# The WUWT Hot Sheet for Saturday August 31st, 2013

Since failures in climate science claims are on the rise, can we start naming climate prediction failures after scientists and activists? I can think of  a few: The Hansen Hiatus, for example.

Climate campaigners seem to think they have a winner with this takedown of elected officials who reject global warming science, in which fake news reports talk of the turmoil and tragedy created by Hurricane Marco Rubio, Hurricane James Inhofe, Hurricane John Boehner and more.

The trouble is, the science on a connection between hurricanes and global warming is going in the opposite direction, if the near-final draft of next month’s climate science assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is any indication.

Andrew Revkin at NYT’s DOT Earth

=============================================================

==============================================================

What? Polar bears are out on that disappearing sea ice in late summer?

To put all this into perspective, note that research in this region between 2000 and 2005 determined that, on average, only 3.7% of all Southern Beaufort polar bears spent time on land between mid-September and the end of October (Schliebe et al. 2008). As the estimated total population at that time was 1,526 bears (and still is), it means that on average, only about 56 bears spent time on land each summer in the early 2000s.

See Susan Crockford’s blog: Ten out of ten polar bears being tracked this summer in the Beaufort Sea are on the ice

===============================================================

What? Algae don’t have enough atmospheric CO2 so they have to make their own?

A paper published today in Nature finds that marine algae, which evolved and thrived with atmospheric CO2 levels 15 times higher than the present, required a novel adaptation to adjust to the relatively low CO2 levels during the Cenozoic era, when CO2 levels were still more than twice current levels. According to the paper, this novel adaptation was to manufacture their own CO2 at the reaction site for photosynthesis, required due to a paucity of CO2 in the atmosphere. Algae evolved more than 500 million years ago, when CO2 levels were ~15-17 times higher than the present; current CO2 levels are near the lowest levels of the past 500 million years.

Algae evolved more than 500 million years ago, when CO2 levels were ~15-17 times higher than the present.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-paper-finds-algae-have-to.html

==============================================================

Rowers give up. Another “save the planet from global warming” Arctic trek gets a reality check from Nature:

Severe weather conditions hindered our early progress and now ice chokes the passage ahead.

Our ice router Victor has been very clear in what lies ahead. He writes, “Just to give you the danger of ice situation at the eastern Arctic, Eef Willems of “Tooluka” (NED) pulled out of the game and returning to Greenland. At many Eastern places of NWP locals have not seen this type ice conditions. Residents of Resolute say 20 years have not seen anything like. Its, ice, ice and more ice. Larsen, Peel, Bellot, Regent and Barrow Strait are all choked. That is the only route to East. Already West Lancaster received -2C temperature expecting -7C on Tuesday with the snow.”

Richard Weber, my teammate to the South Pole in 2009 and without doubt the most accomplished polar skier alive today, is owner and operator of Arctic Watch on Cunningham Inlet at the northern end of Somerset Island. Arctic Watch faces out onto our proposed eastern route. Richard dropped me a note the other day advising: “This has been the coldest season with the most ice since we started Arctic Watch in 2000. Almost no whales. The NWPassage is still blocked with ice. Some of the bays still have not melted!”

…we’d require at least another 50-60 days to make it to Pond Inlet. Throw in the issues of less light, colder temperatures, harsher fall storms and lots of ice blocking the route and our decision is easy.

…Our message remains unaffected though, bringing awareness to the pressing issues of climate change in the arctic.

We row into Cambridge Bay, the official conclusion of our Mainstream Last First expedition – MainStream Last First

Despite that admission of failure due to so much ice, readers are hard pressed to find many pictures of it in their photo stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/95019072@N08/

I suppose showing pictures of ice is counter-productive to their mission, since like many fools before them, they expected the Arctic to be mostly ice free due to global warming. – Anthony

=============================================================

Uh, oh

New paper finds cloud assumptions in climate models could be incorrect by factor of 2

More problems for climate models: A new paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres finds that models must take into account not only the presence or absence of clouds but also how clouds are stacked vertically. The authors find that changes in vertical stacking of clouds can change radiative forcing assumptions by a factor of two [100%]. However, state of the art climate models do not take vertical stacking into consideration, and most global datasets of cloudiness also do not contain this information. “Clouds, which can absorb or reflect incoming radiation and affect the amount of radiation escaping from Earth’s atmosphere, remain the greatest source of uncertainty in global climate modeling,” and according to this paper, that uncertainty has just doubled from what was previously thought.

Why the forthcoming UN IPCC Report is already toast

The IPCC is set to release its latest Assessment Report 5 [AR5] in about 1 month, yet the report will be dead on arrival and hopelessly out-of-date in light of recent inconvenient peer-reviewed papers published after the cut-off date for inclusion, as well as papers published before the cut-off date which the UN continues to ignore. Since almost the entire report hinges on the output of climate models, and those models have recently been falsified at a confidence level of >98% over the past 15 years, and falsified at a confidence level of 90% over the past 20 years, the entire report and its Summary for Policymakers are already invalidated even before publication.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-forthcoming-un-ipcc-report-is.html

## 89 thoughts on “The WUWT Hot Sheet for Saturday August 31st, 2013”

1. Hans H says:

Climate rowers stuck in ice, Politicans blamed for decline in hurricanes, CO2 even more a wild card in the big climate…its to easy nowadays. 🙂

2. Bloke down the pub says:

Despite the evidence before them, the Mainstream last first rowers are still claiming the evidence from their trip is of continuing warming. ‘ Our message remains unaffected though, bringing awareness to the pressing issues of climate change in the arctic.’

3. Mycroft says:

Bears on the ice ALL summer! what ice? Isn’t all supposed to be melted/SARC

4. Jim Cripwell says:

Quote “the entire report and its Summary for Policymakers are already invalidated even before publication.”
If this is true, and I have no doubt it is true, then where is the outrage from the scientific community? Surely, the IPCC reports have been the center of the evidence on which the international policy of “decarbonization” was based, and these reports were supposedly based on science.
All we are hearing form the likes of the Royal Society, the American Physical Society, etc.etc. are the “Sounds of Silence” (Simon and Garfunkel).
Who will lead the charge from the scientific community to say “Enough is enough!”? I nominate Prof. Judith Curry.

5. Bruce Cobb says:

Andy Revkin’s strategy for convincing people of the lies of the climate liars is Mohammed Ali’s of “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee”. Hahahahahaha!
At least he got the floating part right. As in floating in space with halloween-costume astronaut suits on, representing the climate liars’ “science”.

