger’s problem is that he doesn’t play the game right.
If you ask an athlete about h/her competitor, typically you get something like this: “well, you know, joe’s a great ball player and, well, you have to respect his power and his ability to make things happen in a game”. Joe could be a .200 hitter with a 0.655 fielding percentage and the highest strikeout ratio in baseball. That’s Athlete Speak for “I don’t want to piss that guy off and get him to hit a homer off me”.
When Roger talks about other people’s work, he’s supposed to say things like “Bob et all have taken an unusual approach. Their idea that hurricane damage trends indicate that civilization will be wiped out in the next 50 years, well, that’s very interesting, and it looks like there might be some potential evidence that may suggest this as a potential possibility under some conceivable scenarios” That’s science speak for “Bob’s methods are questionable at best and his work is totally irrelevant but I’d like him to sign off on my next NSF application”
But no. Roger tells it like it is. This puts pressure on other scientists to do good work, and it scares the hell out of their fan base. Right? From the 49er-fan perspective, the worst thing about Richard Sherman wasn’t what he said – it was that he was right. He was better, and he had the nerve to point it out.
And alas science speak is all well and good when scientists are talking about sand box science – like whether or not dinosaurs had feathers. But when they’re talking about important science – science that may support $$$TTTs in Federal spending and reroute the entire economy – then it’s time to take Roger’s approach and get down to brass tacks. Unfortunately, some scientists can’t tell the difference between important science and sand box science, and they treat them the same.
Right, not anymore. I’m totally with you here.
But they did in 2006 after a couple big hurricane years. They have since correctly walked it back (the data has forced them to…), but surely you remember the “hurricanes will increase in frequency and intensity” times, don’t you? Many people still repeat this.
AR4:
“Earlier studies assessed in the TAR showed that future tropical cyclones would likely become more severe with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation. More recent modelling experiments have addressed possible changes in tropical cyclones in a warmer climate and generally confirmed those earlier results.”
What I’m specifically referring to is this:
Florida insurers rely on dubious storm model
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20101114/article/11141026
It’s a bit long, but won the Pulitzer prize for investigative journalism in 2010. The re-insurer RMS dropped historical trends for disaster prediction and started using estimates from climate scientists, including Kerry Emanuel. *** Instant 45% increase in estimated major hurricane strikes ***.
“In the end, the four scientists came up with four hurricane estimates — similar only in that they were all above the historic average.”
“Thus, the long-term reality of 0.63 major hurricanes striking the U.S. every year yielded to a prediction of 0.90.”
Post-mortem is that the decade 2000-2010 ended up being right at the historical average of disaster damage, even given the two horrendous years in mid-decade. Hilariously after 2006 we haven’t even had one major hurricane strike in the US, the Al Gore effect I suppose. What the future holds is uncertain.
The paragraph below the one you quoted (4AR WG1 CH10 section 10.3.6.3) says:
“A study with roughly 100-km grid spacing shows a decrease in tropical cyclone frequency globally and in the North Pacific but a regional increase over the North Atlantic and no significant changes in maximum intensity (Sugi et al., 2002). Yoshimura et al. (2006) use the same model but different SST patterns and two different convection schemes, and show a decrease in the global frequency of relatively weak tropical cyclones but no significant change in the frequency of intense storms…. Another global modelling study with roughly a 100-km grid spacing finds a 6% decrease in tropical storms globally and a slight increase in intensity, with both increases and decreases regionally related to the El Niño-like base state response in the tropical Pacific to increased greenhouse gases (McDonald et al., 2005). Another study with the same resolution model indicates decreases in tropical cyclone frequency and intensity but more mean and extreme precipitation from the tropical cyclones simulated in the future in the western north Pacific (Hasegawa and Emori, 2005).”
Then looking at another class of models, they write (pg 788):
“Thus, from this category of coarser-grid models that can only represent rudimentary aspects of tropical cyclones, there is
no consistent evidence for large changes in either frequency or intensity of these models’ representation of tropical cyclones, but there is a consistent response of more intense precipitation from future storms in a warmer climate.”
From a later paragraph on the same page:
“In that study, tropical cyclone frequency decreased 30% globally (but increased about 34% in the North Atlantic).”
Basically the same message: lower frequencies, higher intensities, and an admission there’s a still a lot we don’t know.
So I don’t see the inconsistency. Or how scientists of the past were supposed to read the minds of scientists of the future.
“Hilariously after 2006 we haven’t even had one major hurricane strike in the US.”
Hurricane Sandy (2012):
deaths: 286
US damages: $65M
That looks “major” to me.
“In the end, the four scientists came up with four hurricane estimates — similar only in that they were all above the historic average.”
Insurers are in business to make money. They consulted experts. Did they do something that violated free market principles?
What process do you recommend they use to assess future hurricane risk? It’s easy to say, after the fact, they should just have used the 120-year trend (trend in what?). But I’m sure there are periods where that misses the mark, either over or under, Scientists would no doubt be blamed for doing that, by people like you.
Predicting hurricanes numbers and intensities before the season starts, let alone 5 years from now, is difficult. Look how often William Gray’s predictions are wrong.
Modelers, of course, can’t win. If they overpredict, people like you jump on them. If they underpredict, people like you jump on them. If they predict correctly people like you dismiss them or attribute it to blind luck. They’re expected be exactly right all the time for every parameter. So maybe it’s your expectations that need adjusting.
Due to the erratic nature of hurricane landfalls, the insurance industry should models rates on 25 or 50 year averages, not 5 years. This does not align well with Wall Street practices.
I am not fan of the property insurance industry. In fact I would say they are primarily at fault here. They hand selected people who would give them the answer they wanted. This justified rate increases.
In theory, property insurance rates should not change after a disaster, in practice it always does. They effectively pay for disasters after they happen and bank profit in between. Florida rejected these wild rate increases and most insurers left the state.
Yes, this is the free market, not always perfect.
You will find it interesting that it is actually legal for insurance companies to collude on pricing and they have an anti-trust exemption.
Sorry – it isn’t that I fail to get it – it is that I simply don’t agree that it is either pertinent, important or advisable.
When we place the obligation on a scientist to suppress information that the public may misinterpret we might as well shut all of our labs down.
Saying “we don’t know the cause precisely” is not saying “there is no cause hence no disease.” The fact that stupid people do stupid things with information that they don’t understand is an increasing hazard of the information age. That is no reason to assign a moral obligation on the informed to suppress information.
Well intentioned disinformation campaigns don’t advance science – they tend to backfire as the unscrupulous exploit said disinformation to enrich themselves with public money, yet furnish no remedy to the thing that they made the disinformed public fear. When that happens and people realize they’ve been disinformed, they often leap to the assumption that what they were told to fear shouldn’t be feared. Did I mention these people are often stupid?
Better to put what is known out there and to vigorously examine how we came to know it. That provides an actual foundation for progress that a passionate, well intentioned, yet dishonest disinformation campaign can’t.
You of course know that major is a Cat3+.
Sandy was not even a hurricane at landfall, that’s why they call it a “Superstorm”.
NY / NJ was woefully unprepared for even this level of storm. It also hit at almost the worst case trajectory and at high tide. So a lot of things combined ended in a disaster.
Cat1 hurricanes in Florida are not going to cause near this level of catastrophic damage because it is better prepared for obvious reasons.
“You of course know that major is a Cat3+.”
Then clearly any classification of hurricanes that doesn’t consider Sandy to be “major” is flawed. .
There are two essential points:
– As a Nobel Laureate, Mullis has a certain responsibility to think about the consequences of opening his mouth, and to act accordingly. Most of them are smart enough to do that.
– Mullis was not discussing something that he knew much about: His training and accomplishments are in Biochemistry. This is nowhere close to knowing about viruses, the immune system, and related diseases. He did not have the expertise to be dissing an entire field of scientists who have spent their lives on a subject he knows nothing about.
This is not the only time he’s shot from the hip: According to the Wikipedia article on him, he’s also promoted climate-change denial and (you’ll love this) astrology. Astrology? Astrology! The only thing that could be scientifically stupider would be buying lottery tickets.
Then there’s this:
“Increasing storm tides in New York Harbor, 1844–2013,” S. A. Talke, Geophysical Research Letters (2014).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059574/abstract
Some of its figures are here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-upward-trend-in-new-york-city-storm.html
The Saffir-Simpson scale is very well established. I guess you can talk to hurricane experts who came up with this and ask them to implement the Appell scale. Good luck.
Damage is correlated to wind speed, which drives storm surge, and random chance of where it strikes, the trajectory, how fast it is moving, tide level, etc. That’s what matters. Being unprepared has nothing to do with the science. There is a difference between a major disaster and a major hurricane.
Storm surge increases with SLR, which has been about 8 inches over the past century, and is still about 1 inch / decade. Land subsidence is a problem in some areas. This as it relates to storm surge is uncontroversial as far as I know.
You are preaching to the choir. There is many times a huge disconnect between the summary and the details, and how it is reported in the media.
In most cases what the scientists say is fine, it is what activists “say the scientists say” is where the wheels usually come off I have found.
Quoting single studies is the norm, or worst case projections from a single study, etc. is very common.
You can Google cyclones “more frequent and intense” and you will find endless claims of this variety. Most people have backed away from it in the past 5 years.
Just 1 of a zillion:
http://science.time.com/2013/07/09/a-new-study-says-hurricanes-will-get-stronger-and-more-frequent-thanks-to-climate-change/
Compare the title to the details in the text. Emanuel again. It’s irrelevant what his track record is here. Standard fare.
He brought the issue up before he was awarded the Nobel Prize while he was working on an AIDS project for a CA biotech. He was asked to write a paper on PCR vis a vis blood testing for HIV and simply wanted to cite an authoritative source for “HIV likely causes AIDS” and could never find it, even after politely consulting experts in the field including the people who first made the assertion.
So your critique of social consequences of Nobel awarded scientists calling out others and being misinterpreted should be directed at the Nobel committee who awarded him the prize after the fact.
As for fitness to make the criticism, it was precisely because he deemed himself not an authority that he asked around for the citation that he himself could not find. Someone posted a transcript from his book on the event -> www [dot] virusmyth [dot] com/aids/hiv/kmdancing.htm
As for other things he holds true with or without foundation, how does that strengthen the assertion that HIV causes AIDS circa 1988? If he believed something you find to be absurd when he developed PCR, does that invalidate PCR? We are talking about science here, right? Isaac Newton used references in the Bible to calculate the earliest date for Armageddon to be 2060. I’m not worried, are you? That doesn’t invalidate his other work.
As for his reputation, so be it. That is his to manage. But discounting a specific assertion solely based on who made it is definitionally an ad-hominem.
Getting back to Pielke – I am all for people stating cases clearly and battling spooky disinformation even if morons choose to misinterpret the statements or hold the utility of spooky disinformation dear. Discovery is non-linear so science is messy. As long as science attracts big egos, part of it becomes blood sport. Let knowledge prevail and let the weak minded fall.
1993: Nobel Prize
1998: Wikipedia states: “In his 1998 autobiography, Mullis expressed disagreement with the scientific evidence supporting climate change and ozone depletion, the evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and asserted his belief in astrology.”
“He brought the issue up before he was awarded the Nobel Prize while he was working on an AIDS project for a CA biotech.” UHH, NOT SO MUCH.
“As for other things he holds true with or without foundation, how does that strengthen the assertion that HIV causes AIDS circa 1988? If he believed something you find to be absurd when he developed PCR, does that invalidate PCR? We are talking about scien ce here, right? Isaac Newton used references in the Bible to calculate the earliest date for Armageddon to be 2060. I’m not worried, are you? That doesn’t invalidate his other work.” a) 1988 =/= 1998; b) also: 1998 =/= 1727. NEWTON WOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED WACKY IF HE DID THAT TODAY.
“But discounting a specific assertion solely based on who made it is definitionally an ad-hominem.” YOU GOT IT BACKWARDS: I’M DISCOUNTING MULLIS BECAUSE OF HIS GOOFBALL ASSERTIONS: NO AD-HOMINEM HERE.
“Getting back to Pielke – I am all for people stating cases clearly and battling spooky disinformation even if morons choose to misinterpret the statements or hold the utility of spooky disinformation dear.” UNFORTUNATELY, PIELKE IS THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN TELLING HALF- OR QUARTER-TRUTHS: Here’s a detailed discussion, including how Pielke misrepresented his OWN papers after the fact: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/25/fivethirtyeight-misrepresents-climate-change-research . Every bit of it is documented by links to the original. Pielke is the classic “Let’s just split this down the middle” guy – no matter who and how many are on the two sides.
67% of Arctic sea ice has disappeared in the last 34 years. If you understand this sea ice is keeping sea surface temperatures lower, and if you understand warmer seas cause stronger storms, why wouldn’t you expect an increase in storm strength once Arctic sea ice disappears completely?
While sea ice extent was shrinking in the Arctic, it was expanding to a record area in the Antarctic. Total sea ice is currently above the long term average. So, would you expect a reduction in Southern Hemisphere typhoons? I don’t recall people making such a prediction.
Good interview. I was hopeful when 538 was founded, but their failure to check the facts on this topic and report honestly turned me off.
Yes, sea ice is expanding in the Antarctic because the continent is melting down. Ice is moving from the land to the sea. I would expect a marked increase in typhoon activity once this ice disappears completely.
Twisting the the words to win the argument. Tsk tsk David.
Tom Scharf:
“what the activists say the scientists say is where the wheels usually come off ”
David Appell (implied below):
Hurricane Sandy was a “major” hurricane.
Hats off to Mr. Scharf
It’s incredible how a boring backwater of science – the Weather – was co-opted by Leftist political hacks and perverted into a modern athiestic version of 15th century heretic burning religious fanaticism.
“Damage is correlated to wind speed…”
Not for the two most damaging US hurricanes since 1900, Katrina and Sandy. Or Ike (2008, Cat 2), Wilma (2005, Cat 3) or Ivan (2004, Cat 3).
http://www.businessinsider.com/a-list-of-the-worst-hurricanes-in-history-2012-10
What good is a metric that doesn’t correlate with what is important to people’s lives? Or did all these storms just happen to hit in unlucky places?
Any classification of “major” that doesn’t include storms that do “major” damage isn’t the classification most people are interested in, nor can it be the only relevant metric.
“You can Google cyclones “more frequent and intense” and you will find endless claims of this variety. Most people have backed away from it in the past 5 years.”
Except you tried to slip it in, up above. And imply that only RPJer’s blog gave a straight picture, when the 4AR and 5AR did as well (and to much better depth and width).
You are confusing sea ice extent with volume. In fact, Arctic sea ice volume (or mass) is decreasing about 10 times faster than Antarctic se ice volume is expanding. That means global sea ice is decreasing quite rapidly, and is far below the long-term trend.
Across the western world, it is becoming more and more apparent that people in today’s society are now quite willing to give up on freedom of expression and various democratic principles in favour of authoritarianism and consensus thinking.
I say let this new way run its course. Let today’s spoilt western generation experience intolerance and censorship and persecution against their ideas and research. Only then will society eventually come to its senses. I see another 10 years of this nonsense as long as “human-caused dangerous global warming” continues to dominate.
These are dangerous times. Skeptics (who in my opinion sit on the correct side of the global warming debate based on the science) who think there is light at the end of the tunnel are deceiving themselves.
The manner in which the UN and its agencies, national governments, their bureaucracies, scientific and academic institutions, and the media have endorsed “human-caused dangerous global warming”, makes it clear that the global warming deception is going to remain for another 10 years.
Why ten years? Because by 2014, Mother Nature will have exposed the IPCC’s supposition as false – the supposition that claims carbon dioxide emissions from human activity is causing catastrophic global warming and is the key driver of climate change.
As is the case now, by 2014 there will be still be no evidence of catastrophic global warming, let alone human caused global warming, despite an increased carbon dioxide concentration. There will be no evidence of any discernible warming. I base this on the overwhelming wealth of scientific evidence that is available in relation to natural climate variability, something the IPCC purposely excluded from its role as stated in its “Principles Governing IPCC Work” which states:
<>
The IPCC only considers science relating to human-induced climate change… and conspicuously excludes the scientific evidence of natural climate variability.
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the
scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with
scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
I would hope Roger will continue to speak truth against “consensus” and “conventional wisdom”.
The past greats in science, arts and politics all had to suffer scorn for their beliefs.
As he says, it goes with the territory.
Science can not advance, and no great achievements will ever be produced by an intellectually lazy adherence to the status quo, that borders on the religious.
I read Nate Silver’s book from cover to cover, in which he demolished a lot of statistical myths.
But when I got to the inevitable “global warming” chapter, Nate was very careful not to upset the apple cart.
He is after all a business man, and he is looking out for his own economic interests.
As Michael Jordan once said when asked why he doesn’t advocate more for liberal issues:
“Republicans buy shoes too”.
Mr. Pielke appears to be a scientist, in the correct sense of that word. As for the activists … a quotation comes to mind. I believe it was Patton who said, “if everyone is thinking alike, someone is not thinking.”
Warmists are definitely a mob. Cross them and you will never get tenure.
Obviously they are unlucky. Luck plays a very strong role for the reasons identified above. Location of landfall, time over target, high or low tide, trajectory, etc.
A stronger hurricane that hits the same area will cause even more damage.
“Except climate models don’t predict a sharp increase in hurricane frequency and intensity.”
If not now, they did until a few years ago.
But let’s accept David Appell’s point: No sharp increase in hurricanes. Why then is RPJR the bad guy for telling the truth? And why aren’t the modellers publicly correcting politicians and media figures who hype climate nonsense?
One gets the impression many climate scientists are privately skeptical of the alarmism but are afraid to publicly reveal their skepticism.
Where did I say “only”? It was where I compared media portrayals to actual data trends. RPJ documents exactly what the IPCC says.
Are you really saying the story on hurricanes has been consistent all along? I’ll let Chris Mooney document it for you, he should be a trusted source, eh?
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/hurricane-season-ipcc-sandy
Warmer seas = stronger storms is a theory. The observational data does not yet support it.
The future remains uncertain. My major objection has been with those who claim it is already getting worse. It is not.
My “theory” is that they do not yet understand hurricanes and climate well enough to make accurate predictions on future trends. So far my theory is winning. We will see if that changes.
“Obviously they are unlucky.”
All of the top 6 storms — five since 2004 — just happened to be “unlucky.” Does that really sound plausible to you, strictly on the probabilities?
Technically Sandy when it came ashore in New Jersey was a “post-tropical cyclone with hurricane-force winds”. It hit Cuba as a Cat 3, diminished to a tropical storm, then regained hurricane-force winds.
“If not now, they did until a few years ago.”
I showed up above that the 4AR didn’t show that.
Scientific knowledge advances with time. On complex topics with much uncertainty, scientists sometime change their minds in the light of new evidence. What’s wrong with that? They people, not oracles.
“Why then is RPJR the bad guy for telling the truth?”
Because many think he didn’t tell the whole truth. For example, stricter local building codes often follow hurricanes, which he did not account for. He didn’t account for other projects meant to minimize hurricane losses — dikes, things like the MRGO, the economic incentive not to rebuild where a hurricane has already hit (like NO).
And a problem with normalizing to GDP is that it requires GDP to at least keep pace with storm damages. That’s a problem if your economy doesn’t, or if you live in countries like Haiti, Jamaica, or Mexico others that have weaker economies than the US and are much less resilience to strong storms.
As well, it ignores *people* whose income doesn’t keep pace with their country’s GDP. I.e the poor. A poor person’s life can be utterly destroyed by a hurricane — no insurance perhaps, flimsy houses, no savings to fall back on — in a way that an affluent person’s life is not. So unless there is a way for people suffering the damage to be compensated by those causing the problem (fossil fuel users), a shift in wealth is taking place, from the poorer person to the richer person.
And because RPJr writes things like this:
“John Holdren’s Epic Fail”
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-holdrens-epic-fail.html
which is not cool in the professional scientific world.
No, I don’t trust Chris Mooney, and never have. He writes “opinion journalism,” which isn’t journalism in my book.
For serious!?
I think Mooney has an amazing talent for translating climate science into a language most people can understand… he was using the term “skeptic” for a while there, which made me a bit peevish, but I think he’s since stopped.
Have you seen him get something wrong?
Do you trust the TV weatherman Anthony Watts?
John Holdren is a misanthropic nutcase. Dangerous men like him deserve ridicule.
http://www.zombietime.com/john_holdren/
You have bought into a myth spread by the corrupt Anthony Watts followers….
The freshwater land based ice on Antarctica is rapidly melting now.
As that freshwater enters the ocean around the continent of Antarctica it caused more winter sea ice to form than normally does as it is not saline as the ocean water is.
The increased ocean ice during the past three winters is mostly thin and rotten ice and melts off very quickly during it’s short summer season.
Yes I am aware that a ship was locked in ice there last winter, nothing unusual about that in the Southern Ocean, but the GW deniers try to have a field day with the issue.
Keep in mind that the Larson B ice shelf broke off of Antarctica in 2003, which was a wakeup call that we were entering a serious global warming trend.
Lol! I doubt if David would buy into what Watts is selling. David’s actually an extremely reliable source of information on climate science… he doesn’t seem to like Mooney though…
Maybe he thinks he’s too wordy. I could see that as a valid criticism… it is his job though.
Arctic sea ice has been increasing.
“Because many think he didn’t tell the whole truth.”
Do you understand the difference between “not telling the whole truth” and an honest academic disagreement?
I guess “many” didn’t include the IPCC SREX or AR5 reports, which appear to agree with his view.
AR5:
“Economic growth, including greater concentrations of people and wealth in periled areas and rising insurance penetration, is the most important driver of increasing losses… loss trends have not been conclusively attributed to anthropogenic climate change.”
SREX:
“Most studies of long-term disaster loss records attribute these increases in losses to increasing exposure of people and assets in at-risk areas (Miller et al., 2008; Bouwer, 2011), and to underlying societal trends – demographic, economic, political, and social – that shape vulnerability to impacts (Pielke Jr. et al., 2005; Bouwer et al., 2007). Some authors suggest that a (natural or anthropogenic) climate change signal can be found in the records of disaster losses (e.g., Mills, 2005; Höppe and Grimm, 2009), but their work is in the nature of reviews and commentary rather than empirical research.”
It’s my understanding that there was a big insurance coverage difference as to whether Sandy was or was not an official hurricane at landfall. Politicians started lobbying to define it as a hurricane. Maybe this was the end result.
Yes it makes sense. The amount of infrastructure in place has increased dramatically over the last 50 years. More stuff to damage.
The same hurricane hitting the same place every decade will produce higher damages.
We have already had the hurricane trend discussion, there’s nothing to see here. We can count hurricane landfalls very accurately.
Long term hurricane trends are flat, and landfalls decidedly down in the US the last 8 years. Do you think this dearth proves something too?
What point are you trying to make? I’m not getting it.
Why would land based ice in Antarctica melt more with an increase of even 5C (let alone 1). Its cold there.
The answer is of course that its not shrinking at all, or better put its within measurement error. “Overall, a recent estimate puts Antarctic net mass balance at -71 ± 53 gigatonnes per year”. In human terms that’s 0.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/antarctic-ice-sheet-surface-mass-balance/
Its not even clear that Antarctica will add to or subtract from ocean levels over the next 100 years, as increased snowfall will offset melting.
Let me make a wild guess with 97% certainty….you are a Democrat, or at least hard left leaning.
Mooney’s assertions that Republicans are brain damaged should at least throw up a couple red flags for you.
Believing that those opposing your view are incompetent, immoral, or unable to process information is a pretty sheltered viewpoint.
Underestimating your opponents can lead to unfortunate outcomes.
There is hope for you yet, ha ha.
You are wrong…. The perennial Arctic sea ice has decreased by near 70% since 1970. It is not increasing…
Winter sea ice does increase sometimes more so than the previous year, but winter sea ice is thin rotten ice and melts of quickly during the summer months.
It is the Arctic Ocean’s thick perennial sea ice that is rapidly melting away and that is a very serious issue.
Check it out and get educated on the subject.
Thank you David, excellent reply..
Global warming and global climate change are GLOBAL.
There have been many major hurricanes or typhoons around the globe every year and also major storms with severe flooding of large areas around the globe.
Many storms were record setting in size, and damage created. The key words anymore are “record setting”, which has now become rather common.
A major storm can be cat one or not even a one.. A monstrous (*slow moving*) storm with flooding rainfall is a major storm.
Please do point out the twisted words… Thank you.
Michael, here are some responses to your comment.
1. I said Antarctic ice extent is at a record high. That is a fact, not a myth, regardless of any other characteristics of this ice. Note that ice extent is important because of ice’s reflectivity. Low ice extent in the Arctic tends to increase global warming, since less heat is radiated back. Similarly, high ice extent in the Antarctic tends to decrease GW.
2. I don’t know what you mean by “GW denier”, but I’m not one. I believe the globe has been warming and that man’s activity has contributed some amount the warming. I believe this is the view of most climate skeptics.
3. Do you have a link showing that the growth of Antarctic sea ice extent is being caused freshwater melt? In other words, is this a theory or an established fact? Also, did the IPCC or other climatologists predict in advance that Antarctic sea ice would grow to a record level?
Possible, but the IPCC has “low confidence” in that explanation. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf, page 870.
YOU are wrong.
It is actually a perfect fit for them. Environmentalist have long sided with the various “isms” out there that provide the government authority to force rules and regulations without much discussion or providing any avenues for relief…authoritarian governments.
When the primary authoritarian government in the world fell and reverted to a quasi democracy, the natural refuge for the True Believes became the Environmentalists movement.
All you need to do is compare the broader societal agenda of the various “isms” to the Environmentalists agendas. They pretty much match point for point.
“anti-intellectualism” : disagreeing with the “consensus”.
“There is hope for you yet, ha ha.”
If you agree, then why did you cite him? Any port in a storm?
No; I’m not …..
National Snow and Ice Data Center; monthly update : __ December 2013 sea ice in the Arctic remained well below average, with the average extent ending up as the fourth-lowest on record at 270,300 square miles below the 1981 to 2010.
http://summitcountyvoice.com/2014/01/20/arctic-sea-ice-wavers-near-record-low-in-december/
June 2014 averaged 11.31 million square kilometers (4.37 million square miles). This is 580,000 square kilometers (224,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average for the month.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
“I think Mooney has an amazing talent for translating climate science into a language most people can understand…”
That makes him a good writer, not a journalist.
“Have you seen him get something wrong?”
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/03/no-its-not-republicans-brains.html
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-not-to-advocate-for-your-science.html
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/chris-mooney-evolution-and-politics/
http://politicalmathblog.com/?page_id=1780
“Do you understand the difference between “not telling the whole truth” and an honest academic disagreement?”
That isn’t what’s going on here — RPJr labeled Holdren’s view and “epic fail.” That hardly sounds like an honest academic agreement.
RPJr’s treatment of the Marcott et al Science paper was shameful –a (very poor) attempt just to cause controversy for its own sake, while getting his name in the papers.
“Do you trust the TV weatherman Anthony Watts?”
Seriously??
Before he dies, Anthony Watts will apologize for his blog and for his views on climate change.
Sandy was not a hurricane.
No, it sounds like a lot of properties have been built in harms way in recent years.
Arctic sea ice is shown in the middle of the graph below. It doesn’t look like 67% of it has disappeared in the last 34 years. What are you referring to?
Yes.. http://guardianlv.com/2014/07/antarctic-glacier-calving-rate-increase-caused-by-ice-shelf-melting/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/03/govt-scientists-antarctic-sea-ice-is-growing-because-of-global-warming/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/20/polar_ice_loss_antarctica_melting_faster_greenland_more_vulnerable.html
The fact that sea ice parts of Antarctica has been a bit higher in area the past three years is due to melting freshwater ice on the land.
Sorry I asked you that David…. CB explained… Watts is a rat and a hired assassin, he will never apologize.
“Sandy was not a hurricane.”
Tell that to the people of Jamaica and Cuba. It further illustrates the misleading nature of calling some hurricanes “major” and not other cyclones.
The National Hurricane Center called it a “hurricane,” and then a “post-tropical cyclone” with a “catastrophic storm surge.”
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182012_Sandy.pdf
“The amount of infrastructure in place has increased dramatically over the last 50 years. More stuff to damage.”
So? It’s still damage, and it still costs money to repair it.
“Long term hurricane trends are flat, and landfalls decidedly down in the US the last 8 years. Do you think this dearth proves something too?”
No. Eight years does not make a statistically significant trend. Nor does it say anything about the future in a changing world.
Oops, sorry Michael. I didn’t pick up on the scarcasm.
“No, it sounds like a lot of properties have been built in harms way in recent years.”
Two people live on a coast. One lives in a cardboard box, and the other in a $2 million dollar mansion, both of which are destroyed.
Who loses the most, and why?
Which costs society the most, and why?
Where did you dig up that phony graph guest, from an Anthony Watts article?
Sigh. I hope you understand this comment is for landfall in NYC. Do you believe people are contesting whether Sandy was ever a hurricane?
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/A3.html
“Major hurricane” is a term utilized by the National Hurricane Center for hurricanes that reach maximum sustained 1-minute surface winds of at least 50 m/s (96 kt, 111 mph). This is the equivalent of category 3, 4 and 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale.
You can use the Appell scale as you like. The rest of us will stick to the common definition.
Please do a little research first.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/A3.html
“Major hurricane” is a term utilized by the National Hurricane Center for hurricanes that reach maximum sustained 1-minute surface winds of at least 50 m/s (96 kt, 111 mph). This is the equivalent of category 3, 4 and 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale.
You guys are conflating an ambiguous use of the phrase “major disaster” with the technically defined “major hurricane”.
When you say major hurricane to others, people will interpret that as Cat3+. It is a common and well understood term.
Good, now repeat after me, neither does Sandy.
I have no idea what you are talking about anymore. This discussion was about why disaster costs are increasing while hurricane trends are not, RPJ’s controversial 538 post, this comment was relevant to that point.
There is more to the globe than the US (and even NYC), which includes people who suffer more than Americans in a hurricane.
It doesn’t matter what its category number is — Sandy has a huge impact where it struck. It was “major” by any normal sense of the world.
I never said Sandy did. But this does;
http://policlimate.com/tropical/north_atlantic_hurricane.png
When a monstrous very slow moving storm dumps over a foot of rain during a 24 hour period I call it a major STORM.
What the weather service terms a hurricane as major has nothing to do with what I choose to term a major storm… And since the storm which has been discussed here caused billions of dollars in damage, I term it was a major storm.. You can term it whatever make your ears tingle.
I do believe any of the thousands who suffered damage during that STORM, would agree it was a major storm and not a common occurrence prior to now.
The word major in Webster’s 2012 college edition means; great or greater in number , size or extent, or higher in importance or rank than minor.
Would you say that storm was a minor storm? 😉
Arctic sea ice always fluctuates below AND above average, dummy. It is currently on an upward slope – which is what I said.
YOU are wrong.
Exactly. Climate ‘science’ predictions are nonsense.
Climate science doesn’t make predictions.
Cite your reference ape man.
http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/07/29/huge-waves-measured-for-first-time-in-arctic-ocean/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/07/30/giant-waves-found-in-arctic-ocean-could-be-accelerating-sea-ice-loss/
Sea ice extent in the Arctic is decreasing rapidly this summer. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, “during the second half of June, sea ice extent loss was the second fastest in the satellite data record.” It has been decreasing 21 percent faster than average for this period. Sea ice thickness in 2014 has been tracking among the lowest four years on record, according to data from the University of Washington
Depending on timing and location, storms can work to
accelerate or decelerate sea ice loss. In 2012, a massive Arctic storm enhanced sea ice melt and pushed the year across the record line. As sea ice thins, it becomes more susceptible to strong, Arctic winds and waves, and it becomes more prone to breaking. And as sixteen foot waves become business as usual in the Arctic Ocean, we can likely expect sea ice extent to respond in-
LOL!!!! You’re an imbecile.
Nope. You’re citing propaganda based on faulty data.
Monthly data from the Natl Snow & Ice Data Ctr shows that Arctic sea ice has increased significantly for the past two years.
CryoSat shows a greater than 50% INCREASE this year over 2013.
Additionally, according to NASA, ANTarctic sea ice is increasing at record rates.
You are not telling the truth. Where is your reference? I cited references for NSIDC and NASA that say what you are writing is false.
GA-bye, I won’t waste my time discussing it with you.
So then show me one of climate science’s predictions.
National Snow & Ice Data Center
NSIDC GlobalArcticAntarctic SeaIceArea
Bullshittr; liar; I just posted a link for NSIDC and that is not what they are reporting.
Stick your comments up where the sun don’t shine you lying idiot. Here are their graphs.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=graphs+of+polar+ice+change&qpvt=graphs+of+polar+ice+change&FORM=IGRE
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Global+Warming+Graph&FORM=R5FD0
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Greenhouse+Effect+Graphs&FORM=R5FD5
YOU are lying. I gave the sources – all you have to do is go to them to see the findings.
I don’t waste my time trying to “show” Lib-Leftist dorks anything. Everyone here is familiar with the many erroneous predictions made by climate pseudoscientists.
We’ve been down this road and I’m not going to repeat it again. If you are claiming the world is experiencing “North Atlantic” warming then you might have a point, but it is unwise to use subsets of small erratic data when larger and longer global sets are available. Global hurricane trends are flat. I can post other basins that show global warming is lowering hurricanes. Will this prove something to you?
If you think the no warming folks are cherry picking, you have a bad case of hypocrisy here.
You gave the names but didn’t post any link for an article that states the lies you posted.
You couldn’t, that is because the scientists at NSIDC, NOAA, NASA never said those things, outright lies that you posted…
I posted links for what they did report and it wasn’t anything like the lies you are writing. You must be insane.
Your vehemence astounds me. As is immediately obvious to anyone looking at the graph, it was put together by Climate4you using NSIDC data. You will find it here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
Here is the blurb that accompanies it:
Is Climate4you.com a subversive organization? Did they fail to use NSIDC data as they claimed to do?
That graph is not anything like the NSIDC graphs I posted ,,, It’s total bullshitt from GW denying liars and you know it.
I’m not familar with such predictions. So how about pointing one out, to back up your claim?
“…but it is unwise to use subsets of small erratic data when larger and longer global sets are available.”
It’s hardly useless when those are the hurricanes that impact the Caribbean and the U.S.
What good does a flat global trend do you if the trend where you’re live is increasing?
“I can post other basins that show global warming is lowering hurricanes. Will this prove something to you?”
How can data for a specific basin show something about global trends?
But, yes, I’d like to see the global data.
Well, when I get the data from this location: ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/NH_seaice_extent_final.csv and graph it in Excel it looks very much like the middle Climate4you graph. Where did I go wrong?
There it is folks ^^, the classic Lib psychosis – reality inversion, projection, and hypocrisy.
Don’t blame you for your opinion. Watt’s contributed to your being caught out. Will you apologize for your BS on the death treats to scientists scam that you ran?
The bizarre “climate scientists get death threats” at Australian National University finally imploded completely with the former chancellor Ian Chubb going on record in the Australian saying:
“For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story.”
Nuf said.
NSIDC. “The extent of multiyear ice within the Arctic Ocean is distinctly greater than it was at the beginning of last winter. During the summer of 2013, a larger fraction of first-year ice survived compared to recent years. This ice has now become second-year ice. Additionally, the predominant recirculation of the multiyear ice pack within the Beaufort Gyre this winter and a reduced transport of multiyear ice through Fram Strait maintained the multiyear ice extent throughout the winter.”
Sorry again Stoner.
” The perennial Arctic sea ice has decreased by near 70% since 1970. It is not increasing…”
I didn’t bother with your newspaper citation but there is nothing on multi-year ice on the NSIDC page. You claim “It is not increasing…”
Again, Stoner. From the very same agency you cite above; “The extent of multiyear ice within the Arctic Ocean is distinctly greater than it was at the beginning of last winter. During the summer of 2013, a larger fraction of first-year ice survived compared to recent years. This ice has now become second-year ice. Additionally, the predominant recirculation of the multiyear ice pack within the Beaufort Gyre this winter and a reduced transport of multiyear ice through Fram Strait maintained the multiyear ice extent throughout the winter.”
UH Graves…. Check out what they say about perennial ice, ice that is at least 800,000 years old and had never melted during that time… Not multi year ice that can be two to three years old. Okay Graves? Good boy.
Here are some current info from NASA about the perennial ice S.
According to data from NASA’s QuikSCAT satellite, between 2004 and 2005 the Arctic lost an unprecedented 14 percent of its perennial sea
icettp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060914-arctic-ice.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/Perrenial_Sea_Ice.html
NASA study finds that perennial sea ice in the Arctic is melting faster than previously thought — at a rate of 9 percent per decade. If these melting rates continue for a few more decades, the perennial sea ice will likely disappear entirely within this century, due to rising temperatures and interactions between ice, ocean and the atmosphere that accelerate the melting process.
If the perennial ice cover, which consists mainly of thick multi-year ice floes, disappears, the entire Arctic Ocean climate and ecology would become very different,” said Josefino Comiso, a researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., who authored the study.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/28/arctic_sea_ice_global_warming_is_melting_more_ice_every_year.html
http://www.universetoday.com/13248/arctics
-oldest-and-thickest-ice-is-melting-away/
This year, the perennial sea ice covered only 30% of the Arctic. And the most ancient ice, that which has survived more than 6 years, used to comprise 20% of
the Arctic. Now it’s down to just 6%.
Man, Stoner. It’s HARD to keep you on topic.
You said above and H. responded to: “”Sea ice extent in the Arctic…” Arctic ice is the topic. I don’t see anywhere that you discuss Antarctic sea ice…which is at or near record extent.
So…are you now claiming that there somehow used to be 800ky Arctic sea ice? Can you point it out in your citations. I can’t find it so I beg your assistance. Now remember…we are speaking of SEA ICE that’s 800ky…sort of like that 200′ thick sea ice around Greenland that you, TJ and I discussed a while back.
Discussing this stuff with you is like herding cats.
You said elsewhere in this thread: “Check out what they say about perennial ice, ice that is at least 800,000 years old and had never melted during that time… Not multi year ice that can be two to three years old.”
Now you cite something that says “And the most ancient ice, that which has survived more than 6 years…” How come the 800ky ice (remember, no one mentioned the Antarctic) isn’t the “ancient ice”? Why don’t these guys you cite know the ancient 6 year old ice isn’t all that ancient by 794,000 years? Want me to tell you or will you try to somehow explain?
Stoner…you just can’t make stuff like this up…oh…wait!
Ah, so your issues with Mooney concern his claims about psychology, sociology, political science and genetics, not climate science…
I don’t know enough about the genetic predisposition statements so I won’t defend him there, but I think one would have to be crazy not to acknowledge a connexion between political affiliation and climate science denial.
You can count the Republicans who accept climate science on one hand… I basically know of John McCain, and now he’s even walking back his previous position.
To point out the correlation between Republicanism and science denial is not some kind of political hit-job, it’s a statement of simple, empirical fact. The party is being affected by some kind of mass hysteria. Mooney didn’t make that up.
Did I do that? Oops.
Hey; it just hit me. You could not possibly have read all of the article I liked for you before you replied… F/U Graves you sneak.
Correct…I onlyread the NASA article. National Geo. is a magazine with stories. Does it say there is 800ky sea ice somewhere in the NG story? Of course not. But I don’t blame you for being upset. When you are again proven the fool you can either man up or spew invective. You generally choose the latter.
Well…actually, CB, you are the hysterical one. I can prove it in your own unscientific words if you want.
Why are you over here trying to drum up traffic for you dead blog?
Stoner…you are again out of your depth. Where is the ice in Antarctica? So if you know, what is the melt rate in the EAIS? What is the condition of the SMB and what does that portend? What do you say to the peer reviewed work demonstrating that the Antarctic SI increases are driven by winds…not the mechanism you cite?
I just love your “science” resources…Guardian, dailycaller, Slate…what nonsense, Stoner. And you criticize Watts. Geezzzzz….
Oh…and this is very inconvenient wrt your melt water claim and the increase in Antarctic SI.
ScienceDaily (Oct. 23, 2012) from a NASA study;
“Winds off the Ross Ice Shelf are getting stronger and stronger, and that causes the sea ice to be pushed off the coast, which generates areas of open water, polynyas,” said Josefino Comiso, a senior scientist at NASA Goddard. “The larger the coastal polynya, the more ice it produces, because in polynyas the water is in direct contact with the very cold winter atmosphere and rapidly freezes.” As the wind keeps blowing, the ice expands further to the north.”
Stoner…give these guys a call and get themstraightened out.
Stoner…what would you mother say about that language?
Again, Stoner, from the NSIDC piece you cited elsewhere just today; “The extent of multiyear ice within the Arctic Ocean is distinctly greater than it was at the beginning of last winter. During the summer of 2013, a larger fraction of first-year ice survived compared to recent years. This ice has now become second-year ice. Additionally, the predominant recirculation of the multiyear ice pack within the Beaufort Gyre this winter and a reduced transport of multiyear ice through Fram Strait maintained the multiyear ice extent throughout the winter.”
Multi-year ice is actually increasing. Don’t go off about the 800ky ice…you were proved wrong on that one, as you admitted.
As the wise man said, “Check it out and get educated on the subject.” You are just TOO funny Stoner.
What a great quote! And very true.
Can we assume that you have had a chance to examine the data from the link I provided and are able to acknowledge that the graph is what it says it is?
No acknowledgment that the graph is accurate. Then it would be safe to assume that there will be no retraction or apology.
Actually, the graph is innocuous and does no harm to your position. In fact, after I posted it I changed my mind and tried to delete the post, but that only caused it to be sent from “Guest.” CB had posted a graph that showed ice volume. Mine shows surface area covered with ice, which really has little to do with volume.
For example, suppose you fill a glass with small ice cubes and then fill with water to the top. Looking down from the top, 95% of the water is covered with ice. Now if you heat the water so that half the ice melts and look down from the top you will see that it is still 95% covered with ice. In fact if you heat it so that only one layer of ice cubes remains it will still be 95% covered with ice but that is irrelevant since it has lost most of its volume of ice.
I actually forgive the insult because I recognize with what conviction you believe that we stand at the brink of annihilation. And if I felt that way I would have as little patience with those who refused to see the facts. Best wishes.
The climate debate lacks integrity. Everything else is consequence.
“The freshwater land based ice on Antarctica is rapidly melting now.”
Almost 85% of the worlds ice is in the EAIS. How fast is it melting? Sorry, Stoner, you continue to be the dunce.
Oh please. Cite a single peer reviewed work that predicts that the AIS is going to melt down. There AREN’T ANY!! What absolute made up nonsense.
A lot faster than last year Dufus… And it shouldn’t be melting at all but serious global warming with a 400+ ppm atmospheric CO2 level is the cause.
Check it out Ess.
“Over March 2003 to July 2012, East and West Antarctica ice mass change was +97±13 and −159±9 Gt/yr, respectively, with accelerations +18±10 and −31±7 Gt/yr2, respectively…”
Williams, et. al.: Earth and Planetary Science Letters; Volume 385, 1 January 2014, Pages 12–21
If you understand that 84% of the planet’s ice is in the EAIS and it is gaining ice and the gain was accelerating at +18 Gt/yr , why do you make your nonsense claims?
Does this article help, or is NASA untrustworthy?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html
Not really. It is from 2009 and cites information from older studies. I gave Stoner a current peer reviewed article just below. Now that WILL help.
It would not help a hair brained idiot who has zero common sense or honest.
Using recently improved topographic data6 in combination with ice-dynamic simulations, we show here that the removal of a specific coastal ice volume equivalent to less than 80 mm of global sea-level rise at the margin of the Wilkes Basin destabilizes the regional ice flow and leads to a self-sustained discharge of the entire basin and a global sea-level rise of 3–4 m
This is from the Nature article referenced above.
So it seems that the fate of the EAIS is dependent upon the margins of the Wilkes Basin.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/20/polar_ice_loss_antarctica_melting_faster_greenland_more_vulnerable.html
Have you seen these articles Gary? How ya doin?
http://www.washington.edu/news…
EDIT…. Click on the waves in Arctic Ocean story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
What do you believe this demonstrates? What’s your point in citing this paper?
The first sentence of the abstract pretty much lays it out; “Changes in ice discharge from Antarctica constitute the largest uncertainty in future sea-level projections, mainly because of the unknown response of its marine basins…”
Yes…something might happen. It’s all “uncertain”. But don’t let me spoil your point…which is???
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27465050
News from CryoSat
The point is that your cited literature is not conclusive either. The point is what still needs to be studied and measured wrt the EAIS.
Further up to date reading
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27465050
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract
Is this of help?
I’m doing fine, thank you for asking. I read the story on the Arctic Ocean waves, but not your first citation. Will check it out now.
How’s life treating you? We are both from the SW. Northern UT for me. How about you?
Hi, doin great, celebrating my number 80 birthday. Another new wallet, hat, shirt and socks? LOL. Southeast Arizona, up in the mountains, 6,000 feet up.
I was speaking of freshwater land ice on the Continent of Antarctica, not sea ice. Are you?
Liar you could not have read the article in that brief period of time.
The freshwater ice on land is what I was speaking of rapidly melting, not sea ice. Are you referring to the freshwater ice or sea ice?
I thank you again for your posts, most importantly for bringing much needed attention to sequestered methane, esp in the Arctic. Sickening that the deniers are true believers that methane will not even contribute to greenhouse effect. I hope to continue to learn through these “debates” and put that knowledge to good use.
I just turned 57 and have thankfully retired from 30+ years civil service. Appreciating my time more than the extra money which would be available if I continued with the blood, sweat, and tears while feeding at the Federal trough :-/
Always grateful for you. Keep fighting the good fight.
Enjoyed your article http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/03/the-puzzles-involving-sea-ice-at-the-poles/.
What do you mean by this?
How much of the ice loss in West Antarctica do you think can be attributed to geothermal factors? How about in the Arctic? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7199/abs/nature07075.html
There are many different estimates of the variability of the Arctic climate. This one http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php includes the graph below, suggesting that there has been a great deal of variation. Along the same line is this: http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/
On the other hand this one states flatly that
If you conclude that the current Arctic warming cannot be considered anything other than a harbinger of doom, and is not an example of what has been seen before, how do you arrive at that conclusion?
YES GS…you got it!!! Then help me here. Why are CAGW climastrologists constantly claiming that any ice loss proves the case?
The former. The ice that comprised the EAIS.
Answered just above.
Yes…I cited the actual paper elsewhere on this thread. Important to read the actual science rather than the BBC story.
Yes…the actual peer reviewed work…not the Slate political slant. At your pleasure.
Please Stoner….Then how did I know that you were DEAD WRONG about your positon wrt the article? Not only that you were wrong but STUPIDLY wrong.
If I wasn’t, just provide the evidence wrt 800ky sea ice. You are pitiful. Just admit you were mistaken.
That’s the largest ice sheet on the planet but is not the only ice sheet on Antarctica…. I stand by what I originally posted which you decided to nit pick argue about.
Which was….? Precisely what was your point and what does it mean?
You sure do know how to make me feel better Gary, Thank you.
I tried my best but the deniers won, we are vastly outnumbered.
Nope.
Republicans are absolutely suffering from some kind of mental illness! …and I think there is a self-destructive component to it.
What besides a death wish would compel Republicans to deny climate science that says they’re in danger?
“I think one would have to be crazy not to acknowledge a connexion between political affiliation and climate science denial.”
Yes, but that doesn’t make it genetic.
“Will you apologize for your BS on the death treats to scientists scam that you ran?”
Do you mean for the death threat that was captured on video?
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/07/death-threat-captured-on-video.html
Nonsense! They are vastly outnumbered.
We are vastly under-funded…
I got trapped in a Disqus spam filter, BTW. I had to abandon my account! I guess this will be my new one… :/
“>Climate science doesn’t make predictions.
What do you mean by this?”
Climate models make projections, not predictions, because no one knows the future. So the exact amount of emissions from now to then is unknown — CO2 emissions, CH4, N2O, etc and aerosol emissions (for which one would need to know the location of the emissions as well). Or what large volcanoes will erupt between now and then, what ENSOs will happen (that appear stochastic), or when ocean cycles like the IPO and AMO will change phases, or what changes will take place with the Sun’s irradiance.
> In short, we need more ideas, more debate, more disagreement if we are to make intelligent progress.
Hence the need for Junior to popularize his ringtones over and over again, while not forgetting to marginalize the hawks in the same paragraph with the demonization victim card.
Junior needs to perfect his climate war escapism.
I dunno; you and I have been on threads where we were outnumbered 50 to 1.. Graves, slop, karbunkus, me-me-moony, common sense none, and a bunch more… LOL.
Lol! Well, yeah, trolling the neofascist fever swamp we might be outnumbered… but even there, the posts are copious, but the commenters are not. Graves himself is responsible for maybe 50% of the posts on any one board… posting over and over again the same idiotic nonsense…
Go to a site like Mojo and you’ve got a far more diverse pool of people absolutely destroying them from every direction simultaneously.
You’re joking…right? The protester was actually threatening Schellnhuber’s life? Is that your claim?
Yes…LYM is nonsense. Their efforts at the Schellnhuber event to demonstrate that his positions on population control are Bertrend Russellesque were ill advised, at best. The point of the so-called protester was that it is Schellnhuber himself who is the executioner by virtue of these proposed polices on population control. But your response makes it clear that you continue you nonsense.
But to answer your question…NO…I was addressing the death threats you claimed that were addressed by Chubb; “For the record, there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story.”
I must be losing my mind by wasting my time to answer your dumazz comments in replies to me… I’ll try to ignore you from now on.
Hi CB… I wish to say something jus between you and me. I believe Graves has a valid point that you did err. It is a minor misspeak deal but he keeps harping on it as he stalks you and replies to every post you write.
To paraphrase you once wrote, there has never been a time in Earth’s history were the polar ice caps withstood an atmospheric CO2 level above 400 pm. you write 34 millions years ago polar ice caps formed when atmospheric CO2 levels were twice as high as they are today. I believe you meant to say never in Earth’s (*recorded*) history have polar ice caps survived with atmospheric CO2 levels above 400 ppm.
The next time h replies with his crap, just reply and explain you misspoke and meant never in Earth’s (*recorded*) history and never during the past 800,000 years… Shut him off instead of ignoring his rants.
Everyone knows what a noose means.
I could have been incorrect when I stated the polar ice caps formed at levels of CO₂ between 600 and 700PPM 34 million years ago. Maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. The geological record is not clear enough to pinpoint the level exactly.
What is clear is that this was a transitional period when CO₂ was dropping precipitously from thousands of PPM to levels under 290PPM. Before the transition, there were no ice caps. After, there were. That, in itself, is significant to me. If Graves wants to focus maniacally on a tiny, transitional period and ignore the rest of Earth’s history, that’s fine, but he needs to provide some kind of peer-reviewed evidence to support his case, and he is simply not interested in doing that… so I will continue to ignore him until he does.
Well I don’t blame you for ignoring him but thought you might be able to shut hi up, but come to think of it that is not very likely, he’s like a broken record with a solar powered battery.
That looks like a good link!
…but it doesn’t say what you’re pretending it says. Page 870 says this:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
Do you always cite papers that suggest you’re lying?
Have you any idea how many Climate Deniers behave in this strange fashion?
If Climate Denialism weren’t a mental disorder, why should this be?
In response to the above, I provided a reference to this IPCC statement:
Then you provided a quote about the Arctic as if that were relevant to the above. Why? What is the “strange fashion”? And what possible meaning could the following have under any view of the matter:
From AR5 http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf, page 907:
Can you characterize your level of confidence that the current warming is different in kind from earlier warming (i.e., either that it will not recede as earlier warming did, or that there was no earlier warming similar to this)?
My apologies! I didn’t see anything about Antarctic sea ice on that page. Next time you should probably quote the passage you’re referring to.
The CO₂ we’ve already emitted has set the planet on a course toward the complete meltdown of Greenland, if Earth’s history is any indication… so why are you nitpicking confidence-levels in explanations for Antarctic sea ice instead of acknowledging the problem?
Lol! Graves is a common attention troll. He feels no compulsion to make a point or an argument of any kind, but merely posts in order to see what kind of reaction he can get.
These people are best ignored.
What is the source of that graphic?
What is the basis for your confidence that the current warming is not similar to what we have seen before?
Because polar ice caps have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand levels of CO₂ as high as we are pushing them. Preceding the Quaternary, a spike in CO₂ to just under 400PPM destroyed the ice on Greenland completely:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/researchers-find-3-million-year-old-landscape-beneath-greenland-ice-sheet
It’s a paper in Nature called “Convergent Cenozoic CO₂ History”:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n7/full/ngeo1186.html
But the link you included with this statement, http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/researchers-find-3-million-year-old-landscape-beneath-greenland-ice-sheet, flatly contradicts this:
And you never answered my question as to the Vostok data: if CO₂ was responsible for driving temperature up, then how could temperature fall when CO₂ remained at the same levels that supposedly drove temperature up, unless there were some other driver responsible? And if another driver was overpowering the CO₂ and causing temperature to fall, then why do we assume that the other driver did not cause temperature (and CO₂) to rise in the first place?
The debate is over.
They have abandoned “Global Warming” in favor of “climate change”.
We can all now agree. The climate DOES change.
There are other drivers, of course! This was never in question.
The question was whether or not the human-caused increase in atmospheric CO₂ from 290PPM before the industrial revolution to 400PPM today can be overridden by other climate drivers, and the answer to that for any reasonable person is a resounding no!
Here is 800,000 years of CO₂ concentrations from polar ice caps, going back to the oldest significant ice on Earth:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2-2008.txt
Find me a single point where CO₂ goes over 400PPM.
If polar ice caps can withstand CO₂ so high, why don’t they record a single instance of CO₂ so high?
What does the term “multiple lines of converging evidence” mean?
It might appear that way if you don’t actually read the article. The current Greenland ice sheet formed around 2.7 million years ago because of a drop in CO₂ which briefly peaked to just under 400PPM and then fell again. Their statement is that the ice has been stable since then. You can see the peak in the CO₂ signal which is correlated with an ice-free Greenland in the graph I’ve already given you.
He must be tied up, hasn’t posted a thing for 2 days… Ya-hooooo ! 🙂
Thank gawd.
I give MS credit for finally bringing this issue to CB directly. Sky Hamster, though he said she was wrong on ice caps, didn’t have the integrity to do it. Thank you, MS.
CB said above ” Maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. The geological record is not clear enough to pinpoint the level exactly”. She has just discounted the credibility of her claim. If the record is not clear enough to pinpoint “the level” then she CANNOT MAKE HER CLAIM that it never happened.
Pearson, et. al, in Nature contradict her claim. I have cited it before. They find the record clear enough, contrary to CB’s unsupported claim.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7267/abs/nature08447.html
“If Graves wants to focus maniacally on a tiny, transitional period and ignore the rest of Earth’s history…”. CB ADMITS once again that ice caps DID…or at least could have existed with relatively high CO2. So her claim “Because polar ice caps have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand levels of CO₂ as high as we are pushing them.” is contradict once again in her own words. She admits it DID happen but she doesn’t think…in her own world and irrespective of the science…that is was important. Pathetic.
She could say that it didn’t happen very often, etc., but she doesn’t. Just continues to lie.
MS…you can just check her new identity and see that she has continued to spam the ice cap nonsense irrespective of her admissions here.
MS…I give you credit for bringing the ice cap nonsense directly to CB’s attention. Sky Hamster also stated that she was wrong but didn’t have the integrity to do it.
CB…you comments here should demonstrate the fallacy of your statement: “Because polar ice caps have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand levels of CO₂ as high as we are pushing them.”
First, you challenge the clarity of the “geological record.” You DO understand that if it’s not clear enough challenge your claim, it CANNOT be clear enough to support your claim.
Next, you admit that ice caps may have formed at relatively high levels of CO2 but you don’t…in your own world…believe they were significant. ” If Graves wants to focus maniacally on a tiny, transitional period and ignore the rest of Earth’s history,” Since you admit they were there, you can’t now claim they didn’t exist just because you don’t like the fact.
Pearson provides clear peer reviewed support to my position. You have provided ZERO but you own opinion, your irrelevant C Dome citation notwithstanding.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7267/abs/nature08447.html
A second nature piece provides further support wrt the fact that the ice caps lasted for millions of years despite occasional instability.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6857/abs/413719a0.html
Time to stop the nonsense, CB.
As I say in response to CB below, you have demonstrated your sense of integrity by address the ice cap matter to CB directly. Thank you.
She clearly attempts to further obfuscate and provides NO science…just a graph that she admits is unclear…to support her position. I have cited the Nature pieces to her before. Her claim “…he needs to provide some kind of peer-reviewed evidence to support his case…” is totally w/o merit. These two peer reviewed works clearly provide support to my challenge to her totally unsupported claim.
Good of you to try to give her an out by virtue of her leaving out a word. She refused to take your generous way out and instead, as I have outlined in my response to here below, tried to obfuscate, accuse me of not providing science, etc. , all disingenuous. Then, in spite of her unqualified claim, she states that the ice caps I suggest may have formed…but they some how don’t count but refused to provide any science.
Do you see any contradictions in her statements? My point is that if you make the CAGW case, you need to provide evidence for serious claims and not exaggerate. She fails wrt both. At least now you can see the two cases side by side…and the claims to the science. I’d be interested in hers…if she has any.
The climate scientists are studying TRENDS. One trend is ice loss as measured by mass – from the Antarctica as a whole and the sea ice attached to the continent in shelves, to the Arctic (both the Ocean and Greenland primarily) and from inland mountainous glaciers.
This trend of ice loss, which is measured quantitatively and using direct measurements, does not rely exclusively on computer modeling.
This trend of ice loss is evidence (not scientific proof or 100% certainty – which true science does not claim) for global warming with increased concentrations of man-made GHG’s forcing the change.
Even with more study, more evidence, more exact quantitative analysis from the researchers and a more thorough synthesis of the science… current TRENDS can still be correctly identified.
I’m not very religious, but sometimes even bible verses are not that shabby.
Ecclesiastes 9:11 Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all.
Usually good articles will link to the scientific papers, as with the BBC article. If a blog link does not work, I can usually google the context to find the appropriate abstract. After reading several abstracts it’s time to think for oneself. But, as I have asserted elsewhere, the work of synthesis is scientific also – as in science is “a systematic body of knowledge: a systematically organized body of knowledge about a particular subject”
Nonsense…but a clear demonstration of your efforts to attempt to fabricate a scary story from limited facts, facts that actually prove the contrary case. Hey…CAGW. You are not an honest broker…and stand guilty as accused. Pathetic.
The person whose opinion counts the most saw it as a death threat:
“Anger against scientists involved in the climate debate is reaching dangerous levels and it’s only a matter of time before one is murdered, says leading German physicist Hans Schellnhuber. …
“While he was opening a recent climate conference in Melbourne, a man in the front row waved a noose at him. “I was confronted with a death threat when I gave my public lecture,” Professor Schellnhuber said.
““Somebody got to his feet and showed me a rope with a noose.
““He showed me this hangman’s rope and he said: ‘Mr Schellnhuber, welcome to Australia’.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/climate-anger-dangerous-says-german-physicist/story-e6frg6nf-1226095587105?nk=058faab6bb364f3ffe533d33b3cc6632
Q.E.D.
I think I understand your position to be that the evidence is so powerful that any person who fails to agree that a crisis situation exists must be either irrational, dishonest or ignorant.
Can you give me your top five facts (or however many you wish) that prove not just warming but a crisis involving imminent catastrophic warming?
Thank you for the thoughtful response w/o a single ad hominem.
Can you point out how much ice there is and how rapidly it is melting? How long have the trends you cite been quantified?
Climate Deniers are suicidally mentally ill. They are actually trying to destroy the ecology they depend on for survival. It’s not possible for people to be ignorant of facts so plain at this point.
I just did. Scroll up.
Check out quickly Arctic sea ice has moved towards zero if you want a timeline to disaster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OBCXWAHo5I
I infer that you believe this to be a “good article”.
From your BBC story; “In the three sectors, this equates to losses of 134 billion tonnes, 3 billion tonnes, and 23 billion tonnes of ice per year, respectively.
The East had been gaining ice in the previous study period, boosted by some exceptional snowfall, but it is now seen as broadly static in the new survey.”
Yes, there is melting in the areas of the WAIS and Peninsula. Some 84% of Antarctic ice is in the EAIS. Would it have been a better article if the finding I quoted had been put into context? Should they have discussed error? It’s significant here and provides a statistical significance indistinguishable from zero for the EAIS…84% of all the ice is in the Antarctic.
My point is that the losses in the Peninsula and WAIS have been going on for many years. The EAIS has been stable or gaining ice for most of that time. You have virtually NO date before the satellite era. If one wishes to make something scary out of that…like CB does…one can do so.
You say: “science is “a systematic body of knowledge: a systematically organized body of knowledge about a particular subject…” What does the systematic body of knowledge say about polar melting causes and what can you predict. After all, successful prediction is critical in demonstrating a robust hypothesis. I assure you, the systematic body is not pointing in ONE direction. You have to make a leap of faith to believe otherwise.
Then why are you here interacting with them? It seems remarkably heartless, like a person who, for his own entertainment, stops periodically to converse with the madman. How do you justify this?
So you would say that authors of papers like this one: http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf (estimates a warming of 1.1±0.5 deg C for a doubling of CO₂), are not merely in error but are suicidally mentally ill, as is anyone who, for whatever reason, is caused by such a paper to entertain doubts about how imminent global warming is?
Generally I find argumentum ad hominem irksome, but I often respond to them in kind.
The
studies of loss/gain of ice mass was the main subject of the article in
“The Behavior Analyst.” From the abstract and the body: “Glaciers
serve as early indicators of climate change. Over the last
35 years, our research team has recovered ice-core records of climatic
and environmental variations from the polar regions and from
low-latitude high-elevation ice fields from 16 countries… The world’s
mountain glaciers and ice caps contain less than 4% of the
world’s ice cover, but they provide invaluable information about changes
in climate. Because glaciers are smaller and thinner than the polar ice
sheets, their ratio of surface area to volume is much greater; thus,
they respond more quickly to temperature changes. In addition, warming
trends are amplified at higher altitudes where most glaciers are located
(Bradley, Keimig, Diaz, & Hardy, 2009; Bradley, Vuille, Diaz, & Vergara, 2006).
Thus, glaciers provide an early warning system of climate change; they
are our ‘canaries in the coal mine’ …. Mountain glaciers nearly
everywhere are retreating.”
Your
questions about the quantity of ice mass and the rate of ice melt is
addressed by researching the key words “Ice-sheet balance climate
change” see
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7452/full/nature12238.html
As for Antarctica Between 2010 and 2013, West Antarctica, East Antarctica, and the
Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by −134 ± 27, −3 ± 36, and −23 ± 18
Gt yr−1, respectively. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract
How long have the trends been quantified? About as long as the weight and the balance of empirical evidence with respect to man-made GHG’s forcing global warming has been around. The satellite measurements since the 1990’s have been a valuable tool. So too the synthesis of the research carried on by national and international scientific organizations.
Here’s another group of papers that estimates the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO₂ to be in the neighborhood of or less than 1 deg C. Suicidally mentally ill all, along with anyone who allows their work to raise the slightest doubt?
