CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

[TimG]

They do know what can cause warming - solar cycles, El Nino type weather cycles are a few of these. They don't arbitrarily brush them off as insignificant either

Yes they do. CAGW scientists go nuts whether someone suggests that something other than CO2 can explain the warming of the last 30 years. CO2 and only CO2 is only acceptable answer. Never mind that fact that every climate model uses different values for aerosol forcings - values which are conveniently pick to give them whatever cooling is required to make their models match reality. Nothing suspious there.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes they do. CAGW scientists go nuts whether someone suggests that something other than CO2 can explain the warming of the last 30 years. CO2 and only CO2 is only acceptable answer. Never mind that fact that every climate model uses different values for aerosol forcings - values which are conveniently pick to give them whatever cooling is required to make their models match reality. Nothing suspious there.

I'm sure different climate models have a lot of different parameters. This is why they're different.

Again, you're drifting into the area of accusing people of falsifying reports, or having secret motives. That doesn't help this discussion because we can't peer into their hearts.

Do you have examples of the CAGW going "nuts" when someone like Svendmark publishes a study ?

[TimG]

I'm sure different climate models have a lot of different parameters. This is why they're different.

When models can parameters that can be adjusted to produce the desired result they are useless.

Again, you're drifting into the area of accusing people of falsifying reports, or having secret motives. That doesn't help this discussion because we can't peer into their hearts.

What does not help this discuss is your refusal to acknowledge that scientists can fool themselves into believing things which are not true. When a scientists adjusts a parameter in a model they will always convince themselves that it is scientifically justified. No can say that they, as an individual, did anything wrong. It is only when you look at all the models with different values for the same parameter that one realizes something is suspicious.

Do you have examples of the CAGW going "nuts" when someone like Svendmark publishes a study ?

Svendmark has not been publishing recently. But the nonsense over Spencer's paper is a good example of the phenomena. Edited September 11, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

When models can parameters that can be adjusted to produce the desired result they are useless.

Conceivably any model could have its parameters adjusted, if the intentions of those who create it is to deceive, so your statement is meaningless.

What does not help this discuss is your refusal to acknowledge that scientists can fool themselves into believing things which are not true. When a scientists adjusts a parameter in a model they will always convince themselves that it is scientifically justified. o can say that they, as an individual, did anything wrong. It is only when you look at all the models with different values for the same parameter that one realizes something is suspicious.

I don't deny that this CAN happen, but how do you decide if a scientist is 'fooling himself'? And again there will be different parameters for different models, that's to be expected.

Svendmark has not been publishing recently. But the nonsense over Spencer's paper is a good example of the phenomena.

Sorry, I though Svendmark was involved with the CERN study but he doesn't seem to be after all. Which one was Spencer's paper ?

[TimG]

I don't deny that this CAN happen, but how do you decide if a scientist is 'fooling himself'? And again there will be different parameters for different models, that's to be expected.

There is only 'true' value for the aerosol forcing. That means that, at most, one model can been correct. Yet we are presented with many models which all reproduce the past temperature record. What does that tell us about the usefulness of producing past temps and a measure of model validity?

Sorry, I though Svendmark was involved with the CERN study but he doesn't seem to be after all. Which one was Spencer's paper ?

The one where the editor resigned. It appears that some CAGW scientists are retracting many of their statements about the paper:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/

BTW: The interactions between Desseler and Spencer is an example of science working the way it should. A small ray of light in an otherwise dismisal episode.

Edited September 11, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

There is only 'true' value for the aerosol forcing. That means that, at most, one model can been correct. Yet we are presented with many models which are reproduce the past temperature record. What does that tell us about the usefulness of producing past temps and a measure of model validity?

Did you mean to say there is only one true value ? I guess you're right but no model will nail that value with absolute certainty as there are always background variables that affect the result.

The one where the editor resigned. It appears that some CAGW scientists are retracting many of their statements about the paper:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/

BTW: The interactions between Desseler and Spencer is an example of science working the way it should. A small ray of light in an otherwise dismisal episode.

In the clouds of issues and controversies around this topic, I think I lost this one. It seems from the wikipedia page on Spencer that the editor had a bad paper published (not surprising, given the overcharged political climate going on here) and had to resign.

