“Just suppose, if you are able, that significant man-made climate change is false; further, that it cannot happen, and that all changes to the climate system are due to external forcings, such as those caused by changes in solar output. Just suppose all this is true for the sake of argument.
“Now put yourself in the place of a climatologist, one of the many hundreds, in fact, who was involved with the IPCC and so shared in that great validator, the Nobel Peace Prize.
“You have spent a career devoted to showing that mankind, through various forms of naughtiness, has significantly influenced the climate, and has caused temperatures to grow out of control. Your team, at a major university, has built and contributed to various global climate models. Graduate students have worked on these models. Team members have traveled the world and lectured on their results. Many, many papers were written about their output, and so forth…”
I am quoting Statistician William M. Briggs** who explores this issue by considering four different alternatives for today’s climatologists:
1. Abandon the model and seek a new career
2. Discover where the model went wrong; publish results admitting why and how you were wrong
3. Sit and wait: after all, the temperature is bound to increase sooner or later, hence validating your model
4. Believe that the model cannot be wrong, else so many people wouldn’t believe it, and so posit some new source that is “holding back” warming, and only if that new source weren’t there, your model would be perfect.
Read more here: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/28/is-climatology-a-pseudoscience/
———————-
** Is climatology a pseudoscience?
January 28th, 2008
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
And you will see in the comments at William’s blog that a fifth option has been added by a Robert Burns:
“Assume the model is correct and claim that the obervations are incorrect.”
Doesn’t this topic contravene posting rules?
I thought William Briggs was a statistician ?
Can anyone play?
How about:
What if the Atheists have go it wrong?
What if Santa Claus is real?
What if George W Bush really is a genius?
A quality contribution to raise the standard of debate!
Jennifer just proved her point.
Luke and whoever, you cannot even argue an hypothetical question.
Your minds are simply closed to all if it’s not reinforcing the basic belief.
Must be bliss to live like that, hands to your ears and screaming, “I can’t hear you!”
Yes she sure did for being single minded.
The closed mind concept is a classic comment as you have NOT been reading what I’ve been saying have you. You determined a priori what I said.
So when did you stop beating your wife Marcus? That’s another hypothetical question.
A quality post from a statistician would be a discussion on the significance of trends – but looks like our Briggsy finds politics much easier. All that maths is enough to give you a headache.
And hey how do we know it’s cooling/warming/the same anyway coz I thought all data series had issues, surface record is crap, satellites out of wack, and you can’t construct an average temperature anyway. Can’t have it both ways. I suppose we’d have to hypothetically assume all works well enough that for the purposes of putting the boot in.
droll Luke very droll, but serves me right, should have seen the fleas jumping (laying down etc.)
Luke, SJT,
At an earlier thread I was exploring your idea that one must be a climatologist to comment on the issue of climate change. At the same thread I explained that the IPCC draws on a lot of different expertise including, for example, from biologists because biologists are trained, amongst other things, to understand what might impact the distribution and abundance of plant and animal species and this is of concern to those concerned about climate change and its potential impacts on the environment.
William, the statistician, has made some observations and asked some hypotheticals about global temperature trends. As far as I can see his blog post is well within his expertise.
His writing is also accessible to the generalists who tend to read this blog because he writes in a very easy to understand way and made that post a bit political and teasing.
And on the related issue of comment from non-experts, I have just reviewed Irving L. Janis’s classic book ‘Group Think’ for a forthcoming IPA publication. The book explains that after the Bay of Pigs fiasco President Kennedy changed the way he ran meetings so everyone at meetings was encouraged to comment and discussion issues … experts and non-experts. He also nomiated his brother Robert Kennedy to play the devil’s advocate to reduce the chance of his ‘executive’ coming to a premature consensus on any issue as a consequence of the “concurrence-seeking tendency”.
Aren’t temperature or hurricane trends about statistics? Remember Micheal Mann’s famous words – “I am not a statistician.”
BTW, Should by some chance, the climatologist have got it wrong, and should by some chance Luke and SJT end-up being exposed as climatologists, then based on the discussion at this blog over recent days, it would seem SJT is incline to mistake number 5, while Luke is incline to make mistake numbers 3,4 and 5.
And they are:
3. Sit and wait: after all, the temperature is bound to increase sooner or later, hence validating your model
4. Believe that the model cannot be wrong, else so many people wouldn’t believe it, and so posit some new source that is “holding back” warming, and only if that new source weren’t there, your model would be perfect.