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf; http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_Misdiagnos_11.pdf; http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/25/2013/esdd-4-25-2013.html; http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051106.shtml; http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/DK_reply_PLA_2012.pdf; http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/184_Volcano.pdf; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026355/abstract; http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612001617; http://www.iac.ethz.ch/doc/publications/Chylek-et-al-JGR2007-climate-sens.pdf; http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf; http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf; http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Bengtsson-Tellus.pdf
My context of a “good article” (whether in a blog or from a magazine/journal) is that it provides links to the actual scientific papers. I’ll quote from the paper, therefore, instead of the BBC article: “At the continental scale, the most recent estimates of Antarctic ice sheet mass balance are based solely on satellite gravimetry surveys [Barletta and Bordoni, 2013; Velicogna and Wahr, 2013; Williams et al., 2014]. According to these studies, the rate of ice mass loss from Antarctica has increased progressively over the past decade and, between 2010 and 2012, fell in the approximate central range 105 to 130 Gt yr−1. Our survey puts the contemporary rate of Antarctic ice sheet mass loss at 159 ± 48 Gt yr−1, a value that, although larger, is nevertheless consistent given the spread of the gravimetry-based uncertainties (16 to 80 Gt yr−1).
see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/full
Note well that “the rate of ice loss from Antarctica has increased progressively…” This is from a scientific paper – not alarmist, not fanatical. This scientific statement is simply not consistent with your statement from above: “It’s significant here and provides a statistical significance indistinguishable from zero for the EAIS…” It seems to me that IF your claim about statistical significance with specific regard to East Antarctica is scientific or IF you believe that the scientists’ statistical claims are not scientific (that is that a change in mass of −3 ± 36 is statistically insignificant), that you ought to be submitting articles for inclusion in scientific journals, rather than only posting online commentary… not that your commentary is worthless, just not as worthy of consideration when juxtaposed against a scientific paper. You would agree with my assessment about your commentary vs articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, correct? If you disagree, why? Are you qualified to evaluate the statistical analysis and the science correctly? If so, how?
You wrote “I assure you, the systematic body of knowledge [respecting climate change science I assume] is not pointing in ONE direction.” Your assurance notwithstanding, I will wait for multidisciplinary scientific evidence to be provided that the rate of ice loss is NOT increasing progressively in Antarctica, thereby falsifying the claim in the above scientific paper. The bigger picture answer has to do with global ice loss. What exactly is going on in East Antarctica? “In this study, we describe the causes and magnitude of recent extreme precipitation events along the East Antarctic coast that led to significant regional mass accumulations that partially compensate for some of the recent global ice mass losses that contribute to global sea level rise” see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053316/full
Antarctica is of great interest to all students of climate change. This is true also of how East Antarctica compares and contrasts with ice from other regions. All this change of ice by mass, the increased vs decreased rate of melting, probable sea level rise due to global warming, changes in the ocean’s pH, etc will hopefully continue to be quantified and analyzed. But so far the quantitative analysis by the scientists regarding the East Antarctic ice sheet is both inconclusive and still showing a loss of mass – statistical significance or insignificance being more a layperson’s/amateur’s opinion rather than scientifically relevant. When or if it becomes statistically significant to the layman/amateur depends on many complex and chaotic factors, including scientific and statistical illiteracy. To suggest, however, that 75.5% or so of the earth’s ice is not showing statistically significant loss of mass from the time frame researched in these papers linked above is not the falsification of abrupt global warming (in geological terms) forced by increased concentrations of man-made GHG concentrations that deniers would like to make it out to be. Not that I’m tagging you as a denier or pegging you in declaring that falsification has occurred. In fact, increased precipitation in East Antarctica is predicted by global warming. Surprise! “In fact, parts of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet are thickening, especially deep in the interior, which contrasts strongly with the observed rapid thinning of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Shepherd et al. indicate that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet gained 14 ± 43 gigatonnes between 1992 and 2011. This is because precipitation in the interior increases under a generally warmer global climate.” see http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/antarctica/east-antarctic-ice-sheet/
If your assertion is correct namely that “the East Antarctic ice sheet has been stable or gaining (mass?) for years (a better time frame would be much more helpful)” you should be able to provide a link to a scientific paper which supports your assertion. The quote you provided was not a link and did not suggest a time frame for the gain in mass. Is this a correct assessment from your perspective?
Also, you wrote “You would have to make a leap of faith to believe [the systematic body of knowledge is pointing in one direction].” I believe that the systematic body of knowledge with respect to global warming is very unlikely to proceed smoothly in one direction … (hence the popular success of pseudo-scientific denial while claiming that the authentic science is on their side, the belief in “true believers” in global warming, the charge of “climate change fanaticism”, etc) …when attempting to integrate two highly complex and chaotic systems… namely human behavior (cognitive, habits, ethics, instincts, etc) and climate change (abrupt in geological terms, biogenic, geologic, pre-human historic vs current, etc). I wrote to you in another thread about integrating these two highly complex and chaotic systems, but did not get an appropriate response. Perhaps later. I think it’s probable that whatever integration occurs will go in several directions, science and pseudo-science being only two. I was convinced of this divergence between science and pseudo-science years ago when I read the book “Merchants of Doubt” and how “the same individuals who claim the science of global warming is “not settled” have also denied the truth about studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. ‘Doubt is our product,’ wrote one tobacco executive. These ‘experts’ supplied it.” I think that the leap of doubt for the “benefit” of popular denial of authentic science is well underway.
Clearly he can misinterpret anything he wants. There are lots of alarmists who choose to fear things in their environments unjustifiably…especially if there is profit to be made from it…like CAGW fanatics.
For example, you scare me. Are you actually threatening or am I making it up? I actually think you’re dangerous with your false accusations. According to your logic, I’m the one who counts.
We disagree. But I don’t need to insult you because of it.
The planet is now losing over a trillion tonnes of ice a year. The numbers, with sources, are here:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/05/how-fast-is-planet-losing-ice.html
Have the glaciers in your cited work advanced and receded in the past…w/o CAGW? What caused them to do so? Many glaciers have been receding since the end of the LIA? What did they do during the LIA? Why do we find organic material and even evidence of human habitation UNDER receding glaciers?
WHAT “…empirical evidence with respect to man-made GHG’s forcing global warming…”? It’s modeling. There has been NO warming for 13-18 years wrt empirical evidence irrespective of the fact CO2 has continued to increase linearly. That’s the empirical fact.
A paper published in the Journal of Climate finds a significant decrease in longwave infrared radiation from increasing greenhouse gases over the 14 year period 1996-2010 in the US Great Plains. CO2 levels increased ~7% over this period and according to AGW theory, downwelling IR should have instead increased over this
period. According to the authors,
“The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but
it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site.”
Gero, P. et. al, 2011: Long-Term Trends in Downwelling
Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains. J. Climate, 24, 4831–4843.
The findings contradict the main tenet of AGW theory which states increasing greenhouse gases including the primary greenhouse gas water vapor and clouds will cause an increase of downwelling longwave infrared “back-radiation.”
What blatant pandering…directing people to your nonsense blog. No class, Appell.
How did I insult you?
We are right out of time for this therapy session.
Please let me know if I can find you mental health resources in your area.
Remember, there’s no reason to struggle with suicidal feelings alone and nothing wrong with asking for help if you need it.
I am interacting with you because you pose a danger to yourself and others, and I would like you to get better!
I believe allowing you to air your self-destructive ideas in public helps wake you up to your sickness.
What do you think? Is it helpful for you to express yourself?
…or did you not realise you were afflicted?
LOL….well said!
Did you even read the abstract from the
paper I cited? No. If so, some of your questions about (1) the age of
the glaciers and (2) organic and human activity prior to glaciation with
respect to the current climate conditions and the conditions during the
“little ice age” would have been answered. But I’ll do some quoting:
“Ice cores retrieved from shrinking glaciers around the world confirm
their continuous existence for periods ranging from hundreds of years to
multiple millennia, suggesting that climatological conditions that
dominate those regions today are different from those under which these
ice fields originally accumulated and have been sustained. The current
warming is therefore unusual when viewed from the millennial perspective
provided by multiple lines of proxy evidence and the 160-year record of
direct temperature measurements.” If you would like to contend with the
author and attempt to falsify his scientific opinion that current
climatological conditions have no statistical significant difference to
the “little ice age”, be my guest. (Sarcasm alert) It would be interesting to see if your
attempts at falsification and failure of a robust hypothesis to be
predictive would pass muster with peer review of actual scientists with real credentials. A more likely scenario… just read
the paper and if you can find genuine peer reviewed scientific articles
published in bona fide scientific journals which contradict his
conclusions, please cite them.
Empirical evidence
(measurements, not only modeling) with respect to man-made GHG emissions
forcing global warming as follows:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140717_stateoftheclimate.html
Climate data from air, land, sea and ice in 2013 reflect trends of a
warming planet – dated July 17,2014 – “In 2013, the vast majority of
worldwide climate indicators—greenhouse
gases, sea levels, global temperatures, etc.—continued to reflect
trends of a warmer planet, according to the indicators assessed in the State of the Climate in 2013
report, released online today by the American Meteorological
Society…. The report uses dozens of climate indicators to track
patterns,
changes, and trends of the global climate system, including greenhouse
gases; temperatures throughout the atmosphere, ocean, and land; cloud
cover; sea level; ocean salinity; sea ice extent; and snow cover. These
indicators often reflect many thousands of measurements from multiple
independent datasets.”
From
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-2-2-3.html
“The increase in ocean heat content is much larger than any other store
of energy in the Earth’s heat balance over the two periods 1961 to 2003
and 1993 to 2003, and accounts for more than 90% of the possible
increase in heat content of the Earth system during these periods. Ocean
heat content variability is thus a critical variable for detecting the
effects of the observed increase in greenhouse gases in the Earth’s
atmosphere and for resolving the Earth’s overall energy balance.” You do
realize that global warming would affect the oceans, right? The oceans
are the major heat sink and carbon dioxide sink since they make up about
71% of the Earth’s surface.
Do you still desire to contend
that NOAA and the IPCC are not scientific organizations? Do you think
that they deceive the public about themselves on their respective
websites? This is from “NOAA Scientific Integrity” – “Science is the
foundation of all NOAA does. NOAA’s weather forecasts and
warnings, nautical charts, climate information, fishing regulations,
coastal management recommendations, and satellites in the sky all
depend on science. The quality of NOAA science is exemplary, and many
of NOAA’s scientists are recognized as national and international
experts in their fields.” Would you like to make some sort of a truth
claim that the quality of NOAA science is in reality pseudo-scientific,
political propaganda?
What about the IPCC? “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the
assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and
the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the
current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential
environmental and socio-economic impacts… The IPCC is a scientific
body under the auspices of the United Nations
(UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical
and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the
understanding of climate change…Review is an essential part of the
IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete
assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of
views and expertise… Because of its scientific and intergovernmental
nature, the IPCC embodies a
unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific
information to
decision makers.” Are you sure that your stand which you have
stated “I have a stand. That is to question concepts put forth by true
believers…where the science warrants…and challenge actual factual
misstatements” warrants the belief that the IPCC is not a scientific
body even though “it does not
conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or
parameters.”
Most importantly, I looked up the abstract to
the paper you cited. The authors of the paper flatly contradict the
statement when you wrote “The findings contradict the main tenet of AGW
theory …” when they write in their abstract “Given the decadal
time span of the dataset, effects from natural
variability should be considered in drawing broader conclusions.
Nevertheless, this data set has high value due to the ability to infer
possible mechanisms for any trends from the observations themselves, and
to test the performance of climate models.” What exactly are the
“effects from natural variability” and the “possible mechanisms for any
trends from the observations” you considered before drawing a broader conclusion? (Sarcasm
alert, but not an ad hominem) Seeing that you discovered a contradiction
of the main tenet of anthropogenic global warming warrants a scientific
paper for sure!
Also testing the performance of
climate models is one positive thing from the study you cited. I assumed
that you disparaged modeling in favor of empirical evidence, yet you
cite a paper that talks about “the high value of the data set to test
the performance of climate models.” Hmmm. I guess that you are actually
in favor of simulation experiments. Good news! The study you cited was
also cited by Yi Huang. (2013) A Simulated Climatology of Spectrally Decomposed Atmospheric Infrared Radiation. Journal of Climate 26:5, 1702-1715. Online publication date: 1-Mar-2013. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00438.1 The abstract states “A
simulation experiment is conducted to inquire into the mean climate
state and likely trends in atmospheric infrared radiation
spectra…Tracing the longwave radiation flux vertically and spectrally
renders
a dissection of the greenhouse effect of the earth atmosphere and its
change due to climate forcings and feedbacks. The results show that the
total outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere
(TOA) may be conserved due
to 1) compensating temperature and opacity effects and 2) contrasting
temperature changes in troposphere and stratosphere. The tightly coupled
tropospheric temperature and opacity effects reduce the overall
tropospheric contribution to OLR change to be comparable to the overall
stratospheric contribution, which suggests that transient OLR change is
constrained by the relative strengths of stratospheric and tropospheric
temperature changes.The total OLR energy, however, is
redistributed across its spectrum. The earliest detectable global
climate change signal lies in the CO2 absorption bands, which results from stratospheric cooling and the CO2
opacity effect. This signal can be detected much sooner than surface
temperature change and is little affected by achievable instrument
accuracy. In contrast, both tropospheric temperature
and opacity effects increase downwelling longwave radiation (DLR), which
makes DLR a verifiable aspect of global warming. The time it takes to
detect surface DLR change roughly equals that of surface temperature
change.” End quote. A verifiable aspect of global warming?! Who would
have thunk?! “Measuring downwelling radiances at strong water vapor
lines at the
tropopause can particularly help monitor stratospheric water vapor.”
Groovy!
You are therefore contradicted by both the abstract
in the work you cited, and also by another scientist who cites the
paper. Would you care to explain how your broad interpretations of the
findings do not agree with the findings of the actual researchers
involved? Are you correct in your statement, but these researchers are wrong?
Are these people also afflicted? Should they be told about your new therapy technique? Perhaps following the same approach they should be advised to write more papers, in order to “express” themselves and wake up from their sickness. Agreed?
I’m sorry I missed the session. However, for the next session could you explain some things to me?
When I come across numerous studies by erudite scientists that conclude that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO₂ is warming of about 1 deg C, and when they say that they reach that conclusion, in part, by observing what the actual result has been of a doubling of CO₂, how do I go about ignoring this?
And when I read in http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf the statement of Dr. William Collins that
how do I convince myself that since the existence of a hiatus was contradicted by CB, I must shut my eyes to it if I wish to get well?
Hi Gary, excellent verse indeed. Here is another good one which would be appropriate for these GW Deniers.
I Peter 3:10__ If you want to enjoy life and see many happy days, keep your tongue from speaking evil and your lips from telling lies. Turn away from evil and do good, search for peace and work to maintain it.
In a few more years I suspect a lot of people will get religious.
Most of your links are broken, but I am willing to discuss any peer-reviewed paper.
BENGTSSON SCHWARTZ 2013 is an estimate of the lower bounds of climate sensitivity to be 1.16ºK
I feel fairly confident that you have not read, nor could you comprehend the citations you copied from a dishonest source, but I would be happy to discuss the details with you.
Schwartz is assuming an equilibrium response of 5 years for a century scale forcing. A more reasonable 15-20 years for equilibrium response yields an estimate closer to 3ºC per doubling.
If you understand that +18Gt/yr and -31Gt/yr equals -15Gt.yr, why do you make your nonsense claims?
Does this mean that, unlike CB (to whom the original post was addressed), you conclude that Schwartz is merely in error, and not suicidally mentally ill?
Schwartz apparently revised it upward to 8.5 ± 2.5 years,
Still off?
I fixed the links – shouldn’t have followed each one with a semicolon.
Well, at least we’ve moved up from insane. Is the source dishonest because no honest source could conclude that a finding of a sensitivity of 1 degree C could be arrived at legitimately?
Schwartz does not conclude that he has the correct climate sensitivity estimate. He simply presented a method of estimating climate sensitivity and published his results. So no, I do not believe he is mentally ill. I believe that the people who use his results, without acknowledging the caveats, are suffering from mental illness.
I would very much be interested in learning where these papers err. Is there an error that is common to all (or many) of them?
Still not a full equilibrium response from the fast feedbacks.
Here is the thing, he is using a simple zero dimensional energy balance model and assuming equilibrium response to forcing to be less than 10 years. While it is an interesting exercise, it is not a robust estimate of climate sensitivity.
You obviously copy and pasted those links from an internet source who compiled them as ammunition for an info-war.
There are a few estimates of climate sensitivity that are low, but none that are less than 1ºC. The Planck response alone is 1.2ºC.
So pick the one you believe presents the strongest case for low climate sensitivity and I will be happy to discuss it.
I just showed you that one of them does not conclude that climate sensitivity is lower than 1ºC. It concludes that the lower boundary of the estimate is greater than 1ºC
It was 1.16K at the 95% confidence level, and even that was “in the neighborhood of” 1 deg C.
But actually, to CB’s point, wouldn’t you have to say that a person who is being dishonest on this issue, and therefore knows the true nature of the crisis that exists, must be suicidal?
So he is presenting a method of estimating climate sensitivity but we cannot infer that he believes his method arrives at a correct estimate of climate sensitivity?
Far from religion but very close for comfort is the scientist Stuart Kauffman. Check this out if you have the time and inclination. Peace!http://edge.org/conversation/beyond-reductionism-reinventing-the-sacred
Obviously you have not read or comprehended the paper you cite. Nor have you read the responses to it.
Since the various climate responses to forcing vary in lag time from days to centuries, his simple model and single lag constant is not a robust estimate of climate sensitivity.
Why did you cut it off where you did?
Are you deliberately obfuscating?
For the transient response, (fast feedbacks with short lag times) they conclude (0.3990ºC x 3.7W/m2 = 1.4763ºC)
For the equilibrium response it is (0.54ºC x 3.7W/m2 = 1.998ºC)
Your Arctic number is bogus.
That said, if we are loosing 1,000 cubic kilometers of ice per year, how long will it take us to loose 30,000,000?
How much ice have we lost since the end of the last glaciation…10ky? Has it been good for the planet? Would you prefer the climate of 10-12ky?
Is this an insult? Or just your opinion? “No, I don’t trust Chris Mooney, and never have. He writes “opinion journalism,” which isn’t journalism in my book.”
GS…thanks for taking the time to post all of this. However, in a format like this one we aren’t going to prove the case one way or another.
That said, here is why I just can’t combat what you say…because much of it just doesn’t make sense. I cut and pasted your comment below. You state that I didn’t cite a paper to support my positon…but, just above your criticism, YOU CITE the work. You have to know what I said is supported…right? You cite the supporting work.
Shepherd
et al. indicate that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet gained 14 ± 43 gigatonnes between 1992 and 2011. This is because precipitation in the interior increases under a generally warmer global climate.” see http://www.antarcticglaciers.o…
If your assertion is correct namely that “the East Antarctic ice sheet has been stable or gaining (mass?) for years (a better time frame would be
much more helpful)” you should be able to provide a link to a scientific paper which supports your assertion. The quote you provided was not a
link and did not suggest a time frame for the gain in mass. Is this a correct assessment from your perspective?
My Arctic number is good. Here’s the trend:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
I agree. It’s getting too convoluted. One point is your assertion that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is either stable or gaining mass. But when the paper using CryoSat measurements showed an ice loss, you interpreted (as a layman/amateur) the loss as statistically insignificant. My point was to ask you about your credentials, as to why your conclusion of a slight loss of mass is insignificant has any merit or credibility. Otherwise it appears to be cherry picking data sets. My minor point was that your initial post itself referencing Shepherd et al did not include a link. I found the article without the link, so it’s only a minor quibble. A more serious quibble is the time frame indicated by Shepherd et al vs your ambiguous phrase “for years.” Also you might have included the Shepherd paper along with the CryoSat data if you desired to be truly impartial.
The most important issue has to do with the stability of Antarctic ice in a globally warming planet. It’s most important to allow the science itself to inform us on whether the entire planet is warming, still in variable equilibrium, or cooling… based, not only on modeling – but also scientific methodology using a wide variety of quantitative measurements and analysis. You continue to assert that the planet is not warming, so I assume that you truly believe that the planet is still in a variable and natural equilibrium in spite of carbon dioxide emissions from modern industrial civilization. Or you truly believe that the planet is cooling. Care to take a stand? Are you neutral? What is the proper standard for coming to a conclusion?
So… what would it take for you yourself to abandon your true belief and be persuaded by the climate science, climate scientists, and national/international agencies/panels/organizations that your true belief is actually false? What standard of evidence will it take for you to admit that global warming is real, when you truly believe that it is unreal. This is a fair question without ad hominem pettiness, right?
S.G., at this juncture let’s simply cut to the chase. Okay? I have made several very important and pertinent points. #1 is that geologically abrupt changes in climate pose an existential threat to the biosphere. True or false? Secondly and thirdly, two highly complex and chaotic systems (human behavior and climate) are interactive. This interaction is causing hundreds of theoretical nuances which can be amateurishly objected to. I find the prospect of going through numerous objections mainly motivated by the sake of argument tedious and absurd. So I would simply ask to focus on the main issue, viz is anthropogenic global warming real? If the devil is in the details, are you expecting detailed analysis of every nuanced objection you can find?
I don’t mind argument either; in fact I rather enjoy it. But not for its own sake. It has a goal, a purpose. My true belief in argumentation is that it is the art of persuasion. Perhaps with some people… perhaps even you… persuasion is simply not possible. This is why I asked you about a standard of evidence that would persuade/influence/convince you that you might be wrong, that you are not authentically testing ideas, that you yourself are not questioning your own true beliefs, that you are not thinking for yourself, that you are not questioning the authority of your subjective assumptions/biases/motivated reasoning. I’m not accusing you of doing this. I’m asking you what would it take for you to be convicted?
Good luck coming up with something which is mutually beneficial instead of full of logical fallacies. Good luck to me too in any future replies.
“The planet is now losing over a trillion tonnes of ice a year.”
Your graph is clear wrt what the Arctic in “now” loosing. The current mass is above that of the 2010-11 low and probably will not equal it let alone the 12-13 low. You have moved the goal post from “now” to “trend”. Let me ask you, is this the usual thing CAGW advocates do when trying to make a point?
You are talking about noise. I am talking about trends. (Trends are much more interesting.)
Proving something or another (if that’s the stated goal) is a Sisyphean task.
The more realistic goal is to measure the accuracy of the theory in describing reality, or what is plausibly and credibly happening to the vast majority of rational (with a big emphasis on rational) observers.
I think that from yours and my vantage points that we can agree that we are only observing the science, while it is the scientists themselves (through the epistemology) who are engaged in the authentic debate. This explains the difference of the nature of the scientific debate from the debate in the public square. The debate becomes chaotic when the population understands the meanings of words differently from their scientific context… words like “prove, uncertainty, probability, theory” … which demonstrate the depth and degree of scientific illiteracy among the hoi polloi.
This has been a much more civil exchange. Thanks for your part.
Statistical significance: the error factor was several times greater than the indicated ice loss. In other words, It’s a loss or maybe a significant gain. We don’t know because the methods are do not provide any better resolution. E.g., statistical significance is indistinguishable from zero.
The planet has warmed since the end of the LIA. What we know is that the AGST does not demonstrate any but minute warming for well over a decade despite the linear increase in CO2. Many scientists, including top climate scientists, have attempted to explain the lack of predicted warming. There are now over different 20 explanations and a score of peer reviewed works. If climate science is to have any credibility, we need to do better. If we don’t know why warming stops…what DO we know?
I’m talking about what you actually SAID above. You are attempting to obfuscate and misdirect.
“The planet is NOW losing over a trillion tonnes of ice a year.” That’s not a TREND. You clearly said “now”. Tons of ice per year NOW is not a trend. You have constrained yourself in your own words to a temporal definition of THIS YEAR. If not, your comment is nonsense. Now losing a trillion tons per year is NOT a trend. Are you actually being serious? Are you really someone other than Appell?
I disagree. But I don’t need to insult you over it.
“The more realistic goal is to measure the accuracy of the theory in describing reality…” Yes, that is done by using your hypothesis to make valid predictions according to the definition of hypothesis. As we know, that has NOT happened wrt climate science, and especially AGW, as the CMIP5 ensemble demonstrates. They fail dismally to predict climate and warming.
The IPCC briefly discussed the seriousness of the model-observation discrepancy in Chapter 9 of the 2013 report. It reports that over the 1998-2012 interval 111 out of 114 climate model runs over-predicted warming, achieving thereby, as it were, a 97% consensus.
If your science does not provide robust predictive skill, something’s wrong. So…how do you base significant policy on such science? We need to know MUCH more.
AGST? Above Ground Storage Tank?
The lack of predicted warming? Where and how is the heat imbalance or balance distributed? Consider oceans as heat sinks (deep and shallow), surface temps, troposphere, stratosphere, glacial/sea/Antarctic ice mass loss/gain, biomass and post a single peer reviewed scientific paper published in a scientific journal which concludes that the globe is not warming. Try entering the key words ” oceans, heat sink, energy” into your search engine and follow the links.
As for negative three plus or minus thirty six being statistically indistinguishable from zero, maybe you could provide a reference for this assertion instead of an explanation which you expect to be taken as correct. (Just humor me; I don’t like accepting statistical analysis without references, thanks)
If you ARE Appell, I actually complimented you. I think you’re more intellegent than you are pretending to be here.
Your number of some 1,000 gt loss per year is NOT a trend. What is it you disagree with about that? It is the current annual loss according to your numbers. If I’m wrong, tell me how a single annual number for “now” is a trend. I believe you will need more that a single temporal data point to demonstrate a trend.
Average global surface temperature.
You chastise me for failing to give you citations. So, to make it easy on both of us and considering oceans as heat sinks (deep and shallow), surface temps, troposphere,stratosphere, glacial/sea/Antarctic ice mass loss/gain, biomass and post a single peer reviewed scientific paper published in a scientific journal which concludes all of the above conclude the glove is warming.
EAIS: ” It remains unclear whether East Antarctica has been gaining or losing ice mass over the past 20 years,”
Nature; Hanna, Zwally, et. al.; Volume: 498,Pages:51–59; (06 June 2013)
Hardly a chastening. I admitted quibble. (By the way, do you apply this “stand” of yours to your own misstatements? You challenged me to point out where you had lied. If you had, you wrote that you would admit it and apologize. I pointed it out where you had gone against your word – and demonstrated to you that it was apparent that you had not even read the abstract of the paper I presented – and told you that I expected no apology. I didn’t even receive an admission that you had lied. By your own standards by which you accused me, that makes you a serial liar. I point this out – admitting my motivated reasoning – because it is becoming apparent that you inconsistently apply your stand or standard, but don’t seem to accept it regarding your own behavior. Perhaps I’m wrong. But so far this is the way you are acting. I was also wondering if you think that you are always right? I realize that this is an aside, but it has bearing on the conversation.)
Does the average global surface temperature when measuring global warming take the oceans as heat sinks into primary consideration? Yes, because the oceans make up a huge volume for heat exchange with the atmosphere. By the way, sometimes I don’t provide links, just as you do not, because, I assume, we both expect each other to do research. Or maybe you do not do research due to already having it all figured out. Do you already have it clearly understood in your own mind that there is still not sufficient evidence for you to make an informed judgment regarding the anthropogenic side of warming? Are you convinced that increasing the pre-industrial concentration of carbon dioxide from a natural variability of between 180 – 280 ppm to the post industrial concentration of over 400 ppm has not disrupted any equilibrium? Is simply what you are advocating is more debate, more study, no existential threat, no heuristics necessary?
Anyway, to the details of your post. Are you prepared to fundamentally assert that since it is unclear whether the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) has been gaining or losing ice mass, you will remain either skeptical or outright doubtful that anthropogenic global warming is real and is happening? Yes or No? Is the EAIS your standard for evidence? ‘
The CMIP5 site (or the site I went to to research CMIP5 – I don’t recall) put “predictability” in quotation marks. Why? Maybe it’s because your statement “If your science does not provide robust predictive skill, something’s wrong” is in serious error. Maybe you are confusing the science of living systems (e.g. Gaia or earth systems science) with the science of the inanimate (e.g. Newtonian physics). There is a huge challenge to be predictive when examining highly complex and chaotic systems – even more so when those systems interact. That does not mean that the science studying highly complex and chaotic systems is actually pseudoscience if it’s not “predictive” as you seem to claim. Allow me to explain with a thought experiment. Imagine yourself at the end of the Cretacious. Could you or anyone or even the most intelligent, wise scientist, or Deep Thought – the super computer from the sci fi novel “Hitchhiker’s Guide” – have predicted the biodiversity prior to the advent of this sixth mass extinction? I assert an extremely high probability of an unequivocal answer of NO. Would that inability to predict invalidate the science of evolution via natural and sexual selection? the science of genetics? self organization? emergent complexity?
You see SG, there are many robust scientific theories that lack the “predictive skill” that you write about that you seem to expect from the science of AGW. What do you think?
As for “basing significant policy” that’s opening a political can of worms. I’m not interested in going there yet if it’s all the same to you. Maybe much later.
Mea culpa! The site I got this from listed it on one page at 0.54C and on another page at 2C. I have since sent an inquiry to them asking WTF? Maybe there are some uncorrupted/sane personnel handling some of their web pages. But I have some questions for you.
First, the charge has been made that the higher climate sensitivity figures would have produced much more warming than has been observed, and they simply hypothesize “aerosols” to the extent necessary to produce the observed warming. What is your response?
Second, do you recognize the existence of a warming “hiatus” and if so (a) doesn’t this suggest that the models are inadequate, and (b) why shouldn’t we wait and see whether there is any actual warming of the kind predicted?
How does one account for this? Is Schwartz (a) a simpleton, (b) not trying to demonstrate anything objectively useful, (c) a dupe, (d) insane, (e) corrupt, or (f) making reasonable assumptions, though ones different from the ones you would make?
GS…you have resumed you “quibbling” hyperbole. It’s just too boring at this point.
This might be interesting wrt the state of measurement of ocean heat content.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/21/ocean-heat-content-uncertainties/
Note that Pielke Sr. has advocated a more nuanced approach to AGW than just relying upon surfact warming, i.e., UHI, aerosols, land use changes, . He has been roundly attacked by the climate science insiders…Trenberth and others…for his views. All are now advocating more or less his expansive view, i.e., CO2 is only a factor. Pielke; “As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!”
The condition of the EAIS simply serves as a standard example of the extent to which the blind followers of CAGW will go to spin the actual science. The behavior of ice is nuanced and not as simple as claiming that CAGW is melting it. The case of Kilimanjaro ice is an interesting example.
It is quite clear that the EAIS is losing little if any ice…and may be gaining ice. Simply look at the error bars. The investigators are telling you something with the numbers, i.e., it’s not at all clear.
I understand the science to be highly nuanced, as Pielke Sr. has found, if you read it…rather than it’s interpretations in biased sources.
Our differences seem to lie in the fact that you believe and I question what “news” sources interpret the science to be.
So much hyperbole. However, this is important. “”If your science does not provide robust predictive skill, something’s wrong” is in serious error.”
You show no references to support your opinion that I am in error wrt the need for verifiable predictions. The need for predictive skill is inherent in the scientific method and the definition of scientific theory.
From Wiki; “Any useful hypothesis will enable predictions, by reasoning including deductive reasoning. …
If the predictions are not accessible by observation or experience, the hypothesis is not yet testable and so will remain to that extent unscientific in a strict sense.”
This might help you further. From the definition of the SM from Live Science; “Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.”
http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html
If we can get the basics straight, maybe we can proceed. But you are correct, I think, in your determination that the state of climate science does not rise to the level of a theory…or is definable under the scientific method. Lots of guesswork.
Can you point me to his caveats?
I’m sorry if my quibbling about you lying is hyperbole to you.
I am also sorry for asking you so many direct questions from which you are free to cherry pick. I apologize for expecting more honesty from you.
Thanks for the link to Curry again. Again It’s not surprising that you have honed in on “the wicked problem” of uncertainty – both scientific uncertainty and its interpretation by the hoi polloi.
I have also advocated a more nuanced approach re chaotic and complex systems. So I seem to be aligned with Pielke Sr wrt looking at more than carbon dioxide.
If the EAIS is some standard for CAGW fanaticism, and you have me pegged as one of those fanatics or true believers… I would be more than content to limit all future discussion to the EAIS. Your true belief in CAGW fanaticism, what I see as a double standard plus your refusal to admit to it, and your past dishonesty makes the prospect of discussing “wicked problems” or “the devil in the details” wholly less than appealing.
Also our differences seem to hone in on how the science is being interpreted by scientists. You make it out to what I believe in the “news” (whereas you question) but I believe it is about the science itself and your tendency to cherry pick the questions. That’s a pity.
As we are agreed, an internet forum is not going to prove anything. What I am trying to do is see how the theory describes reality. If this is not good enough for you, you are not my problem.
Since your first paragraph resorted to such blatant condescension, I didn’t bother to read the rest.
I think you seriously misunderstand the term “robust predictive skill” when it applies to highly complex and chaotic systems. If my thought experiment was too much “hyperbole” for you, to me it simply demonstrates your lack of imagination respecting the science. This is another issue that is not going to be resolved via internet debate.
But I’ll work on it and get back to you. It may be that I don’t know, and I’m not afraid to admit it.
There just seems to be something paradoxical about being able to have “robust predictive skill” where chaos, uncertainty, complexity create many nuanced arguments. The same seems to be true for evolution.
If you want a link, here is something that may be of interest to one who has a passion for uncertainty – that wicked problem, that devilishly detailed undetermined causality/randomness/contingency. Oh well, no doubt this attempt will be casually dismissed as well.
As I said, I will get back to you over the important issue of “robust predictive analytics.”
Here is the link; let me know what you think from three point of view of impartial uncertainty if you please. Thanks in advance. http://edge.org/conversation/beyond-reductionism-reinventing-the-sacred
Speaking of opacity, have you read any of Nassim N. Taleb? “Antifragile” might be worth a gander. Or not. Whatever your personal inclination, intentions, volition. Later
PS – in my opinion the experiment is what human civilization has been, is, and will continue to do until civilization collapses. As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote: “The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.”
Later x2
Aerosols are element that add the most uncertainty to estimates of climate sensitivity. I believe human aerosol emissions are a negative forcing, and explain the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere fairly well, but are only a small element in the overall system.
The “hiatus” is in the GMST (global mean surface temperature) and lower troposphere. The TOA imbalance is still about 0.5W/m2, the ice is still melting and the oceans are still warming. A slowing in the GMST trend of less than 30 years is statistically insignificant, since the bulk (<90%) of the climates heat is in the oceans.
Your loss
This is how science is done. Even though his estimate is not robust, he had an idea and he followed through. The community evaluated it and found it lacking. But that doesn’t mean that it was not worth the exercise. It was a intriguing way of looking at climate sensitivity, and is helpful if for no other reason that it demonstrates the limitations of the methodology.
And his margin of error is only one sigma instead of two, not a very robust finding.
He is attempting to refine the estimate of climate sensitivity. So far he has not succeeded, but I see no reason to poo poo his efforts, or to taut them as proof of low climate sensitivity.
How can I be condescending, Oh morally & intellectually superior & integrous one? You already truly believe you are better than me and have backed up your authentic belief with your incorruptible words. Do you want your quote with an approximate date from disqus notices? Too bad. Look it up yourself, Oh accusing one 🙂
This was with my sarcasm (as now) notwithstanding, remember?
Lighten up, SG! Sincerely, GS
Is it 17 or 20 or 30?
But why do we have confidence in the models if the predictions they make are shown to be not reliable?
“…to me it simply demonstrates your lack of imagination respecting the science…”. Again, so condescending and self-centered.
“There just seems to be something paradoxical about being able to have “robust predictive skill” where chaos, uncertainty, complexity create many nuanced arguments.”
PRECISELY, GS! Greedy reductionism. CO2 as the cause of CAGW and all but discounting other forcings fits the definition. The blind followers of CAGW that we see on these boards believe just that and are obsessed with CO2.
What’s the loss of nothing?
Obviously you’ll never know Mr Know-It-All 😉
But the predicted heat that did not materialize did not go into the ocean, right?www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
Yes in the Arctic but not Antarctic sea ice and not in East Antarctica. Since the models predicted that the warming would affect the Polar regions the most you can surely appreciate how this might lead some to wonder whether the models are ready for prime time.
You pose and entertaining logical fallacy. If I know it all…I already know it. But you know that.
Don’t you think it’s natural that articles like the following would cause the average person to conclude that the question of climate sensitivity is not quite the closed issue that some would suggest?
Many people might lack imagination – or artistic talent for that matter. Consider this quote: “Do you realize that people don’t know how to read Kafka simply because
they want to decipher him? Instead of letting themselves be carried away
by his unequaled imagination, they look for allegories — and come up
with nothing but clichés: life is absurd (or it is not absurd), God is
beyond reach (or within reach), etc. You can understand nothing about
art, particularly modern art, if you do not understand that imagination
is a value in itself.”
―
Milan Kundera
So I got something precisely correct when writing about paradox, predictive analytics, chaos, uncertainty, nuanced argument. OK. But then why the straw man response, namely that those who accept the scientific interpretation of the science that AGW is real are reductionists, catastophists, blind followers, obsessed?? Why, oh why??? The irony!! the incongruity!!! [expression of mock horror]
Lighten up SG.
I read up on Roger A. Pielke, Sr (a meteorologist, not climatologist – but what the heck) who wrote: “As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities
do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system,
although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2
has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up
to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!”
What is your evidence for carbon dioxide as the one and only forcing being discussed by the obsessed? What is your evidence that the other forcings are all but being discounted? If there are other forcings that predominate man-made carbon dioxide emissions from industrial civilization, by all means, identify them and discuss them. (I have read a little about methane from raising cattle for milk and for slaughter. How predominant is this form of methane as a forcing and also produced by human agribusiness? Greater than CO2? Less than? What is the number one human-caused warming forcing? /s Not the sun!) If you wish to discuss other forcings that still account for the other 72% of anthropogenic warming (according to Pielke Sr) up to the present… let’s go for it. I’m game!!
Later SG, Yours truly GS
PS. I eliminated some snarky comments, but decided to include this one. Please don’t take it personally, as you dismiss many other of my commentary:
Maybe you DO suffer from a lack of imagination. Nothing self-centered
or condescending on my part about a possible, probable or very low
uncertainty of you having this problem. Just goading you again. Is this
unprofessional? I have not admitted to being or acting professionally.
On the contrary I have consistently portrayed myself as an amateur and
layman who is not above using ridicule. So what?! You do too, correct?
Lighten up.
I think you meant “logical paradox” instead of “logical fallacy” – but since you already knew this I must assume that you are only testing me, like a cat playing with a mouse Oh Megalopsychos
Santer et. al. analyze 32 years of satellite data and determine that they can identify an AGW signal in the lower troposphere with a minimum 17 years of data of the data.
1) The lower troposphere is heated primarily by sea surface emission. Which means that it is a secondary line of evidence.
2) Many ocean cycles are 30, 60, or even 100 year cycles.
3) The past is no predictor of the future, since the last time the oceans warmed this fast was at the beginning of the Holocene.
There is still a clear warming trend in the GMST. This past June was the hottest June ever, the first half of this year is tied with 2002 as the third warmest six month period,and there is an 80% chance of an El Nino event this fall. This year and the next will make that trend even clearer.
The oceans are the climates thermal mass. And the oceans are gaining a lot of heat.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
They can’t predict what the conditions will be in the future, but they can reproduce the past when fed historical numbers. That they could not predict the extended negative cycle in the ENSO index is no reflection on their skill. They were never intended to predict ENSO cycles.
Instead of randomly generated values for things like volcanic eruptions, and periodic ocean cycles such as ENSO, AMO, and PDO, use the historical values and the models perform with great skill. Recently a team did just that and reproduced the “hiatus.”
Now you have touched on the heart of why Schwartz’s efforts, while falling short, are still quite fruitful. The question of climate sensitivity is still open.
A 3.8ºF rise in temperature would indicate a climate sensitivity of 4.11ºC/doubling That is at the high end of the estimate. He must be exaggerating, using hyperbole, not very science like.
The sea ice is a very tiny portion of the cryosphere, and the extent is an even less robust measure of sea ice than mass.
Antarctica’s sea ice is growing because the land ice is melting, freshening the surrounding ocean, making it more susceptible to freezing.
Many models predicted Antarctica’s ice mass balance to increase, instead it is decreasing, faster than any model predicted. The Antarctic climate is also being effected by the loss of ozone from CFC transported chlorine. No ozone, no stratospheric heating, no tropopause, weird stuff happening down there, hard to predict.
The AGW theory is premised on well understood physics. Models are mathematical tools. Computers just allow us to run the calculations faster with greater accuracy.
That paper was debunked before it was ever published.
They cherry picked the data (top 700 meters). They estimate the flux imbalance from 2002-2008 to be 0.036W/m2, when the five year running mean shows a 0.30W/m2, an order of magnitude greater than their estimate.
You will need something better than that to challenge NOAA’s data.
Roger A. Pielke, Sr. (born October 22, 1946) is an American meteorologist with interests in climate variability and climate change, environmental vulnerability, numerical modeling, atmospheric dynamics, land/ocean – atmosphere interactions, and large eddy/turbulent boundary layer modeling. He particularly focuses on mesoscale weather and climate processes but also investigates on the global, regional, and microscale. Pielke is an ISI Highly Cited Researcher.
I suppose a meteorologist who specializes in matters climate is a as good as a chemist or astrophysicist who dabbles in climate science.
“… the radiative effect of CO2
has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up
to the present.” You quoted this. Do you think it makes sense? If anywhere near correct it would mean the CO2 accounts for no more than about 0.3C in the last 150 years. Not much to worry about. So all is good…right?
Ridicule? No…actually I’m bored with it now.
Tautology.
No. I agree about three boring part when you really didn’t respond to the post very effectively. You really didn’t reply well, did you AT? These types of responses on your part, I agree, are uninspiring. Not on your usual form, Oh Magnanimous One? 🙂
I actually quoted Pielke Sr from the same article you probably quoted from about him. Better to discuss what he’s said, right SG? It’s more substantial. What about the other human caused effects forcing warming? I’m not being a CO2 fanatic obsessed with it being the one & only forcing. Come on, SG, I want to discuss the more predominant forcing than CO2 as a GHG!! Why don’t you?
[breaks out in song] You say toe-MAY-ta, I say ta-MAH-toe; I say pa-TAY-toe, you say pa-TAH-toe…
Yes…so we agree. CO2 is a false gawd for the true believers to hang their hats on. I think we’ve settled it.
Yes…so I think we’re done now. So we can wander off.
But you withdraw from the other human effects (other than the CO2 idol) forcing human caused warming (as explained by Pielke Sr)… declaring it’s settled. This is insipid. I expected better. Mea culpa
Later SG, Sincerely GS
But you have agreed. Now you’re back to your obsessive goading in hopes of keeping yourself somehow relevant. But you aren’t…because I’m going somewhere interesting.
More obfuscation and disingenuous replies. You have lost any relevance re Pielke. I did expect better of you following up on Pielke Sr’s remarks. Alas. Such is life when having unrealistic expectations of one’s betters, Oh Magnificent Souled One.
/s My bad again, putting you on a pedestal up there with omnipotent CO2 🙂
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html
Giving you a link is probably a waste of time. Within chaotic and complex systems there will always be a degree of uncertainty. Karl Popper wrote that science was a quest for truth not certainty. Regarding the complex and chaotic system of human cognitive behavior, there will always be those “outliers” who are convinced by fallacy and paradox the certainty of their uncertainty.
I doubt that this dialogue will go on much longer.
Just to clarify, this is contradicted by the statement of Dr. Collins, correct?
Possible, but the IPCC has “low confidence” in that explanation.
I thought that they were unable to reproduce the “Medieval Warm Period” or the “Little Ice Age.”
So, climate is too complicated for anyone to expect that models could predict ENSO, AMO and PDO cycles but the models accurately predict and take into consideration every other important variable. Is that your position?
Those who doubt do so for this reason.
The models are to predict what will happen given a certain scenario. If the scenario is not the same, the projection will not be the same.
Why do you think that?
We don’t have the same amount of historical data that far back, but the models can hindcast quite well. In fact that is how they are tuned and their skill measured.
Very little research at the time of publication, the trend was very small until the last few years. The confidence is growing with more research that the surface waters around Antarctica are freshening. Fresher water freezes at a higher temperature.
No. Dr. Collins was able to detect the AGW signal in 17 years out of 32, but that does not mean he could so it with a longer dataset.
So while it is possible, the last 17 years is statistically insignificant, since the margin of error is greater than the signal.
No, Dr. Collins is the one who made the statement about the hiatus going on for 20 years.
Here’s one (January, 2014) that says it’s due to wind:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00139.1
What makes you believe that confidence is growing that it is caused by melting land ice?
But isn’t that the crux of the problem? Whether we call it a “scenario” or future “conditions,” that we have no way of predicting what the scenario will be, so we cannot make accurate predictions?
How do you arrive at that? 3.8ºF is 2.1ºC. If we’ve had the equivalent of an 85% increase in CO₂ then that is a climate sensitivity of 2.48ºC/doubling. No?
By using the standard radiative forcing and climate sensitivity equations. That is how.
dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) — to get the value for radiative forcing at the tropopause.
F = RF at tropopause 5.35 is the value from Myhre 1998. C is present day CO2, Co is preindustrial.
dT = λ*dF — to get the surface temperature response to the forcing.
T is temperature F is RF and λ is climate sensitivity in degrees Celsius per W/m2.
If Co is 280ppm, and C is 400, the forcing at the tropopause is 1.90821095007, or 1.91W/m2.
Climate sensitivity of 3ºC/doubling is 0.81ºC per 1W/m2 (3/3.7= 0.81)
So 1.91 x 0.81 = 1.5471ºC or 2.78478ºF
I just worked backwards.
3.81.8=2.11ºC
2.11C/1.91 = 1.1ºC per 1W/m2
1.1 x 3.7 = 4.09.
But is it the models, the reconstructions, or a combination of both?
Mann suggests:
The 20 year trend is 0.109ºC ±0.101ºC/decade at 2 sigma. Would you consider it to be statistically significant?
The 30 year trend is 0.167ºC ±0.058ºC/decade at 2 sigma.
That is a clear and statistically significant trend.
I would beg to differ, Hansen’s early models were quite predictive, even with the higher 4W/m2 forcing for doubled CO2, and a higher climate sensitivity.
My point is that an assertion of statistical insignificance is contradicted by what Dr. Collins said. Maybe he has different numbers in mind, but statistical insignificance would not equate to a “large burden” in the mind of Dr. Collins, don’t you agree?
I do agree that a 20 year hiatus would be rare, but when the signal is smaller than the margin for error, it is very difficult to argue statistical significance. Therefore, Dr. Collins does not contradict the assertion of 30 years for robust statistical significance. During the last 20 years the trend is about equal to the margin of error, therefore it is not a particularly robust signal. The 25 year trend is 0.152ºC ±0.078ºC/decade, which is statistically significant.
So while it may be possible to detect the AGW signal in some 17 year periods, a longer dataset reduces the uncertainty. Twenty five years may be sufficient in all cases, but 30 gives one much greater confidence in the results.
You mean maybe there really was no Medieval Warm Period?
Well, clearly your calculations and those of Dr. Collins must be different. Otherwise we are left with Dr. Collins referring to statistical insignificance as a “large burden.” His calculations must result in statistical significance for 20 years, correct?
Well since we don’t have Dr. Collins calculations… we have no idea what he means by “large burden.”
I am using a standard calculator and the GISS data, there is not much difference between datasets, but GISS extrapolates to infill under sampled areas with satellite data. I can’t imagine that Dr. Collins is doing anything different.
There is a new paper just out that attributes the warming in the Atlantic to stronger Trade Winds in Pacific, which could explain why there has been a predominantly negative ENSO cycle.
http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science/atlantic-warming-turbocharges-pacific-trade-winds-0
Not at all, just that some reconstructions perhaps over estimate it’s global impact. It is quite visible in the Greenland ice cores, but not very pronounced in the Antarctic cores.
Yes, we continue to agree. Wrt climate science, the degree of uncertainty is high.
I am well aware of the Risbey paper. Curious that Lewandowsky, a psychologist, provided analysis of models and observations. I continue to wonder how Naomi Oreskes, a historian, got in the author line up. Well, she does work in science history. Her bio on TED begins “Naomi Oreskes is a historian of science who uses reason to fight climate change denial…”. No science degree between them. Fascinating. But I digress, as they say.
What do you think the Risbey paper is telling us?
Do you agree that if the hiatus is still going on as of the sixth IPCC report, that report is going to have a large burden on its shoulders walking in the door?
But you will agree that to the extent that there was a Medieval Warm Period, “the models cannot explain the warm conditions”?
Satellites measure incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere. More is coming in than is going out. The Earth is cooled by emission to space. The slowdown in the GMST trend means less emission.
That longer the pause, the more heat the planet accumulates. I am confident that should such a scenario come to pass, scientists will have an explanation.
Some models maybe.
Schwartz is assuming that the “IPCC best estimate” climate sensitivity of 3K would have produced an increase in GMST of about 2.1K (assuming 70% instead of 85%). Did he miscalculate?
No, we do not agree. Climate science is a highly complex and chaotic systems science with SOME areas of high degree of uncertainty. These “some areas” do NOT make climate science, as a whole, a highly uncertain body of knowledge. If you wish to maintain an opinion that the science itself has a high degree of uncertainty and you wish to increase instead of decrease that uncertainty in the minds of those you wish to influence or persuade… your wishes or desires are yours alone. Not mine.
A multidisciplinary (defined as: combining or involving several academic disciplines or professional specializations in an approach to a topic or problem) approach to my oft referenced assertion about the interaction of two highly complex and chaotic systems OUGHT to be the rule, in my opinion, and not the exception. But I digress also.
What do I think the Risbey paper is telling us? I think the following quote from the abstract is a good idea. “We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models
with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation)
largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model
ensembles for comparison with observations.”
With respect to models in general, I also asked Sky Hunter and got an excellent reply. As I suggested in another post, you are more than welcome to look up his reply to me. It is also on an open forum that can be referenced through disqus. The one thing, though, that stuck with me from Sky Hunter’s reply was that models tell us more about what they get wrong. I think that is a very cool and groovy idea. Modeling, instead of their predictive (telling the future) value, can demonstrate a better methodology for reducing uncertainty. That seems to be in harmony with the abstract as well.
Faith in science is natural. Of course as you know, there are those who feel that, for some people, it has taken on some of the aspects of a religion. http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/2818/Crichton-Environmentalism-is-a-religion.aspx
But I am having difficulty getting you to answer my question directly. Do you agree with Dr. Collins that, as things stand today, the chances of having a hiatus of 20 years are vanishingly small, or do you disagree with him? It appears that you have been telling me the latter but I would just like to confirm that.
It appears to be models generally.
I have searched for “.036” in the pdf and cannot find it. Can you tell me where you got this number?
I don’t follow this. A slowdown in warming would mean greater emission, if emission is responsible, would it not?
How is this the case? A pause means that the GMST is not increasing. This would be either because (a) not as much heat is getting in through the atmosphere, or (b) more heat is escaping, or (c) the heat is ending up in the ocean. But how can we say: X shows a pause and Y does not. Therefore we know that X is experiencing more heat accumulation than Y.
If the surface is cooler, it emits less energy. If the incoming energy is the same, there is a greater net accumulation of heat.
That is not what we are saying. If the surface is emitting less energy, then the troposphere will be cooler. This results in a greater net balance at the top of the atmosphere. Which means that the oceans are taking up the excess energy. This was not one the predicted response, the research data confirms it.
SH makes a point. But maybe not what you think. It is clear from the generally failed model outputs that the inputs are in critical error. GIGO.
It’s difficult if not impossible to craft a skillful model to demonstrate where you might be going when you don’t know where you actually are. So yes…clearly, the models tell us that the current state of the science is not yet adequate.
Wrt to your answer to my question about what the paper tells us…you DO understand that they cherry picked 4 of some 18 models as demonstrating their findings. The criticisms go something like this; The spatial patterns of warming and cooling in the Pacific are dictated primarily by ENSO processes and climate models still can’t simulate the most basic of ENSO processes. Even if a few of the models created the warning and cooling spatial patterns by some freak occurrence, the models still do not (cannot) properly simulate ENSO processes. In that respect, the findings of Risbey et al. (2014) are pointless.
Additionally, their claims that the very-small, cherry-picked subset of climate models provides good estimates of the spatial patterns of warming and cooling in the Pacific for the period of 1998-2012 are not supported by the data and model outputs they presented, so Risbey et al. (2014) failed to deliver.
But after all, they did have a professor of psychology doing the model analysis.
In Scenario A, Hansen’s predicted temperature increase, from 1988 to 2012, was 0.9ºC, over four times higher than the actual increase of 0.22ºC.
In Scenario B Hansen’s prediction was 0.75ºC, over three times higher than the actual increase of 0.22ºC.
Scenario C assumed “a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.” http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02700w.html He was telling us that if we followed his advice this was going to be the good news. The Scenario C prediction was 0.29ºC, only 31% higher than the actual increase of 0.22ºC. So this one came closest to the truth, but of course there was no curtailment whatsoever of trace gas emissions after the year 2000.
So I’m not sure I would call this “quite predictive.” More to the point is this graphic:
Or they did a meta-analysis of the models. You say cherry-picking.
Where did you get a GMST increase of 0.22ºC?
From 1988 to 2014 the trend has been 0.151ºC/decade, for an average increase of 0.3775ºC since 1988. Hansen’s Scenario B projected a warming trend of 0.26ºC/decade.
Scenario B is the closest to the actual forcing, which is about 16% less, so actual emissions and temperatures are between B and C. Emissions are closer to Scenario B, while temperatures are closer to Scenario C. Hansen was also using the old estimate of 4W/m2 instead of 3.7W/m2, and climate sensitivity in the 1988 model was 4.2ºC. Considering the state of climate knowledge and the limitations of computational horse-power, Hansen’s model performed extremely well. With the updated estimate of forcing at the tropopause of 3.7W/m2 and a climate sensitivity of 3ºC, he would have been almost spot on. We learned more from what was wrong with Hansen’s model than what was right. That is the nature of science.
BTW- That is tropical mid-troposphere. Hansen’s model output was GMST.
The tropics between 20N and 20S includes the ENSO region, which has been on a predominantly negative cycle since the 1998 El Nino. Since the troposphere is heated by surface emission, a cooler tropical ocean surface emits less heat, which results in a cooler mid-troposphere temperature.
Did you wonder why your source cherry-picked that region?
Do you know what they actually did…methods?
Are you denying the validity of their methodology. If so, provide evidence. Not pulled from the ether, but from credible sources with real credentials that has been peer reviewed.
Are you denying that they did what they claimed to do?”We present a more appropriate test of models where only those models
with natural variability (represented by El Niño/Southern Oscillation)
largely in phase with observations are selected from multi-model
ensembles for comparison with observations.” Are you denying that this is a good idea for modeling?
Can you point me to a study or a discussion on this issue?
The Hansen et al. paper, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf, presents the NODC OHC data for 0-700 meters, not 0-2000 meters. Was he cherry picking?
What is your source for this?
We are discussing it.
There are many facets here, which do you not understand?
The upper atmosphere is warmed from the top down, primarily from UV absorption by ozone. The lower atmosphere is warmed from the bottom up by greenhouse gas absorption of IR.
Hansen’s paper was published in 2005, before there was good data for below 700m.
0.22⁰C for 2012 was arrived at by taking the midpoint between GISTEMP and HADCrut4, as plotted on the RealClimate graphic for 1988, and drawing an arrow to the same midpoint for 2012, and subtracting the (estimated) numbers.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen88.jpg
What is your comment on this:
http://tarheelred.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Climate-Model-Predictions.jpg
What is your source for this? Can’t find it in http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
That is a dishonest way of displaying the data. If he were being honest and objective he would have compared trend lines, not annual anomalies. But then, Watts is a famous liar so it is to be expected.
Interesting. Here’s another discussion: DotEarth
Are you denying that the models cannot predict enso? Are you denying that your quote demonstrates that they cherry picked 4 models from a field of 18 that, e.g., randomly were “in phase” with ENSO?
Good idea for modeling…yes, of course. Good to have a couple of your key authors w/o science degrees. Especially good to have the one analyzing the climate models a psychologist. Yes…this is the way it should be done and often is in climate science. s/
Are you asking nonsense questions? I said just what I mean. If you believe this single work proves something for you…excellent! Now here’s one for your consideration:
From the Abstract; Spatial variability and correlation of the AMO regressed precipitation and SST anomalies in summer and fall indicate that models are not up to the task of simulating the AMO impact on the hydroclimate over the neighboring continents. This is in spite of the fact that the spatial variability and correlations in the SST anomalies improve from CMIP3 to CMIP5 versions in two of the models. However, a multi-model mean from a sample of 14 models whose first ensemble was analyzed indicated there were no improvements in the structure of the SST anomalies of the AMO or associated regional precipitation anomalies in summer and fall from CMIP3 to CMIP5 projects.
Climate Dynamics December 2013, Volume 41, Issue 11-12, pp 3301-3315
Date: 05 Jun 2013
That looks to be a graph comparing model runs with the radiosonde and satellite data for the tropical mid-troposphere.
My guess is the model output is GMST and your source is deceptively comparing it with the tropical mid-troposphere.
If you look at the map of the globe, you will notice that most of the area between 20N and 20S is ocean. Since the ENSO index has been predominantly negative since 1998, so one would expect the troposphere in the tropics to be cooler.
Most models do not reproduce this phenomenon, so even if all those model runs were only of the mid-troposphere in the tropics (highly unlikely), it is not a proxy for global warming.
You make a good point. But even if he had done that the scenario A and B trend lines are significantly greater than the average of the GISTEMP and HadCRUT4 trend lines.
The graphic was actually done by Ira Glickstein but I have heard this said about Watts many times. Do you have any examples that are not mere differences of interpretation but actual lies?
You are looking at their first paper from 2010. Try their second attempt, table 1.
When one consistently misrepresents the truth, like with that graph, one becomes known as a famous liar.
And actual emission scenarios are between B and C. The point is, the model performed extremely well considering the state of the science. Had he used a 3.7W/m2 forcing and a climate sensitivity of 3ºC, the projection would have been much closer. The mere fact that the temperature continues to rise while solar activity declines should be your first clue that something is different. That something is the opacity of the atmosphere to IR.
That is a good discussion, balanced and not hyperbolic. The author himself comments that it is just another piece in a larger puzzle.
But much closer to C.
That is the same as saying that if the errors his model contained had not been so great the model would not have been off by as much as it was.
What about the opacity of the atmosphere to IR?
No the actual emissions are closer to B, while the temperature trend is closer to C.
These were not errors in the model, they were incorrect assumptions input into the model. Assumptions that we now know were incorrect. We learned more from what he got wrong, than what he got right. And he got a lot right, particularly the response to the Pinatubo eruption.
Not following. The actual emissions, being an average of the GISTEMP and HadCRUT4 points for 2012, are closer to C than to B.
Then there’s this one: http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Climate-Model-Comparison.png
Also this one: http://wpmedia.opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/0916graphic.jpg?w=620&h=507
Decreased to 65%. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html
It has increased.
No. GISS and CRUT are GMST data, not emission and forcing data. The modeler must guess the future emission scenario. Actual emissions are closer to B than C, actual temperatures are closer to C.
I don’t know the source, looks to me like another misrepresentation of what models do.
Have you noticed that these graphs are sourced from non-scientific sources?
The point is the same, 2014 continues the warming trend. When the ENSO goes predominantly positive, the balance of heat in the atmosphere will increase.
It is not the requirement of models to predict the future. I do not deny that the models cannot predict the future when in comes to ENSO.
No need to respond to /s
I’m not expecting proof. I like the idea that models tell us more by what they get wrong, as I wrote to you before. I also think they are valuable tools, not that they are designed to prove anything.
I think that both our divergent perspectives regarding modeling and our divergent points of view regarding the multidisciplinary approach… neither will be resolved through internet commentary.
I’m done here.
Finally…
Just an aside.
aside what?
Unlike past warming trends in Greenland, there is no natural forcing that can explain the modern warming trend. So even though the Arctic may not have exceeded the observed natural variability, it will by mid-century.
Scientists are skeptical by nature. Wunsch is simply saying that there are too many uncertainties to draw hard conclusions. Which is why he recently published his research on deep ocean warming. Research that supports the hypothesis that the oceans are taking up most of the energy imbalance at the TOA.
The following is from http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf although that link appears to be broken. There has been a flat trend since 2003.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/presentation3.jpg
JC’s blog is not a credible source.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Just because the GOP changed the term to climate change from global warming, does not mean the globe is not still warming.
I take it your avatar is a spoof.
Why not? You mean you don’t trust that the graphs came from the study?
But you don’t have the study, so I don’t know how the graphs were created.
NOAA’s data paints a much different picture, and they are a credible source.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf
Try Feb 16.
Also this from the same study:
Where is the study?
That chart shows a positive energy flux of 0.56W/m2 in the top 1800 meters during the 2004 – 2011 period. How can that be consistent with a flat trend in ocean heat content?
We attribute the Medieval Warm Period to internal variability, as we do other warm periods. You’re saying the current warming must be AGW because we don’t know what else could be causing it, but maybe you are not acknowledging the inadequacy of our understanding of climate.
Did you read this?
Why would JC misrepresent Lyman and Johnson if she were being honest?
But the authors predict it exceed it by 2100, a conservative estimate IMO.
The MWP was amplified in the north Atlantic, having an outsized effect on Greenland. That is not the case this time. The whole globe is warming, the warm current feeding the Arctic ocean is warmer than at any time during the past 2000 years. There is a significant amount of heat going into the Arctic.
BTW – When they drilled through the ice and into the surface, they found two and a half million year old tundra. The last time CO2 was close to 400ppm, there were no ice sheets on Greenland.
But it’s a given that high CO₂ is associated with high temperature. The question is one of causation.
Which statement of hers is a misrepresentation?
She said that the only dataset to support ocean sequestration of heat is a reanalysis. Lyman and Johnson 2013’s dataset is observational, not a reanalysis. It directly contradicts her.
So you are disputing that Fig 4 shows a flat trend since 2003?
Table 1 of Lyman & Johnson shows reductions in the 0 – 300 and 0 -700m levels. How does the heat skip these levels and go directly to the bottom?
Leading us to wonder what drove temperature and CO₂ so high.
Yes, look closely at the time from when they achieved 50% spatial coverage to 1800 meters. There is a clear and steady trend, which they estimate to be 0.57W/m2.
Figure 4 is scaled to show three different methodologies, not ocean heat content.
Here is NOAA’s latest chart for objectively looking at ocean heat content.
Evaporation driven thermohaline circulation. For instance, most of the heat entering the oceans is entering in the tropical Pacific. The Sun is always shining on some part of the tropical Pacific. The trade winds blow the push the warm water west to Indonesia, where it pools, evaporates, and sinks. This happens to all ocean surface water when it is warmed, evaporation increases, and it gets saltier and heavier, so even though warmer, it is heavier than the cooler yet fresher water below.
Here’s one just showing trend lines. If you accept that there has been a hiatus, and claim that the missing heat is in the deep ocean, then what problem do you have with this graph? They just need to revise their models to put the heat into the ocean instead. http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT.png
That is the same cherry-picked tropical mid-troposphere graph. If Spencer had a real point he would publish it somewhere besides his blog.
Wunsch and Heimbach concluded that much less heat is being added to the oceans, compared to claims in previous studies:
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/slide19.jpg
Actually, the model output is not GMST. See the discussion in the APS CLIMATE CHANGE
STATEMENT REVIEW WORKSHOP,
page 347-8
But how does the graph differ from what you thought the reality was?
Don’t you think that this is having an effect: A signal of persistent Atlantic multidecadal variability in Arctic sea ice
Wunsch 2014 is a study of the abyssal ocean. That graph depicts a warming ocean, just like this one.
JC is using the deceptive eyeballing technique to distort and misrepresent the figure.
Here is a letter to the editor of the Australian by Carl Wunsch, taking them to task for misrepresenting their work.
They also state:
Effect on what?
The graph JC showed is from Wunsch, page 54, and I didn’t say that Wunsch didn’t show a warming ocean. I said that he showed it warming less rapidly. But he does not show warming in the 2000 to bottom or 3600 to bottom range, and says that
If you impose the observed SST, which Christy doesn’t do, the models match observations in the mid-troposphere. Christy even admits he is focusing on this area because it has the signal he is looking for.
Right, it takes centuries to millennium for the effects of surface warming to show up in the abyssal ocean He also says that everywhere there is a warming trend in the abyssal it is likely coming from surface warming.
The bottom line is Wunsch’s work confirms that the ocean is still taking up a lot of heat. And since the paper’s focus was on the abyssal ocean, it is, as he pointed out, doubtful his estimate is correct.
Seems like a non sequitur.
You disagree with this?
What do you mean?
He is looking for the hot spot signal.
Effect on Greenland and the Arctic.
How about this graph:
That is the RSS extrapolation of the lower troposphere temperature. One of five global datasets and the only one to show a negative trend.
Hard to say, it is still a fresh hypothesis. The water going into the Arctic ocean from the Atlantic is warmer than at anytime during the past 2000 years.
He is measuring the tropical mid-troposphere, it is warmed primarily by surface emission from the ocean. If he were looking to test model accuracy, using the historic SST is a better metric of how well the model reproduces mid-tropospheric temperature.
The hot spot is where the models predict increased latent heat transport will show up. Recent research suggests that there is more lateral transport than the models are capturing. It has no real bearing on Christies argument since if SST are flat, there is no increase in latent heat transport, so he shouldn’t expect to find one.
Hmmm
Do you know where I can find the other four?
Woodfortrees.org has the five global and many other datasets you can analyze.
SkepticalScience has a temperature trend calculator.
Awesome!
Not following. Which Wood for Trees graph would you substitute for the circles and squares that Christy used?
Sorry, for that kind of detailed data you need to access directly. I don’t believe there is anything particularly wrong with Christy’s data. My problem is with his overstating the significance of it.
He is saying that the significance of it is that it shows that the models have significantly over-estimated the amount of warming that we are experiencing. And you are saying that that is not the case because he compared apples and oranges? The data he compared the models with is not as relevant for that purpose as some other data?
That may be what he is saying, but it is not what he is demonstrating.
The tropical mid-troposphere (TMT) is warmed predominantly by ocean surface emission of IR. Since the ENSO cycle has been dominated by La Nina for the past 20 years, he should not expect to find any significant warming in the TMT.
He is going to where one would expect to find a cooling trend based on the historic ENSO index and finding it. Then he is using that fact to exaggerate model uncertainty.
It is not that he compared apples to oranges, he used model output of TMT temperature, based on random SST projected by the model and compared the observed TMT temperature. The SST in the model projections were much warmer than the observed SST. When you impose the actual SST, the model output is in line with observations. This is to be expected since the TMT is warmed by surface emission.
Had Christy been objective, he would have imposed the SST in the model runs and compared those to observations. But he was not being objective, he was manufacturing doubt.
The models do not over-estimate warming in the TMT. They over-estimated how fast the ocean would take up the heat. They failed to predict ENSO cycles. They failed to predict emissions of aerosols in China and India. They failed to predict solar cycle 24, etc. etc. etc.
This is not a failure of the model however, since the models were never expected to predict such things.
The predictions of TMT were off because the predictions of SST were off. You are saying that the failure to be able to predict the ENSO cycle is not indicative of a general failure of the models and that other predictions should be used for that purpose, not predictions dominated by ENSO factors? Which predictions should be used?
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. If you impose the ENSO index on the models, they reproduce the historic GMST trend very closely.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2310.html
When ENSO is negative, the warm tropical pacific water is blown westward by the trade winds where it mounds up, evaporates, and sinks. When the ENSO is positive the trade winds weaken and the warm water spreads out over the surface warming the troposphere.
That the oceans are warming is based on observation. You posted above that ocean cycles can be 30, 60, even 100 year cycles. How uncertain is the knowledge that this current warming is anthropogenic, rather than part of a natural cycle?
So the modelers made a mistake by allowing it to be understood by the general public that their predictions had a granularity of less than 30 years, or a mistake by making such predictions without a more prominent reference to the fine print of assumptions (these predictions assume the following ENSO characteristics, etc.)
One of the complaints about the Risbey et al. (2014) paper was that they did not identify the four studies that produced the great results. Perhaps it should be possible to figure it out since they did list the 18 they considered.
But another complaint was that they picked the four best to show that models do a good job, whereas they could have picked the four worst to show that models do a terrible job. And of the 38 climate models in the CMIP5 archive they picked four, dismissing 89% of the models.
The natural cycles are internal variability. The oceans are warming overall, not just moving heat around.
I understand that from the NOAA graphic. Do we have a good idea for how long, say during the Holocene, the oceans have been warming overall? Looking at this link http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html helps understand ocean temperatures also? or not?
Yes, the scientists who run the models are not particularly good at propaganda. I use propaganda in the neutral sense of communicating a message. Their unexpected opposition on the other hand specializes in public relations, IE propaganda. So they take the uncertainty, exaggerate it, and create a specious narrative that the models are wrong and therefore AGW is a hoax, or at least no big deal.
Communicating complex concepts to a general public with a 4 second attention span is a daunting task. In fact is was even a major topic of discussion at the 2013 AGU conference.
We don’t need to know what the cycles are to project a trend because these cycles represent internal variability, not external forcing. They only move heat around, they don’t add to the total except through minor feedbacks. Over time they trend to zero.
The ENSO region has an outsized effect global temperature. The hiatus period coincides with a predominately negative ENSO period.
They chose the models that most closely matched the historical ENSO index.
Which is the point they are making. Models that reproduce the historical ENSO record, or have the historical ENSO index imposed, reproduce the GMST with greater skill.
How good the understanding is is a matter of opinion, there is much we do not know.
Here is a good article on the latest research.
Excellent link. Thanks a bunch. I might call you Orion instead of your chosen moniker. Orion… the giant huntsman in Greek mythology whom Zeus placed among the stars.
So Dr. Collins must think that the granularity is 20 years? (I realize that you have not yet gotten over your shock that Dr. Collins could have been so impolitic as to say such a thing with a stenographer present but it’s on the record now and you’re stuck with it.)
OK, I watched the YouTube video. Frankly, the most striking thing to me about it was the absence of any doubt about what “consensus” means. As you know, the skeptics say that they too are among the “97%,” because they say that the polls that are pointed to, such as Cook, included among the “97%” those who agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that we have experienced warming, and that human activities contribute to that warming. But then, they say, this “consensus” is presented as consensus that there is an imminent catastrophe, which is something quite different.
Are you aware of a study or poll that found a 97% consensus on catastrophic global warming?
I don’t disagree with Dr. Collins.
What is your point?
CAGW is not a scientific theory, it is a denier meme. First the deniers argued that global warming was an artifact of the urban heat island effect (UHE). When they could no longer deny that the earth was indeed warming, the argument changed to; the warming is natural, human emissions have no effect. Now it is morphing into; The earth is warming, humans may be contributing, but it won’t be catastrophic. The next evolution of the denier argument will be, OK it is catastrophic, but there is nothing to be done about it.
Back in the late 80’s and early 90’s when I first heard of global warming, my immediate reaction was that it was another killer bee scare, much ado about nothing. I found the UHE to be a plausible explanation. But then I educated myself, studied physics and the history of the theory with an open mind and realized that the deniers are deliberately lying. They lied about CO2 being saturated, they lied about volcanoes, they lied about the hockey stick, they are lying about the HadCRUT emails, and they are lying about the models.
Well that is a surprise. By “granularity” I mean the period of time long enough to have experienced an entire ENSO and/or other cycle so that it couldn’t be said that we have only had the cold part, etc. So then such factors should be a wash and the underlying model prediction (warming) should be seen.
I thought you were saying that 30 years or longer would be necessary.
I am not suggesting that it is a theory. I am saying that it is one thing to say that the earth is warming and that man is contributing to this, and it is another thing to say that there is going to be runaway warming, and on which one of these is there 97% consensus?
I didn’t just say it, I demonstrated it. But that is irrelevant. The reason it takes so long to detect a trend in the GMST record is because the surface and atmosphere represent a tiny portion of the climate’s thermal mass. There are two better metrics that don’t need a temporally large dataset; ocean heat content and radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere. Ocean heat content because the oceans are 90% of the thermal mass, and TOA radiative flux, because it is a direct measure of the energy coming in and going out.
Since both of those datasets indicate that the earth has been, and still is accumulating 0.6W/m2, there is no doubt the earth is still warming as predicted by physics.
Just because the signal is not strong in 5% of the thermal mass does not mean that the earth stopped warming. It means that someone is deliberately using a statistically insignificant results to manufacture doubt.
You said you agreed with Dr. Collins that the granularity is not greater than 20 years, and then said that 30 years would be necessary. It can’t be both.
Just to interject… by catastrophic are you predicating it by saying that a 3 degree C increase in warming due to a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels WOULD be catastrophic?
Does your definition of catastrophic rest on climate sensitivity and feedbacks? Anything catastrophic is in the future, correct?
AGW theory is based on what is happening today; the future is what MAY happen without mitigation.
Without mitigation (based on present observations) the options will be adaptation and suffering. Is this “adaptation and suffering” what you mean by catastrophic?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/
I fully agree. I commend you for taking accountability to thoroughly educate yourself on the subject. You are one of the most balanced and sane voices wrt internet commentary I have come across, not that I’m anyone especially special 🙂
The 97% consensus is that the earth is warming and human emissions are the primary cause. That is the definition of AGW.
CAGW is a subjective not an objective metric, which is why it is unscientific.
What do you mean by runaway warming?
That the Earth will become like Venus, or just that possible amplification from other carbon stores, like say clathrate gun in the East Siberian sea.
I agree that the probability of a hiatus in the GMST of longer than 20 years is unlikely. Not impossible as you seem to be implying, but unlikely.
ENSO is very unpredictable. In light of that and the fact that we have no recent precedents for a climate being forced by anthropogenic emissions, we don’t really know how these past cycles will respond once forced from their steady state. So we must rely on models. As we both know, models can’t capture all the detail, particularly the ENSO cycles.
It is not outside the realm of possibility that the current trend of a warming Atlantic strengthening the Trade Winds could lead to a long term La Nina dominated ENSO pattern. Remember, during this hiatus period two global temperature records were set.
Once I grounded myself in science I could observe human behavior. I am fascinated by how we deceive ourselves. Not just the deniers, but everyone, myself included.
Our bias even affects our math ability. Mathematical solutions that contradict our beliefs are avoided as readily as any other evidence.
Let’s take Richard Lindzen, for example. He says that we can expect about one degree of warming for each doubling of CO₂, and no horrendous feedbacks. His scenario is that it might be a little bit warmer but there are no huge effects from that. No need for adaptation and suffering. This is what I have in mind for non-catastrophic.
How much direct warming could there be and still be OK? I don’t know, but I would like a consensus poll that distinguishes between those who don’t see a big problem ahead and those who do.
But the earth can warm a small amount as a result of human activity without any reason to worry. I would like to know the consensus on whether there is reason to worry.
The generally-accepted scientific opinion seems to be that the clathrate gun is not something that we need to worry about.
Instead of a consensus poll, a better approach would be a scientific debunking (or challenge if “debunk” is too loaded of a word for you). Or do you not agree? Would you consider a scientific challenge to Lindzen? This link will also link you to other articles. FWIW, I think it’s great that you are educating yourself and testing the ideas. Absolutely great! http://www.skepticalscience.com/Earth-expected-global-warming.htm
Interesting. I’m too fascinated by motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias… all the way to initial assumptions and epistemic/subjective bias. My interest in the psychology is from a philosophical pov, but sometimes I think philosophizing and/or engaging in sophistry as it’s own form of coping against the hard truths and painful reality of existence. FWIW, I’m trying to balance my grounding myself in science with a critical analysis of science-as-ideology. One of my favorite books just read has been “The Science Delusion” by Curtis White. The book description on amazon doesn’t do the book justice imo.
Fascinating that self delusion even affects mathematical understanding.
I may have shared this with you prior. If so forgive the redundancy. From the Persian poet Rumi – “Beyond ideas of right doing and wrong doing there is a field. I will meet you there.” Shall we meet there some day?
I’m fine with a direct debate, where the two participants respond directly to each other. But if A says that what B says is bunk, with no response from B, then that is less valuable to me.
I think that a consensus poll is useful. But the procedures that have been used in some instances seem to result in a murky understanding of just where those polled stand on the issue: i.e. whether or not there is an emergency situation.
It would be good then to look at the consensus position among the experts (the climate scientists and those who have logical/reasonable/rational evaluating and critical analytical skills interpreting the conclusions of the climate scientists) especially and most notably with respect to this: climate sensitivity of 3 degrees C per doubling of atmospheric CO2. Especially if you agree that such a climate sensitivity actually IS very, very bad news for the biosphere.
And frankly, debates between experts, outside of my area of expertise, have limited usefulness to me. I understand some things but there is much that is just over my head. For example, have you ever looked at the actual ingredients of a climate model? Should those particular ingredients and the way they are put together simulate the climate? Next question.
But that’s the question. What is the consensus position on the various questions?
A direct debate about an interpretation of the science is different from other debates though. As an example a two person debate over whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person or whether the character of a messiah figure was constructed from pre-existing myths is fine as a debate. A two person debate about the science of a young earth to conform with biblical literalism vs the science of geology is misleading. It allows the audience of the debate to assume equal credence.
I think that’s why a thorough understanding of science as an epistemology is so very important. It allows the non-scientist to see the science ITSELF as the scientific debate. How the science is interpreted by non-scientists becomes the initial public debate (or maybe even internal debate with oneself comes first). Just the way I see it.
Thanks for letting me interject. Thanks esp for you thoughtful replies.
Yes it is, but scientific opinion, conservative as it is, changes with new information.
The Arctic methane data covered on that link is from the last few days.
I understand that for purposes of mass media that the media sometimes have to take precautions against leaving the impression that a certain point of view is mainstream when it is not. However for myself, I would prefer to be my own guardian. Let two competent people debate on any issue. I would expect the mainstream side to make that fact quite obvious, along with the reasons for it.
I admit that I do not have a thorough enough understanding of the computer modeling process to really have a good informed opinion. But I’ll give it a shot.
My limited understanding of climate simulation is that the huge amount of known data which is input (so garbage in, garbage out is an unfair criticism) is questionable… (so it allows genuine skepticism about models ability to predict the future… a tool for which they are not designed… as you said they are a simulation)… questionable compared and contrasted with the huge amount of unknown data. So models must be continually adjusted/improved to add more knowns which theoretically reduces the unknowns. Even climate, as highly complex and chaotic a system as it is, has a limited number of drivers and forcers, right?
I think the most important thing is that attempts at simulating climate is scientific, in that it is an honest attempt to understand earth systems. Whether or not there is enough computing power to exactly (and I realize that this may be a red herring) simulate something as complex and chaotic as climate is open to question. It may even fall into the realm of artificial intelligence. Your thoughts?
I have met quite a number of scientists. The majority I would say are motivated by the belief that we do not understand nature of reality. I mean, the scientific frontier would be rather boring if it were not a great unknown.
I agree. Mystery, even the sense of scientific mystery, is anything but boring. The book by White I mentioned goes into how we human animals see the world metaphorically/symbolically instead of realistically or as you put it, being able to understand the nature of reality. So metaphor becomes a third world picture, in addition to the faith based and the (so called) reality based. Fascinating stuff actually if one is open to questioning the depths of one’s folly.
This is on my reading list too. Have you heard of it? You probably already understand the premise. Sometimes just reading the book description is good for ideas http://www.amazon.com/dp/0465085970
And the people at Arctic News don’t help their cause by their seeming quickness to find things alarming that most others do not.
You wrote: “However for myself, I would prefer to be my own guardian.”
And that’s what you are doing by questioning authority, testing ideas, questioning yourself about your biases, assumptions, beliefs. I commend you. What is your goal, your end purpose… if I may be so bold as to ask such a personal question?
But they do help their cause, they bring more and more people to support their cause. Just like lying about volcanoes emitting more CO2 than humans helps the denier cause. Exaggerating and lying might not do anything for their credibility, but it most certainly helps their cause.
And since perception is reality in politics, they don’t need credibility.
Don’t confuse alarmists and deniers with the scientific community. That there is a lot of methane under the sea is a fact. That it is being released at an accelerated rate is a fact. That methane is a potent GHG is a fact.
I don’t have time to read books much anymore and it is not as easy to curl up and get comfortable with a book as when I was younger. I do most of my reading online, often with multiple sources for the same subject open at once so I can compare.
Just trying to get to the root of the matter.
I have appreciated reading your dialogues about pastured cattle, the vegan diet, government and economics and (of course) climate science. Is human behavior (ethology and ethics) your favorite subject? What about something more deeply metaphysical and/or historically relative? Time wasters in your opinion.
Just trying to make headway, inch by inch. SkyHunter is a great resource, despite his occasional crankiness.
So you consider yourself a radical (from the Latin radix=root), unless I’m taking the etymology of the word to an extreme.
🙂
I agree about SH being a great resource. As for headway, you’re lucky. My incremental progress seems to be micron by micron. But I’m assured by good sources that breakthroughs happen
!!
Is !! good?
Maybe we are using the term differently. To me, AGW includes all warming that is partly caused by human activity. If human activity causes the temperature in the next 100 years to go up by one point this would be AGW, although it’s not something that we want to spend trillions of dollars to try to prevent.
There is a kind of warming that would be dangerous and destructive, and that we should be willing to spend trillions of dollars to prevent. This is what I think is meant by CAGW.
Perhaps you believe that there is no such thing as “harmless” AGW because you believe that the effect of the current AGW will be quite severe. But is that belief held by 97% of scientists? That’s my question.
Which ones were those?
!! is for things that exceed the capacity of the language for expression.
Groovy 🙂
I am interested in many subjects, but I can’t ignore the fact that I am living through a geologic event that will stand out in the geologic record for all time. Understanding human behavior is the key to changing human behavior. The addict must first understand the nature of addiction before overcoming it.
I was trained in martial arts in the 1970’s by Dr. Fred Wu. The first Chinese master to teach in the US for money. I can feel Chi, always could. That said, I am an empiricist. I feel something, but I don’t know what it is, I follow methods of the masters, and even though I get results, I have no empirical explanation, and could attribute most results to other possible factors.
So I don’t dismiss metaphysics, I even practice some professionally, If I can’t qualify and quantify it, it is still a mystery.
AGW is anthropogenic global warming, IE human induced global warming.
It is universally known that disturbance is detrimental to existing life. Life has acclimated to the environment. When you change the environment you stress the life present in the environment.
Any change in climate is going to be catastrophic since it forces un upheaval as the biosphere responds to the changes.
I don’t have an answer to your question. If you want an answer then conduct a survey.
2010 and 2005 are the two warmest years on record.
In fact 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurred during the 21st century.
http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/gallery/climate-matters-GlobalRecapRanking_sm.jpg
But the climate is constantly changing. It has been warming since the end of the last ice age. The biosphere has been responding to changes for billions of years and the result has not always been catastrophic.
Definitely a poser.
“Vanishingly small” was not my term. If you don’t disagree with Dr. Collins then you don’t disagree with this term.
The Earth has been generally cooling for the past 5000 years.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
Where have you been?
That is not a global temperature record. It is an extrapolation of the lower troposphere temperature from satellite data in the microwave spectrum. It represents less than 1% of the climate’s thermal mass. And it is the only global dataset with a negative trend.
Choosing only the outlier because it supports your belief is cherry picking.
I use it because it’s the one I have and because I assume that the others, though they might not show zero warming, will be fairly similar. We are talking about a “hiatus” period, after all.
I just stepped out briefly. The image I had in mind was similar to this one, which seems to be a general warming since the end of the last ice age, and accounting for the rise in the oceans since then.
You are splitting hairs. Vanishingly small is not the same as impossible, in fact, it is very similar to unlikely.
OK
Your assumption is incorrect.
It is the outlier.
That is a schematic, not a proxy reconstruction. Note how smooth the lines are. It is also from the 1970’s, ancient by climate science standards.
Technically, we are still in an ice age that began two and a half million years ago when Greenland iced over. Some would argue that we have already set up the conditions that will terminate it. The Little Ice Age is a period where negative forcings aligned. The Maunder and Dalton solar minimums occurred, there was an increase in volcanic activity, and CO2 levels dropped 10ppm as the forests in the America’s recovered after the indigenous people were wiped out by European conquest and disease.
The dictionary definition
Somewhere in between I would say. If he were being scientific, not just expressing an opinion, he would have given a probability. Because he did not, people can interpret it to mean different things.
You are just parsing words in order to score an emotional payoff.
Judging from the historic ENSO index only, I would put the probability of a 20+ year La Nina dominated ENSO at less than 10%. However the historic ENSO record does not record a period where the climate was forced this strongly. Because in the past 2.5 million years the climate has never been forced this strongly except during glacial termination, which is an entirely different steady state climate than the recent climate state. So with this uncertainty in mind I would increase that probability to 10-15%.
LOL.
You probably miss the irony here.
I’m off to volunteer in the park.
I think I am simply insisting on the generally understood meaning of the term, a meaning that you are resisting because of what it is being applied to. Actually, I expected you to reply that Dr. Collins has his opinion but it is not shared by most of his peers. Instead you adopted his term but tried to define it away.
We can debate how much warming is shown by the other charts but they all depict a period referred to as a “hiatus” period, a concept that seems to conflict with the notion of these years being the warmest ever.
It escaped me completely.
I’m not sure how Qi and Tao are related, but this geological and biogenic event human animals are both observing and accountable for is described by Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching: “When man interferes with the Tao, the sky becomes filthy, the earth becomes depleted, the equilibrium crumbles, creatures become extinct.”
As for addiction, it seems to me that too many humans are addicted to all things “cheap”… polluting on the cheap, cheap water, cheap food, cheap toys, cheap energy, cheap answers, including the cheapening of life itself. We lack the appropriate values. I don’t know how values are empirical. Maybe though I’m being too hard on the species. Maybe this paradigm is simply social conditioning and social conditioning can change. The incentive for change needs to be clarified. Maybe that clarified incentive will be an existential struggle for survival. I just don’t know. (Just writing these words distresses my heart, and how empirical is “writing from the heart”?)
The mystery for me is “And now what? what’s next?”
Can we really say that we have a handle on this thing? http://www.news.wisc.edu/23050
I never adopted his term. You are parsing again.
What exactly is it you are hoping to achieve?
You must not quite understand the concept of “hiatus” in this context. The hiatus period is a pause in the GMST trend, in this case a slowing. But this is only the near-surface temperature, a small fraction of the global heat content, with a signal that is overwhelmed by ocean cycles, particularly ENSO. Even though the GMST trend has slowed, it has not stopped. If you use the hybrid dataset that infills under sampled surface areas with satellite data, you get a positive trend of 0.114ºC/decade since 1997.
Which is why every little El Nino event sets a new GMST record.
I would believe the proxy evidence over the model assumptions. The Antarctic ice cores, at least before we destroyed the ozone layer, are a good proxy for long term climate trends.
What’s the correct set of data to use?
Now you have reduced it to a ten years hiatus.
Your cherries are getting smaller.
I agree that this topic has become tedious.
When you said that you do not disagree with him, after he used the term “vanishingly small,” then I concluded that you do not disagree with the term “vanishingly small.” Please strike “adopted” and substitute “did not disagree with.”
Nothing beyond trying to reconcile and understand what you have said. Every time I think I have it you say something that seems to be inconsistent with what you have said before. And when I point that out you bristle and demand to know my motive.
Bullshit. I spelled out clearly what I meant many comments ago.
The last hiatus was 30 years long. Matches with the MEI, flat when La Nina is predominant, rises sharply when El Nino is predominant.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1941/to:1970/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1941/to:1970/trend
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1941/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1941/trend
I have heard it said by representatives of both sides that over the period when we have had the equivalent of a 70% increase in CO₂ we have had an increase in temperature of 0.7⁰C. (a) is that a number you agree with? (b) if this were true, would it be good evidence that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO₂ is 1⁰C?
How much of the rise in temperature as the result of an El Niño is attributable to human-induced climate change?
Since there is still a 0.6W/m2 imbalance at the TOA, the climate is still being forced, so using current temperature data is misleading since the climate is has not yet achieved a steady state response to the forcing. So to your points.
a) Temperatures have increased on average 0.85ºC since 1880. using a 30 year lag in response to forcing would mean the temperature today is from the forcing in CO2 in 1985, 345ppm.
(5.35 ln (400/280) = 1.1168382542W/m2
A climate sensitivity of 3ºC/doubling yields a climate sensitivity of 0.81ºC per 1W/m2.
(1.1168382542 x 0.81 = 0.904638986ºC
So in answer to your question, no, it is not good evidence for a climate sensitivity of 1ºC.
That question makes no sense.
Do we see an El Niño as an event that suddenly causes all the heat to be displayed in the atmosphere that had heretofore been swept west and then down into the deep ocean?
Yes. That is exactly what an El Nino is, a weakening of the trade winds, allowing the warmed surface water to remain at the surface, warming the troposphere through increased thermal emission.
So your calculations are to take into consideration the lag response? If we say that from point A to point B there was a doubling of CO₂, then we could measure the difference in temperatures between which two points in time to discover the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO₂?
That has been done in the paleoclimate analysis of climate sensitivity, which is in general agreement with other estimates of 3ºC/doubling.
In order to measure climate sensitivity for doubling you need to start with a steady state climate, force it with 3.7W/m2 until it again reaches a steady state and then observe the change in temperature.
Not possible except with climate models.
Schwartz seems to be saying that since the forcing by doubled CO₂ is 3.7 W m⁻², if over a period of time there is an actual forcing of 2.6 W m⁻², since this is 70% of 3.7 W m⁻² one should see 70% of the temperature increase that would be seen on a doubling of CO₂. Am I understanding him correctly?
No. Look at Figure 1.
Schwartz is including all LLGHG(long-lived greenhouse gases) in his 2.7W/m2 estimate, CO2, CH4, N2O, and CFC’s. He estimates CO2 forcing as only 1.75W/m2.
CO2 was ~388ppm when that research was conducted, so using the IPCC forcing equation for CO2 F = 5.35 ln(388/280) solves as 1.74525419W/m2.
Yes, but isn’t he saying this:
1. the forcing by doubled CO₂ is 3.7 W m⁻²
2. as a result of a combination of CO₂ and the other LLGHGs, we have achieved a forcing of 2.6 W m⁻², which is 70% of the forcing by doubling CO₂
3. Since we have 70% of the forcing that we would have by doubling CO₂ we should have 70% of the temperature increase that we would have by doubling CO₂
How else does he arrive at this statement:
Look again at Figure 1. The total forcing is 1.7W/m2, not 2.6W/m2. Anthropogenic emissions of aerosols is a negative forcing.
And again, the climate takes long time to reach equilibrium temperature.
How does Schwartz reach the figure of “2.1 K” except as follows:
1. IPCC said that a doubling of CO₂ would result in a 3 K increase in temperature.
2. We have had 70% of the forcing that would be involved with a doubling of CO₂.
3. Therefore we should have a warming of 70% of 3 K, or 2.1 K.
Read the whole paper, that is not what he is saying.
The 2.1ºK does not include aerosols.
I understand that. He is saying that we account for the fact that we don’t see a 2.1 K warming by some combination of (a) aerosols and (b) an error in the climate sensitivity assumptions that led us to the conclusion that a doubling of CO₂ would result in a warming of 3 K.
But he is saying that without an influence by aerosols, and without an error in our sensitivity assumption, we should see a 2.1 K warming.
If I am wrong about that, what is the 2.1 K figure for?
That is what he is saying. But since aerosols are present, there is no reason to expect 2.1ºK warming.
Let me rephrase my original question. Do you agree that if, over the period when we have had the equivalent of a 70% increase in CO₂, we have had an increase in temperature of 0.7⁰C, then absent aerosols this would be good evidence that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO₂ is 1⁰C?
But those conditions do not exist, so why are you asking for such speculation?
Additionally, there is still the thermal inertia of the climate system to consider.
I am just asking if we agree that if a doubling of CO₂ will result in a warming of X, then 70% of the forcing involved in a doubling of CO₂ will result in a warming of 0.7X.
Yes, we agree.
My dog says she has waited long enough and it’s time to go to the dog park now. Talk to you later.
I am a steward for our local park. Dogs are prohibited but we don’t enforce it.
In this equation, 0.7 is the increase in temperature? What are the 2.7 and the 0.259?
The climate sensitivity equation is: (dT = λ*dF)
dT is change in temperature ºC or more appropriately ºK, since kelvin is an absolute scale, although for our purpose here it doesn’t matter.
λ is climate sensitivity in ºK per 1W/m2.
dF is the change in forcing in W/m2.
0.7ºK is dT
2.7W/m2 is dF
I just reversed it.
(dT ÷ dF = λ
In the summertime I take her to an actual local dog park that has a pond and a dock that she can jump off of. She loves it. In the winter I take her to another local park where dogs are supposed to be on leash ($500 fine) but we live dangerously. That’s why I got a Golden Retriever instead of a Doberman – people don’t call the Sheriff’s office when they see her coming.
Dog park
There is apparently an issue involving access to the data that supports published papers dealing with climate change. People use the FOIA to try to force access. Steve McIntyre on climateaudit.org is a great raconteur of these stories, particularly as they relate to Michael Mann. Are scientists justified in withholding their data? If so, what is the justification?
Scientists were not withholding their data.
Here is a more objective perspective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_requests_to_the_Climatic_Research_Unit
Apart from the FOIA issue there have been other instances where scientists were reluctant to disclose their data. Infamously,
Are you not aware of any such reluctance?
Of course I am aware of it. The denial industry was looking for fodder to feed their misinformation campaign.
These people are not scientists, they are propagandists.
Apparently, this is IPCC AR5 Second Draft Figure 1.4 with annotations.
Another version
So what’s the bottom line here? Are they justified in refusing to reveal the data if the people requesting it are heathens who are simply trying to undermine it for ignoble purposes? I can see them refusing to spend any time explaining it to anyone but if the data is valid, and is being relied upon for scientific purposes, I don’t understand how the refusal to disclose it can be justified.
I don’t know what you mean about the error bars, but that graph is improperly baselined.
The baseline should not be 1990.
Wasn’t this the issue with Michael Mann’s “hockey stick”? According to his detractors he not only would not divulge the actual original data but would not divulge the details of how he calculated his results.
This one is the corrected version.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/1/1380599335494/ProjvsObs450.jpg
Not justified, but understandable. When FOIA requests are part of coordinated effort to disrupt public research, as the commission(s) tasked with investigating the incident found, then it is understandable why the scientists would be reluctant to cooperate with people attempting to destroy their careers because they don’t like the results of their research.
All of Mann’s work has been released to the public.
They are still telling lies that the hockey stick has been debunked, when the truth is it has been validated over and over by every global reconstruction since. So I would take what they tell you at CA, WUWT, BT, and JC with a salt mine.
Here is what you are looking for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#McIntyre_and_McKitrick_2003
One of the favorite charges made against Mann is the “hide the decline” one, which alleges that he cut off one of his proxies in a way that would not be noticed simply because the proxy was not in harmony with the blade of his hockey stick (removed the last part of the gold line below). What is your view of this? If the proxy conflicted with modern temperature records then why assume that the earlier part of it was valid? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
How do we distinguish between warming caused by El Niño and warming caused by humans?
Keith Briffa documented the decline in 1997/98. Tree growth, especially at higher latitudes, is a good proxy for temperature. However, something happened in the latter half of the 20th century that caused these proxies to diverge around 1960. He warned that use of these proxies would result in an overestimation of past temperature.
In order to get around the problem, Mann substituted the instrumental record for the proxy data in his reconstruction. It is the instrumental record which is the blade of the hockey stick.
Since there is no discrepancy with any of the other proxy data, we know that the problem is only with the tree ring proxies after 1960.
El Nino does not cause global warming, it just moves heat around, it is internal variability. Internal variability trends to zero over time, which is why the CO2 signal in the GMST takes decades to achieve statistical significance. The oceans, being spatially larger take less time to produce a statistically significant signal.
If we have an El Niño this year we will experience warming and people will attribute it to global warming. Should the response be that this is not global warming, this is El Niño?
You referenced a paper by Craig Loehle but he does not appear to be entirely on-board with Mann et al.:
Yes Craig Loehle is a denier. The difference is, I referenced his published research, you referenced his opinion.
One is supported by evidence, the other by personal bias.
So he’s competent to explain the science underlying the divergence issue but not to evaluate whether Mann handled the issue properly in his study?
Yes. The CO2 signal is not visible in the internal variation from the mean. The fact that a weak El Nino will set a new global temperature record is the evidence that the mean is changing. Strong La Nina events do not set record cold global temperatures, yet weak El Nino events do.
He can say whatever it is he believes on JC’s blog. It is just his opinion unsupported by any credible evidence. If he had credible evidence he would publish it in the journals and discredit Mann. Instead he rants and raves on denier blogs, discrediting himself instead.
BTW – I didn’t say I agreed with him, I just thought it only fair to present the issue objectively.
But that is one of the valuable things about experts: their ability to evaluate facts and give their opinions. His issues 1 through 9 appear to be scientifically based, while issues 11 and 12 seem to depend more on one’s point of view. Do you have a view on his issues 1 – 9?
Understood, and I appreciate your willingness to be objective.
And his issue 10 appears to be his evaluation that Mann was not justified in his handling of the proxy in this case.
He does not prove the accusation 1-9, he just makes them. If he could prove them he would, but he can’t.
I don’t know what reconstruction he is talking about here, there have been many. All multi-proxy reconstructions have the same shape, whether tree rings are used or not, so his rant about tree rings is irrelevant.
Science is never correct. Each advancement simply makes us less wrong. I prefer to focus on legitimate criticism that advances science.
But the fact that he is writing in the comment section of a denier blog, instead of responding to the published research should tell you it is not a robust opinion. Remove the tree ring data and you still get the same results.
Apparently this issue is not unique to this case.
Perhaps, but it is not evidence of a broad conspiracy, as the denier propagandists would like us to believe.
I agree with you there, but then many journals will not give space to such “denier” opinions.
But a scientist is not justified in using compromised data or in reporting his results in a misleading way (if that is what he did) just because his results turn out to be valid.
Not at all. It is evidence that journals need to require that the data supporting a study be made available to those who wish to see if the data really support the conclusion.
He did not use compromised data, the tree rings proxies do not diverge until humans start altering the ecosystem. The compromised data is tree ring growth after 1960. Mann truncated the proxy data and substituted the more robust instrumental record. He didn’t hide it, he published it in Nature magazine.
As someone who works both inside and outside of the system, what you are asking is somewhat naive. But I agree that information should all be open source. Some day when we realize that cooperation is better than competition, that will be a no-brainer. As long as we live in a competitive society where hoarding information brings wealth and power, people will continue to hoard information.
But the reason for the divergence is all speculation. There is no compelling explanation. That raises both a data integrity issue and a disclosure issue. Can data showing this kind of divergence be relied on? It would seem that Mann should have at least disclosed what he was doing and why.
But that’s the allegation: that he not only removed the end of the proxy in order to hide it but also used improper statistical methods in the process:
It appears as if Mann wanted a nice flat hockey stick that contrasted with the stark “blade” in the 20th century. And it appears that he wanted to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period because that would suggest that the current warming was not unprecedented.
So it appears that he chose his proxies to minimize the MWP.
McIntyre and McKitrick published a paper, http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/mcintyre_02.pdf, in which they claim that the hockey stick blade was the result of the inclusion of a single group of bristlecone pine chronologies published by Graybill and Idso in 1993 that the original authors had stressed are not proper climate proxies. Without these proxies there is no blade on the hockey stick and the MWP returns. See image below.
In addition, they found, on Mann’s FTP site, a folder called “CENSORED” which contained the data without the Graybill and Idso bristlecone pines, showing, they say, that Mann had done this experiment himself and knew that the hockey stick shape depended on that one group. http://a-sceptical-mind.com/Documents/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf
Did McIntyre and McKitrick find the smoking gun?
The American Economic Review, at least, now requires it. https://www.aeaweb.org/aer/data.php
I believe you will find most of them have such a policy. But not all data is public domain. Often it is purchased for use under a non-disclosure agreement.
The data was not deleted, and the TAR discusses and references all the literature available on the subject at the time.
CA is lying about it because they can. They don’t need credibility to make money.
Both charts in the TAR indicate the instrumental record.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig2-20s.gif
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/images/fig2-21s.gif
Look, I don’t have time to re-hash the Hockey stick controversy.
It was the early days of the climate denial industry. Everyone is wise to them now, and they have no credibility within the scientific community.
In your experience, what is the percentage of published studies in which the actual data is made available?
There are those who say that the utter failure of models to be able to simulate sea surface temperature patterns renders them useless. Risbey et al. (2014) found four that seemed to be able to predict the hiatus, and you (and Risbey) suggest that the problem is simply one of being “in phase with observations.” This implies that the models know what they’re doing when they are “in phase with observations.”
However, Risbey has been criticized on the grounds that even the four models that supposedly were in phase with observations produced sea surface patterns that, while termed “broadly consistent” with the actual patterns, in reality were not similar at all, and the fact that these models seemed to be able to predict the hiatus is considered by some to be just blind luck.
Since ENSO is one of the primary processes through which heat is distributed from the tropics to the poles, how can we have confidence in models that appear to be only capable of lurching about in the dark?
I actually agree that the models do a terrible job predicting the climate’s response to forcing. However, I find this disturbing, not evidence that climate change is beneficial or benign.
But how are we supposing that we are going to have climate change at all except from these models? And are they capable of making that determination?
We know the climate will change from basic physics. The question is not if the climate will change, but how.
Don’t we run our basic physics through these models to determine if and how climate will change?
Let’s suppose that since the 1960s the 0-2000m layer has warmed 0.06⁰C. Argo. What is the long-term climate change impact?
Yes. Which is why the uncertainty should be frightening, not reassuring.
A recently published study explains the switch from the 41,000 year inter-glacial cycle to the 100,000 year cycle about a million years ago. It seems that as the oceans cooled and circulation slowed down, they released less CO2.
What happened over the last century has already changed that million year old cycle.
I don’t know.
I didn’t see this part of it in the press release.
Not sure what I said to cause you to think I am reassured. What I asked was this: what, besides the models, tells us (a) that there will be climate change, (b) what the magnitude will be, and (c) what it is to be attributed to.
Does it seem like an alarming statistic?
The models don’t tell us there will be climate change, the models are our best attempts to understand how the climate will change.
a) dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
b) dT = λ*dF
c) CO2
Not in the short term, if all you are concerned with is your own life and personal gratification, it is irrelevant. But for the future climate, it is a very big deal.
It changes the median temperature from which the climate oscillates. It has been recently shown, in the prees release I linked earlier, that ocean heat content has an effect on how the climate responds to orbital forcings, enough to change the dominant 41,000 year cycle to a 100,000 year cycle.
Do you believe that we should assume that any changes to the climate will be cataclysmic and that the burden of proof rests with those who do not agree?
I don’t believe that any changes will be cataclysmic, but then cataclysmic is a subjective, not objective metric. I believe the changes we have already wrought are going to be of such a magnitude as to be a significant event in the geologic record. Significant events in the geologic record are normally associated with cataclysms, I see no reason to expect this one to be different.
But (a) aren’t the forcing numbers determined by a model, and (b) the mere fact that there is a forcing doesn’t tell you that there will be an effect on the climate. There are many interactions and one forcing might be cancelled out by another.
If we stopped adding CO₂ to the atmosphere today you anticipate how much more warming before the temperature stabilizes?
Do you think that the following is hype?http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/weekender-scientists-predict-mass-extinction-30-years-how-can-we-change-outcome
Roughly in the range of 0.4C to 1C.
a) The forcing number is determined by line by line analysis of the radiation codes in the HITRAN database. The radiation codes are empirically determined.
b) That is why you have the second equation for climate sensitivity.
I don’t know enough about it yet to have a credible opinion. Generally, geologic events do not occur in decades, but there is a precedent for large carbon pulses occurring over short time scales. The higher levels of CO2 and warming oceans may have already altered a million year old glacial/interglacial cycle.
Methane levels in the Arctic have recently reached new peaks.
Unfortunately we might know sooner than we wish to know in order to form a considered opinion :-/
What leads you to think this?
What do you mean by a “significant event in the geologic record”?
The radiative forcing from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is 5.35 ln(400/280) = 1.9W/m2. That works out to a 1.5ºC rise in surface temperature at equilibrium. We have seen 0.8C, that leaves another 0.7ºC ignoring all other factors.
Something interesting, IE different, a change from the norm.
Two and a half million years ago, CO2 levels dropped well below the 300 – 400 ppm range and Greenland grew a permanent ice sheet. One million years ago, CO2 dropped below 250 – 350 ppm, the Ice sheets got bigger, and the interglacial timing went from 41,000 year intervals to 100,000 year intervals.
We have primed both ends of the fast carbon cycle, the atmosphere and the ocean, with carbon dioxide. As the oceans warm the the deep carbon rich water will drawn up faster by the stronger currents, emitting carbon dioxide faster. By restoring atmospheric CO2 levels to 400 ppm we have already primed the climate’s carbon and heat pump. if these levels are sustained, The glacial/interglacial cycle of the past million years has been disrupted. It is quite possible, given the carbon feedback from a warmer ocean that Greenland will lose it’s ice sheet, even if we stopped emitting today.
Have you seen this?
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/
Yes. Arctic news is good at keeping abreast of changes in this region. The link I sent above links to arctic news I believe. Thanks
My mistake. It didn’t have an embedded link but I googled the key words from the following quote and it took me to arctic news.
The study was conducted by researchers Dr. Malcolm P.R. Light, Harold Hensel and Sam Carana and is entitled: ” The Arctic Atmospheric ‘Methane Global Warming Veil’. Its Origin in the Arctic Subsea and Mantle and the Timing of the Global Terminal Extinction Events by 2040 to 2050 – A Review.”
But doesn’t the calculation come from models such as MODTRAN (which, amazingly enough, has its computer code available online)? It’s not exactly as if the calculation is without any doubt. In fact, haven’t starkly different conclusions been reached also using the HITRAN database?
Assuming that the science is settled, and the area of focus ought to be… that great categorical imperative… human behavior — using fuzzy logic and/or Bayesian probability — can you give a credible opinion on achieving sustainability? Google the pdf using the key words “minimal model human nature interaction” and get back to me at your leisure, but only if your inclination and priorities allow. Keep fighting the good fight. And may your unique epiphaneia, (“manifestation, striking appearance”) experiences of sudden and striking realization continue as well mon ami.
The paper talks about ocean currents being disrupted by expanding ice cover. I just don’t see the connection between that concept and oceans that have warmed 0.06⁰C since the 1960s.
Your link is to a simple 2 layer model. A mistake that hasn’t been made in physics since the 1940’s. The atmosphere also emits IR in the frequencies that CO2 absorbs at. The higher the concentration, the shorter the average distance a photon can travel before being absorbed, which means that saturation of all available energy from the surface occurs in a smaller volume of space, raising the temperature. The saturated layer is itself emitting black body radiation that is being absorbed by the ground as well as the atmosphere above. The next layers also saturate, but the distance the average photon can travel is increased until most emitted photons travel unimpeded back into space.
That is a focused study of a tiny area. here is a more objective quote from the same source.
“This particular deposit is only modest in size, but the methane trapped in such deposits represents an immense global carbon reservoir”
The key component is the CO2. When the ice sheets grew, temperatures dropped, even during interglacials. The slowdown in the ocean currents amplified the cooling by not releasing as much CO2. We have reset the climate normal back 2.5 million years. 0.06℃ may not seem like a lot, but remember, the heating is uneven, and it is the differential that drives the currents. a warmer world means increased evaporation which is a key driver of thermohaline circulation.
There is no reason, given the evidence in the geologic record, to assume that ice sheet disintegration is a linear event. In fact, all the evidence suggests otherwise.
I estimate the probability is low. A lot of intrenched interests with tremendous resources to protect those interests.
But I’ve always liked a long shot.
Yes there is a huge amount of methane trapped in such deposits, but most of it is not near the surface like in these deposits. The IPCC has “high confidence” that it is “very unlikely” that methane from clathrates will undergo catastrophic release. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter12.pdf, page 78.
The experts cannot envision a scenario in which large amounts of it would be released. Carolyn Ruppel, a methane hydrate specialist at the U.S. Geological Survey who authored a review of research on gas hydrates in 2011 called the sudden thawing scenario “unrealistic…I would say it’s nearly impossible.” http://www.livescience.com/38473-arctic-methane-warming-debate.html
Gavin Schmidt said that if a warming would release catastrophic amounts of Methane into the atmosphere then we would be able to detect that from ice cores taken from the two warm Arctic periods 8,000 and 125,000 years ago but we do not. http://www.livescience.com/38473-arctic-methane-warming-debate.html
Also there is this article in Nature, which said
Let me just say that I do appreciate your explanations, even though I sometimes struggle with them.
What we were originally talking about, though, was climate models and how reliable they are. I pointed out that Risbey et al. (2014) showed that even the four best models produced results that bore very little resemblance to the actual patterns seen. It appears that these models are also used in coming up with the forcing figures. AR5 says
If ENSO is the dominant mode of climate variability at interannual time scales, and the models do not understand ENSO, what exactly is the value of the models?
What kind of evidence?
I was of the same opinion in 2012. Now I am a little more agnostic.
The link I provided was for recent record methane levels in the Arctic.
Methane is not the only way that the oceans release carbon, but increased emission of methane is one of the feedbacks to a warming ocean.
That climate models projections don’t match the actual patterns is not an issue. Nor is it to be expected. Since it is impossible to know the state of the climate at any single point, approximations must be made. Over thousands of iterations even tiny errors accumulate. Models are a means for understanding how the climate is responding.
The evidence in the citation you provided.
Why do you say that CO² drives temperature when data such as that from Vostok suggest that warming preceded the rise in CO²? The second graph is an averaging of the first, showing also that high levels of CO² did not prevent the temperature from falling. The third graph is a plot of CO² levels for 600 million years using geologic evidence and shows the current level of 385 ppm is the lowest in the entire record and only equaled by a period between 315 and 270 million years ago.
Because you have come to question whether these deposits really are as inaccessible as they are said to be?
But another 0.7ºC will not wreak havoc on the world or on mankind, right?
Zero feedback with doubled CO2 λ is 0.3°C/(w/m2) http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Cess_etal_1.pdf The rest is proposed feedback in a chaotic system. Estimates are all over the board. How do you arrive at such a level of confidence?
Is it impossible that ENSO processes could impact the amount of heat that is retained by the earth?
That seems a short list of climate sensitivity estimates, and each must be evaluated on it’s own merits.
Climate sensitivity to CO2 of 0.3°C/(w/m2) is 1.11ºC/doubling. So the chart you provided concurs with my estimate.
Depends on how you define havoc, and how much is outside random probability. But the question is moot since we have not stopped emitting.
More recent analysis finds the initial lag to be 0 – 200 years, but that CO2 is a feedback to temperature in the climate system was the premise of the AGW argument as first posited in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius paper; On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.
The third chart is BS from Geocraft. Ask CB about it.
Actually two things:
1) Much of the Arctic that is losing ice every year now is less than 500m deep. There is clear evidence that methane clathrates are destabilizing at this depth. So I there was an underestimate of the shallow reserves. The Laptev and Siberian seabed is loaded with methane.
The Atlantic current that flows through the Fram Strait and into the Arctic ocean is 1.5℃ warmer than during the MWP.
Since the Arctic ocean is fresher than the Atlantic, the warm salty water warms the deeper ocean. So I am not convinced that the deeper clathrates are as stable as I once thought.
ENSO processes definitely impact the amount of heat retained by the earth, only it is La Nina that accumulates heat, and El Nino that sheds it.
Then do ENSO processes always net out to zero?
What information do you have about this graph, apart from general derision?
And also this one from GEOCARB.
Just a few more.
The lower the impact of aerosols the lower the climate sensitivity to CO₂, right?
Net warming defined how and over what time frame?
Net warming such that warming caused by ENSO could be termed AGW.
That is consistent with the findings of this study.
Human aerosol emissions invigorate the cloud formation process, so it is not surprising that this group found a change in cloud cover accompanied an change in aerosols.
An argument against clean air laws?
No. ENSO is just internal variability, the long negative pattern is not that unusual.
Look at the period from 1940 to 1975.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/ext.ts.jpg
AGW is a century scale forcing. The cool cycles damp the warming signal in the GMST record, but since the heat is still accumulating, cooler surface temperatures equal less radiant heat leaving the planet. The cool cycles actually heat the planet more than the warm cycles.
Here is the most recent chart that only goes back to 1950.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/ts.gif
Not one I would care to make.
So has it been determined that since 1870 red minus blue equals zero?
Here is a comprehensive article on the hiatus.
I doubt it. But it will be close. The monthly data from 1950 on is available for download if you want to analyze it yourself.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/table.html
I imported the numbers into an Excel spreadsheet. All the numbers through June of 2014 sum to 19.884. They have another table here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/table.ext.html. The numbers on that table are “normalized” so that they have an average of zero and a standard deviation of “1”. And their total in Excel is actually zero. Do you suppose that the first one contains the raw numbers so that there is actually a net positive?
Very good. You should be able to see now from the method on analysis that ENSO is internal variability, not a climate forcing. The average is set to zero and the standard deviation is one.
There are no raw numbers, the 1950 – present MEI is normalized over the 1950 – 1993 period.
If they adjust the numbers so that the average is zero. they’re just artificially forcing red to equal blue?
They are not adjusting the numbers, they are using a statistical technique to analyze the numbers.
But in one table Dec-Jan 1950 is -1.018. In the other table that same period is -0.941. In the table you sent, each period from 1950 through 1993 totals to zero. Is there no value in knowing whether the raw numbers actually total to zero?
And what about the fact that the totals for 1871 through 1938 equal -116.998 and the totals for 1939 through 2005 equal +116.998?
There are no raw numbers per se, the MEI numbers are all extrapolated.
So we can’t know from these numbers whether red plus blue for any period equals zero.
So when the study says
are you concluding that when they refer to “anthropogenic aerosols” they are not including those aerosols that may have invigorated the cloud formation process?
This article relies in part on Cowtan and Way, but in this graphic http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/bloguploads/UPDATED_11-25.png, even if you accept the methods that Cowtan and Way used, there is very little difference between the blue and the black line. The hiatus is still there.
Is this paper consistent with this statement from AR5?
But these numbers are for analyzing an oscillation, red plus blue is supposed to equal zero.
They found that change in cloud cover resulted in solar dimming.
The study I cited concludes that changes in cloud cover were driven by anthropogenic emissions of aerosols.
A change in cloud cover “rather than” by the effects of anthropogenic aerosols. And you are proposing that they are only including the direct effects of aerosols and not the indirect effects.
Didn’t say it wasn’t there. A new paper by Huber & Knutti has found that from 1998 to 2012, ocean cycles caused about 0.06°C global surface cooling, the sun caused 0.04°C, and volcanoes caused 0.035°C cooling. Add that to the 0.17ºC found in C&W and you have 0.305ºC warming trend, consistent with a 3ºC/doubling climate sensitivity. Internal variability means we will have periods where it warms slower than average, and periods where it warms faster than average. But the average trend over time is consistent.
Yes.
I took the table from this location: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/rank.html where they ranked each period, with a 1 being the strongest La Niña and 64-65 being the strongest El Niño. I converted them into a zero-based system by subtracting 32 from each number. The years 1950 through 1981 totaled -1234.5. The years 1982 through 2013 totaled 1786.5. More El Niños in recent years?
I am not going to purchase their paper, so yes, I am concluding from the abstract that they did not include convective cloud invigoration from aerosols in their study.
These are rankings, not actual indices.
Yes, but the lower the rank the colder that period? If one year averaged a one and another year averaged a 64 you could say that the second year was warmer?
Well for starters, you have all positive numbers, so simply subtracting 32 normalizes to 1 not zero.
But irregardless, what is it you are trying to discover?
The ENSO process increases ocean heat uptake during cool phases, not warm phases. Since the 1998 El Nino, the ENSO cycle has been cool.
Whether there has been more red since 1982 and more blue before.
You are looking for a trend in detrended data.
You need to use this data, since it is normalized over the entire 135 years. Compare 1953- 1982 with 1983-2012.
And note also that both periods show positive warming trends.
Do you have a response to this comment by Dr. Richard Betts?
Who does he mean by “everyone?”
I agree that 1.5℃ – 4.5℃ is not great accuracy, but the most probable equilibrium response will be 3℃.
It appears he is exaggerating the uncertainty in order to create doubt. Essentially a red herring fallacy.
That data only went up to 2005 so I compared 1952-1978 (total -30.831) with 1979-2005 (total 145.522).
But in the data that contains rankings suppose we found, for example, that 1950-1981 contained all the lowest rankings (the La Niñas) and that 1982-2013 contained all the highest rankings (the El Niños). Couldn’t we deduce something interesting from that?
But he appears to be in your camp. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8451756.stm, http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/people/richard-betts
You are assuming that I have a camp and that said camp cares about the opinions expressed by it’s hypothetical members.
It’s the “97%” camp. This fellow is going to find out, as did Judith Curry and Roger Pielke, Jr., what comes from expressions showing less than full adherence to the party line. At the very least, saying that the long-term climate response “could be small,” without defining that, will be considered an inexcusable providing of ammunition to the enemy, if not a joining of the enemy.
As MIchael Mann put it in Email 255,
Do you agree with some journals that “skeptic” articles should not be accepted because such articles inherently and of necessity lack credibility?
Now you are just making a specious argument. That mainstream scientists started pushing back against those employed by the Western Fuels Association is not evidence of scientific misconduct. The fact that Soon’s hypothesis’ have been thoroughly debunked and revealed to be nonsense is not evidence of a scientific conspiracy against deniers.
It is the logical and predicted outcome as the scientific method exposes the errors and outright fraud from the denier camp.
All good scientists are skeptics. Deniers are not skeptics, they uncritically accept any evidence that supports their position, and uncritically reject any evidence to the contrary. They are not skeptics, they are deniers, because they must deny the bulk of the evidence in order to maintain their position.
Research should be accepted on it’s merits only. Some very bad and completely meritless papers are published in marginal science journals all the time. Some even make it into the main science journals.
Well we can deduce that El Ninos are associated with warm global temperatures and La Ninas with cool global temperatures, and that ENSO trends reflect GMST trends over short time frames.
And if one span of 31 years had only La Niñas and another span had only El Niños you wouldn’t use that information to explain why one span of years was warmer than the other?
That explanation ignores the underlying trend. It warmed during La Niñas and it warmed faster during El Niños.
Suppose the underlying trend would cause the second period to be 0.2C⁰ warmer but we find that the second period is 0⁰ warmer. If the second period contained only La Niñas and the first only El Niños then we would have a possible explanation, right?
Is it possible to be sceptical of global warming and not be a “denier”?
Yes. The next step though is to quantify the differences. How much heat is fluctuating in the atmosphere from changing SST in the tropics, and how much is needed to close the heat budget.
Absolutely. But when they repeat denier talking points on their blogs, they self-identify with the science denial industry. And it is an industry, one that is well documented and pre-dates the AGW issue.
Most true believers, especially those who see themselves in a war with the infidels, are prejudiced to some degree toward their own position. They have heretofore found their own position to be believable, and contrary information creates cognitive dissonance that is uncomfortable. Those on both sides are guilty of excesses, including rejecting contrary information uncritically.
What percentage of these scientists would you characterize as deniers?
So if we look at a ranking of years and find that one period contained more of the high rankings for La Niñas and the other period contained more of the high rankings for El Niños then that would explain at least part of the temperature difference between the two periods?
Yes.
Actually, I made an error in this calculation. When I corrected it and subtracted 33 from each number I got -1618.5 for 1950-81, and 1402.5 for 82-05. For the hiatus period and the one just before it:
1982 211.5
1983 247.5
1984 -39
1985 -117
1986 114
1987 337
1988 -120
1989 -168
1990 112
1991 225
1992 264
1993 276
1994 202
1995 54
1996 -110
1997 234
Total 1723
1998 89
1999 -254.5
2000 -152
2001 -50
2002 163
2003 114
2004 110
2005 97
2006 78
2007 -99
2008 -189
2009 93
2010 -74
2011 -234
2012 44
2013 -56
Total -320.5
This, of course, is an ad hominem argument: Soon’s argument should fail because he is a bad person.
And doesn’t it cut both ways? The more that global warming alarm is stoked, the more federal funds will be available for various studies.
Soon’s argument fails on it’s own merits.
That does not change the fact that Willie Soon’s opinion is bought and paid for by fossil fuel interests.
It has been called climate change since at least 1910.
These people are not climate scientists. And their statements are climate denier talking points, not scientific arguments, so yes, I would consider them to be climate science deniers.
I’m having trouble distinguishing between the legitimate sceptic and the denier. It seem that if a person says that the urgency of global warming alarmism has not been demonstrated to him you say that he is repeating “denier talking points” and that makes him a denier. Maybe the key is that they “self-identify with the science denial industry.” Where can I find out more about the science denial industry?
People nevertheless are strongly motivated to become scientists, and conducting studies is a big part of that. It order to conduct a study they need grant money. Studies that find that global warming is a grave national emergency cause more federal grant money to be available. Putting a global warming component into a study will make it eligible for these funds.
Is every scientist’s opinion bought and paid for by the interests of those who provide his funding?
http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Excerpt–merchants.pdf
Not really, and it means the scientist would have to research something other than what they are passionate about. It is just not a prime motivating factor.
No, but you can trace every prominent one in the media back to industry think tanks and PR organizations.
How do we know that X’s opinion is bought and paid for and that Y’s opinion is not?
If there is a great deal of grant money available for studying X, and even more grant money becomes available when there is a finding that X is true, and if there is very little available to study Y, then scientists who are interested in both X and Y will be drawn to X, and encouraged to find that X is true.
I’ll read this.
It is a moot point. A bought and paid for opinion could still be a robust opinion. To the scientifically literate though, it is easy to spot an invalid opinion.
Like for instance; “Natural variability means it will take 150 years to statistically prove AGW.”
That is nonsense to anyone with more than a casual understanding of statistics. So that person’s opinion is obviously not well grounded in reality. When you couple that with speaking fees and other promotions from the fossil fuel funded PR industry, and it becomes clear that the person is trading their credibility for money.
But that is pure conjecture. There is plenty of evidence for the fossil fuel funding of denial. None for your hypothesis.
Here is the thing. If a scientists says X is true and it turns out X is false, they lose credibility and future funding. The motivation in science is to discover something that no one else has. There is no greater sin in science than being overconfident in tenuous results.
One thing that I would like to point out.
Research grants are not the same as speaking fees and other public relations fees. That is the major difference between actively researching scientists and the public relations personas like Curry and Pielke Jr.
What they are doing is public relations propaganda, not science.
Dr. Collins believes that a burdensome case against AGW can be made after only 20 years.
But if a scientist suddenly finds himself offered large sums to speak are you saying that the refusal to turn that down proves that his motives are not honorable?
I heard Richard Lindzen say once that he does public speaking in part because he enjoys it, and enjoys the give and take of it. And I am sure he also enjoys the money, and what’s wrong with that?
But if a scientist only says that he proposes to find out if X is true then he does not lose credibility if X turns out not to be true. If, however, by finding that X is true he receives much recognition and acclaim and further funding, then that is a motivation for studying X and for finding that X is true.
But my hypothesis relies only on human nature and common sense. Scientists need funding. They are motivated to do the things necessary to acquire funding. You say that the “denier” scientists are willing to sacrifice their honor for funding but the non-denier scientists are not. I just don’t see how you are able to make that distinction.
Are you referring to William Collins at Berkeley?
When did he say a burdensome case could be made against AGW in 20 years?
The even more recent literature however suggests that the recent climate, which provides the empirical observations, was still in a somewhat unforced state, still overcoming the inertia. As the system becomes more energetic, it is likely to exhibit unpredictable behavior.
The hedges Dr. Collins made were, (1) statistically the odds favor a less than 20 year hiatus (1999 – 2018), (2) It is already an area of intense interest, so the burden of explanation would be carried by the published research.
Nothing. But scientists like Lindzen are working for money, not science. Lindzen also helped attack the science showing a link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking.
http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen
The deniers are not after funding for research, that would mean a lot of hard work. They don’t have to prove a null-hypothesis, just create doubt for the propaganda market.
The distinction is very clear. One group is still driven by need to know, the other is clearly not.
Which is why one group is actively doing research, while the other is doing PR work.
Yes, he said that in this quote. And your view is either (a) that more recent literature has satisfied the burden, or (b) that you disagree that it should be considered a burden, or (c) that you consider the burden to be slight.
My understanding is that Lindzen was attacking the connection between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Can you refer me to any statement in which he questioned the connection between lung cancer and the person smoking?
And we know that how?
As long as the data does not contain a Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age. But then in a later study, which we already talked about, he acknowledged the existence of a MWP, so I’m not sure what’s going on there. It is alleged that he chose his proxies, and chose his statistical procedures, to eliminate the MWP.
I assume this will be covered in that link you sent me earlier.
Well, either this is true or their scientific work is bought and paid for by the forces of darkness, but not both.
Mann never denied the existence of either the LIA or the MWP. They are both evident in his reconstructions.
You are right, he didn’t join the PR industry until after the industry lost the fight to deny a link between smoking and lung cancer.
He just denied that the temperature during the MWP or LIA would be significantly different from the temperatures of the surrounding periods?
The American Physical Society invited Christy, Curry and Lindzen to participate in their Climate Change Statement Review Workshop. If these are really just corrupt hacks, as you insist, then how could the APS be fooled so badly?
There could be no question that they wanted no repetition of the resignations that happened after their last statement, such as this one from Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara:
But how do you explain that they were willing to sully the name of their august organization with the likes of these people? Is it possible that they are not actually held in low esteem by their peers?
I don’t believe the hiatus will last that long, but if it does (a) it will not be outside of probability and (b) it will be explained by observations.
The APS society invited them because they are the most prestigious skeptics available, and they wanted as full a perspective as possible.
They don’t care about individual members throwing hissy fits like Lewis. Including three high profile deniers with actual scientific credentials does not tarnish their image, it enhances it. When they basically leave their AGW position statement unchanged, no one can say they ignored the skeptics in their deliberations.
Yes but you say that denying AGW is like denying gravity, and is a symptom of mental imbalance. The APS must not agree because they certainly would not invite in experts to provide the viewpoint that gravity does not exist.
I asked CB about it but she did not respond. Is GEOCARB III not a good source?
However another guy responded with this graph and said that the GEOCARB III values could lie anywhere inside the yellow shaded area.
OK, CB responded. Let’s see if we can get to the bottom of this.
They don’t have any scientific work to speak of. It is their opinions that are bought and paid for, they don’t need to do research, just manufacture doubt.
If you listen very carefully to what they say professionally, they don’t deny AGW. They reserve that for their blogs and op-eds in the Wall Street Journal.
The give the APS review process credibility with the deniersphere, even though they used quotes from the workshop to make specious arguments.
You have the patience of Job to explain a host of questions so thoroughly. Cudos
This is where we run into the distinction between AGW and CAGW. Lindzen agrees with AGW but says that it is nothing to worry about and may actually be beneficial. He denies CAGW, which is what the issue is about.
Why do they need credibility with the deniersphere? This is a premier scientific organization. Are you saying that they are bringing in people they know to be hucksters to advise them on their policy statement? I don’t see them bringing in people who think that the earth was created 6000 years ago to advise them on geological issues even though there appears to be a substantial and vocal group of people out there of that persuasion.
Is any scientific work that draws a non-alarmist conclusion by definition of no value?
Lindzen has always had a contrary opinion on a multitude of issues and propagated that opinion loudly. But like much of his research, his opinions have been consistently in error.
Including the most prominent skeptics is just good science. The more rigorous the challenge, the more robust the conclusion. You are making a false equivalency. The flat-earth society and the creationists are not members of the APS. Nor are their any policy issues at stake over whether or not the earth is 6000 years old. The APS I don’t believe has a position statement on creation vs evolution, but if the do, I am sure they would have included creationists in the review process.
How could one conduct a thorough review with reviewing all the elements?
When AGW became a POLIcy issue. It automatically became a POLItical issue. The APS is not immune from political fallout. By having three credentialed figures who are prominent in the deniersphere as part of the review process will also help to diffuse some of the inevitable political blowback when the APS position statement remains relatively unchanged.
Politics and policy are inseparable. Once in order to understand the politics, you need to understand the policy goals of the vested interests.
If one or two members of the World’s second largest organization of physicists resign over that… I think the other 50,000 members will get over it.
RPJR has a doctorate in political science. Here is what the late Stephen Schneider had to say about him.
I had a conversation with our friend at PopTech a few years ago.
Most of those papers at PopTech do not dispute the consensus position. Those that do are not credible or peer-reviewed.
And as for his standard for what constitutes a peer-reviewed journal… One of the papers he listed was actually published in dog astrology journal.
Is it the consensus position that global warming disaster is imminent?
CAGW is a red herring. Most of the species alive today, including humans, evolved during a much colder climate. I believe the consensus position is that global warming disaster is already underway.
Wasn’t it also Stephen Schneider who said:
What do you take away from that?
I see him quite clearly laying out that when politics and science collide, science must be communicated in a nonscientific manner, because you need broad support to effect policy.
While he is concerned about the balance between communicating effectively and remaining honest, RPJR, as a political scientist, is only interested in being effective, he has no regard for the truth.
I prefer the news on one page and the editorials on another. On the news page I just want the facts, without modification or embellishment. Certainly opinions can be stated as news. “Dr. X said that in his opinion…” but it must be presented as an opinion.
If a scientist, in an attempt to influence public policy, communicates a skewed version of the facts or findings, how can the result be anything other than a loss of credibility for himself and for scientists in general?
When Schneider says “make little mention of any doubts we might have” he is saying that a scientist is justified in delivering, as fact, only the part of the facts that he believes will cause the reader to have the same opinion as he himself has. He is talking about editorializing the news page.
At the bottom, Schneider thinks that scientists should control public policy. Inconveniently, the voters control public policy, so Schneider feels justified in making the public policy decision but in a stealth way.
It is a cornerstone of our society that the average person is competent to sit in a jury and listen to competing arguments and make a decision. Usually it is enough, in a technical case, to be shown the opinion of highly-regarded experts. But let’s have the decision be made on that basis rather than by limiting the information to be given to the jury.
Is this just another way of saying that you profoundly disagree with him, or do you have an example of him showing disregard for the truth?
That is a very naive perspective of how the court of public opinion works. That is not even how a jury trial works. There are rules of disclosure for evidence, and even certain lines of argument that are not allowed to proceed.
RPJR and Lindzen both decry that climate science as corrupted by politics. And rightfully so, since they are the ones corrupting science with politics. Then they claim victimhood when called out on it.
The average person lacks the scientific background to even understand the arguments, let alone decide which is likely correct.
Here is a perfect example of him disregarding the truth.
He is not interested in communicating the truth here. He is interested in disparaging Hansen.
He knew that emission scenarios did not begin to diverge significantly until 2000, so there is only a slight difference in forcing from one to the other.
The real information is in the comments.
The purpose of the rules of evidence is to keep irrelevant evidence from being introduced in an attempt to get the jury to make a decision for reasons that are not relevant. It is well known that a person can be influenced by inflaming his passions, for example, or by confusing him with a fallacious argument. The role of the judge is to prevent lawyers from using these methods. But there are no rules of evidence that prohibit the introduction of relevant facts that don’t also involve compromising the fact-finding process.
Well, does the average person understand the economic and military questions that are at stake in the election of a president or member of congress? Not even slightly. So how do we choose these people?
As far a public policy scientific questions are concerned, my position is that it is not necessary for people to understand the low-level scientific details. I can support funding for a Center for Disease Control without knowing the first thing about disease. There are people who do know about disease. Let me hear from them about what the risks are, what the costs will be, and what is the likely outcome if we do nothing and if we do something. If there are two experts who disagree let me hear them debate each other. What is your alternative?
Scientific arguments are very technical and the details are incredibly boring for 99.99% of people.
If you don’t know any better, and I explain to you the scientific fact that all the energy emitted from the surface of the earth that can be absorbed by CO2 is absorbed in the first 10 meters of the atmosphere, so therefore it is impossible for CO2 to raise the temperature at the surface, because the bandwidth it is active in is already saturated, what are you Joe Public supposed to think?
In the first place, Joe Public doesn’t need to be told any of those details.
Suppose you’re told that the county engineer recommends a tax increase to pay for upgrades to the sewer system. And let’s suppose you know nothing about how a public sewer system works. You don’t want to know the details. You just want to know why he is recommending this. How serious is the problem he foresees? How likely is it? How expensive is his solution? Will his solution actually solve the problem he is worried about? Do other experts in this area agree? If not, you want to hear their reasons for disagreeing and his responses.
How else should this situation be handled?Just because a person has technical expertise doesn’t mean that he is more competent to make public policy decisions.
These two statements are contradictory according to my understanding of these terms. CAGW is global warming disaster.
What is the nature of the disaster about which there is consensus?
How is it possible for CO2 to warm the atmosphere if the bandwidth is already saturated in less that 30 feet?
CAGW is denier meme intended to shift the position from AGW isn’t happening, to it won’t be bad.
Sea levels continuing to rise, droughts and floods intensifying, crop yields falling, ocean acidifying, Not to mention the general stress climate disruption puts on entire ecosystems.
I can’t think of a single scientist not working for the denier industry in some capacity who believes climate disruption to be benign.
If that is true, and if it is dispositive of the issue, then you will not be faced with any opposition that you could not brush aside easily. Standing on your side of the stage would be a dazzling array of scientists with impeccable credentials and on the other side of the stage would be a rag-tag group whose opinions you could impeach easily. What’s the problem?
It is true. All of the energy emitted from the surface that can be absorbed by CO2 is absorbed in the first 10 meters. This is a scientific fact.
How can adding more CO2 possibly make any difference?
Well, I read your article. Actually, by “science denial industry” I expected to find more evidence for a conspiracy or at least for these people being on the payroll of the evildoers. Here they were just presented as wrong-headed liars with connections to the oil industry. Also, whenever I read an article that has this tone, no matter who is writing it, I usually assume that much of it is exaggerated or one-sided. I operate the same way when reading any vituperative article, whether or not I support the writer’s position. It’s like listening to a politician talking about the other party. It might be comforting to hear if you support his position but realistically you realize that you’re only hearing one side, that others would describe these events much differently, and that you have to take it with a grain of salt.
I thought we were talking about whether Joe Public has a role in formulating public policy in an area dominated by technical details. You seem to be saying that, just as a judge will not permit a jury to reach an illogical conclusion neither should Joe Public be presented with a choice where one of the options is impossible or illogical. I agree with that. I do not agree, however, that global warming public policy must be decided by climate scientists just because they are the only ones who understand the underlying science.
My impression is that you would prefer to decide global warming public policy at a high level by experts, thinking of it as analogous to just solving math equations that could not logically be solved any other way. You would prefer a powerful central authority to establish the “correct” public policy. This authority would severely rein in free enterprise and capitalism, and would impose heavy taxes where necessary to force individuals and companies into certain behaviors deemed necessary. And you would prefer that this be done with little or no input from Joe Public, because you don’t trust Joe Public to understand what is in his best interests.
But I believe that Joe Public is competent to hear the arguments made by both sides and to correctly decide public policy questions. I have a greater fear of those who would try to exclude Joe Public on the grounds that they know what is good for Joe Public better than he does.
You do recognize, don’t you, that there are many people who believe that there is warming going on, and that man has played a significant roll in that, but who believe that it is nothing to worry about?
And if you lump those people together with the people who believe that severe consequences are in store for us if we don’t change our ways, and then characterize the entire group as believing that severe consequences are in store for us, then that is deceptive.
I just don’t understand your refusal to see a practical distinction between those who think there is something to worry about and those who don’t.
Of course I recognize it. I have been studying deniers and the evolution of their arguments for over a decade. Initially, global warming was an artifact of the urban heat island effect, and one volcanic eruption dwarfs human emissions. The denier arguments have evolved, now they admit it is happening but believe it won’t be bad.
There is no practical distinction. Suicide is suicide.
Can you answer the question?
If all the energy emitted from the surface that can be absorbed is absorbed in the first 30 feet, how can adding more make a difference?
Answer the question, then we will discuss policy decisions.
As for one who is trying also to get to the root (radix, radical) of the matter… the most important focus ought to be assessing cautionary and precautionary risk and selective fitness.
I learned as an undergrad back in the mid 70’s that two natural cycles (carbon and phosphorus) were becoming imbalanced due to human economic and agricultural activities. Trade and farming are prehistoric activities so, it seems to me, they are inherently interconnected with both risk and fitness… in short… survival.
If you want to get radical, focus on survival, imo and fwiw.
It isn’t patience. It is contentment. I am content to teach and learn. You don’t really understand something until you can explain it to someone. Explaining is a very important step in the learning process.
Truth. Thanks for the clarification. I’m glad that the teaching and the learning contribute to your joie de vivre.
This is the fallacy of equivocation, where I use “distinction” to refer to the difference in the beliefs of two people and you use it to refer to what you believe the result of their actions will be.
The charge is made that “alarmists” are being intentionally deceptive when they engage in another fallacy of equivocation. They say that 97% of scientists are on-board with AGW, knowing that many of those are not on-board that it is dangerous (or at least have not stated so). But the “alarmists” intentionally use “AGW” in a different sense that includes impending catastrophe, expecting people to think that there is much more support for this than has really been demonstrated.
I can think of no other reason why you would object to a distinction between AGW and CAGW.
I see. You are saying that only those people who can answer this question are competent to have a voice in the formulation of global warming public policy.
But that is ridiculous. The experts are experts on the probability and the magnitude of the harm that will come about if we don’t change our GHG policies. But the experts are not unanimous about the probability and magnitude. And they are not experts on the costs. Who is to evaluate whether a proposed solution to a proposed problem is equal to the proposed cost?
Furthermore, scientists, even when they agree strongly with each, can be wrong. The mainstream climate scientists agreed strongly that there would not be a hiatus but there was one. It is not unreasonable for Joe Public to want to wait and see if these predictions are likely to be valid, given the extreme cost.
I have not yet gotten to the point where I believe that our survival is imperiled.
If there is more CO2, the energy is absorbed closer to the source.
Yes, but it is an infinitesimal difference and cannot account for observations. AGW must be a scientific hoax.
Few people claim that AGW is a hoax. It’s CAGW that they’re talking about.
CAGW is a denier meme. The latest evolution of denial.
Besides,I just provided with proof AGW is fake.
Frankly, I don’t really follow your point. Could you make it in a more simplified way?
Since all the energy that can be absorbed by CO2 is absorbed in the first ten meters, and Knut Angstrom proved in 1901 that the CO2 bandwidth was saturated, therefore AGW is a hoax.
Even more simplified, please. Is somebody making this argument?
I see. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument
But what is your point? Is this the principal “denier” argument?
The point is, the general public is not scientifically literate enough to defend themselves against disinformation.
You had to turn to Michael Mann’s blog to find the answer. That should tell you something.
I like that blog. Good explanations of stuff. And I especially like Gavin’s responses. Why do you think that Joe Public won’t turn to that blog for his information?
Wrong! Within 5 minutes I was reading about Miskolczi and then from Roy Spencer’s blog and Judith Curry’s blog how it was all crap. I don’t need to understand the underlying science. I just need to (a) find somebody who does understand it and can explain it to me, and (b) evaluate that person’s bias, expertise, and believability. For purposes of (b) my approach is to see what critics that person has and what they say.
What’s wrong with that approach? What is the alternative?
Furthermore, if a scientist says that X will happen and X doesn’t happen Joe Public doesn’t need to understand the details of X in order to justifiably lose confidence in that scientist.
So when Judith Curry says things like:
an obvious lie, you no longer trust anything she says right?
Or when she keeps misrepresenting the IPCC probability distribution.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/comment-page-1/
The argument evolves, but the goal remains the same. Do nothing so Exxon Mobil can keep making money.
I find it quite ironic that the first AGW denier was a Koch.
I realize that survival/fitness is not in the forefront of most human animals’ consciousness.
You are probably aware of extinction level events of the geological past and the current Holocene extinction. You are probably also aware of the collapse of complex societies in the historical past.
I assume you are aware of the psychological concepts of psychic numbing, being inured to existential threats, and truth/reality being sometimes too hard or painful to bear.
And then there is the general rule to reserve judgement until sufficient evidence to infer a conclusion is available… but in the case of collapse or extinction most of the time the evidence is after the fact and not based on prescience.
Yeah it was, until a few years ago. Now the new meme is CAGW.
The CAGW meme? Does this line of doubt go something like: a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2 is or is not cause for genuine alarm? Or does the meme flatly deny the above climate sensitivity? Or does the meme have more variety than I’m mentioning?
Would you be kind enough to lay out your proposed solution?
Scientific literacy.
Most deniers use a combination, along with all the old talking points as well. Whatever the argument, the result is the same. Keep burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow.
Can you spell it out? Many members of congress do not have scientific literacy so they will be excluded from participation in the formulation of global warming public policy?
I am also aware that the history of science is replete with examples of mistakes and blunders.
Do you think that capitalism is a defective system that needs to be replaced?
All institutions must grow or become obsolete.
That is what we elect Congress for is to establish policies governed by laws. Otherwise there is no stability.
When I answered scientific literacy to your question, I was addressing how to not be susceptible to rhetorical bullshit.
So the lie is that in fact it is supported by evidence that she finds convincing?
“Misrepresent” of course refers again to a lie. So are you saying that this is not a difference of opinion but that she knows what the truth and is intentionally telling a lie?
So you are not saying that those without scientific literacy should be excluded from participation in the formulation of global warming public policy?
And how should capitalism grow?
So you are remaining skeptical of AGW theory based on the mistakes and blunders of the past?
The very physics that creates the polar vortex is the evidence for it’s weakening from global warming.
She is manufacturing doubt where none exists. Deliberately, on purpose, for money.
As you have posted prior, the deniers pose the most destructive threat to our survival (or something to that effect; my apologies if I took too much liberty paraphrasing). The result of the continued merchandizing of doubt will in all likelihood be the status quo remaining perforce.
To change the subject a bit from the direction of ethology to mythology… what do you think of this conjecture from John N. Gray in The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths
If this is a conversation going sideways that you would not rather have, that’s fine. Just food for thought and rhetorical questions.
That’s what keeps me from signing on before I see evidence that is distinct from what looks same as past climate variability.
Specifically why is Judith Curry’s blog credible? Her credentials are in research submitted for peer review. Her blog reveals her personal opinions. Could she be trading her scientific credentials for personal credibility? Of course she could. So how do we get to the root of the the question Why? To gain a cult following? Is she channeling Ayn Rand?
The link you sent me has Judith Curry stating the following:
J Curry is being disingenuous by deliberately confusing the scientific debate with the political one. The scientific epistemic IS the debate and HAS dealt with and IS continually dealing with a plethora of facts, real data, empirical observations. To imply otherwise is the worst sort of scientific un-professionalism. Shame on her.
Second, how plausible is it that AGW theory falls into the general category of “this marvelous story of scientific error and breakthrough”? If you are going to be a radical skeptic… it means walking that line between doubt and belief. It means being questioning, seeking, inquiring. It doesn’t mean seizing onto the uncertainty that is inherent in the scientific model. Are you really looking at plausibility skeptically? Only you can know for yourself.
Finally J Curry winds up her blog post with the implication that Mann ought to be a “good loser” in his defense of the hockey stick. Really?! I mean REALLY?! “The hockey stick graph was further extended and confirmed by Marcott, et al 2013 which used seafloor and lake bed sediment proxies to reconstruct global temperatures over the past 11,300 yrs.” Marcott, S.A.; Shakun, J. D.; Clark, P. U.; Mix, A. C. (8 March 2013), “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years”, Science 339 (6124): 1198– 1201, doi:10.1126/science.1228026, PMID 23471405
OK… what sort of “past climate variability” is good enough for you? For approx 800,000 years, up until man-made CO2 emissions from the burning of fossilized/sequestered organic carbon, there has been a natural variability of between 180 and 280 ppm concentration of atmospheric CO2. Now CO2 is at 400 ppm and growing. That CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas and a multiplier of the most potent and predominant greenhouse gas, i.e. water vapor, is good science. Carbon dioxide is a known forcer for climate change based on physics and climate systems science. Or are these facts not in evidence or disputable?
What sort of evidence is going to be enough for you make a distinction between now and say… when Greenland was ice free? Using that example, are you waiting for an ice free Greenland to be observed by human eyes?
The link I sent you did not require credibility. It was only for the purpose of discussing scientific blunders.
Will you distinguish the scientific and the public debate for me?
Does Marcott show a flat hockey stick with no warm or cold periods? Do you believe that there were no warm or cold periods?
By “climate variability” I was not referring to CO2 variability. I was referring to temperature variability.
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not disputable. The dispute concerns what the effect of added CO2 will be on our climate. Will it be minor and benign, or will it be catastrophic?
Something different from the natural variation we have seen before. And model predictions that come true.
Wait. You link to a blog that you consider neither credible nor lacks credibility? Next time, to avoid confusion, you might link to a direct source (like the book) instead of commentary on a book referencing climate science skepticism (J Curry’s blog). Unless of course you are a fan of Curry.
The distinguishing feature of the scientific debate and the public debate is at least three fold. First has to do with scientific credentials. Credentials are much more important to scientists than the public grants to itself. Scientific Credentials are earned through hard work and academic scholarship.
Is this guy doing the same thing? It appears that you believe that sceptics fall into one of only two categories: misled as a result of scientific illiteracy or intentionally dishonest. Is there any other possibility?
Happer’s argument is a strawman. Of course polar vortices have been around forever. They are caused by differential in atmospheric height and corrialis effect.
Do you see how scientific literacy allows me see through his BS?
Climatedepot is a propaganda outlet, not a scientific resource.
So, since Dr. William Happer does not lack scientific literacy the only other option is moral degeneracy?
I said that the link did not require credibility. I did not say that it was not credible. If I had linked to it in order to prove the scientific truth of an assertion then the link would need to be credible. I did not provide the link to prove the truth of anything that I thought you might dispute. Do you dispute that there have been scientific blunders?
No, that graph was not from Marcott. It simply shows the warm and cold periods that were absent from the Mann hockey stick. I asked you if they were also missing in the Marcott study. Are you sceptical of the warm and cold periods?
I don’t see “epistemic” listed anywhere as a noun. Could you define it?
I believe that you misunderstand the nature and purpose of mathematical and computer models. Has not this been explained prior? Or do you just believe the explanation to be uncertain and/or unreliable? Do you believe that computer modeling is supposed to be so reliable as to be able to foretell specific future events/happenings? Specifically what model projections/trends are not coming true. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Again, you are going to have to send a link with the graph. Even though a picture is worth a thousand words… I still need the words and the reference to go along with the picture. Thanks. Additionally do you think facts are unreliable? Do you believe scientists make huge mistakes/blunders while interpreting the facts, the data, the empirical observations associated with climate change? Is it a fact that Greenland is losing ice mass? Has Greenland lost ice mass prior? How is the rate of decline of ice mass different then as compared to now? How do you personally explain natural variation as opposed to anthropogenic variation?
Did you not post this image to CB or Sky Hunter? Did you get an explanation sufficient for your understanding, or no?
Could you clarify how she confuses the scientific and the public debate?
Why should you assume either/or?
That’s the question I am asking. What are the other options? (But I will agree that a person can be scientifically illiterate and morally degenerate at the same time, if that is your point.)
When you look at temperature variability are you only looking at GMST, or are you also considering the thermal mass of the oceans?
Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. OK. Are you convinced that it will result in warming? cooling? neither warming nor cooling? If you are convinced that the climate system will experience warming will the warming be minor, major, disastrous seems to be your line of questioning.
Do you think that the science is correct that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 results in a climate sensitivity of approx +3 degrees Celsius? or do you think that this calculation is a major mistake/ blunder? or are you uncertain/undecided?
Again, I need a link to the graph. Even a picture needs to be put into context.
The world is not black and white. Happer could very well believe what he says, and be scientifically literate. Scientists are not immune to confirmation bias, Happer got his degree in 1964. He is admittedly out of his field, and has no published climate research.
Scientific literacy helps one dispel BS from the outside, but the BS we tell ourselves is like a super virus. It takes extra effort to expose the deception we perpetrate upon ourselves!
Obviously there are ideas expressed in Judith Curry’s blog which are scientifically disputable. Just as obvious, simply because you did not say the link was not credible, does not necessarily conclude that you believe Judith Curry is a credible source for ideas. I would simply prefer straight-forward honesty, not double talk. Do you believe Judith Curry’s blog to be a credible source for ideas about climate science? or do you believe that the blog is not a credible source? or are you neutral? Linking to a source implies that you consider it a credible source, no? Otherwise you would link to a direct source, such as a direct link to the book itself about scientific blunders. The short rule is “Consider the source.”
I do not dispute that there have been scientific errors of judgement and poor hypothesizing by individual scientists. But the beauty and simplicity of the scientific method is that it’s self correcting. That’s why science is such a massive success story when it comes to progressive knowledge.
I dispute the idea that scientists participate in “group think.” I have full confidence that those people who make a truth claim that scientists (specifically climate scientists) are engaged in “group think” … those people who make that unjust accusation are themselves engaged in pseudo-science and have motivated reasons to merchandize political or religious doubt about the validity of the scientific methodology itself.
In fact I consider pseudo-science one of humanity’s most self destructive modern memes. And I consider denial of AGW theory not only suicidally self-destructive, but denial in the guise of skepticism to be pseudo-science. FWIW
I’m done interacting with people who must be abusive in order to express themselves. Take care.
I need some background information first before I can thoroughly answer your question.
How do YOU understand the difference between the scientific debate and the public debate?
How do you believe a scientist with the standing and credentials of Judith Curry would understand “most of what passes for facts in the public debate
(emphasis mine) on climate change” contrasted with empirical facts as interpreted by qualified and credentialed scientists within the scientific debate?
Do you believe that you have a solid understanding of how science as an epistemology works? If you believe you have such an understanding, how would you demonstrate that knowledge apart from being a scientist yourself?
My mistake. Sometimes I use epistemic as a noun when I ought to use epistemics (functioning as singular) . So the corrected version ought to read “Third, and most importantly, the scientific epistemics IS the debate.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/epistemics
Read it in context. Too much use of double negatives not to try to prove a point. It was just getting too convoluted. That’s what I meant by straight forward honesty instead of double talk. Plus I wanted to pin you down on your thinking in terms of what you do and don’t believe. That’s straight forward and requesting honesty too.
But if you would prefer to leave, that’s fine
Then I need to put the graph in context so I can put the warm and cold periods and whether or not they are global or regional into context. In short I need to know where you got the graph and from what study and if it was peer reviewed or if it links to a peer reviewed article
Whoa! That’s hardly abusive. Oh well. I guess abuse like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Sorry to hurt your feelings
Sorry. I had just received the final insult I was going to take from CB and probably overreacted to your post. I have decided that I am no longer going to continue a conversation with anyone who is rude or abusive. Why they insist on engaging in a mud fight is beyond me. And how a person could be so free with the term “liar” and with uninhibited character assassination in response to anyone who disagrees with him or her is a mystery.
Greed (profit motive) is a great motivator, but it can only take a society so far.
Why can it only take a society so far? Certainly society must put limits on activities that are harmful to society but the capitalist system has been responsible for the incredible rise in the standard of living in the world. Yes, it has also been responsible for negative things such as pollution but why throw out the baby with the bathwater? I know there are those who believe there is no baby, that all human activity is ultimately harmful, and from that point of view a system that provided a less potent reward for innovation would be preferable, but I think they are wrong-headed.
Who is suggesting we discard the capitalist system?
Certainly not I. I would start with modest reforms, such as a living wage, and limits to the political influence capital wields in our society.
I am certainly not suggesting we muzzle their think tanks and propaganda websites, just that we educate our members enough that capital lies are seen for what they are.
If you have not done so, you should at least read a description of these events from the two people who went after Mann. Read the short one from McKitrick, if not the longer one from McIntyre.
Let me be quick to say that articles like these are inherently one-sided and must be taken with a grain of salt. However you may find them interesting if you have not before heard it from this side.
I’m sorry too for coming across as rude or abusive. It wasn’t my intent
What limits would you put in place?
The CBO estimates that increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf
Is that nevertheless the way to go?
Yes it is. If a job is not worth a living wage, it is not worth doing. If someone is profiting from the labor of another, their profit should come only after the worker has earned a living wage. Anything else is the equivalent of slavery.
There is no good reason for not paying a living wage, period. The only reason is for capital to profit from labor.
I would begin with the reversing the idea that corporations are people, and public financing of all campaigns and making it illegal for lobbyists to do favors in exchange for influence.
RPJR is a political scientist. That is why his arguments are just fancy rhetoric devoid of evidence.
There are those who say that those who are paid minimum wage are typically teenagers, and that the wage increase is paid in part by shifting income from those being paid more. They argue that these entry level jobs really just serve the function of getting people into the job market and that the people who are actually supporting a family need it more. That entry-level jobs should not be seen as a career choice – people should have their sights set on the higher level jobs.
Also the argument is made that minimum wage works against the minimally educated, low-skilled people because at $7.25 an hour they only have to compete against others who can earn $7.25 an hour. If you increase it to $10.10 an hour they have to compete against those who were earning $10.10 an hour and they won’t be able to do it.
I read a NY times review.
The ego is the source of the will to live. We are all born egocentric. This egocentrism extends first to family, then community, then to State, Nation, Religion, ideology, sports teams, etc. It is not rational, it is purely emotional, and distorts our ability to reason.
Humans don’t need a reason to live, until they have grown to contemplate their place in the universe. It is ironic IMO that in order to find reason in the universe, we must first abandon our sense of self. Once we realize it is not about us, we can start to see the universe from a different perspective.
They say that, but the reality is quite different. Why are you making an argument based on a false premise?
http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2013.pdf
Actually the opposite will be the case. Jobs that used to pay $10.10 an hour will now pay more, in order to attract the higher skilled worker.
Why should a higher skilled worker perform a job requiring a specialized skill set, when they can perform a job for the same amount that does not require a specialized skill set?
But the point you sent me from the CBO link says that real income would decrease, on net, by $17 billion for families whose income would otherwise have been six times the poverty threshold or more. You disagree with this?
I assume you are talking about for the purposes of the First Amendment freedom of speech. Is that right? And unions too, right? But the person who operates his business as a sole proprietorship, instead of as a corporation, would still be considered a person for this purpose?
In cases where, because of competition, the business is not able to raise its prices then they will have the same amount of funds as they had before to pay wages. The only way to give more to the lowest group is to either fire some of them or shift the income from those who were earning more.
Also, jobs requiring greater skill are more interesting than ones that require less skill. If I were an electrician earning X and suddenly I found out that the dishwashers were also earning X it would not make me want to be a dishwasher, although I think I would be very upset if I had been earning X + 10 and now I was only being paid X, in order to make up the difference to the dishwashers.
Do I disagree that they said it? Or that their projection will manifest in reality?
Are you arguing that 900,000 families in poverty should remain there because lifting them out of poverty might cost families with incomes six times or more over the poverty limit 10¢ more for their pizza?
The CBO is notoriously conservative in their estimates, so when they conclude that the end result is a $2 billion increase in real income. I would wager that the increased spending power of the poor and it’s effect on employment is being underestimated. The actual increase in real income will likely be higher.
Money is not speech. I don’t care what the Supreme Court says. Money is not speech.
Your scenarios are not realistic. A business can always raise it’s prices to remain profitable. If they can’t afford to pay a living wage and remain competitive they will be replaced by competitors who can.
A dishwasher’s job is easily filled, an electricians is not. There will always be demand for skilled workers.
Of course there is no getting around the fact that when you raise the price of something you lower the demand for it. Let’s take putt-putt miniature golf. As you raise the entrance fee fewer and fewer people are going to decide to go play putt-putt. At some point their costs will exceed their revenue and they will not be able to stay in business. If the problem is that you have legislated a high cost of running a putt-putt business nobody is going to be able to run one, and that industry will just die. Is it better for those people to be out of work?
Would it be such a bad thing if the putt-putt golf industry died?
Aesthetically, no. Economically, for the people who work there, yes.
Your characterization of a higher minimum wage as “legislated high cost of running a putt-putt business” reveals your bias.
What is my bias?
How would you rephrase “legislated high cost of running a putt-putt business” in order to remove the bias?
The people working there are part of the demographic that will see 900,000 of it’s members lifted out of poverty.
Are you arguing that because putt-putt employees might lose their job that these 900,000 should remain in poverty?
You can’t see it?
Increased minimum wage equals legislated high cost of doing business.
Obviously you are biased toward business owners, not workers.
I don’t see an increase in the minimum wage as a legislated cost of running a business, because it isn’t. I don’t think $10.10 an hour is a living wage, but it is closer than $7.25.
I would set a three or five year goal to raise the minimum wage every 6 months until it is a living wage tied to the cost of living.
If a business cannot afford to provide it’s working with a living, it has no business being in business.
I suspect there are several paths which teach the abandonment of self. An atheism which isn’t humanistic (or perhaps a humanism which is not anthropocentric and anthropotheistic) might be a couple of paths. Can you conceive of a theism in which the abandonment of self is necessitated?
Look, there are many legislated costs of doing business. To say that taxes are a legislated cost of doing business is not to say that there should be no taxes. I was really just referring to the basic economic facts. They ARE (a) legislated (b) costs of doing business. Saying that does not express a preference.
I am saying that there are costs associated with this. Money doesn’t come out of nowhere. I think there are some people who think that the money will just come out of the pockets of greedy owners but that is a little too glib.
What about this: the electrician needs a helper. He finds somebody who is looking for a job and who seems bright enough and agrees to sign him on and teach him the craft in exchange for room and board and a small amount of pocket money. Is that OK?
I prefer a debate among the climate scientists themselves. Neither McKitrick nor McIntyre qualify. Just my preference
So a law could be passed saying that no money can be spent to advocate any political issue. You can speak all you want but, for example, you may not drive anywhere to protest because that involves an expense and that is illegal.
But the issue we were discussing was Michael Mann and whether his hockey stick was valid. Certainly anyone with the necessary statistical skill can give an informed opinion on some aspects of this, right?
Why? Why shouldn’t they participate in any part of the debate about which they are scientifically knowledgeable?
I suppose it could, depends on how absurd lawmakers want to get.
Capital already has outsized influence on the political system. having laws regulating political spending is no different than having laws to regulate traffic.
And the CBO says the CBA is positive, the benefits outweigh the costs.
Depends. Is the helper covered by insurance?
A construction site is a hazardous environment. It would be better to pay the helper and then charge him for room and board.
Easier bookkeeping.
Wages have been a legislated cost of doing business in America since the Civil War.
All of them. Don’t they all ask you to abandon yourself to a higher power?
But the point is that you would allow an exception to the minimum wage requirements if the worker is being trained?
Were there minimum wage laws during the Civil War?
Or, if restrictions on spending money are not restrictions on speech, the government could restrict spending money only on certain political issues. For example, the party in power could restrict spending money to support their political opponents.
Of course the statistics can be analyzed thoroughly. From my reading the statistics have been and Mann’s work has been vindicated in the scientific community. Mann’s work continues to be controversial for political and religious motivated reasons. Such as the following from wiki about McKitrick: “McKitrick is a signatory to the Cornwall Alliance’s Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which states that “Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”.
I’m not as interested in political and religious motivated reasoning as I am in scientific epistemology and epistemics. My limited understanding of human ethology is that religious and political cognitive dissonance places facts and scientific understanding below faith and ideology. Your thoughts?
Some theists teach union with a higher power. Abandonment of self (I’m assuming this sense of self is epiphenomenenal, while for others it’s solipsistic… the only true reality) leaves our cognitive abilities free to contemplate the nature of reality instead of (in addition to?) human nature. As one deeply interested in human ethology I’m not sure if “human nature” is an impediment or a path to abandoning the sense of self. Maybe discussions of human nature are too anthropocentric and lead to subconscious anthropotheism. Very circular :-/
Sure they can participate and do participate. It’s simply that they lack the specific scientific credentials to engage in the scientific debate. Their involvement in the public debate seems to be to muddy the waters about the science by using their statistical and economic expertise.
I think that to say that somebody’s secular argument is not believable because of his religious belief is almost the definition of the ad hominem logical fallacy. If a person makes a logical argument, then evaluate the argument.
The hockey stick says that there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age. Is that what you think?
Minimum wage laws are not the only wage laws.
Are you opposed to minimum wage laws?
What other wage laws were there during the civil war?
No. If the training is to be considered part of the compensation, let that be a separate transaction.
All lines are circles in infinity.
The NAS put together a panel to investigate, referred to as North et al. (2006). According to McKitrick and McIntyre, the following were some of the findings. If these in fact were the findings would it concern you?
From North et al. (2006) (p. 50, 107):
• Bristlecone records are sensitive to a variety of environmental conditions other than temperature and should be avoided for climate reconstructions.
• Mann’s results strongly depend on the bristlecone records.
• His results are therefore not robust, an important point over and above the lack of statistical significance
From North et al. (2006) p. 91:
• Reconstructions can be assessed using a variety of tests, including RE, and the CE (Coefficient of Efficiency) scores.
• If the CE score is near zero or negative your model is junk.
• Wahl and Ammann include a Table in which they use Mann’s data and code and compute the test scores that he didn’t report.
• The CE scores range from near zero to negative, which tells us that Mann’s results were junk.
From North et al. other pages:
• (p. 86-87) “McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated that under some conditions, the leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike appearance, which could then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based reconstruction.”
• (p. 106) “As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions.” The Report even included its own graphical replication of the artificial hockey stick effect from feeding red noise into Mann’s algorithm (p. 87).
• (p. 107) The usual RE significance benchmark “is not appropriate.”
• (p. 107) “Uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated.”
I don’t know that there were any. Not an area of historical interest to me presently. Slaves were not entitled to a wage, although their owner was entitled to compensation for their labor. That is why I mentioned the Civil War.
Sure these are concerns. Were these specific concerns answered by Mann et al and by other independent statisticians?
It’s also important to consider the differences between public uncertainty, statistical uncertainty and scientific uncertainty.
Also of great importance is even math being subject to cognitive dissonance. It was cool to read the book “Thinking Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahnman about how frequently even professional statisticians make basic statistical errors.
But my understanding is that this is a part of the problem. That it is illegal to pay less than the minimum wage and so this type of setup is forbidden and people who would have been hired and paid less until they acquired the skill are not given the opportunity because it’s too expensive to hire unproductive people.
And death’s relationship to infinity? One motivated reason for the preservation of the sense of self is that the ego (a part of personal identity? the whole of it?) naturally fears death. Unless there is a meaningful case to be made that we don’t naturally fear what we don’t understand, e.g. mystery, the unknown, the opaque, the abyss. The ego must at least fear ego death. Maybe the ego cannot comprehend the abandonment of the ego self leading to a more full engagement with life.
I would like Freud to be part of this conversation. (eye roll) That’s being quite foolishly presumptuous :/
Was the MWP and the LIA global or regional? I don’t know. Were they later explained in a vindication of the hockey stick? I don’t know that either. I’m under the impression that both are able to be explained as thoroughly as AGW theory is being explained. If I went do skeptical science and did some digging I might find a link. But I’m more interested in conversation today than trying to prove the truth about part of our natural history.
And I’m not sure that introducing motivated reasoning or cognitive dissonance is necessarily an ad hominem fallacy. Poking logical holes into an argument hardly invalidates the scientific method, or general theories made possible by that methodology. I’m uncertain that the statistical problems with Mann et al’s hockey stick invalidate Mann et al’s science. Most everything that I have read vindicates Mann. Of course I’m just a member of the public without credentials, perhaps engaging in confirmation bias.
That’s why I have more confidence in the science than in my own opinions. The scientific methodology and epistemology work. Uninformed opinions of the hoi polloi are generally not trustworthy. Including my own
Until it becomes more economically feasible to to pay to train new workers than to try and lure experienced workers from your competitor.
Once we subdue our fear, we can use it as a tool with which to probe our egos.
But if a teenager is willing to work for $3 per hour, thinking that after a year he will be qualified to apply for a job paying much more than that, why should we forbid him from doing that?
But if somebody makes an argument that he claims is logical it is not relevant to respond by pointing to his religion. Respond by pointing out the errors in his logic.
1 + 1 = 2 regardless of the religion or motivation of the person saying it.
I have not done an intense examination of Mann. Since he has been cleared by various university panels my impression is that there was insufficient evidence of anything that would warrant academic censure. That is governed by the universities and their codes of conduct and standards of evidence.
However, it does appear to me that he intentionally used the bristlecone pine proxies knowing that without them his hockey stick would not look like a hockey stick. The scientists who published the bristlecone data (Graybill and Idso 1993) had specifically warned that the ring widths should not be used for temperature reconstruction. The NAS said:
It appears that he used questionable proxies and methods in order to arrive at a hockey stick shape. I accept the fact that his procedures were not proven to have crossed the line academically. My impression, though, is that this was far from an objective, disinterested scientific inquiry.
Because children should not be exploited.
Let’s assume we are talking about an 18 year old who has finished with school.
How is he supposed to live on $3 an hour?
(a) that’s his business, or
(b) with his parents
True. Fear is disciplined, not eliminated. Bridled and reined for exploration.
I like this idea about exploration. <blockbusterFriedrich Nietzsche in “Beyond Good and Evil” holds that only a few people have the fortitude to look in times of distress into what he calls the molten pit of human reality. Most studiously ignore the pit. Artists and philosophers, for Nietzsche, are consumed, however, by an insatiable curiosity, a quest for truth and desire for meaning. They venture down into the bowels of the molten pit. They get as close as they can before the flames and heat drive them back. This intellectual and moral honesty, Nietzsche wrote, comes with a cost. Those singed by the fire of reality become “burnt children,” he wrote, eternal orphans in empires of illusion.
var foo = 'bar';
alert('foo');
No it isn’t just his business. You will pay to subsidize his life in order for his employer to steal his life.
People without fear are not incredibly bright.
Fortunately the “burnt children” are not as rare as we once were, although the empires of illusion are still there.
In that case we have a procedure that allows any person to receive an exemption from the minimum wage law and such persons are not eligible for public assistance. So nobody is subsidizing him. His room and board during this period are coming from his savings or his relatives or his employer. He thinks this is a good deal because it will qualify him for a high-paying job.
Why did you say it was OK if the electrician’s assistant was earning nothing but not if he is earning $3 per hour. I think they actually do currently have that distinction, making the unpaid intern exempt from the minimum wage law. You would require the person to be unpaid?
This is what concerns a lot of people. That there are those who are a little too willing to shut down the engine of global capitalism primarily because they believe that
Not everybody is on board with this.
Why should all the responsibility fall on the individual and/or society, to train a person to work for private industry?
You are assuming the person has a savings, or parents who can help. I do believe that all internships should pay at least a minimum wage, many pay even more. That being said, the experience of working an internship/externship is valuable. I agreed to work an unpaid externship as part of my education and have no regrets.
But we are not really talking about an 18 year old male in an apprenticeship program, or the teenager at the putt-putt golf course. There are ~76 million minimum wage workers. of those, 61 million are over 25.
Why should society subsidize their employers by making up the difference between what they are paid and what they need to live?
I stipulated that those who apply for an exemption are not eligible for public assistance.
My daughter is currently getting her M. Arch. in Architecture at a school that has a co-op program. She and I have had many discussions about this. She had difficulty finding her first co-op and was finally at a point where she was willing to do it unpaid. However, she found a paid one and because of her schoolwork and references has had no trouble finding paid co-ops since.
She thinks that architecture firms that don’t pay their interns are the scum of the earth. But there’s a market out there. And the firms who want the best co-ops have to pay them.
If a young person says that he believes that the value of the education he gets will more than compensate for the lower income, why isn’t that his business, as long as he is not on the public dole?
Of course not everyone is board with this. Many people worship the cult as part of the cult. And, of course, not everyone is on board with the idea of capitalism as a cult.
I think you are using the exception to define the rule.
I certainly would not deny someone earning $3 an hour food stamps.
Unpaid internships while despicable, are really not the big social issue IMO. Closing the gap between the minimum wage and a living wage will do more to maintain economic and social stability than anything else Congress can do.
Is questionable wrong? What is motivating your impression and what appears to you? Why the lack of confidence? Are you wanting clarification? Do you believe there are justified reasons for doubt? If so, how would you justify your reasoning for the belief in that doubt? How discerning are you about science vs pseudo-science? Why did you not get back to me about your beliefs re the scientific vs the public debate (my questions regarding Judith Curry’s blog)?
I think questioning is how science is done. Questionable proxies and methods are part of scientific inquiry. The beauty of science is that such proxies and methods can be replicated… not simply criticized to induce doubt. Indeed, critical analysis is part and parcel of scientific justification. That’s why methods and proxies have to pass peer-review muster. Additionally, if the findings by the same methods and proxies cannot be replicated or falsified, it is bogus science. If the replication process results in similar conclusions (within acceptable margins of error), it’s justified. If attempts at replication result in dissimilar findings outside the original’s margins of error, there is scientific reason for doubt; that’s the scientific method in a nutshell, no? (I’m sure I left important things out of the model.)
Questioning things for clarity vs doubt is part of the scientific debate. Questioning things in order to merchandize doubt within the public debate is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish which depends on non-scientific motivations.
Something like motivated reasoning (which affects logic, ethics, etc) requires deeper digging into assumptions, subjective biases, prejudices, confirmation bias, pattern recognition. Motivated reasoning can even effect the belief in how ideas as simple as the scientific model or mathematics are justified or lack justification. This is deep stuff, which goes into human behavior, like cognitive dissonance and self-delusion and which illusions are able to be given up for the sake of truth and which illusions cannot be surrendered.
I believe there is plenty of illusion and delusion which needs to be overcome when a self-styled skeptic, free inquirer (such as myself) is genuinely pursuing truth or whether truth seeking is a lower priority than something else. I think such an observation about myself applies to others as well.
Of course a logical argument stands or falls on its own merit. The same as simple math. But we both know that (1) the scientific study of climate and (2)what to do with scientific knowledge in terms of public policy and (3)public policy decisions being complex in terms of human ethology (def: the study of human behavior and social organization from a biological perspective) and (4) (a)denial, (b) “some truths simply being too hard to face”, (c) psychic numbing in the face of an existential threat… that this algorithm is much more complex than A==A, A=/= notA and 1+1=2.
If someone is employing a non-scientific expertise (such as statistics or economics… although I’m sure there are plenty of statisticians and economists who make the pretense of being scientists… and I beg the pardon of any anonymous readers who are genuine scientific statisticians)… employing an expertise to merchandize doubt in the public debate, motivated reasoning is part of the analysis… not an ad hominem fallacy. Additionally all truth claims (whether logical or both logical and scientific) ought to be scrutinized looking at #’s 2, 3, 4 above. The scientific epistemics (1) stands on its own, just as math, and logical argumentation stand on their own merit.
Sometimes the motivated reasoning of #’s 2, 3, 4 above is to discredit #1 with whatever means possible… including scientists themselves selling their credentials. I am puzzled, it’s amystery why a scientist would be willing to sell his/her credentials… lacking the current ability to peer too long into the abyss of the human heart of darkness.
Here is a letter signed by a bunch of economists (although I see at least one politician here). One of the things they say is:
If that is true, then why object if one of these people, of his own free will, wants to trade his services for training. After all, they say that it is exactly the young just starting out who are most affected by increased unemployment.
What do you mean by “merchandize doubt”? If a person doubts he has a right to communicate that to others. If he does so by making false statements or irrelevant statements designed to trick or confuse, then that should be pointed out. But if a person believes that Michael Mann intentionally followed misleading and questionable procedures then explain to me why he should not relay the facts that form the basis of his opinion?
If a scientist uses inferior methods for ulterior motives, then that is wrong.
If the accusations against him that I have already mentioned are true, then wouldn’t you agree that there are justified reasons for doubt?
The NAS said that his study had a problem with robustness and underestimated uncertainty. However, he had said that his findings were robust. Perhaps Michael Mann just doesn’t know what robust is but I think it is more likely that he does.
What kind of pseudo-science do you have in mind?
I will.
You certainly can’t be saying that a scientist intentionally using improper procedures is exonerated if somebody using proper procedures manages to achieve the same result. Are you? The Wegman Report (E. J. Wegman, Scott & Said 2006) said
Then you said:
If you think that peer-review is able to provide anything more than the most cursory overview of a study you need to be disabused of that notion. It apparently took US Congressional investigators and the editors of Nature magazine and six years to pry Mann’s data and methodology from him.
They don’t cite supporting research, it is just a list of names as far as I am concerned. The CBO is baseline.
The idea is not just to get people people above the federal poverty limit for Medicaid, it is to guarantee low skilled workers a living wage in exchange for irreplaceable moments of their time.
Why don’t we just skip the half-measures and make the minimum wage $50 per hour? Happy days for everybody, right?
Workers with a disabilty may be paid wages less than the federal minimum wage. I presume that you would be in favor of removing this exemption so that these people will earn as much as everyone else?
Not sure what you mean but the CBO link I sent you before, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44995-MinimumWage.pdf, page 2, says:
Frankly I don’t understand the distinction you are drawing.
I do not think that one needs to be an expert in a subject matter in order to be qualified to debate public policy flowing from that subject matter. For example, I don’t understand how nuclear weapons work but I am qualified to participate in the debate about their use.
Who understands the intricacies of climate models except for a handful of people? So those people are the only ones who can participate in the debate about global warming?
How does the average person decide such questions? He listens to an assortment of people who claim to be experts. He tries to evaluate their claims to expertise and the comments they make about each other. And if expert A says that X is going to happen and X does not happen, then one does not need any expertise to lose some amount of confidence in expert A.
You are assuming facts not in evidence from the following: “inferior methods for ulterior motives”
“… if accusations… are true… ” Accusations need to be judged for worthiness before either belief or doubt is justified.
From wiki, keywords: Wegman report – “Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported McIntyre and McKitrick’s view that there were statistical failings, although they did not quantify whether there was any significant effect(emphasis mine). They also produced an extensive network analysis which has been discredited by expert opinion and found to have issues of plagiarism.” Then you go about quoting from the Wegman Report. It seems to me that if you are freely inquiring, that you ought to consider criticisms of the report instead of only quoting from the report as if it’s credible source material (like J Curry’s blog). It makes it seem like you have an agenda.
Quoting from the Wegman report is a horrible example to try to discredit Mann in the public’s mind. A counter example for fairness and balance sake: “The Wegman Report (14 July, 2006) (officially the Committee on Energy and Commerce Report) was a report on the ‘hockey stick’ graph produced by a commission headed by statistician Edward Wegman. It is now remembered as the epitome of global warming denier stupidity, in terms of both its factual errors and its college freshman-level plagiarism from textbooks and Wikipedia.” http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wegman_Report
Doubt in Mann et al’s work “validated”? I doubt the doubt, but remain freely inquiring for further clarification.
That the NAS study does not vindicate Mann: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/
“What kinds of pseudo-science?” If science spent all it’s time debunking pseudo-science, it would have no time for it’s work. The job of debunking pseudo-science unfortunately falls onto the public, mostly. Too bad so much of the public is scientifically illiterate, but there we have it. “Numerous authors, including several scholars, say that various conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s, and some, including the National Center for Science Education, consider climate change denial to be a form of pseudoscience.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
Looking forward to your specific beliefs detailing the differences between science-as-epistemology being the scientific debate and “what passes for the facts in the public debate” being the political debate.
Another example of assuming facts not in evidence: “… a scientist intentionally using improper procedures…. incorrect method…” As an online friend of mine (a trained scientist by his/her account) has said: “You can’t rationally discuss the science with someone who doesn’t use logic. With deniers all bets are off.” I’m expecting logic because neither one of us are scientists. Also it’s important to quote in context. The contextomy tactic is not honest communication. You quoting something not in evidence followed by you saying “And then you said” quoting me “That’s why methods and proxies have to pass peer-review muster” However, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe it was an honest mistake.
Your prejudice against peer review is telling. It seems to imply a belief that science is guilty of “group think”. Any forthcoming conclusions on my part about your objections to (1)peer review and (2)Mann’s data and methodology needs to be put in the context of your still unprovided answers about science-as-epistemology and, more importantly, forthcoming answers to the following questions: (1) “Do you believe that you have a solid understanding of how science as an epistemology works?” (2) “If you believe you have such an understanding, how would you demonstrate that knowledge apart from being a scientist yourself?” (3) “How discerning are you about science vs
pseudo-science?”
I’m questioning your motives. I hope that is not rude or abusive of me. In a free and open and honest exchange of ideas I think it’s best to be upfront. You presented yourself as wanting to get to the root (radix, radical) of the matter of the scientific debate.
The public debate can get into quite opaque areas (motivated reason/cognitive dissonance) where one does not really “know” if the other is being truthful or not. That may be one reason why accusations of “lying” are not uncommon. This is a reply to your comment on a previous post. (I assume you know which one I’m writing about.) I think trust is earned. In order to not be bamboozled, trust is withheld until earned. How trust is earned is a delicate question. How trust is abused is less opaque, but sometimes until too late. I would like to know if you are a truth seeker or trying to justify some other realm other than truth. But how can I know if the truth is forthcoming :-/
If you really desire a thorough knowledge of the history of merchandizing doubt in the public debate about the science (including merchandizing doubt about AGW) see this book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
The right to free speech in the public debate also includes the right to be dishonest for entertainment news purposes. Defamation/libel is another issue altogether.
You wrote “If a person believes….” Is there is an established procedure to determine within degrees of uncertainty whether “what a person believes” is true or false? Sure, based on “the facts.” Which is circular. Empirical facts which are interpreted by holders of specialized knowledge (scientists) vs interpretation presented as pseudo-facts by holders of non-scientific opinion aka belief without evidence. Belief without evidence is pseudo-knowledge and non-factual. (You could try to make the case for doxastic modal logic, but it’s a long shot in this case.) Indeed, a really good definition of knowledge is “justified true belief” with an emphasis on justification. Nothing that followed your “If a person believes….” is justified. And your references to “the facts” are not in evidence. It’s a poor tactic to try to apologize for spreading unreasonable doubt and heightening non-scientific uncertainty. The accusation, simply based on belief, needs to be justified.
Which means that 71% will go to families under 300% of the poverty line.
What is your point?
Because it is not an arbitrary number, it is based on a reasonable cost of living. Which is IMO about 3 times the poverty limit.
$10.10 an hour is just above the poverty line, assuming no vacation it is $1750 a month. How is a family of three supposed to thrive on that? Is that really out of poverty?
If you don’t understand the distinction between science-as-epistemology as the scientific debate and the public debate over policy, I can’t help you more than I have already posted. Such a lack of discernment (apologies) infects one’s thinking with the false meme that science is political.
You can have a solid understanding without being an expert. Expertise is recognized through the process of gaining credentials. Solid understanding can come from educating yourself. A commitment to a quest for truth helps.
The intricacies of modeling can be learned also. Just start with the basics and work upwards.
“How does the average person decide such questions?” By familiarizing him/herself with the scientific mindset. Such as what are the assumptions working scientists take for granted? What are the basic rules of science that a person without credentials can also employ? How do I take a stand on say “How is science utilitarian?meaningful?truth seeking?does truth matter?how does science inform one’s ethical values?” instead of trying to be neutral. In the fight for truth, maybe neutrality is simply not an option. None of this requires expertise. Just commitment.
The metaphor of “burnt children” getting too close to the abyss is quite meaningful to me as is this by Nietzsche: “I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism’s] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength. It is possible….” (Complete Works Vol. 13)
“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”
Ecclesiates 1:2
“contextomy” is defined as:
I am not following. How is this contextomy?
You said:
And I replied that if questionable means using inferior methods for ulterior motives, then that is wrong. It does not assume anything. It simply answers your question.
Then you asked:
And I answered that if the accusations are true then there are justified reasons for doubt. This response was intentionally conditional. It does not assume anything but only says that it makes sense to investigate the charges. I next went about justifying my reasoning.
Can you point out to me where the following NAS statements are addressed:
At the House Committee hearings (House Energy and Commerce Committee 2005b), NAS Panel chairman Gerald North and panelist Peter Bloomfield were specifically asked whether they disagreed with the severe criticisms of the Wegman Report.
Can you tell me exactly what part of my statement about peer review shows that I object to it or am prejudiced against it? And what part of my statement do you disagree with? Peer review does not involve intense scrutiny of the methods and procedures used. The peer reviewer does an overview, not an investigation.
What motives do you think I could have? And why do motives matter anyway? If I say that the emperor has no clothes what difference does it make what my motive is? The question to be addressed is: does the emperor have clothes?
No, one always knows whether the other side is being truthful. If you assert X then I ask to be shown a study or an expert opinion to that effect. If you can supply one then you cannot be charged with lying. If you cannot supply one then I simply tell you that I need to be shown some evidence before I’ll accept X. There is no place for a charge of lying because an unsupported assertion simply carries no weight.
The only place for the charge of lying is where a person misrepresents what a study or expert said, in the hope that the other person won’t himself read the source document.
I frankly have no idea what you are talking about. Please define your terms and be more down to earth.
I read one chapter of it. It is the place to go to read a version of events slanted as much as possible to one side.
What are you talking about? I said that if a person believes X he should state the facts that lead him to believe this. What part if this is not justified?
Any person can find the truth by demanding that assertions be supported by credible studies or expert opinions.
This is false. Suppose a person asserts X is true. The person’s motive is relevant only if the person is asking you to take his word for it.
If the person is showing you evidence that he claims proves that X is true, then the only question is whether or not the evidence proves that X is true. If he is showing you evidence then how is his motive relevant to the truth of X?
But it is such a pittance! It still leaves them with the wolf at the door. How can you oppose a wage that will give them much more security?
And what about the workers with a disability? Remove that exemption so that they can earn as much as the others?
Can you elaborate on this? Perhaps an example?
A reasonable cost of living would be enough for savings and retirement. Raising the minimum wage puts upward pressure on other wages, which is why it is phased in. My opinion is that a living wage is 200% of the poverty limit for a family of four. That is about $22.50 an hour. For a family of 2 it is $15 an hour, so $10.10 is not enough, but it is a move in the right direction.
An economy works best when people have money to spend. Those at 300% of the poverty limit and higher can afford to pay more for goods and services. As demand rises due to the greater and more diverse purchasing power of low wage workers, demand for higher wage jobs will also increase, which will put more upward pressure on skilled wages.
Eventually the system will achieve a new equilibrium and people will hardly remember how it used to be.
What do you mean “not in evidence”?
Who said anything about spreading doubt simply based on belief? I specifically said he should
Do you really think that this came from the pen of a person lacking an agenda? How could you post such a quotation and expect it to be accepted as authoritative?
What does this refer to?
Wikipedia says:
Can you supply a link to a study or a quotation from one of the major skeptic scientists that demonstrates pseudoscience?
Are you saying that I am not being logical? I say that if a scientist uses inferior methods for ulterior motives then that is wrong, and you say that this is not logical?
Breaking down empires of illusion sounds like a life’s work for Aristotle’s magnanimous paragon of virtue (who also happens to be a burnt child). How’s that for irony! http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/megalopsychos
No. That is a red herring distraction. Disabled people already receive disability income.
Are you talking about SSI? That is only for people who have limited income. Isn’t that like saying that poor people don’t need a minimum wage because they are eligible for public assistance?
If one has a knowledge of statistics then why isn’t he qualified to debate the statistical aspects of a study?
Are you saying that anyone who argues from the skeptical point of view is by definition muddying the water?
Are you on board with the idea of capitalism as a cult? What kind of cult?
Right but the accusation is that these were not errors and that he knew better.
Yes, definitely, although I did not link to it to support any proposition as an authoritative source.
What is group think?
Perhaps you could explain it to me. When the models predict a rise in temperature and there is no rise in temperature I begin to lose faith in the process that produced those predictions. And when people say “We know we said that the temperature was going to rise and it didn’t but it will in the future so we need to take incredibly expensive drastic steps to stop it,” I am inclined to want to wait and see if the temperature really does rise before taking those steps.
Vanity… meaninglessness… absurdity. True? Maybe. Maybe not. I think there is meaning to be discovered in even questioning if life is more meaningful or if life is more absurd. Even the question implies something more than vanity.
Additionally we struggle with the question – “If life and consciousness are evolutionary and emergent in terms of complexity, and assume that the universe is not teleological (def of teleology: the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes), then why the abandonment of self? why being? why becoming?” So then we get to question – “If the assumption of a non-teleological universe is correct, then is life and emergent complexity teleology become manifest? Very cool stuff, imo. Not just esoteric philosophizing… but very much empowering. On good days at least when your a moody blues man 😉
We are star stuff, Starfire. We are animated star stuff. We are animated star stuff with consciousness, intelligence & rationality (to a degree), awareness. So what now? What’s next? What do we do with it? Let go of it and embrace emptiness, nothingness, the annihilation of the mental ego, the grace of dying. Maybe. You probably have more experience through meditation that you could teach me, than all the words I try to put into context of some higher purpose onward, lower gaze downward. Nietzsche again: “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.”Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146 (1886).
I like the idea of balance. The middle way. Navigating, negotiating between a life of awareness and the meaning of death. Between anarchy/chaos and stability/order. Between intimacy in relationship and individual isolation. Between community and alienation. Between liberty/freedom and responsibility/ accountability… even (esp?) accountability to powers greater than our present cognitive tools to uncover, discover these powers.
Thanks for contributing to the conversation, as always. Apologies for the word salad.
What is temperature? If you limit your idea of temperature to GMST and ignore the thermal mass of the oceans, you are not thinking globally. Indeed, many deniers have displayed their irrationality by claiming that to look for the “missing heat” in the oceans is moving the goalposts, when thinking globally necessitates taking into account the thermal mass of the oceans and melting oceanic ice and melting ice caps. GMST is way too narrow of a focus. This is not that complex.
Yes
Yes
I don’t know.
Anthropogenic changes are caused by mankind, although for many anthropogenic changes there is no clear-cut way to tell whether it was that or whether it was a natural variation. One way would be to see if the current change seems to differ significantly from other events in natural history that were clearly natural.
I suppose then that if J Curry’s blog posting is not authoritative, that you believe that she is making an appeal to reason and logic in her posts. Is this credible? I disputed the blog post on the basis of deliberately confusing the scientific debate from the public debate. For those who believe that there is no essential difference between the two, there is no way that I can disabuse the person from a strongly held belief. Even disabusing a person from a weakly held belief is problematic. This is an area where individuals have to disabuse themselves… which is a loaded idea when dealing with motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, self-delusion, denial, psychic numbing, etc. Extremely difficult, but possible.
How do we discern logic vs irrationality from a non-authoritative source of information? Another delicate question. If I believe you are making a logical argument, I am inured against the believe that you are engaging in logical fallacy. Very problematic, imo.
Groupthink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink is an accusation of what’s going on when peer review is cursory and substandard and non-scientific, imo.
I believe that capitalism itself is unsustainable. http://books.simonandschuster.com/This-Changes-Everything/Naomi-Klein/9781451697384
It came from this study: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
I think the response was that this time it’s different.
Even statistics are subject to motivated reasoning. The point is if the statistical analysis was fundamentally flawed. From my understanding the statistical analysis of Mann et al was fundamentally vindicated.
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Rutherford_fig2.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/
As the article concludes (and I concur) “Can we all get on to something more interesting now?”
You accusing “…a scientist uses inferior methods for ulterior motives…” (1) assumes facts not in evidence which is not logical. (2)An accusation is only as good as the argument which justifies it. I have not seen any justification for the argument. Just a rehashing of the accusation. That’s not logical either. (3) There is no proof of wrong doing, only a hypothetical. Use logic to attempt to prove wrongdoing, which I assume you are attempting. Otherwise it’s simply uniformed opinion.
Then prove the accusation justified using logic. It’s extremely challenging proving such types of accusations because you are getting into motives, i.e. that these were not honest mistakes & “… that he knew better.” It’s like me accusing you of being a denier in the guise of being a skeptic (which I am not… just using it as an example in the public debate). How can I justify that you know better than to behave as a skeptic rather than a denier? I can’t read your mind or plumb the depths of your heart.
Accusations are cheap. Proving logically that the accusation is justified is labor intensive. That’s why it’s easier to accuse, but not put in the hard work of logical argumentation
OK, but if the prediction is GMST and there is no increase in GMST but rather it is proposed that the additional heat really occurred but is now undetectable, then one starts to wonder which predictions one it to take seriously and literally.