6. Joe Chang says:

Clearly the rows failed to pay heed to the WUWT: The Maslowski Countdown
which clearly states:
Ice Free Arctic 2013
September 22nd, 2013
and not a day sooner, well OK, BZE says maybe sooner.

7. Village Idiot says:

More evidence of shoddy climate ‘science’.
Remember the “Link found between cold European winters and solar activity” story a year ago?
Turns out the only link is one we’ve seen before – between sloppy science and climate scientists:
“Along with colleagues, van Oldenborgh decided to try and reproduce the findings presented by Sirocko and his team….”The supplementary information in the paper shows that the data record of Rhine freezing is constructed merely on searching the internet for miscellaneous documents containing information about Rhine river freezing, including an oil painting”….These data appeared not to have been checked against other well-established long-term temperature records, such as the Pfister reconstruction of Swiss winter temperatures and the Dutch winter temperatures by van Engelen and colleagues, which are both based on freezing of waterways among other sources. “When we compared Sirocko’s data to these other records we found that Sirocko’s record missed around half of the documented severe winters,” said van Oldenborgh.
Delving deeper into the paper, van Oldenborgh and colleagues found inconsistencies in how the sunspot minimum was defined. Sometimes it was defined as the four years surrounding the minimum and other times it was the single year following the minimum.”
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/54440

8. I’m now a tweet follower of Michael Mann. Does that now mean that I am a Mann stalker from WUWT?

9. Bruce Cobb says:

Oops, I see that Revkin was positing the Muhammed Ali approach to what he calls “statists”. I think he meant “d*niers”, though, because it’s the statists who are the ones trying to ram the anti-science and lies of CAGW, and the “need” for so-called “green” energy down our throats.

10. Bill Illis says:

For the last month or so, the Arctic sea ice has melted at exactly the normal rate of the last 30 years.
Daily change in Jaxa and the NSIDC (using moving averages to eliminate some of the wiggles). On average, the loss rate is now 25K (which is declining by 2K per day until the average minimum date on September 12th).
http://s15.postimg.org/lmb48ucp7/NH_SIE_Daily_Change_Aug30_2013.png
The NSIDC September ice extent is still tracking to 5.25 million km^2 (which is higher than all but one of the Arcus sea ice outlook projections).
http://s7.postimg.org/zdcsl2uln/NSIDC_Sept_Min_Proj_Aug30_2013.png

Breaking News from UAH (eh, close enough)
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/08/summer_of_2013_among_coolest_o.html

Summer of 2013 among coolest on record in Alabama, continues cooling trend, climatologist says
By Paul Gattis | pgattis@al.com

on August 29, 2013 at 4:39 PM, updated August 29, 2013 at 4:40 PM
HUNTSVILLE, Alabama – From Huntsville to Mobile, summer temperatures have been cooler than normal this year.
In fact, the summer of 2013 will be listed as one of the coolest summers in the past 131 years, according to state climatologist John Christy, director of the Earth Systems Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Christy announced today that this summer is the fifth-coolest on record in Alabama with average temperatures that are almost 2 degrees below normal.

According to Christy, 1967 shows up in most Alabama weather stations as having the coolest summer since reliable weather record keeping started in 1883. Other summers on the cool end of the record have all been since 1960 and include 1997, 1992, 1961, 1989, 1994, 2003, 2004 and 2013.

I would like to see an explanation of this part:

In calculating the average temperatures for each region, the announcement said, the climatologist’s office uses only daytime high temperature readings for stations within a 50-mile radius of each city center.
Only daytime highs are used because nighttime low temperatures at some stations have slowly been contaminated by the growth of urban areas around those stations. The data were combined in a process that takes into account station moves and instrument changes.

UHI contamination of nighttime lows, heard of it. But to throw them out completely while using only the highs which also have problems? It’d be nice if we could get a short write-up of that by Dr. Christy.
See article for more info and stats for statewide and select large cities.

12. In claiming that the climate models have been falsified, this post at the Hockey Schtick errs. A model that predicts is susceptible to falsification. A model that projects is insusceptible to falsification. The climate models project. They do not predict.
Often, in the literature of climatology, authors treat “predict” and “project” as synonyms in making arguments, though the two words have differing meanings. Such an argument is an example of an equivocation. By logical rule, one cannot properly draw a conclusion from an equivocation. To draw a conclusion, including the conclusion that a “prediction” from a climate model is falsified, is an example of an equivocation fallacy.
For details on the equivocation fallacy in global warming arguments, see the peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .

13. herkimer says:

“Climate campaigners seem to think they have a winner with this takedown of elected officials who reject global warming science,” This approach again illustrates how desperate the warmists are with their failed climate science . Unable to support their claims by valid science they are constantly looking for new ways to discredit those who diagree with their questionable science . If this approach should ever materialize, and I don’t think it ever will , there are countless climate science failures that could be tagged with the certain climate scientists that will soon even the playing field in the eyes of the public

14. J. Philip Peterson says:
August 31, 2013 at 7:25 am
I’m now a tweet follower of Michael Mann. Does that now mean that I am a Mann stalker from WUWT?
Me to I have set the hook a couple of times but he always wiggles off. ;>)

J. Philip Peterson on August 31, 2013 at 7:25 am:

I’m now a tweet follower of Michael Mann. Does that now mean that I am a Mann stalker from WUWT?

Nah, but you are a Mann ego-stroker.
I was warned long ago to avoid stupid people who do stupid things, as the stupid rubs off and you can get infected by the stupid. I’ve seen enough tweets from Mann’s clique of twits to have initial confirmation.
You better buy some surgical gloves so you can practice safe stroking.

16. JimS says:

As for the naming of “things” after CAGW scientists and their supporters, we should not concentrate upon the failures but rather, the successes. For instance, instead of calling the recent warming period the “Modern Warming Period,” it should be known in history as the “Gore Warming Period.” A positive approach is always best, in my opinion, and these guys should be going down in history by using their names assigned to major climate patterns for they have been so concerned about them.
Another recommendation I would have is calling the next major climate cooling period, the “Mann Minimum.” I strongly recommend this name mainly because of the alliteration though, and not because of Mann’s contribution to the identification of this next cooling period.
These poor wretches should have their egos stroked a bit, in other words, because they have little else going for them.

