Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[cybercoma]

BTW isn't economics a socialist science?

What's up with that?

Well, eyeball... that's because it has to do with society and not nature.

[waldo]

Knowing that the answer does not reflect well on the world's commitments, he's decided his best defence is to angrily demand citations showing that results have been disappointing.

you really need to step up and answer the direct question put to previously, several times now - the one you repeatedly ignored. Again, you made statements speaking to the need for an emissions treaty... one with 'forceful teeth' (your words, or my paraphrase of). As I stated, to me, this obviously has you acknowledging the need for emissions reduction. I asked how you could acknowledge this point/need, yet allow yourself to shit upon the separate secondary route intended to address the outcome of what you acknowledge. Why do you continue to take utter glee in presuming to denigrate the climate fund? Just answer the question - once and for all. Just answer it.

[eyeball]

Well, eyeball... that's because it has to do with society and not nature.

It's so hard to get my head around the complexity of it all...maybe if I wasn't such a lefty.

I blame my upbringing and the Toronto Board of Education for making me go to free school.

[cybercoma]

I know. It's just easier to think of us as individuals without any sort of relationship to those around us, other than competition.

[waldo]

Knowing that the answer does not reflect well on the world's commitments, he's decided his best defence is to angrily demand citations showing that results have been disappointing. To humour him, at least maybe I can offer this, which confirms almost exactly what I'd been saying several pages back:

http://practicalaction.org/blog/climate_change/changing-the-green-climate-fund/

Waldo, if that citation isn't good enough for you, please provide your own showing otherwise, otherwise quit your crying.

I've not, as you say, "angrily demanded' anything of you. I most certainly have mocked your 'wiki level' expertise, gained over a few short days. So, you finally cough it up. And we see exactly where you got your figure from. Even better... we also see where your principal failure rests... with your linked blogger who you simply echo/parrot. Clearly, your linked blogger does not, himself, recognize there are multiple phases to the fund; i.e., fast start-up versus long term.

my citation/my link? Why, when one has the definitive source, I certainly wouldn't push/flog a blogger's failed interpretation. But, then again, obviously your googly skills are challenged. Perhaps you should try one of the UNFCCC sites, hey... search for "Fast Start". Surprise, surprise - you'll find a full country-by-country accounting of funds. Why, you'll even have attached links to respective country sites. Note: you'll need to bring your currency conversion calculator as all funds are in the currency of the related countries.

by the by, did you recall me highlighting an October 'rush' on expected fund deliveries... are you waiting with baited breath? As far as I know/read there are no expressed concerns from the UNFCCC over realizing commitments on the ~$30 billion start-up financing pledged. If it gives you solace to continue barking like a junkyard dog, keep shitting on the (start-up phase) of the fund. Oh ya, here's my own teaser - just for you; re: Canada's $1.2 billion fast-start pledged commitment.

[eyeball]

I know. It's just easier to think of us as individuals without any sort of relationship to those around us, other than competition.

Maybe when the competition starts to look like food the nature of economics will make more sense.

[waldo]

Pick your poison. Whether it be the fast track financing agreed upon at Copenhagen (back in 2009), or cumulative long-term financing, show us some numbers. As far as I can dig up, both are failing to meet targets, which bodes poorly for the initiative's future success.

ah good... at least I've managed to instill the proper timeline for the start-up phase within your understanding! Well done!

but wait, what's this? Not more of your comprehension difficulties... say it ain't so! Did I not just emphasize to you that the very first meeting of the Green Climate Fund occurred just a few short weeks ago? And you're expecting monies to have already been pledged for the long-term 2020 phase of the fund? Here's another clue, just for you: the target launch of the long-term fund is 2014. I expect you should temper your junkyard dog act accordingly!

[waldo]

Cancun??? Hey now, why didn't you reference back to Copenhagen, 2009? Didn't your Wiki "expertise" alert you to legal framework for the fund being established at Copenhagen? Here, let me guide you in your failed timeline for the fund: Copenhagen - legal framework agreed upon; Cancun - operating and financial mechanisms agreed upon; Durban - launch agreed upon. There ya go... remember... the waldo is here for you!

Doesn't this tell you something? If they take three years of stalling/bureaucracy to even get the official ball rolling, can you imagine how much more self-imposed red tape these master bureaucrats can pull together?

master bureaucrats? Oh, is this you advocating for an expedited creation of the fund? Perhaps you should actually take some time to pore over the myriad of documents released from COP meetings... it just might give you an appreciation of what's actually being addressed, what positive gains are being met, each and every iterative undertaking. Oh wait, that wouldn't fit your narrative, would it?

[waldo]

c'mon, be proud of your Grammar Police role! Hey, when you, Moonbox, have no argument, when you, Moonbox, continually stumble, when you, Moonbox, repeatedly and glaringly have your comprehension and understanding failings pointed out to you... go with your perceived grammar policing strength!

Lol. You're really sore about that aren't you? Did highlighting to everyone how incompetently your posts were written bruise your ego?

sore? What's to be sore about? I've already questioned your credentials to head the MLW Grammar Police! We can dance this juvenile ploy of yours as long as you'd like... I'll pack in the red bull! As before, given your staunch desire to oversee perceived grammar infractions, nothing will be sweeter than continuing to highlight your own glaring grammar/spelling failures. Why, you may be forced to spend even more time on your self-acknowledged, per-post, self-editing regimen!

[jbg]

How much has the Green Climate Fund collected thus far?

Whatever amount Waldo has funded it with.

[WWWTT]

again, you are not being insulted no matter how hard you feign indignity. I noted your propensity to turn to personalization, to attempt to marginalize... if you recall, I described it as a standard ploy by deniers, like you, who have nothing else to turn to. You certainly can't interpret the science - that's absolutely clear. You can also give up your now repeated statements on 'anger issues'... I certainly am not angry at you/anyone - I simply refuse to, 'suffer denier fools gladly'! Note: this is not an insult - check idioms!

Hey buddy why do you even bother responding to my comments?

You are only looking for ways to vent your frustration and anger and I will not be a party to this!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that scientists aren't alarmists. Economists on the other hand seem to make their money off being alarmists.

What about that clock that "scientists" had always displayed that showed the earth only seconds away from total nuclear disaster in the 80's?

Almost forgot about that one ay?

Like the saying goes,you can only cry wolf so many times.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

ah yes, Wayward Son, there is the real TimG creeping back in..

And somehow the admin still lets you call others names here?

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

yet allow yourself to shit upon the separate secondary

I wonder why the admin. allows you to use such language on this site?

WWWTT

[TimG]

And yet all the discussion was done using vague abstract terminology that totally removed itself from an actual understanding of what was going on. The first thing a scientist would do would be to read the paper and try to understand the physical phenomena in question.

First, I did not discuss the physical mechanisms because the problem is how Mann ignored the physical mechanisms proposed by Tijander when he used the data. All I needed to do to make my point is show that Mann did this. It is ironic that once the error was found and Mann realized he could not defend it, he started making up rationalizations for why Tijander was wrong except Mann neglected to put these rationalizations in the original paper AND it really makes no difference because Mann only flipped some of the proxies (if he really thought Tijander was wrong at the time he wrote the paper he should have flipped all of the proxies).

Second, I think you have inflated expectations of the scientists that do these proxy studies. They are almost all correlation studies where the scientist finds some physical phenomena that appears to relate to temperature. Once they find the correlation they develop some sort of hand waving explanation for why the apparent correlation exists. They may attempt to gather experimental evidence that demonstrates the presumed correlation in the lab but in many cases such lab tests are impossible.

Once certain proxies have been identified other scientists will simply collect more data assuming the correlation exists and publish more studies. This introduces a 'positive result' bias into the literature similar to the problem that exists in the drug industry (i.e. no one bothers to publish a study that shows a proxy has no correlation to temperature). In fact, one climate scientist has openly admitted that he deliberately selects the samples with the best correlation with their expected results because the ones that don't are obviously 'biased by noise' [link].

I suspect you will find my claims incredible because as an engineer you cannot imagine that anyone who describes themselves as a scientist behaving in such a manner. I felt the same way at first but after years of reading the papers, reading the criticisms and the defenses I have come to the conclusion that this is what is going on and it goes on because there is no way to verify that claims are correct because we don't have a time machine. Who is believed to be "right" generally comes down to a question of whether their claims fit into the currently popular historical narrative.

Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

It goes positively ballistic when someone proposes that the first thing we should do is acknowledge the enormous fact that such a vast majority of scientists across a vast spectrum of sciences are loudly proclaiming that we need to do something immediately if not sooner.

This is simply not true: http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.

Only a MINORITY of scientists subscribe to the view that you claim (I don't think people who think the problem is a "moderate" danger would "loudly [proclaim] that we need to do something immediately").

Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

If there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's that scientists aren't alarmists. Economists on the other hand seem to make their money off being alarmists.

But scientists who seek and get media attention ARE usually alarmists and the public has a distorted picture of what the science says because the public mouthpieces are so biased. Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

Surprise, surprise - you'll find a full country-by-country accounting of funds. Why, you'll even have attached links to respective country sites. Note: you'll need to bring your currency conversion calculator as all funds are in the currency of the related countries.

So as of August 31st there was ~18B delivered, more than half from Japan, with 4 months to go!

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/cop18/eng/inf01.pdf

by the by, did you recall me highlighting an October 'rush' on expected fund deliveries... are you waiting with baited breath?

Yes! Are you?!? If we can't put together more than ~18B (let's even say 20) in two and a half or more years, and we have to scramble in the last 4 months to (hopefully) meet the ridiculously modest $30B target, I'm not particularly confident about the long term prospects, especially when half of it comes from Japan!

Here's another clue, just for you: the target launch of the long-term fund is 2014.

So 4-5 years after Copenhagen we finally manage to launch the long-term fund. Bravo everyone! Let's see how long that red tape will stretch!

Edited October 2, 2012 by Moonbox

[cybercoma]

Maybe when the competition starts to look like food the nature of economics will make more sense.