I thought we already went over this. I can refer you to a website for two reasons. (a) I can tell you to go to the website because there you will find an interesting discussion. (b) I can tell you that my assertion is supported by that website so my assertion is true. In example (a) I am not referring you to it as an authoritative source, but that does not mean that I do not consider it authoritative.
You still have not defined the difference between the scientific and public debate. Please do that.
Groupthink:
And why would scientists be immune to groupthink?
If there were no climate crisis would capitalism be sustainable?
What do you regard as more interesting?
My goodness, Gary. What a headfull! For a retired postman, and paratrooper, you are incredibly intelligent. Did you teach yourself all this stuff, or do you have a few Master’s degrees you haven’t mentioned?
I love the Moody Blues.
from: “Your Wildest Dreams”
“And when the music plays
And when the words are
Touched with sorrow
When the music plays
I hear the sound
I had to follow
Once upon a time
Once beneath the stars
The universe was ours…”
It is pretty tough for me to quiet my mind no matter what I try. Buddhism is cool, IMO.
I like what you say about purpose becoming manifest. I would like to think that I can do something to contribute to the good, in this reality, before moving on. Mindlessness can be good too:)
Weren’t you working on a piece about some sort of Romanticism? The way you can think and write; I’d say go for the book.
The weather is spectacular here right now.
Warm and sunny. Harvesting more tomatoes and hot peppers than I know what to do with. Tried making pickled peppers the other day; and used some of my homemade pepper powder to try to keep my neighbour’s cat from using my garden as it’s toilet;)
Absurd indeed, my friend.
Anyway, that’s about the best I can come up with here in reply to all of your musings.
Hope you’re having a great day. Starfire.
Consider this statement:
Does that statement accuse someone? No, it states the rule by which he people are judged.
Does that statement assume any fact? No. It says that in the case of certain facts, then a certain conclusion.
I think you need to more carefully read what I write. I did later on assert some facts (those asserted in the NAS report) but I did not do so here.
More than once I quoted from the NAS report. I also told you that the NAS report said his findings lacked robustness and that maybe Mann didn’t know what constituted robustness but I think he did. I can’t prove the truth of the statements made in the NAS report. I can only tell you what the were and that they seem believable to me.
Sure, let’s get on to something more interesting.
However, with respect to statistics, I didn’t see this NAS point addressed (saying that Mann’s reconstruction was no better than the mean):
What’s different? Natural variation vs man-made emissions?
What’s your point? Are you arguing that Mann et al’s reconstruction being no better than the mean proves incompetence, ulterior motives, a non-robust methodology?
So you admit that you are engaging in mind reading. That’s OK, just not robust 🙂
“Proving the truth” is a tautology. It is part of logic: “A proof is sufficient evidence or an argument for the truth of a proposition.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_%28truth%29 Did the NAS provide proof that Mann et al’s reconstructions were incompetent, ideologically motivated, used faulty methodology? Nope. What does “lacked robustness” mean to you? I googled Robustness of the Mann reconstruction and found this link “… which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann, et al…” https://www.academia.edu/7301927/Robustness_of_the_Mann_Bradley_Hughes_reconstruction_of_Northern_Hemisphere_surface_temperatures_Examination_of_criticisms_based_on_the_nature_and_processing_of_proxy_climate_evidence
The “If” proposition is accusatory. The “then” conclusion is conditional. “In case of certain facts” is also conditional. I’m reading the entire rule or statement in context of the hockey stick controversy, being aware that context, even with a hypothetical, is important. Are you not making the rule or statement in context of the hockey stick controversy? or are you arguing a hypothetical?
As I posted earlier see the Caspar Ammann article by searching keywords “Robustness Mann Reconstruction”.
This is beating a dead horse. Again, can we move onto something more interesting?
You are really too kind. From “I Know You’re Out There Somewhere”…
the words that I remember
From my childhood still are true
That there’s none so blind
As those who will not see
And to those who lack the courage
And say it’s dangerous to try
Well they just don’t know
That love eternal will not be denied
Excellent question. Get back to me on this one. I’m too tired to get into it tonight
Why would scientists be immune? Because science-as-epistemology critically evaluates alternative viewpoints by methodology. Groupthink is pseudo-science
You don’t seem to understand science-as-epistemology IS the scientific debate. It’s part of becoming scientifically literate, in my opinion. Are you asking me to help you become scientifically literate? I’m dubious 🙂 The public debate is pretty self explanatory via understanding politics and ethology.
Right. My apologies. I consider J Curry’s blog as neither credible nor authoritative. We can agree to disagree
Where in the literature does climate change and global warming limit itself to GMST?
No, I’m saying that merchandizing doubt and manufacturing uncertainty for sometimes opaque and sometimes obvious motivated reasons is NOT being skeptical and is deliberately muddying the water.
Can statistics be used malevolently?
Your “If” proposition makes a comprehensive critique of capitalism problematic. I do not believe, however, that capitalism is sustainable for ethical reasons. (1) Structural violence http://coldtype.net/Assets.12/PDFs/0812.PinkerCrit.pdf as a response to S Pinker’s use of the term “gentle commerce” to describe capitalism (2) capitalism as legal theft. Labour trading blood, sweat, and tears for a wage which is not a living wage is theft of life. Capitalism can force both wage slavery and peonage. (3) economic stratification as a cause for collapse http://www.ara.cat/societat/handy-paper-for-submission-2_ARAFIL20140317_0003.pdf (4) disaster capitalism http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_capitalism
This being said, I freely admit that I am both prejudiced for capitalism (“I’ve got mine, Jack” mentality and growing up in middle class America) and prejudiced against it. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
So in some ways I’m still deciding. That’s why AGW and any future economic response to AGW holds sway.
Of course the scientists themselves are not immune. It depends on being faithful and true to the scientific method, the scientific model. J Curry, Freeman Dyson, deniers with scientific credentials could be engaged in groupthink with the pseudoscientific denial industry.
It takes discernment.
Undetectable?! Says who? http://m.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897.abstract
Do you know the fundamental differences among denial, doubt, and skepticism?
Is your personal strategy which you might share with others the wait-and-see approach? From your link, do you think it wise to wait until the observed decadal mean temperature in Greenland exceeds the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years? Your link also referenced climate model protections, but you have already expressed your lack of confidence in modeling, correct?
So you really believe this is appropriate risk management? Do you have a contingency plan?
Thanks
Is mining ancient sunlight in the form of sequestered organic carbon, burning the carbon for source of a cheap energy, disposing of the waste products as greenhouse gases… is this natural? Is this a solid case for altering the climate? Yes, no, undecided?
What part of the wait-and-see approach violates the precautionary principle?http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
The Mann v Steyn lawsuit
🙂
I’m up for that. What are your thoughts?
Many people favor socialism precisely because it removes the potent reward for innovation that capitalism provides. They see human innovation as inherently harmful to the environment or as inherently bringing about human misery. It’s basically the thought that humans are evil but we can hobble their activities with socialism and that’s better than nothing.
I think that there’s no question that the high standard of living in the world today is the result of free enterprise, and without that we would all have a lower standard of living: fewer types of medications, more people without food, less advanced electronics, etc.
Nor do I think that a socialist world would be a safer world. Socialist countries can be just as militaristic.
Frankly, I think the best approach is for the government to intervene the smallest amount possible, consistent with public health and safety and a clean environment.
So the scientific debate is: what is the effect on the environment of doubling CO₂? The public debate is: what laws should be enacted with respect to the doubling of CO₂? Is that it?
But come now. You know very well that scientists are human and are subject to the same weaknesses as everyone else. The scientific method is a structure designed in part to remove some of these influences but it cannot do so completely. Scientists want to be respected by their peers. They want acclaim, just like everybody else. There are many benefits in being accepted by the group and non-conformity is risky. If you are saying that scientists have transcended human foibles then you are dreaming.
Sure, but what does “this” refer to? Michael Mann’s hockey stick? Michael Mann? Climate change?
Is this something you learned from somebody or something that you determined for yourself?
Interesting interview along this line:
Naomi Klein: Big Green is in denial
There are many potential threats. If a large meteor were to strike the earth the results would be much much worse than the worst case global warming scenario. Wouldn’t the avoidance of this danger take precedence if we are using the precautionary principle?
No
Not yet.
It has not at all been shown that the deep ocean has heated up an amount equal to account for the hiatus heat. Measuring the temperature changes of the deep ocean is problematic. But if they say that X is going to happen and then X doesn’t happen but they say that Y happened instead, it makes one question the reliability of the process by which they are making these predictions.
If the people making these predictions have a handle on this then why did they make the predictions shown in that graph?
By the same logic if I tell you that I believe that a scientist is competent and that he intends the result of his actions you would label that as “mind reading.” Is that correct?
Being “no better than the mean” means that Mann’s reconstruction was no more informative than the simple mean of the data; i.e., no statistical significance. The prediction value is low and the uncertainties are high. As the NAS report put it:
The bristlecone pine proxies should not have been included. Without them there is no hockey stick and verification scores are clearly insignificant. With them the graph shape depends on faulty data and the verification scores are still insignificant.
Why don’t you quote from Wahl & Ammann?http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9105-7
I would say that trying to prove motivation with insufficient evidence is mind reading.
Trial and error
Questioning the reliability of the process is fine. Expectations for which such processes are not designed is faulty. To find fault and then use the knowledge of the fault to improve the reliability of the methodology is part of the heuristic. To use fault as proof of failure of the methodology or process is irrational. Unless, of course, one has an agenda to attempt to prove the unreliability of modeling altogether. Then it’s rational AND devious.
Well… at least you are consistent with the wait and see approach… to actually observe instead of take an educated guess at the results of the experiment human beings are conducting on the climate.
You misstated the worse case scenario of using sequestered organic carbon as an energy source and dumping the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Ever heard of runaway greenhouse effect? It happened on Venus. Given a choice between a lifeless planet and a planet hit by a large meteor, how ought human beings approach risk management? Wait and see? Don’t worry about it, because enhanced greenhouse effect could NEVER really result in a Venus-like planet?
The biggest denial is an unsustainable future without a comprehensive, effective, substantial social, political, economic, environmental paradigm shift. I’m skeptical about human ethology taking up the tasks.
Both
The hockey stick controversy. Unless you want to argue http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9105-7
I consider modern science one of the greatest human discoveries of all time. Specifically the scientific method, the scientific model and science as an evolutionary epistemology. Perhaps this is scientism, but I also believe there are comparable and valid methodologies which complement science.
There is a post-modernist meme that neither capital T Truth nor capital K Knowledge exist. Therefore all small t truth and all small k knowledge is relative and unprovable. The only things which exists are degrees of uncertainty and doubt. I think that a belief system based in postmodernism is inherently non-logical and unwise.
If some people want to believe in such things, there’s not anything I can do about it. Nor do I want to. To each his own. I happen to believe in Truth and Knowledge and truths and what is known about what is knowable. I happen to believe in such things mostly because of science.
The men and women who commit to the discipline of science, esp the commitment to the effort of gaining credentials from accredited academies of higher learning, and work their discipline in the quest for knowledge and truths… these men and women have my trust, my respect, my loyalty, and even my love. So, as fellow human beings, with their faults and foibles, I attempt to emulate them as role models. If you want to find fault, that’s your choice.
If you think that there are better role models, a better methodology, a better model, a better epistemology… that’s your prerogative.
If you think “the potent reward for innovation” is limited to the capitalistic economic model you are living in fantasy land. And of course the capitalistic economic model has a huge vested interest in continuing to burn fossil fuels with wild abandon, only thinking of short term profit, staying in denial about the environmental and social costs, and continuing to treat labor and the biosphere and the climate as commodities to be exploited.
I agree that there is a potent reward for exploitation.
I decided not to respond to the rest of your post, because you began it with such hyperbole.
It will make little difference. If Mann wins the lawsuit, it will be ignored by the merchants of doubt and by the purveyors of excessive uncertainty. They will just move along with the next news cycle.
If Mann loses the suit it will be touted by these same merchants and sellers as a great victory for their side and proof/vindication that Mann et al were wrong all along.
Don’t follow.
The NAS report said that Mann’s findings lacked robustness. There are only two possibilities: (a) he didn’t know they lacked robustness, which makes him incompetent. (b) he did know they lacked robustness, in which case that is what he intended. I am not concerned about motive, only intent.
Fine, but until they can show that their predictions come true more often than not I don’t think that we should be spending trillions of dollars based on them.
Nobody is saying the failure of the models proves that models are useless. What they are saying is that models have not yet shown themselves to be reliable, and so we do not yet rely on them.
I think this is the Big Green denial that Naomi Klein was talking about. It’s like an almost cavalier attitude toward an extreme cost, and toward the amount of evidence we need in order to justify that cost.
Look at the levels of CO2 we have had in the past, up to 25 times the Holocene average, without any runaway warming. Why do you think we will have runaway warming?
I don’t think you have a realistic view of the hardship that will be caused by the course you have suggested. If you did, then I think you would demand a little more actual proof that there is in fact an impending disaster.
Is it just that no skeptic blog can be credible or authoritative? Can you point to something from that blog that causes it to lose credibility or authority?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
You say that the scientists have your trust, respect, loyalty and love, and that you try to emulate them. And that there are no better role models, better methodology, model, epistemology. All true.
Then you appear to acknowledge their faults and foibles as human beings but say that despite this you will not find fault.
You appear to be saying “Although scientists are subject to the same weaknesses as other human beings, I believe that those weaknesses should not be brought up or commented on, nor should any changes to methodology be proposed in order to counter them.”
What is the potent reward for innovation in the socialist economic model?
How is the socialist model different with respect to the exploiting of labor and the burning of fossil fuels and other environmental costs?
I don’t think it was hyperbole.
I think that Mann was crazy to file a libel lawsuit. It just guaranteed that these comments about him would remain front and center for the foreseeable future, and they have become worse. All the civil liberties organizations seem to have taken the opposite side and are filing legal briefs against him. And it appears that he as done the same thing to Judith Curry. See: Free Speech for Mann, But Not for Thee
Society should care for people with disabilities IMO. And people are always free to work as independent contractors on a production basis, disabled or not.
Is democracy hurting our climate change response?
But you claim that the minimum wage should be increased so that those at the bottom of the wage scale will have a larger income. The same logic would apply also to the disabled. You do not apply it to the disabled because you know that it would result in greatly increased unemployment among the disabled.
However when I suggest that perhaps the tension between higher employment and higher wages should be resolved in favor of higher employment for 18 year olds who receive an exemption after they certify that they are learning a skill and agree that they will be ineligible for public assistance, you say that I am “biased toward business owners, not workers.”
Do you really think that everyone who questions the wisdom of increasing the minimum wage is doing so out of a desire to favor the business owners over the workers?
No, that is a strawman. I claim the minimum wage should be increased to a living wage because paying less is immoral.
The fact that this will also stimulate the economy by improving the spending power of the masses is just a side benefit.
Too qualify for the reduced disability wage, a person must be legally disabled. That means they are already eligible for disability income. My position is that the disabled don’t need to work, but if they can, and they want to, they should be allowed to work for a reduced wage commensurate with their reduced productivity.
There is no evidence that your idea would result in higher employment. Apprenticeships are a tiny portion of the minimum wage workforce, so it would have a negligible impact at best.
Yes. Everyone who questions the wisdom of making the minimum wage a living wage favors capital over labor.
Let me just be clear where you stand. Which of the following do you disagree with:
1. The minimum wage increases unemployment because some employers determine that the economic benefit to the business of certain positions or employees is less than the cost of the minimum wage.
2. The higher the minimum wage, the greater the resulting unemployment.
3. Teenagers and the lowest skilled people are affected the most by this.
4. The unemployment often results from attrition – replacements are not hired for employees who leave.
5. If an employer determines that the benefit to the organization from hiring an employee is less than the cost of the employee, then he or she should not hire the employee.
6. The minimum wage should be raised to the amount deemed necessary to live on without considering the effect on unemployment.
7. A person should not be permitted to work at a reduced wage in order to gain experience for his resumé because this favors capital over labor but the same person should be permitted to work at no wage because this does not favor capital over labor.
1. There is no evidence that this is the case. While some employers may eliminate jobs, others increase hiring to meet the increased demand created by the enhanced purchasing power.
2. No evidence that this occurs. In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise.
3. Agreed, teenagers and low skilled workers are the ones most effected by minimum wage laws.
4. People who retire or take another job do not effect unemployment.
5. Agree.
6. Disagree. The effect on unemployment is considered, and found to be negligible,
7. Disagree.
Unless that person is not replaced.
It might depend on where we are in the business cycle:
Of course the result during an expansion may just be a lower increase in employment than there would otherwise have been.
Would you agree that a minimum wage of $50 would increase unemployment?
Unpaid internships should be allowed?
True or false:
True, but it is only one factor and must be weighed against all others, not isolated in a vacuum.
But it looks different if you control for differences between states:
Furthermore, that study found that an increase in the minimum wage has no discernible impact on overall GDP and could actually hinder growth in certain low-wage sectors.
Yes, if it is part of an educational curriculum.
IE, if you cherry pick your facts you can make a study say anything.
No.
Dr. Joseph J. Sabia, who did the study, was an Assistant Professor of Economics at the United States Military Academy at West Point, in New York. This is a top-tier university. Why do you say he was not observing the proper standards?
The CBO estimates -500,000 jobs and 900,000 lifted out of poverty.
You are arguing against a strawman. The actual employment numbers show no discernible effects of raising the minimum wage. The bulk of economic studies show that raising the minimum wage has no discernible effect on employment.
Experts generally agree, raising the minimum wage will have no discernible effect on employment and overwhelmingly agree that the benefits would far outweigh any negative impact on unemployment.
That makes sense. But what about others who have reduced productivity? Why do you limit it to the disabled?
Do you think that professors at top tier universities are infallible and immune to confirmation bias?
He is one of thousands of economists and his opinion is not only an outlier, it does not conform with the facts. Only by slicing and dicing the data is he able to make his case.
There are hundreds of studies on minimum wage impact on employment and the bulk show no discernible effect.
Ask yourself why you have to dream up these fantasy scenarios to make your case.
What’s a fantasy scenario? It’s exactly the issue. People, the value of whose labor is less than the minimum wage, will not have a job. You recognize that in the case of the disabled but why do you limit it to them?
You have provided no evidence that a job is not worth a minimum wage, or that there are non-disabled people who cannot produce more than $10.10 an hour, so they are fantasies, not real life conditions.
You’re not maintaining a semblance of actually believing what you are saying. Of course there are many labor intensive businesses who operate on a thin profit margin who would simply be put out of business. Who could doubt it?
Examples please.
A business employs a room full of people, each of whom sits at a desk and operates a piece of machinery in order to produce a child’s toy. So far they have been able to keep their costs down so that this toy can compete with other toys that are mass-produced entirely by machines. If the labor costs are tripled, however, this product will no longer be able to compete.
Or, a factory realizes that it would cost less to completely mechanize its assembly line than it would cost to triple its labor cost.
In order to qualify as intellectually disabled a person has to either not be able to care for himself or have an IQ of less than 60 or have an IQ of 60-70 and have something else wrong. There are plenty of people with an IQ in the 60s or 70s or 80s who have nothing else wrong. What chance is there that such a person would be able to make it through an interview process against normal people? If a normal unskilled person can produce $10.10 an hour of value then this person can likely produce much less than that.
Or how about the person who had one hand amputated (or has one of many other not-quite-good-enough disabilities) and who is unskilled and uneducated? Do you think that people with issues like these are a rarity?
What is the name of this company?
Why are calling a 30% increase tripled labor costs?
Are you suggesting that a person with an IQ of 60 is not capable of flipping burgers, or bagging groceries?
Why are you so fixated on the disabled?
It seems to me you are just arguing for the sake of argument. Raising the minimum wage has little impact on overall employment, and people who can’t work can collect welfare. By raising the minimum wage you have more money in the system from higher wages as more people are lifted out of poverty.
No, I did not say I will not find fault. I think that scientists are the cream of the crop when it comes to intelligent and dedicated men and women seeking truth and knowledge. Can you think of better people? Entrepreneurs? Or do you think we are all endowed with equal gifts?
Your beginning statement revealed that you have serious prejudices about socialism. What about “promoting the general Welfare” is not socialistic?
Innovation can be motivated by the joy of discovery, by the stroke of genius, by the flash of inspiration, by the passion to do good, to make the world a better place. It can be motivated by sacrifice. By the heroic quest. It can also be done for the goal of achieving power, wealth, fame. There are probably other examples which have little to do with reward.
Another blog?
Blogs are usually pushing propaganda, not science. Blogs which push the denier, doubt and excessive uncertainty memes are usually not worth my time. There are enough scientific abstracts and comprehensive reports from the IPCC and other international and national scientific agencies to keep me busy
And the reports about the increased hardship that will caused by the status quo, too-little-too-late, wait-for-proof while continuing to pump out more GHG emissions are denied and ignored. Why? Because of the denier meme that models are unreliable
I’m not saying that burning 10X the earth’s fossil fuel reserves is feasible, but did your sources include the feed backs from methane hydrates and methane sequestered in permafrost and peat bogs and other sources? From increased concentrations of water vapor? From burning forests?
So you are saying that the Earth becoming a Venus-like planet is so improbable to not even consider it a worst case scenario? If you recall, I was comparing this worst case scenario with your example of the precautionary principle towards a large meteor impact
What are the “extreme costs” of CO2 emissions presently. I read it estimated at $84 a ton. What have you researched?
So reliance on business as usual is a pragmatic strategy? To me it’s just an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels with wild abandon and see what the consequences are later. Short sighted and extremely stupid, esp in light of the science. The belief “that models have not yet shown themselves to be reliable” is not true. But it’s a tired and worn out denier meme.
I predict that posting links to debunk your comments will probably be a waste of time 🙂
From previous posts you have already judged his intent. On what grounds?
Why link to a blog (a propaganda site) when the Wahl & Ammann report was already available? Did the NAS report judge intent? Maybe you, like the author of the blog, didn’t like the findings of Wahl & Ammann. Did their findings lack robustness too?
Steyn acting as his own attorney ought to be a circus. I wonder if it’s just a stunt.
According to Plato, discussing five types of regimes – aristocracy (rule by the “best”), timocracy (rule by honor), oligarchy (also called plutocracy – rule by the wealthy), democracy (rule by the masses, the mob), and tyranny – the five regimes progressively degenerate starting with aristocracy at the top and tyranny at the bottom. I like the idea of a meritocracy
lol! Are you serious? Everything Mark Steyn does is a stunt. He’s a professional stunt clown.
Meritocracy means rule by those who merit being rulers? I’m on board with that. But where do we find these people?
I think he just did it for a while until things got serious. He has attorneys now, http://www.steynonline.com/6201/what-kind-of-fool-am-i whose names are on this recent legal filing: http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6514.pdf
Steyn really does have a pretty good wit, but it’s possible that this can only be appreciated by those who have sympathy for his point of view.
Also, Steyn can now say whatever he wants in his legal filings and it is privileged – Mann can’t sue him for anything he says there, and it gets picked up and reported by the press.
I guess the ultimate question is whether the word “fraudulent” necessarily means actual legal fraud and falsehood or whether it is understood to express an opinion that his findings are invalid. If the former, it looks like Mann might have a good case.
But even if he wins we then get to the question of damages. He recently won a FOIA case and was awarded damages of only $250. http://www.roanoke.com/news/former-uva-climate-scientist-awarded-damages-in-foia-case/article_dbf259e4-dc70-5962-81f3-be4483cbff5f.html This could happen again if the jury is forced to find in his favor but is not in sympathy with him.
The blog just lists all the arguments that have been made against Wahl & Ammann. If you would prefer, I could rephrase and list them here.
Intent refers to what a person intended to do. Motive refers to why he intended to do it. We are not talking about motive. If Mann’s findings lacked robustness then either he intended that or he did not. If he did not then he is incompetent. If he did, then one is left wondering about his motive.
What is your comment about this graphic?
I am talking about the cost of CO2 mitigation. Here’s one estimate. Scroll down to the case studies.
You would know these particulars much more than me. Thanks for the “lol” 🙂
So we ignore damages because mitigation is “too costly.” That’s an ignorant position for anyone to seriously consider
But the point is that it has not been shown that the cost of doing nothing is greater than nothing. But this estimate does deal with those costs.
If you want a fair and balanced perspective, look at the evidence of how well models have performed also. To predominately look at one side of the public debate is to allow confirmation bias over pattern recognition and prejudice to have the loudest voices. A true and independent inquirer spends as much time looking for evidence that he’s wrong as he spends searching for reasons he’s correct. Difficult but not impossible.
I assumed that you were engaged in free inquiry. I now doubt that my assumption was true. Mea culpa
It has not been shown to those who do not wish to see
I wouldn’t really call them prejudices since that refers to forming an opinion with inadequate information.
Promoting the general welfare does not have anything to say about private ownership or redistribution of income.
Look how innovation exploded in China when they adopted a more capitalistic system. Isn’t it obvious that capitalism supplied a crucial ingredient that had been missing?
I brought it up as worst case scenario to compare it with your scenario of a meteor impact.
Biogenic activities plus feed backs are another story. From what I have read the IPCC is conservative and does not include all possible and probable feed backs in their reports
I think you did:
One must wonder why Mann et al were targeted not only for the computer hacking, but also for the purpose (the intent) of calling their work into serious doubt. /sarcasm The ulterior economic motive of the merchants of doubt, denial and excessive uncertainty (above and beyond genuine scientific uncertainty) certainly is not to be scrutinized for intent.
Such a person can certainly hold these jobs. But such a person cannot compete with a normal person for such jobs. The Kroger’s near me at one point hired people with Down Syndrome as baggers. They did a great job, but it has to be obvious that under most conditions an employer will prefer the person who, for example, is more likely to better handle an emergency or something unexpected, and who is able to relate better with the customers and other employees.
When we talk about the most vulnerable, the ones most affected by unemployment, it is the young and those who are not as well endowed with intelligence, education and training. These are the people you apparently have no qualms about sacrificing.
Actually, going from $7.25/hour to $50/hour is a 690% increase.
No, I don’t need your paraphrasing. What I would prefer is a scholarly rebuttal by the professionals. You already referenced an oil industry consultant and an economist as giving a scholarly rebuttal to Mann, Bradley, & Hughes… which was then turned into a political circus as detailed by the Wikipedia article on the Wegmen report. Mann et al’s robustness was corroborated by Wahl & Ammann. So if McIntyre & McKitrick are essentially correct and Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Wahl, and Ammann are essentially incorrect… I will need to be linked to scholarly articles, not propaganda or political sites, for clarification. Clear enough?
I’m simply not interested in propaganda sites and the elements of the political debate whose primary motive and intent is to discredit the science. If the science is wrong, the science will correct it. That’s science. Not the politicians, not the economists, not the oil industry. Does that make sense?
“Typical Labor-Intensive Low Profit Margin Corp.”
Like I said above, I doubt that it will make any significant difference to the merchants of doubt and the purveyors of denial and to the sellers of excessive uncertainty above and beyond the scientific uncertainty acceptable to the bona fide professionals… the scientists who have remained faithful and true to their credentials.
The genuine seeker, the free inquirer accepts scientific uncertainty. The doubter or the believer may also, but it seems like s/he has already made up her/his mind on the matter. Getting into doubt vs inquiry in going deep down the rabbit hole. Whether one engages in logical fallacy, doubt/faith confirmed by bias, cognitive dissonance, self delusion, denial… it’s challenging to the extreme to see it in oneself. Even when it’s pointed out by others, it’s most often rejected. Welcome to the molten pit of human reality.
I think that the best way of finding the flaws in an argument is to present the argument to somebody who opposes it and hear what he has to say. If I am buying a car and I want to know what is wrong with a certain model, the best way to find out is to ask a salesman for the car’s competition. This is what I am hoping for from you.
Does pity for Steyn’s point of view count toward him gaining some sympathy?
It is all predictions from models whose predictions so far have been flawed. Let’s wait and see what actually happens.
There is “virtually no chance” of a runaway greenhouse effect. On the other hand, everyone agrees that our planet has been devastated on at least one occasion by a meteor strike. Such strikes happen on a minor scale on a daily basis.
So how does a lower minimum wage help the most vulnerable compete for limited jobs?
The same bias toward the smarter, better looking, more competent employee applies no matter what the minimum wage. I am sacrificing no one, hundreds of studies after the fact show that raising the minimum wage has little effect on employment.
You are suggesting that a million people remain in poverty on the off chance that raising the minimum wage may cost a few jobs for the disabled and low skilled. You are suggesting the working poor make sacrifices for the disabled and low skilled, instead of raising the minimum wage, or taxing the wealthy to care for the disabled and unskilled.
Who besides you has suggested raising the minimum wage to $50?
You are once again wrestling with a straw man.
IE, you don’t have an example, you made it up to bolster a weak argument.
In my political arguments, the genuinely meritorious would measure themselves against the ideal and select among themselves who is the most fit… just as if a natural aristocracy could possible work. The best, the most meritorious would not seek rule, but have it thrust upon them. It would be an honour and a duty to serve for the good of the people… not a desire for power.
It’s nonsense of course. Fictionally it’s sort of like with the super-heroes. Who watches over the Watchmen? I think one of them said “We need to watch over ourselves.” Non-fictionally it’s sort of like John Adams’ observation that if men were angels there would be no need for governments.
So then we can look into the better angels of our nature vs our inner demons… the human predicament… and get all into social psychology and mental illness. Frankly I’m a traditionalist when it comes to my belief that the human animal is a “cracked vessel.” My hope in luck and contingency is a new and better world.
I could elaborate on the human condition by quoting some Ralph Waldo Emerson or some Nietzsche about struggle, but it wouldn’t make a difference. But I’ll put in a plug for some good ol’ socialism from the book “What Every Environmentalist Needs To Know About Capitalism” and what needs to be known is that capitalism is not the solution but the problem and “if humanity is going to survive this crisis, it will do so because it has exercised its capacity for human freedom, through social struggle, in order to create a whole new world – in coevolution with the planet.” kindle loc 62
It’s becoming increasingly clear that in the “social struggle” the political and economic ideological battle lines have been drawn way before the industrial revolution.
Why am I even writing this?
“Virtually no chance’ as long as feed backs are ignored
The do-nothing while we wait-and-see approach is irrational in the face of the science already conducted. Additionally it’s seemingly obvious that your preoccupation with flaws instead of successes, with finding fault instead of knowledge gained, is non-logical. I know it’s a disciplined effort to overcome, i.e. transcend, doubt being confirmed by bias… but it’s possible.
And there is not a comment I can make or a link I can post which will change deep seated beliefs in a specific pattern recognition system reinforced by confirmation bias. It’s increasingly seemingly obvious that you are expressing the characteristic or prevalent attitude of a particular group or culture.
There is not anything which can be done from without. The work is inner work.
It seems to me that what you are looking for is flaws in the scientific model not in a model of car. This is getting back to the nature of the scientific method and how an autodidact can overcome his/her propensity toward scientific ignorance and what holds an individual back from scientific literacy.
The nature of argumentation in Western civilization goes all the way back to Platonic forms, pre-Socratic beliefs in powers greater than being virtuous, Aristotle’s episteme and his formalization of logic and his Nicomachean ethics.
The culmination of Western civilization, its pinnacle, is arguably the modern scientific revolution… with its major successes and minor setbacks and abject failures (I’m talking the development of weapons of mass destruction… not climate science just for emphasis sake).
There are older aspects of our civilization which seek to make science relativistic and submissive to it’s own prerogatives… such powers as religion and politics and economics. Why else the attack on modern science for ideological gain?
Mea culpa. I ought to have said “If you want to focus on fault instead of integrity, then that is your choice.”
Just as if you want to argue against science and where the science has the most anti-fragile and robust case for making a case for the best of our knowledge in the pursuit of truth and the marginalization of error in terms of justification and falsification.
It’s becoming increasingly and seemingly clear that your argumentation style is to focus on flaws, faults, contradictions. And that’s a choice. I look at contradiction from the point of the id which, as explained by Freud, “knows nothing of the law that forbids self-contradiction.” The secret workings of the human animal’s mind are logic-stupid and are insouciant to ethics.
Is my argumentation persuasive? influential? manipulative in a benign manner? Who will be the judge?
Yes
Scrutinized for intent, no. We know their intent (to spread doubt, denial and uncertainty). As for motive, we don’t really care what their motive is – only whether their facts are correct.
Socialism, as I advocate it, concerns itself much more with unearned wealth than with income. Socialism, also as I advocate it, makes distinctions between property rights, private property, and the private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism’s commoditization of labor, theft and murder for profit, treating the environment as a waste dump, and its ability to buy governments make it more of a scourge than a benign force for good in the world.
As a decently wise person once wrote down long ago “No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon (wealth regarded as an evil influence or false object of worship and devotion. It was taken by medieval writers as the name of the devil of covetousness, and revived in this sense by Milton.)”
China and innovation: ignoring failures while extolling successes is irrational. What did China have prior to the adoption of a more capitalistic model? Central planning. Not a good economic model. The socialism I advocate is egalitarian and involves the primacy of localized planning when pragmatic… such as co-ops.
The socialism I advocate also has a goal to call a Constitutional Convention to re-write the Law criminalizing financial speculation and tightly regulating corporations for the cause of promoting the General Welfare and reviewing corporate charters looking for corporate malfeasance regularly and granting corporate charters on a temporary rather than (for all practical purposes presently) on permanent bases.
I hold out for a better economic model than both centralized planning and the social political economic and environmental problems associated with capitalism and corporatism.
I hope Naomi Klein’s new book wakes people up (1) to the association of concentration of capital in the hands of the few (2) to the necessity of a genuine social movement for economic and environmental and political justice (3) to the status quo perforce making an unsustainable future intolerable from the perspective of the environmental limitations.
The perspective of the environmentalist with a scientific outlook and a socialistic political vision is a rare one. Maybe doomed by inverted totalitarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
We were discussing this question:
Are you saying that you doubt the existence of many labor-intensive businesses having a slim profit margin?
No. I was simply asking for an example, which you could not provide, so their existence at this point is still speculative.
I guess the problem is that people don’t agree on things. What will happen if we do X? What will happen if we do Y? The genuinely meritorious would have to not only be able to accurately predict but would also have to know which values are to be given precedence. A tall order.
Remember not to take sentences out of context. I prefaced that sentence of an intent to use sarcasm. The truth of the matter is the meta-goal of spreading doubt, denial, unscientific uncertainty. That meta-goal can be discerned and intent judged… even if motive lies in the secret workings of the mind og the human animal.
Again you bring up facts which returns us to the scientific debate among those who have the disciplined and specialized knowledge to examine the evidence, the facts, the data, the phenomena vs the generally scientifically illiterate public debate among those who are not particularly well-equipped to judge/discern “whether their facts are correct.”
For me it comes back to looking for credentials and who has credibility to make a well reasoned argument from the evidence: “Proof is sufficient evidence or an argument for the truth of a proposition.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)
Even though science is not engaged in “proving things to a certainty or a 100% probability of truth” science is very much engaged in the justification and falsification of theories… theories built upon the professional examination of natural phenomena, i.e. evidence.
So again I focus in on the meta-goal of the political and economic and religious ideologues and their followers who have a vested interest in their intention to spread a mistrust in the scientific model.
I misread the question. I thought you wrote increase employment.
These hyperbolic hypothetical scenarios you want to argue are the equivalent of mental masturbation. It might feel good but that is all.
I don’t think so. The scientific method involves coming up with a theory and then running an experiment to test that theory. If the results do not support the theory then it needs to be revised or discarded.
The theory is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today will act to create a greenhouse effect and heat the earth. We don’t stop just because the theory has been announced. If I say that I wan’t to see the results, that I want to see the actual warming, I am not doubting science or the scientific method. I am doubting a particular scientific theory or the extent of it.
When values are in conflict from an ethical perspective I would encourage synthesis, aka negotiation, dialect. Ideally the Hegelian dialect proposes that a thesis and it’s antithesis can be merged in a synthesis to result in a “higher truth.” Theoretically it would work with less conflicting ethical values as well.
I think a hierarchy of values is logical also, keeping negotiation in mind. For me the only meta-goal which may or may not be required to be “set in stone” is sustainability from a scientific perspective… unless an even better model for knowledge comes forth from the biological principle identified as “emergent complexity.”
I don’t put as much stock in prediction as I put in risk assessment, risk management, the precautionary principle more loosely interpreted than strictly… with a degree of prescience based on heuristics (settling for the good enough without holding forth for the optimal much less the perfect).
I was merely trying to establish that if you increase the minimum wage a great deal it is quite easy to see how it will result in unemployment. And the unemployment comes about because you are requiring the business to pay more than the benefit it gets from its labor. The same thing will happen even when the difference between wage and the benefit is not quite so stark.
I see. So you are demanding proof that the tripling of labor costs will require a business to raise the cost of its product, and that there is a limit beyond which the cost cannot be raised and still sell.
Unrealistic hypothetical scenarios don’t establish anything.
Raising the price of a pizza 10¢ is not going to effect pizza sales. Raising it $10 will.
There is no proposal for a radical jump, the increase is incremental and phased in over time so that the economy has time to adjust.
No, I am asking for an example of a company whose costs are primarily labor, whose employees work for minimum wage, that will go under if the minimum wage is incrementally raised to $10.10 an hour over two years.
This is again in the line in which you appeared to deny that raising the minimum wage to $50/hour would increase unemployment.
Forget about the $50 dollar fantasy and stick with the proposed $10.10 reality.
The proposed minimum wage bill would raise the minimum wage to $8.20 an hour, beginning on the first day of the third month after the bill is enacted. Giving employers 90 days to prepare for a 95¢ increase in the minimum wage. This will primarily impact fast food industry, though there will be an upward pressure on wages to keep valuable low wage employees.
One year later; another 95¢. At $9.15 an hour, it will impact clerks, cashiers, maids, etc., with more upward pressure to retain talent.
Two years later, another 95¢ for $10.10. And thereafter tied to the CPI.
These are modest increases that will lift a modest 900,000 above the poverty line, with minimal impact on overall employment.
You want to see the actual warming. OK. Start looking for evidence of warming. Short of becoming a scientist yourself, look at what the scientists are observing. Are the oceans warming? Look for answers at NOAA. Is the GMST rising? Look for answers with the IPCC. Are the polar regions melting? Are glaciers retreating? Look for answers with the scientists who are studying glaciers and the polar regions. Again, look for the evidence. As I posted above… it’s available to all except those who do not wish to see.
It seems to me that you are not convinced that the scientists have the expertise to explain man-made GHG’s enhancing a naturally occurring greenhouse effect. Hence your mistrust of the scientific model for obtaining knowledge. What is the experiment, anyway? Human beings are using the atmosphere as a dump for the waste gases of burning sequestered organic carbon (fossil fuels) for energy. Let’s observe what happens. That’s the experiment in a nutshell.
It seems to me that you are not content with observations, though. You seem to want to interpret the observations with the aid of a belief system, viz a pattern of beliefs expressing (often symbolically) the characteristic or prevalent attitudes in a group or culture. You seemingly want to interpret the observations from the perspective of the deniers’ arguments. If that’s your strategy….
I’m not a very good or credible source though for arguing against the deniers’ arguments. Whatever happened with your dialogue with Sky Hunter? In spite of his brusque manner at times, did you find his arguments convincing, influential, persuasive, benignly manipulating?
I am continuing my dialog with SkyHunter. I find his input very useful.
What sorts of things would be criminalized?
Tightly regulating how? Just corporations? What about individuals, limited partnerships, trusts, etc?
What’s wrong with concentrated capital in the hands of a few? If Tiger Woods makes a million dollars in a golf tournament why shouldn’t he be able to keep it?
It seems that the solution lies only in restricting freedom. If I want to invent a product and sell it do I have to first get a license that the product is “needed” and that I am not manipulating people into excess consumerism? Apart from harm to the environment, what is the harm caused by inverted totalitarianism?
Is it possible to have a socialist system without central planning?
Why would the environmental problems associated with capitalism not be associated with socialism? What are the social, political and economic problems associated with capitalism?
Accountants typically make much more than the minimum wage. These people are paid more because there is a market operating according to supply and demand that requires employers to pay the amount necessary to get the people they need. Are we agreed that the law of supply and demand works properly for the accountants, and that they are paid the correct amount, which depends on the amount of value that they produce?
Do you think that the market for labor no longer works properly at the low end of the scale, so that, unlike the accountant, absent a minimum wage low-wage workers would be paid less than the value they produce? The minimum wage is then seen as remedying this market defect. Or do you think that the market still works properly but for reasons of social policy we have deemed it necessary for the government to intervene and require that some low-wage workers be paid more than the value that they produce? Of course, raising the minimum wage does not automatically raise the productivity of the worker – the two are independent.
No, I think accountants are generally underpaid, under appreciated, and complicit in the system that keeps them that way. Raising the minimum wage will also put upward pressure on wages for accountants, since there will be both increased demand and increased competition.
Your argument assumes what is not in evidence. There is no evidence that minimum wage workers are paid less than the value they produce. And you can’t really provide said evidence because it is all subjective.
Who determines value and what is the criteria?
You and I likely have very different ideas about what constitutes value.
The market is not a Deity, and there is no such thing as a free market. I am not concerned with the market, I am concerned with the people. If one person employs another, they should compensate them for their time with a living wage. If they don’t believe the job is worth a living wage, they should do it themselves, or ask for volunteers, then compensate the volunteers as best they can.
I did not assume this. I gave you an either/or and asked you whether the market works for the low-wage worker. One option said yes and one option said no.
But my supposition was that in general a free market is a fair way to set the prices of things. Unless the government intervenes it works by way of supply and demand. The seller tries to get as much as he can for the thing he is selling and the buyer tries to pay as little has he can for the thing he is buying. This is what sets prices. It is not a Deity. It is simply the mechanism that has always operated to determine the prices of things. Markets are influenced by many factors, rational and irrational.
Are you saying that in general you do not believe that markets are the correct way to arrive at the prices of things? Or is that only in the case of the labor market? What causes the accountant to be paid less than he should be paid?
Workers are always paid less than the wealth they produce. If this were not the case the business would fail.
The problem with a free market based on supply and demand is that supplies can be manipulated to create demand, and vice versa. (Remember Kenny Boy from ENRON?)
What a person does for a living is more important than profit. I ran a construction business for years that made very little profit, but everyone had a job with a living wage, including me. I even paid the high school kid working summers double the minimum wage.
So I guess I am saying that in order for the markets to be fair, they need to be regulated. I consider the minimum/living wage issue to be separate from the market. IMO it is a fundamental moral issue.
As a society, do we value the individual enough to consider the dignity of a living wage as a right?
Instead of “value produced” I should have said “value to the employer,” since a market price is determined by the interplay between the value the seller places on the commodity being sold (labor) and the the value that the purchaser places on it.
But before we get to that question, does the market for the services of the computer programmer work properly? Or do you believe that there is something that gives employers an unfair advantage, so that programmers are paid less than they should be paid?
Employers almost always have an unfair advantage over the individual. The name of the game is Capitalism and Capital always has an advantage in this system.
But why do you say that? If I hire a programmer to do some work for me what gives me the advantage when we discuss the amount he is going to charge me?
If you have no food and no means and I offer you a slice of bread for 8 hours of labor in my fields, and you negotiate for two slices… would you say you made a good deal?
It doesn’t matter that I have so much bread that most of it will rot before it is eaten, I have successfully kept my labor costs low.
Yes but you have described a situation involving a built-in advantage for one side: the seller is starving. Are you saying that a programmer marketing his services is usually starving or for some other reason usually has no choice but to accept what is offered?
Let’s just consider the typical situation as we expect to see it in the United States today. The programmer is offering to do some programming and the purchaser is offering to pay him, they are negotiating a price and neither is starving (unless you think that programmers are usually starving). What advantage does the purchaser have?
Because socialism has the potential to learn from the inherent problems of capitalism, including not treating the environment as a commodity.
You ask “What are the social, political and economic problems associated with capitalism?” Have you not read up on these things yourself? I assumed that you were an autodidact. Mea culpa.
If you are an autodidact instead of a pupil-seeking-a-teacher, then I suggest that you do some extensive reading on your own which critically analyzes capitalism from the perspective of the socialist. Then you are in the position to make an informed decision on which economic model is more utilitarian for our present circumstances.
Or are you wanting someone who can argue for socialism so that you can argue for capitalism. If you want a really good argument, then I suggest that you go to the commentary on the website common dreams dot com and look up the poster theghostofjh. You’ll get a thorough argument from him for as long as you like, especially since you prefer civility. The poster is plenty educated, very opinionated, very civil, and eager to enlighten.
Is it possible for a socialist economic model without centralized planning? Sure. Is it feasible? Look into it.
As I posted earlier, argue with someone much more thoroughly educated on the subject if you genuinely want to know. The commentator who shows up on common dreams posting as Maxwell is another great apologist for socialism. I can only recommend books, such as “What Every Environmentalist Needs To Know About Capitalism” by Fred Magdoff & John Bellamy Foster.
“Manipulating people into excess consumerism?” The rule of “Let the buyer beware” is deontological ethics at work in your experience? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/ Sorry. Philosophy might be above the pay grade of this commentary. Along perhaps with science, politics, economics and history. [Personal query: How old are you?]
“Apart from harm to the environment, what is the harm caused by inverted totalitarianism?” Read the entire article, paraphrase the worst aspects of inverted totalitarianism, and then get back with me?
Or have you no problem with slavery, aka “every living being is commodified and exploited to collapse.”
What’s wrong with economic stratification? Here is some research material. http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~ekalnay/pubs/2014-03-18-handy1-paper-draft-safa-motesharrei-rivas-kalnay.pdf
Thanks! I sent him a post asking for more information about this ideas. Looks like a real firebrand! Always interested in exploring such views.
Capitalism in general and corporate capitalism specifically must needs be addressed by the supreme Law of the land. Regulations are for the Law to work out. I consider the Law an evolutionary epistemology, as science is also an evolutionary epistemology. Separate but overlapping methodologies. A Constitutional Convention would construct a general framework to establish a new supreme law of the land. Then let the law evolve.
How have our current laws evolved? http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf
Why am I even posting this? Do you read to be educated, or do you read to find things to argue about?
Thanks. I’ll keep it in mind.
What things about financial speculation ought NOT be criminalized is the better question. It means divorcing “investment” from “speculation” by law. You have a principled problem with that?
Formulated any conclusions yet? Still at the wait-and-see & don’t-do-anything-prematurely standstill?
you are welcome
Well, it’s obvious that you have become irritated and that this exchange is not productive. Thanks for your ideas though! Take care.
We have had our spirited disagreements, but I respect him nonetheless.
I would say that a living wage is in harmony with the Creator giving all equal persons an unalienable right to life. To not pay a living wage and not recognize it as a right is akin to “theft of life.” FWIW
My sentiments exactly.
I don’t begrudge capital it’s profit, that is a primary motivating driver for ingenuity, but profit should come after the welfare of labor.
The purchaser has the advantage of resources. A programmer is often not personally disposed, or trained, to negotiate. So unless the programmer has a good agent, she is likely going to be at disadvantage in every negotiation with a well seasoned business negotiator.
The programmer has his hourly rate that he charges. He just has to tell the employer how many hours it will take and what the total bill will be. If it is a long and complex job he has his attorney to draw up the contract.
When you were in construction you knew what your costs were going to be and what the uncertainties were and how to allocate risk. Did the purchaser know about those things better than you? And couldn’t you hire an experienced attorney if you needed advice? What disadvantage were you under as a result of the resources of the purchaser?
Your programmer scenario is for an independent contractor, not an employee.
I had a framing crew and framed houses. I charged more per square foot than other framers. I remember one occasion where the builder told me that he had another bid for $5000 less then mine. I expressed my regret and tried to hand him back the blue prints. He asked me to rebid the job, I told him I couldn’t and tried to hand him back the prints. Instead of taking the prints, he decided to stick with a known quantity.
I helped a developer become a gentleman builder. His houses were disasters until he hired me exclusively to frame his houses. He kept me busy for 3 years, never once asked me to lower my price. Once he became successful and no longer dependent on me, he started grinding me down on price. Which was one of the events that helped force me out of business.
You see, I only started the business because a builder wanted me to frame his houses and offered to bankroll me. I stayed in business because I did good work and provided better conditions for my workers. Once it became a struggle to break even it was no longer satisfying.
But there is no difference between hiring an independent contractor and hiring an employee except that the employee doesn’t typically have a stated ending date. The relative bargaining positions are exactly the same when hiring an employee as when hiring an independent contractor. Independent contractors just have a different legal status for tax purposes.
Are you saying that the fact that the builder started grinding you down on price demonstrates that the employer has the advantage in this situation?
I’m irritated that financial speculation has become synonymous with investment. I’m not, however, irritated with you or your beliefs, your doubts, your assumptions. After all, they make you who you are and who you are likely to become.
I got the impression that you were irritated because many of my views are directly opposed to yours and you believe so strongly that your views are the only reasonable ones that my objections seem like they must be debaters tricks or slight of hand, lacking any substance and not worth the effort to dispute. Or perhaps when I say that I don’t see anything wrong with financial speculation you find that so incomprehensible that you believe I must just be playing games and not be serious.
Yes, once I had helped him become successful by delivering a quality product, instead of being grateful, he used that success as leverage against me.
But how did that keep you from marketing yourself to others? By that logic all buyers have the advantage because they can refuse to buy except on their terms. But similarly sellers can refuse to sell except on their terms.
It is all about leverage. When he needed a good framer so that new houses didn’t creak and squeak and were plumb square and level, he accepted my bids without question, because he had no leverage. I offered him a competitive price that allowed him to see a 30% profit on most homes he built.
Once he had the leverage, he did not return the courtesy. I figured I must either become ruthless or quit. Since I don’t like the price I must pay for ruthlessness, I chose to quit.
But what was the leverage he had? Why was ruthlessness necessary? Why couldn’t you just offer your services at a fair price to someone else?
Even though the quality of his houses suffered, and the crew he wanted me to bid against took 6 men and a forklift 6 months to frame a house that I planned to frame with 5 men and a forklift in 8-10 weeks, he was in a better position than I was to bargain. He had money and influence, I didn’t. He could afford to lose lots of money and stay in business, I couldn’t.
I had taken him at his word and committed to do my part.
What began as subdivision of 450, 2500 – 3000 sq ft, modest homes, turned into 250, 3500 – 700 sqft+, elaborate homes on a golf course. It was the largest and hottest development in the area. During the development phase, before the roads were in, I had to build all the maintenance buildings, so I invested in a full sized 4×4 truck to haul tools and materials off-road. I hired another crew leader and few more carpenters so I could train them to use my methods, so I could be ready to build 3 houses at a time, which was what he determined I would need in order to meet his schedule. As soon as the first foundation was finished, I leased a forklift to have on site. Three crews can efficiently share a forklift if they are in the same sub division. I built the first two houses ahead of schedule, but the next 3 plans were all behind schedule.
I had to find work. I picked up another house out of the development, which mean’t moving the forklift. Very expensive if you don’t have the capital to own your own equipment, and needs to be done during daylight so I lose it’s productivity for half a day or more.
The next three houses were still not ready. I am working 60 hour weeks and losing money, so I have to lay men off during a construction boom, while I find another house, ready for framing, and move the forklift again.
Finally the next house is ready to build, a spec house, based on a basic plan, of much smaller dimensions that we had built before in a less upscale development. Even though we had signed a contract months before, he told me he was unhappy the price, because I had built the same house only smaller for less $$$/sqft.
The basic plan did not have the more intricate architecture, such as the cantilevered balconies, a bridal staircase, and taller ceilings, etc. Bringing this to his attention however did not sway his opinion one bit. I had leverage at that point, since we already had a signed contract, and held firm.
I was unaware of confirmation bias, but he exhibited all the symptoms. He had taken the average price/sqft for smaller, more modest homes and plugged it into the larger more intricate homes. Nothing would change his mind. When I finished the house ahead of schedule again, because I have a large productive and expensive crew, it just reconfirmed his bias. I built the bigger more intricate house in the same amount of time I built the smaller version. Except I built the small one with 4 men, and the big one with 8 men and a forklift.
The next house was over 6000sqft, for a retired major league pitcher. There was a small crew run by two brothers working for another builder. The bid they gave him was about $10,000 less than mine. I couldn’t match it so he gave them the contract. He then told me he was putting everything out for open bid and that I should sharpen my pencil.
An accountant by trade from a wealthy family, he increased his inherited wealth by acquiring and subdividing farmland near cities and turning it into low density housing. He had a goal. He shared that goal with me and asked me to help him achieve it. Once he had achieved his goal, I was disposable.
Negotiations are rarely ever equal. One side usually has greater leverage and that side is usually the side with more capital. Capitalism reached it’s apex as a social institution in the 1950’s, as society evolves, the value of capital will decrease as other values grow. But the inequality in negotiations will still remain, the leverage won’t change, just the levers.
Eew…
I’m irritated with the financializaion of this economy… that high risk financial tools are not being adequately analyzed for their utility nor their integrity… but instead are being pawned off as “investment opportunities” to an unsuspecting and gullible public. I’m dismayed at the abject stupidity of the masses to be able to learn from the mistakes of history. And it grieves me to see the level of self deception in action and at play in financial scheming and government bailouts and austerity measures and a lack of stimulus that would benefit the general welfare instead for the benefit of the crooks and cheats … oh wait… /s the job makers end-/s at the top feeding high on the hog.
I realize that I have little or nothing to contribute to changing the system other than getting involved with and voting third party, complaining about it online, or trying to organize a mass movement… see how well things turned out for this group who tried to change things for the better. http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/whiterose.html
I suppose what you see as irritability on my part, I see within myself as a sense of despondency, moodiness, and powerlessness. But your side (or at least the side you are advocating) is winning the hearts and the minds and ensuring the continued success of the status quo… so I suppose that the time for argumentation is over and congratulations are in order. Congratulations on your side’s victory. May you live long and prosper to enjoy the spoils of this assault and conquest of nature unto collapse.
I still don’t see what his leverage was. If the programmer says that his hourly rate is X, and the employer says that he has found somebody whose hourly rate is .9X who will do the same job in the same amount of time, then that is only leverage if the progammer’s rate is higher than the rates of other programmers with comparable ability. If not, he realizes that the purchaser is willing to also pay the hidden cost of lower quality and he looks for other work. There’s an old saying among programmers: “You can have it inexpensively, quickly and at high quality. Pick any two.”
If there is a market for a person’s services then he does not have to sell them for less than he can get in the market, regardless of the resources of any one purchaser.
I actually think that part of the blame for this resides with the movement that encourages people to think that the government will protect them from all evil, or to think that there are laws in place that keep bad things from happening so they don’t have to be wary.
There are laws to protect people from fraud. There are no laws to protect people from old fashioned bad investments and any suggestion that there are just lulls people into a failure to keep their eyes wide open.
Somebody has some land that he is selling. Is it likely to go up in value or down? If you choose to invest in that land without understanding the risk or the factors that determine market value, well, a fool and his money are soon parted. I want the government to prevent fraud but I don’t want the government involved in evaluating investment opportunities. Everybody knows that the greater the risk the greater the return. If I choose a greater risk then that’s my business. If I invest without taking steps to discover the risk then that’s my fault.
My father once bought shares in an old mine that somebody claimed was the Lost Dutchman’s Gold Mine. What chance did he think there was that gold would be found? About as much as the chance you have when buying a lottery ticket. But it was fun to dream, and the guy really was looking for gold there. Should that be illegal just because somebody might invest his life’s savings in such a thing?
A bit melodramatic, perhaps. I am in favor of sound environmental laws. Respected scientists make a prediction that there is going to be catastrophic warming. Respected scientists disagree. We wait and there is no warming. Given the high cost of the proposed solution I am ready to wait a little longer.
That is a cherry-picked quote if I have ever seen one. The point of much of that section is that the situation with Arctic sea ice has gotten dramatically worse in the last 6 or 7 years. The very paragraph you are quoting ends, “The Arctic-wide increases of temperature in the last decade contrast with the episodic regional increases in the early 20th century, suggesting that it is unlikely that recent increases are due to the same primary climate process as the early 20th century.” And the very next paragraph says, “In the case of the Arctic we have high confidence in observations since 1979, from models (see Section 9.4.3 and from simulations comparing with and without anthropogenic forcing), and from physical understanding of the dominant processes; taking these three factors together it is very likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the observed decreases in Arctic sea ice since 1979.”
That old saying predates computer programming.
Negotiations are rarely if ever equal. If you don’t understand why, I don’t think I can explain it any better.
But your conclusion “We wait and there is no warming” is not physically possible. So either the laws of physics are wrong, or your conclusion needs to be revised. So I question your commitment toward being “in favor of sound environmental laws.” It seems contradictory and dissonant.
But I have seen a few arguments in the blogs even trying to rewrite the laws of physics (so I generally ignore the blogs which have a pseudo scientific agenda) and on internet commentary attempting to use sophistry to justify denial.
And the wait-and-see approach makes no sense. If the professional and well-respected scientific opinion was split 50-50 it would probably be acceptable risk management to wait. But with the great weight of respected scientists and scientific organizations expressing conservative concern bordering on outright alarm, the doubtful uncertain deniers must employ other cognitive resources than risk management and scientific opinion to bolster the wait-and-see strategy. Those other cognitive resources are extremely dysfunctional, in my opinion.
But you can’t teach a person not to be dysfunctional who does not first realize that his/her dysfunctionality is a serious and alarming problem in and of itself. So the global society is facing two serious scientific problems, i.e. climate change due to man-made GHG emissions enhancing the natural greenhouse effect AND the human animal’s propensity to ignore invisible and unpleasant consequences of its own ethology.
Additionally the financialization of the economy is less about government protection, and more about risky financials being redefined as investments. If you prefer that the ideal of “the general welfare” needs to be replaced with the dominant ethos of “let the buyer beware” as you seem to be arguing I’m not interested in arguing this any further. (I’m assuming at this point that you either lean toward or are an adherent of libertarian Tea Party political and economic theory… correct?)
Finally, your interpretation of government in general about protecting the people from all evil or to prevent bad things from happening is so illogical it doesn’t warrant a response. It’s an informal logical fallacy of argumentum ad absurdum. I wonder if you have done any reading at all about finance from a negative and critical analytical perspective. I also wonder if you have done any simple cursory reading on differences between speculation and investment. I suspect that you already have established beliefs and opinions which are not going to change even as you engage in argumentation. Or maybe this is me projecting and you are the true radical engaging in free inquiry. No way to know.
I admit that my disdain for financial speculation is predicated upon my aversion to the service of mammon, def as “wealth regarded as an evil influence or false object of worship and devotion. It was taken by medieval writers as the name of the devil of covetousness, and revived in this sense by Milton.”
Might as well drop the argument of government and economics at this point. It’s not going to provide any meaningful free open honest exchange of ideas. Just opinion.
Of course that’s true. The advantage lies on the side of the person who has the thing most desired by the other side. But look, it cannot be denied that if a programmer has a good reputation then there is a market for his services and he doesn’t accept a lower hourly rate just because the person making that offer has more money than the person making another offer. Don’t you agree?
What do you mean it is not physically possible? Are you saying that the theory that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will bring catastrophic warming is necessarily true, as a law of physics?
Yes, I realize that is their conclusion. But nevertheless there is “still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s.” And if you look at the temperatures in Greenland over the last 4,000 years the current temperatures don’t really stand out. The only thing to tell us that the current warming is different in kind from the earlier episodes is the models, which have suffered from a credibility deficiency since the hiatus.
Which of the projections in this graph represent the laws of physics?
Well, what is the IPCC predicting will be the result of the wait-and-see approach? In the final AR5 draft the IPCC cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 Cº over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 Cº. This is not catastrophic. The wait-and-see approach does make sense.
You raised the IPCC as the authority, but omitted their conclusion “… it is very likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the observed decreases in Arctic sea ice since 1979.” Why would you do that?
At the end of the first pamphlet they seem to be channeling Thoreau.
“Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure.”
What fault do you find with the arguments made in chapter two of Liberalism?
I showed that there are widely divergent opinions on the subject. Look at the previous post, where I included this:
The person I was addressing is highly knowledgeable in this area. The purpose of the particular paragraph you are referencing was to point out that the IPCC recognizes that there is still significant discussion going on in this area. I was asking this person to characterize his level of confidence and asking what caused him to be confident.
Bullshit. In the post I frst responded to you misrepresented the IPCC’s assessment plain and simple.
What’s the matter with you? Do you have trouble understanding things? I gave that viewpoint intentionally, along with one from the other side, to show the disparity of opinions that exists on this issue.
Do you even pay attention to what you’re reading? I was writing this to DavidAppel, who knows all of these things. http://davidappell.blogspot.com/ Do you think I was trying to trick him into not knowing the position of the IPCC? That’s absurd! I was asking what his position was and how he arrived at it.
What disparity? You gave a solid peer-reviewed paper that said it’s been millions of years since the Arctic ocean was ice-free as opposed to what? A couple of papers that were examining the reasons for some temperature fluctuations. And, oh yes, another paper saying it has occasionally been warmer in Greenland. Seems to me like you are more interested in clouding than clarifying the issue. The IPCC experts have looked at all this and came to the same clear conclusion about anthropogenic forcing the History of Sea Ice paper came to. Where is the paper questioning human influence?
I think you really do have trouble understanding things. I was asking David Appell his opinion and how he arrived at it. I threw in a couple of studies not to prove one side or the other but in an offhand effort to show how opinions differ. This was not my attempt to prove something. I was asking the man for his opinion. What is so hard to understand about that?
Ok. I’ve reviewed your posting history, and I apologize. I’m prepared to believe now you were simply asking Appell a question. I hope you’ll understand how when I saw the incomplete quote from AR5, and some of the other apparently one-sided data you posted, pattern recognition kicked in and I jumped to the wrong conclusion. Sorry. Please continue your honest efforts to educate yourself.
No problem. Your tenacity is first-rate.
There’s nothing honest about Swood. She’s a slimy one… knows way too much not to be lying.
I quickly looked over her (?) history and there were other topics there besides climate; it didn’t seem to be a one track anti-AGW rant like so many trolls. She even had something positive to say about SkyHunter. But your credibility is pretty good with me, CB…
I told CB that the correct pronoun was ‘he’ and she told me to put my pants back on – nobody cares. It was the final straw. I want to interact with and hear the views of knowledgeable people on this subject but I draw the line at abject crassness.
No, she’s not a one-trick pony, but Climate Denialism is certainly one of her tricks.
She knows the importance of a proper citation and she knows the literature very well… too well to be making the claims she makes… which is why I consider her slimy.
I’m deeply, deeply distrustful of libertarianism. They may have a few good ideas, but I lack the patience to wade through the garbage to find the coins. Sorry, but I’m not interested in arguing the specific points of political and economic beliefs. I think such arguments don’t change minds but only harden already established positions.
What do you think is the goal or purpose of such argumentation?
Tragic
It makes no sense in light of latent heat (the melting of ice) and what’s happening to the world’s oceans. “Scientists called these effects a “deadly trio” that when combined is creating changes in the seas that are unprecedented in the planet’s history. This is their language, not mine. The scientists wrote that each of the earth’s five known mass extinctions was preceded by at least one [part] of the “deadly trio”—acidification, warming and deoxygenation. They warned that ‘the next mass extinction’ of sea life is already under way, the first in some 55 million years.”
