All posts in category Climate Change

IPCC’s 1990 Temperature Projections – David Evans against Mike Buckley

The following comments by Mike Buckley (referenced here) are more revealing about the state of climate science than any errors on Evan’s part.


  1. Surface Temperatures v lower tropospheric temperatures.

    As a beancounter (accountant) I like to reconcile figures. That is to account for the discrepancies. Jo Nova, Anthony Watts and others have found numerous reasons for the discrepancies. The surface temperature records have many “adjustments” that brings reality into line with the models. Whatever excuses you can conjure up, as an accountant I would say that they fail to offer a “true and fair view”.

  2. Trend lines should not start at the origin.

    So you disagree with standard forecasting? That is you start with the current position.

  3. Trend lines should be curved.

    Agreed. This is for simplicity. See next point.

  4. Trend lines should be further apart.

    Are you saying that the climate models have a wider predictive band of 0.75 celsius over 25 years? If they were straight lines, over a century they cannot get within 3 degrees. If Dr Evans had not simplified, the range would have been much greater.

There is a way of more precisely comparing the models with the actuals. The critical variable is CO2 levels. Therefore we should re-run the models from 1990 with actual CO2 data. By then explaining the variances, we can better achieve better understanding and adjust the models for the future. But there is plenty of evidence that this needs to be done by people who are independent. It will not happen, as the actual rise in CO2 was similar to the highest projections of the time.

The philosopher of science Karl Popper is remembered for the falsification principle. A less stringent criteria is that progressive science confronts the anomalies and gets predictions ever closer to the data. Pseudo-science closes ranks, makes up excuses, and “adjusts” perceptions of reality to fit the theory. Progressive science is highly competitive and open, whilst pseudo-science becomes ever more dogmatic, intolerant and insular.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 07/05/2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Feedbacks, Science & Non-science, Science - the Boundaries
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 07/05/2012

https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/05/07/ipccs-1990-temperature-projections-david-evans-against-mike-buckley/

“Fake Skeptics” – a term of intolerance

Tamino, the handle of blogger Grant Foster, uses the term “Fake Skeptic” to describe those he believes to be wrong. I believe Foster’s first use of the term was in his “Skeptics: Real or Fake?” article of 28th June 2011.

The term is “skeptic” is ambiguous. It is either John Cook’s definition of someone who “considers all the evidence in their search for the truth” or (following the Oxford English Dictionary) it is – more broadly – one who doubts or questions. This I discussed here, a few days ago. But either way, what it says to me is that anyone who dissents knows what the truth actually is, but they pretend otherwise. It is a roundabout way of saying “You are a liar, you know it and pretend otherwise“.

What evidence do I have for this extreme accusation?

  1. Lack of Substantiation by Tamino

    To quote from the article:-


    “I’ve often discussed Arctic sea ice, and specifically mentioned that it’s one of the strongest evidences of global warming. All by itself it’s not absolute proof, but as evidence goes it’s strong. Very strong. It’s also an excellent litmus test to separate real skeptics from fake ones.”

    This is evidence of past warming. The skeptics like Warren Meyer, Joanna Nova, Lord Monckton, Prof Richard Lindzen, Anthony Watts, Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford), Prof Bob Carter and Lord Nigel Lawson of the GWPF, do not deny that the earth has warmed in the last century or so, most of which is in the Northern Hemisphere. They do dispute whether the extreme summer minima of ice was entirely due to global warming (alternatively being due to an influx of warmer currents into the Arctic Ocean, like (maybe) in 1923). What they are all united on is that they deny a future catastrophe. That is, warming will accelerate, with catastrophic consequences for the planet. That is they accept that there was about 0.7 Celsius of warming in the twentieth century, but deny that this century there will be 3 to 6 degrees of warming, with severe climate disruption. Even if this were the case (as Lawson says), the current policies would be both ineffective to combatting the problem and would be economically disastrous.

  2. Tamino perverts the truth

    Grant Foster is highly intelligent and has great skill in statistical analysis. However, he is highly intolerant of those he disagrees with, fails to discourage intolerance in his blog comments and uses his considerable intellectual powers to turn invert empirical reality and defend corrupt science.

In short, Tamino is a climate bully-boy. He does not seek to advance understanding, but seeks to suppress it. He has once before deleted his blog. He should do so again, leaving only an apology.

