Hi Jennifer,
My greatest success as an “expert reviewer” to the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I (WGI) Science Reports was with the first draft of the 1995 Report.
There was a Chapter entitled “Validation of Climate Models”
I commented that this was incorrect. No Climate Model has ever been “validated” in the sense understood by computer engineers, and the Chapter included no discussion on how it should be done, let alone any of the necessary procedure, on any model.
They ageed with me. They changed the words “Validation”, or “Validate” to “Evaluation” or “evaluate” no less than fifty times, throughout the Chapter. They have done so ever since. The word “validate” or “validation” does not appear anywhere in their Reports, and, notably, in the recently issued “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers”
One of the major objects of science is to simulate observable phenomena with a mathematical representation which can not only provide an explanation for the phenomena, buit also make it possible to predict future behaviour.
This task has a long history. “Stonehenge Decoded” by Gerald S Hawkins shows how before 1600 BC it was possible to build a system which would enable prediction of the movements of the sun and moon.
Ptolemy in the second century AD published the “Almagest” which predicted the movements of the planets with a system of “epicycles”. Newton and Galileo replaced this with a better, simplified theory, and Eistein with a refined version. Nobody would even have heard of these people if there was not abundant positive evidence that their predictions actually work. Without them, we could never have sent rockets to the moon.
Let me spell out what is needed for “validation”, the procedure without which no mathematical representation, or computer model, could possibly be capable of future prediction.
First, the model must be capable of simulation of past behaviour to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Computer models of the climate have usually failed to do this. Indeed, their only attempt has been on the so-called “global surface temperature anomaly record”:which I showed, in my last Newsletter, to be subject to huge, unknown biases and inaccuracy because it is based on unrepresenrative and statistically flawed data. The claimed successful simulation of this flawed record could only be made by leaving out both consideration of these inaccuracies, and also one of the main “natural” contributors to the temperature record, the recently more frequent sudden warming peaks caused by the El Niño ocean oscillation behaviour.
The models are unable to simulate almost everything else.
They cannot explain why there has been no “warming” for the past eight years, even when measured by the unsatisfactory “surface record”.
They cannot explain why there has been no warming at all on the Arctic continent.
They cannot explain why methane concentrations in the atmosphere are falling instead of rising. They even devote learned papers trying to find out why this behaviour is “anomalous”.
A recent study by Douglass et al 2006 Geophysical Reserarch Letters 33 L19711 on the climatic effects of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo showed that it could only be expalined by a model iwith very low figures for “climate sensitivity” the basic parameter of the models.
The models therefore fail at the first requirement for “validation”. They cannot reliably simulate past climate behaviour.
Suppose for one moment that Newton and Einstein had never lived and they were launching a rocket to the moon from Cape Kennedy. They ask the people who prepared the computer programme to guide the rocket “How reliable is it” Imagine if the reply was ‘ Our boys think it it is very likey to hit the moon, but we have no idea where”
We are taking all sort of drastic measures to damage our future energy policies based entirely on just such an “opinion” of partisan “experts”.
The second important necessity for validation is successful predictioin of future behaviour under a variety of conditions to a satisfactory and measurable level of accuracy.
There has not been even a single attempt to meet this requirement for any computer model of the climate. They do not even discuss how it might be done.
The models are therefore worthless and should be discarded until validation has actually happened.
But why is it that so many people, not only Prime Ministers, US Presidential Candidates, Senior Economists, but also senior scientists and even winners of Nobel Prizes, seem to be convinced that those providing models have even MADE predictions, let alone provide a measures of their reliability.
It is even claimed that a large majority of scientists involved in climate research accept these false assumptions, and this claim might even be true.
Since the IPCC have accepted that no model has ever been validated, they have also accepted that they are unable to make predictions and they have never done so after the First Report (1990) The word “prediction” never appears anywhere in the recent IPCC Reports. The only thing the models can do is to provide “projections”. This word implies that the figure obtained is purely a result of assuming that the data, parameters and equations in the model represent reality: but there is no evidence that they actually do.
How have they succeeded in fooling the world?
The answer is, that they have devised a whole series of tricky procedures designed to cover up the truth, and give the impression to casual readers and all but the intensive critic (which I claim to be) that they really have overcome the absence of validation, and provided definite figures which some people can pretend to be “predictions”, and even provide what seems at first sight to be some measure of accuracy.
Their main tool is to pretend that they can replace scientific evidence with the opinions of “experts”. The “experts” in this case are people who are mainly financed by Governments who promote the certainty of the greenhouse idea. I would not wish for a moment to suggest that these scientists could possibly be other than impartial, or that they could be influenced by pressure from their employers, even when they represent them at international conferences. But, all the same, most of them know that there might be undesi\rable consequences if any of them failed to endorse the value of models.
At this point let me say that the idea that scientific opinions can be influenced by employers is not just a myth. In my long scientifc career such pressure was applied to myself on several occasions, and on one of them, I was dismissed.when I resisted,
Because of the opinions I express in this newsletter I am sometimes accused of being influenced by mythical employers, For example Professor Neil Curtis, formerly from Victoria University of Wellington, and currently Patron of the New Zealand Association of Scientists, has accused me of being in the pay of oil companies. Vanessa Atkins, Greenpeace representative in New Zealand, says I am paid by Exxon, and the same accusation has been made recently on the “Real Climate” website.
I have never been employed by any oil company, or received finance from one. Campaigning for truth in climate science is not exactly financially rewarding. I might tell you about two of my recent contributions.
Last Year, I was invited to the Beijing Climate Center as a Visiting Scholar. I was welcomed by the Director General and I gave three well attended lectures. They paid my fare and accommodation Yet the Senior scientist there is Co-Chair if Working Group I resposible for the 2007 IPCC Report about to be issued.
The people in Beijing appear to be willing to listen to different points of view on climate change, but in New Zealand I could never be invited to address a meeting sponsored by NIWA, and Victoria University of Wellington now seems out of bounds. The Wellington Branch of the Royal Society .replies with an excuse. But I must admit I have recently address the Ohariu Branch of the Univesity of the Third Age, two Wellington Rotary Clubs, and a “Freedom Summit” Conference
Another recent source of income has been two book reviews in the Christchurch “Press” In the first I came down heavily on “The Weathermakers” by Tim Flannery, currently “Australian of the Year”. He is a biologist with no knowledge of physics, since he thinks the greenhous efffect is caused by the heating of trace gases by the sun, instead of the more orthodox theory that they are heated from radiation by the earth. His only credit is that he demolishes the “hydrogen economy” because it ends up emitting more greenhouse gases than before. But that seems also to be true of “biofuels” so perhaps it does not matter
But. I digress. The “opinions” of the IPCC “experts” are graded in levels of “likeliness”, and they are given spurious “probability” levels which bear no relationship to probability that most scientists recognise.
Besides the completely uncertain nature of the “projections” of climate models it is imposasible to provide a measure of their possible acuracy or reliabity. If there were such measures it would be possible to grade the models in order of success. Since this cannot be done all the models are given equal credence. They even hold occasional meetings to try and avoid too much difference between models, since too wide a “projection” might destroy the impression of plausibility.
It means also that the IPCC never has the embarassing task of telling any model maker that his model has a “failure” mark, since they have no way of marking them.The result is that the models are a free for all and the more extreme the “projections” are, the better some polticians or activists like them, and the better the chances for future funds. Many of the models can give low or even negative figures if you fit the right parameters, but the fate of those who have tried this is best not revealed.
Having managed to provided a half-way plausible “estimate” for a a model output, they then had to find a procedure to provide accuracy estimates of this figure, beyond that of the levels of “likelihood”
They do this by combining a restrictive choice of models with a restrictive choice of “emissions scenarios”. Both of these are chosen so as to give a “range” of outcomes acceptable to the Governments who pay them. They carefully avoid outcomes that are too high ar too low. The “range” is then presented as if it were a scientific nmeasure of the accuracy of the combined model/scenario package.
The “scenarios” themselves are supposed to provide a range of plausible assumptions of what could happen to climate in the next hundred years.They do not have the confidence, however to carry out any checks to find out whether the assumptions are confirmed by what actually happens. This means they have no way of grading their plausibility. The scenarios are thus regarded as equally plausible, but like the animals in Orwells’s “Aniumal Farm” some scenarios are more equally plausible than others.
My paper Gray, V R 1998 “The IPCC future projections: are they plausible”Climate Research 10 155-162 showed that the earlier scenarios were not plausible, and Chapter 7 of my book “The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Clmate Change 2001” showed that the 2001 scenarios are also not plausible. They could not even get right the figures for the year 2000. So they cannot even predict the past.
Several senior economists have criticised the economic forecasting methods used by the IPCC, but with little response. One of these David Henderson, former Head of the Economics and Statistics Department of the OECD is addressing two meetings in Wellington next week, which I will be attending.
