Articles on this Page
- 12/06/18--13:43: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--16:06: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--16:27: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--16:56: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--17:04: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--17:09: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--17:59: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--18:10: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--18:20: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--18:38: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--18:43: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--18:50: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--19:18: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--19:34: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--20:17: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--20:35: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--20:48: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--22:00: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--22:23: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--22:42: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/06/18--13:43: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Hans Erren
- 12/06/18--16:06: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by JCH
- 12/06/18--16:27: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Ragnaar
- 12/06/18--16:56: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Ragnaar
- 12/06/18--17:04: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/06/18--17:09: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Jim D
- 12/06/18--17:59: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by JCH
- 12/06/18--18:10: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Ron Graf
- 12/06/18--18:20: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Brad Keyes
- 12/06/18--18:38: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by willard (@nevaudit)
- 12/06/18--18:43: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Jim D
- 12/06/18--18:50: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Jim D
- 12/06/18--19:18: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/06/18--19:34: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by JCH
- 12/06/18--20:17: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Robert I. Ellison
- 12/06/18--20:35: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Geoff Sherrington
- 12/06/18--20:48: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Brad Keyes
- 12/06/18--22:00: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Ron Graf
- 12/06/18--22:23: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Malcolm Brown
- 12/06/18--22:42: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Jim D
Most politicians have an arts degree, so they are good at doing the talking, but lousy in arithmetics. The summaries for policy makers are predominantly wriiten by lawyers. Says it all really.
Yes, I celebrate record/near record warmest El Niño events and record, near record La Niña events.
Because ACO2 is the control knob of the current situation, and ENSO happens around the anthropogenic warming trend, which is why El Niño and La Niña events are always record/near record events.
Keep praying. Maybe make an animal sacrifice. Maybe stick some pins in a doll.
It would be nice if the PDO was on board. Even JISAO's PDO seems bored with the whole thing.
Nigel Tufnel: The sustain, listen to it.
Marty DiBergi: I don't hear anything.
Nigel Tufnel: Well you would though, if it were playing.
Gotta have sustain.
Earlier the above link was the subject. Looks like SLR acceleration to me. Or to say it backwards, it we don't have SLR acceleration, that suggests the link is wrong. My confidence in the plot is average. And I finally get the rectangles. The time frames going into the the black line. Why is Resplendy more equal than others? The acceleration is an important point, for marketing and sales. As we are fine, last decade and the decade before that we need to be told that's a fool's take on things. Of all things to accelerate. The oceans and ice sheets 100s of thousands years old. We know the atmosphere is the jumpy problem being moderated by these things.
"The ONI is one measure of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, and other indices can confirm whether features consistent with a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon accompanied these periods." http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
One ONI is little enough to get excited about. Reality is that nothing dramatic has happened in the Pacific in the last 6 months.
And it shows in the atmospheric temperature record.
This is a probabilistic forecast.
What that shows is the skill of models at predicting persistence. Predicting transition is a little more difficult. You can believe models that have no skill in picking ENSO transitions or you can resort to principles of fundamental physical oceanography. No skin off my nose. But the next La Niña is coming – and that’s not much of a prediction – it always does.
You do need a scientific consensus if you are making a policy that relies on science such as regulating pollution or preventing environmental harm, so I don't know what you mean by no one needing a scientific consensus.
I had a long argument with andywest on what people mean when they say catastrophe. If people react to scientific statements on sea-level rise or heightened risks of extreme heatwaves, floods, droughts, famines, etc., as catastrophe, they are expressing their values. Perhaps you don't see increased risks as a catastrophe to be avoided. Note that there is a difference between catastrophe and disaster. A catastrophe is something the system does not recover from. This is what happens with climate change - moving permanently to states that challenge ecosystems and human systems. Catastrophe is not a scientific term, but they do talk about threats to ecosystems, extinction, damaging events, and it is certainly valid for someone to interpret that as a catastrophe due to their valuing the nature and people that are threatened. If you don't value those things you will disagree, of course.
You seem to disagree that scientific societies and industry can make declarations in support of reducing emissions unless it is a unanimous view. It doesn't work that way. People who disagree strongly will resign and that is OK too. They can start their own society or join one that gets the prestige it deserves.
When you say climate science itself says there is no problem, how do you categorize increased risks of extreme events, and more rapidly rising sea levels with projections of up to a tenfold increase in its rate in this century compared to last? When they tell you heatwaves that were hundred year events in the 20th century would be commonplace by 2100, floods similarly. What about loss of ecosystems and agricultural systems in areas? When you say no problems, it just reflects your own values. No problems for you, maybe, at least not directly. Perhaps just having more air conditioning is your one-size-fits-all solution globally.
