Today is a day I got not one thing done for myself due to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature release sucking all the oxygen out of the climate debate with their pre-peer review release shenanigans. Tonight was no different, as I spent it watching Dr. Ben Santer give a presentation at Chico State University. I had a front row seat, as you can see below:
First I’d like to say that no, he didn’t try to make good on the famous Climategate email line about Pat Michaels. Both he and the host, Jim Pushnik were quite gracious, with both of them talking to me personally. I was prepared to stand up and argue the use of the word “denier” should Dr. Santer have used it, fortunately he did not. I was surprised that Dr. Santer recognized me when I asked a question (I talked with him afterwards), unfortunately, I didn’t phrase the question well enough, and I should have brought a printout of the graph I was thinking of with me. More here.
Here’s the program, video follows.
From CSUC
Dr. Ben Santer Speaks on Climate Change, Oct. 20
Please join us October 20th for an important climate event!
Dr. Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will speak on “The causes of recent climate change: Separating fact from fiction”
Date: Thursday, October 20th
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Place: Colusa Hall Conference Center, Room 100
Cost: Free and open to the public, seating may be limited.
Climate scientist Ben Santer is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), shared in the Nobel Prize awarded to the IPCC and has received a Distinguished Fellowship from the American Geophysical Union, and MacArthur Genius Fellowship for his research on human‐induced climate change (read full story).
Dr. Benjamin Santer is currently a atmospheric scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). His research focuses on such topics as climate model evaluation, the use of statistical methods in climate science, and identification of natural and anthropogenic “fingerprints” in observed climate records. Dr. Santer’s early research on the climatic effects of combined changes in greenhouse gases (GHGs) and sulfate aerosols contributed to the historic “discernible human influence” conclusion of the 1995 Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Santer, is considered an expert in the climate change research community, has worked in the Laboratory’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Inter-comparison (PCMDI) for nearly 20 years, and is a frequent contributor to congressional hearings on the science of climate change. He credits his success to the exceptional scientists he collaborates with at LLNL.
Presented by The Institute for Sustainable Development, the Rawlins Endowed Professorship for Environmental Literacy, and the Gateway Science Museum.
==============================================================
Part 2 – only 3 minutes of Q&A and then my battery died, there was about 5 minutes of questions after that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“He alone reversed the science of the time, concluding a discernible human fingerprint on climate, when the agreed expert opinion was the opposite. Presto! No evidence required.”
The fingerprint is still not discernible. And when he said it, human CO2 emission of that time is not now considered measurable or meaningful. So the experts have been proven correct and the idiot has later proven himself wrong.
re: DirkH says: October 21, 2011 at 3:52 pm
and: _Jim says: October 21, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Heck if I know – perhaps I fell for an urban legend. I do know that what they are saying sure seems to fit what I’ve been hearing, but I’ve zero expertise when it comes to sound mixing, etc. so maybe there are other reasons. I do have a bit of tinnitus even tho only middle aged – but test a slight bit above average for my age on hearing tests, so I really do think that it has gotten much more difficult to hear the actors speaking in many TV shows – I assume that has something to do with how they’ve laid in the sound tracks or recorded the actors or both.
If I recall correctly, many years ago (here in the USA) there was a fairly cheap device that would automatically mute all commercials – and it worked based on the fact that almost inevitably the commercials were significantly louder than the TV programs. Once those had been around for awhile or because of complaints or something, the commercial volume was reduced and the devices no longer worked – I assume that put whoever was making them out of business or they moved into something else. Now, years later, commercial volume has crept back up again to the point of being really irritating. Anyhow, the initial post just made me immediately think of issues that have been irking me with some TV productions – and with music.
All interesting, but a bit beside the point: Anthony and his helpers do a fabulous job in bringing us this site and information – as others have said, my day wouldn’t be the same without it. I very much appreciate Anthony and everyone else who helps make the site work – and always remember that they are doing so not because it’s their paid job, but the best of motives – to help folks better understand an issue that has such a massive impact on us all ($$$, time, etc) and provide interesting scientific information. I was just hoping to perhaps have a small positive effect and sooth a little of the upset or ease any more that might occur by noting some of the legitimate issues that might be on the other side of the coin in case others posted similar comments about volume.
re: otter17 says: October 21, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Otter, ask yourself: Who do these departments report to? Does that person, e.g., their boss and his administration, have an agenda?
(hint: HECK YES h/t Obama, Chu, Van Jones, and on and on and on…)
re: re: otter17 says: October 21, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Otter asks if the AAAS has an agenda. Frankly, all one has to do is read some of the other ‘policy statements’ they’ve released and, if one is at least somewhat aware of both sides of the involved issues, it’s pretty darned clear that at least the board of the AAAS DOES have an agenda. That or they have utterly failed due diligence in a most appalling way, and rashly posted policy statements or informational statements based on a failure to consider some of the most basic and crucial issues involved in those particular statements. So take your choice – agenda, or incompetent ignorance by the leaders of this association? A couple of examples:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/media/0518board_statement_cuccinelli.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2011/media/0629board_statement.pdf
Rational Debate says:
October 21, 2011 at 11:44 pm
“Otter, ask yourself: Who do these departments report to? Does that person, e.g., their boss and his administration, have an agenda?”
_____________
The DoD commissioned climate reports during the last administration as well. For the Obama administration, is there any evidence such as a whistle blower from inside the DoD indicating undue political pressure was used to force those DoD report sections to be created or edited?
What about the former administration’s Climate Action Report in response to the UNFCCC back in 2002? The first chapter lays out a balanced yet clear statement from the National Research Council that rise in mean global temperatures is likely due to human emissions. Was their a political agenda going on here too?
http://www.gcrio.org/CAR2002/
Rational Debate says:
October 21, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Otter asks if the AAAS has an agenda. Frankly, all one has to do is read some of the other ‘policy statements’ they’ve released and, if one is at least somewhat aware of both sides of the involved issues, it’s pretty darned clear that at least the board of the AAAS DOES have an agenda.
____________________________
Those statements from the AAAS conclude with the agenda-less idea that things such as death threats, harassment, frivolous lawsuits, and politics shouldn’t have a bearing on science. The AAAS has a large membership of scientists, likely with a variety of views. Is there any evidence that large portions of the membership are up in arms against the board’s agenda or incompetence? Does the entire membership have some sort of bias?
I love this competition between climate models, not how well they represent reality.
If climate models are falsifiable then they are false because they do not get everything right. He put two measures (and their varibility). Preciptation- god no it totally kills everything. You have to get everything right for a chaotic system.
I wish to thank Dr Santer for debunking the hypothesis that a high climate sensitivity is required to explain the ice ages and interglacials.
Now we have it on his authority that it’s the Milankovic etc cycles which control these events rather than CO2, and therefore climate sensitivity doesn’t have to be high.
Peter says:
October 22, 2011 at 5:03 am
“Now we have it on his authority that it’s the Milankovic etc cycles which control these events rather than CO2, and therefore climate sensitivity doesn’t have to be high.”
_____________
When did he say that? He answered a question at time 1:14:15 where he had a slide that said “Myth #1: Atmospheric CO2 levels lag temperature levels, so CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas”. He goes on to explain how the Milankovic cycles tip off changes in the patterns where sunlight hits the Earth, which tips off changes in the carbon cycle, which amplifies the warming. His explanation is in line with statements made in numerous peer-reviewed literature, (Caillon, et al 2003 comes to mind, published in Science).
Mark Smith says:
October 22, 2011 at 4:01 am
“I love this competition between climate models, not how well they represent reality.”
_________________
Dr. Santer mentioned several times throughout the presentation that his group at Livermore rigorously tests models against past data (paleo data included) and short term forecasts. He even mentions that some of the early models did a good job with their long term future projections. His entire job is to evaluate models against reality. He made mention that there is relative and absolute comparisons for models. He mentioned that the short term weather models used for forecasting are also averaged over many models such that the best results are found. Weathermen base their 5-day forecasts and other predictions off of models.
You don’t necessarily have to represent every little detail in the system, but evaluate the major drivers and be capable of determining the trends. Dr. Santer explained this stuff throughout, but he focused a concise explanation starting at around 28 minutes into the video.
Otter:
Every organization has an agenda or they would not exist. The ones that make claims about climate are the ones that have a vested interest in the outcome of the climate debate and they will make claims based on their agenda. They are all biased towards what is best for their “Agenda”.
Weather men do not do a very good job of forecasting 5 days out, but sometimes the weather does what they claim and the results are equal to chance!
@ur momisugly Mike Davis
Organizations such as the AAAS and DoD have a purpose to observe the science and make statements or defense plans accordingly. The NAS purpose is to provide an unbiased evaluation of the science for purposes of informing the public and the US government. Other National Academies throughout the world do much the same. Read a bit about the National Academy’s long history and reputation. Do you have a specific piece of evidence that the NAS, or these other organizations, are somehow compromised or biased?
http://www.nationalacademies.org/about/whoweare.html
If weathermen were only able to do just as well as chance, why would anyone pay them to do 5-day forecasts? Do you have evidence to show that the average 5-day forecast is only as good as a random guess? I suggest looking into how weather models are used and their scientific backing. The book “Weather of the Future” by Dr. Heidi Cullen explains the history of weather models and their capabilities today in Chapter 3, quite an interesting book thus far, highly recommended. Also, this Wikipedia article has a section on models.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_forecasting
Well said Otter17. You have effectively responded to correspondents. However, I suspect that many will reject your calm and rational approach. Nevertheless, please continue to communicate in this appropriate fashion.
I am 52 minutes in and so far this is pretty typical of the arguments made at public presentations, and with the same flaws and addressing of strawman arguments. Since the main scientific issue in dispute is whether the net feedback to CO2 forcing is positive or negative. The CO2 signature argument is irrelevant, that signature should be expected even if CO2 is only responsible for 30% of the recent warming as expected from the direct effects, and would probably even be present with net negative feedback. And speak of fingerprints or signatures, for purposes of attribution, climate models should also get other fingerprints right. Camp and Tung, and separately Lean, et al, found that the models had problems representing the signature of the solar cycle.
Santer mentions “four main feedbacks”: water vapor, clouds, snow and sea ice. Hmmm, precipitation-latent heat flux, convection, polar heat transport, etc. Just about all the rest of the climate system is negative feedbacks, including arguably the clouds he mentions. Temperature itself is negative feedback to the forcing, increasing the radiation into space.
He goes on to discuss the snow diagnostic work of Hall from 2006. Andreas Roesch published the surface albedo feedback diagnostics in time for the Fouth Assessment Report. All of the models had problems with the earlier spring snow melts and snow cover extent. This correlated bias averaged more than 3 W/m^2 squared. Santer can wax all he wants about how wonderful the models are, that still doesn’t mean they have demonstrated skill at the 0.1W/m^2 level probably necessary for meaningful attribution of this small 0.8W/m^2 energy imbalance.
Santer talks about model uncertainties, over the AR4 chart of model scenerio projections. But that isn’t uncertainty in the sense that most scientifically literate people would expect. As someone involved in model diagnostics, how can Santer not mention the key fact that those projections don’t include any adjustment for the uncertainties added by the correlated model diagnostic issues that are larger than the phenomenon of interest. Like other presenters I have heard, Santer makes much of model ensembles and averages, although at least he claims it is a mystery why the averages seem to do better. Perhaps he isn’t willing to go out on a limb, because he knows the even if the model errors are random instead of systematically correlated, there aren’t supporting mathematical arguments for assuming they cancel in a nonlinear rather than linear system.
Santer also makes the correlation argument against solar, since solar hasn’t increased in the last 30 years, well CO2 didn’t decrease during the mid-century cooling either, and with its logarthmic effect. CO2 can do no better and explaining the steep rise in temperature.
Santer also doesn’t discuss the significant disagreement among the models in sensitivity which has been attributed to how they handle aerosol uncertainty. By being careful to group human and natural causes separately, just like the IPCC did, he avoids the obvious possibility that aerosol uncertainty that could allow models ranging from 2 to 6 degrees C in sensitivity to “match” the 20th century climate, that same aerosol uncertaintly might well allow solar and the PDO to match the 20th century climate and recent warming. The aerosols might be able to match the 20th century climate and warming all on their own, if someone gave it a real try.
At 52 minutes, Santer states that he is about to address the credibility of climate science. I won’t view that until later, but I suspect, he won’t be mentioning how model based drought fearmongering gets past peer review, without at least discussing the model diagnostic issues with precipitation, starting with Wentz’s publication in the journal Science, noting that none of the models represent more than one-third to one-half the increase in precipitation seen in the observations associated with the recent warming.
@ur momisugly Hugh Pepper
Thanks much. I think most folks respond to calm and rational. I just don’t want to see comments that paint folks such as myself as an agenda-driven, biased weirdo, but as a guy that values good sources. I do love good sources, haha.
I hope that Joe Bastardi and others in these comments reconsider the position that many folks accepting the evidence for AGW are agenda driven. I’m just a guy who likes science and engineering. Oh, and watch the video with Dr. Santer. Again, it is a really well put together set of slides and he has some decent public speaking chops.
Martin Lewitt says:
October 22, 2011 at 11:36 am
“The CO2 signature argument is irrelevant, that signature should be expected even if CO2 is only responsible for 30% of the recent warming as expected from the direct effects, and would probably even be present with net negative feedback.”
“Santer also makes the correlation argument against solar, since solar hasn’t increased in the last 30 years, well CO2 didn’t decrease during the mid-century cooling either, and with its logarthmic effect. CO2 can do no better and explaining the steep rise in temperature.”
____________________________
Can either of these two statements be traced back to the peer reviewed literature or IPCC?
And this all begs the question, if CO2 isn’t a driver of this recent warming, what is?
Otter17:
No, he doesn’t say anything about CO2 amplifying the warming – in fact, he seems very careful to avoid saying that.
Listen again very carefully.
@Otter17
One of the big problems in this whole debate is the Team’s asymmetric response to real-world information. If some informational data, e.g. relatively cooling stratosphere temperatures, are supportive of the AGW/CAGW worldview, then the numbers are accepted without question. On the other hand, if the data from the satellites and balloons show no relative warming of the tropical troposhere (in violation of the AGW hypothesis), then we get half a dozen pal-reviewed papers along the lines of “it doesn’t matter” or “here’s a fancy indirect approach that shows it is warming really”. This is exactly what happened with the Allen 2008 paper which essentially said “forget the observations, the indirect wind-temperature gradient relationship suggests theoretical warming therefore that is what we should use”.
I am quite confident in asserting that had both the stratosphere and tropical troposphere temperatures showed warming at the same rate, the climate litchurchur would have no shortage of papers containing the smart side-steps necessary to ensure that the stratosphere warming isn’t real, but that the tropical troposphere is “consistent with the models” – no further investigation required. Incidentally, what they mean by “consistent with” is a bunch of scattergun outputs showing such a wide spread of warmings that it would be virtually impossible for the real-world temperatures to fall outside the two standard deviation range of these fantasies.
While we’re on the subject of Santer, it has to be recalled that in 2008 he tried to get away with dismissing the inconvenient tropical troposphere data by publishing a paper using old data. He was called on that cynical trick very nicely by McIntyre, McKitrick and Herman using up to date data.
Peter says:
October 22, 2011 at 2:04 pm
“No, he doesn’t say anything about CO2 amplifying the warming – in fact, he seems very careful to avoid saying that.
Listen again very carefully.”
Hmmm, then why did he mention that CO2 is the “leading dancer” during the current ramp up in warming? I suppose I’ll have to listen again, but that is the explanation I have heard from Dr. Richard Alley and in papers such as (Caillon, et al, 2003). I wouldn’t think Dr. Santer would disagree with such a well-established theory in the peer reviewed science.
igsy says:
October 22, 2011 at 2:16 pm
>>”One of the big problems in this whole debate is the Team’s asymmetric response to real-world information.”
__________________
The whole tropospheric hotspot thing is as I understand it a thorny issue at the moment due to various measurement errors and getting different measuring devices to line up (satellites and weather balloons and whatnot). I’m not too sure on that one, so don’t take my word for it. Nevertheless, I have seen a Real Climate post that pretty convincingly showed that the tropospheric hotspot that is supposed to develop during a period of warming is caused by what was called the lapse rate (heat rising up into the atmosphere). Thus, it doesn’t matter if the world warmed by increased solar input or increased greenhouse blanket, that hotspot would be expected to show up in any warming scenario. The problem is a practical one in measuring that hotspot, but not a terrible problem since it isn’t needed for fingerprinting necessarily. The stratospheric cooling fingerprint has been seen, and that is the only fingerprint needed to demonstrate the greenhouse effect.
>> “I am quite confident in asserting that had both the stratosphere and tropical troposphere temperatures showed warming at the same rate, the climate litchurchur would have no shortage of papers containing the smart side-steps necessary to ensure that the stratosphere warming isn’t real, but that the tropical troposphere is “consistent with the models” – no further investigation required.”
__________________
Well, that doesn’t seem very fair. You are essentially accusing scientists of biased practices or malfeasance even under a hypothetical situation. It seems that no matter what situation they are presented with, if the conclusion comes out as greenhouse warming, they are biased. Try not to project your own potential bias against the greenhouse effect against these scientists. Not saying you are biased, just be careful since we all get carried away sometimes.
I say it makes more sense that the troposphere hotspot is a measurement quirk that they are trying to work out. It makes more sense that Dr. Santer (whose job it is to rigorously test these models) wouldn’t screw up something like this fingerprint issue.
Why don’t you send your question and graph directly to Dr. Santer?
So, it’s now definitely confirmed that we are no longer in the LIA.
What a relief! Thanks to all the weather and climate gods.
To Otter17;
Is your repeating of the official word not driven by your own acceptance of an agenda?
Why is it that no one can actually give a definition of greenhouse warming that uses quantifiable properties to predict the effect?
I note noone pulled up Santer on his initial statement that models are falsifiable so where is your falsification standards which you can’t fix by fiddling a few parameters (internal statements- not some post processing assessment ) that which if your model fails that then its invalid. Also 90% confidence is worth about vague link- no other science would accept such a weak link.
@ur momisugly BigWaveDave
October 23, 2011 at 3:19 am
I’m not sure where I am repeating any one given point. Looking back at my previous comments, I provided a variety of sources, and helped clarify a few things from the Dr. Santer presentation. Also, I was clarified in my hearing comprehension for a portion of the lecture by Peter. Why would I necessarily have an agenda if I understand several different sources and see that they are consistently in line with peer-reviewed science (from what I can tell)? What do you think my agenda is and why? I appreciate the honesty, but when accusing someone of having an agenda it is nice to have a reason why or some evidence to show.
As far as the definition and quantification of the greenhouse effect, I believe that particular portion of the science has been fairly well established since the 1800’s with the work of Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius. Take a read from this Wikipedia page for more background.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Also, as I understand it, there is a way to quantify the greenhouse effect via a phenomenon known as “radiative forcing” with units of W/m^2. It represents the energy rate for a given unit of area. Check out Figure 1 and Figure 2 from this paper. Note that the greenhouse gas radiative forcing is around 3 W/m^2 with some fairly small error bars, so the quantity is known pretty precisely. Figure 2 comes from the IPCC 2007 report and contains a narrow greenhouse gas forcing probability distribution curve, also showing that the radiative forcing for the greenhouse effect is pretty well known.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf