More Shark Chum for the Climate Debate

[Michael Hardner]

A free market of ideas without some real world validation is as interesting as the various 'american idol' competitions.

Temperatures are going up, so...

Nobody would care about climate science if it was not for the montetary implications. It is the only thing that really matters.

How about real world validation of the conspiracy theory then ?

[Michael Hardner]

My dispute is not with the idea that humans are affecting climate via CO2 emissions since I agree that is likely happening. What I dispute are the endless claims of catastrophe as a result of climate change.

Hence I use the C meaning Catastrophic AGW to distinguish between the arguments that I dispute and those that I accept.

I think these claims are completely bogus and have no legitimate scientific basis. In fact, peer reviewed science constantly produces claims of cause and effect that turn out to be bogus - look at the recent retraction of the vaccine-autism link. I see no reason to take these CO2-population deaths claims any more seriously.

Damage that could have been avoided if the government had spent money building dams instead of wasting it on anti-CO2 scams.

Then you should stay out of the science threads and get onto the policy threads. By defending derps who proudly say things like "I only believe scientists when they believe what I do" (Saipan) or "It was cold yesterday !" (jbg) then people will confuse you for such derps.

I likely agree with your assertion that there is too much alarmism out there, but you need to be your own man and not team up with such trogs.

[WIP]

I think these claims are completely bogus and have no legitimate scientific basis. In fact, peer reviewed science constantly produces claims of cause and effect that turn out to be bogus - look at the recent retraction of the vaccine-autism link. I see no reason to take these CO2-population deaths claims any more seriously.

If you actually read about that story, you'd know that there was universal condemnation of the Lancet for publishing Andrew Wakefield's study linking vaccines to autism. Don't pretend this was ever treated as accepted medical advice. The only idiots who were promotion Wakefield were Jenny McCarthy, and similar anti-vaccine crusaders.

Damage that could have been avoided if the government had spent money building dams instead of wasting it on anti-CO2 scams.

Australia has done nothing on climate change; for much the same reason that we are doing nothing. In Canada's case it's dirty tar sands oil, and for Australia, it's there coal exports.

[TimG]

Temperatures are going up, so...

If climate changes randomly they would have still a 50/50 chance of being correct so simply predicting that temperatures should go up is not precise enough to be useful. A useful prediction is that temperatures should go up x degC by x year. Those predictions have invariably failed but they hide the failure by making new predictions that put off theday of reckoning - a strategy that is commonly used psuedo-science like the study of the paranormal.

Here is some evidence of how the predictions have been off the mark:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/the-past-is-the-key-to-the-future/

How about real world validation of the conspiracy theory then?

Human nature is not a conspiracy. Human nature ensures that when people see a benefit from joining a group and adopting its ideas they will do so without making any conscious decision (i.e. they will simply convince themselves that it is the "right" thing to do). Humans have a wonderful ability to rationalize pretty much anything if it is in their self interest. Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

I am sick and tired of the idiotic truisms that are irrelevalent to the discussion.

Yes - science works - when there is a free market to mediate the ideas that have merit and those that do not. I mean the free market where engineers and doctors use the results of science to create real things that have to work as advertised.

Science does not always work when it consists entirely of ivory tower scientists in labs producing science that serves no purpose other than generating more government funding for those labs. Without the free market feedback science is like a open loop control system that can veer off into dead ends.

That said, we do need these pure research projects and they should be funded because maybe 1 out 10 or 1 or 20 times the scientists will not end up in a dead end and produce a useful theory. But you CANNOT use the fact that some unverified hypothesis turn out to be correct as an argument to say we should blindly trust all unverified hypotheses simply because "science works".

It is important to remember the CAGW narrative is an unverified hypothesis. It is not fact or even a testable scientific theory. The only part of climate science that deserves the label of 'scientific theory' is the radiative effect of CO2. But that theory is of limited use because there is no way to calculate the magnitude of the CO2 in the atmosphere on the surface temperature of the planet. The calculations the models use are 'guessestimates' - not numbers derived from first principles. The models could be off by factor of 2 or more and it would not invalidate the radiative theory.

At the end of the day all we can say is CO2 is a potential hazard and if eliminating CO2 emissions was free then we should do it just in case. But eliminating CO2 emissions is NOT free. It is rediculously expensive and likely technically impossible. Those facts make the science of CO2 completely irrelevant. If climate change is coming we must adapt and money spent on CO2 reduction schemes is money wasted. Nothing that any climate scientist says will change that.

Yes - science works - when there is a free market to mediate the ideas that have merit and those that do not.

No it can work whether or not thats the case.

Science does not always work when it consists entirely of ivory tower scientists in labs producing science that serves no purpose other than generating more government funding for those labs.

Not sure what your conspiracy theories have to do with anything .

At the end of the day all we can say is CO2 is a potential hazard and if eliminating CO2 emissions was free then we should do it just in case. But eliminating CO2 emissions is NOT free. It is rediculously expensive and likely technically impossible.

Nobody is saying we should eliminate CO2 emissions.

If climate change is coming we must adapt and money spent on CO2 reduction schemes is money wasted. Nothing that any climate scientist says will change that.

You would have to indiviually assess all those schemes to decide that. The biggest effect of AGW has simply been an increase in the availability of capital for energy research. Some of the related policies are good, some arent.

Nothing that any climate scientist says will change that

Anything you say will change even less.

[Michael Hardner]

If climate changes randomly they would have still a 50/50 chance of being correct so simply predicting that temperatures should go up is not precise enough to be useful. A useful prediction is that temperatures should go up x degC by x year. Those predictions have invariably failed but they hide the failure by making new predictions that put off theday of reckoning - a strategy that is commonly used psuedo-science like the study of the paranormal.

That's not right. The confidence level on these things is 95%, which means we're 95% sure it's NOT random.

Here is some evidence of how the predictions have been off the mark:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/the-past-is-the-key-to-the-future/

But he's more right than he is wrong. There is warming, but just not as drastic.

Human nature is not a conspiracy. Human nature ensures that when people see a benefit from joining a group and adopting its ideas they will do so without making any conscious decision (i.e. they will simply convince themselves that it is the "right" thing to do). Humans have a wonderful ability to rationalize pretty much anything if it is in their self interest.

Are they making a conscious decision to deceive or not ? If not, then thousands of people are just making mistakes over and over ?

[dre]

In fact, peer reviewed science constantly produces claims of cause and effect that turn out to be bogus - look at the recent retraction of the vaccine-autism link.

Of course it does? So what? Science is one of the perspectives that needs to be considered. Economics is another. Geopolitics is another. Security yet another.

You act like Scientists are dictating policy but they just flat out arent. Government have done very little of the things recommended by the scientific community because science is only one of the perspectives it considers. Thats why your sky-is-falling claims about governments destroying their own economies is so comical. They havent done that, and they wont do it.

I see no reason to take these CO2-population deaths claims any more seriously

Who cares if you see a reason or not? You clearly have contempt for the whole scientific process and all the people in it. Its all just a big ivory tower conspiracy to make money!!!

[TimG]

That's not right. The confidence level on these things is 95%, which means we're 95% sure it's NOT random.

Actually no. The 95% claim is only valid if one assumes that climate is a stationary process with no long term variability. It could be the correct assumption but we don't now that it is.

But he's more right than he is wrong. There is warming, but just not as drastic.

As I said, being right on a 50/50 coin toss is not that interesting. The fact that he was so off on the magnitude does tell us something is wrong with the theory. Maybe not enough to repudiate it yet but enough to justify skepticism.

Are they making a conscious decision to deceive or not ?

As Sienfeld said: "Its not a lie if you believe it." But that does not make it any more true. Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Actually no. The 95% claim is only valid if one assumes that climate is a stationary process with no long term variability. It could be the correct assumption but we don't now that it is.

Actually, no. Climate that is in some kind of balance could still change year to year, but continuous increases have the effect of flipping a coin and getting 'heads' over and over again. After a point, you will be 95% sure that the coin is fixed.

As I said, being right on a 50/50 coin toss is not that interesting. The fact that he was so off on the magnitude does tell us something is wrong with the theory. Maybe not enough to repudiate it yet but enough to justify skepticism.

Looking at this again, it seems that the photocopy of the newspaper in the blog you posted (can't believe that's supposed to be a source of anything but anyway) doesn't align with his actual paper in 1988:

NASA link

He seems to be predicting less than a degree increase in that paper so... was he off by a factor of 100% ? Maybe. But then again, so was that photocopied news clipping.

[TimG]

Actually, no. Climate that is in some kind of balance could still change year to year, but continuous increases have the effect of flipping a coin and getting 'heads' over and over again. After a point, you will be 95% sure that the coin is fixed.

The trick is knowing how long to wait. Processes with long term persistence can deviate from the mean for decades or centuries yet still be completely random. If you only sample for a period of years you could fool yourself into believing there is a trend when there is none. There is also a general problem with choatic processes where the underlying statistics change randomly (i.e. the mean or the variance). We don't understand climate well enough to claim that we have 95% confidence that the recent warming is not natural. Attributing it to CO2 is a plausible hypothesis but it is not the only plausible hypothesis.

