Jim D | June 3, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
You can’t treat them the same in terms of predictability. Weather is the trajectory and climate is the attractor. We are physically moving that attractor by changing the constituents of the atmosphere, constituents normally considered constant for weather.

You could say we are physically moving the weather in all places by changing the CO2. Then add all the weather up to get the climate. The climate is the weather. The climate doesn’t go someplace and then come back to effect the weather, except the oceans and maybe the ice sheets, etc. We add up all the weather to get the climate and remember we time shifted some stuff into the oceans, ice sheets, etc.

If I do a balance sheet, I don’t say the balance sheet is not every asset and liability that goes on that balance sheet. Accountants don’t have too many special places where we put things because they are too different or stuff that we don’t have to count.

Some people wanted to know my side of the story where “R. Gates” laid all the blame for the Trenberth meeting falling apart squarely on me., and since I was happy to leave the entire thing alone, as a dead issue as he requested of me, but then used the issue to bash me over the head here, I’m happy to oblige with some documentation of what transpired.

Basically it went like this: I lost trust in Randall over his restrictions he put in place, combined with a squabble with David Hoffer where he was demanding “witnesses” (more below) and few people that I invited were interested in attending. In quickly became a non-event.I never even got a plane ticket.

You see Randall is a video producer, he works for a government TV channel in Colorado. All well and good, But when he started saying videotape wasn’t good enough for him as proof of what transpired in another venue, well that’s when I started losing trust in him. Read on.

1. He demanded control of the videotape of the session with Trenberth. We would not be allowed to post it at WUWT, only link to it wherever it ended up being posted. Randall claims this was to prevent us and others from “taking segments out of context”. i.e. editing it. I agreed to this, but asked if we could stream it live. That never got resolved.

2. Nothing was set in stone, there was a lot to be worked out, and it was starting to fall apart…or example:
==========================================================
From: Randall
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 9:22 AM
To: Anthony Watts

Anthony,

Good to talk to you, and glad to see this event still might happen. A few things:

1) I did let NCAR know that we might not have a full group of purely skeptics, but that we might need to fill up most of the seats with High School or College science students. I would hope that Dr. Trenberth would not be opposed to this, but I thought it only fair that I let them know that the composition of the group would be different than what was first discussed.

2) I also let them know that we would like to live-stream the video and would need outbound network access from NCAR. If they balk at this, they do know that I plan to put it up on the internet later (in its entirety) anyway. They simply want no editing to occur, which I completely agree with.

Before you buy your airline ticket to Denver, I would suggest you wait to see if they have a problem with the group being different than what was first discussed.

Thanks,

Randy

========================================================
3. I had not even purchased a plane ticket, and the group of people was in flux, I didn’t get much interest from people except for some WUWT commenters. Randall suggested we infill with high school and college students.

Meanwhile, some people privately said to me “this is a set-up” all this is about is getting you and Trenberth together, so it can be claimed that “Trenberth reached out to you, but you didn’t listen, and therefore you are a denier”. Basically I was told he just wants to tell us why we are all wrong and use that video with you for PR purposes.

That point was proven to me earlier when Dr. Trenberth gave an AMS address, and refused to remove some ugly language. I wrote him personally, asking him nicely, and he didn’t even bother to respond.

See:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/16/trenberth-reacts-edits-speech-to-fix-copying-leaves-deniers/

4. So coupled with what else was going on,, the lack of interest, the infilling of high school and college kids (Why? This was supposed to be a meeting with WUWT skeptics.) made me start to see that this really wasn’t about reaching out, but something else was going on. They didn’t want empty seats.

With Randall being in the video business, and then starting to demand “witnesses” in lieu of video for a proposed experiment, I realized he didn’t trust me at all. And things stared to fall apart from there.
=======================================================

To Randall
Oct 1, 2011
I’ve privately invited 6 people. 3 scientists, 2 well known bloggers. You know them all.

It is not looking good, five out of six people have declined. No answer for number six yet. The common theme so far is “why would I pay my own way to fly across the country to hear Dr. Trenberth?” They have a point, especially the one who wrote:

“Trenberth won’t even make an effort to attend my presentations when we are at the same conference together, why should I take 3 days out of my work and pay my own way to hear him on some whim”?

Its going nowhere.

The only reason I’m considering coming is that I have a free Southwest voucher, even then it is money out of my pocket for hotel and three work days instead of two, Since I originally requested Sunday. People like yourself who work int he public sector think nothing of these sorts of things. People like me and others who have limited funds, have a family to support…its a big deal.

As for ustream, anybody can take any video presented on the web (yours included) and edit it and repackage it. So your concerns are really moot.

Further, given that you want “witnesses” at my office for this experiment feud with Hoffer, while at the same time giving Gore a pass, and while you yourself not having the integrity to use your own name on the forum while making demands of me and Mr. Hoffer who do, my inclination to tell you take take this whole thing and shove it.

The gall you exhibit with demanding witnesses instead of video or photo evidence (your domain) is beyond my ability for description.

I don’t want to hear from you for a few days, by email or the WUWT website because that demand for witnesses has royally pissed me off. Take a few days off.

Anthony
=========================================================

5. So as you can see video tape was apparently good enough for Randall in recording the Trenberth lecture, but not good enough for me to use when I wanted to record an experiment. When he can’t trust me for such a simple thing that is his work domain, yet he wanted to entirely control the videotaping and distribution on his end with Trenberth, I began to see that Randall really had a one-sided view of trust.

I recorded video about Gore and Co2 experiments anyway. See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

So far nobody has accused me of editing it.

curryja wrote:

“stay tuned, post on abrupt climate change coming tomorrow.”

Got that Robert I Ellison? You better run out and get some more DEET. Know WHUT I mean?

R. Gates | June 3, 2014 at 8:12 pm |
Weather is what is happening right now. Climate is the dynamical environment of external forcings that weather happens in– with the main dynamical context being whether or not the system is gaining or losing net energy.

With a balance sheet approach, we add up everything in the system down to the smallest area. Let’s say every cubic inch. Our totals go on a balance sheet. Climate is the summation of everything. Balance sheets are dated, so at a specific time. I do not see how we can some how break the total away from all the component parts. The balance sheet does not provide rules for, or a control of, its component parts. It is a summation of them.

If the goal is to have a balance sheet, we start from the bottom and move to the total. We do not start with the total which we don’t even have yet, and then figure out what the components are. The components can influence each other, but there exists as far as I know no rule that says the components have to ask the balance sheet, what they can do.

Dr. Curry, it might be time to start using some analytics on your blog.

“I find the idea of such a forum interesting. It is a shame the submission to EOS couched the idea in the terms it did. Essentially the submission politicized the issue. A political submission was handled with a political rejection. He made it easy to reject.”

Ah – one should not suggest the emperor has no clothes, instead one should enter into a debate about the nature of visibility and the nature of clothing in general.

Really, Mosher?

“I won’t play because you hurt my feelings” doesn’t sound like the grown-up, fact-based way to behave that one should expect from scientists, but what the hell…

‘Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.

Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.’ NAS

Abrupt changes are inevitable several times this century – how they manifest and why is a different question. NAS

It has reached the stage where it matters little what the IPCC or sceptics say about future trajectories of climate. Surprises are to be expected.

Wally Broecker –the ‘father of global warming’ – suggests that predictions about the future of climate are problematic. Broecker has characterized what we are doing as poking a stick at a wild and angry beast. The science of stochastic nonlinear dynamical systems – and of abrupt climate change – suggests that he is correct. It creates a dilemma. The world may not be warming for decades at least – but this comes at the price of inherent instability of the climate system.

The reduction of pressures on the system – CO2 from fossil fuels, black carbon, tropospheric ozone, land clearing, loss of soil carbon, nitrous oxide, methane, sulfide -which are compounded by population and development issues – is therefore prudent and this has implications for resource constraints and economic growth.

‘In a world of limited resources, we can’t do everything, so which goals should we prioritize? The Copenhagen Consensus Center provides information on which targets will do the most social good (measured in dollars, but also incorporating e.g. welfare, health and environmental protection), relative to their costs. Some of the world’s top economists have assessed the targets from the 11th session Open Working Group document into one of five categories, based on economic evidence: Phenomenal, Good, Fair, Poor and not enough knowledge.’ http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/final_un_ccc_2015.pdf

There is currently an opportunity to combine aid, environmental and climate factors into a coherent policy position. I suggest that this is best achieved through integration of the Copenhagen Consensus analysis of the UN proposed 2015 extension of the Millennium Development Goals. The aim is a policy position that can serve as a guide and focus for aid to achieve the biggest bang for the development buck and create progress at the same time on the environment and climate change.

In a relatively short order the world will require an abundance of low cost, low carbon energy. I would add another line item in the energy section – to propose a $1B triennial global energy prize to support innovation in energy technology, energy efficiency and energy systems – to be judged by a panel of eminent persons. It is to be contributed to by world governments, corporations and individuals. There is room also to expand on rebuilding organic matter in global agricultural soils.

There is an opportunity to add rhetorical flourish in the spirit of Hayek. Enlightenment liberals can grasp the science and policy high ground or wallow in the dross of implausible and unproven speculation – in utter ignorance of abrupt climate change and stochastic dynamical systems.
‘We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism… Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.

It is clear that this is an opportunity that should not be lost. Your choice – but I am moving on.

‘Preamble on Climate Science and Policy for the Future of Humanity and the Natural World

The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change.’ Wally Broecker

Abrupt climate change happens on scales of decades to many millennia. It suggests a larger role for natural variability but also an inherent instability in the complex and dynamic Earth system. Instability to which we theoretically may be driving the system towards. The further out we get the greater the impetus to instability – although it also suggests little warming – if any – for decades. This latter seems the core of the political impasse we are at in climate politics – but it is a false dichotomy. There are many states possible in the climate system – and the world will shift between them unpredictably. It seems more than time therefore that the political impasse was broken in favour of pragmatic – and politically feasible – solutions.

Anthropogenic forcing of climate is a multi-gas problem with population and development dimensions – CO2 from fossil fuels, black carbon, tropospheric ozone, land clearing, loss of soil carbon, nitrous oxide, methane, sulfide – compounded by population and development issues. Carbon dioxide is the smaller part of the overall problem.

Population adds to all of the pressures on climate and the environment. Development allows room for amelioration of all these problems – including population pressures. Early and substantial progress can be made on a multi-gas strategy – in conserving and restoring ecosystems and in sequestering CO2 in repaired agricultural soils – with benefits for incomes, health, agricultural productivity and the environment.

In principle the UN’s 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDG) are in combination the best approach to constraining population growth. Ignore for a moment that this is a UN program and so doomed to failure. All of our western governments have committed to raising aid to 0.7% of GDP. We commend this as a low cost way of achieving early successes on climate change while having global social and economic benefits.

This century is critical for the future of humanity and the environment in many ways. It would be better if we consciously made a decision to seize the moment and move forward to sensibly build a rich and diverse global civilisation.’

Ragnaar, we are moving the attractor, not the weather itself. It is equivalent to changing the constants in Lorenz’s formula, which distorts the attractor shape. At least I can understand it that way.

tonyb – just read your paper – as I am an ordinary bloke it’s gonna take me a couple more reads – forgive me if I’m telling you something you already know, but I believe 14th century tax records in UK show in astonishing detail agricultural output down to the bushel – as I recall the loses become dramatic right about 1314 and remain bad beyond the plague. Seems to me this is a “noticeable” impact way beyond anything in 20th century – I don’t know of any eruptions, coal fired plants or nuke meltdowns in early 1300s – Thanks, I’m new to this issue and find most “climate change” discussions to be incredibly dumb (except ClimateEtc,) – the term “climate change” is dumb – obvious agitprop

Thanks, Reverend!

Here it is:

http://arrow.monash.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/monash:118909

In Neil Williams and Ian Lambert. Proceedings of the 34th International Geological Congress 2012, Australian Geoscience Council, 2012.

From p. 1551 to 1551.

http://arrow.monash.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/monash:118909

How does the AGU’s long term position as an organization benefit [...]?

Organizations don’t make decisions. People do. Even when it appears the decision has been made by some “committee” or other group decision-making organ, the actual outcome is the result of a bunch of individual decisions by individual decision-makers, combined by some method whose design begins with the formal rules of the decision-making organ, as manipulated by the individual actions (and decisions leading to those actions) of those involved.

Most of those decision-makers are pursuing an agenda, composed of various items they feel would benefit themselves, others they care about, and various ideological and organizational goals. For many, the stated goals of the organization, or even its survival, take a back seat not only to their own personal advantage (including friends and traders), but abstract ideals having nothing to do with the actual organization they’re making decisions for. This is often called subversion.

If you want to persuade an organization to some action, you have to tailor your arguments to agendas of the decision-makers, which includes their own incentives to appear to have the organization’s best interests at heart, even when they don’t. OTOH, some actions, even when they’re arguably in the best interests of the organization involved (or the supposed ideals that organization is more-or-less dedicated to) will be impossible of persuasion because they’re too obviously contrary to either the personal, or the ideological aspects the decision-makers are actually pursuing.

steve -

I understand the reasons for your sensitivity. Although I think that the description of: “the AGU as an organization … want[s] to control who can speak;” is a bit over the top, I can understand where you’re coming from in that description. I don’t really support what the AGU did in this situation…but I do think that this is an issue that has two legitimate sides that come into conflict. I tend to look at these sorts of issues as being nuanced and complicated, and not really susceptible to black hat vs. white hat simplistic self-victimization and demonizing that stem from identity aggression and identity protection behaviors.

My background is quite varied – not sure which aspect you might be interested in. My interest in these discussions is (1) in reading comments that challenge and therefore deepen my own views and understanding, and (2) in the nature nature how biases influence reasoning.

My comment above, that was directed at you, was targeting the hyperbolic, waaaaaaay over the top (IMO) reactions that are so prevalent in the climate wars. It happens on both sides, of course, but my primary point of focus is how much it happens behind the “skeptical” battle lines.

Which then brings me to an observation – since we’re “sharing” here.

Truth told, I am a bit puzzled by some of your comments, as often I think that your comments are well-reasoned and sophisticated and interesting to read – as they offer a substantive challenge to my own views. Yet at other times I find them waaaaaay over-the-top and hyperbolic. For example, in the previous thread you distanced yourself from the bag o’ “skeptics” (including Judith) who determined nefarious intent among those using “climate change” as opposed to “global warming” (despite the obvious logical flaws that led them to their conclusions) – yet in this comment above you liken the AGU to Muftis issuing fatwas? You speak of “mindless troglodytes”? That’s the kind of gutter talk I usually expect from a Monfort or GaryM – not someone who (IMO) also sometimes writes interesting comments such as yourself.

The Ice Ages also started out as regional phenomena governing the Arctic ice edge, not Antarctic, but the albedo change of spreading glaciers gave them global consequences. We should not underestimate the impact of ice area on the global temperature.

There you go, waggie, the pause was the sun all along. Now can we move on?

The solar 10.7 flux has collapsed significantly during this rotation

http://www.nwra.com/spawx/f10_828725.gif

What the flux is going one…? What is the Sun telling us?

A correlation between global warming and humanity’s ever-increasing emissions of CO2 simply does not exist. America’s CO2 emissions have gone down. But, is Chinese CO2 different from American and European, Japanese, Indian, Brazilian and Russian CO2? Fears about humans causing global warming is not fact-based: it’s psycho-socially based. Something we don’t understand is going on with the weather that might result in decades more of a cooling trend. Why isn’t that a story?

Joshua,
I do think that there is a terrible tendency for people (on all sides of any significant policy disagreement) to demonize those who they disagree with. There is plenty of blame on all sides to go around in the climate wars.

But for me, the key question is: Who is trying to keep people from voicing their views? As a scientist (and sometimes engineer), that is for me the most important question in evaluating ‘who is right and who is wrong’ in any debate about factual reality. My observation to date is that many well known climate scientists have consciously acted to suppress opposing views. I was (and remain) appalled by the kinds of behind-the-scenes activities revealed in the UEA emails. These were not people acting as scientists; they were acting as policy activists, and sometimes unscrupulous ones at that. And it seems (sadly) that the AGU as an organizations is pretty much wedded to doing much the same. Despite the AGU statements of mission and vision, science is most certainly NOT public policy, even if the AGU majority membership might imagine, or hope, that it is.

If you sometimes find my comments “way over the top”, perhaps it is because I am so very offended by (and I admit, sometimes very angry about) what I see as corruption of science, something which is fundamentally apolitical, by those who want only to use it as a tool to advance their policy agenda. Science is, and ought to be, a thing of beauty, much like a Mozart composition. I am personally offended when it is corrupted and debased as a political tool. My observation is that there is a lot of that happening in climate science.

Craig Venter persuaded private investors that they could make money by patenting human DNA sequences. Such patenting of natural DNA sequences would have massive consequences for research and for medicine. In the end the genome was sequenced by the US taxpayer and private industry, at huge cost. The thing is, if the original NIH plan had been followed the genome would have been sequenced, interesting bits first, at about 10% of the actual cost, but would have taken five years longer.
A year ago the Supreme Court delivered its, expected verdict, human genes cannot be patented.
So all Craig Venter backers lost their money and the NIH spent a fortune having to do the sequencing with huge manpower costs and off the shelf, rather than new generation, sequencers.
Doing science is like making love, you should not be in a race to finish as quickly as possible.

How many tissues have you regenerated Oh Great Medical Researcher and fraud.

Someone channel Carl Sagan for spiritual guidance and find out when Yellowstone is ‘gonna blow if we don’t stop fracking around.

per Richard Tol’s newly published paper, the Cook et al. 97% consensus has crashed and burned:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/tol-takes-on-cooks-97-consensus-claim-with-a-re-analysis-showing-the-claim-is-unfounded/