One of the defenses often used by climate modelers against charges that climate is simple to complex to model accurately is that “they do it all the time in finance and economics.” This comes today from Megan McArdle on economic forecasting:
I find this pretty underwhelming, since private forecasters also unanimously think they can make forecasts, a belief which turns out to be not very well supported. More than one analysis of these sorts of forecasts has found them not much better than random chance, and especially prone to miss major structural changes in the economy. Just because toggling a given variable in their model means that you produce a given outcome, does not mean you can assume that these results will be replicated in the real world. The poor history of forecasting definitionally means that these models are missing a lot of information, and poorly understood feedback effects.
Sounds familiar, huh? I echoed these sentiments in a comparison of economic and climate forecasting here.
Russ R,
you say: ‘@ Shills – I’ll repeat my main point for you….’
Um, Too bad if the peeps on this forum (both sides) don’t care to bring their discourse to the level of accountability of your individual liking. But I’ll give you this much: the denier type I was referring to above were the ones who refuse to believe that the climategate/cru/IPCC-errors issue of a while back did not reveal a cover-up/conspiracy. This they deny, after multiple investigations showing no evidence of serious misdemeanours.
You say:
‘I would guess this is because they are ignorant of these kinds of statistical tests and why they are required in these situations…,’
LOL. You really think a bunch of working scientific researchers wouldn’t have thought about such a basic test??? Maybe you should ask ’em about that.
you say:
‘…or they already know what they will find and choose to not publish how bad their models actually are.’
LOL, sorry, but this kinda smells like those stupid denier (as above) conspiracy theories. Again, go ask ’em at your local university maybe. If you think you have found a serious error or what ever, then go publish something in the literature.
You say:
‘If they do exist, maybe Shills and/or Waldo can point me towards them?’
Not me, I dunno. But why not go ask a climate scientist??
Yep, Woops Russ. That last quote wasn’t yours.
But on the subject of models. Russ’s results show that the IPCC’s estimates seem to overstate warming when compared to observation data. But, from what I’ve heard, the IPCC estimates usually understate the warming trend.
Hmm, what does all this mean… What is missing here?…
****”But will it be enough to convince our friend Waldo?”
Perhaps Russ, if I state my own position (which I have held over my long tenure as a commentator on CS), it will make my commentary clearer.
I am a layman and I am an AGW agnostic. I do not know if there is such a thing as global climate change or not. My own personal experiences would seem to suggest that the climate is pretty much the same as when I was a child—long enough ago that the changes might be observable. Then again, the old timers in the state I currently live in like to talk about how brutal the winters used to be and how comparatively mild they are now. So I don’t know. Probably these anecdotal observations mean nothing at all.
So as a layperson I must make some determination about who I trust enough to believe. Your point above that “to answer the entire set of questions, a much broader range of expertise is required” is well taken, but this is also somewhat problematic since you are a financial analyst who is currently commenting on climate science. Why not use your expertise to comment upon the financial implications of climate science and leave those who are admittedly the absolute “experts on the science-related issues”? Because, Russ, the people who disagree with your evaluations above are actually these self-same experts, and that is the reason I am not particularly convinced of what you has posted above. (Besides, we have already discussed the matter that Hansen was making ‘predictions,’ which by their very nature means they will probably not be perfectly accurate.)
And forgive me for my primitive approach, but if I follow the land-ocean and the station-data lines, it would appear that Hansen’s predictions are, in fact, actually fairly accurate. Do you challenge this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hansen_2006_temperature_comparison.jpg
Why do you use a blog (http://www.woodfortrees.org) for your information above?
Which actually brings me to Shills comment Re statistical tests:
****”You really think a bunch of working scientific researchers wouldn’t have thought about such a basic test??? Maybe you should ask ‘em about that.”
Tell you what, since you and Wally are very convinced you have figured out something the climate science community has not, here are the submission guidelines for Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/gen_info.dtl
Peer-review the above data.
Certainly you are mature enough not to fall back upon the ‘they’re all friends’ rational or the ‘I’m too busy’ (most of your work seems to be done, after all). Let’s see what the experts think of your work.
****”But will it be enough to convince our friend Waldo?”
Perhaps Russ, if I state my own position (which I have held over my long tenure as a commentator on CS), it will make my commentary clearer.
I am a layman and I am an AGW agnostic. I do not know if there is such a thing as global climate change or not. My own personal experiences would seem to suggest that the climate is pretty much the same as when I was a child—long enough ago that the changes might be observable. Then again, the old timers in the state I currently live in like to talk about how brutal the winters used to be and how comparatively mild they are now. So I don’t know. Probably these anecdotal observations mean nothing at all.