I’m pretty sure you can argue for doubt, unscientific uncertainty, denial, the wait-and-see approach still for many years. Just not with me.
How much enhanced greenhouse effect above and beyond the natural greenhouse effect would be “catastrophic” according to the CAGW denialist sites? Up to 800 ppm CO2? 1200ppm? Above?
Would a radical skeptic adopt a wait-and-see approach? Seize upon scientific uncertainty as good reason for doubt? Mistrust the economic and political goals of the “socialists” who are raising the alarm for the need of international governmental cooperation?
How hard would it be to be a libertarian and commit to climate change mitigation?
I followed with interest your extended Q&A with theghostofjh at the Common Dreams site. What was your overall impression?
I realize that you left perhaps frustrated over some lack of answers. If I may be so presumptuous, I’ll try to fill in. You wrote
I think this was after discussing psychopathy, individual means of production (i.e. growing corn), and mineral rights on a massive scale. Remember?
This is simply my personal opinion, so consider the source and take it only for what it’s worth for yourself. I think your questioning will only take you so far. Once a conversation delves into the Q&A about (1) the basic beliefs which form the foundation of an ideology (2) philosophical metaphysics (3) mythology, i.e. the mythos (defined as: a story or set of stories relevant to or having a significant truth or meaning for a particular culture, religion, society, or other group) about a person’s subjective reality in relationship to group psychology… once you get into these areas it’s much more likely to encounter a mutual inability to appeal to logic (that is frequent use of logic to reinforce confirmation bias), increased irrationality, and increased emotional immaturity (usually manifest by an appeal to emotion… and remember an appeal to emotion is only as “good” as the man making the appeal… and how do we discern the “goodness” of men?)
You are very well informed. You also have some well formed opinions, yet you present yourself as a questioner without the answers and unable to play devil’s advocate with yourself. If this is an honest assessment on my part and yours, would it not behoove you to employ the internal philosophical dialectic as you continue to look for answers? Why the emphasis on the external dialectic, the Q&A with others with whose opinions you disagree? Argument for the sake of… what exactly?
A very opinionated online acquaintance/friend of mine believes you to be “slimy.” How appropriate of a descriptor, as you forgive the pejorative, do you think that is?
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. If I think that a person’s position is flawed or is illogical or does not produce the result he is claiming for it I try to find the point at which his position fails. For example, suppose he says that if person A plants and harvests corn and person B does not, it is unjust that person A has corn and person B does not. Then I expect him to state some rule of justice that supports this. If he is unable or unwilling to do so then that is generally the end of the discussion because the person appears to have no rational reason for his position. If he is able to, then perhaps I will need to rethink my assumptions. Or if he says that any mass process of mining or production is wrong, but won’t explain why. That’s the end of the discussion but only because he will not explain his position.
Some people don’t want to explain their positions at that level. I think you are one of them, and that’s fine. But there are some people who are willing and able to explain their positions rationally and I like to hear such viewpoints.
I don’t claim to have the final answers but I certainly have my opinions.
Oddly, I think that’s CB’s version of a compliment. The term “slimy” appears to refer to a doubter who has some substance behind his or her opinion. Such a person should know better and so the person must be lying. I think she actually believes that. I don’t know the extent to which CB’s coarseness pre-dated her interactions on these blogs or the extent to which she came by it as a result. It would be amusing absent the pathos. But it’s fine with me if she wants to rant and call me “she” and try to insult me. To me, she’s just some sad crazy lady on the street who shouts at passers-by. How she can think that such juvenile behavior can cause others to have a higher opinion of her is a matter she needs to take up with her therapist.
Nope! I don’t think it should be hard at all for a skeptic to commit to climate change mitigation, but at the risk of invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy, there aren’t quite as many true skeptics as there are people who claim to be skeptics…
There is the skeptic who is the inquirer who follows the evidence wherever it leads even if it contradicts one’s beliefs and/or prejudices, who withholds/reserves judgement if there is insufficient evidence. Then there is the common, run-of-the-mill skeptic… a doubter no matter what the evidence and the credible scientific opinion. To this skeptic, scientific uncertainty is a ready made excuse to doubt.
Well… it’s not exactly logical to believe that what applies to an individual applies to a society. And it’s not logical to hypothesize about mass extraction of minerals by mining which is pollution free. So that’s my take on employing logic to confirm subjective bias, preconceived ideas, and prejudice
I wouldn’t consider your latter definition a skeptic. A person who reflexively denies everything everyone says for no good reason is a denier, not a skeptic.
Doubter… denier. Po-TAY-toe… pah-TAH-toe
Such a dialogue or dialectic, in order to work, ought to be a free, open, honest, and mutual exchange of ideas. When the Q&A is one-sided, such as you asking many questions to try to get “answers” while claiming that you only have opinions, it’s not an honest exchange. Additionally, when you are less than forthcoming about directly stating your opinions and answering questions put to you, the the exchange is not mutual. Asking for explanations, while not giving your own, was one of the reasons I have been finding our specific exchange unfruitful.
Finally, you appear unwilling or unable to question your own assumptions, preconceived notions, beliefs and your own opinions. This is the internal dialectic which is the basis for philosophical and scientific skepticism. (1) Question authority, question established opinion (2) Think for yourself (3) Question yourself. Don’t believe something (or doubt something) just because you want to (4) Follow the evidence. Let the evidence take you where it goes, not where you want it to go. If there is not enough evidence, reserve judgement (5) Remember that you could be wrong.
You are obviously intelligent, well informed, highly opinionated. But you seem to be engaged in commentary only to examine the perspectives of others, not your own. If you were more forthcoming with putting your own viewpoint under questioning, then the dialectic might be fruitful.
I’m sorry if I seemed to evade your questions. I was not aware that I was doing that. Please ask away.
Is it too much to ask that a person with this objection should explain the distinction?
Again, if that is the objection then it should be stated as the objection. Then we could discuss why the mining of ore X necessarily involves pollution. Furthermore, it was the MASS aspect of it that was particularly objectionable. Is it unreasonable to ask why doing something in a MASS way is wrong?
As I alluded to earlier, getting further into explanations will eventually get you into the mythos, another definition being the set of assumptions and beliefs about something. Such beliefs and assumptions are de facto logically defended as true and meaningful, instead of questioned… in my experience and in my opinion. For your first question, getting into the mythos of individualism vs mythos of the human animal as a social creature first, foremost, absolutely… the end of the Q&A would be both participants defending their respective myths, or useful fictions for the purpose of constructing their personal and group subjective reality.
For your second question, no it’s neither unreasonable not reasonable. Just like it’s neither reasonable nor unreasonable to assume that doing something in a MASS way is right. It’s mythical.
But I would like to hear your opinion as well. Why do you feel so confident giving little credence to the studies that point to the variability of the Greenland and Arctic climate, such as http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058084/abstract and http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
Great. You say you are looking for answers. What is the difference for you between an answer and an opinion? Second question: How would BOTH science-as-epistemics (defined: Epistemics is to be distinguished from epistemology in that epistemology is the philosophical theory of knowledge, whereas epistemics signifies the scientific study of knowledge. Epistemics is also compared to Cognitive Science.) AND science-as-epistemology (defined as the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.) as conducted by professional credentialed scientists with graduate degrees and above from accredited institutes of higher learning putting together a body of knowledge not be the scientific debate completely separate from those of the public who are only scientifically literate enough to talk among ourselves about what that specific body of knowledge means to us? I recognize that the questions are not easy, but the concepts are not that complicated.
Also known as an axiom: something considered true and for which proof is neither required nor available. That’s fine. But if a person considers his assertion to be axiomatic he should say so. Then perhaps I will give my objections, or examples of situations in which his axiom purports to apply but then there is an absurd result. He may not wish to discuss the matter further, in which case we move on.
If person says that something is bad then I expect him to tell me the harm that it causes. If he cannot then I assume he has not arrived at his beliefs through a logical process and may not be willing to examine them in that light. That’s fine. Each to his own.
An answer is a response to a question. An opinion is a belief a person has about something that he considers uncertain.
This is neither a complete sentence nor a complete question.
This is not a complete sentence and is unintelligible.
Sure. It may be utilitarian for both of us to acknowledge or believe as axiomatic that going deeply into a belief system or ideology or world picture or personal perspective that one is eventually going to encounter instinct (such as the fight or flight response), deeply personal defensiveness, and the id, as explained by Freud… which he himself acknowledged as mythical… the id knowing nothing of the law of self-contradiction. These inner (and I believe mostly secret) workings of the mind are irrational, logic stupid and insouciant to the normative ethics of good and evil, right and wrong. Just my opinion.
If a person expresses a belief that is irrational then one cannot explore that belief through a logical process, but if that belief will logically lead to a result that the person rejects, then one can point that out to him.
Your first answer is a bit problematic. If you ask yourself a question, do you form an answer or an opinion? Are examining answers only from questions you ask of others? Are opinions what you form all on your own, in a vacuum? Define certainty, in the context of what you wrote “An opinion is a belief a person has about something that he considers uncertain” and also in the context of justification of belief referenced below. Definitions/explanations in your own words or paraphrasing is fine.
I was hoping that you could make the connection between mere opinion and justified belief and where an “answer” might fit in. Maybe this link might help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification
My second question is an compound question. That is a complete sentence, but I admit the grammar might be incorrect with respect to periods within parentheses. Mea culpa about you finding it unintelligible. I’ll try to break it down.
It is important to try to understand the science itself as a debate among the scientists (described in my question as “professional credentialed scientists with graduate degrees and above from accredited institutes of higher learning putting together a body of knowledge”) as they try to justify a falsifiable theory. The science itself involves… BOTH the epistemics which I defined thus: “Epistemics is to be distinguished from epistemology in that epistemology is the philosophical theory of knowledge, whereas epistemics signifies the scientific study of knowledge. Epistemics is also compared to Cognitive Science”… AND the epistemology which I defined thus: “[Epistemology is] the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.)
Once you understand THIS… scientists are essentially separate from the public (although of course we are all only human… that’s a simple tautology) with respect to a high degree of scientific literacy regarding a specific and disciplined area of knowledge… AND THIS… it’s important to understand both the nature of epistemics and the nature of epistemology from the scientific perspective and the scientifically illiterate perspective and from the perspective of those of us in the middle…THEN it becomes increasingly clear, at least to me, that the scientific debate is in another realm from the public debate. So my question to you was (and if I had the software I would diagram the sentence to show you that it was a complete sentence (although “unintelligible”, if not perfectly grammatically correct with respect to parenthetitical inclusions with periods)… my question to you was asking you if you understood the basic differences between a scientific debate and the public debate. In short, the scientists debate among themselves to formulate a scientific theory, to establish a specific body of knowledge based on the scientific method as epistemics and as an epistemology. Then the public debates among ourselves, depending on individual levels of amateur and layperson scientific literacy, as to what that specific body of knowledge means to us. Again, simple but not especially easy to grasp.
So my follow up question is “How do you understand the difference between the scientific debate and the public debate?”
A follow up question from an earlier exchange on this article about an article I posted about “burnt children” to Sky Hunter. You expressed objection to Chris Hedges writing:
How would you reconcile your objection to what Hedges wrote to what Frederic Bastiat, the 19th century economist wrote?
Do you think that both Hedges and Bastiat are suffering/suffered ethical impairment? If so, how and why?
Are these me asking the right questions?
Which is, of course, ignoring the id as described by Freud. And where the ego is, the id will be also. To ignore or deny or doubt the axiomatic nature of the id and instincts… and expect a predominant appeal to reason and logic is irrational.
That’s the beauty and truth, in my opinion, of the dialectic among rationality, irrationality, and non-rationality.
41O Attic shape! fair attitude! with brede Of marble men and maidens overwrought, With forest branches and the trodden weed; Thou, silent form! dost tease us out of thought As doth eternity: Cold Pastoral! 45 When old age shall this generation waste, Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say’st, ‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.’
http://www.bartleby.com/101/625.html
I don’t agree. Theory: “Medication X cures disease Y.” The public need not have the training to be able to understand the mechanism involved but the public can read the report and form an opinion as to whether a valid experiment was performed and whether the results support the theory.
Perhaps it would be easier if you showed me a paper expounding a scientific theory that you believe is outside the purview of the non-scientist.
Yes the public engages in this debate, as do scientists in their role as citizens.
An opinion can be an informed opinion or an uninformed opinion. If a person believes something without a rational basis for believing it then we are in the realm of religion. A person is justified in his belief to the extent that logical reasons support it and to the extent that logical reasons opposing it do not exist.
Hedges is proposing a specific instance of the general law that Bastiat stated. I disagree that the actions of mankind as a whole can be characterized as Hedges did, although there are certainly instances people acting that way. I disagree that “plunder as a way of life” is a fitting description of the activities of mankind as a whole.
A logical argument can stand on its own merit.
Let’s just cut to the chase. It seems as if you want a scientific paper that details the differences between scientific literacy and scientific illiteracy and the spectrum in between? Or maybe a scientific paper that examines in detail the differences between science and pseudo-science? Instead of me looking up such papers, why not examine the logical arguments… unless you cannot appeal to logic because your disagreement is axiomatic.
Your example about the public forming an opinion vs not having the specialized training is what I meant by an amateur/layperson examining specific and disciplined knowledge for meaning to him/her. Even such meaning is usually explained indirectly… such as through a peer reviewed scientific journal or a scientific study. So thank you for corroborating my argument.
You appear to be insistent that you believe that there is no essential difference between the science and the public’s understanding of the science, between the debate that creates the science and the public debate about the science. Would you say at this point that your beliefs are axiomatic? If not, how would you justify the belief that there is essentially no difference as being probably true? Anecdotal evidence?
But your characterization of Hedges writing about “the actions of mankind as a whole” is not logical. Hedges was writing specifically of Europeans, Euro-Americans, and a global elite.
Would you say your disagreement that “‘plunder as a way of life’ is a fitting description of the activities of mankind” is axiomatic? Are you laboring under the mythos of “gentle commerce”?
Yes, it does ignore a person’s id if one points out that the logical consequences of his statement lead to results that he opposes. It is like saying, “I realize that you believe this with all your being, and that the force of this comes directly from your medulla oblongata and may be too powerful for you to overcome intellectually, but reality exists and in the real world this will be the result, whether you are ready to accept it or not. I have given you a logical argument. You can ignore it, you can wish it otherwise, you can fight it, but it will stand until defeated by a different logical argument.”
You say “we are in the realm of religion.” I say we are in the realm of myth. Additionally myth is the common mother of religion, rationality, reason, logic. As for “informed opinion” myth is also how we process information on the most basic level, symbolically/metaphorically through language.
You dodged on “certainty” in the context of “An opinion is a belief a person has about something he considers uncertain.”
Are you deliberately moving the discussion away from instincts, the id or do you think such things have no place in the dialogue?
You appear to be saying that there are some questions that the public is not competent to consider. Can you show me a scientific paper, the subject matter of which the general public is not competent to consider meaningfully, and so they have no role in the debate concerning it?
Not my position. I think that members of the public can obtain an inferior degree of scientific literacy below the expertise of the professionals. Only the professionals are able to be credentialed to give “expert testimony.” You do understand the difference between expert testimony and informed opinion?
It appears to me that you are obfuscating about fundamental differences among (1) highly disciplined and specialized scientific literacy as evidenced by the creation of knowledge by the professionals and (2) laypersons and amateurs who attempt general scientific literacy in order to understand the knowledge and how it is created and (3) scientific illiteracy among the masses.
If you are not obfuscating, mea culpa.
“The human species” is the subject of the sentence. Yes the human species was “led by white Europeans and Euro-Americans.” But it was the human species that has been on a rampage, according to Hedges.
Not at all. I am certainly open to being shown why this is a fitting description.
Not familiar with that mythos.
The human species has been on a rampage. Do you think that the Holocene extinction has nothing to do with the human animal?http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7336/full/nature09678.html%3FWT.ec_id%3DNATURE-..
The human animal as a super predator, plunderer. http://www.ara.cat/societat/handy-paper-for-submission-2_ARAFIL20140317_0003.pdf
Gentle commerce vs plunder. http://www.globalresearch.ca/reality-denial-apologetics-for-western-imperial-violence/32066
Didn’t I answer it? I said:
Certainty would be the extent to which a person thinks that his belief is justified.
What place do you think they have?
So “certainty” and “uncertainty” are all relativistic and subordinate to thoughts about one’s beliefs? Sure sounds like mythology to me 🙂
I conjecture that the id and instincts (and where the ego is the id will be also) will remain open ended 🙂
What do you mean?You say that there is a class of knowledge that the non-expert has no role in considering. If there is, please supply an example. If that is not what you are saying then please correct me.
Yes. I also know that experts can differ and that all scientific areas are not equally difficult to grasp.
I provided an example: the difference between expert testimony and informed opinion. You would only be able to provide expert testimony on global warming if you were a credentialed scientist within that specialized discipline. The only important debate within the science is when expert testimony disagrees and contradicts each other. Then consensus among the experts plays a big role, but not the only role. The credibility and plausibility of an expert out of the consensus ought to be as thoroughly examined as the probability that the consensus of experts giving testimony is erroneous.
You may have definite informed opinions, but it is a far cry from being able to give expert testimony. You have to pay the price to obtain the necessary credentials. You don’t pay the price, you don’t get the credibility. Any problems?
Hi Gary.
“Three main players carry all of this drama out:
Id: The seat of our impulses
Ego: Negotiates with the id, pleases the superego
Superego: Keeps us on the straight and narrow.”
Bearing all of this in mind; how can there be any certainty? Just wondering, my friend :o)
Quote from: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/understanding-the-id-ego-and-superego-in-psycholog.html
Best, Starfire.
So what is the scientific probability that the expert testimony is scientifically uncertain comparing a climate sensitivity of 1.5 degrees C per CO^2 doubling and a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees per CO^2 doubling? Surely you are not saying (1) that you are expert and informed enough to state your scientific opinion and (2) that this is an easy scientific area to grasp… with climate being a highly complex system.
Certainty and non-scientific uncertainty falls squarely into the domain of myth imo. I do make a hard and fast distinction between science and myth from my reading… but I’m afk for a bit so I cannot quote it at length.
“… science and myth are not one in the same: their methods are different, and so are the needs they serve. But science and myth are alike in being makeshifts that humans erect as shelters from a world they cannot know. The hard and fast distinction between science and other modes of thought that Freud wanted to maintain turns out to be blurred and shifting.” from the book “The Silence of Animals” by John N. Gray
Thx for this, my friend,
Myth is like the story we tell ourselves – about ourselves, and they are true in their own way.
Science, to me, is more like cold, hard reality. (eg; The Sixth Extinction.) Coming soon to a theater near you;)
re: John N. Gray. Wow. Liked this:
“We think our actions express our decisions. But in nearly all of our
life, willing decides nothing. We cannot wake up or fall asleep,
remember or forget our dreams, summon or banish our thoughts, by
deciding to do so. When we greet someone on the street we just act, and
there is no actor standing behind what we do. Our acts are end points in
long sequences of unconscious responses. They arise from a structure of
habits and skills that is almost infinitely complicated. Most of our
life in enacted without conscious awareness. Nor can it be made
conscious. No degree of self-awareness can make us self-transparent.”
I am AFK for now too. See ya later, alligator.
You overlook that the justice system assigns to the jury, not the experts, the job of determining what the facts are. Under the law, there is no area of knowledge that jurors are considered not qualified to consider. Normally a witness is not permitted to state his opinion but must restrict himself to stating the facts that he knows. The exception is the expert.
Experts are permitted if their specialized knowledge will help the jury but it is up to the jury to make the final determination. An expert’s testimony can be challenged as to whether the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, or whether it is the product of reliable principles and methods, or whether the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. These are all questions for the jury. In other words, it is not ever assumed that the expert’s opinion is the last word. The law assumes that a jury can understand anything that can be understood. We are all the jury with respect to scientific questions. It is our duty to form an opinion and not to abdicate this responsibility to the experts.
Yes we have made mistakes. We have stopped many of our former ways of doing things after discovering the consequences.
This description:
was written by a misanthrope, which I am not. Are you?
I don’t even know what that means. Certainty is a measure of the strength of one’s beliefs. Do you disagree with that?
Nor do I know what that means. What does it mean for the id and instincts to remain open ended?
I am a member of the jury. The question posed to the jury is the effect on the climate of a doubling of CO₂.
First I would like to have the underlying science explained. I would expect the question to be broken down into its component sub-questions, which will not all be equally abstruse. I would expect to be able to grasp the importance of each sub-question and where it fit into the big picture.
A good vehicle for explaining the science would be the experts. I would like a diversity of experts to be questioned, each as to the basis for his opinion, and as to points of uncertainty. If the testimony of any expert can be impeached, as for example if he does not have a good reputation in the scientific community, or if he stands to gain from the decision going one way, or for any other reason, I would like to know about that. I would like to hear the experts respond to each other. I would expect there to be many areas of agreement and for the testimony to focus on specific areas of disagreement. If an expert is relying on a theory that recently made predictions that did not come true I would like to know that.
I think that I would be able to understand the scientific questions and would be able to make a decision based the credibility of the evidence.
You supplied my quote and then added nothing. I included a smiley face because I thought that you intended the subject of the id and instincts to remain open ended.
Yes, I disagree that certainty is the measure of the strength of one’s beliefs. I think certainty is an illusion
I emphatically do not share your judgement of Chris Hedges, that he is a hater of mankind and a cynic and avoids human society.
Such a characterization is like one of your earlier posts: “How she can think that such juvenile behavior can cause others to have a higher opinion of her is a matter she needs to take up with her therapist.”
I guess you are waiting to have all of this explained to you in terms of “answers.” I suppose you are doing the “wait-and-see” for the science to be explained to your satisfaction before the “answers” can be considered “knowledge,” or justified belief, instead of mere opinion. I opine that you are educating yourself by waiting on others to educate you. What is the source of these “others” who are educating you? Do you think a preponderance of “believers” deserve the same plausibility and credibility as a small minority of “doubters.”
I read with interest “If an expert is relying on a theory that recently made predictions that did not come true…” and tried to apply it to the theory of evolution. Have we seen speciation occur since Darwin’s theory? If predicted speciation did not occur, that would cast his theory into scientific doubt?
You wrote: “I think that I would be able to understand the scientific questions and would be able to make a decision based on the credibility of the evidence.” You would also be able to continue to ask for more study, claiming that the evidence was not credible. You could also doubt or deny the answers.
This was my intended message:
Nor do I know what that means. What does it mean for the id and instincts to remain open ended?
Suppose I say, “I am certain that I am sitting in this chair.” Would you say that my certainty is an illusion?
CB keeps referring to me as “she” after I have told her twice that the correct pronoun is “he.” Would you call that juvenile behavior?
Yes, I would call that juvenile behavior… just as I would characterize name calling, i.e. “misanthrope” because you do not share his big picture perspective, the “civilized” version of juvenile behavior
The point I was making was that each of us should be doing what he can to understand the science and to evaluate the positions. I reject your proposal that we have no business trying to consider scientific questions but should leave it to the experts.
If a scientific theory makes a prediction and the prediction does not come about then either there was an error with the experiment or the theory needs to be revised.
Well, no, because each juror is required to come up with a verdict, although if the jurors cannot agree this can result in a hung jury. But yes, I could certainly doubt or deny one of the sides.
A misanthrope is a person who hates or distrusts humankind. Why isn’t that an accurate description of a person who makes this statement:
Does this person not distrust the human species?
No, that certainty is not illusive, however it is more outside of the discussion parameters than inside. Allow me to explain if you please.
Is your physical condition dependent on the strength of your belief that you are sitting in a chair? It’s important not to confuse physical/objective probability with epistemic/subjective probability.
You might do well to familiarize yourself with fuzzy logic and with Bayes’s Theorum. Here is something axiomatic about Bayes’s:
From “Proving History: Bayes’s Theorum…” by Richard Carrier.
I’m modifying his example. For example the probability that I am inventing right now a satellite system which is orders of magnitude more accurate than the global positioning system is very small (since only a very few people have the skill and the resources to make such a claim). But the probability in my belief that “I am in the process of inventing a system orders of magnitude more accurate than GPS” can still be quite high. All it takes is enough evidence. The former is a physical probability (like your example of sitting in a chair); the latter is epistemic probability (or my counter argument of how much is your certainty dependent upon how strong your belief is that you are sitting in a chair). Carrier then goes on to establish the proper relationship between physical and epistemic probabilities in chapter six of the above referenced book. I hope that this has been of help.
Certainty (apart from logical impossibility) is illusory in the sense that “certainty is zero probability of being true or false.” It’s non-axiomatic.
The discussion about id, instincts (and “where the ego is the id will be also”) and how such inner workings of the mind are irrational and illogical and mythical will remain open ended as we discuss what is logical and what isn’t.
Familiar as to what I wrote above about the id… the inner and secretive workings of the mind are logic stupid — “the id, Freud says, knows nothing of the law that forbids self-contradiction” — and are insouciant to the ethics of right and wrong, good and bad. My thinking is when we attempt to appeal to logic to defend or support our most basic beliefs and assumptions… the thinking becomes mythical, not logical. We are only employing logic to support our personal and group mythology. “Freud is the thinker who poses the question: how can modern humans (sic?) beings live without modern myths?” Much of this was my quoting and paraphrasing from John N. Gray’s The Silence Of Animals: On Progress And other Modern Myths pp 103-4
Distrust goes deeper into the human condition/the human predicament. Read the entire essay of Hedges in the link I posted, instead of quote mining, and get back to me about Hedges distrusting the human species. Hedges seems to trust “the burnt children” and the quest of the burnt children. Is that hatred? Getting into trustworthiness in general is a pretty good topic also.
You don’t seem to trust the scientific establishment for your own motivated reasons. You appear (in spite of self-contradicting words to the contrary about you being on the jury) for all practical purposes to already have your mind made up… to have already convinced yourself that the scientific establishment have not already arrived at convincing conclusions. You being distrusting, mistrusting of the scientific consensus is evidenced by your “wait-and-see approach” and that the credibility/plausibility of non-scientific doubt, non-scientific denial, and non-scientific uncertainty is justified. You seem to trust the sources of denial etc more than you trust the credibility of the growing body of knowledge and the scientific consensus. Instead of arguing the science with you, because (1)I think that would be futile and (2) I lack the professional expertise and (3) I’m not yet at the place where I can teach the science… I’m more interested in human ethology… in the “whys?” of human behavior. Who we trust, what we trust also gets into motives, intent, volition, faith, hope, world picture, myth.
In the first place the term “certainty” is not a boolean concept. There are degrees of certainty and of uncertainty. If I say I am uncertain about something that does not mean that I do not have the basis for any opinion whatsoever.
Suppose I say, “I am sitting in this chair.” And suppose that I am in fact sitting in this chair. The epistemic probability, according to your quote, refers to the probability that my belief that I am sitting in the chair is true. This is an objective determination that can be made by another person. It does not depend at all on how strong my belief is. It only depends on the probability that the belief is true. If I am on some medication that causes me to be uncertain whether I am sitting in this chair, but on the whole I believe that I am, my uncertainty has no bearing on another person’s evaluation of the probability that my belief is correct.
Please explain what you mean by this.
Suppose A plants and harvests corn and B does not, causing A to have more corn than B. If somebody says that this is the wrong outcome and that they should have equal amounts of corn at the end of this, then I ask for a statement of the general principle that governs this situation. Are you saying that we are in the area of myth at this point?
Yes. “Every claim has a nonzero probability of being true or false (unless its being true or false is logically impossible).
The scientists are doing the credentialed, professional, plausible (from the justification and falsification perspective) work with respect to physical probability. The hoi polloi are dilly dallying with respect to the logical work of epistemic probability.
Doubt/denial on the one hand. Belief/acceptance on the other hand. Genuine, true, real, authentic questioners/free inquirers are using both physical probability and epistemic probability to decide upon which hand is most convincing. Unfortunately for me, you have not yet made a very convincing argument that you are freely inquiring. Do I misjudge you?
Please justify your belief that “certainty is not a Boolean concept.”
“This is an objective determination that can be made by another person.” Yep. Evidence. Physical probability.
Agreeing with you that there are degrees of certainty and uncertainty, I’m defining the illusion of certainty as 100% certainty. The claim that 100% certainty has a nonzero probability of being true or false falls into the realm of the logically impossible. That’s axiomatic. Do you wish to argue an axiom that 100% certainty is not logically impossible? If so, we are simply arguing axioms about logic. Why?
I do not see any references to “burnt children” in this piece, although I do see a reference to “those we love, including our children…” Reading the entire essay again I can see that it is a diatribe showing no indication that mankind as a whole is anything other than vile and despicable, and showing no hope that mankind is going to do the right thing.
He sums it up here:
This is definitely a person who distrusts the human species.
How self-contradicting?
No, I would say that I have heard the scientific theory, I have heard from the other side reasons to doubt it and now we are in the experiment phase: will the things that the theory predicts come true? Let’s run the experiment before we say that the theory has been proven. The IPCC is not predicting catastrophe if we don’t implement the proposed changes immediately, there will be extreme consequences if we do, and we can all point to scientific theories that were strongly held by the mainstream scientific community in the past but were later shown to have been wrong, some with very deadly consequences.
Some of the hoy polloi are doing their best to get to the root of the matter, refusing to just abdicate and accept the mainstream scientific opinion.
Why is that unfortunate for you?
I think you are limited by your belief that any freely inquiring person will necessarily come to the same conclusion that you have come to. Since I have not, you believe that I obviously am not freely inquiring.
“The IPCC is not predicting catastrophe…” Yes another triumph for conservatism… and appeasement. Appeasement has had a “better” track record of “very deadly consequences” historically than scientific mistakes. I have a high degree of confidence that the epistemic probability and physical probability of your strategy of conservatism, libertarianism, appeasement to the fossil fuel interests, the wait-and see approach and “Let’s run the experiment…” being a successful strategy in terms of sustainability is very, very low. But then again, it depends on what you teleology is, what your motivated reasons are. Frankly in my opinion the strategy is worse than nauseating.
What I meant was that there are degrees of certainty, not just complete certainty and complete absence of certainty.
What is your point here?
What is the relevance of this?
So you believe what the IPCC says except when you don’t? How do you decide which parts you are going to believe? How are you qualified to question any aspect of an official report of the scientific establishment? How can you question part of the report and then turn around and tell me that it’s wrong for me to question any part of the report?
Did you ever read The True Believer by Eric Hoffer?
Maybe you re-read the wrong article or I posted the wrong link. Try using the key words “truth out Hedges myth human progress collapse complex societies.” If I posted the wrong link, mea culpa. If you read the correct article, then in your quote mining and your cognitive dissonance you obviously missed this:
Your missed characterization of the author, quoting and paraphrasing Nietzsche, as “definitely a person who distrusts the human species” is characteristic of your personal and group mythos. For me it’s evidence that far from being an “orphan”, you are more a cheerleader in “empires of illusion.”
Trying to engage in a dialectic with you about mythos and illusion is fruitless from the epistemic probability perspective. You continue believing that making basic societal, political, economic, environmental changes as we are faced with the threat of man-made global warming and the geological history of abrupt climate change is premature. Worse you conflate the physical probability of the scientific consensus being wrong with “… we can all point to scientific theories that were strongly held by the mainstream scientific community in the past but were later shown to have been wrong…” For me this is all intellectual dishonesty in the guise of scientific uncertainty. AKA denial justified by doubt.
Q: Why do very intelligent, well informed, strongly opinionated persons believe weird things? A: Because human animals are very successful in employing their intelligence, information gathering and opinion-making to (1) confirm their subjective biases and (2) generate evidence that their preconceived notions are the correct pattern recognition and (3) judge that their prejudices are more true than false and (4) justify their cognitive dissonance. Pity.
As for me being a misanthrope, I too, with Chris hedges, am loyal to the burnt children, eternal orphans in the empires of illusion rather than being loyal to sociopathy, or as Hedges put it in your quote “… what anthropologists call an ideological pathology, a self-destructive belief that causes societies to crash and burn. These societies go on doing things that are really stupid because they can’t change their way of thinking. And that is where we are.”
Just a parting word of unsolicited advice on the subject… try to check your cognitive dissonance at the door when we post. I don’t appreciate conflating “societies” with the entire species of the human animal.
Your supposition is too simplistic. Social factors complicate things, but not overly so. Just as climate change is highly complex, but not impossibly so; human ethology is complex, but not impossibly so as to not be able to be studied socially, politically, economically and environmentally. You also are not providing any evidence as to “why” B does not plant and harvest corn, such as a concept of “division of labor” or other social responsibilities. And we also get into the cultural evolutionary mythos of the agricultural revolution and property rights being evidence of “progress” in human history. So “yes” it seems to me that your simple supposition is created in the area of mythos: a set of beliefs or assumptions about something.
My interactions with ideological libertarians is that they fall back on the mythos that the reason B did not plant and harvest corn is predicated upon B’s laziness, and that the productive ought not support the indolent. Another part of the capitalistic-libertarian ideological mythos is that profit (that mythic primary driver for motivation, volition, intention, ingenuity, innovation) ought to have a much higher priority than the general welfare of labor… that person A (because of the profit motive) has the unalienable right of property to keep and dispose of his harvest of corn with no regulation whatsoever. The libertarian ideology emphasizes the value of individualism in the social order. I’m not saying that such an over emphasis is good or bad. I’m saying it’s part of the mythos of the ideology and, more usually than not, cannot be argued rationally. Why not? Because basic beliefs or assumptions are usually argued from the id or the id-dominated-ego, not from the super-ego in German das Uber-Ich, or “Over-I” which internalizes the constraints of “civilization” and the Over-I which creates, in Bastiat’s words, the legal system that authorizes “civilization” and the moral code that glorifies “civilization.”
What is the fate of civilization anyway? For Ralph Waldo Emerson “The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.” I suppose in your estimation Emerson was a misanthrope also.
It looks like there is more than one version of that essay out there. I was referring to this one: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_myth_of_human_progress_20130113
I don’t see how that is a quote or paraphrase of Nietsche.
My intention was simply to explain my disinclination to join you in your genuflection to the scientific mainstream.
Agree completely, but that’s the human condition.
How is this an example of cognitive dissonance?
If you read it in context, he was referring to a problem with “our entire civilization.”
The only point and relevance was distinguishing between physical probability and epistemic probability. I assume that you accept these differences. I also assume that we agree that there is a strong correlation between probability and certainty… between low probability and uncertainty.
Both high and low probability are correlated with high certainty. There is a low probability that the earth will leave its orbit soon, and high certainty about this.
I don’t know the context of Emerson’s quote, but it certainly doesn’t have the virulence of the Hedges diatribe. It does not seethe with disgust and contempt concerning human history and the likely future, as the Hedges piece does.
Correct. The question was limited to the facts stated. To say that we are already in the area of mythology is to say that you expect people to answer this question yes or no but not have any logical reason for their belief. And even if that is the case, perhaps if a logical argument is presented contrary to their stated view they may change their mind.
I think you have it backwards. I think the reason it is A’s corn is that A produced it. It does not have anything to do with B. And, looking at it from the standpoint of society, we want to encourage the planting and harvesting of corn. Perhaps while A was doing this B was growing wheat. Or perhaps B was shoeing horses and being paid by their owners. These are all productive things that society wants to encourage. If B was being indolent he’s not being punished…he’s just not being rewarded.
No, I believe that to err on the side of conservative estimates and engage in appeasement is rational and logical on some level and to a certain degree. However, to err on the side of conservative estimates and appeasement might not be truthful. I’m arguing that the IPCC (like any “civilized” governmental, academic, or institutional body) is inherently conservative and appeases the powers that be.
You asked: “How can you question part of the report and then turn around and tell me that it’s wrong for me to question any part of the report?” I’m not questioning the report, nor qualifications to question the report. I’m making an observation about the ethos of organizations. Ethos: “the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations.” Certain aspects of the truth about the character of a community are non-rational and non-logical. That’s axiomatic. Arguing it can be fruitless. Just as arguing ethics or discernment can be futile. To me the argument goes beyond good and bad; it’s about sanity and madness.
Many times the conservative approach and the use of conservative language is to make both an appeal to logic and an appeal to consensus. As my friend says, and I believe it to be so, with denial all bets are off. You cannot make a legitimate appeal to logic&rationality, overcoming cognitive dissonance, confronting magical thinking, begging the avoidance of fanaticism; because those deeply mired in denial have their minds made up. E. Hoffer’s The True Believer mentality applies more to those mired in ideological denial that flies in the face of both physical probability and epistemic probability than those on the side that physical probability and epistemic probability estimates have a very low uncertainty value. “Thus, religious, nationalist and social movements, whether radical or reactionary, tend to attract the same type of followers, behave in the same way and use the same tactics and rhetorical tools. As examples, the book often refers to Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Christianity, Protestantism, and Islam.” Now it appears (unless I infer incorrectly) that you want to conflate social movements with science. That’s a very slippery slope to science denial. I think that you are already there (in the realm of science denial); given your intelligence, your information, and your ability to form extremely coherent opinions and conjectures. FWIW I also think that your strategies (although they are worse than nauseating) are entirely consistent with science denial. Of course, I could be wrong.
You wrote: “I think the reason it is A’s corn is that A produced it. It does not have anything to do with B.” I agree. As I wrote, it goes into the mythos of private ownership.
And what is the reward for co-operative and altruistic behavior toward the indolent? Is it better to (1) voluntarily share your private ownership of the fruits of your labor or (2)to be coerced to part with a portion of the fruits of your labor (taxes) for the maintenance of an orderly society or (3) create conditions which force you to defend the fruits of your labor from tax collectors and the hungry (through no fault of their own) and the indolent (through their own laziness). This libertarian utopia where there is no coercion and all charity is voluntary is laudable… but utopian nonetheless. I simply see socialism as being more utilitarian and plausible… especially in light of the excesses and failures of the capitalistic model. But this is getting into mythos again, i.e. the set of assumptions or beliefs about something… in this case utopian libertarianism and capitalism and socialism. Trying to look to the future, what does a capitalistic utopia look like to you? I simply see neo-feudalism. Is my vision obscured?
Yes you are. You are saying “Paragaraph A does not deserve the same credence as paragraph B. In paragraph A they said that X is true but X is not really true.” Unless the authors told you this, you are simply arrogating to yourself the right to disbelieve what the report said was true.
No, I am saying that many of the supporters of global warming alarmism exhibit traits that Hoffer described.
We are also in the area of mythology to answer “maybe” when it comes to an overly simplistic supposition. Even “limited to the facts stated” is mythological when interpreting said facts. That’s my basis for myth being the common mother to religion, poetry, art, science. On the other hand it’s of supreme importance to differentiate between religious myth and scientific myth… just as it’s extremely important to differentiate between physical probability and epistemic probability.
I continue to affirm that making an appeal to logic is also mythological, esp when people are using all their logical faculties to support and defend subjective and epistemic beliefs and assumptions and axioms. Of course you are also correct that people can change their minds. My observation is that logical argumentation mostly results in people becoming more entrenched in their subjective beliefs, assumptions, axioms… instead of being open to change their minds. That’s the human condition/predicament. Or would you disagree?
Is it a mythos if it can be pointed out how it strengthens society? And there are logical reasons why that is good as well.
Maybe you just do not have enough compassion and empathy for Hedges’ world picture. Walk in his shoes for a time as a seminary graduate, war correspondent, a foreign bureau chief, his extensive coverage the Israeli-Gaza conflict. Take a good hard painful honest reality walk with him through “sacrifice zones” (key words Hedges Sacco days destruction revolt) and then maybe… just maybe…you might have an inkling of “his virulence, his disgust, and his contempt” for the evil he sees.
Proverbs 8:13 “The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.” Proverbs 9:10 “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight.” You can make the logical and mythic connection.
“There is a low probability that the earth will leave its orbit soon, and high certainty about this.” Your first phrase is a double negative… “low probability… will leave” = high probability/high certainty… will stay.
Point? Relevance?
But people confronted constantly with evil and violence sometimes tend to develop a worldview that the world is mostly evil and violent. I don’t deny that he has seen plenty. Maybe I would seethe with disgust and contempt if I had been through what he’s been through. But he thinks mankind is hopeless destined to no good, and I disagree.
“Refusing to… accept the mainstream scientific opinion” may be and probably is suicidal insanity and an ideological pathology. I believe that it’s much more utilitarian to look at suicidal insanity and ideological pathology from the point of view of physical probability and epistemic probability than to look at the probability that mainstream scientific opinion is being fundamentally in error. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe — “We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe.” I suppose in your judgement Goethe was a misanthrope too?
Your point is well taken that I may be limiting myself to the belief that any freely inquiring person would come to the conclusion that the physical probability based on truthful and credible science-as-epistemology and good science-as-methodology and the epistemic probability based on the consensus of climate scientists acting as human beings overwhelmingly favor a very low degree of uncertainty that AGW is real and that AGW even as described by the IPCC requires immediate, though conservative, economic action.
You said there is a strong correlation between low probability and uncertainty. I was disagreeing. There is a strong correlation between low probability and certainty.
This statement does not evince hatred or mistrust of humankind.
Yet again you are announcing that the mainstream scientific report is in error as to the short-term consequences of failing to adopt their suggestions. You really shouldn’t be ignoring them in one breath and touting them in the next. It’s confusing.
I’m pretty sure that the reference I initially made to the Hedges’ article to Sky Hunter which you commented on a couple of weeks ago included the Nietzsche quote, because I blockquoted the quote to Sky Hunter. Regardless of you referencing another version of the essay on truth dig, I deliberately blockquoted the Nietzsche reference and the truth out version of the essay for you. I purposefully quoted Hedges’ quoting and paraphrasing Nietzsche as a contrary argument to your missed characterization of Hedges as a misanthrope. Instead of arguing the merits of the Niezsche quote on the characterization of Hedges not being a hater of the human species and not being distrustful of human beings… you write “I don’t see how that is a quote or paraphrase of Nietzsche.” What?! That’s unintelligible. Or maybe an argument too difficult to follow. If the latter, that’s unfortunate.
I wrote:
Are you sticking to your story that the “quote or paraphrase of Nietzsche” did not refer to Hedges’ reference to “burnt children.” It’s the burnt children who Hedges is referring to with compassion and empathy. I’m highly certain that this is not the work of a “hater” or someone who universally distrusts human beings.
I know that Hedges was referring to “our entire civilization.” Are you unaware of “counter culture”? Are you unaware of the antithesis to “ideological pathology that causes societies to crash and burn”? Are you unaware that the “burnt children… eternal orphans in the empire of illusion” are human beings also? Or does your personal mythos not allow you such awareness? (Gosh, perhaps it doesn’t!)
As for “My intention was simply to explain my disinclination to join you in your genuflection to the scientific mainstream”… your intention mostly places you otherwise. First, by your use of the term “genuflection”, you are parroting the denier meme that “CAGW is a religion.” Secondly your statement of intent (not motive) puts you squarely with science denial… with those who believe that the process of physical probability arrived at by a consensus of professional, credentialed, post graduates from institutions of higher learning … specially disciplined and trained in critical analysis to observe, interpret, and report on physical phenomena… that the process (aka the scientific method) and the result (justified and falsifiable belief) are untrustworthy. Third, the cognitive dissonance is evidenced by while you self-report that the scientific method is credible, you voice doubt unto denial about the results of the scientific method in the guise that the scientific consensus is not evidence for the epistemic probability of low uncertainty. It would be one thing if the science was new, but the science has been around for a couple of hundred years. http://www.skepticalscience.com/two-centuries-climate-science-1.html Also, the accumulation of scientific knowledge is progressive… linear if not exponential in terms of both growth and accuracy. The epistemic probability of you being a denier motivated by non-scientific doubt becomes more highly certain post after post. How have I missed characterized?
Additional evidence of cognitive dissonance is my observation that you conflate “societies” with the entire species of the human animal. Are you willing to concede that societies do not constitute the entire species of the human animal? If not, are you willing to embrace socialism as the appropriate ideological economic model under these current social conditions or do you still harbor ideological belief in the mythos of rugged individualism and utopian libertarianism? You quoted the Wikipedia article that cognitive dissonance results when “an individual is…confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.” Are you submitting that you are free of cognitive dissonance? Or that a certain amount of cognitive dissonance is part of the human condition? Or are you explaining that when a person conflates “our entire civilization” with “an ideological pathology, a self-destructive belief that causes societies to crash and burn” with “the entire species of the human animal” that said person is not engaging in cognitive dissonance. Btw, this is my usage of cognitive dissonance theory: “According to the theory, human beings do not deal with conflicting beliefs and perceptions by testing them against facts. They reduce the conflict by reinterpreting facts that challenge the beliefs to which they are most attached. As T.S.Eliot wrote in Burnt Norton, humankind cannot bear very much reality.” John N. Gray’s The Silence of Animals p 72. That’s science denial and non-scientific doubt-unto-denial to a T.
Your belief about Hedges that “… he thinks mankind is hopeless destined to no good” has not been justified. In fact it’s directly contradicted by his reference to “burnt children.” Try again
It’s mythos when the beliefs and assumptions are interpreted predominantly by the “group of men in society who create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it” for the purpose of spreading the meme about “how it strengthens society.” It conveniently remains in abject ignorance about the mythos about how it harms society… how private ownership results in social decline and disintegration. It ignores structural violence as well. http://coldtype.net/Assets.12/PDFs/0812.PinkerCrit.pdf
Baloney. The global warming denialism industry, the merchants of non-scientific uncertainty exhibit the traits of “true doubt”. Are you asserting that true belief and true doubt are essentially different psychologically?
Don’t you spend even a smidgen of time being exposed to the idiocy and fanaticism being spouted by those who deny science?
What a hoot! /s Those who have the temerity to associate physical probability and epistemic probability with global warming as explained by science are alarmist fanatics.
Oh well, if that’s what you really believe there is nothing that I can post, no article that I can link, no argument based on a appeal to logic that I can make which will influence you or persuade you away from your mythos.
Nope. It has nothing to do with the internal document. You are putting words in my mouth and mind reading. Read what I wrote again in the context of the conservativism of the IPCC based on its ethos.
Not true. I was not stating that the mainstream scientific report is “in error.” I was simply stating that the conservative approach is not necessarily the most true. Just as there are degrees of certainty and uncertainty, there are degrees of truth and error.
To be conservative is to make an appeal to logic and consensus, not necessarily truth. Sometimes truth is too painful and reality is too hard. To engage in baby steps in order to let the hoi polloi incrementally disengage from comforting, assuring, satisfying illusion (the brainwashing of propaganda and the pacifying influence of civilization) makes logical and credible sense also.
Then there is also the concept of psychic numbing… give too much discomforting news, create becoming inured.
Nope. I don’t hate or mistrust the insane. I highly doubt that of Hedges or Goethe either.
“In a mad world, only the mad are sane.” ― Akira Kurosawa
It’s a koan — “a paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment.”
Right
I’ll be afk for a few days. maybe we can pick it up later. I agree that it can be confusing. But it’s been a good exchange so far. Thanks for the dialogue
“I recognize that the questions are not easy, but the concepts are not that complicated.”
Gary Slabaugh
“Work is love made visible.” KG
As Usual,
EA
Thanks for noticing. Appreciate you!
Oh no! There really are fundamental differences between people who doubt what someone has to say and people who deny what someone has to say.
Doubters are swayed by evidence. Deniers are not.
You said:
You also said:
Therefore, you are saying that the IPCC might not be truthful. Do I have this wrong?
I stand corrected. You didn’t say that the report is “in error.” You said that it is “not necessarily truth.” So you are not accusing the IPCC of an error, but rather of a lie.
Your saying they I’m accusing the IPCC of lying is an example of “black and white thinking” which ignores the statement “just as there are degrees of certainty and uncertainty, there are degrees of truth and error.” Try again.
To say that someone is a “true believer” is not to say that what he believes in is wrong. Hoffer was describing a set of characteristics often found in adherents to mass movements in general. He did not single out irrational mass movements.
How does private ownership result in social decline and disintegration?
The “burnt children” are victims, right? I didn’t say that Hedges hates or distrusts every single person without exception or has compassion for nobody. I was talking about his overall view of mankind.
Parsing words. Name any organization, body, individual who is full of truth and 100% integrity.
Even science itself (the epistemics and the epistemology) is rightly described as questing for truth (not certainty)… but is not claiming to have found unvarnished truth.
A rational person allows for scientific uncertainty and that even the best of scientific theories probably contain some errors which still need to be worked out. An irrational person (such as yourself I assume) seizes upon scientific uncertainty and trial&error to make the case for himself (for his internally, secretive, hidden motivated reasons) that the fruit of the scientific method is not trustworthy. Such irrationality in an intelligent person I find reason for shame. It’s an embarrassment on the human race.
In the face of strong evidence, when is doubt justified? When the consequences/effects of doubt becomes plain, won’t most exchange doubt for contempt. Contempt/anger could be directed toward those on the side of the right or those on the side of the wrong.
My guess is that there is little hope for those who employ scientific uncertainty as motivated reasons to spread doubt. They can rightfully claim that doubt is necessary for good science to progress, that they are being swayed by and open to new evidence, and that they are open to changing their minds. Such people could be closeted deniers. Some of them could be honest inquirers. I suppose my bias is that most doubters at this point (esp if they are repeating denier memes and referencing denier sites) are closeted deniers.
Perhaps if you had resupplied the link I would not have had to Google it, and come up with a different version.
You quoted what I said: “definitely a person who distrusts the human species”. I thought you were saying that I was quoting or paraphrasing Niezche. Now I see that “quoting and paraphrasing” referred to “the author” and not to “Your.” It would have been easier to understand without the comma after “author.”
However, he is just saying that the “burnt children” are victims in “empires of illusion.” To say that someone distrusts mankind is not to say that he is without compassion for certain individual victims of the activities of mankind.
Look, there is no dissonance in saying (a) I support the scientific method, and (b) I believe that we do not yet have results that will support that theory.
Cognitive dissonance refers to holding two conflicting beliefs. I think you are using it to mean “confused thinking.”
Right, this is not cognitive dissonance. What are the two beliefs here that are causing psychological conflict for the person who holds them both at the same time? Just say “confused thinking” or “improper associations” or “illogic,” if that is the point you are trying to make.
OK:
So you are not accusing the IPCC of an error, but rather of intentionally making statements that are other than the truth.
But we are not talking about a claim to have found unvarnished truth and we are not talking about scientific uncertainty. We are talking about your assertion that the IPCC knowingly made statements asserting them to be true while knowing them to not be true. This is not the kind of behavior that I would expect from a scientific organization.
OK, take care.
Again, you misrepresent the axiomatic statement “just as there are degrees of certainty and uncertainty, there are degrees of truth and error” by putting these words in my mouth “…[the IPCC is] intentionally making statements other than the truth (emphasis mine).”
Black and white thinking again. Try again
The burnt children are NOT like victims; burnt children are more likecosmic heroes. And they represent the counter-culture; the palliative, meliorating, curative society of healers… the antithesis to “an ideological pathology…” and “civilization” as described by Bastiat.
If you want to see Hedges’ or Goethe’s or Nietzsche’s big picture perspective of their “overall view of mankind”, then a better approach would be to look for thesis/antithesis/synthesis.
OK
So you are not accusing the IPCC of an error, but rather of making certain statements and ascribing a higher degree of certainty to them than they actually believed that the statements warranted.
Maybe this one will do it:
So you are not accusing the IPCC of an error, but rather of making certain statements that are “not necessarily the most true.”
Sure, I could have resupplied the link, or you could have returned to your original objection to Hedges’ article and accessed the link. It was a simple failure to communicate effectively. No harm, no foul.
I assumed that you could read my comment in context of the preceding discussion about Hedges. My incorrect punctuation causing you difficulty is more my error than yours I guess. Mea culpa
Where did Hedges make the inference that “burnt children” are victims? Are orphans “victims”? I see burnt children as persevering in the face of tremendous struggle… as cosmic heroes. How else did Hedges describe this counter culture? Artists and philosophers with an insatiable curiosity, a quest for truth, and the desire for meaning. Is this counter-culture best described as “victims”? This reasoning on your part might be irrational, confused thinking, improper association, and illogical.
I use “cognitive dissonance theory” (perhaps mistakenly, but perhaps correctly) as a catch all term for your terms… “confused thinking” and “improper associations” and “illogic” … along with irrationality due to motivated reasoning and also when facts conflict with beliefs… or when beliefs about facts conflict with beliefs about beliefs.
You wrote: “Look, there is no dissonance in saying (a) I support the scientific method, and (b) I believe that we do not yet have results that will support that theory.” My reply is that I have reasonable doubt and uncertainty based on epistemic probability that you genuinely support the scientific method. I’m not saying you are intentionally lying or that you are mentally unstable. I postulate (a) that when you demonstrate with (1) your opinions and (2) the quotes you employ about the science in your posting history with me and others that (b) a reasonable case can be made that you are exhibiting denial traits with respect to the validity of the scientific method (a possibly mistaken inference on my part I admit). Then you claim “I support the scientific method.” If (b) is more true than false, then your claim “I support…” is evidence of cognitive dissonance. I’m pretty certain that you may wish to defend yourself that (1) your opinions and (2) the quotations you employ to establish your opinions as reasonable are not part of the scientific denial realm… that empire of illusion.
Perhaps you really are just a doubter, someone CB claims is swayed by evidence. Maybe your belief about evidence is that the climate scientists needs more and more and more evidence until, according to your subjective biases, clear conclusions can be formed. Perhaps you are using scientific doubt and scientific trial & error to reinforce being a closeted denier. I don’t know. Who can know the secretive, hidden workings of the internal mind anyway?
Never! Skeptics doubt people, not evidence.
That will do, with these important caveats. (1) What is “not necessarily the most true” does not correlate well with what is the most “logical, reasonable or rational” when it comes to (a) an appeal to conservativism and (b) appeasing the powers that be. Caveat #2: While painful reality and hard truths trump satisfying, assuring, comforting illusion; there are some illusions which are simply too unbearable to surrender. We all have comfort zones… from individuals to international organizations… which comfort zones cannot bear too much reality. Even our best science has very little precise to say about the nature of reality in my opinion. That’s part of the human condition/the human predicament too. Do you disagree?
I guess that the IPCC errs on the side of conservatism. My guesses have a near zero impact on both the finalized statements of the IPCC and the internal workings of how those statements are constructed. I readily admit that my guesses are based more on subjective reality and epistemic probability than on objective reality and physical probability. I do believe, however, that a robust case can be made from the objective reality and physical probability perspectives that the ethos of academies, institutions, national and international governmental organizations tend to err on the side of the conservative approach. Do you disagree? If so, why?
You are correct that no one is making a claim for unvarnished truth, but when we dialogue about “truthfulness” we are getting into that fuzzy area between unvarnished truth and being truthful. Get my drift?
You are correct that we are not talking about scientific uncertainty, which falls much more squarely in the realm of how the scientific method approaches objective reality and physical probabilities. I guess we are talking about epistemic probability and subjective reality.
You are mistaken, in my opinion, in that you are misstating my case for the organizational conservative approach toward presenting conflicting ideas about degrees of truth. Science is not monolithic, right? This is in the realm of subjective epistemic probability. It’s not black and white. Agreed? Agreeing on language tends to err on the side of the conservative approach when attempting to construct agreeable language with respect to degrees of truth I conjecture. You may conjecture differently. We seem to be able to agree to disagree on this point.
If “(t)his is not the kind of behavior that I would expect from a scientific organization”… then I conjecture your expectation toward organizational behavior is mistaken, flawed, irrational, illogical.
As with all, you are entitled to your opinions. I don’t have a problem with you being opinionated. I try to focus on proving that your argument in favor of your opinion is flawed. When I focus on your opinion instead of your argument, please let me know. It’s a logical fallacy that you might be able to see better than me.
If a person or organization, for political reasons, is willing to make statements in one part of a report that are “not necessarily the most true,” what reason do we have for assuming that the person or organization is not doing the same thing in other parts of the report?
People who claim to be skeptics can also claim that they are not doubting the evidence… they are doubting the interpretation of the evidence. They can also claim that the interpretation is uncertain or less-than-credible from the epistemic probability perspective (as opposed to the physical probability perspective… that evidence “speaks” for itself). This, to me, is an explanation for the limits of rationality… or rather how effectively even rationalization can be employed to reinforce confirmation bias about doubt. Where do you think I err?
First of all, I guess it’s not only for “political reasons.” As I wrote earlier… it may very well be logical, rational, reasonable organizational behavior. Second, there can be several complex (but not impossibly complicated) factors for analyzing human behavior from the epistemic probability perspective. Third, and most importantly, for discerning between the science and scientific organizations is much like discerning between the science-as-epistemology and beliefs about the science. That’s a very very important distinction to be made. Allow me to explain it from my perspective if you please.
Scientific epistemology is vastly superior to epistemic probability because beliefs and biases are held in check by the built in mechanisms of the scientific method, the scientific model. When we are dealing with physical probability as elucidated by the method/the model, objective reality, physical laws, what governs phenomena (external to the subjective self) presents the clearest picture of the workings of Nature. Put simplistically… the evidence really can speak for itself. We really can follow the evidence wherever it leads. The evidence is more powerful than beliefs, preconceived notions, prejudices, etc. (We are still free to ignore the evidence, but the consequences of such cognitive behavior are severe and deadly. We have probably evolved survival instincts to be aware of evidence. Empiricism is probably innate.) Subjective relativism comes in at a far distant “also ran” to evolutionary epistemology.
That it is a scientific organization, the IPCC, we are talking about, whose goal is organizing a scientific body of knowledge based on authentic scientific research… it’s much much less likely that the fruit of the scientific labor is going to get “spun” for political purposes. Perhaps you see this as me “genuflecting” at the altar of mainstream scientific opinion. I see it as the modest observation of scientific integrity. Perhaps you believe scientific integrity to be mythical.
My observation that the IPCC has scientific integrity while at the same time erring on the side of the conservative approach may come across as me contradicting myself. I don’t think it’s a logical contradiction. Organizations may err, but that does not mean that they lack integrity. As I mentioned earlier, even the most robust scientific theories probably still contain errors. Does that mean that scientific theories lack integrity? I think not. Such “errors” are probably innate to the human animal. The study of human ethology has probably not caught up with my conjecture as to the whys and the wherefores about organizational behavior being conservative. Perhaps it really does come down to the physical law of the conservation of energy being applied to sociobiology. I don’t know.
No
You are trying to recharacterize what is going on here in order for it to seem less objectionable. You say that “This is in the realm of subjective epistemic probability.”
You are trying to describe this as if there was a difference of opinion as to what the science showed, and that therefore there was a principled scientific compromise whereby all the parties gave a little in order to reach a result that best represented the consensus scientific views of all the participants.
But that is not the type of compromise you were originally talking about. Originally, you were talking about a political compromise not a scientific one, that from a scientific standpoint the participants knew better, that they signed off on something that the majority of them disagreed with, and that this was not a principled attempt to reach scientific consensus but was rather a “not necessarily the most true” statement that was made part of the report for purposes of appeasement.
Your assertion was that the IPCC made a statement that was not completely true, that this was appeasement, a type of activity fraught with “very deadly consequences,” and that they did so in order to placate a “the powers that be.” You cannot now recharacterize this as a principled scientific compromise.
Yes I can and I did. What part of human behavior being complex (but not impossibly complicated [edited to add] so as to be unable to be examined from a variety of scientific disciplines) is being under-represented?
So if the IPCC is willing to make statements in one part of a report that are “not necessarily the most true,” do we have any reason for assuming that the IPCC is not doing the same thing in other parts of the report, perhaps appeasing a different interest group?
So you think it is “principled” for a scientist to modify what he reports as the results of his study in order to substitute something that was “not necessarily the most true” in order to appease the powers that be?
I would also characterize organizational behavior squarely in the realm of human ethology, which can be studied from a variety of scientific disciples and which is examined by physical probability. NB my third and most important point about science and belief about science above.
Here’s the view of one group of scientists:
First of all is your above hypothetical question is more about epistemic probability than physical probability? If so, maybe the focus ought to shift to physical probability. What is the physical probability of your question being answered in the affirmative? being negated? Based on the mechanisms of the scientific model keeping beliefs and biases in check, modifying the basic research… even for “principled reasons”… would be unethical, and lack scientific integrity. So I would guess that the physical probability of any such modification would be very low.
Second, the question confuses individual behavior with social/organizational behavior. It also confuses basic research with how research is organized systematically into a body of knowledge. It also confuses the body of knowledge with how the knowledge is presented by an intergovernmental organization to governments with the overall goal of suggesting policy changes. I assert that not all social/organizational language and behavior can be described as political or putting a political spin on things. On the other hand, a reasonable case could be made for all-linguistics-is-symbolically-political as axiomatic. It depends on how broad of a brush you wish to use to define “political.”
A third aspect of the question is that every scientist knows by axiom that objective reality is not language-dependent. If he modifies the research using language, his research can be easily falsified and his reputation tarnished.
Fourth, it would probably also be axiomatic that political language appeases the powers that be. And who are these “powers that be”? I used Bastiat for my definition. Would you prefer another? Be my guest.
No, I don’t suppose the climate scientists have a fundamentally different code of ethics and professional practice.
If we cut to the chase, then what portion of climate scientists are (1)predicting near term catastrophe [such as geologically abrupt climate disruption driving an extinction level event as a worst case scenario] vs the portion of climate scientists who (2)appeal to avoiding the suffering that will inevitably accompany adapting to a geologically rapidly changing climate vs the climate scientists who (3)appeal to the economic cost of doing nothing compared to the economic cost of mitigation [Economics has to with what exactly scientifically when advocating for mitigation? If you are going to argue for the inevitable suffering which would accompany climate change mitigation right now, prove it. Prove that it’s unaffordable.] vs the portion of climate scientists who (4)are advocating plenty of time for mitigation and that spending a lot of money now would have a highly uncertain mitigating effect vs the portion of climate scientists that (5)argue warming is within natural variability and man-made enhanced greenhouse effect is highly uncertain and therefore need not be mitigated… that man-made enhanced greenhouse effect might actually be benign?
Take a stab at lumping all individual climate scientists together, or even groups of climate scientists depending on their specific disciplines, and rank them according to my arbitrary and general breakdown… 1 thru 5… if you can. Can you? If you can’t, waiting for some hypothetical poll to be taken might justify your wait-and-see approach. But even then, such a poll would hardly be representative of objective reality or physical probability would it? Or do you put your trust and confidence in polling?
I don’t know what the practical purpose of these questions/statements could be other than obfuscation.
Yes, but that is how you described this activity:
An appeasement of the powers that be is clearly a political act.
And possibly criminal as well, according to you.
Are you saying that they didn’t do it because it is a bad thing and they might get caught? Who is going to falsify an estimate of climate sensitivity?
This was your phrase but I think it can be defined as “The established government or authority.” http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-powers-that-be.html
I don’t have to because we are not faced with that question. You are the one who said:
So we are only talking about the IPCC and the scientists who make the decisions there. And we are only considering what to make of the fact that these scientists reported findings, believing them to be not entirely true, in order to appease the powers that be.
I answered your question in my first paragraph. My other points were to show my problems with your hypothetical question. If me pointing out what I see as rational problems with your hypothetical is you labeling the attempt “obfuscation” that’s fine. I disagree, but what else is new?
You wrote: “An appeasement of the powers that be [the established government or authority… according to your definition] is clearly a political act.” Is it? Are not both of us simply corroborating the postulate or axiom that man is a political animal from different perspectives?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/supplement3.html
I like Bastiat’s definition of the powers that be better. I think it corresponds more with human ethology, physical probability and objective reality. “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in society (I add – as evidenced by Hedges’ perspective on the European and American-European plunder of the Americas and with that plunder laying the foundation for modern capitalism and its planetary, technological plunder of living nature), over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” The powers that be: (1) plunder (2) legal system (3) moral code.
You asked: “Are you saying that they didn’t do it because it is a bad thing and they might get caught? Who is going to falsify an estimate of climate sensitivity?” I’m saying they didn’t do it because it violates their ethical commitment to science. I surmise it would violate their professional principles. It’s highly certain scientists don’t modify research because they are afraid of getting caught. Possible though. Your second question is vague. How are you using the term “falsify”? Are you broadening the discussion to how the theory of climate sensitivity is falsifiable?
You are playing fast and loose with the word “fact.” Re-read my posts. Guesses and conjectures are prominent. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
“Believing them not to be entirely true” is being conflated with “erred conservatively based on organizational behavior.” Your conflation is irrational. If I conflated them, I’ve modified my position through argumentation. I’ve already argued it. You are committing the Bulverism logical fallacy. Prove my argument faulty as I attempt to justify my opinion instead of focusing on my opinion. Or admit that you are engaging in logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
“In order to appease the powers that be” is axiomatic upon the postulate “man is a political animal.” That has been argued too. Find fault with the argument, not the opinion.
All of this discussion, from my perspective, has to do with (A) possible catastrophic consequences of inaction and (B) man-made climate change being a consequence of “unsustainable civilization.” The current “civilization model” is empowered by and the status quo maintained by the powers that be. That’s axiomatic. My perspective and opinion is based on “unsustainable civilization.” I can only guess what the overall perspective of the IPCC is in terms of their own human error. If my perspective and opinion is catastrophic climate change is inevitable… but catastrophe is off the table for the IPCC, I can only conclude that my guesses, perspectives, opinions are #1 not scientific or #2 that my understanding of the science is less erroneous than the IPCC. #2 is highly improbable… so #1 must be the correct choice… unless I’m missing something. And I have no problem whatsoever with #1, because I have never claimed to be a credentialed scientist… only an amateur and a layperson.
You got a problem with any of this?
…and I think that’s fair!
…but it takes a certain amount of intellectual honesty to be a skeptic. A skeptic has to honestly evaluate the evidence, and include herself among the people to be doubted!
Everyone suffers from a certain amount of confirmation bias.
Yes, you are correct. I should not have used the word “fact.” After you accused them of reported findings, believing them to be not entirely true, in order to appease the powers that be, I found myself agreeing with you. I was thinking “Supposing we’re right, what conclusions should we draw?” So what I wrote should be revised as follows:
Possibly, but the fact remains that it is unethical to engage in political activities under some circumstances.
You said: “I’m arguing that the IPCC …appeases the powers that be.” Are you now saying that the IPCC does not appease the powers that be, or that doing so is not unethical? If the former, what caused you to change your mind?
No, I’m saying that the fear of having their finding falsified was not a deterrent because this finding was expressed as an estimate of the kind that could not be falsified. At most it could be asserted to be less accurate than some other estimate.
It would be helpful if you could clear up something that I find confusing. I made the following statement:
In reply you quoted “You cannot now recharacterize this as a principled scientific compromise.” and responded:
So, you affirmed your view of the matter as appeasement in order to placate the powers that be. Is this view now ‘inoperative’? And you characterized this as “principled scientific compromise.” Do you still consider such conduct to be principled scientific compromise?
What is your view of this new study http://www.earth-syst-sci-data-discuss.net/7/521/2014/essdd-7-521-2014.html saying that ~83% of man-made CO2 emissions have been absorbed by natural sinks, and that the 65% increase in CO2 emissions was only associated with 0.2C warming since 1990.
Judging from the abstract, whoever brought it to your attention is misrepresenting the author’s findings.
5.4GtC into the atmosphere, 2.6GtC into the ocean, and 2.9GtC into the land. That is nearly 50/50, so it appears that the denier sphere is lying about the results before they are even published.
It might not be safe to assume that the APS statement will remain relatively unchanged. Take a look at this WSJ Op-Ed by the Chairman of the APS subcommittee in charge of revising the Climate Change Statement. Some excerpts:
Is the APS becoming anti-science?
The reasoning goes this way. This paper says that man-made CO2 emissions from fossil-fuels and cement production have increased by 65% since 1990. However, atmospheric levels of CO2 have only increased by 11% since 1990. This means that ~83% of the increase did not show up.
So you think that creationists were consulted before the APS issued this policy statement, and this one?
I don’t know. Why don’t you look into it, exhaust all resources, and get back to me with the results.
It is a specious argument, one I doubt is being made by the authors.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1965/to:1990/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1990/to:2013/trend
CO2 levels rose ~50 ppm from 1990 – 2013, which is very close to the 65% estimated increase in emissions.
What do you mean “very close”?
Although if I were betting I might bet that the statement is about to be released and will not go the way that Koonins would prefer.
Somehow it just doesn’t seem likely.
Look at the graphic. In the 24 years previous, it rose ~30ppm, 50ppm is a 60% increase.
So can Koonins, in your opinion, still be referenced as a competent and reasonable scientist?
Actually the relationship with (1) human behavior and ethical values (even among professional and credentialed scientists) and (2) a scientific agency organizing a body of knowledge for the express purpose of proposing public policy and (3) appeasing the powers-that-be by way of the inherent conservatism of academic/governing organizations is way too complex for my degree of rational awareness. I’d rather conclude that such complexity is simply part of the human predicament. I’m not prepared to discuss it any further without more research on my part. Without more evidence to support my opinions, I’m simply being a poor communicator.
To me the IPCC is not science and politics acting together in a “superman” fashion and it’s not a nefarious organization working toward a socialist world order. Judging motivation and intent without insight (and how can anyone rationally discuss insight anyway?!) is probably futile. I’d rather just agree to disagree anyway. I’m no longer interested to attempt to use some mythic “superior rationality” on anyone’s part to attempt to pick brains, asking what is believed or doubted, why such things are believed our doubted, and then rationally arguing justification for what is believed or doubted. I’m simply left questioning and following the evidence when it rationally follows that insufficient experiential data is available. Reserving judgement is the better course presently. Cheers.
I hope that you can find others online who have a better understanding and better communication ability. Thanks for the discussion.
Not when attempting to propose public policy based on an apolitical conservative scientific consensus.
Appeasing the-powers-that-be has to do with economic considerations which continue to favor capitalism and the plunder which has become the way of life under a global capitalist economic system, the legal system (by which the IPCC is constituted and authorized) which empowers capitalism, and the moral code which glorifies capitalism. I’d be an uninformed fool to submit that any international organization (of scientists or otherwise) is not ethically influenced by the cultural evolution of economics… of which capitalism is presently predominant.
Take care.
I asserted an opinion with respect to the IPCC not being willing to assert that AGW is catastrophic. I asserted “a triumph for appeasing the-powers-that-be and conservatism” as a truth or an opinion to which I’m entitled. My rational duty according to deontological ethics and logical argumentation is to back up my opinion or my truth… at least from my understanding of the Bulverism aspect of logical fallacy, your ethical and logical duty is to find where my reasoning is flawed. Perhaps you have correctly pointed out that I’m stating “truths” or asserting opinions from the id, the part of the psyche that knows nothing of right and wrong and that knows nothing of the logical inconsistency of self-contradiction. Assuming that I’m arguing from the id, making an appeal to reason or rationality or logical self-consistency or conscientious integrity is probably a lost cause. Making an appeal to the Over-I is probably a lost cause also, based on my understanding that the Over-I internalizes the constraints of civilization. If I see civilization as more of the problem and less of the solution (and primitivism as being more solution oriented), I’m consciously attempting to minimize the persuasive influence of the Over-I and maximize being instinctual. Sort of like finding my inner wild man. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_John:_A_Book_About_Men
Anyway, such discussions might shed light on the ethics of science, the ethics of scientists attempting to agree upon the language of consensus, the ethics of an international scientific agency attempting to organize a body of knowledge, the ethics of said body of knowledge attempting to promote a public policy action plan… or such discussions might provide very little in terms of enlightenment. I don’t know.
I don’t think that apolitical scientific conservatism or apolitical scientific appeasement to civil governing authority is an example of “politically unethical behavior.” In some cases it simply is human beings acting human. In this case it is science playing an advisory role, not a legislating or a dictatorial role. If science could dictate ethics, then perhaps science could be more revolutionary than conservative. I don’t know about that hypothetical either.
In the specific case of AGW being non-catastrophic from the perspective of the IPCC, I only have my own opinions about that conclusion. It very well could be that the professionals and the amateurs who are predicting catastrophe due to unmitigated AGW are not behaving rationally in terms of cognitive science or epistemics. It could be that international scientific and academic governing organizations are inherently apolitically conservative and inherently behave submissively to the cultural powers that be. This is an intriguing question to me. I, being an over-opinionated cuss, have my strong subjective biases. The objective part of me must conclude that the question is open-ended. The objective me says that I don’t have a highly certain answer or even a probable answer without reasonable doubt… because my empirical information is incomplete. Therefore the better part is to withhold judgement, other than resort to instinctual and subjectively biased opinion-making.
As always, thanks for the dialogue.
Right now the interpretation of the evidence from the point of view of the scientifically literate who doubt that unmitigated AGW will be catastrophic provokes charges of denialism… or would you disagree? Would you say that the charge of denying the evidence is warranted? Or is reserving judgement based on insufficient evidence more warranted?
You take care too. You have challenged me to be more rational… and for that favor I am very appreciative. I have enjoyed our discussion very much, even more so as I try to remember that there are probably excellent reasons that my mere opinions are wrong. Sometimes we learn a lot more from being wrong, than from confirming how correct we are. I’m looking forward to continuing to challenge my cognitive biases.
I was referred to a web site you might enjoy… especially if you like to be intellectually challenged to become even more rationally mature than you are already displaying. Keep well. http://lesswrong.com/
Show me the scientifically literate individual who believes that unmitigated AGW will not be catastrophic… because I contend she does not exist.
Even Richard Tol thinks Greenland and half of Antarctica is set for meltdown… and he’s roundly criticised for being a Climate Denier.
You saw the interchange where he admitted that likelihood and then immediately stopped considering the question when I pointed out the entirety of his homeland would be wiped out by the outcome he outlined, didn’t you?
That’s denial… and a type of cowardice, I’m afraid.
Hi Gary, you have been absent for a week we missed you..
I believe anyone who is skeptical of the fact of global warming, especially with an atmospheric CO2 level at 400 ppm and rising and knowing the Arctic ice is rapidly melting away is a fool.
And if they deny those facts they are not skeptics at all, they are denying fools and or one of those paid to write denials.
EDIT:… A major problem is most people in the US at least are poorly educated on the issue and I place much blame for that on our press and media. Who controls our press and media? ___ Yeah!
The above posts were in response to the IPCC supposedly not referring to present day climate change being “catastrophic” & what it might take in terms of conclusive evidence to unequivocally demonstrate (prove?) that man-made climate change is indeed cataclysmic?
Just took a little break. Thanks for noticing my absence good friend
How about Judith Curry :-/
Sometimes I wonder how much of denial is based on deep-seated, hidden existential terror. We bandy about tales of madness and mental illness, but it seems to me there is much more than meets the eye… esp people who are actually very scientifically literate but are afraid to face the facts. On the other hand, maybe it is simply a case of the ubiquity of cognitive dissonance in the human animal.
Two years ago I ran into that situation with a fella who uses the commenter name Aleph Null, he posted on CD.
I believe he may have used the name Nullis in Verba on other websites.
He is quite intelligent and an excellent writer. He began attacking me every time I posted a comment and I primarily wrote about the Arctic methane issue.
He was good at it and gained a lot of support and lots of upper votes.
Well about 8 months ago when new reports about the Arctic issue he backed off and admitted the situation was so deadly serious that he could not stand to even thing about it.
He doesn’t attack me anymore and now seldom posts any comments.
He just did not want to admit the fact that now it had becomes an emergency situation.
I know. And Aleph Null is one of “the good guys.” Imagine how nearly impossible with those really intelligent sorts who have deep vested personal and political interests in maintaining and promoting the global economic system. The admission of unsustainability is probably too hard to bear.
I’m sorry I don’t remember if you were there when Null and I were having it out. Now that he is seldom there all of his most loyal sidekicks are also missing.
Judith Curry is paid to lie about climate science!!!
http://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry
She’s written for the dishonest Climate Denier propaganda outfit, Global Warming Policy Foundation:
web.archive.org/web/20140521141257/http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/A-Sensitive-Matter-Foreword-inc.pdf
They are run by ExxonMobil and coal interests in Europe:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
That’s not something a skeptic does, it’s something a paid shill does.
Yeah. It’s sad :-/
I came into the discussion late… when the melting Arctic was being compared to the PETM
I take that back… I guess Judith Curry might be a skeptic, but she’s a liar, so there’s not much point in even worrying about what she believes.
…and if she’s not a liar, she’s incredibly incompetent, which would put her outside the scientifically literate category. A lot of the critics of her work accuse her of that.
And evidence indicates that hurricanes (“cyclones” in many parts of the world) have indeed been strengthening over the last few decades and will continue to do so. It is a logical consequence of pumping more energy into environmental systems that the transfers of energy as this additional energy comes into the system become more energetic themselves. Weather is simply the distribution and transfer of energy throughout the environmental system. Increase the energy coming in and you create larger gradient differentials (stronger storm systems). Not necessarily more storms, but stronger storms on average.
I got that drift also when reading your links. It’s disheartening that even when AGW is admitted, whether or not it may be a cataclysm with respect to the biosphere is “uncertain.” You have to wonder what our ethical values even consist of.
If you don’t mind I’m moving the conversation over here because the original site didn’t allow attached images.
Well, at least you’re not suggesting an ad hominem argument – that his argument fails because he is a mechanical engineer. Do you not have confidence in the opinion of anyone who lacks a degree in Climatology?
It is not warming more than it has in over 2.5 million years. Natural variability has resulted in episodes of warming a number of times within the past few thousands of years.
Essenhigh refers to the IPCC First Assessment (1990) , Chapter 1 and says that he does not disagree with their estimation of the “turnover time” of CO2:
Nor does he disagree with their estimation of what they refer to as “adjustment time”:
Essenhigh refers to “turnover time” as atmospheric residence time (RT) and says that this four year estimation is in line with the times found by 36 studies from 1957 to 1992, reporting RTs mostly in the range of 5 – 15 years. The problem, he says, is that a short RT would result in a lower concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere than we currently see. Take a look at his Figure 2, shown below. Line A is the actual concentration we see in the atmosphere. However, Line C is the increase we should see from anthropogenic sources where CO2 has a residence time of 10 years. Clearly, the actual concentrations are much higher, meaning that there must be some additional source of CO2 that is not anthropogenic.
I try and judge each opinion on it’s merits. The approach taken here was that of a mechanical engineer, not someone knowledgable of climate physics.
That is not true, but if it were, it would certainly disprove Essenhigh’s theory, since CO2 never exceeded 280ppm during the entire Holocene. If the modern CO2 concentration is a response to global warming, then it must be warmer now, than at anytime during the past 2.5 million years, since CO2 has not been this high for at least that long.
Essenhigh’s graph is just a picture generated by the numbers he is using and the assumptions he is making. Here is the part from the FAR that he neglects to include in his analysis.
So, mechanical engineers such as, say, Stephen Schneider are not to be taken seriously?
Should we skip the battle of the graphs?
I guess that raises the question of the reliability of different ways of determining CO2 levels. See the graphic below.
But this talks about the process of reaching a new equilibrium. That is not Essenhigh’s point. He is saying “How do we account for Line A when our level of anthropogenic emissions, assuming an RT of 10 years, should result in Line C?”
I never said that. I said I judge each opinion on it’s merits, not by whose opinion it is. He approached the problem in a way I would expect a mechanical engineer to approach it, linearly. Just because he fits the stereotype of typical mechanical engineer, does not mean that all mechanical engineers are linear thinkers.
Why does he assume a RT of 10 years?
Why does he assume the atmosphere is not the only CO2 reservoir?
He is just a loon who got past a sloppy peer review, if it was even peer reviewed, I just assumed it was because the response eviscerated it.
Battling graphs? The CO2 graph just shows that chemical analysis of CO2 was not very accurate, plant stomata, ice cores, and measuring infrared absorption. are shown to be very accurate.
The other is completely unsourced, we don’t even know what we are looking at.
Marcott 2013 is a multi-proxy reconstruction of global temperatures, published in Science Magazine.
Essenhigh refers to the IPCC First Assessment (1990) , Chapter 1 where they used a “turnover time” of 4 years. He said that this four year estimation is in line with the times found by 36 studies from 1957 to 1992, reporting RTs mostly in the range of 5 – 15 years. So he used 10 years as an average “short” RT.
What are you referring to?
Essenhigh’s conclusion is different. That’s why we are looking at it.
This was a reference to graphs that do or do not show a Medieval Warm Period, etc.
That came from this study, page 3.
Here is another graph showing plant stomata.
Essenhigh is misunderstanding how carbon flux works. Which is why his analysis doesn’t make any sense. The atmospheric RT of individual molecules is irrelevant, since it is only a small part of a larger system. More carbon in the atmosphere increases carbon flux in the fast carbon cycle. Essenhigh is only looking at the atmospheric flux, missing the bigger picture.
Why would you compare global temperature with Greenland temperature, when the two are known to diverge?
I understand how more carbon in the atmosphere will increase the carbon flux out of the atmosphere, but are you saying that it also increases the carbon flux into the atmosphere?
In what way are they known to diverge?
Look at the Greenland ice core graph and compare it with the multi-proxy reconstruction and you can see how they diverge. Greenland’s climate is dominated by ocean currents, not global heat content, although there is a relationship between the two.
Apparently, according to Andy Revkin, this was the image from Marcott, 2013, until he was later forced to admit that
This, unfortunately, was not soon enough to prevent Nature from reporting it like this:
This appears not to be the only infirmity in the Marcott paper but when he begins with this kind of a misrepresentation out of the gate it makes one a little wary.
What’s with everybody trying to get rid of the MWP?
One thing that is sure is that the Marcott temperatures diverge from the Greenland ones. But why should Marcott be considered the standard. Greenland temperatures have closely matched global temperatures.
Well, duh, the resolution is 300 years, what did you expect?
Do you understand the definition of specious?
Are you saying that the absence of statistical robustness for the 20th century portion is self-evident? Does the blame then fall on publications like Nature for either recklessly or intentionally misleading their readers by implying that the 20th century rise shown by the study was of some significance?
You do not find it misleading to present a graph, knowing that it lacks statistical significance, and knowing that it will be displayed in publications as if it could be relied on?
“Are you saying that the absence of statistical robustness for the 20th century portion is self-evident?”
Yes. Too most readers of Nature Magazine, the fact that 100 years of a 300 year resolution is statistically insignificant, is self evident.
Since there is a better record for the 20th century than a multi-proxy reconstruction with a 300 year resolution, it is not an issue.
The full reconstruction is statistically significant, that is what matters.
It was insufficient data, not just insufficient resolution. It must just be the writers for Nature Magazine for whom it was not self-evident. Either that or they intentionally misrepresented the study:
So you think there is nothing misleading about tacking an inflammatory 20th century “hockey blade” onto the graph as if it has statistical significance, knowing that it has none?
The hockey stick blade is the instrumental record, not the multi-proxy reconstruction.
Marcott et al. make the point, in the Nature paper, that the last 100 years is of a shorter duration than the smoothing interval and is based on fewer proxies of the type they used for the rest of the reconstruction.
It is the Andy Revkin who is misrepresenting, not Marcott et al or Nature Magazine.
Are you saying that this is not Figure 1b from Marcott (2013), showing a hockey blade as a part of the multi-proxy reconstruction?
Are you saying that Marcott did not lead the NSF to say this in a press release:
which of course is not what the history showed the researchers.
And are you saying that this did not cause Nature to say “…temperatures have been increasing at a dramatic clip: from the first decade of the twentieth century to now, global average temperatures rose from near their coldest point since the ice age to nearly their warmest…”?
Do you agree with the following definition of misconduct in science?
But the statement is supported by the data from their study. That data is statistically robust for the past 11,000 years. But since the smoothing is 300 years, and some of the proxies drop in recent times, the last 100 years is not statistically robust. But since we have the GMST record for the 20th century, it is irrelevant.
Yes.
If a graph is supported by statistically significant data do you think it is appropriate to append a portion that is not supported by statistically significant data, without any demarcation as to the different type, leaving the impression that the entire graph is statistically significant?
Suppose a study shows a finding that X is true, when in fact that was not found by the study. Is this of no consequence if, in fact, X is true?
You are looking for something that does not exist. Marcott did not misrepresent the last 100 years. And truncating the instrumental record onto the reconstruction is not misleading.
Does this graph represent a truncation of the instrument record onto the reconstruction?
Truncate was a poor word choice. Mann truncated the tree ring data at the point where it begins to diverge, and replaced it with the instrumental record. Marcott et. al. does not do this, which is why they said that the last 100 years lacks statistical significance in their reconstruction. There are statistically robust reconstructions, as well as the instrumental record, so it is not an issue, since their reconstruction over the 11,000 years is robust.
The blade of the hockey stick is the most robust measure of global temperature, yet it is the part of every reconstruction that deniers attack.
Why do you think that is?
You’ve got me confused. The 20th century portion of that graph is shown as a purple line going straight up. That is not the instrument record but is part of the reconstruction. And that part of the reconstruction is not statistically robust, right?
Yes. Because of the 300 year resolution, combined with the fact that certain proxies like ice cores, take decades to form and are therefore not useful for recent reconstructions. The data used in this reconstruction had an average resolution of 120 years, making it impossible to resolve century scale temperatures. One century is less than one data point on the graph. So the 20th century is essentially one data point, derived from fewer proxies, smoothed from the previous data point, but not from the future data point, and therefore not robust in this reconstruction.
There are higher resolution proxies for the 20th century, as well as the instrumental record. While the 20th century warming is not statistically significant in this type of reconstruction, because this reconstruction does not resolve to century scale resolution, the 20th century warming in this reconstruction is consistent with high resolution proxy evidence for the 20th century, including the instrumental record.
Suppose a study shows a finding that X is true, when in fact that was not found by the study in a reliable way. Is this of no consequence if, in fact, X is true?
Now you are becoming desperate.
What do you have against Shaun Marcott, that you want to accuse him of scientific misconduct?
You can become a member of the AAAS for free, and read the paper yourself, the way it is being represented to you by the professional deniers is not what the paper says.
Marcott et. al. 2013 never claimed robustness in their reconstruction for the 20th century. In fact they state explicitly that it is less robust.
This is what professional deniers do. They take a specious point and confuse the layperson. And they do it for money, which makes them professionals.
Thanks for the link! I’ll read it.
I don’t have anything against him. But what scientific standard is he to be held to? Scientific fact: Marcott’s temperature reconstruction does not allow any conclusions to be made about the period after 1900.
Statement from study:
which, together with Figure 1A, caused the study to be reported in numerous places like this:
and
Marcott clearly was eager to leave the impression that his data had produced the same “hockey blade” that Mann’s study had shown. He said that the records he used “produce the same result.” Buried in the text he calls the modern warming “probably not robust” but then why does he report that result in his graph, knowing that the graph would be the thing reported?
Is this an example of a study reporting a result for which the study developed insufficient evidence?
I know you are smart enough to understand and I believe you can overcome your cognitive bias.
The last 100 years of global temperature is confirmed by the instrumental record. Marcott et. al. does not say much about the last 100 years in their reconstruction, in fact, their Common Era ends in 1950. Their reconstruction shows that global temperature increase over the last 100 years is unprecedented during the last 11,000 years. Their study does not need to be robust for the last 100 years, because the instrumental record is robust.
They used temporally long proxies with low resolution to reconstruct the temperature over the last 11,000 years. In that 11,000 years, never has global temperature increased as fast as it has in the last 100 years. The study does not need to confirm the last 100 years because the temperature rise in the last 100 years is confirmed by the instrumental record.
If you want to dispute the instrumental record, WUWT is still challenging it, Anthony would welcome anything you can contribute to help his cause.
OK, the Mann hockey blade was based on the instrumental record. Marcott said “the records we use are completely independent, and produce the same result.” But you are saying that the records he relied on were not completely independent. They were the exact same instrument record?
Mann’s original reconstruction was based on primarily NH proxies including tree rings. There is a known divergence problem with tree rings in the NH after 1960. Mann truncated the tree ring data and plotted the instrumental record in it’s place. Marcott et. al. do not do this. If read the paper you would know that they do not include the instrumental record in their reconstruction, but they do compare it.
The instrumental record is the most robust data record we have. proxy data is calibrated using the insrumental record. The blade of the hockey stick is the most well measured part of any reconstruction, regardless of the proxies used.
Let me put it another way. We already know that since 1900 global average temperature has increased over 0.8ºC. Marcott et. al. shows us that it took 1800 years in the early Holocene (11,300 – 9500), to warm 0.6ºC, where it Plateaued for 4000 years (9500 – 5500), then cooled for the next 5000 by 0.7ºC. The obvious conclusion is that the modern temperature spike is unprecedented in 11,300 years and consistent with the laws of physics.
Yes, I actually did read the paper. And I saw their instrument references. And I believe that what you are saying is that their reconstruction for the last 100 years, while not supported by significant data from their study is made reliable by being supported by the instrument record.
But then it is not true, for this period, that “the records we use are completely independent, and produce the same result.” They are the same records for this period that Mann used, correct? Or at least his data are made reliable by the same records.
The straightforward way of doing it is the way they did it in that first graph you showed, where they just truncated and did not show the last 100 years of the reconstruction and superimposed the instrument record in a different color to differentiate it. But Marcott wanted it to seem that he was independently finding the same hockey blade as Mann. But without using the same data that Mann used to bolster it, his hockey blade was not reliable.
You are parsing. Mann used primarily lamd based proxies in the northern hemisphere, Marcott used primarily marine based proxies distributed around the globe.
No. Marcott is saying that the last 1500 years of his reconstruction and Mann’s agree within the margin for error. He explicitly stated that his reconstruction is not statistically significant for the last century.
We don’t need to reconstruct the 20th century, we have already measured it.
Mann relied on the instrument record for the last 100 years, right? Marcott decided to include some unreliable data, which you say becomes reliable because of the same instrument record that Mann relied on. Right?
Then why did Marcott include a 20th century portion in his reconstruction? Wasn’t it because he wanted to say “Look, my reconstruction found the same hockey blade shape that Mann found, and I used different data.” He didn’t want to say “Look, I found the same hockey stick shaft that Mann found, and if I use the same instrumental record that he used then I will have the same blade that he had.”
Why did Nature report it like this, as if it was the result of his study, if Marcott was trying to be transparent that he had nothing new to add about the 20th century?
Mann used the instrumental record after 1960, the last 100 years of the Marcott et. al. reconstruction is less than one datapoint, because they used temporally large scale proxies with an average resolution of 120 years.
A proxy reconstruction does not need to extend into the 20th century, because we have already measured the 20th century. It simply needs to be comparable, which Marcott et. al. did by converting their data stack to the same grid format used by HadCRUT.
This is not a real issue. It is manufactured doubt being sold by unscrupulous peddlers.
The blade is the instrumental record. Mann didn’t find it, it had already been measured.
What Mann found was that such a rise was unprecedented in the last 2000 years and what Marcott found was that it was unprecedented in the last 11,000.
Simple deduction. The Holocene temperature had fallen to it’s lowest point in 11.000 years during the LIA, is what Marcott et. al. shows. Then the warming since the end of the LIA has been measured by instruments, the instrumental record.
Marcott’s reconstruction of the Holocene reconstructs the beginning of the Holocene through the end of the LIA, 1850, with great skill. After that certain proxies begin to drop out and the 300 year smoothing begins to lose robustness at 150 year from present, which in this study was 1950. Since the instrumental record already covers the last 130 years, Marcott’s data doesn’t need to reconstruct it, it has already been measured more accurately than any proxy reconstruction. The press release assumes that it’s readers are aware of the instrumental record and not looking at a proxy reconstruction with an average resolution of 120 years and a 300 year smoothing to confirm it.
But he presented the 20th century as part of his reconstruction.
Marcott reported:
Are you saying that it is OK to report “We found that X is true” when they did not find that X is true, as long as X is true?
What they are saying is that they used the same 1961-1990 average temperature as the baseline for comparing their reconstruction to Mann’s. IE, the zero line on the chart.
Would you say that since Marcott used proxies that do not pick up fluctuations on time scales shorter than 300, years we would not expect to see evidence of the MWP and other relatively recent warm periods?
Marcott was not saying that the data for the 20th century were not robust. He was saying that they did an alternate analysis of their proxy data that yielded a much smaller 20th-century uptick, but that the difference between this and their principal analysis were “probably not robust.”
This implied that the uptick was insensitive to changes in methodology, and was therefore reliable. It was apparently not until after the study was published that Marcott referred to the 20th century part of the reconstruction itself as not robust. Correct?
No, they stated it implicitly in the original paper. I already highlighted the quote.
No. They used proxies with 20 year resolutions as well as 300 year resolutions. The 300 year smoothing was necessary to incorporate the low resolution proxies. The MWP and other warm periods are captured in their reconstruction.
You are referring to the quote below? Where exactly do they say that the reconstruction of the past century is not robust? I see them saying:
1. “our coverage increases with age”
2. “our lower-resolution records are well suited for reconstructing longer-term changes.”
Where is the part saying that the last century of their reconstruction is not robust?
Simple deduction. If a reconstruction gains robustness with age, it is less robust in the present. Not to mention, any reconstruction with a 300 year smoothing is not going to be statistically significant for the last 100 years.
It is obvious to me, and anyone else for that matter with knowledge of paleoclimate reconstructions and statistics, that their choice of proxies and methods would not produce a robust 20th century reconstruction. They had to state it specifically, because unscrupulous liars like Andy Revkin, used this specious fact to attack the validity of the reconstruction, as well as the credibility of the authors.
Andy Revkin has no credibility, but he is not a scientist, he is a science denier, therefore, he doesn’t need credibility.
The proxy model they used is heavily smoothed and does not pick up fluctuations below a time scale of several centuries. Correct?
Yes it can, even though each datapoint represents 300 years, the higher resolution proxies would capture short term climate fluctuations. Since the Earth does not warm and cool very fast without a strong forcing, 300 year smoothing would still capture a few decades of strong surface warming or cooling.
Wow, he really is, isn’t he!?
He does the false equivalence and parrots their dishonest talking points and everything:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/science/earth/23cool.html
Who hired him to be an “environmental writer”? Shell Oil?
That seems to conflict with this:
Is there not a difference between “less robust” and “not robust”? For example .01 and .05 can describe varying degrees of robustness, both being robust.
The fact remains that he did not state in the paper that the last century was “not robust” but only those familiar with the statistical smoothing method he was using would surmise that. Correct? Which explains the whole raft of prestigious publications that failed to report that aspect of it?
Do you really think that it is appropriate to fail to explicitly disclose that part of a graph is not reliable?
I had him confused with someone else, am not even sure he is a denier. But he certainly gives them a platform in the NY Times. Very subtle, disguised as open debate among equals.
I suspect he may just be cashing in on an unfilled niche as a journalist. An opinion column that covers the both the science and the denial of the science. I can’t find any fault with that. It is a false equivalency, but it is educational none the less.
Look at figure S3. There is your temporally short variation. The last datapoint on the solid black line is the average temperature for the 300 years prior to 1950.
Why should he state the obvious?
Why would anyone want to use proxies with an average interval of 120 years to reconstruct the last 100?
The notion is preposterous. The best argument that can be made is that low resolution proxies miss short term fluctuations, but the inclusion of ice cores with 20 year resolution solves that problem because such higher frequency shifts would be captured in the ice cores.
The last part of the graph is reliable, all they show is the 1σ for the end of their reconstruction.
The red, is the HadCRU temperature record.
Are you saying the instrumental record is not robust, or that they should not have included it for comparison?
What graph are you referring to here?
Then why show that part of the reconstruction?
Are you sure you referenced the right image?
Yes, on page 10 of the supplementary material.
It is not shown as part of the reconstruction. The last datapoint on the Marcott reconstruction is the average global temperature from 1651 – 1950. The red line is clearly labeled as the HadCRU instrumental record. They described quite clearly, and how they converted their data into the same HadCRU format so that they could compare them.
I was referring to the one I originally posted.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
But if you look at the comparison to other, reconstructions, it is obvious that Marcott’s present day is 100 years ago.
But that is not the graph from Marcott’s study. If it had been he would have not have come under so much criticism. This is the graph from Marcott’s study. They came up with yours only after they started taking heat for the original graph.
You are referring to his ex post facto graph, I believe. The one created after the study was published to try to get him out of hot water. His original Figure 1b shows the recent proxies as a part of the reconstruction, does it not?
This is the one you provided a link to. But this other one is the one you are referring to?
And how does that relate to Marcott’s statement:
I dunno, that column is pretty bad!
No and no! The first claim is false, the second is based on… what, exactly? Magic?
But isn’t even that one misleading? Somebody put a high-resolution line showing a spike next to a low-resolution line incapable of showing a spike. Isn’t that the gist of it?
No. Such a spike represents an enormous amount of heat, it would linger for centuries.
I agree, but then, I am biased. Objectively I can see that he fills a natural niche.
It’s not bias, it’s simple fact! Andy Revkin is a quasi-Denier at best.
If he actually understands the issue (and if he’s going to be paid to write about it, he most certainly should)… he should know global temperatures have not been “relatively stable”, but continue to increase.
He should know the energy in the Earth’s climate system is stored in the ocean, not the atmosphere, and he should know this energy continues to increase. He should also know that looking at the temperature of the atmosphere is absolutely no reasonable way to gauge what’s going on.
He’s either incompetent or immoral… which is the same choice Climate Deniers give themselves all the time…
Are you saying that if such a spike had occurred during, say, the MWP, that we would see such a spike in the reconstruction?
Like I said, I think he is offering what he considers an objective journalistic representation. He tries not to alienate either side, that increases the diversity and number of his readers. It is a numbers thing, he is filling a natural niche created by the gap between those who inform their opinion from science, and those who inform their opinion from industry propaganda.
Yes, it would be evident in the higher resolution proxies.
He’s certainly alienating me!
That is not true.
What is your source for that graph?
The uptick in the last datapoint is an artifact of cool proxies dropping out. Even though the Marcott’s method reduces the uptick, it is still greater than the instrumental record through 1940.
As for re-dating the core tops, let’s hear what the expert has to say.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/
Telford is saying that the main part of the reconstruction is what we should focus on, not the modern proxies, since they are not robust anyway.
But the issue here is why Marcott went to the lengths he did in order to produce a result different from the result he got from the same data in his PhD thesis. He changed the data and then included it even though it was not reliable, just so he would be able to confirm Mann’s hockey blade. Why didn’t he just leave it out?
Marcott apparently does not agree.
We have the graphic from the thesis and the graphic from Science. Why the difference?
The context of that statement was in regards to the 20th century.
Why assume the existence of that which is not in evidence. The ice cores have a resolution of 20 years. There is no evidence of a 100 year spike in temperature comparable to the 20th century. If one did occur, it represents such a tremendous amount of heat, it would have resolved over 300 years. You can’t hide a spike in temperature like that in 300 years.
Different methodology and different scale. It is not like the 20th century temperature record is in doubt. This is just specious nonsense intended to create doubt.
I don’t know if that is true. I certainly wouldn’t make such a determination by comparing graphs of different scales and methodologies.
Or take the word of a denier. And even if it is true, it doesn’t change the empirical fact that CO2 is a climate forcing.
If you read all the comments on the page you will see some by Richard Telford. Although he did not go beyond saying:
neither did he find fault with McIntyre’s graph.
What is the issue of scales and methodologies that is relevant here? Marcott’s original graph using the same data did not go up at the end. He made changes that caused it to go up at the end and which rendered “the already fragile uptick very doubtful.”
If it is true would you say that it falls below the scientific standard of conduct that you would like to see?
What does scale have to do with it if one goes down at the end and the other goes up?
A different methodology on the same data gives such disparate results? Isn’t that a little peculiar if they are both valid methodologies?
The issue is not the 20th century temperature record. It is the methodology and reporting.
The hockey blade is confirmed by the instrumental record. You assume Marcott’s motivation was to confirm Mann. That assumption reveals your bias.
You don’t know why the two charts do not look the same, yet you suspect fraud.
Why are they different?
You thought it was because of re-dating the core tops, that turned out to be false. Now you are suggesting that because he refined his analysis, bringing it more in line with the instrumental record, that somehow constitutes breach of the scientific standard of conduct.
You don’t even know what changes were made or why.
You also did not acknowledge that you were wrong about re-dating the
This reveals a strong confirmation bias on your part.
Different methodologies produce different results from the same data stacks.
Tamino has a good post on the subject.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/the-tick/
What bias would that be?
My assumption is that when the same person uses the same proxies for the same purpose he should get pretty much the same result. What is your assumption under these circumstances?
I believe that turned out to be true.
Well, at least you admit that he made results-oriented changes to his methodology. You have no problem with that?
What are you talking about? Your own source, Telford, talks about the “errors in re-dating.”
What exactly is my confirmation bias?
You believe Marcott is deliberately misleading, yet you have not been able to produce a single shred of evidence in support of that belief, and the evidence you thought confirmed it was determined to be false, you still cling to your established belief. Which is by definition biased.
It is ok to be biased, as long as you are cognizant of the fact. Otherwise, it cripples your objectivity and critical thinking skills.
You produced a chart from a denier website as evidence. I went to the authority, Telford, and he said the re-dating was necessary, but not implemented the way he would have done it. Regardless, the re-dating has a negligible impact on the overall reconstruction. Telford is an expert in paleoclimate proxies, and he is skeptical, yet realistic, of all proxy reconstructions.
I didn’t admit anything, I don’t know what the differences in the two charts are, other than the two obvious differences. And neither do you it appears, or I would guess you would tell me.
Your bias shows in how you interpret what Telford said.
Telford’s comment reflects my opinion. The whole bugaboo about the last century and re-dating core tops is a red-herring distraction designed to sow confusion and doubt.
In your case it has succeeded.
Marcott changed his method of analysis with the result having “a negligible impact on the overall reconstruction” as you put it. Except that suddenly we have a marked uptick at the end where there was not one before.
Should he show the uptick in the graph? There are no upticks like it elsewhere in the graph, implying that this one is unique. But the problem is that the rest of the graph is low-resolution and smoothed. As put by a co-author:
and although you affirm that the current warming is of a type that would last longer than 300 years there is no evidence for that proposition. We have a high-resolution spike put in contrast with a low-resolution graph, the spike having been absent in a previous graph involving the same data, the spike having appeared as a consequence of a procedure incorrectly implemented according to Telford, who said
But Marcott, regardless of the fact that his newly-created uptick was “fragile,” that he was comparing high-resolution with low resolution, that the uptick was “very doubtful” as well as lacking in statistical significance, and that this all came about as a result of a procedure incorrectly implemented, went ahead and included it in the graph with nary a remark about it, knowing that the uptick itself would be the most prominent feature of the graph and would generate a huge amount of public notice, and knowing that it would be universally misinterpreted, which it was by the most learned and erudite journals.
And you suggest that anyone who questions the bona fides of the person bringing about this result must be biased?
If someone produces such a different result from the same data, especially where the changes have a “negligible impact” on the statistically reliable portion of a graph and only operate to bring into being an unreliable and “very doubtful” yet quite inflammatory portion, the presumption has to be that the procedures were modified in order to bring about the changes that resulted.
The uptick is consistent with the instrumental record. Any good scientist would question the results if they disagree with the evidence. If the core dates align the LIA with the 19th century in the proxy data, re-dating is necessary.
Why do you presume Marcott had nefarious intentions if you are not biased?
Why else would you assume what is not in evidence?
See the other comment I left a few minutes ago for a summary of my reasons for doubt.
Can you point out to me with specificity where this was determined to be false?
What am I assuming that is not in evidence?
If a portion of a graph is fragile, very doubtful, unreliable, at a different resolution from the rest of the graph, and came into being only after incorrect procedural changes were implemented, should it be included?
See Telford’s comment.
Suppose a scientist reported a finding that was described by acknowleged experts as fragile, very doubtful, unreliable, and the result of incorrect procedures. Would you say that any person who questions that work product must be biased?
Telford’s comment where?
You are assuming that Marcott made changes from his thesis for nefarious purposes.
It was not a different resolution from the rest of the graph.
It was more robust after the changes.
Yes, since it is part of the reconstruction, it should have been included with caveats, which it was.
That is a mischaracterization.
Why are you obsessed with the insignificant part of the graph?
On open mind, where he described the whole issue as irrelevant nonsense.
Do you have a link to that?
You hold that opinion even though Telford disagrees?
What were the caveats? That earlier portions of the reconstruction were more robust?
But one of the authors said that “We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years…” So how can we see variability for a period shorter than 300 years?
How about when we focus only on the uptick. Before the changes there was no uptick, so no question as to whether the uptick was robust. Was it more robust afterward?
The “evidence” was that he had re-dated. We had no explanation for that. Telford says that it was essential but because it was done improperly it rendered “the already fragile uptick very doubtful.” So the problem is still the re-dating. So what exactly was confirmed to be false?
Furthermore, scientific studies have different purposes. A person like Telford can see immediately that the 20th century portion is unreliable and therefore he ignores it. For those not as scientifically endowed, however, or for those who do not take the time to read the study carefully, it appears to be independent evidence for the stark character of recent warming. In that sense such a mischaracterization is not irrelevant since it can have a profound impact on public opinion and public policy.
So to an expert a misstatement that is trivial (because clearly false) is not necessarily trivial to all who receive that report, especially when all the most reputable journals report the misstatement as a profound and noteworthy finding.
So if a change in methodology “introduces an artificial warming into the result” there is no problem reporting that as a part of the findings? In fact, that is the preferred approach?
Telford said the re-dating of the core tops was necessary but not optimally implemented. He also said it is an irrelevant distraction.
The important thing about Marcott 2013 is that it shows the 20th century warming to be un precedented in 11,000 years.
You seem to believe that Shaun Marcott reworked his thesis to conform to the blade on “Mann’s Hockey Stick.” The blade is the instrumental record. Marcott if anything was motivated to match the instrumental record.
The 2000 year record looks like a hockey stick. Mann’s is not the only multi-proxy reconstruction.
Marcott extended that record for the entire Holocene. The work was original and a first of it’s kind. Nit picking about the last 100 years, which the authors clearly state is the weakest part of the reconstruction is nonsense.
Unless something changes with the data itself, I see nothing wrong with the reconstruction. If they had terminated it at 1850, there would have been no “uptick,” until you add the instrumental record.
If the best criticism is that the authors may have inadvertently made the least robust part of their reconstruction similar to the instrumental record. Then it will weather Steve McIntyre’s BS.
Did you see Tamino’s response when asked about that McIntyre’s chart?
It doesn’t, because it compares low-resolution highly smoothed data with high-resolution unsmoothed data. Only if you presented the recent warming the same way it would have been presented if it had occurred as a part of the low-resolution data would there be a fair comparison. The graph gives the impression that there was no comparable warming earlier in the Holocene but the data just does not answer that question.
It has been affirmed by numerous experts that there is a minimum sampling resolution of 300 years. Are you denying this?
The contrast between the last 100 years and the rest of the Holocene was the focus of the study and was deemed the most newsworthy aspect. It is not nit picking to find fault with the way the last 100 years was represented. Furthermore, the authors did not “clearly state” this. It was only discernable by someone having expertise in statistics and paleo reconstructions.
What about Tamino’s statement that the changed procedures introduced “an artificial warming into the result”? You have no problem with that?
Where do they compare the different data?
The graph is a product of the proxy data, most of which does not extend into the instrumental record.
True, the the data in the reconstruction does not confirm this beyond one sigma, but we don’t need to evaluate it as if it exists in a vacuum. The graph confirms what is already known, the 20th century warming is unprecedented in 11,000 years.
You said:
But the only way to show this, since the 20th century is less than 300 years, is by comparing low-resolution highly smoothed data (the Marcott data) with data having a much higher resolution, whether it’s the instrument record or unreliable recent proxies. Fig. 1A compared with the latter.
Then the inherent limitations of the data from this study do now allow an explicit contrast with the recent warming. What’s wrong with that?
Is this true or false: If the data from a study does not confirm the truth of X a scientist may not report that it does, even if data from other
studies supports this conclusion.
Not clear what this was.
I was still writing when I accidentally posted.
So you have a problem with the instrumental record?
Sounds like you are just wishing for something to be true because you want to believe it.
You can attack Marcott’s last century all you want, but if you want to show that their reconstruction does not confirm that the modern warming is unprecedented, then explain how the planet warmed and then cooled by 0.9C, without leaving any evidence in the paleoclimate record.
Otherwise, you are just another jackass trying to kick a hole in the barn.
Am I to conclude, then, that your answer to this is ‘false’?
The person who claims that there were no such events is the one who has that burden. However, how can this be accomplished using data having such a low resolution?
False. Science does not exist in a vacuum.
As long as the authors cite the supporting studies and data, which as far as I can tell, the authors did very well.
I am having a hard time understanding what your problem is. You seem to feel that Marcott et. al. is misleading.
Misleading is SM’s graph, deliberate obfuscation. Which is why you are now obsessed with irrelevant minutia. You fell victim to by SM’s deception.
You have the burden of proof reversed.
There is no evidence of such an event, therefore the evidence shows no such event occurred. The burden of proof is clearly on you to provide evidence to the contrary.
A 0.9ºC rise in GMST in one century would leave evidence in the ice cores. Particularly in the tropical glaciers. Global warming is actually an increase in altitude of the effective emitting layer of the atmosphere. The Kilimanjaro glacier formed 10,000 years ago, near the beginning of the Holocene, when the atmosphere warmed enough to transport water to the mountain. In 10,000 years, there is no sign it has ever melted, IE in 10,000 years, the temperature on Kilimanjaro never rose above 0ºC. It is now beginning to melt.
Kilimanjaro is not sinking, the atmosphere is rising.
Pay no attention to this freak. He is notorious. Just look at his ratty, girl’s hair grooming. He probably has fleas.
Pay no attention to this freak-a-zoid. He is a notorious Internet stalker. Just look at his picture. He is apparently transgender.
Pay no attention to this transgender freak. He thinks he is a great intellectual when he isn’t dressing up in women’s clothing. Dig the hairdo! (vomit!)
More quasi, pseudo intellect from a transgender freak-a-zoid who wears high heels at home. Whee!!!
More nonsense from a trans-gendered freak-a-zoid with long hair loaded with bugs. Yuk!
This freak has mastered all the big words from reading the ingredients of his makeup jars. Just look at the hairdo. Best it smells like dead animal. Which is appropriate.
Sorry, it is true.
Google “Two Minute Conservative” and you too will know.
“Climate sensitivity is 1.16 K?” What nonsense. Stay with your wardrobe and makeup jars, freak-a-zoid. You are out of your class here.
“climate sensitivity is lower than 1 c” Utter gibberish, meaningless, just like you. Go back to your lady’s clothing.
I was not claiming climate sensitivity was 1.16ºK, I was citing Bengston Schwartz 2013.
So why the obsession?
Does my avatar make your pee pee hard?
Then may I quote you as follows:
“If the data from a study does not confirm the truth of X a scientist may nevertheless report that it does if data from other studies supports this conclusion.”
No, if one is trying to show that the modern warming is unprecedented then one must show more than the modern warming. One must show the absence of comparable warming at other times.
I am not saying that high-resolution proxies do not exist. I am saying that Marcott purported to demonstrate the absence of high-resolution events through the use of low-resolution proxies.
As long as the supporting study is cited.
That is your biased interpretation, an opinion not consistent with the evidence.
Which opinion is that? That he was trying to demonstrate high-resolution events through low-resolution proxies?
This comment could serve as the perfect example of how to identify a troll by his comments.
Let me just be clear. You are saying that if a scientist’s study failed to find X he may nevertheless report that it did find X, as long as he also sites a study that actually did find X?
Yes.
That is a hypothetical. Marcott makes no unfounded or unsourced claims.
No, I am asking if that is a correct statement of a principle to which you subscribe.
No.
A study can cite the findings of another study. But it cannot claim said findings to be it’s own.
Then do you agree that if I assert that a scientist is to be faulted for falsely claiming to have shown through the use of reliable data that the modern warming is unprecedented, and you respond with other evidence that the modern warming actually is unprecedented, this does not respond to the assertion and is irrelevant with respect to the assertion?
Slowly but surely we seem to be making progress in communicating our positions. Yes! That is what I am saying!
Let’s just go through my assertions and see where you stand on them. Do you agree with the following:
Yes. But since that was the target demographic, I see no problem with it.
If you look closely at figure 1A, you can see how the 2 blades are offset and they include one mark to the right of present, 0.
I don’t know how to interpret this.
OK. Making some progress. Do you agree with this:
That Marcott was not hiding anything, or being deliberately misleading. You can see in figure 1A that the uptick from their reconstruction is prior to that in Mann 08, and that in order to show Mann 08, they had to extend the time line past the year zero for their reconstruction.
No,the uptick is a result of proxy drop off.
The procedure used to re-date the core tops was not optimal according to an independent expert, but that doesn’t mean it was incorrect. The induced errorsx according to the same expert, were inconsequential.
What do you think those who charge Marcott with misleading are referring to?
Since they are all demonstrated liars constantly accusing others of malfeasance…I really don’t care that much.
I find nothing misleading, and neither does Science Magazine.
Do you disagree with that part of the sentence that is almost a direct quote from Tamino:
The part of the sentence being:
Do you reject the assertion by Telford that the “re-dating step…will have induced errors” or do you reject the proposition that errors are incorrect?
This was not a part of the sentence I asked you to agree or disagree with, although you are welcome to agree with the sentence on the understanding that you consider the uptick to be inconsequential.
I agree with Tamino. The uptick is an artifact of proxy dropout and the averaging process. I also agree with this statement.
No I don’t reject Telford’s assertion that the re-dating had induced errors. I also agree that the re-dating was necessary and that the induced errors were less than the errors before re-dating.
That is the crux of the biscuit. All proxy reconstructions have induced errors. Telford intimates that there was a better way of calibrating the data, but he doesn’t elaborate, so it is just his opinion. An expert opinion, but an opinion none the less. Without evidence to back it up, it is still only an opinion.
Which is why this whole exercise of accusing Marcott of fraud and misconduct is a red herring.
I am using the term “error” to refer to a result other than the one that would have been achieved if the most appropriate known procedures had been implemented. Under that meaning of “error” do you believe that all proxy reconstructions have induced errors?
You are assuming something not in evidence. No one has demonstrated that the best known procedure was not implemented. Telford suggests there is a better procedure, but he does not describe it, so we have no way of knowing. He also states that it is a distraction since it does not alter the results in any significant way.
All reconstructions, proxy or otherwise have induced errors. Which is why statistics applies the three sigma rule.
I am making a distinction between (a) imprecision inherent in scientific inquiry, especially when trying to formulate conclusions based on proxies, and (b) unnecessary imprecision caused by inappropriate procedures, which I refer to as “errors.” I am not assuming anything. I am simply asking if you believe that all proxy reconstructions have induced errors?
What inappropriate procedures?
They are charging Marcott et al with:
1) daring to put two different types of temperature on the same graph — one from proxies, the other from the instrumental era.
2) They complain that Marcott et al’s data points, which are in 50-year intervals, may have overlooked large spikes (upward or downward) in the 50-years between any interval, which would obviously have been “natural,” therefore’s today’s warming might also be “natural.”
Yes, I do believe all reconstructions have induced errors. Our grasp of chaos is incomplete, there are always assumptions made that lead to uncertainty in the results. It is good science to remember that.
There was no attempt by the authors to hide anything. They could have ended the reconstruction in 1800, or 1850, but the uptick in temperature at the end of the graph is real, albeit exaggerated by proxy drop-out. They stated clearly in the beginning that reconstruction was more robust in the past, since they aligned all 73 proxy records between 4500 – 5500 Yrs B.P.
According to Tamino the appropriate procedures would have resulted in the red line shown in this graph. Do you agree that this is what Tamino is saying?
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/diff_v_ave.jpg?w=500&h=322
Well that was Tamino’s suggestion as a way to minimize proxy drop-out. It certainly matches the instrumental record better. And since Tamino’s blog is in the public domain, everyone has the chance to learn a little bit about statistics and climate proxies.
But the important message that Tamino emphasized in his first post on the subject is this:
Are you a registered sex offender or have they not caught you yet?
Google “Two Minute Conservative” and get sharp.
Furthermore absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when higher-resolution proxies of other kinds do show such evidence.
So do you agree that Tamino believes that the use of incorrect procedures resulted in an uptick significantly larger than it should have been, although he believes that this had no significant impact on the entire reconstruction?
You are projecting again.
What higher resolution proxies?
That would be evidence, not absence of evidence.
I did not say that the absence of evidence proves that no such events did not occur, therefore, I am not appealing to absence of evidence for my conclusion. Science is based on formal logic, not informal logic. Every assumption and conclusion is based on evidence, not lack of evidence. I conclude that since there is a preponderance of evidence, and nowhere in that evidence, is their evidence for such an event having occurred. Therefore my conclusion is that the evidence shows the modern warming to be unprecedented.
Tamino does not characterize the procedure as incorrect. Just like he doesn’t consider his suggestion to be the correct procedure. The important thing is what information does it impart. In that context, this paper confirms what was already generally believed, the modern warming is unprecedented in the Holocene.
Well he said that the procedures used left the uptick artificially high and he proposed a procedure that would, to the extent possible, remove that issue, right? But nevertheless you believe that this does not characterize the procedures used as incorrect?
Are you not saying here that no evidence of an event is evidence that no such event occurred?
Correct and incorrect are absolute terms that don’t apply to relative subjects.
Yes. If you look at video footage in an elevator, and no one is seen to enter the elevator, then the evidence that no one used the elevator during that time is the absence of a recorded image. The same logic applies to the proxy record. It is a recording of climate. If a climate event is not in the climate record, that is evidence it never occurred.
What is your view of this?
It is hardly surprising that a low-resolution highly smoothed data does not show much variability and is flat. To use that as evidence that a high-resolution view would show no variability would take more salesmanship than anybody has been able to show so far. This would be somewhat akin to Galileo concluding that another planet had no moons because his primitive instrument did not detect them. For your elevator example to be apropos you would have to substitute a camera that only took one picture every three minutes.
Do you agree with this view of the matter by Robert Rohde?
How about “done using inferior procedures”?
Do you think that he would say that if procedure A results in significantly lower error than procedure B, that procedure B is an inferior procedure and procedure A is the one preferred?
No, it would be more like a camera that took pictures every 3 seconds.
It is you who are trying to prove a negative. There is no known mechanism that cold warm the Earth 0.8ºC in a century, and then cool it in an even shorter time, so as not to leave a trace in the climate record. Therefore, according to the climate record and all known climate physics… your suggestion is impossible!
I don’t think it matters, they were not trying to reproduce the modern temperature record, so the fact that they failed is irrelevant, they achieved what they set out to do.
Yes he would. But we don’t know that procedure B was superior through the whole reconstruction, just the last part. So it really depends on what the question is you are trying to answer.
I continue to be impressed with this exchange of commentary. Kudos
Traces were left in the climate record. Just not in low-resolution highly smoothed proxies.
It has prompted me to look deeper into the reconstruction. I am more confident in Marcott’s now than I was before. They did what can only be characterized as an exhaustive analysis of the data.
The fact that all the deniers can do is challenge the last data point speaks volumes to the robustness of the analysis.
SM is the best jackass. He is quite skilled at kicking holes in barns. All he managed to do here is loosen a few nails.
I’m just glad that the exchange has been helpful for you. Best wishes
Traces were left in the climate record. But not if one uses a method with insufficient resolution to see them.
Greenland and Antarctica had temperature spikes but not the rest of the world?
But they did reproduce the modern record, so they must have been trying to do so. Irrespective of the importance you place on the modern period relative to the remainder of the reconstruction, would you agree with Tamino and with Telford that the reconstruction for the modern period was completed using inferior procedures?
Just limit your remarks to the last part. Would you say that if procedure A results in significantly lower error than procedure B, that procedure B is an inferior procedure and procedure A is the one preferred, as to the last part?
Yes.
No they didn’t, the modern record was a single datapoint at the end of the reconstruction. I believe T&T’s criticisms have merit. I don’t agree that those criticisms are an indictment.
Then do you agree with this statement:
A single data point is nevertheless a data point.
The criticism of Tamino and of Telford that I am referring to is related to the uptick and is far from an indictment of the entire reconstruction. Rather, it is a simple criticism of a portion of the reconstruction that they both feel is irrelevant to the rest of the reconstruction. You have agreed that the T&T criticism is that the uptick was produced through inferior procedures. Do you disagree with the criticism; i.e. do you believe that the uptick was not the result of inferior procedures?
Both the Vostok and EPICA Dome C cores were included in Marcott et. al. 2013.
When you compare the data, you will find that the high anomaly400 years ago is associated with a cool anomaly in the Dome C. The warm anomaly in 2291 B. P. coincides with a cool anomaly at Dome C. The 4300 B.P. to 4600 B.P. is concurrent in both cores, but not equivalent. There is a lot more variation in the Dome C, but then, it is of higher resolution than Vostok.
So when you average the two Antarctica proxies, the big spikes go away. And since some of the biggest spikes in ice core data was 1895, we know that the cores also represent local climate variability. There is a jump in the EPICA Dome C core from 1877 to 1895 of 3.5ºC. That does not coincide with a 3.5ºC increase in global temperatures. In fact, that period saw a decline in the GMST.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1877/to:1895/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1877/to:1895/trend
No. I would state it thusly;
“The uptick is an artifact of proxy drop-out, amplifying the warming signal at the end of the reconstruction.”
The uptick is real, it is just amplified by proxy drop-out. Tamino showed a different method (differencing) that is less effected by proxy drop-out. Telford suggested there may be a better way to re-data the core tops, but I have not seen his suggested alternative. The re-dating is not the reason for the uptick, though it may have influenced it.
My point, shared by both Tamino and Telford is; the whole discussion is red herring, a deliberate obfuscation intended to cast doubt where none exists.
According to the NCDC, the GISP2 events events were “regional to global”:
That is the other side of the world. You can download the Vostok and EPICA data and compare them yourself. There are some differences in methodology but you can still see positive and negative anomalies and compare time frames.
Is this a true statement?
Do you agree with the NCDC that the GISP2 events were “regional to global”?
The procedures have not been shown to be inferior. The effect they would have on the rest of the reconstruction has not been determined.
Since Marcott et. al. analyzed the data many different ways, including RegEm, there are multiple cross checks for robustness. Now we have another methodology using the same data from Tamino, that dampens the uptick, but also changes the entire reconstruction to a minor degree.
Since the Holocene is the focus of the study, not the 20th century, it has not been determined that their methodology is inferior to Tamino’s.
Yes I do. But we were discussing Antarctica, not Greenland. The reason the Marcott reconstruction is robust is precisely because they use multiple proxies from around the globe, and subject them to a very thorough and robust analysis. Then they extract the signal as the global reconstructed average. They do much more than just plot the raw data.
Then do you agree that if GISP2 events were regional to global they should show up on a graph that purports to be global?
Is it your position that it may have been impossible for Marcott to produce a report, no part of which introduced an artificial warming that was just an artifact of the averaging process?
Is it your position that if a portion of a graph was fragile, very doubtful, unreliable, and which introduced an artificial warming, that it is better to include that portion of the report than to exclude it?
As you know, if one takes a period of time, as in the first graph below, and smooths this out from a monthly resolution to an annual resolution, as in the second graph below, it pulls the highs and lows closer to the center. Although the two graphs represent the same data, the different resolution makes it appear as if the temperature did not vary as much.
The third graph below is Figure S4a from the Marcott Supplementary Materials. The uptick starts at about 1900, shown by the green line, and the blue line ends at 1950, so showing a 0.8C rise in 50 years (an issue for another discusson).
Now, for the earlier part of the graph we know from Marcott that “there is no statistically valid resolution to the combined proxy set for anything less than 300-year periods.” In fact, the paper said “…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”
Since the earlier part of the graph is resolved and smoothed to this extent one would of course expect that 20th century portion of the graph would be smoothed equally, to avoid the problem shown above when comparing the monthly to the annual resolution graph. Unfortunately, with only 50 years to deal with it is problematic to use 300 year smoothing. The next graph shows the temp data from 1875-1975 with 50 year smoothing. The smoothing has reduced the increase to about 0.25C. How did Marcott get a rise of 0.8C? The next graph below shows the rise from 1900 using 20 year smoothing! This is how he was able to get a rise of 0.8C. In the words of the study:
The next image shows what the rise would look like at 100 year resolution, an 0.11C increase, and even that is too much for the rest of the graph, which is at 300 year resolution. The final image shows what Figure S4a would look like with the uptick represented at 100 year resolution.
Do you think that this is an appropriate way to represent the uptick when the purpose of the study was to compare the current warming with other warming in the Holocene?
The annual fluctuation in temperature at proxy sites does not reflect the GMST. The GMST over short time periods does not reflect global heat content, which is the most accurate measure of global warming. The variation in GMST month to month, or year to year, is noise. The GMST is averaged over 30 years in order to get a statistically significant signal from the this noise.
The purpose of the study was not to show an uptick, but the resolve the Earth’s average temperature over the Holocene. The uptick at the end is the least robust and least interesting part of the study. However, it is the only thing that SM and the rest of the deniersphere could find wrong so that they can continue their denial of science propaganda.
No, the question is this: if two parts of a graph are to be compared with each other, shouldn’t they, to the extent possible, be depicted using the same data resolution?
Who is SM?
Steve McIntyre.
Your 20 year smoothed graph should look like this.
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3vgl/from:1875/to:1975/mean:240
From 1900, mean 240: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/mean:240
But please address the question: is it appropriate to append a high-res graph onto a low-res graph when the point of the study is to draw a contrast between low-res portion and the high-res portion?
Do you think that I am Steve McIntyre?
I don’t know what you are talking about. They did not append a high res graph with a low res graph. The aligned their reconstruction with a higher resolution reconstruction. To do so, they processed the data in 20yr time steps. They were completely open about their methodology and results.
This horse is dead, rotting, and starting to smell.
Why do you keep beating it?
No. But you are getting your argument from the specious nonsense he writes on his blog.
Because we don’t seem to even be able to agree on facts that that should not be in dispute.
The reconstruction for the recent period was being aligned with a lower resolution reconstruction. Higher res proxies went into its reconstruction but “there is no statistically valid resolution to the combined proxy set for anything less than 300-year periods.”
In fact, Robert Rohde explicitly points out “the trap of comparing a single year or decade to what is essentially an average of centuries.”:
Don’t you think that Marcott was inviting such a comparison?
The nature of the reconstruction was to combine multiple proxy types and resolutions into a reconstruction of the Holocene. The proxies had at least 6500 year span, including the period 4500 – 5500 B.P. The length of the series and calibration over the the mid-Holocene, makes the reconstruction robust over this period. It also calibrates the long spanning low resolution proxies that extend to 1950 with higher resolution proxies that are only a few thousands of years old. By aligning their reconstruction with Mann’s 2000 year reconstruction, they aligned the mean with the 1961 – 1990 mean. Keeping it all consistent.
The dome C core in Antarctica has a 20 year or better resolution throughout the entire Holocene. What Marcott did was look at a 1000 different random and perturbed possibilities and plotted the average to one sigma.
Global climate change is not a few warm or cold years. The climate system has an enormous amount of inertia. It takes a long time for oceans to warm and cool, usually centuries, so marine proxies are good as low resolution proxies since what they are measuring only changes over centuries.
A warming of the Pacific of 0.18ºC in the last 50 years is 15 times faster than anything seen in the last 10,000 years.
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/articles/view/3130
This warming however is consistent with what physics predicts. The surface energy budget is what determines the climate. The oceans are ~93% of the thermal mass in the equation. They do not warm and cool rapidly, it takes a sustained forcing over very long time periods.
A few warm decades regionally, even if part of a global signal, which is what the Marcott reconstruction was designed to detect, is not going warm the oceans 0.18ºC, that normally takes centuries. Only a sustained forcing can perturb the surface energy budget enough to warm the the oceans that much.
The known CO2 forcing accounts for the heat that has gone into the oceans over the past 50 years. Nothing else explains it. This global multi-proxy reconstruction captures the mean global temperature over the entire Holocene, which includes the oceans. There is no known forcing that could put this much heat into the oceans, and no evidence that the oceans ever warmed this fast during the Holocene. This is consistent with known physics. No surprise that the 20th century warming is unprecedented. We can measure the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. We can look down through the atmosphere and see the missing light being absorbed.
If CO2 does not do, what we have observed it doing since 1860…then there is no plausible physical explanation for past or present climate.
There is nothing functionally wrong with Marcott’s reconstruction. It aligns with the last 2000 years, which aligns with the last 160, each of higher and higher resolution. The important thing is not whether it captures short term variability, but that it captures the long term mean. Which is the actual signal of global warming.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:60/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:600
The issue I am trying to address right now, however, is the depiction of the last 100 years in high resolution while on the same graph the rest of the Holecene is depicted in low resolution. As the 1950 – 1970 graph showed above, the temperature reached .2 in the higher res while the same temperature was depicted as 0 in the low-res version.
Do you agree that it is inherently misleading to tack a high-res graph onto a low-res graph, knowing that the same temperature will appear to be higher in the high-res portion, especially where the focus of the graph is to contrast the temperatures in the two part of the graph?
The 20th century part of the graph was being contrasted with the earlier part of that graph, not with the Mann graph. And if the 20th century portion was given a higher res in order to make it comparable to a Mann graph in higher res, why is it appropriate to juxtapose those with a graph having a much lower resolution, for the purpose of graphically showing the difference in temperature?
The 20th century resolution is the same as the rest of the reconstruction. They did not tack on another graph, they contrasted it with higher resolution reconstructions.
Utter gibberish from a long-haired likely deviant flop who thinks he is “real smart.”
Michael Mann is a total fraud as exposed in the East Anglia email scandal.
This guy has penetrated to the true heart of trolldom. Does he follow you around everywhere?
But what do you mean when “there is no statistically valid resolution to the combined proxy set for anything less than 300-year periods” and “In essence, their reconstruction appears to tell us about past changes in climate with a resolution of about 400 years.”
The lowest resolution proxy was 300 years, therefore the combined resolution is 300 years. The data was still processed in 20 year steps, to align with Mann08, but the combined resolution of all the proxies is 300 years, and the combined proxies only cover less than 6500 years,during the mid-Holocene, not the beginning or the end.
Their methodology calibrates long spanning, low resolution proxy data with the higher resolution data in mann08, which is in turn calibrated with the even higher resolution instrumental record.
I pick up stalkers all the time.
They get bored when they realize they can’t get a rise out of me.
I consider them to be harmless, but if they break the law I report them so they end up on a watch list.
Aside from learning and teaching, I am studying human psychology. Particularly how we deceive ourselves with our beliefs. I suspected that Santa was not real when I was 6 years old, things just didn’t add up, but I wanted to believe, even after I was told otherwise. I grew up in the evangelical religion. By 10 years old I was an atheist, for the same reason I stopped believing in Santa Claus. I have known since childhood that we rationalize our beliefs, and can even remember conscious decisions to believe one way or anther, and justify that belief. It is human nature to do so.
AV is an extreme example, but not very interesting as a subject. he lacks creativity and refuses to even consider evidence outside his belief system, protecting himself from cognitive dissonance, so I can’t even gauge how he responds to it.
I followed him for a few days. Mostly all he does is spam the comment section telling people to google his blog so he can sell his book.
OK, but if “In essence, their reconstruction appears to tell us about past changes in climate with a resolution of about 400 years” then is it appropriate to juxtapose that with a graph having a resolution of 20 years?
It’s curious, because he appears to have no concern about the limits most people place on their conduct when they wish to appear totally sane.
As long as it is well calibrated, which they took pains to do, hence the 20 year time steps in the processing.
Here is an example of the monthly mean using woodfortrees, smoothed over 5 years, 20 years, and 50 years.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:60/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:240/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:600
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198/F1.large.jpg
Figure 1A and B show how their low resolution graph aligns with Mann’s higher resolution graph.
They did not change the resolution, they processed the data at a higher resolution in order to extract a more robust global mean average. You can see clearly in Figure 1A that the 2000 year reconstruction has the higher resolution variability
He believes the “other side” is not sane, so he has given himself permission to be crazy. I think it is part psychological projection, at some level he knows he not sane. As a protection mechanism, he projects that insanity onto others, which permits him to act out without feeling self-conscious.
You are not addressing my question directly. You know what the question is. Perhaps you are wondering when I will tire of asking it.
The hockey stick shaft was displayed in low resolution and the blade was displayed in high resolution, which exaggerated the height of the blade relative to the shaft. Why is this appropriate when the purpose of the paper was to contrast the height of the blade with the flatness of the shaft?
Granted, a higher resolution is more accurate, but the primary purpose of the paper was the contrast between the recent warming and earlier warming. Therefore, greater accuracy resulted in being more misleading, and misleading about the very purpose of the study. Do you disagree?
That did not happen. Here is the procedure.
If you ever decided to write a regular blog, would it have the dual focus of human psychology and the pseudoscientific denial, anti-scientific extreme uncertainty (merchandising doubt), pseudo-skepticism wrt climate science?
No, it would be probably about permaculture, ecology, botany, and biology.
It doesn’t matter who you are, does it? A logical argument is supported by its own merit and its freedom from logical fallacy – both formal and informal; not by an appeal to authority. I wish that I knew a lot more about making a sound and meritorious argument from the perspective of fuzzy logic.
You two keeping to a nuanced scientific discussion, no matter your legal identities in real life, has been and continues to be a great read.
I’m interested very much in the motivated reasoning and cognitive biases (although it may be concealed in the secret and hidden recesses of the psyche) associated with the differences between genuine investigation and the pseudo-skepticism which goes on in order to confirm denial bias… along with other forms of motivated reasoning. It’s difficult to discern. As with other scientific pursuits, this form of cognitive science or epistemics (defined as the use of logic, philosophy, psychology, and linguistics to study knowledge and the way it is processed by humans) has the good rule… if there is insufficient evidence, then the proper course is to reserve judgement.
But I’m glad of the long discussion about Mann et al and Marcott and the hockey stick graph.
If you ever start a Peripatetic philosophical school, then count me in. It beats becoming a monk or hermit, imo
Do you agree with this description of the hockey stick “shaft”?
Glad you’ve found it useful.
The hockey stick shaft is the past 2000 years, and there are multiple high resolution reconstructions of that period.
I don’t know how that conclusion was reached for the Marcott reconstruction, 300 years is the lowest resolution of the proxies, 20 years is the highest, and 120 is the mean resolution.
Do you respect the expertise of Robert Rohde who made that statement?:
median resolution
Or the last 11,500 years.
Yes, I respect the expertise of Robert Rohde.
He made that statement before he had read the supplemental materials. So it is was not an informed opinion. He was estimating the resolution, not empirically deriving it. So the 400 years is a close guess, but the actual smoothing is 300 years.
I agree that one cannot draw such a conclusion from the data itself and at one sigma, uncertainty, Marcott 2013 certainly does not do that.
However, when you also consider the physics, there is nothing surprising about the results. For a planet to warm and cool rapidly, there would be;
a) evidence of a strong forcing in the geologic record
b) evidence that transient climate sensitivity is being underestimated.
There is no evidence for a century long solar forcing, followed by a volcanic induced cooling. So the only other possibility would be higher transient climate sensitivity, which would mean that equilibrium sensitivity would also be higher. That would not be good news.
Marcott 2013’s results are consistent with our understanding of climate physics.
Gee, you left out cross-dressing, hair care, anal sex and maintenance, man-boy love and all your other likely passions.
Or a wheelchair.
http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/Shakun_Marcott_HadCRUT4_A1B_500.png
What is your source for that?
Would you agree that the reconstruction appears to tell us about past changes in climate with a resolution of no less than 300 years, and that this describes the hockey stick shaft?
The same email where he made that statement.
You are projecting again.
Are you saying that the information in the study itself is insufficient to allow one to arrive at an informed opinion?
He qualified his opinion as being uninformed.
I have no idea it he has commented further. It is not of particular interest to me.
Would you agree that the Marcott reconstruction appears to tell us about past changes in climate with a resolution of no less than 300 years, and that this describes the hockey stick shaft?
Not exactly. He said “I found the Marcott et al. paper interesting and read it with some care.” He also said “I can only comment on the parts that I can immediately see.” He was not saying that he was “uninformed.” He was saying that he could only comment on matters that could be discerned without having access to the supplement.
Yes. My understanding is that the reconstruction is smoothed over 300 years. A 300 year resolution smoothes out short term variability. Marcott had data up to 1950, so 1800 was the last fully resolved point.
Here is another WFT chart with annual, 5, 20, and 120 year means.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:240/offset:0.7/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:60/offset:0.4/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:1440/offset:0.7/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend/offset:1
The short term variability is removed and a trend emerges. If the trend is zero over 300 years, then it is also highly likely that there was not a great deal of variation, since an extreme anomaly must be countered by an equally extreme reverse anomaly. That means that a warming anomaly of 0.9ºC in 100 years would need to be offset by a cooling anomaly of -1.8ºC over the next 200 years. Such heat fluxes and associated forcings would be abundantly evident in the higher resolution proxies, especially the ice cores.
But the purpose of a study is to tell us something besides “go look at the other studies.” The data from this study is unable to tell us whether such anomalies took place, with a single exception. The blade alone had the ability to show such anomalies.
Since the focus of the graph was to contrast the shaft with the blade is it not misleading for the blade alone to be able to show such anomalies, and to use the same line for both with no demarcation as to the separate treatments?
The blade is clearly Mann’s reconstruction and labeled as such. The proxy drop-out is also clearly illustrated in Figure 1.
I agree with your point that the uptick was not robust, as they clearly show in the figure 1, and had they left it out, Steve McIntyre would have had to work harder to earn his money, but it makes no difference in to the conclusion.
It would be near impossible to hide a 100 year warming event of this magnitude in the geologic record. Marcott 2013 was the first reconstruction of it’s kind, others will follow. It shows the modern warming is unprecedented in 11,000 years to one sigma certainty.
The purple line is not Mann’s reconstruction, is it?
That is not my point. My point is that the uptick is misleading.
The issue is that Marcott purported to demonstrate from the flatness of his shaft that there were no anomalies similar to the current one but the resolution of his data does not allow that inference to be drawn. The fact that other or future studies may show that there were no such anomalies is not pertinent to this study.
Since the focus of the graph was to contrast the shaft with the blade is it not misleading for the blade alone to be able to show such anomalies, and to use the same line for both with no demarcation as to the separate treatments?
“Regional to global” warming events show up in the Greenland geologic record.
This shows that the number of proxies is approaching zero. However, clearly there were enough left, in number or in quality, to enable the drawing of the purple line in Fig. 1A. Else how could that line have been drawn?
Furthermore, this goes only to the robustness of the proxies. It does not go to the decision to show the “blade” data in a resolution higher than the resolution in which the “shaft” data was shown. Nor does it go to the decision to use statistical techniques that introduced an artificial warming into the blade.
On this we can agree.
I don’t know why you resist this so strenuously. To acknowledge that one study had a misleading aspect does not say anything about global warming. The study may have advanced scientific knowledge in many ways while also being misleading in one respect. To refuse to acknowledge this is simply to be guided more by political motivations than by scientific ones.
The blade was not in a higher resolution, it was an artifact of proxy drop-out. The blade of Mann’s reconstruction is of higher resolution and it demonstrates variability outside one sigma certainty.
The uptick resulted from the decision to extend the mean to the end of the data, not the averaging and RegEM methodology.
That graph is not accurate.
Where did you get it?
No, the comparison was made with Mann08, the uptick in their reconstruction is clearly not consistent with Mann08. And they clearly do not overstate the confidence. That is your bias. When I saw the uptick out of sync with the instrumental record, I knew immediately it was an artifact and dismissed it as irrelevant, that is my bias.
After discussing it with you, I now agree with Telford, they should have ended the mean and variance in 1800, and let the lower resolution Mann08 demonstrate uptick. Then SM would have extended the reconstruction to take end of the data, and would be spinning the narrative that the inability to reproduce the blade falsifies both.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL049444/pdf page 3
Then how does the purple line show the recent anomaly when we know that for the rest of the line it will not show anomalies that take place over a 100 year period?
Why is it appropriate to juxtapose that with a low-resolution line?
Tamino and others said that the procedures used left the uptick artificially high. Are you now denying this?
So you are saying that they should not have included the uptick but that doing so was not misleading?
The purple line of the “blade” was compared with the purple line of the “shaft,” right?
Well, using non-robust proxies is overstating the confidence, but it is the showing of the blade in a higher resolution that is the misleading aspect. Could you address that?
How is it appropriate to contrast a line incapable of showing a 100 year anomaly with one that is capable?
They do not show the blade in a higher resolution. You are mistaken.
The purple line is capable of showing a 100 year anomaly of this magnitude.
Here is the same ratio of smoothing from Mann to Marcott, using the instrumental record.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:180/plot/none
What do you find inappropriate about it?
Except that if that anomaly had been scaled even with 100yr smoothing (much less the 300yr of the shaft) it would have looked like the red line in this graphic, right?
No, then the study would have gotten one big yawn and would have been ignored. But Marcott did not want that.
The purple line does not show the recent anomaly, it shows an uptick 50 years before the recent anomaly, as shown in the Mann08. You even magnified it, showing how it is clearly not robust.
No, I am not denying anything, you are misunderstanding .
What Tamino did with differencing, changes the results of the whole reconstruction. What exactly that means has not been explored yet. It very well may be a better methodology, it certainly works better in this case for reproducing the 1830 – 1950 mean.
Thank you. I thought is was an earlier one that was circulating used data ending in 1855 and called it present day.
You will also notice that when compared with the global temperature, the historic warming trends in Greenland are only mildly associated with global temperature.
How does the magnification show that it is clearly not robust?
The bottom line is that the methodology used left the uptick artificially high. That the existence of a satisfactory solution has not been proven (except that of leaving the 20th century data out) is irrelevant. The height of the uptick resulted from the choice of methodology (even apart from the issue of display resolution). Agreed?
The magnification shows that it does not coincide with the instrument record but does not show that it lacks statistical robustness.
I should have originally included the link to the paper since this is not disclosed in the graph.
What is your source for this?
It looks like what one would expect for a 100yr smoothing on a data set that ends in 1950.
No, it would not have been ignored. Marcottt does not tell us anything we didn’t already know. They took the temporally long proxy datasets and analyzed their mean and variance to one sigma. There could have been periods of higher temperature, and when they overlay Mann08, you can actually see that there are periods that are outside the one sigma variance (shading).
This reconstruction, like Mann99, has gotten more attention because of SM than it would have otherwise I am sure. That is not in and of itself a bad thing, since I found the discussion of the uptick on Tamino’s blog to be quite enlightening.
Then why shouldn’t it be shown that way, since that shows it in the same context as the rest of the line?
The uptick is real, the choice of methodology amplified it.
Why would you assume statistical robustness if the results do not match the measurements?
Compare it to the 2000 year reconstruction.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/fig3.jpg
Notice that the warm period in Greenland that precedes the MWP is not associated with a global warming trend.
Synchronously, does not imply amplitude. And as the 2000 year reconstructions show, Greenland warmed up before the global temperature rose, indicating that the anomalous warming was from internal heat distribution, not outside forcings.
Because that is not what their process yielded. that would have been dishonest. Instead they showed the uptick from their results, as well as how it contrasted with and was not consistent with Mann08 and the instrumental record. As a result of publishing it, even though it was an obvious artifact, it was openly discussed and is now well understood.
At least, I understand why it is, and why it is not important.
You might like this article as well as parts 1 & 2 http://www.alternet.org/economy/coming-revolution-evolutionary-leap-or-descent-chaos-and-violence?
Well, the “measurements” refer to Mann et al.’s global CRU-EIV composite mean temperature. Perhaps not everybody who reads this study equates that with Truth.
Don’t you think that the only reason Marcott got any attention at all was because of the inflammatory contrasting of temperatures having different resolutions and smoothing? If Marcott had simply stopped his reconstruction at 1900 and had only showed how that compared with the Mann reconstruction up to that point why would anyone have been interested? SM went into action as a result of the press coverage. Absent that he would have done nothing. No hockey blade no press coverage.
What do you think is the relative importance of using the same scale on all the data making up a line? Suppose that one section in the middle of the “shaft” came from a series of high resolution proxies. And suppose that the temperatures shown by those proxies were exactly the same as the temperatures of the low resolution proxies on either side of it. Since that is what “their process yielded” would it be appropriate to show that one section in the original resolution if the result would cause the line to bulge significantly upward just in that section?
Isn’t Greenland influenced by the AMO?
It certainly has some bearing on amplitude, but in any event it is clear that Greenland is more than “only mildly associated with global temperature.”
So you don’t think the early instrumental record is more robust than a 300 year running mean of 73 proxies, most of which dropped out before 1950?
No wonder you are so fixated on the uptick.
SM would have responded irregardless. It is his life’s calling to attack hockey sticks.
The blade of the hockey stick is real. Get used to it, it is not going away.
They used the same scale throughout their reconstruction.
Why do you keep insisting they changed it?
No it isn’t, the variance of Greenland’s temperature is far greater than global temperatures.
You are using using regional temperatures to refute global temperature. Which makes no sense at all.
But since it supports your belief, you count it as evidence. That is confirmation bias at work.
Rosenthal et al., do not close the sea level budget with their estimate and the proxies they used are problematic. So it is hard to conclude that their results are robust enough to draw conclusions about past Pacific ocean temperature
One thing is clear from the study, the Pacific ocean is warming an order of magnitude faster now than at any other time during the past 10,000 years.
In the first place, there can be two different techniques, both statistically valid, that result in graphs having different shapes, right? Like showing the same data in different resolutions? For example, one person made this comment:
Also, incorrect results are not always the result of non-robust data.
The point is that if Marcott had not used unreliable data and subjected it to improper procedures and then displayed it in a scale out of proportion to the scale of the data of the “shaft” he would not have had a hockey stick, so nothing to attack.
What is your answer to my hypothetical?
Marcott does not use HadCrut data.
He has nothing to attack.
But that never stopped him before, so why should we expect him to need reason and logic now?
Did you forget the part about the uptick being irrelevant?
Not answering hypotheticals.
Why do you insist they changed the scale of their reconstruction?
Stupid nitpick and I apologize for it ahead of time. I’d like your take on the following: “Irregardless is a word commonly used in place of regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since the early twentieth century, though the word appeared in print as early as 1795.[1] Most dictionaries list it as ‘nonstandard’ or ‘incorrect’ usage, and recommend that ‘regardless’ should be used instead.” from Wikipedia. I realize that what I’m “correcting” could be me being technically anal… so consider the source 🙂
I’m asking for a statement of principle. Should the resolution of data in a graph be normalized so that actual temperature X in one part of the graph will not appear to be higher or lower than the same temperature in another part of the same graph?
And as the global reconstruction shows, Greenland temperature spiked centuries before global temperatures. In fact, the MWP coincides with a very cool period in Greenland.
http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1407/8423/original.jpg
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/fig3.jpg
Cherry picking studies that appear to support your conclusion is not getting at the truth, it is motivated reasoning. It is quite obvious Greenland’s temperature fluctuates by degrees, global temperature fluctuates by 10th’s of degrees. And they are not always synonymous. Which makes Broeker’s assertion suspect.
Where is the 1930’s warming in the global record? Where is the spike in global temperatures in 700 – 800 AD?
The record shows Greenland warming to it’s 4000 year peak starting about 600 AD and peaking around 700 AD, cooling to one of it’s lowest levels in 4000 years, right about the time that global temperatures began to rise.
How do you explain that?
What is your point?
As per your reply, it’s extremely challenging for me to know how to discern when authentic science, maths, quantitative analysis is being argued by way of principled dissent… and when authentic science is being argued by those who sincerely believe in pseudoscience… especially when we factor in cognitive biases. It seems to me that all argument (and I know that I ought not be employing a universal) between authentic science and pseudoscience reduces to argument from ignorance ad absurdum ad nauseam.
On the other hand I suppose that’s OK, if the end purpose (the telos) is a learning process for the agent arguing the authentic science. There is no realistic hope for the provocateur arguing pseudoscience to learn much of anything… other than learn to dig a deeper deceitful pit.
I will take it under advisement.
I was born in Appalachia, we use words differently there.
I don’t know what you mean by “normalized.”
I disagree, the more information a denier has, the greater their cognitive dissonance.
It was not irrelevant to the media attention Marcott wanted. It was key to that.
You are assuming something not in evidence. You have no proof that Marcott published the uptick to garner media attention.
“that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.”
Adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale.
This was never in dispute. The MWP and the LIA are both recorded in the Antarctic ice cores.
My assumption is that without a “blade” there would have been much less media attention paid to his study. Do you disagree?
But inclusion of only certain studies on the graph is not cherry-picking?
What is the meaning of this:
I was born very near Appalachia as well.
The correct word is “irregardlessly”.
;p
Does that make you the deciderer?
How would one do that?
What is the methodology and reasoning behind it?
But the blade is real, it is the instrumental record, he could not have eliminated it.
I disagree.
That sometimes the events are regional and sometimes they are global.
I agree about the greater the cognitive dissonance. In terms of cognitive behavior, I’m assuming that there is an underlying cause for the effects of both cognitive dissonance (which I simply define as the reinterpretation of evidence to conform to beliefs which beliefs have powerful rational-emotive investment) and denial (defined as “refusal to acknowledge existence of something: a refusal to believe in something or admit that something exists”). I’m interested in “psychic numbing” as a cause of both denial and cognitive dissonance. This fits your assertion, i.e. more information results in greater dissonance. Maybe it’s important in how the information is framed from a “psychic numbing” perspective. What do you think?
I was also born very near Appalachia (Southern Ohio at least), and damned if I know.
I used to use the word “irregardless” until my Dad “corrected” me. So it’s a psychological thing. That’s my short “consider the source” story. You have had and continue to enjoy an interesting life from the personal details you have shared in posts. Living in interesting times isn’t always a blessing; but that’s kismet 🙂
lol! Yes! Me decides!
Did you ever hear the interviews where George Bush, Jr. doesn’t have the Texas accent?
For the longest time during his presidency I couldn’t decide if he was a bona fide idiot, or a secret genius perfectly playing the role of incompetent hillbilly…
How else can data with differing resolutions be meaningfully displayed on the same graph?
The instrument record is extraneous to Marcott’s data and Marcott’s findings. It comes from a different study. He did not contribute to it and it is not his finding so why does he need to display it in his graph? Only the non-robust Marcott data goes into making a blade.
Do you disagree that without a “blade” there would have been much less media attention paid to his study?
Could you state your position on the MWP and LIA, as to the extent to which they were global phenomena?
They were global to the extent recorded in the global record.
No, I think it would be the opposite. It would be touted as a refutation of Mann08, and SkS would be explaining how, due to proxy dropout and smoothing resolution, the chart does not show 20th century warming.
What problem do you have with how Marcott normalized the data?
The line on the graph is not an artifact of the normalization process.
Is that the same as saying “They were global to the extent that they were global”?
Why does the instrument data for the 20th century need to be included in Marcott’s graph?
The evidence is clear that the LIA was a global event, The MWP was more of a NH event that influenced global temperatures. So one was more global than the other. The LIA was a regression toward the mean from the MWP that was exacerbated by volcanic emissions, reduced TSI, and rapid CO2 uptake as forests regrew in the fields of the native Americans decimated by conquest and disease.
They do not include the instrument data for the 20th century in their reconstruction.
Why does it need to be included on the same graph?
Of course, but that has nothing to do with the uptick.
But doesn’t actual temperature X in the uptick appear to be higher than the same temperature in the “shaft”?
As has been explained ad nauseam, the uptick is amplified by proxy drop-out. It has nothing to do with normalizing the data.
As opposed to being a global event?
But the uptick is at 20yr resolution, which makes an anomaly in the uptick in the amount of X appear larger than the same size anomaly in the shaft, right?
And if we took steps to give the uptick the same resolution as the shaft, by giving it 100 year resolution it would appear like the red line here, right?
Yes. The evidence is in the ice cores. Greenland warmed anomalously from 600AD to about 800AD. The rest of globe warmed slightly. Greenland cooled precipitously, the rest of the world dipped a little then warmed to a peak from 900AD to 1200AD.
In the NH the warming was more pronounced than in the SH during this period.
The uptick is not a 20year resolution, it is the same scale and resolution as the rest of the chart.
I thought Marcott said that he had used 20 year resolution on the “blade.” Are we talking about the same thing?
No, they applied a 20 year resolution to the entire series when they analyzed it.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/03/07/339.6124.1198.DC1/Marcott.SM.pdf
Look at figure S2. This is describing step a in the analysis process. They did not change the scale, they just left the artifact, without explaining it, other than to say it was not robust.
They did not say it was not robust. They said it was less robust than what came from the earlier proxies.
I am talking about the resolution used in displaying it.
You agreed that actual temperature X in one part of the graph should not appear to be higher or lower than the same temperature in another part of the same graph. But if the high point of the blade had been a point in the shaft it would not have risen as high because the data in the shaft is effectively at 300 year resolution while the data in the blade is effectively at 20 year resolution. (I am feeling a sense of déjà vu.)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/mean:240/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/mean:1200
The two lines on this graph represent exactly the same values but in different resolution. Showing them on the same graph makes it appear as if the red line reaches greater extremes of temperature. Is it appropriate to display data sets in this way?
The blade in Mann08 is at a 20 year resolution, which is why you see more variability than Marcott.
The resolution of the purple line is 300 years.
Yes it is. As long as they are delineated. Which they are in Marcott 2013.
How are they delineated?
The portion of the purple line after 1900 is displayed at 20 year resolution.
What is the justification for doing this?
The CRU emails revealed Michael Mann’s “trick” and several studies have shown he erased the 500 year Medieval Warming Period which later work has shown was world wide. Google it and “The Two Minute conservative” for truth.
My, big words Freak-a-zoid. What are you wearing?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198/F1.large.jpg
A and B are Marcott’s reconstruction (purple and blue), Mann08 (dark and light gray.
You will note that Mann08 begins to deviate around 500BP, and runs cooler. Here is an example of a 15 to 1 smoothing. Note how the median line tracks very well. If you applied a 300 year smoothing to Mann08,1500BP to 500BP would line up well with Marcott 2013, but from 500BP to 0BP Mann would be colder with less of a smaller blade, since a 300 year smoothing would truncate the last 150 years, where most of the warming occurred. The last 150 years would however have influenced the the trend from 300 to 150 years ago.
Zero on the chart is 1950. The uptick from 1750AD to 1850AD is captured in both reconstructions. Part of it was a regression toward the mean after an extreme anomaly, the LIA. But it was also being amplified by human activities.
C and D are comparisons of different methods.
Note that the RegEM methods are more in line with Mann08 and the instrumental record.
E and F are comparisons with other published reconstructions. Note again how Marcott runs hot for the last 500 years.
G and H are proxy number, length, and latitude.
I and J are the number of age control points.
They published their findings.
They mode note of the weakness of the reconstruction in reproducing the modern temperature anomaly. They demonstrated clearly in chart A, that their reconstruction of the last 500 years is hotter than Mann08, and the instrument record, and that the uptick was an artifact of the methodology, since it occurs 50 years before the uptick in Mann08 and the instrument record. They also provide the temporal and spatial distribution of the proxies. All one need to come to the conclusion that Tamino did. The uptick is an artifact of proxy drop-off.
The EPICA core sample centered in 1895 was 3.04ºC above the mean for the last 1000 years, the highest anomaly recorded in the last 11,000. That is one of the proxies that spans the entire Holocene with a 20 year resolution.
The uptick is not a result of mixing methodologies or resolutions. It is an artifact of cool proxy drop-out amplifying a smaller warming signal.
No it isn’t.
Doesn’t that result in actual temperature X in one part of the graph appearing to be higher than the same temperature in another part of the same graph?
Then how are we seeing such a dramatic rise after 1900 whereas the same 50 year 0.8C anomaly, occurring on a line having a resolution of 300 years, would be barely visible, if at all?
This 15 to 1 smoothing looks different from yours.
You are missing the point. It still captures the mean.
Because proxy drop-out, which began hundreds of YBP, has introduced a warm bias. A bias that is exaggerated in the last data point.
By the “last data point” are you referring to this:
So the uptick, caused by that one proxy, is displayed with 20 year resolution?
No, it is displayed at 300 year resolution, but each 20 year time step is actual data, not infilled, which gives it more weight.
If the blade is in the same resolution as the shaft, then why is a rapid fluctuation having a duration of less than a few hundred years not completely obscured?
If Marcott had used proper procedures would it be possible for the purple uptick not to be completely obscured since it has a “duration of less than a few hundred years”?
Because it being artificially amplified by proxy drop-out.
Marcott did use proper procedures, in fact, they used six different procedures, all of them proper, and published the results.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198/F1.large.jpg
I overlooked Rohde’s exception to the obscuring:
This brings to mind a comment I saw on one blog:
So this is how he did it?
I don’t know if that would do it, but I could understand setting the age uncertainty to zero for 1940.
Do you agree with Rohde that comparing the “blade” to the “shaft” is misleading and is a “trap”?
But isn’t this principle violated if low resolution proxies are shown on the same graph with high resolution modern temperature records?
They are not shown as part of the same graph, they are shown overlaid on the same graphic.
It would be misleading if it were not in the same resolution as the past 1500 years.
What a snow-job. The Freak never quits. We have to wonder if he believes any of this crap The physics of the atmosphere do not support “global warming” by CO2. It is a trace gas and would still be if we increased it 25 times.
Do you agree that comparing recent decades to early parts of their reconstruction leaves one exposed to the trap of comparing a single year or decade to what is essentially an average of centuries?
Only if one is ignorant of statistical analysis, not a very common condition for the readers. Science Magazine.
Would you characterize the writers of this piece as being ignorant of statistical analysis?
Are the writers of this piece ignorant of statistical analysis?
No.
From the same article.
According to Steve McIntyre this is what controlled “the course of present discussion”:
That is what Marcott shows by comparing and contrasting their reconstruction with the various 2000 year reconstructions.
No one cares what SM thinks, it has been well documented that he doesn’t.
This compares a single year or decade to what is essentially an average of centuries, does it not?
No.
No, the reference to the modern warming was not to a contrast with other studies but to the modern warming that he found and was reporting:
In the context of whether it would have been ignored, what SM thinks is relevant.
The temperatures started shooting up from where?
Wasn’t this “result” the demonstration of a contrast between the modern period and the earlier period?
The 1940 bin had three coretops using the original published dates. Marcott re-dated the two with negative values, MD01-2421 splice and OCE326-GGC30, which removed them from the 1940 bin. Then he added 5 coretops with original published dates earlier than AD10. For example, MD95-2043 had originally been dated 10th century. MD95-2011 and MD-2015 were re-dated by 510 and 690 years respectively. All of the re-dated additions to 1940 had positive values.
What leads you to understand setting the age uncertainty to zero for 1940?
1940 is recent enough for certainty.
lol
Telford said the core top re-dating was a necessary step. Now that you realize your misunderstanding of the displayed resolution of the purple line, you are moving on to a different argument to confirm your belief in Steve McIntyre, or lack of belief in Shaun Marcott.
If you take away the uptick on the purple line, truncating it at 1850, you still have a hockey stick when you contrast it with the 1500 and 2000 year reconstructions of higher resolution. That is the shape of the data. A 300 year smoothing applied to the modern uptick, assuming we have reached the peak, and temperatures decline for the next 150 years, would still be a 0.5ºC jump in the purple line 300 years from now.
It may be possible that the authors published the uptick, knowing it was an artifact deliberately, in order to get the attention of the deniersphere, but I highly doubt it. Intentional or not, it worked. Nowadays, if a researcher does his/her reputation smeared on the denier blogs, their work is probably not impactful.
I never did have an understanding of how they were able to get a period of 100 years to show up on the graph after saying that any events shorter than 300 years would not show up.
Now it appears that they used a technique that depended on (a) removing the negative proxies from the 1940 period by re-dating them, (b) re-dating proxies with positive values to the present, some of which had originally been dated at 1000 years ago in published studies by competent scientists, (c) setting the age-uncertainty to zero for the re-dated proxies moved into the 1940 period, and (d) applying a statistical that allowed them to refrain from averaging these modern records over centuries, as had to be done to all the other records, allowing these records to show up with prominence on the graph. The best that can be said is that it was way to produce a misleading graph in a way that could withstand scrutiny (but they still felt safer refusing to disclose what their actual methods and procedures were).
However they did it, it doesn’t change the fundamental fact that the proxies for the recent period represent a single year or decade, and are being compared with an average of centuries. That part is not in dispute. Your point, apparently, is that there is nothing wrong with presenting a misleading graph as long as only the general public is misled. But it wasn’t just the general public who was misled. The NewScientist said
This compares a single year or decade to an average of centuries in a way that you said no competent scientist would do.
And Nature said
This also compares a single year or decade to an average of centuries in a way that you said no competent scientist would do.
The graph was misleading. You say that those to whom it was addressed were not misled but why do you refuse to address the fact that at least two prominent scientific journals reported exactly the thing that was misleading: the comparison of a single year or decade to an average of centuries.
Of course they were not trying to get the attention of the deniersphere. They were trying to get the attention of the general public. Marcott wanted to be a media star, with all the benefits that come with that, not the least of which being greatly increased ease of funding. He said:
and you apparently are saying that this does not encourage the comparison of a single year or decade to an average of centuries. Is that your position?
You are talking about comparing high res data with low res? Why is that justified?!
You are saying that we can take your word for it that the present warming will continue for hundreds of years and so what is a single year or decade should be treated as 300 years, but the fact is that it hasn’t lasted for 300 years and so it can’t be treated that way.
Please respond to the assertion Marcott encouraged the comparison of a single year or decade to an average of centuries, and that scientific journals bought into it and through them so did the general public.
See above
In the NOAA MD95-2043 archive, the core top is indicated to be 1007.6 BP. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/cacho1999/cacho1999.txt Marcott said:
Contrary to this, he did not date this core top as indicated in the original publication. The original publication was http://biogeochemistry.org/biblio/Cacho_et_al_99_Paleoceanography.pdf
This is what Marcott did:
You don’t see the irony.
The modern warming, even if it stopped right now and cooled for the next 150 years, would still be a 0.5°C spike on the purple line.
All the specious nonsense SM can muster does not change that fact.
In other words, although it is said that any event lasting for less than 300 years will not be noticeable you argue that the last 100 years, since it will last for over 300 years, is entitled to be treated as if it already had lasted for 300 years.
Although numerous reputable studies have found that the MWP was global and reach temperatures at least as high as today, it does not show up on Marcott’s graph. But it is clear to you that today’s warming is not at all like that and, obviously, will show up on such a graph.
Name one.
The Earth has warmed nearly 1°C since 1860. It would need to cool at twice that rate during the next 150 years to keep the 300 year average below 0.25°C. The MWP was nowhere near that warm an event.
Since the studies focus was the Holocene, not the 20th century, your fixation is first order evidence ofyour motivated reasoning.
The study focus was the comparison of the 20th century with the rest of the holocene.
And it is just this comparison that generates the news value of the study.
Your position is that since the data for the 20th century is so unimportant any person criticizing it must have some hidden motivation.
The question is: Do proxies from around the world tell us of a warm period similar to today lasting at least 60 years starting sometime between 900AD and 1100 AD with at least 50 year overlap?
Yes for Greenland at 900AD. Yes for Antarctica at 900AD. Yes for the Indo-Pacific at 1000AD . Yes for the Gulf of Mexico at 900AD. Yes for Southern South America at 900AD, and even warmer at 1090AD.
Don’t you think that warming starting at 900AD in all these places qualifies as a global MWP?
Right, they compared their reconstruction with more recent reconstructions.
The fact remains, the uptick is real, the blade is real, and by looking at individual trees you can’t see the forest.
Tell me you’re just pretending not to understand that the issue here is not whether the modern warming is real, but whether it was displayed on the graph with more prominence than data from other periods was displayed.
No, that is a hodge podge of picked cherries. Global multi-proxy reconstructions estimate the MWP to be a global phenomenon, amplified in the northern hemisphere. The GISP data actually shows that Greenland warmed considerably just prior to the MWP, before global temperatures began to rise, suggesting a change in the North Atlantic current, not an outside forcing.
It was not.
Here is what you are not seeing that deceptive graph.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1940/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1984/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1965/trend
The redline is smoothed by 40 years, so the last data point is 1964. Additionally, this is Greenland, it’s climate is heavily influenced by oscillations in ocean circulation patterns.
I already pointed out that the higher resolution EPICA cores do not record as high an anomaly as the lower resolution Vostok at 900 YBP, which is why deniers cherry pick Vostok. The MWP was real, but it was not globally synchronous.
However, there is a synchronous connection between Greenland and the Gulf of Mexico. As is clearly stated in the final sentence of the abstract.
Global warming is a higher effective emitting layer in the troposphere. The fact that the tropical glaciers are melting for the first time in thousands of years, is all the evidence required to conclude that the Earth is warmer than it has been in thousands of years. The fact that this is to be expected, is all the validation one needs to know the theory is correct.
Here are the facts;
A) We know the Earth has warmed precipitously over the past century and a half, and shows no signs of cooling anytime soon. Even if it started to cool right now, it would still leave an unprecedented spike in the 300 year smoothed data.
B) We have multiple independent reconstructions of the past 2000 years and they are all hockey sticks.
C) Marcott 2013 extends the multi-proxy reconstructions back 11,000 years. Showing that the long term cooling trend abruptly ended with the industrial era. That would have been clear had they terminated the purple line in 1800, since they aligned it with Mann08 in the published graphics.
D) The nature of the reconstruction for temporal and spatial coverage limited the reconstruction to certain proxies, many of which did not extend into the recent period, which resulted in a warm bias for the final 500 years of the reconstruction and an anomalous uptick at the end.
E) There was no deception, they published the reconstruction as it was, queries were made as to why the uptick was out of sync, and now we know it is an artifact that doesn’t change or effect the overall conclusion. Global temperature excursions of this magnitude are not evident in the proxy data.
The motivations are not hidden. SM makes a living attacking the research of others. Your motivation is to confirm your belief. SM is very good at what he does. You are prima facia evidence of that.
Did you ever see how he mangled principal component analysis in his crusade to discredit Michael Mann?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/
As usual, your “facts” are wobbly and your math sucks. If Earth cools at twice the rate the restoration will take half the time. “Duh!” The fact of the matter is that we are in a cooling trend.
Your math sucks.
The IPCC did several.
The last 12 months are the warmest 12 months ever recorded.
How does that fit into your “cooling trend” narrative?
The Wegman Report said
The North Report agreed:
The Wegman report is not SM’s blog.
Try again.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/ad_hoc_report.pdf
The second is all Marcott proxies, expressed as anomalies about their most recent 2,000 years of record. Black line shows 401-point Gaussian average. N=9,288.
Not only are anomalies evident, but when one proxy shows rising temperatures for ten thousand years and another shows dropping temperatures for ten thousand years, what does any kind of average of those two tell us? That the temperature was rising seven degrees while it was falling nine degrees?
As long as one does not consider misrepresentation a form of deception.
It tells us that regional climate dominates natural climate trends. Which is another reason why the nearly synchronous warming of the past 150 years is unprecedented in 11,000 years.
It is still the Wegman report, which does not confirm SM’s abuse of PCA.
Exactly. The study does not exist in a vacuum. The findings are robust for the periods of interest and confirm previous findings that suggest the modern warming is unprecedented in the Holocene.
What was SM’s abuse of PCA?
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-huybersreply.pdf
So you reject all paleo-reconstructions that have a hockey stick shape in favor of a specious narrative by a propagandist for the mining industry?
Are we detecting a pattern here?
I linked the RealClimate article, the issue was thoroughly investigated by the NAS and the hockey stick was found to be the shape of the data. M&M could not reproduce MBH’s results because they improperly applied the PCA methodology used by Mann.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=9
It is true that Mann refused to disclose his data and methods, which had to be reverse engineered, right? What’s the justification for that?
I think that it is only paleo-reconstructions that have hockey stick shapes built into them.
It takes a carpenter to build a barn, any jackass can kick a hole in it.
When a jackass is trying to kick holes in your barn, you don’t help it.
Google Mann FOIA and the top hit is the Virginia Supreme Court ruling in his favor.
SM is a slime ball working for the mining industry. His act was old in 2004.
The Wegman Report did not confirm that SM abused PCA?
Do you have a reference for this? (I of course do not mean to imply that you yourself are not an adequate reference.)
Amen
Nor do you try to facilitate inquiries by congressional committees?
Saying that “Data, records or information of a proprietary nature produced or collected by or for faculty or staff of public institutions of higher learning” is exempt from the Virginia FOIA hardly establishes a justification for refusing to disclose his methods. It just says that he has a right to keep them secret. But why is he so intent on keeping them secret even from a congressional committee? Most people realize that it is not because he does not want others to learn his incredible techniques but rather it is because his techniques will not stand the light of day.
Is the mining industry disreputable?
This is old news. Read Climate Wars by Michael Mann. Michael Mann is still a leading climate researcher, SM is still a lying shill for the mining industry.
Or do you believe that all of the world’s scientific institutions have either been deceived, or are part of scientific hoax?
What does that have to do with anything?
He is paid to sell doubt to anyone willing to be duped. The way he does that makes him a slime ball.
The Mining industry is simply protecting it’s interests without regard for anything other than it’s own interests.
Whether or not that makes them disreputable is a matter of subjective opinion.
The Wegman report was a hit piece commissioned by the chief apologist to the oil industry, Texas Joe Barton.
Wegman and two of his grad students looked at Mann’s methodology, found some minor errors that did not significantly effect the overall results, and recommended that scientists could benefit from working more closely with statisticians.
They did not confirm that SM’s accusations were correct, as the cherry-picked quote from North implies.
With the conclusions of which the North Report agreed…
Here is the NAS report.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1
There is a comprehensive page about it on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
What is the best example you have of a concrete, specific, single assertion or act of his that demonstrates this?
I must have missed something.
When was Mann cited for contempt of Congress?
This was resolved years ago. This horse has no flesh left on the bones.
Mann’s technique was new, it had some minor errors, which did not change the results when corrected. The technique did stand the light of day, it was included in but the TAR and 4AR reports.
Oh, and Wegman did validate M&M, but has refused to comment since their methodology was demonstrated to be wrong.
I guess he decided his reputation took a big enough hit already, so he is keeping his mouth shut and cashing his paycheck.
And he did not keep them secret. That is another lie that is still being spread by slime ball.
Right, they found errors, which when corrected did not change the results in any discernible way. The North report also agreed that paleoclimatologists could benefit from a closer working relationship with statisticians.
Ammann and Wahl showed that the hockey stick remains after the errors are corrected.
Wegman has been silent since his belief in M&M was shown to be misplaced. Wegman has also refused to share his code, so no one knows how he arrived at the conclusion he did.
That is not true. We have been in a cooling trend for the last 17 years or the last 74 if you take out a couple of bumps. Look it up.
The decade of the 1930’s were far hotter with 1934 as the hottest on record, also a matter of fact.
Renowned for its balanced and even-handed approach…
His attack on MBH98/99 is best example I can think of.
You are another example. You read his blog, you are confused about trivial details and he is the source of your confusion.
That is data that was likely taken from a recorder in an area with increasing industrialization. The EPA, NASA and IPCC people are notorious for selecting such recorders to make their case for more regulations and taxes. Got to fund those grants.
Have you noticed the recent snows and droughts? Cold air is drier; that is the problem.
Wikipedia is known for objectivity. Since anyone can challenge anything not cited, this page in particular has been distilled down to the objective facts.
You wouldn’t happen to have a specific page, would you?
Why don’t you look it up. My computer doesn’t do fantasy searches.
Literally LOL.
Read the WIKI first and you will understand the background. Then if you still want to defend slime ball, I will delve into the massive amounts of related documentation.
The bottom line is this. MBH98/99 is still considered a major first, it’s results have held up over time, and Mann is still one the foremost climatologists on the planet.
SM is still a jackass trying to kick holes in hockey sticks.
It takes more than a refusal to facilitate inquiries by congressional committees to be cited for contempt.
You read ClimateAudit, and think Wikipedia is not objective????
ROFLMAO!!!
Well to be fair, Barton’s inquiry was characterized as an “illegitimate investigation”
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB113953482702870250?mod=public_home_us_inside_today
I know from long experience that Wikipedia is not objective on matters of this kind. But I will read the article and refresh my memory.
Perhaps, but mine was literal and actual.
Do you have a non-paywalled version of that?
Which tells me you don’t know what Wikipedia is.
No.
True or false: Wikipedia is a bastion of even-handedness.
Wikipedia is a crowd sourced encyclopedia.
If you don’t believe it is objective, show some examples.
Let me read the article.
Characterized by whom? Can you supply the quote? What makes a congressional investigation illegitimate?
You already told me you didn’t want to get into the Mann hockey stick affair, so why did you lead us into it?
On politically sensitive questions, Wikipedia is controlled by which side (a) has the most people willing to spend all their time maintaining a vigil over their favorite subjects and immediately removing entries they don’t like, and (b) has the most people in authoritative positions to support them.
Sherwood Boehlert, the Chairman of the House Science Committee at the time.
He is an endangered species. A moderate Republican.
Because it is reveals the same pattern of dishonesty by SM.
The narrative is controlled by the facts as cited. Not a perfect system, but certainly an objective one.
Are you proposing a “characterization” war?
I’m still considering the Wikipedia article, but let me point out an example of the kind of thing I’m talking about. The article contains this statement:
“Refute” is defined as “to prove to be false or erroneous.” So it is not the same as “dispute” or “argue against.” It refers to an argument that has been conclusively proven to be victorious.
Is it the place of an encyclopedia to make such a statement concerning a matter that is in dispute? For example, this response was made to Wahl & Ammann, and it was not the only one holding that opinion. The most that can be said is that in the opinion of certain people, some of them perhaps quite exalted, McIntyre and McKitrick were refuted. But where is the authority for saying that it was conclusive?
And who was the Wikipedia source for that? It was this web site which, on its main page, describes itself as
So, a partisan website is the source for the statement that their own side refuted the other side.
If you believe that this is even-handed then you really have drunk the Kool-Aid.
You mean it was still being disputed by SM, the rest of the world moved on.
Is this an example of even-handed treatment?
Yes. SM was wrong. His refusal to admit it is why no one takes him seriously anymore.
I see. Let me see if I have this right. A congressional committee reported that “…the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick…are indeed valid.” The NAS did a study after which the chairman of the NAS committee said about the congressional committee report “We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.”
The NAS report also said:
The NAS report also said that since Bristlecone records are sensitive to a variety of environmental conditions other than temperature they should be avoided for climate reconstructions, that Mann’s results strongly depend on the bristlecone records, and that they are therefore not robust (apart from the lack of statistical significance):
Are you saying that, in your opinion, a fair and even-handed summary of the above is that the criticisms of McKitrick and McIntyre were “comprehensively refuted”?
Right. The NAS found that because of the procedures in use the hockey stick was found to be the shape even of red noise data.
That is not a conclusion that SM is right, that Mann used PCA to produce a hockey stick, just that it is possible to use PCA improperly.
The only real negative conclusion of the committee was that Mann underestimated the uncertainty. A point that has been moot for some time now.
Which brings us back to my point. SM falsely accused Mann of scientific fraud/incompetence and lost. Which is why SM is an infamous denier and Mann is a famous scientist.
Chapter nine is an educational chapter, they used M&M’s criticism to demonstrate how the PCA can be improperly weighted and show a false trend. They do not conclude that this is the case with MBH98/99, in fact the committee concludes the opposite, since they VALIDATED MBH98/99.
Why is this moot?
Excuse me, but when a congressional committee says that SM’s criticisms are valid, and the NAS committee doesn’t disagree with them and says pretty much the same thing in their report, then can you point out to me where SM “lost”?
But you would say that it does show that McKitrick and McIntyre were “comprehensively refuted”?
I see. Is this another conclusion for which you offer no documentary support but suggest that I find such support on my own?
That is false. They agreed that under some conditions it can happen, not that it did happen in MBH98/99.
An important distinction don’t you think?
It is moot because subsequent research has validated results. Even if they overstated the confidence based on their results, the results themselves have been subsequently validated.
Which exact criticisms were valid?
The PCA does not always produce a hockey stick, only under certain conditions. So half his criticism was valid.
The point is, the congressional committee is just a tool for the owners of the government. Joe Barton refused to work with the NAS, hired Wegman, who is now an utter disgrace after it was found that he plagiarized part of the report.
Now you want to take a few statements out of context as validation of SM’s false accusations.
The bottom line after all was said and done; SM was exposed for a fraud, and Michael Mann went on to become one of the worlds foremost climatologists.
Yes it does. They claim that the reconstruction was an artifact of the PCA methodology. The NAS report concludes otherwise.
M&M claimed that MBH misused PCA, but all they proved was that it was possible, not that it was actual. So they were comprehensively refuted, since the NAS concluded that:
They said:
And your point would be that a person who uses a method that tends to bias the shape of reconstructions cannot be faulted unless it can be proven that the shape of the reconstruction had actually been biased. And if that can’t be shown because the scientist refuses to disclose his data and methods, then that objection can be ignored. And you are correct that the NAS report said that there was no evidence that it did bias the reconstruction. So much for that.
The report went on to say:
I am seeing a pattern here. If scientist A uses inappropriate procedures he cannot be faulted for that if scientist B is able to confirm his results using proper procedures. Where have we seen this before? Oh yes, Marcott. Is that really a part of your belief system?
Yes, indeed. This is definitely turning into a pattern. A accuses B of using improper procedures. Many of B’s procedures are found to have been improper. However this is of no importance because B’s results were confirmed by C, thereby refuting all of A’s accusations.
Do you recognize the concept that criticisms can be valid regardless of whether the findings are correct?
I gave you a link to the NAS paper. Read their conclusions, not just the parts that you think validate your position.
And the report concluded that the reconstruction was robust, just not as robust as the authors thought. Even that criticism is now moot, since the confidence while over-stated was indeed well paced.
No procedure is perfect. Like Marcott’s reconstruction, this was a first of it’s kind. Mann took the NAS critique seriously and improved on his initial effort. That is how science works. The unknown is always there, science is how we make the unknown smaller.
The pattern you are seeing is professional deniers exploiting this fact to cast doubt on any and all science that might hamper their employer’s ability to make a profit.
A never proved that B’s procedure was improperly applied. End of story.
Would a conclusion that there has been global warming be a validation of MBH98/99?
Of course. It is quite possible to arrive at the right the conclusion for the wrong reasons.
But M&M’s criticism was not valid, the hockey stick is not a spurious trend from improperly weighting the variance in the principal component.
Here is Gerald North, chair of the NAS committee that produced the report.
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/NorthH264.mp4
Congressional committee says “…the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick…are indeed valid.” NAS committee says “pretty much the same thing.” What constitutes proof?
Fine, then call Mann’s study what it is. But don’t go saying that criticisms of the study were comprehensively refuted simply because another study claimed to have gotten the same result, and in the next breath claim a right for the deficiencies of the study to be overlooked because it was a pioneering study and everybody makes mistakes.
No, the conclusion that MBH did reproduce the last 1000 year NH surface temperature accurately.
The criticism of PCA was considered a valid criticism, which is one reason it is not used anymore. But they were wrong that it caused a spurious trend in MBH98/99.
Proving that something an happen is not the same as proving it did.
Their criticism was thoroughly refuted. The hockey stick is the shape of the data, not a spurious trend from improper weighting of the variance.
If M&M had admitted as much it would not be an issue. They clung to their discredited belief and now they have no credibility.
Trouble deciphering this.
If it was a valid criticism then all of MM’s criticisms were not comprehensively refuted. What part of this is not clear?
You are saying that any and every form of scientific error, negligence or intention misconduct is validated if the findings of the study are correct.
Well I will watch that (looks like over an hour). Does he contradict his statement that the NAS committee found “pretty much the same thing” as the Congressional committee?
They continue to claim that their study invalidates MBH98/99. It does not. That his been comprehensively refuted. They did not reproduce Mann’s results and claimed it was because Mann withheld information. The fact that others were able to reproduce The results from the published material.
They were amateurs stumbling around in the dark who discovered a possible problem with PCA.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, that is no reason to rely on it for the over 23 hours and 58 minutes.
Can you affirm that you recognize the distinction between:
1. asserting that the procedures were improper
2. asserting that without the faulty procedures the finding of the study would not have been reached.
And can you affirm that a finding that assertion #2 is false is not a finding that assertion #1 is false.
Also can you affirm that you agree that if there are two criticisms and one is found to have merit it cannot be said that all criticisms were comprehensively refuted?
Why the need for extreme examples?
You keep applying extreme generalities as if this about some greater issue.
MBH98/99 was validated by thorough analysis of the study. M&M’s criticisms regarding the robustness of the proxies and PCA were valid, but not significant. They only effected the confidence of the results, not the results.
No, he refrains from expressing his opinion of Wegman. He does point out the difference between the two, and considers congressional hearings to be jokes.
He does state that SM was right about improper weighting of PCs, but that it made no difference in the overall results.
But that is far different from saying that all their criticisms were comprehensively refuted. The latter is not true, is it?
Who reproduced the results?
Well, you keep saying that a study has been validated if its results turn out to have been correct, as if all criticisms are thereby shown to have been false.
And I keep replying that there can be an invalid study, for example one performed by somebody without any training whatsoever, and the fact that its findings are correct does not validate the study.
If you want to say that the findings of MBH98/99 were validated then that is a different matter.
The spurious trend comes from improper weighting of the principal components.
They never demonstrated that Mann’s procedure was improper. They demonstrated that it could be used improperly. So the second assertion was invalid on it’s face.
They were given credit for their valid criticism, and ridiculed for their insistence it means something it does not.
Is the following an accurate description of one of the things that the NAS Committee found?
1. Reconstructions can be assessed using a
variety of tests, including RE, and the CE (Coefficient of Efficiency) scores.
2. If the CE score is near zero or negative your model is junk.
3. Wahl and Ammann include a Table in which they use Mann’s data and code and compute the test scores that he didn’t report.
4. The CE scores range from near zero to
negative, which tells us that Mann’s results were junk.
Zorita et al., and Wahl and Ammann for another.
Wahl and Ammann demonstrated why CE was a poor validation metric to judge MBH98/99. The opposite conclusion of the clown show.
If SM will stop claiming he proved the hockeystick was broken, I will continue to acknowledge his contribution and stop characterizing his conclusions as entirely false.
No.
Is the following a direct quote from the NAS Report, affirming that items 1 and 2 are true?
Is the following a direct quote from the NAS Report, affirming that item 3 is true?
Don’t stop there, continue…
And as I mentioned earlier, the reference to Table 1S is to a paper by Wahl and Ammann, where they are demonstrating why CE is not a good validation metric.
Do you agree that the NAS Report stated the above as a general rule? They said that a CE statistic close to zero or negative suggests that the reconstruction is no better than the mean. It does not infallibly indicate that. The burden would then be on the person who is asserting an exception to the general rule, to demonstrate which “particular scientific conclusions” can still be drawn, correct?
Right after this they refer to Bürger and Cubasch (2005) whose paper suggests that “selecting a reconstruction based on its CE value could be a useful way to winnow the choices for the reconstruction.” So the exception is surrounded by two statements of support for the value of the CE.
Furthermore, if the M&M accusation was that MBH fails verification r2 and CE tests, and it in fact does fail such tests, is it a “refutation” to say that the tests are not valid?
Did they say in MBH98 that the reconstruction failed the r2 and CE test, but that this didn’t “matter”? If they had, how do you think it would have affected the credibility of their study?
I’ll talk it over with SM but I don’t think he’s going to go for it.
It is your position that not one of Mann’s procedures was faulty? You are backing away from your “No procedure is perfect” statement?
Let me just be sure. Is this the same Zorita who wrote on his website:
Are you referring to this study:
E. Zorita, F. González-Rouco and S. Legutke. Testing the Mann et al. (1998) Approach to Paleoclimate Reconstructions in the Context of a 1000-Yr Control Simulation with the ECHO-G Coupled Climate Model . Journal of Climate 16,1378-1390 (2003)?
Might want to fix this. I’m considering using this discussion as a teaching and learning tool. Kudos to you… sincerely
Isn’t “underestimated the uncertainty” a euphemism for “they said their findings were robust but they were not” and “the study failed the standard tests that are relied on to show that a study’s findings are statistically significant, but this was not reported in the study (although such tests were referred to in the study as if they had been passed), nor did the authors even suggest that such tests were not applicable until after accusations by M&M began.”
In fact isn’t it the “uncertainty” of the findings that is the most important aspect of a study? What good is the most glorious finding if it was no better than a random result?
Why parse words if you are not trying to make the facts conform to your belief. By underestimating the uncertainty, there assertion that the 1990’s were the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year, could not be stated with confidence for the entire period of the reconstruction.
They did conclude however, based on all the evidence, IE not just the weak spot where a jackass kicked a hole, but the whole barn, that MBH98/99 was a significant contribution, was robust, even if over-stated, and they made recommendations for improvements in the future. Recommendations that were followed through on, producing results that do confidently show that the modern warming is unprecedented in the last 1500 years.
No one had discovered the possibility of spurious trends in PCA before, because no one was deliberately trying to create them. Then a jackass shows up looking for a weak spot in the barn and finds one. Since the principal components were not being improperly weighted, this criticism is not applicable to Mann’s reconstruction. It is however a matter for consideration, but since most scientists, including Mann had abandoned PCA for other methodologies by this time, the point was pretty much moot.
SM could have taken his moment and been a wild mustang, instead he chose to be true to his nature. He is still a jackass.
Not following this.
The NAS was saying that Mann was more confident in his findings than he was entitled to be, right?
But a different criticism was that he should not have been using the Bristlecones at all. The NAS found that this kind of data should not be used in this this type of research (as also stated by Graybill and Idso, who originated the data), and that his study was “strongly dependent” on this data.
Didn’t M&M show that when the Bristlecone proxies were removed the hockey stick shape went away? In fact, wasn’t a Mann folder found with the Bristlecones removed, showing that Mann had himself discovered this dependency?
MBH98 touted its r² reconstructive skill:
The term r² is used on no fewer than seven occasions. For example,
However M&M stated:
M&M also said that
Does it not seem that MBH98 was implying falsely that the r² statistic was lending support to the “highly significant reconstructive skill” that they claimed for their reconstruction? In what aspect of this particular issue are M&M to be criticized?
I saw the places where the NAS Report talked about the lack of robustness. For example:
and
Could you point me to the part where they say that nevertheless, overall it was robust?
Well, it’s probably time to just agree about our disagreements with respect to Marcott and move on. The following represent what I understand to be your position on various points, although since you refused to respond to many of them initially I am not optimistic that you will do so now.
1. It is true that “…one should be careful in comparing recent decades to early parts of their reconstruction, as one can easily fall into the trap of comparing a single year or decade to what is essentially an average of centuries.” However, this is not a trap that readers of the journal Science will fall into.
2. When NewScientist said “Then, in the late 19th century, the graph shows temperatures shooting up, driven by humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.” http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23247-true-face-of-climates-hockey-stick-graph-revealed.html, this does not compare a single year or decade to an average of centuries.
3. When Nature said “…from the first decade of the twentieth century to now, global average temperatures rose from near their coldest point since the ice age to nearly their warmest, Marcott and his team report today in Science.” http://www.nature.com/news/global-temperatures-are-close-to-11-000-year-peak-1.12564, this also does not compare a single year or decade to an average of centuries.
4. Marcott was quoted as follows, “What we found is that temperatures increased in the last 100 years as much as they had cooled in the last 6,000 or 7,000,” he said. “In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we’ve seen in the whole Holocene,” referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago. http://grist.org/climate-energy/a-bigger-badder-climate-hockey-stick/ This does not encourage others to compare recent decades to early parts of his reconstruction, nor is it contradicted by Marcott saying that “the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
5. The uptick was fragile, very doubtful, and unreliable, but this is not misleading since it was discernable by those knowledgeable in statistics and in paleo reconstructions who carefully read the study.
6. When, in the study, a different procedure for the 20th century portion was shown to produce a different result, and the difference was termed “not robust,” this did not imply that the procedure decided upon was robust.
7. It is “of course” true that actual temperature X in one part of a graph should not appear to be higher or lower than the same temperature in another part of the same graph. However, this rule is not violated if the temperatures are represented by different lines, even though no clear explanation is present.
8. The uptick arose from re-dating core tops. Despite the sensitivity of the study to core top re-dating, there is no problem with changing the dates without presenting any evidence that this was justified, or even announcing that this was being done, even though it had been explicitly said that original dates were being used unless otherwise mentioned.
9. If one wishes to show how stark and unique is the 20th century rise in temperature, it is legitimate to do so by constructing a graph on which all the high frequency temperature variability prior to the 20th century is suppressed, resulting in a flat line showing little variation, but the temperature variability of the 20th century is not suppressed, showing the actual real temperature rise.
UK researchers show Little Ice Age was global, with implications for current Global Warming
I wonder if Roger ever called up the editor of an academic journal who rejected his manuscript and said “it is probably best that we part ways.”