Pray, tell me about this “real world” of which you speak. All I know is the “magical world” where academics live.
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by ...and Then There's Physics
↧
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Latimer Alder (@latimeralder)
@Ken Rice/attp/wottsie
Let me begin by remarking that if you’re going to call me a ‘denier’ (even by a roundabout route), please have the scientific courtesy to explain exactly what I am supposed to be ‘denying’. We can then discuss the specific points. I’m pretty unmoved by insults from the walls of academe nowadays, so feel free.
There is, of course, a very simple Feynmanian reason not to take ‘climate science’ too seriously. The observations of the real world do not match the predictions that it makes. Feynman would have called it ‘wrong’. I’ll be a bit more charitable and call it, at best, as ‘incomplete’.
And this fatal predictive failure would still be there even if every climate scientist since Arrhenius and Lamb had been fearless in their pursuit only of objective truth, men and women of unchallengeable integrity and the finest examples of the scientific mind the world has ever seen. It wouldn’t matter…if theory doesn’t match observation, the theory is ‘incomplete’. And that’s where we are today.
Maybe one day a better climate science will emerge..where Mother Gaia is persuaded not to deviate from the script. And where we can all have confidence that the problem has indeed been well and fully understood. But until then not so much. That’s the main reason I’m sceptical of the actual science.
But matters are made so much more complex (and amusing) when the climatologists have not been those paragons of virtue, but many patently have feet of clay and demonstrate the ethical grasp of the used car lot.
For, despite your attempts to minimise their involvement, the Climategateers were the leading lights of the ‘science’ in their day. Their work was the mainstay of the reports that gained worldwide attention both in scientific and political circles. They were the deliberate ‘thought leaders’ in frightening Joe Public into believing that ‘global warming’ was ‘the most serious problem facing mankind’ (Tony Blair) and that vast amounts of financial, political and intellectual capital needed to be spent upon it. And yet it is clear when you read their internal discussions that ‘winning’ and being ‘onside’ were far more important to them than anything to do with objective science. They found/manoeuvred themselves in[to] a position to game the academic ‘scientific’ system and did so with dedication, persistence and gusto over a long period.
I must give you some credit for being one of the few academics to even admit that their behaviour was wrong. From far too many others there has been a studied and deliberate silence. No condemnation. No attempt to clean up the collective act. No contrition. Just business as usual.
Joe Public, seeing this, begins to wonder if the truth is that all academics or all climatologists behave in such a way and that the silence betokens nothing more than a failure to see any unusual or extraordinary behaviour. Because it isn’t either.
And then he might wonder how much of the received ‘science’ he should believe at all. Because most of it is interpreted for his ears and eyes by the ‘scientists’ themselves. And they are unlikely (and indeed don’t) point out the flaws in their work. The whole IPCC undertaking is a vast undertaking with all the critical review you might expect of a schoolboy awarding himself top marks when checking hos own homework.
So it really – from Joe’s perspective – comes back to the proposition ‘We’re Scientists, Trust Us’. Which works only until the first time that trust is seen to have broken. Climategate was that time. And scientists’ behaviour is a huge factor in shaping the public’s belief (or otherwise) in ‘climate science’.
While things are as they are, it is prudent for the layman to adopt the mindset of the feared British political interviewer, Jeremy Paxman ‘what is this lying b****d lying to me about this time’
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by Steven Mosher
actually
“Just to clarify, climate sensitivity is the global average surface temperature response to a doubling of all greenhouse gases not just CO2, right?”
Climate sensitivity is the response to ALL forcing.
its the change in temperature per change in forcing. it doesnt matter where the extra watts came from.
So if everything were constant and the sun increased you could get a estimate of sensitivity.
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by Steven Mosher
haha..
you know what I’ve told skeptics.
There is a debate in science. Do what Nic Lewis has done and you will be invited. He doesnt just question. he doesnt just doubt. he actually DOES WORK.
Nobody objects to a scientist who asks tough questions and then proposes a better/different answer.
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by matthewrmarler
Lucifer: <i>Changes in energy transfer within the troposphere have a profound influence on the surface temperature. </i>
What is the source for the diagram in that post?
↧
↧
Comment on Temperature adjustments in Australia by euanmearns
Nick, I’ve spent the morning working out the anomaly stack different ways using data from E Siberia as a test case. The E Siberia stack is here:
http://euanmearns.com/the-hunt-for-global-warming-south-america/#comment-8071
And comparisons with two different base periods here:
http://euanmearns.com/the-hunt-for-global-warming-south-america/#comment-8073
As someone kindly points out, math is not my strong point and so I cannot judge your “combined regression average” methodology. But I have read physics and statistics at university level. As pointed out to you at Climate Etc your starting point is your certain knowledge that the trend should be warming and to my mind you have simply applied a number of statistical techniques to produce the result you want. In particular I don’t like the 9 point triangular fit which appears to move data on the x-axis.
