Having seen Ian Mott’s note on land change, I though I would post this paper suggesting that climate models and therefore the IPCC underestimate the effects of land use change on climate:
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, D09117, doi:10.1029/2006JD007505, 2007
Observational estimates of radiative forcing due to land use change in southwest Australia
Abstract
Radiative forcing associated with land use change is largely derived from global circulation models (GCM), and the accuracy of these estimates depends on the robustness of the vegetation characterization used in the GCMs. In this study, we use observations from the Clouds and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) instrument on board the Terra satellite to report top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA) radiative forcing values associated with clearing of native vegetation for agricultural purposes in southwest Australia. Over agricultural areas, observations show consistently higher shortwave fluxes at the TOA compared to native vegetation, especially during the time period between harvest and planting. Estimates using CERES observations show that over a specific area originally covered by native vegetation, replacement of half the area by croplands results in a diurnally averaged shortwave radiative forcing of approximately −7 W m−2. GCM-derived estimates for areas with 30% or more croplands range from −1 to −2 W m−2 compared to observational estimate of −4.2 W m−2, thus significantly underestimating radiative forcing due to land use change by a factor of 2 or more. Two potential reasons for this underestimation are incorrect specification of the multiyear land use change scenario and the inaccurate prescription of seasonal cycles of crops in GCMs.
Received 12 May 2006; accepted 22 November 2006; published 15 May 2007.
Keywords: Australia; land use change; radiative forcing.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I wouldn’t blame the scientists on the IPCC, but rather those exerting political pressure on those scientists to tone it down. The scientists had to be ultra-conservative so that they couldn’t be attacked by the climate-change deniers, and therefore the report had understate things. If they hadn’t done this, not only would they have been sniped at by the right-wingers, but there would have been even more political nastiness that would have delayed the report.
Just wait until the next round of reports. They’ll have a better hand to fight the fossil-fuel lobby next time.
Still, good news from you.
We don’t need ‘fossil fuels,’ and none of us benefit from them, do we?
Paul; in the greater scheme of things this is very dry stuff and I say that after I started thinking about the difference in rates of change for UV versus Infra red down the track.
But I’m wondering Paul how you thing this bit of info above will help or hinder our wheat farmers today.
Dave Bath: Front page in my CT news this morning is a report lifted from the Independent about our oil and gas supplies reaching the “tipping” point.
The world’s oil men are apparently worried. If our wheat crops can’t be planted by wild fire in the long run Paul and his cobbers over in the UK won’t be eating our bread.
ooops I’m wondering Paul how you think this bit of info above will help or hinder our wheat farmers today.
I’m wondering how big land use change is compared to CO2.
‘Tipping point’ is an alarmist term. I was told 35 years ago at school that oil was running out- so I used to design electric cars with solar panels on the roof, bonnet, and boot – the wheel hubs generated electricity like the ‘dymo hub’ on the front wheel of my RSW 16 bike.
Much to my surprise I’m still driving a petrol car.
Only ‘big warming’ logic would have us running out of oil and doubling atmospheric CO2 simultaneously. Can’t we have a different scare for a change – how about being hit by a near earth object?
Paul – “I’m wondering how big land use change is compared to CO2.”
What we are worried about is ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming. ie: changes in the Earth’s radiative balance due to human activity of which land clearing is one. Also are you sure you know what this paper means? As I read the abstract it is saying that cropland reflects more shortwave radiation back out into space than native vegetation. This is a negative forcing in the scheme of things and is not comparable to CO2 which is a positive forcing. Please correct me if I have read the abstract incorrectly.
“‘Tipping point’ is an alarmist term. I was told 35 years ago at school that oil was running out- so I used to design electric cars with solar panels on the roof, bonnet, and boot – the wheel hubs generated electricity like the ‘dymo hub’ on the front wheel of my RSW 16 bike.”
I am glad you did as electric vehicles are just starting to take off again. 35 years ago the oil crisis was a market thing. Now as there have been no major (>80 billion bbl) discoveries of oil since then and demand going through the roof there a problem now that declining supply will be unable to meet rising demand. We will not ‘run out’ of oil for thousands of years however the question is whether oil can be produced at the required rate and cheap enough prices for our society. Even the National Petroleum Council is saying much the same thing:
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/peak+oil-oil+production-oil+reserves/475
“Only ‘big warming’ logic would have us running out of oil and doubling atmospheric CO2 simultaneously. Can’t we have a different scare for a change – how about being hit by a near earth object?”
There is enough stored carbon to do the job quite nicely. If we are stupid enough to start turning coal into liquids and strip mine every last drop of extra heavy oil and tar sands then yes there is enough carbon to double CO2.
This is James Hansen on this very topic.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/18/93514/869
Again Peak Oil is not about running out of oil – it is about supply and demand. The alternatives to cheap and easy oil are more carbon intensive and release more CO2 than just easily accessible crude oil.
Hold on fellas, lets get back to the topic. The point is that the landuse change has a cooling effect which is two or three times greater than the IPCC GCMs are factoring in.
Landuse change accounts for 19% or 1.4Gt of the 7Gt of annual anthropogenic emissions so it is a significant factor. And when we consider that almost all of the wood carbon from landuse change is demed to be emitted in the year of clearing then we have two very serious misreporting issues in the one aspect of carbon balance.
The IPCC is quite comfortable measuring 19% of total anthropogenic emmissions up to 80 years before they take place (like my tree stumps that are still there after being cut in 1927). And this paper makes it clear that the cooling effect of that very same land use change, which does take place immediately, is grossly under reported.
This fact that the cooling effect kicks in immediately while the emissions can take 80 years to even start warming, is a very strong indicator that the claimed “climate threat” posed by land clearing is, for most of the century at least, non-existent.
And given the fact that regrowth clearing accounts for approximately half the world’s clearing, (See my post on Qld Clearing above) the emission volumes are even further misstated.
The IPCC has consistently declined to measure the carbon sequestered by vegetation thickenning but continues to record the clearing of that same vegetation as an emission.
Essentially, some 19% of the inputs into the GCMs involve bullshit on bullshit on bullshit based on even more bullshit.
And the Climate Crazies want me to mortgage my children’s future on that?
Well if you want to get back to the topic you’re talking drivel as usual.
(1) it’s a very small area so who cares in a global sense – you haven’t read the paper or it limitations so you’re talking out of your bum again
(2) land use feedbacks are an active research area – so don’t go “oh gee have they thought of that”
(3) nice try at confusing inventories, carbon schemes and climate models.
(4) give us a sensitivity analysis
(5) as for the most stupid comment of the week “This fact that the cooling effect kicks in immediately while the emissions can take 80 years to even start warming, is a very strong indicator that the claimed “climate threat” posed by land clearing is, for most of the century at least, non-existent.” WTF – so you’re saying that the CO2 hangs around over the cleared spot. And when initially cleared maybe the albedo is even darker for a while. Do you know. Of course not – just let the inner anger take over. Why think.
Really the level of debate is puerile. The only thing that’s bullshit is your analysis.
“Essentially, some 19% of the inputs into the GCMs involve bullshit on bullshit on bullshit based on even more bullshit.”
I’m REALLY interested to know what things Ian thinks are input into a GCM? Care to elaborate on that?
Ian Mott – “Essentially, some 19% of the inputs into the GCMs involve bullshit on bullshit on bullshit based on even more bullshit.
And the Climate Crazies want me to mortgage my children’s future on that? ‘
So what you actually want is absolute proof that AGW is true before you think anything should be done? This is the classic tactic of anyone trying to stall action – just inject some doubt and then the whole thing must be wrong.
Fortunately the world community is slowly moving beyond this childishness and accepting that there is and always will be some areas of doubt in the theory of AGW. However, as we can now behave like thinking adults, we can recognise that some things have to be based on calculated risk. There is a risk that AGW will cause some climate change. We cannot predict the degree and results of this climate change however we can mitigate the risk simply by reducing CO2 production.
I do not want climate denier crazies to mortgage my children’s future by preventing action on AGW until it is too late. It is cold comfort to the rabbit about to be hit by a car to be able tell that the car is a Commodore. Yet here we are staring at the oncoming lights and Ian and the boys want to make absolutely sure that the oncoming car is really going to hit before they will move a few meters off the road. Sensible rabbits move early and fast, the stupid ones get run over most of the time.
So while we debate the global consequences of albedo driven global cooling on the WA wheat belt we might ponder the sort of paper that Jen NEVER editorialises due to selective myopia.
Exceptional European warmth of autumn 2006 and winter 2007:
Historical context, the underlying dynamics, and its
phenological impacts
Ju¨ rg Luterbacher,1 Mark A. Liniger,2 Annette Menzel,3 Nicole Estrella,3
Paul M. Della-Marta,2 Christian Pfister,4 This Rutishauser,1 and Elena Xoplaki1
Received 9 March 2007; revised 27 April 2007; accepted 15 May 2007; published 19 June 2007.
[1] Updated European averaged autumn and winter surface
air temperature (SAT) timeseries indicate that the autumn
2006 and winter 2007 were extremely likely (>95%) the
warmest for more than 500 years. In both seasons, the
European SAT anomaly is widespread with anomalies up to
three standard deviations from normal. The anomalous
warmth is associated with strong anticyclonic conditions
and warm air advection from south west. Phenological
impacts related to this warmth included some plant species
having a partial second flowering or extended flowering till
the beginning of winter. Species that typically flower in
early spring were found to have a distinct earlier flowering
after winter 2007. Citation: Luterbacher, J., M. A. Liniger,
A. Menzel, N. Estrella, P. M. Della-Marta, C. Pfister, T. Rutishauser,
and E. Xoplaki (2007), Exceptional European warmth of autumn
2006 and winter 2007: Historical context, the underlying dynamics,
and its phenological impacts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L12704,
doi:10.1029/2007GL029951.
Conclusions
[10] We provide evidence that the recent European AU06
and the WI07 (full September 2006-February 2007) were
extremely likely (virtually certain) to be the warmest for
more than half a millennium. The anomalous warmth, and
exceptionally dry conditions in parts of the Mediterranean
and central Europe is related to advection of warm air
masses from the Eastern subtropical Atlantic as well as
strong anticyclonic conditions over large parts of the continent.
Other factors could include land-atmosphere interaction,
snow-albedo feedback, sensitivity to remote SST anomalies,
ocean currents, as well as anthropogenic influences.
[11] The warm AU06 and WI07 had a great impact on the
phenology of many plant species. The flowering dates of
hazel and snowdrop were well advanced, however, in
comparison with records, not all species reveal extraordinarily
early events. A general advance of spring is found for early spring events, such as flowering of hazel, snowdrop,
coltsfoot, elder, and willows [E. Bruns, DWD, personal
communication, 2007]. Further research on possible lack of
winter chilling to break winter dormancy or photoperiodic
constraints in which plants are able to react to warmer
conditions is needed. As SAT anomalies are expected to
increase up to 5 (3) SD from 1961–1990 in autumn (winter)
at the end of the 21st century [Scherrer et al., 2007], the AU06
and WI07 warmth discussed in this study may be seen as
typical representation of upcoming climate change at continental
scale. It is also likely, that these changes will be
accompanied by changes in variability and extremes with
further impacts for terrestrial ecosystems. The latter is particularly
relevant for climate risk assessment and the adaptation
to climate change in various societal and economic sectors.
Maybe all those flowers are in heat islands or under air-conditioners? Is it meaningful to have spatially averaged hazels or snowdrops. Could the IPCC have bought off the coltsfoot and elder? What conditions would needed to break denialist dormancy.
“So what you actually want is absolute proof …… before you think anything should be done? This is the classic tactic of anyone trying to stall action – just inject some doubt and then the whole thing must be wrong.”
Never a truer word Ender……
And isn’t it relevant to so many political decisions over the last 5 years?
