Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
Although it is encouraging that the Royal Society now acknowledges that climate science may not be as settled as it previously implied, the Society’s new report still stands as an embarrassment to science because it fails to offer justifications based on science (and policy analysis) for a number of its (politically correct) statements.
First, it claims in its opening sentence, “Changes in climate have significant implications for present lives, for future generations and for ecosystems on which humanity depends.” But two paragraphs later it acknowledges that, “[T]he impacts of climate change … are not considered here.” Hence, the RS has no scientific (or other basis) for this claim. At most it could say, “ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT CONSIDER THEIR IMPACTS, changes in climate COULD have significant implications for present lives…, IF SUCH CHANGES ARE VERY LARGE.” [Suggested INSERTIONS in the RS’s original language are in UPPERCASE letters.]
For the same reason, the RS’s statement in the very last paragraph (number 59), “However, the potential impacts of climate change are sufficiently serious that important decisions will need to be made”, is unsupported by any evidence.
Equally embarrassing are statements regarding the cause (or attribution) for recent warming. In paragraph 2, it states, “There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity.” But we are talking climate, not weather, and half a century doesn’t even span a one full cycle of the AMO or PDO, nor does it span the length of the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warm Period, or other historical periods of climatic change.
Moreover, what is the “strong evidence” referred to in the preceding quote that allows the RS to claim that warming has been “caused largely by human activity”? This “strong evidence” comes down to the RS’s acceptance of the methodology underlying the IPCC’s claim of attribution (see paragraphs 37 to 39). But as noted in another WUWT post, this is an “argument from ignorance”— certainly not what one would expect from as august a scientific body as the Royal Society.
In addition, this argument assumes the validity of models, even though they have never been validated using “out-of-sample” observational data, and are, moreover, unable to simultaneously provide reliable estimates for surface temperature AND precipitation at less than continental scales (see Appendix A). The inability of models to generate reliable estimates for surface temperature at such scales is noted in paragraph 50, but the RS is conspicuously silent on their inability to do any better with precipitation. These issues (and others) are noted on the annotated PDF of the RS report here:
RS_ClimateChange_SummaryofScience (PDF)
Third, it is disappointing to see the RS use the term “predict” in conjunction with model results. The IPCC does not “predict”, it “projects”. As Kevin Trenberth has noted, the IPCC makes “no predictions … instead [it] proffers ‘what if’ projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.”
APPENDIX A: IPCC Models Have Not Been Validated
IPCC models have not been validated using out-of-sample data under conditions of high greenhouse gas concentrations.
It is insufficient for a climate model to accurately reproduce the spatial and temporal pattern for one climatic variable; it should be able to do so for the ensemble of variables that have a significant effect on impacts. This includes not just temperature but, perhaps more importantly, precipitation. But little confidence can be placed in the IPCC model results to simultaneously reproduce results for both temperature and precipitation even when “in sample” data are used, let alone when out-of sample” data are utilized.
As noted elsewhere (Goklany 2009, pp 12-13, at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1548711
[F]or a climate model to be valid, it should be able to simultaneously forecast with reasonable accuracy the spatial and temporal variations in a wide variety of climatic variables including temperature, pressure and precipitation, as well as endogenously produce the patterns and rhythms of ocean circulation (among other things). But we know from the AR4WG1 that models are unable to do this even for “in sample” data. As it states, “Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller [that is, less than continental] scales” [AR4WG1: 10.] And this [is] what it says about projections of climate change:
“ There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation).” (AR4WG1: 600, emphasis added)
This tacitly acknowledges that confidence is low for model projections of temperature at less than continental scales, and is even lower for precipitation — perhaps even at the continental scale. Notably, it doesn’t provide any quantitative estimate of the confidence that should be attached to projections of temperatures at the subcontinental scale. This lack of confidence in temperature and precipitation results at such scales is reaffirmed by recent reports from the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP):
“Climate model simulation of precipitation has improved over time but is still problematic. Correlation between models and observations is 50 to 60% for seasonal means on scales of a few hundred kilometers.” (CCSP 2008:3).
In summary, modern AOGCMs generally simulate continental and larger-scale mean surface temperature and precipitation with considerable accuracy, but the models often are not reliable for smaller regions, particularly for precipitation.” (CCSP 2008: 52).
