Updating Gore on Greenland's Glaciers

During his testimony before a Senate committee yesterday on the manifold dangers of man-made global warming, Al Gore colorfully declared:

"Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland." 

The Nobelist and Oscarist appears to be a bit behind on his science. Earlier this month, researchers at the American Geophyiscal Union's annual meeting reported that Greenland's galloping glaciers have slowed back down to their usual stately amble. As Richard Kerr reported in the January 23 issue of Science:

So much for Greenland ice's Armaggedon. "It has come to an end," glaciologist Tavi Murray of Swansea University in the United Kingdom said during a session at the meeting. "There seems to have been a synchronous switch-off" of the speed-up, she said. Nearly everywhere around southeast Greenland, outlet glacier flows have returned to the levels of 2000...

But what about the future? Further man-made global warming would contribute to melting Greenland's glaciers, but the Armageddon scenario of 20 foot sea rises this century is very unlikely. And Science cites the glaciologists as warning:

"Our results imply that the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland's outlet glaciers are transient and should not be extrapolated into the future." 

Given his oft-stated devotion to scientific accuracy, will someone please let Gore know the good news that the bleeding of Greenland's glaciers has been stanched?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The chairman worried that the Goracle may have been offended by "naysayers" who thought it funny that Gore's testimony before the committee came on a morning after a snow-and-ice storm in the capital. "The little snow in Washington does nothing to diminish the reality of the crisis," Kerry said at the start of the hearing.



    Funny, during his testimony in January 2007, he constantly referenced the fact that Washington was in the midst of a winter heat wave and the cherry blossoms were in bloom. Too bad Mr. Heinz-Kerry wasn't there to remind him that a few warm weeks should do nothing to emphasize the reality of global warming.

  • ||

    "It has come to an end," glaciiologist Tavi Murray of Swansea University in the United Kingdomsiad during a session at the meeting. "There seems to have been a synchronous switch-off" of the speed-up, she said. Nearly everywhere around southeast Greenland, outlet glacier flows have returned to the levels of 2000...

    You fool! The slow down is caused by global warming!

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    Insisting on facts in such matters is unreasonably, um, coldblooded of you, Mr. Bailey.

  • ||

    If I was global warming, that's exactly what I'd want the scientists to say...

    ...make 'em feel nice and safe before I attack.

    For Serial.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    And would it be so bad if Greenland were, you know, green, like it used to be? You know, when things were "normal"?*

    *If it sounds like I'm mainstreaming Caroline Kennedy, it's because I am. Where's my fucking pony?

  • ||

    "Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland after being wounded by ManBearPig."

    Excelsior!

  • Supplicant||

    "Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland."

    Oh lord, cleanse this world of the scourge known as Al Gore.

  • SteveDave||

    You fool! The slow down is caused by global warming!

    That is why it is now "Climate Change"...unless the entire world is held at a constant 72 degrees...something is wrong

  • Elemenope||

    I've been waiting for another global warming thread to ask this of those who do not think the case for anthropogenic global warming is persuasive, because I'm honestly curious.

    What source would you find credible?

    What standard of evidence would you require of that source?

    Is that standard practically achievable?

  • ||

    Please you guys!!

    I'm being super cereal!!

  • ||

    "Given his oft-stated devotion to scientific accuracy, will someone please let Gore know the good news that the bleeding of Greenland's glaciers has been stanched?"

    I nominate Ronald Bailey.

  • ||

    Could it be that the Greenland glaciers have slowed because it's winter in the northern hemisphere, a particularly cold winter?

    I'm all for global warming to be a myth because it means 2 billion people won't be dead or displaced, but doesn't the science that disproves it have to go through the same scrutiny as the science that supposedly proves it?

  • ||

    Further man-made global warming would contribute to melting Greenland's glaciers. . . .

    Let's not assume our conclusions, hmm?

    What source would you find credible?

    What standard of evidence would you require of that source?

    Is that standard practically achievable?

    No one source. The standard of evidence would need not be fully "scientific", but would at least need to be a model that is (a) explanatory of the underlying causes of climate change absent anthro CO2 and (b) has at least some record of being accurately predictive without (c) funny data.

  • Egosumabbas||

    If only Algore would quit playing with the thermostat.

  • Elemenope||

    (c) funny data.

    Er, data that somehow replicates a George Carlin routine?

    What do you mean by 'funny data'?

  • Kolohe||

    What do you mean by 'funny data'?

    Brent Spiner doiing stand-up?

  • Paul||

    Al Gore: worst spokesman for Global Warming. Evar.

    In fact, I would almost like to go as far as declaring that Reason even pointing to Al Gore during global warming debates is, in and of itself, disingenuous.

    Al Gore is a proven hack. Therefore referencing hacks to contrast your own argument doesn't necessarily add weight to your own position.

    It's like beating up on a retarded kid to prove how tough you are.

  • Kolohe||

    "Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland."

    Also, this measures at least 500 millifriedmans on the tortured metaphor scale. Unless the ice in Greenland is red? Maybe that's how Erik got his name?

  • Egosumabbas||

    "What source would you find credible?"

    Irrelevant. All that matters is the reasoning involved.

    "What standard of evidence would you require of that source?"

    Evidence that is free of user error, equipment failure, massaging of data, and methodological weakness, and falsifiable. That pretty much rules out everything except for satellite data. It would also mean no computer models can be used, only controlled laboratory experiments.

    "Is that standard practically achievable?"

    It's extraordinarily difficult, and probably impossible, unless you can produce several planets similar to our own and run controlled experiments on them. (If computer models count, then why aren't we using computer models of mice to test for drugs?).

    The best we can hope for is to track temperature measurements (by satellite), sea levels, and respond accordingly. Adaptation is the best solution both in a moral sense and a utilitarian sense.

  • ||

    Brent Spiner doiing stand-up?

    If it's as Lore, it would be great.

    "Maybe we should work on your sense of humor, brother."

  • Kolohe||

    If computer models count, then why aren't we using computer models of mice to test for drugs?).

    Well, some are trying to

  • Egosumabbas||

    [Data, with his new emotion chip installed, is told to scan for life forms]
    Data: I would be happy to, sir. I just *love* scanning for life forms!
    [sings]
    Data: Life forms! You tiny little life forms! You precious little life forms! Where are you?

  • ||

    It's like beating up on a retarded kid to prove how tough you are.

    Uhh...'tards have Tard Strength, dude. That's why you don't upset them.

    "Hi. This is Wilford Brimley. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully with this book, I'm gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don't rule the night. They don't rule it. Nobody does. And they don't run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming 'No, no, no' and all they hear is 'Who wants cake?' Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake."

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The boosters of massive government coercion schemes to solve the global warming "crisis" actually have three things to prove in this order:

    1. That human activity actually is making the earth warmer.

    2. That they are capable of actually determining the future conseqeunces of that change (if it is occuring).

    3. That the government coercion schemes they endorse would actually be effective in stopping the consequences predicted in #2 AND do so at a cost that is less than the cost of merely adapting to those consequences would be.

    So far, the haven't even got number # 1 taken care of.

  • Egosumabbas||

    Geordi: I've never seen a solar probe with this kind of configuration, have you Data?
    Geordi: [uses tricorder as a hand puppet]
    Data: No Geordi, I have not. Have you?
    Data: [to his tricorder]
    Data: "No I have not. It is most unusual." Mister Tricorder!

  • Egosumabbas||

    Data: [uses a device in his arm to open a door] Open sesame! You could say I have a magnetic personality.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Ego - that "scanning for life forms" scene is probably the funniest scene in Star Trek history.

    Honorable Mention goes to Worf's demurrer about the differences between he and his Klingon ancestors.

    "We don't talk about it with outsiders."

  • ||

    No, the funniest thing in TNG history was when Wesley had that romance with the shapeshifter girl. I couldn't stop laughing.

  • Egosumabbas||

    That's good, but my favorite Worf line was the one involving a cellular peptide cake.