I’d love to see a debate about the exigency of the Precautionary Principle in political decision making because that’s what we’re essentially dealing with.
The IPCC and many of it’s supporters here freely admit to uncertainty about the extent/danger of AGW and as Luke has pointed out , we probably won’t be in a position to really “know” for many years.
So until then , wouldn’t the best option be to;
1. in the short term embrace solutions that are affordable ( as in won’t seriously jeorpardise the economy )achievable and can make significant reductions in CO2 output. Nuclear for example.
2. listen to arguments about doubts and inconsistencies ( such as the subject of the post ) without lecturing and hectoring. As Durkin said in The Australian on the week-end – ” We are told the global warming theory is robust. They say you’d have to be off your chump to disagree. We have been assured for years, in countless news broadcasts and column inches, that it’s definitely true. ”
If that’s the case then true believers in the ascendant should calmy deal with, acknowledge or ignore the inconsistencies raised by the sceptics but stop constantly imputing bad faith – it makes AGW proponents look like religious zealots.
3. universally condemn ALL exaggeration, BS whatever you want to call it – whether it’s Hansen’s or Singer’s.
I’ve made the same point ( less eloquently ) as Wunsch – enormous damage is done to the credibility of the scientific case when easily disprovable rubbish is peddled in the media – AIT for example – and it’s largely ignored by those who are otherwise quick to pounce on some of the crap peddled by the sceptics.
I don’t want to risk my children’s future either –
by inaction or risky unnecessary action.
Philosophical point Jim – interesting it is to ponder alarmism. Most people I talk to want to be middle of the road – who wants to be called an extremist. But that is a logically and scientifically dodgy position perhaps?
On sea level rise, Hansen with a few predictions under his belt, is pondering sea level rise running on high levels, ice sheet disintegration rather than melting per se, and paleo responses to temperature rise and sea level. So on this issue is he an “alarmist” or within the bounds of probability. Is he alerting us to a high impact scenario or just dead wrong?
I don’t know. But I do know we need to work it out and his track record suggests he has credibility on predictions so you might at least give him the time of day.
Luke displays his, rather convenient, comprehension problems once again. If the dumb turd had actually read my post he would have noted my statement that in most cases the CO2 from clearing is still in the paddock. It cannot be in the atmosphere AND in a perfectly solid tree stump, trunk or root ball that is still sitting in the paddock. And it certainly cannot be in the atmosphere if the tree has coppiced or root suckered, keeping the carbon very much alive.
And it is the simplest of facts that if the carbon is still in the paddock then it cannot, possibly be warming up the atmosphere.
It is also the simplest of facts that tree stumps and bleached trunks laying on the ground without any leaves retain very little solar heat. So the increase in albedo is immediate while the warming of the atmosphere through the emission of carbon is delayed by many decades.
And nice try at straw man Ender. There is a very big difference between a model with 19% bullshit, on bullshit, on bullshit, and “absolute certainty.
The proper test, exercised by reasonable men and women for a few millenia now, is to examine the validity of key assumptions to determine if there is a prima facie case. An assumption in a model, that covers 19% of total anthropogenic CO2 is most certainly a “key assumption”. And an assumption that 19% of CO2 is already present, when it will take 80 years or more to actually be present, is not a valid assumption.
It is clearly regarded as an acceptable oversight by the Climate Crazies. But this merely highlights the absurd lengths to which these nutters will go to maintain their self delusion.
“Thinking Adults” indeed.
Lucky you’re not gavin, Ian, or you might be called for having a potty mouth.
You great big ningus nongus – ever seen a WA wheat paddock. Which is what we’re discussing n’est pas? Yes they’re full of tree stumps and logs – so many that you break your planter every 10 metres. NOT !
You see Ian your global view seems to have difficulty extrapolating from a forestry clearing in a wet sclerophyll environment within a 50km radius of Nimbin. What is the underlying soil is dark? What about if you burn it.
Mate you’re not even on the page. I’m not even laughing anymore. This is just painful. GOTFL. (Groaning on the floor loudly)
Your big duck on answering Space is noted.
Jim which exaggerations and refusals do you have in mind specifically (honestly I’d like your list- I am of a like mind on exaggerated claims).
I roundly condemn all exaggerations of AGW. It is possible that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will not significantly enhance the greenhouse effect (only a real nutter would claim it does nothing). Its also possible that we have not seen a significant signal of CO2 in the observed record.
Its also extremely unlikely. So unlikely that every person who is an active climate scientist (with a record of published work in the field) feels compelled by personal conscience and professional responsibility to draw these facts to the attention of the public and policy makers. You may find one or two people that professionally disagree, but you can find all sorts of people anywhere. The importance of the issue is such that scientists feel strongly about those who misrepresent the science to stall on any required action for whatever purpose. Scientists also feel alarmed that people have questioned their integrity- this is because such attacks are attacks on the whole scientific process that they have been adhering to (and this is something business people- who are quick to point out self-interest as a corrupting factor- have totally failed to properly understand). I have not seen any of the people here who have been trying to inform people of AGW science on this blog state that AGW is some deterministic absolute truth. Why don’t we just drop that furphy once and for all. It is easy to sound shrill and religious in the media in the context described. The above is the simplest and most likely explanation for scientific consensus- much more likely than a global conspiracy or universal incompetence. If there was a significant scientific case against global warming- it would be published. If some new science adds to our understanding, it will be published. If any of you guys had anything worth publishing- it would get published. How people can truly believe that scientists are capable of suppressing such a finding or perverting the science so grossly is bizarre- its up there with your Roswell and Moon Landing conspiracies.
Jim, you would have to come up with a might big risk of unnecessary action to counter the risk of an enhanced greenhouse effect- those sceptics who point to climate variability in the past have shown how they have totally missed the significant factor- that climate variability is a major factor in life on Earth. Apparently there is not much of a risk in actively accelerating climate change or in conducting an uncontrolled experiment on the atmosphere. Wow- and climate scientists get bagged for making big calls. People should be upfront- the response to climate change doesn’t suit their politics- cut the crap.
BTW- Durkin is plainly dishonest, and has been shown to be dishonest. there is no comparison between Gore and Durkin, Gore is a politician who may have been alarmist (repeat- he is a politician) but he does not seek to misrepresent the opinion of others or the science. If you respect Wunsch than you must accept that Durkin is dishonest. You should probably avoid quoting Durkin if you wish to retain credibility.
Oh sorry- I forgot, Durkin is comparable to Einstein according to Bob Carter- no exaggeration there obviously.
Ian- just read your post. Call me stupid but I don’t understand it. You may be onto something though- please repost your thesis more systematically so I can get a handle on it.
No Luke – it’s far from philosophical ; I’m talking about actually moving forward in a way which provides for changing our CO2 emissions significantly and sustainably.
Sustained change is only possible in an environment of far more transparency and trust than is currently the case.
And the way the debate has been conducted to date ( predominantly by the AGW proponents ) has engendered cynicism and mistrust – that’s what I took Durkin and Wunsch to be saying.
And BTW – if Hansen is merely “alerting us to a high impact scenario” then couldn’t Lindzen argue the same principle?
He is after all not denying AGW but rather making us aware of the possibility that it may be nothing to worry about?
But Lindzen and Hansen aren’t treated equally are they?
Re: New Paper On Exceptional European Heat – Another Example of Cherrypicking
There is a new paper that has just appeared that discusses the recent warm period in Europe in 2006 and 2007. It provides an excellent summary of an extreme weather event (and thanks to Juerg Luterbacher for sending to me!)
However, part of this paper is yet another example of following the IPCC policy, discussed yesterday, of ignoring inconvenient other peer reviewed research.
The paper is
Luterbacher, J., M. A. Liniger, A. Menzel, N. Estrella, P. M. Della-Marta, C. Pfister, T. Rutishauser, and E. Xoplaki (2007), Exceptional European warmth of autumn 2006 and winter 2007: Historical context, the underlying dynamics, and its phenological impacts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L12704, doi:10.1029/2007GL029951. .
The abstract reads,
“Updated European averaged autumn and winter surface air temperature (SAT) timeseries indicate that the autumn 2006 and winter 2007 were extremely likely (>95%) the warmest for more than 500 years. In both seasons, the European SAT anomaly is widespread with anomalies up to three standard deviations from normal. The anomalous warmth is associated with strong anticyclonic conditions and warm air advection from south west. Phenological impacts related to this warmth included some plant species having a partial second flowering or extended flowering till the beginning of winter. Species that typically flower in early spring were found to have a distinct earlier flowering after winter 2007.”
An excerpt from the conclusions reads,
“As SAT [ seasonal surface air temperature] anomalies are expected to increase up to 5 (3) SD from 1961–1990 in autumn (winter) at the end of the 21st century [Scherrer et al., 2007], the AU06 and WI07 warmth discussed in this study may be seen as typical representation of upcoming climate change at continental scale.”
This paper, however, fails to recognize that regional predictive skill has not been shown on any multidecadal (or even yearly time scale) (e.g. see), nor whether in a global context, the warm period is unusual; see
Chase, T.N., K. Wolter, R.A. Pielke Sr., and Ichtiaque Rasool, 2006: Was the 2003 European summer heat wave unusual in a global context? Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L23709, doi:10.1029/2006GL027470,
where we concluded
“We place the European summer heat wave of 2003 in the context of other extreme summer tropospheric temperature events from 22 N to 80 N since 1979, as well as globally using annual averages. The analysis is performed in terms of standard deviations (SD) exceeded and correlations between regional extremes and temperatures at larger spatial scales. As has been pointed out previously the heat wave was statistically unusual and was a deep tropospheric phenomenon. In this analysis we also find the following. (1) Extreme warm anomalies equally, or more, unusual than the 2003 heat wave occur regularly. (2) Extreme cold anomalies also occur regularly and occasionally exceed the magnitude of the 2003 warm anomaly in terms of the value of SD. (3) There is a correlation between global and hemispheric average temperature and the presence of warm or cold regional anomalies of the same sign (i.e., warmer than average years have more regional heat waves and colder than average years have more cold waves). (4) Natural variability in the form of El Nino and volcanic eruptions appear to be of much greater importance in causing extreme regional temperature anomalies than a simple upward trend in time. Extreme temperature anomalies in the wake of the1997–98 El Nino were larger than the anomalies seen in summer 2003 both in area affected and SD extremes exceeded. (5) Regression analyses do not provide strong support for the idea that regional heat waves are increasing with time.”
The Luterbacher et al paper also ignored the paper,
Fischer E. M., S. I. Seneviratne, D. Lüthi, C. Schär (2007), Contribution of land-atmosphere coupling to recent European summer heat waves, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L06707, doi:10.1029/2006GL029068. [see also].
That the Luterbacher et al paper chose to ignore these peer reviewed studies is another clear example of ignoring published work that raises questions about their conclusions. These papers should have been discussed even if the authors have reasons to refute them. They should have placed this recent very warm period in Europe in a global context if they are going to assert that this is the type of weather that should become routine in the coming decades.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/06/21/new-paper-on-exceptional-european-heat-another-example-of-cherrypicking/
I must conclude that the alias “space” is a reference to the area between your ears. From your original question I had already reached similar conclusions to you first question above. My lack of response was not a “ducking” as Luke has claimed. I saw it as such a patently stupid question as not being worthy of a response.
But clearly, the subject of my posts was CO2 emissions. And a large portion (19% remember) of CO2 emissions are from landuse change, not fossil fuels.
Luke might like to imply that there is a major difference between the albedo of a crop paddock (winter wheat)in summer fallow and a grazed pasture in summer, but compared to the change from forest to either, the difference is negligible.
Luke should know that clearing for crops was only 0.45 of 1% of all Queensland clearing in 2004-05 while pasture maintenance was 94%. And as the discussion was primarily in relation to the global landuse change flux then Luke’s sneering in relation to retained stems in crop land is exposed as even more sleazy artifice on his part.