So as a layperson I must make some determination about who I trust enough to believe. Your point above that “to answer the entire set of questions, a much broader range of expertise is required” is well taken, but this is also somewhat problematic since you are a financial analyst who is currently commenting on climate science. Why not use your expertise to comment upon the financial implications of climate science and leave those who are admittedly the absolute “experts on the science-related issues”? Because, Russ, the people who disagree with your evaluations above are actually these self-same experts, and that is the reason I am not particularly convinced of what you has posted above. (Besides, we have already discussed the matter that Hansen was making ‘predictions,’ which by their very nature means they will probably not be perfectly accurate.)
And forgive me for my primitive approach, but if I follow the land-ocean and the station-data lines, it would appear that Hansen’s predictions are, in fact, actually fairly accurate. Do you challenge this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hansen_2006_temperature_comparison.jpg
Why do you use a blog (http://www.woodfortrees.org) for your information above?
Which actually brings me to Shills comment Re statistical tests:
****”You really think a bunch of working scientific researchers wouldn’t have thought about such a basic test??? Maybe you should ask ‘em about that.”
Tell you what, since you and Wally are very convinced you have figured out something the climate science community has not, here are the submission guidelines for Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/gen_info.dtl
Peer-review the above data.
Certainly you are mature enough not to fall back upon the ‘they’re all friends’ rational or the ‘I’m too busy’ (most of your work seems to be done, after all). Let’s see what the experts think of your work.
“But, from what I’ve heard, the IPCC estimates usually understate the warming trend.”
Where are the numbers?
Miriam,
For now:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf
Thanks. We are talking about the middle graph of the three.
If I understand Russ, the 1990 prediction from IPCC was 0.3 degrees per decade. The dotted lines on the graph corresponding to predictions have a significantly lower slope (about half). Thus, if Russ quotes the right numbers, the predictions cited in your 2007 paper are significantly different from what they were in 1990. What gives?
Shills & Miriam,
The source of the discrepancy is that the projections being evaluated in Ramstorf et al (2007) are NOT from IPCC (1990), they’re the IPCC (2001) projections, displayed with a 1990 start year.
In their own words: “We compiled the most recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide
concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these
trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1). The IPCC scenarios and projections
start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol… (emphasis mine).
So, they’re actually comparing 16 years of data, against a prediction which was made after 11 of those years were already “in the books”. That’s like predicting the outcome of a hockey game after the third period is underway.
Their justification for this is:
“Although published in 2001, these model projections are essentially independent
from the observed climate data since 1990: Climate models are physics-based models developed
over many years that are not “tuned” to reproduce the most recent temperatures…
The models may not be “tuned”, but the warming prediction itself was revised in IPCC (1995) from 0.3 degrees per decade down to 0.2 degrees per decade, the latter of which is the slope of the solid lines in the graph in Fig 1 (middle).
Thanks a lot, Russ. Shills, are you going to object or do you have another paper showing that “the IPCC estimates usually understate the warming trend”?
And after typing that last comment, I just caught one of my own mistakes.
In my statistical analysis for the IPCC (1995) predictions, I accidentally used a prediction of 2.5 degrees per century when I should have used 2.0 degrees per century for the null hypothesis. This was a misreading on my part and it changes the T-stats substantially. (This mistake did not impact the 1990 analysis.)
Correction follows for IPCC (1995):
UAH data (1995 – 2010)
Observations = 187
Slope = 0.013700253
Standard Error = 0.002937661
Ho: slope ≠ 0.020
T Stat = 2.144477
GISS data (1990 – 2010)
Observations = 187
Slope = 0.016804263
Standard Error = 0.002198422
Ho: slope ≠ 0.020
T Stat = 1.45365
Using the corrected T-stats, the P-values (two-tailed) are 0.03199 (UAH) and 0.14605 (GISS). Therefore, the UAH data would allow us to reject the IPCC (1995) predictions with more than 95% confidence. The GISS data show a difference with only ~85% confidence.
Apologies for the error.
One more typo correction… the comment above should read “GISS data (1995 – 2010)”. I need to hire a proof-reader.
****”But will it be enough to convince our friend Waldo?”
Perhaps Russ, if I state my own position (which I have held over my long tenure as a commentator on CS), it will make my commentary clearer.
I am a layman and I am an AGW agnostic. I do not know if there is such a thing as global climate change or not. My own personal experiences would seem to suggest that the climate is pretty much the same as when I was a child—long enough ago that the changes might be observable. Then again, the old timers in the state I currently live in like to talk about how brutal the winters used to be and how comparatively mild they are now. So I don’t know. Probably these anecdotal observations mean nothing at all.
So as a layperson I must make some determination about who I trust enough to believe. Your point above that “to answer the entire set of questions, a much broader range of expertise is required” is well taken, but this is also somewhat problematic since you are a financial analyst who is currently commenting on climate science. Why not use your expertise to comment upon the financial implications of climate science and leave those who are admittedly the absolute “experts on the science-related issues”? Because, Russ, the people who disagree with your evaluations above are actually these self-same experts, and that is the reason I am not particularly convinced of what you has posted above. (Besides, we have already discussed the matter that Hansen was making ‘predictions,’ which by their very nature means they will probably not be perfectly accurate.)
And forgive me for my primitive approach, but if I follow the land-ocean and the station-data lines, it would appear that Hansen’s predictions are, in fact, actually fairly accurate. Do you challenge this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hansen_2006_temperature_comparison.jpg
Why do you use a blog (http://www.woodfortrees.org) for your information above?
Which actually brings me to Shills comment Re statistical tests:
****”You really think a bunch of working scientific researchers wouldn’t have thought about such a basic test??? Maybe you should ask ‘em about that.”
Tell you what, since you and Wally are very confident about your calculations and convinced you have figured out and exposed something the climate science community has not, here are the submission guidelines for Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/gen_info.dtl
Peer-review the above data.
Certainly you are mature enough not to fall back upon the ‘they’re all friends’ rational or the ‘I’m too busy’ (most of your work seems to be done, after all). Let’s see what the experts think of your work.
****”But will it be enough to convince our friend Waldo?”
Perhaps Russ, if I state my own position (which I have held over my long tenure as a commentator on CS), it will make my commentary clearer.
I am a layman and I am an AGW agnostic. I do not know if there is such a thing as global climate change or not. My own personal experiences would seem to suggest that the climate is pretty much the same as when I was a child—long enough ago that the changes might be observable. Then again, the old timers in the state I currently live in like to talk about how brutal the winters used to be and how comparatively mild they are now. So I don’t know. Probably these anecdotal observations mean nothing at all.
Russ, thanks for the update. That makes some sense that the 1995 confidence is not so high, given the shorter time period and the drop in slope. Though at ~85% I’d say their model is still not that good. The downward revision made it better, but its still quite a ways off. The .05 cut off, while generally accepted, is in the end completely arbitrary. And especially for something like this, lower is always better. We don’t really just want to accept or reject a model, we want to regular refine and repeatedly test each model to get the best one.
So as a layperson I must make some determination about who I trust enough to believe. Your point above that “to answer the entire set of questions, a much broader range of expertise is required” is well taken, but this is also somewhat problematic since you are a financial analyst who is currently commenting on climate science. Why not use your expertise to comment upon the financial implications of climate science and leave those who are admittedly the absolute “experts on the science-related issues”? Because, Russ, the people who disagree with your evaluations above are actually these self-same experts, and that is the reason I am not particularly convinced of what you has posted above. (Besides, we have already discussed the matter that Hansen was making ‘predictions,’ which by their very nature means they will probably not be perfectly accurate.)
And forgive me for my primitive approach, but if I follow the land-ocean and the station-data lines, it would appear that Hansen’s predictions are, in fact, actually fairly accurate. Do you challenge this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hansen_2006_temperature_comparison.jpg
Why do you use a blog (http://www.woodfortrees.org) for your information above?
Which actually brings me to Shills comment Re statistical tests:
****”You really think a bunch of working scientific researchers wouldn’t have thought about such a basic test??? Maybe you should ask ‘em about that.”
Tell you what, since you and Wally are very confident about your calculations and convinced you have figured out and exposed something the climate science community has not, here are the submission guidelines for Science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/gen_info.dtl
Peer-review the above data.
Certainly you are mature enough not to fall back upon the ‘they’re all friends’ rational or the ‘I’m too busy’ (most of your work seems to be done, after all). Let’s see what the experts think of your work.
And sorry for the multiple postings, the system would not accept one long post.
Waldo,
“I am a layman and I am an AGW agnostic.”
I call bull shit. If you were truly agnostic, which here we should be using this definition, “a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study” you wouldn’t be running around call those of us that are obviously more knowledgeable of the scientific process and methods of statistical analysis than you are, and who are simply trying to objectively evaluate the current data and what it means for the greater policy decisions being made, deniers and other similar terms.
Either you’re ignorant of what the true meaning of what you just said is, or you’re a complete and total liar.
Quit playing the pedant, Wally, you’ve got an article to write.
Russ / Wally: 2+2=4
Waldo: I am unconvinced, you are not math experts
Actually it’s not math, Kreo, but objectivity, arrogance, dubious primary sources (if your initial information is skewed nothing from that point on will be correct–a point the denialists are well aware of), and the unwillingness to admit that climate scientists may know their jobs which causes me to doubt the Russ / Wally dynamic duo. Math is only an insignificant part of it.
Waldo,
“I am a layman and I am an AGW agnostic.” – Fair enough. For what it’s worth, I’m actually an AGW believer (i.e. the globe is definitely warming, and some part of it is likely man made). It’s CAGW that I find difficult to believe, because the numbers just don’t add up to the disaster scenarios being predicted.
“So as a layperson I must make some determination about who I trust enough to believe.” I’m certainly not asking you to trust me. In fact, I’m saying the opposite… you should be putting your trust in facts, not people.
“And forgive me for my primitive approach, but if I follow the land-ocean and the station-data lines, it would appear that Hansen’s predictions are, in fact, actually fairly accurate. Do you challenge this?” Yes, I do. First, the graph you linked to only shows data up to 2005, stopping right at the point where Scenario A & B projections ramp upwards, and the real world temperatures fail to follow them. Second, you have to understand the differences between Hansen’s Scenarios A, B & C. You can’t treat them as interchangeable, as they were based on very different assumptions. It’s most appropriate to compare the real world against Scenario A with a couple of caveats (methane emissions, which didn’t rise as much as Scenario A described, and a volcanic event which occured, but was not included in Scenario A). Scenario B was based on lower emissions growth and did include a volcanic event. So it represents a ‘low range’ estimate. In reality, warming didn’t come close to either prediction, falling short of Scenario C which assumed “drastic emissions cuts”. But I’ve written all of this many times before. Conclusion… Hansen (1988) got it wrong. You still haven’t shown me where he admitted to making a mistake.
“Why do you use a blog (http://www.woodfortrees.org) for your information above?” Because that particular website site presents all 4 major data sets (GISTEMP, HADCRUT, UAH & RSS) in a standardized format, along with a graphing and analysis toolkit. In contrast, GISS’ website presents their data in a table format (shown here) that is difficult to import into spreadsheets for analysis. UAH’s data are relatively easy to work with as presented (shown here).
“you are a financial analyst who is currently commenting on climate science.” Actually, I’m doing something that is done routinely by all sorts of analysts… using statistics to test model predictions against real-world data. I’m certainly qualified to do so. But I’ll say it again… don’t take my word for it… look at the data and calculations yourself, and draw your own conclusions. And if either my data or calculations are incorrect, please let me know.
Waldo,
“Math is only an insignificant part of it.”
Completely ignorant statement. The MATHEMATICAL models are a huge part of this, as are the methods statistical analysis used or omitted.
After reading climate papers for the better part of 5 years, I’m convinced that I know statistical analysis and mathematical modeling better than most of these “experts.” I’m sure they know the surrounding background better than I do, but the math/stat tools don’t change between the sciences (or engineering or econ or politics even) and they quite obviously don’t know how to use them correctly and/or they use them in a disingenuous manor. You can attack me personally all you’d like, or tell me to write this paper that I no desire to write, but that doesn’t change the facts and analysis brought up by Russ.
The models suck. If you are truly “agnostic” to climate science, you would be able to see that. Or maybe, you’re just a little too much of a layman to understand, and if you’d like to debate us further, you have a bit of knowledge to catch up on first.
But I guess I can’t stop you from shouting DENIER or ARROGANCE in a pathetic attempt at making an argument. So carry on if you like, but you’re not going to convince many people hurling nothing but ad hominem attacks.
****”I’m convinced that I know statistical analysis and mathematical modeling better than most of these ‘experts.'”
That’s pretty brave talk, Wally, can you put your money where your mouth is? Last time Wally copped out, are you copping out too, Russ?
Peer-review, boys, show your cards.
Actually…I know you won’t (Russ somehow managed to ignore that challenge in my emails and the same challenge in Shills’ posts).
You know damn well once you step out of the safety of an unmonitored, denialist blogsite you’d be handed your hats.
This is why you are unconvincing.
I’m off for several days but I’m sure I’ll have something to say when I come back.
Keep the faith.
I can’t help but laugh at Waldo’s pretense that he is somehow winning this debate. All that talk about someone ignoring your “challenge” and “copping out”… whom are you kidding, boy? 🙂 It’s kind of tough to win anything when your only argument is “such and such is true because the expert said so”.
Yes Waldo, I’m copping out because I’m not jumping at your challenge of getting a bit of basic statistical analysis published in a peer-reviewed science journal.
Thank you for providing us all with a good laugh.
Good bye.
Russ R, says:
‘Yes Waldo, I’m copping out because I’m not jumping at your challenge of getting a bit of basic statistical analysis published in a peer-reviewed science journal.’
Yep. Those stats based on outdated models might be a little late to the show to be of interest.
So, (for Miriam), I guess the issue is which models do we care about? Old ones or the new?
Russ says: ‘That’s like predicting the outcome of a hockey game after the third period is underway.’
But then you cite their justification for it. So… what do you think? are you happy with the justification or do you think it is a bit of a cheat?? How else would we test and improve models of we don’t have a time machine?
And if you have nothing worth publishing, then at least go share your various ideas with a working climate scientist. Could you get any better commentary than that? Def. not here.
Wally says:
‘The .05 cut off, while generally accepted, is in the end completely arbitrary.’
LOL. While that is true. I do wonder where you were, Wally, when the deniers were shouting “insignificant!” regarding that interview with Jones a while back. Double-standards much??
Kreo says:
‘It’s kind of tough to win anything when your only argument is “such and such is true because the expert said so”.’
LOL. Umm, so since when was using expert opinion such a tough way to win an argument? Last I checked in the real word, expert evidence was much more reliable than blog posts. But then again, you might not live in the real world ay Kreo??
“Those stats based on outdated models might be a little late to the show to be of interest.”
So, new models can’t yet be verified, because it’s too early. And old models are uninteresting. I see.
As I said before, Shills and Waldo are clowns.
Miriam says:
‘So, new models can’t yet be verified, because it’s too early. And old models are uninteresting. I see.’
No. Old models are outdated, but also interesting because they can be compared to the observations, and this knowledge informs (I guess) the new models. New models can be verified. New models are trialled against past observations and near future. There is no devious tuning going on because the observations used to develop the models are different from the observations used to evaluate them. additions or the like are only used if they have a priori reasons for being there, not merely to get a ‘closer fit’.
Alex,
Hey Bra! What’s up? you wanna elaborate on your opinions there or just stick with a plain old insult?
Thanks, Shills. Let me correct my point.
While it might be possible to check new models against past observations and near future, these checks are of limited use. I recall it being stressed on RC that global temperature trends taken over the period of 7 or 8 years are not very useful as they fluctuate too much. Consequently, even if the trend in the output of a model predicting global temperatures significantly differs from what really happens, it does not matter until after at least these 7 or 8 years. I think I once heard someone mentioning 20 years as a more useful delay prior to checking the model.
This is the first part of my corrected point – new models can’t yet be verified.
Turning to the old models we see that their predictions made in 1990 and 1995 haven’t been confirmed.
This is the second part of my corrected point – old models are wrong.
Now, with the old models being wrong and the new models being of unknown quality (if anyone would like to venture a point that the new models might miss, but they will “likely” not be “too wrong”, you are welcome to quantify “likely” and “too wrong”), it really seems strange to be reciting predictions from the new models and advocating to take actions based on these predictions, as if they have been truly validated, no? Yet, this is exactly what is being done by people in the catastrophic global warming camp.
Miriam,
But, as I said, the newer models can be tested against the past, and or with climate change events like pinatubo. That is how they get evaluated.
You say: ‘ it really seems strange to be reciting predictions from the new models and advocating to take actions based on these predictions, as if they have been truly validated, no? Yet, this is exactly what is being done by people in the catastrophic global warming camp.’
Yes, that would be kinda strange if the models actually were our only source of evidence, but you are wrong. Even if the models did not exist, we would still have a ‘catastrophic warming camp’. There is a lot more evidence besides the models.
Shills,
“So… what do you think? are you happy with the justification or do you think it is a bit of a cheat??”
How about this, I’ll bet you $1000 that the NHL hockey model I’ve been working on can predict with better than 80% accuracy which team will win the Stanley Cup each year (from 1990 to 2015).
All kidding aside, I think the paper is very misleading. Admit it… you were fooled into thinking the paper was an evaluation and confirmation of the IPCC (1990) predictions (otherwise you wouldn’t have brought it to our attention). I was fooled at first as well, until I read the text closely.
Worse still, while arguing that global temperatures since 1990 have been rising faster than predicted, the authors make no mention that the IPCC predictions were revised downward in the 1995 report (to which they add the ambiguous claim that the models were not “tuned” since 1990… despite the 1995 change in predictions).
Am I’m misunderstanding something here? I’m hoping there’s a reasonable explanation to be had somewhere. Otherwise, I’d have to call shenanigans.
“Even if the models did not exist, we would still have a ‘catastrophic warming camp’. There is a lot more evidence besides the models.”
Do elaborate…
“Even if the models did not exist, we would still have a ‘catastrophic warming camp’. There is a lot more evidence besides the models.”
I am also keen to hear.
“But, as I said, the newer models can be tested against the past, and or with climate change events like pinatubo. That is how they get evaluated.”
Climate scientists who develop models have obscured uncertainty involved in testing models against the past. Dr. Richard Lindzen describe the little game they play:
“So how do models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently small response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of CO2? Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the sensitivity of that model.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Here is the link to primary peer-reviewed article by Jeff Kiehl to which Dr. Lindzen refers. Jeffrey T. Kiehl, Twentieth Century Climate Model Response and Climate Sensitivity, 34 Geo. Res. Lett. L22710 (2007) Copy can be found at http://www.atmos.washington.edu/twiki/pub/Main/ClimateModelingClass/kiehl_2007GL031383.pdf.
Here is another peer-reviewed article that is essential reading on this topic. Stephen E. Schwartz, Robert J. Charlson and Henning Rodhe, Quantifying Climate Change – Too Rosy a Picture?, 2 Nature Reports: Climate Change 23 (2007). copy can be found at http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-78121-2007-JA.pdf
It is worth noting that these are articles by mainstream climate scientists appearing in mainstream journals. Please do not make the argument that climate models accurately replicate the past temperatures until you have read both of the peer-reviewed articles cited above.
