Dumb Scientist

Abrupt Climate Change

230 Comments
Posted July 19th, 2009 in Physics. Tags: Conversation, Diagrams, Intermediate-Science, No Equations, Physics, Pseudoscience.

One part of a recent survey caught my attention:

The strongest correlate of opinion on climate change is partisan affiliation. Two-thirds of Republicans (67%) say either that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of natural changes in the atmosphere (43%) or that there is no solid evidence the Earth is getting warmer (24%). By contrast, most Democrats (64%) say the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity. … The divide is even larger when party and ideology are both taken into consideration. Just 21% of conservative Republicans say the Earth is warming due to human activity, compared with nearly three-quarters (74%) of liberal Democrats. — Pew Research Center

In other words, most of the general public appears to believe that the existence of abrupt climate change A large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems. (formerly known as anthropogenic ‘Human-caused’ global warming) is a question of politics rather than science. They’re not looking at evidence published in peer-reviewed science journals before adopting a position. Instead, they seem to decide that their political party’s position on climate change is “X,” so they believe “X.” Finally, this explains why some people who watch a documentary that exaggerates the science end up imitating that smug politician’s You have to realize that I view ‘politician’ as a VERY dirty word in order to get the full effect of this sentence. alarmism. I run into hordes of them on campus, and I always rebuff their attempts to guilt me out of driving by saying “Why worry about the Earth when we’ve got 7 planets R.I.P. Pluto, 1930-2006 to spare?!”

Keep in mind that I’m only saying the existence of abrupt climate change is a purely scientific question. I realize that our response to climate change is a legitimate political question. But let’s set that question aside to contemplate the existence of abrupt climate change. Instead of lining up behind politicians, let’s take the road less traveled by examining some evidence given to us by modern science.

To begin with, it’s indisputable that the Earth’s climate has varied wildly in the past. Vostok ice core data confirm that for nearly half a million years, the climate has changed cyclically. In all that time, the maximum CO₂ concentration never went above 300 ppm parts per million . It’s hit higher levels 15 million years ago, but usually Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events (among other examples of natural abrupt climate change) show that the natural climate is only fairly stable in the long run. These events show that the climate can quickly move from one stable “attractor” to another. I should stress, however, that results like Meehl 2004 show that today’s changes aren’t natural. in gradual ways. Plus, the Earth was essentially a different planet back then, with a different biosphere basking under the light of a very slightly The Sun was only barely fainter tens of millions of years ago, but high CO2 concentrations hundreds of millions of years ago or more were partially compensated for by the lower solar luminosity. Also, the continents shift on these timescales which affects the climate too. dimmer Sun so comparisons across that much time are tricky at best.

Natural variations are evident in the data, of course. The most prominent cycles over geological time are governed by (among other effects) Milankovitch cycles which are caused by periodic variations in the Earth’s orbit.

Bizarrely, the CO₂ concentration is at 380 ppm parts per million today. That’s ~26% higher than it’s been in the last half million years. Notice that the current CO₂ concentration is off the scale of the Vostok data graph. If this is due to natural variability alone, it’s quite a coincidence that it’s happening right after we started burning enough oil to fuel ~800 million cars, and burning coal by the ton to supply ~50% of our electricity.

Furthermore, it seems like the CO₂ at Vostok typically increased centuries after the temperature started to increase. (Ice core data are difficult to analyze in this manner, though.) At least, that’s the way it used to work. Right now, the CO₂ concentration is at an unprecedented level but the temperature is barely above normal. Again, this implies that we’re not experiencing natural climate variability because what’s happening today doesn’t match the behavior of the ancient climate.

According to physics that was firmly established decades before I was born, CO₂ warms the planet by absorbing infrared radiation from the ground better than it absorbs visible radiation from the Sun. So this rapidly increasing CO₂ should cause a rapid temperature increase:

Multiple independent temperature reconstructions over the past 1000 years

The above graphs are quite busy, so here’s an overview of each one:

The top graph shows temperatures over the last 300 years, as recorded by instruments. Notice that several independent instruments are telling us that the temperature has increased dramatically in recent decades.
The middle graph shows temperatures over the last 1000 years as reconstructed from various proxies such as ice cores, tree rings, boreholes, glacier retreat, etc. The different curves are based on different data and algorithms, and were derived by scientists from all over the world. Note that all of them show an abrupt temperature increase in the last few decades. More details can be found in pages 465-474 of chapter 6 here, especially Table 6.1 on page 469.
The bottom graph shows a “most likely” temperature reconstruction over the last 1000 years. This estimate uses all the previous curves, weighted according to their statistical uncertainties. The shading represents the combined uncertainty; darker areas are more confidently known.

Perhaps this is a coincidence? All the evidence up to this point just shows that CO₂ and temperatures have both risen in an apparently artificial manner in the last few decades. But Meehl 2004 tested whether or not recent temperature observations could be explained by natural variations alone:

Meehl 2004 shows recent temperatures are caused by CO2

The black curve represents observations. The blue curve represents the result of a computer simulation that accounts for natural variations like volcanic eruptions and changes in the brightness of the Sun. The shaded blue area represents the uncertainty of that simulation. The red curve includes all the natural variations in the blue curve, but adds human emissions like CO₂, sulfates and aerosols. Notice that after ~1970 the observed temperatures aren’t consistent with natural variations, but they are within the error bars of the prediction made by accounting for human emissions.

The Earth is so massive and ancient that we tend to instinctively believe ‘Don’t treat C02 as a pollutant’ in the Christian Science Monitor by Mark W. Hendrickson on June 23, 2009 wrongly says “And how do you propose to regulate Earth’s temperature when as much as three-quarters of the variability is due to variations in solar activity, with the remaining one-quarter due to changes in Earth’s orbit, axis, and albedo (reflectivity)? This truly is ‘mission impossible.’ Mankind can no more regulate Earth’s temperature than it can the tides. … 1. Human activity accounts for less than 4 percent of global CO2 emissions. 2. CO2 itself accounts for only 10 or 20 percent of the greenhouse effect. This discloses the capricious nature of the EPA’s decision to classify CO2 as a pollutant, for if CO2 is a pollutant because it is a greenhouse gas, then the most common greenhouse gas of all – water vapor, which accounts for more than three-quarters of the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect – should be regulated, too. The EPA isn’t going after water vapor, of course, because then everyone would realize how absurd climate-control regulation really is.” that humans aren’t powerful enough to affect the climate on this scale. For example, those awe-inspiring volcanic eruptions simply must dwarf anything we do, right? Surprisingly, humans emit ~100x more CO₂ than volcanoes.

Even still, the Earth is a stable system, right? Won’t our changes to the atmosphere just provoke a natural response that cancels them out, preventing us from significantly altering the climate? Well… maybe. The natural climate certainly did appear fairly Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events (among other examples of natural abrupt climate change) show that the natural climate is only fairly stable in the long run. These events show that the climate can quickly move from one stable “attractor” to another. I should stress, however, that results like Meehl 2004 show that today’s changes aren’t natural. stable in our absence. However, a number of positive feedback effects present the disturbing possibility that the climate is only metastable:

Melting snow/ice uncovers dark ocean water in the Arctic and dark dirt in the Antarctic. In each case, the albedo of the snow is higher, which means more heat is absorbed after the ice starts to melt, which speeds up the remaining melting…
Warmer oceans will evaporate more water vapor into the atmosphere, which is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO₂.
Warmer deep ocean temperatures may destabilize methane hydrate deposits, releasing another more potent greenhouse gas.
Melting permafrost releases CO₂ and methane.
Melting glaciers help to lubricate the slide of the glacier into the ocean, speeding up the loss of glaciers once the process starts.
Higher temperatures increase the risk of forest fires, which release the CO₂ stored in the wood.
The dust caused by vegetation loss due to shifting precipitation patterns, fires and even other pollutants darkens snow, causing it to melt earlier.

There are also negative feedback effects, such as the fact that trees grow faster in higher CO₂ and thus store more CO₂ in their wood. [Update Thanks to Dr. Geoffrey A. Landis for his additions and corrections to this section and the faint young Sun caveat, as well as the abcnews link in the 'ice age in the 1970s' section. by Dr. Landis: Also, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation says that hotter objects radiate more, and higher temperatures = more evaporation = more clouds = higher albedo.] But I worry that the abrupt spike in CO₂ levels might cause positive feedback effects to dominate– at least temporarily. In other words, it seems likely that a little bit of warming will lead to more warming.

Bottom line: As far as I can tell there’s a mountain of scientific evidence showing that abrupt climate change A large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems. is a matter of serious concern.

On a completely different note, as an ordinary American I think we should do something about this matter. We’re still the most technologically advanced nation in the world, with one of the largest, best educated workforces in history. Our economy is very capitalistic, which makes us highly adaptable compared to more socialist countries that are mired in bureaucracy. If any country can solve this problem, it’s us.

The legislation currently in the Senate needs to be passed. This bill has already been weakened in the House and it’s only the first step, but it’s the least we can do to convince the world that the United States is ready to lead once again.

I’ve been discussing abrupt climate change A large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems. on the internet for several years, mostly at Slashdot under the pseudonym khayman80. The interesting bits of these conversations have been copied here, but please note that my statements have been edited Each comment is linked back to the original location in the Slashdot archives so you can compare the current version to the original. Those links look like: [Dumb Scientist] or [Jane Q. Public] and expanded since I first wrote them. Here’s an index with links to each conversation:

People wonder why “climate change” replaced “global warming.”
rrvau asks if scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s.
People inquire about the scale and impact of human CO₂ emissions.
An Onerous Coward asks about nuclear and solar power.
Stormcrow309 asks about potential flaws in the Vostok ice core analysis.
m4cph1sto doubts that temperatures are increasing.
Jane Q. Public asks if sunspot activity causes global warming, among many other topics:
1. The importance of peer review.
2. “Cosmic rays are responsible for global warming.”
3. “Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO₂.”
4. The accuracy of the “hockeystick” graph.
5. What does the IPCC say about hurricanes?
6. “CO₂ increases after temperature, so it doesn’t warm the planet.”
7. “CO₂ is already saturated, so adding more CO₂ isn’t going to warm the planet any more.”
8. “It’s not that simple.”
9. We agree that the media over-hypes disaster scenarios.
10. The Salem Hypothesis and the application of a modified version to this debate.
11. “The troposphere isn’t warming enough, which disproves global warming.”
12. Jane says her comments have been taken out of context and deliberately portrayed in a negative light. So please compare her statements to the originals at Slashdot, which can be accessed through links that look like [Jane Q. Public]
13. “The stratosphere isn’t cooling, so greenhouse warming models are fundamentally flawed.” Now including bonus troposphere content.
Kyle asks about the political and economic implications of climate change. Also, he asks if temperatures are only appearing to increase due to urban expansion.
Jim P.E. asks if the President is receiving sound advice.
Bopeth asks about our population growth, and economic issues associated with climate change.
Anonymous says that my “comments exhibit the most profound and disturbing kind of scientific elitism,” along with:
1. “How do you wager on whether climate change is anthropogenic or not?”
2. I criticize peer review.
3. “What I want to see next is the contrary case from a well-versed expert who has reached conclusions that conflict with yours.”
4. Why shouldn’t we look to politicians for scientific answers?
5. “What, exactly, would you like to see from the general public in terms of reasoning about this subject?”
6. Marbs asks “What opinion do you currently hold that contradicts the mainstream scientific community?”
7. Why do high tides happen on opposite sides of the Earth at the same time?
8. “… we can’t do ‘parallel earth’ experiments to test various parameters … and nobody has a track record of ‘getting it right’ long term because there hasn’t been a long term yet.”
9. Marbs asks about the graph on Steven Fielding’s website and the “due diligence report.”
gkai asks about clouds, the Earth’s albedo and model validations.

People wonder why “climate change” replaced “global warming.”

[Dumb Scientist]

When did “Global Warming” become politically incorrect and “Climate Change” became politically correct? [dwiget001]

When they realized they might be wrong. [girlintraining]

I’ve noticed that shift in wording too. I think it was intended to address some misconceptions the general public has regarding “abrupt climate change A large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems. ” (the officially accepted title).

Most people don’t seem to understand the difference between “local weather” and “global climate.” Local weather is a phenomenon that changes very quickly– sometimes in a matter of minutes. For example, “will it rain tomorrow in Denver?” Local weather is very hard to predict because that requires solving vector-valued numerical models of the motion … and many other properties like pressure, temperature, phase changes, wind speed, humidity, ground water, electric charge, pollution density, tidal forcing, turbulence caused by ground structures, albedo of ground structures, the exact position of the Sun in the sky at each moment, etc. of the atmosphere on a very high-resolution grid. The global climate Hereafter referred to simply as ‘climate.’ ignores these fast variations by averaging the weather over a long period of time (years, at least) and a large area (the entire globe in this case.) Ironically, the climate is actually easier to predict because it just requires Obviously this is a ridiculous oversimplification, but the point is that weather modeling (emphasizing conservation of momentum) brings modern supercomputers to their knees, whereas climate models (emphasizing conservation of energy) aren’t nearly as demanding. Weather models can be described as “initial value” problems which lose “skill” as time goes on, whereas climate models are “boundary value” problems that don’t suffer from the same forecasting limitations. summing energy input and subtracting energy output.

A good analogy is that it’s easy to predict the pressure in a tire based on the amount of air you put in it, but nearly impossible to predict the exact path of all the air molecules bouncing around inside the tire. Predicting the climate is like predicting the tire’s pressure, while predicting tomorrow’s local weather is more like predicting the path of a single air molecule. Our inability to model weather says very little about our ability to model the climate, and local weather will always vary randomly. Scientists want to emphasize the word “climate” to stress that cold temperatures on [random day] in [Random Town] don’t disprove abrupt climate change.

Update: NOAA has a much better analogy: One way to distinguish between weather and climate is that the climate of your hometown will determine how many sweaters you have in your closet. The weather will determine whether you should be wearing a sweater right now.

Also, the term “global warming” is oversimplified. A more accurate description is that our addition of greenhouse gases has reduced the rate at which thermal energy leaves the planet. As a result, the average energy in the atmosphere and ocean is increasing, which allows this system to “explore more of its phase space.” More energy means more chances of extreme weather– even weather that involves colder temperatures! (Again, note that weather is local and temporary.)

The word “abrupt” was added to emphasize that what we’re experiencing is too fast to be a natural process. The ice core from Vostok shows that CO₂ hasn’t risen above 300 ppm parts per million in the last half million years. It has varied in the past, but usually Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events (among other examples of natural abrupt climate change) show that the natural climate is only fairly stable in the long run. These events show that the climate can quickly move from one stable “attractor” to another. I should stress, however, that results like Meehl 2004 show that today’s changes aren’t natural. over a timespan measured in millennia. Atmospheric CO₂ is at 380 ppm parts per million now, and this dramatic rise occurred in the span of several decades. As a result, temperatures are rising faster each decade. Changes this rapid haven’t occurred in the hundreds of thousands of years over which we have records. Keep in mind that scientists are primarily concerned about the unprecedented rate of the current changes in our climate.

rrvau asks if scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s.

[Dumb Scientist]

Paraphrased: “Didn’t scientists predict an ice age in the 1970s?” [rrvau]

In a word: no. That myth can be traced back to sensationalist articles in media like Newsweek. Genuinely peer-reviewed scientific articles were far more responsible, which is one reason why I highly recommend learning science from them rather than the general media.

… I still think that it is the ultimate arrogance that humans think they can alter the planets evolution. Think of continental drift and the accompanying earthquakes, volcanic activity etc. and you’ll understand how insignificant humans are. [rrvau]

Continental drift and earthquakes are completely irrelevant to the climate on the kind of timescale we care about. As for volcanic activity, eruptions only put about a hundredth of the CO₂ into the atmosphere that humans do. Massive eruptions in the geologically distant past (such as the Siberian traps which are a suspected cause of the Permian extinction) have likely put more CO₂ into the atmosphere, but none of the eruptions in the last 500,000 years pushed the CO₂ level above 300 ppm parts per million .

People inquire about the scale and impact of human CO₂ emissions.

[Dumb Scientist]

Global warming is a consequence of climate change. Global cooling is a consequence of climate change. [smoker2]

I think the term global dimming more accurately describes a separate problem that is sometimes referred to as global cooling. Aerosols decrease the size of cloud droplets, thus increasing the albedo of the clouds. This reflects more sunlight back into space. Its effects have been seen in long term trends of sunlight brightness, and in long term evaporation rate measurements. Surprisingly, evaporation depends on the rate at which photons hit the water’s surface more than Roderick, et. al. 2007– that’s the link in this sentence– also shows that wind speed is a strong factor. typical changes in temperature or humidity, so it serves as an independent check of the phenomenon.

Update: Consider this table of radiative forcings. Forcings that warm the planet are colored red, while forcings that cool the planet are blue. Each forcing has an error bar associated with it, and a “Level of Scientific Understanding” (LOSU) on the right hand side.

Global dimming isn’t a threat anymore because regulations were effective at curbing emissions of these aerosols. Plus, aerosols don’t stay in the atmosphere for very long, so once we stopped spewing them into the atmosphere the problem went away. CO₂, however, stays in the atmosphere for ~100 years, so our children and grandchildren will have to deal with it. Unfortunately, aerosols used to counter the effects of greenhouse gases like CO₂. (No, we can’t just start emitting aerosols again and hope they cancel each other out!)

… I am not a denier, but I am not about to be told we must halt climate change. This is a phenomenon that is as old as the earth, and to think we can just stop it when we want to is ludicrous. If you want to limit our impact on that change, fair enough. But don’t tell me it has to stop, because you make yourselves look like idiots. The climate has changed in cycles … if you take those same records which are used to promote the current scare tactics, you would see that after it (CO₂) goes up, it goes down – way way down. It is cyclic. So even if we completely stop producing CO₂ now, the cycle will continue. … So go ahead and do your worst. The only way to stop climate change is to kill the planet.

I think we’re talking about different things. You’re talking about natural variability, and I’m talking about human-caused climate change. Scientists are aware that both phenomena exist, and we can see that our CO₂ emissions have recently pushed the climate beyond the range of natural variations.

[Dumb Scientist]

The fact is, automobiles account for (at most) 2 percent of CO₂ emissions. … We need to convert our major power generation systems to something more reasonable like wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and (yes) NUCLEAR. [Someone]

Huh? All the data I’ve seen places the “transportation sector” near the top of the list. Here’s a quote: “The transportation sector is the second largest source of CO₂ emissions in the U.S. Almost all of the energy consumed in the transportation sector is petroleum based, including gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Automobiles and light-duty trucks account for almost two-thirds of emissions from the transportation sector and emissions have steadily grown since 1990.”

That said, I do agree that nuclear power is our best course of action.

An Onerous Coward asks about nuclear and solar power.

[An Onerous Coward]
While I’d replace all coal with nuclear in a heartbeat given the chance, I don’t think nuclear power is viable. To me, it seems too expensive, too politically infeasible, too centralized, and too prone to terrorism. Concentrating solar looks very viable at the moment, and I think geothermal could become a major player before 2020 with the right incentives.

But I think energy efficiency is the untapped gold mine. I’ve seen quotes for nuclear running about $6000-$11000 per installed kW of capacity. By my rough calculations, for $3500 you could buy enough CFL bulbs up front* to eliminate the need for that kW of capacity for 30 years.** Even better, CFLs eliminate that demand precisely when the energy is needed. Any generation-based solution has to predict demand and compensate.

* If you assume that the cost of bulbs will go down over time, or that you could invest the money for the bulbs you don’t need immediately, or that another high-efficiency lighting technology will beat CFLs in the future, the strategy works even better.

** $3/bulb, bulbs last an average of 5 years, running for 3 hours a day on average, 17w CFL vs. 60w incandescent.

[Dumb Scientist]
Nuclear power is expensive, but it’s the only option available right now that we know works on an industrial scale. Update: My dad just told me about an interesting proposal for small, self-contained, tamper-proof nuclear generators which wouldn’t be as centralized or expensive as our sadly obsolete nuclear plants.

Concentrated solar is certainly the most promising renewable, but it requires massive battery banks, or expensive water pumping schemes to provide a base load at night. That said, I like it a lot more than photovoltaics. Geothermal only works in certain places, and corrosion makes them very expensive to maintain. In either case, we’d need a superconducting power grid to avoid losses from moving energy from the deserts (solar) or hotspots (geothermal). All these goals are noble, but we need power now to replace coal and oil.

Incidentally, tide power and osmotic power are also good long term goals.

And you’re right- efficiency is absolutely necessary. But the newer technology has to be better in every way, otherwise people won’t switch. My mom doesn’t use CFLs because she can’t stand the quality of the light (yes, some are better than others, but still no cigar) and the fact that they don’t reach full brightness immediately. I have them nearly everywhere, but my reading light is still an incandescent because the CFLs that can be dimmed are expensive and don’t look as nice.

[Dumb Scientist]

My understanding of CSP was that, to increase its baseload ability, you just made it bigger (especially the molten salt tank). I don’t remember the source, but I remember someone was quoted as saying that you can store energy as heat 20x cheaper than you could store it in a battery. As the reservoir gets bigger, it loses heat more slowly. Build it big enough, and you can keep it warm all night, even as you’re drawing power from it. [An Onerous Coward]

Yeah, you might be right about that. I think I remember seeing similar studies, and probably spoke too soon. I’ve yet to be convinced that this is a sure bet, but I’m delighted that Obama is putting more research money into these areas.

You also have the option of burning something to keep the fluid warm, for cloudy days or to provide more baseload.

The only thing we can afford to burn in the long run is hydrogen, which requires energy to produce.

Update: No, actually that’s wrong. You were right about concentrated solar allowing for a burner backup. Biofuels won’t cause any net CO₂ increase because their combustion only releases the CO₂ they’ve recently absorbed to grow. I’m not a big fan of generation 1 biofuels, because they tend to provide an incentive for farmers to grow crops that humans can’t eat. But generation 2 biofuels use the discarded husks of human-edible plants and might be industrially feasible some day. Genetically engineered bacteria also look like they could produce biofuels given enough time. Also, artificial leaves look promising; they might eventually split water into hydrogen and oxygen far more cleanly than any method available now.

I’m not sure there’d be a point to building that kind of backup into the concentrated solar plant, though. The ability to use the molten salt loop with an oil burner might not be worth the added design complexity, materials and labor. Wouldn’t that be exactly like Well, except for the fact that the soot from this burning would likely fall onto the mirrors. building an ordinary oil-powered backup generator, which we already have in abundance? One potential benefit is that we could decommission the old generators and recycle their parts, but that’s probably more trouble than it’s worth right now.

Transmission losses, while not negligible, seem manageable. I’ve seen figures of about 2-3% to move electricity 600mi using HVDC. I mean, it’s on Wikipedia, so it must be right.

Yes, HVDC looks promising, but some population centers are farther away than that from a good spot for solar or geothermic (not all northern countries are as fortunate as Iceland). In the long run this isn’t a serious problem because we’ll eventually build a superconducting grid, but until then it’s a nuisance.

The big problem I see with the “we need power now” argument is that we could probably install several gigawatts of CSP and wind before we could even get the nuclear reactor through the permitting process.

If it works, that’s great. The problem is that no country has ever successfully powered their civilization in that manner, so it’s a bit of a gamble. France gets 80% of their power from nuclear, so we know it works. I’m also inclined to say that the delay in getting new nuclear plants online is more of a problem with lenders being extremely cautious about nuclear energy because of public disapproval, so the permitting process is much more ridiculous than it should be. Nuclear power isn’t nearly as dangerous as it’s commonly made out to be, and we need enrichment for medical isotopes anyway so terrorism will always be a problem.

I think concentrated solar is great, and might be our best bet in the long run. I just don’t want these unproven technologies to be our only bet. It’d be nice to see our civilization put no more than, say, 30% of our power generation into one particular technology so that the loss of any one mode of power generation isn’t catastrophic.

Update: I’m going to write a separate article about nuclear power whenever school gets less crazy, but for now I’ll quote another couple of paragraphs from the same recent survey:

… About half (51%) of Americans favor building more nuclear power plants to generate electricity, while 42% oppose this. … More college graduates (59%) favor building nuclear power plants than do those with a high school education or less (46%). … Seven-in-ten scientists favor building more nuclear power plants to generate electricity, while 27% are opposed. Among scientists, majorities in every specialty favor building more nuclear power plants, but support is particularly widespread among physicists and astronomers (88% favor). … — Pew Research Center

In other words, statistically speaking, the more someone knows about physics, the more they favor nuclear power. I’m just sayin…

Stormcrow309 asks about potential flaws in the Vostok ice core analysis.

[Dumb Scientist]

… What are the problems with the Vostok data? … [Stormcrow309]

Diffusion of isotopes over time leads to large horizontal error bars (i.e. it’s uncertain when particular temperature/CO₂ measurements occurred, especially relative to each other). Accumulation rate uncertainty makes these horizontal uncertainties larger at deeper depths (older ages). But vertical uncertainty is smaller (i.e. the absolute maximum of CO₂ is less uncertain). Furthermore, the correlation of those values to the global paleoclimate is still a matter of debate, but ice cores from other locations and other independent proxies yield similar reconstructions.

[Stormcrow309]
… Petit et al. (1999) takes no effort to describe the methodologies used in handling ice cores, which raises questions on the process used. The line “Ice cores give access to palaeoclimate series that includes local temperature and precipitation rate, moisture source conditions, wind strength and aerosol fluxes of marine, volcanic, terrestrial, cosmogenic and anthropogenic origin” is not attributed, which leads it reading as opinion or possible plagerism (Petit et al., 1999, p. 429). Since it is the bases of the work’s analysis, it would make sense to give that sentence more concrete foothold in established theory. There is no discussion on this approach’s appropriateness or flaws. There is a good discussion on the research team’s reason for limiting the data set but not the impact of that limitation. There is no review of further research questions. It reads as a set of scientists too worried about analysis and not with synthesis. The work is biased to its approach and thusly flawed in its presentation.

[Dumb Scientist]

… Petit et al. (1999) takes no effort to describe the methodologies used in handling ice cores, which raises questions on the process used. [Stormcrow309]

That’s because they didn’t handle the ice core at all. They simply applied a newer computational algorithm to the data collected from the ice core by other scientists years before they published. In fact, the second to last sentence in the paper says “We thank C. Genthon and J. Jouzel for performing the CO₂ spectral analysis…” Their papers are, of course, listed at the end with all the other references.

Just in case you don’t have free access to Nature articles, I’ve found a source (see section II) that provides a rough overview of the way the ice core was handled. It was sliced into 1.5m sections, put into a clean stainless steel tube in Grenoble, France and melted so that various types of spectroscopic and chemical analysis could be performed. Update: Eric Steig points out that handling methods were studied decades ago, so they’re careful to keep the temperature of the ice cores below -10°C.

But it needs to be stressed that a deep understanding of this process is only available from the original peer-reviewed articles. I only linked that website for the benefit of people who don’t have free access to journals through their universities.

The line “Ice cores give access to palaeoclimate series that includes local temperature and precipitation rate, moisture source conditions, wind strength and aerosol fluxes of marine, volcanic, terrestrial, cosmogenic and anthropogenic origin” is not attributed, which leads it reading as opinion or possible plagerism (Petit et al., 1999, p. 429). Since it is the bases of the work’s analysis, it would make sense to give that sentence more concrete foothold in established theory.

It might be a good idea to read at least the next few sentences before making accusations of plagiarism. When you do, notice that the sentence you quoted is the “topic sentence” of the paragraph. Other sentences in that paragraph serve to expand on individual points in the topic sentence, and they’re all referenced. In fact, there are no less than 14 references you can read (they’re all listed at the end of the article) to catch up on the science contained in that sentence.

There is no discussion on this approach’s appropriateness or flaws.

Really? How about…

Page 431, paragraph 2, sentence 4. “This approach underestimated deltaTs by a factor of ~2 in Greenland (ref 22) and, possibly, by up to 50% in Antarctica (ref 23).”
Page 431, paragraph 3. The entire paragraph is devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection.
Page 431, paragraph 4, sentence 3. “… the Vostok record may differ from coastal (ref 28) sites in E. Antarctica and perhaps from West Antarctica as well.”
Page 434, paragraph 6, sentence 4: “However, considering the large gas-age/ice-age uncertainty (1000 years, or even more if we consider the accumulation-rate uncertainty), we feel that it is premature to infer the sign of the phase relationship between CO₂ and temperature at the start of the terminations.”

There is a good discussion on the research team’s reason for limiting the data set but not the impact of that limitation.

Limiting the data set in what sense? If you’re referring to the fact that they stopped drilling to avoid contaminating Lake Vostok, the impact of that limitation is that the time series stops roughly 500,000 years ago rather than extending slightly farther back in time. If you’re talking about some other data set limitation, you’ll need to be a little more specific so I know precisely what you mean.

There is no review of further research questions.

Really? how about…

Page 433, paragraph 4, sentence 3: “We suggest that there also may be some link between the Vostok dust record and deep ocean circulation through the extension of sea ice in the South Atlantic Ocean, itself thought to be coeval with a reduced deep ocean circulation34.”
Page 435, paragraph 1, sentence 1: “We speculate that the same is true for terminations II, III and IV.”
Page 435, paragraph 1, sentence 6: “We speculate that variability in phasing from one termination to the next reflects differences in insolation curves (ref 41) or patterns of abyssal circulation during glacial maximum.”

[Dumb Scientist]

Are you talking about: J R Petit, J Jouzel, D Raynaud, N I Barkov, et al. (1999). Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature, 399(6735), 429-436. Retrieved April 7, 2009, from ProQuest Medical Library database. (Document ID: 42351682)? Because the phrase is not in there. The paper reads like the researchers were involved in the drilling. [Stormcrow309]

Yeah, that’s the paper I originally linked, but you’re right– the phrase isn’t there. I was at work (with access to the journals) when I wrote that, and had 4-5 of the older Vostok papers open at once. That particular phrase is probably in one of those papers, but I don’t have journal access at home (and my cache is empty) so I can’t verify that right now. The phrase you’re looking for in the paper I did link is below the references, in the Acknowledgements section: “We thank the drillers from the St. Petersburg Mining Institute; the Russian, French and US participants for field work and ice sampling…”

Sorry about the confusion; I was juggling too many papers to keep them all straight on my desktop. But you can also verify that J. Jouzel is referenced many times, with reference 6 being published in 1987 (several years after the section from 950-2083m was extracted in 1982-83), and 12,13 published in 1993 and 1996. C. Genthon is reference 14, published in 1987.

I must humbly disagree that the paper “read like the researchers were involved in the drilling.” They’ve certainly tried to describe the drilling process in a brief manner for the benefit of the reader, but acknowledged the hard work of their fellow scientists, thanked them for their contributions, and provided citations to their original work in extracting and sampling the ice core. It all seems perfectly civilized.

They limited the ice core due to volcanic activity without discussing the impact. None of my editors would allow me to get away with that.

That limitation has exactly the same impact as stopping the drilling above Lake Vostok. It merely truncates the time series, preventing the reconstruction of data earlier than 423,000 years ago. You’re probably thinking about studies which fail to sample the population in a uniform or unbiased manner, and thus alter the resulting statistics because they’re using a skewed sample. This is a serious problem in many sociological studies, but it’s not a relevant concern here. An ice core taken from a shallower hole (like the 3310m core in the paper) has precisely one impact: it provides data back to 423,000 years before the present instead of even further back in time.

Update: The Vostok ice core data have now been confirmed by the EPICA ice core data. Not only does it agree with the Vostok data, EPICA extends the time series back to 650,000 years before the present.

In addition, the flaws I listed have been addressed, and the historical maximum was defended– this is the reference he mentions. Also, here’s a good list of Vostok references and the actual data.

m4cph1sto doubts that temperatures are increasing.

[Dumb Scientist]

I’m a scientist too, and I judge theories based on merit, not popular opinion. [m4cph1sto]

(Ed. note: In a much later post, he elaborates on a similar claim by explaining that he’s an engineer. See the Salem Hypothesis, or my discussion of its application to this debate.)

As a rule, scientific theories are not accepted by the scientific community until they have done two things: (1) explained known observations in a more simple or fundamental way than alternative theories, and (2) made a prediction about something that is currently unknown and that other theories don’t predict, which is then confirmed by observation.

Global Warming theory has met neither of those requirements. The main statement of Global Warming is something like this: “small changes in the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere cause large changes in global temperature”. Despite this theory, there is absolutely no evidence that a change in CO₂ has ever caused the temperature to change, over the entire billions-years history of the planet. So GW theory doesn’t explain past observations.

Abrupt climate change A large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems. is the direct result of an unprecedented excavation of fossil fuels, and the combustion of said fuels which releases CO₂ into the atmosphere that’s been trapped for millions of years. It’s not supposed to explain past observations.

It doesn’t explain current observations either: CO₂ concentration has steadily increased over the past 100 years, while temperatures have gone up, then down, then up again, then down again (as they are currently). There is no dramatic warming trend as predicted by GW theory.

I’ve never met a scientist who made a claim like the one you’re attributing to me. Most scientists recognize that long term trends are only discernable in the data after accounting for annual variations, multi-year variations, etc. Once those fluctuations are removed by a 5 year averaging procedure, a disturbing upward trend is apparent.

Finally, GW has not made any unique predictions that have later been confirmed as true. It predicted more and bigger hurricanes; that hasn’t happened. It predicted significant temperature increases; that hasn’t happened. In fact, the theory seems totally based on computer models that have failed to make a single correct prediction about the climate ever since I first started following the issue, in 1998.

To summarize, GW theory does not meet the standards of scientific acceptance, not by a long shot.

First, the temperature is increasing. Second, the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report made a very limited claim regarding hurricanes: “It is more likely than not (>50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity.”

Third, Meehl 2004 showed convincing proof that natural forcing can’t account for recent global temperature trends, but including anthropogenic forcing provides a good match for the data.

[Dumb Scientist]

Look at the data again. There is most assuredly a dramatic warming trend, despite the slight decrease in global mean temperature over the past few years. Run a regression on the data, it’s quite clear. [Red Flayer]

You mean this data? … Or this one? [m4cph1sto]

Interestingly, I posted another reply to your parent comment that also included those links. Except, I linked to the main page. I was referring to the figures above the one you directly linked to. Figures A2 and A show the Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change, measured using two different data sets. Uncertainty is indicated by the green bars. Notice the trend in both figures.

Instead, look at the temperature trends I linked to above, based only on direct measurements made in the United States since 1880, or “mean global temperature” using modern measurement techniques (since 1996). These datasets are, IMO, the only ones we can believe with any confidence. Is there a dramatic warming trend? The answer is as likely no as yes, or a resounding “we don’t know”.

The graph you’re talking about from 1880 onwards is from this paper, where they specifically state that the warming in the U.S. is known to be smaller than the rest of the world. The reasons for this are not (to my knowledge) completely understood. But the rest of the world have had temperature sensors too, we’ve had satellites up for decades, and we can use proxies to confirm that global temperatures are increasing at an unprecedented rate. Update: More recent studies confirm that the U.S. temperature increase matches those in the rest of the world.

In my opinion, any evidence based on “global temperature” that includes data from more than just recent years should be viewed with scepticism, because our worldwide measurement and calculation techniques have changed dramatically, which likely skews the results in one direction or another. NASA presents data on mean global temperature extending from today back to 1880 as a single line graph with no error bars, which is ridiculous.

Figure A is based on this article, which describes adjusting for inhomogeneities in station records and station history adjustments. Sensibly integrating differing data sets is an irritating task, and it’s an ongoing process. But it doesn’t seem to be a problem climate scientists are ignoring– the techniques for dealing with non-uniform noise characteristics and biases in different data sets are well known.

Furthermore, we don’t just have to rely on mechanical recording devices. Tree rings, coral growth rates, borehole measurements and ice core proxies can be used to independently verify the temperature record. They agree to within the limits of experimental and algorithmic uncertainty.

My point is that arriving at a “mean global temperature” is a very difficult calculation to make.

I wholeheartedly agree. I think scientists should be careful to state the estimated uncertainty in all their statements, and abrupt climate change is no exception. It’s just that the error bars are now small enough to rule out the hypotheses “climate change isn’t happening” and “climate change is largely natural.”

Update: After further thought, I think m4cph1sto was referring to a recent argument circulating around “skeptic” sites claiming that the average temperature has been decreasing since 1998. I’ll let Rei handle this one:

FYI: 1998 was one of the strongest El Nino events in modern history. El Nino raises the atmosphere’s temperature by slowing the upwelling of deep, cold water in the eastern pacific. La Nina cools it by just the opposite. It doesn’t change the long-term picture, of course; the rate at which water cycles in the ocean has no bearing on how much total heat input there is into the system; ocean waters aren’t magically decoupled from the rest of our atmosphere. It’s just a source of white noise on top of the blatantly obvious signal. [Rei]

Another Update: This subject came up again here.

Jane Q. Public asks if sunspot activity causes global warming, among many other topics.

[Jane Q. Public]
…one theory is that lack of sunspots causes Earth to warm up. (There is a very strong negative correlation between sunspot activity and temperature on Earth.)

Maybe now we’ll find out who’s right.

[DarkHelmet]

No it doesn’t [youtube.com].

[Jane Q. Public]
I was wrong about the correlation being negative, but I was not wrong about the correlation. But one thing pointed out in your video, that solar activity has not corresponded to temperature in just the last few years, is totally meaningless. Long-term trends are the only ones that matter. And as for long-term predictions, nothing comes close to beating the analysis of sunspots. The science is good. Very good.

I’ll see your YouTube video, and raise you one:
video [youtube.com]
video [youtube.com]

And a whole bunch of articles:
article [typepad.com]
article [wordpress.com]
article [bbc.co.uk]
article [examiner.com]
article [mlive.com]
article [wordpress.com]

[Repossessed]
Do you have any citable sources? Those are blog postings and new sites (which is even worse than a blog).

[Jane Q. Public]
Sources were referenced in both the videos and the articles. I would think that a few minutes with Google should lead you to them.

[Repossessed]
Wikipedia is not a citable source, nor does it have the details necessary for me to do a peer review.

None of your links have any actual data to them, they do not have citations which include the data. They do not include the equations used to come to the conclusions either. Without those, there is no way to determine if the theory has merit.

[Jane Q. Public]
I see. So a presentation by a University professor about his research project is not self-citing?

Are you completely inept at Google? You can’t find his name or the research he was demonstrating?

Look, bud. This is not a peer-reviewed journal itself. If you can’t find the data from the information given (I did), then just blow it off and say you don’t believe it. I don’t care one way or another. But I am not going to spend a half hour looking it up again just for you.

[Repossessed]
I have no interest in believing thing or not believing them, I have an interest in knowing if they are true.

[Jane Q. Public]
Look, guy. I literally just spent 10 seconds on Google and found plenty of information about David Archibald, including a new paper he published just this month.

Do you own damned homework, and stop demanding to be spoon-fed by others. I won’t respond to you again.

[Repossessed]
And yet you are incapable of providing me with that information.

[Jane Q. Public]
NO, just unwilling, you lazy ass. When I was young (NOT that damned long ago), finding information like this meant spending a day at the library finding out what books contained the information, then arranging for inter-library loans, and waiting a week to a month or even longer for the books to even get there.

I am not Al Gore, to pretend that I “invented the internet”. But I have spent a good part of my life helping to build the infrastructure that brings this information to your fingertips. And if you are too goddamned lazy to lift those fingertips to even bother to look something the fuck up, when you so easily can, then I am NOT going to help you!

Is there anything unclear about that???

[Dumb Scientist]
You’re suggesting that other people should embark on a wild goose chase to try to find respectable references behind the pseudoscientific sites that you clearly believe are more rigorous than Nature and Science? Curiously, you haven’t even responded to the reasonable and insightful comments by Geoffrey Landis in this very page. I guess it really is true that “You can’t reason someone out of a position that she didn’t reason herself into in the first place.”

Incidentally, I know this won’t sway you, but I study the climate in my day job and all your posts prove is that you’ve never taken graduate-level classes in this area. Every serious climatologist that I’ve met at the conferences agrees with the mountain of evidence showing that sunspots aren’t strongly correlated with climate. Again, see Geoffrey’s posts.

(Ed note: At this point, Jane responds to Geoffrey with a truly epic post that I later responded to.)

[Jane Q. Public]
No, I was suggesting that ONE particular person was being a lazy ass, and trying to put demands on me as a result. As I have mentioned, one of his questions could have easily been answered had he bothered to spend literally 10 seconds on Google.

Further, I had in fact answered one of Geoffrey’s posts, and I have just answered another one, at length, with a reply that indirectly references about 150 or more peer-reviewed scientific papers. That will have to be good enough, because I am tired of catering to lazy asses who believe what they are told on the 11 o’clock news, and who can’t be bothered to do any real research or even lookups on their own.

[Dumb Scientist]
Or maybe scientists aren’t the brainwashed idiots you clearly think we are? We’re aware that the Sun exists, and that it impacts the climate. But the overwhelming evidence is that sunspots have a negligible impact on the climate.

People are asking you for serious, peer-reviewed references not because scientists are idiots who “believe what they are told on the 11 o’clock news, and who can’t be bothered to do any real research or even lookups on their own” but because we’ve spent our lives studying these issues and what you’re saying contradicts all the evidence we’ve seen.

Further, I had in fact answered one of Geoffrey’s posts, and I have just answered another one, at length, with a reply that indirectly references about 150 or more peer-reviewed scientific papers. [Jane Q. Public]

Here’s proof that the Moon doesn’t cause the tides, that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that the Earth doesn’t move. The website has more than 150 peer-reviewed references, I’m sure!

Not convinced? Why not? Do you see any difference between the post you wrote in response to Geoffrey Landis and the fixedearth.com website? Because I don’t. That’s why we’re asking you to provide us with a direct link to an actual peer-reviewed article supporting your claim that sunspots are responsible for global warming. It’s all too common for pseudoscientists to quote legitimate articles to support their outlandish claims, and then ignore the scientists’ complaints.

[Dumb Scientist]

Apparently you think *I* am an idiot. Try reading the goddamned thread. … If you really don’t want to be perceived as a “brainwashed idiot”, maybe you could bother to figure out what the argument is about before you put in your irrelevant 2 cents. … As for the rest, you are one of those lazy asses I mentioned. … But you are too damned lazy to look any of them up? … And yes, that to me means “brainwashed idiot”. … get off your lazy ass and LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!! … since you insist on being spoon-fed … There are many more, very easily found, but I am not going to do your homework for you. Now go away. You disgust me. [Jane Q. Public]

There’s really no need to be so uncivilized. I’m just saying that all your posts on this subject clearly imply that scientists are either so stupid that they overlook trivially obvious “problems” with their own research, or that they’re willing members in a global conspiracy. Based on your (mistaken) assumption that I haven’t read this thread, I don’t have to guess which of these alternatives you’ve chosen in my case. Pity. I bet conspirators get jetpacks!

And I most certainly do not think you’re an idiot. At worst, I think you’re making mistakes while talking about a highly advanced subject that lies far outside of your own professional experience. Everyone does that. It’d be a different story if I were saying that you were pathetically wrong about your own life’s work… the subject that you’ve studied since childhood with the passionate intensity of a monk. I’d never insult you like that; at most I’d simply ask polite questions to try to understand your subject of expertise better.

First, the Petition Project is a legitimate collection of scientists.

I asked for peer-reviewed references, not a list of people with PhDs. There’s a difference. A list of PhDs is an appeal to authority. A peer-reviewed article is evidence of a very specific claim, along with equations and links to data that I could use to verify the claim. It’s given weight by the confrontational nature of the review process in addition to the fact that everyone involved has a PhD in that specific field. Like other people who take your position, you appear to think that science is democratic– that scientific decisions are made by comparing the number of people on each side. It’s not. It’s about evidence.

So, since you insist on being spoon-fed, here is one: Solar Cycles and Predicted Climate Response, which appeared in Energy & Environment (an appropriately peer-reviwed journal) in 2006. You asked for one, you got it.

My apologies. I wasn’t nearly specific enough in my original request. Scientific journals are rather specialized, and we’re discussing a very specialized hard science topic. It wouldn’t be appropriate to reference an article from a social science journal (which is what Energy & Environment is). The reason is that the referees need to be experts in their field in order to properly vet the paper. Journals I’d suggest reading are Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, Geophysical Research Letters, Physical Review, Physical Review Letters, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Journal of Climate, Environmental Research Letters, Climatic Change, Eos, etc.

I’m sorry for not making that caveat more explicit, but I figured it was an assumption that all scientists would make…

But I’ll make it up to you. Here’s an article by Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen, published in Science in 1991. This would have been a legitimate example of a peer-reviewed journal article supporting your claim.

Of course, it’s incorrect. You can find out how– if you’re interested– by following its citations in google scholar to the present. For nonscientists, read the summary here. The moral of this story is that data smoothing is difficult to do in an objective manner, which is something all computational scientists screw up on occasion. Please don’t mistake this comment as criticism of Friis-Christensen or K. Lassen– I’ve certainly made far bigger mistakes in my own research. The ability to admit a mistake and move on is the mark of a true scientist.

[Dumb Scientist]

Like other people who take your position, you appear to think that science is democratic… [Dumb Scientist]

THAT is complete bullshit. That is the exactly the point that I made in a preceding post… and you claim to have read this thread??? Go back and read it again. You are in error. [Jane Q. Public]

When asked for a peer-reviewed article, you presented a list of scientists. It doesn’t really matter what you’ve written in any other post– this kind of category error gives the appearance that you think science is democratic because that’s the only scenario in which this wouldn’t be a category error.

… Note that peer review is a necessary but not sufficient condition for establishing a valid scientific claim. Not all peer-reviewed papers are accurate, as I’ve shown. But if you want respect from scientists, you have to first rise above this reliance on pseudo-scientific websites that display approximately the same level of rigor and oversight as this site.

And perhaps that particular article WAS wrong. But I have cited — and pointed you to — much more recent research that contradicts that. [Jane Q. Public]

More recent != This is C++ for “is not equal to.” more credible. If they were both articles in Science, yes, all other things being equal, the more recent article would have more weight (unless it was so new that other scientists hadn’t yet had time to respond to it.) In fact, that article you’re leaning on quotes Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen (1991) several times, without seeming to understand that the reason their conclusions aren’t valid has little to do with the data they used; the real problem is the way they smoothed the data. My other post quotes legitimate, peer-reviewed articles showing this warming is due mainly to anthropogenic CO₂.

Journals I’d suggest reading are Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, Geophysical Research Letters, Physical Review… [Dumb Scientist]

Aha. Exactly those journals that have been experiencing famous failures of the peer-review system in recent years? Of course. Sir, that was only one paper out of a great many. I repeat: why do you want me to do your homework for you? You refuse to look these things up for yourself… [Jane Q. Public]

… I can’t help but point out that you’ve casually dismissed every top-tier hard-science journal, in favor of a social science journal. With all due respect, Science, Nature and all the other journals I mentioned are where science actually happens. The claim that sunspot cycle length correlates well with Earth’s average temperature was made in the mainstream journals in 1991. But it was quickly shown to be a spurious connection based on data smoothing parameters. The fact that Energy & Environment didn’t catch this when the argument was made again 15 years later just shows that they’re not experts in the field. As I’ve said, there’s no shame in that. I’m not an expert in all subjects in the universe, so I don’t fault their lack of highly specialized knowledge in this particular subject any more than my lack of knowledge about synchronized swimming is a black mark on my career as a climate scientist. I’m sure their journal is excellent at analyzing the social science issues associated with energy use, and those issues are important too.

[Jane Q. Public]
As I stated before, I only found that paper after you asked me to find one, and I was not particularly careful in choosing it; you had asked for a peer-reviewed paper, and I just grabbed the first one that was visible. And indeed, some of its claims do appear to be refuted, particularly in a paper by P. Damon, published in Eos in 2004. However, though you apparently knew this (as, I could guess, did Mr. Landis), neither of you bothered to cite any kind of actual data in an attempt to refute the one paper I provided, per your request.

After you mentioned the data smoothing issue, it took me about 2 minutes to find Damon’s paper. If I had been aware of it in advance, I would of course not have offered that paper. But if you really wanted to make a point — and practice what you preach — you should have cited your sources. Instead, you left me to look it up… which makes you are guilty of exactly the same faux pas of which you accuse me. In point of fact, Damon’s paper itself states, “The graphs [from Friis-Christensen and Lassen] are still widely referred to in the literature,and their misleading character has not yet been generally recognized.” Without citing sources, then, how did you expect me to know? …

[Dumb Scientist]
Thanks for the link. You’re right, it is a good paper. I’m sorry that I missed it.

(Ed note: This post was written in response to Jane’s huge post which she wrote in response to Geoffrey Landis.)

[Dumb Scientist]
Mon Dieu! Quantity != This is C++ for “is not equal to.” quality. You’d get a lot more respect if you’d simply link to one or two legitimate, peer-reviewed articles instead of dozens of pseudoscientific websites. I don’t have time to relieve you of all your misconceptions, but here are the most glaring errors:

If you had done your homework (or even watched the YouTube videos I posted above), … On the contrary, if you had watched those YouTube videos I linked to… [Jane Q. Public]

We’re scientists, not preteens looking for cat videos. Link to peer-reviewed articles or expect to be ignored.

Anthropogenic CO₂ is the cause of a small, but measurable, increase in average global temperature. This temperature increase is a detectable deviation away from the statistical variations due to natural causes, and is now quite well understood. [Geoffrey Landis]

That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard to date. It is NOT known, precisely because it has been impossible to statistically separate it from other influencing factors. (Including sunspots!) While many scientists believe that it probably has some effect, nobody has yet managed to measure it with any real statistical significance. Where did you get this idea, anyway? Do you have any sources that purport to have this measurement? The fact is that such a beast does not exist! [Jane Q. Public]

Geoffrey’s statement is most certainly not ridiculous. I suggest looking at the IPCC 4th report. Download chapter 3, open the PDF to page 15 (which is labeled 249) and look at figure 3.6. These data show a global temperature increase of 0.65 °C plus or minus 0.2 °C over the period from 1901 to 2005. The report notes that this rate is higher than at any other point since the 11th century. Meehl 2004 shows that this warming can’t be explained by natural forcings alone, but including anthropogenic CO₂ emissions matches the observations very well. And, yes, those “natural forcings” include variations in solar output, which can be measured by satellites so there’s no need to search for weak correlations in sunspot data.

Furthermore, as I’ve repeatedly argued, Vostok shows that the current CO₂ level is higher than it’s been in half a million years. If you don’t think that CO₂ can warm the planet, I suggest you remember your sophomore-level physics classes and examine the spectrum of the Sun. Then open a textbook and examine the absorption spectrum of CO₂. Notice that the peak of the Sun’s radiation goes through? Now open your thermodynamics textbook and calculate the blackbody radiation of a planet at 286K. Notice that the CO₂ absorbs more of this radiation.

That’s why scientists say that CO₂ is warming the planet. It’s not exactly cutting-edge science.

Most of the science that is used to support the greenhouse warming model come from the IPCC Assessment reports, and much of that “science” has been shown to be flawed, not to mention that the reports themselves are heavily politicized, and their conclusions do not match the actual science that they reference. [Jane Q. Public]

That’s exactly backwards. The IPCC reports are simply compilations of pre-existing, peer-reviewed science. I’ve read their reports and talked with scientists whose work is referenced in the IPCC reports. No scientist I’ve met (in public or private) thinks your conspiracy theory is valid. In fact, I’ve personally confirmed the mass loss in Greenland’s glaciers with my own research. I’ve seen climate change happening with my own data and my own personal algorithms. Does that mean I’m part of the conspiracy too?

Below I link to a letter from Chris Landsea, who is the one who actually did the research on whether hurricanes and typhoons would increase in number or severity due to global warming. His conclusion was that they would not. BUT… the IPCC didn’t let that stop them.

Yes, science is sometimes contentious (which seems to contradict your opinion that scientists are either brainwashed into accepting global warming, or engaged in a massive conspiracy.) Also, the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report made a very limited claim regarding hurricanes: “It is more likely than not (>50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity.”

The giant red “hockey stick” graph from Al Gore’s movie? (The researches who published that paper have publicly admitted that it was based on faulty procedures and have officially withdrawn it.)

I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, but I see no reason to doubt the overall accuracy of that graph.

[Dumb Scientist]

Therefore, the statement in AR4 that “It is more likely than not (>50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity.” is likely an exaggeration, not supported by the actual research. [Jane Q. Public]

According to the IPCC guidance note on uncertainty, that’s basically the weakest statement they could make without being utterly silent. (See table 4.) Months ago, I said that hurricane intensity couldn’t be linked to climate change, and I later corrected another poster who was under the impression that the available data contained a clear correlation between hurricanes and climate change.

If the IPCC report had used any other qualifier from table 4, you might have a more convincing point. Furthermore, another paper in Science says “Results show that the increasing trend in number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes for the period 1970-2004 is directly linked to the trend in SST [sea surface temperature].” Dr. Landsea is a legitimate scientist, but he’s not the only one studying hurricanes, and I fail to see how his claims automatically rule out those of other scientists– especially when they’re making such a weak claim given the observed trends.

And, yes, those “natural forcings” include variations in solar output, which can be measured by satellites at L1 so there’s no need to search for weak correlations in sunspot data. [Dumb Scientist]

Please be specific. “Solar output” can mean many things. [Jane Q. Public]

I was quoting Meehl 2004 in that sentence, which itself quotes Meehl 2003 to show that variations in solar luminosity affect the climate. Of course, Meehl 2004 shows that this effect isn’t responsible for the warming in the latter half of the century, which is shown to be due to anthropogenic CO₂ emissions.

And by the way, I would like to point out a mistake you have made more than once: there is in fact a clear and valid correlation between sunspot cycles and Earth surface temperature, from the distant past up to at least the mid-20th century. [Jane Q. Public]

Further, while it was implied by Mr. Landis, neither of you bothered to acknowledge that there is in fact a strong correlation, at least up to the mid-20th century. Instead, you gave me the impression that you were disputing any correlation at all, which I knew to be incorrect. [Jane Q. Public]

First of all, Dr. Landis and I were careful to hedge our claims. Here are all the statements I’ve made (unless I’ve missed one?) regarding the correlation between sunspot cycle length and the climate:

Every serious climatologist that I’ve met at the conferences agrees with the mountain of evidence that show sunspots aren’t strongly correlated with climate. [emphasis added]
… the overwhelming evidence is that sunspots have a negligible impact on climate. [emphasis added]
The claim that sunspot cycle length correlates well with Earth’s average temperature was made in the mainstream journals in 1991. [emphasis added]
… so there’s no need to search for weak correlations in sunspot data. [emphasis added]

Which of these statements gave you the impression that I was “disputing any correlation at all”?

Based on your response to Abcd1234 (who carefully said that the correlation hasn’t been true for the last 50 years), I’d assumed you were talking about the last 50 years. In fact, that’s why I stopped lurking. Did I misunderstand your post?

Secondly, you’ve been emphatically denying that the correlation you’re proposing is between luminosity and climate. But that’s precisely what Meehl 2003,2004 and most other peer-reviewed papers show. A correlation between luminosity variations and Earth’s climate isn’t in dispute. What those papers emphatically don’t show is that variations in luminosity are responsible for recent warming, or that variations in sunspot cycle length have a significant effect on the climate.

Update: A good reference regarding solar variability is section 2.7.1 on pages 188-193 of chapter 2 in the 4th IPCC report.

Previously, you cited luminosity data when I had clearly stated that the correlation was with period length, not luminosity.

That’s because other correlations have been disproven by later research, as you now seem to agree. I was just trying to steer you back towards the only correlation that’s well-established in the peer-reviewed literature.

Another problem with your claim is that some kind of mechanism other than variations in luminosity would be needed to support your hypothesis. For example, in this post you claim “The sunspot activity tends to blow away the solar winds, allowing more radiation to get through to Earth’s surface.”

This is indeed a claim made in a real journal. But it’s far more controversial than you’re implying. The maximum impact of this mechanism has been estimated to be responsible for no more than 23% of the 11-year cyclical variation of cloud cover. Furthermore, there’s no long term trend in Svensmark’s data, which would be necessary to explain the long term warming trend that’s been observed. For more information, see chapter 7.10 of this textbook.

Furthermore, as I’ve repeatedly argued, Vostok shows that the current CO₂ level is higher than it’s been in half a million years. [Dumb Scientist]

Once again: correlation alone does not imply causation. You have to show cause, not just correlation. Otherwise you have demonstrated nothing. [Jane Q. Public]

Strong correlation plus a demonstrated causal mechanism does imply causation, though. Many nonscientists seem to get stuck on the fact that the causal mechanism between CO₂ and temperature works both ways. In the paleoclimate record, temperature swings induced by (among other things) Milankovitch cycles are amplified by CO₂. An astonishing number of “skeptics” appear to think the ~800 year phase lag between CO₂ and temperature proves that CO₂ can’t drive temperatures. This sort of bizarre statement seldom (if ever) shows up in peer-reviewed journals, though, because it’s simply not true.

The real point of these ice core analyses is that the natural climate experiences a temperature rise centuries before CO₂ rises. That’s not happening now, because the CO₂ in the air isn’t part of a natural feedback cycle. Instead, we dug it out of the ground in unprecedented amounts and pumped it straight into the atmosphere. Thus we’re not looking at natural climate change, it’s anthropogenic abrupt climate change A large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems. .

Also, the natural climate exhibits feedback effects wherein higher temperatures release CO₂ from natural reservoirs such as the ocean and permafrost. This feedback CO₂ is completely different from the anthropogenic CO₂ that’s already pushed the concentration 26% above its natural peak, which means that the climate is likely to get even warmer due to natural feedback effects when that natural CO₂ is released.

In short, the phase lag has persisted for at least 650,000 years, but it isn’t happening today because we’re not experiencing natural climate change any more.

Then open a textbook and examine the absorption spectrum of CO₂. [Dumb Scientist]

I suggest that YOU look at the absorption spectrum of a cloud. See how they compare… it is not as simple as all that. [Jane Q. Public]

I first encountered the absorption spectrum of water in my first thermodynamics class, ~10 years ago when I was a sophomore physics undergrad. My professor, Dr. Glenn Agnolet, was an especially good lecturer, and pointed out that it’s not a coincidence that humans consider 400nm-700nm to be “visible light.” That’s because there’s a very narrow range of low absorption surrounding those values. It’s also not a coincidence that bees and small birds can see UV while we can’t, because our large watery eyes filter it out, but a smaller eye filters less UV so they evolved receptors for it.

Amusingly, this spectrum even has military significance in that the only frequency ranges useful for talking to submerged submarines have wavelengths longer than a kilometer. Not only does the transmitter have to be kilometers across and placed on a site with very low ground conductivity so it’s located in Wisconsin, the low frequency also results in very slow data transfer rates. That’s why subs receive messages in shorthand even to this day. Water’s absorption spectrum has fascinated me ever since.

But presumably you were implying that the existence of a stronger greenhouse gas like H₂O (which in our atmosphere accounts for roughly 3x the warming of CO₂) means that CO₂ is irrelevant. However, the lifetime of CO₂ in the atmosphere is much longer than water vapor, because oceans cover 71% of the Earth’s surface and therefore H₂O reaches equilibrium in a matter of days. In other words, if we pumped gigatons of water vapor into the atmosphere, it would be back in the oceans within a few weeks. On the other hand, CO₂ stays in the atmosphere for many decades, which is why it’s so dangerous. Water vapor concentration is also low in the stratosphere, so CO₂ is more important there.

I am not citing some “conspiracy theory”, though I will admit that it may seem that way. [Jane Q. Public]

Yes, it definitely does. Ironically, the very next statements in your post tend to reinforce my earlier conclusion.

Most of the science that is used to support the greenhouse warming model come from the IPCC Assessment reports, and much of that “science” has been shown to be flawed, not to mention that the reports themselves are heavily politicized, and their conclusions do not match the actual science that they reference. [Jane Q. Public]

No scientist I’ve met (in public or private) thinks your conspiracy theory is valid. In fact, I’ve personally confirmed the mass loss in Greenland’s glaciers with my own research. I’ve seen climate change happening with my own data and my own personal algorithms. Does that mean I’m part of the conspiracy too? [Dumb Scientist]

But aside from that, your “own research”, even if it does indeed show mass loss in Greenland’s glaciers, does not make your point at all… unless it demonstrates that the mass loss was caused by raised CO₂ levels. Remember: nobody here is disputing that the globe is warming! The debate is about the cause! [Jane Q. Public]

Note that I wasn’t attempting to use my research to support any particular cause of climate change. That statement was aimed squarely at your conspiracy theory. You might be able to convince nonscientists that there’s a massive conspiracy (intentional or not) among scientists, and any reference I produce to show that ~84% of scientists oppose your position would probably just solidify your belief in an evil conspiracy. My anecdote was only intended to show you that I’ve personally verified glacier melt through its effect on time-variable gravity above the glaciers in Greenland and Alaska. Because of this first-hand experience, I’m very skeptical that there’s any large-scale incompetence or data manipulation in the scientific community.

I’m also a little confused. You say “nobody here is disputing that the globe is warming!” but at the end of the very same post you present the Wegman Report in an attempt to discredit Figure 5(b) here which shows that the Earth is warming. Doesn’t that mean you are “disputing that the globe is warming”?

Obviously, this is not a peer-reviewed paper… but it IS a clear damning statement by one of the official reviewers, and I don’t see how you can ignore that. Nor is he the only one. Now, please don’t chide me about that last one… it is not a peer-reviewed paper either but it IS an official statement by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and cites over 400 renowned scientists around the world who disagree with the IPCC conclusions. … Now, remember… that was yet another official reviewer of the IPCC reports.

First of all, I’m allergic to politicians so I’m only going to comment on the genuinely peer-reviewed articles you’ve referenced. Secondly, your focus on reviewers seems to assume that I’m worshipping my fellow scientists as high priests. I’m not. I respect peer review precisely because it’s very confrontational, even downright nasty at times. I respect the process of peer review, not necessarily the people involved. Because 16% of scientists disagree with abrupt climate change A large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems. (which seems to confirm my personal assessment based on what I saw at the Fall 2008 AGU conference), I’m not surprised that some people with PhDs (even people holding respectable positions) voice those views in public. If those reviewers ever publish their research in a respectable peer-reviewed journal, I’ll read their articles. This is because I have a limited lifespan– if I were immortal I’d have time to read every last skeptic argument in existence. But I’ve only got a precious few decades of life left, so I don’t waste my time on “science” that hasn’t satisfied the minimum acceptable standard for evidence: peer review.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, but I see no reason to doubt the overall accuracy of that graph. [Dumb Scientist]

I am referring here to the particular graph that appeared in Gore’s movie, nothing else. [Jane Q. Public]

I’ve never seen the movie. This is partially because of my fetish for learning science from physics classes at accredited universities, textbooks and peer-reviewed articles rather than YouTube videos and documentaries. But it’s mainly because the thought of that smug, pompous politician accepting a Nobel prize for exaggerating the science makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon just to get the image out of my head.

So I’m going to assume that by “hockey stick,” you were referring to Figure 5(b) here.

McIntyre and McKitrick, in about 5 reviewed papers in 2003 and 2005 … thoroughly debunked the statistical methods used to produce this graph. … Further, a review committee, consisting of Edward J. Wegman (Center for Computational Statistics, George Mason University), David W. Scott (Noah Harding Professor of Statistics, Rice University), and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University) recently reviewed and confirmed these findings.

The Wegman report wasn’t peer-reviewed, but it did contain genuinely useful criticisms of Mann’s methodology. However, followup journal articles such as Rutherford 2005 used completely different analysis methods and arrived at the same result. Also, Wahl and Ammann 2007 independently confirmed that conclusion. If you’d like, you can download their code here to confirm for yourself that the PCA centering issues raised by MM03 and MM05 don’t noticeably impact the results. I’m not disputing that better inter-disciplinary communication leads to better science. I’m just disputing the claim that these errors had any significant impact on the graph itself.

Furthermore, even if Mann et. al. really did make some kind of fatal error in their calculations, that has practically no impact on the current scientific understanding of “recent” temperature reconstructions. Here’s a compilation of time series produced by a dozen independent studies, using different algorithms, different statistical methods and different data. They vary significantly, but the abrupt temperature increase appears in all of them.

[Dumb Scientist]

My apologies, but this is the last comment I can write. I’m struggling under the weight of academic deadlines, and I don’t want to fail out of school because of my Slashdot addiction…

Meehl does not actually show that CO₂ causes warming, he relies on the research of others to do so. In fact, while this may be a slight exaggeration, about all Meehl did here was to integrate the work of a number of other authors. [Jane Q. Public]

At least you’re aware of the exaggeration, if not the magnitude or (more importantly) the fact that this criticism could be applied to any research that expands on previous results… which includes nearly every paper in the history of science.

(Ed. note: Slashdot adds notes like [iop.org] to all links, which I’ve restored here to demonstrate how the original posts looked.)

This is indeed a claim [ameyamhatre.com] made in a real journal. But it’s far more controversial than you’re implying. The maximum impact of this mechanism has been estimated [iop.org] to be responsible for no more than 23% of the 11-year cyclical variation of cloud cover. [Dumb Scientist]

“This is indeed a claim made in a real journal. But it’s far more controversial than you’re implying. The maximum impact of this mechanism has been estimated to be responsible for no more than 23% of the 11-year cyclical variation of cloud cover.”

Estimated by whom? I have already shown you at least one peer-reviewed paper (although you objected to the journal’s lack of reputation for “hard science”) in which the estimation was far over what you state here. (Which, I admit, appears to be validly refuted for a specific period of time.) But if you are going to make an argument, as you seem to be doing here, then refute my source with one of your own, otherwise you are wasting my time. [Jane Q. Public]

That estimate was by T. Sloan and A.W. Wolfendale in the article I originally linked… that’s the link which was originally followed by “[iop.org]” before you quoted it. Also, the paper you previously found contains similar criticisms of Svensmark 1998 on its second page.

Update: Other relevant papers include Kristjansson 2002 and Laut 2003, followed by Svensmark’s response and Laut’s rebuttal. More recently, Erlykin et al suggest that the apparent correlation is due to direct solar activity, while Pierce and Adams state: “In our simulations, changes in CCN [cloud condensation nuclei concentrations] from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.”

But there are a lot of complex interactions going on here, including the fact that reflection by CO₂ tends to be logarithmic… requiring a doubling of CO₂ concentration to equal an incremental increase in reflection. … Books could be written about it and probably will be. [Jane Q. Public]

Yes, of course. The fact that CO₂ absorption depends logarithmically on concentration has been known since 1900 when Angstrom and Koch Ångström, Knut (1900). ‘Über die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensaüres bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre.’ Annalen der Physik 4(3): 720-32. published online 308(12): 720-32 (2006) [doi: 10.1002/andp.19003081208] first measured it in a tube filled with CO₂. The absorption dropped by less than 1% when Koch lowered the pressure by 33%, which convinced an entire generation of climatologists that CO₂ wasn’t dangerous because it was already “saturated.” In other words, they believed that adding more CO₂ wouldn’t warm the planet because it was already absorbing almost all it could.

But this research is 109 years old. Books have already been written about it. As early as 1931, Hulburt Hulburt, E.O. (1931). ‘The Temperature of the Lower Atmosphere of the Earth.’ Physical Review 38: 1876-90. used the brand-new theory of quantum mechanics to study absorption in more detail. He concluded that doubling the CO₂ concentration would warm the Earth by 4°C. This is still the conventional method of expressing “climate sensitivity” with respect to CO₂. (Although it’s important to note that this convention ignores slow feedback effects which may sum to produce a temporary(?) net positive feedback effect, given the unnaturally abrupt nature of the forcing.) His prediction is still within the error bars of modern estimates which assign a maximum likelihood value of 2.9°C, with a 95% confidence that it’s less than 4.9°C but greater than 1.7°C. Sadly, his breakthrough wasn’t recognized at the time.

In the 1950s, the Cold War prompted U.S. scientists to study the atmosphere for military purposes. They mounted spectrometers on planes and sent them high into the atmosphere, where the absorption spectrum changed Kaplan, Lewis D. (1952). ‘On the Pressure Dependence of Radiative Heat Transfer in the Atmosphere.’ J. Meteorology 9: 1-12. . At standard pressure, CO₂ absorbs radiation in broad “peaks” in frequency space because of pressure broadening but the lower pressure at altitude narrows these peaks. Thus, CO₂ acts as a less effective greenhouse gas at higher altitudes.

Subsequent studies confirmed and expanded on these results. The short version is that the atmosphere needs to be modeled as a series of layers, where the pressure in each layer causes CO₂ to absorb differing amounts of radiation at different wavelengths. Each layer insulates all the layers below it, and the outer layer of the atmosphere isn’t saturated until it reaches a higher concentration than would be required to saturate at standard pressure. Furthermore, water vapor concentration falls off rapidly with altitude while CO₂ concentration doesn’t, so water vapor doesn’t play a role in the outer layer of the atmosphere.

If you’re wondering why these references aren’t linked, it’s because this debate is ancient and certainly not news to any climatologist who’s less than 50 years behind the cutting edge. Many of these articles’ abstracts aren’t even available online, so you’ll have to search your local university library to find them. You may find this overview (complete with references) helpful in your search, but nonscientists may prefer this less technical version.

Of course, it’s possible that you weren’t “trying to make any earth-shattering observations there,” and were just waxing eloquent about the beauty of science. If that’s true then I apologize for wasting your time, and we agree that science is really frakking cool. This response would then be aimed solely at pseudoscientists like Joanne Nova who claim that “CO₂ is already absorbing almost all it can!”

So, I was not trying to make any earth-shattering observations there, just: it’s not so simple.

Virtually no subject in modern physics is simple enough to be described completely in a single Slashdot post, a single textbook, a single semester, or even a single college degree. For example, high school students learn that gravity is described by F=m*g, where “g” is a constant 9.8 m/s². This is oversimplified because “g” decreases with altitude. Undergrads learn that gravity is described by F=G*m₁*m₂/r². This is oversimplified because it can’t account for the precession of Mercury’s orbit or the orbital decay of binary pulsars due to energy loss from gravitational waves. Graduate students learn that gravity is one of several physical manifestations of the curvature of spacetime due to the stress-energy tensor. This is also an oversimplification because it can’t be quantized and produces unphysical predictions at black hole singularities.

In this sense, abrupt climate change A large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists (or is anticipated to persist) for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems. is no different from general relativity. It’s a hideously complicated subject that requires at least a graduate education in physics to struggle through the many layers of simplification in order to reach the frontiers of knowledge. When talking with the public, physicists need to make simplifications, or the explanations would take years. Be wary of assuming that these simplifications are anything but pedagogical tools.

We already know of the penchant that the media has for sensationalism. Have you not heard the news reports that “sea levels are expected to rise as much as 10 meters in our lifetime”?? I have. Yet even the IPCC says nothing of the sort. … Which made it prime fodder for Mr. Gore’s movie. Which caught the attention of the public. Which caused alarmism out of proportion to the actual problem.

I completely agree with every statement you’ve made here. My advisor is a world-renowned expert [*] in geophysics And a really nice guy! :) Hi! I’m working, I promise! who recently said “I don’t think climate change is going to kill anyone.” (Provided we take decisive action I agree, but worry that the effects will act as a catalyst to worsen existing political conflicts.) That’s why I’ve insisted on restricting this conversation to peer-reviewed papers. The mainstream media is biased towards sensationalism, and the internet is a tarpit of misinformation.

[*] I’m sorry that I can’t provide more details with which to judge this claim, but my career is just starting so I don’t want to commit professional suicide by making my views on, say, gay marriage or gun rights Pro-2nd amendment article coming soon, to be linked in permanent version of this article. available to potential employers. I’ll say this, though: I suspect that the last woman I dated (a fellow geophysicist) was with me at least partly because I promised to introduce her to him. This suspicion is based on her reaction when she found out who my advisor was, which wasn’t unusual Sadly, I only mean that the initial jaw-drop isn’t unusual… at all.

If you had been paying attention, you might have understood that the Wegman, et al. report was “peer review”

Articles published in scientific journals are peer-reviewed. Again, peer review isn’t about worshipping scientists, so it’s not just about the qualifications of the reviewer. It’s about a process. Scientific articles are subjected to a process called peer review, which means the author gets viciously attacked by people who (sometimes) think he’s an moronic asshole. This process is the bedrock of modern science because it results in articles that are better for it after surviving the inferno. But the nasty emails sent by the reviewers to the author haven’t been through peer review themselves. And that’s basically what the Wegman report is, except they “reviewed” it among themselves. It makes some good points, but draws a completely exaggerated conclusion which hopefully wouldn’t have made it through a proper peer review.

… even if Mann et. al. really did make some kind of fatal error in their calculations, that has practically no impact on the current scientific understanding of “recent” temperature reconstructions. [Dumb Scientist]

Possibly. But it means you have to find other research to make your point. [Jane Q. Public]

Each time series in the graph I previously linked is referenced in chapter 6 here. Turn to page 469 and examine Table 6.1 (later, if you get bored, consider checking out column 2 of page 466 which reviews the claims of MM03 and MM05.) Every time series is referenced well enough to be found on google scholar– for example here’s one of them. As you’ve seen from the graph, they all support the abrupt temperature increase in Mann’s graph. (I freely admit that all these authors could be drooling morons, sheeple incapable of independent thought, or evil conspirators… any of these scenarios or a linear combination of them would completely discredit my position.)

You might be able to convince nonscientists that there’s a massive conspiracy (intentional or not) [emphasis added] among scientists, and ironically any reference I produce to show that ~84% of scientists oppose your position would probably just solidify your belief in an evil conspiracy. [Dumb Scientist]

… they essentially all complain about the same problem: the fact that those involved in the IPCC reporting and review process who disagreed with a preconceived conclusion were blatantly ignored. … IPCC reports are politicized and unreliable. … the IPCC has had a chronic problem with bias and failure of peer review. … Well, not exactly. It’s because until that point, I was not aware that other possible correlations were ever even taken seriously. … That is almost correct, if you are looking at it in a sort of sideways-logic kind of way. … If these statements, by the both of you, do not imply that there is no correlation, I will eat my hat. But of course some of the very literature you rely on contradicts that. … I could not possibly accept the results of this survey as anything but an exercise in data manipulation — intentional or otherwise. … I cannot accept those reported results as anything. As reported, they are meaningless. The word “valid” is not on the horizon. … Oh, come on. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or did you just not bother to read the papers? … The fact is that the Mann, et al. graph was out of proportion, and tended to exaggerate the appearance of the recent warming. Which you would know, if you actually read the papers. But I suspect that you were just baiting me. … so far you have not managed to validly refute even one point I have made. … it was more like destroying his methodology, not just criticizing it. … What a COSMIC coincidence. The same three people who did the original paper! And they reached a similar conclusion??? How outrageously surprising! Seriously, how can you be surprised? And the fact that they used a different methodology does not impress me in the least. Wegner, et al. strongly implied that while those people might otherwise be competent researchers, they do not know their statistical asses from a hole in the ground … Further, a textbook is anything but a peer-reviewed paper. Would you like me to do a brief review of how many of my high-school and university textbooks contained errors that seem laughable now? Get real. By the time half of them get to publication, they have significant errors. … If you will not accept Energy and Environment as a source because it may not be “sufficiently hard-science” for your taste, then I am sure as hell not going to accept your textbook. [emphasis added] … This was not apparent to me at first, but as it turns out, Meehl’s climate model has relied upon the data generated in the 1998 Mann study. So, at least until some adjustments are made, I have no choice but to consider the Meehl model to have also been successfully refuted. … When a climate model relies upon past temperature variations that are shown to be inaccurate, to say that the whole model becomes questionable is an understatement. … (Ed. note: here I’m referring to your statements in general.) That sounds like a “conspiracy theory” to you? [Jane Q. Public]

In a word: yes. I’ve encountered the same attitude here and in my discussions with creationists and people who dispute the Big Bang. In each case, they insist that peer review is broken. Sometimes they merely say this is because of widespread incompetence or “groupthink,” but it’s also common to see them accuse scientists of active conspiracy. They perform “research” by browsing pseudoscience websites rather than pursuing a graduate education in the field they’re obviously interested in. With all due respect to the parties involved, I think they’re making errors that could be avoided by opening graduate-level textbooks (which have little in common with high school or lower-level undergraduate texts) and solving the problems inside.

Curiously, they’re often computer scientists or engi neers. I suspect this is because natural sciences like physics, chemistry and biology appear similar to computer science and engineering. We all use math (in fact, electrical engineers use way more math than biologists) and the first year of college classes are quite similar. Our fields are highly complex and probably equally mysterious to the general public, so we become used to being “the person with the answers.”

However, engineers and computer scientists are, fundamentally, “builders.” Engineers figure out how to use materials like metals and plastic to build amazing technological marvels that enrich our lives. Computer scientists build shining edifices out of pure logic which have bound the human race together and (IMHO) will play a central role in giving our descendants “technology indistinguishable from magic.” In each case, notice that the emphasis lies on creating something that didn’t exist before. They develop preconceptions of the form their algorithm or building will take, then beat raw materials into a shape that conforms to their original vision.

Scientists, on the other hand, are more like detectives. They observe the natural world and try as hard as they possibly can to avoid letting their preconceptions contaminate the results of their experiments. Scientists are supposed to avoid creating something that didn’t exist before!

This isn’t to say engineers don’t have to think critically; for example, they have to recognize why the Tacoma Narrows bridge was badly designed and foresee similar mistakes. But they’re working within known natural laws, and it seems to me that the challenge of deducing those laws without prejudice is completely different. I’m starting to think that computer scientists and engineers are prone to assuming that their skills transfer to the natural sciences better than they actually do, which could explain why rational thought occasionally mutates into rationalizing.

Please don’t misunderstand me: I’m not insulting computer scientists or engineers; I’m definitely not saying a significant percentage of them are pseudoscientists. I spent several years as an aerospace engineering major, my dad is a mechanical engineer, and many of my family and friends are in these fields. My physics degrees certainly don’t mean I can design a skyscraper or write a new programming language. I’m just speculating as to why some of them tend to be over-represented in the ranks of pseudoscientists.

[Dumb Scientist]

… The proponents of “man-made global warming” have seized upon the CO₂-based warming model as their poster child. Unfortunately for them in the long run, that model has some serious problems. For example, in order for the CO₂-based warming model to work, the upper atmosphere must be warming in proportion to the surface. However, it simply is not. Weather balloon and satellite data just do not find the upper-atmosphere warming that would have to be there if the CO₂ warming model were true. You can look that up for yourself. Use actual data, dude, not what you find on the 10:00 news. But enough of the basic background. … [Jane Q. Public, Oct 24, 2007]

… the CO₂-based warming theory REQUIRES the upper atmosphere to be warming at a rate proportional to the low-altitude temperature… and it simply has not been. Actual satellite and weather balloon temperature data do not support the CO₂ warming theory at all. … ALL greenhouse gas “global warming” theories require the upper atmosphere to warm proportionally to the surface temperature. That is directly involved in the whole mechanism that is supposed to be CAUSING the warming from such gases! Whether CO₂ were the “sole” greenhouse gas involved is irrelevant! They all require that the upper atmosphere be warming to a degree that it just has not been. Actual satellite and weather balloon temperature data DIRECTLY CONTRADICT the greenhouse warming theories. And if something that MUST be happening in order for those theories to be true is not happening (and it isn’t), then those theories are fundamentally flawed. [Jane Q. Public, June 22, 2008]

… Once again: the greenhouse gas models, specifically, require that the upper atmosphere be warming to a degree that has SIMPLY NOT BEEN HAPPENING according to the actual temperature data. If you disbelieve that, then try googling NOAA along with a few choice key words and do your own homework for a change. [Jane Q. Public, June 25, 2008]

… And contrary to popular belief, the troposphere has not been warming to the degree it would have to, were the greenhouse models of warming correct. But they are not. They have some very serious flaws. …[Jane Q. Public, July 9, 2009]

I presume you’ve been referring to an algebra error in assimilations of satellite temperature measurements of the troposphere.

This error was corrected in 2005.
The troposphere is actually the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere. The upper atmosphere is divided into the stratosphere and the mesosphere.
Greenhouse warming models predict cooling and contraction of the stratosphere.

Kyle asks about the political and economic implications of climate change.

[Kyle]
Interesting. For the record, what’s your view on all this climate change stuff? Personally, regardless of how the data is broken down, I think it’s crazy to build US legislation to tax all of our energy production based on the notion we can control the earth’s climate.

[Dumb Scientist]

(Ed. note: I’ve removed many points from my emails to Kyle because they’ve already appeared above.)

The scientific case is quite clear: humans have dug up gigatons of CO₂ and pumped it into the atmosphere. This has raised our average temperatures and will continue to do so unless we stop it.

Of course, science doesn’t imply any particular political response. But fighting climate change is almost exactly the same thing as “energy independence” which we desperately need anyway, if only to stop throwing money at so many corrupt governments for their oil. The only difference is that we need to stop burning coal, which is something we have in abundance here in the U.S. All I can say is that this might be bad in the short term, but absolutely necessary in the long term. It’s not clear to me that these taxes would slow the economy down over the medium to long term. The U.S. is still the world’s leader in science and technology, so we’re most likely to be the ones to invent and sell the new cleaner energy tech which would actually make Americans richer in the end…

To replace coal, I liked McCain’s plan to build 45 new nuclear power stations. (Oh, how I wish Obama would listen to him on that particular subject!) Not the crazy new fusion plants (which don’t exist yet and may never exist), just better versions of the fission nuclear plants we already know work because they supply 80% of France’s electricity.

[Dumb Scientist]

I have no problem with using technology to develop cleaner energy sources. I do find fault in the idea of punitive tax policy that punishes consumers for being good capitalists – buying the energy that is the most efficient to produce. [Kyle]

But that’s the way regulation has worked for decades. For example, companies can’t simply dump toxic chemicals into the water (even though that’s cheaper than responsible disposal) because they’d get fined by the EPA. That’s basically the only reason our rivers aren’t even more polluted than they already are. Without a clear disincentive to pollute, companies will choose the most “efficient” means of creating their product, regardless of how much pollution they create in the process.

The only difference here is that the effects of CO₂ pollution are more subtle than, say, dumping acid into a river. But it’s even more dangerous in the long run because CO₂ causes a global problem rather than a local one.

The thing that kills me about the proposed plan is the idea of creating carbon credits, essentially fake money to be bought and sold, and forcing US energy companies to pay new taxes on all the carbon they produce.

Actually, cap and trade strikes me as a very capitalist way of addressing the problem. This is just the latest example of regulation to compensate for what economists call a “negative externality.”

Negative externalities represent rare failures of capitalism; they’re situations in which economic transactions can hurt people who aren’t directly involved. Again, the best example is that of a chemical plant dumping waste into a river. The people downstream will be affected regardless of whether they buy that company’s products. That’s why regulation exists: to protect people from situations where it’s cheaper to ruin the environment than to act responsibly.

This new kind of regulation will have the effect of making dirty technology expensive which will then prompt companies to invest in cleaner technologies for the most capitalist reason imaginable: to make a profit. I hope that the environmentalists will eventually relent and let us build nuclear power plants, because they’re the cleanest form of energy we have that can power our civilization. But I seriously doubt they’re rational enough to see that their fears of radiation are due more to Hollywood than actual physics…

America has always had an advantage in the global economy by having the best infrastructure and cheap energy. I can’t believe that any other countries are going to levy similar requirements on their businesses.

That’s a very serious problem indeed. If other countries don’t clean up too, production will simply shift to countries with lax regulation. One goal of the climate legislation that’s about to hit the Senate is to set an example; to show the world that the United States is ready to lead once again. With a firm domestic commitment to fighting climate change, Obama will have a more credible case to present at the Copenhagen Conference this December.

On a side note, have you ever checked out surfacestations.org? They make a pretty compelling case that the US temperature record over the last several decades is showing artificially high readings.

He’s saying that the surface temperature record is contaminated by the “urban heat island” effect– that temperatures are only rising around cities because of economic growth. One example he shows is that exhaust vents have been placed closer and closer to the sensors over the years.

This is a superficially compelling argument, but it’s also one that scientists have considered and rejected. One test is that the urban heat island effect should be less pronounced on windy days than calm days. That’s because if this warming is just caused by local exhaust vents, wind should carry that heat away whereas calm weather won’t. This doesn’t happen: calm and windy days have the same warming trend. This conclusion is from an article published in Nature by Dr. Parker in 2004; here’s a BBC article quoting it. Other studies have confirmed this result using different methods and data in 2003, 2006, and 2008.

NOAA recently published an answer to that specific website. They took the 70 stations that surfacestations.org designated “best” or “good” and created a time series based on them. Then they used all 1218 stations to create another time series. Both of those time series are plotted on page 3. They’re practically identical.

Also, scientists don’t blindly trust these sensors. Land temperature measurements are independently confirmed by sea surface temperatures, satellite data and proxies such as ice cores, boreholes, coral growth, tree rings, stalactites, fossil beds, ocean sediments and glacial deposits.

Update: Another paper casts doubt on the claims of surfacestations.org.

[Dumb Scientist]

I will say this: The EPA at its core is a political organization. EPA policies have quickly reversed under each new administration and I think this is an area where unfortunately the politics are very intertwined with the science. [Kyle]

Perhaps. But all I’m saying is this: we can agree that some types of pollution are bad, right? Sure, extremists like Earth First and Greenpeace give the whole notion a bad name, but I don’t think any of us want acid rain or smog. CO₂ is just a more subtle problem which is more difficult to explain to the public, but ultimately poses a bigger threat to humanity.

That, and they even admit that these policies will cause an immediate and substantial rise in US energy prices, which trickle down to every segment of the economy. I think the plan is guaranteed to do very tangible economic harm to people all over the US in the near term, and that left alone…

That’s probably true. It wouldn’t be much different than the harm that most other countries have experienced already, though. For quite a while, Europeans have been paying more than twice as much as we do for gasoline. As a result, their cars are smaller, their cities are much better for walking and biking, and their subway systems are better.

Would it hurt U.S. citizens? Probably a little. But it’s a much better idea to experience a little bit of pain now rather than a lot later. Frankly, we’re already far behind the Europeans in this regard. They’re not going to be hit nearly as hard as us when the shit really hits the fan because they’ve already been adapting to the post-oil era.

… companies will eventually develop cleaner technologies without having to be forced to by the government, because consumers want alternatives, and that to me is what it’s all about.

The keyword here is “eventually.” I doubt it would be soon enough, because every ton of CO₂ emitted into the atmosphere worsens the problem, and we still get half of our electricity from coal which needs to be changed to nuclear yesterday.

Last modified August 29th, 2010

Articles Feed

Comments Feed

230 Responses to “Abrupt Climate Change”

Jim P.E. posted on 2009-07-20 at 08:13

Do you know what the last (President Bush) and present Science Advisor to the President is telling the President about this situation? Are they getting the correct story from Science Advisors?

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-20 at 08:18
  
  Dr. John Holdren is Obama’s science advisor. He’s got an impressive scientific record and I see no reason to believe that he’s giving bad advice. My only quibble is the lack of progress on the nuclear power issue, and I suspect that’s because Obama can’t confront the environmentalists in the Democratic party. It’s probably not because of bad scientific advice, but rather the usual politics.
  
  Dr. Steven Chu is the current Secretary of Energy, and again he seems really well-qualified. His recent suggestion that we paint roofs white in order to reflect more sunlight seemed simple, cheap and effective.
  
  Dr. John H. Marburger was Bush’s science advisor. He’s also a good scientist, but Bush waited until ~6 months into his presidency to appoint him, and subsequently demoted the position of ‘science advisor’ from its customary Cabinet level. I wonder how much of Dr. Marburger’s advice was taken seriously.
  
  Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-08-01 at 23:42
  
  Here’s a recent interview with Dr. Steven Chu. This is the first time I’ve seen him on camera; he seems very intelligent/knowledgeable and surprisingly personable.
  
  Reply
Bopeth posted on 2009-07-20 at 08:23

I am not a scientist but I have read a lot of engineering reports and, as an Army program manager, led several different teams of scientists and engineers pushing the envelope of technology in both aviation and missile defense.

I found your article to be compelling when it comes to the data and scientific conclusion but I have a different opinion when it comes to your personal views on what to do.

I think the world is behind the power curve on addressing CO2 emissions and will never catch up by imposing extraordinary limits on the US, alone. The new economic engines and sources of emissions are China and India. The US could stop emitting tomorrow and within a few years the world emission levels would, once again, start increasing. No amount of diplomacy, world opinion or scientific data is going to stop the developing nations from asserting their right to do what the US and other developed nations have already done. Further, the US (as well as every other nation) must be very careful in how it addresses putting limits on emissions. Having the technical ‘know how’ and the resources to ‘do something’ must be balanced against our economic needs. If we push too hard and the economy goes south, again, our leaders will be thrown out of office, or worse (civil war in China).

Global warming/CO2 emissions, pollution, hunger, disease, poverty, species extinctions, over fishing, coal mining, etc. are impossible to address when our numbers keep increasing. Every new problem that we address (successfully) is overwhelmed by our increasing numbers. The world sits at approximately six billion today and is forecast to be at nine billion in a few short generations. I listen to our scientists, politicians, and various advocates scream at the top of their lungs about all of these pressing issues. It is my opinion that they are screaming about symptoms without addressing the underlying problem of too many people. All too few are willing to talk about population. Certainly, our politicians would never talk about population. It would be like touching the ‘third rail’. So, here we are. Sometimes I feel like we are part of a big lab experiment. We are all rats. Science has already demonstrated that the more rats you put in a cage the more they tend to fight and kill one another. Sound familiar?

From what I have read about emissions, it looks to me like even the most successful efforts cannot stop what has already started. Instead, we need to concentrate on the consequences: sea rise, new agricultural trends, new diseases, population displacement, etc. And, last but not least, reverse our propensity to procreate. Fewer people could pollute and emit all they want and it would have no consequence on the Earth. At the rate we are going, even the slightest pollution by each of our increasing numbers will lead to an uninhabitable world. I guess that would fix the problem.

I’m interested in your thoughts on population.

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-20 at 08:57
  
  I think the world is behind the power curve on addressing CO2 emissions and will never catch up by imposing extraordinary limits on the US, alone.
  
  Yes, that’s why I support the legislation in the Senate. Obama will have a more credible case for worldwide emissions targets at the Copenhagen conference this December if he’s backed up by a strong domestic commitment.
  
  No amount of diplomacy, world opinion or scientific data is going to stop the developing nations from asserting their right to do what the US and other developed nations have already done.
  
  And that’s why environmentalists are wrong to try to guilt people into riding bikes everywhere and giving up air conditioning. Progress can only occur if we create new technology that’s cheaper, cleaner and better in every way, otherwise people won’t switch. If we can do that, we wouldn’t have to convince developing nations to use the new technology– they’d be lined up around the block to buy it voluntarily.
  
  Global warming/CO2 emissions, pollution, hunger, disease, poverty, species extinctions, over fishing, coal mining, etc. are impossible to address when our numbers keep increasing. … Every new problem that we address (successfully) is overwhelmed by our increasing numbers. The world sits at approximately six billion today and is forecast to be at nine billion in a few short generations. I listen to our scientists, politicians, and various advocates scream at the top of their lungs about all of these pressing issues. It is my opinion that they are screaming about symptoms without addressing the underlying problem of too many people. All too few are willing to talk about population. Certainly, our politicians would never talk about population.
  
  I completely agree. The water crisis is yet another symptom of the same fundamental problem: there are far too many humans on this planet. Lately, it seems like most developed nations have much lower birth rates, which is usually attributed to better availability of birth control and the fact that kids aren’t as useful in modern offices as they are on subsistence farms. So maybe the quickest way to fix this problem is to figure out how to help the developing nations develop faster. But it’s also true to say that the developed world consumes more resources per capita. So even though their birth rate is higher than ours, each birth in the U.S. is a larger drain on the world’s resources than each birth in Africa.
  
  Eventually, governments might be forced to mandate a limit on the number of children each person can have. A stable number of births per woman would probably be ~2.1, but that would have to be continually recalculated to compensate for changes in mortality rates, the percentage of people who don’t want children, and projections of Earth’s carrying capacity. (Given an equal gender ratio, I suppose that nominal figure means every person could be guaranteed the right to have one child, with a lottery for another?) Regardless, the sort of exponential growth that we’ve been experiencing for millennia is utterly unsustainable. But, as you say, everyone ignores the elephant in the room…
  
  From what I have read about emissions, it looks to me like even the most successful efforts cannot stop what has already started. Instead, we need to concentrate on the consequences: sea rise, new agricultural trends, new diseases, population displacement, etc.
  
  Those are all noble goals, and the most likely scenarios can probably be handled in that manner. But I don’t think worst-case scenarios could be handled by mitigating the consequences. (And note that our future emissions will play a large role in determining which scenario actually comes true.)
  
  Even aside from reducing emissions, it seems prudent to wean ourselves off oil before we run out of easily-extracted oil deposits. It’s also bad to be so dependent on corrupt, totalitarian states for our energy. Nuclear fission is our best hope for achieving all these goals in one fell swoop.
  
  Frankly, I don’t understand the political/economic situation well enough to say with certainty that our most successful efforts would be futile. I’d like to think the situation isn’t that bad, but maybe I’m wrong. In that case, I think we need to buy enough time for the next generation to develop technology that is capable of fixing the problem.
  
  Reply
Anonymous posted on 2009-07-21 at 23:47

I know nothing about climate change. I don’t intend to challenge any of your data as such. My thoughts are more philosophical than scientific, but philosophy of science is important, no?

It’s actually rather timely that you should send me such an invitation. In recent weeks I’ve had a lingering concern over what I see as scientific overconfidence. It’s everywhere, and it’s in your article, too. This is a multifaceted problem, and I’m still not sure where to start in discussing or analysing it. Maybe this little chance to ramble will help me get my thoughts in order. I didn’t even have a label for it up until now: “scientific overconfidence” is a term I just coined because I had to give the problem a name. In extreme cases it becomes scientific arrogance, but I’ll get to that if and when it’s appropriate.

Please indulge me while I ramble a bit, and please don’t take any of this as a personal attack. I fear that it may come across as highly offensive in parts.

One aspect of scientific overconfidence is overconfidence in the ability or prowess of science as a whole. Science is practically venerated as the pinnacle of all human knowledge. When scientists are challenged on this point, they usually defend the position by attacking the alternatives: asking whether you’d like rockets built by priests, or medical treatment from a witchdoctor, or something like that. I’m not sure what this demonstrates, other than the fact that some people have a really high opinion of science, but fail to see the value in anything else.

For me, the more I examine science, the less confidence I have in it. We’ve achieved some clever things, no doubt, and scientists are always willing to point out the computers, the rockets, and the other marvels of modern technology that science has given us. I don’t dispute that! Not for a second! It does seem, however, that the success of science as a basis for technology is then used to assert scientific supremacy over other things, like history, or the future, or the supernatural even! Somehow the demonstrable *usefulness* of science has been enlarged to make it the most authoritative source of guidance for every possible question.

Also, isn’t the focus on technological successes extremely one-eyed? Science is best loved for its successes, but success is the exception. How many sweeteners and preservatives have been invented, only to be found harmful later? Hydrogenated vegetable oil — how clever! Then we discover what a “trans fat” is, and what it does to your internal workings. Today’s technological marvel is tomorrow’s carcinogen, toxic waste problem, or ecological disaster — possibly all three.

The history of scientific theories fares no better: it is a litany of outmoded ideas, each of which were held in the utmost respect in their day, and some of which resulted in really awful practices. Vestigial organs, anyone? It’s ironic that Galileo is now hailed as a hero and the church vilified, but his Copernicanism was considered *unscientific* by the mainstream of the day. Spontaneous generation was a Fact of Science until quite recently. How many of today’s theories will be next year’s outmoded ideas? But this doesn’t seem to be a source of embarrassment for scientists, or even a cautionary tale. Instead, they crow about how superior their way of thinking is to that of religions, presenting the straw man that religions are fixed and immutable, whereas science is open to new evidence. Open to new evidence it may be, but that’s no reason to have extra confidence in the theories of here and now: quite the opposite, in fact.

Then there’s the difference between science as it is portrayed and science as I have experienced it, by participation. The vast majority of academic papers I’ve read in my field are dreary, unimaginative, and of questionable value to anyone. Peer review is often just a respectable way of saying “group-think”. Publication is an intensely political thing — why is the myth of the “objective” scientist still so strong, even amongst those in the thick of it? Scientists have pet theories. Scientists are not, in my experience, more open minded or “rational” than anyone else: I’ve had more luck with philosophers than scientists in that regard, although the title “philosopher” doesn’t guarantee much either. None of this would bother me so much, except that science has such a misleadingly superior public image.

One last thing before I finish ranting about scientific overconfidence — and this is more to do with the process of science, and therefore more relevant to you. I think the generally high opinion that scientists hold of their endeavour is causing them to be sloppy. After all, if you’re pretty sure that your methods are leading you to correct conclusions, you’re likely to see other evidence which confirms those conclusions. You’re not so likely to attempt active falsification of your conclusions, or to try to find other explanations which also fit the evidence. You are likely to overlook the conflicting data as “anomalous”. Can you see how this might be a problem?

I can relate this back to climate change, or I can relate it back to creation and evolution. There’s a prevalent attitude in science that theories compete in a sort of “elimination match” with each other. Evolution has eliminated creation: it’s no longer even considered proper science to entertain the idea of creation. It looks like the anthropogenic theory is prevailing in the abrupt climate change debate, and if that’s so, the group-think of peer review will eventually lock out the dissenters as promoting a debunked theory. I think this is bad science. Very bad. There shouldn’t even be such a thing as a “scientific consensus” about anything, because no fact of nature was ever altered by a group consenting to its truth. Consensus is for policy-makers and standards committees, not scientists. Scientific consensus is merely a bullying process whereby the scientific school of thought with the most influence drives competing ideas out of the arena. This is why science progresses in “scientific revolutions” — and it’s not necessarily a good thing.

The major implication of “scientific overconfidence” for your article is the ease with which you translate scientific data into policy prescriptions. You are confident that the data implies a certain fact: that anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is precipitating abrupt climate change, roughly speaking. You then expect policy to move forward on this basis. Those who continue to question whether the alleged fact is a fact are, in your view, simply not approaching the question as a scientific one, because science has spoken, the results are in, and no correspondence will be entered into. I baulk at this attitude because I disbelieve in the whole idea of scientific consensus. The view that the consensus can not be questioned is particularly harsh in that it brands all dissenters as irrational, or politically motivated liars. Believe it or not, some people have genuine evidence-based grounds for questioning the “consensus” position — not just in the climate change issue, but in science generally.

I know what you’re going to say! People can dissent on the basis of evidence — that’s perfectly good science. But in actual practice what happens is this: the evidence is considered, a “consensus” is reached on the basis of that evidence, and then further objections on the basis of the evidence are not entertained because it’s already been taken into consideration. The evidence-based objection is no longer considered “valid” at this point. To cite a fairly extreme example of this, by way of illustration, consider the plight of someone who thinks that the fossil record provides strong evidence against gradualistic evolution. That person can cite supporting facts about the fossil record until he’s blue in the face, but the scientific mainstream will just shrug and say, “we know all that — but we still think that gradualism is the best explanation of the facts.” It would be professional suicide (without the protection of tenure) to make “evidence against gradualistic evolution in the fossil record” one’s research speciality — not because it’s unscientific in any way, but because its countercultural and will result in ostracism.

This confidence, that science has unequivocally reached a particular conclusion (which, while not actually guaranteed to be true, is allegedly the most reliable source of truth we have), begets scientific elitism, and I’m afraid to say that your comments exhibit the most profound and disturbing kind of scientific elitism. This is particularly so in your comments about population control. I’m frankly quite shocked to hear anyone speaking favourably of the idea that birth rates should be legislatively controlled. China does it, sure, but I don’t see them as being an example to follow. I realise that you’re motivated by the survival of the species as a whole, but I think you’re walking a road paved with good intentions that leads to an undesirable destination. Seriously — this is the kind of stuff which acts as a plot device in futuristic dystopian sci-fi stories.

The model of governance that you’re using, perhaps implicitly, seems to go something like this: the scientific elite determines the facts and declares the scope of “reasonable policy”; the proles and their elected representatives may decide policy within those reasonable bounds as they see fit. In this case, the scientific elite has made certain determinations in relation to the environment, and failure to act in accordance with those findings is just plain stupidity.

My ever-developing lack of confidence in science suggests a more restrained approach. For one thing, I think that disagreement among scientists should be recognised and given the utmost respect. Scientists are still entitled to consider theories other then their own to be bunk, but there should be no such thing as “consensus” except that it actually happens naturally. Competing schools of thought should be encouraged, not engage in a battle of elimination. Where elimination occurs, it should be for lack of willing supporters, not for fear of it being a career-limiting choice. As a consequence of this, there will rarely (if ever) be an actual “scientific consensus” on any matter, climate change included. This is not a problem: governments would still take advice from experts, and it is ultimately the job of government to formulate policy based on many considerations, the prevailing scientific theories (plural) being among them.

In short, the scientists should not be in control. They should not be supervising the species. They should be advising, yes — and offering conflicting advice in most cases — but they should not be so arrogant as to presume that they know what’s best for the species as a whole. Heck, it’s not even clear that they ought to be given control even if they were infallible, godlike predictors of long-term consequences — and they are a long, long way from being that.

Reply
- Shadow posted on 2009-07-22 at 00:50
  
  (Ed. note: Originally posted at 2009-08-08 on 11:03, but the time was changed for clarity’s sake.)
  
  I’m not really sure if you understand philosophy enough. Also, you generalise too much.
  
  Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-22 at 00:51
  I’m going to rashly assume that your scientific field is computer science, so my parable will be aimed in that direction:
  
  Alan: “What are you doing?”
  Bob: “Working on a new public key cryptography algorithm.”
  Alan: “It’s much better to use letter substitutions: A -> C, B -> D, etc.
  Bob: “But that’s vulnerable to attack by letter frequency analysis. For instance, the letter ‘E’ is very common and ‘Q’ is almost always followed by ‘U.’”
  Alan: “You’re just trying to lock out the dissenters as promoting a debunked theory. I think this is bad science. Very bad. You scientists are so overconfident, but remember that you’re the ones who gave us hydrogenated vegetable oil!”
  Bob: “Wow, you’re right. That’s a good point. Here, you teach my graduate class for the rest of the semester, and I’ll pay you to design a secure algorithm for our nation’s banking transactions.”
  
  Bob’s just following your advice. He’d be wrong to exhibit scientific elitism by treating Alan as irrational, right?
  
  If you don’t agree with Bob’s actions… why not? It seems like you can’t say that Alan’s statements are silly, otherwise you’d be exhibiting the same kind of scientific elitism that you see in my writing. If Bob should debate Alan, how long should he do so?
  
  Science is practically venerated as the pinnacle of all human knowledge. When scientists are challenged on this point, they usually defend the position by attacking the alternatives: asking whether you’d like rockets built by priests, or medical treatment from a witchdoctor, or something like that.
  
  Not me. I just think it’s a sort of response to tone (DH2). As a result, I don’t know how to answer it constructively– or if that’s even possible at all.
  
  Copernicanism was considered *unscientific* by the mainstream of the day. … I can relate this back to climate change, or I can relate it back to creation and evolution. There’s a prevalent attitude in science that theories compete in a sort of “elimination match” with each other. Evolution has eliminated creation: it’s no longer even considered proper science to entertain the idea of creation.
  
  Scientific theories compete in the sense that every new observation either supports or falsifies them. For example, the Ptolemaic system that preceded Copernicanism was a genuine (albeit crude) scientific model because it made specific predictions about the movements of the planets. Careful observations were thus able to prove it wrong.
  
  But, as I’ve stressed, creationism can’t ever be refuted, because its inherently supernatural properties make it compatible with any potential discovery. On the other hand, I’ve listed two simple falsifications of evolution: chimpanzees in the Precambrian and many species with totally different DNA bases.
  
  Prior to the discovery of evolution, there simply wasn’t a decent scientific explanation for the origin of species. It’s not that creationism used to be scientific before Darwin; it’s that creationism wasn’t– and couldn’t– ever be scientific. Note that I’m not saying creationism is wrong! Quite the opposite! It’s just not a scientific theory because it isn’t falsifiable.
  
  Spontaneous generation was a Fact of Science until quite recently.
  
  Sure, if 1859 fits your definition of “quite recently.”
  
  How many of today’s theories will be next year’s outmoded ideas? But this doesn’t seem to be a source of embarrassment for scientists, or even a cautionary tale. Instead, they crow about how superior their way of thinking is to that of religions, presenting the straw man that religions are fixed and immutable, whereas science is open to new evidence. Open to new evidence it may be, but that’s no reason to have extra confidence in the theories of here and now: quite the opposite, in fact.
  
  I’ve discussed a similar issue before, and said “… even religions that explicitly disavow fideism tend to engender a culture of faith, which is anathema to science’s culture of doubt.”
  
  It’s not that religions are “fixed and immutable,” but rather that they’re based on faith moreso than doubt which means they’re slower to change than science.
  
  Publication is an intensely political thing — why is the myth of the “objective” scientist still so strong, even amongst those in the thick of it?
  
  Because I’ve met so many inspiring scientists who work very hard to live up to that ideal. Not all of them, of course. But enough.
  
  I think the generally high opinion that scientists hold of their endeavour is causing them to be sloppy. After all, if you’re pretty sure that your methods are leading you to correct conclusions, you’re likely to see other evidence which confirms those conclusions. You’re not so likely to attempt active falsification of your conclusions, or to try to find other explanations which also fit the evidence. You are likely to overlook the conflicting data as “anomalous”. Can you see how this might be a problem?
  
  Actually, yes, I have: “The problem here is that I’ve come to believe that the easiest person for me to fool is myself. That’s because I want to believe the fibs that I tell myself. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to correct my reasoning because I’d ignored a piece of evidence that I simply didn’t want to see. So I’m much more cautious than usual when I’m evaluating a situation in which I know that I have an intrinsic bias.”
  
  The major implication of “scientific overconfidence” for your article is the ease with which you translate scientific data into policy prescriptions. You are confident that the data implies a certain fact: that anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is precipitating abrupt climate change, roughly speaking. You then expect policy to move forward on this basis.
  
  I said “On a completely different note, as an ordinary American” right before switching to discussing our response to abrupt climate change. What I meant to stress is that I didn’t give up my voice as an ordinary American citizen when I went to college. I’ve got the same right to voice my opinion about my country’s future as any other citizen.
  
  Those who continue to question whether the alleged fact is a fact are, in your view, simply not approaching the question as a scientific one, because science has spoken, the results are in, and no correspondence will be entered into.
  
  I spent less than 3 pages at the top of the article reviewing the science, followed by more than 30 pages corresponding about it, and you think I won’t enter into correspondence? I’m perfectly willing to listen to anyone who asks even a single, solitary question about the science. Heck, sometimes I don’t even enforce that rule too strictly.
  
  I baulk at this attitude because I disbelieve in the whole idea of scientific consensus. The view that the consensus can not be questioned is particularly harsh in that it brands all dissenters as irrational, or politically motivated liars.
  
  First of all, I’ve repeatedly stressed that science isn’t democratic, so I don’t give “consensus” any weight. For example, I once said “… I don’t see how the popularity of an idea has anything to do with its veracity.” I really don’t see why you think I’m saying the consensus can not be questioned.
  
  Secondly, your argument could be used equally well to defend astrologers and homeopathic healers.
  
  I know what you’re going to say! People can dissent on the basis of evidence — that’s perfectly good science. But in actual practice what happens is this: the evidence is considered, a “consensus” is reached on the basis of that evidence, and then further objections on the basis of the evidence are not entertained because it’s already been taken into consideration. The evidence-based objection is no longer considered “valid” at this point.
  
  Yes, some objections that were once consistent with the evidence at hand later conflicted with other observations.
  
  To cite a fairly extreme example of this, by way of illustration, consider the plight of someone who thinks that the fossil record provides strong evidence against gradualistic evolution. That person can cite supporting facts about the fossil record until he’s blue in the face, but the scientific mainstream will just shrug and say, “we know all that — but we still think that gradualism is the best explanation of the facts.” It would be professional suicide (without the protection of tenure) to make “evidence against gradualistic evolution in the fossil record” one’s research speciality — not because it’s unscientific in any way, but because its countercultural and will result in ostracism.
  
  I can only speak for myself, and I’ve already endorsed Dawkins’ continuously variable speedism, so I completely agree that the fossil record doesn’t support a strictly gradualistic position. But I wonder how many professional biologists still support strict gradualism?
  
  This is particularly so in your comments about population control. I’m frankly quite shocked to hear anyone speaking favourably of the idea that birth rates should be legislatively controlled. China does it, sure, but I don’t see them as being an example to follow. I realise that you’re motivated by the survival of the species as a whole, but I think you’re walking a road paved with good intentions that leads to an undesirable destination. Seriously — this is the kind of stuff which acts as a plot device in futuristic dystopian sci-fi stories.
  
  We have:
  1. A finite planet and resources, with major technological hurdles to cross before we can use off-planet resources in any serious quantities.
  2. An exponentially growing population.
  3. Political systems that reward leaders for saying what voters like to hear.
  If we were any other species, our population would just overshoot the carrying capacity and then perform damped oscillations around it. But our technology has artificially increased the carrying capacity of the planet, and as a result our crash is likely to be much worse. Also, our fearsomely powerful weapons will only work against us in that kind of nightmarish scenario. If humans are willing to commit genocide for territorial and ideological reasons already, imagine what they’d do if “starvation” were added to that list of motivations…
  
  I know what I’m saying is unpopular, and I definitely recognize the potential for abuse. Also, if the trend in developed nations spreads to the developing world, the problem will go away without the need for such drastic and unpleasant measures.
  
  But what really terrifies me is that anyone who even mentions this issue is treated as a wanna-be Dr. Evil. All I’m saying is that we should carefully examine our growth rate, compare it to future projections of the carrying capacities of our planet(s) and make an informed democratic decision.
  
  I certainly don’t want to create some kind of technocracy. That would be unstable in the long run because most of the stability of democracies comes from empowering citizens. If peoples’ voices count, they’re less likely to violently revolt. A technocracy would convince many people that their voices no longer matter, so I’m firmly opposed to it.
  
  The model of governance that you’re using, perhaps implicitly, seems to go something like this: the scientific elite determines the facts and declares the scope of “reasonable policy”; the proles and their elected representatives may decide policy within those reasonable bounds as they see fit. … In short, the scientists should not be in control. They should not be supervising the species. They should be advising, yes — and offering conflicting advice in most cases — but they should not be so arrogant as to presume that they know what’s best for the species as a whole. Heck, it’s not even clear that they ought to be given control even if they were infallible, godlike predictors of long-term consequences — and they are a long, long way from being that.
  
  What gave you the impression I think scientists should be supervising the species? I believe in democracy– it’s the least bad system I’ve seen. How is my position on abrupt climate change any different from those of scientists who said:
  - You might want to wash your hands, especially before you deliver a baby. This “germ theory” looks convincing.
  - You probably shouldn’t smoke. Studies show it causes cancer.
  I’d rather say that scientists are like “lookouts” for the human race. They poke around the world, looking for interesting phenomena. Sometimes they run across something that could be dangerous, and rush back to tell other people what they’ve seen. If they didn’t do that, what use would they be to anyone?
  Reply
  - Still anonymous posted on 2009-07-22 at 07:04
    
    If you don’t agree with Bob’s actions… why not? It seems like you can’t say that Alan’s statements are silly, otherwise you’d be exhibiting the same kind of scientific elitism that you see in my writing. If Bob should debate Alan, how long should he do so?
    
    Here’s how that conversation should go, minus the intro.
    
    Alan: “It’s much better to use letter substitutions: A -> C, B -> D, etc.”
    Bob: “I know how to break that kind of code. I’m trying to design a code that I believe nobody can break.”
    Alan: “You’re just trying to lock out the dissenters as promoting a debunked theory. I think this is bad science. Very bad. You scientists are so overconfident…”
    Bob: “Look, if you think you can do better, go for it. I’m not going to stop you. Just quit telling me how to do my job, okay? I didn’t ask for your advice, and I don’t want it.”
    
    I’m not sure that this altered version of the conversation proves anything — but then I’m not entirely sure what the original was supposed to prove. Did you seriously think that it was a representative consequence of my position? If so, then my lengthy ramble has failed to convey its intended message quite spectacularly: an Epic Fail, in fact. I think I should quit while I’m behind rather than prolong the agony.
    
    Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-22 at 12:48
      
      Representative? Perhaps not. I do think it’s a consequence of your position that you didn’t explicitly recognize. Your argument is just so sweeping that it applies to practically anyone who claims to know anything. You’re aiming it at scientists who accept evolution and abrupt climate change, but my point is that it also applies to people like yourself who– I’m assuming– occasionally claim knowledge in your own field too.
      
      Actually, I mostly agree with your version of the conversation. Except I try not to tell anyone to “quit telling me how to do my job” because in that case I get accused of scientific tyranny. So I try very hard to answer every comment– even comments like Alan’s– in the most calm manner I can possibly muster. But either way, I’m apparently perceived as an Evil Scientist Overlord… so maybe I should just do away with patient civility if that’s my inevitable fate.
      
      Incidentally, I also had exactly the same feeling of Epic Fail regarding my article when reading your comment. I kept trying to figure out why a patient, 30 page long correspondence with skeptics got labeled as “scientific elitism,” “shutting out dissenters” and interpreted as though I’d said something like “the consensus can not be questioned.”
      
      Wow. This must be how cynics are made. I can feel my optimism slipping away by the moment…
      
      Reply
    - Still anonymous posted on 2009-07-22 at 21:38
      
      …it also applies to people like yourself who– I’m assuming– occasionally claim knowledge in your own field too.
      
      Having dabbled in Epistemology, both as a personal interest and at the undergraduate level, I’ve come to the conclusion that “knowledge” is overrated. In those instances where I consider myself relatively expert compared to someone else, I usually express that by willingness to place a bet — my prediction versus theirs. Not everything can be reduced to a testable wager, however. How do you wager on whether climate change is anthropogenic or not? You just wind up disputing the same evidence you started with — it gets you nowhere. The crypto example you gave is the opposite case: lots of crypto reduces to “I bet nobody can crack this cipher” (given time-frame X and unfettered access to the mechanism, but not the key).
      
      Except I try not to tell anyone to “quit telling me how to do my job” because in that case I get accused of scientific tyranny.
      
      It’s only scientific tyranny if you claim that your way of doing the job is the only one that produces knowledge. If you believe in The Scientific Method (singular), and think that you are following it, and that someone else is not, then there may be some confusion between “stop telling me how to do my job” and “stop telling me how science which produces knowledge is performed”. If you believe the process of science is not negotiable — that The Scientific Method is narrowly defined — then there’s no difference between these two statements. If you think that scientific problems are amenable to fairly diverse methods of investigation, then the former statement is just another way of saying “stop telling me which scientific approach I should be taking”. If there’s only one method, it’s a question of “science or not”; if there are many, then it’s a matter of preference, like which programming language one uses to write a computer program.
      
      I kept trying to figure out why a patient, 30 page long correspondence with skeptics got labeled as “scientific elitism,” “shutting out dissenters” and interpreted as though I’d said something like “the consensus can not be questioned.”
      
      Our problem at this stage is that we haven’t figured out what our disagreement is. Despite your protestations to the contrary, you do come across as elitist, but I haven’t put my finger on the problem sufficiently. I’m hoping that I’ve come a little closer with this idea of The Scientific Method. In the hope that we might further identify the exact nature of this difference, here are some other differences which strike me as important.
      
      Scientific theories compete in the sense that every new observation either supports or falsifies them.
      
      I consider this claim to be extremely problematic, or at least grossly oversimplified. I doubt it was meant to be taken completely literally, though. Still, I’m a very long way from this position. New observations can cohere well or badly with a model — or be quite irrelevant — but few theories are so brittle as to be “falsified” by any observation. Mathematical conjectures are brittle in this way: they are demolished by a single counter-example. Physical science, not so much — you can make excuses or tweak your theory. Observations are also interpreted in light of theory, so the meaning of the evidence is open to question even if the evidence itself is “fact”.
      
      Secondly, your argument could be used equally well to defend astrologers and homeopathic healers.
      
      I’m not sure that it can — I haven’t figured out the exact chain of reasoning you used there — but the more interesting aspect of this is that you raise it as a problem at all. It so happens that I don’t care if my argument can defend those people. This is probably another key to our differences, so perhaps you could explain why you think your objection has the status of “problem”.
      
      What gave you the impression I thought scientists should be supervising the species?
      
      Something along the lines of (a) the species must behave a certain way in light of scientific facts, and (b) scientists determine that which is a scientific fact. Again, I think that the difference arises from your (apparent) view that real science is an objective kind of process that leads to a correct view of reality when properly applied. It’s a “neutral” sort of thing, so a world governed by “scientific facts” is not a world governed by scientists, but rather a world in which governance is simply in touch with reality — and why would anyone object to that? I take an opposing view: science is intrinsically political. The “scientific facts” depend on theory, and thus on the mindshare of the theory. A world governed by “scientific facts” is, in my view, equivalent to a scientific ruling class. Perhaps the closest “-ocracy” is “noocracy” rather than “technocracy”. Plato might approve, but I’m not enthused.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-22 at 23:24
      How do you wager on whether climate change is anthropogenic or not?
      
      I don’t gamble, so I’d phrase the central issue in my article differently. Namely, “How do you determine if recent changes in the global climate are caused by natural variations or by human activities?” Update: If you really want to gamble, here’s a discussion you may find interesting.
      
      Many of the preceding 30 pages are devoted to this topic, but here are the highlights:
      
      CO₂ levels are ~26% higher than they’ve been in the last 650,000 years, according to independent studies of the Vostok and EPICA ice cores.
      
      We know that our emissions (mainly from coal plants) are responsible for this increase in CO₂ because (a) coal and gasoline are taxed, so we have a good idea how much is being used, (b) other potential sources like volcanoes emit ~100x less than we do, and (c) the amount of CO₂ we’ve emitted is a good match for the extra CO₂ in the atmosphere.
      
      CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, according to physics briefly summarized here.
      
      Temperatures in the last ~30 years have increased faster than at any point in the last ~1000 years, a rate which is steadily increasing.
      
      Natural variations such as changes in the Sun’s brightness aren’t large enough to explain these temperatures; in fact the Sun is unusually dim right now.
      
      So far, this is just a correlation. Meehl 2004 is (just one) example of how the increase in CO₂ is causally connected to the increase in temperatures. Natural variability explains the climate until ~1970, at which point the observations can only be explained by accounting for human emissions.
      
      I’d be happy to discuss any of these points if you think I’ve made any mistakes in my reasoning.
      
      You just wind up disputing the same evidence you started with — it gets you nowhere.
      
      I honestly don’t know what would lead you to say that, especially when you haven’t even peripherally discussed any of the science that appears in the 30 pages above your comment. It’s also worth noting that our knowledge of abrupt climate change is based on many different types of evidence, so it’s possible to compare models generated using independent data.
      
      I’m aware of the fact that data used to generate a model can’t be used to verify it, if that’s what you meant.
      
      If you believe the process of science is not negotiable — that The Scientific Method is narrowly defined …
      
      Maybe you’re referring to the fact that most (but not all) scientific journals charge for access, or that scientists tend not to release their source code or data by default. In that case, I completely agree.
      
      Or perhaps you’re questioning the importance of peer review. I do have problems with modern peer review; it’s usually single-blind when it should be double-blind, and less than a dozen people usually review each paper. Here’s an excellent site with more criticisms of peer review. Personally, I’d like to see peer review completely automated by a system similar to “recommender systems” currently being implemented on P2P networks. This way, all scientists could rate each paper they read. That would allow more alternative views into the community, and prevent a few people with chips on their shoulders from dominating any debate. But right now the alternative to peer review is “no peer review” which is much worse.
      
      Based on your references to creationism, it’s also possible that you’re disputing methodological naturalism as the basis of modern science. I’ve previously explained why science needs to be defined the way it is, and listed mistakes that creationist “science” would make. If an alternative scientific method exists which wouldn’t result in the kinds of mistakes I’ve listed, please describe it– along with specific reasons why those mistakes wouldn’t be made– and I’ll consider it.
      
      I think that the difference arises from your (apparent) view that real science is an objective kind of process that leads to a correct view of reality when properly applied.
      
      I’ve previously said: “Science only provides an asymptotic approach to the truth if the universe can be described by natural laws. As a result, I think Brett was right to say that science is effectively searching for “credible falsehoods.” That is, the answers obtained by restricting one’s attention to falsifiable, naturalistic explanations are only accurate if a completely objective reality exists.”
      
      So my position is a little more nuanced than you’re implying.
      
      I’m not sure that it can — I haven’t figured out the exact chain of reasoning you used there — but the more interesting aspect of this is that you raise it as a problem at all. It so happens that I don’t care if my argument can defend those people. This is probably another key to our differences, so perhaps you could explain why you think your objection has the status of “problem”.
      
      You seem to think that your argument can be aimed– like a rifle– at scientists who study abrupt climate change or evolution. However, I think that it applies to nearly all claims. What I’m trying to say is that your argument isn’t a rifle that can be aimed. Instead, it’s a nuclear bomb of solipsism. You’ve tried to explain that computer science is exempt while physics isn’t, but I don’t have the foggiest idea what you meant. It’s frustrating– and probably futile– to discuss science with someone who answers every scientific claim with variants of:
      
      “Oh, you only say that because you’re a scientist, so it would be professional suicide for you to say anything else.”
      
      “I’ve come to the conclusion that “knowledge” is overrated.”
      
      I’m now convinced that we’re speaking two completely different languages, both of which happen to contain English words. So there’s probably no point to this conversation, unless you want to discuss the science itself.
      Reply
    - Still anonymous posted on 2009-07-23 at 09:39
      
      I’d be happy to discuss any of these points if you think I’ve made any mistakes in my reasoning.
      
      I haven’t checked your reasoning. It’s not your reasoning from the evidence you’ve provided that I doubt. What I want to see next is the contrary case from a well-versed expert who has reached conclusions that conflict with yours. You could then rebut each other somewhat, as you feel the need. In the end, however, I doubt that I’ll be able to judge between your case and his, because the whole thing is too esoteric for me. Frankly, if two specialists in a field can’t agree on something, what hope do the outsiders have? This is part of the problem.
      
      In your opening statements (to this blog entry), you said the following.
      
      …most of the general public appears to believe that the existence of abrupt climate change (formerly known as anthropogenic global warming) is a question of politics rather than science. They’re not looking at evidence published in peer-reviewed science journals before adopting a position. Instead, they seem to decide that their political party’s position on climate change is “X,” so they believe “X.”
      
      The average member of the public doesn’t see it as a political issue: they just expect their elected representatives to be on top of this kind of issue and so look to them for guidance. The average member of the public will gain absolutely nothing by reading a peer-reviewed science journal, since it may as well be written in hieroglyphics. The average scientist would be out of his depth reading a journal in a discipline other than his own.
      
      Let’s keep the issues simple for a moment, since my whole “philosophy of science” angle is just causing you frustration. What, exactly, would you like to see from the general public in terms of reasoning about this subject? Clearly you want them to think scientifically, or treat the problem as a scientific problem, not a political problem, but this request isn’t specific enough. You’ve bemoaned the fact that they don’t read the journals, but I hope you’ll agree, on reflection, that such a requirement is unreasonable. You’ve addressed the problem here by presenting a scientific argument, and it looks like quite a compelling one, but the average person is in no position to analyse it. Furthermore, they’ve heard that some other scientist or other has reached a different conclusion — and he had the right political leanings, so they’ll go with his story, thanks. That’s not a particularly good reason for thinking he’s a better scientist than you, of course, but what’s a poor layman to do?
      
      Please advise.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-23 at 12:40
      What I want to see next is the contrary case from a well-versed expert who has reached conclusions that conflict with yours. You could then rebut each other somewhat, as you feel the need.
      
      That’s the point of this web page. I’ve been searching for years– and more than 30 pages– hoping to find a well-versed expert whose conclusions differ substantially from mine. The conversations in this article– and the documents I’ve referenced in it– are all I’ve managed to find so far, but here are some more.
      
      Frankly, if two specialists in a field can’t agree on something, what hope do the outsiders have? This is part of the problem.
      
      Pick any random topic, and you’ll probably be able to find at least one specialist who disagrees with his peers to some degree. Uniformity of opinion is neither expected nor desired. Consensus is irrelevant; evidence is all that matters.
      
      The average member of the public doesn’t see it as a political issue: they just expect their elected representatives to be on top of this kind of issue and so look to them for guidance.
      
      That’s a serious mistake. Politicians are rewarded for saying what voters like to hear, and for having the appearance of knowledge. Clearly you believe that physicists are highly political too, and only reach “group-think” conclusions that further their careers. With all due respect, I’ve been in physics all my adult life along with many of my friends, and I strenuously disagree. Physicists argue fiercely among themselves. The bad ones do care about appearing smart, but they’re outnumbered by the physicists who care deeply about knowledge and are genuinely grateful to people who point out mistakes in their reasoning.
      
      For example, my first research advisor once scared me by thinking for a full minute before answering one of my questions. He paused… stared at the ceiling… and sat still for so long that I almost thought he’d gone into a coma. I slowly realized that he just wanted to make sure his answer was thoughtful and accurate rather than snappy but possibly wrong. My current advisor is the same way.
      
      I don’t know how many professional physicists you hang out with, but given your dismal opinion of my field, they’re obviously horrible at their jobs; it’s a good idea to avoid the universities where they teach or do research.
      
      On the other hand, politicians only need to appear smart and have snappy but superficial “sound bite” answers in order to get (re-)elected. Looking to them for scientific answers is a serious category error, similar to assuming that comedians are qualified to design computer languages.
      
      What, exactly, would you like to see from the general public in terms of reasoning about this subject? Clearly you want them to think scientifically, or treat the problem as a scientific problem, not a political problem, but this request isn’t specific enough.
      
      I’d like for people to stop saying “But Al Gore rides in airplanes, so global warming is bullshit!”
      
      I’d like for people to stop saying “Al Gore is right about everything, so global warming will doom the human race!”
      
      I’d like for my conversations with the general public regarding abrupt climate change to focus on the evidence rather than having to constantly endure a barrage of accusations that I’m a brainwashed idiot, or a member of a vast global conspiracy.
      
      More importantly, I’d like their response to wacky claims to be: “Is that published in a legitimately peer-reviewed science journal?” … rather than blind credulity or blind denial based on their political leanings.
      
      The average member of the public will gain absolutely nothing by reading a peer-reviewed science journal, since it may as well be written in hieroglyphics. The average scientist would be out of his depth reading a journal in a discipline other than his own.
      
      They do need to understand that peer-reviewed journal articles are where science actually happens. Take away peer review, and you’re left with this.
      
      The average scientist does find papers in a different field hard to grasp… at first. When I don’t understand a topic in a different field, I remain agnostic about that topic unless I think it’s important enough to spend the time and energy trying to understand it. For example, I have no opinion about the validity of superstring theory. The general public doesn’t seem to hold themselves to that same standard of intellectual rigor. And I mean that about both sides.
      
      You’ve bemoaned the fact that they don’t read the journals, but I hope you’ll agree, on reflection, that such a requirement is unreasonable. … they’ve heard that some other scientist or other has reached a different conclusion — and he had the right political leanings, so they’ll go with his story, thanks. That’s not a particularly good reason for thinking he’s a better scientist than you, of course, but what’s a poor layman to do? Please advise.
      
      Realize that peer review isn’t only about qualifications.
      
      It’s not strictly necessary to read the journals themselves in order to get a decent overview of a subject. But the public should keep in mind that their source needs to be as close as possible to the journals. Here’s a good site that translates the science journals into plain English. They usually link (and almost always cite) the peer-reviewed articles they’re translating on the page so you can verify their claims if you’re interested. An even better non-technical source is the IPCC summary for policymakers. The IPCC reports have been through peer review twice.
      Reply
    - Still anonymous posted on 2009-07-23 at 19:01
      
      I still think you’re underestimating how esoteric all this stuff is. Joe Sixpack is not going to read scientific journals, or even summaries of scientific journals. Joe Sixpack’s exposure to science is going to occur through the popular media: preferably TV or a movie, but he might actually read a book on the subject if you’re lucky. If you require more than that, prepare to be frustrated, because your expectations are unreasonably high.
      
      I’m not Joe Sixpack — I have been known to sit down and read published scientific papers from top to tail, and I’ve got a trifling number of published papers myself — but even I am not going to invest the time necessary into examining climate-related papers in order to reach an “informed decision” (by the standards you have presented). I’m not going to do that because I know what I’m in for! Hours and hours of dreary writing accompanied by dry facts and figures, and very little way to determine how seriously I should take the results. Peer review only tells me so much in that regard, because specialists always have an inflated view of the importance of their own subject. I’ll get a good feel for where research is happening in the field — which research angles are popular — but I doubt that I’d come out the other side with your convictions on the subject because of my doubts in the impartiality and reliability of science as a whole (although we’ll steer clear of that discussion).
      
      So I think that you have unreasonable expectations of people. You also have a rosy view of (peer reviewed) science and a jaundiced view of politics, and not everyone shares that balance of opinions. They tend to have some respect for a certain subset of politicians — the ones they vote for. Looking to politicians for scientific answers is not a category error, believe it or not: it’s just practical. It’s not a category error because we don’t expect the politicians to actually perform the science. We just expect (some) politicians to have invested the necessary effort in understanding the issues, or at least to have been briefed by someone paid to do all that laborious research.
      
      Another way of describing the problems I’ve mentioned above is that (specialised, esoteric) science is out of reach to all bar the specialists. The average man needs someone to digest it all for them and translate it into comprehensible terms. That’s what Al Gore did. People go to the sources that they trust and understand the most. I don’t see how it could be otherwise. You want there to be fewer middle-men, but I think the only way you’re going to get that is with a fundamental change in human nature. Good luck with that.
      
      All of the above falls into the category of “unreasonable expectations” — a matter of opinion on my part. I have one more wrinkle for you which is more philosophical, and it relates to peer review again. The problem is that anyone can have peers and ask those peers for approval of their work. Creationists have peers and peer reviewed journals. Clearly you don’t want people giving this pseudoscience any weight, so you may want to tweak your criteria about peer review a little further. (This won’t address the “out of reach” issue, but it is a separate problem that you would have to address if the “out of reach” issue were solved.)
      
      Thanks for the link to the “tides” thing, by the way. I didn’t read it in detail, but it made me realise that I don’t understand how tides work. I thought I did! So much for knowledge! Maybe I’ll figure it out one day, but probably not. The tides will do as they do regardless of my understanding.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-24 at 00:37
      
      If you require more than that, prepare to be frustrated, because your expectations are unreasonably high.
      
      I think that people tend to live up to– or down to– expectations placed on them.
      
      I have one more wrinkle for you which is more philosophical, and it relates to peer review again. The problem is that anyone can have peers and ask those peers for approval of their work. Creationists have peers and peer reviewed journals. Clearly you don’t want people giving this pseudoscience any weight, so you may want to tweak your criteria about peer review a little further.
      
      Scientists publish science in peer-reviewed science journals. That results in better science. Lawyers publish law in peer-reviewed law journals. That results in better law. The mere act of peer review doesn’t turn lawyers into scientists, though.
      
      Similarly, creationists don’t become scientists just by publishing creationism in peer-reviewed creationist journals. As I’ve repeatedly explained, science needs to be defined the way it is because creationist “science” would make mistakes like these. If an alternative scientific method exists which wouldn’t result in the kinds of mistakes I’ve listed, please describe it– along with specific reasons why those mistakes wouldn’t be made– and I’ll consider it. But we should discuss that in the intelligent design article, because it’s off-topic here.
      
      Thanks for the link to the “tides” thing, by the way. I didn’t read it in detail, but it made me realise that I don’t understand how tides work. I thought I did! So much for knowledge! Maybe I’ll figure it out one day, but probably not. The tides will do as they do regardless of my understanding.
      
      That’s one of the most depressing and horrifying paragraphs I’ve ever read. I’ll shut up now, because I’m clearly doing more harm than good.
      
      Reply
    - Marbs posted on 2009-07-24 at 04:07
      
      Scientists publish science in peer-reviewed science journals. That results in better science.
      
      …well it appears the International Symposium on Peer Reviewing says ‘kind of’…
      
      Empirical studies have shown that assessments made by independent reviewers of papers submitted to journals and abstracts submitted to conferences are no [sic] reproducible, i.e. agreement between reviewers is about what is expected by chance alone. Rothwell and Martyn (2000)…
      
      Wikipedia has a decent little summary about the criticisms of the peer review process.
      
      And if you open reference #12 and skip (past all the scary fringe pseudo science) to the end – you’ll get to what looks to me to be a long tasty list of literature talking about suppression and the issues concerning challenging the mainstream.
      
      Of course I actually don’t think peer review is at all worthless. Double checking peoples’ work is a very useful tool and used across multiple fields under different names like auditing and design reviews etc, for very good reasons.
      
      But I think it can and does play a part in the suppression of new ideas / new science more than you clearly expect.
      
      In pondering this discussion (Many thanks to Mr Anon for his sterling contribution – he’s said many things that I had been thinking – but worded with greater depth than I could have) I’ll brainstorm a couple of things here that may unwittingly be contributing to your perspective (BTW – I’m not attached to any of these – just submitting them for consideration)
      a) Your sample size of physicists you know well is small.
      b) If you get on well with / respect them you probably share similar ideals, including honesty in science etc. – so your sample also suffers from a selection bias.
      c) Even limiting your selection to within an organisation means your sample suffers from a organisational cultural bias.
      
      It’s also occurred to me that you probably haven’t had the need to challenge the consensus on something they’re already biased against. Some of the articles above are about / written by people who have had challenged the consensus and eventually won. But not without a huge battle and emotional cost along the way.
      
      It’s all very well to say that consensus opinion is worthless, but in actual fact it is very comforting to know that it is on your side. That’s just human nature… a form of ‘herd psychology’ perhaps… its like all those people have ‘double checked’ your thinking and have come to the same conclusion – who wouldn’t be comforted by that? Why bother investigating just a little further when everyone else knows it’s wrong?
      
      What’s more a consensus opinion in science can be self perpetuating, especially if the following example is true from MetaResearch
      
      When budgets became tight, NASA “adopted” certain theories as essentially established, and stopped funding research into alternatives. These financially favored theories include the Big Bang, “black holes”, “dark matter”, and “dark energy”.
      
      And I would expect that this particular set up of circumstances is why revolutions necessarily occur in science.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-24 at 04:47
      
      Wikipedia has a decent little summary about the criticisms of the peer review process. … But I think it can and does play a part in the suppression of new ideas / new science more than you clearly expect.
      
      I’m baffled to see comments like this, and Anonymous’s claim that I “have a rosy view of (peer reviewed) science” when less than 48 hours ago I said pretty much the same thing:
      
      Or perhaps you’re questioning the importance of peer review. I do have problems with modern peer review; it’s usually single-blind when it should be double-blind, and less than a dozen people usually review each paper. Here’s an excellent site with more criticisms of peer review. Personally, I’d like to see peer review completely automated by a system similar to “recommender systems” currently being implemented on P2P networks. This way, all scientists could rate each paper they read. That would allow more alternative views into the community, and prevent a few people with chips on their shoulders from dominating any debate. But right now the alternative to peer review is “no peer review” which is much worse.
      
      I’ve been saying for years that peer review has these problems. It’s just the least bad alternative we have at the moment. Otherwise people write rambling pages like this one, without seeming to understand that they’re fundamentally confused about vector addition which is usually taught in high school physics.
      
      Your sample size of physicists you know well is small.
      
      “Small” is relative. That’s why I wondered out loud regarding how many professional physicists Anonymous knows. Again, I’ll say that whoever gave the both of you these horrible impressions of physicists needs to have their PhDs revoked. And again, try not to take any classes from the universities where they teach or do research.
      
      It’s also occurred to me that you probably haven’t had the need to challenge the consensus on something they’re already biased against.
      
      Here’s just one example: “It took me a long time to believe in black holes (even after most physicists thought they were conclusively proven to exist) so we agree on this principle.”
      
      And I would expect that this particular set up of circumstances is why revolutions necessarily occur in science.
      
      It’s common to look back on the history of science and notice that most new science started as an anomaly that was regarded as nonsense by contemporary science. But this statement isn’t true in reverse. Most anomalies regarded as nonsense by scientists never amounted to anything. Modern examples of these anomalies are Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories and the 9/11 Truth movement.
      
      When reviewing scientific claims that bypass peer review, the signal-to-noise ratio is simply too low to be useful. I honestly see no way to distinguish many of the claims made here (or in this article) from the conspiracy theories I just listed. I don’t say that to insult you, but in the hope that you can understand why I don’t want to spend the rest of my mortal life combing through those kinds of claims.
      
      Reply
    - Marbs posted on 2009-07-24 at 07:10
      
      I’m sorry – but you caved in in the black hole example ;) What opinion do you currently hold that contradicts the mainstream scientific community?
      
      It’s common to look back on the history of science…
      
      I puzzle on this disconnect that both Mr Anon & myself are experiencing with you. And this is a classic example. I’m not saying that the implication does run backwards at all. No one has. You’ve rebutted nothing by this paragraph.
      
      When reviewing scientific claims that bypass peer review, the signal-to-noise ratio is simply too low to be useful.
      
      Wow. Just Wow. Do you realise what you’ve just said? Perhaps this is the reason for our disconnect.
      
      Clearly scientific revolutions will be all black swan events for you.
      
      Personally, I’m interested in the truth – now. Not just the ‘scientific theory of the day’ which – as Anon pointed out – has a history of / is guaranteed of getting outmoded as more knowledge becomes available. If you feel you need to limit yourself to the scientific method & peer-reviewed journals to ultimately discover truth, then you’re really going to miss some biggies.
      
      The scientific method may be one measure of confidence – but it is demonstrably not infallible, and is limited in it’s application. Others in other articles and above do a far superior exposition of this.
      
      I honestly see no way to distinguish many of the claims made here (or in this article) from the conspiracy theories I just listed.
      
      Well – speaking broadly – I guess you’d better start looking for more ‘unexplained things’ and trying to fit them within your world view. That’s the only way I can see of having the best chance of building the most accurate and internally consistent world view.
      
      Perhaps start by reading some NDE’s (the actual NDE’s), and then compare them to the (occasionally self confessed) inadequate scientific explanations. Bear in mind which way the scientific consensus is on life after death though.
      
      As you mentioned your mortal life – I promise one day it’ll be directly relevant to you… just like tax legislation is ;)
      
      Reply
    - Still anonymous posted on 2009-07-24 at 07:45
      
      Many thanks to Mr Anon for his sterling contribution – he’s said many things that I had been thinking – but worded with greater depth than I could have.
      
      Well gosh, thanks. I didn’t really intend to get into a public discussion. My first comment was emailed to DS — he asked permission to post it, and here we are.
      
      Similarly, creationists don’t become scientists just by publishing creationism in peer-reviewed creationist journals. As I’ve repeatedly explained, science needs to be defined the way it is…
      
      Fine. So you want peer review and methodological naturalism. I think the anti-anthropogenic climate change crowd can accommodate that. There’s almost certainly more than one of them, so they can review each other, and there’s nothing remotely supernatural about their claims. On the contrary: they’re super natural (two words). I believe if they can just get a “journal of anthropogenic climate change scepticism” going between them, they’ll meet your gold standard and the problem will go away.
      
      (I have to stop mentioning Creationism. Every time I do, you assume I’m trying to defend it. I’m not. I’m using it as an example — as a way of pointing out, “your prescription must be missing something, because it allows creationism to be classified as science.”)
      
      That’s one of the most depressing and horrifying paragraphs I’ve ever read. I’ll shut up now, because I’m clearly doing more harm than good.
      
      You find it depressing and horrifying because you take things too seriously. Well, it’s certainly the case that you take science too seriously. You’re thinking, “here’s an obvious example of religious nutter pseudoscience, AND HE’S TAKING IT SERIOUSLY!” The truth is nothing like that. I find that nearly any piece of reasoning, no matter how horrible, is likely to have at least one point that will challenge you if you don’t miss it because you’ve pre-judged the whole lot.
      
      In the case of the “tides” nonsense, the point that caught my attention was the mention of how high tides happen on opposite sides of the Earth at the same time. The explanation (which was allegedly quoted from a children’s science book) seemed like rubbish, sure enough, but on reflection the fact that high tides do happen on opposite sides of the Earth is counter-intuitive. I mean to say, if some kid said to me, “you know how the pull of the moon causes the high tide? Then why is it high tide when the moon is pulling the other way?” — I’d be stuck for an answer.
      
      No doubt you understand the physics of this well enough that you’d be able to answer the question. Whether the kid would understand your answer is a different matter, of course.
      
      I’m baffled to see comments like this, and Anonymous’s claim that I “have a rosy view of (peer reviewed) science”…
      
      Why be baffled? You go on to say, It’s just the least bad alternative we have at the moment. In any case, I was saying that your view of peer-reviewed science is rosy and your view of politics is jaundiced, so you should understand the comparison to be a relative one. I’m not suggesting that you think peer-reviewed science is perfect — merely that it’s the best thing we have at present, or similar.
      
      It’s common to look back on the history of science and notice that most new science started as an anomaly that was regarded as nonsense by contemporary science. But this statement isn’t true in reverse.
      
      I don’t think that anyone has claimed the reverse is true, or based an argument on it. The point is not, “anthropogenic sceptics might be right because their idea is regarded as nonsense”, but rather, “the anthropogenic theory could well be wrong because it’s regarded as a scientific fact.” Scientific “facts” aren’t all that reliable in the long run — that’s the point. Scientific revolutions are often quite unforgiving to their predecessors.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-24 at 07:59
      What opinion do you currently hold that contradicts the mainstream scientific community?
      
      I think spherical harmonics are relied upon far too much in the empirical modeling community.
      
      I don’t think the anthropic principle explains the “fine-tuned” universe.
      
      I wonder if inflation could have been caused by gravitational collapse in another universe.
      
      I’ve been a proponent of the many worlds interpretation long before it was fashionable.
      
      I believe cold weather really can make you sick.
      
      Sorry, but I’m at work and can’t continue these examples. I hope I’ve made my point that I’m not simply a brainwashed sheep incapable of independent thought.
      
      Updated ~12 hours later after going home:
      
      I believe that GRACE samples gravity at the equator slightly more often than twice every sidereal day. In other words, I think the sampling has a well-defined frequency. Many other scientists and aerospace engineers I’ve talked with regarding this issue believe that the sampling is essentially random. But my data don’t support that notion.
      
      I wonder if “dark matter” is the result of gravitational interactions with galaxies in parallel universes. Suppose parallel universes exist in the same physical “space” we inhabit, and only interact with each other (and us) via gravity. The galaxies in different universes would then clump together, but their disks wouldn’t necessarily be aligned. So the total gravity would appear similar to a spherical halo of dark matter. This would explain the too-high velocities of stars at the edges of galaxies and the too-high velocities of galaxies in superclusters.
      
      2009-07-25 Update: I don’t think my hypothesis is consistent with the Bullet cluster data.
      
      2009-07-27 Update: Also, I wonder if galaxies in my imaginary parallel universes really would clump together. They’d certainly be gravitationally attracted to each other, but if each universe has roughly the same density of galaxies, they’d typically have a long way to fall towards each other. As a result, they’d be moving so fast that I doubt any damping mechanisms could have brought them to rest in ~13.7 billion years. But… what if they formed in the same place initially? That would make sense because supermassive black holes likely play a large role in proto-galaxy formation. Gravitational collapse in one universe would trigger collapses in other universes leading to galaxies with small relative velocities. But in that case, it seems like the disks would be aligned because disk formation probably doesn’t involve a large percentage of actual physical collisions (any actual astronomers want to help me here?). I think this would result in the wrong velocity profile for stars versus distance from the center of the galaxy? Oh, and all these stars in different universes would cause gravitational lensing events to occur with a much greater frequency than has been observed by the OGLE. Galaxies with non-aligned disks would look even weirder- that implies imply lensing with bizarre relative velocities.
      
      Sorry about that. My list is now one item shorter, and I see no alternative to dark matter. I caved in just like when I investigated the evidence behind black holes as a senior undergrad physics major in 2003.
      
      The direction of “imprinted” magnetic fields in ancient glacier dropstones are supposed to be proof that glaciers covered the equators during Snowball Earth. I don’t see how they’re able to determine this, because by definition glacier dropstones have been picked up and moved, so we have no idea what their original orientation was.
      
      2009-08-27 Update: I met a grad student studying glacier erosion and asked him this question. He said that the direction of the imprinted magnetic field is obtained from the sedimentary rock that forms around the dropstone after it’s deposited. If those sediments have magnetic fields that are horizontal, they were formed near the equator. This makes sense, so I’m afraid I have to cave in once more.
      
      I don’t understand how the UV catastrophe and the photoelectric effect are proof of the existence of photons– as I’ve often been told. I think these effects are only proof that light interacts with matter in a quantized fashion, which is a much weaker claim.
      
      2009-07-29 Update: One of my colleagues who works in experimental quantum optics said:
      
      You are basically correct in that a semi-classical picture of physics (quantized energy levels in atoms, but still a classical electromagnetic field) can successfully describe many phenomena that are often described as “quantum.”
      
      However, there are many quantum optics experiments (squeezing, entangled states of polarization that violate Bell inequalities) that can only be correctly described if a quantum mechanical theory of light is adopted.
      
      I’ve never looked at squeezed states of light closely, but I really should’ve noticed this fact while studying quantum teleportation. Looks like I should take my own advice about drawing premature conclusions from simplified explanations. Thanks dude!
      
      This is more about sociology, but I believe that gun rights aren’t causally linked to increased violence. I stay very quiet about this at work because a majority of scientists in many fields– including physics– are in favor of gun control. (Article coming soon, so I can’t discuss yet.)
      
      This is more about politics, but I’m much more libertarian than many of my colleagues.
      
      This is more of an ethical dispute, but I strongly feel that A.I. shouldn’t be developed until we have laws in place to acknowledge their individual rights. (Article coming soon, so I can’t discuss yet.)
      
      I’m not saying that the implication does run backwards at all.
      
      … I guess I’ll take your word for it.
      
      I guess you’d better start looking for more ‘unexplained things’ and trying to fit them within your world view.
      
      You do realize that’s my job, right? I look for ‘unexplained things’ and try to fit them into my world view professionally. All I’m saying is that the examples you’re presenting are nothing of the sort.
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-24 at 08:54
      In the case of the “tides” nonsense, the point that caught my attention was the mention of how high tides happen on opposite sides of the Earth at the same time. The explanation (which was allegedly quoted from a children’s science book) seemed like rubbish, sure enough, but on reflection the fact that high tides do happen on opposite sides of the Earth is counter-intuitive. I mean to say, if some kid said to me, “you know how the pull of the moon causes the high tide? Then why is it high tide when the moon is pulling the other way?” — I’d be stuck for an answer.
      
      Okay, that’s considerably less horrifying. I originally thought you were drawing a much broader conclusion based on your statement “So much for knowledge!”. But obviously I read far too much into that. Sorry.
      
      The reason the tides are high on the side of the Earth opposite the Moon is ultimately because the Moon doesn’t actually orbit the Earth. Both bodies orbit their common center of mass. This means the gravitational force on the Earth due to the Moon has to exactly balance the Earth’s centripetal acceleration at the center of the Earth due to Newton’s second law. However, the surface of the Earth closest to the Moon experiences a larger gravitational force due to the Moon because of the inverse square nature of gravity. So those tides are due to the fact that the Moon’s gravitational force on that surface of the Earth points “up,” and that it’s larger than the Moon’s gravitational force on the center of the Earth.
      
      The tides on the other side of the Earth are caused by the fact that the Moon’s gravitational force is weaker there than at the center of the Earth (because that side is farther away from the Moon.) That means the Moon’s gravity doesn’t pull objects “down” quite as hard as it does at the center of the Earth. The result is a tide that’s exactly as high as on the near side of the Earth.
      
      In other words, tides happen on the far side of the Earth for essentially the same reason that water will stay in a bucket even if you hold it in your outstretched hand and spin in a circle. It’s all about centripetal acceleration. I don’t want to give the impression that I think this is easy to understand; it’s really necessary to draw the free body diagrams and compare those vector sums to the centripetal acceleration via Newton’s second law.
      
      My problem with the link– and the reason I keep mentioning it– is that he got lost in introductory physics, and ended up writing an entire book accusing scientists of faking their results when he could have saved himself the trouble by staying in school. The only reason he made it past the first paragraph is that he didn’t have peer review to help him.
      
      The point is not, “anthropogenic sceptics might be right because their idea is regarded as nonsense”, but rather, “the anthropogenic theory could well be wrong because it’s regarded as a scientific fact.”
      
      Okay, that makes more sense. I’m sorry for misinterpreting Marbs’s position.
      
      To be consistent, you’d have to believe exactly the same thing about the germ theory, heliocentricity, etc. That’s not necessarily bad, but I haven’t yet seen you criticize those theories in the same way you do evolution or abrupt climate change. In other words, this is another one of those solipsist nuclear bombs.
      
      It doesn’t matter who regards what theory as a scientific fact. All that matters is the evidence behind the theory in question.
      
      Frankly, this was a mistake. I should leave some room for people who want to discuss the evidence. I think only about 1% of this conversation has.
      Reply
    - Still anonymous posted on 2009-07-24 at 20:39
      
      My problem with the link– and the reason I keep mentioning it– is that he got lost in introductory physics, and ended up writing an entire book accusing scientists of faking their results when he could have saved himself the trouble by staying in school. The only reason he made it past the first paragraph is that he didn’t have peer review to help him.
      
      It looks more to me like he’s a conspiracy theorist. Once you’re convinced that there’s wilful deception involved, you don’t bother with peer review, do you? They’ll just tell you you’re wrong because that’s part of their plan. I used to be partial to conspiracy theories, but I’ve since come to embrace Hanlon’s Razor as a much better general explanation for human behaviour: “do not attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” That’s not to say that there are no conspiracies, of course.
      
      To be consistent, you’d have to believe exactly the same thing about the germ theory, heliocentricity, etc. That’s not necessarily bad, but I haven’t yet seen you criticize those theories in the same way you do evolution or abrupt climate change. In other words, this is another one of those solipsist nuclear bombs.
      
      I think you mean “sceptical nuclear bombs” rather than “solipsist”, and I disagree anyhow. It’s a question of degrees of scepticism, based on faith/doubt in the reliability of various kinds of evidence, the relatedness of evidence to theory, the possibility of alternate explanation, the theory-ladenness of evidence and relative trust in those theories, and so on. Surely some of this stuff rings a bell? I can’t treat all theories with equal trust or equal scepticism because the claims of the theories are different, the quality of supporting evidence is different, and the quantity of supporting evidence is different.
      
      When you speak of scientific theories, it seems that you consider them to be alike and uniform, and that picking and choosing between them would be simple inconsistency. I disagree completely. Each theory must be considered on its own merits, not on a simple classification as “scientific or not”. Heliocentricity is a model that I only accept as a useful but informal approximation, because I subscribe to a relativist physics in which there is no such thing as an absolute central position. Germ theory was a bold and radical proposition in the days before germs could be observed with microscopes, but the nature of the game has changed with advancing instruments. Climate change is an area in which we don’t have sufficient experience to know which facts are most relevant, we can’t do “parallel earth” experiments to test various parameters, and nobody has a track record of “getting it right” long term because there hasn’t been a long term yet. If you want to place your bets on anthropogenic climate change, then you go for it; I’m not ready to do that yet, even given the evidence.
      
      It doesn’t matter who regards what theory as a scientific fact. All that matters is the evidence behind the theory in question.
      
      Scientific theories can be useful or factual.
      
      If a theory is useful, I don’t care whether it’s factual. For example, I don’t care whether electrons actually exist or not — they’re key to electronics, and that makes them useful. Electrons are the basis for a lot of technology. Who knows — maybe another fifty years down the track we’ll have a revolution in subatomic physics again and electrons will go the way of caloric fluid. That would surprise me, frankly, but it won’t make electronics any less useful if it happens (although I hope it will produce something even more useful — like antigravity or something).
      
      Anthropogenic climate change is not a “useful” theory in the sense of bearing any technology. It’s an attempt to explain cause/effect relationships — a factual theory — and we want it to be true if we are to base important decisions on it. The evidence is the means whereby we attempt to discern the truth, but the evidence is ultimately not the important thing: all that matters is the truth itself. Unfortunately, evidence is all we have, and just having evidence isn’t enough, because sometimes we misinterpret it. Evidence is necessary, but getting from “evidence” to “truth” is a path fraught with peril.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-24 at 21:39
      Please read the last sentence of my previous comment again: Frankly, this was a mistake. I should leave some room for people who want to discuss the evidence. I think only about 1% of this conversation has.
      
      Here are the only parts of your comment dealing with the scientific evidence:
      
      … It’s a question of degrees of scepticism, based on faith/doubt in the reliability of various kinds of evidence, the relatedness of evidence to theory, the possibility of alternate explanation, the theory-ladenness of evidence and relative trust in those theories, and so on. Surely some of this stuff rings a bell? I can’t treat all theories with equal trust or equal scepticism because the claims of the theories are different, the quality of supporting evidence is different, and the quantity of supporting evidence is different. … Each theory must be considered on its own merits …
      
      Exactly! That’s why it’s a good idea to examine the evidence, right? I recommend starting with the IPCC summary and asking a scientist about anything regarding the evidence that you don’t understand. I’ve even included every skeptic resource I’ve been able to find at the top of this post so you can see the opposing case.
      
      … Climate change is an area in which we don’t have sufficient experience to know which facts are most relevant
      
      I think you misspelled the word “I” as “we.” Common mistake.
      
      … we can’t do “parallel earth” experiments to test various parameters …
      
      Plate tectonics have produced multiple “Earths” over geological time. Supercontinents completely change mantle convection and atmospheric patterns, for just one example.
      
      The Earth has actually had 3 different atmospheres, each of which has left evidence for us to study.
      
      The Sun is steadily getting brighter, so the past climate contains evidence of how the climate would behave with a lower solar luminosity.
      
      There are other planets and moons in the solar system that we can observe. These aren’t Earth, of course, but we’re assuming they obey the same physics. In recent decades, space probes have examined the atmospheres of Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Titan, Uranus and Neptune. These data help us to understand the effects of varying parameters such as density, composition, gravity, size, irradiance, magnetic environment, etc. Observing these extreme regions of phase space helps to constrain our climate models, even though they deal with a much different phase space– the one in which Earth’s atmosphere currently resides and may go in the future.
      
      The dynamical models used in climatology are completely different from empirical models that members of the general public might be familiar with. Dynamical models simply describe physics equations; they don’t include empirical data. As a result they can be compared to the many sources of proxy data such as ice cores, boreholes, coral growth, tree rings, stalactites, fossil beds, ocean sediments and glacial deposits. They can test various (necessarily uncertain) physical parameters by comparing simulations using different parameters, data sources, initial conditions, and linear combinations thereof.
      
      … and nobody has a track record of “getting it right” long term because there hasn’t been a long term yet.
      
      650,000 years isn’t enough? Remember that our knowledge of the climate doesn’t only come from physical measuring devices. And these ice core data agree with other proxies: something artificial is happening to our climate.
      
      Or perhaps you meant the track record of the actual predictions? I imagine that your timescale is different than mine, because you consider Pasteur’s experiment 150 years ago to be “quite recent.” But, personally, I think a track record that goes back 78 years is pretty good for modern science. As early as 1931, Hulburt used the brand-new theory of quantum mechanics to study CO₂ absorption. He concluded that doubling the CO₂ concentration would warm the Earth by 4°C. This is still the conventional method of expressing “climate sensitivity” with respect to CO₂. (Although it’s important to note that this convention ignores slow feedback effects which may sum to produce a temporary(?) net positive feedback effect, given the unnaturally abrupt nature of the forcing.) His prediction is still within the error bars of modern estimates which assign a maximum likelihood value of 2.9°C, with a 95% confidence that it’s less than 4.9°C but greater than 1.7°C. Sadly, his breakthrough wasn’t recognized at the time.
      Reply
    - Still anonymous posted on 2009-07-24 at 22:47
      
      Plate tectonics have produced multiple “Earths” over geological time.
      
      When I suggested the need for parallel Earths, I was hoping to establish a control group and a sample size sufficient to lend statistical significance to the results. Extrapolating over history is a poor substitute for direct observation and controlled conditions, particularly given the theory-laden nature of geological history.
      
      But I’m just annoying you with all this guff. You want to discuss whether the evidence supports your theory (check for errors in reasoning, etc.), and I can’t help you with that because it’s a long way from my speciality. You’re not here to discuss what science is, or how society should relate to it, or where it fits into the overall scheme of human knowledge. Frankly, I think you should consider these broader issues in more depth, because I think that much of your initial problem is grounded in those questions, and not the question of whether the evidence supports your theory. That’s why I’ve been going on about it. But if it’s just a discussion of evidence you want, so be it.
      
      Here’s my contribution.
      
      “I don’t really understand the significance of any of that data, sorry.”
      
      Simple, irrefutable, and completely unhelpful. Not surprising, given that I don’t even understand how tides work.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-24 at 23:02
      
      Extrapolating over history is a poor substitute for direct observation and controlled conditions …
      
      It’s not a substitute, it’s a supplement to the others I’ve listed.
      
      Reply
    - Marbs posted on 2009-07-25 at 03:26
      
      Steven Fielding – An independent senator here in Australia, has only very recently reversed his supportive stance on climate change.
      
      I haven’t digested this due diligence report myself yet – but that’s the best place I can point you towards for now.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-25 at 04:15
      
      Okay, this focuses on the science so I can work with it. The graph on Steven Fielding’s website is similar to the claim made by m4cph1sto and answered by Rei.
      
      I plan to expand on his explanation, but I’ve got a friend’s wedding Saturday and Sunday, so I won’t be able to for a while.
      
      That due diligence report contains some topics that I’ve discussed here, and some that I haven’t yet addressed. It’s also so long that if I tried to answer everything in it, I’d fail out of school. If you want to pick one argument that you consider most compelling– one that I haven’t already answered in this article– I’ll do my best to answer it. No rush, though… I won’t be back to the computer for a while.
      
      Reply
    - Marbs posted on 2009-07-25 at 05:39
      
      If you don’t mind I’d rather suggest this. Select the argument you find most troubling for AGW and respond to that one.
      
      Use the Giant’s strength against himself type strategy;)
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-27 at 19:58
      
      The graph on Steven Fielding’s website (also on page 10 of the due diligence report) shows temperatures from 1998-2008, and there’s no obvious warming trend visible to the naked eye. This is despite the steadily increasing CO₂ in the atmosphere. Rei’s response to this argument was excellent, but I’d like to expand on it.
      
      First, note that climatologists aren’t saying that our emissions are completely responsible for everything that’s happening to the climate. It’s just that once we account for all known natural variations, an artificial signal remains which is best explained by accounting for greenhouse gas emissions. The temperatures in that graph are affected by many factors, including the fact that the Sun is unusually dim right now. Compared to the last solar minimum in 1996, visible light is 0.02% reduced, and extreme UV is 6% reduced. This cools the Earth very slightly, partially countering the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
      
      Second, modern dynamical climate models can’t account for the physics of El Nino and La Nina events. Usually, circulation in the Pacific ocean sends cold water to the surface which serves to cool the atmosphere by warming the ocean. El Nino pauses that upwelling of cold water, thus warming the atmosphere by reducing the rate at which heat from the atmosphere is dumped into the ocean. La Nina does the opposite; it intensifies the upwelling of cold water, which draws more heat than usual from the atmosphere.
      
      The El Nino in 1997/’98 was unusually strong, which led to the large spike in atmospheric temperatures visible in that graph on Fielding’s website. The large dip in atmospheric temperatures in 2008 occurred because of a significant La Nina. These short-lived events have little effect on the long-term climate because they merely swap heat between the oceans and atmosphere. But they do make it difficult to use either ocean or atmosphere temperatures alone to study the climate.
      
      So we really need better data regarding ocean temperatures. Unfortunately, the Argo network is only a few years old, so we don’t yet have reliable long term data regarding ocean temperatures. Rei was right to say that these events are “just a source of white noise on top of the blatantly obvious signal.” Climate is different than weather, and the graph on Fielding’s website confuses the two.
      
      In reality, scientists are concerned that recent observations of sea levels indicate they’re rising faster than expected, and the annual minimum of Arctic sea ice is declining faster than expected. It’s too early to tell if this is because the climate models have underestimated the speed of the melting, or if this is simply short-term variability due to weather. Update: Luckily, the rapid sea ice decline appears to be due to weather.
      
      Now, about my request for you to pick an argument from the due diligence report. I suggested that you pick an argument because I desperately want to understand how the general public views arguments like these. Arguments I find compelling may not convince members of the general public, and vice-versa. For example, at the bottom of page 16:
      
      One of the proxy temperature series plotted is the infamous “hockey stick” reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999).This reconstruction, though strongly favoured in the 2001 IPCC 3rd Assessment Report (2001), is discredited (e.g., McIntyre & McKitrick, 2003, 2005, 2009) and was discarded for the 4th Asssessment Report (2007) without explanation.
      
      Jane Q. Public made a similar claim that can be accessed through 7(d) in the index: The accuracy of the “hockeystick” graph.
      
      So this argument obviously appeals to the general public. If true, it’d be evidence of mind-boggling incompetence and massive fraud on the part of the scientific community. But as I’ve shown, it’s simply not true. I’m also baffled by their claim that the Mann et al. 1999 reconstruction “was discarded for the IPCC 4th Assessment Report,” when in fact it’s the purple time series in Fig 6.10 (b).
      
      Furthermore, I’ve mentioned that chapter 6 of the IPCC 4th report reviews the claims of MM03 and MM05 on column 2 of page 466. So you can verify for yourself that the claim “without explanation” is also false.
      
      Overall, the due diligence report contains a broad spectrum of errors. Some are exaggerations, some are omissions of later studies that disprove the ones they’re referencing, while others are howling misconceptions. Typical for “science” which hasn’t been through peer review.
      
      If I had to single out one part of the report that’s reasonably accurate, it would be this point:
      
      … climate feedbacks are not well understood … climate feedbacks are a well-known blindspot.
      
      They’re right to say that feedback effects aren’t yet well understood. But they imply that this uncertainty manifests itself as an overestimate of the positive feedback effects, and an underestimate of the negative feedback effects. If true, that means the IPCC’s projections of temperatures over the 21st century are too high. But I don’t see any proof that this is the case. I think it’s just as likely that we’ve underestimated the positive feedback effects, and overestimated the negative ones. In other words, the IPCC temperature projections could be too low.
      
      And the scientific community is well aware of this issue. For example, my office mate just returned from a trip to Alaska. While there, he assisted in extracting core samples of permafrost to analyze the amount of carbon stored in them. This will help us to quantify the feedback effect of melting permafrost, which releases methane and CO₂ as a result of bacterial growth. Update: He just showed me some pictures of the core samples. They’re black as coal…
      
      They also say that the 2°C target is arbitrary. That’s basically true; it’s a safe target which probably won’t change the climate to an extent that severely disrupts our civilization.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-31 at 20:49
      
      I think it’s just as likely that we’ve underestimated the positive feedback effects, and overestimated the negative ones. In other words, the IPCC temperature projections could be too low.
      
      Just to be clear, it’s necessary for the overall natural feedback to be negative otherwise the long-term climate wouldn’t have been stable enough for life to evolve. (Thanks again, Dr. Landis.)
      
      But not all feedback effects operate on the same time scale. It seems to me like the (geologically) rapid increase in atmospheric CO₂ and other greenhouse gases will cause a different set of positive and negative feedback factors to interact than those which stabilized the natural climate before our arrival.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-10 at 02:12
      
      I think I’m confusing positive feedback with “gain” here. Long term stability probably depends on the gain being less than 1, which means that the feedback effects don’t diverge (in the sense of limits.) Need to think about this some more when I get a chance.
      
      Reply
Spector posted on 2009-07-25 at 14:23

As I see it, the basic question is whether our recent climate change is physiogenic (natural) or anthropogenic (caused by man). With our sun going through its longest period of low sunspot activity since 1856 (just before the “Carrington event”), I think we should soon have evidence one way or the other. If this year and the next show a progressive pattern of increasing temperatures, then our climate is being changed by man-made pollution. If it turns cooler, then we must assume that it is being driven by external natural causes.

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-26 at 11:01
  As I see it, the basic question is whether our recent climate change is physiogenic (natural) or anthropogenic (caused by man). With our sun going through its longest period of low sunspot activity since 1856 (just before the “Carrington event”), I think we should soon have evidence one way or the other.
  1. Contrary to popular belief, climatologists aren’t denying the fact that natural variations such as changes in the Sun’s brightness affect the climate. Climatologists aren’t saying that our emissions are completely responsible for everything that’s happening to the climate. It’s just that once we account for all known natural variations, an artificial signal remains which is best explained by accounting for greenhouse gas emissions.
  2. This new signal has persisted since ~1970, which means that it can’t be explained by this ~11 year solar cycle.
  3. Unusually low sunspot activity means that the Sun is unusually dim right now. Compared to the last solar minimum in 1996, visible light is 0.02% reduced, and extreme UV is 6% reduced. If anything, this would tend to very slightly cool the Earth and partially counter the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.
  4. I’ve discussed other potential ways that sunspot activity could affect the climate here: “Cosmic rays are responsible for global warming.”
  If this year and the next show a progressive pattern of increasing temperatures, then our climate is being changed by man-made pollution. If it turns cooler, then we must assume that it is being driven by external natural causes.
  
  Abrupt climate change is a long-term warming trend imposed on top of natural variations which tend to swing wildly in both directions. If you mean that the temperatures remain inexplicably high after subtracting all those natural variations, you’re almost right.
  
  But, it’s important to understand that the global climate is different than weather. I think you’re underestimating the extent to which these measurements need to be averaged over time in order to ignore short-term fluctuations. An additional year isn’t enough to invalidate a warming trend that’s been going strong for ~40 years.
  
  Furthermore, if CO₂ isn’t responsible for the recent warming trend, we’re fundamentally confused about basic physics. At least one of these statements needs to be false. Which one?
  Reply
Reivan posted on 2009-07-26 at 04:19

I have a question that has always bothered me about global warming. The way i understand global warming is since the earth is warm, it emits infrared radiation into space. CO2 however absorbs some of it and reflects it in a random direction sometimes back to earth. As CO2 concentration increases more and more infrared light is reflected back to earth, causing it to warm. Here’s the question. Isn’t nearly half of the light from the sun composed of infrared radiation? Shouldn’t the amount of infrared radiation reflected in to space balance out the infrared light reflected back to earth until some critical point when almost no infrared rad is able to pass through the atmosphere. At that point only shouldn’t the earth start warming since the infrared rad reflected away from earth is no longer able to compensate for the infrared rad reflected back to earth?

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-26 at 11:17
  
  Isn’t nearly half of the light from the sun composed of infrared radiation?
  
  Yes, that’s true.
  
  Shouldn’t the amount of infrared radiation reflected in to space balance out the infrared light reflected back to earth until some critical point when almost no infrared rad is able to pass through the atmosphere. At that point only shouldn’t the earth start warming since the infrared rad reflected away from earth is no longer able to compensate for the infrared rad reflected back to earth?
  
  I’m sorry, but I don’t really understand your question. You seem to be asking if the Earth will reach thermodynamic equilibrium, but that definition concerns the whole spectrum rather than just IR. The Earth will eventually reach an equilibrium temperature where the net power radiated away from the planet will equal the net power incident on the planet. But that’s not true now– the Earth is radiating less power than it would need to remain at this temperature because of greenhouse gases.
  
  Reply
  - Marbs posted on 2009-07-27 at 06:07
    
    I think Reivan is referencing the saturation point where increasing CO2 concentrations beyond it will have negligible affect as all the appropriate wavelengths have been already absorbed.
    
    As outlined in The Skeptics Handbook – Point #4.
    
    Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-27 at 10:03
      
      Ah, okay. Then that’s covered in point 7 (g) of my index: “CO₂ is already saturated, so adding more CO₂ isn’t going to warm the planet any more.”
      
      Reply
Bryce posted on 2009-07-29 at 13:11

Very useful article. One for the bookmarks. Sorry I got around to reading it so late, but I didn’t see your request for commentary. [An Onerous Coward]

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-29 at 16:29
  
  No worries. Thanks for the link– it’s useful too (and amusing.)
  
  Reply
Jane Q. Public posted on 2009-07-29 at 16:29

While I appreciate the fact that you showed some of my comments here, I am concerned that some of them appear to have been extracted out of context, and in other places my own replies to you, which could have clarified some points, have been omitted. In brief, it appears to me that some of my statements have deliberately been portrayed in a more negative light than a reader might personally conclude, if that reader had been privy to the entirety of the online conversation.

I will reply in more detail when I have time to read all of this more thoroughly and put together a more formal and complete response. That may be some days at least, as I have been rather busy.

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-07-29 at 16:31
  
  I omitted the rest of your remarks to focus on the science, and as an act of mercy to my (undoubtedly overwhelmed) readers. Everyone wanting to read the rest of what you wrote can follow the numerous links leading to the original Slashdot conversation.
  
  Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-05 at 18:13
    
    Here we go again…
    
    Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-08-12 at 03:26

(Ed. note: these comments were copied from here.)

… no model takes clouds into account. [gkai]

Actually, all models take clouds into account. I’ve previously linked to a new paper describing recent improvements to models of clouds.

Albedo variations seems not considered as important as greenhouse effect.

You’re probably referring to a 2004 paper by E. Pallé et al. Their conclusion appears to be based largely on 2003 values of earthshine, which may have been caused by undersampling the data. A separate 2005 paper measured the albedo using satellite data and didn’t observe the same dramatic change.

I do not have seen any attempt of applying models to past conditions where CO₂ concentration was higher than today … I have read your article, and it is not convincing. Especially, the way you insist that the model should be applied to recent time only is not sound: a numerical model should be tested in as much conditions as possible, especially for other input that the ones that have been used to calibrate it!!!

Because, as I state in a popup on the words “very slightly” in the third paragraph of the article, there are so many changes to the Earth over such long periods of geological time (you have to go back tens of millions of years to see higher CO₂ concentrations) that the dynamical models wouldn’t be expected to apply. Plus, proxy data are unreliable at such timescales, so we’re stuck with “recent” data like the last 650,000 years from EPICA.

models predictions seems much better in the 1990-2000 region than in 2000-2010, but adjustable parameters were tuned to fit 1990-2000 data…not a good sign for a numerical model…

Huh? You’re not under the impression that climate models are empirical models, are you?

… cyclic variation of solar power is taken into account, but other effects on cloud formations are not (not surprising, as cloud are not taken into account anyway). But recent studies suggest that the main effect of solar cycles is linked to magnetic effects, not incoming solar radiation.

That’s because those other effects have been shown to be very small. See 7 (b) in the index: “Cosmic rays are responsible for global warming.” If you’ve found evidence contradicting these papers, please let us know.

… much more emphasis (as in your article) to positive feedback effects than negative one. In fact, positive feedback is set at the stability limit: a little bit more and the system would be unstable and the climate we had before industrialisation would simply not have been possible, you would have had a runaway warming or cooling.

I’ve explicitly addressed this point. The point is that feedback effects act on different time scales, and our forcing is geologically very rapid.

And man produced CO₂ is just the same as natural CO₂, any attempt to separate the two (one have a greater effect that the other???) is highly suspect.

I didn’t mean that man-made CO₂ has a greater effect, just that feedback CO₂ appears after the temperature rises, not before. Therefore the recent CO₂ rise is anthropogenic, and we should expect the natural feedback CO₂ (observed in Vostok) to add to it.

In fact, I think many reader objections in your article are valid, and you seem to agree as you do not really debunk the well formulated ones…

For instance? I’ve got my own research distracting me, so I don’t always have time to answer each and every question, but I’ve tried really hard to answer all the scientific questions that people have posed. I’d like to see which questions are “well formulated” that I haven’t “really debunked.”

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-08-12 at 05:19
  
  Huh? You’re not under the impression that climate models are empirical models, are you?
  
  … Now, you are not trying to tell me that the tuning of adjustable numerical parameters, grid size, time steps, simplifications, linearisation techniques, and choosing of unknown physical parameters in the simplified mathematical models are not of the utmost importance, are you? [gkai]
  
  No, it’s just that these parametrizations are only performed for the mean climate, and shouldn’t change over a timespan measured in decades. Continental drift and increasing solar output invalidate them over geological time, but not over the period from 1990 to 2010.
  
  … The validations I have seen for those models (single curve fitting over small period) are not convincing enough, too much local errors for such a model to be reliable imho. …
  
  I presume you’re referring to the model validations via the Pinatubo eruption. There are other validations, chief among them being comparisons to proxy data which extend over hundreds of thousands of years. Initial condition ensembles are taken to average out the weather, and models with completely different parametrizations are averaged in a multi-model ensemble to produce the IPCC results (see chapter 8).
  
  Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-08-12 at 13:01

(Ed. note: this comment was copied from here.)

Earth cooled a degree last year … [elkto]

As I’ve explained, ENSO events are (mostly) irrelevant to the long term climate.

Satellite images show arctic ice cap growing the last three years …

In the same link as above, I referenced this 2007 paper titled “Arctic sea ice decline: Faster than forecast.” Also, the 2008 melt season was the longest in satellite record, and the ice is thinning dramatically.

… lack of sunspots is pointing to a scary minimum.

Again in the same link, I explain that this means the Sun is unusually dim, which (if anything) would tend to cool the Earth very slightly.

The CO₂ increase contributes to less than a than 1/2 of a percent increase in green house gasses …

As I explained in the fifth paragraph of this article, CO₂ has jumped ~26% above the highest value it’s reached in the last 650,000 years. And this staggering increase occurred in the span of several decades, which is ~35x faster than at any point in the last 400,000 years.

Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-08-31 at 00:27

(Ed. note: these comments were copied from here)

As far as “rates of change” go, I’m not certain you can say much at all about the long term history without better resolution in the data. For instance, the rate could vary quite wildly in the blink of 100 years, but that would be blurred in the long term record. These ice and sediment cores implement a nice low pass filter based on how they accumulated and are measured. Tacking high resolution data from modern thermometers on to data taken from ice cores seems dubious.

Yes, ice core data are smoothed by diffusion and compaction, but studies like Delmotte 2004 and Jouzel 2007 have examined the data at a resolution of ~100 years and largely support the conclusions in the original Vostok and EPICA papers.

Of course, you could respond that decadal variations could exist, but to the best of my knowledge no known natural mechanism exists that could allow CO₂ to fluctuate so wildly so quickly. Actually, the Siberian traps may qualify as a plausible natural source, but what sink could possibly have absorbed the CO₂ quickly enough to drive the level down far enough below the average for the low-pass signal to record no evidence of this event?

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-08-31 at 07:00
  
  You seem quite certain that there is only one way to explain things. You’ve already assumed your hypothesis is true. It’s not good science, and I think you should be more skeptical. … Science isn’t about “facts”. It’s about hypothesis that haven’t been contradicted yet. When a hypothesis survives some scrutiny and starts to yield accurate predictions, then maybe we could start to get a little faith that we’ve got an accurate understanding, but even then, you don’t “know” the truth. A new experiment could tear it all back to zero. That’s why I hate it when someone says how there is no more doubt – if you aren’t doubting, it’s not science.
  
  I don’t think I’ve assumed anything. You’re basically accusing me of committing the cardinal sin in science. All I’m saying is that there’s a lot of evidence for abrupt climate change, in the same way that I’d say there’s a lot of evidence for evolution or the big bang.
  
  I’ll try to avoid taking offense, and just note that I’ve been training my entire life to be skeptical about everything I study. Why do people insult scientists in this manner? It’s like telling a plumber “Oh, come on… you don’t really know the difference between a bathtub and a sink.” Presumably, people wouldn’t insult him by suggesting that he’s fundamentally incompetent at his life’s work. Maybe that’s because plumbers carry big wrenches, while scientists carry calculators?
  
  It doesn’t have to be wild fluctuations. A smooth 100 year increase followed by a smooth 100 year decrease would be completely hidden.
  
  If it’s not a wild fluctuation, then the Vostok and EPICA ice core analyses are basically right: the current CO₂ concentration of 380ppm is ~26% above the 650,000 year maximum of 300ppm. If they are wild fluctuations, the increase you describe would have a 100 year mean far above the average, and would show up in our CO₂ reconstructions. As I said, in order to be invisible to the reconstructions, the wild increase would have to be very rapid and immediately followed by an equally rapid and wildly low anomaly to produce a long-term mean that remains below 300ppm.
  
  However, I’m guessing there are a lot of things required to understand the climate that fall outside of anyone’s present knowledge.
  
  Certainly. But the last 20 years have seen a renaissance in climatology; as a result the error bars can now confidently rule out the possibility “climate change isn’t happening” and fairly confidently rule out the possibility “climate change isn’t human-caused.” Perfect knowledge isn’t necessary to make predictions, otherwise Voyager wouldn’t have made it to Saturn because quantum gravity wasn’t available to calculate its orbital burns. All that matters is whether the signal is larger than the error bars, and that’s true for abrupt climate change.
  
  Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-01-13 at 21:31
    
    This topic came up again here and here.
    
    In the process, I found more high resolution ice core studies, and a quote from page 447 of chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 WG1 report:
    
    “There is no indication in the ice core record that an increase comparable in magnitude and rate to the industrial era has occurred in the past 650,000 years. The data resolution is sufficient to exclude with very high confidence a peak similar to the anthropogenic rise for the past 50,000 years for CO₂…”
    
    Also, more recent evidence shows that CO₂ is higher than at any point in the last 15 million years.
    
    Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-10 at 04:58
      
      A recent “news and views” [*] asserts that temperatures 3-5 million years ago were 3-4°C higher than today in the tropics, and up to 10°C higher at the poles with “little extra CO₂.”
      
      [*] What are “news and views” articles? Are they peer-reviewed? Nature is one thing, but Nature Geosciences is barely two years old, and I haven’t yet read many articles in it.
      
      Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-09-13 at 18:20

(Ed. note: these comments were copied from here.)

… But it’s ludicrous to suggest that the scientific community as a whole is somehow unaware of these issues or engaged in a massive conspiracy to suppress them. [Dumb Scientist]

McKitrick and McIntyre detail their experience of trying to deal with Nature to get a correction here. Interesting reading.

And the referees throwing up their hands and saying “this is too complicated for us to evaluate in 2 weeks” shows a weakness in the process. [SmilingSalmon]

It doesn’t show a weakness in the process, it shows that computer power isn’t infinite. Redoing all the calculations without the benefit of PCA requires use of a large cluster for a long time. This was done (in point 5) and shows that any PCA errors were negligible. Scientists aren’t evil monsters engaged in a massive conspiracy. Really. We’re ordinary people, just like you.

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-10 at 05:37
  
  Thanks for the link (in Point 5, Part II). I also read in point 8 that “If you use the MM05 convention and include all the significant PCs, you get the same answer. If you don’t use any PCA at all, you get the same answer. If you use a completely different methodology (i.e. Rutherford et al, 2005), you get basically the same answer.”
  
  It is asserted that if you use random, trendless data, you also get the same answer. See the graph near mid-page. [SmilingSalmon]
  
  I can’t get that graph to load (but my net connection has been flaky lately so it could be my fault.) At any rate, it sounds like a claim that MM have made: that sending “red noise” into the MBH98 program results in a hockeystick. The main problem is that the extracted trend explains very little variance relative to the trend extracted from real data. Here’s a 4-part primer on PCA to help people understand the basics.
  
  Do you have any comment on the link I gave regarding the Nature correction?
  
  I read some of it, and their complaints sound very similar to what other scientists go through when trying to get their research published. Peer-review is often an unpleasant process because it’s based on confrontation, but this is true for everyone. In this particular case, I think Nature was right to reject their article based on the mountain of evidence against their claims.
  
  Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-10 at 05:38
    
    The page you refer to does not seem to answer the complaint raised in the random, trendless data simulations. It talks mostly about the data used for a “training period.” That was something I had not heard either side discuss before. There is one or two sentences at the end of the page you cite which talks about the random data, but just acknowledges its existence and concludes with a dismissive “who has the patience?”
    
    I’m not a climate scientist or or any other kind of scientist, so I’ll admit maybe I just don’t “grok” it, but the page you referenced in answer to my Monte Carlo query seems almost off-topic. You’ve been kind in your responses, so maybe you can indulge a non-scientist just a bit more. [SmilingSalmon]
    
    I’m referring to this quote: “I’ve now done some stuff with random series rather than the MBH proxy series. This has the advantage of allowing you to create as many proxies as you like. I’ll hive that off to a separate page: here. What that appears to demonstrate is that M&M are right about one thing: it often does lead to a ‘hockey stick’ shape in random data. But the problem is that the variance-explained of the PC1 done this way is tiny: the first eigenvalue is about 0.03. Whereas when you run it on real data the first eigenvalue is about 0.55 (back to 1000) or 0.38 (back to 1400). Which means the two problems are very different.”
    
    In the other link, the eigenvalues are supposed to be accessible via a link, but I can’t get figure 1 to display. Again, don’t know if this is just me. Regardless, they’re saying much the same thing. The eigenvalues of the MM fit to red noise aren’t statistically significant.
    
    But the real point is that the same answer emerges from more straight-forward analyses that don’t rely on PCA (which avoids all these issues.) In fact, as I’ve mentioned in my article, multiple independent analyses have been performed, all of which agree that the hockeystick shape is accurate.
    
    Update: I probably should have quoted the relevant bit in the first link anyway:
    
    Lets turn, now, to MM’s claim that the “Hockey Stick” arises simply from the application of non-centered PCA to red noise. Given a large enough “fishing expedition” analysis, it is of course possible to find “Hockey-Stick like” PC series out of red noise. But this is a meaningless exercise. Given a large enough number of analyses, one can of course produce a series that is arbitrarily close to just about any chosen reference series via application of PCA to random red noise. The more meaningful statistical question, however is this one: Given the “null hypothesis” of red noise with the same statistical attributes (i.e., variance and lag-one autocorrelation coefficients) as the actual North American ITRDB series, and applying the MBH98 (non-centered) PCA convention, how likely is one to produce the “Hockey Stick” pattern from chance alone. Precisely that question was addressed by Mann and coworkers in their response to the rejected MM comment through the use of so-called “Monte Carlo” simulations that generate an ensemble of realizations of the random process in question (see here) to determine the “null” eigenvalue spectrum that would be expected from simple red noise with the statistical attributes of the North American ITRDB data. The Monte Carlo experiments were performed for both the MBH98 (non-centered) and MM (centered) PCA conventions. This analysis showed that the “Hockey Stick” pattern is highly significant in comparison with the expectations from random (red) noise for both the MBH98 and MM conventions. In the MBH98 convention, the “Hockey Stick” pattern corresponds to PC#1 , and the variance carried by that pattern (blue circle at x=1: y=0.38) is more than 5 times what would be expected from chance alone under the null hypothesis of red noise (blue curve at x=1: y = 0.07), significant well above the 99% confidence level (the first 2 PCs are statistically significant at the 95% level in this case). For comparison, in the MM convention, the “Hockey Stick” pattern corresponds to PC#4, and the variance carried by that pattern (red ‘+” at x=4: y=0.07) is about 2 times what would be expected from chance alone (red curve at x=4: y=0.035), and still clearly significant (the first 5 PCs are statistically significant at the 95% level in this case).
    
    Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-09-23 at 14:17

(Ed. note: These comments were copied from here.)

I wish someone would tell me how you compute the mean temperature of a composite substance like the atmosphere. Global atmospheric heat content is meaningful. Global mean temperature is not. Unless someone would care to explain how you actually compute it in a physically meaningful way? [radtea, September 23 2009, @01:19PM]

This sounds similar to the arguments presented in a 2007 paper that’s widely considered to be some kind of joke. Update: More relevant discussion.

Perhaps you mean that different substances have different heat capacities. That’s only a problem if you want to determine the equilibrium temperature, and even that’s just a weighted average. But even an unweighted average improves the signal-to-noise ratio of temperature measurements, which is why climatologists routinely speak of global mean temperatures.

And to be really pedantic, “heat content” isn’t physically meaningful either. Heat is a type of energy transfer across a thermodynamic system boundary. Systems don’t store heat, they store internal energy, which is also measured in Joules but can be transferred as heat or work. (Yes, this distinction is irrelevant. That’s my point.)

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-09-24 at 16:26
  
  I was actually thinking of that guy in Colorado (Peilke?) who has long argued that global atmospheric heat content is what we should be talking about. [radtea, September 24 2009, @12:15PM]
  
  I looked around for Pielke’s work mentioning heat content and found this. Is that a good reference? I agree that internal energy of the atmosphere is a more robust and useful variable than temperature, but I’d go one step further. That is, a much more useful variable would be the internal energy of the atmosphere and ocean combined. That would eliminate the spurious temperature swings associated with ENSO events that seem to mislead many people. This heat transfer between the atmosphere and oceans wouldn’t distort such a metric.
  
  Update: As far as I can tell, many climate scientists agree that in theory ocean heat content is a better diagnostic of climate change. However, the pragmatic issues of limited and unreliable data mentioned in that ENSO link makes surface temperatures more useful in actual practice (until Argo records a long enough time series.)
  
  You are correct that heat is only one form of internal energy, although physicists have a slightly different take on the nature of heat than chemists, so I don’t agree with your characterization of heat as strictly a type of energy transfer. …
  
  Actually, I’m a physicist too. Never was that good at chemistry. I still think heat is a form of energy transfer, not a state variable. But I’ll drop this argument because (like your point) it doesn’t seem particularly interesting or relevant.
  
  So yes, by all means be pedantic and talk about “atmospheric internal energy”. That is a physically meaningful quality, whereas neither you nor anyone else has suggested why taking any kind of average of dry-bulb temperatures is in any way physically interesting. And if it is not physically interesting, it is not climatologically interesting. … All I can say is that I still don’t understand what anyone thinks they are doing with global average temperature, but whatever it is, it isn’t physics.
  
  The internal energy of the atmosphere is a weighted mean of temperatures, where the weightings reflect differing heat capacities. A global average temperature cannot be used to determine the internal energy of the atmosphere because it isn’t properly weighted (as I believe you’re saying.) But as I’ve said, even an unweighted average improves the signal-to-noise ratio of temperature trends. More measurements improve the statistics in the same way multi-model ensembles improve climate predictions compared to single-model runs. The global temperature isn’t intended as a formal variable, it’s simply an easy-to-measure diagnostic of the global climate.
  
  Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-14 at 04:21
    
    Climate models for the most part do not conserve energy and/or have unphysical boundary conditions, and all of them are parameterized in unphysical ways. Anyone who isn’t sceptical of them is missing something. [radtea, February 13 2010, @09:21PM]
    
    Here are links to the source code for many GCMs. Please name the model which doesn’t conserve energy. If you’re feeling generous, it would also be nice to know how to reproduce this (obviously serious!) problem.
    
    Last year, you said something similar:
    
    But you’re not a computational physicist, or you would have noticed the lack of energy conservation in some models (it is added by hand as a correction on each time step) or unphysical boundary conditions in others (ocean surface in particular). If you were a computational physicist you’d know how big a deal these approximations are in long-term integrations of even very simple systems, much less complex ones like GCMs. I was a lot more convinced by the AGW argument before I started looking at the models than I am now. [radtea, July 28 2009, @07:57AM]
    
    I’m baffled by these statements. Energy conservation is a fundamental law of the universe, but floating point calculations are necessarily imprecise. Correcting for roundoff errors that affect energy conservation in every time step seems like good programming practice.
    
    Also, there are other reasons to apply conservation laws “after the fact.” Several years ago I studied the gravitational effects of shifting precipitation patterns. The GRACE satellites measure the global gravity field every month, which changes because of heavy rainfall, droughts, etc. Comparing the GRACE monthly gravity field to the gravity field implied by hydrology models like GLDAS revealed interesting discrepencies like a consistent phase lead in the GLDAS model which we hypothesized was due to a flawed river model.
    
    But that was only possible because I “added mass conservation by hand as a correction in each time step.” You see, GLDAS only provides gridded water content on land. The total mass of water obtained by summing over the globe each month isn’t constant in time. Of course, this just shows that the water is being swapped between the land and the oceans. So I wrote a short script to add a spatially uniform layer of water to the ocean each month that forced the total amount of water on Earth to be constant. (Obviously this was only a first order estimate because I neglected water vapor and oceanic circulation patterns which violate the assumption of spatial uniformity.)
    
    Incidentally, my confidence in GCMs is drawn primarily from their demonstrated skill in completely different validation techniques. I’m not surprised or concerned that tuning parameterizations simplify microphysics, perhaps to the extent of oversimplifying them. As my comments in that linked conversation show, I do consider such imperfect approximations to be good reason not to consider GCMs sophisticated enough to produce regional climate predictions. But their track record with global averages seems impressive.
    
    I’m also eager to learn what you meant by “unphysical boundary conditions at the ocean surface.”
    
    Update: Rei’s reply is also interesting:
    
    I think he’s trying to claim that they don’t rely on first principles, which is complete nonsense. Actually, what’s most notable about the models is how *few* parameters there are. Very little is dealt with statistically — primarily cloud formation, as we still don’t have a good handle on it. Cloud formation easily has the biggest error bars of all feedbacks — although even the 95th percentile case is still well under the GHG forcing levels.
    
    Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-18 at 06:51
      
      … what data would make you change your beliefs regarding global warming/climate change? [radtea, February 16 2010, @09:16PM]
      
      Good question. Since climate is an average over ~20 years, a sustained 20 year trend below the IPCC AR4 WG1 model ensemble’s 95% confidence level would be powerful evidence. Note that the model output depends on forcing inputs, so if the sun suddenly got dimmer that would push temperatures and the models down. As would a reduction in emissions or volcanic activity, etc.
      
      I’d also like to see some kind of plausible argument as to how it’s possible for CO₂ levels to rise but not increase temperatures. For instance, to the best of my knowledge no one’s ever made a model that matches observed temperatures and forcings in the 20th century but doesn’t predict that increasing CO₂ makes the climate hotter. That’s not terribly surprising, because the physics of the greenhouse effect have been established for decades.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-18 at 06:51
      
      Solar radiation is remarkably invariant, as Warmers point out every time Denialists mention it. Now suddenly it’s an important variable? [radtea, February 17 2010, @02:46PM]
      
      A good reference regarding solar variability is section 2.7.1 on pages 188-193 of chapter 2 in the IPCC AR4 WG1 report. “Remarkably invariant” wouldn’t be my first choice of words. Solar output varies cyclically, mainly at an 11 year cycle. But the satellite fleet hasn’t detected a long term trend in solar output over the past ~40 years to match the surface temperature trend over that timespan.
      
      Also, isn’t it curious that there’s no evidence of warming in the past 15 years but we keep on hearing about how Arctic ice is melting at record rates. What do you suppose is driving that? If global temperatures have not increased, yet Arctic melting is not only going on but going on at a rate far faster than anyone predicted (which is what I always see reported) what is driving it? Clearly not anything to do with the Earth’s overall heat budget, which you have just admitted has been very nearly neutral in the past 15 years. … since there has been no significant increase in the Earth’s atmospheric heat content in the past 15 years … if we all agree the Earth’s heat budget has been almost perfectly neutral over that time.
      
      Again, it’s better to think about the heat content of the ocean+troposphere system. That eliminates the spurious ENSO heat redistributions which seem to confuse so many nonscientists. Plus, the internal energy of the Earth certainly includes the heat of fusion of melting glaciers and sea ice, so I don’t agree that the Earth’s heat budget has been neutral over the past 15 years.
      
      That’s because you need more than 15 years to get statistically significant figures.
      
      You do realize you’re just making that up?
      
      Wow! If climate models have the accuracy you’re claiming they do, why do climatologists bother to take initial condition ensembles? Is it because they enjoy increasing the run time on expensive supercomputers by an order of magnitude?
      
      GCMs with better skill than those available to modern science will eventually be able to make predictions that require less temporal averaging. But right now I’d say his figure is on the low side; climate is only meaningful when discussing averages over ~20 years.
      
      Reply
Beryllium Sphere (tm) posted on 2009-09-27 at 00:18

(Ed. note: these comments were copied from here.)

Qualitatively, what you’d expect from climate change is more precipitation (because there’s more evaporation) and therefore thickening at high elevations where the snow stays cold, while lower warmer regions flow faster or even melt.

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-09-27 at 01:05
  
  Exactly. I’ve described my research into Greenland’s ice sheets. My most recent estimates show that Greenland as a whole is losing ~100 Gtons of ice every year, but my advisor believes my estimate is too low by a factor of 2. As you say, northern Greenland is gaining mass, but southestern Greenland is losing much more mass.
  
  Reply
- Someone posted on 2009-09-27 at 01:09
  
  Qualitatively, what you’d expect from climate change is more precipitation (because there’s more evaporation)
  
  While I’m not a climatologist (I tend towards quantum physics), I’m not sure you can make that assertion. The formula for evaporation has myriad factors, including but not limited to heat. (The actual formula is W = [A + (B)(V)](Pw – Pa)/Hv). It was stated in a BBC Horizon documentary entitled Global Dimming that the more important factor was the amount of sunlight that hits the water, rather than temperature. In addition, the Horizon episode explains that there is both an observed decrease in evaporation and rainfall based on fine particulate matter in the atmosphere.
  
  Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-09-27 at 01:31
    
    Higher average global temperatures imply higher upper ocean temperatures, which imply a higher water vapor pressure. Thus more water will evaporate into the atmosphere. Yes, Roderick 2007 showed that wind speed had a stronger affect on the evaporation rate than changes in temperature, but I doubt that affects the expected theoretical equilibrium vapor pressure from basic thermodynamics. When that more humid air is carried across a tall mountain range, its temperature decreases and the water precipitates.
    
    Reply
    - Someone posted on 2009-09-27 at 02:01
      
      While searching for an elevation map of Greenland I came across a map showing rates of surface-elevation change. It’s tangental to my specific point, but I found it interesting nonetheless. I don’t have access to recent climate data indicating evaporation rates, rainfall, or quantity of particulate matter in the atmosphere, but in the Horizon episode they asserted that there was a decrease in rainfall because extra particulate matter in the atmosphere created more water droplets that — in aggregate — were too small to form rain. Even if warmer temperatures were to increase evaporation, there are other factors involved in the amount of rainfall that would result from increased evaporation. The evidence presented thus far is a decrease in rainfall, not an increase. But, as I said, I don’t have access to the raw data required to prove that definitively either way.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-09-27 at 02:10
      
      I saw the same Horizon documentary. Although sensationalist, it did explain Global Dimming pretty well. But at the same time, regulations of CFCs and similar chemicals have been fairly effective, and their lifetimes in the atmosphere are generally measured in months. So that particular problem has waned, I think. But I agree, whatever effect it would’ve had on rainfall would’ve opposed the greater precipitation expected from global warming.
      
      Reply
    - Someone posted on 2009-09-27 at 04:04
      
      I admit that I haven’t watched the Horizon episode in over a year, even though I have it in my Documentaries directory. At the time, though, I did describe it to a friend as “alarming”, so I would probably agree with the sensationalist tag. I don’t recall, though, whether they were blaming the particulates on CFCs, or just generic pollution. I do recall that they showed the massive pollution cloud coming out of China.
      
      I read in another of your posts that you are an advocate of nuclear power. I wholeheartedly support that position and wish you luck in banging that drum. I vacillate on whether climate change is real (and if it is real, that the effects are a net negative to humanity), but I think regardless it is a net positive to have more and cheaper sources of energy.
      
      Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-09-27 at 02:24

(Ed. note: this comment was copied from here.)

That doesn’t prove that adapting is more costly than avoiding. I’m not saying one or the other is better. I’m just saying that making the claim that one is more costly than the other isn’t a fact. [Whatanut]

Okay, yes. Technically I agree. The political/economic ramifications of our response to climate change aren’t completely within the domain of physical science, so they’re not facts in the way that the anthropogenic origin of abrupt climate change is a fact. For example, our technology could suddenly jump forward very quickly, rendering adaptation very simple and cheap.

But we’re talking about the human race here. Let’s choose the safest option, and try to avoid the worst effects by moving from coal power to modern nuclear power. As technology advances, solar, wind, tidal and geothermal power can play an increasing role. We’ve stagnated and become complacent in a world powered by cheap oil; another industrial revolution is long overdue.

Reply
Tontoman posted on 2009-09-27 at 10:42

(Ed. note: these comments were copied from here.)

Here is a speech given by the late Michael Crichton, (who wrote Jurassic Park and other novels and screenplays, and who also graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University.) Here he criticises the papers done by IPCC and debunks other global warning myths.

Michael’s detailed explanation of why he criticizes global warming scenarios. Using published UN data, he reviews why claims for catastrophic warming arouse doubt; why reducing CO2 is vastly more difficult than we are being told; and why we are morally unjustified to spend vast sums on this speculative issue when around the world people are dying of starvation and disease.

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-09-27 at 11:06
  
  Wow, I feel dumb for congratulating you about recognizing the need for reading peer-reviewed journal articles. You do realize that you’re listening to a science fiction author with a lot of irrelevant experience rather than reading the peer-reviewed journals, right? And, no, reading a novel with footnotes doesn’t count as reading a scientific journal.
  
  Reply
  - JLF65 posted on 2009-09-27 at 12:25
    
    I see you and the AC below will ignore scientists/doctors who write SciFi when their opinion goes against your own. That’s no reason to disclaim them as mere “science fiction authors”, as if their degrees and teaching positions are somehow negated by their writing of fiction. Do you also decry Benford and Sagan? They too are/were also mere “science fiction authors” as you like to put it. Obviously that makes them quacks who should be discounted. :P
    
    Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-09-27 at 12:34
      
      The point is that his experience isn’t as a climatologist. He’s a medical doctor who hasn’t published a single solitary peer-reviewed article on climate science. You’ve just seen two links (Ed. note: one was from me, the other was from a stranger below.) detailing the sloppy scholarship in his novel. I’m completely uninterested in the scientific opinions of medical doctors and politicians like Al Gore. Just like I’m uninterested in receiving medical advice from a climatologist. All I’m interested in is evidence, presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
      
      Reply
- Tontoman posted on 2009-09-27 at 12:30
  
  Yeah, I like to get all my climate science from medical doctors and science fiction authors, too. Crichton never was very good at getting climate science right.
  
  Well Crichton he is a Scientist and also a Medical Doctor and Science Fiction writer who happened to write a fiction book called “State of Fear”. However, he also a scientist who gave a factual speech to National Press Club that I linked in the other message as well. If you think we should discount Crichton, then perhaps we should debunk the “global warming” movement because one of its leaders, Al Gore, also is a politician whose highest degree is Bachelor of Arts in Government.
  
  Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-09-27 at 12:40
    
    This word you’re using: “factual.” I do not think it means what you think it means.
    
    Also, I’ve been emphatically trying to convince you to focus on evidence in peer-reviewed journal articles. I’ve even specifically asked people to ignore nonscientists like Al Gore.
    
    Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-24 at 19:24
      
      A recent conversation reminded me of Crichton’s underendowed child rapist in Next.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-24 at 21:39
      
      Thinkprogress’s link to Michael Crowley’s original article doesn’t work. Needless to say, it doesn’t seem proportional to Crichton’s response.
      
      Reply
B posted on 2009-11-21 at 05:32

NY Times climate hackers

Now mostly I wonder why people are so violently opposed.

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-11-21 at 05:53
  Been watching that unfold. Seems like a mix of:
  1. The same closed-source, proprietary data culture that can be found in any field of science. Annoying, but not unique to any particular field.
  2. A bunch of comments that sound bad but really aren’t. For instance, many of my emails to my advisor concern “incestuous comparisons” and I discuss “fake time series.” If anyone cracked my gmail account, they’d probably have some interesting quotes to throw around. But I’m not part of a global conspiracy yet. If I am, the perks are somewhat underwhelming. At the very least, I was expecting a jet pack and a secret underground lair…
  3. Scientists who are irritated by being treated like (a) morons who miss blatantly obvious “flaws” in their life’s work or (b) evil conspirators. After wading through 50 pages of this kind of abuse, I have a lot of sympathy for scientists who need to blow off steam by calling these idiots… idiots.
  Not that I really care, of course. None of the key pieces of evidence that convinced me came from these researchers, so the controversy that’s erupting seems really silly.
  
  Update: We also talk about little/big endian, secular rates, unity, decimating time series, and I usually hide the trend (gasp!) before a Fourier spectral analysis. Also, here are some other views on the email hack.
  Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-27 at 15:29
    
    Various contrarians have repeatedly accused me of blindly accepting a theory without considering alternative evidence. Then I see them crowing about scientists emphasizing flaws in research by using words like travesty, and the cognitive dissonance hurts my head.
    
    Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-28 at 17:37
    
    I’m tired of talking with people whose interest in these tabloid stories clearly outweighs whatever scientific curiosity they once had.
    
    Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-01-23 at 21:00
  
  (Ed. note: This comment was copied from here and here. Rei’s comment is here.)
  
  Working group 2 of the IPCC made some embarrassing mistakes. Upon seeing the letter in Science, I wondered why I’d never noticed these ludicrous statements before. Then I realized that the mistakes weren’t in the working group 1 report, which is all I’d ever bothered to read. Here’s what each working group does:
  
  The IPCC Working Group I (WG I) assesses the physical scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change.
  
  The main topics assessed by WG I include: changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols in the atmosphere; observed changes in air, land and ocean temperatures, rainfall, glaciers and ice sheets, oceans and sea level; historical and paleoclimatic perspective on climate change; biogeochemistry, carbon cycle, gases and aerosols; satellite data and other data; climate models; climate projections, causes and attribution of climate change.
  
  The IPCC Working Group II (WG II) assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it.
  
  It also takes into consideration the inter-relationship between vulnerability, adaptation and sustainable development. The assessed information is considered by sectors (water resources; ecosystems; food & forests; coastal systems; industry; human health) and regions (Africa; Asia; Australia & New Zealand; Europe; Latin America; North America; Polar Regions; Small Islands).
  
  The wild claim that “glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world”, the 2350/2035 typo, confusion of Himalayan glacier area with the worldwide total, and reliance on non-peer-reviewed source material all occurred in a single paragraph(!) in the WG2 report (section 10.6.2, paragraph 2).
  
  Statements in the WG1 report regarding glaciers, on the other hand, accurately reflect conclusions in the peer-reviewed literature.
  
  Due to my obsession with the physical sciences, I’d never even realized that other working group reports existed. Perhaps other scientists reacted in a similar fashion, which might be why such an absurd cluster of errors went undetected for so long…
  
  Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-27 at 14:46
    
    Found errors in the IPCC AR4 WG1 here and here.
    
    Reply
Jerry McGowan posted on 2009-11-26 at 23:26

That’s true! The fundamental question is whether our recent climate change is nature/human caused. Regarding the saturation point, it’s right that CO₂ is already saturated and more CO₂ won’t warm the planet anymore. I am a college sophomore with a dual major in Physics and Mathematics @ University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. One of my Professors was discussing this the other day. By the way, I came across these excellent physics flash cards. It’s also a great initiative by the FunnelBrain team. Amazing!!!

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2009-11-27 at 00:06
  
  Regarding the saturation point, it’s right that CO₂ is already saturated and more CO₂ won’t warm the planet anymore.
  
  No, that’s wrong. I guess you didn’t read my explanation or follow the last 50 years of climate research. It’ll make more sense after you take a few years of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics courses.
  
  Incidentally, a compelling argument would include specific reasons why the science I’m referencing is flawed.
  
  Reply
  - Joshua posted on 2010-01-06 at 01:43
    
    No worries, how about this one?
    
    Add CO₂ and the humidity is reduced. Net change to greenhouse effect = 0 = saturation.
    
    Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-01-22 at 12:09
      
      First, that simply isn’t happening. Water vapor has a positive feedback effect (as explained above ad nauseum) rather than negative as you suggest. As CO₂ and temperature have increased, so has precipitable water vapor. For example, see studies like this one.
      
      Second, the PDF you linked is a set of 78 slides including statements like “I regard this deduction one of the most beautiful results in the history of theoretical physics.” on slide 53. Needless to say, it hasn’t been through peer-review. However, it’s related to this 2006 paper by Ferenc Miskolczi which was peer-reviewed, albeit in an obscure weather journal. Luckily, it’s a mere 40 pages long.
      
      Joshua isn’t the only one saying things like: “In essence Dr Miskolczi showed that the solution to a differential equation for the greenhouse effect developed in 1922 by Arthur Milne, and central to the current paradigm, wrongly assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere. In re-solving this equation a new term and also a new law of physics have been proposed setting an upper limit to the greenhouse effect. Dr Miskolczi’s theory indicates that any warming from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide will eventually be offset by a change in atmospheric moisture content.
      
      Many other people have already torn apart his paper, though the most extensive discussion is unavailable(!).
      
      Short version: modern GCMs certainly don’t assume an infinite atmosphere. Also, Milne’s model used gray-body simplifications (no structure to absorption spectra.) Modern line-by-line radiative transfer code represents the spectra more accurately; gray-body models are outdated and only used for teaching purposes. In other words, Milne’s 1922 model isn’t “central to the current paradigm”.
      
      Miskolczi’s main point, that the greenhouse effect is “saturated” because the mean optical depth of the atmosphere is held constant, is based on a gray-body model. It’s also based on equation 7 in his paper (seemingly pulled out of thin air), a misunderstanding of Kirchoff’s law, and a bizarre use of the virial theorem.
      
      Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-04 at 20:28

(Ed. note: these comments were copied from here.)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have made this comment myself when others who fancy themselves scientists say a particular paper has or has not been “peer reviewed” because it did not appear in certain publications, or did appear in publications they don’t approve.

If you ask me, if a paper is published, and 15 other scientists or teams tried the same thing and got results (pro or con), then it has been “peer reviewed”. [Jane Q. Public]

I think there are at least two “rounds” of peer review. The first round: “is this research published in a reputable and appropriate journal, considering the topic?” If the answer is no, scientists generally won’t waste their time on it, because there are already too many legitimately peer-reviewed papers for us to read.

Then the second round of peer review begins: other scientists independently reproduce (or disprove) their results.

I have located an even more recent paper, written by a scientist working for NOAA (a reputable scientific body), using NASA’s own data, that shows that the lower stratosphere is not in fact cooling as the greenhouse models call for. Rather, it is warming. Which in turn means the greenhouse warming models are fundamentally flawed … [Jane Q. Public]

Interesting paper. Of course, it doesn’t say (or even imply) that “greenhouse warming models are fundamentally flawed.” The stratosphere cools as CO₂ increases because the “effective radiating level” moves higher into the troposphere, so it emits less long wave radiation because temperature decreases with altitude in the troposphere. Because that radiation normally warms the stratosphere, the stratosphere cools. Update: Also, increasing CO₂ in the stratosphere helps it radiate heat.

But other factors can warm the stratosphere, like aerosols. Also, increased ozone warms the stratosphere, which is why the paper you cited actually suggests that “the reversing trend may relate to a possible recovery of stratospheric ozone concentration.”

In reality, global circulation models (GCMs) are validated in a more robust fashion than examining a single variable in a single paper. After running an initial condition ensemble to average away the weather, and a multi-model ensemble to average away non-systematic errors, GCM outputs are compared to paleoclimate reconstructions and instrumental records (though the mean climate can’t be independently verified because of model “tuning”). The GCM response to forcing events such as volcanic eruptions can be compared to reality. Both the equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate response to increased CO₂ implied by the GCM ensembles can be compared to independent estimates, including comparisons with the last glacial maximum. Chapter 8 here is a good source for background information concerning climate models and their evaluation.

I could go on about this for hours, pointing out reams of data and studies that do not support the idea of man-caused global warming… but I have already made my point: the plain FACT is, nowhere near “all” our evidence points to man-caused global warming. There is a great deal of counter-evidence, and much of the evidence on the “pro” side is now under suspicion because of some questionable practices used.

Maybe you understand the physics behind these arguments better than I do, but the overwhelming majority of the evidence I’ve seen says that abrupt climate change is happening because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases like CO₂. Considering that this conclusion has been subjected to extensive independent verification, I see no reason to be concerned about any questionable practices that have been floating around the tabloids. The few stories that weren’t complete nonsense simply showed that scientists are human– that countering the never-ending deluge of misinformation from nonscientists is stressful enough that they need to vent to each other privately via email.

I can sympathize. If every one of these climate skeptics put as much energy into getting a graduate physics education as they do into reading crackpot blogs and hurling insults at me online, maybe I’d have more time to work on my actual research…

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-04 at 20:36
  
  It was not my intent to argue the whole point of whether anthropogenic CO₂ warming is occurring. My point was that contrary to what someone else stated above (and what a great many others have claimed), not “all” the evidence points that way. Nor do “all” the papers support the idea, and nor do “all” scientists accept the theory. [Jane Q. Public]
  
  Indeed, the claim that “all” scientists agree that CO₂ is causing warming is an exaggeration. “An overwhelming majority” is more accurate, according to all the surveys I’ve seen and my own anecdotal observations at AGU conferences. But, of course, evidence is far more persuasive and interesting than counting heads. Some evidence (like the paper you found) suggests that GCMs might need to be improved in some areas or have their uncertainty estimates revised at certain altitudes. But I’ve never seen credible evidence that our understanding of climate physics is fundamentally flawed, which is what so many people in the general public seem to think.
  
  I do not have citations of all the relevant papers at hand, but for background about my statement: recently a major argument over greenhouse warming was occurring because tropospheric warming that would have to be taking place in order for the most commonly accepted greenhouse warming models to be even halfway predictive was not being observed. Later observation and analysis (to my own surprise) did indeed indicate such warming, but according to my best understanding it could only be reconciled with the greenhouse models if it were accompanied by a certain amount of cooling in the lower stratosphere. Which did seem to be happening.
  
  This debate did happen, but you’re implying it was pivotal “for the most commonly accepted greenhouse warming models to be even halfway predictive”. That’s not true; as I just outlined, scientists have settled on more robust model evaluation techniques.
  
  Of course they do not directly state that their findings contradict the warming models… that is a conclusion that does not have a proper place within the paper. Nevertheless, given the surrounding circumstances, I am free to make such an inference and I assert that it is reasonable given the circumstances. But I do not intend to try to prove it here.
  
  You’re certainly free to make that inference. But I don’t think it’s reasonable because you haven’t addressed the fact that stratospheric warming can be due to many different causes, as Liu and Weng note in their paper’s discussion:
  
  “From long-term ozone measurements at Arosa Switzerland Zanis et al. (2006) found a negative trend in stratospheric ozone before 1996 and a positive trend in lower stratospheric ozone between 1996 and 2004. Miller et al. (2006) have utilized a statistical model (Reinsel et al. 2002) to study the ozone trend by using the ozone data from 12 ozonesonde stations in the midlatitude of the Northern Hemisphere. They also found a negative trend before 1996 and a positive trend since 1996 in the lower stratospheric ozone. Their two-dimensional regional model results agree with the measurements and show a clear recovery of stratospheric ozone concentration in the future. This study may provide evidence to the recovery of stratospheric ozone. It should be pointed out that other greenhouse gases such as CO₂ and CH₄ are increasing and also affecting stratospheric temperatures (Ramaswamy et. al 2001).”
  
  Also, other GCM validation techniques seem considerably more reliable than comparing temperature trends in the stratosphere, where the effects of CO₂ are smaller relative to other known forcings, the instrumental uncertainties are larger than surface measurements, dataset lengths are shorter, and the small densities imply similarly small changes in heat content. Why should I believe that your measure is more robust (i.e. has more statistical “power” and fewer type 1 and type 2 errors) than those I just listed?
  
  Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-04 at 20:40
    
    Not only is your link to an article about the “debate” NOT about the recent debate, which was still occurring mere months ago… [Jane Q. Public]
    
    You didn’t cite any papers, so I had to guess what you were talking about. If you could show me some papers regarding that other debate mere months ago, maybe this conversation would be more productive.
    
    … the article actually supports the assertion I was making, and is nowhere near a “solution” to the problem to which I was referring. I quote from your article … the article specifically mentions that “The newest satellite dataset correction doesn’t reconcile differences between climate trends in the lower layer of the atmosphere…” which was one of the obvious problems with the models to which I referred. … it states that the tropospheric warming observed would need to be 2.6 times greater than what was observed in order to support what the climate models predicted. … You just linked to an article that clearly and unequivocally stated it was fundamentally flawed as recently as 2005… off in a major way by a factor of 260%. That’s not a “tweak”, that’s a fundamental flaw. [Jane Q. Public]
    
    I only linked that press release in an attempt to see if this debate is what you were talking about. Since it’s apparently not, I should really just wait for you to link the journal papers central to that other debate.
    
    But just in case you’re interested, this particular debate began with a 2004 paper by Douglass, Pearson and Singer. As usual, the first step in evaluating any scientific debate is to follow the citations. Notice that a more recent paper (PDF) says: “Our results contradict a recent claim that all simulated temperature trends in the tropical troposphere and in tropical lapse rates are inconsistent with observations. This claim was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical consistency test. “
    
    There are useful lessons to be drawn from this debate. For instance, they suggest (along with other lines of evidence) that GCMs can’t yet fully account for ENSO and other oscillations, need improved moist convection and cloud parameterizations, etc. I caution people not to make regional climate predictions for precisely this reason: the GCMs aren’t yet sophisticated enough. Global averages, however, are considerably more reliable and robust for the same reason that opinion polls with larger sample sizes have smaller error bars.
    
    I understand your statement that “they settled on more robust model evaluation techniques”, but if so then they did so remarkably quickly, since this debate was still going on mere months ago, until troposphere warming data was updated to show observations that it was in fact warming as it should have been according to the models.
    
    If you really did understand my statement, you wouldn’t have written that paragraph. I just listed some of the methods that scientists actually use to validate the models. These validation techniques aren’t that new, and they have almost nothing to do with this debate.
    
    If you can show me that the recent changes in the climate models to account for observed changes in tropospheric temperature … they suddenly jumped to “more robust” models in just this last year …
    
    Huh? Climate models are being improved all the time, of course, but I don’t think this debate involved any changes to GCMs. It didn’t even involve changes to model validation techniques, which I have called “more robust” than your proposed single-variable-in-a-single-paper test. The troposphere warming debate was always about the temperature data and their uncertainties, which are independent of the GCMs because they’re dynamical models, not empirical (again, except for “tuning”).
    
    (Incidentally, this last point is very important. The difference between empirical and dynamical models is enormous, and doesn’t seem to be fully appreciated by most members of the general public.)
    
    Certainly stratospheric warming can be caused by various factors. In exactly the same vein, global warming could be caused by various factors.
    
    Yes, global warming could be caused by various factors. But, as I’ve repeatedly emphasized, scientists have produced upper bounds on the contributions of all known factors affecting global surface temperature trends. The effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases can be distinguished from these other factors.
    
    In contrast, stratospheric temperature trends aren’t as well understood. Again, I’ve just listed some of the reasons: larger uncertainties in stratospheric forcing, fewer teams examining fewer instruments with higher uncertainties and shorter timespans, measuring extremely tenuous gases with correspondingly low heat capacities (i.e. small amounts of energy translate into large temperature changes).
    
    But it’s not the cause of the temperature difference that is relevant here. What is relevant is whether it is occurring. You can talk about causes until the cows come home, and that’s not going to make much difference. A certain temperature differential is necessary to confirm current climate models. If that temperature differential is not there — for whatever reason — then the models are flawed. … according to the recent debates about tropospheric and stratospheric warming and cooling, respectively, the models depended on these things occurring. If, as that paper indicates, the required stratospheric cooling is not taking place, then the models need some re-thinking… AGAIN. I don’t have to address the causes, all I have to address is whether it is happening as required for the models to be correct, or not. This is simple logic. If a model’s predictive capacity relies on phenomenon A happening, and phenomenon A is not happening, then the model is in error.
    
    Where– exactly– did you arrive at this notion that the best way to test GCMs is to look for temperature vs. altitude curves? If it was a peer-reviewed paper, please cite it. If it was from a graduate physics textbook, please let me know which one.
    
    I ask because– again– the techniques actually being used to validate climate models are radically different from what you’re suggesting.
    
    But it’s not the cause of the temperature difference that is relevant here.
    
    Really? Because your argument seems to be “this paper says that stratospheric temperatures are rising, not falling as predicted by GCMs, so the cause of this stratospheric temperature rise can only be something that implies GCMs are fundamentally flawed.”
    
    I’m saying, okay, suppose this paper is right to say that the stratosphere has been warming since 1996 (though most research I’ve seen shows the stratosphere cooling.) Even if that’s true, your conclusion only follows if there isn’t a mechanism that compensates for the stratospheric cooling effect due to CO₂.
    
    And just to be clear, you’re the only one drawing such an absurd conclusion from this paper. Liu and Weng explicitly say that the observed warming suggests stratospheric ozone has increased since 1996, and they cite several independent studies that arrived at the same conclusion.
    
    It’s true that all other things being equal, greenhouse warming cools the stratosphere. But scientists are well aware that multiple factors (table 1 on page 5) influence the climate, and one of those is that increasing ozone in the stratosphere warms it. Of course, increasing ozone doesn’t invalidate GCMs.
    
    However, suppose that stratospheric temperatures rose with no increase in stratospheric ozone or aerosols, no increased solar output, no volcanic eruptions, and no decrease in well-mixed greenhouse gases. Then you might have a more convincing case that GCMs were “fundamentally flawed.” That’s all I’m saying: you need to first rule out other possible causes of stratospheric warming before jumping to this extreme conclusion. (And, yet again, consider why scientists use totally different validation techniques than the single-variable-in-a-single-paper test you seem to be advocating.)
    
    Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-06 at 01:54
      
      This conversation is either finished, or its SNR is about to get even worse. Incidentally, this might be the more recent debate to which she refers.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-14 at 02:55
      
      Nope, not finished yet. Also, this paper might be relevant, but I’m not sure how yet.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-16 at 02:21
      
      (Ed. note: this comment was copied from here.)
      
      … Of course, I just listed more fundamental reasons why I think that looking for signals of abrupt climate change in the stratosphere rather than on the surface is a wild goose chase. Then I listed them again but I may as well have been talking to myself. Ironically, figure 1 in that paper (overlapping sensitivity kernels) and figure 4 (huge aerosol forcings and small heat capacity = low SNR) vividly illustrate several of those reasons.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-16 at 08:01
      … this is yet another phenomenon with potentially significant effects on the climate that was completely unknown until very recently … [Someone] (paraphrased)
      
      Compare the surface forcing due to stratospheric ozone at any reasonable concentration to that of CO₂ at today’s concentration, and then re-examine your use of the word “significant”.
      
      Then open the IPCC AR4 WG1, Chapter 2, page 149…
      
      “…Global [stratospheric] ozone amounts decreased between the late 1970s and early 1990s, with the lowest values occurring during 1992 to 1993 (roughly 6% below the 1964 to 1980 average), and slightly increasing values thereafter. Global ozone for the period 2000 to 2003 was approximately 4% below the 1964 to 1980 average values. Whether or not recently observed changes in ozone trends (Newchurch et al., 2003; Weatherhead and Andersen, 2006) are already indicative of recovery of the global ozone layer is not yet clear and requires more detailed attribution of the drivers of the changes (Steinbrecht et al., 2004a (see also comment and reply: Cunnold et al., 2004 and Steinbrecht et al., 2004b); Hadjinicolaou et al., 2005; Krizan and Lastovicka, 2005; Weatherhead and Andersen, 2006). …”
      
      … and re-examine your use of the phrase “completely unknown“.
      
      … reference to the old troposphere warming debate, followed later by a description of the “overlapping sensitivity kernel” issue as being unimportant in this context … (paraphrased)
      
      The old debate you’re describing was exacerbated by precisely this overlap issue. Sensors designed to measure the upper troposphere also pick up signals from the lower stratosphere.
      
      And just to save you from pointing out that “this context” isn’t what was quoted directly above that: I know. The reason I ignored all the sentences that preceded the statement about overlapping sensitivities is that I’m not saying Liu and Weng did shoddy work or that there are problems with their instruments in particular, so there’s no need to recite their validation techniques.
      
      What I’m saying is that all of these remote measurements are subject to larger uncertainties than surface data. The reasons I gave are similar to those on page 6 of this report. I’m merely trying to emphasize that the troposphere debate was due to uncertainties in remote measurements, which still remain larger than surface measurement uncertainties.
      
      … no, figure 4 doesn’t vividly illustrate low SNR, because they state 95% confidence levels, etc … (paraphrased)
      
      I’m not referring to the error bars on the linear trend. I’m referring to the fact that predicting the climate is a boundary value problem; it’s really all about measuring the energy imbalance of the Earth. Notice that skeptics like Dr. Pielke advocate using ocean heat content as a diagnostic of climate change rather than surface air temperatures. I agree with him about this point, because the ocean has a vast heat capacity compared to air at the surface. So it’s a better place to look for an energy imbalance (in theory).
      
      In contrast, the heat capacity of the stratosphere is even lower than that of air at the surface. In other words, it’s a really bad place to look for signals of a global energy imbalance.
      
      … and those volcanic temperature jumps look just about how you’d expect them to … (paraphrased)
      
      Good thing we know what to expect because of GCMs… right?
      
      … If you’re complaining about a few satellite instruments, why aren’t you complaining about CRU’s temperature proxies based only on a low number of bristlecone pines? … (paraphrased)
      
      Because there’s a difference between remote measurements made by a few dozen sensors over the last ~40 years, and thousands of surface temperature stations backed up with boreholes, ice cores and numerous other proxies extending much further back in time. I’ll complain when I see a genuinely peer-reviewed paper make a sweeping claim based only on weak proxy data.
      
      … You’ve criticized every climate change skeptic argument I’ve seen presented … (paraphrased)
      
      Not all of them, no. Also:
      
      I’m annoyed with the prevalence of the term “tipping point” in the mainstream media, when we don’t have any idea where it lies, or whether runaway warming is remotely likely in the foreseeable future.
      
      The third and fourth links in my article describe exaggerations in Al Gore’s movie.
      
      The mainstream media plays up the “Gulf stream shutdown” scenario, which is extremely unlikely in the near future according to all the peer-reviewed science I’ve seen.
      
      I agree that the media is filled with over-hyped research.
      
      … I just don’t agree that the overwhelming majority of scientists are spectacularly incompetent or engaged in a vast conspiracy.
      
      Update: Oh, I forgot an anecdote in that list of mine. I was nursing a beer at a talk on the reliability of GCM predictions at the 2009 AGU Fall Meeting… I don’t remember the title or speaker, but I think it was the middle of the week and I vividly remember the sweet, sweet taste of free lager, so it must have been right after “beer o’clock” which at the AGU is mid-afternoonish. Anyway, the guy was mocking a website claiming to provide regional climate predictions for annual averages (not ~20 year averages!) of temperature, humidity, precipitation… out to 2030… for specific zip codes. By the end, the crowd was howling with laughter. The notion that current science is anywhere near this accurate is on par with the idea that the CIA is advanced enough to remotely control our brainwaves unless we’re all foiled up.
      
      Another update: Found the talk; it was given by Lenny Smith and was even worse/funnier than I recalled:
      
      “Is it conceivable that models run on 2007 computer hardware could provide robust and credible probabilistic information for decision support and user guidance at the ZIP code level for sub-daily meteorological events in 2060? In 2090? Retrospectively, how informative would output from today’s models have proven in 2003? or the 1930’s? Consultancies in the United Kingdom, including the Met Office, are offering services to ‘future-proof’ their customers from climate change. How is a US or European based user or policy maker to determine the extent to which exciting new Bayesian methods are relevant here? or when a commercial supplier is vastly overselling the insights of today’s climate science? …”
      
      … The IPCC screwed up 2350 with 2035 and used non-peer-reviewed sources, so their credibility is shot to hell … (paraphrased)
      
      As I’ve already discussed, you’re talking about errors in the WG2 report, which isn’t the scientific report. If you want to discuss science, try the WG1 report. I’ll even help you by finding an error in the WG1 report: at the bottom of the first column of page 624 in chapter 8, the phrase “too to the west” appears, which is grammatically incorrect!
      
      Update: Found another error!
      
      … Because of the change in ozone and temperature trends, models will yet again have to be adjusted to fit reality, and this is pretty major … (paraphrased)
      
      Again, you seem to be assuming that GCMs are empirical models. They’re actually dynamical, which means that aside from a few tuning parameterizations, they simply describe basic physics. Forcings such as levels of greenhouse gases, ozone concentrations, solar variability and volcanic eruptions are inputs to these models. The models don’t have to be changed at all, but ozone forcing inputs need to be adjusted. Again, you seem to be the only one who thinks the surface forcing will be significant. I’d really like to see a paper or some basic calculations, even if just to establish the order of magnitude compared to other forcings.
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-16 at 18:38
      
      … Climate predictions have mostly been wrong … ambiguous reference to temperature trends over 8-9 years … [Someone] (paraphrased)
      
      As I’ve explained, climate is the global average over ~20 years. That’s a limitation of modern science; computers aren’t fast enough, raw data isn’t extensive enough, and not enough oscillations (ENSO, AO, AAO, NAO, PNA, AMO, PDO, MJO, etc.) can be simulated precisely enough to meaningfully talk about “climate” on a shorter timescale. Trends of 8-9 years are probably under the noise floor, and (as I explain in that link) it’s important to remember that just because CO₂ is the most significant forcing, that doesn’t mean other forcings are completely insignificant.
      
      Because of this limitation, climatologists primarily use hindcasts through proxy records to validate the models, among other techniques. Making a prediction and then waiting 20 years to see if it comes true isn’t practical, so few peer-reviewed papers tend to ask “Hey, what did that model 20 years ago predict?” But these analyses are also informally performed and they seem both honest and generally positive to me. You can verify this yourself by downloading the GCM source codes and global temperature data in the sources listed here. Remember to smooth over at least 20 years, and compare the projected emissions used to the actual values. (Most projections give several “scenarios” where CO₂ emissions change differently to account for uncertainty in future human behavior.)
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-16 at 18:41
      
      … Why weren’t the temperature trends predicted even though the ozone recovery should be connected to it? And why was it only just discovered last year? … [Someone] (paraphrased)
      
      If you’re implying that scientists detected the possible increase in stratospheric ozone without realizing it would have a warming effect on the stratosphere, that’s not true. The problem is that ozone and CO₂ and volcanoes aren’t the only forcings strongly affecting stratospheric temperatures, so the connection isn’t that clear.
      
      Again, the stratosphere has an extremely low heat capacity compared to the lower atmosphere (let alone the ocean). Because of this, small amounts of energy can send its temperature through the roof. Plus, it’s more exposed to the solar wind than the lower atmosphere. So it’s buffeted by many different forcings. Yet again, I’m saying that stratospheric trends aren’t as well understood as surface trends, and their temperature trends aren’t useful indicators of an energy imbalance (unlike surface temperature trends).
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-17 at 20:17
      
      … If that is so, then why does the ozone recovery match the calibrated temperature measurements? … [Someone] (paraphrased)
      
      If what is so, specifically? It almost sounds like you’re asking me to justify the statement “If you’re implying that scientists detected the possible increase in stratospheric ozone without realizing it would have a warming effect on the stratosphere, that’s not true.”
      
      But that would be silly. Atmospheric physicists have long known that ozone warms the stratosphere by absorbing UV from the sun. As a side effect, we’re protected from severe sunburns. That’s why governments banned CFCs to protect the ozone layer. And that’s probably why we’re seeing ozone recovery today.
      
      So maybe you meant: “the stratosphere has an extremely low heat capacity compared to the lower atmosphere (let alone the ocean).”
      
      The “short-term” heat capacity of the ocean can be approximated by neglecting deep water because heat rises and deep ocean mixing is too slow to matter on a human timescale. The heat capacity of the upper 1 m of the ocean (p 126) is ~1.5×10²¹ J/K and Lukas 1991 estimates the depth of the upper mixing layer at ~30m in the western Pacific. It may be more shallow elsewhere, but an area-weighted average is likely to be close to that of the Pacific.
      
      So the ocean’s relevant heat capacity is ~4.5×10²² J/K. The atmosphere’s total mass is ~5.2×10¹⁸ kg, and ~85% is below the tropopause. Since the specific heat of air is ~1.0×10³ J/(kg*K), the troposphere’s heat capacity is ~4.4×10²¹ J/K. So the ocean+troposphere system has a (short-term) total heat capacity of ~4.9×10²² J/K.
      
      Now compare that to the stratosphere’s heat capacity, which is ~7.8×10²⁰ J/K because it contains most of the other ~15% of the atmosphere’s mass. These are crude approximations, of course, but look at the differences in the exponents. Then consider that global warming is a boundary value problem concerning a decades-long energy imbalance. That’s why Dr. Pielke advocates using ocean heat content rather than air temperatures, and the same reasoning implies that the stratosphere is a bad place to look for signs of an energy imbalance.
      
      … If that is so, then why does the ozone recovery match the calibrated temperature measurements? … It doesn’t seem very hard to get pretty consistent data out, even given the other forcings … (paraphrased)
      
      What sentence in the paper gives you this impression? Every relevant sentence I can find is loaded with qualifiers like “may relate”, “may provide evidence”, “may suggest”, etc. That’s not an accident; scientific language is used like a scalpel.
      
      I agree with the authors; their research is good reason to suggest that stratospheric temperatures are increasing because of ozone recovery. It’s interesting research. I just don’t see any other point to be drawn from it.
      
      … You’re exaggerating the role of other forcings in the stratosphere … (paraphrased)
      
      Scientists have known about sudden stratospheric warmings since at least 1971: Matsuno,T., 1971 : A dynamical model of stratospheric warmings. J. Atmos. Sci., 28, 1479–1494.
      
      They’ve been studied for ~40 years, but still aren’t well understood because of the complexity of the stratosphere, multitude of forcings, and difficulty/sparseness of measurements.
      
      … Again, if you’re complaining about a few satellite instruments, why aren’t you complaining about CRU’s temperature proxies based only on a low number of bristlecone pines? … (paraphrased)
      
      Again, what are you talking about? I just haven’t seen any papers that fit this (obviously fraudulent/ridiculous) description. I’d like to at least see these extremely questionable papers that you’ve repeatedly accused me of accepting.
      
      … Those “independent” verifications of Mann’s temperature reconstructions aren’t independent because the scientists worked with Mann and colleagues, and used the same proxies … (paraphrased)
      
      If you’re genuinely interested in the physics and independent verification, I highly recommend borehole data. By measuring the temperature of the ground at various depths, past surface temperatures can be reconstructed using heat conduction equations.
      
      This doesn’t use CRU data at all, but it yields a similar temperature reconstruction. That’s not too surprising, because there’s no evidence that the CRU data was falsified as you imply. If you don’t believe me, download the data from different centers and apply the same test as in that “no evidence” link. Or come up with a better analysis to uncover evidence of this nefarious conspiracy. Seriously. I’d be interested to see the results of your code. Post them, and I promise I’ll read them.
      
      Update: Oerlemans 2005 shows that glacier records also give a similar answer using a completely different proxy and methodology.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-18 at 18:40
      
      … You’ve contradicted yourself by saying that UV is strong enough to cause sunburn, but not strong enough to affect surface temperatures … [Someone] (paraphrased)
      
      Stratospheric ozone absorbs UV, which is good for animals and plants because sunburns and skin cancer are dependent on the energy of each photon, which is inversely proportional to the photon’s wavelength. Because UV wavelengths are shorter than those of visible light, each UV photon has enough energy individually to break the chemical bonds in our DNA.
      
      Thermodynamic effects, though, are dependent on the total energy of all the photons summed together. So when I say that ozone’s surface radiative forcing (i.e. global warming effects) are small, that’s because sunlight has less UV than visible light. Ozone’s absorption of UV can warm the stratosphere, but only because of its low heat capacity.
      
      Again, ozone’s radiative forcing at the surface is much smaller than CO₂‘s. In fact, notice that the error bars on stratospheric ozone actually lie on both the positive and negative sides of the forcings chart, which means modern science can’t distinguish its effect from “zero”.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-19 at 11:12
      
      This conversation seems to be finished, but I think this might be the debate she was talking about.
      
      I tend to agree with CapitalistImperialistPig: dendrochronology seems kind of spooky. Research involving living matter just strikes me as softer and somehow ickier than “pure” physics like boreholes, ice cores, instrumental records, etc. For instance, the divergence after 1960 makes me uncomfortable, but mainly because I don’t know much about it. I also don’t know how many cores are “enough” for reliable temperature reconstruction (even aside from all the other considerations), and the thought of taking enough time to try to understand that question makes me shiver. I’m comfortable relegating tree ring data to the status of “supporting evidence” which happens to correlate well (before 1960) with other proxies.
      
      Reply
      - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-07-03 at 16:12
        
        Who has the time?
        
        Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-10 at 02:02

(Ed. note: this comment was copied from here regarding an article about the need for open source code in climate science.)

I’m finishing a program that inverts GRACE data to reveal fluctuations in gravity such as those caused by melting/thinning glaciers. This program will eventually be released as open source software under the GPLv3. It’s largely built on open source libraries like the GNU Scientific Library, but snippets of proprietary code from JPL found their way into the program years ago, and I’m currently trying to untangle them. The program can’t be made open source until I succeed because of an NDA that I had to sign in order to work at JPL.

It’s impossible to say how long it will take to banish the proprietary code. While working on this project, my research is at a standstill. There’s very little academic incentive to waste time on this idealistic goal when I could be increasing my publication count.

Annoyingly, the data themselves don’t belong to me. Again, I had to sign an NDA to receive them. So I can’t release the data. This situation is common to scientists in many different fields.

Incidentally, Harry’s README file is typical of my experiences with scientific software. Fragile, unportable, uncommented spaghetti code is common because scientists aren’t professional programmers. Of course, this doesn’t invalidate the results of that code because it’s tested primarily through independent verification, not unit tests. Scientists describe their algorithms in peer-reviewed papers, which are then re-implemented (often from scratch) by other scientists. Open source code practices would certainly improve science, but he’s wrong to imply that a single bug could have a significant impact on our understanding of the greenhouse effect.

Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-10 at 02:04

(Ed. note: these comments were copied from here.)

Well, there’s a pile of articles from Dr. McIntyre. Many of these criticize HadCRUT3 or its components. So yes, the data itself has been called into question repeatedly. [Khallow]

Look at his peer-reviewed papers and follow their citations in google scholar. If there’s a peer-reviewed paper that shows significant flaws in the HadCRUT3 dataset which hasn’t been convincingly rebutted, I’d like to know.

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-10 at 02:05
  
  How about this tidbit where the UK Met denies the FOIA request to access CRUTEM3 data and claims that “records were not kept” of where the data came from. Where is the convincing rebuttal for the years of runaround from the CRU, UK Met, and associated parties? [Khallow]
  
  Please note that I asked for a peer-reviewed paper, which would contain some kind of physics-based argument. Conspiracy theories bore me; science is really much more interesting!
  
  Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-10 at 02:05
    
    While peer-reviewed papers aren’t always correct, their signal to noise ratio is far higher than blogs, so I recommend learning science from them rather than the rantings of economists and mining engineers. If you seriously think the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is spectacularly incompetent or involved in an evil conspiracy, then there’s very little I can do. After all, that means I’m a drooling idiot or a conspirator too, right? I see no point in a conversation like that. Have a nice day.
    
    Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-10 at 02:07

(Ed. note: these comments were copied from here.)

… It’s still criticism (and he has been other than “probably false and/or misleading” at times in the past, remember the “hockey stick” complaint?). [Khallow]

The NAS report found no significant problems with Mann’s 1998 reconstruction, and it’s been confirmed repeatedly by independent teams.

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-10 at 02:08
  
  I see that they found no significant problems with the McIntyre and McKitrick papers either. [Khallow]
  
  They weren’t convened to critique the MM03/05 papers, so describing MM’s misunderstandings of selection rules in principal component analysis would be outside the scope of the report. I’ve listed some peer-reviewed papers here (7d in the index) which cover those topics in more detail.
  
  Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-10 at 02:08
    
    … they did discuss the MM papers. [Khallow]
    
    Of course; chapters 9 and 11 both mention McIntyre 3 times. Each time, their claim is briefly but not extensively discussed because the conclusions on page 117 include: “The instrumentally measured warming of about 0.6°C during the 20th century is also reflected in borehole temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers, and other observational evidence, and can be simulated with climate models.”
    
    As far as I can tell, the largest caveats to emerge from the NAS report are concerns about the uncertainty estimates (especially prior to 1600 CE) and this sentence on page 115: “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium’ because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.”
    
    Second, the two papers you mention (Rutherford 2005 and Wahl and Ammann 2007) are based on CRU data, the Rutherford paper even has Jones and Mann as coauthors.
    
    My point is that those papers can’t be affected by the claimed MM PCA “mistake” because they use different methodologies.
    
    There was ample opportunity to cook (deliberately or via unintentional observer bias) the CRU estimates to restore the hockey stick by 2005.
    
    I’ve already linked the results of independent temperature reconstructions. And last year I said: Each time series in the graph I previously linked is referenced in chapter 6 here. Turn to page 469 and examine Table 6.1 (later, if you get bored, consider checking out column 2 of page 466 which reviews the claims of MM03 and MM05.) Every time series is referenced well enough to be found on google scholar– for example here’s one of them. As you’ve seen from the graph, they all support the abrupt temperature increase in Mann’s graph. (I freely admit that all these authors could be drooling morons, sheeple incapable of independent thought, or evil conspirators… any of these scenarios or a linear combination of them would completely discredit my position.)
    
    Notice how all these reconstructions show an abrupt temperature spike in the last few decades. Most interesting is “PS2004″ which reconstructs past temperatures using borehole data. By measuring the temperature of the ground at various depths, past surface temperatures can be reconstructed using heat conduction equations.
    
    This isn’t based on CRU data at all, but it’s also consistent. That’s not too surprising, because there’s no evidence that the CRU data has been “cooked” as you imply.
    
    Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-26 at 19:12
      
      … Further, the overall conclusions of this body of work are dependent on a few key players, for example, the CRU people and their aggregate estimates of temperature over hundreds of thousands of years. I have yet to find an independent estimate backing the Mann-Jones estimate. … [Khallow]
      
      That was just two weeks later. The futility of these conversations is depressing and frustrating. It’s just not worth trying to clear up this apparent confusion of ~200 year instrumental aggregates with ~650,000 year ice core proxies like EPICA.
      
      Reply
Karl Hallowell posted on 2010-02-10 at 06:55

I think a key problem here that I simply am not capable of addressing is the claim of independence. You claim there are independent research confirming the original 1998 paper. The problem here is that the research may not be independent. Obviously, there is one good sense already in which they can’t be independent, namely, if they are an accurate description of reality, then they all should show similar things. The problem comes, if there is an expectation that they should show similar things when they shouldn’t.

The MM research showed that there should be a artifact of the type observed coming from the original Jones and Mann paper just from the statistical methodology used in that paper. What concerns me here is that the other research duplicates what may well be an flawed artifact of the original paper rather than a genuine phenomena. We may well be seeing an example of group observer bias (driven by the expectation that their results should look like older research). That would introduce dependence.

I’m also concerned by the CRU’s role in the political side of the AGW debate. I see you’ve replied to my post on that (on Slashdot) so it might be included on your site. Here’s my basic problem. There’s a lot at stake politically and economically (huge amounts of money and power). The CRU is funded by back-to-back pro-AGW governments in the UK (Blair and Brown). It also plays a role in supporting carbon emission regulation by the EU and the conclusions if the IPCC. It has the more aggressive predictions of future AGW out there (as far as I know, CRU researchers predicted a 6C rise in temperature by the end of the century last fall, conveniently before the international conference in Copenhagen, Denmark).

Much of its data and code used in this research has been for years shielded from outside observation (and as we see in the CRU “hacked” emails, there was discussion on how to thwart FOIA requests rather than deliver this information). Finally, the CRU appears to be one of the few sources for temperature estimates for paleoclimate temperature data (Hansen’s group being another source, doesn’t instill me with confidence. Why put a politician who has a 20+ year career of AGW hype in charge of such an important task?).

So we have an organization that delivers some of the more extreme predictions, deliberately hides its research and internal workings, and has both motive and opportunity to distort its research. You should consider the possibility that there is serious bias either accidental or intentional. Fraud may well be occurring. I’m especially suspicious due to the fake urgency surrounding carbon emission reduction. There’s no apparent reason, for example, for the Kyoto treaty, the carbon markets in Europe, or last year’s attempts by the Democrats in the States to pass cap and trade regulation on carbon dioxide emissions.

As I said in my post on Slashdot, I don’t see the situation as hopeless or even that much of a problem. Even if there is some vast hidden conspiracy to distort the temperature data, merely waiting a couple of decades solves those issues. If temperature is rising as claimed, it’ll be much more apparent by then. Then we can implement sound carbon emission control policies using the more solid evidence of the future and have better technological alternatives to fossil fuels at our disposal. We’ll also be a bit wealthier and more able to fund any necessary transitions.

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-10 at 07:52
  
  … I think a key problem here that I simply am not capable of addressing is the claim of independence. …
  
  This is understandable and perfectly natural for anyone who doesn’t spend the majority of his waking life studying this branch of physics. But the next two paragraphs extrapolate “I am not capable” to “no one is capable,” which is where we disagree. Again, I recommend reading those papers– at the very least the PS2004 one. With so many diverse datasets and methodologies pointing to the same conclusion, it’s highly unlikely to be caused by observer bias.
  
  … CRU researchers predicted a 6C rise in temperature by the end of the century last fall …
  
  As have others. They are indeed higher than the IPCC’s most likely projections. According to this survey, only ~20% of scientists think the IPCC has understated the problem. While most of us favor the IPCC’s projections, I’ve described positive feedback effects throughout this article that might be large enough to make a 6°C rise possible under the “wait and see” approach to dealing with CO₂.
  
  Either way, as explained above ad nauseum, I think the best course of action is to spur a new industrial revolution by enacting John McCain’s plan to build 45 nuclear power plants before 2030.
  
  What’s left is a longer version of the same conspiracy theory that bored me on Slashdot. If you have a physics-based question that hasn’t already been answered in the index above, I’ll try to answer it.
  
  Reply
Karl Hallowell posted on 2010-02-10 at 09:54

I didn’t say the task was impossible. I simply think the research is more intertwined than you claim and that there are groups on several sides with the power to warp the current research significantly. Plus the CRU code really needs fixing. And the guy who is fixing it is one of the most pitiable creatures on this planet.

I can’t help but notice that the MIT study you cite doesn’t have a place to download the code for their model. At this point, I’m seriously considering demoting any computer based prediction in climatology to the status of “opinion” unless they provide source code.

If there really is a warming trend, we will in time see sufficiently obvious signs.

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-10 at 10:43
  
  I can’t help but notice that the MIT study you cite doesn’t have a place to download the code for their model. At this point, I’m seriously considering demoting any computer based prediction in climatology to the status of “opinion” unless they provide source code.
  
  The paper calls their model the “MIT Integrated Global System Model” which isn’t showing up in my quick search. However, it might have been renamed to the “MIT Global Circulation Model” which can be downloaded here. (I’m not sure if they’re really the same, but their references looked similar based on my quick glance… Update: No, it seems like MIT IGSM is more than a GCM, it’s also got some kind of economic model attached. If it’s not open source, it certainly should be.)
  
  Anyway, they compare it to models from the IPCC AR4, which can be downloaded here and here with model output available here. The models can be compared to proxies and various instrumental temperature records. The code for some of the reconstructions can be downloaded here.
  
  If there really is a warming trend, we will in time see sufficiently obvious signs.
  
  That’s already happened, but I won’t continue to rehash the physics because I’ve given up hope that you might ask a new question about it. Your other comment is similar:
  
  … Even if there is a spectacularly incompetent scientific community or a vast evil conspiracy, they won’t be able to get reality to fit over the span of coming decades. If there really is substantial global warming occurring (and I grant part of that may be masked by other kinds of pollution like particulate matter and sulfur dioxide), the effects will become too obvious to explain away with all but the more bug eyed-crazy conspiracy theories.
  
  But, as the research summarized in the previous ~80 pages shows, the effects are already too obvious to explain away… and have been for many years. Apparently we can agree that there will always be conspiracy theorists, regardless of how overwhelming the evidence is.
  
  The key to distinguishing a scientist from a bug eyed-crazy conspiracy theorist is that one discusses physical laws, evidence and uncertainty estimates while the other repeatedly asserts that a small cabal has brainwashed the overwhelming majority of scientists.
  
  Reply
  - Karl Hallowell posted on 2010-02-11 at 08:09
    
    Let me put it simply. I don’t trust the current research. I don’t trust your or my characterizations of the current research. I don’t have the time to figure this out though my belief is that there is insufficient uncertainty in the predictions of future climate change.
    
    I figure though that this will all settled down in a couple of decades. We’ll almost double the duration of satellite-based evidence (plus have a greater span of data collected) and global warming will be more pronounced by then. Further, the economics side will be better known. We’ll have a better idea of the future direction of fossil fuels since peak oil will probably happen by then with peak natural gas coming. Alternative technologies like solar cells (which appear to be declining in price per watt by about 50% per eight years) may obsolete some or most fossil fuel needs. Perhaps the problem will solve itself by then.
    
    I thank you for this marvelous website though. You have been sincere, helpful, and knowledgeable. I will consider your words even though I’m obviously not very receptive at the moment.
    
    Reply
Thirdeye posted on 2010-02-19 at 21:35

Just out of curiosity, do you know how much pollution is discharged into the atmosphere when a single volcanic eruption occurs? Wondering how it compares to the anthropogenic discharge?

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-19 at 21:38
  
  The quick answer is that our CO₂ emissions are now ~100x greater than the average amount dumped into the atmosphere every decade by volcanoes. (Allowing for size/number of eruptions per decade, etc.)
  
  Also, we can distinguish CO₂ from combustion of fossil fuels from volcanic CO₂ based on the isotopes. It turns out that plants slightly prefer one isotope of carbon (¹²C) over another isotope (¹³C). So fossil fuels are abnormally high in ¹²C.
  
  The ratio of ¹²C/¹³C in atmospheric CO₂ is rising in roughly the way you’d expect if our emissions were causing the current skyrocketing peak rather than, say, an undiscovered undersea volcano.
  
  Update: In fact, we know how much CO₂ we’ve emitted because governments tax coal and oil, and that amount is roughly double the increase in the atmosphere. This indicates that ~50% of our CO₂ is building up in “carbon sinks” like the oceans and parts of the biosphere.
  
  Reply
  - Thirdeye posted on 2010-02-19 at 21:39
    
    Ok that makes sense. Why the comment about the plants though? Is that how we sample the CO₂?
    
    Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-19 at 21:43
      
      Because plants are the foundation of the ecosystem. Therefore all biological carbon has more ¹²C than usual, which includes the CO₂ produced by burning fossil fuels and land clearing. But volcanic CO₂ doesn’t pass through this filter, so the ¹²C/¹³C ratio of eruptions is different.
      
      Actually, modern CO₂ sampling is based on a network of mechanical sensors; the most famous is Mauna Loa.
      
      This increase from 320-380ppm over 50 years might seem benign, but we can also analyze the gas trapped in ice cores in Antarctica. Sampling the gas to detect the CO₂ concentration in the past yields these results.
      
      What might seem like a slow increase in human terms is practically a discontinuity in geological time: ~35x faster than anything observed in the last half million years. More recent results suggest that you’d have to go back 15 million years to find CO₂ levels as high as today’s:
      
      “The highest estimates of pCO₂ occur during the Mid-Miocene Climatic Optimum (MMCO; ~16 to 14 Ma), the only interval in our record with levels higher than the 2009 value of 387 ppmv. Climate proxies indicate the MMCO was associated with reduced ice volume and globally higher sea level (25 to 40 meters) (3), as well as warmer surface and deep-water temperatures (2, 20). These results are consistent with foraminiferal d11B data that indicate surface waters were more acidic ~20 Ma (12).”
      
      Reply
    - Thirdeye posted on 2010-02-19 at 21:44
      
      Also, aren’t there some schools of thought that think that increased CO₂ in the atmosphere may actually contribute to a cooler Earth by increasing the Earth’s albedo? Can’t remember where I heard that, I think some atmosphere guy was on Charlie Rose one night.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-19 at 21:49
      
      I… don’t know. Never heard of that before, to be honest.
      
      There are particles that have that effect, though. Aerosols decrease the size of cloud water droplets, increasing the albedo of clouds. For several decades, this was a problem called “global dimming” which worked basically the way you suggest. Here’s a discussion about that effect, with a table of radiative forcings.
      
      Notice that CO₂‘s forcing in that table is positive and large, so it warms the planet. The greenhouse effect is much more complicated than I first thought, but the underlying physics were firmly established by the 1960s. A great deal of uncertainty remains regarding details, though. For instance, global circulation models (GCMs) predict that doubling the CO₂ concentration results in a long-term equilibrium temperature rise of 2.9°C (maximum likelihood value) with 95% confidence levels of 1.7°C to 4.9°C.
      
      This number is known as the equilibrium climate sensitivity, and it’s largely a result of positive feedback from water vapor. As shown by the size of the error bars, getting it exactly right is very difficult, but it almost certainly can’t be negative. Unless I’m mistaken, that would violate the laws of physics. That’s why (to the best of my knowledge) nobody’s ever created a GCM that matches historical records of temperature/pollution/solar variability/eruptions/etc without predicting that increasing CO₂ warms the long-term global climate (averaged over ~20 years to ignore weather noise).
      
      Remember that the average temperature of the Earth is ~30°C higher than it would be without the greenhouse effect (holding solar radiation and Earth’s albedo constant).
      
      Then consider that Mercury’s daytime surface temperature is 350°C.
      
      That seems hot, right? Astonishingly, Venus has a nighttime surface temperature of ~470°C.
      
      … despite the fact that Venus is 87% farther away from the Sun than Mercury, implying sunlight 3.5x weaker.
      
      … and despite the fact that Mercury’s albedo is 0.1 and Venus’s albedo is 0.65.
      
      … and despite the fact that a “night” on Venus lasts ~58 Earth days, during which the temperature barely changes from that at “high noon”.
      
      Now, I’m not saying that the Earth will turn into Venus. That would be absurd. We have no reason to think that the “runaway greenhouse” on Venus is even possible on Earth. But the greenhouse effect is very real, very powerful, and our sister planet shows that it scales enormously. I wouldn’t gamble my money (or my civilization) on the notion that it’s inherently self-limiting.
      
      Reply
    - Thirdeye posted on 2010-02-19 at 21:50
      
      Also, is there any nuclear activity going on in the core that could be warming the planet?
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-19 at 21:51
      
      Yeah, nuclear decay is something like 0.1% of the Earth’s heat budget. The rest comes from the Sun.
      
      Heat from decay of radioactive elements in the core should be slowly decreasing according to their half-lives, though. It shouldn’t be capable of producing a warming trend in the climate. The closest thing to an exception I can think of is the Oklo natural nuclear reactor that formed ~1.8 billion years ago and ran for a few hundred thousand years. But it was many orders of magnitude too small to cause the present warming.
      
      Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-20 at 14:35
    
    Found another error in the online version of the IPCC AR4 WG1 report:
    
    From: Dumb Scientist’s real email
    To: IPCC Secretariat address from website
    
    Date: Feb 20, 2010 at 2:35 PM
    Subject: Duplicated figure?
    
    To Whom It May Concern,
    
    First, thank you for your very helpful report. I’m writing because I recently tried to direct someone to the AR4 WG1 chapter 2, figure 2.3 (CO2 isotope ratios plot). But the relevant link is this.
    
    However, that’s actually a copy of figure 2.4. Something similar happened with 2.5 and 2.6.
    
    Sincerely,
    Dumb Scientist’s real name
    
    Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-22 at 09:17
      
      From: Laura Biagioni
      To: Dumb Scientist’s real email
      
      Date: Feb 22, 2010 at 8:24 AM
      Subject: Re: Fwd: Duplicated figure?
      
      Dear Dumb Scientist’s real name,
      
      Thank you very much for your message.
      The good version of the figures 2.3 and 2.5 of the AR4 WG I are on line now.
      Thank you for the interest on the work of the IPCC.
      With best regards,
      Laura Biagioni
      
      Reply
JordanL posted on 2010-02-22 at 23:38

(Ed. note: these comments were copied from here.)

One of the things that REALLY bugs me about climate research is seeing LEGITIMATE scientists use the word “SKEPTIC” as a SMEAR.

Scientists are SUPPOSED to be skeptic, and I understand that this is not what the phrase is meant to convey, but the mere idea of labeling a scientists “skeptic” to smear him shows how political scientists in general have become. Remember when they were all about the pursuit of truth and knowledge?

I guess it sounds better than “denier”, (which sounds like some McCarthy-era witch-hunt-ism), but why can’t scientists keep their professionalism in situations which become politicized?

Reply
- Daniel Dvorkin posted on 2010-02-22 at 23:59
  
  It’s a smear only in a very specific context: Lomborg and his ilk are, unfortunately, often identified as “skeptics” in the press. They’re no such thing, of course — “denier” or “denialist” is much more accurate* — but when you have a bunch of people spouting pseudoscientific garbage who are handed the “skeptic” label as a gift, it’s inevitable that those who point out the garbage will appear to be “smearing skeptics.” The only answer appears to be to point out as often as possible that they aren’t skeptics by any reasonable definition of the word. There is simply no amount of evidence that will ever or could ever convince them. Their ideology trumps any data in their minds.
  
  And not only is this the way they think, they assume that everyone else thinks that way too; thus the constant accusations of quasi-religion (“warmism”) leveled against people who actually study the data and try to figure out what’s happening to the environment. Arguing with denialists is closely akin to arguing with religious fundamentalists. Anything that is not of (their interpretation of) God must perforce be of the Devil. They just can’t acknowledge that there are other worldviews that don’t fit into their box.
  
  *Since “denier” is often prefaced with a word beginning with “H,” those who get called “deniers” often take refuge behind Godwin. “Denialist” works nicely, and in fact may be the most accurate term since it describes an ideology rather than just an action.
  
  Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-23 at 00:44
    
    I tend to use the word skeptic (as a gift, for precisely the reasons you mention) because I’m tired of dealing with the anger that I often find in the general public. It’s an undeserved compliment I give them to avoid headaches, but I think you’re both right to say that this tactic smears the word “skeptic” which (if genuine, of course) is a very good word. I think the word “contrarian” might be better at averting a Godwin defense, and it captures the general attitude I’ve seen pretty well.
    
    Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-23 at 15:02

(Ed. note: This comment was copied from here regarding an article about Friel’s “debunking” of a book by Lomborg.)

I’ve never heard of Lomborg before today, but your summary makes him sound like someone I could agree with. That’s mainly because I think most of the “green” movement is irrational, and one manifestation is that they’ve blocked the advancement of nuclear power for decades. Their myopic naivete kept us dependent on coal, and even today continues to sour public sentiment regarding the best practical solution.

I completely agree with these comments when they say that the article demonstrates that Friel doesn’t do a very good job. I also mostly agree with this sentiment regarding the shrill nature of these debates, and I agree with gkai’s assessment of this distinction between science and policy.

Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-23 at 15:37

(Ed. note: this comment was copied from here.)

This is a really great introduction to the details of everything.

Cool, that’s an awesome website! I especially liked the graphic here. I think the “Phil current” curve describes me well. I agree with Phil that the IPCC’s error bars seem a little narrow, but not by much.

Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-02-24 at 10:51

Is it right, however, to lump together those who are skeptical of evolution with those who are skeptical of AGW, particularly CO₂-driven AGW? [Someone]

Creationists confuse religious faith with falsifiable science. Among the general public, climate-change contrarians confuse political affiliation with falsifiable science. In both cases, scientists are much less likely to agree with either claim, and that likelihood decreases with increasing relevance of the scientist’s field. That’s probably why both groups tend to accuse the scientific community of conspiracy and /or w i d e s p r e a d incompetence.

… I’ve never seen any overlap between creationists and AGW skeptics. I demand you show me some evidence of this. … (paraphrased) [timmarhy]

In m y exp eri en ce there’s a si gn if ic ant over lap be twe en the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar int ell ect ual and edu cat ional lev els.

Reply
ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-19 at 18:20

(Ed. note: These comments were copied from the links attached to the posters’ names. This comment was actually posted on 2007-03-19 at 12:02 but I’ve changed the time so it appears right before the rest of ShakaUVM’s comments. Our subsequent conversation would probably be inexplicable without providing this context.)

Al Gore is relevant insofar as he is the perfect example of our dependence on energy. As much as he crusades about CO2 emissions, he takes a private jet instead of flying coach, and spends energy and CO2 in much vaster amounts than the average American that he hates so much. …

Reply
- ShakaUVM posted on 2007-12-24 at 02:57
  
  (Regarding an article about beaming power from solar satellites in low earth orbit.)
  
  My AP Bio teacher back in the day talked about this technology being about the worst thing possible for global warming, as it actually increases the amount of energy coming in to the Earth. Even oil just burns energy that was stored as organic matter ages ago.
  
  Nuclear is still the best way to deal with global warming.
  
  Reply
  - Loke the Dog posted on 2007-12-24 at 05:33
    
    Actually, your bio teacher was stupid.
    
    The thing is, one CO2 molecule will trap much more energy in the atmosphere over its lifetime there (which can, theoretically be almost forever) than it generated for us when it was burnt.
    
    For a beaming technology to work, it has to have relatively low power loss to the atmosphere, which means that most of the energy given to the atmosphere will actually be just waste heat from our appliances, which is so minimal compared to the total amount of energy the atmosphere gets from the sun that it will not matter.
    
    Ok, maybe I’ve been a bit confusing here, but to summarize it: Even if ALL of our energy came from a beam like this, it would not have any measurable effect on the earths temperatures. Not directly anyway, chemical reactions happening as a result of the beam is another issue although I don’t think that would have any impact either.
    
    Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2007-12-24 at 11:29
      
      The point about oil releasing trapped solar energy was just an academic one.
      
      Beaming down light like this will actually increase the effective solar output of the sun, which is a bad thing if you’re worried about global warming. Depending on how much extra solar energy you’re beaming down, it actually can have a significant effect.
      
      Reply
    - Loke the Dog posted on 2007-12-26 at 06:55
      
      No, it cant. Because, as I said, even if ALL our energy came from energy beams, they’d still count for less than 0,01% of the incomming energy to the earth. Completely insignificant, and about 1% of the CO2, CH4, halocarbons, etc (that is, greenhouse gasses that humans take part in producing) in the atmosphere. For this to contribute as much to global warming as burning fossil fuels per unit of energy in our grid, 99% of it needs to be lost to the atmosphere in the beaming.
      
      Also, this energy increase is basically equal to what you’d get from nuclear power. Not even solar power on the ground can give us energy without heating the earth up.
      
      Reply
    - MobyDisk posted on 2007-12-26 at 06:56
      
      (Ed. note: Originally posted on 2007-12-24 at 9:55 but that breaks up Loke’s conversation…)
      
      it actually increases the amount of energy coming in to the Earth.
      
      That’s what I used to think, but it turns out not to be a significant amount of energy. It’s far less than the amount of heat trapped by the resulting CO2 form burning oil. It’s isn’t about the production of heat as much as it is about the trapping of heat.
      
      Reply
    - toddestan posted on 2007-12-26 at 06:57
      
      (Ed. note: Originally posted on 2007-12-24 at 15:25 but that breaks up Loke’s conversation…)
      
      Actually, that would only be true when the satellite is not between the earth and the sun. Otherwise, the satellite going to be blocking light that would otherwise be hitting the earth anyway. The net amount of energy isn’t going to change (ignoring inefficiencies in the satellite), just the form of the energy. Now he would be right if the satellite was in the Lagrange point or something like that, but even then I would think we could safely ignore it.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2008-03-08 at 11:40
      
      … I might not have ever left college (I was a researcher for years) if the pay was good and I had an interesting task to solve.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2008-09-30 at 01:12
      
      BTW: I find it odd that the psuedo-skeptics have not lept on the missing methane issue as a way to discredit the IPCC
      
      I think the IPCC has done a good enough job discrediting themselves, with their predictions historically overstating global warming.
      
      Reply
    - Ambitwistor posted on 2008-09-30 at 12:31
      
      Climatologist James Annan has a whole series of blog posts debunking Pielke’s claims, e.g. here and here, here, etc. The short answer is that given the large amount of interannual noise present in the data, the 2.5 C “best estimate” trend is consistent with the observed trend, i.e. you can’t say with statistical confidence whether the discrepancy is due to statistical fluctuations in weather or is something real in the underlying climate system. Pielke also makes the common mistake of pretending that the model predictions don’t have any uncertainty and that you can “falsify” them based on a single best-guess trend. Actually, now that I look at it, he also used the projected 100-year warming rate, ignoring the fact that the warming rate is lower at the beginning of the projection period and higher at the end; this method will overstate the near-term warming projected.
      
      For an actual published comparison of IPCC model projections to observations, try here. (Interestingly, they too ignore model uncertainty except for climate sensitivity uncertainty, although that is the largest uncertainty.)
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2009-11-22 at 09:33
      
      IF the forecast temperature rise is 6C per century, then it is .6C per decade
      
      Nonsense. This is only true if it’s a linear relationship. Given that the greenhouse effect involves a complex feedback cycle, that is not a valid assumption.
      
      Yes, as we all know from Al Gore’s memorable definition of what a “non-linear system” is: “It’s a fancy way they have of saying that the changes are not all just gradual. Some of them come suddenly in big jumps.”
      
      I used to work doing modeling of both ocean seawater and other things (like heart cells or full cardiac cycles) which attempted to accurately simulate whatever ODE or whatever it was we were simulating. These models were incredibly sensitive to the various constants used, and what the starting assumptions were. They’d fly off into incoherent-land if these values were not very precise, or if the constants didn’t match each other. The only way we could calibrate or test our simulation was by, say, pulling out a rabbit’s heart, wiring it up, flooding it with some solution, and having the severed heart beat for us when driven by impulses at different frequencies and amplitude. Testing and experimentation is the only way to truly know something, as Feynman said. If we just relied on the models without doing followup experimentation with them, we’d have gotten wildly inaccurate results.
      
      Climatology, on the other hand, is “science-y”, but not really science. It wants to be science, it really does – and goes through the window dressings of having peer reviewed journals and conferences and all of that – but ultimately it is not science. There is no experimentation involved (or if you will, there is one large experiment running all the time), and there is no control for the experiment. Forgive me if I do not allow your models to substitute for actual experimentation, for the reasons listed above.
      
      As one of my professors once said, never listen to anyone who claims to be really accurate over the sample data set. It’s real easy to be accurate on a sample data set. Hell, you can always just spit back out the original numbers if you want – for my neural net spam filter, we could have just returned the classifications of each email and claimed 100% accuracy, for example. If you don’t think that climate researchers actually make bullshit claims like this, check out the wikipedia page on global climate modeling, and look at, say, this graph. There’s charts like that everywhere on wikipedia, showing how accurate the climate models are, even back in 1930, decades before the models were created.
      
      What is important is the accuracy going forward into new data, and as they do, they’ve found numerous glaring problems with the predictive ability of climate models (such as rainfall changes being 25% of what is expected). (For some fun laughs, read predictions of what life would be like in 2010 written 10, 20 or 30 years ago.)
      
      The simple fact of the matter is, I don’t believe any (self-described) scientist who claims he knows how much temperature will move in the next 100 years, unless he says it will range somewhere between absolute zero and the temperature of the sun.
      
      And if it sounds like I’m picking on climate “scientists”, well, I am, but I had a number of friends who worked in the field at SIO, and they’re generally smart and nice guys, and think there’s a serious problem. Their problem lies in claiming more knowledge than they actually know. (Again, this is not how actual science works.) And it’s not like other fields have looked enviously at the tremendous success of real scientific fields, like physics, over the last hundred years. Psychology, sociology, hell even scientology and philosophy have tried to co-opt the patina of science for themselves. (Nearly every modern philosopher since Wittgenstein calls themselves an analytic philosopher, which was a movement to directly make philosophy more “scientific” and less heads-in-the-cloudsy.)
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2009-11-22 at 10:14
      
      Satellite temperatures are better for climate purposes because ground stations temperatures also pick up heat radiated from the ground and other buildings. Indeed, one of the great points of criticism made about global climate is weather or not the current level state of ground measuring statements is both consistent and accurate. I’d assume that they are not.
      
      Indeed – the Heat Island Effect. Interestingly enough, this was the major premise of State of Fear, that the Heat Island Effect was causing much of the measured temperature gain – that it was being underestimated by climatologists, therefore resulting in perceived global warming.
      
      Real Climate.org did a long blast on State of Fear, but interestingly enough, their response on the HIE was real weak, which essentially said “We know about it and are already compensating for it”. Well, yes… he said so. Why not just ignore stations within heat islands entirely (like he did in several charts)? RC.org’s response? Silence. And moderation of comments asking that question, too, interestingly enough. They like a little bit of criticism on the site, but not a lot. (Even if you ask it as nicely as I just did.)
      
      Michael Crichton also theorizes there is peer pressure in the field to keep global warming dissent out of peer reviewed journals. (“Preposterous!” Real Climate.org claimed.) Of course, with the Climategate emails leaked out, we now see compelling proof that Crichton was actually right on the money with this – with a climate journal which promoted a single GW skeptic to the editorial board being pressured to fire him, and lacking that, for everyone to boycott the journal, take their papers elsewhere, and to refuse to cite any articles in that journal.
      
      It’s all very interesting. I find RC.org informative, though obviously biased – when a British judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth could be shown in classrooms, but only with a teacher guide explaining that it is a polemic, NOT a documentary, RC.org conveniently left out this latter bit, making it appear Al Gore was completely vindicated in the courtroom.
      
      I’m giving a guest lecture on global warming next week, and used mainly RC.org, in conjunction with a mix of Green and government information sources to prepare the lecture.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-04-27 at 03:08
      
      Seriously. Cleaner air is bad for the planet? Shut up. As someone who has asthma, this pisses me off. I like breathing, thanks. Stop wasting time blaming the Clean Air Act and look at practical ways to cut carbon emissions in ways that don’t knock us back to the stone age.
      
      Yeah, it is. I actually lectured on this last Thursday (and tomorrow). The Clean Air Act is responsible in part for the spike in temperatures we got after, well, the Clean Air Act. Particulate matter is responsible for about a -0.3c to -0.5c temperature forcing (though it varies quite a bit when you get things like Pinatubo blowing off), and have been decreasing steadily in the last 40 years. I’m not saying belching smokestacks were a good thing, but a lot of the bullshit worry over global warming came as a result of temperature reaching a higher equilibrium from lowered particulate count as well as forcing from higher CO2 levels (which have contributed about +0.8C in forcing since the late 1800s. The actual numbers are doubled, but the oceans act as a buffer for a lot of the heat, so you only expect to see about half the gain from the forcings.
      
      So yeah, the Greens are responsible for Global Warming: the Clean Air Act, the SUV, and the massive CO2 output from energy production are all so-called “environmentalists” fault.
      
      Citations available upon request. My presentation is about 60 slides, for two days of lecture.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-04-27 at 03:41
      It would be nice if it were simple, wouldn’t it? If we could just say “pollution bad, stopping pollution all good effects.”
      
      Indeed. When lecturing on AGW last Thursday, it was amusing when my students asked if the volcano erupting was good or bad for the environment.
      
      The simple fact is that there’s no simple answer. If you’re an endangered bird who only nests on whatever-the-hell that volcano is, you’re pretty much fucked. If contrails from airplanes have a cooling effect, then grounding a bunch of planes might warm the atmosphere. The particulate matter will slightly cool the atmosphere. If you’re a specialized form of algae that eats volanic ash in saltwater, it might be great for you, but terrible for the fish nearby.
      
      The really tragic fact about Greens, is that they’re stupid. They simply don’t understand that every choice is always a mixture of pros and cons, good effects and bad effects and side effects. Their mindset (based on the precautionary principle) is that if ANYTHING is negative about an option, they must file a lawsuit and get it banned.
      
      This has led to:
      
      A ban on nuclear power here in California. 40% of America’s CO2 comes from coal and gas energy plants – if we’d gone nuclear since the 70s we’d have not killed tens of thousands of people (what? people die from coal?), and met every CO2 target out there, beyond Copenhagen or the farcical disaster that is Kyoto.
      
      The Sierra Club successfully shutting down a massive solar plant. (What? Solar is a green energy? But think of all the DESERT that would be covered by those panels! 25 tortoises live there!) Good luck getting more companies to put money into proposing green power generators, assholes. Similar stories exist for wind and tidal projects across the country.
      
      Demolition of hyrdoelectric dams. (What? Hydro is a green source of energy!? But fish are friends, not food!) Spending $300M to blow up two hydro plants seems like a good investment, right?
      
      The introduction of the SUV. CAFE killed the station wagon, but idiot legislation can’t kill demand for a product. So we no longer have the wood-paneled station wagon (1972 Country Squire: 18MPG) and now have the most Green-hated thing ever, the SUV (2009 Nissan Armada: 14 MPG).
      
      The Clean Air Act lowering particulate counts, as the article says. Not that Clean Air is a bad thing – I certainly wouldn’t want to live next to one of those belching, polluting smokestacks. (Like the cooling tower on a nuclear plant, like idiot wunderkind Al Gore showed in an Inconvenient Truth, but I digress.) But it does reduce the “protective” cooling effect particulate matter has in the atmosphere.
      
      As long as idiot Greens continue thinking in all-or-nothing terms, they’ll continue making decisions that are horribly bad both for the environment and for the economy.
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-04-27 at 04:06
      
      MOD PARENT UP!
      
      (Ed. note: this is slashdot-ese for, “I agree with this comment, so it should be more visible.”)
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-04-27 at 07:12
      
      … I’m ranting because I have to give a lecture in eight hours and answer questions from the students about why our system is so badly run. …
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-04-28 at 07:39
      
      … My lecture notes for this topic are about 10 pages long. I can post them all if you’d like.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-04-28 at 07:44
      
      … I actually research every topic rather thoroughly, and have probably spent more time on RC.org than any other single source, but it doesn’t mean I agree with RC.org (in fact, I think they’re deceitful hacks). I’ll listen to Glenn Beck and Pacifica Communist Radio in the same hour. …
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-04-28 at 07:47
      
      Bravo, ShakaUVM. You apparently have many foes, but well-said in all your arguments.
      
      Hey, thanks man. At least my post didn’t get modded as flamebait. Though I like the environment, clean air, and all that, I don’t have a lot of respect for the Greens, and I have to defend them in class (well, at least explain why someone would think that way), which tends to make me irritable toward them.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-19 at 18:42
      
      Its weird that I am not allowed to drop rubbish in the street but disposing of some types of effluent in the atmosphere which we all need to breathe is perfectly okay.
      
      Speak power to truth, comrade!
      
      The “effluent” CO2 coming out of your body in every breath certainly needs to be regulated. In the future, when my “carbon zero” plan is adopted, all people must wear CO2 rebreathers as they go about their daily business – or be “cap and taxed”, if you know what I mean. The guillotine is a carbon-neutral device, my friend!
      
      Together we shall end this imperialist capitalist pig pollution chemical weapon! Death to CO2!
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-19 at 19:53
      
      Note to people who don’t understand sarcasm: The EPA and others have begun pushing to label CO2 as a poison.
      
      This is the ridiculous stance that I am parodying here. CO2 is not a poison. Unless you consider everything a poison, if you breathe nothing but.
      
      Reply
sqrt(2) posted on 2010-05-19 at 18:26

I’m not an expert in a relevant field to understand fully this issue, and chances are neither are you. Other than wait and reserve judgment, the only logical choice I can make when there is overwhelming consensus among experts (there is on climate change) is to listen to them. I support cap and trade, not because I think it’s a good idea – because I’m not qualified to know that – but because the majority of those who are qualified think it is, and science is not a political process even when the conclusions polarizes people along political lines.

Reply
- ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-19 at 18:54
  
  I’m not an expert in a relevant field to understand fully this issue, and chances are neither are you.
  
  Spend a few hundred hours researching the issue, and you can be qualified to comment, too. None of the issues surrounding energy production and global warming aren’t particularly hard to understand – the only reason it is so time consuming is that figuring out who is bullshitting on which point of contention takes a while.
  
  For example, the issues surrounding bad station data is rather complex. RC.org hand-waves the issue, saying that they have “taken it into their calculations”, but on this issue, it seems obvious that RC.org is bullshitting.
  
  science is not a political process even when the conclusions polarizes people along political lines.
  
  Not true. These are scientists trying to dip their toes into the political waters with this, so of course it’s political. They’re not arguing about facts or anything, they’re proposing societal change, and honestly, they’re probably out of their league here.
  
  Case in point: Kyoto was one of the worst designed treaties ever written. It is “cap and trade”, but would result in no CO2 reductions, only a transfer of money from America to Eastern Europe. Why? The CO2 levels were set at pre-USSR collapse levels, so all the Eastern Bloc countries have a massive amount of “credits” to sell to countries who therefore don’t need to reduce levels at all.
  
  I’m not singling you out for this, but it’s really very dangerous when people give up on trying to research issues for themselves, and rely on what they hear from a single source as fact. Whether it be Fox News, or HuffPo, or “scientists”, I’ve never once been happy with a single perspective on a problem.
  
  Reply
  - Someone posted on 2010-05-19 at 19:09
    
    (Ed. note: this comment was actually posted at 2010-05-19 at 20:44, but I quoted this conversation and linked it repeatedly while talking with ShakaUVM, so it’s probably best to read it first.)
    
    For example, the issues surrounding bad station data is rather complex. RC.org hand-waves the issue, saying that they have “taken it into their calculations”, but on this issue, it seems obvious that RC.org is bullshitting.
    
    I can only speak about the weather station near me which by chance happened to be one of the top examples which made the international “news” with regard to this ongoing “story” and had the blogs all aflame. (not trying to hide my “bias” either) And unrelated to all this I happen to learn about the history of that station some years ago.
    
    In the case of this station the adjustment was totally justified and above the board. It was moved from where it lived for 100 years at the edge of where the city used to be, to the local observatory which is some 300 feet higher in elevation. A few adiabatic lapse rate calculations later and the correction factor they used after the date of the move seems just about the same as you might expect. But of course only the existence of the adjustment made the “news”, never the justification for it.
    
    No idea about all the other weather stations around the world, but to me the onus to prove that the other adjustments are part of some grand evil plot by the scientists is clearly on the bloggers. And so far they’ve only been able to come up with a lot of hot air and noise as far as I’m concerned.
    
    Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:52
      
      No idea about all the other weather stations around the world, but to me the onus to prove that the other adjustments are part of some grand evil plot by the scientists is clearly on the bloggers. And so far they’ve only been able to come up with a lot of hot air and noise as far as I’m concerned.
      
      The problem is, if you don’t know that someone has put asphalt around your temperature station, how on Earth can you expect to correct for it accurately? They attempt to correct the data just using statistics, without actually sending people out to inspect the stations. That’s why I called bullshit.
      
      In any event, with the move to satellite temperature recording, the debate will become increasingly irrelevant.
      
      Reply
    - riverat1 posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:53
      
      I know weather stations have become more automated but they still get visited on a regular basis. Any abrupt change in the data coming in is likely to get a visit. In general satellite records correlate with surface based records pretty well. You know satellites don’t measure the temperature directly. Instead they infer it based on the level of radiation in specific wavelengths coming out of the atmosphere.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:54
      
      I know weather stations have become more automated but they still get visited on a regular basis.
      
      And reported to whom? As far as I can tell, they just use statistical methods to guess which stations are bad, as well as some high level attempts to sort stations into urban and rural.
      
      Link 1 [nasa.gov]
      
      Link 2 [nasa.gov]
      
      As I said, satellite data ought to make the debate moot.
      
      Reply
    - riverat1 posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:54
      
      Yes, they do use statistical methods to make the adjustments but they’ve tested them against the real world to verify their validity. You don’t have to visit 100% of the stations to test that.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:57
      
      Yes, they do use statistical methods to make the adjustments but they’ve tested them against the real world to verify their validity.
      
      Let’s say that Watts was completely right – 90% of the stations in America are badly sited, by the NOAA’s own guidelines, and have error rates that can climb quite high. You can filter out the odd outlier, but you can’t use statistical techniques to fix 90% of your data in any sort of fashion that would leave me confident in the results.
      
      It’s possible that the data from the good stations might end up matching the overall totals (and in fact it looks like it might be this way), but this doesn’t mean that he’s wrong. I think that’s an important fact his detractors are missing.
      
      I just find it dubious that IF 90% of the sites are bad (and who knows if he’s telling the truth or not) that the NOAA has any basis whatsoever for saying they can fix it with statistics.
      
      Reply
    - riverat1 posted on 2010-05-24 at 05:01
      
      Yet a recent study comparing Watts’ list of well and poorly sited stations showed that if anything after adjustments the poorly sited ones add a slight negative bias to the temperature record compared to the well sites ones.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 05:02
      
      Look, let me simplify the whole issue down to one question: Politics aside, is it better or not to know the quality of your surface stations?
      
      Reply
    - riverat1 posted on 2010-05-24 at 05:04
      
      Watts did a service to the climate scientists forcing them to examine their data more closely. In the end though it strengthened their case.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 05:04
      
      Precisely. Empirical research always trumps statistical approximation, especially when your dataset is potentially 90% error-prone.
      
      But the AGW camp would rather shut up than admit that…
      
      Reply
    - riverat1 posted on 2010-05-24 at 05:09
      
      Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. When scientists as NOAA examined Watts’s list of well sited vs. poorly sited stations and compared the results against each other the results strengthened their argument that their statistical methods are valid.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 05:09
      
      strengthened their argument that their statistical methods are valid.
      
      This is the key takeaway point here. Confirmation of something can often be as valuable as evidence that disproves a hypothesis.
      
      He did legwork that nobody else did; it is entirely possible he could have found that they’d overlooked something in their purely statistical methods, and it’s possible that he did, but the errors he found fell well within the fairly generous error ranges of the measurement data.
      
      Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-19 at 19:10
    
    Spend a few hundred hours researching the issue, and you can be qualified to comment, too.
    
    When you say “research” do you mean enrolling in graduate physics courses at an accredited university to learn about the radiative physics of the atmosphere? (This would involve some kind of objective measure of your ability to construct and solve equations.)
    
    Or does “research” mean reading crackpot websites, then using trick #11: “10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)”
    
    Considering your other comment (which is wrong), it’s probably not necessary for you to answer this question.
    
    Keep in mind that all the creationists I’ve seen are convinced that they understand evolution better than 97% of evolutionary biologists. Just like you seem to be convinced that you understand radiative physics better than 97% of climatologists, and the overwhelming majority of scientists in all fields.
    
    Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-19 at 19:49
      
      Considering your other comment (which is wrong), it’s probably not necessary for you to answer this question.
      
      I was being sarcastic. Labeling CO2 as a poison is one of the most stupid recent advancements in the debate over global warming.
      
      When you say “research” do you mean enrolling in graduate physics courses at an accredited university to learn about the radiative physics of the atmosphere?
      
      I have a Master’s degree in computer science; my master’s thesis was on the modeling of seawater. But beyond that, I actually do my own research, and know how to eliminate crackpot theories better than Al Gore, who uncritically reported several false stories in an Inconvenient Truth.
      
      Keep in mind that all the creationists I’ve seen are convinced that they understand evolution better than 97% of evolutionary biologists.
      
      Consider that 97% of climate scientists think they can run an economy better than anyone else. Then become scared when they point to Kyoto as a model for the future.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-19 at 20:13
      
      I have a Master’s degree in computer science; my master’s thesis was on the modeling of seawater.
      
      Another example of the modified salem hypothesis.
      
      But beyond that, I actually do my own research, and know how to eliminate crackpot theories better than Al Gore, who uncritically reported several false stories in an Inconvenient Truth.
      
      Let me guess, the crackpot theories you’ve eliminated happen to be the ones that my previous comment showed are accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists who actually study these topics for a living?
      
      Note that this article starts with the sentence “… this explains why some people who watch a documentary that exaggerates the science end up imitating that smug politician’s alarmism.”
      
      Later in the article, during my conversation with Jane Q. Public: “… the thought of that smug, pompous politician accepting a Nobel prize for exaggerating the science makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon just to get the image out of my head.
      
      So I’ve already listed several points that Al Gore got wrong in his silly little movie. I’m also amused by nonscientists who think Al Gore is relevant. He’s not a scientist. He’s a smug, pompous, washed up politician. If you seriously want to learn about the science behind abrupt climate change, stick to peer-reviewed journal articles and stay away from politicians like Al Gore.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 03:37
      
      Another example of the modified salem hypothesis.
      
      Did I mention it to begin with? No. So don’t get angry when you bash on someone for not having graduate credentials in a related field, and they turn out to. I wasn’t bragging, and if you read my original post, I’m encouraging people to do their own research instead of just reading what they should believe online. I can’t believe anyone would disagree with that.
      
      FWIW, I believe in AGW, and think it’s a serious problem. Does that sound like a crackpot creationist to you? No? Oh, I guess you don’t fucking know what you’re talking about, do you?
      
      What I was taking issue with was the notion that because scientists know science, they can design economic and political systems just as well. This is clearly a flawed point of view, but one the OP clearly subscribed to.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-24 at 03:38
      
      Did I mention it to begin with? No. So don’t get angry when you bash on someone for not having graduate credentials in a related field, and they turn out to.
      
      Don’t mistake my disappointment in the (lack of) intellectual rigor of most non-scientists [whom I find lecturing about this topic] as anger. It’s an emotion much more akin to sadness. And the point of my modified Salem hypothesis was that computer science isn’t really all that closely related to the radiative physics of the atmosphere. In my opinion, computer science should probably be called “algorithm engineering” in an attempt to emphasize the difference between it and the “natural sciences”. The “standard” Salem hypothesis is similar and (as far as I can tell) very descriptive of reality; my only modification was that of generalizing the statement somewhat.
      
      My current point is that a staggering number of crackpots stress the amount of time they’ve spent independently studying an idea, missing the fact that they have no objective way to determine if this “study” has actually enabled them to solve serious graduate physics problems because no one’s ever graded their homework or exams. It’s important to stress that this kind of independent verification is a critical part of the educational process.
      
      I wasn’t bragging, and if you read my original post, I’m encouraging people to do their own research instead of just reading what they should believe online. I can’t believe anyone would disagree with that.
      
      No, but I disagree with your assessment that Real Climate are bullshitting deceitful hacks, for reasons that I’ve explained at length in my article.
      
      FWIW, I believe in AGW, and think it’s a serious problem. Does that sound like a crackpot creationist to you? No? Oh, I guess you don’t fucking know what you’re talking about, do you?
      
      Indeed, I just remembered that I asked people to mod up one of your previous comments. But I also disagree that “the IPCC has done a good enough job discrediting themselves, with their predictions historically overstating global warming” for similar reasons as Ambitwistor in his reply to your comment.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 03:43
      
      And the point of my modified salem hypothesis was that computer science isn’t really all that closely related to the radiative physics of the atmosphere.
      
      Out of curiosity, what do you think half of climate science is? It’s computer modeling. Of what? Of the atmosphere, land, and oceans.
      
      But my point remains that I wasn’t standing on that as an expert, merely that I’d gone to the effort to educate myself on the issue. I’m a firm believer in doing primary research for oneself.
      
      No, but I disagree with your assessment that Real Climate are bullshitting deceitful hacks, for reasons that I’ve explained at length in my article.
      
      What article? And I do read everything Real Climate.org posts on their blog, so it’s not like I think they’re entirely composed of shit, merely that they stand on the wrong side of the facts sometimes, because of their political alignment, and I call them on it. For example, they defended the mistakes Al Gore made in an Inconvenient Truth, saying in essence that it was more important to get people talking about global warming than it was to get the facts right. This is the kind of stuff that irritates me about the site, along side of their heavy handed censorship of posts.
      
      But I also disagree that “the IPCC has done a good enough job discrediting themselves
      
      I just re-read AR1 recently, and it predicts a 0.3C rise per decade (or between 0.2C and 0.5C per decade). But if you look at the temperature graph it is right on the lower boundary 0.2C per decade.
      
      In other words, that graph that I linked to appears to be correct – that world temps are matching the lower bound of predictions, which is ~60% of their “best guess” for predictions. Perhaps “discrediting” is a bit too strong, but the data matches the graph and analysis that I linked to, so I think it’s a reasonable accurate statement.
      
      But what really sets me off are the people that cut off temperature graphs right when the temperatures were rising the sharpest. Al Gore (I know, I know) did it. In his movie, he got on a little electric lift to show how high temperatures would be if that trend continued. However, temperatures have remained higher than average, but not steeply increasing, in the last decade.
      
      But when you look at the main page for AGW on Wikipedia take a look at the very first graph you see. It just beckons the reader to continue the line on up. It’s not like we haven’t had a decade to put some new graphs together or something.
      
      Do you agree or disagree that this is misleading?
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 03:47
      
      But when you look at the main page for AGW on Wikipedia take a look at the very first graph you see. It just beckons the reader to continue the line on up. It’s not like we haven’t had a decade to put some new graphs together or something.
      
      Sorry, I was wrong on this. It looked like a more famous graph I’ve seen in a lot of places that cuts off at 2000.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-24 at 03:48
      
      Out of curiosity, what do you think half of climate science is? It’s computer modeling. Of what? Of the atmosphere, land, and oceans.
      
      As I’ve explained at length, the problem is that programmers think their Java skillz enable them to understand both halves of climate science. For example, a programmer might say something like this:
      
      The problem is, if you don’t know that someone has put asphalt around your temperature station, how on Earth can you expect to correct for it accurately? They attempt to correct the data just using statistics, without actually sending people out to inspect the stations. That’s why I called bullshit.
      
      … without noticing that scientists perform many independent verifications of these stations. Just like evolutionary biologists face a deluge of engineers who disprove evolution using the 2nd law of thermodynamics (standard Salem hypothesis), climate scientists face a deluge of engineers and programmers who use their hacking skills to prove that CO2 is saturated, or that global warming is caused by sunspots, etc.
      
      What article?
      
      The same one I’ve been linking for a while now.
      
      For example, they defended the mistakes Al Gore made in an Inconvenient Truth, saying in essence that it was more important to get people talking about global warming than it was to get the facts right. This is the kind of stuff that irritates me about the site, along side of their heavy handed censorship of posts.
      
      I’ve already been very critical of Gore, so I’m tempted to agree with that small criticism. But I haven’t yet censored any posts on my article, and I think that was a mistake. Two programmers (also creationists, incidentally) wasted ~50 pages on nonsense. I don’t blame scientists who want to keep the conversation focused on the facts, and I’ve seen contrary viewpoints on Real Climate. They just don’t devote hundreds of pages on each article to blather like “Water vapor is more important than CO2, so scientists are conspirators/incompetent/both!”
      
      In other words, that graph that I linked to appears to be correct – that world temps are matching the lower bound of predictions, which is ~60% of their “best guess” for predictions. Perhaps “discrediting” is a bit too strong, but the data matches the graph and analysis that I linked to, so I think it’s a reasonable accurate statement.
      
      Considering that you haven’t commented on James Annan’s analyses, I guess there’s no reason for me to mention Ambitwistor’s links again. There’s also probably no point in linking my analysis of this issue again, where I provided several links showing comparisons that show temperatures tracking well inside the 95% confidence level.
      
      It’s important to realize that climate models like those used in the IPCC reports are dynamical models, not empirical. They don’t provide predictions of temperatures per se, rather they predict the climate response (averaged over ~20 years to ignore weather noise) to changes in forcings like sunlight, CO2 concentration, stratospheric water vapor, etc.
      
      All the analyses I’ve seen that have taken into account the actual history of these variables show that temperatures are well within the IPCC’s error bars.
      
      But when you look at the main page for AGW on Wikipedia take a look at the very first graph you see. It just beckons the reader to continue the line on up. It’s not like we haven’t had a decade to put some new graphs together or something. Do you agree or disagree that this is misleading?
      
      For reasons that I don’t understand even after several months, I can’t access Wikipedia. Everything else on the net is accessible, but I have to use the text-only google cache to see any Wikipedia pages, and the graphics aren’t included. If you’d like to link to the graph as it appears in a peer-reviewed article, I can see what you’re talking about. But I doubt I have time; I have to get a presentation ready for the Western Pacific AGU conference.
      
      Without seeing what you’re talking about, I’d have to say that the best choice would be a plot of recorded global temperatures vs. the IPCC ensemble’s 20-year average based on actual records of forcings, including all the data available. This would likely show temperatures and the IPCC ensemble average “flattening out” over the last decade (but not completely flat, of course, and most of that is due to turbulence like ENSO that I’ve discussed ad nauseum.)
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 03:50
      
      … without noticing that scientists perform many independent verifications of these stations.
      
      As I said in another thread on here, if we stipulate that Watts was right, and 90% of stations are bad, there’s simply no way of statistically filtering out the bad stations. Or, let me back up a second. If I had to pick, blindfoldeds, not knowing which guy was a crackpot and which was a NASA scientist, between two guys:
      
      Guy 1) A guy who did an empirical study of surface stations to determine their relative quality, and
      
      Guy 2) A guy who claimed that he could use the magic of statistics to filter out an arbitrarily high number of bad stations…
      
      I’d be inclined to pick Guy #1. Now lets say they get the same answer for the temperature average. Does that mean that Guy #1 is right or wrong? It’s neither.
      
      This would be a good time to repeat my quote that you just quoted: The problem is, if you don’t know that someone has put asphalt around your temperature station, how on Earth can you expect to correct for it accurately? They attempt to correct the data just using statistics, without actually sending people out to inspect the stations. That’s why I called bullshit.
      
      Now, if you’re claiming that Watt is a crackpot and making up all of his surface station data, that’s another thing entirely, but since his results correlate with other datasets… it’s weird form of verification for him.
      
      I’ve already been very critical of Gore, so I’m tempted to agree with that small criticism. But I haven’t yet censored any posts on my article, and I think that was a mistake. Two programmers (also creationists, incidentally) wasted ~50 pages on nonsense. I don’t blame scientists who want to keep the conversation focused on the facts, and I’ve seen contrary viewpoints on Real Climate. They just don’t devote hundreds of pages on each article to blather like “Water vapor is more important than CO2, so scientists are conspirators/incompetent/both!”
      
      Sure, and that’s how most online forums work. RC.org takes it a step further and aggressively blocks or edits even the most reasonable of fact-based comments. I had a paragraph cut down to a single sentence, taken out of context, and then attacked by Gavin. (I believe I was criticizing the use of inferno-red colors in a graph to make it look like the world was on fire in AGW graphs. It’s an old trick out of Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. My point was that you shouldn’t use tricks like that to describe relatively minor +0.1C temperature changes… which got cut out entirely.)
      
      Considering that you haven’t commented on James Annan’s analyses…
      
      Considering I just went back to the original source and verified the claim… ok, fine. James Annan claims that the date (1990) was cherry picked as a minimum. This is laughably wrong because 1) 1990-1992 were the dates that AR1 came out, and 2) as I showed in the links above, I was using an averaged temperature graph, and there was no minima in 1990. It confirmed the graph that I linked to, which showed AR1 being accurate only on the extreme lower edge of their estimates for temperature in the next 10 and 20 years.
      
      Or to put it another way, because the article I linked to was accurate, there’s very little reason in debunking a guy trying to debunk it. If you think I’m wrong, please let me know.
      
      They don’t provide predictions of temperatures per se, rather they predict the climate response (averaged over ~20 years to ignore weather noise) to changes in forcings like sunlight, CO2 concentration, stratospheric water vapor, etc.
      
      All the analyses I’ve seen that have taken into account the actual history of these variables show that temperatures are well within the IPCC’s error bars.
      
      Sure, if you make your error bars large enough, you can always be right. =)
      
      As I said, (and the article I linked to) it was right within their lower bound. The problem was that their lower bound was quite a bit lower than their best prediction. I think over 20 years of average temperature data there’s enough of a trend to show that their prediction was about 50% too high. (And if 20 years is not enough, how much time would you say needs to go by?)
      
      I just flipped through some of the other predictions from the impact report of AR1. I’ll have to do some research to see how they’ve turned out.
      
      But I doubt I have time; I have to get a presentation ready for the Western Pacific AGU conference.
      
      Care to send me the link to your presentation?
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 03:51
      
      Second quick note, based on one of your references (I’ve been reading through the various links off your site, good times).
      
      Scroll down to the Hansen analysis. It’s basically saying what I’m saying, that the prediction was wrong, statistically speaking, or at least on the outer edges of the lower boundary. Whereas I was probably a bit too harsh on it, RC.org is characteristically too weak.
      
      A prediction of 0.26C+0.05C versus a reality of 0.19+0.05C becomes “running a little warm compared to the real world. BUT…” This is what I take RC.org to task for. It’s not their science, really, nor their facts or data. (That’s why I read the site.) It’s the fact that they are, well, biased.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-24 at 03:52
      
      Now, if you’re claiming that Watt is a crackpot and making up all of his surface station data, that’s another thing entirely, but since his results correlate with other datasets… it’s weird form of verification for him.
      
      I’d been reading Anthony Watts’s websites for years before Kyle and I discussed surfacestations.org last year. He acts like a serious crackpot on his other site wattsupwiththat.com, but clearly tries to keep a lid on the crazy when writing surfacestations.org.
      
      Taken together, both sites make it clear that Watts believes climatologists are incompetent and/or engaged in a massive conspiracy. He ignores the multiple independent proxies and wind studies which back up the instrumental temperature record. He implies that the urban heat island effect is responsible for the rise of instrumental temperature record because 90% of stations are “poor quality” according to him. So scientists take the 10% of stations that are “approved” by Watts, and its time series is very similar to the time series of all stations. Furthermore, the abstract of the Menne 2010 paper I’ve already linked pointed out that the bias was “counterintuitive” to Watts’s preconceptions. This is not a verification of Watts in any sense.
      
      James Annan claims that the date (1990) was cherry picked as a minimum. … Or to put it another way, because the article I linked to was accurate, there’s very little reason in debunking a guy trying to debunk it. If you think I’m wrong, please let me know. … I just flipped through some of the other predictions from the impact report of AR1. I’ll have to do some research to see how they’ve turned out. …
      
      That’s not how I read James Annan’s series of three articles. He seemed to mainly be criticizing Pielke’s sloppy statistics. I’ve previously described this in many places, but the best I can find at the moment is here. Again, the analyses I’ve linked take proper ensembles of the AR1 models, updated with actual emissions and other forcings, and analyze the results with an understanding of the statistical limitations imposed by the need to average out weather noise. I don’t see any evidence that Pielke actually did any of this, which is probably why he hasn’t gotten any of these rants published in a reputable journal.
      
      … Scroll down to the Hansen analysis. It’s basically saying what I’m saying, that the prediction was wrong, statistically speaking, or at least on the outer edges of the lower boundary. Whereas I was probably a bit too harsh on it, RC.org is characteristically too weak.
      
      Again, I think the stratospheric water vapor issues I’ve previously linked and the inherent unpredictability of turbulence like ENSO are enough to explain most or all of this difference.
      
      Sure, if you make your error bars large enough, you can always be right. =)
      
      Even the “large” uncertainties in current GCMs are small enough to show that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for the warming since 1970. Even though the two curves have wide error bars, they don’t overlap. What other objective measure should we use to determine when the error bars get “small enough”?
      
      Care to send me the link to your presentation?
      
      I’ve recently been threatened with a lawsuit on Slashdot, so my commitment to anonymity is stronger than ever. I don’t want to end up like the CRU scientists. But I’ve described my research anonymously before, for whatever that’s worth.
      
      Of course, you could always show up in Taipei on June 22 and look for the GRACE presentations…
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 03:56
      
      Taken together, both sites make it clear that Watts believes climatologists are incompetent and/or engaged in a massive conspiracy.
      
      Ok great. But his politics don’t matter, unless he’s lying about the surface station data. Are you saying his surface station data is wrong? That’s the only thing that matters. I haven’t seen anything that says it is, but I could be wrong.
      
      In regards to the verification, what I mean is that the fact that his good stations agree with the national average shows his selection process is probably a good one, since it matches satellite temps.
      
      Even the “large” uncertainties in current GCMs are small enough to show that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for the warming since 1970.
      
      I’m not an AGW denier. By no means am I claiming that. I only take exception when people overstate a threat, or ascribe global warming to whatever news item of the week it is. Back when I was living in SF, pretty much everything was ascribed to global warming on the local news.
      
      In terms of the error bars, I just find it amusing that they’re so large you can basically never prove the predictions wrong. Being off by 30-50% over twenty years, for example, is considered acceptable. My own personal prediction is that by 2100, the temperature of the earth will be somewhere between the surface temperature of the sun, and absolute zero. Even though I’m confident this will play out, I’m still waiting to pick up my Nobel Prize, unfortunately.
      
      I’ve recently been threatened with a lawsuit on Slashdot, so my commitment to anonymity is stronger than ever.
      
      Ouch. Now that’s what a nutcase actually looks like, BTW.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-24 at 03:58
      
      Ok great. But his politics don’t matter, unless he’s lying about the surface station data. Are you saying his surface station data is wrong? That’s the only thing that matters. I haven’t seen anything that says it is, but I could be wrong. In regards to the verification, what I mean is that the fact that his good stations agree with the national average shows his selection process is probably a good one, since it matches satellite temps.
      
      What surface station data? Anthony Watts has a blog filled with photos and a history of failed journal submissions. I’m not disputing his politics. I’m saying that he clearly implied that the “best” 10% of stations would show global cooling (or stagnation) whereas the “bad” 90% of stations contaminated by the UHI would show an even bigger increase. When someone actually checked this, it turns out he was wrong. Seriously, read Menne et al 2010, linked previously but I’ll give it one more shot. Scientists hadn’t ignored any of the issues Watts implies. They’d actually checked the time series in quite a few interesting ways. Watts simply didn’t do a thorough literature search before making his wacky claims.
      
      I’m not an AGW denier. By no means am I claiming that. I only take exception when people overstate a threat, or ascribe global warming to whatever news item of the week it is. Back when I was living in SF, pretty much everything was ascribed to global warming on the local news.
      
      I’ve made a list of all the nonsense I’d seen from the Greens. What utter rubbish. I’ve still got things to add to that list, too, I just can’t divert time away from school…
      
      In terms of the error bars, I just find it amusing that they’re so large you can basically never prove the predictions wrong. Being off by 30-50% over twenty years, for example, is considered acceptable. My own personal prediction is that by 2100, the temperature of the earth will be somewhere between the surface temperature of the sun, and absolute zero. Even though I’m confident this will play out, I’m still waiting to pick up my Nobel Prize, unfortunately.
      
      They’re smaller than the error bars you can get using the most sophisticated approach that can be solved using a paper and pencil. Decreasing the error bars further will require better understanding of cloud formation and aerosol interactions, faster computers, raw data at higher spatial and temporal densities, and a better theoretical understanding of the turbulence that is currently extremely difficult to model such as the oscillations ENSO, AO, AAO, NAO, PNA, AMO, PDO, MJO, etc.
      
      Radtea already asked what would be necessary to convince me that our emissions aren’t responsible for at least the majority of the warming since ~1970, as measured using 20 year smoothing to account for our current limitations.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 03:58
      
      What data? His data on which stations match NOAA guidelines. Again, do you think this data is accurate or not? That is the only question that matters.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:01
      
      What data? His data on which stations match NOAA
      guidelines. Again, do you think this data is accurate or not? That is the only question that matters.
      
      How many different ways should I explain this? Watts implied that his “good” stations would have a significantly smaller warming trend than the “bad” stations. Menne 2010 showed that any differences are negligible:
      
      … Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites; however, this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. Moreover, the sign of the bias is counterintuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures. These results underscore the need to consider all changes in observation practice when determining the impacts of siting irregularities. Further, the influence of non-standard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data. Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series. Nevertheless, the adjusted USHCN temperatures are extremely well aligned with recent measurements from instruments whose exposure characteristics meet the highest standards for climate monitoring. In summary, we find no evidence that the CONUS temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.
      
      Watts’s response is incoherent, filled with healthy doses of a persecution complex:
      
      I’m sure Karl (or Peterson) was thinking “Better not make those graphs too big”. Surely he didn’t mention that he and Menne et al ‘borrowed’ my incomplete surfacestations rating data against my protests. Dr. Pielke Sr. and I, plus others on the surfacestations data analysis teams (two independent analyses have been done) see an entirely different picture, now that we have nearly 90% of USHCN surveyed. NCDC used data at 43%, and even though I told them they’d see little or nothing in the way of a signal then, they forged ahead anyway. Assuming we aren’t blocked by journal politics, we’ll have the surfacestations analysis results in public view soon. If we are blocked by journal politics, we’ll have other ways. … After NCDC’s unethical borrowing of my data and denying my right of first publication, don’t ask to see the surfacestations analysis results here. I learned my lesson not to trust Karl et al the first time. Full disclosure comes in an SI with journal publication, not before.
      
      He spent years posting pictures and implying
      incompetence/conspiracies on the part of NOAA/NASA scientists without ever bothering to redo NOAA’s analysis on his subset of “good” stations. When someone actually did some science with his rankings, his claims ended up looking silly even to nonscientists who aren’t familiar with previous studies like Parker 2004.
      
      And, obviously, Watts doesn’t see Menne’s paper as verification of any sort. You appear to be alone in that opinion, and I don’t
      understand why you’re taking a position that even Watts is sensible enough not to take. He’s saying that Menne is wrong, and pointing to several non-peer-reviewed (heck, unlinked) analyses of “more complete” data which he’s apparently not going to share.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:03
      
      Yet again, you are missing the point. There’s two related issues here: 1) his assessment of surface station quality and 2) differences, if any, between his collection of stations and the national average. I’ve been only talking about 1), which you keep ignoring in order to talk about 2.
      
      Hell, the quote above you give seems to accept his rankings of surface stations. This is what I mean as a validation of his work. I’m utterly uninterested in his conclusions or lack thereof from his subset of stations (ie 2), only if you or others think his assessment of stations is accurate.
      
      Perhaps you’ve never seen what I’m talking about?
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:04
      
      No, you haven’t been talking only about issue #1. You were clearly implying that Watts has uncovered issues that Real Climate is “bullshitting” about. I’ve been trying to stress that this isn’t true.
      
      You know what? Forget it. This is too repetitive for me to bother. Have a nice day.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:07
      
      No, you haven’t been talking only about issue #1. You were clearly implying that Watts has uncovered issues that Real Climate is “bullshitting” about. I’ve been trying to stress that this isn’t true.
      
      I have been. You’ve been failing to understand this.
      
      Empirical research trumps statistical filtering. Go back and read what I said.
      
      You know what? Forget it. This is too repetitive for me to bother. Have a nice day.
      
      It’s a shame… yet another pro-AGW person that has a complete mental block to ever admit that someone in the anti-AGW camp might be right about something.
      
      It’s a very simple question: is his surface station data accurate or not? Why can’t you answer this question??
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:08
      
      It’s a shame… yet another pro-AGW person that has a complete mental block to ever admit that someone in the anti-AGW camp might be right about something. It’s a very simple question: is his surface station data accurate or not? Why can’t you answer this question??
      
      I have answered that question. Repeatedly. First I linked the section in my article containing the surfacestations.org conversation, where Menne 2010 is linked at the end. I assumed that any scientist interested in the instrumental temperature record would follow the links and read the Menne paper. When it became clear that you hadn’t, I mentioned Menne 2010 explicitly and urged you to read the abstract. When that didn’t work, I directly linked Menne 2010. When even that didn’t work, I finally quoted from the abstract:
      
      … Results indicate that there is a mean bias associated with poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites …
      
      In other words, Watts can apparently rank stations on a 1-5 scale well enough that the mean bias agrees roughly with his rankings. That’s what you’re calling argument #1, and you call it “a validation of his work”. If you want to consider that validation of his work, fine. Personally, I think it’s only validation that he isn’t blind or in a coma.
      
      I view argument #2 (Watts’s ubiquitous claims that the instrumental temperature record is contaminated by the UHI effect) as Watts’s main point. This claim has been convincingly falsified. Watts himself seems to agree that argument #2 is his main point, because he attacks Menne’s analysis and character rather than thanking him for “validating his work.” That’s why I’ve been focused on argument #2. If you’ve really just been talking about argument #1 this entire time, then I was wrong to assume you were claiming that Watts had performed important, original research which NOAA scientists and Real Climate had been bullshitting about. Sorry for the confusion.
      
      And, yet again, your apparent belief that Watts was the first one to perform empirical research to test surface stations simply isn’t true. Aside from the many studies I’ve linked that show the UHI isn’t responsible for the instrumental temperature rise, notice the sentences I’ve previously quoted:
      
      “this bias is consistent with previously documented changes associated with the widespread conversion to electronic sensors in the USHCN during the last 25 years. … Adjustments applied to USHCN Version 2 data largely account for the impact of instrument and siting changes, although a small overall residual negative (“cool”) bias appears to remain in the adjusted maximum temperature series.”
      
      If NOAA hadn’t already been “documenting” changes to surface stations, there’s no way these bias corrections could possibly have been accurate.
      
      I’m not trying to say that Watts is blind, or that he’s unable to fill in bubbles on a multiple choice form (which, if true, would refute argument #1). I’ve just been saying that his “research” isn’t original, ignores many previous studies, and didn’t uncover the UHI problems that Watts was clearly expecting (which does refute argument #2). I’m sorry that I mistook your statements as endorsement of argument #2. We can certainly both agree that Watts has good enough vision to see the stations and has mastered multiple choice forms.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:08
      
      I have answered that question. Repeatedly.
      
      No, you haven’t. Answering a question involves writing a thesis statement. References are not an acceptable substitute for a thesis statement. The Menne quote you’ve given twice before accepts his classification of surface stations as “good” and “bad”, and you’ve now accepted #1.
      
      I’ve just been saying that his “research” isn’t original, ignores many previous studies, and didn’t uncover the UHI problems that Watts was clearly expecting (which does refute argument #2).
      
      My entire point is that empirical studies trump statistical filtering. The GISS data for example, does some of its UHI filtering by comparing temperature spikes between an urban station and a rural station. How do they know which is which? They look at them on a map. This is what I called bullshit on – if the rural station has had asphalt put around it, and now has an AC exhaust blowing right on top of it, they have no way of knowing except by doing the legwork that Watts did. Claiming that stats can fix everything when 90% of stations are compromised is nonsense. I know they do a lot of clever tricks (checking for temperature dips on windy days for example), but I’m not happy with any substitute except satellite data (validating via another empirical source).
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:24
      
      No, you haven’t. Answering a question involves writing a thesis statement. References are not an acceptable substitute for a thesis statement. The Menne quote you’ve given twice before accepts his classification of surface stations as “good” and “bad”, and you’ve now accepted #1.
      
      As I’ve said, I’m tired of the repetitive nature of my conversations with non-physicists. You’re the N’th person to claim that Watts has performed some vital, original research that scientists have been “bullshitting” about. I don’t have time to provide free tutoring to every person in the general public, so I tend to provide references under the assumption that nonscientists are willing to read papers on their own. Like I said, I have actual research to do, and I thought you were interested in understanding why scientists don’t think Watts’s research is original rather than playing a cynical game to see if I’d praise Watts for his 1-5 rankings while ignoring 99% of his claims. What a waste of time that I could have used to continue developing a new tsunami early warning system using GRACE/GRACE2!
      
      Claiming that stats can fix everything when 90% of stations are compromised is nonsense. I know they do a lot of clever tricks (checking for temperature dips on windy days for example), but I’m not happy with any substitute except satellite data (validating via another empirical source).
      
      Claiming that 90% of the stations are compromised would require showing that the previously documented empirical evidence hadn’t corrected for the bias. Menne 2010 showed that this isn’t the case. You seem to think that Parker 2004 and all the other papers I’ve quoted are merely playing games with statistics. Nonsense. Those papers are validating the instrumental temperature record with wind sensors, which are another independent empirical data source, even if you personally prefer satellites. (I work with GRACE satellite data, and frankly I don’t understand that subjective preference, but to each his own.) The only differences between these peer-reviewed papers and Watts’s blogosphere “research” (aside from the peer-reviewed part, obviously) are that the actual scientists didn’t ignore previous studies, didn’t make crackpot claims about what the comparison would reveal, and are using a source of empirical data that’s less subjective than Watts (station rankings are inherently more subjective than automated wind sensors).
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:25
      
      I’m tired of the repetitive nature of my conversations with non-physicists.
      
      If you can’t engage in proper argumentation, then you’re really not helping. An argument takes the form of a thesis statement, and supporting statements and references. When the references you cite support my point, and you don’t make a thesis statement, you’re accomplishing less than nothing.
      
      The Watts research is case in point. He went out and did legwork that everyone else was ignoring. Unless you’re actually claiming it’s better off not knowing the quality of surface stations, he made a contribution. But the papers you reference, and your own statements on here, show your amazing reluctance to ever grant a single scrap of credit to the guy. I actually agree with you that he’s a nutjob, but these… blinders… that climate scientists put on really does away with a lot of the aura the field so desperately tries to craft around itself.
      
      To use your own words, it’s like a modified Salem Hypothesis that lets non-physicists like climate scientists think that their hand-waving is a legitimate form of argumentation, whereas everyone else is an anti-scientific nutjob. It probably comes from their field being only tenuously considered a science. Yes, yes, I’ve read RC’s article “Is Climate Modelling Science?”, and as someone who as actually studied the philosophy of science, in graduate school… RC.org is wrong, again. Climate science is closer in practice to economics than any other field. So either economics is a science, or climate science isn’t, or you have to put some sort of nebulous grey area together for fields that make observations and construct hypothesis for predictions, but can’t run controlled experiments and have problems with falsifiability.
      
      Claiming that 90% of the stations are compromised would require showing that the previously documented empirical evidence hadn’t corrected for the bias
      
      You’re not familiar with the Gettier paradox then. I’m tempted here to just quote a bunch of papers on it to show you why you’re wrong, without ever saying why, just to show you why your method of argumentation is so poor. But I’ll just leave it up to you to research it and figure out for yourself why this claim is fallacious.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:27
      
      The Watts research is case in point. He went out and did legwork that everyone else was ignoring. Unless you’re actually claiming it’s better off not knowing the quality of surface stations, he made a contribution. But the papers you reference, and your own statements on here, show your amazing reluctance to ever grant a single scrap of credit to the guy.
      
      Yet again, it’s the “everyone else was ignoring” clause that I’m disagreeing with. Watts isn’t the first person to repeatedly survey stations in person, as riverat1 and I have been saying over and over. Notice that the emphasis is on correcting for undocumented changes. That is, scientists long since recognized that even their labor-intensive survey efforts would miss changes to the site quality, so the last decade has seen additional steps above and beyond repeated surveys. Watts isn’t the first person to examine stations by doing legwork, he’s just the first person to become an internet celebrity by claiming he is.
      
      Climate science is closer in practice to economics than any other field. So either economics is a science, or climate science isn’t, or you have to put some sort of nebulous grey area together for fields that make observations and construct hypothesis for predictions, but can’t run controlled experiments and have problems with falsifiability.
      
      Radtea made a similar argument, which I’ve already pointed out is ridiculous.
      
      To use your own words, it’s like a modified Salem Hypothesis that lets non-physicists like climate scientists think that their hand-waving is a legitimate form of argumentation, whereas everyone else is an anti-scientific nutjob. It probably comes from their field being only tenuously considered a science. Yes, yes, I’ve read RC’s article “Is Climate Modelling Science?”, and as someone who as actually studied the philosophy of science, in graduate school… RC.org is wrong, again.
      
      You’re not the first “graduate student of the philosophy of science” to say these things. And it’s really odd to see you label me a non-physicist. My physics B.S. had a research emphasis on experimental optics. I went to graduate school planning to focus on quantum teleportation (that presentation and review paper were part of my physics M.S. defense). It’s only in the last 4 years that I switched from optics to studying Earth’s time-variable gravity field using GRACE k-band satellite ranging measurements (which got me interested in the physics of the climate). I realize you think that “I don’t fucking know what I’m talking about” but I’m curious as to what you think qualifies someone to be a physicist?
      
      You’re not familiar with the Gettier paradox then. I’m tempted here to just quote a bunch of papers on it to show you why you’re wrong, without ever saying why, just to show you why your method of argumentation is so poor. But I’ll just leave it up to you to research it and figure out for yourself why this claim is fallacious.
      
      Again, you’re not the first person to change the topic from “how many independent empirical data sources have been shown to be consistent with dynamical climate model ensembles” to something like “Is justified true belief knowledge?”.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:31
      
      Again, you’re having trouble with the thesis statement thing, though I appreciate the various links to read.
      
      Economics is actually the closest parallel to climate science, as applied mathematics is very close to some parts of computer science (and other fields with other parts).
      
      If you think the consensus that climate science isn’t science by the philosophy crowd bothers you, you ought to wonder why. I’m perfectly well aware that people in the field have adopted the title of scientists for themselves, in order to achieve a patina of respectability, but everyone has been doing that these days. Even philosophy has tried to adopt the patina of science for itself since the early 20th Century.
      
      I’m not of the camp that it’s not science (well, depending on my mood), but it certainly doesn’t meet all the criteria of a real science, either. That’s why I think we really should have a third category beyond arts and sciences for the semi-scientific schools of inquiry, like climate science and economics.
      
      I realize that you think that “I don’t fucking know what I’m talking about” but I’m curious as to what you think qualifies someone to be a physicist?
      
      I was just annoyed that you called me a non-physicist. I let it pass once with your rather insulting Salem Hypothesis thing, but I don’t let things go twice. To re-iterate what I said before, you don’t know what you’re talking about when you’re trying to insult me like that.
      
      If you label me a non-physicist, then I’ll have to start calling you a weather man.
      
      Again, you’re not the first person to change the topic from “how many independent empirical data sources have been shown to be consistent with dynamical climate model ensembles” to something like “Is justified true belief knowledge?”.
      
      As I expected, you missed the point. It was amusing that you linked a pdf from the department I took classes from, though.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:33
      
      So either economics is a science, or climate science isn’t, or you have to put some sort of nebulous grey area together for fields that make observations and construct hypothesis for predictions, but can’t run controlled experiments and have problems with falsifiability. Economics is actually the closest parallel to climate science … I’m perfectly well aware that people in the field have adopted the title of scientists for themselves, in order to achieve a patina of respectability, but everyone has been doing that these days. … it certainly doesn’t meet all the criteria of a real science … the semi-scientific schools of inquiry, like climate science and economics.
      
      I’ve already pointed out that this economics comparison is ridiculous. I’ve also already pointed out that I’ve worked in both experimental optics and a field which is more related to climate science, and I don’t agree with your assessment that the fields have differing levels of intellectual rigor. This assertion that climate scientists can’t perform experiments to test hypotheses has been made before. A similar assertion was made about modern cosmology, but as I point out it could just as easily be aimed at forensic science, astronomy, paleontology, etc.
      
      If you think the consensus that climate science isn’t science by the philosophy crowd bothers you …
      
      Citation needed. Notice that the person who preceded you wasn’t so much a representative of the philosophy crowd as he was a representative of the creationist crowd.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:36
      
      Yet again, it’s the “everyone else was ignoring” clause that I’m disagreeing with. Watts isn’t the first person to repeatedly survey stations in person
      
      From the paper that you just cited at me as “Watts wasn’t the first person to survey stations in person”:
      
      “A number of recent articles have also raised concerns about the site characteristics of U.S. HCN stations by way of photographic documentation (e.g., Davey ahnd Pielke 2005; Pielke et al. 2007a,b). Moreover, there is evidence that a large fraction of HCN sites have poor ratings with respect to the site classification criteria used by the U.S. Climate Reference Network (A. Watts 2008 personal communication; refer also to http://www.surfacestations.org ). In at least one study (i.e., Mahmood et al. 2006), photographic documentation and other sources of information regarding the exposure characteristics of COOP and HCN sites were used to link poor siting with measurement bias. Such evidence raises legitimate questions about the representativeness of temperature measurements from a number of U.S. HCN sites. However, from a climate change perspective, the primary concern is not so much the absolute measurement bias of a particular site but rather the changes in that bias over time, which the TOB and pairwise adjustments effectively address (Vose et al. 2003; Menne and Williams 2009). The goal of the HCN version 2 adjustments (and homogenization in general) is not to ensure that observations conform to an absolute standard but rather to remove the effect of relative bias changes that occur during a station’s history of observation. In this regard, photographic documentation, though valuable, is most valuable when it is used to document the timing and causes of such shifts in bias through time. Ultimately, the magnitude of relative changes in the bias of observations, whatever the source, cannot be inferred from the metadata. Instead, the effect of station changes and nonstandard instrument exposure on temperature trends must be determined via a systematic evaluation of the observations themselves (Peterson 2006), generally through relative comparisons. Such an analysis suggests that the effect of undocumented changes appears to be at least as significant as documented changes in the HCN and that homogeneity testing for both types of shifts is critical.”
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-24 at 04:37
      
      Yes?
      
      However, from a climate change perspective, the primary concern is not so much the absolute measurement bias of a particular site but rather the changes in that bias over time, which the TOB and pairwise adjustments effectively address (Vose et al. 2003; Menne and Williams 2009). … In this regard, photographic documentation, though valuable, is most valuable when it is used to document the timing and causes of such shifts in bias through time.
      
      In other words, several studies have already examined the more important issue of site characteristic change over time and found that current adjustments are valid. The patient records of thousands of anonymous scientists over decades are actually more useful in a climate change context than an exhaustive snapshot of the network as it stands today.
      
      Ultimately, the magnitude of relative changes in the bias of observations, whatever the source, cannot be inferred from the metadata. Instead, the effect of station changes and nonstandard instrument exposure on temperature trends must be determined via a systematic evaluation of the observations themselves (Peterson 2006), generally through relative comparisons.
      
      Metadata like station quality, for instance. Menne 2010 made a similar point: Further, the influence of non-standard siting on temperature trends can only be quantified through an analysis of the data.
      
      Such an analysis suggests that the effect of undocumented changes appears to be at least as significant as documented changes in the HCN and that homogeneity testing for both types of shifts is critical.
      
      Again, scientists are considering both documented changes (via station visits, other empirical evidence, etc.) and undocumented changes (for stations that are too remote to visit or understaffed, etc).
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-24 at 06:00
      
      Some more relevant quotes:
      
      … In addition to changes in the time of observation, most surface weather stations also experience changes in station location or instrumentation at various times throughout their histories. Such modifications generally entail alterations in sensor exposure and/or measurement bias that cause shifts in the temperature series that are unrelated to true climate variations. In HCN version 1, the effects of station moves and instrument changes were addressed using the procedure described by Karl and Williams (1987). Because this procedure addressed changes that are documented in the NOAA/NCDC station history archive, the HCN version 1 homogeneity algorithm was called the Station History Adjustment Program (SHAP).
      
      Unfortunately, COOP station histories are incomplete. As a result, discontinuities may occur with no associated record in the metadata. Since undocumented discontinuities remain undetected by methods like SHAP, a new homogenization algorithm was developed for the HCN version 2 temperature data (Menne and Williams 2009). This new algorithm addresses both documented and undocumented discontinuities via a pairwise comparison of temperature records, which avoids problems associated with the use of reference series in undocumented changepoint detection (Menne and Williams 2005). …
      
      … Overall, the pairwise algorithm identified around 6,000 statistically significant changepoints in maximum temperature series and roughly 7,000 shifts in minimum temperature series. Since there are approximately 120,000 station years of temperatures in the HCN version 2 dataset, this represents an average of about one significant artificial shift for every 15–20 years of station data. In terms of the adequacy of the HCN metadata, about half of the identified inhomogeneities are undocumented. Most of the documented changes in the HCN are associated with station relocations. …
      
      … Adjustments for undocumented changes are especially important in removing bias in minimum temperature records. Tests for undocumented shifts, however, are inherently less sensitive than in cases where the timing of changes is known through metadata. Thus, metadata are exceedingly valuable when it comes to adjusting and evaluating climate trends. …
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-05-24 at 07:23
      
      In other words, several studies have already examined the more important issue of site characteristic change over time and found that current adjustments are valid. The patient records of thousands of anonymous scientists over decades are actually more useful in a climate change context than an exhaustive snapshot of the network as it stands today.
      
      Sure. I read the paper.
      
      Actually, it was interesting to read in large part in terms of the numbers of way faults can occur in the station data. Given the rather hackish heuristics used to detect faults, it actually lowered my confidence in the quality of station data.
      
      When you conduct science, you try to eliminate confounding factors until you’re left with just your one experimental value. In this case: temperature over time. Given the number of error sources listed in just this paper alone, along with the fact that half the changes went undocumented, it would make me even more dubious of the temperature record without having empirical data to verify it. That’s why I’ve said the satellite data makes the issue moot moving forward; unless something goes tragically wrong the environment around a satellite won’t be exposed to any of the confounding factors that impact surface station data.
      
      To go back to my original point, somebody needed to get out there and do the legwork that Watts did, and provide empirical confirmation. You might not like the fact that he’s a crackpot, but you (and RC.org) show a very disappointing trend seen quite commonly in climate scientists, that they dismiss anything that comes out of someone that disagrees with them, even if their contribution is valuable. The Menne 2009 paper refreshingly takes the opposite approach even while reinforcing your point that the longitudinal data is much more important. It even cited Pielke as a source of criticisms about the temperature record.
      
      When I said back in my first post in this long thread that RC.org was on the bullshit end of the surface station data, this was precisely the point: empirical data trumps statistical filtering (especially with something so complex). Dismissing a source of empirical confirmation data, because you don’t like the guy’s political views, is the bullshit end of the argument.
      
      Or to paraphrase Phil Jones: Why should I make my data available, when critics might use it disprove my work?
      
      Anti-scientific bullshit.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-05-24 at 07:24
      
      Given the number of error sources listed in just this paper alone, along with the fact that half the changes went undocumented, it would make me even more dubious of the temperature record without having empirical data to verify it. … To go back to my original point, somebody needed to get out there and do the legwork that Watts did, and provide empirical confirmation. … When I said back in my first post in this long thread that RC.org was on the bullshit end of the surface station data, this was precisely the point: empirical data trumps statistical filtering (especially with something so complex). Dismissing a source of empirical confirmation data, because you don’t like the guy’s political views, is the bullshit end of the argument.
      
      Yes, as my previous quotes showed, half of ~6,000 “statistically significant changepoints” were already recorded in the metadata. In other words, scientists had already documented the timing of ~3,000 changes to network; these are mostly relocations and instrument upgrades but the timing of changes to surface station site characteristics are also documented.
      
      The Menne 2009 paper refreshingly takes the opposite approach even while reinforcing your point that the longitudinal data is much more important. It even cited Pielke as a source of criticisms about the temperature record.
      
      Notice that they’re referring specifically to surfacestations.org, and they mention it only to quote several studies showing that Watts is making a claim that has already been considered and rejected. I’m referring to that website and wattsupwiththat.com. Also note that I’ve already agreed with Pielke when he makes sense.
      
      That’s why I’ve said the satellite data makes the issue moot moving forward; unless something goes tragically wrong the environment around a satellite won’t be exposed to any of the confounding factors that impact surface station data.
      
      Like I said, I don’t understand that subjective preference, but to each his own. I’ve already talked about problems unique to satellite data; it’s useful (which is why my research centers on satellite data) but introduces new problems and suffers from a very short time series relative to the surface instrumental record.
      
      Reply
MobyDisk posted on 2010-06-06 at 23:14

(Ed. note: These comments were copied from the links attached to the posters’ names.)

Truth isn’t slippery. Truth is absolute. The problem is that things are presented as truth when they are not. A scientist does a study and finds that cows fed fatty diets die of heart attacks more often than regular cows. That is truth. But that study is published, and by the time it gets to the ordinary human it comes out as a health book explaining why all fat is bad. That isn’t truth. It is an interpretation: a generalization from a subset of scientific information summarized and handed down.

The pseudo-scientists, news reporters, and pundits purport to offer truth when they offer interpretation. And after a while, the average person doesn’t know what to believe any more.

We see this on Slashdot all the time. A paper published in Nature, summarized by a reporter, published, blogged, and respun until “I found a way to improve transistor density 2.5%” becomes a Slashdot headline like “AI robots will take over the world by next Tuesday.” Somewhere… there was a grain of truth behind that headline.

Reply
- ShakaUVM posted on 2010-06-06 at 23:15
  
  Truth isn’t slippery. Truth is absolute.
  
  Science doesn’t deal in truths, but theories. This is the point that you miss, and the general public gets, but misunderstands.
  
  Scientific theories are generalizations that attempt to be best fits to the data we have available. The Standard Model is (what a lot of people think is) our best guess about the subatomic world, but it’s possible it is wrong in more ways than just cutting down the error on some of the terms.
  
  What really annoys the public is when scientists present theories as truth. The scientific community concludes that global warming will result in +0.3C gain per decade! (1991) Oh, but we only got +0.2C per decade. So how people react to this takes different forms:
  1) Global warming is proven false. Because the +0.2 gain was right on the bottom of the error bars for the AR1 best guess prediction.
  2) Global warming is proven true. Because a +0.2 gain was included in the error bars.
  3) I can’t trust scientists because they said something would be true, and it wasn’t.
  
  The really fucked up thing is that for people who say that global warming was proven true because the actual numbers fell within the range of the predictions would then have to say that global warming was false if we’d actually gotten +1.0C gain. Because it got too hot! It was outside the range of predictions! Contrawise, the AR4 predictions include +0.0C change in their prediction, so if we have no warming at all, people can say that the AR4 report was happily accurate.
  
  See where the problem is? No? Ok, here it is in a nutshell:
  1) Scientists like you present their theories as truth, when it’s not.
  2) People have grown distrustful of scientists because of this, and gain an unfortunate lack of faith in perfectly good scientific theories as the result.
  3) The media presents all theories equally, so people don’t understand when we should have confidence in a result (like the charge of an electron or the shape of DNA) and less confident results (like all those various epidemiology hand-waving studies).
  
  Reply
Someone posted on 2010-06-06 at 23:19

(Ed. note: These comments were copied from the links attached to the posters’ names.)

Why is this modded “Troll”?? I’m genuinely curious. It’s not like this hasn’t happened many times in the past, and will most likely continue in the future. Is it now heresy to suggest that politicians politicize science and so do ideologically-driven scientists? [BlueStrat]

Because it’s a transparent shot at climate change science, implying that it’s all a conspiracy. Apparently practically everyone who is qualified to interpret the data have conspired to deceive the entire world about the subject. I can’t think of a single scientific organization in the world that has researched the subject that doesn’t agree with the IPCC findings. Yet some folks with no background in the relevant subjects, who haven’t done any actual research, feel that they can dispute the findings and allege all sorts of malfeasance. THAT is not science. That’s just people with vested interests or ideological loyalties defending their turf and trying to spread FUD in order to prevent any action being taken.

They don’t have scientific evidence to back up their claims, they just want to sow doubt. Do they really care if they’re wrong? No. They’ll simply blame the government for not acting to prevent whatever problems arise, just as the “drill baby drill” folks are now blaming the government for not doing more to prevent the gulf spill and for not fixing it faster now. This, despite the fact that they would vehemently oppose regulations on industry that might affect their bottom line, and that they always claim that government is generally incompetent and industry knows best how to do their jobs. It’s all quite self-serving.

Reply
- ShakaUVM posted on 2010-06-06 at 23:20
  
  I can’t think of a single scientific organization in the world that has researched the subject that doesn’t agree with the IPCC findings.
  
  Let’s assume you’re ignoring all of the parts of the AR4 written by non-scientific interest groups like the WWF, and the various other issues with the glaciers and all that. You probably didn’t know they were included in the report, but who cares?
  
  The real issue is: How can you disagree with predictions? If the top people run some models and produce a collection of results based on different CO2 levels in the future, then how can anyone disagree with them?
  
  It’s been 20 years since AR1, so we can actually look back at their predictions and see that they predicted a temperature rise around 50% higher than what we got (Real Climate.org called the prediction “a bit warm”), but don’t let me stop you from believing predictions are infallible. And it’s not like the planet *didn’t* warm up in the meantime (AGW is very likely true), but the real story here is about how angry climate scientists get when you point these kinds of problems out to them, because it’s inherently not a very scientific field (you can’t run experiments in real life to test your hypothesis), and I think deep down they all know it.
  
  They do like to call each other scientists though. That makes them feel better.
  
  Reply
  - Someone posted on 2010-06-06 at 23:21
    
    You do the best you can with the knowledge and information available to you. Yeah, we knew a lot less 20 years ago than we do today. The models have improved and a lot more data has been gathered to include in the models. Sure, they’re probably still going to be wrong to some degree, but they’re probably not going to be nearly as far off as they were 20 years ago, and the situation is going to be bad. A lot of people would like to just wait until the shit hits the fan before doing anything. Then they’ll yell and scream at the government for not doing anything about it, just like the drillers do. You can’t really win with people like that. I’d rather see us start doing what we know we need to be doing anyway.
    
    Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-06-06 at 23:21
    … the real story here is about how angry climate scientists get when you point these kinds of problems out to them, because it’s inherently not a very scientific field (you can’t run experiments in real life to test your hypothesis), and I think deep down they all know it. They do like to call each other scientists though. That makes them feel better.
    
    Huh? The article doesn’t mention angry climate scientists, and I don’t see angry climate scientists in this thread. Like before, you seem to mistakenly believe that you’re being insulted by angry climate scientists. For instance, you claimed to be insulted when I implied that you were a non-physicist… just because you don’t have a graduate (or even undergraduate?) physics degree. In comparison:
    - I regularly call myself a non-biologist without feeling insulted because I recognize that my degrees say “physics” and not “biology”.
    - I’ve also said that I’m not good at chemistry, because I recognize that my degrees don’t say “chemistry”.
    - I’ve also said that “I’m not a professional programmer, so I may have missed something that a computer science PhD would consider obvious” because I recognize that my degrees don’t say “computer science”.
    - I’ve also said that I’m not an astronomer, because I recognize that my degrees don’t say “astronomy”.
    - I’ve also said that I’m no cosmologist, because I recognize that I didn’t specialize in cosmology in grad school.
    - I’ve also said that “I couldn’t spinor my way out of a paper bag” because I recognize that I haven’t taken any classes on quantum field theory.
    - I’ve also said that general relativity is outside my experience, over my head at the moment, and that I would need more training to talk about it… because I recognize that owning Gravitation isn’t the same as mastering it.
    - I’ve also said that “string theory is over my head.”
    Do you think I’ve repeatedly insulted myself, or have I simply been honest about my credentials?
    
    But if you’re describing angry climate scientists that you’ve met in real life, then I don’t know why they’d get angry. You’re just innocently pointing out that they’re bullshitting deceitful hacks who aren’t scientists any more than economists are, and that deep down they realize that they’re frauds who merely call each other scientists just to make them feel better about the fact that they don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about, while they discredit themselves by inflating error bars to prevent anyone from falsifying their predictions. I can’t imagine why your reasonable and polite position would spark unprovoked anger, unless these belligerent climate “scientists” have something to hide…
    
    (There’s probably no point in repeating that experimental constraints are placed on key parameters like the equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate response. Anyone else who’s genuinely curious about falsification can follow those links to learn more about it, though.)
    
    What really annoys the public is when scientists present theories as truth. The scientific community concludes that global warming will result in +0.3C gain per decade! (1991) Oh, but we only got +0.2C per decade. So how people react to this takes different forms …
    
    As MobyDisk said, the problem is that pseudo-scientists commonly misinterpret scientific results when “lecturing” about science that they don’t study professionally. For instance, someone might claim that “the scientific community concludes that global warming will result in +0.3C gain per decade! (1991).”
    
    You didn’t link or cite the paper where you claim this sentence appears any more specifically than “it was published in 1991,” but you seem to be referring to the IPCC AR1 WG1 which was published in 1990. So let’s open the IPCC AR1 WG1 and read the first page of the Executive Summary (p14 of the PDF):
    
    … under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2C to 0.5C per decade), this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a rise of about 1C above the present value by 2025 and 3C before the end of the next century. The rise will not be steady because of the influence of other factors. Under the other IPCC emission scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls, rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0.2C per decade (Scenario B), just above 0.1C per decade (Scenario C), and about 0.1C per decade (Scenario D)…
    
    The actual quote seems very different than your oversimplified version. First, notice that the IPCC is well aware that their models are dynamical, not empirical. This means they predict the climate response to radiative forcings, which in turn means that temperature predictions are tied to emissions scenarios. Second, you mentioned the “0.3C per decade” prediction from emission Scenario A, but you’ve repeatedly ignored Scenario B which Hansen himself called “more plausible” in 1988. Pat Michaels used a similar trick in his 1998 testimony to Congress, and Tim Lambert has an apt word to describe this behavior.
    
    Aside from “forgetting” the more plausible emission scenario, you also seem to forget that the IPCC AR1 WG1 explicitly said that the rise wouldn’t be steady due to the influence of other factors. That’s why they repeatedly used the word “about” to describe the decadal trends. The analyses that I’ve previously linked made similar points:
    
    The spread of results shows that the computer models indicate a range of plausible behaviors; no single result, not even the average of all the model runs, can honestly be called “the” IPCC result, and it’s especially misleading to portray the results as having no variation or uncertainty. Hence it’s no surprise that the IPCC report, when forecasting future global warming, only goes so far as to say that we can expect about 0.2 deg.C per decade over the next several decades — the model results exhibit enough spread that no more precise prognostication is warranted, and even that prediction only merits a single significant digit. Only the deceitful would attempt to portray the IPCC projections as an ironclad prediction of 0.2 deg.C warming every decade. Tamino
    
    The projections shown in R07 don’t follow the strict 0.2 deg.C/decade rate of increase claimed to represent IPCC projections. So what are the actual projections from IPCC TAR? The TAR states in more than one place that we can expect “about” 0.2 deg.C/decade warming over the next few decades. Note the qualifier “about,” and that the quoted figure is accurate to only 1 significant digit. The logical conclusion is: between 0.15 and 0.25 deg.C/decade, in which case flatly stating 0.2 deg.C/decade as though that were an ironclad exact figure isn’t an honest representation of the IPCC projection. Tamino
    
    … And it’s not like the planet *didn’t* warm up in the meantime (AGW is very likely true) …
    
    Not for the reason you’re implying, though. For instance, average global temperatures could have risen if the sun had brightened, but that warming wouldn’t have had anything to do with AGW. In reality, one reason (among many) that scientists believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing global temperatures (averaged over at least ~20 years) to increase is that only model ensembles which include the radiative forcing due to anthropogenic CO2 yield temperatures since ~1970 that match the instrumental temperature record. As you can see, model ensembles which don’t include anthropogenic emissions aren’t consistent with the instrumental record, even after taking into account the “large” instrumental and algorithmic uncertainties. Notice that this reasoning has more to do with the climate response to forcings than with raw temperatures, which is a direct result of using dynamical rather than empirical models.
    
    It’s been 20 years since AR1, so we can actually look back at their predictions and see that they predicted a temperature rise around 50% higher than what we got (Real Climate.org called the prediction “a bit warm”), but don’t let me stop you from believing predictions are infallible.
    
    Huh? Who said anything about predictions being infallible? Not the person you’re replying to, nor any peer-reviewed paper I’ve ever seen.
    
    You’ve been repeating the phrase “a little warm” ever since I showed you my collection of tests performed on old models. But let’s read the entire quote:
    
    And finally, let’s revisit the oldest GCM projection of all, Hansen et al (1988). The Scenario B in that paper is running a little high compared with the actual forcings growth (by about 10%), and the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2ºC for a doubling of CO2) than the current best estimate (~3ºC). The trends are probably most useful to think about, and for the period 1984 to 2009 (the 1984 date chosen because that is when these projections started), scenario B has a trend of 0.26+/-0.05 ºC/dec (95% uncertainties, no correction for auto-correlation). For the GISTEMP and HadCRUT3 data (assuming that the 2009 estimate is ok), the trends are 0.19+/-0.05 ºC/dec (note that the GISTEMP met-station index has 0.21+/-0.06 ºC/dec). Corrections for auto-correlation would make the uncertainties larger, but as it stands, the difference between the trends is just about significant.
    
    Thus, it seems that the Hansen et al ‘B’ projection is likely running a little warm compared to the real world, but assuming (a little recklessly) that the 26 yr trend scales linearly with the sensitivity and the forcing, we could use this mismatch to estimate a sensitivity for the real world. That would give us 4.2/(0.26*0.9) * 0.19=~ 3.4 ºC. Of course, the error bars are quite large (I estimate about +/-1ºC due to uncertainty in the true underlying trends and the true forcings), but it’s interesting to note that the best estimate sensitivity deduced from this projection, is very close to what we think in any case. For reference, the trends in the AR4 models for the same period have a range 0.21+/-0.16 ºC/dec (95%). Note too, that the Hansen et al projection had very clear skill compared to a null hypothesis of no further warming.
    
    You accuse Gavin Schmidt of being a bullshitting deceitful hack who isn’t really a scientist. I disagree; he seems to be honestly and competently evaluating Hansen’s model as applied to more recent temperature data. He understands that the model is dynamical, so he corrects for the fact that emissions have been 10% lower than projected in scenario B. Then he notes that the modern estimate for the climate sensitivity is closer to 3C than the 4.2C used in 1988. That’s the real lesson to be learned here: careful experimental methods can help to constrain our knowledge of the equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate response to doubling CO2.
    
    Moreover, 1988 climate models differ from 2007 climate models in other ways:
    
    The sharp-eyed among you might notice a couple of differences between the variance in the AR4 models in the first graph, and the Hansen et al model in the last. This is a real feature. The model used in the mid-1980s had a very simple representation of the ocean – it simply allowed the temperatures in the mixed layer to change based on the changing the fluxes at the surface. It did not contain any dynamic ocean variability – no El Niño events, no Atlantic multidecadal variability etc. and thus the variance from year to year was less than one would expect. Models today have dynamic ocean components and more ocean variability of various sorts, and I think that is clearly closer to reality than the 1980s vintage models, but the large variation in simulated variability still implies that there is some way to go.
    
    In other words, computation-hungry climate models had to be very crude to run on “supercomputers” roughly as powerful as modern smart phones, and this simplicity introduced errors and uncertainty. Who’d have guessed? Oh, right… the IPCC AR1 WG1 did, in the summary:
    
    The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability, alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more. … The best tools we have … are known as General Circulation Models (GCMs). They synthesize our knowledge of physical and dynamical processes in the overall system and allow for complex interactions between the various components. However, in their current state of development, the descriptions of many of the processes involved are comparatively crude. Because of this, considerable uncertainty is attached to these predictions of climate change…
    
    In other words, scientists in 1990 were very careful to state that their predictions were limited by many different factors which aren’t as relevant 20 years later. Furthermore, notice that Gavin only said Scenario B was “likely running a little warm” in December 2009. In May 2007, his verdict was different:
    
    The bottom line? Scenario B is pretty close and certainly well within the error estimates of the real world changes. And if you factor in the 5 to 10% overestimate of the forcings in a simple way, Scenario B would be right in the middle of the observed trends. It is certainly close enough to provide confidence that the model is capable of matching the global mean temperature rise! Real Climate
    
    Also, Rahmstorf 2007 examined IPCC AR3 WG1 projections of temperature and sea level rise, only to conclude that temperatures were rising somewhat faster than expected.
    
    So what happened in between 2007 and 2009 to change the interpretation? Well, a significant La Nina occurred in 2007/08, temporarily depressing global air temperatures. But as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, ENSO variability doesn’t drive the long-term climate because it merely swaps heat between the atmosphere and the ocean. As noted above, 1988 models didn’t include ENSO turbulence (even 2010 models aren’t yet that good at modelling inter-annual oscillations.)
    
    Once again, the important point is that the IPCC models are dynamical, so they can only predict the climate response to radiative forcings. If significant forcings aren’t measured accurately, the climate model will predict incorrect temperatures. For example, I’ve already shown you Solomon 2010 which states: “Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.”
    
    Because the IPCC AR4 WG1 model ensembles didn’t account for this effect, they predicted a somewhat higher global temperature increase during the last decade than was observed. To me, this seems like a good reason to include this effect in the next IPCC ensemble, rather than calling climate physicists deceitful hacks who discredit themselves by spreading bullshit. But to each his own.
    
    Despite these limitations, predictions from the IPCC AR1,AR2,AR3 generally agree with the instrumental temperature records. You can even see how weather noise makes short-term trends extremely variable; a good example is the strong El Nino in 1998 which temporarily increased global air temperatures.
    
    1) Global warming is proven false. Because the +0.2 gain was right on the bottom of the error bars for the AR1 best guess prediction.
    2) Global warming is proven true. Because a +0.2 gain was included in the error bars. 3) I can’t trust scientists because they said something would be true, and it wasn’t. The really fucked up thing is that for people who say that global warming was proven true because the actual numbers fell within the range of the predictions would then have to say that global warming was false if we’d actually gotten +1.0C gain. Because it got too hot! It was outside the range of predictions! Contrawise, the AR4 predictions include +0.0C change in their prediction, so if we have no warming at all, people can say that the AR4 report was happily accurate.
    1. In science, nothing is ever proven true. Experiments might sometimes fail to falsify theories, but that’s very different from being “proven true.”
    2. Again, you seem to be confusing dynamical and empirical models. As I’ve repeatedly emphasized, the IPCC dynamical model ensembles are predicting the climate response to radiative forcings. No serious physicist would talk about falsifying a particular value for the transient climate response or equilibrium climate sensitivity using temperatures alone without a detailed history of the radiative forcings involved. And, of course, no serious physicist would use temperatures alone to say that both of these parameters are “zero” (which is what “global warming is false” means.)
    3. You didn’t mention which emission scenario you’re talking about, nor did you mention the time scale over which the error bars include +0.0C. Here are the AR4 scenarios. Notice that only the “constant composition commitment” scenario has a bottom error bar that doesn’t rise above +1.0C by 2100.
    4. A prediction of “no warming” wouldn’t simply include 0.0C in its error bars. Its top and bottom error bars would be symmetric around 0.0C.
    5. Yet again, weather noise makes trend analysis over short periods (i.e. less than 20 years) difficult at best. Look at the trends predicted by climate models. Notice that if you can avoid Pat Michaels’ mistake of ending on a strong La Nina year (2008), the trends we’ve observed track within the error bars. Over 5 years, the IPCC ensemble predicts a maximum trend of 0.8C/decade, and a minimum of -0.4C/decade. The error bars aren’t symmetric around 0.0C, and after 15 years the statistics are powerful enough to start ruling out constant global temperatures. That’s why I’ve repeatedly stressed that we need ~20 years to average out weather noise.
    6. In simpler terms, imagine that the IPCC AR4 WG1 had finalized their predictions in July. Let’s put aside complicated statistics and see if it’s reasonable to assume that a 0.2C/decade warming trend has to apply at all timescales. Well, no, it’s not. The global temperature will drop for 6 months as the northern hemisphere enters winter. So clearly you can’t falsify a long-term temperature trends with a mere 6 month time series. But that doesn’t mean the prediction is unfalsifiable as you allege, it’s just that a longer timespan is necessary. Same story here.
    It’s interesting that you claim physicists who study the climate are inflating their error bars in a blatant attempt to avoid falsification, especially when you’ve previously said “I don’t believe any (self-described) scientist who claims he knows how much temperature will move in the next 100 years, unless he says it will range somewhere between absolute zero and the temperature of the sun.”
    
    Are you saying that physicists who study the climate are bullshitting deceitful hacks because their error bars are too large, or are you saying they’re bullshitting deceitful hacks because their error bars are smaller than the difference between absolute zero and the temperature of the sun?
    
    In other words, if a physicist derives error bars which are smaller than ~600C/decade, you wouldn’t believe those error bars because they’re too small, which obviously means he’s completely unjustified in arrogantly claiming to understand the physical processes involved in the climate well enough to derive a “small” error bar. But if he quotes error bars of ~0.2C/decade for short timespans, then suddenly his error bars are too large, which obviously means he’s deliberately inflating them to avoid falsification.
    
    You set up a similar catch-22 by repeatedly denigrating statistical methods in favor of empirical evidence. Sans context, that’s not necessarily an unreasonable position. However, as I repeatedly pointed out, it’s not relevant to the issue of reliability of the instrumental temperature record. But later you said: “… along with the fact that half the changes went undocumented, it would make me even more dubious of the temperature record without having empirical data to verify it. …”
    
    As I pointed out, the undocumented changes you refer to are actually called “statistically significant changepoints”. They were only discovered using the pairwise algorithm described in Menne 2009. In other words, even though scientists were struggling to use purely empirical methods to detect changepoints, a supplementary statistical method confirmed the existence of all the empirically confirmed changepoints, and then found just as many undocumented statistically signficant changepoints. I think most scientists would view this as a success of the statistical pairwise algorithm over purely empirical methods, which doesn’t seem to agree very well with your previous position. But you ignore that implication and instead claim that the success of the statistical pairwise algorithm is actually just more proof that the temperature record is “dubious”.
    
    … Actually, it was interesting to read in large part in terms of the numbers of way faults can occur in the station data. Given the rather hackish heuristics used to detect faults, it actually lowered my confidence in the quality of station data. When you conduct science, you try to eliminate confounding factors until you’re left with just your one experimental value. In this case: temperature over time. Given the number of error sources listed in just this paper alone, along with the fact that half the changes went undocumented, it would make me even more dubious of the temperature record without having empirical data to verify it. …
    
    You appear to understand that experimental science is largely a process of eliminating error sources. But you repeatedly imply that scientific results which eliminate “lots” of error sources are “dubious” and “low confidence” and “hackish”. Nonsense.
    
    Recently, another programmer argued that satellite data was more trustworthy than surface instruments because she thought that the satellite analysis accounted for “lots” of error sources. That was nonsense too.
    
    In reality, physicists don’t judge a scientific result by the number of error sources that have been eliminated. I suggested that she read page 6 of this report which was co-authored by J.R. Christy:
    1. The observing systems available for this Report are able to detect small surface and upper air temperature variations from year to year as well as trends in climate since the late 1950s (and over the last century for surface observations), once the raw data are successfully adjusted for changes over time in observing systems and practices, and micro-climate exposure. Measurements from all systems require such adjustments. This Report relies solely on adjusted data sets.
    2. Independently performed adjustments to the land surface temperature record have been sufficiently successful that trends given by different data sets are reasonably similar on large (e.g., continental) scales, despite the fact that spatial sampling is uneven and some errors undoubtedly remain. This conclusion holds to a lesser extent for the ocean surface record, which suffers from more serious sampling problems and changes in observing practice.
    3. Adjustments for changing instrumentation are most challenging for upper-air data sets. While these show promise for trend analysis, and it is very likely that current upper-air climate records give reliable indications of directions of change (e.g., warming of the troposphere, cooling of the stratosphere), some questions remain regarding the accuracy of the data after adjustments have been made to produce homogeneous time series from the raw measurements:
    - Upper-air datasets have been subjected to less scrutiny than surface data sets.
    - Adjustments are complicated, can be large compared to the linear trend signal, involve expert judgments, and cannot be stringently evaluated because of lack of traceable standards.
    - Unlike surface trends, reported upper-air trends vary considerably between research teams beginning with the same raw data owing to their different decisions on how to remove non-climatic factors.
    That’s how physicists judge the robustness of analysis techniques.
    Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-06-07 at 13:18
      
      You accuse Gavin Schmidt of being a bullshitting deceitful hack who isn’t really a scientist. I disagree
      
      I disagree too, because that’s not what I think of him. Gavin is not a “bullshiting deceitful hack who isn’t really a scientist”. I wouldn’t bother being subscribed to RC.org for years if he was that bad. I’d ignore him like the other nuts. He’s a political hack. There’s a big difference.
      
      What it means is that instead of outright lying about this or that (which is much more common in the anti-AGW camp), it means that he goes easy on anyone on his “side” (Al Gore, IPCC predictions) and hard on anyone that even slightly disagrees with him.
      
      The absurdity I was pointing out was that even if we have no warming at all over the next decade (if you missed the time period, there it is), people like RC.org will say that the AR4 predictions are confirmed, but by implication this means that if we get too much warming… global warming is false. (So to speak. If you’ve read all of my posts on here, which it sounds like you have, you know that I know that scientific theories are never proven true or false, it’s a sloppy shorthand I use.) No, I’m NOT saying there is a prediction of no warming – even if we shut off all anthropogenic CO2 production today, the earth would still (probably) warm.
      
      In this thread I’m talking about the rather silly world of hypothesis confirmation, especially as it relates to AGW, nothing more.
      
      But you repeatedly imply that scientific results which eliminate “lots” of error sources are “dubious” and “low confidence” and “hackish”. Nonsense.
      
      Did you actually read their methods? I’m curious how you can think they’re anything but a bunch of heuristics. (And for the record, they can be hackish AND valuable at the same time.)
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-06-07 at 13:22
      
      I disagree too, because that’s not what I think of him.
      
      On Slashdot it’s hard to show that someone’s directly contradicting himself because his previous statements are hard to find. In my article anyone can search for the words in question and quickly read all your posts which use them. Tread carefully.
      
      The absurdity I was pointing out was …
      
      … not an absurdity at all, as I explained ad nauseum above.
      
      Did you actually read their methods? I’m curious how you can think they’re anything but a bunch of heuristics. (And for the record, they can be hackish AND valuable at the same time.)
      
      Note that I didn’t respond to the neutral word “heuristics” and instead concentrated on the colorful (and inherently subjective) adjectives that you used.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-06-07 at 16:49
      
      Tread carefully.
      
      I don’t believe I’ve ever contradicted myself on RC.org, though I suppose it’s possible. Care to share? It’s possible that you got distracted by my language (which is generally negative toward them and Phil Jones and others), so let me summarize for you. Please let me know if you agree or disagree on each point. Answering this summary will be easier than you dancing around through a bunch of different threads.
      
      1) RC.org is a valuable website, but they have a very strong political bias, censor and edit posts heavily, and engage in biased behavior that borders on the dishonest, giving free passes to people that agree with them, and nitpicking heavily on people that disagree with them. I don’t believe their core science is bad, though I take issue with how they present it sometimes.
      
      2) Phil Jones and his merry band of climatologists engaged in bad behavior, using legally-questionable tactics to dodge FOIA requests. Most telling was his statement that he wouldn’t share his data because they might use it to disprove his work. This is anti-scientific. In a field where all you really have are climate data and computer models, refusing to share them with the world is akin to a physicist claiming that he’s invented Cold Fusion, but refusing to show exactly how (except perhaps to a couple of his friends). Gavin of course defended him saying that while maybe THEIR data wasn’t available, HIS data was available, and so that made it all better. (Which it didn’t – it rather just highlighted their shady behavior). However, I think that most of the rest of the Climategate scandal was completely misrepresented in the media, with absolutely horrid reporting by a variety of sources. The real story – which everyone ignored for red herrings like “hide the decline” – was Phil Jones mailing people (Gaving Schmidt included) talking about ways to dodge FOIA requests. I’d also take Jones to task for losing the data, but I’ve worked at universities before and know how disorganized they can be.
      
      3) I think AGW is real, a serious threat, that parts of it are exaggerated, parts of it are under-reported (most significantly the acidification of the oceans) and that most of the mainstream solutions are horrible. The AGW community (painting a very wide paintbrush here) has a fascination with solutions that will kill people, destroy the economy, and be horrendously expensive, but refuse to look at geoengineering solutions that could be cheaper and more effective, and refuse to look at green technologies like nuclear because they’re ignorant. Climatologists also tend to think that because they know the science of global warming, they’re qualified to write policy.
      
      4) Depending on how puckish I’m feeling, climatology could or could not be a “science”. Science is defined by empirical observations, hypothesis generation, testing, and hypothesis confirmation or falsification. Climatology doesn’t meet up to this full set of requirements to be science, so it, like a lot of other fields, fall somewhere in the middle of the science divide. Due to the prestige “science” acquired in the 20th century, most fields nowadays have tried to co-opt the patina of science for themselves, and I see this as being more of the same. It’s also why I think that climate scientists are much more angry and defensive than, say, plasma physicists.
      
      Note that I didn’t respond to the neutral word “heuristics” and instead concentrated on the colorful (and inherently subjective) adjectives that you used.
      
      You’re not a computer science, guy, then. A heuristic IS a hackish attempt to solve a problem without mathematical elegance or rigor. It’s just a nicer way of putting it than I did. Heuristics can certainly be effective (that’s why I thought your criticism of my statement was rather silly), but they’re really just educated guesses at solving a problem.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-06-07 at 16:49
      
      I don’t believe I’ve ever contradicted myself on RC.org, though I suppose it’s possible. Care to share? It’s possible that you got distracted by my language (which is generally negative toward them and Phil Jones and others), so let me summarize for you. Please let me know if you agree or disagree on each point. Answering this summary will be easier than you dancing around through a bunch of different threads.
      
      You mean, do I care to share again? No, that seems futile because you haven’t even bothered to address the contradictions I just described in excruciating detail. What would be the point of responding to the rest of this comment, when all you’re doing is endlessly restating the same views that I’ve either already agreed with or debunked in this article over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over?
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-06-07 at 22:04
      
      You were debunking strawnen that I didn’t make. I bloody well understand what error means, but you completely missed my point on it, and so forth. Your references were wonderful, but also completely missing the point.
      
      I just gave you a nice summary of my stances. If you can’t give a simple agree/disagree after all the posts we’ve traded on the subject, I’m bound to suspect your honesty.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-06-07 at 22:07
      
      You’re right, my honesty is suspect because I want to finish my research so I can finish my presentation before I leave for the conference in Taiwan so I don’t fail out of school. It’s not that I haven’t quoted your statements in explicit detail and shown how they conflict with your other statements and how they support MobyDisk’s point, and how they generally seem to be oversimplifications of a frightening degree. You responded to a dozen pages of carefully referenced science without saying anything new, and responding to it would require linking all the previous times I’ve addressed these issues with you (OCD, long story). This would take more time than I have available right now. If I don’t suffer an untimely death in the backwoods of Cambodia, I might bother to do all that… someday.
      
      But if I don’t survive, at some point in the future you might want to re-read our conversation (included in its entirety here) and consider what percentage of the sentences in that repetitive comment you just posted are simply restatements of positions that I’ve already directly told you I agree with. Then consider the percentage of sentences that I’ve already tried repeatedly to explain aren’t accurate. Then consider the percentage of statements that I’ve already answered in the >200 comments before yours.
      
      By my estimate, you’ll be left with 5% to 20% of your original comment. And it’s the part of your comment that has the least to do with science and the most in common with the tabloid nonsense that I’ve already gotten disgusted with talking about (there’s a big section here on that, but your particular half-truths aren’t there).
      
      I still don’t understand why I should divert this time away from my attempt to develop a new tsunami early warning system using precision gravity measurements. But I promise that if I survive I’ll eventually do just that. Eventually…
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-06-08 at 03:40
      
      I can argue the same way as you. I can strawman your arguments, give extensive reasons why the argument (that you didn’t make) are wrong, and then shut up when you present your points in a clarified manner.
      
      That’s why I’m doubting your honesty. Believe me, man, I understand about writing papers, but you seem allergic to actually answering anything I actually say.
      
      Here’s a quick one that you can answer in one sentence (or more, if you’d like): do you think Phil Jones acted appropriately?
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-06-08 at 03:42
      
      You responded to a dozen pages of carefully referenced science without saying anything new
      
      I’d also like to answer this. Most all of your links are to your own website, which abuse the nice, nested comment threads here on slashdot and flatten them. If you have something to say about a post on Slashdot, reply to me here. I’m not going to scroll through another mega-block of flattened text trying to pick out your non-existent thesis statements.
      
      If you ever figure out how to do proper argumentation (thesis statement + supporting statements), please reply to this post here, and not on your site. It’s annoying in the extreme to debate someone who doesn’t know the proper forms of debate.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-06-08 at 03:43
      
      I can argue the same way as you. I can strawman your arguments, give extensive reasons why the argument (that you didn’t make) are wrong, and then shut up when you present your points in a clarified manner.
      
      Another programmer has a similar habit of accusing me of making strawman arguments. She also didn’t bother to mention what arguments she was talking about. Yet again, I’m blockquoting your statements for the entire purpose of avoiding the construction of strawman arguments. I’m intentionally quoting the “language” you use (which isn’t a distraction as you claim because I’m not telepathic; your language is the only way I can discern your position.) So far the most specific “strawman” example you’ve presented is the fact that you were using “proven true” sloppily. Okay, that’s ~~one~~ two sentences out of a dozen pages, and that was really all I meant by ~~that~~ those sentences anyway. Next you murmured something to the effect that you “bloody well understand what error means” but I don’t have the foggiest idea what you meant. Your error analysis seemed to repeatedly assume that climate models are empirical, not dynamical… among other mistakes which would be inexplicable if made by someone with a graduate or undergraduate (?) degree in physics.
      
      That’s why I’m doubting your honesty. Believe me, man, I understand about writing papers, but you seem allergic to actually answering anything I actually say.
      
      I’m only allergic to answering the same questions repeatedly. The whole point of discussing something in written form is so that I don’t have to tutor the entire planet individually. And that’s the second time you’ve accused me of being dishonest, on top of saying that I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about, that I’m not even really a scientist, and probably more examples that I’m repressing…
      
      Here’s a quick one that you can answer in one sentence (or more, if you’d like): do you think Phil Jones acted appropriately?
      
      Answering this question with any rigor would require finding a dozen links. But of course I’ve already criticized the closed-source culture in many different fields of science, emphasized that I’m endangering my scientific career in my naive commitment to open source/science principles, and compiled an extensive list of open source climate codes and data.
      
      So of course I think data and code should be shared freely. And yet I don’t share your obvious contempt for Phil Jones. I don’t have time to link everything now, but here’s the story: Phil Jones used to fulfill FOIA requests regularly. Then crackpots started flooding his office with too many requests to handle, in a type of harassment that reminds me of the Lenski affair. Then one of the FOIA requests that Phil Jones DID fulfill was used to try to get one of his colleagues arrested because some crackpot thought he’d found evidence of fraud.
      
      What he did was wrong, but you’ve omitted most of the story and tried to imply that climatology is unique in its closed source attitude. I can only assume you haven’t been reading Nature regularly for the last 6 months, because this very topic was explored in that timeframe.
      
      I hate to leave this unlinked, which is why I wanted to wait until I get back from Asia.
      
      Most all of your links are to your own website, which abuse the nice, nested comment threads here on slashdot and flatten them.
      
      I tried nesting the comments deeper, but the comments became too narrow. I like nested comments too, but I haven’t figured out how to increase the nesting level past 3 without severe readability problems.
      
      If you have something to say about a post on Slashdot, reply to me here. … If you ever figure out how to do proper argumentation (thesis statement + supporting statements), please reply to this post here, and not on your site. It’s annoying in the extreme to debate someone who doesn’t know the proper forms of debate.
      
      Isn’t that what I’ve been doing? Dumb Scientist just mirrors these slashdot conversations so that I have a single-page archive of all my links. I’ve always posted my comments to slashdot first, then copied them to Dumb Scientist for easy browsing. But note that I won’t be back from Asia for 3 weeks, at which point this article will be locked. My plan was to post the eventual response to whatever slashdot comment is at the top of your queue at the time.
      
      I’m not going to scroll through another mega-block of flattened text trying to pick out your non-existent thesis statements.
      
      Another programmer with a similar debating style as you also recently accused me of being dishonest because he didn’t want to do a lot of reading.
      
      Another person also accused me of being a hypocrit who’s trying to fool people in horrendously misleading ways. Then I pointed out that he only needed to read 6 paragraphs into the article to see that I’d already discussed his claim. He also found it reasonable to complain about having to read 6 paragraphs, so I noted that his reading time investment was far smaller than researching, writing and linking 50 pages of science, so it seemed like I should be more annoyed at having to repeat myself over and over. He found my hypocrisy offensive because… get this… I was repeating myself.
      
      Talking with you is giving me a serious case of deju vu regarding these last two conversations. Notice that those links weren’t to my website.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-06-21 at 06:24
      
      Another programmer has a similar habit of accusing me of making strawman arguments
      
      I’ve also noticed you perhaps get me confused with other people.
      
      Your error analysis seemed to repeatedly assume that climate models are empirical, not dynamical… among other mistakes which would be inexplicable for someone with a graduate or undergraduate (?) degree in physics.
      
      Two years of physics as an undergraduate, perfect score on the SATII Physics Test, 5 on the AP Physics test, I taught methods in solving physics problems, etc., including an undergraduate quarter spent on error analysis. I also read a great deal. This is one of the reasons I get annoyed when you so blithely disparage people as non-physicists. The main reason, though, is that it’s arrogant and rude. I don’t assume that you don’t know how to program a computer because of your field, except when I’m intentionally insulting you. =)
      
      I’m only allergic to answering the same questions repeatedly
      
      That’s awesome for you. Except I think that I had never stated my stances in an encapsulated fashion before. Perhaps you’re tired of answering them from multiple people? Because from my perspective, you just appeared to be dodging the subject.
      
      And that’s the second time you’ve accused me of being dishonest
      
      Making a claim, then refusing to answer it, provide supporting evidence, etc., and then claiming to have already answered it is dishonest behavior. Now that you’ve actually given an answer to one of my four claims, I retract that statement.
      
      And yet I don’t share your obvious contempt for Phil Jones. I don’t have time to link everything now, but here’s the story: Phil Jones used to fulfill FOIA requests regularly. Then crackpots started flooding his office with too many requests to handle,
      
      From what I understand, one of the anti-AGW M’s filed one FOIA request a month, and only then because Phil Jones refused to ever answer a single FOIA request. This hardly seems like flooding his office, and his circumlocutions to hide the data reek badly in a field that needs openness to survive.
      
      I do thank you for your answer on this, though. It’s nice to see that we both agree on the core matter.
      
      Another programmer with a similar debating style as you also recently accused me of being dishonest because he didn’t want to do a lot of reading.
      
      I don’t mind reading. To the contrary, really – my wife thinks I have a reading problem. But linking to a hard to read flat thread is tedious in the extreme to work with.
      
      Reply
ShakaUVM posted on 2010-06-06 at 23:30

(Ed. note: This comment was posted on 2010-06-15 at 17:26, but the time has been changed to keep ShakaUVM’s comments in sequence.)

The contrail cover from planes reflect more light from the sun.

Also, it’s important to state that up until this point, climatologists thought that contrails had a forcing effect helping to cause global warming. And still show it that way, for example.

However, papers like this rather convincingly argued that they have a rather strong forcing in the opposite direction (i.e. that they help to dim sunlight more than they trap heat).

While honest climatologists will admit that some areas in AGW are very well understood, and others are much less understood, dishonest climatologists will pretend that they know everything and how dare you for questioning the global warming groupthink. In fact, how they respond to reasoned criticism is often a clear giveaway as to which camp they fall into.

Reply
- Abcd1234 posted on 2010-06-21 at 06:27
  
  Yeah, pity you’re actually reading the fucking results wrong. *sigh* To quote wikipedia:
  
  Measurements showed that without contrails, the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 degree Celsius higher than immediately before
  
  The daytime temperature didn’t increase. The difference between night and day increased. And guess what? That matches expectations! Why? Because:
  
  Other studies have determined that night flights are mostly responsible for the warming effect
  
  So when there are contrails, it stays warmer at night, due to radiative forcing effects. No contrails? It gets colder at night. End result? *Larger night-day temperature difference*.
  
  But, hey, let’s actually look at your study, shall we? Hey, here’s a choice quote from the abstract:
  
  Because persisting contrails can reduce the transfer of both incoming solar and outgoing infrared radiation4, 5 and so reduce the daily temperature range, we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails over this period.
  
  Hey, look at that… that’s what they fucking found. Science at work: scientists make prediction. Scientists have convenient experiment. Observations match predictions. The system works.
  
  But, hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your “skepticism”.
  
  Reply
  - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-06-21 at 06:29
    
    No problem. I’ll see if I can dig up a better paper for you. From what I recall, the average temperatures went up as well, ~2.0 C
    
    Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-06-21 at 06:31
  
  Posted anonymously by khayman80 (Dumb Scientist) from an internet cafe in Koh Phi Phi Don.
  
  While honest climatologists will admit that some areas in AGW are very well understood, and others are much less understood, dishonest climatologists will pretend that they know everything and how dare you for questioning the global warming groupthink. In fact, how they respond to reasoned criticism is often a clear giveaway as to which camp they fall into.
  
  I’d like to thank Abcd1234 for once again reducing my workload– especially during my vacation. But this statement is doubly redundant because (1) All climatologists I’ve met or researched have been honest (defined as PhD physicists specializing in a range of subfields related to climate prediction or paleoclimatology.) and (2) all scientific fields have areas that aren’t well understood.
  
  (Of course, if you’d said “members of the general public who identify with the Green party, I’ve already repeatedly agreed with you. But you didn’t.)
  
  In fact, climatologists express how “well understood” an effect is by the error bars on the radiative forcings chart. The larger the error bars, the “less understood” the effect is. That’s just the way all natural science is done. Strangely, some pseudoscientists criticize climatologists when their error bars are too small (i.e. pseudoscientists accuse climatologists of pretending to know everything) AND when their error bars are too large (apparently that means they’re deliberately avoiding falsification.)
  
  Do you have any reputable citations showing professional climatologists engaging in groupthink or responding badly to reasoned criticism? I ask because, once again, your description of the climatology community sounds like a description of a cult…
  
  Reply
  - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-06-21 at 06:35
    
    responding badly to reasoned criticism
    
    You mean like how they circled the wagons around Phil Jones, even when actual bad behavior on his part was discovered?
    
    For example:
    
    “This has some similarity to the CRU email theft, where precious little was discovered from among thousands of emails, but a few sentences were plucked out of context, deliberately misinterpreted (like “hide the decline”) and then hyped into “Climategate”.”
    
    Or you can just read the editor’s comments left in the response sections of RC.org. Just skimming through that above article, here’s an interplay between Pielke and Stefan.
    
    Or the tendency for certain climatologists to throw out offensive notions like the Salem Hypothesis when someone disagrees with them.
    
    In fact, climatologists express how “well understood” an effect is by the error bars on the radiative forcings chart.
    
    To a certain extent you can do this. If you have a positive or negative feedback cycle that is poorly understood, error bars become so large as to be meaningless. For example, if all the ice in Greenland suddenly slides into the ocean next week, it would create a global catastrophe that would lead to various situations well outside of our confidence levels.
    
    Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-06-21 at 06:37
      
      That’s the third time you’ve accused me of being dishonest. I’ll add these repetitive comments to the huge list you’ve repeatedly demanded that I answer lest I be considered dishonest. This will take ~10 hours, and consist of ~10 pages of statements like “I’ve already answered this here, here, and directly to you here, and this is the text: ….”
      
      I’ll only post this redundancy to Slashdot (and Dumb Scientist) with the expectation that you’ll have the courtesy to finally explain (in a similar point-by-point fashion) why you think this comment is filled with strawman arguments (which, if true, would mean I’m a drooling idiot or a deceitful hack…)
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-06-22 at 01:43
      
      That’s the third time you’ve accused me of being dishonest.
      
      We’d never even talked about the Phil Jones issue before, so your attempts to avoid answering it (because you’d answered it before) were indeed dishonest. You’ve now answered that question, but there’s three to go. Just a short paragraph answer to each one please – I won’t call you dishonest for not thoroughly referencing your summary, but I will if you keep saying you’ve answered them before, because I’d never *formulated* them in summary before.
      
      As to your strawmen arguments:
      
      “You’re just innocently pointing out that they’re bullshitting deceitful hacks who aren’t scientists any more than economists are”
      
      Uh, no. Since you’ve ostensibly read my posts before, you know that I was very careful to say that I don’t think that people like RC.org are generally deceitful, but rather politically biased (yes, “hacks”), shooting withering attacks on anyone that disagrees with them, and yet giving free passes to people like Al Gore or Phil Jones. Occasionally I think climatologists’ arguments are wrong (like RC.org and your stance towards Watts), but overall I don’t think there’s any great conspiracy to invent AGW or anything like that.
      
      Since you like to reference my posts mirrored on your own website, you should see that I’ve said this repeatedly, even in the post you quoted above.
      
      If you want to take a shot at defending the mistakes in An Inconvenient Truth, let me know. RC.org was borderline lying on some of its points on the movie.
      
      In any event, you shouldn’t take offense at being lumped in the same category as economists, in terms of observation, modeling, and prediction, economics is the closest field to climatology. The point I was trying to make is that if climatology is science, the economics is science. If economics is not science, then climatology is not science. Or to put it another way, I think we need new labels for a category somewhere between hard science and social science.
      
      Do you think I’ve repeatedly insulted myself, or have I simply been honest about my credentials?
      
      No… but referencing the Salem Hypothesis (a reference to Creationism) *was* insulting. I don’t mind if you were offended I lumped you into the same category with economics, but I think the field is closer than you might think.
      
      Second, you mentioned the “0.3C per decade” prediction from emission Scenario A, but you’ve repeatedly ignored Scenario B which Hansen himself called “more plausible” in 1988.
      
      That’s great, but I’m not talking about Hansen88, but AR1, which focuses on Scenario A. It’s possible this was done to scare politicians into action, but when one reads it, the +0.3C increase appears to be the best guess.
      
      “You accuse Gavin Schmidt of being a bullshitting deceitful hack who isn’t really a scientist.”
      
      “It’s interesting that you claim physicists who study the climate are inflating their error bars in a blatant attempt to avoid falsification”
      
      “…which obviously means he’s deliberately inflating them to avoid falsification.”
      
      You wanted to know which statements were strawmen? These are some more.
      
      You’ve missed my point repeatedly on error in predictions, so I’m not going to bother repeating myself again. (See how annoying that is, when someone does that?)
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-06-22 at 02:30
      
      That’s the fourth time you’ve accused me of being dishonest, and of not really being a scientist. I tried to tell you twice that economics involves people who have free will but radiative physics involves molecules which don’t have free will (unless you’re a pantheist, I suppose) but you haven’t even peripherally answered that point, and I’ve long since lost interest.
      
      Your reading of AR1 yet again misses the point that climate models are dynamical, not empirical. So the entire reason for giving different scenarios is to account for uncertainty in human pollution, solar activity, volcanism, etc. As Gavin pointed out, the projected forcings assumed in scenario B were actually slightly too high compared to reality. But that uncertainty is compartmentalized away from the GCM uncertainty.
      
      If you want to take a shot at defending the mistakes in An Inconvenient Truth, let me know. …
      
      Huh? I’m now convinced that you’re just playing a cynical game to see how much of my time you can waste. I’ve archived all of your statements in this article, so I’ll simply let my readers decide if you called climatologists deceitful hacks who make bullshit claims, aren’t really scientists, just make themselves feel better by calling each other scientists and holding “science-y” conferences even though they can’t falsify their hypotheses because their error bars “so large you can basically never prove the predictions wrong.” Maybe they’ll agree with you that these are just strawman arguments which you didn’t actually make.
      
      Obviously, this conversation is a waste of time. Let’s just agree to disagree, okay?
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-06-26 at 13:29
      
      That’s the fourth time you’ve accused me of being dishonest, and of not really being a scientist.
      
      Then honestly answer my four questions. That’s all I’ve been asking for.
      
      The issue about the label of ‘science’ one is not an attack on you, but rather a philosophical musing on the nature of climatology.
      
      I’m now convinced that you’re just playing a cynical game to see how much of my time you can waste.
      
      If you spent half as much time actually answering the four questions (and again, I don’t need a fully referenced essay) instead of engaging in meta-conversation… well, we wouldn’t be having this meta-conversation.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-06-26 at 13:41
      
      No, you didn’t just ask four questions. You repeated many accusations about climatology not being falsifiable science (etc), which were merely grouped into four paragraphs. I’ve already explained that I have serious OCD and can’t answer all these insults without referencing all the times I’ve already answered the same cynical accusations. Do you think that answering all these accusations for the N’th time is more important than developing an early warning system for tsunamis? I don’t. Seriously, let’s just agree to disagree. Have a nice day.
      
      Reply
    - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-06-28 at 13:57
      
      No, you didn’t just ask four questions
      
      Again, instead of talking about all this other stuff, which is incidental, you could just answer them.
      
      I’ve already explained that I have serious OCD and can’t answer all these insults without referencing all the times I’ve already answered the same cynical accusations
      
      Which is completely meaningless to me. I don’t care that you don’t like the fact that climatology is kinda-sorta science. I don’t care this insults you, however it is an accurate description.
      
      That’s why I stopped the conversation at that point and formulated four very simple questions for you, which you’ve refused to answer over and over again. I simply can’t understand how you can spend so much time arguing with me, and yet still can’t spend the five minutes to define your position on the issues surrounding global warming. It feels like pulling teeth.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-06-28 at 14:25
      
      I survived my trip through Cambodia, so unfortunately I’ll have to spend WAY more than 5 minutes answering your huge list of “philosophical musings”, primarily by showing that I’ve already answered them repeatedly. I will eventually do this, but my actual research has to take priority. I’ll post this epic response to your most recent Slashdot post when I’m finished. Until then, please let me focus on trying to not fail out of school, okay?
      
      Reply
      - ShakaUVM posted on 2010-07-01 at 16:25
        
        Until then, please let me focus on trying to not fail out of school, okay?
        
        Sure. No worries, dude.
        
        Just one final clarification for you – keep in mind that my comments on error bars were musings on the falsifiability of global warming, from a philosophy of science perspective.
        
        Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-06-06 at 23:32

I’m not an expert in a relevant field to understand fully this issue, and chances are neither are you. Other than wait and reserve judgment, the only logical choice I can make when there is overwhelming consensus among experts (there is on climate change) is to listen to them. I support cap and trade, not because I think it’s a good idea – because I’m not qualified to know that – but because the majority of those who are qualified think it is, and science is not a political process even when the conclusions polarizes people along political lines. [sqrt(2)]

Well, not necessarily. [Third Position]

Notice that they’re meteorologists. In other words, they study short term trends and don’t have PhD-level understanding of ensemble averages and other techniques necessary to analyze long term trends. (Heck, they’re TV personalities. They might not know more than how to wave their hands around a green screen.)

But sqrt(2) is right to say that most scientists agree that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a dangerous temperature increase. The percentage of scientists who agree with this statement increases with increasing relevance of the scientist’s field.

Reply
- arc86 posted on 2010-06-06 at 23:34
  
  But sqrt(2) is right to say that most scientists agree that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a dangerous temperature increase. The percentage of scientists who agree with this statement increases with increasing relevance of the scientist’s field.
  
  The Doran study’s survey question is phrased: 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? So I believe you injected the “dangerous” evaluation. jamstec.go.jp link says that overwhelmingly the most common response of those surveyed was to agree that AGW is real, but only “at least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence.” So I don’t think scientists are necessarily in agreement that we’re headed for a cataclysmic disaster.
  
  Reply
  - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-06-06 at 23:37
    
    The Doran study’s survey question is phrased: 2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? So I believe you injected the “dangerous” evaluation.
    
    Notice that in the people-press.org survey, 70% of scientists call global warming a “very serious” problem. Only 6% call it “not too serious” or “not a problem”.
    
    jamstec.go.jp link says that overwhelmingly the most common response of those surveyed was to agree that AGW is real, but only “at least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence.” So I don’t think scientists are necessarily in agreement that we’re headed for a cataclysmic disaster.
    
    When have you ever seen the IPCC or any peer-reviewed paper discuss “cataclysmic disaster”? Note that in the jamstec.go.jp survey, 15-20% of scientists think the IPCC has understated the seriousness of the problem.
    
    Reply
    - arc86 posted on 2010-06-06 at 23:39
      
      I think we need more specific consequences. When the IPCC tried to come up with a list of specific consequences, the Doran survey indicates most scientists found at least one to disagree with. Agreeing that too much CO2 is bad is one step, but considering the costs of reducing CO2 (possibly major economic damage) defining the magnitude of CO2′s harm is very important. If we’re doing it to avert widespread droughts/starvation/wars, cap and trade may be more palatable than if it turns out it’s just to protect the habitat of a few species of tropical fish (hyperbole intended).
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-06-06 at 23:40
      
      I think we need more specific consequences. When the IPCC tried to come up with a list of specific consequences, the Doran survey indicates most scientists found at least one to disagree with.
      
      Huh? Where does the Doran survey say that? As far as I can tell, the Doran survey ends with this conclusion:
      
      It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
      
      Agreeing that too much CO2 is bad is one step, but considering the costs of reducing CO2 (possibly major economic damage) defining the magnitude of CO2′s harm is very important. If we’re doing it to avert widespread droughts/starvation/wars, cap and trade may be more palatable than if it turns out it’s just to protect the habitat of a few species of tropical fish (hyperbole intended).
      
      Feeling lucky?
      
      Reply
    - arc86 posted on 2010-06-06 at 23:41
      
      Sorry I meant to refer to the jamstec survey where most scientists said “at least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence.” Thanks to you I looked up the 2007 report they’re referring to. It does attempt to describe potential consequences though they are sorted into *medium **high and ***very high confidence of occurrence. So I still think I’m right in saying that that’s where the debate exists. We agree that the more CO2 we output the more we raise the global temperature. Debate still seems to be out on what will happen in terms of e.g. crop yields or extinctions. It’d be worth going back to an agrarian lifestyle today to prevent humanity’s extinction, is it worth it to prevent flooding for a few million people in 2080? (***very confident on the flooding by the way, scary stuff.) There are a lot of possible courses we could take, and a wide and disagreed-upon assortment of potential consequences.
      
      Reply
    - Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-06-06 at 23:42
      
      So I still think I’m right in saying that that’s where the debate exists. We agree that the more CO2 we output the more we raise the global temperature. Debate still seems to be out on what will happen in terms of e.g. crop yields or extinctions.
      
      Pretty much. The survey authors stress that only 47% of the general public thinks there’s a consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. As the Doran survey says, the scientific community is seemingly unable to convince the general public that we agree on the basic facts. The projections over the next 100 years are uncertain, of course, due to imperfect knowledge of feedback effects and imperfect knowledge of future economics/emissions scenarios. But many people in the general public assert that this uncertainty is so wide that, hey, climate change might be good for us. (Seriously, check out the rest of this article to see these crackpots in action.) No scientist that I’ve ever met thinks that abrupt climate change will be good for the human race; it’s either viewed as bad or very bad.
      
      It’d be worth going back to an agrarian lifestyle today to prevent humanity’s extinction, is it worth it to prevent flooding for a few million people in 2080? (***very confident on the flooding by the way, scary stuff.) There are a lot of possible courses we could take, and a wide and disagreed-upon assortment of potential consequences.
      
      Uh… I haven’t heard any scientists advocating an agrarian lifestyle. I think that’s utterly absurd. As the people-press survey shows, ~90% of physicists (including me) think we should respond to climate change by building more nuclear power plants. I find it baffling that nonscientists seem to think we need infinitely precise climate models in order to justify a new industrial revolution that will also help reduce our dependence on oil from corrupt governments, help soften the inevitable blow of peak oil, and help our deep space program by increasing available plutonium for RTGs.
      
      Reply
Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-07-02 at 13:52

The heat capacity of the atmosphere and earth’s surface is so low, that it varies drastically within a few hours every day. Bodies of water, on the other hand, hold about 100x as much heat per unit volume. I have been debating global warming for a damn long time, and NOBODY has ever had a damn thing to say about the real global heat content (including oceans), just debating bullshit air temperatures, which account for almost nothing compared to ocean temps. … Anybody who knows about global warming knows that air temp doesn’t matter in the big picture of the climate, and knows that the evidence is so overwhelming that somebody would have to disprove the info on ocean heating to make a valid argument. But again and again I just see the same shit come out of you people “air temps, air temps, air temps” [The Hatchet]

Incidentally, I’ve discussed ocean heat content several times, and agree that it’s a better diagnostic than air temperatures (subject to the caveats referenced in that post and those quoted at the very bottom of this post.) Also, here’s a rough approximation of the heat content of the oceans, troposphere, and stratosphere.

… the actually CO2 and methane levels, you don’t have a clue how much society produces compared to natural causes, right now people make about 50x as much as nature puts out.

Well, it’s a little more complicated than that. I’ve previously said that human CO2 emissions are ~100x larger than those from volcanoes. This is the comparison that matters, so your summary is essentially correct. But the biosphere’s yearly fluctuations are much larger than our yearly emissions, as you can see by the fact that the red line’s annual amplitude is much smaller than its linear trend. The biosphere is a closed system, though, so it’s not relevant to abrupt climate change.

Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-07-03 at 09:02
  
  Neither of you are providing links to peer-reviewed articles, so I won’t bother trying to guess what specific events either of you are talking about. But most climate variability pre-1970 can’t be “significantly” blamed on anthropogenic CO2 (i.e. “soot”) because our population was small and the power generated was miniscule by today’s standards. The inefficiency of 1800s era technology just multiplied the total power generation by a larger coefficient than today’s (not much) more efficient tech, but the resulting fossil fuel use (and thus corresponding CO2 emissions) were tiny compared to the demands of the modern world.
  
  Various proxies (middle graph) show variability over the last 1000 years, but most of this is explained by natural changes like the solar Maunder Minimum and occasional sustained “statistically significant” changes in volcanic activity (which normally adds aerosols to the atmosphere thus causing a brief “volcanic winter” but the CO2 emitted stays in the atmosphere longer so volcanic activity warms the long term climate). Also, notice that the top graph (the shorter instrumental record) shows no real change from 1800 to 1850, and both absolute temperatures are below the current temperature– but this is from a period where they don’t even bother to provide error bars because there are only a handful of recording stations. If you examine the middle graph (proxy reconstructions) again, you’ll note that there’s some disagreement about variability on ~30 year timescales, but even the increase around ~1000 CE is consistent among proxy reconstructions, and explained in terms of natural causes.
  
  Remember that climate scientists aren’t saying that natural variability doesn’t exist. We’re just saying that previous and current climate changes have natural causes which are relatively well understood, but the current increase in global average temperature as averaged over ~20 years is at least largely due to anthropogenic causes. Personally, I say this is a good reason to go nuclear. Yesterday.
  
  Reply
- Dumb Scientist posted on 2010-07-03 at 10:43
  
  No time for links, Dr. Jones… but the biosphere actually absorbs ~1/2 of our emissions, based on cross-analyses of Mauna Loa/etc stations, “recent” proxies, tax records on coal/oil/etc, and carbon 12/13 isotope ratios. Whether this absorption will continue at the current percentage is an open question.
  
  Reply

.
Translate
Pages
- About Me
- Archives
- Links
- Quotes
Categories
- Astronomy (2)
- Biology (4)
- Hardware (1)
- History (1)
- Math (1)
- Philosophy (8)
- Physics (3)
- Politics (4)
- Psychology (1)
- Quantum 2 (1)
- Quantum 3 (1)
- Relativity 2 (1)
- Science (1)
- Software (1)
.

Tools

.

.

Articles Feed

Comments Feed

.
.

Random Quote
- What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. — Albert Einstein
.
.
Related Articles
- The Faint Young Sun Paradox According to the standard solar model, the Sun’s brightness steadily increases because helium ash slowly builds up in its core. The introduction of heavier elements like helium forces the Sun to fuse hydrogen faster in order to prevent gravitational collapse, so it shines a little brighter every century. As a...
- A Conversation Regarding “Intelligent Design” This conversation began when I posted an inflammatory essay about creationism on Slashdot. I was pleasantly surprised with the sophistication of The Famous Brett Watson‘s arguments, and he later agreed to let me display this debate online (edited for clarity) to rescue it from being buried in the Slashdot archives....
- A Conversation Regarding the “Electric Universe” Marble and I have previously discussed creationism and evolution, but our conversation later centered on a non-standard cosmology known as plasma cosmology (popularized as the “Electric Universe”). You can use these links to jump to various points in the discussion. Or, ignore them and just keep reading. Marble’s 1st email...
- Fundamental Flaws in General Physics Education After years of serving as a physics teaching assistant at several public American universities, I’ve come to an alarming conclusion: students in today’s general physics courses (i.e. courses that don’t require calculus, intended for non-physicists) aren’t being taught physics. They might be learning how to mechanically calculate answers, but they’re...
- Quantum Entanglement and Parallel Universes In 2007 I noticed a confusing post on Slashdot quoting from an article claiming that the no cloning theorem prevented entangled particles from being used for faster-than-light (FTL) communication. I had never heard of any FTL implications of the no cloning theorem, so I responded to this post to see...

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

Abrupt Climate Change

People wonder why “climate change” replaced “global warming.”

rrvau asks if scientists predicted an ice age in the 1970s.

People inquire about the scale and impact of human CO2 emissions.

An Onerous Coward asks about nuclear and solar power.

Stormcrow309 asks about potential flaws in the Vostok ice core analysis.

m4cph1sto doubts that temperatures are increasing.

Jane Q. Public asks if sunspot activity causes global warming, among many other topics.

Kyle asks about the political and economic implications of climate change.

230 Responses to “Abrupt Climate Change”

Leave a Reply

Translate

Pages

Categories

Tools

Random Quote

Related Articles

People inquire about the scale and impact of human CO₂ emissions.