Space, the dumbest quartile of Australian farmers would have no problem whatsoever in comprehending what I have said so So I don’t know where that puts you. Best just read my post again and think a lot harder. I’m sure even you could grasp it eventually.
Very interesting land use change presenattion here by Jon Foley:
ftp://ftp.iluci.org/LCLUC_APR2007/foley_lcluc_apr2007_presentation.pdf
entitled “Planet Against the Grain” where he reports that about 40% of Earth’s land has been converted to agriculture. He thus states that today about 40% of the global photosynthesis is now in human hands. He concludes that agriculture has already altered the biosphere as much as projections of future climate change, but now they are happening together.
global change is much more than CO2 and global warming and asked the question should we “reframe global change from a human/land-based perspective?”.
Among his other conclusions are that
“agriculture & land use release more greenhouse gases than any other single human activity” and that this “extends far beyond CO2″.
He also states that the
“effects on physical climate are also large” and that these are “regional in scale, but still important” and “often get ‘washed out’ in outdated climate metrics of radiative forcing and global mean temperature”.
He concluded his talk with “4 Things to Remember” which are:
1. “Agriculture is a major planetary force”
2. “Land use practices are changing much faster than land cover”.
3. The “Current focus on CO2/climate connection is very short sighted”
4. We “need a more comprehensive framework to exploring the Earth system”
Can I get something clear here? The sun isn’t the driving force any more?
Space ,without a Google I’d nominate;
1. the CO2 / temperature relationship in AIT
2. pictures of London/Melbourne underwater in mainstream newspapers
3. the hurricane frenzy
4. Flannery’s multiple exaggerations
5. the constant link between record hot days and AGW
That’s just off the top of my head.
And yes , the risk ( or more accurately cost ) of taking substantial action is potentially enormous – it could impact significantly on standards of livng for generations. It doesn’t mean we should suffer paralysis by analysis but neither that we should try to personally vilify anyone with a different view.
Consider my Durkin quote again –
“We are told the global warming theory is robust. They say you’d have to be off your chump to disagree. We have been assured for years, in countless news broadcasts and column inches, that it’s definitely true. ”
Now that’s an opinion but pretty self-evidently correct.
Yet you would hold that my credibility is reduced on the basis of WHO I quoted rather than WHAT I quoted.
So what was said is less important than who says it?
A clear example of exactly why the AGW proponents come across as intolerant of other viewpoints and therefore untrustworthy.
Finally – “( AGW ) is the simplest and most likely explanation for scientific consensus- much more likely than a global conspiracy or universal incompetence.”
Couldn’t agree more – it’s the reason I accepted the AGW theory long ago ; it’s the most credible alternative.
Paul “These papers should have been discussed even if the authors have reasons to refute them” – yep let’s start applying that to all contrarian bilge. Good call.
Not quoting Pielke is now standard practice. Keeps him complaining. At least read it and think about for a while Biggsy – Jeez !
Jim – nope – resides on quality of the argument and the evidence (which most don’t get to). No equivalence.
No words for Mottsa – he’s missed it. Hint – get a globe and a felt pen.
We’ll have to agree to disagree Luke – I can’t see that Hansen’s ” evidence” for catatrophe is obviouly more compelling than Lindzen’s laissez faire.
Ian Mott – “The proper test, exercised by reasonable men and women for a few millenia now, is to examine the validity of key assumptions to determine if there is a prima facie case. An assumption in a model, that covers 19% of total anthropogenic CO2 is most certainly a “key assumption”. And an assumption that 19% of CO2 is already present, when it will take 80 years or more to actually be present, is not a valid assumption.”
So what you are saying is that warning someone about a risk of a threat is not valid. It is not a straw man as I am questioning your logic not bringing up an alternate scenerio and demolishing it.
By your logic we should only act when there is “prima facie case”. However that is exactly what rational people have done. They have produced 4 prima facie cases, the IPCC reports, that get more and more solid every year – you just do not accept them.
“But this merely highlights the absurd lengths to which these nutters will go to maintain their self delusion.”
Surely ignoring the advice of professional scientists that normally can be relied on to give good advice is more self delusion that accepting their advice? Why is your position more rational? Certainly the agressive and argumentative way that you respond to posts here is indicative of a very weak defensive position. If you were so sure that AGW is wrong why would you need to be so defensive? You should just be able to reel off the peer reviewed science that backs up your postion. Your demenour that I have observed is not one of a rational person in full charge of the facts.
First point to Jim. I take it from your posts that you are a reasonable person- how much more transparent than the IPCC and peer reviewed (published you can go to a library and read the papers) can you get. Politicians never come close to the level of transparency you are asking for but you are happy for them to spend billions of dollars on security issues that are very, very far from transparent. Can you provide me with an example of a group of scientists who have organised themselves to make information available in such a way. What would you propose. Bringing up Hansen and Lindzen is pointless- you surely by this stage have a good idea what the scientists are saying- who doesn’t? So what’ll be- insurance or uncontrolled experiment? No one on this blog ever states WHY they are prepared to take the latter.
” So what’ll be- insurance or uncontrolled experiment? ”
I actually thought I’d answered that Space.
I said ;
“1. in the short term embrace solutions that are affordable ( as in won’t seriously jeorpardise the economy )achievable and can make significant reductions in CO2 output. Nuclear for example.”
It’s the obvious solution IMHO.
I’d like more science , less politics and more transparency about uncertainties – if there are doubts let’s ventilate them without name calling or assumptions of bad faith.
But only criticising one side for mistakes/exaggeration , casting aspersions only on sceptics for receiving external funding as an alternative to dealing with their arguments leaves me cold ( forgive the pun).
Ian,
So whats your point about the farmers- that they aren’t that smart and I am less so? Bizarre..
BTW- I think the sign of true intelligence is understanding the limitations of your own knowledge.
And… I still don’t get it. What are your going on about with the CO2 forcing and land use changes? I think you are talking about transient forcing in a GCM. Are you taking about the well mixed greenhouse gas forcing in 20th century hindcast simulations, or are you talking about future projected CO2- or something else?
If its the hindcast, then there are several ways that the greenhouse forcing is represented- sometimes as equivalent CO2 (all gases expressed as), sometimes explicitly partitioned into the percentages of representative greenhouse gases. If you are talking about the 20th century forcing in the models, we have a very good 20th century record of CO2 changes to force the models with. There is isotopic analysis of where the CO2 originated- hence there is a good handle that about 3/4 of the increase is due to fossil fuels. The rest is still in the atmosphere- you can argue about the natural source and sink of how it got there (and there are people that know far more about this than you and I- who put the forcing scenarios together)- but its up there NOW, so I’m not sure what the 80 years in the future refers to- again are you now switching to talking about projections or attribution?
In terms of land use changes, CO2 and albedo- I still have no idea what point you are trying to make and I’m not going to guess. Are you talking about land use changes in the a hindcast and how that affects the attribution result or are you talking about future projections.
“The point is that the landuse change has a cooling effect which is two or three times greater than the IPCC GCMs are factoring in”
So firstly, in what context, and secondly- you reckon you know that as a hard fact do you? I thought we were being for real about uncertainty? The science on land use changes is anything but firm- I don’t know any climate scientists who go around saying it is. However in relative (overal) forcing terms it is much less significant than well mixed GHGs- Hence, land use albedo, like forcing due to cloud changes, is one of the reasons FUTURE projections are uncertain- they are now very active areas of research so that those projections can be better constrained. If you feel you have something useful to add, why waste it on this blog, write it up and publish it.
Jim,
Sorry missed that bit;
OK- so you agree a need for action. I can’t comment on whether that should be nuclear, an immediate carbon tax or other, since I have no expertise in economics and energy production. However I always point out that a solution is on offer (reduce CO2 emissions).
I would like to believe that the science has been framed correctly though, and that it is plainly available to the public. There are some very deep problem regarding the proper dissemination of scientific information- you should be careful about blaming scientists for that- its something that concerns media/politics/society. Its beyond scientists to control the media or what sorts of information people are like to avail themselves of.
Do you not feel that climate scientists in Australia are accessible to you, have been honest and that you have somewhere where your questions can be answered? I would be very interested to know (seriously) how you think this process can be improved.
Space – the history of this blog is that BoM, CSIRO and whoever else is in the climate science game is corrupt, AGW biased, on the take, wedded to BIG WHOPPER climate change funding. Lefties, commies, neo-marxists etc. Ditto for the IPCC.
Also the solution to an unpalatable policy/political response is to shoot the science messenger first regardless of content.
Jim – Hansen has formally documented his ideas. We can pick them apart a bit at a time. All I’m saying is that given his experience it’s probably worth the time of day.
Paul: I’m still wondering how you think any of the above will help the man on the land here.
Space – I think the scientists need to be more vigilant in criticising or probably more rightly cautioning against the media representation of the extreme scenarios.
The media is the conduit here and for better or worse ( I can go on for hours about the media ) it’s representing the scientific argument.
So next time a major newspaper prints a picture of Luna Park ( I think it was ) underwater , it’d be refreshing to see the scientific community pointing out en masse that such an outcome is well outside the IPCC’s projections.
Gavin – papers are written to help us understand climate and any human influence.
Luke – Pielke Sr has over 320 refereed papers and counting since 1970.
SJT – Don’t hang your hat on Lockwood and Frohlich unless you want to lose it.
Jim,
People would not be aware just how many times scientists correct the media’s take on the science- particularly when it comes to information reporting. Unfortunately this can only happen if they have used you as a source and run it by you prior to print. It happens all the time. We do not contact newspapers every time we see the science misrepresented, in fact we generally do not comment at all unless it is a gross and significant misrepresentation- for instance I do not know the story you are referring to. I still think that the scientific basis has been made widely available and is comprehensive.
Space – the history of this blog is that Luke, operating under various nom de plumes, has alleged that everybody except the BoM, CSIRO and whoever else is in the climate science game is corrupt, nobody in AGW is biased, or is on the take, or is wedded to BIG WHOPPER climate change funding. Like Philip Adams they much prefer to live off the taxpayer.
They are all lefties, commies, neo-marxists etc. Ditto for the IPCC.
Paul: Are you really trying to support Ian’s post in this thread?
In my bit of the world today where it was very cold and wet with a lot of snow falls scattered through the higher ranges in previous weeks the usual farm stock seems to have disappeared but so has all their feed.
This country is still as dry and salty as old left over potato chips. Where do your 320 odd extra papers fit in with anyone proving to us nothing much unusual is happening?
Space you can tell when you hit a nerve.
And BTW who’s a Rog anyway ?
I am getting confused Paul, is it the Sun, or agriculture? Are you having an each way bet?
Paul
Dave didn’t talk about fossil fuels themselves, but about the lobby that profits from them. They are two distinct things.
SJT – Natural – the sun wins
Anthrpogenic – land use wins
I wouldn’t expect the fossil fuel industry to sell at a loss. As long as there is no viable alternative, profits are safe.
There’s a big lobby that profits from the global warming industry.
In the UK, diesel and petrol prices are about 75% tax – the government makes far more than the oil industry. Stern recommended a tax of about £40 per tonne of CO2 emitted – we pay £240.
So you keep saying Paul – but give us something quantitative to support your assertions on solar & land use for 1970 to now. So far it’s all been very unconvincing.
Not as unconvincing as CO2. I already posted the solar explanation before, you didn’t like it then, you won’t like it now. Isn’t this paper a quantitative example?
Ender chooses to ignore the simple number facts, 19% of reported anthropogenic CO2 emissions are claimed by IPCC to be sourced from decay or burning of cleared vegetation. That carbon is deemed to have been emitted on the day the tree falls over, not when the tree has actually rotted away in 80 years. They claim most of it is burned in year one when very little of it is burned at all. These non-existent emissions are being fed into the GCMs as if they have already taken place.
But rather than respond to this simple presentation of evidence, Ender chooses to run off on some sort of sophist wank about ignoring the advice of these supposedly reliable scientists. The only problem with this is that scientists or anyone else who base their analysis on an assumption that something is present, when it clearly is not, simply cannot be regarded as “reliable”, or even credible.
My reference to farmers intellect was in reference to the way farmers have been maligned, and even demonised, as being unintelligent, yet, so many of their critics can shoot their mouth off with only a fraction of a farmers understanding of the situation.
And poor old space has already forgotten that the lead post for this thread was all about variation in albedo and heat budget due to land use change. And from then on he has managed to demonstrate that he/she is nothing more than an articulate bimbo. All the form of intelligent discourse is present but the substance is lacking.
Readers have seen this sort of diversionary tactic before but will not miss the key point. If the GCMs predict catastrophe, and that catastrophe is based on the compounding of 19% bullshit inputs over an extended period then the only possible output is bullshit.
And no amount of bogus philosophy will obscure that fact.
“These non-existent emissions are being fed into the GCMs as if they have already taken place.” Oh no they’re not and this demonstrates what an all time stupid idiot you are. SO who’s the dumb turd? You really haven’t got a clue have you. You aren’t even on the page. It’s an accounting artefact mate – unrelated to modelling.
And we’re yet to see anything quantitative on a global sense from the WA story – get a globe and felt pen goober. Mark your little spot. Now when you can personally report back on the impacts on the global land use schema report back. Off you go now gramps.
No wonder there’s earthquakes – and Ian doesn’t even need friends to start one.
Been thinking overnight folks, the booby prize for loosing the blog climate-cricket game down under should be an old paddle steamer, not a V8 or V6 Ford. Might keep Biggsy playing hey
Instead of squabbling over the miniscule impact of farming why not concentrate on the big Daddy of pollution, China?
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=267923672133594
Ian Mott – “If the GCMs predict catastrophe, and that catastrophe is based on the compounding of 19% bullshit inputs over an extended period then the only possible output is bullshit.”
The GCMs do not predict catastrophe as they are not designed for prediction in the way you think they are. They are scientific instruments that experiments are run on including modelling future climate scenerios. They include simplifications that the researchers are completely aware of however.
This 19% that you are ranting about is land use changes that account for you say 19% of CO2 emissions. Apart from the fact that the problem that we are facing is Anthropogenic global warming that includes land use changes 70% of the Earth is water that has no land use changes. The coupled ocean/atmosphere is a huge driver of climate so what you are going on about is a small part of modelling the Earths climate.
You cannot possibly say that just because one parameter in the GCMs are not properly quantified, if indeed that they are, that all conclusions from then are invalid. There are many types of GCMs that investigate different aspects of the global climate so this sort of sweeping statement, characteristic of you, is completely false.
It would create a much healthier impression and engender a great deal more confidence in the independence of the debate if the experts did attempt to correct the record consistently Space.
But no doubt that what gets reported is selective.
As an example , two of the newspaper articles I was referring to featured photoshopped pictures of London and I think Sydney underwater together with a story suggesting that such a scenario was more probbale than any scientific report I’ve read.
IMO people see that , discover it’s crap and that reinforces the suggestion that the whole AGW theory is BS.
There’s no denying the Schneider school of thought – ” offering up scary scenarios ” to get the public’s attention has a significant following amongst many AGW proponents.
That’s not to tar the scientific community generally other than to note – for better or for worse I’m sure the association is made.
Paul, are you saying you think it’s solar, but if I won’t buy that, maybe I’ll think it could be land use?
Now Luke is launching into high farce. He seriously expects us to believe that the current level of reported emissions does not form the baseline from which future projections (of increased emissions) are made.
What on earth does he think they use as a base line, Hansen’ rectal temperature at noon GMT?
And Ender displays a basic ignorance of what a model does. To state that there are large fluxes in all other elements of the global heat balance is a simple trueism. But it does not alter the fact that it is the size of the net annual flux that will drive future outcomes.
The Climate Cretins have spent the last decade telling anyone who would listen that this ‘key driver’ is the anthropogenic emissions. But when it is pointed out that about 20% of the claimed emissions are non-existent due to multidecadal lags in wood carbon emissions what do we get?
We get nothing but weasel words from Ender and a singular lack of any substantive comment by Luke in a white noise of abuse and oafish derision. Luke is still pathetically attempting to limit the compounding implications of cooling albedo changes to the research area in WA.
He has a well documented history of ducking for cover whenever this issue is raised because he knows perfectly well what the scientific and political implications are. In one word, EXPOSURE.
And of course, the critical issue with variations in real vs imaginary compound rates is that the longer the projections are run into the future the more pronounced the variation from reality becomes.
It was for that very reason that Stern abused his position of public trust by using different discount rates in his calculations of the cost and benefit of so-called greenhouse abatement measures.
And that, for Space, is the nub of the discussion on ethical standards that apply to the business community compared with those of his supposedly high minded, eminent scientists. Stern got away with it by a smoke screen of eminence and carefully orchestrated ass licking by the green/left. But any Company Director who did that sort of stunt in a prospectus, in any of the OECD nations, would do a stretch in jail.
The irony of green/left tossers using some turkey with a knighthood to convey an undeserved credibility to the mum & dad punters is breathtaking hypocrisy.
Ian- stop abusing me unless its clever. The day you convince the rest of Australia/World that large business has high ethics, will also be the day that people accept Ray Evans’ estimation that the coal industry wants to roll over and bare their neck to environmentalists. Absolute crap.
On the carbon accounting. I still don’t get it- I think the problem lies with you. The historic well mixed greenhouse gas forcing is based upon the atmospheric record- such as Cape Grim. Its often expressed as ‘equivalent CO2’- but sometimes as a more sophisticated representation of the actual GHGs.
The model physics does not actually care where the GHGs came from -hence they can be expressed as equivalent CO2. Though we know with high accuracy that 3/4 came from fossil fuels. The others are most probably from biomass- but- ITS UP IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
Read that over again maybe.
The attribution is done on a hindcast of the 20th century- for which the atmospheric concentrations are known.
SO.. whats this 80 year lag bizzo? The main thing I can see from what you are saying is that there is still more carbon (apart from that already in the atmosphere) to be added in the future.
This is probably not the case due to re-uptake of carbon from the system.
Projections are another matter- IF you are saying that the models are projecting that there will be more carbon in the atmosphere than there will be, that is extremely doubtful. Despite the opinion of many on this blog- who would have you believe we have already sold our children to the hands of renewable energy- essentially nothing has been done to mitigate CO2 from fossil fuels- and we will most likely be right up the high end of emissions scenarios.
On the albedo changes- I think I have already made comment on those- if you think we can avert GHG warming by painting the Earth white- you should found a start-up company. The change of land surface in WA or QLD is minor in a global sense. In QLD it MAY be having an effect on rainfall. Not sure about WA, only a couple of papers such as Pittman to my knowledge. AT first glance, its hard to see how weather systems that basically originate in the Indian Ocean and are synoptic or meso-scale will be hugely affected by land-use changes on the SW corner of the continent. But you would need to do some extensive modelling- no use speculating.
An Articualte Bimbo Huh? Does something in my writing style hint that I am good looking?
Motty – we don’t need to know about logs & tree stumps. It’s called taking a CO2 measurement at Mauna Loa – what did you download that data for – you could just go and count tree stumps !- a duh!
The fact that you said that means you don’t understand in the slightest. You’ve been on about this for weeks – I now see what you’re on about. It’s really silly. Mate you are a wanker – and there are earthquakes when too many get in sync.
And here’s another utter classic “ethical standards that apply to the business community” – WTF !!
Wow – maybe Space is a climate babe ?
Jim,
RE your post- That is a real problem- another real problem from this perspective is the instant attribution of extreme weather events to AGW.
This is a very difficult part of the science to communicate- and it seems to have a life of its own in the media. For instance if a couple of scientists say that X extreme is consistent with AGW, then the media has a field day and the publicity grows from there. Scientists are asked to comment and the media quickly arranges this into a pro and con debate. Its far from the case.
As with Katrina- the bottom line was.
No. you cannot attribute single events to AGW because that does not make physical sense.
Yes. There is some evidence that the frequency of large storms is increasing in observations.
No. The cyclone data are not good enough to do formal detection attribution.
Yes. There is some suggestion from the models that certain extremes, such as high intensity cyclones, are likely to become more frequent- meaning you can use Katrina as a dry run for the engineering implications including return times.
I can tell you from experience that the media HATE this message, and will do there best not to deliver it. Its boring. The game has a life of its own.
The bottom line of what you are talking about is what is the preferred method for information dissemination- and in the end, that ultimately comes down to politics and opinion.
So, while I take the advice that we should be careful- I proffer the advice- don’t get sucked in by media reports and don’t ALLOW that to distort the underlying scientific reality. If there was an absence of irrational faux scepticism- which serves to distort the whole argument, you would probably have a much better result. Its there that I lay the blame.
You’re pretty stuck in this anti-business prejudice Luke.
I’ve invited you before to offer evidence or even a cogent theory on how it comes to be that more evildoers reside in business than in Government, academia , NGO’s etc but haven’t seen a response.
You were however recently very lavish with your praise of Caterpillar for hopping on the AGW express.
Wherein lies my salvation?
How can I become a goody too?
Philosophy IS your bent Jim- whether you know it or not.
The extremely respected political mind of Niccolo Machiavelli stated that- power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So you would expect to find the highest percentage of the most corrupted where the power concentrates.
In the energy sector, power is money is big business- they have written energy policy for years and continue to write it- and governments sign off on it because it keeps them in power (maybe that formula is about to change though). Because of the big bucks involved, and because of Machiavelli’s truism- self interest is served first in the energy sector because they wield real power.
Thats why its comes as entirely no surprise that the charge of self interest is aimed at climate scientists- ‘just trying to get money for funding’. It is not really an irony since it is a reflection of the mindset of the industry from whence professional sceptics have come.
It has alarmed scientists- because money is not the overriding factor in meteorology. People can scoff at that, but people did not, and do not, get into climate for the big bucks. If you crave money, you do not go to university for 10 years and get involved in meteorology. This is an industry mindset.
With Machiavelli in mind- I hope that climate scientists never become involved in the policy response to climate change- and that the IPCC is eventually disbanded or replaced with a totally new structure. This would be appropriate from a science perspective.
There- that should have Ian reaching for the smelling salts!
No Space – not a philosopher and definitely not bent.
But I will dabble for a moment in some pop 60’s philosophy – turn on and tune in for a second and let your mind go free;
1. We’ve all read Machiavelli’s quote and I’m happy to accept it – but I’m lost after that? Self interest motivates everyone , businesspeople , scientists , politicians , peace activists ,environmentalists, clergymen and on and on. So what’s the point? If you believe that private enterprise engenders greater self interest than other callings , tell me why or provide some evidence other than lazy prejudice.
2. As much as Motty annoys you and Luke , he made a point which is absolutely correct. Stern used a highly dubious accounting methodology ( different discount rates for present and future values for each scenario ) to bolster his obviously partisan point. I suspect that was what Duffy was referring to in TGGWS debate. And Ian’s remark re the consequences for a company director who did the same thing is spot on. Instead of actually considering the comparison , we get an appeal to tired old leftist catechism.
” And here’s another utter classic “ethical standards that apply to the business community” – WTF !!” and
“The day you convince the rest of Australia/World that large business has high ethics, will also be the day that people accept Ray Evans’ estimation that the coal industry wants to roll over and bare their neck to environmentalists. Absolute crap.”
3. It’s my observation that some of the best and brightest sceptics are academics not businesspeople. Think about it for a second – a challenge to the dominant viewpoint might actually be motivated by genuine disagreement not evil character or personal monetary gain.
