Guest post by Alec Rawls
Andrew Orlowski at the UK Register has an anecdotal account of Downing College’s skeptics-vs-believers mash-up. Ace of Spades pulled the juiciest bit:
In short, the day lined up Phil Jones, oceanographer Andrew Watson, and physicist Mike Lockwood, the latter to argue that the sun couldn’t possibly have caused recent warming. He was followed by the most impressive presentation from Henrik Svensmark, whose presentation stood out head and shoulders above anyone else. Why? For two reasons. The correlations he shows are remarkable, and don’t need curve fitting, or funky statistical tricks. And he has advanced a mechanism, using empirical science [image above], to explain them.
At the other end of the scale, by way of contrast, the Met’s principle research scientist John Mitchell told us: “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful,” adding, “Our approach is not entirely empirical.”
Yes, you could say that.
Lockwood’s failed argument against a solar explanation
Orlowski on Lockwood:
The strongest argument, according to Lockwood, for the sun not being a driver in recent climatic activity is that “it has been going in the wrong direction for 30 years.”
Hmmm. So as soon as solar magnetic activity passed its peak, when it was still at some of the highest levels ever recorded, these very high levels of solar activity could no longer have caused warming?
As I have noted a number of times, this argument depends on an unstated assumption that, by 30 years ago (by 1980 or so), ocean temperatures had equilibrated to whatever forcing effect the 20th century’s high level of solar activity might be having. Otherwise the continued high level of forcing would continue to create warming until equilibrium was reached, regardless of whether solar activity had peaked yet. (The actual peak seems to have been solar cycle 22, from 1986-96, not 1980, as Lockwood claims.)
When I pressed Lockwood on his implicit equilibrium assumption he justified it by citing evidence that ocean temperature response to solar activity peters out (as measured by decorrelation) within a few years:
Almost all estimates have been in the 1-10 year range.
But decorrelation between surface temperatures and solar activity is very different from equilibrium. All decorrelation is measuring is the rapid temperature response of the upper ocean layer when solar activity rises or falls. That rapid response indicates that the sun is indeed a powerful driver of global temperature, but it says next to nothing about how long it takes for heat to carry into and out of deeper ocean layers.
This was brought out by AGW believers like Gavin Schmidt who are concerned about the energy balance implications of equilibration-speed. In a simple energy balance model, rapid equilibration implies (other things equal) that climate sensitivity must be low. Since belief depends on high climate sensitivity, the rapid equilibration claim cited by Lockwood had to be shot down, which was managed quite successfully (ibid).
In sum, Lockwood’s rapid equilibrium assumption is dead and buried, leaving him no grounds for dismissing a solar explanation for post 70’s warming. I’ll keep an eye out for video of Lockwood’s presentation, but I doubt he mentioned the rapid equilibrium assumption upon which his argument depends.
More punk students
Remember these graduate student “climate scientists,” going all Clockwork Orange for the planet or something:
Sounds like they made an appearance at Downing College too:
The audience had been good enough to heed Howard’s opening advice that “if anybody mentions Climategate, they’ll be evicted”. Nobody ambushed the CRU crew all day – it was all very polite. I noted that the skeptics made a point of listening politely to the warmists, and applauding them all. A group of students and a few others, simply giggled and mocked the skeptics, however from start to finish. One of their tutors (I presume) was in hysterics all day.
Give ’em an A. They learned their “observational evidence is not very useful” lesson well.
Were these people drafted from the Drama Department to play pretend scientists?
“The hottest day of summer is generally the latter part of July/first part of August–considerably later that the “longest day”. ”
The sea surfaces reach their highest temperature in late September when the sun is halfway towards the weakest point in December.
Likewise the coldest tempeature is in late March.
Then the deeper one goes into the oceans the longer the lag times right up to the length of the thermohaline circulation which is estimated at 1000 to 1500 years.
So when I go outside in the rain, I cannot be certain that the rain is the real cause of my getting wet, unless I have modelled it? I may have accidentally walked into a lake, but just not be aware of it? I cannot take observational empirical evidence as a guide?
So, my being wet and outside at the same time as it is raining may not be a causal effect?
After all, correlation is not the same as causation.
I think I am getting the hang of this AGW think.
Laurie, “One might ask (I certainly do) what was going on in 1890, 1934, 1957, 1963 and 1978 that caused these weather events and why do we think CO2 and CAGW is the cause of more recent events? The answer: Because there is much more CO2 now and therefore, there can be no other reason. Everyone know this but you! What? Huh?”
Hang on… But I thought that correlation did not equal causation. Dammit! Just when I thought I had gotten a hang of this AGW think too!
So if I go outside when it is raining, then it might be the rain that is getting me wet? I don’t need a computer model to tell me?
“Observational evidence is not very useful”.
Correct because it keeps being changed, cherry picked and hidden. What else could he have meant?
I made an A4 sign of that quote, and I’m going to stick it the rear window of the van. 🙂
Alec, couldn’t agree more. Seems that is the same thing many have come back with after doing any concentrated analysis of what the sun has been up to the last few decades. That is how I found WUWT and why I stuck, the solar aspect.
It does seems the drop in UV level and the simple collapse of the vertical height of the atmosphere have been pointing telltales that the sun did, in fact, have a big hand in the warming, no denying those.
John Mitchell told us: “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful,” adding, “Our approach is not entirely empirical.”
The only one I know who could have answered John Mitchel would be Ben Kingsley!
Jo Nova’s got a good write up about the (rap squad, http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/climate-science-rappers/ , they say, by use of models, the Murry river has not been this dry in 1500 years and there 97.7% sure of that?
Looks like there big believers in models not the real world.
There are misconceptions on both sides of the argument. Neither side (CO2 or solar including Svensmark) have produced conclusive proof.
There is an alternative view:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CD.htm
with more details to follow.
What have these ‘so called’ scientists got against the sun and it’s obvious influence on our climate? When did statistical modelling become more important than empirical evidence?
Reminds me of Wilkie Collins the Moonstone:
‘Betteredge lifted my glass, and put it persuasively into my hand.
“Facts?” he repeated. “Take a drop more grog, Mr. Franklin, and you’ll get over the weakness of believing in facts!’
John Mitchell’s statement is a reminder of the child-like other-worldliness of some scientists, who become irritated when reality intrudes upon their imagined ideal world, their world of models and modelling that is as neat and tidy and cleverly detailed as a carefully-made scale model electric train set, complete with painted dioramas and sound effects, where they can run trains from a big and comfortable chair behind their control console all day and night, without ever having to venture outside that world until their Mum calls them for meals.
But it is often inconvenient?
Laurie says:
May 16, 2011 at 10:45 pm
________
Very good post Laurie.
John Mitchell told us: “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful,” adding, “Our approach is not entirely empirical.”
We don’t know how element A affects element B, element C overpowers element A, etc., deja vu? Lockwood ought to get his act together. Sun, 99.9% of mass of Solar System, Earth, a few hundreths of the mass of same, a tenth of one percent change in TSI & around 6-10% change in Extreme UV? When asked a couple of years ago about the quiet Sun, he claimed that if there was going to be a cooling effect we would have seen it by now! Does he, like so many, not listen to his past quotes? Room & elephant spring to mind.
John Mitchell: “Observational evidence is not very useful.”
Galileo Galilei: “It still moves.”
One small addition: they need to remove people’s ability to doubt.
So they associate “sceptic” with “holocaust denier.”
(Of course, being able to question independently, to think for ourselves, was the basis of the Western Enlightenment, so then, “remove questioning” might create some unintended consequences…)
Climate Science – Observational evidence is not very useful.
Con Artist – Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?
Slick Attorney – My client could not have been seen at the crime scene as he was wearing his cloak of invisibility at the time
Super Slick Attorney – The six eye witnesses who saw my client were all exposed to the exact same poisinous chemicals in the area, and so it is to be expected that they a mass hallucination which was identical to all of them, but that doesn’t mean it was real.
Witness – It was an accident. I was sitting at the end of the bar, pealing an apple with my knife, when all of a sudden this guy comes running around the end of the bar and ran right onto the end of my knife.
Egregiously slick Attorney – see? A perfectly natural explanation for the observed knife wound on the victim.
Exasperated Prosecutor – TWENTY SIX TIMES?
Politician – its a revenue neutral tax. Neutral being a relative term. We can’t help but emphasize NEUTRAL really loud because neatral is such a nice word compared to tax. Oh, and we need to charge a small fee on the revenue neutral tax to pay for the collecting of it and the redistrubution of it, and sometimes when we’re short staff we just stick it into general revenue instead. But it is a neutral tax because that’s its name, never mind how much money goes where.
Observational evidence is not very usefull for people who want to make up their own reality and convince the rest of us to live in it.
I used to give the “climate scientists”a small amount of leeway on their hypothesis about global warming. I foolishly thought they were working from contaminated data sources, such as poorly sited stevenson screens, misunderstood processes, etc.
Now, however, it’s quite clear that some of the researchers are using EA game’s Sim Earth as their working model………
The more I think about this statement, the more angry I get.
How can ANY SCIENTIST even think that this is a rational statement ??????????
John Mitchell told us: “People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful,” adding, “Our approach is not entirely empirical.”
Good god… and this man is paid out of the public purse and is a part of the organisation that is set up to protect from our country from the planets weather systems, is he going to ignore a severe storm/blizzard looming down on the UK
and then tell us “Observational evidence is not very useful,….. go, go now,
So, observation is not as ‘good’ as model output.
Yeah? Only because observation shows that the UK Met Office models are rubbish.
When the Met Office get back to real science instead of spending my tax pounds on a bigger computer to get a better model is the day I believe one of their weather forecasts.
richcar 1225 says:
May 16, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Proof of morphing is found in the oddest ways. Look at the name change of the town you are living in.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breckenridge,_Colorado
So the name of Breckinridge morphed into Breckenridge, due to political pressure and the change of thinking from one of currying favor to patriotism. Much as CAGW morphed into Climate Change and Climate Change has morphed into sustainability.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
“People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful.”
I have a perfect example of unreasoning faith in the power of models, in this case, satnav.
We were going on holiday, flying out from Bristol Airport. Our driver had a new satnav. He fed in the required information. Now, this man had been to Bristol Airport before. However, he slavishly followed the satnav, even though we pointed out signs for the airport going another way. We ended up in a cul de sac in Chew Magna, Somerset, nearly 7 miles from the airport, with the voice insisting ‘You have reached your destination, you have reached your destination.’
We very nearly missed our flight, and the poor chap has never lived it down.
Some people have driven onto railway lines and into rivers or lakes following satnavs, such is the devotion to the magical power of the computer.
Is this some sort of mental block? It would explain a lot.