5. Assume the model is correct and claim that the obervations are incorrect
Pseudoscience is unfalsifiable, and in that sense climatology remains until it becomes based on solid empirical data.
In fact it is admitted by weather forecasters that their accuracy is 50% in predicting the short term and that points to flaws in the underlying assumptions of climatology.
In the case of AGW, it has been comprehensively falsified by the serious lack of correlation between surface temperatures and CO2 concentration. It climatology were based on the scientific methods, it’s practitioners would have abandoned the model and sought a better explanation for the observed warming.
That they don’t but make ad hoc adjustments to the hypothesis of AGW, or shift goal posts, counter reasonable argument with ad hominems rather than the issues, all taken together makes climatology a pseudoscience.
But as it is driven by the UN, one of the most corrupt organisations on the planet, in cooperation with most of the world’s governments,aided and abetted by the mindless media makes Voltaire’s comment “It is dangerous being about matters on which government is wrong” even more relevant these days.
That’s just your confirmation bias kicking in Jen and I can see you were good at stats too.
I thought scientists formed serious hypotheses and tested them. You’re not parametrically adaptive are you?
If in 10 years time (barring massive volcanism) the temperature trend is not upwards there’s something seriously wrong. The end.
In the case that it is upwards and 2018 is warmer than 2019 you dudes will be saying cooling started in 2018. That’s your level of stats.
Oh yea – err Louis – utter utter incomprehensible drivel!
“I am quoting Statistician William M. Briggs”
Jennifer: What a waste of time compared to this guy –
http://fennerschool.anu.edu.au/people/visitors/richardsg.php
Hi all,
My name is William Briggs, and I’m the guy quoted. Just thought I’d give you some bona fides, especially for those who enjoy a good Appeal to Authority.
I am a statistician: Ph.D. Cornell. My topic was forecast evaluation. My masters is in Atmospheric Science, also Cornell, with a topic on how to use climate forecasts. My Bachelors was Meteorology, and I actually spent a year as a weather forecaster for the National Weather Service.
I am on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability & Statistics Committee; I am also an Associate Editor of Monthly Review; I regularly review (peer review) articles for all the major weather and climate journals.
I have a paper about to appear in the Journal of Climate on hurricanes (tropical storms), showing they have probably not increased in number or intensity. I just gave a talk at the Annual Meeting of the AMS, where all the bigwigs go, on an expanded version of this model: talk got a good reception.
I have published many theoretical and practical papers on how to best look at forecasts: generally, if forecasts do poorly, it is right to question their underlying models; if they do well, then, while you can still question the underlying models, it gives more evidence that they underlying models are adequate physical explanations. Climate models, at this data, anyway, are not yet making skillful forecasts.
Oh, yes. The IPCC also has several “just statisticians.”
Well, just thought I help out those who might wonder about my qualifications.
Briggs
What was that sound?
I think it was Gavin being shot down in flames
(Quick Luke go and help)
So how come you’ve entered political and mischief la la land instead of telling us the significance or otherwise of the current global and regional trends. Do you have enough data to pronounce that “it’s all over (highly likely)” or are you just hypothesising? How do you statistically separate the various forcings and a certain level of internal variability?
Luke,
Your questions are excellent. But first let me ask you: what makes you qualified to ask them?
I don’t actually expect, or even desire, an answer. In fact, I think all arguments that begin or end with, “That guy isn’t qualified” to be logical fallacies. Arguments should be evaluated on their merits and on nothing else.
I do not have enough data to claim “it’s all over.” I also do not claim that man-made changes to his environment are impossible: I argue instead that it is impossible for mankind not to cause changes (see my site for What is the Environment). The only question is: by how much?
The best work so far on forecast verification that is readily understandable is by Roger Pielke, at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/ Look for his post on “Updated IPCC Forecasts vs. Observations.” I’m working on this, too, but at the journal-paper level: I’ll simplify it as soon as I can. I have already done so with tropical storms (you can see my site and papers).
Pielke’s work is only a fragment, however, as you’ll note that his data only start at 1990 (well, they couldn’t have started earlier because this is when the IPCC started forecasting). But it begins to answer your last question: how to you measure variability? It is a horribly complicated questions and nobody knows the complete answer.
What you cannot do is just start at some late date, like, say, the 1980s, and look at temperatures from there. You have to look as far back as it possible, even into millions of years before. Best accessible plot I have seen on this is Fig. 1 of this paper http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf
My only claim, which I can back up, is that forecasts made from climate models are, at this point, too certain: the error bounds, the pluses and minuses, are too small. This is an observed fact. To make correct decisions based on climate model output (another statistical subject) requires knowing these error bounds. Since the error bounds are provably wrong, there is high likelihood of making incorrect decisions.
Well, that’s the gist.
Briggs
Oh I’m not qualified – I cheated the questions off SJT when he wasn’t looking. Plus now and gain you have to say something quasi-intelligent to people who really make decisions so it’s always interesting to know what real scientists think about trends.
And I only know a little bit about seasonal forecast skill – LEPS, ROCS and perhaps non-parametric tests on frequency distributions so it’s always good to find out from real statisticians what the go is.
So anyway be all that as it may – you seem to be saying it’s perhaps premature to be hypothesising on your points 1-4 above. Perhaps just egging on Jen and the guys when you’re not sure. I guess you have to keep hope alive for them.
I think with forecasts though you have to neither care nor uncare what the result is. And no modifying your position halfway through.
“What IF The Climatologist’s Have Got it Wrong?”
If? IF?!! I think you’re giving the global warming deceivers too much credit.
The whole topic is a smear. As has been pointed out already, “How long have you been beating your wife” should be one of options in that tawdry list.
“Your model has predicted that temperatures will go up because CO2 has, but unfortunately temperatures have gone down. Do you:”
What if you are a climate sceptic. What if you were convinced that temperatures would go down, but they have gone up.
Would you.
1. Cherry pick a few years, and claim they have gone down.
2. Go to point 1.
WM: Anyone who works through AMS gets a nod from me and thanks for dropping in
Q: “how to you measure variability?”
A: At the source, but you must have faith in your primary instrument.
We got ahead in the rough stuff with primary sensors when innovations like “force balance” were employed. Dealing with surges is something industry does well today. A lot of good design goes back to the space race era.
Numerical models are just models. There may never be enough climate data for stats on events yet to happen.
Interesting article. The philosopher of science Imre Lakatos described quite well the sort of situation where scientists engage in negative heuristic to protect a research program under threat. Of course, Kuhn, while mostly wrong, covered some of the same ground in his description of normal science under attack.
Its looking more and more like global warming was the greatest hysterical epidemic of recent times. Have a look at Elaine Showalter’s book Hystories: Hysterical Epidemics and Modern Media, for an interesting discussion of the social processes involved in the creation and growth of such epidemics. The processes described are very relevant to the global warming meme.
I’ll be interested to see how long Luke and SJT keep on the bandwagon in the light of mounting evidence against the simplistic global warming story. Will they fight on, or go quiet and slink away.
“or go quiet and slink away.”
If only?
Look at the history. Take temperature trend between the previous El Nino, and the next La Nina. It’s a decrease every time. The trendline, however, is clearly up.
Well Quacker – as I commented the other day – who exactly is hysterical? Are people rioting in the streets and talking in tongues. Has most of the world done anything – looks like business as usual to me? So this is manufactured astro-turf hysteria by evil denialists and vested interests really.
There may be “mounting evidence” against AGW – or perhaps there may not be … I wouldn’t be counting chickens till they’re hatched. There is simply not enough data to make any pronouncements on the current statis. A trend or a wiggle – we’ll see won’t we?
And William Briggs himself above said – he doesn’t have enough data to say “it’s over” either. Note well.
What we can say is that we have had a considerable warming of the Earth with no apparent other driver than CO2. And that the CO2 explanation is more than simple correlation – based on the physics of the gases involved.
So science should be most interested in this issue.
Even without AGW – humanity’s vulnerability to climate extremes is ongoing. It’s not just a new AGW issue.
I still look forward to someone informing us how globally wonderful the MWP was away from Europe.
Hello Luke
I’d agree that in longer (geological) time frames there is a challenge for humans in terms of climate change … but it will be cooling that is the problem, not warming.
Interesting that your mantra has morphed from warming to climate extremes in general.
If the solar physicists are correct the most likely problem in the immediate future will be cooling of the order of the little ice age. This will be a challenge, particularly in terms of food production in Europe and US.
On Hysteria, read the book and see what Showalter is talking about before jumping to conclusions that it is about rioting in the streets.
William – “My only claim, which I can back up, is that forecasts made from climate models are, at this point, too certain: the error bounds, the pluses and minuses, are too small. This is an observed fact. To make correct decisions based on climate model output (another statistical subject) requires knowing these error bounds. Since the error bounds are provably wrong, there is high likelihood of making incorrect decisions.”
If as you say the climate models are uncertain then that also means that you cannot be certain that dangerous climate change will NOT happen. You are bound by the same constraints.
As a statistician of your obvious standing you would be very used to calculating risk. You cannot forecast the future with any computer model just as you cannot predict the performance of an aircraft 100% from numeric modelling. In the case of aircraft a prototype is always built to assess the quality of the numeric modelling and make sure the design in sound in the real world.
In the case of the Earth we do not have that luxury. We can however, recognising the current state of computer models, at least define the paths that the future earths climate might take given certain inputs. From this we can assess the risk that the Earths climate will enter these states.
Given the real nature of the risks surely it is stupid and blind to proceed as we are without some action to reduce these risks. I gather you are not denying the link between greenhouse gases and climate forcings. You only problem seems to be that you think that people think that computer models can predict the future exactly and are relying on them too much to shape future actions.
I am sure that you are right about that however in my opinion you are wrong about the over reliance on computer models. Most climate scientists that I have read are very aware of model limitations and do not regard them as oracles. It is only really the popular press that mistake computer models for reality.
As far as I have been able to glean from my research we are not proceeding on this low carbon path because a computer model tells us we are all doomed from climate change. We are proceeding because a group of climate scientists from studying the science of the atmosphere and then doing experiments in computer models have assessed that there is a RISK that the future climate of the Earth will be affected by our emission of greenhouse gases.
The scientists are not infallible and may well be wrong. The computer models are uncertain and they may well be wrong. They may be unknown feedbacks in the Earth’s atmosphere that we know nothing about. However you at the moment cannot be 100% certain that greenhouse emissions will not cause climate change. To say such a thing would completely contradict your whole article of uncertainty. If you cannot say 100% that there is no chance of future climate change then the probability of it is non-zero and therefore must be addressed while we are not sure.
Basically my position is prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Your position seems to be prepare for the best and hope for the best. This path is usually the one that leads to disaster if things do not turn out exactly as you hope.
I would rather hear of your efforts using your impressive qualifications on assessing the risks. The piece you wrote does not match with your qualifications and standing in the climate community.
Just filing this link here: http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/01/the_seven_signs_of_pseudoscien.php
Luke – “There is simply not enough data to make any pronouncements on the current statis.”
Couldnt agree more Luke.
Well done mate.
Hey all, little old layman me again. I’ll try to be nice.
Thanks again, Jennifer, Paul and Neil for a blog that brings science to us dreary old drulls in a fashion that we can understnad. (Suck job finished)
As I’ve said before, the time is well truly now to show results, not the continual backdown and movements. Runaway CO2 temperature forcing now to Greenhouse gas, AGW to climate change, revisions down from the hysterical to the absurd or defensible with a bit of luck.
As I’ve mentioned before in a previous life I used to lend money to business. It was a very unusual day, in which money was given on predictions and even a rarer day, when the working capital and money for R&D was given continually without a tangible or a bankable as we used to call it in the game being seen for over decade.
Whe I first came to this blog years and years ago I asked a question on sea levels, as the melting of the icecaps and the death and displacement of millions of bangladeshis, not to mention the poor old dutch haveing to raise a whole country 20 to 70 feet seemed a big issue.
There is no runaway heat effect and the dutch appear quite comfortable and have not been buying earth from other countries (bloody practical lot the dutch, in their arrogance they want sea level measures and other things). The bangladeshis are staying put.
14 years of working capital and money on R&D, if this was my file I’d have been moved on, in any business lending scenario, probably very politely sacked as a nice chap but not up to the game.
Sea levels rising and runaway temperatures were the assumptions. Not news media organisation politicising the weather or climate for headlines.
I claim absolutely no scientific credentials but as a high risk bank manager and sometime auditor. My bullshit detector is screaming.
regards to the common sense practical here and my respect to the converted/faithful and their new gods and goddesses, may Gaia’s pax be upon thee and thine, I always respect other people’s culture and religions.
How many scientist’s threw the basic science rules out the window, probably thousands.