The views expressed are my own. Tamino is not the only climate bully-boy, but a symbol of it. He is not the worst, but probably the most intelligent. I believe that the intolerance should be met with intolerance. This is simply an extension of the 21st Century British attitudes against discrimination, the older beliefs of fair play and that the best way to understand is to compare and contrast the arguments. Furthermore, modern history shows that those who keenest to suppress dissent have the weakest or most immoral case. I will shortly be inviting Tamino to reply by posting, unedited, on this blog.

Update – cross posted to Tamino’s blog. A sign of a climate bully-boy is that they are cowards underneath. They cannot cope when confronted with the reality of what they are doing. Like in George Orwell’s 1984, they edit reality to make it appear the opposite. The right of reply is yours Tamino. Do you believe in what you are doing, or are you just preaching to the converted and promoting intolerance?

manicbeancounter | May 3, 2012 at 12:13 am | Reply

The term “fake skeptic” is a term of intolerance. [edit]

[Response: On the contrary, the term is exactly correct.]

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 02/05/2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Science & Non-science, Skeptical Science
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 02/05/2012

https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/05/02/fake-skeptics-a-term-of-intolerance/

Richard Lindzen attacked for dissention

Rather than substantiating the weaknesses in their own case, the climate community is continuing their attack on the dissenters. The latest is in the New York Times on Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT. I have posted the following on Prof Roger Pielke Jnr’s blog

Having listened to some of Prof Lindzen’s speeches and read some of his more populist articles, this attack on him leaves out 2 things. First, it omits one of his favourite words “feedbacks”. Second it leaves out the scale of the difference. Lindzen claims agreement with mainstream scientists that a doubling of CO2, on its own, would raise temperatures by around 1.2 celsius. Whereas Lindzen claims evidence that cloud “feedbacks” more than halve the impact, the consensus of climate models such positive feedbacks of up to three times – with wide variation. The evidence supporting this is patchy, a message implicitly admitted in the article. The lack of substantiation in this key area is crucial. If makes the extreme warming claims uncertain. If one the looks at the expected economic costs of “doing nothing” (like the Stern Review) this uncertainty in the projections should carry a risk weighting.

As a comparison, I would direct readers to Prof Lindzen’s talk at the House of Commons in February of this year. On Youtube, a response here, and Lindzens rebuttal reply at the GWPF.

When the main effort is on silencing dissent, rather than substantiating their own case, it implies to me that the climate consensus has a weak case – and they know it.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 02/05/2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Climate Change Analysis, Skeptical Science
Tagged , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 02/05/2012

https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/05/02/richard-lindzen-attacked-for-dissention/

Michael Mann’s narrow definition of “Skepticism”

Climate Scientist MM continues his dogged defence of the climate consensus at Thinkprogress.

Consider the following statement

Make no mistake: Skepticism is fundamental to good science. Whenever a conclusion is drawn or a proposition is made, the demand that it stand up to scrutiny is the self-correcting machinery that drives us towards a better understanding of the way the world works. In this sense, every scientist should be a skeptic. Good science responds to good faith challenges, and to contradictory evidence that is presented, and climate-change science should be no different.

The spirit of the following statement is at first beguiling, and the spirit is something that many would agree with, although “good faith challenges” allows for discrimination against people you disagree with. However, it is his meaning of “scepticism” that I want to take issue with here.

Mann’s definition is most clearly expressed by John Cook of “Skeptical Science“, but also supported by (amongst others) Tamino of “Open Mind” blog. The clearest expression is in the article “Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?”

Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views.

Compare this with a more established source of word definitions – the Oxford English Dictionary. I don’t have the full 20 volume edition, but I think my 1983 book club edition of the Shorter OED will do well enough. There are a number of definitions of “sceptic” on page 1900.

Definition 1 pertains to a school of philosophy after the Greek Pyrrho, which doubts the possibility of knowledge of any kind.

Definition 2 is someone who doubts the validity of knowledge claims in a particular area of inquiry. This includes, but is not confined to the natural sciences. In the area of climate is the Climate Realists like Tallbloke, who doubt the greenhouse gas theory.

Definition 2.1 “one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to a particular question or statement“. The OED has this as the popular definition.

Definition 3 is one who doubts the truth of Christianity. An older definition, not applicable here.