4. I’m sure many researchers/academics are dedicated professionals who aren’t chasing big bucks – but that doesn’t exempt them from Machiavelli’s principle at all. Their exclusive knowledge doesn’t constitute authority or power – particularly at this time???
5. However , if you really are a climate babe , then I retract all of the above accept I’m completely wrong and would like to know when we can have a drink?
Oh I forgot – absolutely support the abolition of the IPCC in favour of a body which adhere’s to universally accepted scientific research standards and isn’t owned or run by bureaucrats!
Ahhh Jimmy – I’m not anti-business – but I have an image to keep up for Rog, Motty & Schiller.
You can find real good and real bad in any bureaucracy.
But money is obviously a corrupting force. Why do people rob banks : answer – coz that’s where the money is.
Jim – different researchers are motivated by different things – prestige, respect and being at the top of the game is important for high fliers. For others it is because they enjoy “the work” and that “sense of community”. Certainly you wouldn’t do it purely for money. Chasing grants and administering them is very hard work indeed.
Space is right on his/her comments above on money and researchers. Indeed I know people who have bought their own computers for work and paid for their own conference trips when the system would not. People wouldn’t believe you. (Didn’t say it was common !)
On Stern – the discount rate is THE issue. And depending on who you talk to it’s anywhere from mad to inspired. Comes down to the value we put on future generations.
Science does not be involved in formulating policy options. The advocation of those options is a political issue.
And yes – I’m up for a pure science IPCC – indeed. But do you reckon the Chinese would let their researchers run totally free?
Space – on issue of Katrina/Climate change/can’t attribute a single event what about:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/hurricanes.shtml
Trenberth, K. E., and D. J. Shea (2006), Atlantic
hurricanes and natural variability in 2005, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33,
L12704, doi:10.1029/2006GL026894.
Space is a “she/he”??
My own Crying Game moment.
Ian Mott – “And Ender displays a basic ignorance of what a model does. To state that there are large fluxes in all other elements of the global heat balance is a simple trueism. But it does not alter the fact that it is the size of the net annual flux that will drive future outcomes.”
I am not sure who is showing the most ignorance here. It is quite true that I am ignorant of most of what GCMs do however you are displaying a greater ignorance if you are expecting a GCM to be a crystal ball of future climate and then dismissing them because they are not. You are also possibly extrapolating a result from one corner of one continent to the whole globe. Different areas with different conditions might behave quite differently. You have no data to extend this to the whole land surface of the Earth and then declare that all GCMs are wrong.
“We get nothing but weasel words from Ender and a singular lack of any substantive comment by Luke in a white noise of abuse and oafish derision. Luke is still pathetically attempting to limit the compounding implications of cooling albedo changes to the research area in WA.”
I have not insulted you but simply pointed out where your statements are false. You reply with abuse which I take as a substitute for a substantive argument.
I’ll keep you guessing on gender- the tag Space is non-specific.
I have read Trenberth’s paper. This is a difficult thing to define and not something that I believe is entirely helpful- mainly because its very easy for the public to misinterpret what is being said. I would rather wait until a signal is well defined and you could point to a trend rather than a single event. As I said in the original post- aspects of Katrina were *consistent* with global warming, but it makes little physical sense (to me anyway) to directly attribute a single event to global warming. There is obviously a difference of opinion on this amongst scientists.
Common sense should be applied to the interpretation, but the media lacks common sense, so I shy away from these pronouncements.
I’m not anti business either- I think that the rules are wrong, and a change of market rules will potentially fix pollution problems.
As for getting lost beyond ‘power corrupts’- I would recommend that one reads ‘The Prince’ in its entirety. It is neither left, nor right but pragmatic- hence the term Machiavellian for brutal pragmatism. It is also a good read. The thesis in this context is that the level of corruption is tied to the level of power- hence the corruption latent in an oligarchy will be more absolute in proportion to power. If you think an IPCC scientist is as powerful as a corporation in Australia…? As I’ve said, anyone reading this post would think the world has accepted what climate scientists are saying and applying policy. Whereas in reality nothing is really being done and corporations are free to pollute and to write off pollution as an externality to their business- nice and neat that. Corporations bear no cost of their pollution. Corporations bear no moral obligation for the end result of their pollution. You don’t need a conspiracy theory to explain that- just playing by the rules will do nicely. Or are you suggesting that most corporations pay the full cost of their pollution voluntarily under their ‘high moral code of practice’. AS energy users we are complicit to this scheme- I am not passing holier than though moral judgement.
But, realistically. it is patently ridiculous to hold up business ethics as some gold standard- or to suggest that there is no evidence businesses operate in a common moral vacuum. No individual would be able to act in the manner a corporation is allowed to act. The evidence of zero accountability in pollution (with utter disregard for the rights of individuals) is everywhere- Philip Morris, Exxon, Enron, James Hardy, Nestle, Shell, Union Carbide- the list goes on and on and on.
There is no question that industry writes the energy policy in Australia- scientists barely get a look in. There are understandable historic reasons for this situation, it is a reality. And, just like with the tobacco companies, they have stalled the policy response to AGW- and misrepresented the science. The allegation that scientists have been alarmist or exaggerated the science is absolute small fry against this- particularly given the potential risks.
Space – I would have ascribed to the philosophy of “any single event can’t be blamed on AGW” – you need a trend etc etc – but after Trenberth & Shea I’m not sure. Maybe their analysis only can be used on the 2005 season ? And of course what about a really exceptional temperature rainfall intensity event. Interesting to ponder? Mathematically dodgy?
The test of ethical standards between business and science is to look for the equivalent of the Trade Practices Act 1974 which might apply to misrepresentation in Science. There is no such law. When was the last time anyone saw a scientist sign off on a report with a statement along the lines of those required of Company Directors on their annual financial statements. That is, that the statement represents a “true and fair view” of the affairs of the company. Once that statement is signed then ALL the Directors become liable for any losses by anyone else who relies on those statements. And this civil liability is extended via the various Companies Codes in all OECD countries to a criminal offence of making a false statement.
When we start seeing scientists stop poncing about and put their name to such a statement every time they publish something then we will have consistency in community standards and a lot less Shonkademia.
And Space, you continually demonstrate your lack of any grasp of the basics. If CO2 volumes are being fed into a model for predictive purposes then it follows that they must have some sort of basis in fact. To simply state, as you have, that the stuff that wasn’t from hydrocarbons must have come from the biosphere is a cop out.
The amount that is deemed to be emitted each year is determined by way of a global inventory of emissions. Those inventories assume that the volume of carbon on land that is cleared each year is the volume that is emitted. This is wrong, as millions of hectares with tree stumps and trunks bleached white over many decades will attest.
This wrong assumption is fed into a circulation model which applies a rate of growth in CO2 emissions each year out to many decades in the same way that your superannuation fund compounds the interest on your contributions each year and then projects this into the future to get an estimate of future value. Clearly, if you are applying an interest rate of 5% when the real rate is only 4% then you will get a future estimate of the value of your superannuation that has less and less relation to the true value the longer the projection goes for.
Australia’s accounting for wood based carbon emissions is close to world best practice. But it is also complete bullshit due to the absence of key data and the failure to recognise key ecological processes. And if our wood based carbon accounting is bollocks then we can be absolutely certain that the rest of the global wood based carbon emission estimates are much worse, pure speculation.
No investor, and we are all minor shareholders in the climate, should accept projections based on speculation. Because it will always be the ordinary investors who get burned.
BTW,
Space = Luke = Luke http://a-better-ensemble.blogspot.com/ = whatever, who cares?
So stupid isnt it, supposed grownups flat out playing Spy -vs-Spy whilst the real world gets on with it.
BTW WTF is a Rog or Rog & Pat anyway ? Who cares? If you don’t want to be here bugger off.
Who cares your stupid business rant – Space has listed a whole bunch of ongoing shonkies by corporates – hasn’t stopped.
You don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about in emissions scenarios and we’re not going to waste vast amounts of time informing you what has happened in the science so you can make utterly stupid comments.
Why don’t you piss off the blog and stop being a total wanker.
If you don’t like Woolies shares don’t buy them. If you don’t like carbon credits don’t buy them. Simple !
Sorry for leaving the fray – a mandatory dinner with some other evil business people planning our next attack on the planet.
I could build a haystack with all the straw here since.
*an IPCC scientist is as powerful as a corporation in Australia…?
Never said that. I referred to the IPCC not to any individual scientist. But to the point – the IPCC ( aided by it’s boosters in the media ) has had an absolutely huge impact on the political debate in Australia and no doubt soon on the economy.
*corporations are free to pollute
BS. What about the extent and scope of environmental regulation?
Try http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/
and that’s just the feds – go ask your local Council if you can pollute freely.
*Corporations bear no moral obligation for the end result of their pollution.
http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/environment/enforcement.html
Maybe not moral obligations but certainly legal ones. BTW – what moral obligation is demonstrated here?
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2006/2006-01-09-05.asp
*’high moral code of practice’
What high moral code of practice?
Who said anything about a high moral code of practice?
*to hold up business ethics as some gold standard-
Who did that?
*The evidence of zero accountability ….
To use a Lukism ; ROTFL – what accountability does Greenpeace , WWF , PETA or any other institution other than Government have in comparison with business if you honestly consider the regulation? Most of them don’t even pay taxes.
*There is no question that industry writes the energy policy in Australia
Don’t know that it writes it but certainly has a major influence on it – and why not?
The energy industry ( does that include solar and wind ?? ) provides a key component of the economy which in turn generates wealth which is taxed ( so that NGO’s don’t have to be – more money for lectures to the rest of us)abides by the law or is prosecuted if it doesn’t , invests in research, donates to charities, creates employment etc etc.
Now let’s be clear – it’s not that private enterprise is MORE benevolent/moral/socially conscious than academia for example but those who work in it are no worse than anyone else.
* particularly given the potential risks.
Which range from nil to catastrophic I understand?
Obviously touched a raw nerve with Luke, must be getting close to pension day.
Luke: I reckon we can find the real rog under “Diptone” about 12 mths back. Elsewhere we have a few diehards who collect old Fordson tractors and stuff like that just for kicks.
BTW Luke, this item on predictive modeling for human behavior caught my attention
“In cases of uncertainty, humans will tend to anchor on the first substantial piece of information they get and any new information that contradicts this initial idea is given less attention than it merits. This is the theory of anchoring bias”
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2129120,00.html
Dare I say though in respect to the core of this item there are common problems with all predictive modeling in IT
Well said Jim!
Fascinating really – we have some little grub called “Rog” who complains about non de plumes but WTF is “Rog” anyway – a “Rog” doesn’t want to debate – simply make ongoing smarmy one-liners. Well at home on Tim Blair but oh so noticeably outclassed on Quiggin . Revealed to be quite a silly person. Well if you’re not happy here “Rog” – whatever that is – ping orf. Take Mum-in-law to the piccies.
Gavin also try looking up cognitive dissonance.
Jim on the other hand is out fishing while still looking for the right line.
This land clearing survey should have raised the other issue of our lost carbon sink and to put that in some perspective we need to ask about green stuff working all over downunder even below the waterline.
The fact that we seem to be so worried about a slight change in reflections means we have missed the boat on AGW causes by decades. The booby prize now, a few old wooden planks.
So what proportion of such notorious scientific shonks and fudgers have actually served time for their crimes? Did Dr William McBride serve time?
The reason we have a steady procession (but small proportion) of business people going to jail is because we actually have laws that make certain actions an offence. There is no equivalent legal framework in science, except when the science forms part of a business related fraud, as in a fudged geological survey for a listed mining company.
But to read Space, Ender and Luke we are expected to forget the outrageous fraud over the salinity threats in the Murray-Darling, the grossly exaggerated clearing data in NSW and Qld, the bullshit on silt runoff from cane fields (in the dry season) and numerous other instances of corrupt science. And they want us to start with a clean slate and take all the claims by the climate shoonks on face value.
