It won’t have escaped many of our readers’ notice that there has been what can only be described as a media frenzy (mostly in the UK) with regards to climate change in recent weeks. The coverage has contained more bad reporting, misrepresentation and confusion on the subject than we have seen in such a short time anywhere. While the UK newspaper scene is uniquely competitive (especially compared to the US with over half a dozen national dailies selling in the same market), and historically there have been equally frenzied bouts of mis-reporting in the past on topics as diverse as pit bulls, vaccines and child abductions, there is something new in this mess that is worth discussing. And that has been a huge shift in the Overton window for climate change.
In any public discussion there are bounds which people who want to be thought of as having respectable ideas tend to stay between. This is most easily seen in health care debates. In the US, promotion of a National Health Service as in the UK or a single-payer system as in Canada is so far outside the bounds of normal health care politics, that these options are only ever brought up by ‘cranks’ (sigh). Meanwhile in the UK, discussions of health care delivery solutions outside of the NHS framework are never heard in the mainstream media. This limit on scope of the public debate has been called the Overton window.
The window does not have to remain static. Pressure groups and politicians can try and shift the bounds deliberately, or sometimes they are shifted by events. That seems to have been the case in the climate discussion. Prior to the email hack at CRU there had long been a pretty widespread avoidance of ‘global warming is a hoax’ proponents in serious discussions on the subject. The sceptics that were interviewed tended to be the slightly more sensible kind – people who did actually realise that CO2 was a greenhouse gas for instance. But the GW hoaxers were generally derided, or used as punchlines for jokes. This is not because they didn’t exist and weren’t continually making baseless accusations against scientists (they did and they were), but rather that their claims were self-evidently ridiculous and therefore not worth airing.
However, since the emails were released, and despite the fact that there is no evidence within them to support any of these claims of fraud and fabrication, the UK media has opened itself so wide to the spectrum of thought on climate that the GW hoaxers have now suddenly find themselves well within the mainstream. Nothing has changed the self-evidently ridiculousness of their arguments, but their presence at the media table has meant that the more reasonable critics seem far more centrist than they did a few months ago.
A few examples: Monckton being quoted as a ‘prominent climate sceptic’ on the front page of the New York Times this week (Wow!); The Guardian digging up baseless fraud accusations against a scientist at SUNY that had already been investigated and dismissed; The Sunday Times ignoring experts telling them the IPCC was right in favor of the anti-IPCC meme of the day; The Daily Mail making up quotes that fit their GW hoaxer narrative; The Daily Express breathlessly proclaiming the whole thing a ‘climate con’; The Sunday Times (again) dredging up unfounded accusations of corruption in the surface temperature data sets. All of these stories are based on the worst kind of oft-rebunked nonsense and they serve to make the more subtle kind of scepticism pushed by Lomborg et al seem almost erudite.
Perhaps this is driven by editors demanding that reporters come up with something new (to them) that fits into an anti-climate science theme that they are attempting to stoke. Or perhaps it is driven by the journalists desperate to maintain their scoop by pretending to their editors that this nonsense hasn’t been debunked a hundred times already? Who knows? All of these bad decisions are made easier when all of the actually sensible people, or people who know anything about the subject at all, are being assailed on all sides, and aren’t necessarily keen to find the time to explain, once again, that yes, the world is warming.
So far, so stupid. But even more concerning is the reaction from outside the UK media bubble. Two relatively prominent and respected US commentators – Curtis Brainard at CJR and Tom Yulsman in Colorado – have both bemoaned the fact that the US media (unusually perhaps) has not followed pell-mell into the fact-free abyss of their UK counterparts. Their point apparently seems to be that since much news print is being devoted to a story somewhere, then that story must be worth following. Indeed, since the substance to any particularly story is apparently proportional to the coverage, by not following the UK bandwagon, US journalists are missing a big story. Yulsman blames the lack of environmental beat reporters for lack of coverage in the US, but since most of the damage and bad reporting on this is from clueless and partisan news desk reporters in the UK, I actually expect that it is the environmental beat reporters’ prior experience with the forces of disinformation that prevents the contagion crossing the pond. To be sure, reporters should be able and willing (and encouraged) to write stories about anything to do with climate science and its institutions – but that kind of reporting is something very different from regurgitating disinformation, or repeating baseless accusations as fact.
So what is likely to happen now? As the various panels and reports on the CRU affair conclude, it is highly likely (almost certain in fact) that no-one will conclude that there has been any fraud, fabrication or scientific misconduct (since there hasn’t been). Eventually, people will realise (again) that the GW hoaxers are indeed cranks, and the mainstream window on their rants will close. In the meantime, huge amounts of misinformation, sprinkled liberally with plenty of disinformation, will be spread and public understanding on the issue will likely decline. As the history of the topic has shown, public attention to climate change comes and goes and this is likely to be seen as the latest bump on that ride.
@786 John E. Pearson,
Not all are uninterested (of course), yet some physical scientists at this site are hostile, attacking any suggestion that communication may be improved and tend to view such knowledge as irrelevant quack science. Some were explicit about this and none argued against it.
ref 797 Mr John E Pearson
What’s the point of RealClimate then if I shouldn’t read the blog science it delivers?
Your final sentence takes the biscuit. I am not as informed as you, or as you want me to be, and therefore not competent to have an opinion!
You actually mean because I disagree with you I am incompetent.
As a member of the huge majority of people on the planet that are, in your ever so humble opinion, not “competant” to judge – maybe you should just take away our right to vote and/or have an opinion – and leave it all to you and your fellow members of the master race. Lets not bother with that democracy crap eh!
There are some very, very odd characters on this site.
[Response: You are way overreaching. You started off this conversation indicating that you ‘felt’ certain scientific results were wrong while you were not able to dig into all the details. In doing so, you showed a commendable honesty and I’m sure you are typical of how many other people feel about these issues. But that leads almost automatically to the question of why you feel that some science is somehow wrong. What is the basis of that opinion? Scientists like myself can point out that this opinion is not shared by the people that know most about the subject, but that does not make you incompetent. I was hoping that you would expand on what it is about some science that makes you ‘feel’ it is wrong. That would be an interesting addition to the conversation because most people in your position are not as open about their emotional attachment/distance to scientific results. – gavin]
@787 Ray Ladbury,
Yes, that is true, and perhaps the only choice for a physical scientist? This is also the charter of the IPCC as you guys have enough power to control the initial framing of climate change. However, the IPCC do have a choice to frame climate change in more policy constructive ways that sidestep the non-constructive and superficial debate with sceptics.
It is not the best approach to start with only the hard sciences and to reach the “physical science concensus” among scientists, laypeople and politicians and then take it from there. First, decisions must be made despite uncertainty on the physical system and inadequate knowledge of laypeople and politicians. Second, climate change is much broader than the physics (here I refer only to causes, mechanisms, etc. not, responses). Third, things matters differently for these groups.
Why not start with all the things that matters and separate them to avoid confusion? That way, the sceptics would not be forced into the debate on basic science (yes, they are forced to some extent, as you guys are very powerful in framing the issue and legitimating policy). To conform most sceptics to the mainstream view (physical science + mainstreem policy advocacy) are futile, as things matters differently for them. Given that the physical scientists have no choice, the gridlock will continue, or dissolve if other scientific communities gain in power and find more constructive ways forward together with politicians and laypeople …
Gavin: “We are not going to get better climate policy by agreeing that the smearing, misquoting and misrepresentation of scientists is ‘ok’.”
Policy? I thought this was “Climate Science from Climate Scientists”? I thought you guys were objective scientists and wanted to leave policy to the policy-makers? It’s comments like this that convince readers that this is less about science and more about ideology, policy and activism.
Might I suggest that the problems you guys are running into have a great deal to do with the fact that you have demonstrated behavior inconsistent with objective science and more consistent with wanting “policy”.
Gavin’s primer for Andreas (#795): priceless!
:)
two moon says: 23 February 2010 at 11:20 AM
“The episode captured under the label “Climategate” is fundamentally about whether a certain set of results reflects science or the foibles of scientists. That’s an important question that deserves discussion.”
Yes, and once that episode’s importance has been exaggerated beyond all reason, neurotically scrutinized, discussed endlessly and ultimately redundantly, determined to be insignificant and in sum found entirely irrelevant to actual research findings it’s high time to consider the matter settled and get back to the world of facts.
“It does no one any good to invoke Ring Lardner’s famous line: “Shut up! he explained.”” (#798)
Then why invoke it?
Personally, the climate debate today reminds me more of Richard Lupoff’s “With The Bentfin Boomer Boys On Little Old New Alabama”–specifically, the little bit of dialog where one unnamed stalwart keeps insisting, in the face of mounting hysteria and denial, “Face facts!” He ends up getting lynched for his trouble.
Hopefully the resonance will decrease with time. (Though that appears unlikely as long as Limbaugh–who called for the “drawing and quartering” of climate scientists back in November–and his ilk continue with BAU.)
stevenc: “…there are fairly important uncertainties to be resolved.”
I’m fine with that conclusion. As with your conclusion at #765 (“it is possible that natural forcings may or may not have contributed to warming after 1950 depending upon who is correct on several different issues”) — it’s logically impossible to disagree with that.
:)
Andreas – ““ALL the different lines of evidence favor (roughly) this same value…
A scientist would say it is compelling.”
A critical scientist would say that it may also be due to shared preconceived ideas.”
A social scientist might focus on “preconceptions”, a physical scientist might examine the facts, methods, and science behind them. Sounds to me like Andreas is the one with the “shared preconceived ideas”. Which I’d expect from a sociologist, imputing motivations rather than being interested in the empirical science.
789, Adam: And the bottom line remains: the IAU got its predictions right, and the IPCC got them wrong. – ”
Do you have a citation for the correct predictions?
783, gavin: ‘Religion’ analogies are OT. They provide no insight whatsoever except into the prejudices of the people making the arguments. Please stick to the science.
It’s your site, and I make the following recommendation most humbly, but I think you might reconsider allowing people to make religious and motivational assessments of “denialists” and “sceptics”, if you are going to criticise religious and motivational assessments of “warmists”. On AGW you and others here are deep and well-informed. On psychoanalysis, politics, and economics, not so much — I invented the phrase “as dumb as Inhofe”, but a more common word would be “sophomoric”.
693, Secular Animist: How could the question of the “predictability” of weather be examined scientifically? Has it been? If not, why not?
One approach is to look at the mean square error across a bunch of predictions, for example, across the range of whole earth average temperatures from 1980-2010; or the range of rainfalls across regions of the US on a particular date, such as tomorrow. Another approach is to look at the mean aboslute error.
Charlie Chutney, pots and kettles. Is it “arrogance” when a person who’s put in years of hard work to learn something, presumes to lecture a person who hasn’t? I think it’s the reverse. As to complaining that others have “no class”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z_LquKo-ow
687, Wilt: Therefore the contribution of CO2 to warming during the period 1910-1939 is less than 25% compared to the period 1980-2009. When one chooses the period 1970-1999 instead of 1980-2009, the outcome is about the same (CO2 326-368, ratio 1.13, log value is 0.121 therefore CO2 contribution about 27% during 1910-1939 compared to 1970-1999).
The warmings that occurred from 1855-1885, 1910-1939, and 1980-2100 are much more nearly equal than are the logs of the ratios of CO2 across the same intervals. This leaves open the possibility that that the 1980-2100 temp increase was caused by the same mechanism that caused the earlier rises, and that CO2 was not involved at all. As far as I have been able to tell so far, mechanisms other than CO2 can’t be ruled out by extant evidence. Two rather contradictory possibilities (and maybe more) follow: (1) CO2 accumulation is unrelated to temp increases; (2) the entire temp increase resulting from CO2 accumulation since 1855 has yet to occur. Option 2, if true, gives us more time to adjust/mitigate, but also implies that the long-term consequences will be worse if we do not do so.
Gavin, I do appreciate your letting me post here. The interchanges are mostly good, for me at least. Thank you very much.
Matt
> 783: Charlie Chutney says:
> “I do need to have to have a degree to determine what I think is reasonable.”
Illustrated version:
http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/322.jpg
Andreas Bjurstrom: “A critical scientist would say that it may also be due to shared preconceived ideas.”
Perhaps you can suggest how preconceived ideas change the results of a mathematical analysis. That sounds to me a lot like alleging astounding incompetence or fraud. Perhaps if you clarify your contention you might be received with less hostility.
“798
two moon says:
23 February 2010 at 11:20 AM
I too am a non-scientist but I know a little something about the history of science. Because scientists are people and not merely sophisticated laboratory equipment they are not immune to the foibles of the human race.”
Neither are you.
For either “I know a little something” or the “immune to the foibles”.
You’ve exhibited none of the former and a propensity to exhibit the foibles most strongly.
But let’s see if you can prove me wrong on one part.
Please let me know what you see as the history that you know of climate science.
It may be that the little you know has been polluted by who has been telling you the history. This is not irremediable.
CFO, No, I would not deny it and didn’t; just averred that it is not “remarkable.” Its irrelevance, though, stems from the marginal sensitivity that results from concentration levels that have not (ever) been measured or observed.
It sounds like you’re relating similar scientific analyses to multiple dice rolls. I don’t get it.
benG (753) — Wiser now? Reading IPCC AR4 WG1 chapter 9 may help. So will reading “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart, first link in the science section of the sidebar.
Andreas #799,
You’ve just had a lesson in how to ease your way onto a blog. I lurked here for months before my first comment, so I could know what level of understanding prevails, and what common topics are. I also noticed how the individual bloggers responded to comments coming from diverse perspectives. Above all, I learned not to assume that anything I said would be original, and that just about any question I had would have been answered already — sometimes repeatedly, to the limits of patience on the blogger’s part.
I spent two years in a PhD program, and worked on radiative transfer models at NASA, before opting for an easier way to make a living. I think I’ve got a good grounding in the basics of climate science, and it has mostly served to make me aware of how little I actually know. Beware the Dunning-Kruger effect!
@786 John E. Pearson,
Not all are uninterested (of course), yet some physical scientists at this site are hostile, attacking any suggestion that communication may be improved and tend to view such knowledge as irrelevant quack science. Some were explicit about this and none argued against it.
@787 Ray Ladbury,
Yes, that is true, and perhaps the only choice for a physical scientist? This is also the charter of the IPCC as you guys have enough power to control the initial framing of climate change. However, the IPCC do have a choice to frame climate change in more policy constructive ways that sidestep the non-constructive and superficial debate with sceptics.
It is not the best approach to start with only the hard sciences and to reach the “physical science concensus” among scientists, laypeople and politicians and then take it from there. First, decisions must be made despite uncertainty on the physical system and inadequate knowledge of laypeople and politicians. Second, climate change is much broader than the physics (here I refer only to causes, mechanisms, etc. not, responses). Third, things matters differently for these groups.
Why not start with all the things that matters and separate them to avoid confusion? That way, the sceptics would not be forced into the debate on basic science (yes, they are forced to some extent, as you guys are very powerful in framing the issue and legitimating policy). To conform most sceptics to the mainstream view (physical science + mainstreem policy advocacy) are futile, as things matters differently for them. Given that the physical scientists have no choice, the gridlock will continue, or dissolve if other scientific communities gain in power and find more constructive ways forward together with politicians and laypeople ….
Gavin, sorry, but you drive far too often on a one way street. it was you that initially gave me an ignorant comment. I responded in the same manner.
SecularAnimist, No, but it is totally logical for the normal simple driver to accurately declare the fully trained mechanic didn’t fix the problem in the least and was totally wrong in his diagnosis. Also, it’s perfectly O.K (even suggested by the profession) for a lay person to get a diagnosis from the fully trained medical doctor and go immediately to another doctor to confirm the diagnosis (which occasionally it is not).
CFU (766)
Your toxic assets example
“…Given the selling of Toxic Assets and then the betting on these toxic assets that they made up and sold on being, unsurprisingly enough, toxic and a bad buy, I can quite see that this is human ingenuity at work, DELIBERATELY killing the market because the consequences for the ones doing it are nonexistent…”
has the selling confused with the buying 8<(
…less and less about more and more…
BPL: You are not competent to say that the doubts they raise are “reasonable.” You haven’t studied the relevant science.
CC: Well thank you for that! You display contemptable arrogance and absolutely no class.
BPL: Doesn’t matter. Either you’ve studied the science or you haven’t. If you think Watts is competent, you haven’t studied the science–period. It’s like saying you think some creationist site has reasonable arguments against evolution. No, sorry, a biologist would see that as evidence that you simply don’t know biology. I know enough climatology to know that Watts is not just wrong, he’s wildly and hilariously wrong, and your being impressed by him is prima facie evidence that you just don’t understand the subject. Sorry, pal, but anyone’s opinion is NOT equally good on every subject. If you haven’t studied something, you don’t know anything about it.
What would you think of a person who never put two pieces of stone together in his life going up to a 20-year union stonemason building a wall and saying, “You’re doing that all wrong?” The mason would either ignore him, laugh, or tell him to get lost. You come off like that guy talking to the mason. Believing Watts has good points to make about climate science is like believing Erich von Daniken has good points to make about archaeology.
CFG (769)
not for a counter-intuitive climate science
CFU (770)
Is that nothing about everything?
BPL (771)
Shouldn’t you cut CC a little slack here. North’s task
<…with the group carefully composed to include the breadth and depth of expertise and perspectives needed to analyze all aspects of how surface temperatures are estimated and interpreted and to comment generally on climate science… had only a short time to produce a report, and now Mann claims climate science reported temperature was counter-intuitive in that time frame.
“has the selling confused with the buying 8<("
I don't think so.
From what I've assimilated (I'll use an example company):
1) Gartner makes some loa-ns, some bad. The marketer makes a % profit of the total loa-n, whether it pays off or not.
2) Gartner finds out this loa-n is never going to get paid.
3) Gartner wraps that up with a few other bad deb-ts and a couple of good ones and sells this large de-bt (which for a bank is an asset: they make money from de-bt) to a bank. Gartner make money off the sale.
4) Gartner then bets with AIG that this asset grouping that they sold will not make its value back.
5) The asset group goes down and Gartner asks AIG to pay up on the bet. Gartner make money on the bet.
A. Bjurstrom:”Yes, that is true, and perhaps the only choice for a physical scientist? This is also the charter of the IPCC as you guys have enough power to control the initial framing of climate change.”
Since climate change is caused by physical phenomena, should not the physical scientists be the ones to says what is known and top what certainty, as in working group I? I don’t understand the use of the term framing here.
A Bjurstrom again:”Gavin, sorry, but you drive far too often on a one way street. it was you that initially gave me an ignorant comment. I responded in the same manner.”
Actually Gavin responded exactly as he should have. Gavin gave a counterexample that fit YOUR “argument” (assertion of preconceived ideas by the establishment) and you say that it was ignorant. Well spotted!
Your response was FURTHER ignorant comments?
PS it may not have been clear what I meant in the post you were responding to, John.
Rod B “Also, it’s perfectly O.K (even suggested by the profession) for a lay person to get a diagnosis from the fully trained medical doctor and go immediately to another doctor to confirm the diagnosis (which occasionally it is not).”
Is it OK, when the second doctor says the first to go to another doctor and keep going to a different doctor until you find one that says something different you like the sound of?
Or would this be like Margaret Dumont in “Horse Feathers”?
“819
Rod B says:
23 February 2010 at 3:05 PM
It sounds like you’re relating similar scientific analyses to multiple dice rolls. I don’t get it.”
No, indeed you don’t.
Is this because you do not WISH to get it?
I take it that a one-in-two-million chance is not surprising for you.
I don’t get it.
SM: “The warmings that occurred from 1855-1885, 1910-1939, and 1980-2100 are much more nearly equal than are the logs of the ratios of CO2 across the same intervals.”
But why are those dates chosen?
They are not the same intervals.
So why were they chosen?
And is your result unsurprising because you’ve been given dates hand-picked to be surprising?
Why not be a little skeptical.
Septic Matthew (814) — GLobal temperature responds to all forcings and also exhibits internal variations due to interaction with the oceans, the main heat resevoir. I thnk you are trying to read the record in too much detail.
#832 should have said “…the second doctor says the same as the first…”
> S.Matthew, 756, Darwin, CFU
Here ya go:
Google Scholar, search for author “Charles Darwin” +market
“Hard cash paid down, over and over again, is an excellent test of inherited superiority.” — Charles Darwin, in “The variation of animals and plants under domestication, Volume 2”
Don’t make the common mistake, upon reading that, of thinking Darwin said that _having_ lots of spendable cash is proof of superior inheritance.
Darwin is there describing the superiority of the _pig_, and other prize animals, evidenced by the cash money paid down to farmers who patiently selected for better traits, and made money selling piglets.
802 : Charlie Chutney says: Mr John E Pearson You actually mean because I disagree with you I am incompetent.
No. i mean that you aren’t competent to gauge the science because by your own admission you haven’t read anything but blogs and media reports. If you want to be competent to judge the science on your own you’ll have to actually learn some of it. It’s not easy stuff. I have a Ph.D. in physics and on some aspects I am competent to judge the science while on most aspects I am not competent to judge. It is an enormous field requiring an enormous breadth It doesn’t bother me at all to admit that I don’t know anywhere near all of the science. If you want to have an informed opinion you should inform it by reading science books, not blogs.
818 Completely Fed Up: Why the hostility? I deliberately did NOT claim to know “a little something” about climate science in particular because I visit this site mainly to observe and learn, not to cause trouble. I wrote that I know a little something about the history of science because I was fortunate enough to have a good education and I have kept up my reading over the years. “From Eternity to Here” is next up on my list. I have tried to read up on climate science from Arrhenius forward, but if I were to provoke an argument here I would be bringing a knife to a gunfight. If pressed I would have to call my own climate views lukewarmist: there is warming but the case for AGW has not persuaded me. My hopes are minimalist. It would be welcome if AGW proponents would acknowledge that I and others like me hold our views in good faith, are not paid creatures of presumed corporate malefactors, and are not in thrall of religion.
dhogaza (688,714)
Again let me thank you for the reference to Mann’s paper on Global Signatures. While I’m still working through Mann’s paper, I found his interview with Robert Frederick quite enlightening. About half way through the interview:
“…Interviewer – Robert Frederick
When are those periods? And, according to your team’s model, what happened?
Interviewee – Michael Mann
So, the complication sometimes in defining those periods is that, unlike the recent warming of the past century, past periods of warming or cooling tend to be very heterogenous regionally. That means that if one region was relatively warm, there’s a good chance that other regions were cold, and vise-versa. Because of that, it means that it’s actually somewhat of a challenge to define, in a global sense, the Little Ice Age or the
Medieval Climate Anomaly. What used to be called the “Medieval Warm Period,” most scientists favor now the use of the term the “Medieval Climate Anomaly” for the reason that I just cited, that it wasn’t warm everywhere, and that’s very clear in our own reconstructions. So, these intervals are a challenge to define because they are so spatially, they’re variable regionally. The warming and cooling happens in different
places and different times, but if you look at, say, the average temperature over the Northern Hemisphere, there is a period of somewhere between the 9th century and the 13th century where temperatures were relatively warm compared to subsequent centuries, and, in fact, a period during the, roughly the, say, the 17th century to the 19th century, or
somewhere about there, where temperatures averaged over the Northern Hemisphere were relatively cool in comparison with that Medieval Period. But if you look at the Medieval Period, even though it was relatively warm compared to that Little Ice Age, it compares, in a global sense, at most with the level of warming that we saw in the mid-20th century. It doesn’t reach the levels of warmth that we’ve seen in the most recent decades, at least globally. So we used those two intervals characterizing overall when it was relatively cool and relatively mild averaged over the Northern Hemisphere to define the intervals that we would call the Medieval Climate Anomaly and the subsequent Little Ice Age, and then we looked at the spatial patterns of those time intervals…”
which seems interesting wrt the current hockey stick discussion.
It’s not intuitive that most of the past 2000 years had the NH and SH oscillating in temperature max/min values possibly somewhat greater than overall global values. Also our climate models are very likely designed, back-tested, and interpreted without such considerations. So, even if Ram and Susan are correct and climate sensitivities are much smaller than we have assumed, it would seem perhaps that there is a fresh new source of inconvenient tipping points, whatever, for us all to consider.
Skipping to the end of the interview:
“…Interviewer – Robert Frederick
So is it your team’s intention, then, to try to get your model included in the next assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC?
Interviewee – Michael Mann
Well, the two models…
Interviewer – Robert Frederick
The NCAR and NASA ones are already in there.
Interviewee – Michael Mann
Yeah, exactly. So the – yeah, I think that it’s useful, and in the next IPCC assessment, it may very well be the case that there will be a new section that deals with the question of how paleoclimate data can inform our understanding of some of these fairly complex, dynamical responses of the climate. So, while I don’t see our results as being made
explicitly part of an IPCC projection, I do see them as potentially informing our assessment of the extent to which we think the current generation models are, or are not, capturing some of the regional mechanisms that may be important in making regional climate change assessments.”
I’m sure Ray (and I) would agree with Michael’s answer from the point of view of science (only one paper, etc., etc.). However, it would seem to be a bit of a problem for the IPCC editors for the next WG1 and WG2.
Do you know if the climate programs are well interfaced? Will it be possible to change their designs and calibrations with reasonable effort? As an experienced computer consultant, how would you advise IPCC?
8-(
Charlie Chutney@802 – RealClimate isn’t “blog science” it’s science research reporting by scientists, well supported with extensive references to actual research, “blog science” is found at the denialist sites that offer opinion unsupported by peer reviewed publications and primarily referencing other opinion pieces or MSM.
Having an “opinion” doesn’t make you competent or incompetent, but if that opinion is totally uneducated, it does make you an unacceptable judge of an important question – democracy requires the effort to actually learn the facts of issues, not just follow the lead of the loudest, best funded PR.
Try the Start Here link at the top of the page.
Andreas – “Why not start with all the things that matters and separate them to avoid confusion? That way, the sceptics would not be forced into the debate on basic science”
Maybe you could enlighten us on these confusing “things that matter” that are more [less?] basic than the science?
Maybe the world economy? Agriculture? Politics?
The ‘sceptics’ are not debating the basic science, and no one is forcing them into a debate, they’re simply denying it matters.
SA @ 796:
You are aware that we’re at a multi-decade ACE low right now and that Katrina happened during a cyclical high. I’m heading out to dinner, and peak in ACE this last go round wasn’t even a record.
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/climo.php
I’m late for dinner, but if someone could turn this into a meaningful chart, I’d be appreciative —
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy#Atlantic_hurricane_seasons_1950.E2.80.932009_by_ACE_index
CFU (829)
This is way, way OT. However, to be helpful, I believe
Steps 1 to 3 don’t happen that way. You need to specify other actions by other players.
Step 4 If Gartner buys policy from AIG for assets it holds on to them.. Neither AIG or Gartner knows the future of the asset.
I don’t want to post more on this. I can’t spell check l-oan…
As long as we’re quoting Darwin:
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
The Descent of Man, 1871
A succinct expression of the Dunning-Kruger effect, 118 years before it was named.
Make that 128 years. Time flies when you’re getting old 8^}.
John Peter
Wanting seriously to avoid becoming another example for Dunning and Kruger to study, I’d tell them “ask someone else!”.
Seriously. Scientific computing isn’t my gig.
Two Moon,
If you are serious about reading up on climate science, allow me to add my name to those who recommend Spencer Weart’s History. It is excellent scholarship, very well written and quite thorough.
Look, we play rough here (climate science has become a blood sport), but most of us will try to help out if you have a sincere question.
I would caution though. In reading, you learn about science in the same way you learn about sports by reading about it. Until you have had the experience of tackling a problem, bringing it to ground and then trying to communicate to your peers in a way that is meaningful to them, you can’t really know what it is to do science.
834, Completely Fed Up. I wrote:The warmings that occurred from 1855-1885, 1910-1939, and 1980-2100 are much more nearly equal than are the logs of the ratios of CO2 across the same intervals
I meant 1980-2010. It looks to me like an incompleteness in the AGW model that the rise in temperature has the oscillatory pattern that it has, and that the rises in the three rising periods have about the same magnitude whereas the logs of the ratios are much more distinct. One possibility is that the three rises (and the non-rises) are caused by something other than the CO2 rise, and that the predicted CO2-induced temperature rise will occur in the future, to be added to whatever natural processes have produced the trend since 1855. By itself that does not imply that we do not have to act now, prudently. It does imply, if true, that several more decades will pass before we have accurate models, and probably that any mitigation we carry out will take longer to have effect.
Unless we know for certain what caused the warming from 1855-1885, and we know that it hasn’t happened since 1980; and similarly for the warming from 1910-1940. The intervals are approximate. The oscillatory pattern is not perfectly periodic.
@817 Ray Ladbury,
I intended to state that scientific closures can be and often are due to facts AND social processes. I am skeptical to the IPCC assertion that facts alone conclude that we have a climate problem. One may presuppose that something must be true because many agree for good reasons and a big pile of facts, but this is not imperative as a general rule, as I intended to state. It does not hurt to also search for preconceived ideas. Environmental consciousness is one obvious candidate that I assure are important for the IPCC consensus.
@821 Mal Adapted,
That is a good point, certainly partly true regarding myself, yet you miss the boundaries of scientific disciplines. I do not discuss climate science (defined narrowly) but climate scientists here discuss issues outside of their disciplinary expertise. In fact, I think that distuinguished researchers are more at risk for the Dunning-Kruger effect, as there egos tend to be more inflated than their awareness of the limits of their competence.
@830 t_p_hamilton,
“climate change is caused by physical phenomena”
I thought that human induced climate change was caused by humans
My point was that I think it is appropriate to view humans as part of the climate system in the Anthropocene (or better, as part of the “earth system”). WG1 oppose this.
“Actually Gavin responded exactly as he should have. Gavin gave a counterexample that fit YOUR “argument” (assertion of preconceived ideas by the establishment).”
I don´t see how distortion can be the right way to respond. Gavin made some false statements such as “science is just opinion”. I did not say that, not even close.
@842 flxible,
Things that matters includes the basic science, economy, environmental consciousness, globalization, political ideology and self-interest. Sceptics diverge from the mainstreem (that this site advocate for) on most of these issues. However, as the climate problem is framed as “only basic science matters” and this is how policy is legitimated (by the IPCC, by this site, et cetera) sceptics are “forced” to superficial debate on the basic science.