  • ||

    How about when Worf had the prune juice and said "this is a warrior's drink!"

  • ||

    Oh please, this isn't about science, it's about Al Gore lining his pocket. He's done pretty well so far, can you say $100 million. But there is no human being on the planet more corrupt and dishonest than Al Gore. It's sickening.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    or any part in DS9 where Dax and Work like, break each other's bones during intercourse.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    *Worf

    But there is no human being on the planet more corrupt and dishonest than Al Gore.

    *ahem* - overreaching a bit, aren't we? I'd say Kim Jong-Il is at least marginally more corrupt and dishonest. And a sorry motherfucker to boot.

  • Egosumabbas||

    And so ronery.

  • ||

    Didn't we just have a fairly epic AGW debate, like two days ago?

  • Egosumabbas||

    @Matthew:

    I thought the science was settled?

  • Kolohe||

    Didn't we just have a fairly epic AGW debate, like two days ago?

    It's what happens when the editors cross polinate with Big Hollywood; the resulting hybrid loves sequels.

  • ||

    How about when Worf had the prune juice and said "this is a warrior's drink!"

    I thought it was the Riker as an "actor" episode? Hilarious!

    Nah. It's Worf in the Robin Hood episode. "I am NOT a merry man!"

  • ||

    I thought it was the Riker as an "actor" episode? Hilarious!

    Or any time he played the trombone. And how about the time they went to that planet where the women were the rulers and he "seduced" the leader? AWESOME. Now that I think about it, TNG was unintentionally funny a lot.

  • ||

    Elemenope

    What source would you find credible?

    Richard Lindzen seems like a good source, if he changed his mind I'd probably suspect he was bribed or blackmailed...so really..
    I'm a good source. I'd like to see a prediction made by the global warming theorist based on their thoeries and then have the prediction come true.

    The prediction should be based on data that is verifiable by me(not some temperature data producing group that has been caught manipulating it's data dozens of times). For instance, I live by the ocean...year after year I can see that the water level is close to the same...no change...if the theorist were correct then it would be higher by now. Since they constantly lie about about how there is huge amounts of ice melting into the ocean and raising the sea level it diminishes their credibility.

    I'd need to see them explain why they lied about the hurricane activity and decided not to factor int he fact that they didn't track carribean and west african tropical activity as well in 1940 as they do today...and thus they of course show more hurricanes now than then.

    I'd need them to admit that it is wierd that CO2 levels increased greatly between 1930 and 1970 while temperatures went down for 40 years.

    I'd need them to admit that warmer weather could be good for the world...humans die of flus and colds more often than they die from heat exhaustion...new land becomes usable for agriculture as it warms..the benefits from warming may be greater than the costs of warming.

    Even if the costs do exceed the benefits then that DOES NOT mean that the costs of centralizing power more don't far exceed the costs of warming.


    I'd need them to admit that there MAY be natural cycles that exist that create negative feedbacks and cool the world once the world warms a bit.

    People who won't admit any of these things are illogical AND/OR trying to steal my money. This is a fact, it will take a lot of new evidence and convincing data for to trust illogical people who are trying to steal my money and gain the rights to monitor the grill in my backyard.

    BTW, who wrote the Georgia Guidestones?

  • ||

    Or any time he played the trombone. And how about the time they went to that planet where the women were the rulers and he "seduced" the leader? AWESOME. Now that I think about it, TNG was unintentionally funny a lot.

    Or the time he hit up the chick from the planet of androgynous hermaphrodites and got all bent out of shape over her? I thought Riker was kinky, but not that he swung the other way.

  • Elemenope||

    I thought the science was settled?

    "You can't sell science."

    How about when Worf had the prune juice and said "this is a warrior's drink!"

    Yeah, that was a winner. And also, despite the movie surrounding it was pathetic, Data singing Gilbert & Sullivan on autopilot was pretty funny.

    "Sing, Worf, sing!"

    [Worf shakes head curtly]

  • Elemenope||

    ...convert "was" into "being" and that will make sense.

    [Sigh. This cold has gotten to my grammar. What will it not destroy?!]

  • ||

    androgynous hermaphrodites

    Are you talking about Tasha Yar?

    I must admit that I was happy when the oil slick creature thing killed her.

    despite the movie surrounding it was pathetic

    You think that's pathetic, just wait until the new one comes out. It might be OK, but as with anything Hollywood, always bet on black bad.

  • ||

    What source would you find credible?

    What standard of evidence would you require of that source?

    Is that standard practically achievable?


    I'd settle for the AGW front men to stop demagoging and attacking anyone who dares to question the orthodoxy and to stop pimping for massive government programs as a solution.

    That. ain't. gonna. happen.

  • ||

    Are you talking about Tasha Yar?

    I must admit that I was happy when the oil slick creature thing killed her.


    This one.

    Yeah, I didn't miss Tasha Yar.

  • ||

    A good example of compelling AGW evidence would be a sound prediction that actually comes true. A prediction that preferably is something we don't anticipate.

    For instance, winters of the past two years have been colder than the recent average, at least in North America. I never saw a computer model that predicted that, say, in January 2007 when Gore was talking about cherry blossoms.

    I saw damage control to the simulator codes by AGW proponents to account for this cooling trend AFTER the fact with these cold snaps, but no one who was saying "expect colder winters in the northern hemisphere for the next several years as a side-effect of the generally warming trend our earth is undergoing..."

    Not one of the IPCC guys, Goracle, none of'em seemed to predict that; or even suspect and announce such a possibility. It was just supposed to get warmer, and warmer, and warmer. Such omissions hurt credibility when you make predictions about the same physical system, but a thousand years into the future.

    That's not me being a AGW skeptic either, that's just a commentary on what I see here regarding the study of the subject.

    All these predictions I've heard are either far after I will be dead, or are predictions that are adjusted and massaged as the time of reckoning for the prediction draws near.

    This subject is a study of a physical system obeying physical laws based on "hard" sciences.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Are you talking about Tasha Yar?

    No, Janeway. Whom my friend theorized might be the first obviously gay character. (please, lay off the easy Wesley Crusher references. You can do better).

  • DADIODADDY||

    I don't want to be on-line when these threads finally converge...Al Gore, TNG & scientifc method...it ain't gonna be pretty

  • DADIODADDY||

    There were at least 2 refernces to men in Janeways' pants during the Voyager years ...and I think there was an alien male lurking around in another episode unless they were all her beards...interstellar 3-ways woo hoo!!!

  • ||

    The boosters of massive government coercion schemes to solve the global warming "crisis" actually have three things to prove in this order:

    I don't think Point 1 is relevant; in a sense the way to envision this is the Coase Theorem. The efficient outcome doesn't depend on whether climate change is anthropogenic or not. What matters is Point 3, the cost/benefit analysis. Or more likely, a complex cost/benefit analysis with a few decades of really bad political compromise.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    DADIODADDY:

    Star Trek: Insurrection.

    Boom! I have instantly linked TNG with strip-mining (entire planets).

  • Egosumabbas||

    I thought The Traveler was the first obviously gay character.

  • ||

    Given [Al Gore's] oft-stated devotion to scientific accuracy...

    LOL, this Bailey is a funny man.

  • ||

    please, lay off the easy Wesley Crusher references

    I can't. He's such a rich target. Remember when he and his buddies at Starfleet Academy tried to pull off a special move at graduation and one of them was killed? And then he ratted on everybody? And Picard praises him for being a rat?

    There were at least 2 refernces to men in Janeways' pants during the Voyager years

    Look, Mulgrew was in Remo Williams. Enough said.

  • ||

    What do I mean by funny data?

    Data that isn't massaged until it gives the desired answer.

    "Data" that isn't made up (or, to use the grant-writer's term "interpolated").

  • Neu Mejican||

    Hal-9000,

    For instance, winters of the past two years have been colder than the recent average, at least in North America. I never saw a computer model that predicted that, say, in January 2007 when Gore was talking about cherry blossoms.

    You are smarter than this Hal.
    The trend lines in climate data are based on 7 year trends at minimum. The models wouldn't even try to predict what you are asking of them...because that wouldn't be meaningful CLIMATE information.

    I am now forced to question whether you know what you mean when you say "Hard Science."

    It was just supposed to get warmer, and warmer, and warmer.

    This is clear evidence that you are not, actually, familiar with the climate literature, nor the broad AGW hypothesis in enough detail to comment.

  • MNG||

    I hated Star Trek Nemesis. I hated the bad guys ship. Ok, so it's ten times bigger than the Enterprise, and yeah, it can cloak too. But shit, that's enough of an advantage, so let's let it shoot while its cloaked (and just hope everyone forgets we did that a few flicks back).

    Shit, why didn't they give it a wave motion gun too.

  • MNG||

    Tru dat on the Traveler.

  • Neu Mejican||

    RC Dean,

    All data, at some level of precision, are interpolated.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html

  • MNG||

    Didn't Janeway date Sam on Cheers?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    I thought The Traveler was the first obviously gay character.

    Don't do it, Ego. You're trying to skirt around my Wesley Crusher ban.

    Look, Mulgrew was in Remo Williams. Enough said.

    Do you know how many lesbian majors there are in the Army? It's not a small number.

    I can rag on Mulgrew because her loser husband got crushed in the Governor's Race here in the Ohizzle.

  • MNG||

    Q was funny.

    But I've always liked these near-omnipotent characters (except the Beyonder in Marvel's Secret Wars, maybe the crappiest character in comics history)

  • Neu Mejican||

    I thought The Traveler was the first obviously gay character.

    I thought it was, not Sulu, but that other guy...Checkov

    http://www.startrekkie.com/images/images/TOSchek_sulu.jpg

  • Egosumabbas||

    "I can rag on Mulgrew because her loser husband got crushed in the Governor's Race here in the Ohizzle."

    Jeri Ryan's hubby got crushed in an Illinois election. Coincidence?

    "Don't do it, Ego. You're trying to skirt around my Wesley Crusher ban."

    At Welsey's age, you could call his... friendship with the traveler youthful exuberance. A little bit of interspecies curiosity if you will.

  • MNG||

    Remember the mad shirtless Sulu running around with the rapier?

    Taken by itself it was like some Colbertian gay fantasy sequence.

    But of course, that's with hindsight.

  • ||

    Didn't Janeway date Sam on Cheers?

    For, like, three episodes. I actually just saw her in Equus on Broadway.

    I thought The Traveler was the first obviously gay character.

    No, he was the first pedophile character. He sure liked Wesley. "You're like a young Mozart. Want to get in my time-space bubble? I have an XBox!"

  • The Angry Optimist||

    At Welsey's age, you could call his... friendship with the traveler youthful exuberance. A little bit of interspecies curiosity if you will.

    "Look, it was just a phase...I had just broken up with my girlfriend and I was drinking a lot..."

    Q was funny.

    Q was going to be my second nominee for gay character. He had a man-crush on Picard, that's for sure.

  • MNG||

    Epi
    That last one made my day and wins the thread.

    Want to get in my time-space bubble. Holy shit.

  • ||

    Hey, "skeptics,"

    Google "Greenland glacier melting," and let me know what you find.

    Because there seems to be some confusion about the significance of this one study, and the current state of the science.

  • MNG||

    I think Q actually appeared as a woman in Picard's bed one time, didn't he?

  • The Traveler||

    Wesley, do you like movies about gladiators?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Actually, the original cast was pretty gay

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrffhpcuwzQ

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYZOgO_hE3E

  • ||

    I think Q actually appeared as a woman in Picard's bed one time, didn't he?

    Picard knew it was Q because he got laid approximately once every three seasons. Kirk would have been fooled, however.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Because there seems to be some confusion about the significance of this one study, and the current state of the science.

    To be fair, that isn't a "study" but a news report about FALL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, 15-19 DECEMBER 2008, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA.

  • Egosumabbas||

    Seconded: Episiarch, you win the thread.


    hey joe, my favorite leftist troll, google COLDEST FUCKING WINTER EVER.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Picard knew it was Q because he got laid approximately once every three seasons.

    Oh please. Picard explicitly expressed that the entire Federation pretty much had a free love attitude. Kirk was governed by a more conservative time.

  • ||

    "The trend lines in climate data are based on 7 year trends at minimum. The models wouldn't even try to predict what you are asking of them...because that wouldn't be meaningful CLIMATE information. "

    OK...why didn't anyone see this coming in 2002 or 2000? This has been a hot topic for going on twenty years at this point. Some modicum of precision should be expected of these things. I also don't see how a general reduction in temperatures for the northern hemisphere isn't "meaningful climate information" either.

    "This is clear evidence that you are not, actually, familiar with the climate literature, nor the broad AGW hypothesis in enough detail to comment."

    The broad AGW hypothesis in enough detail? Thousand year predictions are somewhat lacking in detail. While details like this mini-cooling trend are details. The rhetoric employed doesn't match the point you're trying to make here. And I might also add that the "warmer and warmer" implication stems from Al Gore's comments about cherry blossoms in January, and John Kerry now telling us to ignore the cold weather outside in the exact same venue and place on the calendar? No AGW fanboy tried to quell that expectation when it was convenient for them not to. That's a more consistent pattern than anything in these simulators.

    "I am now forced to question whether you know what you mean when you say "Hard Science.""

    I'll just have to live with being a guy with a physics degree who doesn't know what hard science is. But perhaps you have a good example of a prediction these simulators make that we can expect to confirm at some point in the near future? Or is that expectation just not compatible with your rendition of "climate science?"

  • Neu Mejican||

    Egosumabbas,

    Weather does not equal climate.

    7 year trend lines guys.

    At a minimum.

  • ||

    Picard explicitly expressed that the entire Federation pretty much had a free love attitude.

    ...which makes his lack of action even more pathetic. Or he's just asexual.

    "Kirk only put his phaser on stun when he was looking for sex."

  • Egosumabbas||

    "weather does not equal climate"

    Biggest crock of shit ever. It's the SAME CHAOTIC SYSTEM. Prove me wrong.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Hal-9000,

    a physics degree

    This only make me more baffled by your comments.

    OK...why didn't anyone see this coming in 2002 or 2000?

    Swing and a miss.

    Sorry Hal, but you are smarter than that. The problem isn't that they didn't have 7 years to make the prediction. There is a difference between a data point and a trend. You get that, right?

  • Neu Mejican||

    It's the SAME CHAOTIC SYSTEM. Prove me wrong.

    Yes, it is the same chaotic system.

    What does that have to do with anything?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    NM, let me ask this: provided that the current consensus is correct, what WILL that 7 year trend line show?

    And what's the over/under?

  • Egosumabbas||

    "Yes, it is the same chaotic system.

    What does that have to do with anything?"

    It has *everything* to do with it. We can maybe find the attractors in a chaotic system, but we can't make any accurate positions. If we can't predict the weather more than 10 days ahead, can't predict the number and intensity of hurricanes, can't predict the next ice age, we can't really predict how warm it's going to get in 100 years or how high the oceans will be, now can we?

  • ||

    Melting rates have returned to 2000 rates. In 2000, Greenland's glaciers were MELTING. Retreating. It had already been observed that they has retreated dramatically over the past few decades, and it had been determined that the rate was already elevated.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215091015.htm

  • Neu Mejican||

    Hal 9000,

    Some basics: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/#more-527

  • ||

    If I can't predict how many home runs Manny Ramirez will have on July 22, I can't predict how many he will have in 2009.

    Hey, wait a minute...

  • Neu Mejican||

    More specific to your challenge:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/

  • Neu Mejican||

    A prediction from 1988 assessed.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

  • ||

    Well that proves it then. Global warming is wrong.

    Do any of you people appreciate logic at all? What's more likely, that there's a massive conspiracy of climate scientists, Al Gore, and yes even now oil companies to deceive you on global warming, for some as-yet unexplained financial motive, or that scientists are just doing science, and the deniers are the ones with the ulterior motives (or emotional refusal to accept bad news)?

  • Egosumabbas||

    "If I can't predict how many home runs Manny Ramirez will have on July 22, how many in his whole career, I can't predict how many he will have in 2009."

    Fixed it for you.

  • Egosumabbas||


    Goddamn tags.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    What's more likely, that there's a massive conspiracy of climate scientists...or that scientists are just doing science?

    Tony, isn't it possible that the consensus is wrong? I mean, why present a false dichotomy?

    Lamarck was doing science too, you know.

  • Egosumabbas||

    "for some as-yet unexplained financial motive"

    You don't think Al Gore is making money on Global Warming?

    What about all the grant-reliant climate scientists who would be otherwise unemployed?

  • ||

    Ego, when you fix something, you're supposed to make it more right, not more wrong.

    I'll bet you I can predict, within 10 either way, how many home runs Manny Ramirez will have in 2009, 2010, and 2011. How much do you want to put down for each year?

  • ||

    Scientists who uncover compelling data that comopletely changes the field's understanding of central issues NEVER succeed in their fields. Never.

    I mean, just look at the history of science. I defy to name one scientist whose innovative work completely changed the dominant paradigm who went on to become prominent and successful.

    Hey, wait a second...

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Scientists who uncover compelling data that comopletely changes the field's understanding of central issues NEVER succeed in their fields. Never.

    Who said this? Quotes PLZKTHXBAI

  • Egosumabbas||

    Who is the one person who stands to profit the most from a cap and trade scheme? His name rhymes with "old bore".

  • ||

    "Tony, isn't it possible that the consensus is wrong? I mean, why present a false dichotomy? "

    Yes, of course it's possible. But neither you nor any of the armchair climatologists on this site know better than the consensus of scientists. So until the consensus changes the burden of proof is squarely on you.

  • Neu Mejican||

    TAO,

    The best way for me to answer your question is to refer you to the second of my realclimate links above.

    Bringing it back to climate models, there can be strong agreement that 0.2ºC/dec is the expected value for the current forced trend, but comparing the actual trend simply to that number plus or minus the uncertainty in its value is incorrect.

    You will note, further down in the article that they recommend using nothing short of a 15 year trend...they provide some links to assessments of model predictions.

  • ||

    TAO,

    Egosumabbas @ 5:44.

    Please, try not to overdo it when you grovel at me feet in gratitude.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Huh? Your "NEVER ever" quote was an exaggerated and distorted strawman. Egosumabbas never said that scientists can NEVER be financially successful, just that the motives of these particular scientists are suspect, probably because of heavy government involvement.

    So, no groveling for you.

    But neither you nor any of the armchair climatologists on this site know better than the consensus of scientists. So until the consensus changes the burden of proof is squarely on you.

    Slow your roll, hoss. You presented a false dichotomy that cartoonishly dismissed real questions about methodology as being motivated by prurient motivations. Don't get all pissed when your lack of logic gets exposed.

  • ||

    Yes Al Gore's perfect master plan. Get the whole planet to believe in some flimflammery he just made up, convince the vast majority of climate scientists to agree with him (they're so easily duped!), get the world to completely overhaul its energy infrastructure, all so he can make a few bucks. That's audacious even for a James Bond villain.

    Of course the heavenly saints who run the oil industry had no motive whatsoever to engage in a massive propaganda campaign to discredit climate science over many decades. None at all. And surely you guys are smart enough not to be won over by that propaganda, even if it is parroted in the rightwing media you all must slavishly absorb. Of course you're behind the times since even the oil industry admits the reality of climate change now. It just hasn't filtered down to Rush and Hannity--or, apparently, Reason--yet.

  • Egosumabbas||

    I'm groveling at whom for what now?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Bringing it back to climate models, there can be strong agreement that 0.2ºC/dec is the expected value for the current forced trend

    So....1/3 of one degree Fahrenheit? Meaning that it will be one degree warmer in 30 years?

    Color me unconcerned.

  • ||

    @Neu Mejican:

    I am enjoying the links you provided and am reading Dr. Hansen's report downloaded off of NASA. There are a couple initial "problems" that anybody would have to answer to if this was a thesis at college. For instance some of the arbitrary compensation techniques utilized to account for the low resolution of data-sets collected going back to 1880, etc. But they are procedural things and I am sure will be covered in the report somewheres. I would assume the good Doctor here has methodology down I would hope.

    @joe:
    "I mean, just look at the history of science. I defy to name one scientist whose innovative work completely changed the dominant paradigm who went on to become prominent and successful."

    Hmmm...there was Eratosthenes. He did pretty good. Newton cashed in and was an infamous prima donna, incredibly vain and greedy to his peers.

    Oh yeah, Einstein. He made out like a bandit comparatively, at least his reputation did. Had to turn down being the first President of Israel amongst other things. And Einstein in our cultural history is just the Godfather for a whole mafia of celebrated geniuses from that era, I don't even know where to begin with that list. Niels Bohr and Enrico Fermi are a good start, though.

    @

  • Egosumabbas||

    "Yes Al Gore's perfect master plan. Get the whole planet to believe in some flimflammery he just made up, convince the vast majority of climate scientists to agree with him (they're so easily duped!), get the world to completely overhaul its energy infrastructure, all so he can make a few bucks. That's audacious even for a James Bond villain."

    Every heard of Bernie Madoff? How about Charles Ponzi? Adolf Hitler? John Law? PT Barnum? Trofim Denisovich Lysenko?

  • Egosumabbas||

    More on that list:
    Robert Harley
    Johann Tetzel
    Kenneth Lay

  • Neu Mejican||

    TAO,

    I can't seem to find that crayon in my box, did you steal it?

    ;^)

    That one degree is predicted to have some pretty tough consequences in terms of ocean coral, fish populations, tree mortality, and other aspects of our world.

    Stanford recently looked at the impact of 1 degree of warming on mortality rates (due to air quality effects, iirc) and predicted something like an additional 20,000 a year...but I haven't had a chance to look at the study to say much beyond the headline.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    But balanced with that would be increased costs of everything (under a carbon tax system OR a cap-and-trade system)...and (if you can get me the link, that would be great) did the Stanford study take into account the benefits to humanity in the form of increased land arability and longer growing seasons?

  • ||

    Wow, TAO, are you really this stupid, or just pretending?

    Here, let me walk you through it:

    Ego claimed that climatologists were unwilling to release information and draw conclusions that go against the prevailing opinion in their field because they would be punished for doing so.

    I pointed out that, far from being punished, scientists who discover and spread the world about novel understandings in their field, and upend the conventional wisdom, are lauded.

    Here, let's have a moment of silence for the angst you suffered over how I made that point.





    Amen.

    Any time you'd care to make a point about this rather obvious observation of mine, that would be awesome.

  • cunnivore||

    The one defect of INCIF is that, while the idiots get filtered out, the non-idiots' responses to the idiots don't. So you still have to read what they post, albeit indirectly.

  • ||

    What about when Worf....oh, we're talking about global warming now? :::never mind:::

  • ||

    Every heard of Bernie Madoff? How about Charles Ponzi? Adolf Hitler? John Law? PT Barnum? Trofim Denisovich Lysenko?
    Egosumabbas | January 29, 2009, 6:09pm | #

    More on that list:
    Robert Harley
    Johann Tetzel
    Kenneth Lay


    Not a single one of those people convinced a large majority of researchers in their fields to believe something not backed up by data, which is the accusation made about climatologists.

  • cunnivore||

    I pointed out that, far from being punished, scientists who discover and spread the world about novel understandings in their field, and upend the conventional wisdom, are lauded.

    They definitely aren't lauded at first.

    If I'm a climatologist working at a university, I'm definitely more concerned with continuing to get funding for my projects in the here and now to keep the dean off my back, than I am with the unlikely possibility I will be lauded as a visionary 300 years from now.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Ego claimed that climatologists were unwilling to release information and draw conclusions that go against the prevailing opinion in their field because they would be punished for doing so.

    No, he actually said this:

    What about all the grant-reliant climate scientists who would be otherwise unemployed?

    I suppose it's two sides of the same coin, but I read it as "These scientists have an incentive to maintain the status quo because the status quo is financially lucrative".

    Keep in mind, too, joe, that anytime anyone links to say, Lomborg or others who question portions or the entirety of AGW, they're castigated as frauds, shills or Flat-Earthers.

    You have to admit that you're not exactly engendering an intellectual back-and-forth on the subject.

  • ||

    We shouldn't be meddling around in complex, nonlinear systems which we really don't understand, especially if the welfare of billions of people depends on those systems.

    That's why we should apply the Precautionary Principle to efforts at 'managing' the economy.

  • ||

    If I'm a climatologist working at a university, I'm definitely more concerned with continuing to get funding for my projects in the here and now to keep the dean off my back, than I am with the unlikely possibility I will be lauded as a visionary 300 years from now.

    It didn't take 300 years for Einstein to become prominent. Or Fermi. Or, come to think of it, the climatologists who first put forward the global warming hypothesis.

    "These scientists have an incentive to maintain the status quo because the status quo is financially lucrative".

    Oh, I'd say that between the AEI, CEI, Marshall Institute (which was not created by George C. Marshall and should stop using his name), and a zillion other wingnut welfare think tanks, a climate scientist with even the weakest evidence that global warming isn't happening can do quite well for himself. And that's even assuming that there really is some scary, Mafia-like group of climate scientists bringing the hammer down on eccentric ideas.

    Keep in mind, too, joe, that anytime anyone links to say, Lomborg or others who question portions or the entirety of AGW, they're castigated as frauds, shills or Flat-Earthers. By whom? The Daily Kos and the Nation don't have a lot to do with funding researchers at universities.

    Ron Bailey never seems to have a shortage of studies he thinks undermine the consensus position. Maybe, just maybe, such studies are rarer than those that demonstrate the reality of global warming because the data tends to demonstrate the reality of global warming.

  • ||

    /8We shouldn't be meddling around in complex, nonlinear systems which we really don't understand, especially if the welfare of billions of people depends on those systems.

    I agree. We shouldn't have meddled by dumping vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Unfortunately we have to deal with the consequences of that meddling.

  • Og||

    I agree. We shouldn't have meddled by dumping vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Unfortunately we have to deal with the consequences of that meddling.

    Tony, your wife wants you back at the house, she said it is your turn to pick lice off of her back. Mind if I grab one of those skins? It's getting awfully cold out here, but think gore, we're fighting global warming, right?

  • Neu Mejican||

    TAO,

    Here's a "one degree" story from NatGeo..

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080514-global-warming.html

    Here's a story on the Standford study...
    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2008/2008-01-03-03.asp

  • Neu Mejican||

    Star Trek and global warming collide:

    http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5033

    http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Global_warming

  • Neu Mejican||

    Updating Gore Ron Bailey on Greenland's Glaciers

    Researchers watching the loss of ice flowing out from the giant island of Greenland say that the amount of ice lost this summer is nearly three times what was lost one year ago.



    To be fair, Petermann glacier named in the story is on the Northwestern and not the Eastern coast, so it doesn't support Gore's statement directly.


    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215091015.htm

    From the same week as Ron's linked article, btw.

  • Neu Mejican||

    FYI,

    Hat tip to joe for the original link to that story...

  • ||

    And would it be so bad if Greenland were, you know, green, like it used to be? You know, when things were "normal"?*

    *If it sounds like I'm mainstreaming Caroline Kennedy, it's because I am. Where's my fucking pony?


    Fucking funny, Alan, good stuff. Win!

  • Ivory Gull||

    Squaawk -- Plymouth is kinda nice and agreeable. Will have to recommend it to my friends Squaawk.

  • ||

    joe,

    Ego, when you fix something, you're supposed to make it more right, not more wrong.

    I'll bet you I can predict, within 10 either way, how many home runs Manny Ramirez will have in 2009, 2010, and 2011. How much do you want to put down for each year?


    The problem will occur when you extrapolate this data to predict his performance in 2100.

  • cunnivore||

    domo, that's not quite fair. We know that any baseball player is going to stop hitting home runs once he passes age 50, but there's no reason to believe the way the earth's climate works will suddenly change at some point in the near future.

  • Ice Age Gaia||

    And I would've gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling CO2 emitters!

  • ModernDayCapitalistMenace||

    Ice Age Gaia | January 29, 2009, 9:56pm | #
    And I would've gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling CO2 emitters!


    Alas, not only will I prevent you from occurring, but I disrupted you for the last 11,000 years. All the CO2 my factories are belching became so crowded, they had no where to go, but backwards in time!

  • ||

    "I'll bet you I can predict, within 10 either way, how many home runs Manny Ramirez will have in 2009, 2010, and 2011. How much do you want to put down for each year?"

    Wow, you can predict with a 20 point swing what someone with an average of 40 will do. Impressive. So if the avg temp is 80, do scientists get a 40 degree swing?

  • Egosumabbas||

    Wow, joe and TAO deconstructing what I said.

    Look it's very simple. It's economics at work.

    Most climate scientists work at the behest of government. A climate scientist sees a correlation (which is not the same thing as causation) between warming and CO2 levels, and has a freakout. Freakouts tend to attrack government research funding to see if it's a real problem or not.

    Believe it or not, there is money to be made off global warming, like Al Gore's cap-and-trade scamorama.

    The freakouts, government incentives, and crusaders like Al Gore all reinforce each other, and seek to perpetuate the crisis. It's like Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, only the evil capitalist bogeyman is Al Gore in this case.

    Imagine you're a publicly funded researcher who rejects AGW. Well, do you think your colleges are going to support you? Hell no. If you pour cold water on their crisis, that means less funding. So who do you turn to for funding? People who have the most to lose, such as oil companies and coal mines. Or anti-government think tanks like CATO.

    Now it's interesting to point out other things that happen. Weather forecasters, the scientists who study the same chaotic system but work in the private sector not the public sector tend not to believe AGW. I think that's very telling. They make money by predicting the weather, a lucrative business. If they're wrong about climate and weather, they don't make money. I'm going to give credence to the Weather Channel guy more than any other climate scientist.

    Also, another reason why I don't trust a lot of government funded climatologists beyond the financial incentive, is that they're not Popperian scientists, they follow what's called post-normal science. They seem utterly incapable of separating correlation from causation. A computer model is not a controlled experiment. They can be used to form hypothesis, so they are an important tool, but they cannot be used to *prove* hypotheses, because they aren't controlled experiments which isolate cause and effect. They believe in reason by consensus, not by deduction or induction with falsification.

  • Egosumabbas||

    "but there's no reason to believe the way the earth's climate works will suddenly change at some point in the near future."

    It can and it does all the time, for any number of natural occurrences:

    * Supervolanoes
    * Comets and meteors
    * Sunspot cycles (responsible for the little ice age--anybody else notice the lack of sunspots lately?)
    * Planetary magnetic pole reversal

    Imagine that Yellowstone explodes, causing a volcanic winter (despite the consequential CO2 increase). Those warming models suddenly go out the window now don't they?

  • ||

    ""I've been waiting for another global warming thread to ask this of those who do not think the case for anthropogenic global warming is persuasive, because I'm honestly curious.

    What source would you find credible?

    What standard of evidence would you require of that source?

    Is that standard practically achievable?""

    The same sources who foretold the end of life as we know it due to global cooling in the '70's. And the hole in the ozone layer in the '80's. Whatever happened to that hole anyway?

  • ||

    Hey, "joe,"

    Google "massive and constant changes in earth's climate since the beginning of time," and let me know what you find.