Russ,
You say:
‘How about this, I’ll bet you $1000 that the NHL hockey model I’ve been working on can predict with better than 80% accuracy which team will win the Stanley Cup each year (from 1990 to 2015).’
Sounds like you suspect the models are some how inappropriately informed by the observations. I’d like to see you show that.
You say:
‘Admit it… you were fooled into thinking the paper was an evaluation and confirmation of the IPCC (1990) predictions.
Yeah, an evaluation. Thats cool with me.
You say:
‘Am I’m misunderstanding something here? I’m hoping there’s a reasonable explanation to be had somewhere. Otherwise, I’d have to call shenanigans.’
Not sure what the big issue here is. Tuning is a specific term (from what little I know of climate models) and you can make additions to models with out tuning it.
And why so quick to suggest shenanigans? What bemuses me a lot with your side is the quick levelling of accusations. ‘A reasonable explanation’ is far more likely. Maybe the fault lies with your understanding?
You say:
Do elaborate…
For example: Measurements of longwave radiation don’t need models and show signs consistent with greenhouse warming, evidence that shows the increase of co2 is linked to the increase of carbon in the atmosphere, temperature trends that indicate greenhouse warming.
Granted, the story is made much more solid with modelling, but I think there would definitely be an AGW theory out there.
Shills wrote:
“For example: Measurements of longwave radiation don’t need models and show signs consistent with greenhouse warming, evidence that shows the increase of co2 is linked to the increase of carbon in the atmosphere, temperature trends that indicate greenhouse warming.
Granted, the story is made much more solid with modelling, but I think there would definitely be an AGW theory out there.”
Nice try at bait and switch. Your original statement was, “Even if the models did not exist, we would still have a ‘catastrophic warming camp’. There is a lot more evidence besides the models.”
Now, you are saying, “Granted, the story is made much more solid with modeling, but I think there would definitely be an AGW theory out there.”
The backpedaling is significant. Nearly all informed skeptics agree with basic parts of AGW theory: i.e. that there has been some global warming and that part of that global warming can be attributed to CO2 emissions. Where the dispute comes in is whether the future warming will be largely inconsequential or catastrophic. I am not aware how the case for catastrophic AGW can without the models. So I, along with several others in the forum, am looking forward to your further elaboration.
Thanks, pauld. Shills, you were asked to show other evidence of catastrophic AGW besides models, which you claim there was “a lot” of. What is it? No need to play games.
Shills:
“Sounds like you suspect the models are some how inappropriately informed by the observations. I’d like to see you show that.”
I think it’s entirely appropriate for models to be informed by observations… that’s exactly how models should be developed and improved over time. What I’m objecting to is the way the Rahmstorf paper is presented. If the authors of a paper entitled “Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections” are going to show observations going back to 1990, they should be comparing the observations to the 1990 projections (or at least showing the 1990 projections and their subsequent refinements.) If they’re going to show warming against the 2001 projections, they should give some visual indication that the relevant time period is from 2001-06. The way the paper is presented gives a false sense of confidence in the predictive power and conservatism of the models, neither of which can be supported. And please don’t try to tell me the presentation is not misleading… it managed to fool you.
“And why so quick to suggest shenanigans? What bemuses me a lot with your side is the quick levelling of accusations. ‘A reasonable explanation’ is far more likely. Maybe the fault lies with your understanding?”
Shills… smarten up. Go back and read my statement again. No seriously… do it. I clearly said 1) I might be the one be misunderstanding something, and 2) there may be a reasonable explanation, OTHERWISE, shenanigans. Don’t go spouting off that I’m leveling accusations without being open to reasons the paper might be sound. You’re welcome to help clarify my understanding, or help find any reasonable explanations, but otherwise… what else should an objective individual conclude?
“For example: Measurements of longwave radiation don’t need models and show signs consistent with greenhouse warming, evidence that shows the increase of co2 is linked to the increase of carbon in the atmosphere, temperature trends that indicate greenhouse warming.
Granted, the story is made much more solid with modelling, but I think there would definitely be an AGW theory out there.”
Ah… just what I expected. Your initial statement was “Even if the models did not exist, we would still have a ‘catastrophic warming camp’. There is a lot more evidence besides the models.”, but when pressed for such evidence you suddenly forget the “catastrophic” part and the best you can offer is “there would definitely be an AGW theory out there.”.
A quick review for those who might not have been paying attention: AGW ≠ CAGW. If you were observant, you would have noticed that I wrote earlier that I’m already an AGW believer… so all of the examples you’ve provided here are merely preaching to the choir. Would you like to make another attempt at providing evidence outside of the models to support the “catastrophic” argument? I’ll be waiting.
****”I can’t help but laugh at Waldo’s pretense that he is somehow winning this debate.”
No one is “winning” anything. It’s not even a proper debate we’ve got here. May I respectfully suggest, Kreo, that you learn to read with a tad more complexity?
What we have here is a failure to communicate. But beyond that, we have the essential problem of people making big claims without backing them up. Why are you so willing to believe Wally and Russ? I can’t help but think about the Kung Fu masters on YouTube who claim they can beat any MMA fighter but stay safely away from the octagon.
And yes, my friend, I am much more willing to believe the experts (those people who admittedly know the most on a given subject) than I am the blog commentators without any real background who stay safely away from expert peer-review. Why shouldn’t I? It is pretty easy to post here and then plant a flag in your pet theory; it is entirely another thing to have that theory vetted by the people who know a thing or two. Russ, Wally, and Mr. Meyer are armchair quarterbacking.
Would you go to Russ and Wally if you developed cancer, or would you go to an oncologist? What if they had a bridge to sell?
Miriam,
****”other evidence of catastrophic AGW besides models, which you claim there was ‘a lot’ of”
Certainly you realize that there is evidence from satellite, land, and sea temp measurements, radiosondes, ice core samples, global glacier and permafrost melt, Yamal tree reconstructions, and worldwide scientific consensus?
Waldo. You could essentially read everything you said in your response to Kreo to yourself, looking in the mirror.
Shills ventured that there is ample evidence for catastrophic AGW besides models. His exact wording:
“Even if the models did not exist, we would still have a ‘catastrophic warming camp’. There is a lot more evidence besides the models.”
Me and others wanted to see this evidence. Can you offer anything in this respect? Please be exact. For example, don’t say that there is “evidence from satellite, land, and sea temp measurements”. Instead, show a paper which would use these measurements to make a case – without using models – for catastrophic global warming. That is, conclude that based on temp measurements that we see now we should expect temperatures to raise enough to lead to catastrophic conditions in the future.
Thanks.
Russ says:
‘If they’re going to show warming against the 2001 projections, they should give some visual indication that the relevant time period is from 2001-06’
But they back-caste the models too so they can be compared to past observations.
‘And please don’t try to tell me the presentation is not misleading… it managed to fool you.’
Sure, but it was good enough to be published in Science, and so maybe our perspective is lacking somewhat. Anyway, apart from the paper, you are pretty happy with the models no?
‘Don’t go spouting off that I’m leveling accusations without being open to reasons the paper might be sound’
LOL. Easy Russ. Maybe you should read my post more carefully. I did not say you were levelling any accusations, just your side. I merely asked why you would ‘suggest’ shenanigans–my point is that you have no need to. The problem is far more likely to be with your understanding, or something else again, so why even bother saying that? How would you like it if you were proposing some findings and the listener said ‘either there’s an error here or you’re being shifty’. There is no need to be suspicious.
‘Ah… just what I expected.’
Lol. You are a little cynical, Russ.
Would you believe that I mostly use AGW and CAGW interchangeably, or never say CAGW?. Sorry for the confusion but It wasn’t so long ago that the so called CAGW skeptics were merely AGW skeptics (baby steps i guess), and I still harbour some habits from back then.
So you wan’t model-less evidence that AGW is catastrophic? Well, take the evidence that our emissions are indeed the carbon that is accumulating in the atmosphere (and elsewhere), and the evidence that carbon sinks have been saturated. Doesn’t that sound very worrying? And the ensuing warming is linked to various changes in the bio-sphere, rate of sea level rise and other changes including extreme whether trends (have a look in the IPCC wg2). Now, for a world that is built on the status quo, too much change is pretty catastrophic. So I think there would def. be room for a CAGW crowd without models. And without the models, we have less of an idea of what is around the corner.
“Well, take the evidence that our emissions are indeed the carbon that is accumulating in the atmosphere (and elsewhere), and the evidence that carbon sinks have been saturated. Doesn’t that sound very worrying?”
Without numbers quantifying the effect of that on the climate, no.
“Now, for a world that is built on the status quo, too much change is pretty catastrophic.”
That’s too vague.
So, any papers and actual numbers?
A quick recap of the last couple of arguments so that nobody loses track, camp Pro vs camp Contra:
Pro (Waldo): The models are accurate.
Contra (Russ): Predictions of models which we can now validate turned out to be false. IPCC, numbers, test.
Pro (Waldo): Hansen 1998, scenario B, graph.
Contra (Russ): Yep, a misprediction, the graph handily ends in 2005 masking the gap between scenarios and reality, we should compare against scenario A the match against which is much worse.
Pro (Shills): Rahmstorf 2007.
Contra (Russ): That prediction was made in 2001 so it’s too early to check it. Since it was done in 2001, we can’t make much from how it behaves from 1990 to 2001.
Pro (Shills): Stats based on outdated models might be a little late to the show to be of interest.
Contra (Miriam): So, new models can’t yet be verified, because it’s too early, and old models are uninteresting?
Pro (Shills): No, no… anyway, even if the models did not exist, we would still have a ‘catastrophic warming camp’. There is a lot more evidence besides the models.
Contra (several): What is this evidence?
Pro (Shills): We have evidence that shows the increase of co2 is linked to the increase of carbon in the atmosphere.
Contra (several): So? Where’s evidence of catastrophic warming?
Pro (Waldo): We have evidence from satellite, land, and sea temp measurements, radiosondes, ice core samples, global glacier and permafrost melt, Yamal tree reconstructions, and worldwide scientific consensus.
Contra (Miriam): And? Please be specific. How that shows catastrophic warming?
Pro (Shills): We emit carbon and carbon sinks have been saturated. Doesn’t that sound very worrying?
Contra (Miriam): Where are the numbers?
That’s where we are now. Thanks.
The vigorous debate over AGW is illuminating. It confirms what is obvious: Nobody knows for sure.
It is proposed to destroy the world economy based on this uncertain science. If one assumes that the AGW thing is correct, then we need two additional things to happen. First, there must be a viable alternative energy source. As of now, there are none, other than nuclear power. Biofuels, solar, and wind power are only viable on a small scale and then only if heavily subsidized by government. Second, everyone has to get on board, otherwise we will simply move US Steel and Krupp to China or India, in the process impoverishing the developed countries and not reducing CO2 emissions at all.
It has been pointed out that to meet the AGW-ites limits on CO2, we will need to go back to 1875 per capita energy consumption. How will we feed the world’s population with 1875 agricultural methods? There are endless similar problems to be dealt with. The proponents of CO2 caps owe it to the world to have a complete plan to deal with the consequences, not just a messianic message.
Whenever someone asks for “evidence” or “info” on subjects such as AGW I am always tempted to respond with a “huh?” because most of it is so readily available.
Is this what you are looking for Miriam?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.ipcc-data.org/obs/ar4_obs.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm
Here are Hansen’s papers:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/publications.shtml
Here is Briffa’s abstract with a link to a pdf.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/
Or, Miriam, go to any EbscoHost or Academic Premier database and click the box on “peer-review” and key in global warming or climate change; go to LexusNexus for the journalism database.
Otherwise I am not sure what you want–are you seriously unaware of the mass of stuff out there? Granted, this is thick stuff and would take a good deal of time to go through, but I am pretty sure that the good people here, as smart as they are, do not actually read or evaluate this stuff. Even Russ R prefers a blogsite (Woodfortrees.org) over the actual scientific data.
Perhaps after you read through the primary evidence you will be unconvinced, but it is silly to suggest it is not there. A typical denialist tactic is to demand evidence but refuse to read it once it is posted.
Whenever someone asks for “evidence” or “info” on subjects such as AGW I am always tempted to respond with a “huh?” because most of it is so readily available.
Is this what you are looking for Miriam?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.ipcc-data.org/obs/ar4_obs.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data.htm
Well, Miriam, I am always a little flummoxed when people come on here in the midst of the internet age of information and demand someone supply them with “data” or “evidence.”
But okay, here’s the IPCC data distribution center:
http://www.ipcc-data.org/
Here are their climate observations with multiple links to other datasets:
http://www.ipcc-data.org/obs/index.html
Here is NASA’s climate page:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Here is NASA’s “evidence” page:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Here are Hansen’s papers:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/publications.shtml
Here is Briffa’s abstract with a link to a pdf on the Yamal trees.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/qsr1999/
Or, Miriam, go to any EbscoHost or Academic Premier database and click the box on “peer-review” and key in global warming or climate change; go to LexusNexus for the journalism database.
If you want more than that you’ll have to go fishing yourself. It really only takes a couple of minutes.
Otherwise I am not sure what you want–are you seriously unaware of the mass of stuff out there? I mean, I know that we are rhetorically jousting here, but do you seriously think that we’ve come this far only because of computer science? Granted, this is thick stuff and would take a good deal of time to go through, but I am pretty sure that the good people here, as smart as they are, do not as a rule actually read or evaluate this stuff. Even Russ R with his statistical modeling prefers a blogsite (Woodfortrees.org) over the actual scientific data.
Perhaps after you read through the primary evidence you will be unconvinced, but it is silly to suggest it is not there. A typical denialist tactic is to demand evidence but refuse to read it once it is posted.
Well, Miriam, I am always a little flummoxed when people come on here in the midst of the internet age of information and demand someone supply them with “data” or “evidence.”
But okay, here’s the IPCC data distribution center:
http://www.ipcc-data.org/
Here are their climate observations with multiple links to other datasets:
http://www.ipcc-data.org/obs/index.html
Here is NASA’s climate page:
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Here is NASA’s “evidence” page:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/