Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Charles Koch has given a rare interview to the [Washington Post] New York Times, covering a range of issues, including Climate Change.
So what does Koch think about Climate Change?
Q: Are you worried about climate change?
A: Well, I mean I believe it’s been warming some. There’s a big debate on that, because it depends on whether you use satellite measurements, balloon, or you use ground ones that have been adjusted. But there has been warming. The CO2 goes up, the CO2 has probably contributed to that. But they say it’s going to be catastrophic. There is no evidence to that. They have these models that show it, but the models don’t work … To be scientific, it has to be testable and refutable. And so I mean, it has elements of science in it, and then of conjecture, ideology and politics. So do we want to create a catastrophe today in the economy because of some speculation based on models that don’t work? Those are my questions. But believe me, I spent my whole life studying science and the philosophy of science, and our whole company is committed to science. We have all sorts of scientific developments. But I want it to be real science, not politicized science.
Is Koch right about climate models not being falsifiable?
Leaving aside hilariously indefensible ridiculae, such as the predicted the end of snow, predictions of an imminent ice free arctic, the missing global warming fingerprint, and the record busting growth of Antarctic ice, the aspect of alarmist climate science which most offends my sense of scientific propriety, is the shifting statements about the pause.
In 2008, NOAA suggested that Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate..
In 2011, Climategate star Ben Santer extended the deadline to 17 years, stating that the lower troposphere pause had to be at least 17 years long before a clear signal that human-made CO2 warming theories should start to be questioned.”. That 17 year pause came and went.
The Royal Society in a recent meeting with British skeptics shifted the goalpost again, with a suggestion that a pause of 50 years, in addition to the 18 years we have already experienced would be required, before we should start to question alarmist climate models.
Of course, the alternative is to try to make the pause go away, with highly questionable adjustments.
A few alarmists, such as German climate researcher Hans Von Storch, have broken ranks with their peers, and admitted there are serious problems reconciling climate models and observations. But Von Storch’s frank admission of the issues is more the exception than the norm.
In my opinion, this shameful display of unscientific goal shifting, and the repeated unfounded assertions of certainty, in the face of serious scientific discrepancies, simply isn’t good enough. In my view the shoddy science practiced by climate alarmists more than justifies Charles Koch’s suggestion, that alarmist climate models are not falsifiable science.
“Charles Kock” is a spelling error in the articles opening sentence.
[Thanks, fixed. ~mod.]
I believe it is incontrovertible that the whole AGW debate revolves around the increase in temperature caused by a doubling in the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide – commonly referred to as climate sensitivity, and that over the past three decades many billions of dollars have been expended via the production of
computer gamesclimate models researching this extremely important value. A low value indicates that we have little or nothing to fear from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a high value indicates that we may have a serious problem.I doubt anyone on either side of the debate can disagree that this is a very important – in fact THE most important – issue.
So let us see how much progress has been made over the last few of decades pinning down this extremely important number, upon which the future of our western economies effectively depends
The IPCC is commonly regarded as the one of the most reputable authorites on such matters, so let us see how estimates of the climate sensitivity have changed over the five IPCC Assessment Reports from 1990 to the present day, a period of some two and a half decades.
Here are the ranges of value given by the five IPCC Assessment Reports that have been published to date.
So, despite the expenditure of many billions of dollars on research, estimates of the low and high limits of this essential parameter have not changed in 25 years.
More, in fact as the original 1.5- 4.5°C estimate came from the Charney report in 1979.
http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf
“THE most important issue” today is the non-recognition of the Sun’s very real causation of global warming during the modern maximum era that ended in 2003/4, of how lower solar activity since plateaued overall temperature increases during the “pause”, of how current “high” temps are a response to the SC24 maximum, and of THE imminent cooling coming from even lower solar activity going forward for at least the next 15-20 years.
Climate supersensitivity to solar activity is THE issue, not the bogus CO2 “sensitivity” attribution!!
More one looks in the sun – earth events connections more fascinating they are. I may be wrong, but the climate sensitivity to the solar activity is only one aspect to the relationship, and for that matter it could be just indirect one. Complete understanding of the effects on the climate change may not be adequate while understanding of the rest is neglected. It may take decades but I believe that the science will eventually get there.
Vukcevic: Solar radiation and particles effects are direct and cumulative. They appear indirect most of the time due to their influence being both time-dependent and layered.
Felix: There is no chance CO2 “sensitivity” will ever overpower variable solar activity, or change the Earth’s sensitivity to variable solar activity to any degree of significance.
Tell us how and why SST anomalies fell below zero from 1963.5 to 1979, during a period of increasing CO2 concentrations. Explain how and why during each solar minimum and shortly thereafter, the SSTs drop, while during the solar cycle maximums SSTs go up.
Only warmist dolts believe that CO2 is capable of providing heat all by itself without an external source of energy (photons). Radioactive substances can do that, but the CO2 we are talking about isn’t radioactive.
Try this, store some compressed CO2 in a bottle, to a high concentration, put that bottle in a calorimeter, and see if your CO2 bottle heats up and stays warm perpetually into the future. It won’t. It can’t. Neither can CO2 in the atmosphere.
There cannot be any temperature increase without an increase in absorbed energy (photons). The only place to find the evidence of that increased energy is in the solar record.
http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif
Somebody’s bottom line financial interests as you suggested, are not relevant to the subject, unless we are talking about all those careers and investments supported by the faulty unproven AGW thesis.
Bob Weber.
Your chart shows SSTs increasing independently of changing sunspot numbers.
The evidence seems to be leading us to this conclusion. The “warmest” however will spew forth their bilge wearing jackets in August on the Thames….. The “Gore Effect’ will most likely become quite pronounced within the next 15-20 years if the evidence stands the test of time.
Right. So, the sensitivity to doubling CO2 is at least 1.5C. Curry put it at 1.64C. We will more than double CO2,by 2100 in the absence of mitigation, so an increase past 2C is a best case scenario, 6C is a real possibility and the warming will not stop in 2100. But that won’t help Koch’s bottom line, will it? So, just ignore the science. Maybe Charlie will share his fortune with you! Maybe he will let you stay in his climate controlled mansion. You know how to polish silverware, right? 😉
That sensitivity rate certainly has not been tested or verified and definitely not proven.
Nor have any scenarios been devised that solidly test proposed sensitivities.
Now, how many years of provable ‘pause’ does it take to wake up the alarum fanatics that anthropomorphic CO2 is well down amongst the secondary, tertiary or minimal forcing effects not forgetting being definitively temporary atmospheric impacts?
Maybe if you grovel nicely, one of the super rich alarmists will hire you to lick their tires clean for being so devoted; just don’t be surprised if Manniacal, Gleeck or Lewserandumbsky have dibs on those choice manservant roles.
I find it fascinating how you assume that the only reason Koch disagrees is for money.
It couldn’t have anything to do with the lack of warming for over 18 years?
It couldn’t have anything to do with the ridiculous claims that have been made by various warmistas?
It couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the only thing that suggests that CO2 is a problem are the computer models, the same ones that predicted that today’s temperatures should be much warmer than they are, and that have failed to accurately predict historical temperatures when fed historical data.
Oh no, it must be because Koch cares more about money than people.
“But that won’t help Koch’s bottom line, will it?”
How about we talk about all the taxpayer funds (tens of billions yearly? More?) worldwide that are going towards the “bottom lines” of all those making money off climate alarmism? [I would mention all the taxes the Koch companies payout but that would just result in some sneering about “whatever it is, it’s not enough”, “but what about externalities”, “mumble…subsidies…mumble”.]
Thank you Felix.
A spectacular demonstration of how to completely and utterly miss the point.
Tell me, is it a talent you were born with, or have perfected it with long and arduous practice?
That the climate sensitivity has this numerical value or that is one of those claims of global warming climatology that is non-falsifiable hence unscientific.
Conspiracy theories which suggest big oil majors would somehow be against carbon pricing are nonsense, when you look at how many big oil majors are involved in trying to push carbon pricing.
A price on carbon would allow big oil companies to collect vast amounts of government money for pumping CO2 into depleted and otherwise worthless oil wells. The CO2 sequestration might actually be worth more than the oil, in some cases. They would basically go from paying minimal tax, to receiving a direct subsidy from governments.
Big oil majors would also control both the supply and demand for carbon credits – their giant cash reserves would allow them to game the market and squeeze it in ways even the banks would have trouble matching.
In many places, the big oil companies are already pumping CO2 into the ground, in order to force more oil out of the fields.
I have noticed that no (none, nada, zip) virgins in our neighborhood have been devoured by dragons since we got our (fairly vicious) cat. It is a real possibility that the lack of dragons is due to the cat.
The history of planet earth shows that there is zero possibility of 6 C. Same goes for 5 C, 4 C and the supposedly canonical 3 C. Zip. Nada. Even 2 C is a statistically signifcantly remote possibility.
“I have noticed that no (none, nada, zip) virgins in our neighborhood have been devoured by dragons since we got our (fairly vicious) cat. It is a real possibility that the lack of dragons is due to the cat.”
You mean Felix the Cat?
Felix August 8, 2015 at 9:38 am says:
” … the sensitivity to doubling CO2 is at least 1.5C. Curry put it at 1.64C. We will more than double CO2,by 2100 in the absence of mitigation, so an increase past 2C is a best case scenario, 6C is a real possibility and the warming will not stop in 2100.”
Complete nonsense. An increase in CO2 will have no influence on doubling of warming,and the true sensitivity is zero. In case you haven’t noticed, it has been zero for the last 18 years, ever since the current hiatus started in 1997. It is not a secret that during the hiatus carbon dioxide keeps increasing but temperature stays the same. The reason you don’t know this is your inability to make use of scientific information.At this rate, no amount of increase of carbon dioxide will cause any warming – definition of zero sensitivity. A few other things also change. Greenhouse warming, for instance becomes impossible. AGW which is dependent on it also dies. Good riddance, for it was cooked up just to justify the existence of the IPCC. Proof of that is due to the greenhouse theory comes from yhe Hungarian scientist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi. According to MGT, his greenhouse theory, water vapor and carbon dioxide form a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1.87. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR as expected. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. This prevents the Arrhenius warming, alleged cause of greenhouse warming, from being expressed. Exactly as happens right now thanks to the hiatus. As to these people writing anti-hiatus papers, there is one more hiatus for them to comquer. This is the one that happened in the eighties and nineties. It completely stopped warming from 1979 to 1997, an 18 year stretch. The reason you don’t see it on official temperature curves is that it has been covered up by a fake warming called “late twentieth century warming.” The co-conspirators responsible for this scientific crime are HadCRUT3, GISS, and NCDC. If you keep thinking about it you can probably find other related changes happening. All of which means that the fight over the existence or not of the hiatus going on right now is a fight over the life or death of the anthropogenic global warming. There are several dozen articles out trying to prove that there is no hiatus, motivated no doubt by the danger to their illusions I have pointed out. Among the authors are some looking for the lost heat on the ocean bottom. That is not the same lost heat as Trenberth’s lost heat that was caused by Trenberth not knowing how the Argo floats work.
The contention that the equilibrium climate sensitivity has a point value is non-falsifiable hence unscientific.
[Snip. This is another ‘David Socrates’ sockpuppet.]
Tomer:
In climatological mythology the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS) has a point value that, however, is uncertain. This value has a posterior probability density function (PDF) whose shape is determined by the applicable prior probability density function, observational data and Bayes’ theorem.
The process of determining this shape is called “Bayesian parameter estimation.” The catch is that prior PDFs are of infinite number. Each yields a different posterior PDF. In this way Bayesian parameter estimation violates the law of non-contradiction. This law is one of the classical laws of thought. The range of values for TECS to which you make reference is a product of the posterior PDF which, however, it not unique.
really…you think that CO2 levels will be over 800 ppm in 2100?
Felix August 8, 2015 at 9:38 am
Right. So, the sensitivity to doubling CO2 is at least 1.5C. Curry put it at 1.64C. We will more than double CO2,by 2100 in the absence of mitigation, so an increase past 2C is a best case scenario, 6C is a real possibility and the warming will not stop in 2100.
Well…
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
22 PPM = 0.2 W/m2, equivalent to CO2 forcing = 3.46 ln (C/C0)
You can paint whatever picture you want but the measured forcing would imply about a 1.05 W/m2 forcing increase since 1900. There is no comparable study to refute this. The measurements were made in Alaska and Oklahoma so this is a solid result that doesn’t have a lot of latitude dependence.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_growth
The first time CO2 increased more than 2.00 PPM/Y was 1977 with 2.10 PPM.
Last year was 2.13 PPM//Y, this year looks to be about the same.
Fossil fuel emissions in 1977 were about 5.03 GT/Y. Fossil fuel emissions last year were around 9.86 GT/Y.
You need to explain why the doubling in CO2 emissions didn’t cause a doubling in atmospheric CO2. In fact the highest CO2 increase on record was in 1998, when emissions were only 6.64 GT/Y. Despite a 50% emissions increase and 17 years time that record hasn’t been broken.
It is foolish and improbable to claim future emissions will go into the atmosphere when the majority of current emissions are going elsewhere – and the amount absorbed is steadily increasing.
Given the 76 year supply of fossil fuel at current consumption rates it is almost impossible to create any scenario that produces more than a 1°C. The likely 480 PPM in 2100 will result in 0.63 W/m2 (0.17°C), a little less than the 1.05 W/m2 (0.284°C) since 1900 .
I’m not sure where estimates like 6°C come from. 6°C is about as likely as another hit by a Mars sized impactor (Nibiru), or winning the lottery. 6°C isn’t wild exaggeration, it is out-and-out fantasy.
[Snip. This is another ‘David Socrates’ sockpuppet.]
That is 100% pure nonsense. Never is 600 Million with an M has CO2 caused that kind of warming, and it has been as high at 7000 ppm, or nearly 20x what it is today. Doubling CO2 results in about a 1W/M^2 near the surface, and that impact is overwhelmed by H2O. One simply needs to look at the oceans. 1W/M^2 simply “ain’t” enough to warm them. Clearly the sun is warming the oceans, which in turn warm the atmosphere.
http://www.paulmacrae.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/co2-levels-over-time1.jpg
Felix writes “and the warming will not stop in 2100.”
This is another major assumption that was made early on and nobody really gave it a second thought. The equilibrium climate sensitivity doesn’t have to be greater than the transient climate sensitivity.
Put simply, the so called heat in the pipeline is not a guaranteed result.
There are plenty of real world examples where a change results in a quick overshoot followed by a return towards the original start and that makes ECS potentially less the TCS. If that’s the case for CO2 then the so called 2C danger limit becomes overstated too.
CAGW theory has so many holes its not funny.
Same old politically correct nonsense. Some people must hold the party line right up to the end.
Meanwhile because of the pause, “scientists” in the Ministry of Truth are rewriting climate history by fudging, deleting, manipulating, homogenizing historical records as their masters demand.
Felix, Can you even imagine how many people, scientists especially, would be financially ruined….if AGW was ever proven not to be valid? Think about it next time you acuse critical thinkers of AGW as just financially motivated. Maybe someday you will become a critical thinker yourself, where you don’t just take what you hear from one side as Gospel delivered by the Righteous.
Well there is a problem with the ” climate sensitivity ” issue of CO2 doubling.
The CO2 effect is an EM radiation effect. The internal energy of a CO2 molecule is increased by an LWIR photon in a time that makes a millisecond look like an eternity.
It is in the overall scheme of things, an instantaneous event. It doesn’t take 30 years for a CO2 abundance increase to register in the internal energy of the CO2 molecules.
Next, (according to the experts) comes thermalization of that energy, which is simply distributing it to the ordinary components of the atmosphere as ” heat “.
That too is essentially an instantaneous phenomenon.
The atmosphere warms and cools by very large measurable amounts every single day, and the thermal inertia of the atmosphere is negligible, compared to the process of long term energy storage as heat in the deep oceans, resulting from the daily insolation of solar spectrum radiant energy that propagates deep into the ocean. Now you are talking about something with a potentially observable thermal time constant.
So, for the life of me, I can’t see why people search for a 30 year climate effect from a physical process, that is far too sudden to even qualify as a weather event.
Any physical change due to the radiant energy effect of CO2, has to show up instantaneously; not in 30 years.
Well I’ve never seen any published experimental evidence, of any instantaneous tracking of atmospheric CO2 abundance changes, and observed atmospheric Temperature changes. They simply don’t correlate on any short time scales, which is the only time scales on which they can have any effect.
And if you can’t even observe it in the atmospheric Temperature, then it certainly can’t affect the more thermally massive global Temperature.
So I consider the concept of ” climate sensitivity ” to be total nonsense, rather than the most important aspect of climate science.
g Just my (considered) opinion of course.
“So I consider the concept of ” climate sensitivity ” to be total nonsense, rather than the most important aspect of climate science.”
So just think how nice it must be to be able to spend one’s entire career being paid to look for it – in all probability knowing all along that it isn’t actually there!
Nice? That sounds like an awful job. Unless I could do some worthwhile stuff too.
In the art of salesmanship, is a technique called ‘the assumptive close’
Instead of convincing the mark that he needs the product, you start a negotiation about its price on the assumption the sale will take place.
The important thing then becomes not the sale, but the closing price.
If you cant see where this is going, I feel sorry for you.
Very good, Leo. Well put. Internally, the hardball salesman justifies everything: “He wouldn’t be here if he didn’t want to buy a car.” or “I wouldn’t be here doing this research if climate change wasn’t happening”.
Actually, I think it is more important to understand feedbacks than it is CO2 sensitivity. The former is many orders of magnitude more difficult to understand than the latter.
That is a distinction without a difference. The sensitivity is net, after the feedbacks. The null hypothesis for the sensitivity is about 1C to 1.2C. If the net feedbacks are negative the sensitivity is less, if the net feedbacks are positive then the sensitivity is greater. But keep in mind that the sensitivity will be different for forcings with different couplings to the climate system, the sensitivity to CO2 forcing is unlikely to the same as for variation in solar activity or aerosols, given their different vertical and horizontal distributions and radiation spectra.
The notion that Earth’s climate has a “sensitivity” to the CO2 concentration possessing a point value is not falsifiable as it is the ratio of two quantities, one of which is not observable. Thus, this is among the notions that would have to be abandoned if global warming climatology were to transition from pseudoscience to science.
Headline says the Times, URL is to Washington Post…
Charles Kock has given a rare interview to the New York Times
………………………………………..
Great post and link to an interesting interview, thanks. First line needs editing. Koch. Washingpost.
[Done. .mod]
He probably works for the Koch brothers.
🙂
Hans von Storch is one of the very few scientists who really cares about facts and not fiction. Open minded, he is known for calling a spade a spade, as you can see here:
http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming
It is worth reading.
Non Nomen,
Agreed!
Hans von Storch is one of the few non-alarmists within Climate Science who frequently clashes with the Schelnhuber’s and other alarmists in Germany of the PIK (Potsdam Institut für Klimafolgenforschung – Potsadam Institute for Climate Impact Research) which advised Angela Merkel into the “Energiwende” disaster. Schelnhuber was also the recent advisor of the Pope…
Coincidence or not, the climate model used by the group of Hans von Storch is one with the lower (2°C for 2xCO2) sensitivity for CO2. Even that model is over reality, but that is no problem for him to admit that their model needs a fundamental revision as you linked to.
Here an interview of Hans von Storch in Der Spiegel, where he shows what he thinks about global warming, PIK, and a lot of other items…:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
For all with a reasonable command of the german spoken language, Swiss Radio had Hans von Storch interviewed here:
Very interesting interview! My respect for Hans von Storch only increased and his counterpoint of ETH Zürich was quite realistic too.
Seems that I need to buy HvS new book “Die Klimafalle” (The Climate Trap)…
Please note the wording at the bottom of that NOAA graph:
Arrgh, in the wrong place. Reposted below in the right position.
Either increased CO2 causes no detectable warming or fossil fuels just prevented another LIA. Those are the choices.
That spaghetti graph tells it all. Thanks Roy Spencer.
Now another graphic that needs widespread circulation was shown as a global satellite representation of CO2 indicating the highest concentrations of CO2 are over central Africa and central South America where there would be little if any industrialization. Sorry I don’t have a link but maybe others will provide it.
I just can’t see how the CAGW/CO2 scam has gotten this far but it will collapse on itself sooner or later. The sooner the better.
Can be found here:
http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/oco2/nasas-spaceborne-carbon-counter-maps-new-details
OCO-2 released a new map of CO2 covering Nov 1 to Dec 27, 2014 that showed CO2 had shifted to the northern mid-latitudes as the seasonal cycle predicted. But it does appear that they having a lot of difficulty processing the data and/or getting unexpected results. New data/maps are hard to find.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/nasa-satellites-start-tracking-down-sources-climate-change-n313606
Here’s the image …
http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_09/907431/150226-co2_172b68e88b83cf8f93f2b955a5bb17dc.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg
I had not seen this data previously and it raises just as many questions as the first 6 weeks of data.
– Why did they not show all 12 weeks in the NBC article.
– Why does the southern extent go to 60° but the northern extent gets cut off at 55° over land and 45° over the oceans.
– Why the high CO2 only over what is likely to be snow covered land
– Why the high CO2 over the tropics.
The longer they hide the recent data, the more it looks like it does not support “the cause”.
Unless I’m wrong, these OCO images are inaccurate. Notice the color coding and scale value in and around Hawaii.
I am beginning to suspect smudged grid values are getting used in the CO2 emission calculations.
That mysterious point source in South America is still there, but now:
Northern hemisphere high latitudes are emitting large amounts of CO2.
– Yet, there is no similar emissions for Southern hemisphere near polar latitudes.
– Several of the areas represented are desert areas, other areas coincide with snowfall regions for that time of year.
The scale runs from deep blue through cherry red for roughly 20ppm of CO2, leaving differences of only a few ppm being the difference from moderate to maximum.
There is a cut-out to the North West of North America that appears to be primarily dark blue, 387 +/- a few ppm:
– Is this area cut out to skew the apparent results?
– Located near where the warm blob of water lingered, is the ocean absorbing CO2 counter to expectation?
– Similarly, the English Channel, (and perhaps the Thames) appears to me emitting CO2; while Sweden and Denmark are packing CO2 away.
– The jungle, forests and rain forests in either hemisphere appear completely neutral to CO2 absorption/emission; completely unlike the first image released.
The areas where El-Nino was/is building during the period under observation do not show any effects on CO2 from the warming ocean.
For some odd reason, South Korea is being depicted as absolutely the highest civilized CO2 emissions.
Definitely looks like a model run gone bad and once again shown to the world before someone realized what is actually depicted.
Much of the world, especially the industrialized world is under 400ppm CO2. The highest levels of CO2 are in definitively low industrialization, low population areas of the world.
And what effects on atmospheric CO2 are we pretending is caused by mankind?
Thank you Bill Illis and AJB.
I’m glad my last comment began with “unless I’m wrong”. I checked the monthly data from Mauna Loa Observatory. CO2 MLO 10/2014 – 395.67, 11/2014 – 397.50, 12/2014 – 399.25.
I then realized the OCO images have different scales and the scale ranges are very small. Scale range Oct. 1 – Nov. 11 is 387 – 402.5 ppm; 15.5 ppm range. Nov. 1 – Dec. 27 is 387 – 407.25 ppm; 20.25 ppm range.
The problem graphically is color selection. Choose 25 contrasting colors, round the ppm values, and map the observed values. The images should be high contrast maps not low contrast photographic images.
Also, colors below and above observed values need to be added to reflect what was not found.
If I remember well, the OCO-2 satellite uses reflected sunlight to measure CO2 and chlorophyll bands, I suppose that this is the reason for no signal from the upper NH latitudes in winter, or the signal may be too weak in the few daylight hours. The oceans reflect sunlight below a certain angle away from the satellite, thus making it impossible for the satellite to measure anything…
Winter CO2 is highest at the high altitudes until spring (be it partly blown in from the mid-latitudes by the Ferrel atmospheric circulation cells):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
Even under snow the release of CO2 from organic decay goes on, but I suppose most comes from the mid-latitudes.
Ferdinand,
Global Solar-Induced Fluorescence. This map shows solar-induced fluorescence, a plant process that occurs during photosynthesis, from Aug. through Oct. 2014 as measured by NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/images/largesize/PIA18935_hires.jpg
Also interesting …
Validating Carbon Dioxide Measurements from NASA’s OCO-2 Over Los Angeles
This image shows NASA’s OCO-2 measurements of carbon dioxide levels over Pasadena and the northern Los Angeles basin on Sept. 5, 2014. Each colored dot represents a single measurement of the greenhouse gas made during an overflight of the area.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/images/largesize/PIA18815_hires.jpg
Article on observed spectra …
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2014/20140815-oco-2-first-light-spectra.html
AJB,
Great and amazing data over LA but the technical communications work with the graphics is childish. Programmers always want to show all the data and it never translates in graphics.
What countries are part of the A-Team satellite system?
Love the resolution if used properly but hate the graphics.
Q: any idea what they mean by column CO2?
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
The higher CO2 readings are blown in from the mid-latitudes?
Forgetting the prevailing Northerly winds, why would low population density areas average higher CO2 levels than high density population areas with greater industrialization?
Or are you proposing that the higher latitudes collect and concentrate CO2?
Meanwhile, study the graphic and ask yourself why; just why are CO2 averages shown over land while the same latitude CO2 averages over water blocked out?
The graphic is fudged. A year of averages for those alarmists means nothing when they’re doctoring the evidence.
AJB, thanks for the maps and the link, seems that the photosynthesis fluorescence has less problems than the CO2 measurements… It is a pity that they don’t show the levels over Los Angeles city, the main release seems to be – again – vegetation in their calibration plot…
ATheoK, the Ferrel cells lift air from the mid-latitudes which descend near the poles. The seasonal variability at Schauinsland (SW Germany, Black Forest, 1200 m altitude) is at least as high as at Barrow. I suppose that has more influence on the CO2 levels at Barrow than the local growth and wane of vegetation, as that is only tundra and measurements are mainly from seaside winds.
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/uba/uba-sc.html
John,
Read the article by Dr. David Crisp at this link I posted above. It gives a pretty good description of what column means (basically line of site over the viewing angle) and is very accessible. Hats off to him for admirable public communication. The article contains this link to NASA’s overview of A-Train.
That is sheer sophistry Ferdinand.
You expect us to accept that Ferrel cells lift air, including CO2 content, and instantly transport that air to Northern latitudes. Without any coriolis effect, nor impacts from general air mass direction or even jet stream.
That makes the Ferrel cell explanation for why CO2 concentrations are latitudes North of ‘expected’ CO2 sources a fairy tale. A pleasant sounding explanation meant to calm the gullible.
CO2 is not instantly transported, nor does the graphic display any semblance of CO2 movement except for some west to east transport.
Your explanation regarding Schauinsland in comparison to Barrow, (I presume Alaska), makes no sense to me regarding CO2 transport. Barrow, Alaska is a sea level location at latitude 71°17′44″N. Schauinsland, DE is at altitude 1200m and latitude 47°54′40″N. There is no similarity.
ATheoK
No need to believe me, I only did show that the seasonal swings at Schauinsland are at least as high as at Barrow (Alaska) and a NOAA (?) has a nice graph where most of the extra-tropical NH shows the same seasonal fluctuation (found it back, see below).
The oceans near Barrow are covered with ice for most of the year except in the summer months and as the winds are mostly from the ocean side, it is hard to understand that CO2 levels go up in fall/winter without any CO2 source (or even CO2 sinks by cooling oceans as long as they are open) in the main wind direction. The source must be somewhere else.
If you look at the latest OCO-2 graph from November-December, the forests of Siberia and Canada are releasing a lot of CO2. That is not “instantly” transported to the highest latitudes, but that is only a matter of days to weeks…
Here the seasonal graph:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/co2_distribution.jpg
Ferdinand, here’s an updated version …
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/figures/co2_surface_color.png
Please note the wording at the bottom of that NOAA graph:
Also note the wording in this graphic from the same source …
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/figures/co2_icp_brw.png
Still trying to find a description of the apparatus used for each series. This stuff is very interesting, no doubt OCO-2 will (given time) throw up lots of insights we are currently unaware of. I’m particularly interested in how CO2 expelled from the ocean is actually measured, any links gratefully received.
AJB: “This stuff is very interesting, no doubt OCO-2 will (given time) throw up lots of insights we are currently unaware of. “
Judging by the somewhat contentious nature of the data that has already been released, they won’t want to release any more until it has been thoroughly Mannipulated.
They wouldn’t want people getting the wrong idea, would they?
AJB,
The momentary CO2 changes over the oceans are far smaller than over land (where one can find 100 ppmv difference in 15 minutes, as C.D. Keeling experienced in the early days). Reason why all “background” CO2 measurements are on islands or coastal or in (cold: Antarctica) deserts.
Coastal stations have mostly wind from the seaside, but occasionally measurements are from land side. These show high variability and are “flagged” and are not used for daily to yearly averages. In fact it doesn’t matter much if you include or exclude the “outliers”: the difference is less than 0.1 ppmv for yearly averages:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_mlo_spo_raw_select_2008.jpg
I haven’t made the same plot for Barrow, but the outliers seem to be of the same order as at Mauna Loa, be it more up than down. It is clear that the South Pole has far less local contamination, but more mechanical problems (no wonder at -70°C)…
See the procedures for Mauna Loa (the same procedures are used for Barrow and other NOAA stations, except that these have no volcanic vents and upwind conditions from the valleys in the neighborhood):
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
Most stations use NDIR for (almost) continuous measurements, some take GC samples for CO2 and other gases each half hour. Flaks samples too are measured by NDIR, or sometimes GC or mass spectrometers (if the isotopic ratios are needed).
Ocean surface measurements were nicely compiled by Feely e.a.:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml and following pages.
The important point is that the difference in pCO2 between ocean surface and atmosphere is the driving force for the release or uptake of CO2 from/into the oceans. Wind speed enhances the fluxes as diffusion of CO2 in seawater is very low.
The pCO2 of the oceans is measured in-situ by taking a continuous flow from the motor cooling water intake of the research vessel and thoroughly mixed with air, by spraying it in a small air flow and/or bubbling air through the water. pCO2 in the air then is in equilibrium with the seawater and measured with the normal methods for CO2 in air. Only a (mostly small) correction is needed for the temperature difference at the intake and the mixing equipment. See chapter 3b at:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/oceans/omp_pco2/OMPreport.txt
Unfortunately without a picture of the equipment…
Many thanks for the links Ferdinand.
From the NBC article:
The first map from the mission shows relatively high concentrations of carbon dioxide in northern latitudes and along a band of central Africa, during a time frame running from Nov. 21 to Dec. 27. Basilio said the findings were consistent with the expectation that northern concentrations would be higher during winter, when plants are dormant and more fossil fuels are being burned for heating.
This appears inaccurate, as the first map was in fact labelled as Oct 1 – Nov 11, and bears little or no resemblance to the latest one in a number of very obvious respects.
Has the data been Mannipulated?
Here is a graphic of CO2 concentrations that I referred to in my above comment (found it in the previous post on WUWT in the comments).
http://www.earthmagazine.org/sites/earthmagazine.org/files/2014-12/PIA18934_0.jpg
Thanks to Bill Illis and leafwalker above. But I wanted to let y’all know that I did make an effort to provide my own relevant links. 😉
eyesonu and Richard M; The first big winter storm of 2014 was nov. 17(?) to the nov. 21. If memory serves it pretty much kept snowing one place or another world wide.
I wonder if that has something to do with the lack or slowness of the data release.
just my two cents in,
michael
Could those high concentrations of carbon have anything to do with
1 burning of trees to create short term farmland ( Amazon)
2 same for Africa? (although they have problems with grass fires)
3 same for Indonesia? ( but for farming palm trees)
Asybot,
Ocean temperatures last year were already high (a would-be El Niño), but the main effect seems to be on the tropical forests: higher ocean temperatures give higher land temperatures but also changes in rain patterns. Both give less growth and more decay of vegetation in the tropics (and more – human induced or not – forest fires). That is temporarily and normally levels off in 2-3 years. The mostly subsequent La Niña reverses the patterns and gives an abundant growth which shows up in the minimal growth of CO2 in the next year(s):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
The opposite CO2 changes and δ13C changes (especially during the 1998 super El Niño) show that vegetation is the dominant reaction with a small lag after temperature changes. If the oceans were the main effect, the CO2 and δ13C changes would parallel each other.
The explanations for high Co2 levels over the Southern Hemisphere being “spring burn-offs” is highly questionable. Most burning takes place in late summer through to early winter.
Much too early to draw any conclusions, one need at least a full year (and preferably several years) of CO2 data to see the small human influence (+10 GtC/year) in the huge (+/- 150 GtC/season) natural ins and outs over the seasons. The natural ins and outs level off after a full year within a year by year variability of +/- 2 GtC/year around the trend…
Ferdinand:
I agree with you that it is “Much too early to draw any conclusions” from the OCO-2 satellite data.
However, a single year of OCO-2 data would be sufficient to indicate if the emissions of CO2 from human activities are – or are not – consistent with the hypothesis (supported by e.g. the IPCC and you) that those emissions are overloading the natural system so their accumulation is causing the rise in atmospheric CO2.
This need for only a single year of OCO-2 data is good because OCO-2 is scheduled to operate for only two years.
Richard
A lot of the downlink requirements, minus specific frequencies, are here. If some ham with an X-band receiver or S-band receiver could download the data it could a means for keeping up on what the gov’t won’t provide.
One will be unable to logically draw conclusions from the observational data until the underlying statistical populations are identified.
OK, well scratch that.
Terry Oldberg
You say
One will be unable to logically draw conclusions from the observational data until the underlying statistical populations are identified.
Terry Oldberg
I apologise that my post to you went before it was finished. This is what I intended.
You say
One will be unable to logically draw conclusions from the observational data until the underlying statistical populations are identified.
Terry Oldberg
I apologise that my post to you went before it was finished. And the necty did it, too. I hope this will be what I intended.
You say
Please list the “underlying statistical populations” in your post.
Richard
PS
You have again forgotten to state what you mean by an “event”.
Ferdy,
Where do you get this +/- 2 GtC/year figure from??
FrankKarrvv,
Year by year variability around the trend in CO2 rate of change, which is average 50-55% of human emissions (40-45% if land use changes are included):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
Where 1 ppmv = 2.12 GtC
There seems to be little change in the variability over the past 55 years, where the extremes are the 1992 Pinatubo eruption and the 1998 El Niño…
Here an animation of the AIRS satellite findings 2002-2008. While AIRS measures CO2 in the mid-troposphere, not at ground level, it clearly shows the seasonal swings in the extra-tropical NH, where levels are lowest in November, when the first data from OCO-2 were released:
http://www.nasa.gov/mov/411543main_AIRS_2_CO2%20Faster.mov
AGW theory and the models predicted climate trends are both wrong.
Agreed. As far as I am concerned both the theory and the models have already been falsified.
Yeppers!
This Joel agrees the catastrophic part of AGW-CO2 theory (that is, an ECS greater than 2 K per doubling CO2) has no support in the data . Even the tampered-twisted-adulterated Karl-ized surface temp data doesn’t support CAGW.
And as has been pointed repeatedly here at WUWT, model results are not data.
Model results are not data.
Hmm. Humm. Oh dear.
Much as I hate to say this, there are strong philosophical grounds for asserting that data – which are a priori to science, are in fact post priori to metaphysical assumptions, which are in themselves not provable by definition..
Metaphysics is in essence the creation of a model by which we create an analogy of experience that we call ‘the real world as seen objectively’
Or, a model.
The world is, as Wittgenstein said ‘whatever is the case’.
Before we can even discuss it rationally it has to be modelled in terms of (for scientific purposes) events happening to material substance in space time (phenomena) connected by an assumed eternally valid series of natural laws which link the phenomena into a causal matrix.
All of this is a priori to science.
All of this is a model of how the world works and what it consists of that we operate on with science.
Our disagreement with AGW is not on the basis that model results are not data., Oh no. Our disagreement is on the basis that AGW is a science that disagrees with the data that the metaphysical model that creates the opportunity for science, produces.
Our world – the world of the rational mind, at least – is in fact models all the way down. With the certainty at any given level being based on the assumptions of the next layer down
It is this notion that is causing the extreme and deep crisis within science itself.
I, personally argue for the acceptance and understanding of this: We have no real touchstone for certainty or Truth, we have only models which work, mire or less well, to determine the outcome of future events. Rational materialism is a model that serves us well, but it is not certain that it is in fact true. In fact it can be demonstrated – and has been – that it cannot be 100% true. The whole argument of Kant is precisely this.
In the end teh argument is not about models versus reality – we can only work with models. reality may well be there somewhere, but is forever (necessarily) one step removed from the conceptions we may have of it. The argument is about which model s work bets. Occams Razor et al.
The pointy finally being that AGW is not a science that works within the framework of rational materialism, which it uses to ‘prove its point’.
It fails on the terms that it sets itself up to be judged by.
Ergo AGW is not a scientific theory – it is, as Popper puts it – a ‘metaphysical theory’ – a model that one applies to reality a priori of any analysis being applied.
And that model simply states that ‘human activity affects the climate’ – which is trivially true, but useless, because in a closed system, – the Universe as we conceive it – everything affects everything else.
From there it extends the metaphysical proposition to ‘CO2 affects climate’, which is also trivially true. So does the consumption of vegetables.
The question then becomes ‘by how much’ .
The answer – the true answer, in the context of rational materialism anyway – then becomes ‘not enough to be worth losing any sleep over’.
And the models that show it to be otherwise, are thereby refuted by the measurements.
Not because those measurements are not ‘model outputs’ because they are in fact model outputs – from the model called ‘rational materialism’ – but because they actually disagree with those ‘measurements’.
We have, in essence a a final conclusion:
The outputs of AGW models are inconsistent with the outputs of rational materialism’s modes… ergo AGW is not a science that is consistent with the rational materialistic model of the world that other sciences rely upon, ergo AGW is no longer a scientific theory, but a metaphysical one, based on other assumptions than those that underpin science.
It may be true, but it ain’t science, Jim, not as we know it.
I don’t think that’s it. I don’t think that’s what was meant. Models that manipulate observational data and produce an insight (eg a global temperature anomaly) produce data based in reality but a model that projects the future does not produce data based on reality, instead it produces data based on our interpretation, understanding and finally implementation of how complex climatic processes evolve and interact.
In the case of a GCM there is general acceptance that we dont understand all the processes including some key ones such as clouds. There is general acceptance that processes have been simplified for computational efficiency and there are observational comparisons that say the model’s output doesn’t agree with reality.
So I think its fair to say the GCM model results are not related closely enough to climate data to be useful.
Or put more simply, GCM model results are not climate data.
Is this a polite challenge, of show us the science?
It is mind boggling to most critics how the bureaucracies abuse the scientific method.
This is what lead me to open hostility to Climatology.
It pretends to invoke science while denying the application of the scientific method.
This kind of obtuse deceit is best described by Hans Christian Anderson in that fine expose The Emperors New Clothes.
Human nature has not changed and the very best one can say of climate science as such; “Good enough for Government.”
I could go on to compare bureaucracy and fire, as each is a useful servant, however both are determined to consume all available resources.
The IPCC, WMO and the relentless propaganda from our national bureaus say it all.
This whole thing is a scientific disgrace. It can readily be explained by understanding that the water at the surface of a pot of water does not behave in the same way as the water in the body of the pot because of surface tension. Because of surface tension the surface of water does not obey the laws of thermodynamics. The sun’s radiation penetrates the surface of water but the heat from a gas gun or hairdryer is rejected. No “heat” can pass from the atmosphere into the ocean. This is just as well because many places on this planet regularly have temperature well in excess of 30degs in summer and cyclones are triggered at 26.5 degs. AGW is a nonesense
Joel supports AGW theory. Here is my reply to him as well as to AGW enthusiast in general showing why AGW theory is plain old wrong on so many different levels.
Joel says,
I think I have been pretty clear to distinguish between denial of the greenhouse effect, which is really denial of physics, and questioning AGW, which does not necessarily involve denying basic physics but does involve adopting a very selective view of the evidence.
My reply
Joel here is the evidence. Why don’t you refute each point with data ,not theory to prove I am wrong. You will not do it because there is no supportive data. I would hardly call all these blunders SELECT EVIDENCE.
AGW theory has predicted thus far every single basic atmospheric process wrong.
In addition past historical climatic data shows the climate change that has taken place over the past 150 years is nothing special or unprecedented, and has been exceeded many times over in similar periods of time in the historical climatic record. I have yet to see data showing otherwise.
Data has also shown CO2 has always been a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. It does not lead the temperature change. If it does I have yet to see data confirming this.
SOME ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES AND OTHER MAJOR WRONG CALLS.
GREATER ZONAL ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION -WRONG
TROPICAL HOT SPOT – WRONG
EL NINO MORE OF -WRONG
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TREND TO RISE- WRONG
LESSENING OF OLR EARTH VIA SPACE -WRONG? I have a study showing this to be so.
LESS ANTARCTIC SEA ICE-WRONG
GREATER /MORE DROUGHTS -WRONG
MORE HURRICANES/SEVERE WX- WRONG
STRATOSPHERIC COOLING- ?? because lack of major volcanic activity and less ozone due to low solar activity can account for this. In addition water vapor concentrations decreasing.
WATER VAPOR IN ATMOSPHERE INCREASING- WRONG- all of the latest data shows water vapor to be on the decrease.
AEROSOL IMPACT- WRONG- May be less then a cooling agent then expected, meaning CO2 is less then a warming agent then expected.
OCEAN HEAT CONTENT TO RISE- WRONG – this has leveled off post 2005 or so. Levels now much below model projections.
Those are the major ones but there are more. Yet AGW theory lives on.
Maybe it is me , but I was taught when you can not back up a theory with data and through observation that it is time to move on and look into another theory. Apparently this does not resonate when it comes to AGW theory , and this theory keeps living on to see yet another day.
Maybe once the global temperature trend shows a more definitive down trend which is right around the corner (according to my studies ) this nonsense will come to an end. Time will tell.
Greenhouse score card showing more blunders
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Past historical data showing no correlation.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/
Current data not agreeing with what AGW calls for.
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/34748
**
Salvatore:
I believe you have misread or at least misunderstood what JoelOBryan actually posted.
The datasets already fall outside the 90% confidence intervals for the vast majority of the models. Logically the models aren’t worth the computer bits that store them (pardon my paraphrase plagiarism). Of course to some people it’s the datasets that are in error. After all those people have so much invested in the models that they can’t see what’s right in front of them.
It’s not even a case of falsifiable predictions. There is NO evidence to support the models at all.
One of our pollies cited an article from WUWT showing 18 yr 7m of pause from RSS. Ahead of the trolls arriving I asked a specific question: point us to just 1 piece of satellite-sourced evidence for high ECS forcings such as to support the alarmist position of 4c / century.
Not one was produced.
Is it goal shifting to perpetuate the status quo ante or a reflection of phases and cycles as the science progresses?
Are there any models which have proven to be accurate over time? If no, then the models falsify themselves?
Accuracy and falsifiability are distinct characteristics. Though the climate models exhibit degrees of accuracy they lack falsifiability. This is a widely misunderstood feature of global warming climatology.
Terry Oldberg:
You say
The models make predictions and comparison with reality shows their predictions be wrong (see graph in the above essay). That failure to correctly predict observables in reality falsifies the climate models.
Of course, the models’ predictions could lack sufficient accuracy for them to be meaningful (e.g the inherent error of their accuracy could be ±infinity) and in that case they could not be falsified because all possible values would be encompassed in their error range of their predictions. In that case all their predictions would have no meaning so could not be falsified.
Richard
PS
Please provided your long-awaited definition of what you mean by an “event”.
richardscourtney:
As I’ve pointed out to you on countless previous occasions, your argument is an equivocation on the polysemic term “predict” and the vehicle for application of the equivocation fallacy. Unfortunately, the rules of this blog allow one to repeat the same fallacious argument ad infinitum.
Falsifiability wasn’t part of the Koch excerpt but I’ll play along.
Aren’t the “educated guesses” which aren’t based on accepted or fully understood climate system relationships yet are part of the model programming Falsifiable? Or is everyone hiding behind the cloak of conscience to inhibit Falsifiability?
Assuming a proper methodology exists, guesses which prove to be inaccurate are Falsifiable.
Perhaps the point is, models are such a complex mess no one can accurately separate theories from the math?
Nope, those “educated guesses” are not falsifiable.
Sort of like astrology, then?
Yes. Like astrology, global warming climatology is a pseudoscience with many adherents.
Terry,
Richardscourtney’s use of the term “model predictions” is similar to Lord May’s use of “educated guesses”. Lord May was addressing the issue of conscience at the Royal Society related to aspects of climate science which are not fully understood yet generally accepted until disproven.
The educated guesses are embedded in the various models thus making the guesses and resulting model predictions falsifiable. Models don’t think they simply reflect coded results.
John:
Richardscourtney’s use of the term “model predictions” makes this term “polysemic” (have multiple meanings). When this term changes meaning in the midst of an argument, an “equivocation” is born.
In logical terminology, an argument having a true conclusion is a “syllogism.” Though an equivocation may look like a syllogism it isn’t one. Thus, though it is logically proper to draw a conclusion from a syllogism the same is not true of drawing a conclusion from an equivocation. Mr. Courtney makes a habit of drawing logically improper conclusions from equivocations.
Terry,
Educated guesses/theories can be falsifiable. “Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific.”
Are you implying all climate science theory is not scientific?
Methodological falsification helps to develop a process to improve theories. Given the models are packed with theories, this article’s title makes some sense.
John:
Neither I nor anyone else can reach a logical conclusion on the issue of whether “all climate science theory is not scientific” while the terms “science” and “scientific” remain polysemic,
Terry Oldberg:
As I have pointed out to you on countless previous occasions the term “prediction” has the clear and unambiguous meaning of being a forecast and it is defined in every dictionary.
The climate models make predictions and comparison with reality shows their predictions to be wrong (see graph in the above essay). That failure to correctly predict observables in reality falsifies the climate models.
Your repetitious nonsense about this is a waste of space on threads and has reached the level of trolling.
In the unlikely event that you want to post something sensible then post the long-awaited definition of what you mean by the word “event”.
Richard
John:
Oldberg has found some words that sound ‘sciencey’ and thinks using them makes him seem clever.
For example, you said to him and asked him
and he replied
Clearly, Oldberg is claiming to know Popper was wrong because the “terms “science” and “scientific” remain polysemic” (i.e. each has more than one meaning).
Apart from the arrogance of Oldberg’s unsubstantiated claim to know more than Popper, his assertion about the word “science” is plain wrong. Oldberg does not state more than one definition of the word ‘science’ because in reality the word ‘science’ has only one meaning and that clear meaning is stated in every dictionary ; e.g.
OED
Richard
Richard – I agree with your conclusion that the model predictions shown in the graph have been falsified. However, it seems to be a matter of semantics whether one considers the models themselves falsified by these observations. If so inclined, one could argue that the falsification applies to the sets of parameter values that were given to the models in these model runs, but not the models themselves.
It probably is possible to initialize the model runs with other parameter values that would produce a reasonable fit to the observed temperatures. In that sense, the models are indeed probably not falsifiable – there may be no plausible observed temperature records for which parameter sets could not be found that would make the models match observation within specified error.
So, while I agree with you in essence, I suggest that you not waste your time fighting sophistry.
The accuracies of model projections can be judged in an IPCC-style “evaluation” but evaluation differs from validation. The latter requires the existence of the underlying statistical population which, however, does not exist. In a failed attempt at validating it a model is falsified. As validation of a climate model is impossible so is falsification of it.
If a debater succeeds in replacement of the monosemic term “projection” by the polysemic term “prediction” in making an argument he makes of this argument an example of an equivocation. For the unwary, an equivocation looks like a syllogism. However, while the conclusion of a syllogism is true the conclusion of an equivocation is false or unproved. Thus, to draw a conclusion from an equivocation is logically unwarranted.
To draw a conclusion from an equivocation is the “equivocation fallacy.” Applications of this fallacy are common in the literature of global warming climatology ( http://wmbriggs.com/post/7923/ ). Through application of the fallacy one can compose a bogus proof of the proposition that the moon is made of cream cheese or any other proposition that one likes. In particular, one can compose a bogus proof of the proposition that the climate models are validated though validation is impossible.
Hi Terry,
The issue of evaluation is interesting. I just read a paper titled A Review on Evaluation Methods of Climate Models which was found in the Advances in Climate Change Research journal vol. 4 issue 3.
The paper evaluates the 24 models in relation to 29 criteria and ranks them worst to best. Conclusions include the need to quantitatively evaluate the models and their processes. It states the models are only qualitatively evaluated.
Is falsification possible without quantitative information?
Hi John:
Falsification is not possible without: a) a statistical population and b) a sample that is drawn from this population. The sample is composed of sampling units. Through observation of each sampling unit one can determine its outcome.
Sampling units having the same outcome can be counted. This count is called the “frequency.” The “relative frequency” of an outcome is the frequency of this outcome divided by the sum of the frequencies of all of the various possible outcomes. If the sample is “large,” the model is falsified if the model predicted values of the probabilities of the various outcomes fail to match the observed values of the corresponding relative frequencies. If the sample is not “large,” there are complications due to sampling error.
If the model is not falsified then it is said to be “validated.” Though “validation” sounds like “evaluation” they are distinct processes. In an IPCC-style evaluation the observed global temperature is compared to the model projected global temperature. This comparison reveals the magnitude of the error in the model projected global temperature. Though validation requires the existence of a statistical population evaluation does not require one. As the climate models lack statistical populations they can be evaluated but not falsified or validated.
“… a pause of 50 years, in addition to the 18 years we have already experienced would be required, before we should start to question alarmist climate models.”
That’s a lovely time frame isn’t it? It means business as usual alarmism to continue until just after everyone wrong, involved in the movement, or in the racket and making a living off this science fiction will have passed away without every facing reality or any consequences for anything.
Perfect. Life is short. Live large, do what you must? 🙂
A think tank friend of friend of mine characterizes unscrupulous officials, (academia, bureaucrats,staff, politicians) who don’t like being questioned in public, as reacting by “sitting there looking at you like potted plants”.
It’s that empty stare with guilt and hatred behind the eyes that tells you plenty about their new normal of acceptable public deceit.
Hear hear!
The models are not falsifiable and for a readily understandable reason: the statistical populations underlying the models do not exist. That they do not exist leads to an additional conclusion: the models leave a policy maker without information regarding the outcomes for the climate system of the future, conditional on actions taken in the present, thus making control of the climate impossible.
Nonetheless, policy makers such as President Obama persist in attempting to control the climate. Why would they do so? As the result of a study on the topic of “logic and climatology” ( http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ ) I conclude this is the result of applications of the equivocation fallacy that make false or unproved conclusions seem true to duped policy makers (http://wmbriggs.com/post/7923/). Dr. Vincent Gray is the pioneer in this area of investigation. He reports that IPCC management set the stage for applications of this fallacy via the wording of its assessment reports ( http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SPINNING_THE_CLIMATE08.pdf ).
The immediate need is for global warming climatology to be reorganized for falsifiability of claims and production of information from its models. It seems to me that the place to start is by replacement of the current leadership. Otherwise, they will continue to lead the research in the wrong direction.
Terry,
Not only replacement of the current leadership but should include indictments, incarceration, and confiscation/forfeiture where appropriate. Where appropriate should be interpreted as being aware or should have been that falsehoods were being propagated. There should be no exemptions for religious beliefs of CAGW. Anyone trained/educated in the scientific principles should be held to a higher degree of culpability.
A drug dealer only pushes their wares on those voluntarily seeking it. The CAGW promoters push it on everyone regardless of their scientific knowledge or objections to participation in such scams. It has led to a destruction in confidence in science and our governments. Notwithstanding the economic impacts on the worlds economies and the physical impacts on the inhabitants affected by the economic impacts.
Hear Hear!
+100
Absolutely.
http://40.media.tumblr.com/bae5c6824db5f0fafd8b74d6c755e80a/tumblr_nsb3z5eQzE1qz4s6ho1_500.jpg
superb….sent it out on email
Me, too.
great graphic
Nice! Hadn’t seen that one, db. Thanks.
Thanks for sharing. I,m going to show that to one of my sisters.
LOL running your own illeagal email server must be expensive
Attention, ll skeptics!
Your checks are in the mail.
all
Puts things in perspective.
Eric there is a great article in forbes summarizing issues of cost and stability in the grid as the major obstacle to green energy delusions. You should take a look at it. Sorry for the off topic (I don’t work for Koch bros)
Sounds interesting – write it up, send it to Anthony via “Submit Story”.
To the models being incorrect, I came across this stuff yesterday:
http://www.climate-change-theory.com/index.html
http://www.principia-scientific.org/kiehl-and-trenberth-debunk-climate-alarm.html
Sorry don’ t know how to hyperlink wordpress
I’m not qualified to speak of the veracity but the logic appears well reasoned anyway. I was wondering why I’d never seen this stuff on WUWT referred to or debunked. Being true; it would seem the circulations models are “not even wrong” Seems like the kind of thing that would turn Willis’ crank.
When it steps into thermodynamics I have to quote Bugs Bunny “I never studied law”
taz1999,
Nicely discussed here at WUWT in 2013, since then a forbidden subject…
Search for the word “Slayers” to see the discussions, especially the challenge by Dr. Spencer and experiments done by Anthony and Curt Wilson, these are easy to follow…
Thank you, I’ll take a look at some threads. I’ve heard echo’s of the Slayer arguments here but clearly don’t know the background. May have been mislead or misunderstood from the PS* website:
SLAYING THE ‘SLAYERS’
Principia Scientific International was formed with good intentions and I contributed papers and articles in 2012 and 2013. However their pseudo science is now dominated by the postulates of Joseph Postma and Pierre Latour, and they merely delete comments which point out errors in their posts.
Replying to my own thread. Probably means this thread is dead 🙂 but anyway if someone is digging through the garbage…. I don’t know how all this progressed but some of it seems some of the issues are a matter of degree which fell maybe into name calling et.al. To the warmer/cooler energy transfer, I don’t mean to denigrate Curt Wilson’s experiment (which I think was beautifully designed, executed and documented) but to my simple mind what he proved is why I cover my pots when cooking 🙂 Changing the system changes the set points. If you replace the Slayer “can never transfer cool to hot” with well yeah some effect is obvious but may not explain the total temperature difference there may be validity to some of the other points. I like the hypothesis of solar inputs and water cycles driving climate. This is the dog I would pick to wag the tail. I think effectively we should consider ourselves “Water World” instead of “Terra” bad movie not withstanding.
Taz,
Indeed the earth is a water world and water/vapor/clouds/ice work as a kind of thermostat which keeps (parts of) the earth within inhabitable borders…
Besides that, the Slayers are way out of what science says and proves. I have made a simple Excel sheet which shows the effect of the thought experiment of Dr. Spencer for any initial conditions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/slayers.xlsx
Please read the “readme” page for how to change the conditions.
There is a simple example why the Slayers are wrong: there are a lot of CO2 lasers used all over the world. These are based on the own frequency of CO2 in certain bands. All what is done is exciting the CO2 in the laser so that it starts to send IR light at that sole frequency. While the whole apparatus heats up due to the lots of energy pumped into it (less than 100°C with cooling for industrial types). Despite that low temperature, the laser beam can cut through steel at 1200°C…
Ferdinand Engelbeen
cool spreadsheet, I’ll have some fun playing with that.
I like the laser example. I have some peripheral experience with LED pumped YAG lasers. Not the same power but we put a few holes in things.
Although I don’t believe one word ever spoken by Harry Reid I wish it was true that “the Koch Brothers are going to buy an election,”
In 2004, when George Soros was spending 10 times as much money supporting Democrats, the NYT and other Democrats just declared that to be grassroots in action.
The prostitution of science will not make the climate models work. They have failed to predict the future temperature trend for the last 2 decades.
Well, if nothing else, hopefully the referenced article will have sent the hordes of spittle-flecked, swivel-eyed CAGW fanatics into a right old Twitter rage.
I’ve lost track of the number of explanations to date to account for the pause, each one funnier than the last.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/the-pause/
Pointman
That is what happens when the count gets over 50 and they keep morphing to avoid clear previous criticisms. Cochroaches do a similar scuttle. Regards.
Well, who’d have thunk it? A billionaire who is, in fact, capable of being an intelligent, educated human being who knows climate-BS when he sees it.
Frankly, if I was him, I would also see no need to spend a single dollar subsidizing us “deniers” when the facts are so obvious to those who care to look.
Still, I think Anthony Watts deserves something.
Yes, there was sarcasm in the first part of my comment.
That Anthony deserves more, I hold to be a self-evident truth.
Yup. And Judith, and JoNova, and a few others as well.