Looks like the eastern Pacific cooled from ~1983 to ~2013.
Jim D: "You do need a scientific consensus if you are making a policy that relies on science such as regulating pollution or preventing environmental harm, so I don’t know what you mean by no one needing a scientific consensus."
Jim, I think Brad actually is on to a point of fundamental importance here and it's the underlying subject of the post. Scientific expert consensus has been substituted for scientific evidence. Whether for practicality, or urgency, the protocol of evidence based policy has been supplanted.
In the case for allowable trace contaminants you cite in drinking water the science is based on toxicology studies. In climate science there is little certainty about the past climate baseline. And there is even less certainty about the climate future, even with today's best models and understanding. You cite 3-4C rise (from what baseline) by 2100. That is not based on any science that we are aware of. The consensus is still based mostly on gut feeling that man is careless, invasive and has a history of pollution and folly ergo CO2 must be bad. Change must be bad.
I know you disagree with the last sentence, being a progressive. But this premise of innate conservatism was the basis for MBH98,99 whose central aim was to establish that past millennium's climate was more or less static, a hockey stick shaft, a Garden of Eden, interrupted by an abrupt rise, representing the insult of human influence. Their chart not only got the starring role in Gore's movie but was printed in elementary school children's science books. It turned out not to be science at all, no more than Piltdown Man was science. The National Academy of Science's reaction to this revelation is informative to the change in the relationship of science to policy. The concluded that MBH98-99,s methods were flawed. But their "conclusion was correct." Every authentic scientists had to read this twice.
I hope you, Brad, and I can at least agree that science is based on evidence, reproduce-able by skeptics -- not belief -- and not consensus of belief.
> You do need a scientific consensus if you are making a policy that relies on science.....
No, Jim, I categorically DO NOT.
All I need from the science community is *evidence.*
But as for how many of them think what, I couldn't give a tinker's cuss.
As Rule Zero of Science Club states: <b><i>opinion is not evidence</i></b>.
(Please go back and review if you've forgotten this axiom. Write it 500 times on a blackboard if that's what it takes to make it sink in. Because you can't have a scientifically-literate conversation until you grasp this.)
>...I don’t know what you mean by no one needing a scientific consensus.
When I make statements like "no one needs a scientific consensus," what I'm referring to is the fact that no one needs a scientific consensus.
> As Rule Zero of Science Club states: opinion is not evidence.
A citation that would provide evidence for that claim would be nice, Brad.
Otherwise all we have is your opinion.
Ron, given that scientists can't prove the future, they have to rely on the past and present for evidence. You appear to have decided that the warming going on, even though it fits what AGW would expect over the last 60 years, cannot be what it looks like, which is highly correlated to the CO2 forcing change. If you relax your prejudice and just take it for what it looks like, which is that the basic science that explains it is correct, you can project temperatures for emissions the way they do. You have to give the science credit for explaining observations when it does. Is 60 years not enough? Maybe another 0.25 C in ten years would be enough? The rate matches 100 ppm per degree for this period (2.3 C per doubling), so another 25 ppm can be expected to produce 0.25 C. Ten years ago skeptics would not have believed this decade would be so much warmer than the previous, even with a relative solar lull. Each decade has beaten the previous by amounts that follow the faster rise of CO2 forcing since the 1970's. For the scientists, the experiment has been done and AGW has passed. Nor is that surprising because the basic science used for the explanation goes back unmodified for decades. What would have been surprising is if the warming was nowhere near 1 C since 1950 with nearly 100 ppm added. It confirms decades-old science.
Brad, what you call evidence is consensus of evidence. One experiment or measurement won't convince a politician, especially if it was done by one scientist with no peer review. The peer review process provides published work, but still not consensus. No one would take one paper for policy. If two papers give conflicting results you would go for more until you get a consensus. So, yes, consensus is used and it would be foolish not to, or to take a minority view instead. Evidence is provided as consensus, not as a single work.
A 'science' of model opportunistic ensembles, extrapolation from short term instrumental records and a neglect of internal variability has no legitimacy. There is a wealth of much better science.
Which predicted the PAWs was going to last another decade or three.
A decade ago.
The next climate shift is due in the decade to come - if it is not happening now. We shall see.
My three big points for policy/politics of climate.
1. Why is no accurate figure stated for sensitivity, like ECS?
(Is the whole foundation now disproved, that GHG causes atmospheric warming?)