The First Draft of the 2001 IPCC Report had a “projection” graph for temperatures by the year 2100 which gave a maximum temperature rise of 4ºC. This figure must evidently have been considered to be not high enough, because the second draft, and the final one, had a figure of 5.8ºC which had been achieved by inventing an extra extreme “scenario”. A1F1.
The latest “Climate Change 2007: Summary for Policymakers” gives the “projected” “Best Estimates” and spurious “ranges” for six different “scenarios”. The most extreme one, which is still A1F1. gives a “Best Estimate” figure for a “projected” temperature rise by 2100 of 4.0ºC, with a “range” of 2.4ºC to 6.4ºC. You can bet your bottom dollar that the only figures anyone will quote is the 6.4ºC. All the rest, which go down to 1.1ºC, will be ignored.
The world is in the grip of “climate change” hysteria. Today”s BBC News gave an interview with the Mayor of San Francisco who is walking to work instead of taking the car. Next, perhaps, he will give up walking as well so that he exhales less carbon dioxide.
Down here in New Zealand they are so keen to get us to use public transport that they are scouring the museums to find 30s style railway carriages to put back into service to cope with the demand, and bus drivers currently have to ask passengers where the bus is supposed to go.
Cheers,
Vincent Gray
Wellington, New Zealand
“The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” H. L. Mencken
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I think Vincent is right on the money. There is a major problem with the IPCC process – it’s far too conservative and the more concerned view of the scientists is being suppressed by vested interests and the bureaucrat minders of those scientists. The Chinese delegation with many vested interests perhaps demonstrated this only too recently.
I think the process is too long between updates and there is considerable risk that the modelling is wrong – but biased towards conservative outcomes.
The 2000s CO2 emissions while not at the highest are tending towards upper emission scenarios (as compared with the 1990s levels) as Asia rapidly industrialises. All the recent science points to increasing concern about undermining in once thought stable ice fields and increasing rates of movement.
Given low populations we have not been well served by our relatively poorer knowledge of southern hemisphere meteorology. Major changes in ocean currents are occurring in our region.
The extreme warmth of this January is not predicted by the models indeed.
The extra 300ppm of greenhouses gases locked up in boreal permafrost, tundra and peat bogs and other forests has not been factored in well at all.
And the recent liberation of methane gas hydrates bubbling from ocean depths from warming of the Artic region is certainly a major concern.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL027977.shtml
This recent concerning report on sea level rise
Note that the rate of
rise for the last 20 years of the reconstructed sea level is 25%
faster than the rate of rise in any 20 year period in the
preceding 115 years. Again, we caution that the time interval
of overlap is short, so that internal decadal climate variability
could cause much of the discrepancy; it would be premature
to conclude that sea level will continue to follow this “upper
limit” line in future. The largest contributions to the rapid rise
come from ocean thermal expansion (4) and the melting from
non-polar glaciers as a result of the warming mentioned
above. While the ice sheet contribution has been small,
observations are indicating that it is rapidly increasing, with
contributions both from Greenland and Antarctica (e.g., ref.
5).
Overall, these observational data underscore the concerns
about global climate change. Previous projections, as
summarized by IPCC, have not exaggerated but may in some
respects even have underestimated the change, in particular
for sea level.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136843v1
We need a review of the IPCC with much less political interference, a more frequent update cycle, and much better funding of this most urgent of issues.
As ever Luke, I disagree with your extreme, alarmist predictions. However, we do need to get politicians out of the IPCC process, make the report properly reflect the science and the uncertainties, rather than the opinions of a few lead authors. We also need a yearly update – AR4 is already out of date.
Objective climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr is getting stuck into IPCC SPM:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/02/15/science-errors-or-at-best-cherrypicking-in-the-2007-ipcc-statement-for-policymakers/#comments
At last, a man willing to tell people that computers are *not* reality, and can’t do it.
And so it starts “my greatest success as an expert reviewer”. How utterly pretentious – he has simply registered to review the material. He’s an expert is he – says who? Did the IPCC invite his review. Did they actually accept anything he says?
I’m surprised he’s still trying it on after:
julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/05/leak-of-ipcc-ar4.html and http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/05/yet_another_pointless_pile_of.php in “Yet another pointless pile of sceptics”.
Do we have any research experience in the climate field as being a self-professed expert – nope. Any modelling. Nope. Any discussion of modelling technology. Nope. A swag of climate modelling publications – nope.
As for his dreay tiresome misrepresentation of the field of climate modelling it’s apparent he’s never read any of the serious literature on the subject nor talked to any serious modellers. Validation and verification are what they actually spend most of their time on. So this pretence that validation does not occur is utter twaddle.
See http://www.climatechange.sa.gov.au/PDFs/SA_CMAR_report_High%20resolution.pdf as an example of recent climate modelling. You’ll notice discussions on pattern correlation and RMS error for a whole range of models. So this pretence that there’s a single point of validation is nonsense. And that report only gives a cursory view of the vast amount of performance on meteorological phenomena checked.
The fact that’s he’s just been invited to Beijing makes perfect sense doesn’t it.
As for comments on Flannery he hasn’t accurately described Flannery’s commentary on the greenhouse effect at all – so he’s talking crap.
So again we have another boat load of bilge from the NZ Climate Coolition. Well someone has to provide the comic relief I guess.
Paul – you love Pielke as he supplies your unrelenting contrarian viewpoint with a steady supply of cherries. Gavin I note is giving heaps back on who’s plucking what cherries from what tree !
So where am I being alarmist? Stick to the biotech.
I think that you will find that an expert reviewer for the IPCC is one who is on their lists as an expert reviewer.
If you say that the IPCC nominated expert review lists are at fault then that is a poor reflection on the IPCC proces of review.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/ipcc/nominationform-AR4.doc
So how does one get nominated, Luke?
1.2
The Expert Review
Following the Principles Governing IPCC Work, the review period will be eight weeks, between September 9th and November 4th.
Much of the work in the last six months has focussed on the development of the Expert Reviewer lists.
The Expert Reviewers of the FOD will be the following:
a. All persons nominated by their governments in the roles of Co-ordinating Lead Author, Lead Author, Contributing Author and/or Expert Reviewer (but not Review Editor).
b. Appropriate experts identified by the Co-Chairs, Vice Chairs and Review Editors, and approved by the WGII Bureau
c. All expert reviewers of the Zero-Order Draft (ZOD).
d. All Expert Reviewers nominated by appropriate organizations.
An important aim of the FOD expert review is that it should ensure that chapters within the same working group report, and in different working groups, are complementary and non contradictory, while at the same time they do not duplicate one another. To address this, expert reviewers have been identified who will review between WGII chapters which are clearly related, for example chapters 17 (Assessment of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity) and 18 (Inter-relationships
between Adaptation and Mitigation), and in related chapters between working groups.
Successful enquiries were made of the other Working Groups to ensure that WGII procedures were in agreement with theirs.
Within the review, all efforts were made to ensure that roles were kept separate. For example, checks were made to ensure that Contributing Authors who had input to the FODs were not asked to act as informal Expert Reviewers.
A guidance note has been developed for Expert Reviewers, to ensure that they are aware of the nature of the review, and of their task. The review will be carried out electronically: reviewers are expected to enter their comments into a spreadsheet and provide this as an attachment to an email sent to the WGII Technical Support Unit
etc etc etc
Luke
You would have to be completely delusional to believe the rubbish being peddled as projections for SA, as produced by CMAR. They only just save face by also saying:
“Significant uncertainties remain in relation to the estimation of future climate.”
I would think so to, given all the deficiencies in the modelling approach. The fact that 23 models can be forced nearly replicate past climate does not mean they will produce anything remotely sensible for the next 70 years or more,as a projections, when the results are less constrained.
Add to this they still cant handle the way clouds behave, nor get the role aerosols right.etc
As for the input for SA Govt officials I note that they are not mathematical modellers or climatologists but Policy Officers.
Says it all really
I was wondering if Luke was indulging in a bit of self reflection;
*Do we have any research experience in the climate field as being a self-professed expert – nope. Any modelling. Nope. Any discussion of modelling technology. Nope. A swag of climate modelling publications – nope.
As for his dreay tiresome misrepresentation of the field of climate modelling it’s apparent he’s never read any of the serious literature on the subject nor talked to any serious modellers. Validation and verification are what they actually spend most of their time on. So this pretence that validation does not occur is utter twaddle.*
Dont be so hard on yourself Luke, you should take up a hobby, like lawn bowls
Yee haa – look at em’ go for the bait.
He’s not an expert reviewer – he just thinks he is – just yet another angry retired person from the shonky shonks at the NZ Climate Coolition. Trying to think of an appropriate Motty use of the vernacular. .. .. but let’s keep out of the gutter.
As for SA & CSIRO Malcolm – you had every opportunity to recently defend your clueless bleating position and whimped out totally.
Come on Rog – you know you really don’t believe these guys – it’s just a right wing thing – I suggest you use their forecast when sailing up to Gladstone. Frankly you had better stay berthed at Shorncliffe – much safer.
Shonky is right.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/gray04/nzct105.htm
They add another year to the temperature record, and he accuses them of fraud. Disgraceful. I wouldn’t call him an ‘old fashioned’ scientist in any way.
*He’s not an expert reviewer – he just thinks he is*
Well go ahead and prove it Luke, you cant always rely on the oh-so-predictable smear..
..you dont have a good word for anybody do you?
ps blowing like the clappers from the SE, a dream run, so just what is your problem?
Should be a great run up to Caloundra Fairway Bouy before cracking out into the deep water, if you wear a pink ribbon I might just wave to you.
Luke,
My position was clearly stated above,in simple terms so that people like you would have a chance comprehend.
Rog,
Re Luke
“..you dont have a good word for anybody do you?”
How very apt.
That position being “I don’t like it”.
Luke, In mid-2003 the Convening Lead Author of the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios and 14 other lead authors of that Report claimed that “The scenarios were extensively reviewed … by 89 experts … prior to IPCC approval…” (Nakicenovic et al, “IPCC SRES Revisited: A Response”, Energy & Environment, vol. 14, nos. 2 & 3: 189). I can confirm that V. R. Gray of New Zealand is listed among those 89 experts who reviewed the SRES (Appendix II, p. 329).
Now that you have explained that Vincent Gray is “not an expert reviewer – he just thinks he is”, should I count his inclusion in the list in the SRES as yet another item for my ever-growing collection of errors in that Report? Will you advise these SRES lead authors of your opinion – many of them are lead authors of Chapters in the WGII and WGIII Contributions to AR4.
Well Ian you’ve been most critical of the IPCC as we all know. So presumably such errors would not surprise you.
But anyway if you’ll vouch for Vincent as a climate modelling expert then Ian – well I’m happy to take your personal assurance of his expert standing in matters of climate modelling.
Was that an apology luke? I couldn’t hear you properly
Of course the errors don’t surprise me. The IPCC claims that reviewer comments are maintained in an open archive for five years. In an effort to discover why the WGII and WGIII Contributions to the TAR repeated errors that any one of hundreds of experts could have corrected, I wrote to the IPCC Secretariat some years ago seeking access to the Reviewer comments – but never received a reply. When the Millennium Ecosysten Assessment asked me if I would be an expert reviewer for one of the Chapters in their Scenarios volume, they assured me that, unlike the IPCC, they had procedures in place to ensure that reviewer comments were considered.
Chrisl – not quite – perhaps you’d like to roundly endorse Gray’s climate modelling expertise. I obviously need guidance here as you guys have informed me that I’m uninformed.
Ian your response is hazy. In your opinion which is correct?
a) you think that Gray is an expert and the list correct,
or
b) you don\’t think Gray qualifies as an expert and therefore IPCC is incorrect?
You can\’t have both. Ditto chris. You neither Luke, but you made your position clear. Ian didn\’t.
Dr. Gray referred to himself as an “expert reviewer” for the IPCC, putting the words in quotation marks, and he was listed by the IPCC as an “expert reviewer.” I agreed that he was an “expert reviewer” for the WGI Contribution to the Second Assessment Report, and I also pointed out that he was one of the 89 “experts” who had “extensively reviewed” the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), according to 15 lead authors of that Report.
Instead of addressing the substance of Dr. Gray’s interesting post, Luke claimed that ‘it [the post] starts “my greatest success as an expert reviewer’ (removing the quotation marks from around the words “expert reviewer”).
Having doctored Gray’s statement in this way, Luke then had the hide to claim that it was “utterly pretentious” and to ask rhetorically “He’s an expert is he – says who?” Thus he condemned Dr. Gray for describing himself in precisely the same words as those used by the IPCC itself.
My opinion as to whether Vincent Gray is an “expert” or “qualifies as an expert” has no relevance to the above discussion, and I don’t feel obliged to answer these questions from an anonymous poster.
Luke, you asked for guidance because you say that Chrisl and I have informed you that you’re uninformed. Let me try.
Dr. Gray says in his post that the IPCC have “accepted that they are unable to make predictions and they have never done so after the First Report (1990).”
The Australian Academy of Science said in its press release of 2 February 2007 that “Since the [IPCC} report in 2001, computer models used to PREDICT climate change have vastly improved” and that “PREDICTIONS are for more droughts and reduced rainfall throughout much of Australia” (EMPHASES added).
If you’d like to be better informed, you should give due weight to Dr. Gray’s posting, and exercise due caution in taking advice from the AAS (I’m sure that some of the Academy’s most eminent Fellows know better).
We can also add to Vincent’s list the fact that the NSIDC’s reporting on Arctic Ice sheet extent has claimed that the ice sheet remained constant during the two decadal warm period of the 1940’s.
No explanation was provided for this apparent failure of the ice sheet to respond to a warming event. And this leaves only two conclusions;
The ice sheet extent did change but was not recorded accurately to obscure the fact that current changes in extent are within historical norms. or
That the sheet remained constant during a warm period because something else determines ice extent, like angle of insolation and refraction at those latitudes.
Either way, Luke’s pathetic bit of soft shoe shuffle, and his little list of anecdotes, will only appear plausible to the incredibly gullible. But that is all the climate cretins have ever intended to do anyway.
So as I thought Ian Castles – you’ve cleverly backed away and changed tack with a very long waffly post telling us what we already know. It makes a very big difference to have people parading as climate experts when they’re not. If he is an expert simply support him or desist.
You’ve now introduced the Australian Academy of Science – you do like to throw the authoritarian weight around when it suits you don’t you Ian. It’s totally disingenuous and I’m not impressed with your antics. Try arguing the science instead of the authority for a change – oh that’s right – it’s beyond your expertise when it suits you – I forgot.
Gray has not made an “interesting post” – it’s a political statement with no referenced science backing at all.
I have made two specific informational posts at 1 & 4 above – try addressing them or the issue.
I can see Ian M is still playing with his atlas and has missed the point completely; and is unable to take up the discussion.
BTW can an expert direct us to the “Arctic continent”.
Your assertion in post #4 that the title IPCC “expert reviewer” is one that is without qualification and review and is not appointed by the IPCC is clearly wrong Luke and you should withdraw those comments.
More ingenuous antics from Luke.
Rog I was talking climate expertise which is readily apparent from the text. Are we aware that he has been appointed/sought after by the IPCC or simply allowed to make comment?
And how strange Rog that after all this time you are now suddenly defending those involved in the IPCC. Might there be more stirling men and women in the organisation?
If he is making comments as an amatuer, a citizen, or a scientist from another field that’s fine, but that’s not what we’re discussing. I look forward to your retraction Rog – lunch on your little boat will suffice.
You are probably correct in seeing my comments as ingenuous though.
Meanwhile back at the science .. .. ..
Here, catch! (tosses mullet, dead 3 days)
Now luke
What about a list of people who are NOT climate scientists but ARE allowed to comment ( Al Gore , Tim Flannery , Nicholas Stern , Peter Garrett………)
And then a list of people who are also NOT climate scientists but for some reason are NOT allowed to comment (Vincent Gray, That Sensible queensland judge, Steve McIntyre… )
I’m sure you have many names to add.
Yep – and give’em heaps (you guys do all the time!)
But are they “climate experts” or other scientists and citizens with strong opinions and maybe good general knowledge/some knowledge of the science. Perhaps celebrities with opinions?
I’m not saying that you have to be a climate expert to participate in the debate, but if someone says they are a medico well you normally expect that they are and have some concrete evidence of such.
I’m NOT denying anyone’s right to comment.
Luke you’re being difficult. Luke reread above as Ian Castles states clearly “I agreed that he was an “expert reviewer” for the WGI Contribution to the Second Assessment Report, and I also pointed out that he was one of the 89 “experts”..” It’s clear then that Ian holds Gray to be an expert because otherwise he would have objected vociferously and repetitively as he did other aspects that he found could distort the processes and accuracy of the outcomes. You’re entitled to your own opinion Lukey.
Phluke, my reference was to anomalies in NSIDC data and a specific claim that the Arctic ice sheet did not respond to a two decadal warming period in the 1940/50’s. And pointed out that no explanation was given. That statement stands but I note your serial weasling.
Ian remind me again what your issue is on NSIDC with some appropriate urls. In all the excitement I’ve forgotten whether it was five shots or six.
I have followed climate debates on this blog with interest, but rarely comment, because I am not a climate expert. However, I do have some statistical experience, so I got my nose into a couple of recent papers in the journal Climate Dynamics (Hope 2006, Hope et al. 2006). The authors are from BoM, Melbourne.
At the nit-picking level, my eyebrows were raised by some statements, such as ‘a strong upward trend, significant at the 90% level’ and ‘a correlation of -.81 (significant at the 99% level)’. Does Climate Dynamics have statistical referees, who might understand inductive hypothesis testing and the probabilities of Type I and Type II errors?
At a deeper level, I found the tables unclear, so reorganised some. Eight models were examined for their ability to mimic past mean June/July rain in the southwest corner of Australia. To avoid the painful repetion of long, ugly IPCC model names (such as MR1-CGCM2.3.2), I re-labelled them models A to H. The following table shows how the models succeeded, or mostly failed, to mimic actual mean June/July rain over the past century, presumably under known CO2 levels.
Period 1901-2000 1961-2000 1976-2000
Actual 227 218 204
Model A 62 60 58
B 124 118 108
C 209 210 205
D 215 210 204
E 45 42 40
F 113 111 110
G 106 107 106
H 164 160 154
The only models within a bull’s roar are C and D, and even they underestimate June/July rain.
The following table shows projections by the models for mean June/July rain for the southwest corner into the coming century, given the upper bound for plausible emissions of CO2 (820 ppmv by 2100).
2001-2050 2051-2100
Model A 51 36
B 110 88
C 179 (168) 128
D 214 (202) 179
E 43 29
F 95 90
G 110 90
H 152 146
It will be noted that the two models which were the best mimics of past actual rainfall (C & D) are also among the most moderate in their projections of rainfall decline. However, even they both predict more rain over the next 50 years under the highest CO2 scenario, than under the lowest (figures in brackets above). Also, model G predicts more rain over the next fifty years, even under the highest CO2 scenario, than it ‘predicted’ over the past century.
Modelling is a useful activity, but we should always treat models, and their assumptions, with caution (Precautionary Principle?). If these are the sort of models being used for policy making, then I am disturbed. Anyone else care to comment? Should we change our light bulbs?
Refs: Hope P K (2006) Projected future changes in synoptic systems influencing southwest Western Australia. Climate Dynamics 26:765-780
Hope P K, Drosdowsky W & Nicholls N (2006) Shifts in the synoptic systems influencing southwest Western Australia, Climate Dynamics 26: 751-764
Dunno Davey – but I’m impressed with your nit-picking – I would have to have a good read before commenting.
You should also have a look at:
Citation: Cai, W., G. Shi, and Y. Li (2005), Multidecadal fluctuations of winter rainfall over southwest Western Australia simulated in the CSIRO Mark 3 coupled model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L12701, doi:10.1029/2005GL022712.
Thanks Luke,
Will have a shoofti (a multicultural expression, often heard on Cairo streets, for example “shoofti bint”). Sorry my columns did not line up – they did when I entered them.
Luke,
My third and last for today. I have had a quick look at Cai et al (2005) and they propose that the decline in SW winter rain over the past 30 years or so is part of a natural multidecade cycle involving the southern annular mode (SAM). In their conclusions, to be on the safe side, they point out that if increasing CO2 does also affect SW rain, then we are in the poo.
The model they use is CSIRO Mk 3, which is Model B in my post above. You will see that it was not terribly good at reproducing the actual observed SW winter rain over the past century, and predicts more rain over the next 50 years, even under maximum CO2 (820 ppmv by 2100), than it did for 1976-2000, when CO2 was much less.
Are these models or muddles? I am reminded of a certain seedbank model which predicts that two species of banksia will be wiped out if fires occur more often than every decade or so. Long term local residents say that the area was burnt every 4-5 years, and some of the families have been there since the 1850s. You can’t beat ground truth.
Muddles – (a) you’d be ambitious to think that all models will do well everywhere (b) regional downscaling a particular challenge (c) I’d have to read fully myself to comment wisely only having the abstract at this point. The librarians will be getting sick of me. Another request.
Wenju Cai and Neville Nicholls are very well known and well regarded so I’m a tad at a loss without some further investigation.
SAM changes may be also be a stratospheric ozone/troposheric greenhouse interaction effect. See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/296/5569/895
http://intl.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5643/273
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/4/1412
and SAM abstracts in back of :
http://www.amos.org.au/conf2007/AMOS07_ABSTRACTS.pdf
Good to see you taking an interest in your local SW WA rainfall decline issue. Keep going and Jen can engage you as a serious blog skeptic and then she can get a bit of class into her skeptic posts. If you teamed up with Biggsy it could even get serious. The usual skeptic fare isn’t much challenge any more.
Luke,
I find the term climate change ‘sceptic’ too broad brush to be useful – in fact it smacks of the ‘straw man technique’ where a debating opponent’s position is dishonestly simplified and caricatured to the point where it can be easily ridiculed. Rather a threadbare tactic. I am sure a gentleman like you would not stoop to such chicanery.
I am not a sceptic about climate change in general. Climate always has, and always will change. I am sceptical about the seemingly blind faith in some models involving accelerating CO2 forcing.
As I pointed out, only 2 of the 8 models got within a bull’s roar of the truth when challenged to mimic the actual average rain for June/July in SW WA from 1901-2000, for known CO2 levels. Yet the author, Pandora Hope, seems to conclude that they are doing a good job of predicting the future, especially when bundled together and the data downgraded from interval to rank. I do not agree.
I think Pandora should keep modelling – she may come up with something useful and reliable and revealing about CO2 levels and SW WA rain. My mind is open. In the mean time, however, applying Occam’s Razor, I will conclude that the noted decline in SW WA winter rain over the past few decades is best and simplest explained by a natural multidecadal cycle, which we whitefellas have not been here long enough to understand.
Fear not, Luke, I will maintain an intense interest in SW WA rain, because my borehole has just dried up, and I spent the morning pulling up the spear and pump, and peering down the hole. I am betting (hoping?) this winter will be wetter than average, as was 2005. Call me an eco-optimist. It beats being an eco-doomster.
Davey – dare I suggest you knew I was talking about AGW as opposed to climate variability (CV) or climate variability hitherto not experienced by Europeans. (CVHNEbE)
On what basis with an open mind would you automatically apply Occam’s razor when you have the body of observational science available to you. “Gee I think Occam’s razor would suggest a wind storm blew down my windmill ” – while failing to notice the Cessna tailplane embedded in it !
It’s not about optimism or doomster-ism. I just want to know on the balance of the best information what’s the score.
Awaiting library shipment.. .. ..
Davey – I perused the papers and spoke to the author. You wouldn’t really expect these scale models to well reproduce SW WA rainfall – some actually relying on one grid cell point. But you would hope they would deliver the broad meteorological patterns of the region’s climate which she makes a case for. So there is some confidence in assuming they can mimic the basic forcings and synoptic patterns. And so she then argues that a consensus of the models does that and shows a 20th century rainfall decline.
So the introduction of further CO2 forcings then paints a more complex picture of what may happen.
I’m happy enough to be perplexed by that but unsatisfied. Interesting work in an ongoing complex issue of multi-decadal changes, ozone, SAM and greenhouse changes. I don’t think they’re there yet.
You don’t have to read these studies as “the last word” on the issue.
For a more “current consensus” view you should also have a look at http://www.ioci.org.au/
But again I don’t think we’re done yet on the SW WA story.
I imagine this may leave you still unsatisfied.
Luke,
I hope I am open minded on the climate debate, but I’m afraid I find Pandora’s paper entirely unconvincing. Six of the eight models fail to get anywhere near observed SW WA rainfall for 1901-2000. Ranking and bundling seem a bit dodgy to me. They will all show a decline if they are all making the same error. Ah well, the next twenty years will tell. I am betting on a better than average winter coming up. Some long range forecasters agree.
Hi Jennifer,
Australia,our Government in January this Year run a TV ad:,,BLACK BALLOONS” to pass on to as our contribution on Global Warming.
Global Warming is NOT the consequence of GREENHOUSE effect-It is …………
I have emailed:
1)Our Prime Minister Mr. John Howard (NO reply)
2)Opp.Invairoment Min.Mr.Peter Garret(NO reply)
3)CEO TV 9 Mr.Eddie McGuire (NO reply)
4)Lead.of the Oppos.Mr.Kevin Rudd (NO reply)
5)VIC.Inva.Minis.Mr.Jonstone William Thwaites
6)Fed.Min.Inva.Mr.Malcolm Turnbull(NO reply)
7)Green Min.Mr.Bob Brown (NO reply)
8)VIC.Premier Mr.Stephen Phillip Bracks(NO reply)
9)Mr.Al Gore (NO reply) In his INCOVENIENT Truth
He is rong …………
I Know what i em talking about.
Regards
Zoltan