17. Gary Pearse says:

Arctic Rower’s spin – here they are being driven out of the Arctic by the worst ice conditions and coldest temperatures in 30 years according to locals and they are convinced more than ever that the arctic is in decline! Kool aid must freeze at a much lower temperature than previously thought. 22 yachts many turned back, many stuck in the ice. I think they have a case for suing the IPCC and the climate science institutions for misleading them into taking these costly, perilous and useless voyages.
On Algae sucking up the HCO3 from seawater because of the shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere – wow, this means that we have another buffer to any decline in alkalinity in seawater, plus get a bonus of break up of the CO2, releasing oxygen. Negative feedbacks anyone? Maybe a CO2 hungry algae tower to bubble CO2 stack gases through, and use algal production as biomass to refuel the electricity plant boilers.

18. Gary Pearse says:

“…we’d require at least another 50-60 days to make it to Pond Inlet. Throw in the issues of less light, colder temperatures, harsher fall storms and lots of ice blocking the route and our decision is easy.
…Our message remains unaffected though, bringing awareness to the pressing issues of climate change in the arctic.”
In your wildest dreams mates! 50 or 60 days for 1057km http://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/ycb-to-yio/ … colder temperatures – you’ll be walking boys not rowing with the wind and snow in your face. You sure would bring a lot of awareness to pressing issues when the yellow helicopters came to answer your distress calls. These guys are supposed to be Canadians!

19. Gary Pearse says:
August 31, 2013 at 8:32 am
> Maybe a CO2 hungry algae tower to bubble CO2 stack gases through, and use algal production as biomass to refuel the electricity plant boilers.
You’d need a huge sunny area for growing the algae, and all the effort at collecting and drying the algae. Easier to use natural gas, coal, or trees. Or nukes or E-cats (maybe).

20. Snotrocket says:

JimS says August 31, 2013 at 8:30 am:
“Another recommendation I would have is calling the next major climate cooling period, the “Mann Minimum.” I strongly recommend this name mainly because of the alliteration though, and not because of Mann’s contribution to the identification of this next cooling period.
These poor wretches should have their egos stroked a bit, in other words, because they have little else going for them.”

I like it: kinda like ‘irony stroking’

21. Rather, should not today’s maximum flat point of 1997-2013 be called the “Mann-Made Maximum” ?
I mean, really, we’ve got the LIA and Medieval Warming Period – which uses up the MWP, and since the Modern Warming Period is entirely made up by his numbers …..

22. JDN says:

@Anthony:
You should be skeptical of the Nature article on algae. First, Nature articles have a track record of being spectacularly wrong in the biological sciences simply because the journal is for cutting edge “big” ideas.
My criticisms after a quick read are: this entire thing is a computer model (no real measurements of cellular parameters), these authors’ results depend upon a good knowledge of 13C and 18O abundance that might not exist, this work was conducted in a geology department not a biology department, many of their arguments are hand-waving about CO2 fluxes without actually measuring bicarbonate or CO2 in cellular compartments, they don’t once use the phrase “statistically significant” because there is no statistical treatment of their data, their actual measurment of 18O in the fossil record from ocean cores has huge changes of variance over the last 16M years, with the highest variance coming recently, which would seem to beg the question why the variance changes, their sampling of time points is sparse in some places. It appears to be a rapid communication. I wonder if someone else is planning to publish something better soon?

23. Gary Pearse says:

Ric Werme says:
August 31, 2013 at 8:59 am
“Gary Pearse says:
August 31, 2013 at 8:32 am
> Maybe a CO2 hungry algae tower to bubble CO2 stack gases through, and use algal production as biomass to refuel the electricity plant boilers.
“You’d need a huge sunny area for growing the algae, and all the effort at collecting and drying the algae. Easier to use natural gas, coal, or trees. Or nukes or E-cats..”
Dang, these things never work do they! Maybe blow the smoke through a windmill first and then have rooftop combination solar/algae solar collectors?

24. mwhite says:
25. dp says:

So then purging the inconvenient climate history as has been happening is really climatoscopy prep? And a Mann Hunt is the search for Trenberth’s missing heat?

26. Terry Oldberg:
At August 31, 2013 at 8:03 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/wuwt-hot-sheet-for-saturday-august-31st-2013/#comment-1404606
I am extremely disappointed that you have done this because I have repeatedly refuted the nonsense you have again posted (including in two other WUWT threads during this week). For considerable time I have been telling you that you were making a false and untrue excuse for IPCC climate model failures, and IPCC supporters could be expected to adopt the same excuse.
Kevin Trenberth has adopted the same untrue excuse for IPCC climate model failures that you have been promoting and continue to promote. See
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/25/trenberths-ipcc-claim-of-no-predictions-by-ipcc-at-all-refuted-by-ipccs-own-words/

In claiming that the climate models have been falsified, this post at the Hockey Schtick errs. A model that predicts is susceptible to falsification. A model that projects is insusceptible to falsification. The climate models project. They do not predict.
Often, in the literature of climatology, authors treat “predict” and “project” as synonyms in making arguments, though the two words have differing meanings. Such an argument is an example of an equivocation. By logical rule, one cannot properly draw a conclusion from an equivocation. To draw a conclusion, including the conclusion that a “prediction” from a climate model is falsified, is an example of an equivocation fallacy.
For details on the equivocation fallacy in global warming arguments, see the peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .

No. You are plain wrong!
I list some of the misunderstandings concerning equivocation and of IPCC predictions stated in your words I have quoted here.
1.
You are incorrect when you say

Often, in the literature of climatology, authors treat “predict” and “project” as synonyms in making arguments, though the two words have differing meanings. Such an argument is an example of an equivocation. By logical rule, one cannot properly draw a conclusion from an equivocation.

That is not true. The truth is
Often, in the literature of climatology, authors treat “predict” and “project” as synonyms in making arguments, though the two words have differing meanings. Such an argument is an example of an equivocation. By logical rule, one cannot properly draw a conclusion from an equivocation. THAT AFFECTS THE CONCLUSION.
2.
You are wrong when you claim

A model that projects is insusceptible to falsification. The climate models project. They do not predict.

In its definitions the IPCC says

Forecast/Prediction. When a projection is branded “most likely,” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained by using deterministic models—possibly a set of such models—outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections…..

So, the IPCC defines a prediction is the projection with highest confidence.
The definition does NOT provide an equivocation because the definition makes a clear distinction between
a prediction (i.e. the forecast with highest confidence)
and
a projection (i.e. a forecast with less confidence than another forecast).
3.
You are completely illogical when you assert

To draw a conclusion, including the conclusion that a “prediction” from a climate model is falsified, is an example of an equivocation fallacy.

Drawing a conclusion from a climate model does NOT provide an equivocation so there cannot be an equivocation fallacy.
The IPCC defines that a projection is converted to become a prediction if it gains confidence. This conversion does NOT create an equivocation.
It is important to note that a projection can become a prediction without there being an equivocation. And whether or not your paper has been peer–reviewed has no relevance to this.
4.
You are plain wrong when you say

A model that projects is insusceptible to falsification. The climate models project. They do not predict.

The IPCC defines that a model’s projection with highest confidence is a prediction.
When the IPCC provides a forecast that the IPCC says is a prediction then the IPCC has made a prediction.
How and why the IPCC made that prediction does not – and cannot – prevent that prediction from being a prediction.

You make a logical error when you refuse to accept a forecast as being a prediction when the forecaster states the forecast is a prediction.
The forecaster alone knows the intention of the forecast. And it is not possible for anyone else to know the intention of the forecaster is other than the forecaster says.
Therefore, when the forecaster says the forecast is a prediction then there is no possibility of anyone disproving it is a prediction: the most anybody can do is to show the prediction is improbable.
YOU ARE EXCUSING THE IPCC’S MISTAKES AND LETTING THEM OFF THE HOOK. STOP IT!
Richard

Massive Release of Hot Air Expected Soon
Background noise is tennis on CBS, announcer said they may break to CBS News soon.
Drudge says Obama was to address the nation at 1:15PM EDT (seems to be running late), the sixth warship has arrived near Syria, the UN inspectors (who just left Syria yesterday) will need another two weeks for test results. Attack expected soon.
Will Obama order action before the definitive science is completed, going basically by popular news reports and assorted science-like opinions?
Wouldn’t be the first time.

28. I was going to respond to Terry’s comment about the two words and thought it was misleading when I came to your reply Richard while I was mulling over what to wrote,now I will just say good reply!
In 1990 IPCC report they originally used the word PREDICT and got burned on it thus the use of the word Projection came along which gives them some wiggly room to their definition on what is probable in their future forecasts.

29. Fred says:

The Mann Minimum could also refer to a lot of other minimums he has exhibited beside global cooling.
Academic integrity would be appropriate as would a description of his future in academia.
Just another clueless academic with an exaggerated sense of entitlement to his liplock on the public teat.
Well past the time that situation should be remedied.

30. Luther Bl't says:

Terry Oldberg says:
August 31, 2013 at 8:03 am
In claiming that the climate models have been falsified, this post at the Hockey Schtick errs. A model that predicts is susceptible to falsification. A model that projects is insusceptible to falsification. The climate models project. They do not predict.
—–
A distinction without a difference. Let’s ask: (a) what is it to report the output of a climate model? and (b) what is the purpose of a speech utterance or narrative that reports the output of a climate model?
Surely (a) is an assertiion that the global average temperature will rise x degrees in y years (hedged probabilistically, if it is honest)? If it’s not a statement about the future, what else could it be? And if the purpose of reporting the model output is not to communicate an expectation of future temperature, then there seem few alternatives other than to treating it as dissembling with the purpose of deceiving the listener/reader.
It seems to me that the only reason for drawing a distinction between prediction and projection in this manner and in this context is to be able then to assert that the models reflect reality despite the mounting discrepancies between them and the world. Mere scholasticism.

31. davidmhoffer says:

Every time I see someone like Terry Oldberg trying to make the case for predictions vs projections, the same though occurs to me:
How stupid do they think we are?
Upon reflection, it occurs to me that the people who make this argument may actually believe it themselves. Accordingly, my question in regard to stupidity may have been focused on the wrong subject.

32. Wyguy says:

Tweeting with Mann reminds me of an old saying : “Never wrestle with a pig—you get dirty and the pig likes it”

Okay, he’s on now.
Obama-speak translation requested:
“There will be no military intervention.
There will be no boots on the ground.”
There shall be bombing, drones, military assaults of all sorts (but somehow limited), yet it shall not be military intervention?
PS Obama is comfortable with his decision to not wait for the UN Inspector report. Go figure.
But he will seek Congressional authorization. Although he (as stated a few minutes previous) is ready to initiate military action today, tomorrow, or next week, etc.
It is time for all my fellow Americans to join together in unison, and speak to Congress with one voice, that this is the Global Warming we don’t want, which will be harmful, that we can prevent, that we are calling on Congress to fight. Not the other, which is none of those.

If Michael Mann is so eager to sue everybody – maybe he’d better consider whether it’s smart to libel Anthony with his comments about Koch,
REPLY: Yes, I’m actually considering some options there. I’ve never r=taken a dime from Koch, and Mann doesn’t know what he’s talking about. For somebody who is in the libel lawsuit business, he’s certainly a loose cannon. – Anthony

35. JDN says:
August 31, 2013 at 9:24 am
I’d like to see a more detailed paper, too. Since coccolithophores rely on CO2 dissolved in sea water, atmospheric concentration of the gas should be less important to them, it seems to me, but I don’t know much about them.
However, I’ve wondered about algal response to the Cenozoic crash in CO2 levels in the air. In land plants, the C4 & CAM systems evolved to deal with the fall from ~3500 ppmv in the Early Eocene to ~650 by its Middle, possibly as a result of the Azolla Event. Some algae are partly or indirectly reliant on atmospheric CO2, or at least can use it if need be.

36. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
WUWT provides a particularly noteworthy hot-sheet today. Good stuff.
I’m particularly pointing out the dial-back of the El Reno tornado from an EF-5 to an EF-3. That is what they were initially calling it around here. Oh well. I am heartened to see the commitment to getting it right overall.
I’ll remind that polar bears eat snowy owls.
The CO2 note is particularly worth remembering. Our current CO2 levels are abnormally low. Please be mindful of the wording. CO2 is low. CO2 on our planet has been much higher throughout the geological epics, and current levels are well below average. A little lower and all life on earth will die. (As in 100% extinct, all of it.) While we are not in danger of CO2 going dangerously low, it seems particularly silly to worry about it going up a little when we are so close to the danger zone.
The Nature paper referred to is http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7464/full/nature12448.html, and they want \$32 for it. Proud, aren’t they? (I like to think of knowledge as free, but what do I know. Knowledge is power, so they must think they can charge you for it.) The abstract and figures are available there, and the reference list and a supplemental information file, if you are so inclined.
The abstract is informative, and their use of models (and checking the results against the available data) seems appropriate.
It is most remarkable that these plants managed to evolve to control the concentration of CO2 where they needed high concentrations to match their original environment half-a-billion years ago. Cool. Of course if they hadn’t managed, they’d have died out, and we’d be trying to figure out why there is a change in the isotopes. Again, cool.
In the closing sentence of the abstract, the authors put themselves out there with a prediction that we will find more evidence of a CO2 reduction at that time so long ago. It also reminds me that cold kills. Warmer is better.

