New Climate Study: Berkley Earth Project

[akh]

Since I am always getting into discussions (arguments really) regarding various science related topics, I decided I would join a real science forum for discussion. Its seems that many people have a very difficult time understanding what science is, how it works, what it does and does not do, ect. So I thought that the new paper from the Berkeley Earth Project was very interesting.

 

 

http://berkeleyearth...aper-july-8.pdf

 

 

 

 

It is interesting not only because of the results, but because of who funded the project. The project was funded by the Koch Brothers, who as most know, have lobbied against evidence for manmade climate change. I recently got into a heated discussion with some skeptics (denialists really) regarding the NASA report of a substantial melt of the Greenland ice sheet. The report was immediately labeled as BS and "alarmist". They accused NASA of being unscientific and biased by a hidden agenda. It didn't matter how many times I pointed out that NASA had explicitly stated in the report that they were in no way making any conclusion about the melt or drawing any relation to climate change, the report was still viewed as biased. It did not matter how many times I pointed out that NASA was skeptical of the data and sought adjunct observations from multiple sources before the report, it was still somehow"alarmist". I could not get through the idea that NASA made a report of a simple observation, of a substantial ice melt, nothing more nothing less. But somehow that observation was biased in the skeptics view.

 

 

 

 

Sadly,these skeptics come off as educated and intelligent people and draw others to their side through shallow logic. By in large, they believe that all scientist are somehow only concerned with self legitimizing their work and career. They think that scientist are driven by a hidden agenda and by greed. They think that they fully understand how science is supposed to work, and that reports like the NASA observation of the Greenland ice sheet, are obviously biased.

 

 

 

 

So, I find that this report which comes out from a scientist and former skeptic (Prof Richard Muller),which is funded by a lobby group that denies man made climate change, very interesting.

 

 

 

 

In fact, I even remember many skeptics (denialists) anxiously awaiting reports from the Berkeley Earth Project so they could prove the bias and corruption of climate science. So you have a true skeptic scientist ( I say a true skeptic because a true skeptic keeps an open mind and actively pursues counter evidence, denialist don't do that)in a program funded by a powerful anti AGW lobby, which in fact found evidence in support of AGW. This absolutely contrary to the denialist agenda to vilify climate scientist (and all scientist really)

 

So what do you think of the report? What do you think about the ramifications? Can't wait to see the denialist spin out on this one.

Edited July 31, 2012 by akh

[iNow]

I think it will convince a few more people about the truth of humans impact on climate. Unfortunately, for a great many, facts are not enough to overcome their ideological blindness. It's not like anthropogenic climate change is a poorly supported or poorly evidenced topic, yet countless people still think it's some giant lie or hoax.

[ecoli]

For some, it can help to get in writing the answer to the following question: "what kind kind of evidence would it take to convince you to change your mind about this."

 

If you then later show them precisely this evidence, they will either 1) update or 2) squawk like a chicken.

If 1, then good, you've done your job. If 2 - ridicule mercilessly.

[akh]

I think it will convince a few more people about the truth of humans impact on climate. Unfortunately, for a great many, facts are not enough to overcome their ideological blindness. It's not like anthropogenic climate change is a poorly supported or poorly evidenced topic, yet countless people still think it's some giant lie or hoax.

 

I don't really understand people who can't be objective, who are unable to truly see multiple sides to things. They accuse others of not being able to use "common sense". The reality is that their "common sense" is misleading them. They somehow think that AGW is anti-american and anti-liberty. They think this because in order to make change, government must be involved to enforce the change. I think that the denialist are fearful, they are afraid of things they don't understand and are too afraid to admit they don't understand. How did this country become so anti-intellectual?

 

I think I am pretty good at understanding multiple topics. I do not claim to understand it all. I do not claim to be an expert in anything. I don't like being wrong and not being able to understand something frustrates the hell out of me. But I'll admit it. Its not just a measure of humility that I know that I am not omniscient, but rather that I have a connected sense of reality. Why do some people fail at this?

 

Anyway, I quick survey of the web has already uncovered the same old rhetoric. The data has been "cooked".

 

FYI, the people I have had this discussion with are engineers and/or people with interest in the "tech" industry. Face to face I actually had I guy with a claimed engineering degree say; "Thats the problem with scientist, they think they know everything". All I could do was shake my head.

Edited July 31, 2012 by akh

[JohnB]

It tells us quite a few things actually and there is no need to spin anything.

 

1. This thread and the OPs concentration on who part funded the study tells us that personality and funding is far more important to warmistas than actual science is.

 

2. That this paper is being touted as some sort of be all and end all when it is only submitted and has yet to pass peer review shows that the story is important and not the facts. Science by press release is how it is supposed to be done according to the warmers.

 

3. Note also that the previous 4 papers from last year are still under review and have not passed.

 

4. Warmers love to ignore the GIGO effect. They are somehow surprised that people using the same datasets get the same answer. How good are the datasets from GHCN? Not very.

 

Since we can now use preprints and submitted articles I point to Watts et al 2012. A reanalysis od the raw data using the most moder techniques (you know, the ones recommended by the WMO) shows that spurious warming is introduced into the data by certain techniques.

 

But we already knew that, it doesn't take Watts to add to it. The recent Steirou Koutsoyiannis paper analysed the data as well.

We investigate the methods used for the adjustment of inhomogeneities of temperature time series covering the last 100 years. Based on a systematic study of scientific literature, we classify and evaluate the observed inhomogeneities in historical and modern time series, as well as their adjustment methods. It turns out that these methods are mainly statistical, not well justified by experiments and are rarely supported by metadata. In many of the cases studied the proposed corrections are not even statistically significant.

 

From the global database GHCN-Monthly Version 2, we examine all stations containing both raw and adjusted data that satisfy certain criteria of continuity and distribution over the globe. In the United States of America, because of the large number of available stations, stations were chosen after a suitable sampling. In total we analyzed 181 stations globally. For these stations we calculated the differences between the adjusted and non-adjusted linear 100-year trends. It was found that in the two thirds of the cases, the homogenization procedure increased the positive or decreased the negative temperature trends.

 

One of the most common homogenization methods, ‘SNHT for single shifts’, was applied to synthetic time series with selected statistical characteristics, occasionally with offsets. The method was satisfactory when applied to independent data normally distributed, but not in data with long-term persistence.

 

The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.

 

Concerning the Greenland thing, I tend to agree with climatologist Pat Michaels and think that NASA should spend some of its budget on a thing called a "Dictionary". I know, they're old tech to some but they can be really handy when you need to know the meanings of words and stuff, especially long (and very well loved) words like "Unprecedented". The press release it titled "Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt". Ooh, scary, boggity, boogitty boo. Yet in the release it says;

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig

 

So it happens once every 150 years and this one is "right on time" but it is also "unprecedented". Give me a break.

 

ecoli, what have you got? The real questions are attribution and possible dangers. Can you provide proof of attribution? Nope. Since it is only logical that the warming from the LIA has been nothing but beneficial on what physical, provable basis is this going to change into a disaster? Bearing in mind that there is no evidence at all of the predicted increase in extreme events.

 

The truth is that you don't actually have any proof. That's why it's all pictures of polar bears and appeals to emotion and authority. There are model predictions, but these things can't model last years conditions properly yet.

 

We all know that "all other things being equal" temps will rise about 1 degree for a doubling of CO2. The doom and gloom merchants rely on a positive feedback of WV to increase this to 2 or 3 degrees. The idea is essentially sound, as the planet warms then more water gets evaporated and WV goes up. This feedback effect has never been demonstrated in either a lab or nature but is required for GCMs to work. Back in 2009 Sun, Yu and Zhang looked for but could not find this positive feedback. Dr Pielke covered that paper here. A more recent paper looking at the actual WV content of the atmosphere over the last 20 years has put a spanner in the works. Vonder Haar Et Al 2012 can't find an increase and is also discussed by Dr Pielke here.

 

Which means I have a question for you. How many times must the predictions be wrong before you consider that you might be barking up the wrong tree? The temperature rises haven't appeared as predicted, the extreme weather is nowhere to be seen, the predicted WV increase doesn't seem to be there. The only predictions got right are primary school level ones. In a warmer world ice melts, weather patterns might change. Some places will get more rain and some places will get less. Sh*t, I can get more specific predictions by reading the Horoscope section of the morning paper.

 

PS. akh, Welcome to SFN. But don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

[swansont]

We all know that "all other things being equal" temps will rise about 1 degree for a doubling of CO2.

 

Who is "we"? That doesn't seem to include all the people who claim that there is no way humans can affect the planet's temperature and who claim that there isn't warming going on, or if it is, it's natural. Because that would require that the CO2 increase be from natural causes, and that's a new one to me.

[akh]

So it happens once every 150 years and this one is "right on time" but it is also "unprecedented". Give me a break.

