Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
Over at the Wall Street Journal a group of pedigreed individuals headed by Dr. Kevin Trenberth argue:
Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.
Wrong answer!!
If you need surgery you DON’T want “a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.” What you want is “a highly experienced expert in the field who has CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HIS OR HER OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL!”
And if before I go to a dentist, I would like evidence that the dentist does not pull the wrong teeth (even on occasion).
Unfortunately, there is no convincing evidence that climate models can successfully predict future climate — and I mean “climate” not just “temperature.” [The latter is just one aspect of the climate and for many impacts it may not even be the most relevant.]
Climate models, which are the source of the apocalyptic vision of global warming, have not been validated using data that were not used in their development. Even the US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and the IPCC acknowledge as much. Specifically, the IPCC does not say that “all” features of current climate or past climate changes can be reproduced, as a reliable model of climate change ought to be able to do endogenously. In fact, it notes:
“… 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, p. 601).
And the CCSP has this to say in its 2008 publication, Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research:
“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).
So before one pulls society’s economic teeth, validate the models or else you could end up pulling society’s economic teeth in error.
In the medical profession this would be known as “evidence-based medicine.” Exactly the same principle should apply to climate change remedies. We should insist on nothing less.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I can’t believe that Trenbeth even trotted out, “Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. ”
From the WUWT archive: The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.”
GMU on climate scientists: we are the 97%
Posted on November 21, 2011 by Anthony Watts
Indur,
Good post. As long as climate models fail in the respect of being utterly worthless in skillfully predicting future climate data, and do no better than simple persistence with historical data there is no rationale for taking concrete action.
Forecasts of catastrophe based on incomplete and inaccurate atmospheric models reduce to groundless assertion.
For example, is there a single climate model that in 1998 predicted, forecast, or even came close to modeling the current decade of non-warming? Shouldn’t we be see more heating by now? More sea-level rise? Something?
Science that fails to predict is failed science.
Good blog post here: http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/02/wsj-publishes-collective-letter.html
“most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert.”
===================================================
…..James Hansen
is looking forward to more rigorous standards for climate scientists, in particular with a code of ethics and sanctions against self serving fraudsters.
What you want is “a highly experienced expert in the field who has CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT HIS OR HER OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL!”
Excellent.
Keith Minto says:
January 31, 2012 at 10:59 pm
>Werner Brozek says:
>January 31, 2012 at 10:21 pm
>>The trend for the last decade using the average of the four main data sets is negative as >>shown below. Is this not an abatement of the warming?
>More a warming plateau, wait 10 more years.
I think the plateau will last another 15-20 years. There is a noticeable periodic component in the three major surface temperature trend indices, especially HadCRUT3. About 40% of the warming from the early-mid 1970’s to the middle of the past decade appears to be from a periodic cycle having a period around 60-65 years. This percentage is even higher, maybe 45-50%, if the cycle is not sinusoidal but somewhere between sine and triangle (which I suspect is the case).
Another roughly 8-10 percent of the warming appears to me caused by increase of greenhouse gases other than CO2, which largely stopped increasing in the mid 1990’s.
Watch for global temperature to shoot up around 3/4 of a degree C in a 30-40 year period starting around 2030-2035. And for that 3-4 decades to have a majority of the warming this whole century.
– Don Klipstein
Sorry, it is YOUR job to prove that what you are doing is safe. Your reversal of the usual rules of law and logic makes a mockery of your mockery.
Consider that the last time this planet had CO2 at these levels the temperature was stable at +4 degrees of warming. It was the Pliocene, more than 3 MILLION years ago. It took that long for the natural processes of the planet to sequester the carbon that got us down to the pre-industrial level of 150 years go, and we put all of it back in 150 years…. 20 thousand times faster. The planet is still warming and will continue to warm until it gets back to +4 degrees… but the effect of having it happen 20000 times faster is not easily understood from paleoclimatology. Nothing like it we can closely identify. It is still going on, this experiment of yours with the only planet we have. Still pumping the CO2 into the air… so we COULD get to +6 degrees, which means no ice at either pole and a real possibility of shutting off the deep ocean turnover, turning the ocean anoxic and arranging something very like the Permian die-off.
The point of course, is that YOU cannot prove that that won’t happen. YOU can’t prove that the temperature won’t rise the way it did last time, there is no evidence whatsoever that you can point to in support of that hypothesis.
YOU can’t prove that you won’t kill every living thing on the planet by continuing business as usual, fracking the planet and dumping the waste in the atmosphere we all use for breathing.
The benefits of BAU go to the 1%, not to the poor, NEVER to the poor. So it is very clear why the WSJ has an editorial policy that favors denialism. It is clear why the wealthiest people back organizations like CEI. It is clear why they buy ever larger shares of media ownership. This is tobacco all over again… except the stakes are a lot higher.
Which is really the point here. Rich folks want YOU to demand proof, which isn’t what science EVER provides, that THEIR business as usual is damaging the climate… but it is THEIR obligation to provide proof that BAU is not damaging, because THEY are the ones who are causing the change and benefiting from it. They simply are better at reframing arguments and making propaganda than scientists are. So they have you all braying about the science… when the real problem is THEIR lack of proof.
You are being lied to comprehensively, but not by scientists.
You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that what you are being led to support won’t kill every living thing on the planet.
The lowest solar output in a century, multiple la nina events and the best argument you can manage is brief “plateau” ?
A trend over 150 years and you try to pick another trend out of a space of time a tenth that duration? What good is that really? At 15 years any trend is unlikely to even be discernible from the noise.
This is, without a doubt, the most worthless bag of hammers I have ever had the misfortune to run across. I won’t be back. You can rubbish whatever you like of YOURS, but get your stinking paws off OUR planet.
Mister_C says: February 1, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Which planet exactly are you referring to, it is obviously not Earth….
http://i55.tinypic.com/11awzg8.jpg
“It took that long for the natural processes of the planet to sequester the carbon that got us down to the pre-industrial level of 150 years go,”
You act like that is a goal in and of itself. Like that is some natural state of things. Why do you think that? What is special about the pre-industrial level of 150 years ago?
” climate change is real and human caused ”
So now we are actually the cause of climate change ?
What a deceitful statement…
Did those scientists actually read what they signed ?
Mr_C
“Sorry, it is YOUR job to prove that what you are doing is safe. Your reversal of the usual rules of law and logic makes a mockery of your mockery “
I think reversing the null hypothesis has been dealt with.
The onus is on the asserter to prove your assertion
I cannot prove God doesn’t exist, does that prove he does?
The failure of the 97% of scientists in the mythical consensus to reverse the null hypothesis makes a mockery of the consensus.
You have 97%, what’s stopping you?
Q. What do surgeons and civil engineers have in common?
A. They both bury their mistakes.
Q. What do climate scientists have in common with these two groups.
A. Nothing. Climate scientists don’t make mistakes
tolo4zero says:
February 2, 2012 at 8:33 am
” climate change is real and human caused ”
So now we are actually the cause of climate change ?
Were he/she/it to ever return one might ask how the climate changed before humans walked the earth. Bawhahahaha!!!
Mister_C says:
February 1, 2012 at 10:59 pm
===============
Are YOU an ordained preacher in the Church of Global Warming preaching Fire and Brimstone?
If I offer tithe of 10% of my income will you save me from the warmth provided by nature and send me to the holy land of the cold? Sorry to inform YOU but my income is negative the past couple of years. Please send rebate.
The problem with Trenberth and, by extension, his “ilk”, is that they are not climate scientists themselves. From their group-written conclusion:
They are clearly economists – and / or medical doctors.
And by the way…
So, in their rebuttal, Trenberth et. al. did not refute one claim of the original WSJ editorial. They merely use appeal to authority to claim that the original editiorial is written by people without the proper expertise, or by people with extreme views. Then Trenberth et. al. point out that etremists don’t believe HIV causes AIDS. However, it is just as easy to cite examples where scientists with opinions contrdicting the established ideas turned out to be right, if we’re citing anecdotal evidence.
“individuals headed by Dr. Kevin Trenberth argue:
Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations”
Not a good analogy, an own goal there Kev!
12. 180,000 Patients Die Annually from Treatment in Hospitals
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/12-180000-patients-die-annually-fron-treatment-in-hospitals/
@Bill Parsons says on February 2, 2012 at 9:52 am
They are not economists, and while I favor my doctor, I doubt I will be recommending anyone to them for any medical issues.
You don’t need to be a pilot to know that the airplane is upside down.
I thought some of you might appreciate reading a comment I received on the Scoundrels and Rogues board. I had opined that Climate Science did not seem to be falsifiable, and was therefore not a real science. In return, I got this:
RW
“…Climate science, like all science, is of course falsifiable. And like all science, aspects of it are exceedingly complex and not easy to explain to a layman. And no-one has ever managed to explain anything to a layman who isn’t listening.
Your insincerity is obvious but just so that you can’t say someone didn’t try, here’s a very very very simple explanation of what we know.
1. Global surface temperatures are rising
2. Greenhouse gas concentrations are rising
3. The greenhouse gases come from fossil fuels
4. The amount of energy leaving the Earth is measured to be decreasing
5. The amount of energy radiated downwards by the atmosphere is measured to be increasing
Therefore, the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations is causing the surface warming….”
A knock-down argument, I think you’ll agree! And a complete refutation of all sceptical positions (not). Why do we need the IPCC when we have this simple and unanswerable proof? It is (or rather, it was) getting warmer and greenhouse gases come from fossil fuels! What more do we need to know?
That was pretty stupid thing to say.
Look at Dermatologists… they have been screaming at us to avoid the sun for the past 30 years to prevent skin cancer. As it turns out, they know absolutely nothing about vitamin D that we get from the sun. As it turns out, it does so much for you – http://www.biochemj.org/bj/441/0061/bj4410061.htm. Oops. This supposedly costs us 4 trillion dollars in healthcare/medical expense per decade. Oops. Gov’t sponsored “experts” got together to determine how much vitamin D we need and they relied on badly flawed studies so we ended up with very low recommended amount (used to be 200 IU at first then 400 IU and now 600 IU which is still far too low. Compare that to the amount of vitamin D we get from the sun… for Caucasians, 20,000 IU after 30 minutes (assuming the air is clean since air pollution can block UVB to a degree). Oops. Guess who brought up the attention of widespread vitamin D deficiency? A psychiatrist at state hospital (mental hospital?) for prisoners where he happened to notice that his floor where he took care of his patients who were taking 2000 IU of vitamin D3 a day did not catch flu while other floors, they got flu back in 2002 or 2003. I don’t recall what exactly got him to look into vitamin D but eventually he pieced everything together from reading many papers off pubmed. Turns out he was right. Vitamin D is basically your flu (cold and others) vaccine! Then it dawned on me… is that why we have so many vaccines caused by widespread vitamin D deficiency? Cancer too.. Asthma… even possibly autism. They are doing some studies but it may take a while to see if it actually prevent autism or not but the vitamin D treatment is very promisinghttp://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/.
Don’t get me started with saturated fat and cholesterol consumption causing heart disease. The “experts” have no clue. Thankfully, there are many studies on the PubMed that pretty much proved them wrong but the gov’t isn’t doing much. Typical.
Then there’s archaeologists… Apparently, they have no idea just how hard granite stone is and what we use to produce sculptures with such precise these days. Check out Chris Dunn’s work. Baffling. Do they really think that we were that primitive with primitive tools to produce that kind of precise like Ramses statues in Egypt and also Pyramids? Look at those massive granite objects weighing 50-200 tons! I wondered how old they could really be then I came across this – http://www.robertschoch.com/sphinxcontent.html. Then this 10,000-12,000 years old civilization in Turkey – http://www.robertschoch.com/sphinxcontent.html
It made me wonder about human evolution because like AGW, leftists defend Darwin’s evolution like Gollum wants his precious ring back . For the fun of it, I searched on the internet to see what other theories are and this got me intrigued… Intervention Theory by Lloyd Pye which is based on genetic manipulation by another race. I read everything on his website and he sure has done a serious research into that stuff. Not sure if I buy ET story but look at the granite objects, I;m willing to conclude that we may have had very advanced civilization maybe 10,000-15,000 years ago. (Atlantis)? I suppose the timing of Ice Age ending around that time could have done serious damage to them (Noah’s flooding?).
http://www.leedskalnin.com/ – Maybe Edward Leedskalnin was right about education…
I think a better analogy would be if, if you want to find out about timeshares, talk to timeshare salesmen.
Yes it is true. Oral hygiene does effect the over all health condition of our bodies.Year’s ago, gum disease was treated as a localized disease. Today we know that the destructive bacteria which causes gum disease, travels through the bloodstream and enters various organs in our body and can make pre – existing health conditions worse. As with other health issues, gum disease can be hereditary. If this insidious disease exists somewhere within the family tree, it would be wise to maintain a good prevention program.