    Because I think a certain percentage of the population thinks our climate is, or ever was stable.

  • ||

    Tony,Elemenope, neu mejican, Al Gore, and the rest of you global cooling/hole in the ozone layer/global warming/climate change/vegans...this link's for you.

    http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

  • Dash RIPROCK III||

    Gore is a complete loser.
    Here is a must see movie for anyone who wants to learn the truth about Al Gore's lies:

    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/Videos.html

  • Neu Mejican||

    Christopher Colbert,

    [yawn]

    A link or two for you:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/02/milloy.php

    http://www.ametsoc.org/PUBS/journals/jcli/index.html

    Egosum,

    That's a lot of words, but I don't think the post-normal science accusations hold any water.

    As for the incentives in science...the picture you paint doesn't ring true. There are very big incentives to get it right in science...and a lot of sharp people around willing to show you how you've got it wrong.

  • ||

    Hey mejican,
    I checked out those links. I don't see what "anal teens gone wild" has to do with "catastrophic and irreversible (because we humans are so careless) climate change/hole in the ozone/global destruction/global fucking death/+/- degrees celsius", but whatever.

  • ||

    Oh, and yeah, I know hard science can be boring. But instead of the (yawn), how 'bout refuting some of the findings? How about addressing some of the points made?
    How 'bout acknowledging the guys at Junkscience.com know their shit? Debate them, you coward.
    I'm headed to:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/02/milloy.php to see if I can get a word in edgewise.
    My gut tells me they won't take posts without going through an "approval process", but maybe they'll surprise me.

  • Egosumabbas||

    "That's a lot of words, but I don't think the post-normal science accusations hold any water."

    Really? Did you even read the wikipedia article about it? It singles out AGW scientists as the major proponents of it. Case in point: they use models to "prove" that CO2 causes warming, when the model assumes a priori that CO2 in the model causes warming due to previous correlation.

    Why are they trotting out their doomsday climate models instead of creating simple scientific experiments demonstrating to the skeptic public that CO2 causes warming?

    Actually, I can think of an experiment right off the top of my head that could clear up a lot of confusion on whether or not CO2 causes warming.

    Imaging a sphere, surrounded by another clear sphere. The space between the spheres is filled with normal outside air. The spheres are surrounded by a vacuum chamber with a single light source. The sphere is slowly rotated, and temperatures are taken. This same experiment is repeated, but with extra CO2 injected into the space between the spheres, doubling the proportion of CO2 in the air.

    I know, boring right?

  • ||

    The ability of CO2 to trap heat was discovered in the 18th century.

  • ||

    I can't tell if you're missing the point or changing the subject, Frank.

    Wow, you can predict with a 20 point swing what someone with an average of 40 will do. Impressive. So if the avg temp is 80, do scientists get a 40 degree swing?

    Just to bring you back up to speed, the question was about the ability to make predictions in a complex or chaotic system. Someone stated that, since it's very difficult to make a very specific prediction about events taking place over a short duration in a limited area, it must be even harder to make predictions about events taking place over a longer time frame and a larger area.

    I pointed out that exactly the opposite is true - our ability to make predictions improves when whe look at a longer length of time and a larger set of events.

    The fact that a 20-home-run swing is still large isn't the point; it's still more precise and reliable a prediction than can be made about a shorter, more limited period of time.

  • ||

    Wow, joe and TAO deconstructing what I said.

    Look it's very simple.


    Yes, it is very simple. That's probably why no one had the slightest difficulty understanding what you were saying, and we were able to deconstruct it so easily.

  • ||

    christopher colbert | January 29, 2009, 11:58pm | #

    Hey, "joe,"

    Google "massive and constant changes in earth's climate since the beginning of time," and let me know what you find.

    Because I think a certain percentage of the population thinks our climate is, or ever was stable.


    You want to talk about predictability? I can predict with 100% accuracy that whenever a single data point or study that global warming denialists are clinging to is refuted, or shown to be eccentric within the field, and it alleged discrediting of global warming is undermined, the subject will be changed to vague generalities.

    It's funny to see someone using "yeah, but, climate changes all the time" in an effort to argue back against someone who's refuted the implication that a change in climate data is meaningful.

  • ||

    Oh, and yeah, I know hard science can be boring.

    Um, you know that he linked to the American Meteorological Society, right?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Egosum,

    Really? Did you even read the wikipedia article about it? It singles out AGW scientists as the major proponents of it. Case in point: they use models to "prove" that CO2 causes warming, when the model assumes a priori that CO2 in the model causes warming due to previous correlation.

    Why, actually, I did read the wiki article.

    So "according to its advocates" blah blah blah...fails to identify any actual climate scientist who "advocate" the concept.

    In addition, I think you are working with an unusual sense of the role of models in science generally, and in climate science particularly. The link above from realclimate can give you some basics on the methods, their uses, and their limitations.

  • Neu Mejican||

    The role of models in science

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/

  • Neu Mejican||

    Egosum,

    I want to clarify why I disagree with your "post-normal" accusation on climate scientists.

    http://www.nusap.net/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=13

    "Post-normal science" is really about the relationship between science and policy and is not a description of how the science is conducted. As such, the term is used to describe the challenges of integrating scientific knowledge (always incomplete) into the decision making process as rigorously as possible. But you seem to be claiming that the scientist that are generating the scientific knowledge are using a new, less rigorous methodology to generate the scientific knowledge. That is what doesn't hold water.

  • TallDave||

    It's just another datum indicating that the IPCC forecasts are worthless, as the forecasting scientists have been saying.

    Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2]

    We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated. We draw analogies to flying an aircraft or building a bridge or performing heart surgery-given the potential cost of errors, it is not permissible to violate principles.

    The notion that they can forecast anything long-term with the grid sizes they use now is laughable. And when they make the grid sizes smaller, they will run up against the turbulent flow problem.

    As someone acquainted with the field said:

    The validation of the turbulent modelling of Navier-Stokes part of GCM's is the best kept dirty secret of the GW cartel. The man who wrote the book on turbulence modelling has said so from the beginning and they refuse to address the problem or admit the models' limitations.

    The Kolmogorov length scale of the atmospheric turbulence is less than 1 km. When they can solve at better than the Kolmogorov spatial and temporal scales the horrible non-linearity of turbulence will manifest itself. The GCM's are so far off they are not even close to being wrong and in the game, yet. They are a huge fudge of global proportions.

  • TallDave||

    Egosumabbas,

    Actually, the amount of direct warming from CO2 is fairly well agreed-upon. We can double Co2 concentrations and get about 1-2 degrees Celsius warming.

    The rest of the predicted warming comes from feedbacks. The IPCC crowd believe the feedbacks are largely positive.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Talldave,

    Here's the real report.

    http://kestencgreen.com/naiveclimate.pdf

    It will be interesting to see if it generates a detailed response.

    I am curious as to why the "72 principles" that are claimed to be violated by the IPCC are never articulated nor the violations detailed.

    (the principles are available here: http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/standardshort.pdf)

    Also, there are several unsubstantiated claims about the methods the IPCC used that are crucial to demonstrating the validity of the claims made in the paper. Given that these seem central to the article, I wonder about why the claims are left unsubstantiated.

  • TallDave||

    I thought this was especially interesting:

    Expert opinions are an inappropriate forecasting method in situations that involve high complexity and high uncertainty. This conclusion is based on over eight decades of research. Armstrong (1978) provided a review of the evidence and this was supported by Tetlock's (2005) study that involved 82,361 forecasts by 284 experts over two decades.

    I am curious as to why the "72 principles" that are claimed to be violated by the IPCC are never articulated nor the violations detailed.

    Did you not see the cite?

    We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008).

    Here are all the violations:

    http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf

  • Neu Mejican||

    Talldave,

    Missed it.
    Looking at it now.
    I notice this quite early in the paper.

    The concerns about changes in global mean temperature are based on the
    assumption that the earth is currently at the optimal temperature and that
    variations over years (unlike variations within days and years) are undesirable.



    This is an incorrect assertion. The concerns are not based on an assumption that the earth is currently at the optimal temperature.

    Concerns are based on the effects of rapid changes in climate driven by human forcing via co2.

    A quick skim of the article looks a bit light on substantiation of the claimed violations. There are statements about a review and the results, but very little in terms of methods/criteria/etc. There is no detailing of specific instances of violation.

    It looks at first blush like an "expert opinion" paper that is heavily critical of other experts and their use of expert opinion in conducting science, but it doesn't seem to have much evidence that the author understands how to do a systematic review of literature.

    At first blush it looks like an scientist who is advocating a specific approach to forecasting and is criticism those who do not follow his prescriptions.

    Some of the criticisms seem valid if they are true, but I don't see the authors doing much to demonstrate the "apparent violations" they discuss.

    Issues of methodology always interest me, so I will take the time to read the article more carefully before discussing it further.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Okay,

    I think the authors present some important challenges to the field of climate forecasting.

    They don't, however, present a strong enough argument to conclude that "the IPCC forecasts are worthless."

    It is always interesting to read an article in a journal by the editor and founder of that journal. They never seem to hold their own work to the standards they expect of authors submitting papers.

    BTW, Realclimate has a post on their authors first pass on the IPCC

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast/

    The comments are worth a read.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Correction.

    The realclimate post is a response to the specific paper TallDave linked for us.

  • Neu Mejican||

    TallDave,

    My final thought on Armstrong's work.

    He is advocating a methodology that he thinks will have wide applicability and trying to demonstrate its usefulness.

    Some of what he advocates makes good sense, but he doesn't seem to appreciate that application of his methods requires a sophisticated understanding of the particular problems to which it is being applied.

    Validation of a model is a very complex and iterative process and his methods do not provide as easy a path towards validation as he seems to believe. I could see a collaboration between him and a team of knowledgeable climate scientists leading to improvements in climate forcasting by the IPCC. I don't, however, see his independent work contributing much substance to the discussion.

  • ||

    ""You want to talk about predictability? I can predict with 100% accuracy that whenever a single data point or study that global warming denialists are clinging to is refuted, or shown to be eccentric within the field, and it alleged discrediting of global warming is undermined, the subject will be changed to vague generalities.

    It's funny to see someone using "yeah, but, climate changes all the time" in an effort to argue back against someone who's refuted the implication that a change in climate data is meaningful.""

    Joe,
    I honest to god do not know what you mean here...other than the part about vague generalities, and I have no defense for that.

  • ||

    ""Um, you know that he linked to the American Meteorological Society, right?""

    Yes I DO know that. What I don't know is your point.

  • Neu Mejican||

    chris colbert,

    I think his point was that you linked to a blog as your appeal to authority, while I linked to a peer reviewed science journal.

    Now, I don't really feel like going point by point through the junkscience greenhouse post for a couple of reasons: 1) it isn't really relevant, 2) it has been done better by others...you can start here. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/learning-from-a-simple-model/#more-411

  • ||

    Neu Mejican,

    Thanks for clearing that up. I thought that was his point, but honestly wasn't sure.

    I can't blame you for not wanting to go point by point with junkscience, they are GOOD!

    I know it's just a blog, but they absolutely know their shit, and they absolutely can go toe to toe with anybody.

    Do you, or anybody else, dispute their arguments? If so, please explain.

    I'll be happy to do the same for any pro-global warming blog or peer-reviewed scientific source you care to produce (with the help of a few friends), provided you first give a point by point rebuttal to the junkscience.com "blog" in question.

    If you accept, say so, and I'll post my E-mail. I don't think this is the proper forum for a frindly war like this.Let's do it.

    P.S. The blog in question is relevant for several reasons: It explains in plain english the difference between global warming and the greenhouse effect. It disputes the importance of CO2 as a greenhouse contributer. It puts into perspective the human contribution to overall Co2 levels. It points out serious flaws in climate projection models. It does all this using, for the most part, easily verifiable and agreed on numbers. Why do you feel these things aren't really relevant?

  • Neu Mejican||

    CC,

    It disputes the importance of CO2 as a greenhouse contributer.

    I would say it "attempts" to dispute C02's contribution. But misses the important point that small differences can have large effects in a complex system. Think of the economy. People have no problem worrying about a 3% change in the unemployment rate. Why wouldn't we worry about a 3% change in the greenhouse effect?

    It puts into perspective the human contribution to overall Co2 levels.

    This point is misleading. Human activity is dumping C02 into the atmosphere at a rate unmatched by any natural event (volcanic activity is less than 1% of human activity, for instance). The other factor is that natural sources of C02 emission are matched by c02 absorption, for the most part. Natural carbon sinks seem able to handle only about 40% of the human emissions. As a result, human activity has resulted in an uptick in the c02 levels with a rate that has not been seen in the geologic record (as far as we can tell). The only natural events that have altered the c02 levels as much as human activity have taken much longer periods of time to do so. Look at chapter 3 of the IPCC report if you want more details.

    It points out serious flaws in climate projection models.

    Not so much. All models are, of course, imperfect, but most assessments of the climate models that have been done show them to be too conservative. In other words, the models predict less warming than is recorded.

    In the end it is a light weight critique dressed up as scholarship.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Chris,

    One last point about junkscience.com

    I know it's just a blog, but they absolutely know their shit, and they absolutely can go toe to toe with anybody.

    I agree. They know their shit. But "their shit" is PR and obfuscation.

  • ||

    I'm sorry Neu Mejican,
    I misjudged you. I thought you were interested in learning more about the subject. Now I know you're just a zealot.
    I learned a long time ago (I'm 38), not to argue with zealots. Zealots don't argue, they quote scripture;Sometimes religious, sometimes environmental.
    I won't waste any more of your time or mine. See ya.

  • Neu Mejican||

    A detailed response to junkscience from realclimate:

    [junkscience]Theoretically, if the planet's surface cooled by radiation alone, then the greenhouse-induced surface temperature would be much warmer, about 350 degrees K (77 °degrees C), but atmospheric motion (convective towers carrying latent and sensible heat upwards and large scale circulation carrying it both upwards and polewards) significantly increase the "escape" of energy to space, leaving Earth's surface more than 60 degrees C cooler than a static atmosphere would do.

    [Response: Actually, even this statement is garbage. It takes the atmosphere as observed, which is already influenced by the redistribution of surface heating by convection, keeps it fixed, and then computes what the surface temperature would be if convection and surface turbulent heat fluxes were turned off. This is not a possible equilibrium state of the atmosphere. If you were to completely turn off the turbulent heat flux out of the surface and suppress convection, the atmosphere would be much colder than it is, and the vertical temperature gradient would be considerably weaker. It's simply not correct to say that the convection increases the escape of energy to space. Another inconsistency is that if you shut off convection and surface turbulent fluxes, the atmosphere would be dry, which would make the planet still colder. All in all, the above is a pointless and misleading statement - unless the point is to mislead. -raypierre]

    [junkscience]Readers should be aware that the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic (that means there is a diminishing response as you keep adding more, like the additional window shade example, above). If we consider the warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1, then the first half of that heating was delivered by about 20ppmv (0.002% of atmosphere) while the second half required an additional 260ppmv (0.026%). To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv (9%) but we'd never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv (0.6%, although humans have absolutely no prospect of achieving such concentrations).

    [Response: The only part of this statement that's true is the first sentence, the statement of toxicity, and the statement that humans have no prospect of increasing CO2 to 90000ppmv. The radiative forcing is indeed logarithmic, this is incorporated in the standard radiation physics used in every model, and it has been taken into account in every mainstream estimate of global warming going back to Arrhenius. The rest is a deception wrapped in pseudoscientific gobbledegook. Blair explained it well in his comment above. I actually do work on very high CO2 atmospheres, for dealing with the Early Earth and Snowball Earth problems, and based on the radiation codes I use, here are some numbers: Keeping the temperature and water vapor fixed at typical modern values, increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 90000ppm would give you about 50 W/m**2 of additional radiative forcing. That's actually a lot larger than the 30 W/m**2 CO2 radiative forcing you get going from none to 280 ppm with water vapor fixed. Evidently, the junk science writer didn't take into account the fact that the radiative forcing becomes somewhat steeper than logarithmic at large CO2 values, when formerly weak bands start to become important. That 30 W/m**2, added to about 80 W/m**2 from water vapor, warms the Earth from about 255K (no greenhouse effect) to about 285K. Now, the 50 W/m**2 additional CO2 radiative forcing going to 90000ppmv would warm the Earth by an additional 25K, if we applied the same water vapor feedback coefficient from the present climate. In reality, the warming would be considerably greater, since water vapor feedback becomes more effective at high temperatures. -raypierre]

    [Response: I've been thinking some more about what kind of deception the JunkScience.com writer was trying to pull off here. My reading is that he is setting up the false premise that people are concerned about doubling CO2 because they think that doubling CO2 would double the total radiative forcing - then he debunks that hypothetical belief, leaving the reader with the feeling that doubling CO2 is no big deal so far as radiative forcing goes. That's a false impression to leave the reader with, because in fact doubling the radiative forcing of CO2 would be a huge deal. If the radiative forcing of CO2 were actually linear in concentration, then when contemplating doubling CO2 we'd be talking not just about the risk of exterminating polar bears, but about extinguishing everything less hardy than a thermophilic bacterium. Because the climate change from a doubling of total CO2 radiative forcing is so incredibly massive, it doesn't provide an appropriate frame of reference for thinking about the radiative forcing that would actually be caused by a doubling of CO2. It's a darn good thing that radiative forcing is only logarithmic in CO2 - otherwise, climate would have undergone such massive fluctuations in the past that it's unlikely that any multicellular life would be around today to think about things like radiative transfer. ]



    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/

  • Neu Mejican||

    Christopher,

    What an odd response.

    I will note that you don't bother to address any of the points I made in my post. I posted some more detailed expert responses to junkscience above. If you want to point out their errors, have at it. If you can make a reasonable case, I am open to changing my opinion.

  • ||

    Bravo,
    That's much better. Although I have no idea what most of your latest response means, at least you're responding with arguments. Arguments that only a fanatic can appreciate, true, but arguments none the less.

    My point by point response.(don't get your hopes up, I'm a high school drop-out working without the help of any friends):

    1.)"" Actually, even this statement is garbage. It takes the atmosphere as observed, which is already influenced by the redistribution of surface heating by convection, keeps it fixed, and then computes what the surface temperature would be if convection and surface turbulent heat fluxes were turned off. This is not a possible equilibrium state of the atmosphere.""

    Your (friends) argument here seems to be that what the authors are suggesting is not a realistic scenario. True. That's why they begin with the word "Theoretically". I'm sure you (and your freinds) know what that word means.
    You (your friends) go on to say "It's simply not correct to say that the convection increases the escape of energy to space."
    My only response to that is; Look up the word convection in the dictionary, read the definition several times. Go to bed. Get up early, look it up again, read it several more times, then read your (friends) statement about how convection DOESN"T increase energy loss out loud to yourself. If you still stand behind it, seek help.

    2.)""The only part of this statement that's true is the first sentence, the statement of toxicity, and the statement that humans have no prospect of increasing CO2 to 90000ppmv""

    The first sentence reads as follows "Readers should be aware that the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic (that means there is a diminishing response as you keep adding more, like the additional window shade example, above). "... So, whatever.

    "The rest is a deception wrapped in pseudoscientific gobbledegook"

    When you (or your friends) return to "arguments" that depend on words like "gobbledegook", you start reminding me why I gave up arguing with you(or your friends) in the first place.
    Pardon my french, but how the fuck does gobbledegook get airtime?

    ""I actually do work on very high CO2 atmospheres"" Going back to your rebuttal of #1, are theoretical atmosphere conditions now OK to use? Or do you work on ACTUAL "very high CO2 atmospheres"? because I feel that " This is not a possible equilibrium state of the atmosphere???."

    3.) Wait...I just realized you provided three responses to two statements. Oh, wait some more...no you didn't, you provided two responses and one opinion. One incredibly indulgent opinion. "
    ""I've been thinking some more about what kind of deception the JunkScience.com writer was trying to pull off here. My reading is that he is setting up the false premise that people are concerned about doubling CO2 because they think that doubling CO2 would double the total radiative forcing""

    I'll respond with my own opinion;
    I don't think more than 3% of the world population total, has ever used the phrase"total radiative forcing". In fact, I'll bet my mortgage no more than 5,000 people worldwide, ever, have used the word "radiative".
    So attempting to deduce how people feel about these terms is more than just arrogant, it's comically naive... no, just comical. The average person hears "global warming" and "climate change" and then stays tuned to hear how they should feel about it.

    You're not talking to the average person right now. Spare me that crap. I haven't purposely insulted your intelligence, don't insult mine.
    You surprised me into responding after I decided you weren't worth the effort. Don't fucking ruin it.
    Junkscience.com* uses plain English and easily understood concepts to educate and inform. If you (or your friends) can't refute their statements using the same tools, don't bother. Anybody with half a brain can tell the difference between statement of fact and expression of opinion. Even when that opinion uses kick-ass words like "gobbledegook".

    P.S. I know a lot of you are following this, and I know I'm not the only one sick of hearing about the "consensus". I'm not convinced one way or the other. I am however convinced the pro warming side has gone over to the dark side(politics). Check out some sites from both sides. Then weigh in, I'm really curious.

    * I refer to this site constantly. I have no real connection or obligation to them whatsoever. I just have a man-crush on them.(swear that's it!) They have a wonderful way of discrediting the alarmists without resorting to name calling or "fuzzy" math.

    P.S.S. I didn't offer a point by point rebuttal of your first "argument", because I don't feel that it was an argument. Opinions are nice, but I don't like to rebut or dispute them. I'm only doing it now because I've been drinking. Heavily. I will address each of your points in my next post. Be prepared for opinion though, not facts. But I promise not to use words like obfuscation. What does that mean anyway?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Chris,

    Just so I am clear on your rules of discourse.

    "gobbledegook" is a bad form, but "fanatic" is a reasoned argument.

    Right?

    Although I have no idea what most of your latest response means, at least you're responding with arguments. Arguments that only a fanatic can appreciate, true, but arguments none the less.

    Are you saying that you can't appreciate them because you are not a fanatic, or are you saying that you don't understand them, therefore they must be wrong?


    "very high CO2 atmospheres"? because I feel that " This is not a possible equilibrium state of the atmosphere???."


    Venus is the closest example of a very high c02 atmosphere. What is your point here?

    that people are concerned about doubling CO2 because they think that doubling CO2 would double the total radiative forcing

    The word "people" in this sentence would refer to "climate scientists." Don't hate on them, they are people too.

    Regarding convection...you missed the point of the response. Read it again, go to bed, think about it. If it still doesn't make sense, talk to your smart friend, do some reading, think about it some more.

    *Hint: the point is that junkscience claims that the atmosphere would be warmer without convection, when, in fact, it would be cooler.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Christopher,

    In fact, I'll bet my mortgage no more than 5,000 people worldwide, ever, have used the word "radiative".

    I'll take that bet.
    3,820,000 hits for the word "radiative."

    It is possible that this is 5000 different people using the word radiative 764 times each, but I would guess that it is the result of larger numbers of people using the word fewer times.

    Google, of course, only logs on-line text usage of the word.

    Given that "radiative" is a word that is commonly used in American High Schools and that there are around 18 million HS students, I feel confident that I have won our bet.

    How do you want to work payments?

    I am comfortable with you staying in the house and renting.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement