Here’s a quote related to the McShane and Wyner discussion brought to light thanks to Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann at RealClimate that I happen to agree with. Yes I know, that’s a shock to some. This quote is from L. Mark Berliner in discussion here (PDF) and speaks powerfully to the whole of climate science:
The problem of anthropogenic climate change cannot be settled by a purely statistical argument. We can have no controlled experiment with a series of exchangeable Earths randomly assigned to various forcing levels to enable traditional statistical studies of causation. (The use of large-scale climate system models can be viewed as a surrogate, though we need to better assess this.) Rather, the issue involves the combination of statistical analyses and, rather than versus, climate science.
That’s a keeper.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A question Anthony; How would you define “Climate Science”?
James
[Note: questions like this to Anthony should be posted in Tips & Notes, where he is sure to read them. ~dbs]
From M.L. Stein’s editorial:
“More broadly, statisticians need to engage the entire climatological commu-
nity in questions of what raw data to collect and in how to process
these data into forms that can be broadly used.”
When I conducted industrial process experiments, this was the issue of prime concern. Not what I hoped to find nor what I was expecting but rather how to devise the experimental “bite size” and what data to collect so that the relevance of the information would prove useful. Climatologists have been massaging data (not unlike many other practitioners) rather than analyzing them. It may appear to be a fine line but it is a critical one.
Irrelevance of the CO2 global warming hypothesis
Theory of CO2 heat absorption and re-radiation is well understood. What appears to be bone of contention is the extent of it. One thing is clear that on any relevant time scale the CO2’s heat retention (storage capacity) is insignificant.
If solar 1368 W/m2 was more or less constant during the last 150 years , question is:
Is CO2 effect capable of causing the observed temperature variation either regionally or globally?
I think the answer has to be clear NO.
Some pro-CO2 agenda scientists ( e.g. Dr. Andrew Lacis) argue openly that if the AMO, PDO, SOI are excluded than temperature rises tracks the CO2 emissions increase during the last 150+ years.
That is not only misleading but a fundamentally wrong. The above indices are de-trended, by the process of calculation; pressures or temperatures differentials will automatically eliminate any common either positive or negative gradient.
Urban heat islands are another matter.
Solid surface (ground and ice) heat absorption and radiation can be calculated taking into account seasonal effects of ice and snow coverage.
The oceans’ heat absorption and retention capacity in comparison with the atmosphere are enormous. While absorption and retention are calculable, re-radiation is not, it is affected to a great degree by currents circulation variability from one year to the next.
Any change in the circulation parameters will affect heat realise and consequently temperature and pressure differentials.
Nice quote, If you remove the sentence in parentheses, I agree too.
As the late C.G.Jung put it: “Statistics is the science which demonstrates that in a pebbles beach, the average pebble has a weight of, say, 250 grams, but you will NEVER find a pebble of such a weight”
And…That´s the problem. However, some statistical correlations are obviated, as the Gleissberg cycle, which approximately correlates with human life duration.
In other words We know we are right, regardless of what the data says. What a howler!
I don’t find that argument compelling. If statistical analysis isn’t the ultimate measure of expected outcomes, what is? What are climate models but modeled expected behaviors with calculated margins of errors? We have no way of looking into the future other than by projecting what we know now. But even that is based on a level of confidence in our current findings that is less than 100%. That whole statement is mush.
We have come quite a long way with observational cosmology with a combination of observation and statistical analysis.
When the sea level has gone up near 100 meters in the last 15,000 year’s or so, engineers call the last few meters, measurement error. And trying to figure out measurement error with no instruments over 500 years old of any accuracy, that’s just dumb.
And another gem, computer models with no way to validate, well that’s just fun in computer class futility.
Interesting then, that they rely on poor statistical arguments to hang their hat on instead of good raw data directly from the planet.
Yes, but the problem is that one half of this statement (the science) isn’t settled and judging by the debate on Judith Curry’s blog, even the basics can’t be agreed by the experts. Check out her blog for a fascinating debate/argument on CO2 radiative forcing and a number of threads about the models.
This proves we can also do away with the theories of evolution and continental drifting.
OT – I am pleased to report that despite the testimony of James Hansen a jury in Nottingham has today convicted twenty climate change activists of conspiring to commit aggravated trespass.
Those convicted were part of a group of over a 100 who intended to close down a coal fired power station for a week. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-11992969
Hansen had claimed that closing the power station would be justified because their actions were designed to prevent immediate harm to human life and property from climate change.
His sworn statement of evidence contains a lot of rather questionable opinion presented as fact. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2010/dec/14/james-hansen-evidence-ratcliffe
Translation; “What we have been doing does not appear to be working”. Co2 does not drive climate. We are a long way from distinguishing mankind’s signal from natural variability.
That quote about being unable to test the theory is true, but a lie at the same time. how often in science are they unable to go out and induce a change to get the statistical observations they need to prove a theory?
Are any astronomers able to induce a change to determine the legitimacy of their theory? What about Jane Goodall? She learned by observation. Her theories were supported by observation. Many very robust sets of empirical relationships have been developed for engineers that are used regularly. I suppose using them is proving them, but they were learned by observation.
Saying that they need to test their theory to prove it is bogus. Much of science is about data collected by observation only. That statement is the same as Nancy Pelosi saying “you have to pass the bill to find out what is in the bill.” There are some very creative ways to observe if the effects are real or not, they would rather use their models that are the only thing showing catastrophe.
John Kehr
garbage in …
Vukcevic wrote: “Theory of CO2 heat absorption and re-radiation is well understood. What appears to be bone of contention is the extent of it.”
I would argue that the major bone of contention is what sort of atmospheric feedback mechanism, positive or negative, and to what extent, would be triggered by additional CO2 forcing.
Without positive feedback mechanisms, even the most modest IPCC temperature rise estimates cannot be met with CO2 forcing alone.
Is the tide turning? Without hope all is lost.
Translation: “If you don’t perform Mann-type statistical test (i.e. trick) and you are not a climate scientist… buzz off, you have no argument.
“Rather, the issue involves the combination of statistical analyses and, rather than versus, climate science.”
I’d agree with that statement until I realize that climate science is essentially statistics. Other than determining values and the weights of the values, what does a climate scientist do? We all know CO2 absorbs heat and re-radiates it, but the question is how much? How much does the nitrous oxide and H2O render it redundant? Temp analysis? Yeh, that’s numbers, too. Sea level rise? Again, just numbers. Albedo and percentage of clouds? Yeh, more numbers. Again, the question is, what does a climate scientist do, other than a poor job at statistics?
Thus the walk back begins.
Thatcher-Right says
Quote
We have come quite a long way with observational cosmology with a combination of observation and statistical analysis.
Unquote
And got it completely and utterly wrong.
Not bad
Same questions emerge for me:
1 – What is “climate science”? – totally lacking in SCIENCE, to me, and getting worse.
2 – Why must most everyone insist there is a “climate change problem”? – all a created crisis in my mind. There are “climate events” which require whatever SCIENTIFIC prediction and human mitigation we can INTELLIGENTLY apply. And there are sensible and required measures to protect our environment, for the benefit of ALL LIFE, even HUMAN BEINGS.
3 – Re-radiation – REALLY? Come on, scientists! Is there not heat exchange at work here? Does the coffee in the thermos actually GET HOTTER as the insulated walls “re-radiate” head energy?
4 – When will EVERYONE stop saying that CO2 is CAUSATIVE, and a pollutant?
Where the data doesn’t fit, replace it with your philosopy (er, I mean “science”).
It is not that most climatologists do not talk the talk, at least in part. What I find less then helpful is their reluctance to walk the walk.