APS and the Global Warming Scam

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi,

Where the hell did that fail and "outright contradict" anything?

Don't you understand that by spinning the way you do, you actually lose the argument?

You should stick to facts and totally leave evaluations--including ALL adjectives and adverbs--out of your writing for at least 3 weeks. That won't fix it, but it will give you a start on learning how to think and communicate with precision.

That's about all the serious advice I am going to give you.

Well, it failed to support the hypothesis because the magnitude of the effect they calculated was too small to explain the observations.

Back to mocking the suckup and toady who sounds just like the people who said the government was not spying on us--until Snowden did his thing, of course. The toadies and suckups said nothing on a massive scale like that could be possible. They constantly moved the goal posts in discussions just like you are doing. They kept up the mantra of conspiracy theory, tin foil hat, etc.

Man did they look stupid.

I hope for the sake of your kind Snowden or Wikileaks are not sitting on stuff about climate change.

Michael

Meh. I'm not at all afraid of being proven wrong. The worst case scenario is that I'll have learned something.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Meh. I'm not at all afraid of being proven wrong. The worst case scenario is that I'll have learned something.

That's theory, not practice. Your posts are evidence these two are not aligned.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, it failed to support the hypothesis because the magnitude of the effect they calculated was too small to explain the observations.

By the standards of another dude and not the standards given in the paper?

According to one set of simulations outside of the study?

In a paper stating the following at the end?: "This research was supported by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate Fellowship (91668201–0) as well as a research grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA grant NNG04GE86G)."

Your guys say in 2009,

In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.

The other guys say in 2014:

Clouds play a key role in the energy budget of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. Small modifications of the amount, distribution, or radiative properties of clouds can have significant impacts on the climate. To study the impacts of a 0.5%–1% change in CCN during a solar cycle on cloud albedo, precipitation, cloud lifetime, and cloud cover, a global climate model considering robust aerosol–cloud interaction processes is needed. It should be noted that 0.5%–1% change in CCN during a solar cycle shown here only considers the effect of ionization rate and temperature change on new particle formation. During a solar cycle, changes of other parameters such as UV and TSI flux may also impact chemistry and microphysics, which may influence the magnitude of the solar indirect forcing. Further research is needed to better quantify the impact of solar activities on Earth’s climate.

Which "peer-reviewed" counts as proof in la-la land, since they seem to be at odds here?

Well, for the zealot, if the EPA is funding one, that one is "unequivocal" to use Hartmann's favorite adjective.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Bob and Naomi, you each may be interested in this piece by Jeffrey Pierce at RealClimate, "Cosmic rays and clouds: Potential mechanisms." It's from 2011, speaks to the cosmic-ray/cloud data/theory, with some good links to the CLOUD project.

As Michael points out, this particular issue (and its relative importance) is a site of dispute among varied groups who study and propose/test theories in this area. I don't think this can be settled by joining Team Svensmark or Team non-Svensmark againts all comers, nor by assuming one 'side' has already won the discussion and so the question is completely 'settled.' As Pierce writes, this is an exciting, interesting field of study in itself.

I’ve written this post to help readers understand potential physical mechanisms behind cosmic-ray/cloud connections. But first I briefly want to explain my motivation.

Prior to the publication of the aerosol nucleation results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN in Nature several weeks ago Kirkby et al, 2011, I was asked by Nature Geoscience to write a “News and Views” on the CLOUD results for a general science audience. As an aerosol scientist, I found the results showing the detailed measurements of the influences of ammonia, organics and ions from galactic cosmic rays on aerosol formation exciting. While none of the results were entirely unexpected, the paper still represents a major step forward in our understanding of particle formation. This excitement is what I tried to convey to the general scientific audience in the News and Views piece. However, I only used a small portion of the editorial to discuss the implications to cosmic rays and clouds because (1) I felt that these implications represented only a small portion of the CLOUD findings, and (2) the CLOUD results address only one of several necessary conditions for cosmic rays to affect clouds, and have not yet tested the others.

Many of the news articles and blog posts covering the CLOUD article understandably focused much more on the cosmic-ray/cloud connection as it is easy to tie this connection into the climate debate. While many of the articles did a good job at reporting the CLOUD results within the big picture of cosmic-ray/cloud connections, some articles erroneously claimed that the CLOUD results proved the physics behind a strong cosmic-ray/cloud/climate connection, and others still just got it very muddled. A person hoping to learn more about cosmic rays and clouds likely ended up confused after reading the range of articles published. This potential confusion (along with many great questions and comments in Gavin’s CLOUD post) motivated me to write a general overview of the potential physical mechanisms for cosmic rays affecting clouds. In this post, I will focus on what we know and don’t know regarding the two major proposed physical mechanisms connecting cosmic rays to clouds and climate.

What we know and don’t know about the connection between cosmic rays and clouds and climate

...

It is nice, straight, non-polemic discussion. Recommended.

For another 'skeptical science' perspective, the Svensmark theory is examined and found interesting but yet unproven, with reference to the literature. The page is "What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?" It has three levels of explanation, which I found helpful. Bob/Naomi, you go straight to the 'advanced' argument ...

Edited May 27, 2014 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Ellen and Ba'al are steeped in physics, Naomi a student/amateur. Would any of you tackle 'blackbody radiation' for the intelligent laymen of OL?

William,

Does this work for a layman's explanation in your understanding?

[video "What is blackbody radiation"]

Thanks, Michael -- and Bob. I watched the first short video on blackbody radiation, then this one. I also last night watched the 9-part video Bob flagged today. I am not ready to explain the concept in 140 characters ... but am hoping anyone following along with me understands this statement: The Earth also emits blackbody radiation out into space, and thereby loses energy.

Can we all agree on some basic climate facts, for example:

1) between the "appearance" of man on the historical fact pattern, the levels of C0² in the atmosphere has varied from what it is today; and

2) this vast and complicated Earth that we inhabit is much more comlpex than a model that a human mind can create at this point in time.

If we can agree on that we can actually accept that we are a part of this climate and we pretty much couldn't tip the level enough to even tweak Archimedes.

I much prefer to start with what Naomi introduced (starting with the first paragraph), but I will answer your proposal. Maybe you could consider again that post, and see for yourself where your understanding dims, or your agreement is withdrawn. My mental sleeve is still caught in the cogs of that post's explanatory summary.

-- between the "appearance" of man on the historical fact pattern, the levels of C0² in the atmosphere has varied from what it is today

First, 'historical fact pattern' is unclear: I don't know what you mean. I agree with the second clause. Levels of CO² and other 'greenhouse gases' have varied from what it is measured at today.

If by historical fact pattern you mean a 'signature' of industrial and other human-caused CO² in our atmosphere, then with the second clause you may mean something like: there is a discernable amount of CO² in today's atmosphere that is actually the result of human activities; there is a discernible growth in that amount over time.

Adam, does that translate in your understanding? Would you tend to agree that a human 'signal' has been found in CO² levels?

For an illustration, here's a historical record of CO² levels graphed (from Skeptical Science's 'The human fingerprint in global warming')

-- this vast and complicated Earth that we inhabit is much more comlpex than a model that a human mind can create at this point in time.

Said another way, this tends to a conclusion: humans cannot, at this point in time, figure out what the heightened CO2 levels means in terms of climate 'change' (warming). It implies that nobody can figure out even a small part of any climate puzzle, nor take a good guess (or as with 'blackbody radiation,' agree on definitions or tried and true natural 'laws' as mentioned by both Bob and Naomi).

I can't quite agree with that. That conclusion seems a closed door: it doesn't credit protracted human inquiry to figure out which particular claims/theories have been found wrong, nor would that conclusion let us figure out how to falsify claims or theories.

Can I turn this back on you, Adam? Do you agree in part or generally with these following factual claims? Maybe you would rewrite it to make more sense in your mind. Given what you have put forward above, how might we decide which parts might be true and which parts likely are not?

The Earth receives energy from the sun in the form of radiation. The Earth also emits blackbody radiation out into space, and thereby loses energy. Because of the law of conservation of energy, the amount of energy dumped into the climate system must balance the amount that leaves and stays in it. Since greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and H2O have absorption spectra in the infrared range, they let radiation from the sun reach the Earth's surface. However, since the Earth radiates blackbody radiation in the form of infrared waves, these gases absorb that radiation, and its energy remains trapped in the atmosphere. This energy heats the atmosphere and the Earth's surface. Thus, if the atmosphere wasn't there, the Earth's surface would be much cooler than it is.

For fun, Adam, a link to 'Climate of Mars' at Wikipedia.

[william.scherk]

There is no doubt that there has been a warming of atmosphere and oceans as evidenced by the shrinking of the Greenland glacier and the decrease of floating ice in the arctic. No one is arguing these facts. The entire dispute is over the causes of these changes. Is the cause mostly human activity, in particular, man made effluence of CO2 or do other causes, in particular natural causes account for what we see. Clearly human activity has some influence on the warming, but -how- much-???

Good points, Bob. I hope you report back if you do some more digging among the literature on Svensmark's findings/theory, and if you find any good counter-Svensmark articles or papers.

You ask a decent question. Given that 'no one is arguing' the fact "that there has been a warming of atmosphere and oceans," you draw explanations into two types: those that properly factor all natural causes (including cosmic rays) and those than don't do so.

Given you offer preliminary support for Svensmark's thesis, can you share your reactions to any good research you've read that does not fully support Svensmark's work -- or that offers cogent argument against it? Or at least give us links to reasonable counter-arguments, or otherwise let us know how you advise vetting work on cosmic rays/cloud formation?

What data would tend to falsify Svensmark's work, in whole or in part, from your perspective? What 'signal' should we be looking for that will over time offer proof or disproof of the notion that cosmic ray abundance has significant climate implications (that cosmic ray abundance depresses temperatures, lack of abundance removes forcing)?

Now-a-days any scientific worker who -dares- to suggest that there are significant natural causes to the current warming trend is branded as a Skeptic, a Heretic, an Incompetent, a lick spittle and running dog for the Corporate Cronies etc. etc.

They are using hardcore propaganda techniques, too, like guilt by association for one example.

Here's a typical one. People who don't follow their party line are branded "Climate Change Deniers." They like to tout at times that skepticism (which is good for science) is different than denial, but in practice, they are always very quick to level the "Climate Change Denier" charge at a skeptic and they constantly frame the climate change issue in "denier" terms, even with people they, one minute ago, recognized as skeptics and not deniers.

Here's a well-known name who styles himself a skeptic, Fred Singer, in an article called "Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name," published in American Thinker a couple of years ago.

allia omnia est divisa in partes tres. This phrase from Julius Gaius Caesar about the division of Gaul nicely illustrates the universe of climate scientists—also divided into three parts. On the one side are the “warmistas,” with fixed views about apocalyptic man-made global warming; at the other extreme are the “deniers.” Somewhere in the middle are climate skeptics.

In principle, every true scientist must be a skeptic. That’s how we’re trained; we question experiments, and we question theories. We try to repeat or independently derive what we read in publications—just to make sure that no mistakes have been made.

In my view, warmistas and deniers are very similar in some respects—at least their extremists are. They have fixed ideas about climate, its change, and its cause. They both ignore “inconvenient truths” and select data and facts that support their preconceived views. Many of them are also quite intolerant and unwilling to discuss or debate these views—and quite willing to think the worst of their opponents.

Of course, these three categories do not have sharp boundaries; there are gradations. For example, many skeptics go along with the general conclusion of the warmistas but simply claim that the human contribution is not as large as indicated by climate models. But at the same time, they join with deniers in opposing drastic efforts to mitigate greenhouse (GH) gas emissions.

I am going to resist the temptation to name names. But everyone working in the field knows who is a warmista, skeptic, or denier.

I do agree with Michael that the internet is full of pretty rank arguments full of ad hominem -- on the subject of global warming. Even our little corner of rationality -- and this thread in particular -- has been full of words that don't always do any work: from fool to bitch to propagandist and worse --though I like the image of kook green radicals being fed Soylent Green. Still, remembering the heightened emotions and rhetoric from OL's first global warming thread, I think acrimony is damaging to reason. Turning the temperature down then serves additional goals.

It must be spring, when the sap begins to quicken. I look forward to positive outcomes of sustained, rational, reasonable discussion in this thread:

• understanding the so-called and disputed "consensus"; knowing what parts of the AGW consensus arguments are relatively strong and which parts are less strong or actually weak, according to best evidence adduced.
• understanding where my own grasp of climate concepts is weak, very weak, or non-existent.
• figuring out which questions tend to bear the most fruitful answers.

Back to Singer. He eviscerates AGWarmistas as he tends to do in his books and papers and articles. But he also nets errors on the other side, notes particulars of 'denier' opinion, opinion he finds wanting:

Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics—i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.

Then there is another group of deniers who accept the existence of the greenhouse effect but argue about the cause and effect of the observed increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. One subgroup holds that CO2 levels were much higher in the 19th century, so there really hasn’t been a long-term increase from human activities. They even believe in a conspiracy to suppress these facts. Another subgroup accepts that CO2 levels are increasing in the 20th century but claims that the source is release of dissolved CO2 from the warming ocean. In other words, they argue that oceans warm first, which then causes the CO2 increase. In fact, such a phenomenon is observed in the ice-core record, where sudden temperature increases precede increases in CO2. While this fact is a good argument against the story put forth by Al Gore, it does not apply to the 20th century: isotopic and other evidence destroys their case.

Another subgroup simply says that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is so small that they can’t see how it could possibly change global temperature. But laboratory data show that CO2 absorbs IR radiation very strongly. Another subgroup says that natural annual additions to atmospheric CO2 are many times greater than any human source; they ignore the natural sinks that have kept CO2 reasonably constant before humans started burning fossil fuels. Finally, there are the claims that major volcanic eruptions produce the equivalent of many years of human emission from fossil-fuel burning. To which I reply: OK, but show me a step increase in measured atmospheric CO2 related to a volcanic eruption.

I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced warmistas and probably even less with true deniers. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out.

Edited May 27, 2014 by william.scherk

[Selene]

William:

Said another way, this tends to a conclusion: humans cannot, at this point in time, figure out what the heightened CO2 levels means in terms of climate 'change' (warming). It implies that nobody can figure out even a small part of any climate puzzle, nor take a good guess (or as with 'blackbody radiation,' agree on definitions or tried and true natural 'laws' as mentioned by both Bob and Naomi).

See the phrase "climate change" does not mean "warming" to me.

It is change - there is no doubt in my mind that climate changes, daily, yearly, etc.

So were you just clarifying what you meant?

As to other points you referred to:

The historical fact pattern of man on the planet would be based on oral history, archialogical data and the written word.

I would assume that man has an impact on his environment the same way Beavers do in theirs.

Precisely whether that impact is "meaningful" ... I have no clue.

I do know that a warmer planet means more plant life, less loss of human life and frankly if folks refuse to leave their locale when the water is rising they need to learn from Holland how to work that ...

As to the "model" statement, no I am in favor of models, open models, not models that Dennis seemed to tear apart to my satisfaction which did not come close to being able to correctly predict climate change.

Hope that clears up some points.

A...

[BaalChatzaf]

William:

Said another way, this tends to a conclusion: humans cannot, at this point in time, figure out what the heightened CO2 levels means in terms of climate 'change' (warming). It implies that nobody can figure out even a small part of any climate puzzle, nor take a good guess (or as with 'blackbody radiation,' agree on definitions or tried and true natural 'laws' as mentioned by both Bob and Naomi).

See the phrase "climate change" does not mean "warming" to me.

I

There are short term climate trends and long term climate trends. The last Great Ice Age lasted over a million years. That is not a daily or weekly wiggle. Currently we are in an interglacial period that is milder and longer lasting than previous interglacial periods.

It so happens that the civilization we love developed during an 8 to 10 thousand years stretch in the current interglacial and we are used to relatively mild weather. Prior to the development of agriculture (possible only because of relatively mild temperatures) our ancestors spent the better part of the previous 200,000 years during an ice age. Our ancestors moved out of Africa and headed north into country that grow cold as the glaciers advanced. Homo Sapien survived the cold spell.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Do you think the dinosaur farts of prehistorical times were worse for the climate than today's cow farts?

(I couldn't resist. But that might not just be a quip. Imagine what a brontosaurus--OK apatosaurus--letting 'er rip would have been like. It would have given new meaning to the phrase "break wind." )

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Do you think the dinosaur farts of prehistorical times were worse for the climate than today's cow farts?

(I couldn't resist. But that might not just be a quip. Imagine what a brontosaurus--OK apatosaurus--letting 'er rip would have been like. It would have given new meaning to the phrase "break wind." )

Michael

Not a bit. In fact the Earth started off with a methane atmosphere.

It was cyano-bacteria that converted our atmosphere to oxygen and nitrogen. After that the Earth spent more time in the freezer than in the warmth. Climate change there is and climate change there will be and most likely our next big switch is back to the Cold after which the glaciers will grow. That should make the AGW crew happy. When the glaciers visit Central Park again will they blame that on the Capitalists?

Look at the positive side. A long cold spell (at least 100,000 years) will separate the strong from the weak and the smart from the stupid.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As long as I am feeling light-spirited and do not have time yet for studying arcane technical physics topics (I'm also girding my spirit to face the boredom ), here is something I picked up on the Wikileaks Supporters forum (here):

Setting aside a quibble or two about the list on the left, that actually says what I believe the public is starting to feel better than anything else I have seen so far.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a well-known name who styles himself a skeptic, Fred Singer, in an article called "Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name," published in American Thinker a couple of years ago.

William,

I just bopped around on Google about this guy.

Granted, he appears to be on the opposite end of the AGW truthers (do you like my propaganda term? ), so he is probably biased to that end. Still, his stuff looks like it is not just smoke and mirrors intended to intimidate and shut down thinking.

The AGW truthers call him a paid servant of the oil industry, but he gets a lot of support and endorsement from many in academia the world over. Just look at the list of Authors, Contributors, and Reviewers of the PDF copy of the 2013 Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science--Summary for Policymakers by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). I don't know if that thing is peer-reviewed, but there are a hell of a lot of scientific and academic "peers" contributing to and supporting it.

You can get the full printed book of over 1000 pages at the Amazon link below, but I don't know who would want to spend 150 smackaroonies or so for it. But if that is your fancy:

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science by Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter and S. Fred Singer, and S.T. Karnick and Diane Carol Bast (Editors)

Besides, if you go to the following site: Climate Change Reconsidered, you can get free PDF copies of their reports, including the entire "Physical Science" book, going from 2009 to 2014.

Just to dispel any confusion (one that I had on looking just now), Climate Change Reconsidered II is a three-volume work. Volume 1 was done in 2013 and Volume 2 was done in 2014 and Volume 3 is still being done as of this post. Like I said, PDF copies are (or will be) available at no cost on the site linked above. Here are the titles:

Vol. 1 - Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science

Vol. 2 - Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts

Vol. 3 - Climate Change Reconsidered II: Human Welfare, Energy, and Policies

I kind of like the idea that Singer set up the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change as a counterbalance to the UN's International Panel on Climate Change. From what I can tell, Singer is vastly out-funded, but his work is causing serious heartburn to the AGW truthers (and the fanatics on the anti-AGW truther side, for that matter).

I'm going to go through the "Summary for Policymakers" linked above just to get my feet wet. I have no wish to plow through thousands of pages about this topic (neither by the NIPCC or the IPCC), but I will look around a bit since this appears to be something more serious than a simple propaganda war.

I wonder if the authors explain the different concepts as they go along, or if they try to intimidate you into silence with tons of jargon, copy/paste dumps, loaded language and mocking like the AGW truthers do.

Note, I am looking at this right now and not arcane technical literature for two reasons:

1. It is done by a person who does not agree with the AGW truther machine. This is a stance I already resonate with, so it should make the reading more interesting. I realize there may be bias to the point of error in it, though, so I will try to be attentive to this as I read.

2. On first blush, it looks like the language is understandable to a non-technical reader. Since I believe one should identify something correctly BEFORE one judges it, whether I, Michael, end up agreeing or disagreeing with the evaluations, the way it is presented should be helpful for me to correctly identify what the science stuff is all about. At least to the point of not looking like a total newbie when I discuss it.

I trust my own mind to come to my own conclusions without needing to first digest loaded adjectives and adverbs like "unequivocal" (Hartmann's favorite adjective ).

You would think the AGW truthers would be interested in plain language explanations since people who speak plain language are the ones who have to vote for the politicians and policies they so dearly desire...

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

So is anyone actually prepared to criticize the IPCC position on climate change described in my big post?

Where's Ellen?

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is the important point I took away from the Report:

More facts about climate models and their limitations

reported in Chapter 1 of CCR-II: Physical Science are

reported in Figure 5.

We conclude the current generation of GCMs

are unable to make accurate projections of

climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100-

year period that has been adopted by policy

planners. The output of such models should

therefore not be used to guide public policy

formulation until they have been validated and

shown to have predictive value.

In short, the climate models used by IPPC have been empirically falsified.

The IPPC has been guilty of gross Observer Bias and the exponents of that approach should have a more skeptical and cautious attitude toward the statistical modelling approach.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is the important point I took away from the Report:

More facts about climate models and their limitations

reported in Chapter 1 of CCR-II: Physical Science are

reported in Figure 5.

We conclude the current generation of GCMs

are unable to make accurate projections of

climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100-

year period that has been adopted by policy

planners. The output of such models should

therefore not be used to guide public policy

formulation until they have been validated and

shown to have predictive value.

In addition I quote this summary page.

• Climate models project an atmospheric warming of at least 0.3°C over the past 15 years; in fact,

temperature stasis or slight cooling has occurred.

• Climate models project an ocean warming of at least 0.2°C since 2000; in fact, no warming is observed.

• Climate models project the appearance of an upper troposphere hot-spot in tropical regions; none is

observed.

• Climate models project late twentieth century warming should have occurred towards both poles; in fact,

warming was confined to north polar regions.

• Climate models generally assume a climate sensitivity of 3°C for a doubling of CO2 above preindustrial

values, whereas meteorological observations are consistent with a sensitivity of 1°C or less.

• Climate models underestimate surface evaporation caused by increased temperature by a factor of 3,

resulting in a consequential underestimation of global precipitation.

• Climate models represent aerosol-induced changes in infrared (IR) radiation inadequately, despite

studies showing different mineral aerosols (for equal loadings) can cause differences in surface IR flux

between 7 and 25 Wm-2.

• Deterministic climate models have inherent properties that make dynamic predictability impossible;

introduction of techniques to deal with this (notably parameterization) introduces bias into model

projections.

• Limitations in computing power restrict climate models from resolving important climate processes; low-

resolution models fail to capture many important regional and lesser-scale phenomena such as clouds.

• Model calibration is faulty, as it assumes all temperature rise since the start of the industrial revolution

has resulted from human CO2 emissions; in reality, major human-related emissions commenced only in

the mid-twentieth century.

• Non-linear climate models exhibit chaotic behavior. As a result, individual simulations (“runs”) may show

differing trend values.

• Internal climate oscillations (AMO, PDO, etc.) are major features of the historic temperature record;

climate models do not even attempt to simulate them.

• Similarly, climate models fail to incorporate the effects of variations in solar magnetic field or in the flux of

cosmic rays, both of which are known to significantly affect climate.

Source: “Chapter 1. Global Climate Models and Their Limitations,” Climate Change Reconsidered II:

Physical Science (Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2013).

In short, the climate models used by IPPC have been empirically falsified.

The IPPC has been guilty of gross Observer Bias and the exponents of that approach should have a more skeptical and cautious attitude toward the statistical modelling approach.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So is anyone actually prepared to criticize the IPCC position on climate change described in my big post?

Where's Ellen?

To be honest, I have just read a few pages of the "Summary for Policymakers" above and it looks like this report is a pretty elaborate criticism of the IPCC position.

The language is to my satisfaction as a lay person. It starts with a discussion of an often-used practice in industry, government, and law of a red team/green team approach when dealing with complex or controversial matters, and it positions the NIPCC as the red team to balance the IPCC's green team. From what I gather, a lot of scientists and academics have signed on in this spirit.

Then it discusses the scientific method of using a null hypothesis as a baseline and how the IPCC approach falls outside of this standard by replacing the null hypothesis with a preordained conclusion and works backward from there, probably due to a bias in the UN protocol itself.

In the discussion of the precautionary principle, the authors hit my own complaint squarely in the middle:

Contradictions about methodology and the verity of claimed facts make it difficult for unprejudiced lay persons to judge for themselves where the truth actually lies in the global warming debate. This is one of the primary reasons why politicians and commentators rely so heavily on supposedly authoritative statements issued by one side or another in the public discussion. Arguing from authority, however, is the antithesis of the scientific method. Attempting to stifle debate by appealing to authority hinders rather than helps scientific progress and understanding.

This 97% consensus of all scientists agree smoke-and-mirrors thing, for example, is a great example of argument from authority addressed to lay people. What's worse, when you look into the claim, it is gobbledygook and hairsplitting all over the place.

It will take me time to go through this material (the part that interests me), but so far, approach-wise, I like what I see. This should allow me to correctly understand the IPCC position, or at least know what I don't understand and where I need to study more. At such time, I, myself, will be able to make comments about it from a reasonable lay person's perspective.

And let the facts fall where they may.

That is a lot better than playing gotcha.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

And let the facts fall where they may.

That is a lot better than playing gotcha.

Michael

There is solid falsification of the IPCC hypotheses underlying the model. If that kind of counter-proof were thrown at the Standar Model the world of physics would be shaken to the basement level.

It goes like this: If the predictions made by the model do not jibe with measured states of the world then the model is no good. It is as simple as that.

Now it may well be the case that human activity has affected the climate but the IPCC model does not make that case for that position.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Here is the important point I took away from the Report:

More facts about climate models and their limitations

reported in Chapter 1 of CCR-II: Physical Science are

reported in Figure 5.

We conclude the current generation of GCMs

are unable to make accurate projections of

climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100-

year period that has been adopted by policy

planners. The output of such models should

therefore not be used to guide public policy

formulation until they have been validated and

shown to have predictive value.

In addition I quote this summary page.

• Climate models project an atmospheric warming of at least 0.3°C over the past 15 years; in fact,

temperature stasis or slight cooling has occurred.

• Climate models project an ocean warming of at least 0.2°C since 2000; in fact, no warming is observed.

• Climate models project the appearance of an upper troposphere hot-spot in tropical regions; none is

observed.

• Climate models project late twentieth century warming should have occurred towards both poles; in fact,

warming was confined to north polar regions.

• Climate models generally assume a climate sensitivity of 3°C for a doubling of CO2 above preindustrial

values, whereas meteorological observations are consistent with a sensitivity of 1°C or less.

• Climate models underestimate surface evaporation caused by increased temperature by a factor of 3,

resulting in a consequential underestimation of global precipitation.

• Climate models represent aerosol-induced changes in infrared (IR) radiation inadequately, despite

studies showing different mineral aerosols (for equal loadings) can cause differences in surface IR flux

between 7 and 25 Wm-2.

• Deterministic climate models have inherent properties that make dynamic predictability impossible;

introduction of techniques to deal with this (notably parameterization) introduces bias into model

projections.

• Limitations in computing power restrict climate models from resolving important climate processes; low-

resolution models fail to capture many important regional and lesser-scale phenomena such as clouds.

• Model calibration is faulty, as it assumes all temperature rise since the start of the industrial revolution

has resulted from human CO2 emissions; in reality, major human-related emissions commenced only in

the mid-twentieth century.

• Non-linear climate models exhibit chaotic behavior. As a result, individual simulations (“runs”) may show

differing trend values.

• Internal climate oscillations (AMO, PDO, etc.) are major features of the historic temperature record;

climate models do not even attempt to simulate them.

• Similarly, climate models fail to incorporate the effects of variations in solar magnetic field or in the flux of

cosmic rays, both of which are known to significantly affect climate.

Source: “Chapter 1. Global Climate Models and Their Limitations,” Climate Change Reconsidered II:

Physical Science (Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2013).

In short, the climate models used by IPPC have been empirically falsified.

The IPPC has been guilty of gross Observer Bias and the exponents of that approach should have a more skeptical and cautious attitude toward the statistical modelling approach.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al

Earlier, you seemed quite certain that the climate models were unfalsifiable. Now, however, you are claiming that they have been empirically falsified. Which is it exactly? Because you obviously can't have it both ways.

If you believe that they are falsifiable, and I show you that the above claims are misleading, false, or irrelevant, will you then believe that the climate models accurately predict long term trends?

[Jonathan]

Ba'al

Earlier, you seemed quite certain that the climate models were unfalsifiable. Now, however, you are claiming that they have been empirically falsified. Which is it exactly? Because you obviously can't have it both ways.

If you believe that they are falsifiable, and I show you that the above claims are misleading, false, or irrelevant, will you then believe that the climate models accurately predict long term trends?

Tard,

What Bob means is that when climate alarmists' models and predictions are shown to be wrong -- when they are shown to have been falsified -- the alarmists deny that they have been falsified. In other words, they allow for no possible logical disproof of their theories. Understand? That's what it means to call a theory "unfalsifiable."

See, it's like when climate scientists recognize that their predictions didn't pan out, and then try to come up with an explanation of why they didn't pan out, yet they don't admit that their failed predictions disprove their theory. They assert that their theory is still valid, but that some unexplained phenomenon must have affected it and given it a false appearance of failure. They will not name or accept any possible outcomes as disproving their theory. Over the next century, temperatures could rise by 10 degrees, or they could cool by 10 degrees, or they could remain exactly the same, and regardless of which turned out to be true, the alarmists would be claiming that it is proof of their theory, and not disproof.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why am I smelling a copy/paste dump of a whole lot of crap in the near future?

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Ba'al

Earlier, you seemed quite certain that the climate models were unfalsifiable. Now, however, you are claiming that they have been empirically falsified. Which is it exactly? Because you obviously can't have it both ways.

If you believe that they are falsifiable, and I show you that the above claims are misleading, false, or irrelevant, will you then believe that the climate models accurately predict long term trends?

Tard,

What Bob means is that when climate alarmists' models and predictions are shown to be wrong -- when they are shown to have been falsified -- the alarmists deny that they have been falsified. In other words, they allow for no possible logical disproof of their theories. Understand? That's what it means to call a theory "unfalsifiable."

See, it's like when climate scientists recognize that their predictions didn't pan out, and then try to come up with an explanation of why they didn't pan out, yet they don't admit that their failed predictions disprove their theory. They assert that their theory is still valid, but that some unexplained phenomenon must have affected it and given it a false appearance of failure. They will not name or accept any possible outcomes as disproving their theory. Over the next century, temperatures could rise by 10 degrees, or they could cool by 10 degrees, or they could remain exactly the same, and regardless of which turned out to be true, the alarmists would be claiming that it is proof of their theory, and not disproof.

J

I think what we really need is an explanation of how hypothesis testing works in real science, because there are a lot of misconceptions out there due to oversimplified explanations of the scientific method.

Let's look at a simple made-up example to see how hypothesis testing actually works. Suppose that you have a model of the climate, and it predicts a temperature increase of about 3 degrees, while the observed temperature increase is 10 degrees. Is your model falsified? No. Why is that? Because it successfully explains some of the variation of the temperature. What this means is that you're on the right track, but there are pieces missing in your puzzle, and you have to find them.

Let's say that after some amount of investigation and thinking, you propose a mechanism which explains an additional 4 degrees of the increase (it's important that this new mechanism not contradict any part of your original model, your combined hypothesis has to be logically consistent). Now, you can explain a total of 7 degrees of the increase. That's better. You now have a more accurate model.

So, on the surface, it would seem that no data can contradict your hypothesis, and that it is unfalsifiable. For each discrepancy, all you have to do is find some new mechanism to explain it, and your theory would always be safe. However, this isn't exactly right.

There is, in fact, a way to falsify your hypothesis. Suppose that you discover a third mechanism, which both contradicts the first mechanism, but, when combined with the second mechanism, explains 9 degrees of the temperature increase. So, originally, you had a hypothesis whereby mechanisms 1 and 2 together could explain only 7 degrees, but now you have a hypothesis whereby mechanisms 2 and 3 together explain 9 degrees. The second hypothesis is clearly more accurate than the first, and so the first is rejected in favor of the second.

So the way to disprove AGW would not be to point out minor discrepancies between observations and model predictions. (nonetheless, these discrepancies need to be explained) What one has to do, is to come up with an explanation that excludes anthropogenic factors and can explain the observed data even just a little bit better than the current theory can.

Thus far, no one has succeeded in proposing a theory that can explain the observed temperature trends using only natural factors. In fact, natural factors explain virtually none of the recent temperature variations.

[Selene]

I wonder what a freshman college year is going to look like in 2024?

Got models that will predict it to even a de minimus level of twenty percent (20%) accuracy?

Just wonderin, cause that would seem to involve a lot less variables.

Hey, what do I know, I think the United Nations should tell me what it will look llike.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So the way to disprove AGW would not be to point out minor discrepancies between observations and model predictions. (nonetheless, these discrepancies need to be explained) What one has to do, is to come up with an explanation that excludes anthropogenic factors and can explain the observed data even just a little bit better than the current theory can.

This is exactly the problem.

AGW is being treated as the true truth that needs disproving (on pain of that "denier" thing lurking around the corner).

Even as a lay person, I understood what the report meant by null hypothesis. It meant that we start with natural causes for changes in climate as the baseline, then see what varies against that standard. The we look at human activity as one of the potential sources to test if large variations are found.

The approach above starts with AGW as the baseline and presumes that any current variance from projected trends of natural causes measured from the past are "unequivocally" due to humans. Every frigging one of them until they are completely disproven. And even then, from what little I already know about this, there is a lot of monkey-business that goes on in these measurements of the past and the interpretations of them. So predictions don't have to prove the theory.

In short, it's backwards.

Doing it that way, nothing will ever be falsified that the AGW truthers don't want falsified. They threw the falsifiability system out with the null hypothesis.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

So the way to disprove AGW would not be to point out minor discrepancies between observations and model predictions. (nonetheless, these discrepancies need to be explained) What one has to do, is to come up with an explanation that excludes anthropogenic factors and can explain the observed data even just a little bit better than the current theory can.

This is exactly the problem.

AGW is being treated as the true truth that needs disproving (on pain of that "denier" thing lurking around the corner).

Even as a lay person, I understood what the report meant by null hypothesis. It meant that we start with natural causes for changes in climate as the baseline, then see what varies against that standard. The we look at human activity as one of the potential sources to test if large variations are found.

The approach above starts with AGW as the baseline and presumes that any current variance from projected trends of natural causes measured from the past are "unequivocally" due to humans. Every frigging one of them until they are completely disproven. And even then, from what little I already know about this, there is a lot of monkey-business that goes on in these measurements of the past and the interpretations of them. So predictions don't have to prove the theory.

In short, it's backwards.

Doing it that way, nothing will ever be falsified that the AGW truthers don't want falsified. They threw the falsifiability system out with the null hypothesis.

Michael

That is incorrect. The null hypothesis is that temperature variations are explained by nothing at all, and are therefore completely unpredictable (that's why it's called a "null" hypothesis and not a natural hypothesis). That temperature variations are explained by natural causes, anthropogenic causes, or both, none of those are a null hypothesis.

The vast amount of data we have on the climate, as shown in the IPCC report, proves "unequivocally" that temperature variations are not completely random and unpredictable, but that they are almost entirely explained by anthropogenic factors. They also show that natural factors alone cannot explain any of the recent temperature trends.

Thus, if one does claim that natural factors alone can explain the temperature trends, then they need to prove it.

Climate scientists most certainly do not presume the truth of AGW just because they demand a proof of an alternative hypothesis. On the contrary, the NIPCC people presume the truth of GW by entirely natural causes, and then try to argue that AGW is false simply because it doesn't explain everything.

[Selene]

This is the Litany.

This is the revealed word of the Apostle Paul [opps] Erlich...

And the Apostle ______________ who Ban Ki-Moon?

A...