Give us a break.
The classic was Space’s response to my suggestion (on another thread) of a need for an “audit function” in science reporting. This clown ridiculed the notion on the basis that a bunch of accountants would not know how to audit science. He was unable to even grasp the essence of the concept, ie, independent examination by a qualified third party with no associations with the report writer.
Instead, we have this perverted system that mimics the “old boys club” where a bunch of like minded mates get together with a big bag of hooch and conduct a “peer review”. What a joke. The science community needs to be dragged kicking out of the 18th century.
So Ian’s nose grows longer by the day. What a load of utter unsubtantiated bulldust and spin.
Fancy thinking that some accounting boofhead could handle science. You’ve demonstrated here that you don’t even know what goes into a GCM. Wouldn’t you be great as a reviewer.
What is the definition of an accountant?
Someone who solves a problem you did not know you had in a way you don’t understand.
If an accountant’s wife cannot sleep what does she say?
“Darling, tell me about your work.”
Since you folks can’t guess, I’m listening to John Coltrane playing “Impressions in Blue” on the hi fi.
Most appropriate hey
Ian Mott – “Instead, we have this perverted system that mimics the “old boys club” where a bunch of like minded mates get together with a big bag of hooch and conduct a “peer review”. What a joke. The science community needs to be dragged kicking out of the 18th century.”
Now is this the science community that does science that disagrees with you or all branches of science from Astronomy to Zoology? Funnily enough the only branches that seem to have problems is where corporations with large money at stake are involved such as climate science where fossil fuel corporations have a stake and drugs where large pharma has its finger in the pie.
So why do you think that practically all other branches of science are going on with their work, all the while peer reviewed, while people such as yourself jump up and down about one small branch particularly. For some reason the scientific process that works fine for all the other thousands of fields of science only breaks down, according to you, in one or two fields.
Have you asked many quantum theorists how they think their field should be audited? Do you think physicists who after 200 or 300 years of optics still cannot still really decide if light is a particle or wave should be prosecuted?
You can hide behind as many names as you like Luke (and conduct false debates amongst your various personalities) but always know that I will find you out.
Is tomorrow the big day?
Huh – what’s a Rog? If you weren’t such a loser you wouldn’t be here would you.
And don’t make fun of Phil – you know he can’t move his arms and dribbles after the accident with the Mixmaster.
So you weren’t evenly slightly convinced with my Space ruse eh? How’d you know?
Very droll Gav.
Luke , I feel all cheap and soiled.
Its because I am not a loser that I am not here that often – whats your excuse?
Anyway Luke you always win stupid arguments, you have the experience.
Rog you’re always lurking – we know. The fact that you’re even arguing about it makes you a loser. If you weren’t a loser you wouldn’t have to prove it. My excuse – well since the accident I don’t go out much so it passes the lonely hours. And yes I do win the stupid arguments as most of the arguments are pretty stupid.
But don’t argue with a fool or a loser as the onlookers usually can’t tell the difference.
That’s why I invented Space to improve the quality of the debate.
Ender, the scientists involved in quantum physics are not trying to rope the the whole world into a course of action that rests on dubious assumptions, coercion, and outrageous propaganda.
The test of a need for an independent audit function is the same one used in the commercial sphere. That is, “is the statement made with an intention that it be acted upon by others”?
That is clearly the case with climate science where the intention is to justify a course of action by the rest of the community.
A bunch of economists can run all the models they want without need to be audited, provided those models are not present to the public for the purpose of inducing them to act. Once they form part of an offer to the public they have a duty of care to ensure accuracy.
Luke if you invented “Space” then you are a fraud and a liar,nothing you say should be trusted. If you did I am disgusted in you…..
lUKE YOU ARE A DISGRACE IF YOU ARE ALSO SPACE. YOU ARE A LIAR AND A FRAUD AND I AM DISGUSTED IN YOU. YOU WON T CARE OF COURSE, BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO MORALS OR ETHICS.
sorry for the double up, problems with my network
Luke works for the Qld Government, of course he has no ethics, of course he is a liar, likes attract.
What it shows us all is the underlying contempt he has for the views of others and the right of all readers to judge all the information here for themselves. Luke has taken for himself the right to give his opinions the additional weight of appearing to be from a number of people. It is fraud, nothing less.
He learned it from his Director General, his Minister and every spiv in the chain of command. But there is no excuse for it. So enough now, and be done with you. Crawl into your hole you squalid piece of primordial sludge.
Luke works for the Qld Government, of course he has no ethics, of course he is a liar, likes attract.
What it shows us all is the underlying contempt he has for the views of others and the right of all readers to judge all the information here for themselves. Luke has taken for himself the right to give his opinions the additional weight of appearing to be from a number of people. It is fraud, nothing less.
He learned it from his Director General, his Minister and every spiv in the chain of command. But there is no excuse for it. So enough now, and be done with you. Crawl into your hole you squalid piece of primordial sludge.
But you must admit I had youse going eh? You were all totally taken in by my phoney South African accent.
Incidentally Toby – read the thread again. This time with the brain switch on.
What..where you claimed to have been to thousands of conferences on AGW/CC with no politics (Obviously not in Toronto when in sub zero temps your “mates” were chanting ‘its hot in here theres too much carbon in the atmosphere’…..no credibility….just like you) and no bullshit? where you claimed to be a scientist? you are a fraud,very very sad, enough said.
And if I did misread the thread and it is not true that you are also space, then of course my comments are retracted. I did indicate in my comment
‘if you are space’. Obviously if you are not it easy for you to clear up….if you are space, then you will have become truly wasted ‘space’.
Incidentally Toby – read the thread again. This time with the brain switch on. I’m not Space – it’s pretty obvious but thought I’d just play along with Rog who made the claim. But was worth seeing what a disingenuous humourless denialist arsehole you are.
Incidentally read your paragraph above. Fair bit of fantasy material in there which is why I don’t trust you judgement one iota.
Well if there was fantasy in my comments it shows your opinion ain t worth zip either,cos it means you can t read. The sad thing was I have actually read what you write with interest and an attempt at removing my ‘bias’ to further my understanding and perspective. When I saw Rog and his Luke= space= luke and your link that is to nothing ( lots of interests other than blogging have we?!), I did think it was a joke, cos Space has written in a very different style to you. However the rest of the thread …”That’s why I invented Space to improve the quality of the debate”, I took at face value…clearly stupid of me to trust what you write.
”
Yep and take a hike mate ! So willing to put the boot in eh? Such fervent moralising. The link – nothing except was needed for easy logon to some other blogs – nothing deeper than that with a possible notion of one day maybe using it.
Sorry about the drop out. Some of us have work to do!
Hilarious stuff, wish I was around for the heat of the action.
Can I just make a comment for Ian,
I understand the concept of independent review very well. What you fail to understand- and why your original suggestion of a ‘science audit’ was so totally funny- is that anything published in a journal is independently reviewed. In fact, science probably has one of the highest levels of intrinsic, systemic review going. Its not like someone comes around once every year and has to work like a detective to ensure nothing has been cooked- you have to present all your work and methodology for review whenever you have a decent worthwhile result.
Peer review is not a question of mates. The editor in charge of your paper will assign reviewers as he or she sees fit- and is guided by previously published literature relevant to the specialised topic in choosing reviewers. These reviewers are anonymous. Often, the reviewer will be chosen on the basis that something in your work amounts to a refute or correction of the reviewers work. You have obviously NEVER submitted any work of any kind to this type of scrutiny, because, far from being a matey love-in, reviews are typically very critical and very harsh. This is a very, very old system and tradition. No one is going to jail Ian- your allegations are probably the most legally shaky thing involved here. I suggest you put up or shut up- choose the papers you think are compromised and make your allegations public- challenge the relevant journal and editor formally.
Anyway, I say all this simply to inform those who care to listen. Which probably does not include Ian. The peer review process is not perfect- thats why so much (just about all) science gets redone by others, as a back up to the peer review system- since reviewers themselves are unlikely to do actual number crunching to test methodology.
Now..as to your assertion that people get together with their mates and consume drugs whilst rubber stamping their work. Thats just a great big load of BS. To take Jim’s line of thinking- that is the same as suggesting that auditors take their work down the pub with the senior partners and make sure it all goes smoothly just to save the image of the profession and for graft. Maybe thats what happens? Maybe thats why you are such a suspicious dude- got some form yourself perhaps?
Your level of paranoia is bordering on the clinical. I bet you HAVE been checking under the bed since I suggested it?
On Katrina and single events.
I think I said in my original post that the obs were not good enough to do FORMAL attribution.
From the literature- formal attribution has a very specific meaning- which relates to the robustness of the statistics. In general terms- for formal attribution you need a really good idea of how the system behaves under no forcing, natural forcing and greenhouse forcing. I don’t think we can tick all these boxes for cyclones on two fronts- model representation and observations.
The ‘circumstantial evidence’ from the observations on Atlantic hurricanes is intriguing- and (from my look at it) somewhat consistent with changing baselines.
In my subsequent posts- I am simply pointing out that it is confusing to the public if we talk about single events. This is my personal opinion- there is not really any science that can guide us on this type of communication after all. The climate change that is significant is the change in large area spatially averaged climate variables with interannual noise filtered out. While this is significant- it is much smaller than season to season and year to year variability. Hence we do not really ‘experience’ climate change (well not yet anyway- the signal is still small compared to the noise in relative terms) the way the public probably imagines that we do. And it is misleading to the general public to suggest that we do- they will start to expect that they should be able to ‘feel’ climate change for it to be real, whereas in reality this condition is unimportant for registering significant global change. Also, if they mentally make this connection, then they start attributing normal extreme weather to climate change- and that is erroneous.
Hi Space – sung to the tune of “is it me or is it you …”
You’re wasting your time. Mott’s just a propaganda grub. He just fills these columns with toxic waste for his party faithful (all 6 of them).
Yep of course he’s clueless. But it’s not about winning – it’s about creating uncertainty and playing to stereotypes.
But I reckon let’s take him up on his idea of auditing the climate modelling work. How would he assess the models. On what measurements? By what statistics. Let’s see what windbag has got besides hot air (you’ll only hear abuse from here on or crickets chirping or both).
Over to you Mottsa !
“And Space, you continually demonstrate your lack of any grasp of the basics.”
Lets just test that shall we???
“If CO2 volumes are being fed into a model for predictive purposes then it follows that they must have some sort of basis in fact.”
Thats right- you measure the concentration in the atmosphere over the course of the 20th century from many different sites and sources and then use that to force atmospheric chemistry parameters in the model.
“To simply state, as you have, that the stuff that wasn’t from hydrocarbons must have come from the biosphere is a cop out.”
Ian- dude. So where else did it come from? Outer space maybe? Carbon is a product of the biosphere. Did you sit out science in high school or something. Fossil fuel carbon comes from an old (fossil) biosphere.
The numbers for the extra carbon in the atmosphere are the same order of magnitude as what you would expect from things like (biomass burning).
“The amount that is deemed to be emitted each year is determined by way of a global inventory of emissions. Those inventories assume that the volume of carbon on land that is cleared each year is the volume that is emitted. This is wrong, as millions of hectares with tree stumps and trunks bleached white over many decades will attest.
”
I think this is an example of proposing a hypothesis- finding its palpably incorrect- then working out how you can make it right by juggling the words around. See above- the carbon inventory is worked out many different ways, but the forcing is verified by the atmospheric record- which clearly shows how much carbon has been up in the atmosphere over the twentieth century.
“This wrong assumption is fed into a circulation model which applies a rate of growth in CO2 emissions each year out to many decades in the same way that your superannuation fund compounds the interest on your contributions each year and then projects this into the future to get an estimate of future value.”
Uh- I don’t need a stupid accounting analogy to understand what a rate of change is, I’m a mathematician. I assume you have now switched to future scenarios. You seem to interchange between the two, but very clearly the 20th century run (which verifies CO2 as a climate forcing mechanism) is run on the atmospheric record and has nothing to do with your tree stumps.
The future scenarios are run according to a range of different plausible scenarios- each of which makes different assumptions that are VERY clearly laid out. They are not predictions, they are scenarios, and there is a range of them for policy makers to look at. And your tree stumps make diddly squat difference to those scenarios- you can try to shoehorn those back into your story- but I think everyone else on this blog, including their pets, has realised you stuffed up.
“Clearly, if you are applying an interest rate of 5% when the real rate is only 4% then you will get a future estimate of the value of your superannuation that has less and less relation to the true value the longer the projection goes for.”
Yep- thats right- economic future scenarios have a range of uncertainty that certainly isn’t accounted for when the government talks about your future proposed wealth. In fact, its talked about MUCH less than uncertainty in climate change projections. Further, whereas your basic economic model is a very simplistic thing- taking seconds to minutes to run out a projection in its entirety- people use them as tools (probably rightly so) without much cause for concern. Your average GCM though- takes 6 months to a year on a supercomputer to run- are probably the most sophisticated numerical models on the planet, yet have to suffer the indignity of being dismissed by two bit hacks such as Ian who have basic assumptions so muddled and confused that they should really just shut up and sit in a corner, lest their dementia be taken seriously by someone.
I know its a waste of time- but I was waiting for some code to run out and just couldn’t help myself.
Ian Mott – “Ender, the scientists involved in quantum physics are not trying to rope the the whole world into a course of action that rests on dubious assumptions, coercion, and outrageous propaganda.”
Neither are the climate scientists. They are saying here is a problem. They receive no personal monetary gain from saying these things and are not asking you to invest in anything. The solution to the problem requires changes as our society is based on fossil fuels however that is not the climate scientist’s fault. In almost all cases the data is audited already by peer review that works fine in all other branches of science. If you are not a part of the auditing process due to your own limitations then it is not OK to setup another one that you can be a part of. The correct answer is to obtain the necessary qualifications and experience to be a part of the peer review process and improve it if you find it necessary. Sniping from the sidelines because you cannot participate is childish.
If something was discovered in quantum physics that affected the whole globe then they would be saying the same thing.
Space/Luke,
( Sorry mate the Luke (Sky) Walker / Space association is just too cute )
Whilst not a member of Ian’s party – what’s the party platform Motty? – the suggestion certainly has merit.
I wonder how Mann’s representations for example would have been affected by a legally enforceable obligation with criminal sanctions to sign a personal declaration that the research findings/conclusions were a fair and true representation of the outcome?
This could be governed within a formal codification similar to Corporations Law and overseen by a body like ASIC.
Further , the independent auditors could only complete their declaration following their satisafaction that they had received all the raw data, tested it and that the research had been conducted and the findings presented in reference to the relevant standards – as sophisticated as IASB for example.
As a further “sting” the auditors themselves could be subject to criminal sanction for lack of rigour?
And Ender – sure , no-one is “investing” in this research ( though we could quibble about that ) but the principle is the same.
If the research was relied upon for policy decisions which have serious implications for all of us ( at least investors can make a decision whether to expose themselves to the risk or not – unlike those subject to government regulation )then legal redress was possible.
A lot more “skin” in that proposal than peer review allows for!
Intriguing concept Ian!
Now stand by for the I’m-not-anti-business-but barrage…….
Jim – sure fire way to kill science. And stop innovation dead. Next we’ll be fining orchestras if they miss a note. As much as one might be in love with commerce – this is not business. This is science – it does involve taking some calculated risks. And sometimes people will be wrong – wrong cause they’ve made an error or wrong because of things they didn’t know – or by just wrong hypotheses/models.
The imperfect peer review system tries to get rid of as much as this as possible at this stage. Look at the submit date and some stuff posted here and look when it’s finally published – sometimes takes 12 months of quibbling with referees. Getting published is hard work – one normally gets friends to read your draft – that can be cruel – incidentally most contrarian crap would be shrunk in half at that point – all emotional rants are ripped out. And then another 90% slaughtered on statistics and insufficient literature review.
Next there are usually internal review panels. (e.g. within CSIRO itself) Their red ink crippling.
Then the sometimes anonymous multiple reviewers at the journal. This is hard stuff – not fun.
As for Hockey Stick Mann published something that was grabbed by the IPCC as a poster child. Mann wasn’t setting out to be evil or rip people off. As it turns out his statistical analysis has been criticised (even though the right analysis gives the same answer). His choice of proxies has been criticised. Then they put the guy in a star chamber. How would any of us react. Extraordinary stuff.
If it were butterfly taxonomy this would all be quietly dealt with in the literature.
In science work is overturned, refined and if enough knowledge is gained hypotheses become theories and theories become laws.
Kids don’t want to do science anymore. Too hard. Easy too make slick flash harry money being an accountant. It’s not hard stuff.
So what did the paleo community learn from Mann’s flogging – more statistical consulting needed, and you need to have all your data and programs on a FTP site ready to go. So the bar was raised. He didn’t see out to dupe us – he was simply wrong in some aspects.
Are we going to have auditors in butterfly taxonomy too. Sounds unimportant but if turns out to be a butterfly species moving with climate change maybe we should have. So we’re going to now audit all papers and all knowledge – good grief !
Ask yourself if the world has progressed through science. I’d suggest it has. It’s not perfect. So something is working.
Being wrong in science is one thing; but fabricating your data explicitly is another.
But now you’d like some dickhead accountants who wouldn’t know one end of a GCM from the other to make some pronouncement on their efficacy?
Guys I’m not Luke.
The point we are trying to make is that the review process is pretty thorough- it is an audit.
You know, it would be impossible to find people others than those an editor finds to review papers- because the level of expertise is that specialised and high. Like Luke says- even with people who are familiar with the work- it can take two years to converge on a correct framing of the problem and results- and that after the first manuscript takes place, It would be literally unfeasible to bring someone up to speed to audit a science paper in some other way. And if you think there are arguments now- woah- it certainly would kill science.
Despite Ian’s ranting. I think the proof is in the pudding. The review system has worked for hundreds of years as a whole. No scientist would be surprised if a revolution in thought swept away their work. The AGW science is the best we’ve got based on the state of the current knowledge. It would be unwise to ignore it. The issue people have with deniers, as opposed to sceptics, is that they haven’t presented any results. If you find good evidence contrary to AGW, do you really think thousands of scientists would just bury it. The fact is no alternate evidence has been found that can substantially or sufficiently refute the IPCC summaries.
I am very familiar with Mann’s work and his methodologies- probably far more than anyone on this blog. I can tell you that it is extremely unlikely anything would have been changed had he had to sign a declaration of some sort. Putting your name to a paper is declaration enough- if it were not so binding- more faux sceptics would have published their work- they don’t. While Mann’s work was in its early stages- the pool of experts was not high- hence to accusations of unindependent cross examination. As it turns out- Manns work was not wrong- it just forms part of the envelope of estimates for past temperature changes.
Space – dare we attempt an intelligent conversation. Do you have a wider perspective on the Mann/Hockey Stick saga ?
” sure fire way to …..stop innovation dead.”
“And sometimes people will be wrong – wrong cause they’ve made an error or wrong because of things they didn’t know – or by just wrong hypotheses/models.”
Mate, that’s exactly what the critics of business regulation claim – it’s uncanny how similar your arguments sound.
Business innovation also involves taking calculated risks but we as a society believe ( quite rightly in my view ) that there should be an onus and potential sanctions on those making claims which can influence investors, to represent the facts reasonably.
If this were an argument about the nurturing behaviour of the South American Sigmodontine then I wouldn’t bat an eyelid – I might still enjoy the joust however!
The case for AGW is different by an order of magnitude.
It’s proponents are influencing Governments on the basis of expert opinion to consider the until very recently inconcievable. Nuclear for instance.
And no – expecting absolute proof and certainty until we act is unreasonable and maybe very dangerous. But insisting on a rigorously reviewed independent process rather than relying on a vague presumption of better character ( when compared to business people for example) isn’t unreasonable.
Yes we need speculation , assumption , hypothesis and ranges of scenarios. We also need an open mind and a welcoming attitude to scepticism.
Remember , we have been told that the deabte is ” over”, that questioning this science is akin to denying (fill in blank ) etc.
In other words we haven’t had an accurate accounting to date.
And if Mann had signed a declaration and an audit as described had occurred one important thing would have changed IMO.
We wouldn’t have had that report included in the TAR.
Mann’s work was wrong – maybe the conclusions are possible but the method was dodgy. Meaning well isn’t a defence.
The sceptics wouldn’t have had a field day Wegman wouldn’t have devastated key evidence, AGW proponents would have been more humble – who knows?
The sceptics had a field day as they had created a star chamber. In the 4AR the same conclusions are back with possibly a less certain framing and more analyses.
“welcoming attitude to scepticism” – so when does this become time wasting bullshit though?
If AGW is true – every year we delay makes the task inordinately more difficult.
What a load of space walker cobblers. The system in place in business for many centuries before the current laws were enacted was called caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware. And eventhough there were plenty of people claiming that caveat emptor has worked perfectly well for many centuries, the community said “we can do better”.
And none but the extremely gullible seriously believe that the peer review system still works well. Just take a look at the Donato-Law Fiasco at http://www.evergreenmagazine.com/index2.html
to see what sort of stunts are being pulled, including the deliberate exclusion of reviewers that might take a different perspective.
I have also had one “scientist” withdraw access to his thesis data unless I agreed to grant him a right of veto over any conclusions I might draw from that data.
Peer review? In the “Brave New Green Utopia”? Who are you trying to kid? How many “scientific” reports etc come with multiple paragraph disclaimers?
Yea? so that explains why business product information statements and briefs comes with safe harbour clauses.
The one who’s kidding is yourself suggesting there is a major flaw in peer review from a couple of cherry picks.
Anyway we’re still waiting for your considered opinion on climate model audits.
When poor Ian said “The system in place in business for many centuries before the current laws were enacted was called caveat emptor, or let the buyer beware” I reckoned he was falling down in the game.
Ian, mate: In this modern age of jousting beware of those multiple images.
Space,
I loved your view that Mann’s work is ‘part of the envelope of estimates’. Is 2+2=5 part of the envelope of estimates? Are Mr. Mugabe’s policies merely part of the envelope of economic possibilities? What a wonderful intellectual liberation. George Orwell would have approved. Thank you.
Forget all your parallel arguments- the biggest problem with your ‘science audit’ is thats its totally unworkable. You need an EXPERT to asses the science, and they need to be active researchers. Which is why the peer review system works. The moment you stop being an active researcher you stop being an expert. Full stop. Any doubt on this and just take a look at Bob Carter (bad example- he was never a climate expert)
Good Example- Mann’s work was wrong? How so? Show me the definitive audit on Mann’s work that you think the rest of mainstream science has agreed on. Mann’s work has been highly scrutinised- show me the fruits of this audit? I’ll expect postings of the flawed M&M analysis shortly and a protracted argument- hardly settles anything does it?
The truth is far more boring unfortunately. That is- the subsequent research has not invalidated Mann’s methods at all. His work is not even controversial to anyone who works with climate data. Everyone in the science understands what Mann did and how best to use his results. Its not even central to the AGW science (except to the faux sceptics- who believe that no attribution needs to be done to conclude climate change in ‘natural’- LOL what a joke that is). There is no ongoing hysteria in mainstream science regarding Mann- that crap is purely the realm of the nutbags, who find they have someone they can demonize to keep themselves going. If M&M is the highest standard of auditing you guys can apply- I think I’ll stick the peer review system. More to the point- there is no evidence that the system is flawed.
This notion that climate scientists are cajoling the rest of society is absolute bulldust. The science has been put out there in full- and the supposed policy makers can not even decide what to do with it- let alone comprehend it. Four huge tomes of scientific review over two decades and they still say they can’t get a grip on it- thats just a complete and utter failure of the public and an embarrassment. If there is any behaviour that is suspicious- its that of the policy makers and the faux sceptics. Imagine- calling for an audit of science when your own ‘side’ is not even prepared to publish their work. They do not even bother to avail themselves of the current information. What a brazen hypocritical piece of work that is.
Nothing that has been stated here shows that a this ‘science audit’ would be workable, improve the science or be better for science. And no one has answered the question of how you would find someone expert enough to do this kind of work outside of the peer review system. No suggestion has been made at all in fact. Its just a furphy. I’m not even going to entertain such nonsense in future. Imagine that- accountants policing science LOL- yeah- thats the sign of a healthy, balanced society thats heading places- NOT. Maybe we should get lawyers to oversee how GPs advise their patients while we are at it.
Speaking of those wackos- Bozo the clown just entered the building. Ian- you really are paranoid- what “Brave New Green Utopia’- I’m calling you out to actually explain what this means, which governments it involves and what actions it entails. Are you a member of the LaRouche society by any chance?? You need to seek professional help. To fill you in on the situation Ian- nothing is being done about AGW. You are commenting on a topic and process you know nothing about, have never been involved in and, as stated many times here previously are never going to join because you are not qualified to and have no intentions of becoming qualified. You must have CCTV under the bed. Also noted that you dropped the cumbersome tree trunk theory finally- care to retract it formally?
Davey- see my last post on Mann’s work. It is part of the envelope of estimates- I’m sorry that this is a concept that is beyond you. I have no idea what 2+2=5 has to do with the argument. The basic fact is that Mann’s work probably represents the sum total of climate change research that the faux sceptics have bothered to look at. It ‘seems’ understandable to the faux sceptics, and they comment on it. Most wouldn’t know what empirical orthogonal function analysis was or how to use it- but they can understand a squiggly curve. They don’t touch the nuts and bolts of AGW science- they do not read about optimal fingerprints and don’t talk about optimal fingerprints. But you cherish your views on Mann, because it offers some hope, some small kernel, that you have a handle on whats going on. But you know you don’t- and the limited discussion that you are willing to enter into is proof of that. Go away and read a bit- it called LEARNING.
An instructive point- to pre-empt all the crap we will receive about Mann being somehow endemic of a malaise in climate science.
EG. how about this- Space- “His work is not even controversial to anyone who works with climate data.” Fool- well thats no saying much. (Hey this faux sceptic game is a cinch)
Question: How do past past temperature reconstructions invalidate the conclusion that CO2 is a radiative gas and the attribution of temperature changes in the last 50 years to CO2?
Space – no need to insist on anything “definitive” in this debate is there?
Is there any definitive proof of AGW at all?
Not even the IPCC claims that.
In my criticism of Mann I’m of course referring to Wegman.
Now he’s not easy to dismiss – your (and my ) “side’s” traditional pea and thimble tricks don’t hold up here.
He is a statistical analysis expert – entirely relevant to a statistical presentation. He hasn’t been paid by big oil or any other evil corporation , he isn’t politically tainted etc etc.
But in answer to you demand –
“Mann’s work was wrong? How so?”
Wegman said –
“The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the
proxies are centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole time
period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will cause it to exhibit a larger
variance, giving it preference for being selected as the first principal component. The net
effect of this decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a
“hockey stick” shape.”
Now I’m not a scientist or a mathematician but I read the above to mean that the model used was biased toward producing a hockey stick which was of course “prominently featured’ ( Wiki) in TAR.
That mightn’t fit your definition of “wrong” but it does mine.
Interestingly , Wegman also opined that –
“In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature
reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of
coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the
area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not
be as independent as they might appear on the surface.”
Now it may not strike you so , but certainly does me, that this is a pretty worrying indictment of existing peer review.
Mann’s behaviour was also a little suss –
“….we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results
was haphazardly and grudgingly done.”
His conclusions were straightforward –
“Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s
assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and
that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis
”
Now , let’s recap;
I clearly acknowledged that Mann’s conclusions were possible – but that has nothing to do with the subject we were debating which was comparing the audit and regulatory framework operating in business with that in science.
The silly thing is the entire dismemberment ( if that had ocurred ) of the HS theory does not in any way shape or form “prove” AGW wrong.
It’s more enlightening for what it says about some AGW proponents than the theory itself.
Finally , I’ve saved what I consider his best quote for last;
“This committee does not believe
that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue.”
Well maybe not for SCIENTIFIC debate……..
Just as the spiv end of the commercial world were most opposed to the end of “buyer beware” consumer policy, the spiv end of the science community, as exhibited on this blog, are particularly opposed to extending community regulatory standards to scientific reporting.
The whole “stifle science” line is the same old chestnut with zero substance. The test of whether science should be audited and certified by both the author and the auditor is whether the body of work or report/thesis is intended to inform public debate on matters of policy etc.
If the author does not have the confidence to certify it as suitably robust to be taken seriously in a policy formation process then it should be clearly identified as “uncertified science” ie, of a preliminary nature.
Only if the Author has an intention that the work should be considered in a policy process, ie that the representations in it are made with an intention that others may act upon them, then they will need to be certified as being a true and fair view, which includes an absence of relevant omissions.
Under such a system the science community will be free to continue exploring the possible while also ensuring that formal policy debates are conducted on a foundation of data and science integrity. It is a core community expectation that is not, currently, being met.
Certified by whom against what.
True and fair eh ? Says who – a jury/judge/you?
H&R Block?
Still waiting the GCM audit checklist. Sounds of crickets chirping.
Nice post Jim,
I was defending the peer review process. Nothing is definitive. My point is that the Mann paper HAS been ‘audited’- and that the audit was nothing but peer review- including Wengman. Wengman has added absolutely nothing to our understanding of Mann’s work that is beyond the norm- not to say that it was an unnecessary addition, quite the opposite- but its part of the normal process. Subsequent paper’s that have taken up the reconstruction work have also looked at the very same issues. I’ve done the same personally using real and synthetic data- quite independently of Mann relating to another question all together. Actually- I realised after a review (yep peer review) that the issue I was looking at was essentially the same mathematical ‘issue’.
I will have trouble explaining this in words- maths is easier for me, but here goes.
The crux of the problem Mann faced is essentially the same one facing current proxy researchers. That is, whether the 20th century proxy-climate relationships represent some sort of pseudo stationary mode that has an analog back in time. Or whether the relationships have changed enough to cause a discontinuity in the reconstruction.
The issue becomes one on how best to ‘calibrate’ the proxy data- do we use the whole (proxy) period to define leading modes of proxy co-variability, do we use the actual climate data to define modes of variability that we project onto the proxies, or do we just calibrate (regress) the proxies to the 20th century directly and run the model back in time. There are other variants- do we calibrate the proxies to their ‘local’ climate site-wise and combine them together then scale them to the observations.
It is incorrect to state that Mann was wrong. I can’t remember which paper (he wrote several around 1998-2000)- but he clearly stated that the stationarity requirement was a caveat of the reconstruction work- it still is. The point Wengman made is valid- but its not quite as simple as saying that you bias toward a hockey stick. If you choose a sub-sample of the whole record to define the leading modes- you *may* bias the reconstruction to performing better during that period than elsewhere.
using the whole period to define the leading mode is no guarantee of providing a totally homogenous record, because all forms of linear decomposition (regression, EOF analysis, SVD etc)- pull out a dominant leading mode from ‘somewhere’ in the data. And you *may* be biased toward that period of ‘covariability’.
So, when I say Mann’s work is part of the envelope of estimates- thats exactly what I mean. There is no correct way to do the reconstruction (apart from avoiding clear errors in the logic/application of your methodology) so you have to do a whole lot, different ways to test methods, sensitivites etc. Synthetic data shows that, in order to be able to extract a climate mode at all- there must be a degree of stationarity in the proxy-climate relationship. And heres where you need to be a climate scientist AND a statistician. Using modelling and synthetic approach (where you know what the relationship is all the time) you can cross verify your reconstruction model on different parts of the data- you can look at the different modes and how they behave- is what you are seeing physical or an artifact? Does it make sense. You need an inherent knowledge of the climate system as well.
My professional take on this, and most others, is that the ‘shape’ of the variability is probably robust. The stationarity requirement is probably weak. The issue becomes one of absolute scale- which is important for surface T. Hence- its best to use an envelope of reconstructions using slightly or vastly (boreholes) different methods.
This result comes out as a normal part of the process and a normal part of my and everyone else’s work. It would be a waste of everyones time and money to do this ‘audit’- I reckon you could waste half a year with that process- remembering that no one has come up with a way to implement it. How would you find your experts for starters?
The above is very technical and requires a bit of cross-discipline. What better place to find the relevant experts than in the peer review process? I’m not saying there is no need for ‘auditing’ I’m saying the system works well. Or we would not even be discussing this work of Mann’s on a blog after all.
Finally, on the ‘nepotism’ claim among reviewers- thats a no brainer. Put simply, some authors are good at getting their names on papers. You use a bit of their data, you ask them to review some aspect of some section and bingo- you have a fifth author. This is no way means that you get together in a dark room to green light the work, I’ve outlined before that peer review just doesn’t work like that. Putting your name to a paper as first, second or third author is a big deal- you don’t do it if you think your work is iffy, its professional death.
Different disciplines have different conventions. My observation is that getting attribution for your data or input is prevalent in the paleo community. Whereas climate scientists feel they have no ownership of model and observed data (and don’t expect explicit acknowledgment for giving you that data), paleo people operate differently. Its ‘their’ data so to speak. There is no conspiracy going on except in Ian’s head.
Of course , the fact that some of the reviewers had co-authored other papers with Mann , shouldn’t necessarily imply that their opinion wasn’t genuine.
It’s the testing of the integrity of the model that condemns it.
But for the sake of consistency , if we’re going to dismiss the opinion of anyone with an association with energy companies solely on the basis of that association , then we’ll have to do the same with reviewers.
Much more honest to simply consider the argument on it’s merits.
Mann used a model which according to Wegman was ( not maybe ) biased in favour of a HS Space – at least that’s my reading of his report.
I don’t know that I can add any more than that….
I should add, by way of balance, that there may have been too close an association between authors on the paleo community 10 years ago- although that is very hard to judge by just taking authorship lists- ithink the field was probably smallish. That situation has changed, with many more modellers and climate scientists and others becoming involved with the recons- see von Storch, Moberg, Jones, Pollack etc. And weight of the work now shows that the global temp of the last 50 years is probably the warmest in the last 2000. thats also got nothing to do with current CO2 attribution. The science has moved on from 1998- this blog should move on too.
On your last post- my *maybe* regards the degree of the bias in relation to the overall variance. I am being true to the fact that the reconstructions are not real- we don’t know what the real world did.
That the model *WAS* biased doesn’t tell you whether the bias makes much difference. As subsequent reconstructions have shown, Manns recon *MAY* have underestimated the magnitude of decadal scale variability. But not the conclusion that the last 50 years was exceptionally warm. In relation to the other work it *DID* underestimate the variability, but we dont know what the real temperature trace was- hence my use of the term *MAY*.
Balance is always welcome Space!
Now come on – time for the truth to out.
Are you Princess Leia , Han Solo or Luke Skywalker in drag?
Jim – Luke isn’t that smart – he thinks PC1 is about political correctness. Space could be a real hottie Jim – have you been out with a warmer before? Surely hot is better than cold?
No but the coldies contrariness is a real turn on.
When’s Jen back…..????
I guess anything better than a date with a denialist.
You guys need to move up – this thread is sinking – come and fight about thermodynamic nonsense.
See you there.