Jen – are you actually presenting an alternative viewpoint in that link? I’ve just scraped my jaw off the floor and have had a Bex. 🙂 Wow !
“Sea levels rising and runaway temperatures were the assumptions.” were they ?
“the time is well truly now to show results”
Why’s that – coz you’re impatient? Why would now exactly be the time.
It would be most extraordinary if we had all drowned or fried at this early stage.
So did you base your financial advice on gossip, hearsay and personal opinion or a well researched position?
I suggest you don’t like the mooted policy responses so shooting the science is the next illogical emotional step.
The premise of this blost, is What if the Climatologists got it it wrong.
If they ignored or minimised solar forcings they got it wrong.
If they ignored or minimised Volcanic and Geology they got it wrong.
If they ignored or minimised effects of the solar system and cosmic radiations and gravitations effects and the planetary rotation and axis wobble they got it wrong.
If they ignored or simplified most of the planet’s hydrology they got it wrong.
If they ignored or minimised planetary history they got it wrong.
If they only went with CO2 as a part of the atmosphere without anything else or the rest minimised they got it wrong.
In other words if they tried to simpifly such a complex system to one very small effect or goup of effects they got it wrong.
Hey but I’m a layman, who has been reading on science since I was four or five, hardly studied.
But as a mathmatician with some multivariable calculus, I know such things as big and small and even understand sets and subsets and elements.
My dad used to tell me Fairy Stories, Peter and the Wolf and Chicken Little and he told me from a young age the world is mad. He was right.
IMO.
Pollution, scarce resources, a whole lot of things to discuss, but the sky is burning lol.
The timelines of your religion were urgent, 10 years twenty years and now a hundred years, your religion is the one changeing the baselines. Not me.
Choose your baseline again, mate.
We should be able to see evidence, this is not a religious discussion.
You have had 14 years some proof please, and no polar bear interviews please, I dont speak bear.
From one single assumption, CO2 driving heat upwards in a runaway effect.
the one thing this original article fails to mention and it’s attachments, utilising doom research for thousands of catastrophic scenarios, mosquiotes in the arctic circle bring malaria to eskimos and so on, vultures eating polar bears .
Cherry picking events and then research into all possible doom scenarios, it’s like rolling every hOllywood doom movie to mask the original assumption, the potential doom industry.
It’s like Michael Crichton on steroids and ecstasy.
You couldn’t write half that stuff without making it a best seller for a novel.
That’s all for me.
Thanks Jen Paul and Neil for alternative points of view.
Just filing this link here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001320pachauri_on_recent_c.html
Jennifer a link.
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23131963-31037,00.html
There are hell of a lot of analysts that are watching this debate, not climate scientists.
The persons with the model must prove veracity.
Because the model predicts results and investment is reliant upon it.
This is not a pleasant little scientific conundrum.
On a personal note my last job in banking was in the dot boom era, I said it was crap and left banking, (for many reasons other than this) but I was asked and I said that was crap, lending money and buying stuff against mouse clicks.
A doctor can’t tell you that if you smoke, you will get cancer. Still a good idea not to smoke.
A doctor can’t tell an alarmist that if he eats his bran he still won’t be full of it!! Still a good idea to eat your bran.
Semantic bullshit, I did not propose AGW theory, it’s your theory/belief. I did not say or ever say the poles would melt, causing masses of refugees. I have never argued a 6 degree celsius potential global warming or .6 of a metre, 20 foot or 100 foot sealevel rises. I have never revised my position.
I have not demanded that world change it’s energy policies at whatever cost to economies.
I did not lecture / terrorise children on the potentials of a theory unproven, now seemingly overstated originally and reinterpreted for data as it emerges. I also have never said that man can’t influence environment, downtown Beiging and LA on a bad day are testament to this.
It’s not my theory.
Neither of these are not even a real arguments in sybolic logic. We are not talking eating brains nor have I proposed Neanderthalic ritual as some spurious red herring argument. We are not discussing smoking either, this is as stupid as Rupert Murdoch pontificating about insurance, I dont my insure property against an elephant falling on my roof.
I wonder if he has ever bothered to insure any of his corporate entities against paranormal brainwave attacks by psychic mediums doing corporate espionage, this was once a scientific theory too.
It is up to the theorist and modeller to prove on the timelines proposed with the data now existant not continually changing the theorem ad nauseum, especially with such dramatic futuristic doom scenarios proposed.
In short Mark and SJT the onus of proof falls on you and the UN IPCC and not on a never ending continual revisonary basis either. It’s your theory.
As a Lay person I am quite within my rights if you are asking me to change my lifestyle at your direction for some proof, not half smart comments or being ignored.
John V K,
If you are not convinced by the science that’s fine. But really, who cares what you think.
You have no position and no substance to add other than “everyone has to convince me before we do anything”. If you don’t want to change your lifestyle, don’t. No one will care, it’s not about you.
Proof only exists in Mathematics.
What’s the stats on roughage in roughage out?
Jennifer: Re your ‘Island of Doubt” link above I had thought of using my “Gun for Hire” tag again in this thread but considered it likely it’s obvious to many that we have MM pulling the trigger.
JVK: “not to mention the poor old dutch haveing to raise a whole country 20 to 70 feet seemed a big issue” Mate: have you never worked with refugees from Holland? One of my job cobber’s drank a bottle of gin every night. On Bangladeshis; those that can, move. Also the clever ones move to high ground downunder.
“We should be able to see evidence” How do you treat your fuel gauge?
Ahh we all carry a dip stick! Now let’s have the stats on the number of motorists who are bound to run out of fuel in some future decade.
Actually if you ask people to pay money you provide some service or a product, that’s life, even for scientists, unless you are a con man flim flam or a stand over merchant.
Actually Gavin a dip stick is appropriate, show me the ocean’s rising. 1 cm 10 cms or a metre anything.
Mr T why should I pay for what you fantasise and can’t prove at any level of certainty. I don’t care what you think, I want your proof.
It’s not about what I think, it’s about what you have to prove, you are the proponents, after all the hype.
same tactics.
John VK,
No no one has to prove it to YOU. You are irrelevant. You are over exaggerating your importance in this matter. No one proved it to me, I took the time to read papers on it.
And it’s not up to me to prove it to you, it’s someone else’s theory. Take it up with them.
First thing you should do is educate yourself, you claim you know nothing about it. You seem to be wearing ignorance as a badge. Rather than moaning that no one will teach you, why don’t you take responsibility for your own education.
If you don’t do that, you’re going to labelled a Troll.
JVK: “a dip stick is appropriate”
John: It just happens that I sent some recent pics to Jen that I believe illustrate my point the sea is gradually rising and certainly not falling. The sea is high enough now to carry storm surges inland in places where they haven’t been for ages. Slow? Sure otherwise the Melbourne port authorities would have no need to dredge the bay.
While looking for the historic tide gauge at Williamstown I found this official update
http://www.icsm.gov.au/icsm/tides/SP9/sp9.pdf
Anyone interested in Do Your Own Sea Level monitoring can likewise find a shallow bottomed bay protected from ocean surges and check the most recent high tide. The area round the Port of Melbourne is ideal with a daily max / min just point 7 m diff.
Gavin,
Your storm surges are not that far removed from daily weather, they are not proof of climate behaviour.
Re your photo’s; time of day,month,year,tide, recent rainfall events,surge,swell,and other variables need to be taken into account before you can make such a statement with any certainty.
Jen,
Thanks for putting forward this hypothetical. It makes a nice contrast against the IPCC hypotheticals (scenario’s)that are often discussed here.
Speaking of which, it is intereesting how the IPCC scenario’s have morphed into predictions. This is not just in the media but very much in the peer reviewed literature.
In my own school, within one of our larger national universities, there is a great deal of research being conducted into the impacts that ‘climate change’ may have on this country. The starting point for many researchers is an IPCC worst case scenario. What gets published is a direct reflection of the selected climate scenario.
Unfortunately the media is only too quick to report another worst case scenario and will quickly dismiss any claims by the researchers invloved to present a more balanced argument.
The four hypotherticals are often discussed within the school, Pehaps not in the exact context as presented here, but certainly in the intent of the hypothetical to introduce a greater degree of rigour to science, not just climate science.
Models are used in almost every every area of science these days and I think tha it is good practice to sit back from time to time and reflect on the what it is that our models are attempting to represent and how well they are doing so. It is very easy to become caught up in the detail and become removed from the reality.
I agree with those who find presentations like that found here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/
to present a mere caricature of science. The application of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and Kirchoff black body relations to the earth are pointlessly inaccurate. The formulae were created from and for plane solids at constant temperature(“Thermal Physics”, Kittel and Kroemer, chapter 4).
Applied to gases the intent is insidious; to covertly insert an impossibly large value for the emissivity of the GHG CO2 and create the fantasy of ‘back-radiation’.
In the near future the Boeotian shibolleth ‘peer-reviewed’ will be turned on its head and all of their work will require double-blind review by professional physicists, mathematicians and statisticians. Or perhaps that has begun?
He says quite explicitly he was trying to present a model that the average punter could understand.
If you want a more complex dissertation try this.
A free online textbook.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html
Let me know where he gets it wrong.
Luke
You may not be interested in addressing John, but you, & the pollys had better get interested in addressing the rest of us mate.
You will not find us like the poms, who appear to have rolled over with their 15% rise in power bills. They may not, of course still behave that way with the projected 45% rise to come
It may be different when they get the cost of ths 16 billion pounds they have been told to spend on useless wind generators, by the EU. That will fix any chance they had of competing with the rest of Europe.
I have always found it interesting that the poms have been winning wars against the Gremans, & the French, for centuries, but have yet to find how to win the peace against them.
I think you will find the aussies will get quiet militant long before it gets that far here. So, you had best get used to explaining your proof, if you want to see your ridicules dream come to pass, here, & if you aint got nun, give up now, before you get hurt.
P67: “It is very easy to become caught up in the detail and become removed from the reality”
Much of what I write is aimed at discovering someone’s perception and practical ability in any field of measurement.
It was once my job to trouble shoot industrial measurement and control. Building references was another. It also included a lot of labs and research support in a variety of fields. Commissioning new systems for project managers was frequent enough to learn how to get along with design faults. One soon learns how to trust particular teams. I spent a lot of time chatting to technical counterparts who regularly staffed our Antarctic expeditions.
Hasbeen: “I think you will find the aussies will get quiet militant long before it gets that far here”
One worst case scenario I consider is we will all pedal our cars to work rather than give over the privilege of independence
Pandanus67,
Thanks for your comments.
I recommend you read Aynsley Kellow’s new book ‘Science and Public Policy’ – I imagine it would be in your university library. Published just last year.
It has a lot about the limitations of modeling and also the history of their ‘development’ begining with Wilson and May trying to develop some general ecological theories. The book goes on to discuss climate science as ‘post-normal’ science.
“Models are used in almost every every area of science these days and I think tha it is good practice to sit back from time to time and reflect on the what it is that our models are attempting to represent and how well they are doing so. It is very easy to become caught up in the detail and become removed from the reality.”
If you read the IPCC report, there is a lot in there about observed changes in the world that back up the models. I don’t know why there is this idea that it’s only models. Scientists are, on average, pretty clever people, and don’t make such obvious mistakes that someone on the internet can come up with the bleeding obvious that they somehow forgot.
Jennifer: “The book goes on to discuss climate science as ‘post-normal’ science”
There is quite a lot on the concept of “Post Normal Science” in relation to “Climate Change”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science
“Climate change is happening, but it appears that science is split on what to do about it. One of the central reasons why there is disagreement about how to tackle climate change is because we have different conceptions of what science is, and with what authority it speaks – in other words, how scientific “knowledge” interacts with those other realms of understanding brought to us by politics, ethics and spirituality”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
Let’s say it this way. There will never be enough evidence for some. Just think of smoking, AIDS and certain chemicals.
Gavin, I suggest you also read the book. It has nothing to do with what one should do about ‘climate change’ as you suggest, rather the book includes a discussion of the history of the development of modelling in climate science.
This debate is completely nonsensical. Fossil fuel availability is likely to ration demand and restrict emissions into the future in any case. As the cheap and abundant oil runs out, you’ll have no choice but to reduce carbon emissions.
I find it rather disturbing that the nation’s think tanks are so proactive in creating dialogue on the issue of climate change and whether it exists, yet when it comes to the availability of such a key resource such as the hydrocarbon group, there is not a whisper of debate brought into the public domain. Whats going on Jen? You have to live in this unfolding world as well …
Well I think this little comment is indicative of the pure scum we’re dealing with
““I think you will find the aussies will get quiet militant long before it gets that far here. So, you had best get used to explaining your proof, if you want to see your ridicules dream come to pass, here, & if you aint got nun, give up now, before you get hurt.”
So much for new 2008 blog standards. Ha !
So Hasbeen is now going to take me out? Wow.
And what ridiculous dream might I be peddling Hasbeen?
What pure vile scum our Hasbeen is and the comment just left run.
So the Guardian state thats “Climate change is happening”. Takes us right back to the core dishonesty of the alarmists who are STILL trying to push the lie that in the past the climate was a static optimum but naughty humans have managed to end this state of climate nirvana. Get over it folks! Yep the climate changes! Always has, always will!
(Oh and John, I’m on your side – I was mocking SJT!)
Aaron, I’ve always been interested in the basics… basic data about the real ‘state’ of the world around us. I can’t say I know very much about the hydrocarbon group and suspect it would be of limited interest to me. And in the scheme of things I am not sure how much more important it would be.
Jennifer, your comment above is surprising – but be that as it may.
You may however consider the depletion of some of the rare-earth elements (i.e. indium / gallium) that are currently used in telecommunications, LED lights, batteries, and the high end solar panels, as a much more important issue vis-a-vis sustainability of the current and proposed future world-state.
The fact that at current use there is less than 10 years supply in the world of some of these elements is one of my beefs with some of the “alternate” energy or use of energy solutions. The proposed solutions are just not sustainable on a large scale. And you can take this one to the bank…
cheers
Arnost
“Look at the history. Take temperature trend between the previous El Nino, and the next La Nina. It’s a decrease every time. The trendline, however, is clearly up.
Posted by: SJT at January 30, 2008 09:23 AM”
That is because there have been far more el-Ninyo’s than La-ninya’s.The last few decades.
What trendline are you referring to?
Fair enough Jen! Did you hear that piece on PM yesterday where they were spruiking US$200/barrel oil by year’s end. Be mindful that price rises of this magnitude will certainly follow with ‘rationing’. That is a different world … Surprising someone so incredibly smart is so apparently ignorant of how important cheap oil (and its guaranteed supply) is to the current global program we are running. Rather alarming actually … Just remember one thig Jen. You can’t eat data 😉 Thats my rant for the next month … I wonder where the oil and wheat price will be by then?
Luke
Your self-absorption, & imagination are immense. Why would I threaten you, rather than some other peanut in the pack.
Let me assure you, you are quite safe from me. In fact, I would not cross the road to “take you out”, or to do the other thing, if you were on fire.
I will continue to ignore your posts, as I have for some time. I don’t know why I read this one, unless it was because I had noticed, & enjoyed, your absence for some time.
I may be excused for wondering if you had developed any savvy, during that period.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2008/2008012826149.html
More interesting news. And actual science this time.
Jen,
Thanks for the reference to Aynsley Kellow’s book I’ll look for it next time in the library.
I’ve had the fun and/or misfortune to be involved in modelling for the last ten years or so. Biometric models mostly with occasional forays into probablistic models.
The question of how well our models fit the reality is vital for anyone who builds a model, regardless of what type, field or level of complection. Unfortunatley over the last 10 years or so much science has relied on modelling for results due in part to funding constraints. It is often less costly to model something and gain some insights into its inner workings than it is to empirically test it. Sad but true.
The Peter Principle.n
And why do we need to model in the first place?
In my specific area of expertise, mining, we model mineral deposits in a spatial sense in order to design 3D mining schemes: we are engineers in other words.
Academic modelling is another matter – and should be quarantined in academica until some utility is perceived in their application.
An eminent ecologist, Professor Charles Krebs, has made some pungent comments on modelling. Those interested should see p.231 in ‘Australia Burning: Fire Ecology, Policy & Management Issues’, editors Geoffrey Cary, David Lindenmayer and Stephen Dovers (2003). He speaks of sand foundations, and nice coloured lines on screens that are believed by policy makers. He calls the situation ‘crazy’. He is right.
Wow – well in Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution & Abundance. 2nd Edition, Charles goes on about the logistic growth curves, predator-prey equations and Leslie Matrix population growth modelling method. Bit o’ the ol’ modelling.
So the old boy must have recanted. Shouldn’t have studied the bastard then. I just chucked the book.
So there you go Brown Sell-out Davey (& old codger).
Luke, You shouldn’t have chucked the book out. There is a place for that sort of modelling, for example, in estimating the distribution and abundance of various pest species in crops.
I didn’t really. I was just razzing Davey.
I’m going to tell Charley …