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).
Kind of climate turning into climaterium.
Hopefully some group of concerned citizens should collect comments and ask the Royal Society to address them in an open letter?
Actually, in most cases, science lags invention/engineering.
Tim Williams says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:17 am
Yes Tim, those 43 were “active” dissenters. Of the remaining 1527 consenters, how many were “active” consenters? In other words, how many of the “consenting” majority were fully informed and actively endorsed the RS’s position statement?
Newton, Halley…. Who has invaded this honoured institution? How did they slip into this ideological bog? Don’t they feel they have a solemn duty to scientists of the institution’s illustrious past who set the standard for excellence in science? Oh it’s worse than we thought alright … The nobel prize is barely neck and neck with Crackerjack prizes – Arafat/Rabin for peace! Obama as a bribe to endorse the CO2 calumny, Annan for preciding over the Rwanda massacre, Gore, Pachauri et al for whatever we see unwinding before us. These and other institutions, universities, govt departments where science is conducted ned to be totally redone with new personnel and guidelines regarding funding, ethics, and strict adherence to application of the scientific method. Yes it ismuch worse than we thought.
Mike Haseler says:
Kudo’s Mike, you hit the nail on the head. I can only add that the CAGW bombast has trapped western science and they don’t know how to get out of this with their dignity. They dig the hole deeper by spouting our society is anti-science and preaching un-civil behavior (Dawkins militant atheism).
Well I’m not one to go for weasel wording and try to separate in meaning; “Predict” and “Project”, although I do segregate those, and I hope people realize; facetiously.
The “Computer programs” or GCMs or whatever euphemism they want to use, purport to be “Models” of what the architects of those models represent to be an emulation of what the real universe; or in this case just the earth’s climate odes or will do if the conditions set down in the model runs are fullfilled.
So don’t jive me that they are NOT making predictions; they absolutely are making predictions. They are saying if these conditions occur, the earth’s climate will do what this computer run says it will do.
They at least have the intellectual decency to say “well we actually don’t know what some of the parameters in these models are to very high precision so we have to use some plausible range that those parameters may have, and then our models WILL predict some range of outcomes.
OK it is perfectly legitimate to say of any Science Model; that purports to describe a theory of some real world phenomenon; that some of the parameters of the theory have not yet been ascertai9ned with great precision. It has always been that way; and improved experimental techniques have gradually improved our knowledge of those parameters; well for theories that have been widely accepted (eventually).
The purpose of “models” of course is that they are deliberately endowed with exact mathematica relationships between variables and parameters; so that the behavior or performance OF THE MODEL can be essentially exactly predicted from mathematics.
That is not the same as saying that the behavior of the real world is exactly predicted; it never can be; it is far too complex to describe so as to be able to predict the outcome of any conceivable experiment.
But the future performance of “models” is quite predictable, from the very rules that describe what that model consists of.
And in the normal course of scientific investigation, experimental scientists, and theoretical scientists work back and forth comparing model to reality, and then adjusting NOT THE REALITY, but the rules of the model so it better replicates what experimental science says the real world appears to be doing.
So yes the climate modles run on these super computers (Playstations) do purport to predict the future, and it is disingenuous of the purveyors to say that no; they only “project”.
The reality is their models are crap; which is why they don’t even vaguely project what is really happening.
To present a starting assumption that CLOUDS are a POSITIVE feedback is total nonsense.
Leaving out the interraction of clouds with the secondary emissions of thermal radiation from the surface and secondary or tertiary thermal emissions from the atmosphere; and considering ONLY the interraction of CLOUDS with the primary incoming source of energy; the principal FORCING if you will; it is a third grade science question for “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?” TV show:- ” Do clouds INCREASE or DECREASE the amount of incoming solar spectrum electromagnetic radiation energy that reaches and is absorbed by the surface of planet Earth ?”
A fourth grade science question would be :- ” Does WATER VAPOR in the atmosphere INCREASE or DECREASE the amount of incoming solar spectrum electromagnetic radiation energy that reaches and is absorbed by the surface of planet Earth ?”
After you have answered both of those questions, by saying that in ALL CASES both CLOUDS and WATER VAPOR ALWAYS decrease the amount of incoming solar spectrum electromagnetic radiation energy that reaches and is absorbed by the surface of planet Earth; then you can tackle the bonus question of how water vapor and clouds interract with the secondary and tertiary LWIR thermal radiations.
And if you have to ask whether “surface of planet earth” includes both land and sea surface; you will be disqualified as too dumb to be on the program.
Trying to make a case that cloud interractions with the secondary and tertiary thermal emissions; which are energy that has already been degraded by one or more capture and thermalization cycles; is capable of converting the clearly NEGATIVE feedback of cloud attenuation of solar energy, in to a net POSITIVE feedback; so that a net increase in total EARTH energy occurs accompanied by a general Temperature increase; would seem to me to be a daunting task.
But you shouldn’t even attempt to address that issue, untill it becomes obvious to you, that you already lost on just the net collected solar energy. And remember that it is that net collected solar energy that mostly (70% or more) falles on the ocean and is deposited relatively deeply in that great thermnal storage mass. The secondary or tertiary LWIR emissions from the atmosphere, that fall on the sea surface have amuch harder time reaching the oceanic depths; they more likely lead to an evaporative return to the upper atmosphere; and eventual escape.
But back to the central issue.
If the computer simulations, predictions, projections are not for the purpose of linking what we know from previous observations to what we believe is most likely to occur in the future; then why are we even wasting time and money on such “modelling “?
“”” John Day says:
October 1, 2010 at 7:04 am
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. “””
Well John, it seems like there is a disagreement over what is meant by “Climate Sensitivity.”. You seem to use it as a connection between a “Radiative Forcing” which presumably is in Watts per square metre, and a “TempChange” but you didn’t say what is changing in Temperature.
From virtually everything I have been able to discern from the literature, “Climate Sensitivity” which I’m told, but have not been able to verify, was first defined by the late Dr Stephen Schneider as the increase in the global mean surface temperature caused by a doubling of the Atmospheric Abundance of CO2.
Schneider’s definition would then assert (without proof) that the global mean surface Temperature is directly proportional to the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 abundance: or mathematically:-
T2 – T1 = (cs). log2(CO2,2/CO2,1) where the terminology is self evident.
I’m not aware of either experimental data or Physical thoretical relationships that would validate or support such a simple relationship; although there is plenty of experimental data that refutes such a relationship; including paleo data going back 600 million years, that shows intervals of tens of millions of years where Temperature showed no response of any kind to very large changes in atmospheric CO2 abundance.
There is also disagreement as to your assertion that GHG assert a Positive radiative forcing since they “tend to trap sunshine as IR”. Well count me as one who does not fit into that club.
It is certainly true that at least O2, O3, and H2O tend to trap sunshine; and CO2 to a very minor extent. BUT !! to call that a positive Radiative Forcing is plainly absurd. If that sunshine is “trapped” in the atmopshere by those gases, that means it DOES NOT reach the surface; primarily the deep ocean where it would be deposited deeply as heat after being nearly 100% converted to heat (less what has biological activity).
The sunlight energy that is thus lost to the surface from this atmospheric gas trapping, is also largely converted to thermal energy; at least in the lower more dense atmosphere where mean free paths between molecular collisions are much shorter than the mean lifetime of the molecular excited state caused by the sunlight trapping.
The resultant secondary thermal emission from that slightly heated atmosphere, is emitted isotropically so half of it escapes towards space; and only half of it can return to the surface; so there has to be a NET LOSS of energy from sunlight that results from that trapping, and it is of the order of half the amount of the “trapped” energy.
So as I said it is simply false to characterise the trapping of sunlight by atmospheric gases as POSITIVE Radiative Forcing; it MUST ALWAYS be negative.
> Well I’m not one to go for weasel wording and try to separate in meaning; “Predict”
> and “Project”, although I do segregate those, and I hope people realize; facetiously.
I think there is a distinction, based on time.
When you ‘project’ a model back in time, comparing output with historical records, then the model ‘explains’ or ‘tests’ a hypothesis (correctly or not).
When you ‘project’ a model into the future (where no history exists) then the model is clearly ‘predicting’. (Or you have to wait for history to catch up to test the hypothesis)
Sounds funny to say ‘predict the past’ so perhaps ‘project’ is a more “temporally-neutral” way to say that.
😐
Does is really matter what they say?
King Canute is reputed to have had his throne placed on the beach so he could sit and command the tide not to come in. It did, of course, and he and his throne began to get wet.
Nature will do what nature will do.
It looks like we are in for a prolonged cooling spell, either it will happen or it will not, no one will be consulted on the issue and no ones opinion will be considered; we will only be informed.
In a couple of years, the cooling may be so blatantly obvious that there will not be enough crows, eggs or pitchforks to go around.
We shall see.
Does anyone know where to get the previous version?
I didn’t find it from The RS pages (nor my computer). (should i try harder?)
I’d like to read both texts.
Robert Hooke must be spinning in his grave.
@Tim Williams,
All these Academy of Sciences represent the politics and governance of science. Perhaps you mistook the proclamations of these societies for actual scientific proof subject to all the rigors of the scientific method.
Curious
September 2010 version under
http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
The previous RS statement (from 2007/8) is here:
http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies-a-simple-guide/
and an even earlier one (2005) is here
http://royalsociety.org/Facts-and-fictions-about-climate-change/
Enjoy!
tonyb
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)…”
Yes, Tim.
Does any of this mean taxpayers can halt their funding of wind farms??
Sorry, stupid question.
To TimWilliams and Georges A,
The French Academy of Sciences held an event last 20th of September : she went perhaps further than the RS in moving from the previous, unconditional support to the AGW assumption :
On temperature data, the outcome is : we have data to build science from since 20 years (ie : only)
on past emperature : we know what the sun role is as to irradiance, change of orbit, etc., but have still to investigate sun spots, cosmic rays, and so on
on models : they are improving…(Lindzen was there to present his view)
on chemical-physical mechanisms, the CO2 direct impact makes consensus, but feed backs are highly controversial ; the dynamics of clouds & precipitations is still entirely to be understood
Conclusion : many aspects to be further investigated
Not a huge support basis to government climate policy
By the way, academies in Russia, India and China are not likely to support AGW either
To Mike Haseler,
What you say is exactly what Brian Hoskins said duting his cup of tea @ur momisugly The economist : if we solve the problem, we’re out of business
——————-
WillR / anna v / John Day / George E. Smith,
Thanks for your info and links. Need to do some homework on climate computer models.
John
Max-OK(October 1, 2010 at 4:30 am):
Your view that “A projection would seem to imply a prediction” is understandable but inaccurate, as suggested by the inconsistency of this view with Indur Goklany’s quote from the noted IPCC climatologist Kevin Trenberth. The long-time IPCC expert reviewer Vincent Gray explains ( http://www.klimanotizen.de/2008.07.12_Gray_Spinning_the_Climate.pdf ) that by using the scientifically ambiguous word “projection” in place of the scientifically unambiguous word “prediction” and the scientifically ambiguous word “evaluate” in place of the scientifically unambiguous word “validate,” the IPCC creates the impression in the minds of the unwary that its climate models have been empirically validated when they have not been validated.
As the IPCC uses the word “projection,” the idea referenced by this word differs from the idea referenced by the word “prediction” in lacking the variable which is called its “truth-value.” Bccause projections lack truth-values, the associated models cannot be validated. However, these models can be “evaluated” because “evaluation” does not imply “validation.” In an “evaluation,” projected global average temperatures are compared to measured ones without consideration of whether projected temperatures may be wrong.
Daniel says:
October 1, 2010 at 1:26 pm
The French Academy of Sciences held an event last 20th of September : she went perhaps further than the RS in moving from the previous, unconditional support to the AGW assumption :
Lindzen isn’t listed as a participant. http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/communiques/pdf/DebatClimat_Participants.pdf .
You’re reference is to a press release. The report isn’t due until the end of Oct. (http://www.academie-sciences.fr/actualites/communiques/pdf/DebatClimat_Communique.pdf)
Perhaps we should wait until then before commenting on any ‘conclusions’.
Bob Newhart says:
October 1, 2010 at 5:15 am
“I don’t believe there is a case for stating the models provide qualitative evidence never mind quantitative. There must still be a lot of people within the society that are angry or disappointed at this.”
In a word, YES. Claiming that models can be used for evidence of any kind is an elementary mistake. Models are useful for analytical work only. They can show you what your assumptions imply. And that is very valuable information. But there is nothing in it that can be used for prediction. By the way, loved your tv show, Bob.
Tim Williams says:
October 1, 2010 at 5:44 am
“……Can you name one national science body that has maintained a contrarian opinion?”
Tim, try this: “Galileo, can you name one cardinal, bishop, or priest of the Inquisition who has held that Earth moves?”
John Day says:
October 1, 2010 at 11:54 am
“Sounds funny to say ‘predict the past’ so perhaps ‘project’ is a more “temporally-neutral” way to say that.”
The term is retrodict. Prediction is for the future and retrodiction is for the past. As regards their value for the hypotheses that are used to make them, predictions and retrodictions are equal. Good hypotheses are well-confirmed in both predictions and retrodictions.
Tim Williams says:
October 1, 2010 at 9:11 am:
Tim, 1] consensus statements, even by the administrative arms of “scientific bodies”, are simply not a component of the Scientific Method.
Regardless, 2] in the case of a more properly formed scientific consensus – where scientists actually individually sign some rather specific statements, which the members of the many aforementioned “scientific bodies” did not – the net scientific consensus is in fact against specific CO2AGW claims: see, for example, the “sceptical” Oregon Petition signatory numbers as compared to analagous numbers of individual pro-CO2CAGW signatories.
3] Just btw, Tim, your attempt to respond to my statement which you quoted above, is nonresponsive: you are the one who at least appeared to equate alleged statements by certain Countries’ official “scientific bodies” with the actions of the “Countries” themselves, whose actions instead fly in the face of the alleged validity of the scientific basis for CO2AGW! Because,
4] Surely, Tim, you are aware that actions speak louder than words, that is, when and where “the rubber meets the road,” as is clear in the case of China and India’s fully IPCC-informed actions in regard to essentially producing as much fossil fuel CO2 as possible via their continuing massive construction of coal fired electricity plants – which, again, in effect specifically deny some combination of very important CO2CAGW claims. Ask yourself, especially “politically”, why would China and India want to commit their Countries to an allegedly IPCC assured suicide?
And also speaking of actions, also ask yourself this,
5] If the CO2CAGW claims are in fact scientifically established and believed by their primary proponent, the body of IPCC “Climate Science” and its Climate Scientists, why did the IPPC itself then act to exclude countries containing ~5 billion of the Earth’s ~6.5 billion people from having to adhere to its own alleged Kyoto Protocol “cure” to its own alleged net CO2CAGW “disease” = an apocalypic disaster?
This makes no rational or scientific sense, unless the IPCC does not really believe its own “science”!
In short, Tim, IPCC Climate Science is simply not real Science: it specifically avoids using the Scientific Method, which is why you and others are so confused – that is, because you have made the natural assumption that IPCC Climate Science is real Science, when it is not. And your trust is something which IPCC Climate Science has also relied upon you to grant as part of its whole Propaganda Operation! And that is all IPCC Climate Science really is.
Tim, if you take an objective view of IPCC Climate Science, you will “snap out of it”, just like I did after initially assuming incorrectly that IPCC Climate Scientists would surely be doing real Science. And it’s really not all that difficult to see for yourself, that they are certainly not!
How many members of the Royal Society will recall that Arrhenius, Callander, Plass, and numbers of others were in fact debunked in none other than their own Proceedings?
It is incomprehensible to me that any Society member of 60 years of age or older, say, would subscribe to their present ideology at all. I am surprised that I have not heard of resignations of membership over this.