37. JIMMY says:

http://www.sail-world.com/USA/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice%E2%80%94yachts-caught/113788
I posted this for them on the rowers face book page thinking it would make them feel a little better about not being the only ones who were stymied and it was promptly removed.
They had a poorly designed boat which was taking a beating. It could not handle even normal winds as well as a kayak can, let alone the coming gales of autumn. They would not have made it even if the passages had been ice free. Glad they are safe and made the right decision to withdraw.

38. rogerknights says:

Terry Oldberg says:
August 31, 2013 at 8:03 am
In claiming that the climate models have been falsified, this post at the Hockey Schtick errs. A model that predicts is susceptible to falsification. A model that projects is insusceptible to falsification. The climate models project. They do not predict.

It seems to me that they make conditional predictions–e.g., if GHGs rise at rate A, then surface temperatures will rise by rate Y, plus or minus amount Z. If the condition is satisfied (CO2 rises at rate A), then the prediction is triggered.

39. rogerknights says:

August 31, 2013 at 11:38 am
If Michael Mann is so eager to sue everybody – maybe he’d better consider whether it’s smart to libel Anthony with his comments about Koch,

REPLY: Yes, I’m actually considering some options there. I’ve never taken a dime from Koch, and Mann doesn’t know what he’s talking about. For somebody who is in the libel lawsuit business, he’s certainly a loose cannon. – Anthony

Mann tweeted, “Being stalked by #HeartlandInstitute/#Koch-funded climate change denier #AnthonyWatts & his mob:”
That phrasing falsely implies ongoing funding, and it also falsely implies that such funding as there was, was funding for your blogging (“denying”), not just for a side-project that is merely an attempt to provide a user-friendly interface to a government dataset. So those are two chinks in his armor.

40. Luther Bl't says:

rogerknights says:
August 31, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Terry Oldberg says:
August 31, 2013 at 8:03 am
In claiming that the climate models have been falsified, this post at the Hockey Schtick errs. A model that predicts is susceptible to falsification. A model that projects is insusceptible to falsification. The climate models project. They do not predict.
It seems to me that they make conditional predictions–e.g., if GHGs rise at rate A, then surface temperatures will rise by rate Y, plus or minus amount Z. If the condition is satisfied (CO2 rises at rate A), then the prediction is triggered.
——–
You are correct, but only because it is tautological (albeit not self-evidently so) that all predications that involve causation are necessarily conditional statements. In contrast, the statement “1 + 1 = 2” is not a prediction – not even of a child learning its arithmentic – because the result is not an effect of the arithmetic operation.

41. Gunga Din says:

Mann tweeted, “Being stalked by #HeartlandInstitute/#Koch-funded climate change denier #AnthonyWatts & his mob:”

==================================================================
Anthony, “Pack the facts. Leave the cannoli.”

42. can we start naming climate prediction failures after scientists and activists?
The Hansen Hiatus
Not a bad idea, but it needs reworking.
“The Hansen Hiatus ” makes is sound like he predicted the Hiatus.
“Hansen Hallucination” is more on target.
“Hansen Hype-a-Temp” covers the GISS manipulation of the historical records.
“The Hansen Hoax” need to be reserved to describe the whole past quarter century of CAGW.

43. Gunga Din says:

The Mannian Mannipilation

44. Gunga Din says:

The Hayhoe … Where’d it go?

45. richardscourtney:
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
In reference to the issue that you raise, “anonymous” responds that ( http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-forthcoming-un-ipcc-report-is.html#comment-form ) “OK, not falsified. How about “shown not to provide information useful for evaluating human impact on the global climate”? Anonymous is spot on but his response diametrically differs from yours. How can this be so?
In the investigation of a suspected example of an equivocation fallacy, one translates the language of the suspected equivocation into an unambiguous language for the purpose of establishing whether or not a term changes meaning in the midst of the argument. Rather than disambiguating the language of your response, you respond in an ambiguous language that supports your fallacious conclusion.

46. Sunsettommy:
The term “project” comes to us from the field of ensemble forecasting where it has a precise meaning. Under this usage, “to project” has a different meaning than “to predict.” Unlike a “prediction,” a “projection” conveys no information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his or her policy decisions.
While climatologists that include Kevin Trenberth distiguish between “prediction” and “projection,” most do not (Green and Armstrong, circa 2007). A consequence from conflating the two terms is an equivocation fallacy that is the sole basis for the erroneous conclusion that carbon dioxide emissions should be regulated.

47. .Luther Bl’t:
Thank you for raising the penetrating question. To paraphrase this question, is it not true that a climate model makes a conditional prediction (e.g., if GHGs rise at rate A, then surface temperatures will rise by rate Y, plus or minus amount Z)? The answer is NO.
In other terms, a “conditional prediction” is a “predictive inference.” Logic contains what we know about the rules by which correct inferences may be distinguished from incorrect ones. Thus, your question has logical significance.
In response to this question, I’ll point out that a “predictive inference” is an extrapolation from an observed state of a system to an unobserved but observable state of the same system. By convention, the observed state is called the “condition” while the unobserved but observable state is called the “outcome.” An example of a condition is “cloudy.” An example of an outcome is “rain in the next 24 hours.”
A pairing of a condition with an outcome is a description of an event. The complete set of these events is an example of a statistical population. No statistical population underlies the IPCC climate models. Hence, the predictive inference that is made by such a model is undefined.
In a model that possesses an underlying statistical population, events of a particular description possess relative frequencies. The numerical values of these relative frequencies relate to the numerical values of the associated probabilities. The various probability values map to the information that is conveyed to a policy maker about the outcomes from his or her policy decisions in advance of these outcomes.
For the IPCC climate models, there is no underlying statistical population. Hence there are no relative frequency or probability values. Thus, these models convey no information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his/her policy decision in advance of these outcomes (http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 ) . .
It follows that these models are worthless for the purpose of making policy on CO2 emissions. The appearance that they are worthwhile for this purpose is a product of repeated instances of the equivocation fallacy on the part of global warming climatologists. Among these climatologists are skeptics as well as their opponents.

48. rogerknights:
Thank you for the important response to my post. In responding to Luther Bl’t, I believe that I’ve responded to you.

49. JPeden says:

“@Terry Oldberg”
If the ipcc is only making projections and not predictions, then 1] it is not doing real science, and 2] there is therefore no basis upon which to argue that we should modify anything we humans are doing.

50. johnmarshall says:

The Watts GHE?

51. Bruce Cobb above misread what I wrote. I didn’t write “statists.” I wrote “stasists,” my term for folks eager to maintain existing energy norms in America. More examples: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/?s=stasists

52. Terry Oldberg:
At August 31, 2013 at 8:25 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/wuwt-hot-sheet-for-saturday-august-31st-2013/#comment-1405115
you provide what purports to be an answer to my detailed rebuttal of your nonsense which I provided at August 31, 2013 at 10:15 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/wuwt-hot-sheet-for-saturday-august-31st-2013/#comment-1404682
However, your answer to me addresses none of the points I made and relies on the logical fallacy of ‘appeal to authority,’ and that authority is anonymous!
I explained that you are plain wrong that the IPCC makes an equivocation fallacy. However, if the IPCC did make that mistake then it would not be relevant.
I repeat the single most important point because you have again evaded it.
The IPCC says it adopts the projection with highest probability as being a prediction.
Whether or not you think that adoption is valid is completely irrelevant.
When the IPCC – or any other – makes a statement about the future which they say is a prediction THEN IT IS A PREDICTION.
It does not matter how or why they made that statement: if they say it is a prediction then it is.
And nobody can show it is not a prediction because only those making a prediction know why they made the prediction.

I repeat:
YOU ARE EXCUSING THE IPCC’S MISTAKES AND LETTING THEM OFF THE HOOK.
STOP IT!
Richard

53. Gunga Din says:

richardscourtney says:
August 31, 2013 at 10:15 am

Terry Oldberg:
A model that projects is insusceptible to falsification. The climate models project. They do not predict.

The IPCC defines that a model’s projection with highest confidence is a prediction.

====================================================================
The first model I ever made was of a P-61 Black Widow.
It didn’t fly either.

54. richardscourtney:
In your post of Aug. 31, 2013 at 10:15 am you contend that I have yet again posted untrue nonsense and deplore the injustice of this infraction. However, your argument fails to support your contention.
My contention is stated in unambiguous and logical terms in the peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 . The referee for this paper, William Briggs, holds a master’s degree in atmospheric science and a PhD in mathematical statistics; he is a professor of statistics at Cornell University; formerly, he sat on the standing committee of the American Meteorological Society on probability theory and statistics. In a previously published peer reviewed paper http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/15/the-principles-of-reasoning-part-iii-logic-and-climatology/ I go over similar ground. The referee for the latter paper, Dr. Judith Curry, is a professional climatologist and is the chair of Earth Sciences at Georgia Tech University. In articles that are cited in the latter article, Gray, Green and Armstrong and Trenberth reach conclusions that are similar to mine. Gray holds a PhD in physical chemistry from Cambridge University and is a longtime IPCC expert reviewer. Armstrong is a professor at the Wharton School of Business of the University of Pennsylvania; he edits the Journal of Forecasting. Green holds a PhD degree and is a university professor. Trenberth holds a PhD degree and is a high-level professional climatologist.
As I reach my conclusion via a syllogism, this conclusion is true unless it can be proved that one or more of the premises to my argument is false or unproved. Your post of Aug. 31, 2013 at 10:15 am is devoid of such a proof.

55. Terry Oldberg:
I am replying to your ridiculous post at September 1, 2013 at 10:40 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/wuwt-hot-sheet-for-saturday-august-31st-2013/#comment-1405560
I don’t care if your rubbish was peer reviewed by Almighty God.
As I have repeatedly explained to you in several places including in this thread
YOUR ASSERTIONS ARE UNTRUE AND ILLOGICAL NONSENSE.
That somebody peer reviewed it does not stop it being wrong.
You say to me

As I reach my conclusion via a syllogism, this conclusion is true unless it can be proved that one or more of the premises to my argument is false or unproved. Your post of Aug. 31, 2013 at 10:15 am is devoid of such a proof.

Bollocks!
I gave a detailed explanation of your errors in my post at August 31, 2013 at 10:15 am

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/wuwt-hot-sheet-for-saturday-august-31st-2013/#comment-1404682
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/wuwt-hot-sheet-for-saturday-august-31st-2013/#comment-1405115
That reply ignored each and every of my points and provided a ridiculous appeal to authority.
I responded to your reply in my post at September 1, 2013 at 6:35 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/31/wuwt-hot-sheet-for-saturday-august-31st-2013/#comment-1405426
where, to make it simple for you, I only again explained your main error.
I yet again state your main error which you refuse to acknowledge.
The IPCC says it defines its projection with highest confidence as being a prediction.
If somebody makes a forecast that they say is a prediction then IT IS A PREDICTION.
So,
NOTHING YOU SAY CAN STOP AN IPCC PREDICTION FROM BEING A PREDICTION.
And it is not relevant whether you or anybody else agrees that they were right to make that prediction. Your daft assertion that the IPCC did not make a prediction lets the IPCC ‘off the hook’: indeed, that is why Trenberth has recently made the same illogical and untrue assertion that you keep flogging.
Efluxion of time has shown the IPCC predictions are wrong so nothing the IPCC says is worthy of consideration. And that is ALL the information which matters.
Claims that the IPCC did not make predictions attempt to demolish presentation and consideration of that important information.

Richard

56. davidmhoffer says:

Terry Oldberg says:
September 1, 2013 at 10:40 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your entire response is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Your previous explanations of your position disregard the facts, which are pretty simple. The IPCC publishes emission scenarios and the expected results of each scenario, complete with error ranges:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-26.html
You can call these projections, forecasts, hypotheses, or prophecies for all I care. No matter how articulately to state your case, that these are obviously predictions, and being taken as exactly such by the public and by policy makers alike, ought to be plain even to a child. Attempting to suggest otherwise is simply a blatant attempt to excuse the fact that the IPCC have utterly failed in their attempt to quantify temperature response to CO2 emissions. The emperor has no clothes, and while the entire crowd is pointing and laughing in response to the child’s point, you are trying to convince all of us that the clothes in fact exist. Who shall we believe, you? Or our own eyes?
Again, I’m not sure if you are intent on fooling us, or if it is yourself that you have fooled.

57. davidmhoffer:
Thankyou for your post at September 1, 2013 at 11:31 am.
I provided a longer reply to Terry Oldberg that essentially says the same, but my post has been in moderation for nearly an hour, so I am pleased to see that yours has appeared.
Thankyou.
Richard

58. Gunga Din says:

Terry Oldberg says:
August 31, 2013 at 8:03 am
In claiming that the climate models have been falsified, this post at the Hockey Schtick errs. A model that predicts is susceptible to falsification. A model that projects is insusceptible to falsification. The climate models project. They do not predict.
Often, in the literature of climatology, authors treat “predict” and “project” as synonyms in making arguments, though the two words have differing meanings. Such an argument is an example of an equivocation. By logical rule, one cannot properly draw a conclusion from an equivocation. To draw a conclusion, including the conclusion that a “prediction” from a climate model is falsified, is an example of an equivocation fallacy.
For details on the equivocation fallacy in global warming arguments, see the peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .

==========================================================================
So …. why take any action at all based on any of the “Global Warming” models’ projections?
Perhaps those who have grabbed onto the Hockey Stick have only done so because it was a handy club to beat the rest of us into subjection?

59. TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:

Luther Bl’t says:
August 31, 2013 at 11:01 am
Bingo. Well said.

60. TonyM says:

If you haven’t seen Dr. Murry Salby’s utter destruction of the AGW hypothesis through a stunning mathematical analysis of the data, it is worth your time. You will need some physics and Math background. Even if you don’t have that, you will be able to follow the logic. I don’t think the IPCC will be inviting him for a presentation any time soon. Here’s the link:

part of the introduction in German but the rest in English.

61. davidmhoffer says:

richardscourtney;
I provided a longer reply to Terry Oldberg that essentially says the same, but my post has been in moderation for nearly an hour
>>>>>>>>>>
Well it is up now, and I had a major LOL moment due to your quip about the Almighty peer reviewing a paper. (I suspect it was the “G” word that caused the comment to go to moderation).
That said, it occurs to me that we’ve had Phil Jones state at one point that if there was a 10 year pause in warming, that the models would be “in trouble”. I forget who moved the goal posts next, but 10 years became 15. Then Ben Santer moved them again to 17 years. We’re now just months from the pause hitting that number, and now Pachauri is yammering on about the possibility of a 30 year pause.
For a bunch of people that supposedly never made any predictions, there’s an awful lot of spin going on to excuse the fact that the predictions have not only been wrong, but that the models have been falsified by their own standards three times in a row.

62. davidmhoffer:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at September 1, 2013 at 10:48 pm.
You make an important point when you conclude of IPCC supporters

For a bunch of people that supposedly never made any predictions, there’s an awful lot of spin going on to excuse the fact that the predictions have not only been wrong, but that the models have been falsified by their own standards three times in a row.

So, for the benefit of people joining this thread ‘from the bottom’ I repeat the reason why since 2001 I have been opposing the nonsense of “the IPCC does not make predictions”.
Efluxion of time has shown the IPCC predictions are wrong so nothing the IPCC says is worthy of consideration. And that is ALL the information which matters.
Claims that the IPCC did not make predictions attempt to demolish presentation and consideration of that important information.

Richard
Footnote:
I mention the following anecdote in case anybody doubts the length of time I have been refuting the nonsense of “the IPCC does not make predictions”.
In 2001 scientists from around the world were invited to give a briefing on the science of climate change at the US Congress in Washington, DC. The briefing was on the science of climate change, and it consisted of three Sessions each with a Chairman who was one of the invited speakers. Fred Singer chaired the first session, I chaired the second, and David Wojick chaired the third.
Questions were invited after the presentations of each session. Attendees included politicians and scientists from US Agencies.
Following my presentation one questioner made a rather long statement which contained no clear question. I replied,
“Sir, I agree much of what you say, but not all. For example, you say “The IPCC does not make predictions”. The IPCC says the world will warm. I call that a prediction.”
The questioner did not respond.

63. rgbatduke says:

Daily change in Jaxa and the NSIDC (using moving averages to eliminate some of the wiggles). On average, the loss rate is now 25K (which is declining by 2K per day until the average minimum date on September 12th).
http://s15.postimg.org/lmb48ucp7/NH_SIE_Daily_Change_Aug30_2013.png

Doesn’t anybody look at these graphs? This one is obviously — and I do mean obviously — complete nonsense. First of all, look at the sharp peaks and troughs on specific dates in the supposed five day running average over 33 years! Unless the Arctic is in the path of a giant gun wielded by space aliens who turn the gun on and off on specific days, there is no way in hell that this could ever happen. And EVEN if there were such a freeze/melt gun, there is no POSSIBLE way for the signal to show up in the five day running average but not in the daily average. This is so very, very obviously a computational bug.
A second fairly obvious flaw is that the noise in the 33 year curve is very comparable to the noise in the only annual curve shown. This is not “impossible” the way peaks in a smoothing average compared to the underlying unsmoothed data are impossible, but it is very unlikely in precisely the sense of a p-value. One generally expects the variance of the mean to scale in a very specific way (like 1/N) so that the noise in the mean should scale like $1/\sqrt{N}$. With 33 samples, one should expect the mean fluctuation in the 33 year average data to be on average 1/5 or so the size of the mean fluctuation in the 33 year data.
Of course this analysis is complicated by the fact that the data presented is itself a slope, and a slope is the difference between points. There are many ways to compute slopes. The sharp peaks suggest that they are failing to do the subtraction of dates correctly in the algorithm so that periodically they are dividing by the wrong interval, and this in a smoothed version that should not, if done correctly, even DIVIDE by an interval, it should be fitting a least squares straight line to the window data (if not a quadratic or cubic) and using the result to compute the slope at the centroid.
Basically, all one learns glancing at these curves is that they were built by some graduate student who didn’t know what they were doing and didn’t debug the result, and that they have never been looked at by a single person who is competent enough in curve fitting, interpolation, and numerical analysis to eyeball the flaws.
If this is what passes for “science” in sea ice extent, we are all in deep trouble. The entire series needs to be redone, this time by somebody that actually has a clue as to what they are doing. If the artifacts are not from the processing, this is even worse, as then there is a systematic failure of the data. Since climate “data” these days is rarely raw observational data, but rather heavily reprocessed data (with lots of infilling and interpolation and extrapolation) it can both produce anomalous scaling of variance (indicative of hidden internal error in the infilling process) and, where done incorrectly, artifacts like the ones seen in the curves linked.
Sigh.
rgb
But if there is a bug in the five day running average code capable of producing peaks like this