 

My comprehension of the actual NASA report, not some news headline, is that the melt is unprecedented within the scope of the observation period. As in, we haven't observed an event like this before. It may be bad choice of words for those who are lazy, but if you actually include the context, which is the key to reading comprehension, then "right on time" and "unprecedented" are not contradictions. Same type of thing can be said of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. They typically occur in a cyclical fashion, but the magnitude of the events can vary greatly. And you are, like many others, ignoring the fact that NASA explicitly stated in the report that they are not making any correlation to GW or AGW. Why are you leaving that out?

 

ecoli, what have you got? The real questions are attribution and possible dangers. Can you provide proof of attribution? Nope. Since it is only logical that the warming from the LIA has been nothing but beneficial on what physical, provable basis is this going to change into a disaster? Bearing in mind that there is no evidence at all of the predicted increase in extreme events. The truth is that you don't actually have any proof. That's why it's all pictures of polar bears and appeals to emotion and authority. There are model predictions, but these things can't model last years conditions properly yet.

 

So you shift from AGW to problems with predictions and prediction models? This is about CO2 and AWG. Nice diversionary tactic, but I don't think that discussion belongs here. Stay on topic.

 

We all know that "all other things being equal" temps will rise about 1 degree for a doubling of CO2. The doom and gloom merchants rely on a positive feedback of WV to increase this to 2 or 3 degrees. The idea is essentially sound, as the planet warms then more water gets evaporated and WV goes up. This feedback effect has never been demonstrated in either a lab or nature but is required for GCMs to work. Back in 2009 Sun, Yu and Zhang looked for but could not find this positive feedback. Dr Pielke covered that paper here. A more recent paper looking at the actual WV content of the atmosphere over the last 20 years has put a spanner in the works. Vonder Haar Et Al 2012 can't find an increase and is also discussed by Dr Pielke here.

 

Which means I have a question for you. How many times must the predictions be wrong before you consider that you might be barking up the wrong tree? The temperature rises haven't appeared as predicted, the extreme weather is nowhere to be seen, the predicted WV increase doesn't seem to be there. The only predictions got right are primary school level ones. In a warmer world ice melts, weather patterns might change. Some places will get more rain and some places will get less. Sh*t, I can get more specific predictions by reading the Horoscope section of the morning paper.

 

 

Again this is not about any future predictions of the "doom and gloom" merchants. For someone who is hung up on the terminology of others, your choice of words are interesting. It speaks volumes about your objectivity. As far as extreme weather, there is one heck of a drought through the majority of the United States right now. But again, this is not about predictions, and I am not making any statements about predictions. Its about the conclusion of the Berkeley paper. Can you separate the two? Can you keep on topic?

 

 

So in case you got clouded, the Berkeley paper has found that the best fit for the increase in temperature is the increase in CO2. The increase in CO2 is attributed to human activity. In other words, AGW. So, in order for this result to be invalidated, you need to produce something else that is a better fit. Can you do that? Do you have a better fit correlation?

 

Moreover, its not just the paper and its findings, as these results have been demonstrated in many other papers. Its the fact that one of the major denialist tactics, to try to demonstrate that climate science is corrupt due to outside influences, is now shown to be an invalid argument against AGW. Its always been an invalid argument against AGW. The whole Berkeley project was started to remove this perceived bias from the equation and to increase transparency. The project was initiated from the skeptics corner.

Edited July 31, 2012 by akh

[Bill Angel]

I think it will convince a few more people about the truth of humans impact on climate. Unfortunately, for a great many, facts are not enough to overcome their ideological blindness. It's not like anthropogenic climate change is a poorly supported or poorly evidenced topic, yet countless people still think it's some giant lie or hoax.

We have been having a real hot summer in Baltimore this year, which has led to power failures, and it appears that climate conditions is a factor in the massive power failures that recently have occurred in India.

 

Accordng to one source:

" The power deficit in India was worsened by a weak monsoon that lowered hydroelectric generation and kept temperatures higher, further increasing electricity usage as people seek to cool off. "

 

So the issue of interest here is whether climate fluctuations, such as the one described here that is a contributing factor in India's power failure, could be caused by global warming?

Edited August 1, 2012 by Bill Angel

[iNow]

We cannot really say definitively whether one specific weather event was caused by one specific forcing agent changing the global climate. We can say that extreme weather events such as those you mention become more common as the climate warms, and we can say that human activity is making the warming trend worse, happen quicker, and will have downstream consequences, but we cannot really say with the level of precision needed "that monsoon in India" or "that heat wave in Baltimore" is due to global warming.

 

It is likely to be very much related. It would be the height of ignorance to argue otherwise, but as I mentioned... I cannot say that a thunderstorm on Tuesday is due to climate change... Only that the intensity of storms overall across the year will tend to be higher due to the warming than they would have been without the warming trend... a warming trend greatly enhanced and exacerbated by human activities.

[Bill Angel]

We cannot really say definitively whether one specific weather event was caused by one specific forcing agent changing the global climate. We can say that extreme weather events such as those you mention become more common as the climate warms, and we can say that human activity is making the warming trend worse, happen quicker, and will have downstream consequences, but we cannot really say with the level of precision needed "that monsoon in India" or "that heat wave in Baltimore" is due to global warming.

 

It is likely to be very much related. It would be the height of ignorance to argue otherwise, but as I mentioned... I cannot say that a thunderstorm on Tuesday is due to climate change... Only that the intensity of storms overall across the year will tend to be higher due to the warming than they would have been without the warming trend... a warming trend greatly enhanced and exacerbated by human activities.

 

I agree with you. The issue I was focusing on is that it would be sufficient for man made global warming to be a contributing factor in a shift in a region's weather patterns for extremely disruptive situations such as the one in India to occur. Government bureaucrats don't take possible shifts in weather patterns into account in their long term planning, assuming that they are actually doing and implementing any long term planning for growth in energy usage for example.

As a point of interest, not only are we having a very hot summer in Baltimore but we just had a very mild winter with practically no snow.

 

Also here is a link to an interesting and relevant news article titled:

Climate change threatens California power supply: report

 

The thrust of the article is that California is looking ahead to predicting the impact of climate change on meeting its energy requirements.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Bill Angel

[JohnB]

swansont, I don't speak for idiots. The pure physics says that for a doubling of CO2 in a no feedback situation the rise will be about a degree. But it has to be remembered that this is only the starting point, the feedbacks could reduce ot amplify the effect.

 

My comprehension of the actual NASA report, not some news headline, is that the melt is unprecedented within the scope of the observation period. As in, we haven't observed an event like this before. It may be bad choice of words for those who are lazy, but if you actually include the context, which is the key to reading comprehension, then "right on time" and "unprecedented" are not contradictions. Same type of thing can be said of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. They typically occur in a cyclical fashion, but the magnitude of the events can vary greatly. And you are, like many others, ignoring the fact that NASA explicitly stated in the report that they are not making any correlation to GW or AGW. Why are you leaving that out?

 

akh, fair enough as far as it goes. My objection is this science by press release. If it happens every 150 years or so why even use the word "unprecedented"? An earth scientist would be well aware that "unprecedented in the scope of the observation period" means absolutely nothing when that period is so short. The simple fact is that people don't read full articles, they read the headline and the first couple of paragraphs. I would point out that a media person employed by NASA would be well aware of this fact and so it begs the question "Why write the release in a way that is deliberately deceptive for the majority of people?"

 

This release has been taken up be a lot of media and it would take an appallingly incompetent media person to write something that has been "misconstrued" by so many media outlets.

https://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enAU330AU330&q=greenland+ice

 

Scientists at Nasa admitted that they thought satellite readings were a mistake after images showed 97% surface melt over four days

 

The Greenland ice sheet is melting at an "unprecedented" rate, according to NASA satellite data that shows 97 per cent of the vast mass is

 

The surface of Greenland's massive ice sheet has melted this month over an unusually large area, Nasa has said.

 

Edward Hanna: The ice sheet has been living on borrowed time for many years, with dire consequences.

 

Nearly the entire ice sheet surface was slush after a few days this month—the fastest melt yet seen by satellites. What does it mean?

 

Like I said, most people don't read past the headline and the first paragraph. And BTW, it doesn't look all that "slushy" to me. http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

 

And to be fair, at least the NYT got it right at the start of the article;

The extent expanded from about 40 percent to 97 percent over four days, a first in 30 years of satellite observations but in line with a historical ...

 

So you shift from AGW to problems with predictions and prediction models? This is about CO2 and AWG. Nice diversionary tactic, but I don't think that discussion belongs here. Stay on topic.

 

Rather than a diversion it is basic logic. If the increase in CO2 causes AGW but this has no negative effects, then why do you worry about it? Are you one of those strange people that wants to stop things for no better reason than they are happening? OTOH, if you think that AGW will have negative effects in the future then you are making predictions, aren't you?

 

As far as extreme weather, there is one heck of a drought through the majority of the United States right now.

 

Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

 

I would have thought that warmistas would have learnt their lesson with the withdrawal of Gergis et al, but obviously not. akh, this paper is simply "submitted", it is yet to be even shown to be correct. You've heard of "peer review"? Well the idea is for the paper to undergo that review and then get added to the literature. The idea is not to have splashy press releases and interviews on Rachel Maddox before the damn thing is even reviewed.

 

But if you're interested, here's what Judith Curry has to say about the situation.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/30/observation-based-attribution/ Dr Curry is a hurricane expert and has worked with the BEST team.

 

Roger Pielke also wades into this pointing out that BEST have not redone the homogenization but have simply accepted previous efforts. Unfortunately this means that BEST has the same problems that others who use the USGHCN do.

 

I must also add that Dr Muller, while he may be great physicist, has moved from "idiot" to "partially educated" in the field of climate. It was only March last year that he worked out that the planet was getting warmer. This doesn't make him a "sceptic" who has changed sides, it makes him a "fool" who has been educated.

 

So in case you got clouded, the Berkeley paper has found that the best fit for the increase in temperature is the increase in CO2. The increase in CO2 is attributed to human activity. In other words, AGW. So, in order for this result to be invalidated, you need to produce something else that is a better fit. Can you do that? Do you have a better fit correlation?

 

You're arguing for curve fitting? Here? Do you understand that "Correlation is not causation"? And actually, if you want to play "curve fitting", how about pirates?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/

 

Or bicycles? Or any other damn thing that has increased or decreased over the last 150 years.

 

Moreover, its not just the paper and its findings, as these results have been demonstrated in many other papers. Its the fact that one of the major denialist tactics, to try to demonstrate that climate science is corrupt due to outside influences, is now shown to be an invalid argument against AGW. Its always been an invalid argument against AGW.

 

Um, no. Just because you want to claim something as "fact" doesn't make it so. There are quite a few areas of concern in climate science, perhaps the strongest is that in a highly statistical field so many know so little about statistics. I would also suggest that a climate scientists would not be the best person to review a paper containing "novel" or "new" statistical procedures, this is rightfully the domain of the statistician.

 

When we add to that the proven cases of illegal activity (although they are few) there is indeed cause for concern.

 

We can say that extreme weather events such as those you mention become more common as the climate warms, and we can say that human activity is making the warming trend worse, happen quicker, and will have downstream consequences,

 

iNow you keep making this claim and despite several requests have yet to provide any proof at all for an increase in these extreme events. How about some evidence, or stop making the claim.

[akh]

And to be fair, at least the NYT got it right at the start of the article;

 

 

Without a doubt the media is a huge issue. Whats even worse, is that so many journalists and bloggers are so lazy that they just rehash another new report. I have seen this multiple times where the report is released at one outlet, and then days later it trickles into other "news" sites, often watered down, and often with quotes out of context. I also think that 99.9% of the people out there do not understand scientific vernacular. They don't understand the language used and why it is used which contributes to the problem. Kudos to the NYT for responsible journalism.

 

 

 

Rather than a diversion it is basic logic. If the increase in CO2 causes AGW but this has no negative effects, then why do you worry about it? Are you one of those strange people that wants to stop things for no better reason than they are happening? OTOH, if you think that AGW will have negative effects in the future then you are making predictions, aren't you?

 

 

The point is, that bringing in failed predictions clouds the study of AGW. Usually when AGW is discussed, skeptics bring in predictions as a "who cares" kind of tactic to detract from the topic. The skeptics may not be doing this intentionally every time, as they may view it as a logical extension of AGW studies. But, the studies do not need to make predictions in regards to humanity, it just needs to concern itself with AGW. Do you understand why? I think there is a place for predictions, but not within the study itself.

 

Part of my aggravation with the NASA study was that the skeptics were placing meaning and making predictions behind the observation. It was not the scientist who did that. Same can be said for the studies that are consistent with AGW. There is a lot of blame to go around as to why this happens. The AGW studies should stand by themselves. I think there is substantial evidence in support of GW, and the GW observed is actually AGW. What that means to us as humans on this planet; I don't think anybody will claim to know for certain. There is a lot of work still needed to be done in this area.

 

Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

 

I absolutely do understand the difference. But when most people discuss predictions regarding GW, they look at specific weather events for examples. Its very hard to view climate as a whole for examples. When people speak of dire consequences, they usually imagine extended periods of drought, abnormal rain fall, increased number and intensity of hurricanes, ect. These are weather events, not climate events. Weather and climate are linked after all.

 

I would have thought that warmistas would have learnt their lesson with the withdrawal of Gergis et al, but obviously not. akh, this paper is simply "submitted", it is yet to be even shown to be correct. You've heard of "peer review"? Well the idea is for the paper to undergo that review and then get added to the literature. The idea is not to have splashy press releases and interviews on Rachel Maddox before the damn thing is even reviewed.

 

Agreed

 

You're arguing for curve fitting? Here? Do you understand that "Correlation is not causation"? And actually, if you want to play "curve fitting", how about pirates?

http://www.forbes.co...global-warming/

 

Or bicycles? Or any other damn thing that has increased or decreased over the last 150 years.

 

Except that none of those things have been shown to be part of the atmosphere or contribute to the greenhouse effect like CO2. If bicycles could be shown to be a greenhouse gas, then I would consider them as a cause. And if I engage in predictions, I might even suggest that we limit the amount of bicycles we dump into the atmosphere.

 

Paradoxically, more bicycles would reduce the number of cars, which would reduce CO2 emissions from autos. Quite the quandary.

 

 

Um, no. Just because you want to claim something as "fact" doesn't make it so. There are quite a few areas of concern in climate science, perhaps the strongest is that in a highly statistical field so many know so little about statistics. I would also suggest that a climate scientists would not be the best person to review a paper containing "novel" or "new" statistical procedures, this is rightfully the domain of the statistician.

 

There are quite a few areas of science that require proper applications of statistics. Biological sciences rely on them very heavily. Many biologist collaborate with statisticians and the biologists themselves must have a very good understanding of statistical application. There are biology degrees that are really statistics degrees with a focus on biological science. So, the thought that someone cannot be proficient in both is a flawed assumption; they are inseparable fields of study.

 

When we add to that the proven cases of illegal activity (although they are few) there is indeed cause for concern.

 

Its rare, but it happens. There is no removing the human factor. But that is the point of the scientific process, to prevent and reveal these problems.

Edited August 1, 2012 by akh

[JohnB]

Without a doubt the media is a huge issue. Whats even worse, is that so many journalists and bloggers are so lazy that they just rehash another new report. I have seen this multiple times where the report is released at one outlet, and then days later it trickles into other "news" sites, often watered down, and often with quotes out of context. I also think that 99.9% of the people out there do not understand scientific vernacular. They don't understand the language used and why it is used which contributes to the problem. Kudos to the NYT for responsible journalism.

 

Which is exactly why the way Dr Muller is going about things is bugging me. We saw the same thing last year when they had the big press thing for the earlier papers when they were submitted. AFAIK, all have been rejected after review. We get a media blitz on submission, but if the paper is rejected then it isn't a paper, it's not even an op ed, it's a nothing. By all means have a media circus on acceptance if you want, but not on submission.

 

The point is, that bringing in failed predictions clouds the study of AGW. Usually when AGW is discussed, skeptics bring in predictions as a "who cares" kind of tactic to detract from the topic. The skeptics may not be doing this intentionally every time, as they may view it as a logical extension of AGW studies. But, the studies do not need to make predictions in regards to humanity, it just needs to concern itself with AGW. Do you understand why? I think there is a place for predictions, but not within the study itself.

 

I think I see where you coming from with this, but I can't quite agree. The test, the only valid test, of a theory is to make predictions and compare them to reality. Temps have gone up about .8 degrees, some of this is sure to be natural, some will be from CO2, some will be from feedbacks, and there are possibly "unknown unknowns". The only way to solve the attribution question is to arrive at values for each of these factors and to feed those values into GCMs and then to compare the output to reality. If it doesn't match, then you have made a mistake. I can't speak for others, but I do see predictions as a neccessary part of theory development. Without it, how do you verify that the values you've arrived at for the forcings are actually correct?

 

There is also the point that very much intertwined is the political aspect of what to do about the AGW "problem". This begs the question "If it isn't a problem, why do anything?"

 

I think there is substantial evidence in support of GW, and the GW observed is actually AGW. What that means to us as humans on this planet; I don't think anybody will claim to know for certain. There is a lot of work still needed to be done in this area.

 

There is not "substantial evidence in support of GW", it is an observed fact. Just ask any historian. Anyone who claims the planet has not warmed in the last 150 years has zero credibility. All you have to do is read the reports from 150 years ago and compare them to now and I haven't heard of the river Thames freezing over in winter for quite some time.

 

I absolutely do understand the difference. But when most people discuss predictions regarding GW, they look at specific weather events for examples. Its very hard to view climate as a whole for examples. When people speak of dire consequences, they usually imagine extended periods of drought, abnormal rain fall, increased number and intensity of hurricanes, ect. These are weather events, not climate events. Weather and climate are linked after all.

 

They are most definitely linked but deciding on "good" or "bad" is another matter. For example in the last bout of warming (1975-2000) we saw an increase in hurricanes in the North Atlantic basin but a drop in most other basins. The Australian region has gone from rarely having less than 13 per year to rarely having more than 12. While it sucks for the people living on the East coast of the USA, I'm not in a particular hurry to reverse things to give them less hurricanes while we go back to annual devastation from cyclones. What we are seeing in climate change is simply a change in weather patterns. And in that, some people will win and some will lose. Our ancestors survived far greater changes so I'm sure that we will survive.

 

Except that none of those things have been shown to be part of the atmosphere or contribute to the greenhouse effect like CO2. If bicycles could be shown to be a greenhouse gas, then I would consider them as a cause. And if I engage in predictions, I might even suggest that we limit the amount of bicycles we dump into the atmosphere.

 

You just asked for something that correlated, please don't move the goalposts. How about crows then? A protected species in many nations their numbers have exploded with the advent of technology. Lots and lots of heat absorbing black birds? And I'm not even going to touch the "dumping bicycles into the atmosphere" bit. It's giving me wierd mental pictures and asking odd questions. "Is a 28 speed road racer a more potent GHB than a 21 speed mountain bike?"

 

There are quite a few areas of science that require proper applications of statistics. Biological sciences rely on them very heavily. Many biologist collaborate with statisticians and the biologists themselves must have a very good understanding of statistical application. There are biology degrees that are really statistics degrees with a focus on biological science. So, the thought that someone cannot be proficient in both is a flawed assumption; they are inseparable fields of study.

 

But there is the rub. Most climate scientists do not collaborate with statisticians. This was a point of the Wegman report, that for a science that relies so heavily on statistical analysis, there is surprisingly little collaboration with the statistical community. And then we finish up with the "special pleading". Decentred PCA is not a valid statistical approach according to the statisticians but according to the climate scientists it is in climate science. Sorry, but no. Mathematics works the same way for everybody, you don't get your own special rules. There is an old saying that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", I view that claiming maths or stats works differently in climate than they do in other fields as "extraordinary" to say the least, yet so far the evidence has not been forthcoming.

 

Part of the problem here (IMO) is that since climate science as a field is rather young, then for most in the field now, there was little idea as to what was required when they were training. Nobody knew 20 years ago that a secondary in Stats would be a good idea. This is changing and the new crop of climatologists seem to have a much better grounding in stats than their predecessors do.

 

Just as an aside and on weather there is this bit of work. After going through the historical documents the author arrived at "A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events". Some are scary, some are amazing and some are quite mystifying, but it does give a historical background to view current weather events against. As I have noted before on these forums, for a science that likes to use the word "unprecedented" a lot, there seems to be an amazing lack of historical knowledge in climate science.

Edited August 2, 2012 by JohnB

[akh]

Which is exactly why the way Dr Muller is going about things is bugging me. We saw the same thing last year when they had the big press thing for the earlier papers when they were submitted. AFAIK, all have been rejected after review. We get a media blitz on submission, but if the paper is rejected then it isn't a paper, it's not even an op ed, it's a nothing. By all means have a media circus on acceptance if you want, but not on submission.

 

Well I will have to admit, that I am naive to these previous scenarios. I can agree to this criticism. I am fully aware of other situations were the study skips the submission process and goes straight to the media that ended in complete retraction.

 

I think I see where you coming from with this, but I can't quite agree. The test, the only valid test, of a theory is to make predictions and compare them to reality. Temps have gone up about .8 degrees, some of this is sure to be natural, some will be from CO2, some will be from feedbacks, and there are possibly "unknown unknowns". The only way to solve the attribution question is to arrive at values for each of these factors and to feed those values into GCMs and then to compare the output to reality. If it doesn't match, then you have made a mistake. I can't speak for others, but I do see predictions as a neccessary part of theory development. Without it, how do you verify that the values you've arrived at for the forcings are actually correct?

There is also the point that very much intertwined is the political aspect of what to do about the AGW "problem". This begs the question "If it isn't a problem, why do anything?"

 

I still don't think so. Its science for the sake of discovery. If science took the perspective that every study must have a applicable ramification, then many things would not have been discovered. Sometimes it is years later before anything "beneficial" or "revealing" comes from a study. The prediction is that CO2 increase is causing warming, and the CO2 increase is attributed to human activity. That is it. However, I am not saying there isn't more to the story.

 

As far as the temperature increase a result of CO2 increase and GCMs, there is work going on in the Antartic to see if the GCMs are doing a good job of prediction. It will be interesting to see how this factors into AGW. I wish I had access to the full article.

 

You just asked for something that correlated, please don't move the goalposts. How about crows then? A protected species in many nations their numbers have exploded with the advent of technology. Lots and lots of heat absorbing black birds? And I'm not even going to touch the "dumping bicycles into the atmosphere" bit. It's giving me wierd mental pictures and asking odd questions. "Is a 28 speed road racer a more potent GHB than a 21 speed mountain bike?"

 

Well the black crows may lower albedo, provided they are in the open and not in the shade. But many crows spend time on similarly dark surfaces such as roof tops and asphalt roadways (they like road kill). The net albedo of the crow will be lower when in flight, due to increased surface area. But a crow in flight will provide a shorter path and less atmosphere for IR to escape, and will also block light from reaching ground level.

Edited August 3, 2012 by akh

[JohnB]

I still don't think so. Its science for the sake of discovery. If science took the perspective that every study must have a applicable ramification, then many things would not have been discovered. Sometimes it is years later before anything "beneficial" or "revealing" comes from a study. The prediction is that CO2 increase is causing warming, and the CO2 increase is attributed to human activity. That is it. However, I am not saying there isn't more to the story.

 

As far as the temperature increase a result of CO2 increase and GCMs, there is work going on in the Antartic to see if the GCMs are doing a good job of prediction. It will be interesting to see how this factors into AGW. I wish I had access to the full article.

 

Fair enough. I have no problems with the idea of pure research either. The Antarctic is another piece of the puzzle. I do note that there is no mention of currents which were significantly different that long ago. North and South America weren't joined so there was a vast equatorial current operating to spread heat around the planet.

 

It was the concentrating on CO2 to the exclusion of all other things that made me sceptical at the beginning. When we look at climate and imagine a huge, 2,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, back in the 80s we had the border pretty much done. Then someone grabbed the piece called "CO2" and declared it to be the most important piece in the entire puzzle and all other pieces revolve around it. Well, 30 years on and we've got some more of the puzzle filled in, maybe it's time to admit that "CO2" is just a piece of the puzzle and the world doesn't revolve around it after all.

 

Well the black crows may lower albedo, provided they are in the open and not in the shade. But many crows spend time on similarly dark surfaces such as roof tops and asphalt roadways (they like road kill). The net albedo of the crow will be lower when in flight, due to increased surface area. But a crow in flight will provide a shorter path and less atmosphere for IR to escape, and will also block light from reaching ground level.

 

You forget that this is offset by the well known "Johnathan" effect whereby the upwelling radiation is reflected back to Earth from the undersides of the wings of the multitudes of circling seagulls thereby increasing the warming.

[akh]

Fair enough. I have no problems with the idea of pure research either. The Antarctic is another piece of the puzzle. I do note that there is no mention of currents which were significantly different that long ago. North and South America weren't joined so there was a vast equatorial current operating to spread heat around the planet.

 

It was the concentrating on CO2 to the exclusion of all other things that made me sceptical at the beginning. When we look at climate and imagine a huge, 2,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, back in the 80s we had the border pretty much done. Then someone grabbed the piece called "CO2" and declared it to be the most important piece in the entire puzzle and all other pieces revolve around it. Well, 30 years on and we've got some more of the puzzle filled in, maybe it's time to admit that "CO2" is just a piece of the puzzle and the world doesn't revolve around it after all.

 

 

 

You forget that this is offset by the well known "Johnathan" effect whereby the upwelling radiation is reflected back to Earth from the undersides of the wings of the multitudes of circling seagulls thereby increasing the warming.

 

I could be wrong, but I think that in some ways the Antarctic study is intentionally leaving out things like currents and such. The reason is to eliminate them from the equation, or show that they are not the major component in relation to CO2 for GW. So if they find that the CO2 levels in the past correlate to temperature differences, and those readings fit GCM predictions, and both correlate to current observation, then you have a fairly good argument for CO2 as the major agent. This is not to say that other factors are not at play, but if you eliminate the other variables, then it does start to weigh in favor of AGW.

 

I am really hoping for more studies like this.

Edited August 8, 2012 by akh