The IPCC does not say that “all” features of current climate or past climate changes can be reproduced, as a good model of climate change ought to be able to do endogenously. In fact, it notes:
“Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period (Chapter 1). “Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days).” (AR4WG1: 601; emphasis added).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The glossary alone shows this is propaganda and PR not science. A glossary usually is at the end and alphabetical.
Wm-2
This is not a climate concept to be defined. It is unit of physics.
Why is this first item? The writers want to claim to be normal scientists.
Carbon Cycle
The conclusion of the report is stated at the beginning, carbon dioxide is the problem.
The sources of carbon listed in opposite order to their size.
Sign of doubt here, ‘Organic carbon’ is an admission that carbon is important as it is the basis of life.
Climate forcing (also known as radiative forcing)
This the basic error in the theory of the Greenhouse Effect
The causes of change to Earth’s energy balance are listed as
Sun
Atmosphere composition
Earth surface
They are not the same. The atmosphere composition and the Earth’s surface cannot change the energy balance. Wm-2 is added again to reinforce the normal science idea.
Climate sensitivity
The conclusion is stated again, CO2 causes dangerous warming
Internal Climate Change Variability
But we have already learnt that climate change is either natural or man-made.
John Whitman says:
October 1, 2010 at 6:04 am
I NEED SOME HELP
OK, I need to more clearly see what a climate computer model is.
start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model
John Whitman said:
> OK, I need to more clearly see what a climate computer model is.
At the risk of over-simplification, I think all the climate models must boil down to this:
TempChange = ClimateSensitivity * RadiativeForcing
I think most everyone agrees that “green-house gases”, CO2 among others, exert a positive RF, because they tend to trap sunshine as IR. But the climate sensitivity may be zero or negative under certain conditions, so that’s why there’s a huge fuss over TempChange.
Anyway, models tend to be useless (as already pointed out) for providing ‘evidence’ because you can generally set the parameters to make it do anything you want. The real evidence must be some record of nature (like temperatures) that confirm what the model is trying to ‘predict’.
😐
Max_OK says:
“To be useful a prediction should be more accurate than no prediction or an assumption of no change.”
Correction: predictions are worse than useless if they are not consistently accurate. The IPCC’s completely wrong
predictions“projections” are nothing but climate alarmist propaganda intended to further the goals of the entirely corrupt, devious and un-elected UN that appoints them.The IPCC’s “projections” for a 1.5 – 6°C warming from a doubling of a [still very minuscule] trace gas are not only preposterous, they are completely wrong. How do we know? Because the planet itself falsifies the IPCC’s
predictionsprojections. Despite giving themselves a preposterously wide range of outcomes, the IPCC has completely missed the mark.There has been only a fraction of a degree warming following a 40% [almost entirely natural] increase in CO2, and there is ZERO empirical evidence that the current warming cycle is anything but a function of natural variability. That natural warming has happened repeatedly in the past – when CO2 levels remained unchanged at around 280 ppmv for thousands of years. The IPCC’s
predictionsprojections are nothing but scientifically baseless propaganda, designed to establish a lucrative “carbon” trading requirement to be overseen and administered by the corrupt UN itself.In an honest world the 1.5 – 6°C
predictionsprojection would be seen to be so drastically wrong that all such IPCC scare tactics would be arbitrarily dismissed as the ravings of a group of cranks, or worse, the scheming of scam artists. Their ridiculously inflatedpredictionsprojections are based on the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: shoot holes in a barn door, then draw a circle around them. Bullseye!Any [completely unproven] effect of CO2 on the 0.7° [claimed] warming constitutes only a tiny fraction of that 0.7° – if that. The IPCC should honestly admit that its putative “science” has been falsified by the scientific method, and immediately cease its misguided efforts to control harmless CO2 emissions. But will they do the right thing, and admit to the world that their
predictionsprojections have always been wildly inaccurate?No, they will not. Because their goal is not honest science, but control of the world’s resources, and the planned taxation of the air we breathe. In a just world the UN/IPCC would be disbanded as a waste of public funds and as a source of misinformation, and its corrupt scientists would be universally reviled as the self-serving charlatans they are.
But we live in a dishonest, dangerous world, where thieves disguised as do-gooders scheme, with the help of their useful fools, to replace freedom with a suffocating, unelected bureaucracy. The IPCC and its mindless supporters should be on “WANTED” posters everywhere. They are no different from embezzlers covetously planning to confiscate citizens’ honestly earned wealth, based on the lie that a harmless and beneficial trace gas must be taxed and regulated. By them, of course.
When you see hair-splitting rationalizations that predictions are only “projections,” always keep motive in mind.
Tim Williams says:
October 1, 2010 at 4:26 am:
So the Royal Society are (still) an ‘embarrassment to science’, presumably, along with the…Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias (Brazil), Royal Society of Canada (Canada),Chinese Academy of Sciences (China), Académie des Sciences (France), Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Indian National Science Academy, (India )…. [my bold]
No, Tim, “China” and “India” do not agree with CO2CAGW ‘tenets’.
In fact they are even affirmatively opposing these quasi-religious tenets by in effect generating as much fossil fuel CO2 as possible -via their massive coal fired electricity plant construction projects.
Snap out of it, Tim!
Hi Tim Williams when governments pay out money for a desired result low and behold those people become a consensus. Mad cow disease, Swine flu , bird flu, SARS, weapons of mass destruction. AGW(climate change, climate disruption, soon to be called just climate.) Until so called climate scientists can give the null hypothesis it really is voodoo science.
“Tim Williams says:
October 1, 2010 at 5:44 am
……Can you name one national science body that has maintained a contrarian opinion?”
Ah, the good old eugenics argument….
But
Bird flu did not fly
Indur, just picking you up on your opening salvo:
There is no contradiction in writing, as an opening sentence:
“Changes in climate have significant implications for present lives, for future generations and for ecosystems on which humanity depends.”
and then going on to say:
“[T]he impacts of climate change … are not considered here.”
None at all. It cannot be said, as you do:
‘Hence, the RS has no scientific (or other basis) for this claim. ‘ (The opening sentence one).
Your ‘hence’ is misplaced.
It may be that the RS had been “hijacked” by the likes of Lord Oxburgh (chairman of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and the wind energy company Falck Renewables) for monetary gain, and that fellow members have woken up to the fact that the once noble institution has now been turned into a laughing stock. 43 members have now gone a small way towards re-establishing the reputation of the society.
Let us hope that rehabilitation continues.
Actually, the Chinese Government is “embracing” the concept of AGW because they stand to benefit greatly when the developed world weakens their economies with burdensome emissions controls, hugely expensive carbon capture systems, and ridiculous carbon trading schemes.
Also, China will financially benefit from selling their carbon credits. So for China, it is a do as I say, not as I do approach.
I should also point out that the Chinese Government blocks access to WUWT, CLimateAudit and any other website that challenges the notion of CO2 induced global warming, errr, climate change, opps, I mean climate disruption. There is ready access to ALL of the pro AGW websites. I know because I travel there often.
—-Moreover, what is the “strong evidence” referred to in the preceding quote that allows the RS to claim that warming has been “caused largely by human activity”? This “strong evidence” comes down to the RS’s acceptance of the methodology underlying the IPCC’s claim of attribution (see paragraphs 37 to 39). But as noted in another WUWT post, this is an “argument from ignorance”— certainly not what one would expect from as august a scientific body as the Royal Society.—-
Or, just like every other science, climatology makes determinations on high probabilities. Arguments from ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, go both ways:
P has never been disproven therefore P is/(must be) true.
P has never been proven therefore P is/(must be) false.
This is why when attribution is impossible, or it would stupid and dangerous to wait for direct attribution to take place over our heads, the best practices are employed to reach consensus conclusions. Let’s take a look at what the IPCC actually says about attribution for once.
Chapter 9 IPCC, here:
Note all the talk about uncertainty and stuff in that chapter.
It seems the AGW believers have gained a new ally: Bin Laden – http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6901DG20101001
In paragraph 2 they state ‘It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate responses.’
In paragraph 26, they state ‘These observations show that about half of the CO2 emitted by human activity since the industrial revolution has remained in the atmosphere.’
My response to this depends on what sort of decision maker I am. If I am the CEO of any form of manufacturing company the decision is very easy – have it done in China. If I am a national policy maker, how would that last statement help me? If it is true, it only tells me about the past. It is unlikely that any decisions I make now are going to unwind the past? If they are trying to tell me that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time why do they put it in these terms? What I really want (and need) to know, is:
1. What proportion of total atmospheric CO2 is currently added by global human activity each year
2. Of that proportion, what proportion is added to the atmosphere each year by human activity in the region for which I am responsible
Only if I have this information can I even begin to ‘formulate appropriate responses’. I have to say I am left wondering whether this is ‘climate science of the highest quality’ or just another example of scientists as advocates.
@ur momisugly Mike Haseler “Science enjoyed a period of huge success after WWII, being able to claim it underlay a whole range of technological developments from rockets to lasers, nuclear to heart surgery to CDs and the internet.”
I would say most of this was advances in technology rather than science. As you say, science underlay the technological achievements, so perhaps science got the glory for that, but it was glory on exhausted pre-war scientific capital, for I would say that science itself has gone at a snail’s pace since the late 1920s. We often don’t see it that way because (a) we’re living through it (rather than being viewed from a historical perspective) and (b) the advances in technology that we see in our lifetime gives the appearance of scientific advance, which it actually is not. Most of it is incremental improvements in application of science that has been known before. Commercial and military interests will always push that along.
Historians and philosophers of science have long wondered why advances in science itself have slowed down dramatically in the last 70 or 80 years. Some scientists arrogantly think that most of what can be discovered has been, or that all the low hanging fruit has been picked leaving the more difficult science. I think, rather, that something has gone very wrong with science itself. It is sowing the seeds of its own destruction.
Positive feedbacks mean negentropy only found in living phenomena. Thus it’s bio-genetic.
Thus, tea drinking at the proper intervals of the day would moderate them. 🙂
Brief question – the 43 dissenters were noted – how large is the consenting fellowship?
1. Para 2 of the Introduction states that climate change has also been caused by ‘changes
in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.’ but this issue does not appear to be addressed subsequently in the Paper. The Paper concentrates almost totally on CO2.
2. It is interesting to see that paper states ‘This warming has not been
gradual, but has been largely concentrated in two periods, from around 1910 to around
1940 and from around 1975 to around 2000.’
Atmospheric CO2 levels continued to climb throughout this period. Why was this not reflected in temperature increases throughout the period 1910 to 2000. This issue is not addressed but one logical conclusion is that there are natural effects that have a much greater than than those of CO2.
Stephen Skinner says:
October 1, 2010 at 4:50 am
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”
Tesla
Beautiful Tesla quote, but, I’ll see your Tesla quote and raise you a Bacon quote:
“For it has come to pass, I know not how, that Mathematic and Logic, which ought to be but the handmaids of Physic, nevertheless presume on the strength of the certainty which they possess to exercise dominion over it.”
ALSO, Anthony, it is ironic that you call the Royal Society ‘august’. The word ‘august’ comes from ‘augere’, to increase, enlarge or grow, and, these people are impeding growth.
From the R.S. website; http://royalsociety.org/Policy/?from=moremenu
” The Royal Society has established a science policy centre to strengthen the independent voice of science in UK, European and international policy. We want to champion the contribution that science and innovation can made (sic) to economic prosperity, quality of life and environmental sustainability, and we offer the Royal Society as a hub for debate about science, society and public policy.
The work of the Science Policy Centre ranges from targeted policy workshops to global governance frameworks.”
If I may paraphrase for my emphasis;
What we are:- The Royal Society has established a science policy centre to strengthen the independent voice of science in UK, European and international policy.
What we seek:- We want to champion the contribution that science and innovation can made (sic) to economic prosperity, quality of life and environmental sustainability.
How we work:- …the Royal Society as a hub for debate about science, society and public policy.
What we do:- …from targeted policy workshops to global governance frameworks.
Not exactly the common perception of either a scientist or what they might do if they got together in a society. I cannot find on their site when their Science Policy Centre was formed (but it may have been last year)
http://www.caast-net.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/000112
or why it was formed. Two scenarios spring to mind;
1. Superiority complex.
2. Trojan horse (recipient, not builder).
Can anyone enlighten me further?
It’s like this; the captain of the ship suddenly realizes he’s gone the wrong way.
First of all; he cannot literally just turn the ship around. Even if he did it would take a monumental amount of space and time; the ship is large and it’s momentum enormous.
Further; if the Captain of the ship orders an about face, he’s just told everyone aboard, ‘ I’m a moron who’s gone the wrong way’. That creates a rather difficult command situation.
So, you adjust course. Veer a bit off to the right here, see. Then you wait for everyone to become acclimated to the new direction, review your charts, etc. Then you announce another starboard tack, and so forth.
Eventually the navigator will wander over to the helm and ask you “gone a bit off in the wrong direction then, eh?” To which the Captain replies; “Not at all, we’ve simply ‘ad our mission changed is all, you see. Going to make a port call at ‘er Magesty’s Royal Colonial Treacle mine, pick up a load of . . um, Treacle . . and, er yeah, we uh . . . we went the wrong way.” To which the navigator dutifully replies; “Aye Aye Cap’m. Setting a course for HRM’s treacle mine, then”.
That way, the leaders all understand each other, but the guy down in the hold shoveling the coal doesn’t realize what a bunch of lout’s he’s working for.
So, although this may appear a bit odd to a scientist, captains of ships, captains of industry and captains of state all understand full well what this is and what is being said here. Now the question is; should the Royal Society be run by captains or by scientists. It should be obvious to the stewards and deckhands that their captain is an incompetent coal shoveler, but should he appear incompetent as a captain, the crew will mutiny and the ship may founder. I doubt the scientists will raise much stink. The good ones aren’t too concerned about the direction of the ship anyway. It’s not their job. They just shovel the coal, do their job, follow the evidence where it leads them. Leave it to the politico’s to figure out how to turn the ship around without mutiny and how to keep her from running aground. That’s their job.
See, all very simple really.
Mike Haseler says:
October 1, 2010 at 4:45 am
“…Either way, science stands to loose its place in western society. It is threatened with being downgraded to a subsidiary role losing the type of role it gained during the global warming days when it was at the heart of government formulating government policy.”
Excellent summary, Mike, of what’s happening to science. The phrase ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune” springs to mind, and the problem does not just effect Climatology, rather it is general across most of science. Considering the two biggest sources of research funding an the problem becomes apparent:-
Government funded science = success measure by deterministic solutions to problems (e.g. Defence – working weapon) or support for a political agenda (Climate – prove CAGW so we can have a carbon/energy tax.
Industry funded science = success measure by deterministic solutions to new product innovation (e.g. bald men will pay a fortune for a potion to regrow hair)
Pure research is no longer seen as a useful pursuit except for a few projects – after all ‘the science is settled’ in most fields despite glaring holes in most of our standard models.
Here’s hoping that things will change and a few more ‘Einsteins’ will emerge to stand the world on its head!
Have you seen the 10-10 campaign video.
Apparently they are now having cold feet and are trying to withdraw the film.
http://www.iaindale.blogspot.com/
JPeden says:
October 1, 2010 at 7:23 am
Tim Williams says:
October 1, 2010 at 4:26 am:
No, Tim, “China” and “India” do not agree with CO2CAGW ‘tenets’.
Snap out of it, Tim!
Their national science academies have signed up to a joint statement that endorses the IPCC assessment and urges governments to take action.
I’m not aware of any representative statement from either of their national science academies that states otherwise.
Whether their governments have the will to act on thier advice is entirely another matter and has nothing to do with the scientific basis of AGW.
Peter Whale says:
October 1, 2010 at 7:27 am
Hi Tim Williams when governments pay out money for a desired result low and behold those people become a consensus. Mad cow disease, Swine flu , bird flu, SARS, weapons of mass destruction.
Strange logic. Are you trying to argue that the ‘desired result’ of the respective Governments (India, China, Russia, USA, Canada, France, Brazil, GB etc) investment in science funding, was a strongly worded joint statment from their national science academies in support of the IPCC assessment?
That is what happened, shortly prior to the Copenhgagen summit.
The fact that governments of these countries were unable to agree to act upon the scientific advice of their national science bodies is quite another matter.
Djozar says:
October 1, 2010 at 8:15 am
Brief question – the 43 dissenters were noted – how large is the consenting fellowship?
“Today there are approximately 1,500 Fellows and Foreign Members, including more than 70 Nobel Laureates. ” http://royalsociety.org/about-us/?from=homemenu
Which represents around 3% of fellows.