Do they go nuts when a good skeptical paper is published, or one that opens more questions such as the CERN study ? Or do they go nuts when the media publishes headlines like 'The Science is Settled' ?

[TimG]

Did you mean to say there is only one true value ? I guess you're right but no model will nail that value with absolute certainty as there are always background variables that affect the result.

The trouble is the range of 'reasonable' values for these parameters is so large that we know many of the models must be completely wrong. Yet they all reproduce past temperatures. What that tells me is the ability to reproduce past temperatures is no measure of model validity yet that argument is usually used as evidence that the models are reliable. This is perfect example of how scientists are fooling themselves into believing something that is not true without any individual scientist doing anything that could be called fraud.

It seems from the wikipedia page on Spencer that the editor had a bad paper published (not surprising, given the overcharged political climate going on here) and had to resign.

The point is there is nothing wrong with the paper. It is as legimate as any other paper on the topic. CAGW are going nuts because it presents an alternate theory of climate.

Do they go nuts when a good skeptical paper is published, or one that opens more questions such as the CERN study ? Or do they go nuts when the media publishes headlines like 'The Science is Settled' ?

Yet these same scientists are happy to take interviews and tell the media how every weather event is "evidence" of CAGW even though the science says these events have nothing to do with AGW.

[Michael Hardner]

TimG,

By the way - this is the paper that I was looking for when we were debating tree ring data, and is still central to our discussion:

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

From the abstract:

Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used.

[TimG]

By the way - this is the paper that I was looking for when we were debating tree ring data, and is still central to our discussion:

This paper has been thoroughly debunked by skeptics. Steve McIntyre even had a comment published journal that cover some of the numerous flaws (journal comments are too short to allow for complete rebuttals). Once you remove the proxies that are used incorrectly or are known to be bad like tree rings the reconstruction has no significance prior to 1500 which means it tells us nothing about the MWP.

This paper is a good example of the shell game Mann plays. He puts together these reconstructions which are entirely dependent on 2 dubious proxies. Remove those proxies and the reconstruction falls apart. The other 400 are irrelevant. However, he plays games by only removing one proxy at a time and claiming that is evidence that the reconstruction is not dependent on the choice of proxy.

Edited September 11, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The trouble is the range of 'reasonable' values for these parameters is so large that we know many of the models must be completely wrong.

Yes, and Lindzen is at an extreme end of these values.

What do do ?

Yet they all reproduce past temperatures. What that tells me is the ability to reproduce past temperatures is no measure of model validity yet that argument is usually used as evidence that the models are reliable. This is perfect example of how scientists are fooling themselves into believing something that is not true without any individual scientist doing anything that could be called fraud.

Are you saying that we shouldn't reconstruct past temperatures at all? I don't know of any skeptical scientist who is proposing that, and it would hamstring the science from being able to say anything at all.

The point is there is nothing wrong with the paper. It is as legimate as any other paper on the topic. CAGW are going nuts because it presents an alternate theory of climate.

I don't think that's the point. It sounds like there was actual misrepresentation in there, according to the editor.

Yet these same scientists are happy to take interviews and tell the media how every weather event is "evidence" of CAGW even though the science says these events have nothing to do with AGW.

That's hyperbole. There have been situations in the past where climate scientists have made mistakes and made this claim - okay ONE incident I can think of - but there's clearly a double standard here. If you say that one scientist claiming years ago that winter in Britain will be without snowfall (a rash prediction) represents 'happy to take interviews and tell the media how every event is evidence...' then you're hyperbolizing now too.

[Michael Hardner]

This paper has been thoroughly debunked by skeptics. Steve McIntyre even had a comment published journal that cover some of the numerous flaws (journal comments are too short to allow for complete rebuttals). Once you remove the proxies that are used incorrectly or are known to be bad the reconstruction has no significance prior to 1500 which means it tells us nothing about the MWP.

Do you have a cite for the reviews of that paper? I didn't hear of that. I'd like to read it.

[TimG]

Do you have a cite for the reviews of that paper? I didn't hear of that. I'd like to read it.

You need to read climate audit to see the details. Mann's response is basically 'he's wrong cause I say he's wrong'.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/E10.full?ijkey=fd66eca213073d94ce932b2f65983effbf907d13&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

[Michael Hardner]

You need to read climate audit to see the details. Mann's response is basically 'he's wrong cause I say he's wrong'.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/E10.full?ijkey=fd66eca213073d94ce932b2f65983effbf907d13&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

I found the response, actually. It gets kind of difficult to read if you don't know the acronyms but if MM don't agree with the response, it's certainly open for them to prove themselves right by refuting these clear points:

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/E11.full

Also, Mann et al 2008 2009 on the Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Is a better read for laymen such as us.

[TimG]

Are you saying that we shouldn't reconstruct past temperatures at all?

I think you have some wires crossed. I was talking about climate models and how the ability do hind casts is used as evidence of their validity. This has nothing to do with proxy reconstructions.

As for the value of hindcasts: they have value but scientists should be honest about what they mean: exactly nothing.

I don't think that's the point. It sounds like there was actual misrepresentation in there, according to the editor.

There was no misrepresentation. The paper is perfectly acceptable. This entire story is about an editor deciding that would be bad for his career to defend this paper so he did a very public resignation for reasons that make no sense if you read them literally.

That's hyperbole. There have been situations in the past where climate scientists have made mistakes and made this claim - okay ONE incident I can think of - but there's clearly a double standard here.

Sorry. It happens all of the time. I don't see you complaining because only care when skeptics exagerrate the science in the media. The latest one I can think of was with the tornadoes on the east coast. This was particularly egregious since tornadoes are caused by COLD weather. They idea that they are linked to AGW is absurd. Edited September 11, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

There was no misrepresentation. The paper is perfectly acceptable. This entire story is about an editor deciding that would be bad for his career to defend this ppaer so he did a very public resignation for reasons that make no sense if you read them literally.

That's an interpretation only. If we're going to post our interpretations of public events, I can just say that he was put under extreme political pressure to published a 'fair and balanced' paper that opposed AGW and then when the expected fallout came due to the bad science, he had to fall on his sword.

See - two can play the conspiracy game. You won't (and shouldn't) accept my characterization any more than I would accept yours.

Sorry. It happens all of the time. I don't see you complaining. The latest one I can think of was with the tornadoes on the east coast. This was particularly egregious since tornadoes are caused by COLD weather. They idea that they are linked to AGW is absurd.

Which climate scientist happily stated that in an interview? Was it posted here? I believe I have posted here, asking people not to interpret weather as climate trends on both sides of the debate.

[TimG]

Is a better read for laymen such as us.

Except it gives no insight into who's arguments have more merit.

Mann 2008 is garbage but it takes a fairly deep understanding of statistics to appreciate why it is garbage.

[Michael Hardner]

Except it gives no insight into who's arguments have more merit.

Mann 2008 is garbage but it takes a fairly deep understanding of statistics to appreciate why it is garbage.

Why don't you summarize the criticisms for us here, then ?

[TimG]

Why don't you summarize the criticisms for us here, then ?

From memory. The reconstruction depends on two critical proxies: a proxy from finnish lake sediments and tree rings. All the other proxies have little effect on the reconstruction even though they are included. Leaving out the lake sediments and tree rings results in a reconstruction that has no significance prior to 1500. Note that the significance is what matters. Mann defenders love to show the shape of the graph which looks the same but without any significance that shape is meaningless.

The tree rings are problematic for numerous reasons. This paper was an attempt to deal with those criticisms. But what it did instead was use the lake sediments upside down. i.e. the physics of the lake sediments says they 'increased' with temperature. The paper assumed the 'decreased' with temperatures. Mann claims that his algorithm does not care but that is a lie. No algorithm allows one to use proxies in an orientation that opposite to what is required by the underlying physics of the proxy. To put it another way: if Mann assumed that tree width decreases as temperature increases then he would have made the same mistake he made with the lake sediments.

I am simplfying. There are details I am leaving out but they don't change the substance of what I said above. What this means is like MBH98 - Mann 2008 is a paper who conclusions cannot be supported once one does the math correctly.

Here is a reference to M2009 SI where Mann clearly acknowledges everything I said above but buries it in the SI for another paper instead of issuing a correction to his papers that would ensure that everyone knew his claims don't stand up:

Figure S8: Sensitivity of NH mean reconstruction to exclusion of selected proxy

record. Reconstructions are shown based on “all proxy” network (red, with two standard

error region shown in yellow) proxy network with all tree-ring records removed (blue),

proxy network with a group of 7 long-term proxy with greater uncertainties and/or

potential biases as discussed in ref. S1 (brown) and both tree-ring data and the group of 7

records removed (green; dashed before AD 1500 indicates reconstruction no longer

passes validation).

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxySpatial09/SuppInfo.pdf Edited September 11, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

There was no misrepresentation. The paper is perfectly acceptable. This entire story is about an editor deciding that would be bad for his career to defend this ppaer so he did a very public resignation for reasons that make no sense if you read them literally.

Oh thats funny! I was sure someone claimed more than a half dozen times he was "forced out", and even started a thread with that as the title.

[Michael Hardner]

The tree rings are problematic for numerous reasons. This paper was an attempt to deal with those criticisms. But what it did instead was use the lake sediments upside down. i.e. the physics of the lake sediments says they 'increased' with temperature. The paper assumed the 'decreased' with temperatures. Mann claims that his algorithm does not care but that is a lie. No algorithm allows one to use proxies in an orientation that opposite to what is required by the underlying physics of the proxy. To put it another way: if Mann assumed that tree width decreases as temperature increases then he would have made the same mistake he made with the lake sediments.

Ok... I'm trying to follow here, but isn't that just a negative correlation ? We're not saying that Mann et al. were 180 absolutely incorrect... that would mean that they completely misunderstood the relationship between sediments and temperature. At worst, this is just a math error.

Also - the blue line is the line with the tree ring data removed ... the green line is proxies that have very little effect, from what you said - correct ?

[TimG]

Ok... I'm trying to follow here, but isn't that just a negative correlation ? We're not saying that Mann et al. were 180 absolutely incorrect... that would mean that they completely misunderstood the relationship between sediments and temperature. At worst, this is just a math error.

It is a little more complicated because these particular proxies have no valid data in last 100 years because humans disrupted the lake ecosystems. This means these proxies can't be calibrated using Mann's algorithms and must be left out of the reconstruction (this is a point the scientists that collected the data have publicly stated). When you do reconstruction with what is left it has no statistical significance prior to 1500. IOW. The paper's conclusions that it produced a 1300 year reconconstruction that does not use tree rings cannot be supported by the analysis in the paper.

It confirms my previous point that there are no-reconstructions that show a hockey stick and 1) include the MWP and 2) don't use tree ring series which are likely junk.

Also - the blue line is the line with the tree ring data removed ... the green line is proxies that have very little effect, from what you said - correct ?

The green line has no statistical significance before 1500. Mann states that in the caption (that is what 'not passing validation' means). That means the shape of the graph is simply random noise and cannot be used to draw any conclusions. Edited September 12, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, then it's basically the same problem as with tree rings it seems.

[TimG]

Ok, then it's basically the same problem as with tree rings it seems.

It is a little different. With the lake sediments the scientists have identified specific physical mechanisms (agricultural runoff into the lakes) that explains the divergence. This means the do have some confidence in the data prior to 200 years ago. The trouble is this information cannot be calibrated to thermometers - all it does is tell us the relative changes over time. Incidently - the lake sediments show a strong MWP warming period - an artifact that was suppressed when Mann used them upside down. Edited September 12, 2011 by TimG

[jbg]

Not sure about the numbers for warming on the past 15 years, but Greenland is still melting at an accelerated rate, even faster than predicted. Glaciers are rapidly disappearing worldwide.

Pics of Greenland glacier melt shocks expert

On the issue of Greenland and mountain glacier melting, I'm going to give an unscientific surmise. That surmise is that many of the glaciers are left over from the last Ice Age, and are the last to melt. Their loss may well have serious consequences but their loss is not man-made.

In other words, lots of ice melted earlier.

[Michael Hardner]

Incidently - the lake sediments show a strong MWP warming period - an artifact that was suppressed when Mann used them upside down.

I just have to ignore this 'upside down' issue. It's not a word that is used in statistics, and I haven't yet understood what MM meant by their comments on that.