Soylent Green!

[cybercoma]

What about that clock that "scientists" had always displayed that showed the earth only seconds away from total nuclear disaster in the 80's?

Almost forgot about that one ay?

Like the saying goes,you can only cry wolf so many times.

WWWTT

Do you have any idea what you're even arguing?

[cybercoma]

This is simply not true: http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.

Only a MINORITY of scientists subscribe to the view that you claim (I don't think people who think the problem is a "moderate" danger would "loudly [proclaim] that we need to do something immediately").

So 85% of scientists rate climate change as moderate to great danger and you shrug that off? Oh right. Because you don't believe in science when it doesn't support your opinions. I forgot.

[eyeball]

This is simply not true: http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.

Only a MINORITY of scientists subscribe to the view that you claim (I don't think people who think the problem is a "moderate" danger would "loudly [proclaim] that we need to do something immediately").

So in 2008 a mere 85% of scientists thought climate change was dangerous.

What are they saying now that's it more apparent that change is happening much faster than anticipated?

Meh?

[Bonam]

First, I did not discuss the physical mechanisms because the problem is how Mann ignored the physical mechanisms proposed by Tijander when he used the data. All I needed to do to make my point is show that Mann did this. It is ironic that once the error was found and Mann realized he could not defend it, he started making up rationalizations for why Tijander was wrong except Mann neglected to put these rationalizations in the original paper AND it really makes no difference because Mann only flipped some of the proxies (if he really thought Tijander was wrong at the time he wrote the paper he should have flipped all of the proxies).

I had the feeling that you understood the physical mechanisms but I still found it amazing that these were never discussed in the long long exchange you and waldo had on the topic. After reading the paper and realizing what the issue was, it just seemed to me like so completely the wrong way to discuss science. Having read the whole thread, a reader would have never known that what was being talked about was sediments in a lake and their correlation to temperatures. I stand by my view that I don't think science can be productively discussed this way.

I suspect you will find my claims incredible because as an engineer you cannot imagine that anyone who describes themselves as a scientist behaving in such a manner.

I've done a fair bit of science myself and am fully aware of the temptation to throw away data sets that don't match what you are trying to show, based on a hand-wavy explanation of why they are not valid. But the reality is a lot of the times when you are doing very difficult experiments that do have a lot of noise and a lot of things that can go wrong, and you know that there is a real physical mechanism underneath that should be giving a certain result, you might take dozens or hundreds of datasets before you get it right and get a clean one. Then, if you do have contradictory datasets, you have to go back and carefully justify why the ones you've discarded were really worth discarding. And if done carefully and honestly, this process can be entirely legitimate. Of course, it can also be not very legitimate. One has to look at the details of what was done. But the point is a scientist picking a data set with less noise or more clear results out of a bunch of datasets is not necessarily cherry picking, they may have valid scientific reasons for doing so.

Fortunately the applied science I now do as part of my job tends to have a lot more clean cut answers, either something works, or it doesn't. And the physics tends to manifest itself extremely well in the results. It's always amazing when you do some calculations on paper, and then build a giant complex system, and it does exactly what you expected it to do. Very satisfying feeling.

Who is believed to be "right" generally comes down to a question of whether their claims fit into the currently popular historical narrative.

I don't know about that. As a scientist, even knowing little about climate science, I was able to just go read the Tijander and Mann papers and quickly see what the issue was. Scientists usually compete for the same funding, and love to show each other to be wrong so they can make their own group look better in comparison. In the case of climate change, even though there may be mistakes here and there, the overall evidence for average temperatures rising is unmistakable. From the rock hard physical understanding of how the greenhouse effect works (the physics part of light transmission, reflection, and absorption) alone, one can get a first order prediction of the temperature rise we've been seeing. And this is a calculation that I can do and have done myself without great difficulty. Looking at this problem as a physicist, I hardly really even need to know anything else. And in fact papers like Tijander which try to extract correlations out of horribly contaminated data with terrible signal to noise ratios just seem like so much wasted effort.

For example, if I know how gravity works, I don't much care if someone does an experiment with a feather falling and the effects of gravity are totally masked and obscured by the effects of the wind, and they fail to see the expected results of gravity because they don't understand the wind well enough to factor it out correctly. That's kind of how all these discussions of noisy and ill-correlated proxies seem to me.

Of course the question of what, if anything, should be done about it, is entirely different and much more open to debate.

[TimG]

So 85% of scientists rate climate change as moderate to great danger and you shrug that off? Oh right. Because you don't believe in science when it doesn't support your opinions. I forgot.

No. What I shrug off are the people who claim that the way to deal with the hypothetical "danger" is to introduce ineffective anti-CO2 regulations.

The problem in the debate are people like you that refuse to separate the policy choices from the science.

[TimG]

What are they saying now that's it more apparent that change is happening much faster than anticipated?

Because it is NOT happening faster than anticipated. If anything, the actual rate of warming is at or below the bottom end of the predicted range. People who claim that it is happening faster are simply lying to rationalize their own positions. Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG