Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Following up on the excellent initiative of Dr. Judith Curry (see Judith’s post and my response ), I would like to see what I can do to rebuild the justifiably lost trust in climate science. I want to bring some clarity to terms which are used all the time but which don’t seem to have an agreed upon meaning. In the process, I want to detail my own beliefs about the climate and how it works.
Figure 1. Dr Judith Curry tries to warn the greenhouse warming scientists … from Cartoons By Josh.
I don’t know about you, but I’m weary of the vague statements that characterise many of the discussions about climate change. These range from the subtle to the ridiculous. An example would be “I believe in climate change”. Given that the climate has been changing since there has been climate, what does that mean?
We also hear that there is a “consensus” … but when you ask for the actual content of the consensus, what exactly are the shared beliefs, a great silence ensues.
Often we see people being called unpleasant terms like “deniers”, with the ugly overtones of “Holocaust deniers”. I’ve been called that myself many times … but what is it that I am being accused of denying?
In an attempt to cut through the mashed potatoes and get to the meat, let me explain in question and answer format what I believe, and provide some citations for my claims. (These are only indicative citations from among many I could provide on each topic.) I will also indicate how much scientific agreement I think there is on the questions. First, some introductory questions.
Preface Question 1. Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
I bring this up to get rid of the canard that people who don’t believe the “consensus science” on global warming are evil people who don’t care about the planet. I am a passionate environmentalist, and I have been so since 1962 when I first read Silent Spring upon its publication. I believe that we have an obligation to respect the natural ecosystems that we live among. My reasons are simple. First, we have a responsibility to be good guests and good stewards here on this amazing planet. Second, I worked extensively in my life as a commercial fisherman, and I would like for my grandchildren to have the same opportunity. The only way to do this is to monitor and be careful with our effects on the earth and the biosphere.
Preface Question 2. What single word would you choose to describe your position on climate science?
Heretic. I am neither an anthopogenic global warming (AGW) supporter nor a skeptic, I believe the entire current climate paradigm is incorrect.
Question 1. Does the earth have a preferred temperature which is actively maintained by the climate system?
To me this is the question that we should answer first. I believe that the answer is yes. Despite millennia-long volcanic eruptions, despite being struck by monstrous asteroids, despite changes in the position of the continents, as near as we can tell the average temperature of the earth has only varied by about plus or minus three percent in the last half-billion years. Over the last ten thousand years, the temperature has only varied by plus or minus one percent. Over the last 150 years, the average temperature has only varied by plus or minus 0.3%. For a system as complex and ever-changing as the climate, this is nothing short of astounding.
Before asking any other questions about the climate, we must ask why the climate has been so stable. Until we answer that question, trying to calculate the climate sensitivity is an exercise in futility.
I have explained in “The Thermostat Hypothesis” what I think is the mechanism responsible for this unexplained stability. My explanation may be wrong, but there must be some mechanism which has kept the global temperature within plus or minus 1% for ten thousand years.
I am, however, definitely in the minority with this opinion.
Question 2. Regarding human effects on climate, what is the null hypothesis?
If we are trying to see if humans have affected the climate, the null hypothesis has to be that any changes in the climate (e.g. changes in temperature, rainfall, snow extent, sea ice coverage, drought occurrence and severity) are due to natural variations.
Question 3. What observations tend to support or reject the null hypothesis?
As I show in “Congenital Climate Abnormalities”, not only are there no “fingerprints” of human effects in the records, but I find nothing that is in any way unusual or anomalous. Yes, the earth’s temperature is changing slightly … but that has been true since the earth has had a temperature.
There is no indication that the recent warming is any different from past warmings. There is more and more evidence that the Medieval Warm period was widespread, and that it was warmer than the present. The Greenland ice cores show that we are at the cold end of the Holocene (the current inter-glacial period). There have been no significant changes in rainfall, floods, sea level rise, Arctic temperatures, or other indicators.
In short, I find no climate metrics that show anything which is anomalous or outside of historical natural variations. In the absence of such evidence, we cannot reject the null hypothesis.
Question 4. Is the globe warming?
This is a trick question. It is a perfect example of a frequently asked question which is totally meaningless. It shows up all the time on public opinion polls, but it is devoid of meaning. To make it meaningful, it needs to have a time period attached to it. Here are some examples of my views on the question:
1 During the last century, the earth warmed slightly (less than 1°C).
2 The earth has generally cooled over the last 12,000 years. We are currently at the cold end of the Holocene (the period since the end of the last Ice Age. See the Greenland and Vostok ice records.
3 The earth has generally warmed since the depths of the Little Ice Age around 1650, at a rate somewhere around a half a degree Celsius per century. See Akasufo, the Central England Temperature (CET), and the Armagh records.
4 The largest warming in any instrumental record occurred around 1680 – 1730. See the CET and Armagh records.
5 The earth was either stable or cooled slightly from about 1945 to 1975.
6 The earth warmed slightly from about 1975 to 1998.
7 There has been no significant warming from 1995 to the present (Feb. 2010). See The Reference Frame, Phil Jones.
I would say that there is widespread scientific agreement on the existence of these general trends. The amount of the warming, however, is far less certain. There is current controversy about both the accuracy of the adjustments to the temperature measurements and the strength of local effects (UHI, poor station siting, warmth from irrigation, etc.). See e.g. McKitrick, Spencer, Christy and Norris, Ladochy et al.., Watts, SurfaceStations, and Jones on these questions.
Question 5. Are humans responsible for global warming?
This is another trick question that often shows up on polls. The question suffers from two problems. First is the lack of a time period discussed above. The second is the question of the amount of responsibility. Generally, the period under discussion is the post-1900 warming. So let me rephrase the question as “Are humans responsible for some part of the late 20th century warming?”
To this question I would say “Yes”. Again, there is widespread scientific agreement on that simplistic question, but as usual, the devil is in the details discussed in Question 4.
Question 6. If the answer to Question 5 is “Yes”, how are humans affecting the climate?
I think that humans affect the climate in two main ways. The first is changes in land use/land cover, or what is called “LU/LC”. I believe that when you cut down a forest, you cut down the clouds. This mechanism has been implicated in e.g. the decline in the Kilimanjaro Glacier. When you introduce widespread irrigation, the additional water vapor both warms and moderates the climate. When you pave a parking lot, local temperatures rise. See e.g. Christie and Norris, Fall et al., Kilimanjaro.
The second main way humans affect climate is through soot, which I will broadly define as black and brown carbon. Black carbon comes mostly from burning of fossil fuels, while brown carbon comes mostly from the burning of biofuels. This affects the climate in two ways. In the air, the soot absorbs incoming solar radiation, and prevents it from striking the ground. This reduces the local temperature. In addition, when soot settles out on ice and snow, it accelerates the melting of the ice and snow. This increases the local temperature by reducing the surface albedo. See e.g. Jacobson.
There is little scientific agreement on this question. A number of scientists implicate greenhouse gases as the largest contributor. Other scientists say that LU/LC is the major mover. The IPCC places values on these and other so-called “forcings”, but it admits that our scientific understanding of many of forcings is “low”.
Question 7. How much of the post 1980 temperature change is due to human activities?
Here we get into very murky waters. Is the overall balance of the warming and cooling effects of soot a warming or a cooling? I don’t know, and there is little scientific agreement on the effect of soot. In addition, as shown above there is no indication that the post 1980 temperature rise is in any way unusual. It is not statistically different from earlier periods of warming. As a result, I believe that humans have had little effect on the climate, other than locally. There is little scientific agreement on this question.
Next, some more general and theoretical questions.
Question 8. Does the evidence from the climate models show that humans are responsible for changes in the climate?
This is another trick question. Climate models do not produce evidence. Evidence is observable and measurable data about the real world. Climate model results are nothing more than the beliefs and prejudices of the programmers made tangible. While the results of climate models can be interesting and informative, they are not evidence.
Question 9. Are the models capable of projecting climate changes for 100 years?
My answer to this is a resounding “no”. The claim is often made that it is easier to project long-term climate changes than short-term weather changes. I see no reason to believe that is true. The IPCC says:
“Projecting changes in climate due to changes in greenhouse gases 50 years from now is a very different and much more easily solved problem than forecasting weather patterns just weeks from now. To put it another way, long-term variations brought about by changes in the composition of the atmosphere are much more predictable than individual weather events.” [from page 105, 2007 IPCC WG1, FAQ 1.2]
To me, that seems very doubtful. The problem with that theory is that climate models have to deal with many more variables than weather models. They have to model all of the variables that weather models contain, plus:
• Land biology
• Sea biology
• Ocean currents
• Ground freezing and thawing
• Changes in sea ice extent and area
• Aerosol changes
• Changes in solar intensity
• Average volcanic effects
• Snow accumulation, area, melt, and sublimation
• Effect of melt water pooling on ice
• Freezing and thawing of lakes
• Changes in oceanic salinity
• Changes in ice cap and glacier thickness and extent
• Changes in atmospheric trace gases
• Variations in soil moisture
• Alterations in land use/land cover
• Interactions between all of the above
• Mechanisms which tend to maximise the sum of work and entropy according to the Constructal Law.
How can a more complex situation be modeled more easily and accurately than a simpler situation? That makes no sense at all.
Next, the problem with weather models has been clearly identified as the fact that weather is chaotic. This means that no matter how well the model starts out, within a short time it will go off the rails. But the same is true for climate, it is also chaotic. Thus, there is no reason to assume that we can predict it any better than we can predict the weather. See Mandelbrot on the chaotic nature of climate.
Finally, climate models have done very poorly in the short-term. There has been no statistically significant warming in the last fifteen years. This was not predicted by a single climate model. People keep saying that the models do well in the long-term … but no one has ever identified when the changeover occurs. Are they unreliable up to twenty-five years and reliable thereafter? Fifty years?
Question 10. Are current climate theories capable of explaining the observations?
Again I say no. For example, the prevailing theory is that forcing is linearly related to climate, such that a change of X in forcing results in a change of Y in temperature. The size of this temperature change resulting from a given forcing is called the “climate sensitivity”. In 1980, based on early simple computer climate models, the temperature resulting from a change in forcing of 3.7 watts per square meter (W/m2) was estimated to result in a temperature change of between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. See e.g. Green and Armstrong 2007.
Since 1980, there has been a huge increase in computing power. Since 1980, there has also been a huge increase in the size and complexity of computer models. Since 1980, thousands of man hours and billions of dollars have been thrown at this question. Despite these advances, the modern estimate of the climate sensitivity is almost unchanged from its 1980 value.
To me, this lack of any advance in accuracy indicates that we have an incorrect understanding of the forces governing the climate. Otherwise, our bigger, faster and better models would have narrowed the uncertainty of the climate sensitivity. But they have not.
Question 11. Is the science settled?
To this one I would answer no, no, a thousand times no. We are just a the beginning of the study of climate. New information and new theories and new forcings are put forward on a regular basis. See e.g. Lu. The data is poor, short, and full of holes. The signal is tiny and buried in a huge amount of noise. We don’t know if the earth has a thermostat. In short, the study of climate is an infant science which is still poorly understood.
Question 12. Is climate science a physical science?
Well, sort of. It is a very strange science, in that to my knowledge it is the only physical science whose object of study is not a thing, not a physical object or phenomenon, but an average. This is because climate is defined as the average of weather over a suitably long period of time (usually taken to be 30 years.) The implications of this are not widely appreciated. Inter alia, it means that statistics is one of the most important parts of climate science.
Unfortunately, a number of what I might call the “leading blights” of climate science, like Michael Mann with his HockeySchtick, have only the most rudimentary understanding of statistics. This initially got him into trouble in his foray into the area of paleoclimate statistics, trouble which he has only compounded by his later statistical errors.
Question 13. Is the current peer-review system inadequate, and if so, how can it be improved?
There are a number of problems with the current peer-review system, some of which are highlighted in the abuses of that system revealed in the CRU emails.
There are several easy changes we could make in peer review that would help things immensely:
1. Publish the names of the reviewers and their reviews along with the paper. The reviews are just as important as the paper, as they reveal the views of other scientists on the issues covered. This will stop the “stab in the back in the dark” kind of reviewing highlighted in the CRU emails.
2. Do not reveal the names of the authors to the reviewers. While some may be able to guess the names from various clues in the paper, the reviews should be “double-blind” (neither side knows the names of the others) until publication.
3. Do the reviewing online, in a password protected area. This will allow each reviewer to read, learn from, and discuss the reviews of others in real time. The process often takes way too long, and consists of monologues rather than a round-table discussion of the problems with the paper.
4. Include more reviewers. The CRU emails show that peer review is often just an “old-boys club”, with the reviewing done by two or three friends of the author. Each journal should allow a wide variety of scientists to comment on pending papers. This should include scientists from other disciplines. For example, climate science has suffered greatly from a lack of statisticians reviewing papers. As noted above, much of climate science is statistical analysis, yet on many papers either none or only the most cursory statistical review has been done. Also, engineers should be invited to review papers as well. Many theories would benefit from practical experience. Finally, “citizen scientists” such as myself should not be excluded from the process. The journals should solicit as wide a range of views on the subject as they can. This can only help the peer review process.
5. The journals must insist on the publication of data and computer codes. A verbal description of what mathematics has been done is totally inadequate. As we saw in the “HockeyStick”, what someone thinks or says they have done may not be what they actually did. Only an examination of the code can reveal that. Like my high science teacher used to say, “Show your work.”
Question 14. Regarding climate, what action (if any) should we take at this point?
I disagree with those who say that the “precautionary principle” means that we should act now. I detail my reasons for this assertion at “Climate Caution and Precaution”. At that page I also list the type of actions that we should be taking, which are “no regrets” actions. These are actions which will have beneficial results whether or not the earth is warming.
So that is where I stand on the climate questions. I think that the earth actively maintains a preferred temperature. I think that man is having an effect on local climate in various places, but that globally man’s effect is swamped by the regulating action of clouds and thunderstorms. I think that the local effect is mainly through LU/LC changes and soot. I think that the climate regulating mechanism is much stronger than either of these forcings and is stronger than CO2 forcing. I think that at this point the actions we should take are “no regrets” actions.
Does that make me a “denier”? And if so, what am I denying?
Finally, I would like to invite Dr. Judith Curry in particular, and any other interested scientists, to publicly answer these same questions here on Watts Up With That. There has been far too much misunderstanding of everyone’s position on these important issues. A clear statement of what each of us thinks about the climate and the science will go a long way towards making the discussion both more focused and more pleasant, and perhaps it will tend to heal the well-earned distrust that many have of climate science.
[snip]
Phil Jourdan (08:15:56)
“Yes, and I can see where the Tea Partiers are murders because they were yelling “kill the bill””
Champion name there buddy. I think there is a difference between asking for a piece of proposed legislation to be killed & an institution dont you think? After all, if we were to say “kill the tea party”, wouldn’t that be interpreted differently than say “kill the tea party paper”. ?
Phil M (15:20:01) :
[snip]
Oh come off it. I didnt see anything there that was not above board. Why couldnt you snip just the bits you had issues with instead of the whole post?
Willis asks me to show him where he is wrong & you prevent me from doing so? How brave. What a cover up.
REPLY: You are welcome to resubmit the comment
Willis, very well done. Logic over emotion. Science, not religion. From a layman’s point of view, one of the best writings I’ve seen on this topic. Nicely done.
“REPLY: You are welcome to resubmit the comment”
Sure, although, can you snip the bits you deem to infringe on the blog policy, so i can see what is off limits as far as questions or statements go?
Willis Eschenbach (03:39:53
” It is your side’s shoddy science”.
A few slip ups here & there, sure, but as a whole, it is sound.
” attempts to control the peer-review process”.
Oh yeah, we should drop the requirements so that Ronald McDonald can get his point across as well. Afterall, everyones entitled to an opinion arent they? Its a bit rich to stamp your feet & throw a tantrum because an unsound, untested paper, riddled with faults doesnt make it through & then declare thats its all rigged, just because every opinion piece opposing AGW isnt accepted as a legitimate scientific paper. There are plenty of papers from your side that HAVE made it through.
“bogus claims, flat-out lying,”
Like your claims about BOM? Like your claims about Hansen? Like WUWT’s campaign against NOAA that failed?
” cheating to keep papers out of the IPCC”.
Its obvious some people believe the review process should be watered down so the IPCC is just full of opinion pieces.
“People have grown tired of you crying wolf, so they don’t believe you any more”
Well, the majority of Conservative voters & maybe people who watch fox news, but hey, they werent going to change their minds anyway, so the point is moot.
“I have fought long and hard for this outcome, exposing bad science”
Like BOM?
“but go read the comments on any thread with some new claim that WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE OF CLIMATE MELTDOWN. ”
Ive been reading & contributing on AGW threads for about 5 years now & dont think I’ve ever seen anyone say such a thing. Its just hyperbole on your behalf.
“It sounds like you think people’s beliefs change with their job”
No, but people are selective about the positions they choose, they dont just spin some roulette job wheel & apply for whatever job the ball lands on. You think an orthodox catholic would apply for a job at an atheist organisation? A Muslim at a Christian institution? A Conservative at a progressive party headquarters? A PETA activist at an abbatoir? Its possible, but unlikely.
” My beliefs don’t change with my job, my ideology doesn’t switch to match that of the company I happen to be working for”
No, but it helps if they are ideologically aligned already doesnt it? If you had an environmental activist ideology when working for the oil company, how long would your job have lasted if you were disagreeing with the views of the organization & demonizing their actions? Or were found to blog behind the scenes whiteanting them?
“Phil, I feel sorry for you. It appears that you have nothing scientific to say regarding any of the fascinating topics discussed at WUWT”
Willis, as Ive said, I’m not a scientist & I dont pretend to be. I leave that to professionals in their field. If i need brain surgery, I dont consult the local amateur reiki specialist for an aura realignment. I take assurance from the fact that the MAJORITY of scientific & climate institutions in the world support my side of the argument & none support yours. What is preventing you from presenting your side of the argument to all these institutions to get them to change their current position if you think your argument is sound?
” If you want to advance climate science, find some scientific claim that you think is untrue among the many things I’ve said. ”
Ive linked a few of them now & you were silent about them.
“because your continued personal attacks and irrelevant claims are just getting you laughed at here, and I don’t think you want that …”
If I was worried about what wuwt commenters thought about me, I wouldnt have posted here to begin with.
Phil M, ignoring the things that you said that have nothing to do with science doesn’t leave much, but what’s left is important. I had said
You replied:
Please re-post them, my apologies, I must have missed them. A few important notes to keep you from wasting time.
• Quote what I said that you are objecting to. Do not paraphrase it, that way lies straw. Quote it.
• Computer model results are not evidence.
• Please don’t just point to a thousand page report and say “the IPCC shows that …”. Cite the volume and the page number and the paragraph of whatever reference you are giving, give whatever information is necessary so that everyone can find it without delay.
Thanks,
w.
Strangely its all gone quiet. Did the Exxon ninjas get him?
Phil M (18:24:58)
Well, let’s see. We had the Hockeystick, which was not just shoddy, but fraud. We had the inclusion of the Himalayas data in the IPCC report despite the fact that it was not based on science and the lead author knew that, which was also fraud. We had Amazongate, and the Canadian fire data that came from newspapers, and Seagate where the IPCC claimed that half of the Netherlands was underwater, and Africagate. We had the whole edifice of the CRU dataset, the most cited climate dataset on the planet, built on data that was lost. We had Michael Mann using proxies upside down, not just once, but a second time after it was pointed out to him. We had IPCC reviewers destroying their emails to conceal their chicanery. We had so-called “scientists” illegally evading Freedom of Information requests … do you think they did that because their science was so sound? We had IPCC lead authors lying and cheating to keep papers out of the IPCC report, and cheating and lying to get other papers into the report (see Caspar and the Jesus Paper). We had the IPCC refusing, against their own stated policies, to reveal reviewers comments until they were forced to do so … again, was that because they were proud of the soundness of their science?
Now, you may think that partial and very incomplete list of the shoddy climate science which has gone unremarked by your side of the debate is a sign that as a whole, climate science is sound.
Some of us are more realistic. The title of this thread is “Trust and Mistrust”. And after seeing all of the above, I (and most of the public) mistrust climate scientists these days. Look at the polls, your side is losing the hearts and minds. Why? Because we don’t like being lied to. And after a bunch of lies, people no longer trust climate scientists, no matter how many times you and they tell us “the science is sound” and say “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. I am the Great Oz.” Go figure.
And much of this has been under the auspices of the IPCC, which your side of the debate has repeatedly represented as beyond reproach and the best science possible. Sound science? I don’t think so. But as James Taylor sang, “Maybe you can believe it if it helps you to sleep.”
Oh, please. Read the CRU emails again, you seem to have glossed over the part where they threatened editors and packed the peer-review board with their pals to prevent legitimate papers from even being considered. We’re not talking about keeping Ronald McDonald out, we’re talking about scientific malfeasance. Read Ross McKitrick’s account of how the IPCC lied about his work, put up a bogus excuse to discredit it, and about how Phil Jones and his mates went to work to subvert both the IPCC and the peer-review process … seems your capacity to overlook scientific misconduct and malfeasance knows no bounds.
And if you think Ross is wrong, show us where. Don’t just say something vague in defence of your fantasies. The unethical subversion of peer-review in this case is all a matter of public record. If you can’t show us exactly where Ross is wrong, you lose, no matter what personal attacks you might make.
@Phil M
[i]A Muslim at a Christian institution?[/i]
I have seen quite a number of muslims working at Christian schools in Europe actually. That may serve as an example that the unexpected still happens.
Furthermore I would like to ask a question: Would you agree that it is [i]conceivable[/i] that earth’s climate actually has a net negative feedback?
Phil M (15:36:44) :
You proved my point. The IPCC is not a person. Nor is the tea party. Indeed, if they were, then I am sure nancy Pelosi and harry Reid would have already been arrested for conveying threats of bodily harm.
Now as for your “a few errors”, I have to ask you – HOW DO YOU KNOW? Since the data is lost and according to the producers, irreplaceable, how do you know there are not more errors? What? You have the word of Phil Jones?
Putting aside his current reputation, that and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee, but in the world of science, not even worth that. in other words, YOU DO NOT KNOW there is only a few errors. YOU BELIEVE there is only a few errors, but again have no proof.
Kind of like a persons religion. Based upon belief, not facts, data and proofs.
Willis Eschenbach (19:43:58
“Please re-post them, my apologies, I must have missed them”
Wow my scroll wheel works!
Your mistakes on BOM:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink
Your fudging of Hansens models.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate_fraudit.php
“Computer model results are not evidence”.
No but they are good simulators of real life mechanisms that can be used to make predictions & assumptions, most of which have been correct. I gather when the cyclone hit fiji recently, you were one of the people yelling out to everyone: “Its not a cyclone, its not going to hit, its only the computer models that are telling us its going to hit & they have been wrong before, lets wait & see if it hits & then we will declare it has hit…” Many industries successfully use models & I’m sure they would like to hear your theories on you cant use models as evidence. Our top climate & science institutions around the world dont have a problem with them, yet you do? I guess thats because they dont support your views?
“Please don’t just point to a thousand page report and say “the IPCC shows that …”.
I wasnt going to, as I said, I’m not a scientist. I leave science….to scientists, makes sense doesnt it?
By the way, about my question above about the institutions, can you answer that please?
“I take assurance from the fact that the MAJORITY of scientific & climate institutions in the world support my side of the argument & none support yours. What is preventing you from presenting your side of the argument to all these institutions to get them to change their current position if you think your argument is sound”
Anthony Watts is a member of the AMS who doesnt agree with his views:
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
What prevents him from convincing them of his vast bodies of evidence?
Phil Jourdan (11:15:36
[quote ] “You proved my point. The IPCC is not a person. Nor is the tea party” [/quote]
Semantics, yes, we both know that, but not everyone thinks with such logic.
“Now as for your “a few errors”, I have to ask you – HOW DO YOU KNOW?”
Fine, remove them out of the picture, what about GISTEMP, UAH and RSS, they all say the same thing?
Phil M (13:40:24)
Even looking at the most trivial measure, the global linear trend, the UAH data shows a trend which is smaller by 0.3°/century than that of GISTEMP … hardly “the same thing”, since that’s half the warming in the last century.
Here’s a more sophisticated look at the differences:
Note the large difference in the Arctic, where the GISTEMP extreme heating that has AGW supporters in a lather is not shown by UAH.
You also mention RSS … here’s the difference RSS and GISTEMP.
Notice that the Arctic difference between RSS and GISTEMP is even greater than that of UAH-GISTEMP. Note also the huge size of the difference in both cases, up to 0.4°C per decade, which is 4°C per century.
“Say the same thing?” What are you talking about?
Phil M (13:29:34)
Oh, right, the post wherein Tim Lambert calls me a liar. However, I don’t see the place where he says what I lied about, and since he can’t know my mind, the accusation of “lying” is way, way over the top. I’m not surprised that you battened on to that one, as Tim’s accusing someone of lying that he has never met, without a scrap of evidence, seems strangely appropriate for you.
I don’t have a clue what part of that long, long thread you are referring to. I specifically asked you to quote page and paragraph for exactly this reason. I have dealt in detail with Tim’s objections elsewhere. I can’t deal with your objections, because you have not said what they are. Duh …
In specific, I asked you to
Since you have not quoted what I said that you think is wrong, and you have pointed to a thread with hundreds and hundreds of comments as your so-called “evidence”, I have to wonder: are you being obstructive on purpose, or are you really unable to follow simple requests?
Same problem, same source, Tim Lambert. He hates me, I’ve proven him wrong too many times. So he calls me a liar and accuses me of all kinds of malfeasance, because he can’t stand on the science. He’s a perfect example of the old lawyer’s maxim, “If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.” Tim calling me a liar is just pounding on the table.
And you are no better. Without saying what statement of mine you object to, you point to a huge long thread, and in essence proudly say “See that? It proves my point!”. While that is also a great job of pounding the table, it is meaningless.
Please, take a deep breath, you are hyperventilating. All models are wrong, and some models are useful. There are good models, bad models, untested models, fanciful models, barebones models …
And yes, Boeing uses computer models to simulate air flow over their wings … and they just had to redesign a wing root after a test flight. If the computer results are evidence, why do the Boeing guys waste money on test flights? Because they are smarter than climate scientists, that’s why, they know that test flights produce evidence, and computer models do not …
You claim that computer models are “good simulators of real life mechanisms”, as though that were a characteristic of computer models. In fact, very few models are that good. And even those good models don’t produce evidence.
If they did produce evidence, we would have no need for say high energy particle accelerators. We could just run the high-energy particle model and collect the evidence … but despite the fact that we understand high energy physics much better than we understand the climate, we still use particle accelerators. Why?
Because model results are not evidence. If a particle physicist said “I’ve discovered a new sub-atomic particle, here’s the computer model that proves it, you have my evidence, case closed”, he’d be laughed out of physics.
The fact that some computer model says that the stock market will go up next week is not evidence that the stock market will go up. It is merely a mechanized, rapidly calculated prediction based on the beliefs and prejudices of whoever programmed the model. If you truly think that the results of stock market models are evidence of the future variations of the stock market, please let me know. Because I have some stocks for sale that my model says are sure to go up …
You weren’t going to? Dude, you just did exactly that, pointed to a thread with hundreds of comments as your “evidence” to disprove something … and you didn’t even say what the something was that you were trying to disprove. You sure you understand this “reading” deal?
In your case, it makes perfect sense … and for the sake of the Earth’s future, it makes me hope that you leave sex to sex workers as well …
I am presenting my side of the argument, and it is gaining traction. My posts here have been quoted around the world, in the New York Times, the UK Telegraph, the Australian Herald Sun, and a host of other blogs and papers. My FOI to the CRU eventually led to the falsification of the most cited global temperature dataset in existence. I have been published in a peer-reviewed “Communications Arising” in Nature Magazine. I have two published articles (one peer-reviewed) in Energy and Environment. I have two papers in preparation for submission to the journals. So I’m not sure what your point is here, because my actions and my writings are most definitely having an effect, and a large one. (I suspect that’s one reason you seem so outraged, that we’re gaining traction and the AGW folks are losing traction.)
Next, you seem to think that the leaders of those organizations speak for their members, that they have polled their members and are faithfully representing their views. If so, you’ve been suckered again. Those are not the views of the members, just a few guys at the top. You can stop claiming that those views represent thousands of scientists, they don’t do anything of the sort.
Regarding Anthony, curiously, meteorologists by and large don’t believe in AGW, so it sounds like Anthony and the rest of us are having some success in convincing them … so again, not sure of your point.
Finally, you seem to have fallen for the “science by consensus” mantra that the AGW folks keep pushing. There is an excellent exposition of this fallacy here.
In closing, I can only highlight what you said above. You should definitely leave the science to the scientists. You have shown that you are incapable of following the simplest instructions on how to falsify one of my scientific claims. I’m sorry I encouraged you to try.
Phil M, I had spoken above of Ross McKitrick’s experience with the peer-review process. There is a good overview of it here. It is headed:
Global warming’s unscientific method
Science is undermined by scaremongers’ abuse of peer-review process
As I said, the issue is abuse of power and scientific malfeasance. It is not about keeping Ronald McDonald from publishing in Nature Magazine as you blithely claim.
Willis Eschenbach (16:00:48)
“Here’s a more sophisticated look at the differences”
While those pictures are interesting, they are meaningless to the layman. Nothing beats a graph for conveying a trend.
UAH/RSS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png
Gisstemp:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
I’m not seeing much of a downward trend there.
Willis Eschenbach (17:03:07)
“as Tim’s accusing someone of lying that he has never met”
Is the this a requirement before you can accuse someone of something?
“Tim Lambert. He hates me, I’ve proven him wrong too many times.”
The argument was in regards to the Darwin temps was that you made the warming trend go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site , similar to what the climate coalition did in NZ.
“I can’t deal with your objections, because you have not said what they are. Duh”
Sure I will ask for a 3rd time.
The MAJORITY of scientific & climate institutions in the world support my side of the argument & none support yours.What is preventing you from presenting your side of the argument to all these institutions to get them to change their current position if you think your argument is sound?
Publishing opinion pieces in right wing media is just that. Its largely preaching to the converted.
“Please, take a deep breath, you are hyperventilating.”. Thats getting a bit over used now isnt it?
” why do the Boeing guys waste money on test flights? Because they are smarter than climate scientists, that’s why, they know that test flights produce evidence, and computer models do not …”
Fortunately they have the materials on earth, methods & money to test the computer models. Climate scientists dont have the benefit of a time machine & a spare planet identical to ours to see if your theories turn out to be right.
“Dude, you just did exactly that, pointed to a thread with hundreds of comments as your “evidence”
I didnt ask you to read the comments.
“In your case, it makes perfect sense … and for the sake of the Earth’s future, it makes me hope that you leave sex to sex workers as well …”
Hmm, comparing basic human fuctions requiring no degree or expertise….to gaining a phd in a scientific discipline & spending most of your working life on that? Oh yeah I can see that angle…..not.
I gather if you need you car worked on, you get mechanics trade certificate. Or when you need a doctor, you declare, ahh to hell with it, I’ll learn it myself & do the operation myself. Cant trust these crafty scientists & doctors..always up to evil..always conspiring.
I dont think lifes that black & white Willis.
“I am presenting my side of the argument, and it is gaining traction”
In the right wing media, let me quote some, oh wait, you saved me the time:
” in the New York Times, the UK Telegraph, the Australian Herald Sun, and a host of other blogs and papers.”
Papers like the Republicans document to the EPA where they quote you & err, COMMENTS & opnions from Andrew Bolt?
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Third_Amendment_to_Petition_for_Reconsideration_SE_Legal_Foundation.pdf
First class.
” I have been published in a peer-reviewed “Communications Arising” in Nature Magazine. I have two published articles (one peer-reviewed) in Energy and Environment.”
Willis, what you appear to be doing is attacking science, not furthering science. Your not conducting any research or science to further mankind. You are simply attacking others work.
“Next, you seem to think that the leaders of those organizations speak for their members, that they have polled their members and are faithfully representing their views.”
Yet, if you evidence is so strong, how could they continue their path of blind acceptance?
“You can stop claiming that those views represent thousands of scientists, they don’t do anything of the sort.”
So you will be able to let them know that & get them all to change the declarations on their websites?
“Regarding Anthony, curiously, meteorologists by and large don’t believe in AGW,”
Wow, so the majority of the members of AMS dont believe it & their statement was hijacked by a few at the top at the expense of the vast majority of their paying members?
Willis Eschenbach (23:59:53
“Read Ross McKitrick’s account of how the IPCC lied about his work, put up a bogus excuse to discredit it, and about how Phil Jones and his mates went to work to subvert both the IPCC and the peer-review process ”
Read about how he got it wrong:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/04/05/mcclimategate-continued-mckitrick-wrong-on-ipcc/#more-1775
I think he sums it up well here:
“Contrarian publications in the scientific literature remain rare, and now tend to be rebutted to devastating effect even if they manage to get through. So we can expect more whining about censorship and gatekeeping from the likes of McKitrick and others.
That’s all they’ve got left, apparently.”
Gold.
Wow, none of my last 4 posts were accepted, thats hot guys.
The truth….it burns! Arrggh, ahah.
[Reply: all your comments have been posted. This volunteer moderator got up at 4 a.m. as usual to put everyone’s comments on-line. We try to cover incoming comments 24/7, but occasionally there is a delay. Feel free to be paranoid if you like. ~dbstealey, mod.]
[Reply: all your comments have been posted. This volunteer moderator got up at 4 a.m. as usual to put everyone’s comments on-line. We try to cover incoming comments 24/7, but occasionally there is a delay. Feel free to be paranoid if you like. ~dbstealey, mod
Cant blame me for being paranoid, after 1/3 of my posts were deleted & another 1/3 snipped. I have no way of knowing whether anything is making it past the keeper.
[Reply: you are saying that 2/3 of your posts are deleted or snipped? If that were true then many other commentators would be saying the same thing, and they’re not. Numerous posts automatically get put into the spam filter by WordPress, for no discernible reason. Spam is generally deleted wholesale with a click by whoever is moderating at the time. If your comment doesn’t get posted, ask for the spam bucket to be checked, or simply re-post your comment. ~dbs, mod.]
Phil M (13:40:24) :
Not many think with logic. Some still believe the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese, and government money comes from a magic wishing well. You cannot cater to the lowest common denominator, or you would subject the human race to a life of fungus like existance. Just because others cannot discern reality from fantasy does not mean we have to wear bubble wrap suits to protect them from themselves.
Life is risk. It is called living. You are going to run into crazies anywhere you go. And if you are going to run your life on the delusions of the craziest, you are going to have to confine yourself to a rubber room.
Good luck with the latex.
[Reply: you are saying that 2/3 of your posts are deleted or snipped? If that were true then many other commentators would be saying the same thing, and they’re not.
Well to be fair, most commenters wouldnt be from my side would they, so they wouldnt be making comments that mods on your side of the debate would describe as:
“Reply: Comments that are nothing but venom are discouraged and often trashed. ~ ctm”
Or
“you also have to understand that we get the [blank] has big [snip] comments as well, and those go straight to the trash without comment”
My last few were in the same tone & said the same thing as they first few that were deleted.
“Not many think with logic”.
I guess your right to a certain extent. We have golden rules in most religions like “thou shalt not kill”. Like it actually has to be stated, otherwise, they would assume its ok.
I’m sure you would agree that there is those amongst us, that are willing to go that extra step, to gain recognition, attract attention, gain notoriety in the aid of showing their devotion & ability to please. I’m sure you wouldnt be willing to consider there is a possibility that anyone on your side of the debate is capable of such acts, but I’m sure you would be willing to accept that there are people on my side that go to those lengths.
Our history is full of people throughout the ages who have carried out assassinations, not because they were paid assassins, but their belief system was so powerful that they were moved to act on behalf of their beliefs to right some perceived wrong doings.
“Good luck with the latex”
Stay off my webcam.
Phil M (02:59:01)
That is nonsense, typical of Tim (and of you as well, I guess). GISS treats those measurements as all being from the same site. See the graph here, which is identified as “after combining sources at same location.” You get that part about the “same location”? GISS does exactly what I did, they combined sources from the same site. So are Tim and you both going to accuse the folks at GISS of being liars as well?
I swear, Phil, your credulity knows no bounds. I’m done with discussing anything with you. You, like Tim, are willing to accuse me of being a liar without doing even the most grade-school, basic, beginner-level, pig-stupid investigation of the issues in question.
I’m finished with you, go make your vile, libellous accusations against someone else, go tell GISS that they are liars for doing what I did. I should have remembered the troll rule, “Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty, and the pig likes it.”
Willis, in Question 1 writes:
I have to ask: But is this true?
With the GATA prior to the 20th century being almost entirely proxies and that before 1755 (when the Central England temperature measurements began) being 100% proxies, I have an issue with proxies.
That issue is the uncertainty in the TIME element.
Virtually all issues in the AGW arguments so far have had to do with the magnitude of the data – the temperature measurements – or the adjustments to them. I do not here include such secondary issues as sea ice or sea levels, which are derivative of temperatures.
**
There real untested issue of proxies is the dating of them. All the dating from previous centuries and millennia is approximate – for every data point – no matter how careful researchers read the tree rings or ice cores. Just finding a starting point is an art. Many tree rings are far from simple counts, where tree trunks branch and the rings become complex patterns. I don’t know this as a fact, but something tells me that ice cores must have some vagueness to their delineations, making it hard to tell where one year leaves off and another begins. With internal shearing within glaciers and ice fields and ice sheets, I see it as a jumble and the “reader” of the data as having to make his or her best guess, and to do so often. And Carbon 14 dates are all given as +/- a few hundred years. When the date value that goes into databases is the main one given on the C14 printout, I submit that any other date within the “+/-” could just as easily have been entered, although I would myself tend toward the center of the range, too – as long as I did not take it too literally.
But once that date is entered into the database, that date is written in stone – and the “+/-” is forgotten.
I submit this graph of proxies as evidence:
Great swathes of each proxy graph are outside the now almost universal +0.5/-0.5C band of temperature anomalies, yet all those very real and very significant peaks and valleys are lost when proxies are blended as Michael Mann et al did in their original 1998 paper. Much of that blending problem was addressed by Frank Lansner in his WUWT post, How Not to compare Temperatures.
(For one thing, note that even at the height of the MWP, the thick green blended average trace only just barely comes up to ZERO! And at no point does that freen line come up to zero. WTF??? And the LIA only goes down to -0.8, so the ENTIRE average only ranges by 0.8C???? Of course, such results should be a clarion call to check and see if they aren’t missing something.)
In viewing the second image in that post,
I could clearly see that several proxies are time-shifted. Their peaks and valleys were in different temporal locations along the X-axis, but the temperature event they represent seems almost certain to be the same event. I argue that the shift in time is only a residue of the dating techniques used, all of which are approximate.
And if the dating is approximate, should not some effort be made by the “proxy-blenders” like Mann and like CRU, in order to make those temperature events not get lost in the averaging?
If those temperature events are inadvertently shifted – or allowed to remain shifted – on the time scale, then one peak will somewhat align in time with the valley of another proxy’s same event. This will meant that when the two are averaged/blended then the event will end up being a more or less flat curve – right through a period when a very significant temperature event actually occurred.
This is a complete and utter distortion of the temperature record that the proxies are trying to convey.
In looking at the first image above, it is clear that with so much of each proxy’s curve being very large “anomalies,” that blending these proxies ERASES temperature events – JUST LIKE MICHAEL MANN’S HOCKEY STICK ERASED THE MWP AND LIA.
I am arguing here that the lack of effort – which at this point I am certain is a 100% lack – flattens out the data even more than Frank Lansner argues.
Since the first anomaly graph I ever saw, the single prominent question in my mind has been, “But no MWP or LIA came about because of a 0.7C or 1.5C change in the temperatures; something is wrong here.” The state of Illinois where I live has an “average” temperature map, with bands running across the state every 70 or so miles, representing 1degree F. It buggers the imagination to believe that an ice age – little or big – could ensue with a temperature variation equivalent to the height of the band that includes the Chicago area from north to south.
I’ve always wondered, “Where are the variations?” As even Dick Lindzen (whose voice of sanity in a mad field of study I admire very much) points out from time to time, we would barely even feel the difference on our skin, from top to bottom of the anomaly graphs.
Also, where IS the variation that represents actual, sensible differences between warm periods and cold?
Lansner at least a little bit argues that much of it comes because the recent temperatures are not averaged, which is why the graphs all spike in the 1990s and 2000s, whereas prior to that the averaging erases the variations.
I am saying the erasures are illegitimate in the first place. Proxies must not be blended, not without making some effort to maintain within their data and graphs the temperature events of the past.
THERE WERE ABSOLUTELY MANY TEMPERATURE EVENTS IN THE PAST.
Even Phil Jones acknowledged that there were three OTHER 10-year-plus warming periods, similar in almost every respect to the 1980-1998 warming, just since 1880 – and that is within the BLENDED and adjusted data.
How many other such warming periods are lost in the blending process and never make it past CRU and Mann – and are certain to be, in the upcoming Met Office review of CRU’s work, if no one corrects them?
Methods matter.
When methods are used that flatten out – in at least two ways – the temperature events of the past – I argue that those methods are WRONG.
Lansner argues on correcting one of them. I argue for correcting the other.
Both methods currently being used incorrectly erase temperature events from the record.
I submit that when there is +/- in the dating of temperature events that appear when proxies are displayed on graphs, that the researchers should make (and document!) their effort to re-align in time those events. Peaks should align with peaks along the X-axis. Valleys should align with valleys.
In proxies, the dating is NOT written in stone. That “+/-” means the dating is flexible. Within that +/- the researcher should align them all, if at all possible.
When this is properly done, the blended anomaly graphs of the sort that Mann attempted will then show that large swings in global temperature have occurred on many occasions in the past.
Since all datings are approximate for earlier centuries, their placements along the time scale are critical for preserving the peaks and valleys that MUST have occurred.
The “combiners” of all this (Mann et al, and CRU) have not made any efforts to rectify (meaning to shift forward or backward to match other proxy graphs) the timing of these separated graphs. It is apparent that they simply took the proxy “as is” (in the temporal sense) from the specialists who have created each database. they have made all kinds of adjustments to the temperature magnitudes, but the time element has been taken at face value.
Each specialist would have no reason to know his or her own proxy data is shifted in time from other proxies, due to the unknown precision of time for each proxy.
It is not just the height of the graphs (temps) but also the time element that has to be considered. In combining graphs, if no effort is made to rectify the various traces in time, flattening of the resultant graph is inevitable – and MISLEADING.
Method matters – in the combining process perhaps more than any other time – since graphs can only get more flat, not less. Avoiding this flattening should be of prime concern to the combiners of other people’s work.
I strongly argue that the FLATNESS of the anomaly graphs should be a sign that some wrong method has been employed – and that the method needs to be corrected.
It is appropriate that within one proxy set that averaging be done. I argue that averaging different proxy sets without rectifying them to each other IN TIME is a wrong methodology and should be corrected. In the first image above, almost every proxy shows an already averaged range significantly outside the +0.5C/-0.5C anomaly range we are used to seeing. If those extremes – those temperature events, which DO exist in the proxies themselves – are not carried through into the overall historical record, then the overall record is just plain wrong.