We should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: “At our present level of ignorance, we think we know…,” John Christy.
Read John Christy’s viewpoint article on the BBC News Website:
No consensus on IPCC’s level of ignorance
Read an alternative view from Martin Parry on the BBC News website:
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Bit rich John talking about ignorance. He and Spencer spent years telling people the world was cooling (based on their faulty MSU record), then said it wasn’t warming (based on corrections to the still faulty MSU record), then said it wasn’t warming much (based on yet more corrections to the still faulty MSU record), then said well its not warming enough to worry about (based on yet more corrections to the still faulty MSU record), and now they have probably got most the glitches out and the MSU and shows lots of warming, he writes that we should be more concerned with poverty in Africa than about global warming.
A couple of points from Christie’s article which is actually quite a good. We actually do need people such as Christie, who is still a functioning scientist, to maintain a contrasting viewpoint as this is healthy for climate science.
However there is one point that I would disagree:
” The observations seem to fit right in the middle of the model band, implying that models are formulated so capably and completely that they can reproduce the past very well.”
From what I have read of climate modelling, and Christie is not a modeller, he has really got this pretty wrong. Models are not predictors of the future they are experiments. Modellers play with parameters to reproduce observations. The science is in why these parameters have to be set to the values they are to achieve agreement with observation. For instance if you remove the CO2 forcing parameter from all the models then the output in nothing like what is observed.
Christie is trying to say that modellers alter parameters to make the models conform to observation, and this is the science – making models behave as if they are a computer game. He really should know better as computer models are used in all branches of science and only in climate science is this criticism raised.
Finally there is this statement:
“Don’t misunderstand me.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2’s radiation properties.
However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.
The best advice regarding scientific knowledge, which certainly applies to climate, came to me from Mr Mallory, my high school physics teacher.
He proposed that we should always begin our scientific pronouncements with this statement: “At our present level of ignorance, we think we know…”
Good advice for the IPCC, and all of us. ”
For what it is worth I totally agree with Christie here. We are very ignorant however there is evidence that alarming changes are happening in the key observations. It would seem that John is down playing the observed changes in SSTs, the troposphere, the stratosphere and the Poles. True they are not alarming to North Americans yet however they are pretty alarming to the people that live in the Polar regions.
John view seems to be that greenhouse gases are causing a problem but the benefits of fossil fuels outweigh the risks. Basically he is saying that we have no idea what we are doing so we should continue to barrel on at full speed and hope for the best despite our admitted ignorance.
My view is that yes fossil fuels have brought many benefits and I sit here typing at one right at the moment. However like anything there is always a downside, Greeks bearing gifts etc. To ignore the damage that emissions could possibly do to our planet is just compounding the ignorance that Christie writes about. Being ignorant should not be an excuse for inaction – in fact it should be a rallying call to do something.
We can maintain the advantages that fossil fuels bring as there are acceptable alternatives available that can replace the necessary amount of fossil fuels. We do not have to stop all CO2 emissions just scale them back to under 30% of what they are today. We have to replace oil as transport fuel anyway which should account for a lot of the emission reduction as oil as a cheap and easy resource will not last long. Renewables such as wind and CSP are perfectly able to take up the load as long as we meet them halfway by wasting less.
BTW in saying this I don’t think that he will be releasing a paper saying CO2 does not cause warming unless he has a very short memory.
IIRC, the IPCC reports are full of qualifications about the level of understanding and certainty. These are routinely used to by deniers to deride the science.
David – get up to speed. The ‘error’ was 0.035C, which was within the quoted margin for error of 0.05C.
I’d be more worried about the potential for much larger errors in the near surface record.
Paul you are wrong. The MSU record back in the late 1990s had a cooling of around -0.05C/decade. It is now +0.14C/decade. That is a change of +0.19C/decade or 400% from the origional values. It still suffers stratospheric contamination, but is probably in the ball park of the truth. That is one pretty impressive track record – NOT.
I’m referring to the published data, the Mears and Wentz reponse, and the Christy/Spencer reply. There is no catastrophe evident in the troposphere data. Version 6.0 is very un-exciting.
As I pointed out, the near surface global average temperature data is a very flawed metric.
In the US the GISS data has been adjusted so that 1998 and 1934 now tie as the warmest year. NOAA reckon 2006 is the warmest year in the US.
It’s a good game involving fractions of a degree and fractions of 0.1 degree , but it doesn’t tell us the cause.
Paul Biggs – “As I pointed out, the near surface global average temperature data is a very flawed metric.”
Says who??? The surface temperature record is quite reliable. You are just spouting MacIntyre’s new wedge issue.
Says peer reviewed science. I like your phrase ‘quite reliable.’
The ‘illustrious’ members of the synthesis report core writing team are here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/meet/session25/inf5.pdf
Looks as though Mickey Mouse was too busy making a movie to participate.
“The ‘illustrious’ members of the synthesis report core writing team are here:”
OK, I’m missing something here.
What is your point?
They seem to be chosen by country rather than expertise.
>As I pointed out, the near surface global average temperature data is a very flawed metric.
Paul put up the evidence. NASA/GISS analyses for the US are irrelevant. Responsibility for analysing US temperatures lies with NCDC/NOAA who have not made any changes nor had an error. They also show 1998 to be the warmest year on record for the US (which is a tiny fraction of the globe anyway).
The global surface warming (post 1979) is running at 0.15 to 0.20 C/decade statistically identical to estimates from satellites. This warming is exactly consistent with IPCC projections since the early 1990s, and is a massive rate of warming.
BUT, lets not digress. The simple fact is that Christy has repeatedly made unambiguous statements about the accuracy of his own data (and continues to do so) despite the fact that his analyses have now changed by a massive 400%. This is a mathematically fact documented in numerous scientific.
Last sentence should read (clumsy fingers)…
This is a mathematical fact documented in numerous scientific papers.
“They seem to be chosen by country rather than expertise.”
You can tell that by reading that one document? I’ll conceded there are some Australians on that list, but we aren’t completely stupid.
“The simple fact is that Christy has repeatedly made unambiguous statements about the accuracy of his own data (and continues to do so) despite the fact that his analyses have now changed by a massive 400%. This is a mathematically fact documented in numerous scientific.”
Why no cries of “Where’s Christy” from the climate audit camp?
Ender
With respect but you do not unerstand the issues.
Computer modelling is simply getting electronic machines to compute trillions of calculations to compute a result.
The intellectual work in framing the model is entirely another matter. Computers are simply number crunchers and nothing else.
All Climate models, without exception, assume a climate forcing that increasing CO2 into the atmospere increases it’s temperature (of what is another matter). This is inbuilt into all computer models by definition.
So the climate computer models you rely on are designed to show global warming (and not climate change since the computer programmers are not that dumb) and its only the degree of warming that is debated.
errr nope …. you haven’t got a clue.
Louis – “All Climate models, without exception, assume a climate forcing that increasing CO2 into the atmospere increases it’s temperature (of what is another matter). This is inbuilt into all computer models by definition.”
I guess then that computer models that model black holes should not have inbuilt into them that gravity attracts or electromagnetism attracts and repels etc. Also of course models that predict the performance of aircraft should not have Bernoulli’s theorem built in.
Luke is correct you do not have a clue.
Ender,
The GCM assume a primary forcing of CO2 that is assumed to drive temperature up. Extra feedback parameters are then added to counter this forcing etc.
This is pure deductive reasoning based on if climate sensitivity is true, then…..
What if the initial assumption of climate forcing is wrong or as Lindzen shows it from first principles to be 1 Kelvin temperature increase for a doubling of CO2.
And black holes do not exist, only inferred from puzzling data, neutron stars cannot exist, and why is the Sun’s internal temperature cooler than its surface which is far cooler than its chromosphere – measured facts. These facts cannot be explained by the standard solar model, so if we haven’t got that right, then how the hell do assume that you can figure out what the sun does to the earth’s climate?
No Ender, it be you and Luke who don’t understand it.
No Louis – GCMs have radiation models but on physics.
Don’t bother running your usual ruses. Heard them all by now.
Here we go again, another classic Luke non sequitur:
“GCMs have radiation models but on physics”
Huh????
sorry – “based on physics”.
Louis don’t you think it is quite remarkable in some respects that one could produce a physically based model of global climate that not only reproduces many aspects of that climate but also a reasonable job of what climate is where.
“Louis don’t you think it is quite remarkable in some respects that one could produce a physically based model of global climate that not only reproduces many aspects of that climate but also a reasonable job of what climate is where.”
No, not in the least.
Anyone with a half decent maths science degree and good computer knowledge, can make models dance on the head of pin. But if I can also make some dynamic graphics with a rotating globe and plenty of deep red colours to show how bad it is, I can really con the masses.
Also the fact that these people have been able to replicate past climatic conditions is no guarantee that their “forward projections” are anything other than pure guess work.
Well Mally boy I’d like to see an individual with a half decent maths degree come up with a realistic global climate model.
Really I thought you knew a lot more. These sorts of little comments are invaluable in knowing that you’re actually a clueless nitwit. You guys haven’t the foggiest what you’re talking about – becomes clearer every day. (Serious).
Ah, the cretinous and obsessed bloggerant responds in typical fashion.
As an alround know all, just how many main frame based programs/models have you designed and installed Walker.?
How much experience in IT and modelling have you had. What systems experience do you have Walker?
Whilst I may have used some poetic licence in saying any, meaning singular, it is not that hard to build programs/models of size, even if it required a team. My comment still stands.
You can make models dance on the head of pin–meaning, for simpletons like you Walker, that one can make them do exactly what one wants, it only requires effort and MIPS.
The principles are not hard.
Gee dat sounds really complicated Malcolm. I never knew all that. Do you mean you could fit relationships and fudge the results. Wow !
You could contract to the boys and girls at CSIRO and BoM on model validation and attribution. Gee your insights could be invaluable. Maybe you’re a friggin genius.
BTW gramps – MIPS is a bit retro – big in the day of course – they seem to talk teraflops now.
Yep !
… and I knew you would respond to that rather obvious bait as well..providing you knew of course.
So what is it Walker, just what experience have you had and what are your quals.I reckon at least a dozen people have asked you this over the last 3 to 4 years that you have been obsessing out on this blog.
Apart from being unemployed or on the public teat in a sinecure somewhere, just what have you done with our miserabble life that makes you think you are such an expert on everything.
Now dont forget its Monday and you need to start doubling your dose.
and BTW wonder boy..
model validation is all part of the same process of making them “dance on the head of a pin”.. but of course you knew that, and also know how difficult it would be coz you have done hundreds.
model validation is all part of the same process of making them “dance on the head of a pin”.
Is that your expert opinion is it. What a ignoramus. You’re really not that smart are you to make a telling comment as that. Seemed to have all muddled up calibration, parameterisation and validation in that poor old tired head. Off you toddle now – back to the nurses. Bye bye. Careful as you go.
oooo Mally ….