He seems to be predicting less than a degree increase in that paper so... was he off by a factor of 100% ? Maybe. But then again, so was that photocopied news clipping.

1degC = 2degF. The paper was US so it would have been degF so I think the estimates are the same and it is a 100% error. Someone who predicted no warming would have been just as right. Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The trick is knowing how long to wait. Processes with long term persistence can deviate from the mean for decades or centuries yet still be completely random. If you only sample for a period of years you could fool yourself into believing there is a trend when there is none. There is also a general problem with choatic processes where the underlying statistics change randomly (i.e. the mean or the variance). We don't understand climate well enough to claim that we have 95% confidence that the recent warming is not natural. Attributing it to CO2 is a plausible hypothesis but it is not the only plausible hypothesis.

You're talking about the "drunkard's walk" kind of model. Yes, that's true but the line goes down and crosses the median again.

1degC = 2degF. The paper was US so it would have been degF so I think the estimates are the same and it is a 100% error. Someone who predicted no warming would have been just as right.

I don't agree. Maybe somebody who predicted .5 degrees would have been just as right...

[TimG]

I don't agree. Maybe somebody who predicted .5 degrees would have been just as right...

Why the double standard? He made a numerical prediction and was out by 0.5degC. Someone who predicted no warming would have been out by the same amount. % comparisons don't really mean much with values that are relative to an arbitrary baseline.

[Michael Hardner]

Why the double standard? He made a numerical prediction and was out by 0.5degC. Someone who predicted no warming would have been out by the same amount. % comparisons don't really mean much with values that are relative to an arbitrary baseline.

% comparison is better. You could add/subtract values and end up on the wrong side of the median.

[TimG]

% comparison is better. You could add/subtract values and end up on the wrong side of the median.

Fine lets do it in degrees Kelvin.

Hansen's prediction: 288 degK in 20 years. Actual: 287.5 degK. Percent error = 0.1%

Looks like he did pretty well.

What if we simply shifted the baseline so the temps in 1988 were -1degC

Prediction: 0degC, Actual -0.5 degC, Percent error = infinity.

You should able to see that an evaluation on a % basis is absolutely meaningless.

Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG

[wyly]

He seems to be predicting less than a degree increase in that paper so... was he off by a factor of 100% ? Maybe. But then again, so was that photocopied news clipping.

typical denier, actually worse than a typical denier who would use a photocopied clipping from a blog?...what he avoids mentioning is Hansen had limited data at that time to make the projections that are now possible...and more importantly Hansen made three scenarios which Tim deliberately fails to mention...

TimG is what waldo would call a concern troll/sock puppet, he pretends to be on the side of objective science but actually he's a pure 100% denier...

[Guest TrueMetis]

typical denier, actually worse than a typical denier who would use a photocopied clipping from a blog?...what he avoids mentioning is Hansen had limited data at that time to make the projections that are now possible...and more importantly Hansen made three scenarios which Tim deliberately fails to mention...

TimG is what waldo would call a concern troll/sock puppet, he pretends to be on the side of objective science but actually he's a pure 100% denier...

Everyday I get a little more in favour of stoning* people who are this deliberately deceitful.

*okay not really**

**Yes really.

[TimG]

what he avoids mentioning is Hansen had limited data at that time to make the projections that are now possible.

In other words you agree that climate scientists have failed to make accurate predictions to date and believing that their current predictions are more reliable is an act of faith - not science.

and more importantly Hansen made three scenarios

Yes, the multiple predictions gambit - a staple of psuedoscientists everywhere. The more predictions you make the more likely one of them will turn out to be true. And this is supposed to increase my confidence in Hansen's science? Why?

In any case, Scenario C was the good news scenario that assume that CO2 emissions were stopped by the year 2000. The actual temperatures are behaving as if that happened. In any normal field of science that kind of miss would be considered a failure. But in climate science, correctly predicting 50/50 coin toss is considered state of the art.

TimG is what waldo would call a concern troll/sock puppet, he pretends to be on the side of objective science but actually he's a pure 100% denier.

Oh man. Are your really that incapable of comprehending different points of view? Edited January 13, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

Everyday I get a little more in favour of stoning* people who are this deliberately deceitful.

Nothing deceitful at all. I provided a newspaper quote where Hansen claimed a 2deg rise by 2008. Michael brought up the NASA paper which confirmed the claim of 2degF for Scenario A. The only person who is being deceitful is Hansen who ran around claiming that Scenario A was the likely BAU in 1988 but now insists he should not be called on that failed claim because he had 'multiple scenarios' and the other scenarios turned out to be closer (but still pretty far) from reality.

[jbg]

TimG is what waldo would call a concern troll/sock puppet, he pretends to be on the side of objective science but actually he's a pure 100% denier...

We just had 25 cm of global warming to shovel from our driveways today, after 55 cm on Boxing Day. I guess that decline in storm size is itself an indication of a world deranged by tail pipe emissions.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Nothing deceitful at all. I provided a newspaper quote where Hansen claimed a 2deg rise by 2008. Michael brought up the NASA paper which confirmed the claim of 2degF for Scenario A. The only person who is being deceitful is Hansen who ran around claiming that Scenario A was the likely BAU in 1988 but now insists he should not be called on that failed claim because he had 'multiple scenarios' and the other scenarios turned out to be closer (but still pretty far) from reality.

You go ahead and keep acting like the claims you've made are honest, I'll go look for so good sized stones.

Edited January 13, 2011 by TrueMetis

[jbg]

The only person who is being deceitful is Hansen who ran around claiming that Scenario A was the likely BAU in 1988 but now insists he should not be called on that failed claim because he had 'multiple scenarios' and the other scenarios turned out to be closer (but still pretty far) from reality.

I remember reading about Hansen's perjury Congressional testimony back in 1988. Even before it became a left v. right issue, my reaction was "what kind of hooey is this".

[waldo]

Here is some evidence of how the predictions have been off the mark:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/the-past-is-the-key-to-the-future/

Watts' lil' gopher Steven Goddard... now ventured out on his own! Uhhhh... perhaps we should discuss the sham that was Goddard/Watts' Arctic ice-recovery predictions - hey?

in any case, this simply follows the oft repeated denier pattern of disinformation concerning Hansen's 1988 projections... certainly Goddard's "blog science" wouldn't bother to speak to the fact Hansen et al 1988 was the first, is the oldest, of the vast assortment of GCM modeling projections... wouldn't bother to speak to the fact that the projections reflected upon 3 distinct scenarios... wouldn't bother to suggest which scenario has proved to be closest to observations... wouldn't bother to suggest which scenario Hansen himself suggested the most plausible. Of course it is always heartening to realize deniers must work their way back to the infancy of GCM model projections to presume to challenge them... regardless of the fallacious manner used in that challenge.

These scenarios are designed to yield sensitivity experiments for a broad range of future greenhouse forcings. Scenario A, since it is exponential, must eventually be on the high side of reality in view of finite resource constraints and environmental concerns ... Scenario C is a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined ... Scenario B is perhaps the most plausible of the three cases.

certainly, given the profile, considerable analysis has been done around that 1988 Hansen et al paper... showing the climate sensitivity a little higher (4.2ºC) for the early GISS model than the current best estimate of ~3ºC. For the period 1984 to 2009, Scenario B has a trend of 0.26+/-0.05 ºC/dec... the trend for GISTEMP has 0.21+/-0.06 ºC/dec... showing the Scenario B projection "running a little warm" compared to observations.

why would Goddard's blog science (and his band of lappers; re. TimG) look at possible reasons for the higher climate sensitivity within the earliest GISS model... hey TimG... have models progressed in the intervening 20+ years?

but it just keeps getting better - TimG now reverts to his mentor McIntyre. Now, as I've done before on MLW, I'll simply quote from McIntyre... from that same TimG link reference:

I think that Scenario B is close enough to observed emissions that, in the absence of NASA being able or willing to re-run the actual 1988 model with actual forcings, one can be reasonably use Scenario B for comparisons

hey TimG... why the need to go all the way back to the first GCM projection? Nothing a bit more, uhhh... current, hey?

(on edit: proper quote attribution)

Edited January 13, 2011 by waldo

[jbg]

Watts' lil' gopher Steven Goddard... now ventured out on his own! Uhhhh... perhaps we should discuss the sham that was Goddard/Watts' Arctic ice-recovery predictions - hey?*************

hey TimG... why the need to go all the way back to the first GCM projection? Nothing a bit more, uhhh... current, hey?

Is all you can do hector and insult?

[waldo]

I remember reading about Hansen's perjury Congressional testimony back in 1988. Even before it became a left v. right issue, my reaction was "what kind of hooey is this".

and you've trotted out this same bullshit concerning Hansen in the past... and you've never answered the challenge then, and you won't/can't answer it now. Step up and state the perjury.

why don't you start with the antics of denier extraordinaire, Pat Michaels, during that Congressional testimony... with Michaels presentation flat out removing the existence of Scenarios B & C - lies by omission!

[waldo]

Is all you can do hector and insult?

is all you can do is spew denier bullshit?