2. Have the main Learned Societies who back the Global Warming Establishment line, done adequate of their own research pertinent to the sub-disciplines they represent?
(Lesser Authorities unsure of their way tend to turn to the main Learned Societies for support).
3. Why have so many sensu lato climate scientists failed to call out others from the Establishment who they must know have made outrageously anti-scientific statements?
(Beyond the points of income protection and the madness of crowds, there must be some who should rebel because of ethics, morals and/or a love of science done well.)
Would Judith permit a write-in of the 3 main points that others favour?
> A citation that would provide evidence for that claim would be nice, Brad.
Otherwise all we have is your opinion.
I was talking about how science works, not how nature works.
So Rule Zero of Science Club doesn't apply to my claim.
All scientists agree: in science, opinion is NOT a form of evidence.
Jim D: "For the scientists, the experiment has been done and AGW has passed."
Jim, your comment is very helpful in understanding the common fallacy that many have about science. I'm sure you have heard that correlation is not causation. I'm positive I've told you a couple of times already, so you likely have been told dozens of times over years here by others. So your denial of the existence of the scientific method I would hypothesize is predicated on a religious attachment to your beliefs. Although I could lay out a pretty good case for my hypothesis, citing all sorts of sociology and psychology papers, this would not be science. Even if I used data with statistically significant analysis results it would not be science, just a bolstered opinion. I cannot scientifically prove your bias toward denying the existence of the scientific method and science's requirement by definition to be predicated on rigid adherence to it. Some things defy proof.
Willard wants scientific proof of what science is. This is mostly handled in junior high school labs, but most people just forgot. Science involves making predictions that are in variance with the null hypothesis, so that one or more (hopefully all) competing hypotheses can be eliminated. Currently AGW is a strong hypothesis. It has a physical basis of predicted forcing of 1.1C per doubling of CO2 over a several hundred-year period to allow a near ocean-atmospheric coupled equilibrium.
As for what is required for a scientific experiment to prove AGW, sadly I cannot think of how one could control all the enormous unknowns to statistically validate an AGW signal. (This does not mean I am not for stronger building codes on the coasts or for alternative energy research.) I am just against authorities, especially science authorities, changing the definition of science.
Jim: "What would have been surprising is if the warming was nowhere near 1 C since 1950 with nearly 100 ppm added. It confirms decades-old science."
Jim, Please cite the source for the 1C global warming from 1950 to date. I believe it's 20%-25% less, depending on index.
The IPCC's First Assessment Report of 1992 stated, (I think incorrectly,) that we had 1C of global warming by that point. They also predicted another full 1C of warming between 1992 and 2025, hitting the 2C mark just six years from now. By what percentage are they off? How far off would they have to be to be falsified? They said the minimum of the range was 0.2C/decade. I think they failed. But I don't know. Like economists, they can say that there was something unforeseeable. The Mt. Pinatubo eruption was 1991, so that can't be it.
Here is the FAR summary quote:
"An average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2—0.5°C per decade) assuming the IPCC Scenario A (Business-as Usual) emissions of greenhouse gases; this is a more rapid increase than seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a likely increase in the global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 (about 2°C above that in the pre-industrial period), and 3°C above today’s value before the end of the next century (about 4°C above pre-industrial). The rise will not be steady because of other factors.”
The reason that climate change policies are becoming unpopular is easily explained in "The boy who cried wolf".
I always say that correlation isn't causation but it is evidence and as such can't be dismissed. Let's take a look at this correlation (0.937) if you scale CO2 to 100 ppm per 1 C.
As you see, nearly 1 C of warming from nearly 100 ppm of CO2. This works out at over 2 C per doubling and agrees with AGW. You don't accept that this is more than a coincidence despite a scientific explanation and the near mathematical impossibility for such a high correlation not to indicate a leading factor. If there was another cause it would have to be proportional to the CO2 increase. With the water vapor feedbacks and various positive albedo feedbacks together with proportionate anthropogenic effects (GHGs-aerosols) you can easily account for this amount of warming. Maybe you'll need another decade or three of this to be convinced that AGW really is at work here. Perhaps the 60 years of data we have is not enough for you yet. When will it be?
That's without even bringing in the positive imbalance that shows that even all this warming still lags the forcing change meaning that the ECS exceeds the change we see here.
So I repeat. You see the data. There's a robust signal. It does exactly what AGW would predict it to do at a TCR near 2 C per doubling and with a larger ECS because of the positive imbalance. You dismiss that this sensitivity could possibly be right. You vaguely want some other proof instead, perhaps a century more of warming data.