Articles on this Page
- 12/09/18--07:30: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/09/18--07:31: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/09/18--07:59: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/09/18--08:15: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/09/18--08:24: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/09/18--08:47: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/09/18--10:26: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/09/18--10:53: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/09/18--11:00: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/09/18--11:47: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/09/18--11:53: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/09/18--12:15: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/09/18--12:52: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/09/18--12:58: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/09/18--13:17: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/09/18--13:27: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/09/18--14:12: _ Comment on Pol...
- 12/09/18--16:21: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/09/18--17:07: _ Comment on CAG...
- 12/09/18--17:23: _ Comment on Wee...
- 12/09/18--07:30: Comment on Week in review – science edition by astroclimatelink
- 12/09/18--07:31: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Jim D
- 12/09/18--07:59: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by Jim D
- 12/09/18--08:15: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by Jim D
- 12/09/18--08:24: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by co2islife
- 12/09/18--08:47: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by andywest2012
- 12/09/18--10:26: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Ron Graf
- 12/09/18--10:53: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by Hans Erren
- 12/09/18--11:00: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by Jim D
- 12/09/18--11:47: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by John Ridgway
- 12/09/18--11:53: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Jim D
- 12/09/18--12:15: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by David Wojick
- 12/09/18--12:52: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by David Wojick
- 12/09/18--12:58: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Ron Graf
- 12/09/18--13:17: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Ron Graf
- 12/09/18--13:27: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Jim D
- 12/09/18--14:12: Comment on Politics of climate expertise by Ragnaar
- 12/09/18--16:21: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by andywest2012
- 12/09/18--17:07: Comment on CAGW: a ‘snarl’ word? by matthewrmarler
- 12/09/18--17:23: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ragnaar
I've decided to stick my neck way out and see if my hypothesis is correct.
Is the Next Big [Equatorial] Westerly Wind Burst On Its Way [in the Western Pacific Ocean]?
Ron, you complain about cherrypicking then use a well-known skeptical cherrypick to illustrate what you mean. The graph I showed was from AR5. Use the CO2 observations to get a direct measure. The uncertainty comes when you make assumptions about the aerosol impact on this, but the net effect is highly proportional to CO2, so the effects of other GHGs and aerosols correlate well with it. If we reduce aerosol emissions, the value will increase. If we reduce other GHG emissions faster than CO2, it will decrease, but it has been robust for 60 years at 2.4 C per doubling. Actually Lovejoy has 2.3 C per doubling for 1750-2012 using this method of CO2 as a proxy for net anthropogenic forcing. It really holds well over the long term. So I can predict if our CO2 growth rate now remains in the 2.5 ppm/yr for a decade, global warming will also increase to 0.25 C/decade. It's just an extension of curves that go back 60 years.
If anyone else's number doesn't explain the warming since 1950, it is not much good for anything. Lewis gets his low number by almost zeroing out the aerosol growth while including the 1940-1970 period in his window that had the most rapid global aerosol growth. Who knows why?
Regarding proxies, they are looking at millennial trends rather than annual or even decadal values, so I don't know how well different hemispheres correlate for short time scales. But the long term global trend does come out because that is what they publish from it.
Science is only "precommitted" to science. Science informs. If the science tells you that certain actions lead to lots of warming that is information for you.
Publishing something shoddy can seriously damage your career. Peer review serves as a protection from doing that. If a shoddy paper gets through, the editor takes the heat as well as the authors.
The politics of climate expertise just took a very very very ugly turn for the worse. The IPCC is calling for a $240/gal Gas Tas while Paris is burning and they have called in UN Troops. I just watched a video of a protester that had his hand blown off by a flash grenade. The French and now Belgium Mobs are rioting for one and only one reason, expensive and ineffective Green Policies. Now that there is a huge political cost being incurred due to these Green Policies, and the fact that the very taxpayers that are rioting have paid for the research that is being used to support these policies, I wouldn't want to be listing credentials as a Climate Expert on any public resume. That degree has just become a liability.
This aspect is fully covered in the post. There is indeed inappropriate as well as appropriate usage. For the latter, it is not those deploying the term who introduce the undefined and emotively malleable, but those items (narrative, authority sources, theories, whatever) which via the term they are correctly describing. Assuming you’ve fully read the post, and in the context of this appropriate usage (so for instance *not* used to label mainstream / IPCC science), if you think that the post is wrong, please show your logic chain and specific arguments as to why, with appropriate in context quotes. Thanks.
Jim, we agree that cherry-picking is a hazard, maybe the greatest one, for false conclusions. We all do it. Scientists, journalists are not exempt. They used to be trained specifically to counter this bias by reporting all the facts that could be relevant to an analysis. Sadly, it seems more then ever we cherry pick the news and and they in turn cherry pick the facts. Many also believe the same forces are eroding scientific rigor, at least for the non-applied sciences. I think we both can agree that critical thinking is warranted always.
You are skeptical of Lewis and Curry and I presume other investigators who find climate sensitivity on the lower end of the field. You state your suspicions that they are making false assumptions regarding historic trends in aerosol pollution and the degree of which their negative forcing they offsets GHG, all fair to do. Lewis and Curry have explained their assumptions and math in their papers and it has been open for scrutiny by the climate community, who mostly hold your point of view about AGW urgency. To date I would say big climate has been unable to shake the assumptions or math of L&C despite several attempts, largely because L&C use IPCC data for temperature record, aerosol and GHG forcing.
No single investigator can ably challenge all the weaknesses in climate science, but remember, there is a substantial community that challenges the accuracy every one of these data sets. Land stations, the best historical surface data, was never designed for the precision necessary for detecting 0.1C decadal anomalies or for global sampling. All the instrument protocol changes throughout the decades have left a wide field of choices and methods open for interpretation for adjusting and cleansing the data. Local warming around stations from development are poorly adjusted for, or not at all. Climate history gets changed whenever seen fit, and it's always to cool the past. Just after transitioning from ship measurements to buoys and floats the historical treatment of ship measurements were completely changed. The global temperature record, which relies 70% on the very poor sea surface records. This very substantial change was done without field experimentation, just noodling. Many top aerosol experts, like Bjorn Stevens of the Max Plank Inst., believe the IPCC's forcing assumptions for them are way too high. Jim, you are free to present your work but it would be picked apart as appropriate. You will need to show that you did not cherry pick starting periods or omit any important climate forcing influences.
JCH says we are <i>not</i> entering a cooling period. I can't argue becuase I don't claim to know. I do predict that whatever the future trend is that it will be completely expected and explained by yourself, big climate, (and any economist). If there is cooling and a volcano erupts it will be because of that. If there are a deficit of sun spots that will be that. If the trend is persistent than it will be the lower oscillation of the AMO. If it warms -- well, we already know this reason too.
Paleoclimate is much worse. Actually,it was the revelation of the hockey stick games that alarmed me enough to take a closer look at climate science. The proxy chronologies are not like weather stations. Different tree species in the same area show different climate reconstructions. Even the same species in the same area can have near zero correlation if, for example, the tree loses its bark, like the infamous strip bark bristlecone and foxtail pines. How do they know that warmth is the limiting growth factor over a 1000-year period? They take a calibration period, a couple of decades in the 20th century, where either the local climate or the hemispheric climate will correlate with the tree's growth. If it passes the treemometer test then it is a valid proxy. The better the correlation to the more its value is rewarded with multipliers. But once the tree's growth come out of the test interval all focus of performance ceases. One might ask how much warming is still beneficial to a tree's growth? And, how do we know that past poor growth periods (recorded as cooling) were not really caused by too much heat or dryness? These questions are equivalent to asking who created God in the tree-ring community. You don't ask.
<a href="http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/others/graybill.idso.1993.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is the 1993 Graybill study of the strip bark pines that he analysed as evidence for CO2 fertilization effect on trees. There were the exact trees that passed Mann's treemometer test so well that he rewarded them with 370X weight so they dominated the MBH hockey stick. Of course, their data had to be chopped off the last half of the 20th century (due to their decline) and replaced with adjusted thermometer records. They are still used in the Pages2K despite their earlier use as CO2 proxies.
Jim, I think you have logged more hours on this blog than any other soul. You are devoting a good portion of your life to it. If one wants to be sure they are correct they should be skeptical and read the counter evidence. Everyone needs to guard against cherry picking. Read the Graybill paper, read Montford's "Hockey Stick Illusion."
No Jim, peer review does not prevent publication of shoddy research if the results are in line with the view of the reviewers.
There are many journals to publish in. If it is any good it will be published, and sometimes even if it is not (see Monckton et al.).
I ask that you appreciate two things:
Firstly, it was not my intention to ‘detract from Andy West’s main contributions in his two essays’ (I would have hoped that there was plenty in my comments that make this clear). My intention, instead, is to supplement his contribution with an appreciation that the ‘catastrophe narrative’, as evinced in formal declarations made by the United Nations and the EU (to name but two) does not consider catastrophe (i.e. serious, global, irreversible, trans-generational impact) as a predictable outcome of a particular course of action. Instead, focus is placed upon uncertainty and how this undermines the ability to calculate risks. This focus leads to an assumption that precaution is the rational approach to risk management
My concern is that drawing attention to the increasingly common practice of treating catastrophe as a matter of destiny rather than nothing more than a plausible, remote possibility is all well and good, but one should not lose sight of the influential role that the precautionary meme still has in the climate change debate. When I apply the CAGW acronym to both versions of the catastrophe narrative (the precautionary and certitude versions), I am keeping alive the recognition that the precautionary meme is still out there, alive and kicking; it is even lurking in the footnotes of Andy’s post. Andy appears to deny that his post distracts attention away from the precautionary meme, but I don’t see how one can avoid doing so if one writes a post that claims dominance for its memetic competitor. Be that as it may, the more important point is that the rhetoric invariably focuses upon worse case scenarios, and this is what the precautionary meme will do for you, even without the false claims of certitude.
Secondly, this is not a taxonomy that I am trying to get started. The distinction to be made between precaution-under-uncertainty and straightforward risk-based calculation is already notorious, and the primacy of the former is already enshrined in climate change legislation. I do not need to write an essay, citing references and examples, to make my point. The job has already been done for me by many others. I recommend, as an example, the COMEST dissertation, as cited in my comments to Andy:
In conclusion, if we sceptics are (as Andy asserts) almost universal in our understanding that CAGW invokes a concept of catastrophe that embodies certitude, simply because so much of the climate change polity currently employs such rhetoric, then all I can say is that we are a much more easily manipulated bunch than we like to think we are. However, Andy does not substantiate this claim, he just states it as a bold fact. Given how much of the commentary on sceptical blogs still revolves around a distaste for the application of the precautionary principle in climate science, I am happy to reserve judgment on Andy’s claim.
Ron, for all the talk of problems with proxies we see no counter products to PAGES2k and Marcott, which makes them all talk and no action. When they actually have a reconstruction of the last few thousand years, there will be something to weigh up. That's how science works. This is the kind of tearing down that Mann had to put up with before other studies confirmed his HS (and even since) without an actual alternative being produced. It's all just words, no pictures. Even if it just shows bigger error bars, they should at least produce that.
As for CO2 versus temperature, all the error comes from assumptions about what fraction is CO2, but the raw data is correlated enough to use as-is. Taking annual temperatures, the correlation is about 0.93 for 1958-2018, and for decadal means (although only 6 points) it rises to 0.985 for 1958-2018 and 0.995 for 1968-2018 (after the larger aerosol increase rates have subsided). This level of correlation makes the gradient very sharp, especially for the last five decades, 1968-2018, where it rises to 2.6 C per doubling. Given this, I am surprised that there is an uncertainty argument still being used to delay action. You won't find Lewis projecting the decadal change in temperature for 2.5 ppm/yr going forwards because his method introduces too much uncertainty to say anything. If the next decade averages 420 ppm, which it could at that rate, we would get 0.25 C warming over this decade, modified perhaps a little by solar variation.
As for me spending my time here, climate change is a hobby, and this is an outlet.
Policy making and litigation are both adversarial processes. It is perfectly normal for each side to have its experts, in fact it is expected. That is all that is going on in the climate case, so it is puzzling that people seem to have trouble with it. Perhaps it is because the experts are scientists and science is falsely thought not to be adversarial. Wishing it were somehow otherwise is pointless.
The climate change debate is a struggle of ideas, pure and simple. In fact it is historically large, but still perfectly normal.
Regarding this: “Concerning the inability of expert knowledge to resolve environmental controversy and the pressing need for a pragmatic reframing of policy problems to allow for solutions based on bipartisan values.”
As a matter of logic there is no way to "reframe" genuine disagreements such that they disappear.
Jim, there was evidence and many reconstructions before MBH98. They included a Medial Warm Period, which was why they were not promoted by the IPCC. The MWP exists also after the hockey stick, <a href="https://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist-temp-reconstruction-2000-years.pdf" rel="nofollow">Ljungquist (2010)</a>, for example.
I am not vouching for Ljungquist nor am I agreeing with you that one must prove an alternative explanation in order to criticize another's hypothesis or methods. Mann's biggest counter-argument to McIntyre's unraveling of Mann's work was that McIntyre did not present his own own alternative reconstruction. Unfortunately, (for Mann,) that is not required under the rules of science.
As for your TCR, you must use all the good data that is available. You must go back to 1860. The study of effective climate sensitivity involves a large, 70-year AMO oscillations in GMST, as well as smaller El Nino ones. Even if you did eliminate the majority of the 20th century from your study, you should need to explain the significant rise in GMST between 1910 and 1945. If it wasn't CO2 forcing then what was it? And why is it not a concern for your study now?
Here is a non-hockey team reconstruction:
F. C. Ljungqvist is now part of the PAGES community. Assimilated into the collective, or, if you can't beat 'em join 'em.
We are about 3.3% so far in the United States:
I took 10% and divided by 3 with electricity being a third of total energy used. We need to hang on to existing nuclear power. I doubt increased roll out of wind turbines and solar though commercial solar may not be a disaster, just less than optimal where we pay increased costs for some goal that doesn't have much chance of being recognized here and attributed of those increased costs. And where we get stuck with the investment in that it's backed by natural gas (and needs to be) now and ten years into the future. If I owned natural gas, I'd be all for that. I own the tiniest amount in an energy fund. But I don't advise sector weighting. Like I am smart to win that one? But I do reverse social justice investing, in the tiniest way.
I appreciate you apparent endorsement of bringing reliable energy to where it's needed. I see environmental gains with that. Elsewhere I linked to a Quillette article that argued that we no longer have to devastate the land as we can get stuff from underground instead, that is fossil fuels.
“My intention, instead, is to supplement his contribution…”
All supplements are welcome. However, the above thread is in pursuit of what you have termed in various ways to be serious issues, which implies much more than a supplement but flaws of some kind. Serious challenges are welcome too, but there is an expectation of substantiation based in the proper context of the post. As frequently misunderstandings are cause of disagreement as much if not more than actual deeper disagreement, my last text was to cite a potential candidate for same.
“…in formal declarations made by the United Nations and the EU…”
Per above there can be wide variance and complete contradiction in narratives, the latter of which can and do exist even within the very same organisations. The post indeed notes the contradiction between exampled UN elite and its own body the IPCC (and further in footnotes, even between different layers of the IPCC). Similar contradictions exist both within other arms of the UN and also in other orgs / governments / etc. Other than the given notes, this post does not address / examine such contradictions based on your reference or any other, yet nor does it prejudice in any way what an examination of such may conclude.
“I am keeping alive the recognition that the precautionary meme is still out there…”
Sounds like a serious responsibility ;)
“…it is even lurking in the footnotes of Andy’s post.”
Glad to be of service :)
“Andy appears to deny that his post distracts attention away from the precautionary meme…”
So objective supplements are most welcome, but are you peer pressuring here to police what we are allowed to describe or how, in case such description should erode something else considered useful? What if others disagree with your aim, however noble it may be? And indeed what is considered useful and why? What if someone else thinks this post erodes something different? And who gets to judge? The very many (and many very high) authorities and orgs and influencers listed who propagate the certainty of imminent catastrophe, speak to their own cumulative influence. Characterising this narrative and exploring some directly related issues regarding its presence, as I’ve noted above, does not prejudice for or against other narratives ‘out there’, and to point to an example of one is in no way evidence of any prejudice. Your supplement regarding the issue is indeed most welcome, and anyone is free to add whatever balance and insights they think would similarly improve the post. But your assertion of serious issues and implication of bias regarding same, undermines the positive nature of this contribution.
If your serious issues come down in the main to this ‘distraction’, I submit that this is just a value judgement. While the form of your post may be somewhat different, I think Matthew’s idea is a great one. If you could do a memetic analysis of the domain to show the relative influences of competitive memes, including at least the two of note here and maybe others, or even just more exposition on the changing competitive boundary if evidence for the former is too hard to get hold of, this would be a fantastic contribution that would at least bolster your value judgement. However, *whatever* this analysis would reveal, I do not make such an analysis here, whether of meme populations considered mainly to be under the main catastrophe narrative umbrella, those that are outside it, or those that straddle the boundaries (and which analysis must include relationships to reality that if strong, short-circuit emotive propagation). I have exercised the freedom to describe one thing without prejudice for or against anything else. The act of presenting / describing something is by no means a promotion, and as long as we aren’t in hate speech land or something where rather more care has to be taken (and even then, a social psychology description say of the inner workings of a particular fascist regime including its onerous propaganda, is not in any way a promotion of that regime or its propaganda), the freedom to do so must remain independent of whatever candidate a majority, or even minority, or just someone, wants to back in a related competition, be that candidate a meme or a party or a person.
“…then all I can say is that we are a much more easily manipulated bunch than we like to think we are.”
For your future reference, I don’t believe climate skeptics are manipulated as a group (and in fact they have very little group coherence anyway); I don’t even think this of climate orthodox folks assuming you mean deliberate manipulation (the usual sense of this word). On the whole skeptics pragmatically express main effects in the domain, including the high certainty thing via ‘CAGW’, which the orthodox object to because of this inclusion, and indeed here in these very comments. While also many remain highly cognisant regarding all sorts of subtleties, which they are also perfectly capable of expressing, notwithstanding some others may roll some of these subtleties into more approximated buckets. In short they are people.
“I am happy to reserve judgment on Andy’s claim.”
Wise, shame the royal society abandoned that policy.
John Ridgway: <i> My intention, instead, is to supplement his contribution with an appreciation that the ‘catastrophe narrative’, </i>
I am glad that you clarified that.
You wrote: <i>My comment wasn’t disputing the existence of a narrative premised upon “the high certainty of an imminent generic global catastrophe.” Instead, I was challenging the assumption that the nuanced position taken by the scientific community cannot, likewise, be interpreted as a “catastrophe narrative”, albeit of a less simplistic nature. </i>
That reads as more than a "supplement;" it seems as though the second statement overrides the first, rather than supplementing it.
Note below that Atomsk's Sanakan is still maintaining that no definition of "CAGW" has been given, precisely because [in my paraphrasing] no distinction is attempted between outcomes that are potentially worrisome and those that are "catastrophic". In order to show that "CAGW" is meaningful, it is helpful that Andy West has demonstrated the existence of CAGW by relatively strict criteria; without a clear boundary to the concept, "CAGW" can become as meaningless as AS claims..
I'd like to read your response to that comment by AS.
My latest opinion is that the Republicans are now the party of the working class and are still confused by that and so am I. It may not be the the Republicans are right, but they are less wrong than the Democrats. But that's not hard to do. Clinton's campaign illustrates that. What was her platform? As a libertarian, I had simple answers for immigration and free trade. Now I am not so sure. Maybe I'll be a moderate libertarian. But it has been a grand time. Trump brings out the worst in people. And there's been a lot of that. But give him his due, he also brings out the best in people. And I think it's important, to welcome people into whatever the cause is. Was this supposed to be about elites? That's what we have. And I suppose they need to stay in touch with the voters or there may be things like no longer having their former job. Trump just happened to come along at the right time. He didn't cause all this. He happens to be President in the middle of it. The simple answer is that enough hate for Trump will fix things. That's blindness. A con.