Definition 4 is one who is seeking the truth. That is “an inquirer who has not arrived at definite convictions“. This is only occasionally used, at least in the late 20th century.

Cook’s definition is at odds with all the definitions in the dictionary. There is nothing there about how much evidence a genuine skeptic must consider. Indeed, it by his own definition Cook is not a skeptic. More seriously, Cook is disagreeing with the experts in their field. According to Cook’s definition, a skeptic is someone who formerly had a doubting attitude as in 2.1, but now has fallen into line. The philosophers are a school of deniers. (Desmogblog will no doubt now unearth evidence that they were in the pay of big olive oil producers.) Some who still doubts the truth of climate change will not have “considered all the evidence” yet. For those who have read the evidence, this category ceases to exist. The doubter of Christianity is irrelevant, whilst the seeker of truth is someone who is behind the curve.

But then who do you believe on the definition of “skeptic / sceptic”. A consensus of the world’s leading experts, or a group of dogmatic people using language for partisan purposes?

NB. I use sceptic with a “c” to denote the expert definition, and with a “k” to define the partisan definition. However, I quite realise the use of “c” was probably as a result of King George III trying the separate Britain from the revolting colonies by means of a common language.

With respect to Dr Mann, I may have got him totally wrong. Maybe he does not realise that skepticalscience.com is based on a misrepresentation. If Dr Mann (or a nominated associate) would like to clarify that he follows expert opinion, I will be more than happy to distance him from the polemicists who allegedly support him.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 29/04/2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Skeptical Science
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 29/04/2012

https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/04/29/michael-manns-narrow-definition-of-skepticism/

Aerosols – The UNIPCC AR4 adjustment factor

Scientific effort should be dedicated towards resolving the biggest unknowns. After feedbacks, the largest area of uncertainty in forecasting future global warming is the measurement of radiative forcing components.

A quick analysis of the radiative forcing components table in the 2007 AR4 Summary Figure 2.4, page 17 (4.1MB pdf) , would suggest a number of fudge factors have been used to arrive at the results.

I have summarised the table below, less the fancy bars, but with the uncertainty spreads and some check totals.

Radiative Forcing Components
Derived from AR4 (accessed March 2012)

RF Effect (W m-2)
Forcing Component Mid-point

Low

High

Spread %
Carbon Dioxide

1.66

1.49

1.83

20%
Methane

0.48

0.43

0.53

21%
Nitrous Oxide

0.16

0.14

0.18

25%
Halocarbons

0.34

0.31

0.37

18%
Ozone – Stratospheric

-0.05

-0.15

0.05

400%
Ozone – Tropospheric

0.35

0.25

0.65

114%
Stratospheric water vapour from CH4

0.07

0.02

0.12

143%
Surface Albedo – Land Use

-0.20

-0.40

0.00

-200%
Surface Albedo – Black Carbon on Snow

0.10

0.00

0.20

200%
Aerosol – Direct effect

-0.50

-0.90

-0.10

-160%
Aerosol – Cloud lbedo effect

-0.70

-1.80

-0.30

-214%
Linear Contrails

0.01

0.003

0.03

270%
Net total

1.72

-0.61

3.56

242%
Of which:-
Positive Forcings

3.17

2.64

3.90

40%
Negative Forcings

-1.45

-3.25

-0.35

-200%
Assymetric Summing

1.72

0.65

2.29

96%
Total per the Report

1.60

0.60

2.40

113%

If these were financial figures, an external auditor might ask the following questions.

  1. Why do the columns not add up? The difference of 0.12 is the same as the figure for solar irradiance. I would guess that the error in the mid-point is due to someone having deducted this figure from the total, erroneously believing that they had previously included it.
  2. Given the breadth of uncertainty, is it more than a coincidence that the negative forcings almost exactly offset all the positive forcings with the exception of CO2? This conveniently reduces the language of the debate from discussing “anthropogenic greenhouse gases”, to “rising CO2”.
  3. Given the breadth of uncertainty, is it more than a coincidence that the range of negative forcings are exactly equal to 200% of the sum of the mid-points?
  4. Given the breadth of uncertainty, is it more than a coincidence that the range of postive forcings are almost exactly equal to 40% of the sum of the mid-points? Adjust any of the figures by .01, and the result becomes less exact.

This is an important issue, as this situation doubly increases the influence of CO2 on future warming. Firstly, it is the anthropogenic greenhouse gas that is consistently increasing. Others, like methane, levels, have stablised. Secondly, aerosols are likely to decrease in the future as countries develop and clean air legislation is enacted. Given the huge uncertainties in the other forcings, and possible fudge factors employed, it is possible that the significance of CO2 could be over-estimated a number of times. This is before water vapour feedbacks are considered.

Update June 3rd 2012.

Comparing with a paper published by James Hansen et al. in 2000, gives further circumstantial support to the fudge factors being employed.


by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 10/04/2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change
Tagged , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 10/04/2012

https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/04/10/aerosols-the-unipcc-ar4-adjustment-factor/

John Redwood lights the “Global Warming” fuse again

John Redwood bravely touched on the global warming subject again in “Challenging establishment orthodoxies“.

“One of the strange features of global warming theory is the reaction of its leading protagonists. They say it is scientifically derived, but then go on to say the science is proven and established. I thought the essence of scientific method was to reach a hypothesis that seemed to fit the facts, and then to keep trying to improve or destroy it by further testing or experiment. This seems to be a thesis where the aim is always to buttress it rather than test it. For many years scientists thought Newton had said the last word on planetary motion, but the twentieth century did not rest until they had replaced or improved on the Newtonian universe in a dramatic way.”

My comment (following from previous comments made on this blog) was

You will notice that whenever you mention “Global Warming” that you are guaranteed to get a greater number of comments compared to practically any other issue. Further the views are probably more polarized and politicized than any other issue.
However, the way to proceed might not be one of hypothesis testing. The data is complex and most of the science is about future events. Rather, it might be worth using the experience with which you are more familiar.
1. In business, a new investment proposal will just be assessed on the theoretical profits, but on the capacity to see that proposal through to actual success. The Stern Review allegedly gave the theory, but there was nothing on public policy issues of controlling policy costs, and maximizing policy benefits (CO2 benefits). Whatever the policy, this failure to focus and project management is a sure guarantee of policy disaster.
2. In politics, the greatest threat to extremist and untenable viewpoints has been from the majority who are able to compare these viewpoints to their other perspectives. That is why authoritarian regimes only can exist in an environment where they silence criticism. There is growing evidence of excluding contrary views without a fair hearing in our scientific institutions, in research funding, and in the mainstream media.
3. Science at the frontiers about making bold hypotheses that can be falsified by later testing. Similarly, the police in a crime investigation make conjectures and then gather evidence. Established science (on which policy should be based) is like a successful prosecution in a criminal case. It is about presenting the evidence and under-going a cross examination by the opponents. This to convince a randomly-selected group of people. My contention would be that the strongest evidence of catastrophic global warming is the most trivial, whilst the most alarming aspects of climate change are based on weak, circumstantial and hearsay evidence.

Two relevant references
https://manicbeancounter.com/2011/02/13/climate-change-in-perspective-%E2%80%93-part-2-of-4-the-mitigation-curve/
https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/02/20/a-climate-change-global-warming-spectrum/

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 11/03/2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Censorship, Climate Change Analysis, Climate Change Economics, Global Warming
Tagged , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 11/03/2012

https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/03/11/john-redwood-lights-the-global-warming-fuse-again/

The Morality of Lying and Exaggerating for Climate Science

In the Guardian today, James Garvey, argues that the actions of Peter Gleick in lying to obtain documents from the Heartland Institute could be justified in the interests of the wider good. He says

The documents, if authentic, show that Heartland takes money – in secret – from people who have something to gain by the idea that climate science is uncertain, and then spread that idea with enthusiasm. Do I actually need to say this in 2012? There is no controversy in the scientific community about Heartland’s target: the fact of warming and the human role played in it.

What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action. Was Gleick right to lie to expose Heartland and maybe stop it from causing further delay to action on climate change?

There are some issues with this statement

  • The most important strategy document is almost certainly fake. Peter Gleick was accused of being the source of the leak by Steven Mosher, because this document was in his distinctive style of writing, including grammatical errors. Gleick denies he wrote the fake document, but now admits to (the lesser crime of) obtaining the other documents by deception.
  • The following statement is ambiguous

    There is no controversy in the scientific community about Heartland’s target: the fact of warming and the human role played in it

    It can mean one of four options. First, that the “scientific community” believe what the Heartland’s target is (so there must be a straw poll somewhere). Second, the scientific community believe in anthropogenic global warming. In which case there a definition of who is in the “scientific community” and who is out. The “97% of scientists believe” was a small subset of all scientists in the climate field, who were asked two very trivial questions, so the degree of belief is not in the predicted level of catastrophe that will justify drastic action. Third as to whether the human role played in (global warming) is a fact. The statement of global average surface temperatures being higher than they were 50, 100, 150, or 400 years ago is incontrovertible (though the actual amount is debatable), but the human role is a subject of wide controversy. They are two separate facts, so the human role is just a belief of the 97% of 1.6% of those who answered two trivial questions, which was just over 30% of those who received questionnaires. Whatever the ambiguities in the statement, it does not rely on scientific evidence, as there is plenty of controversy of the anthropogenic contribution due to a lack of incontrovertible scientific evidence.

  • If the scientific consensus was created by a minority  and maintained by “outing” any who voiced concerns, with activists seeking to annul their funding, then that “consensus” opinion should be viewed with a little bit of scepticism.
  • The statement “What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action.” is a potential moral minefield. If 90% of the population decide that it is alright to persecute a peaceful minority would that be alright? If 90% of the population strongly believe that potential terrorists should be held without trial and tortured, would that be alright?

But leaving these issues aside, the problem with telling lies, or exaggerating, is when you are found out. Once you have lost people’s trust, it is very hard to regain that trust. Dale Carnegie in “How To Win Friends And Influence People” made this very point. 
However, from a purely utilitarian point of view it might be permissible to mislead a suspect criminal in order to find the evidence, at it is not that person’s trust that you want to maintain. The wider public will generally think well of you if you get a criminal off the streets. But if it is to marginalise you opponents, it will backfire if the wider public then perceive that you cannot be trusted. This is especially true when much of the case for climate change is based on trust in scientists to report accurately on a complex subject.

The reasons that there is growing distrust in the scientific consensus are multiple:

  • Michael Mann’s hockey stick studies were based on cherry-picked data, biased weightings of individual studies that showed hockey sticks over the ones that did not AND the favoured studies have all been overturned.
  • The UNIPCC 2007 report did not live up the projected image in a number of areas. The Himalayan Glaciers episode is only the tip of the non-melting iceberg. It is full of partisan analysis and exclusion of contrary science.
  • The Climategate email hack also showed the public image of certainties held by a wide number of scientists is nothing of the sort. The core group are highly partisan, and have taken strenuous efforts to exclude contrary views from the journals.

Finally, please remember that activists have got every major scientific body, including the Royal Society, to make proclamations in favour of Global Warming Alarmism. If public funding of science is seen to go to those who lie and exaggerate, then there will be increased distrust in all areas of science. These activists scientists are risking more than their own reputations.

 

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 28/02/2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Ethics, Global Warming, Science & Non-science
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 28/02/2012

https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/02/28/the-morality-of-lying-and-exaggerating-for-climate-science/

Did Wivenhoe dam operators SEQwater swallow the CAGW hype on Australian Droughts?

The Australian “The Climate Sceptics Blog” takes a look at the Wivenhoe dam’s involvement in the catastrophic Queensland flood. I disagreed with the opinion that it might be sufficient to show that operators SEQwater did not undertake a proper, impartial risk assessment.


The question of having to prove the “AGW is not true” in the Wivenhoe case may be a little extreme.

Rather, they would need to show that the operators had a revised policy that gave due weighting to the Australian Government’s Report. I have only read the results. It says here quite clearly

“Observed trends in exceptionally low rainfall years are highly dependent on the period of analysis due to large variability between decades.”

In other words the results are not robust. This is not surprising. The report only looked at period of 40 years, so could say little about the frequency of once-in-a-generation extreme events. It does not say that floods will never occur again, like they have in the area since time immemorial.

If the authorities did not undertake a proper risk assessment of future scenarios based upon a balance of existing knowledge, and the report, then the change of purpose from flood management to reserve storage facility is flawed. This is unless there is near certainty that a climatic shift has occurred in a definite way. This was because

  1. The Report clearly stated that its results were not robust, AND did not predict that extreme rainfall would never happen again.
  2. There is a further complication that may hold. If there is not an extreme climatic shift (or only a partial one, or are in a slow transition from one state to another), then an area with extreme floods in the past will still likely have extreme floods in the future.
  3. Further, the lack of extreme floods for an extended period might pose a greater risk of extreme flooding in the immediate future.

This whole thing becomes a complex matter of balance of risks. That is why they should have solicited expert opinion on risk management from different perspectives, and tried to eliminate any corporate or individual biases. Furthermore, a risk management body should have publicly stated this change of use of the Wivenhoe Dam, so that householders could make adjustments to their risk portfolios.



These conclusions are based analysis of unfolding news reports hype on droughts and floods; the hype that exists for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming; and my developing analysis of Climate Change (see here, here and here) This comment is not intended as a legal opinion on the case, nor should it be taken as such.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 25/02/2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Australia, Climate Change Analysis, Climate Change Economics
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 25/02/2012

https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/02/25/did-wivenhoe-dam-operators-seqwater-swallow-the-cagw-hype-on-australian-droughts/

A Climate Change / Global Warming Spectrum

In politics, most people’s views can be placed on a spectrum, when it comes to climate change / global warming there is no such perspectives. The views are often polarized, particularly by those who believe in a future climate catastrophe. This is an initial attempt at a grid aimed at clarifying the issues. Your constructive advice is sought on how this might be improved.

When there are contentious or politicized issues, a spectrum of opinions emerge where there is free discussion of ideas. This is true in politics and the Christian religion. In both, there is not just a one-dimensional spectrum of ideas, but multi-dimensional perspectives. For instance, in politics it has been argued that the left-right spectrum should be split into economic and moral issues. The United States Libertarian Party has had a simple survey running since 1995. A more comprehensive (but still American-orientated) survey is the Political Spectrum Quiz.

Another idea comes from Greg Craven, who did a series of zany You-Tube videos on Climate Change, particularly such as “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See” and “How it all ends“. He claimed that for the mass of non-scientists it was best to take a risk-based approach, grading the science on the credibility of those who made the claims. One objection with his analysis was it was based on polar extremes. That is either the worst climate catastrophe imaginable, or it is all a hoax. I proposed that there was a spectrum of possible outcomes, with the apocalyptic catastrophe at one extreme and the null outcome at the other. Basically there is a spectrum of views.

For this spectrum, the possible scenarios are from the null outcome on the left, rising to a huge climate catastrophe on the right.

Craven’s argument was to consider either 0 or 1000, whereas I claimed that the UNIPCC scenarios (representing the “consensus” of climate scientists), allowed for a fair range of outcomes. I have provided a log scale, as this puts clear distance between someone who believes in a low risk of catastrophe of extreme catastrophe to someone who says there is no risk at all. For instance, if someone believes that there is a 1% chance of the worst case, a 9% chance of loss of 100 and a 90% chance of a loss of 10, then their score would be 0.01*1000 + 0.09*100 + 0.90*10 = 28. In other words, for that person, especially if they are risk averse, there is still a very significant issue that should justify serious consideration of some type of global policy action.

But this measure of the prospective level of climate catastrophe needs to be based upon something. That something is scientific evidence, not people’s intuitions or gut feelings. If we imagine that the uncertainties can be measured as risks (as neoclassical economists do) then then the worst case scenario can only be attained if there is near certain, unambiguous scientific evidence in support of that prediction. If the evidence is weak statistically, gives highly variables results depending on methodology or data sets, or only tangential to the prediction, then a lower risk weighting lower than 1 will need to be ascribed. For an overall picture, we need to ascribe a weighting to the body of evidence. I propose a traffic light system. In outline green is for an overwhelming body of evidence, red is for no proper evidence whatsoever, and amber is for some weak evidence. Something along the following lines:-

Basically, an unambiguous case for impending global catastrophe must have a substantial body of strong scientific evidence to substantiate that case, with little or no contrary evidence. I will develop on another day the analogy with evidence presented to a criminal court by the prosecution. However, for the present, an analogy that is relevant is that this conclusion is only reached once the evidence fails to fall over under independent cross-examination.

This gives us a grid with the magnitude of the climate catastrophe on the X axis, and the scientific case on the Y axis. The grid, with my first opinion of where people various groups are placed, is given below. I know it is controversial – the whole aim is to get people to start thinking constructively about their views.

Alarmist Blogs (for instance Skeptical Science and Desmogblog) have an extreme black-and-white one world where they are always right, and anyone who disagrees is the polar opposite . “Deniers” is a bogeyman construct of their making.

If one reads the detail of UNIPCC AR4 report, the “Consensus” of climate scientists allow for some uncertainties, and for scenarios which are not so catastrophic.

The more Sceptical Scientists, such as Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Snr and Roy Spencer, view increasing greenhouse gases as a serious issue for study. However, they view the evidence as being both much weaker than the “consensus” and pointing to a much less alarming future.

The most popular Sceptic Blogs, such as Wattsupwiththat, Climate Audit and Bishop Hill I characterise as having a position of “The stronger the evidence, the weaker the relevance“. That is they allow for a considerable spread of views, but neither dismiss rise in CO2 as of no consequence, nor claim that the available evidence is strong.

Finally, the Climate Realists such as Joanne Nova and the British Climate Realists website. They occupy a similar position as the “deniers”, but from a much more substantial position. They can see little or no evidence of catastrophe, but huge amounts of exaggeration dressed up as science.

What are your opinions? What position do you think you lie on the grid? Is there an alternative (and more informative) way of characterizing the different positions?

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 20/02/2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Change, Climate Change Analysis, Global Warming, Skeptical Science, Uncategorized
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 20/02/2012

https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/02/20/a-climate-change-global-warming-spectrum/

Heartland Leak – The Implications

The stolen documents from the Heartland Institute have caused a lot of comment on the blogs. There are a number of things that will come out of this.

1. The consensus climate scientists and their cohorts cannot deal with numbers. Just as they have no sense of proportion with financial values (see Jo Nova on this), they likewise have no sense of proportion with sea level rise, temperature rise, or extreme weather events.

2. A better antonym of “sceptical” than “undoubting” or “believer” is “gullible”. Seems DeSmogBlog did not think to check out the authenticity of the damming 2012 strategy document, neither do they accept the Heartland rebuttal. It fitted the narrative, so they published within an hour of receiving the mail. Similarly The Guardian posted a number of one-sided reports (here, here, here), as did Roger Black of the BBC, without waiting to verify the facts. The most alarming 2012 strategy document is a fax (Judith Curry has other references)

3. A number of people, like me, will visit Heartland.org for the first time. They will find they have 7 policy areas employing 20 people, of which “Environment & Energy” employs 3. They specialise in providing cogent summaries of these issues to policy-makers. Whatever you think of their political stance, they are hardly the secretive, rabid backwoodsmen right-wingers that the alarmists project.

4. This support for spreading information in a concise, intelligible form also comes out in the sceptic-funding “exposes”. There is one-off support for Antony Watts who

“proposes to create a new Web site devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public.” 

The, alleged, biggest recipient by far of monthly funding is Craig D Idso, who founded the co2science.org website. This provides summaries of climate science papers, collating their results to help give an overall picture of such as the medieval warm period, ocean acidification and the effect of CO2 on plant growth. For instance, I like this graphic summarising the proxy studies of the MWP showing that the Mannian Hockey Stick studies need to at least reconcile their claim that average global temperatures are warmer than in the last 1000 years.

5. It illustrates the upside-down nature of climatology, compared with conventional science. Conventional science is based on making bold statements and predictions that are substantiated by the evidence, with very clear and replicable methods. Over time it refines its techniques, strengthens its methods of analysis and sees its predictions confirmed. It does not need to denigrate, or attempt to silence its detractors. Like the historians of the holocaust, conventional science just points to the evidence and enlightens those who seek the truth. The real deniers of truth in history have been those who silence their opponents and fabricate distortions.

Overall, the leak exposes why the little Heartland Institute is so evil and dangerous to many. They threaten the jobs and reputations of tens of thousands of climate scientists, “policy-makers”, regulators, and powerful business interests in the alternatives to reliable energy. On the other hand, they are on the side of those made hungry by fuel crops competing with food, and of future generations globally, who will be worse-off by growth-sapping mitigation policies.

by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 17/02/2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Climate Censorship, Hockey Sticks, Uncategorized
Tagged , ,

Posted by Kevin VS Marshall (Manicbeancounter) on 17/02/2012

https://manicbeancounter.com/2012/02/17/heartland-leak-the-implications/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »