JohnB Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Actually Essay, in the OP I was wondering if setting "climate" as 30 year trends is a good thing or whether it could mislead us. Even in a totally regular warming/cooling cycle the "30 year trend" would be well behind the reality and almost always wrong. I was trying to show that perhaps only looking at 30 year trends could be just as misleading as only looking at any other length trend. Trends should be looked at in context. WRT temps, there has been no trend for the last 10 years, a definite warming trend for the last 30 years and a definite cooling trend for the last 8,000 years. TBH I think that there is more politics than science that goes into trend descriptions. For a science that deals exclusively with a chaotic, non linear system Climatology seems obsessed with drawing straight lines through things. I cannot think of a single valid scientific reason that it is thought to be more accurate to say "We have had warming for 30 years at .11 degrees per decade" than to say "We had warming from 1980-2000 at .16 degrees per decade, but not much has happened since then." Both statements are technically true, but I think the first is misleading as it doesn't reflect the true state of affairs. Constantly!?! Okay, a bit broad brushed there. I was actually thinking of the serial false excuses given by the CRU as to why they could not release their data. Ya, I have a strange view of the world. I happen to think that those who are involved in serial efforts to lie and obfuscate are themselves liars and are not worthy of my respect and trust. I have this really funny notion that people who lie in response to rather basic FOI requests will also lie in other areas.
iNow Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Never once did I claim that those who accept the evidence of human impact on climate are impervious to error or character flaw or lying. One should note, though, that their entire position is neither predicated nor based entirely on those things as it is with those who deny the human impact.
JohnB Posted January 12, 2012 Author Posted January 12, 2012 Never once did I claim that those who accept the evidence of human impact on climate are impervious to error or character flaw or lying. One should note, though, that their entire position is neither predicated nor based entirely on those things as it is with those who deny the human impact. Yah. The thing is that painting with the very broad brush as you did, you placed me squarely into a very insulting position. As I take the opposite view to you then comments like; The sources that are NOT lying to you ALL agree. Mean that you are calling me a liar. I must either agree or be a liar, these are the two options you give. Well I DO disagree and I find the unsubstantiated claim that I'm a liar highly offensive. Similarly Stop listening to the liars and the ignorant and start listening to the sources that demonstrate integrity, coherence, consistency, and a respect for evidence. I would like to think that I have at all times demonstrated "integrity, coherence, consistency, and a respect for evidence". If I have failed in this then please specify where. Otherwise I suggest you retract the comment that I am a liar or ignorant. Similarly The sources that say we can't know, or don't know, or say that the experts are wrong and claim that humans are not the primary cause of the recent changes are making their arguments in bad faith, placing ideology over fact, and letting politics get in the way of evidence and empiricism. They are spinsters... They are lacking integrity and don't correct their positions no matter how often they're shown wrong... They are not representative of those who are informed, nor are they representative of those who are approaching this issue accurately and grounded in reality. As you are well aware I always strive to back up enerything I say with factual peer reviewed literature yet I'm somehow not approaching things accurately and I'm not grounded in reality? Do you really think I'm making my arguments in bad faith? Placing ideology over facts? As for politics getting in the way of evidence I'm not even from your bloody country so I frankly don't give a rats arse about yankee politics. What next? Am I going to be accused of being an Exxon plant? A paid provocateur who gets his cheque every month just for keeping the "Denialist Machine" rolling? That's the problem when you swallow propaganda, you start believing things about people you know, that you know simply aren't true. PS. When I get to your neck of the woods the first tequila is on me and we both promise not to discuss climate until we are able to lie on the floor without holding on. 1
iNow Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 John - I do NOT think you are a liar. I do, however, suggest that you can only hold your position if you have a VERY selective review of the evidence and ignore quite a vast majority of it. When I get to your neck of the woods the first tequila is on me and we both promise not to discuss climate until we are able to lie on the floor without holding on. Now THAT sir sounds like a fantastic plan!
JohnB Posted January 16, 2012 Author Posted January 16, 2012 I do, however, suggest that you can only hold your position if you have a VERY selective review of the evidence and ignore quite a vast majority of it. Strangely enough it's the reverse. To believe some of the things put forward as support for the warmers would require I ignore vast amounts of evidence from other fields. As you're probably aware I've read quite a bit of history, while Pharonic Egypt is my main area I've read a lot of general history covering the rise of Western culture. To take one simple example, the iconic "Hockeystick". People can argue the maths and statistics all they want but there is a simpler and more profound choice here. If the HS and its gentle decrease in temps is correct, then every chronicler and historian for the last 1,000 years has been wrong. Not some of them, but all of them. To accept the HS as reality requires that I accept that chroniclers in the 1500s didn't know in month the first snow fell each year and recorded it incorrectly in their records. "Minoan Warm Period", "Roman Warm Period", Medieval Warm Period", "Little Ice Age", who named these events and why? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't climatologists. These periods got their names because of what the records described as the conditions at the time. A valid argument here is that there weren't thermometers so we don't know what the temps actually were, and this argument (as far as it goes) is correct. We cannot know the temp absolutely, but we can know it relatively. If the chroniclers tell us that in say 1 AD it snowed in London each December but by 100 AD it snowed in London from mid November to mid January, then we can tell that the climate was colder in 100 AD than 1 AD. By 500 AD it snowed from November to the end of January then it was colder still. Now if by 1,000 AD it was back to snowing in London in December only then it must have warmed up again, right? But then the cold came again culminating with the "Ice Fairs" on the Thames river, the last one was in 1825 IIRC. And then it started to warm again coming into the modern period. I've just used London as an example but we have records, very detailed ones, from Europe all the way to China. One of the early Papal instructions was that each Catholic priest was to write a weekly report of the goings on in his area and forward it to Rome. Weekly reports from all Christendom, who was born, who died, who was married, how many sheep were born in a given week, whenthe first frost came. Historians have had access to these records for over 20 years. The various periods were named because of what is contained in the written records from the times. The records tell us that there is a warm/cold cycle that runs on about a 1,000 year period, the paleoclimate reconstructions say that there isn't. You might be able to find 97% of climatologists who agree with the HS, but you won't find any historians that do. So there is the choice. Do you believe the reconstructions and therefore also believe that for at least the last 1,000 years every historian could not even write down correctly what month it snowed in? Or do you accept the historical and archaeological record which means the HS is junk? There is no middle ground on this one. If the reconstructions are wrong, then any model conclusions based on them must be wrong too. Even "but it's based on physics" doesn't cut the mustard. If the model output disagrees with the historical record, then the model must be wrong. (Or incomplete, which I think is a better term) But here is a bit of fun for you. Climate is average weather or pretty close to. If you wanted to know the average weather for a region in the last 4,000 years or so who would you ask? Most people would say an archaeologist or historian depending on region and time period. The fun part is this. Find the historian or archaeologist that has served with any of the IPCC reports. I've always thought it very odd that when writing a report on climate change and its effects on societies the only people not asked to contribute are those who study the effects of climate on societies for a living. So it's not that I ignore evidence, it's that to accept some of the things AGW is based on I would have to ignore almost the entire written history of Western civilisation. I simply can't put a theoretical construct ahead of thousands of years of actual observations.
iNow Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 You might be able to find 97% of climatologists who agree with the HS, but you won't find any historians that do. Yes, and as we all know, it's always better to trust historians on matters of climate than climatologists, especially when the climatologists conclusions have been independently verified time and time and time again by numerous sources.
Essay Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Actually Essay, in the OP I was wondering if setting "climate" as 30 year trends is a good thing or whether it could mislead us. Even in a totally regular warming/cooling cycle the "30 year trend" would be well behind the reality and almost always wrong. I was trying to show that perhaps only looking at 30 year trends could be just as misleading as only looking at any other length trend. Trends should be looked at in context. WRT temps, there has been no trend for the last 10 years, a definite warming trend for the last 30 years and a definite cooling trend for the last 8,000 years. TBH I think that there is more politics than science that goes into trend descriptions. I'd suggest you need to learn more about chaos theory, simple robust non-linear systems, and how science in general works. Okay, a bit broad brushed there. I was actually thinking of the serial false excuses given by the CRU as to why they could not release their data. Ya, I have a strange view of the world. I happen to think that those who are involved in serial efforts to lie and obfuscate are themselves liars and are not worthy of my respect and trust. I have this really funny notion that people who lie in response to rather basic FOI requests will also lie in other areas. I found the CRU explanations very true-to-life and realistic; not totally proper or perfectly ethical, but not illegal either. Back in '08/'09, I read about the bloggers gleefully telling everyone how they could bombard these scientists with email requests (and since they were public servants, they were required to respond), and how this would bring science back under the control of the public... or "whatever" reasoning they came up with to promote this strategy. The scientists descriptions (from '10/'11) of what they were dealing with at CRU sounded familiar..... So on the basis of what you seem determined to describe as a few bad apples, all of climate science and greenhouse theory is what: a conspiracy, a hoax, a misguided boondoggle, a religious crusade? How do you see climate science and greenhouse theory? ~
JohnB Posted January 17, 2012 Author Posted January 17, 2012 iNow Yes, and as we all know, it's always better to trust historians on matters of climate than climatologists, especially when the climatologists conclusions have been independently verified time and time and time again by numerous sources. You are missing the point. The best thing I can do is give you an analogy. Just about everybody here would know what a "Trireme" is, just by reading the word you have a mental picture of a big boat and banks of oars. Now the simple fact is that we have never found one. There is no direct physical evidence that they ever existed at all. All we have are 500 years worth of records and writings and pictures on walls. Now let us suppose that a very bright engineer comes along and creates a computer model that says it is impossible to build a wooden vessel with three banks of oars. (And a reconstruction is essentially a computer model) What now? He's got computers and engineering and really smart and complicated maths on his side, all I've got is 500 years worth of eyewitness observations of these craft and some pictures on some walls. Do I chuck out all the written records believing the chroniclers to be deluded in some way or do I assume that there is something wrong with the reconstruction? Your argument is that the reconstruction should be trusted and not the hundreds of years of written records. Mine is the opposite, I think that the theoretical reconstuction should match the observed records and if it doesn't that it is the construct that is flawed, not reality. I don't want to paint this as a fight between historians and climatologists because the information they provide is like apples and oranges. Concerning climate the historian can give us a qualatative answer as to whether a certain area was warmer or colder than today, the climatologist strives to give a quantative answer, two very different things. However the two should agree on the basics. This is where things like wine grapes in England become important. The extent of the vinyards and their seasons can tell us much about relative warmth but not absolute variance. If grapes could be cultivted then in areas where they cannot be grown now, then we can know that it was warmer then, but not by how much. So the two should agree on direction if not amount. The trouble starts when the climatologist says that it was cooler and the written records say it was warmer. Similarly the historian can tell us how fast the climate changed but he can't put a number to it. To use a snow example. If in 1 AD it snowed in London only in December, but by 50 AD it was snowing from mid November to mid January and by 100 AD it was snowing from mid October to sometime in February then we know the climate changed a lot and quite quickly. If the reconstructions say the change was slow, then they must wrong as that would go against the observed information. Either that or the reconstructions are correct and hundreds of chroniclers really had no idea what month it was. I know which way I would bet. I'm not out to denigrate the theoreticist, but the simple fact here is that the historian is dealing with written observations and direct physical evidence while the climatologist is using a theoretical computer model. The climatologist relies on the correct interpretation of temperature proxies for reconstructions while the historian is reading what was written at the time. Your question is "Why should we trust the historian over the paleoclimatologist concerning climate in the historical period?" That the question is even asked is concerning to me. What proof are you using to show the theoretical reconstructions are correct? That they agree with other theoretical reconstructions. At what point and exactly how are these reconstructions going to be compared to reality to see if they are correct? What we have circular reasoning. "The reconstructions are correct because they agree with each other and they agree with each other because they are correct". The reasoning will remain circular until the reconstructions are compared to something that is not a theoretical reconstruction. Now let's talk about "Independent" for a bit. Climatology uses this word in ways that I have never seen in any dictionary. The names Mann, Briffa, Hughes, Schweingruber and a few others turn up again and again. The same people using the same few proxies and similar methods are getting similar answers. This is not "Independent" verification under any meaning of the word that I am familiar with. Calling it such is at best misleading (because of the practice of only showing the primary author you actually have to dig to see who was really involved) and at worst is a flat out lie. My wife and I have a small business. I do the books and my wife and brother check them, then my wife and I check them and lastly my brother and I check them. By climatological standards my business' books have been "Independently verified" 3 times. Good luck with the Tax office on that one. My view is consistent, that neither example given are "Independently verified". If you think that my business books are not "Independently verified" then please explain the difference. Try a different example. You have 5 judges, A to E. A, B and C sit on the first inquiry. A, B, and D sit on the second and C, D and E sit on the third. Are they "Independent"? This is a yes or no answer and I say "No". I would also say that anybody putting them forward as "Independent" was a liar, at the very least they would be spreading misinformation with intent to decieve. So have a closer look at the graph from Rob Wilson and see who the full author list is for each paper and who they have worked with and you'll see far less independence than you would think. Interestingly the ones who are "Independent" are the ones furthest from the IPCC and the MBH black line in the graph. One thing I have a problem with in the spaghetti graphs is colour, some just don't seem to reproduce well and this makes it difficult sometimes to identify which curve is which, but I hope I'll be clear here. The graph is in degrees C and shows a number of reconstructions and how they compare to the IPCC and MBH. these graphs are generally referred to as being in agreement simply because each curve falls within the uncertainty range of the others, but let's have a closer look. The IPCC/MBH black line from 1,000 to 1,300 AD is virtually trendless yet the lower two which I think are Moberg and Esper show a drop in temperature of between .6 and .8 degrees for the same period. Huang 2004 opens in 1500 a full .4 degrees colder than MBH does, in fact by 1500 6 of the 8 reconstructions are colder than MBH. Consider these differences in the light of the current warming of .7 degrees over 150 years, the difference between Moberg and MBH in 1300 is greater than the entire warming of the current period. Here we are trying to establish attribution of warming on centennial scales with an accuracy of a few hundredths of a degree and our reconstructions have trouble getting within .3 degrees of each other. Attribution boils down to saying that of the .7 degrees of warming .1 was due to this cause, .2 was due to that cause, etc. Now supposedly we are able to do this by hindcasting against the reconstructions, but the reconstructions vary by up to .8 of a degree. Paleoclimate attribution is like trying to work out what exact proportions of red, blue and yellow paint were used in an old painting but the painting is viewed through a filter of unknown strength that will distort the colours by at least 20% in an unknown direction. The bottom line is that you can't extrapolate or infer accurate data when there is none. If there is no data then there is no data. The folly is in imagining that a computer model can create data and in defending this idea. Essay I found the CRU explanations very true-to-life and realistic; not totally proper or perfectly ethical, but not illegal either. I found them bloody silly. The funny thing is that I think the CRU guys are probably pretty good scientists, just bloody awful record managers. So instead of admitting that and working from there they tried to hide the fact. Remember what started it all, a request for the list of stations used to construct the temperature record. 120 odd stations were used, which ones were they? That was the initial request, either the original data or the list of stations with their GHCN numbers. This shouldn't have been a problem. But the story went from "We don't have the data" to "We do have the data but can only give it to qualified researchers" to "We do have the data but it's not in the interests of National Security to give it to you." to "We do have the data but we have confidentiality agreements with other nations and can't release it to you". That was where the fun started because the obvious question was "With which nations? And I'll ask them myself". The response to that was "We don't know which nations, we lost the list in an office move" which changed to (and I loved this one) "We can't tell you because we have confidentiality agreements about saying who we have confidentiality agreements with". It was that last which led to the large number of FOI requests as people were told that they would have to ask about each nation individually as to confidentiality agreements. This forced people to lodge multiple FOI requests each asking "Do you have a confidentiality agreement with nation A?" Meanwhile places like RC and others were piling up the BS saying that the information was "already available" and going to great pains to try to show how the poor climate scientists were being harassed by the nasty deniers. Unfortunately the FOI Commissioner in England didn't see it that way at all and ruled that the information was not available and should have been handed over. Which is when CRU admitted that they had in fact, deleted all the original data and only kept the "value added" data and that they had lost the list of which stations were used in the constructions. I would also point out in passing that a check of UEA records do not find any confidentiality agreements and that Dr. Phil Jones, head of the CRU as he might be, does not have the authority to enter into such agreements by the Rules of Conduct of the UEA. What was done was not proper and was not ethical and in at least one case was illegal. The only thing that prevented prosecution was a six month clause in the legislation. If not for that clause it is almost certain (99.9%) that Dr Jones would have faced criminal proceedings. But why all the secrecy? Why the hiding of data and information? Science is supposed to be open and transparent with data available so that others can check and replicate. This is basic stuff but it goes to the very principles that scientific endeavour is founded upon. And why the deafening silence from other scientists? Why is it us plebs having to quote Popper and Feynmann and not the scientific community? Back in '08/'09, I read about the bloggers gleefully telling everyone how they could bombard these scientists with email requests (and since they were public servants, they were required to respond), and how this would bring science back under the control of the public... or "whatever" reasoning they came up with to promote this strategy. The scientists descriptions (from '10/'11) of what they were dealing with at CRU sounded familiar..... Maybe if you had read the bloggers instead of reading about them you would have a better idea of the true situation and how it came about. The thing I find interesting is that the "warmer" sites go out of their way to avoid mention of the others, they only want you to hear one side. They want you to hear their arguments and their rebuttals to what they say our arguments are. The sceptics OTOH have a full listing of blogs and sites and invite people to read both sides, the arguments and counter arguments, and decide for themselves. Some like to liken my side to "anti evolutionists" or similar but the fact is that creationists do not link to evolutionist sites but evolutionists do link to creationist ones. So which side behaves like creationists? So on the basis of what you seem determined to describe as a few bad apples, all of climate science and greenhouse theory is what: a conspiracy, a hoax, a misguided boondoggle, a religious crusade? How do you see climate science and greenhouse theory? Good question, and probably the biggy. Conspiracy or hoax? No, definitely not. For some advocates it might be a quasi religious crusade. Anybody that's paid attention since the 1960s knows that every problem on the planet is due to the evils of western decadence and economies. The simple fact is that there are neo-Malthusians who would dearly love to see a few billion dead humans to reduce the "blight" on the planet. These people will use anything they can to further their cause and quite a few of them are high up in the UN and "Green" organisations. While this group probably does include a few scientists I doubt the number is large. Being trained in science doesn't stop someone from holding really funny ideas in some areas. While I would expect the percentage to be less in those trained in logical thought I do assume that "scientists" as a group are human which means that there will be neo-Malthusians in there, just as there would be amoung plumbers, politicians and race car drivers. I should add here that I view advocacy as the opposite to science. Science is above all dispassionate, the facts are what the facts are. An advocate is emotionally involved and is no longer dispassionate or impartial. Historically I think the CO2 scare and obsession will come to be viewed as the 21st Century "Phlogiston". It has taken quite some time for the science of Ecology to get over the misguided idea of a "Balance of Nature" and it will take some time for climatology to get over its CO2 fixation. In a sense it is misguided belief based on some flawed assumptions right at the very beginning of climatology. Instead of the story changing to fit the facts and increased knowledge, all new facts had to be made to fit the narrative and reigning belief system. Going right back to the start of the science of climatology it was believed that planetary climate changed very slowly, around .1 degree per century. These "Gradualists" were opposed by the "Catastrophists" who said climate could change a lot and rapidly. However the Gradualists held the positions of power and tended to promote those who agreed with them Nothing new in that, it's just normal human behaviour. By the 1970s we were collecting (and had collected) a large amount of data that said the climate was changing rapidly. The Gradualists were faced with a choice, either their beliefs were wrong (along with their theories and prestige) or the theory was right and there was a new factor involved. By making CO2 the primary climate driver the Gradualists were able to keep their reputations, positions and theories intact. Note for example that the original Hockeystick is a perfect representation of what a Gradualist believes about climate change. Note also that the author of that paper with his freshly minted PhD suddenly became a "World Authority" and Lead Author of the TAR chapter on paleoclimate. Agree with the boss and get promoted, perfectly normal and perfectly human. How it goes on from there is again perfectly normal and perfectly human. There is avery good discussion about "Error Cascades" over at Judith Currys blog. Like me, the author of the blog she quotes suffered from "Consilience failure" early on. This occurs when a finding of a new science contradicts a well established fact of another, older and better researched science. The example of the Trireme I gave above is an example of Consilience Failure. So far climatology hasn't hit the other sciences too hard. However if we head into a new Maunder I would expect there to be some very large fireworks between the Solar Physicists and the Climatologists. Remember that according to the climatologists the difference in baseline output from the Sun is only .5 W/m-2 to go from a Maunder to a Solar maximum, so if the Solar boys measure a greater difference than that in baseline output, then sparks will fly. I would also point out that since 2011 wasn't all that warm we are back to "no statistically significant warming" since 1995. So since 1980 we have had 15 years of warming and 17 years of bugger all. Explain to me how that happens in the face of supposedly constantly increasing warm forcing by increasing CO2? Where is the missing heat? I kind of like Kevin Trenberths magical heat, it goes from the surface to 3,000 metres under the ocean without going past a single ARGO bouy. That is a neat trick. I would also like to comment on another area of concern, the "consistent with" research. Quite often when reading climate papers I read that the findings are "consistent with" AGW theory. The problem is that they are also very often "consistent with" warming by natural causes. In truth many findings are "consistent with" warming from any cause and as such do not strengthen the AGW case even if quoted as such. But this reversal is a concern as well. I was taught that science was about falsifying the theory, looking for evidence that contradicts the theory. In climate we see way too much of looking for things that confirm the theory. That isn't how things are supposed to work. As to Greenhouse Theory itself, my view is a bit hard to describe. The idea of GHGs warming the planet is fine, the observed fact is that we are warmer than we should be under straight S-B equations. At the same time I find the AGW theory to be extemely simplistic. Some models for example provide a very linear increase in temperature for an increase in forcing. Since the climate is a very complex non linear system I find this simplicity curious and worrying to say the least. It's like a little voice in the back of my mind saying "In such a complex system, it can't be that simple."
iNow Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 John - Articulate as always, but I feel you're grasping at straws. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I trust science, and I trust the opinion of the experts on this. Sorry.
Essay Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Wow, what a lot of questions and what-abouts (if I scanned that well enough). I'll try to wade through that later, but to the points: Essay I found them bloody silly. I had only read some of their responses. It (they) sounded very true to life. As to Greenhouse Theory itself, my view is a bit hard to describe. The idea of GHGs warming the planet is fine, the observed fact is that we are warmer than we should be under straight S-B equations. At the same time I find the AGW theory to be extemely simplistic. Some models for example provide a very linear increase in temperature for an increase in forcing. Since the climate is a very complex non linear system I find this simplicity curious and worrying to say the least. It's like a little voice in the back of my mind saying "In such a complex system, it can't be that simple." Fortunately, that "little voice in the back of your head" doesn't guide science. Chaos is not a synonym for complexity ...or vice versa It seems as if you see a disparity between "chaotic systems" (a term that pops up often in your posts) or chaos, and "simple" systems (between chaos & simplicity). [edit] You can learn about why using "30 year straight lines" is valid in the sort of analyses that you are concerned about... If you would learn about chaos theory (and relinquish the association with chaotic behaviour), and then simply google the terms: "simple robust non-linear systems" and "chaotic attractor" together; I'm sure you'll find enough to quiet that voice in the back of your head. === Though another voice, of alarm and worry for our future, may become noticeable. I can see why that might not be preferable; but once you taste the fruits of knowledge, you can't go back. ~ Edited January 17, 2012 by Essay
JohnB Posted January 17, 2012 Author Posted January 17, 2012 (edited) Wow, what a lot of questions and what-abouts (if I scanned that well enough). Yes, it's far easier to believe the hype and think that I'm some sort of paid pawn of Exxon or a Glenn Beck follower isn't it? The stereotype is hard to see when people are asking valid questions. Edited January 17, 2012 by JohnB
Santalum Posted January 17, 2012 Posted January 17, 2012 Plants, and trees should thrive under these conditions in the future, allowing for higher o2 levels as a result. Raised CO2 levels will not make plant growth more prolific to the extent your are obviously assuming. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html However, while experiments on natural ecosystems have also found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water.
JohnB Posted January 19, 2012 Author Posted January 19, 2012 However, while experiments on natural ecosystems have also found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water. Isn't that principle known as "Somebodys Barrel"? "Plant growth is always limited by the least available resource"? And keeping on a climate note, this is one of the problems I have with dendrothermometry. Given that plant growth is limited by the least available resource then a direct causal relationship between tree ring width and temperature is unlikely. Regardless of what the temperature is, if the rain don't come the tree don't grow.
iNow Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/2/1/014002/erl7_1_014002.html For wheat, maize and barley, negative yield impacts for the 1980s and 1990–2002 indicate that recent climate trends have, unless addressed through adaptation measures, suppressed global yield progress for these three crops. Effects are less pronounced for other crops and decades, though with significant yield suppression for soybean and sorghum since 1990, and wheat in the 1970s. All instances of significant yield effects were attributable mainly to warming temperature trends, as precipitation trends had only minor effects on yields (not shown). While small when expressed as a percentage of current yields, the absolute losses in global production due to warming trends since 1981 were substantial. Wheat, maize and barley production in 2002, for example, would have been roughly 2–3% higher without climate trends since 1981. <...> The results suggest that recent climate trends, attributable to human activity [22], have had a discernible negative impact on global production of several major crops. The impact of warming was likely offset to some extent by fertilization effects of increased CO2 levels <...> If each additional ppm of CO2 results in ~ 0.1% yield increase for C3 crops (a yield increase of 17% for a concentration increase from the current 380 ppm to the frequently studied 550 ppm) [23, 24], then the ~ 35 ppm increase since 1981 corresponds to a roughly 3.5% yield increase, about the same as the 3% decrease in wheat yield due to climate trends over this period. Thus, the effects of CO2 and climate trends have likely largely cancelled each other over the past two decades, with a small net effect on yields. This conclusion challenges model assessments that suggest global CO2 benefits will exceed temperature related losses up to ~ 2° warming.
JohnB Posted January 19, 2012 Author Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Hmmm, it really shows that someone can find a dark cloud behind a silver lining if they try hard enough. The quote you used is quite the doom and gloom isn't it? But let's look at the whole picture. Figure 1 from the paper. Even though the graph goes back to 1960 most of the paper is concerned with the period 1981-2002. So what did happen to crop yields in that period? (In tons per hectare) Wheat: From 1.7 to 2.6. Up 53% Rice: From 2.7 to 3.7. Up 37% Maize: From 3 to 4.5. Up 50% Soy: From 1.6 to 2.1. Up 31% Barley: From 1.9 to 2.4. Up 26% Sorghum: From 1.4 to 1.2. Down 14% So except for Sorghum the yield per hectare is way up on 1980 figures. So how do we get from "Yields for all crops increased substantially since 1961" (First paragraph) to "For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures." (The abstract) Given that according to the papers own figures the three mentioned crops increased yields by 53%, 50% and 26% repectively while the temperature rose by .4 degrees, it's kind of hard to see that "negative response". To find it we need a model. Some people might think that I'm against models per se, but that is incorrect. I'm against using lousy models to make predictions with a supposed accuracy orders of magnitude smaller than the model itself is capable of. Just going back to Figure 1 for a minute. The paper says "while temperature and precipitation, spatially weighted for each crop, also exhibited several significant trends." I'll be frank, there is a trend in the temps but if anyone can see a trend in the precipitation they have a far superior Mk 1 eyeball than I have. Except for Sorghum which is pretty wild, all the others look to be virtually trendless over 40 years. What has been done here is estimate how much lower the yield is compared to what it might have been without climatic factors. To do this the authors use a phenomenally accurate model, it can in fact describe the reasons for 29% of the rice increase. That's not 29% out of the 37% but 29% of the 37%, or 8.7% of the actual increase. So this model with its explanatory power of two thirds of three fifths of stuff all is also good enough to tell us that for each 1 degree increase in temps there is a .6 % decrease in yield. Since the increase in temps is .4 degrees according to the paper then this translates into a .24% decrease in crop yield for rice between 1961 and 2002. But for the period involved, rice yields increased by roughly 100%. To be very clear on this. A model that cannot explain 71% of the observed variance in rice yield is supposedly (accurately) telling us about a theoretical climate induced variance of .24% in rice yield. Putting it another way and using the figures from Table 2 in the paper. The increase in yield in kilos per hectare for rice in the period 1981-2002 was 1,109 kilos. The model, which can only explain 29% of that increase (or 321.61 kg) says that the yield should have been an extra 10.5 kilos more. The yield should have been 1,119.5 kilos per hectare according to the model. So it can't explain 787.39 kilos per hectare increase but it can accurately show the 10.5 kilo decrease due to climate change. At what point am I allowed to express my incredulity at this? To me this is like a political analyst saying to a politician "I can't tell you why 71% of the people vote the way they do, but if you make speech "X" then .24% of the people will turn against you." The paper itself describes the process of choosing the model as being based on "the highest model R2." Unfortunately so many of the R2 are so low that this is akin to using the brightest person out of a class for the mentally incompetent, or picking a zoo chimp at random and giving it a fistfull of darts. Except for the of .65 the results are pretty shocking. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. ) Like I said at the beginning, for some people there is no rest until they find the dark cloud behind the silver lining. Most people would think that wheat yields increasing by 53% over 20 years would be cause for celebration, 53% more food from the same area of land. But the doom and gloomers have to come along and say "Only 53%? Our models show that if it wasn't for climate change it would have been 61%!" Just to confuse everybody, papers referenced by this paper say that WRT crop yeilds over the last few decades "Using a combination of mechanistic and statistical models, we show that much of this increase can be attributed to climatic trends". So most of the increase is due to warming but warming means that it isn't increasing as fast as it should due to warming....... While small when expressed as a percentage of current yields, the absolute losses in global production due to warming trends since 1981 were substantial. Wheat, maize and barley production in 2002, for example, would have been roughly 23% higher without climate trends since 1981. So we take reality, inflate it by using a dodgy model and then claim that the "difference" between this unproven and unprovable figure and reality is a "cost" of climate change. Right, and the guy who is 6 foot 10 would have been 8 foot 4 if he didn't smoke. (Because we all know smoking stunts your growth.) Edited January 19, 2012 by JohnB
iNow Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 The point is that much of the "benefit" on plants from CO2 is negated by the resulting warming. The point is that simply asserting that plants will "thrive" is a bit one-dimensional and misses some important caveats. The point is that some plants may do well, but that many of our food crops probably won't. And, let's not forget about the effect of prolonged drought on crops. They seem to like water, and that may impact growth, too. It was just another piece of the puzzle. Like you get tired of people accepting that the science of warming is valid, I get tired of people saying that increased CO2 will be a huge benefit because plants like it and stuff.
JohnB Posted January 19, 2012 Author Posted January 19, 2012 The point is that much of the "benefit" on plants from CO2 is negated by the resulting warming. The point is that simply asserting that plants will "thrive" is a bit one-dimensional and misses some important caveats. The point is that some plants may do well, but that many of our food crops probably won't. And, let's not forget about the effect of prolonged drought on crops. They seem to like water, and that may impact growth, too. The point is that paper doesn't show that at all. What it purports to show is that the increased growth it assumes from CO2 fertilisation (and you have to go through 3 referenced papers to find where they got that figure) is offset by the decrease in growth caused by warming according to their model. It's arguing about a .6% theoretical decrease in rice output compared to an actual 100% increase. Seriously. You're on $30k salary and get a pay rise to $58.2k and you are hard done by? Much of the pay rise has been "negated"? Seriously? This paper shows that our food crops have in fact and in reality been doing very well indeed due to the recent warming (and technological improvements). On what factual basis is the idea that our food crops will suffer founded? The fact is that yields are going up and up. This must level off at some point obviously, but there is no factual reason to expect them to decline drastically. As for the drought bit. Our GCMs aren't so hot on a regional scale so we cannot predict drought in our food growing areas any more than we can predict flood. The weather will do as it has always done, sometimes the rain will come and sometimes it won't. Anyway, aren't we supposed to get more rain in a warmer climate? You might want to read this. I warn that it is a 12 meg pdf and is 802 pages long. Grab a cup of coffee and have a skim through it, it lists documented weather events from 1 AD to 1900 AD. Aside from giving a historical perspective as to just how common droughts and floods really were there are some fascinating tidbits. 68 A.D. In England, there was a volcanic eruption followed by an inundation of the sea [tsunami]. The Isle of Wight separated from Hampshire. Wouldn't that have been cool to see? 119 A.D. A famine struck Britain “after a pillar of fire was seen for several nights in the air”. I wonder what the hell that was?
Essay Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 To be very clear on this. A model that cannot explain 71% of the observed variance in rice yield is supposedly (accurately) telling us about a theoretical climate induced variance of .24% in rice yield. OMG! That is a huge disparity!! Putting it another way and using the figures from Table 2 in the paper. The increase in yield in kilos per hectare for rice in the period 1981-2002 was 1,109 kilos. The model, which can only explain 29% of that increase (or 321.61 kg) says that the yield should have been an extra 10.5 kilos more. The yield should have been 1,119.5 kilos per hectare according to the model. So it can't explain 787.39 kilos per hectare increase but it can accurately show the 10.5 kilo decrease due to climate change. At what point am I allowed to express my incredulity at this? At what point will the "green" revolution be accounted for, in those figures? ~ ?
JohnB Posted January 19, 2012 Author Posted January 19, 2012 OMG! That is a huge disparity!! And? At what point will the "green" revolution be accounted for, in those figures? Never, the paper is 4 years old. For myself, I would put the increase in crop yields as a mixture of improved technology (Green revolution), increased warmth (longer growing season) and a bit of extra CO2 fertilisation. The last being the smallest. Essay, I should add that I do know a bit about chaotic systems. I use the word as shorthand for the full description of climate which is "A complex, chaotic, non linear system". WRT trend lines I find it odd that this science is obsessed with drawing straight lines and finding linear trends in a non linear system. Is that better?
Essay Posted January 20, 2012 Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) And? ...And ...At what point will the "green" revolution be accounted for, in those figures? Never,...but that dwarfs any changes from climate. How can it not be accounted for? For myself, I would put the increase in crop yields as a mixture of improved technology (Green revolution), increased warmth (longer growing season) and a bit of extra CO2 fertilisation. The last being the smallest. ...good that you have that figured out. I can cite this? Essay, I should add that I do know a bit about chaotic systems. I use the word as shorthand for the full description of climate which is "A complex, chaotic, non linear system". WRT trend lines I find it odd that this science is obsessed with drawing straight lines and finding linear trends in a non linear system. Is that better? But your phrase "A complex, chaotic, non linear system" doesn't describe climate! It is no wonder that you have the perspective that you do. If I thought climate behaved in that way, I would agree with most of your points about uncertainties ...and about it being out of our control ...and about climate being no different now, than is usual for the past. As a chaotic system, climate behaves in a simple, robust, non-linear manner; it does not behave in a complex or chaotic, manner [that would describe weather]. If you would learn more than a bit about chaos theory, then you would appreciate why using linear segments to analyze chaotic attractors (and many other aspects of data) does make sense. This is still science; it still works the same. ~ Edited January 20, 2012 by Essay
JohnB Posted January 21, 2012 Author Posted January 21, 2012 ...And ...At what point will the "green" revolution be accounted for, in those figures? ...but that dwarfs any changes from climate. How can it not be accounted for? Sorry, not my problem. The paper is from your side of the fence. If they are doing cr*p science and ignoring major factors you must ignore this and believe. If you think accounting for major factors and uncertainties is important, then you will join the ranks of the evil deniers. But your phrase "A complex, chaotic, non linear system" doesn't describe climate! It is no wonder that you have the perspective that you do. If I thought climate behaved in that way, I would agree with most of your points about uncertainties ...and about it being out of our control ...and about climate being no different now, than is usual for the past. For climate it is probably better to drop the "chaotic", but it is a complex system with non linear responses. As to climate being no different now than in the past, (I'm assuming this is about climate in general) then it doesn't come from my beliefs, it comes from the historical record. If you think that climate is behaving or changing in some way differently from how it did in the past, then please show some proof. Otherwise, the "Null Hypothesis" that there is nothing unusual happening must apply. At this point we can compare reconstructions. Validating your argument are a series of reconstructions that are members of the species "Hockeystick". Now if that was all there was, then I would be on your side. It would be very obvious that the current change in climate was large, serious and very different to what had gone before. But that isn't all there is. There are also a large number of reconstructions and proxies that are not of the species "Hockeystick", these reconstructions show that the current changes in our climate (WRT temperature) are nothing unusual at all. There are also written records and observations from which we can infer which way the temps were going and how fast. According to the observed facts, the recent warming period that is "mainly" attributed to human activities by the IPCC is indistinguishable from previous periods of totally natural warming. As a chaotic system, climate behaves in a simple, robust, non-linear manner; it does not behave in a complex or chaotic, manner [that would describe weather]. If you would learn more than a bit about chaos theory, then you would appreciate why using linear segments to analyze chaotic attractors (and many other aspects of data) does make sense. This is still science; it still works the same. The last word that I would expect anyone to use to describe climate is "simple". I don't have a problem with using linear "segments" either as I think they can show a much more nuanced picture. for example, for GAT I would show 1850-1880 as warming, 1880-1910 as cooling, 1910-1940 as warming, 1940-1970 as cooling, 1970-2000 as warming and 2000-2012 as pretty level. That's using segments. I would not draw a line from 1850-2012 and pronounce a warming trend of "X degrees/decade" as this obscures the truth of the data. Technically the statement is true, but lacks very necessary detail. Similarly we could say that according to the figures, the American stockmarket grew from 50 points in 1904 to 60 points in 1932, a growth rate of about 3 points/decade. Kinda misses the big crash of 1929 doesn't it? Climate is a complex system that responds to a variety of forcings and feedbacks. I believe on of the great fallacies to be the idea that climate responds in a linear fashion to forcings. And that is the assumption. All forcings and feedbacks can be reduced to a W/m-2 value and temperature will change in a linear fashion according to the change in these values. The very definition of a "non linear" system is that it won't behave in such a fashion. The second fallacy is "Climate sensitivity", usually expressed as a temperature change for a doubling of CO2. Note that again a linear response is expected from a non linear system. Climate Sensitivity is also treated as and assumed to be, a constant. I have yet to see this assumption demonstrated as correct in the literature. I know that they are really smart people who have letters after their names and I don't, but they've also been looking for that elusive value for 30 odd years and really aren't any closer now than they were then. The logical answer is that it doesn't exist. My personal view is that it both does and does not exist. It does not exist as a constant, but does exist as a value dependent upon GAT and atmospheric composition at the time. Upper and lower limits to the value would be set by these and other factors.
Essay Posted January 21, 2012 Posted January 21, 2012 ...c'mon JB, seriously? Did you even read up on chaos theory? ...a simple wiki browse? Did you even google: chaotic attractor? ...and hopefully click on images? === ...or perhaps you did, and this is why we're steering away from that. === HEY! I don't have a problem with using linear "segments" either as I think they can show a much more nuanced picture. I'm glad to see we've addressed the OP! Progress! Climate is a complex system that responds to a variety of forcings and feedbacks. ...if it were that complex, we wouldn't be able to predict how, 30 years from now, it will be warmer in summer than in winter. But in truth the language we use is the source of the problem here. We use terms like "simple" and "complex," assuming everyone comes away with the same understanding. But obviously the same sentence can logically lead to opposite conclusions, depending on how the terminology is defined. Learning how science uses these terms will help you discern the various interpretations, as well as evaluate the logic and continuity that such sentences convey. I believe one of the great fallacies to be the idea that climate responds in a linear fashion to forcings. And that is the assumption. All forcings and feedbacks can be reduced to a W/m-2 value and temperature will change in a linear fashion according to the change in these values. The very definition of a "non linear" system is that it won't behave in such a fashion. ...here is an example of how this would become more clear and understandable, if you'd learn the terminology and more precise ways that science applies these terms to various disciplines, paradigms, or theories. The second fallacy is "Climate sensitivity", usually expressed as a temperature change for a doubling of CO2. Note that again a linear response is expected from a non linear system. Climate Sensitivity is also treated as and assumed to be, a constant. I have yet to see this assumption demonstrated as correct in the literature....well this sort of takes us back to the OP. Over short, 30-year segments, linear behaviour can be approximated; and very useful information and predictions can be gathered. I know that they are really smart people who have letters after their names and I don't, but they've also been looking for that elusive value for 30 odd years and really aren't any closer now than they were then. The logical answer is that it doesn't exist.WHAT?!? By what logic...? My personal view is that it both does and does not exist. It does not exist as a constant, but does exist as a value dependent upon GAT and atmospheric composition at the time. Upper and lower limits to the value would be set by these and other factors....for a personal view, it is a good working hypothesis. But I'm very thankful that climate science has progressed far beyond that level. ~
JohnB Posted January 22, 2012 Author Posted January 22, 2012 But in truth the language we use is the source of the problem here. We use terms like "simple" and "complex," assuming everyone comes away with the same understanding. But obviously the same sentence can logically lead to opposite conclusions, depending on how the terminology is defined. Learning how science uses these terms will help you discern the various interpretations, as well as evaluate the logic and continuity that such sentences convey. ...here is an example of how this would become more clear and understandable, if you'd learn the terminology and more precise ways that science applies these terms to various disciplines, paradigms, or theories. Sorry, you don't get to write your own dictionary. Words have very specific meanings, for climate science to say that these meanings differ in "their" branch is crap. The meanings have to stay the same as in other disciplines, otherwise you will cause confusion. A non linear system is defined as "a system whose performance cannot be described by equations of the first degree" in every other science. Making up your own definitions in variance to the accepted use is what a pseudoscience does. ...for a personal view, it is a good working hypothesis. But I'm very thankful that climate science has progressed far beyond that level. Then you can provide a value and proof that it is in fact a constant? (There's a Nobel in the offing if you can.) I thought not. Climate science has not "progressed far beyond that level" at all. CS has an assumption that Climate Sensitivity has a specific value and that the value is constant over time. They have yet to provide that value or prove that it is constant over time. On the basis of provability my hypothesis is as valid and as well proven as theirs. I add that the existence of a single value for Climate Sensitivity perforce means that for a change in forcing the climate will respond in a linear fashion, now then and always. I would like to see some sort of explanation as to exactly how a non linear system can be ruled by a linear response regime, because under the generally accepted meanings of the words, this would make the climate a linear system. (Is that why CS needs to rewrite the dictionary?) This new definition might do: Non Linear system; A non linear system is one in which the output is not linearly related to the input unless you want it to be.
Essay Posted January 26, 2012 Posted January 26, 2012 Sorry, you don't get to write your own dictionary. Words have very specific meanings, for climate science to say that these meanings differ in "their" branch is crap. The meanings have to stay the same as in other disciplines, otherwise you will cause confusion. A non linear system is defined as "a system whose performance cannot be described by equations of the first degree" in every other science. Making up your own definitions in variance to the accepted use is what a pseudoscience does. Then you can provide a value and proof that it is in fact a constant? (There's a Nobel in the offing if you can.) I thought not. Climate science has not "progressed far beyond that level" at all. CS has an assumption that Climate Sensitivity has a specific value and that the value is constant over time. They have yet to provide that value or prove that it is constant over time. On the basis of provability my hypothesis is as valid and as well proven as theirs. I add that the existence of a single value for Climate Sensitivity perforce means that for a change in forcing the climate will respond in a linear fashion, now then and always. I would like to see some sort of explanation as to exactly how a non linear system can be ruled by a linear response regime, because under the generally accepted meanings of the words, this would make the climate a linear system. ...I'm just going with what the science says. If you can show that the science is as illogical as you suggest, then you deserve the Nobel, istm. === JohnB, I expect it may be the forcers, rather than the overall climate, to which my statements above apply, in a more-or-less technically correct manner; but I don't want to get off-topic talking about how science uses jargon, and defines words to mean specific things depending upon the discipline, or co-opts common words to mean new things... such as (respectively) REDOX, and CELL (biology or math systems), or REDUCE (common or chemical). And with new disciplines it is even worse! ...regarding "complex adaptive systems"http://en.wikipedia....adaptive_system "Various definitions have been offered by different researchers:" The very fact that glossaries are common should be a clue too: http://www.sysbio.de...OBUSTNESS.shtml ROBUSTNESS see also: adaptation, integral control, modularity, reliability Meaning The insensitivity of system properties to parameter variation and other uncertainties in components and the environment [15]. Biology: Mostly used with regard to changes in environment, but also as robustness against structural failure (reliability). Systems Theory: Mostly used with regard to insensitivity against parameter uncertainties. Explanation Biologists and Systems Theorists infer the same basic meaning to the term robustness: A robust system is insensitive to certain changes, allowing it to exhibit a constant behavior in spite of these changes. Differences in meaning look small but are still significant. Biologists usually mean that the system is robust against variations in its environment, e.g. in concentration levels of nourishing substrates (see examples). Systems theorists mostly think of uncertainties in system parameters, either because they could not be measured with sufficient accuracy (for use in a model) or because they really do fluctuate over time. These are different kinds of robustness, so there is a potential for misunderstandings even though the basic meaning is identical. ...my emphases=== As you indicated, "nuance" is to be appreciated. This argument for a black-n-white rejection of climate science due to the whole linear/non-linear "chaotic" or "complex" or "simple" conflict in descriptions (from your perspective) seems to miss some of the nuance that has developed in the climate sciences... as well as other fields like biology and systems science. I'm not arguing to "redefine" things, but to use definitions as appropriate--hoping to provide deeper insight. Nor am I arguing to rewrite the dictionary, or to exclude words such as "chaotic" which have an appropriate place and usage. With only a little research, we can determine these nuances... and gain deeper insights. === But I was glad you mentioned how linear analysis can be useful in science. That usefulness also applies to the science in Chaos Theory, and in Non-Linear and Adaptive Systems. Embrace the Chaos! (or at least the Theory) ~
JohnB Posted February 12, 2012 Author Posted February 12, 2012 Essay, I think you misunderstand my POV. There is no black and white rejection of climate science. There is a demand for "proof of concept" for want of a better term. Especially in a new discipline there are new underlying assumptions. What I'm trying to do is point out where the underlying assumptions could be incorrect. Taking climate sensitivity as an example, there are those trying to "narrow the range" of this figure. They assume that such a figure exists. The logical upshot of arriving at a single definitive figure, or a constant if you will would be that climate becomes forcing X sensitivity = change, by definition a linear system. Since the climate is dynamic and non linear then climate sensitivity can only possibly exist as an abstract concept defining a range dependent on initial conditions and internal dynamics. (From personal communications I know that some in the climate community share this view.) So this is not a rejection of climate science, nor a rejection of the general concept of climate sensitivity, but it is a rejection of the concept that climate sensitivity exists as a single unchanging value. See the difference? Similarly climate science can put any meaning it wants to the term "robust" so long as it's roughly in line with the general meaning, however it cannot co-opt terms from other sciences and redefine them. "Statistically robust" has a meaning in statistics and if climate science wants to use the term then they have to conform to the statistical meaning and not substitute their own. To take an example from another science, Ecology was virtually started by Malthus and therefore had many Malthusian ideas as underlying concepts, concepts so innate that they weren't even thought of as "assumptions". Top of the list here was the idea of a "balance of nature" and everything was viewed from that perspective. Note how long it took that science to get rid of such a stupid and illogical assumption and how strongly the idea was defended in the face of ever mounting and overwhelming evidence. There are still ecologists today who believe in the "balance of nature", something totally imaginary. Note also how this gave rise to the Green movement and its logical process. Nature is in balance, therefore it doesn't change. Something is changing, therefore it is out of balance. Since nature is in balance the change cannot be from nature. Therefore man is changing it.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now