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by John Kennedy (@micefearboggis)
“One of the arguments being made in Stevens’ paper is that the CMIP5 models underestimate the warming over the period 1920-1950 and that this is consistent with them having too large a negative aerosol forcing.”
1920-1950 is a period that is particularly uncertain in the observational record, straddling, as it does, a World War and wholesale change in measurement practice at sea.
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by matthewrmarler
Paul Matthews: <i> There is a workshop on climate sensitivity next week, March 23-27 in Germany. </i>
Thank you for the alert.
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by Danny Thomas
Steven,
May I question your reason for this statement:”an extension of the pause out beyond 25 years.” as to the significance of that time period? There have been modifications of the impression of it’s significance from 15, to 17, to 20 and now your offering of 25 and I’d appreciate your perspective. In part, the reason for asking is we often hear that “trends” are important and yet the trend is that temps are not rising substantially for a relatively long (but maybe not climate scale) time frame.
↧
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by Steven Mosher
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by Danny Thomas
Joshua,
Curious of your defintion of “activist” and if there are those on the AGW side who might fit the bill? It seems that a label (Name + activist = skepticism) yet I see nothing w/r/t quality of “merits of work”. If you chose to answer, can you offer criticism of the work? If not, no answer needed. Thanks,
↧
Comment on Temperature adjustments in Australia by euanmearns
And finally, Nick’s table has Alice warming at +0.75˚C. I get about +0.2˚C using the annual GHCN V2 data.
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by Joshua
==> “1920-1950 is a period that is particularly uncertain in the observational record, ”
Yet another factor that leads to a bag o’ unintentional irony in the “skept-o-sphere.”
↧
↧
Comment on On the social contract between science and society by Blogging by the numbers: 5-0-247. | Living on the Real World
[…] contrast, Wednesday Judith Curry picked up on the Eos piece on her blog Climate, Etc., generating 247 comments. Bottom line? Since its publication, 98% of the dialog on the social […]
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by Steven Mosher
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by niclewis
You are probably right. But I’m afraid I don’t have time to do so right now.
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by swood1000
The point was made that the original paper was rejected by Nature. http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/19/implications-of-lower-aerosol-forcing-for-climate-sensitivity/#comment-685166 Over on climateaudit Nic said that “Some of the modelling groups will no doubt be loathe to accept Stevens’ findings.” For what reason? What are the main arguments that can be expected as to (a) why the paper is weak or unconvincing, or (b) why Nic’s additional analysis is not convincing?
↧
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by Steven Mosher
“May I question your reason for this statement:”an extension of the pause out beyond 25 years.” as to the significance of that time period?
1. see below
There have been modifications of the impression of it’s significance from 15, to 17, to 20 and now your offering of 25 and I’d appreciate your perspective.
2. When Santer first proposed 17 years, I didn’t agree. And said more like 25 years or possibly more. I’m not responsible for other people’s ideas.
########################################
In part, the reason for asking is we often hear that “trends” are important and yet the trend is that temps are not rising substantially for a relatively long (but maybe not climate scale) time frame.
1. Trends are important.
2. the trend in the estimate of GMST is just one trend.
3. The trend in GMST is dependent on the time scale you look at.
4. A relevant time scale is hard to pin down and depends upon your
assumptions about the existence of natural ” quasi periodic natural
cycles.
Over the next 5 years solar forcing should decrease something on the order of .1 Watts. It will be an interesting time as we will be approaching
the 25 year window.
people keep on thinking in terms of some piece of data that will make AGW go away as a theory. That won’t happen. What happens is that theory gets modified to include the observation. There is no final nail in the coffin.
In a sense people are confused by the notion of scientific test that Popper suggested. His view of things is highly idealized, in short a fairy tale.
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by stevefitzpatrick
Judith,
That shift in priorities seems consistent with an increasing focus on man-made (rather than natural) influences on climate starting around 2000. In hindsight, one could argue that it was putting the cart before the horse, since unperturbed sensitivity is so critical an issue. Of course the US$500+ million failure of the Glory launch makes the change in focus toward man-made aerosol effects even less productive than it might have been. At some point the model parameterizations of clouds will improve, but it will be a decade (or three!) late.
↧
Comment on Implications of lower aerosol forcing for climate sensitivity by stevefitzpatrick
Sorry, that should have been Nic Lewis.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