64. rgbatduke says:

Terry Oldenberg writes: For details on the equivocation fallacy in global warming arguments, see the peer-reviewed article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .
Rarely have I ever had the dubious pleasure of reading a piece of sophist crap like this, “peer-reviewed” (whatever that means in the context of a blog post) or not.
In addition to openly inventing terminology to create an absolutely artificial distinction — model vs “modele” — the only thing this article does is carefully delineate the following circumstances:
a) If the climate programs, built on top of what are loudly trumpeted to be physical laws and a variety of stated and unstated assumptions, each of which can be treated as a bayesian prior and weighted with a prior probability of being true, are models, they can be falsified by ordinary hypothesis testing and validated to the extent that they prove successful in predicting the future. They are science. They aren’t even “good” or “bad” science — science doesn’t use value labels — they are merely computational models of a general theory that should be given weight according to their predictive success, in their own way no different from abstruse model computations in condensed matter physics or predictive models built with empirical methodology that predict the stock market, customer preferences, or tomorrow’s weather. Even models built without an underlying theory — neural networks, for example — are without exception called “models” by every expert in predictive modeling in the world, where yes, I am such an expert. Show me a single textbook that supports your utterly artificial, bullshit “disambiguation” and we’ll talk. I’ll cheerfully show you a small stack of very current textbooks on pattern recognition, predictive modeling, scientific modeling, and Bayesian statistics where no such distinction is ever made because it does not matter.
b) If the climate programs (specifically, of course, the General Circulation Models or GCMs), built on top of physical laws incorporated in code and a variety of stated and unstated assumptions (bayesian priors) are modeles, you assert that by definition, they cannot be falsified by ordinary hypothesis testing or validated. This does not make the slightest bit of difference in how sensible people should treat their “projections”. They are computational “modeles” of a general theory that should be given weight according to their predictive success because mere common sense suggests that it is stupid to give much weight to non-falsifiable models that don’t work, whether or not they are technically “falsified” (technically because of course they are falsified — all one requires to be able to apply a hypothesis test is a null hypothesis, and model or modele, there is always a null hypothesis. One can, and people do, apply hypothesis testing to far more abstruse “modeles” than GCMs — for example a “modele” that claims that prayer affects outcomes in disease, claims of pure prophecy, claims of astrology. Note well the “modele” company you are putting GCMs into — religious claims are all modeles, are they not? Otherwise, what is it, precisely, that differentiates the two beyond a mere statement of purpose, a desire to protect a modele from falsification (as do the purveyors of any religious belief)? Not a damn thing.
Not only is your distinction, then, between modele and model absolute nonsense — we already have plenty of adequate terminology for predictions made on a religious basis, even those that “claim” to be a science such as astrology or other numerological nonsense and we do not hesitate to reject the use of those predictions in common political discourse on the grounds of mere common sense when the predictions thus made fail to come to pass — it is incorrect in the specific case of climate science where the GCMs are without any possible doubt science based predictive models that are without question subject to falsification, one at a time. If this were not the case, they would not be science at all, you twit.
Let me be specific. In both AR4 and (leaked) AR5, there are graphs of the output of certain specific GCMs when a Monte Carlo method is used to add noise to the inputs and various possible future trajectories are computed. The spread of these trajectories is then used to determine both a mean future climate and the envelope of statistical uncertainty around that mean, with the implicit null hypothesis of “this model is correct”. Let us state this in clear statistical terms. If this model is correct (as a prior assumption) and if we perturb the initial conditions enough to obtain a reasonable statistical spread of future outcomes, then the future trajectory should lie withing that spread with a probability directly related to the spread. In other words, we expect the actual future climate to be in the densest part of the distribution of possible futures, and to spend relatively little time out on the wings of the distribution of possible futures.
For most of the models that contributed to the predictions of AR4 and AR5 — where AR4’s summary for policy makers did not hesitate to make statistical claims containing percentages, even though those claims are utterly indefensible using any form of statistical theory I’ve ever heard of and hence the IPCC is treating them like models, not “modeles”, they are called General Circulation Models, not “Modeles”, and where their predictions are being used to make statistical assertions about the future as we expect of scientific models, not religious “modeles” — the actual future climate trajectory, relative to the time of the model’s construction and application, is at the outside envelope of a spread consisting of hundreds of runs. It is even worse than this, as none of the runs have either the right noise or variation, and even the runs that generate the envelope to not spend all of their time down where the actual climate has been, but rather individually drop down for short periods to help collectively define the range. The p-value that can absolutely be estimated per model, for most of these models is well under 0.01. The models can, for the most part, be rejected at the 99% or better confidence level even over the last 15 years alone, one at a time.
Collectively, they aren’t even a model or modele, they are just a bad mistake, an utterly indefensible application of the terminology of statistics in circumstances that do not satisfy the axioms of statistics as prior conditions for its relevance.
Note well that there are in the literature genuine efforts, underway at last, to test the GCMs. A recent paper, for example, compared four GCMs applied to the same toy problem — a uniformly heated, untilted “water world” — and got four future climates that bore not the slightest resemblance to one another. This too, is an elementary hypothesis test and we can thus say that each model is at most 25% likely to be correct because they cannot all be correct and a toy problem like this probably does, in fact, have a unique solution (we just don’t know what it is). Or perhaps it does not — which is even worse news for climate modelers, because if we cannot even get a single consistent answer for a toy problem, then what is the point of modeling, or “modele-ing”, any sort of future with GCMs and pretending that it has some predictive, projecting, or prophetic force?
To conclude, the issue is not sophistry like an artificial and arbitrary distinction between “models” and “modeles”, it is a much simpler distinction between science and religion. Science is by definition strongly falsifiable and weakly verifiable — any claim, whether “predictive”, “projective”, or “factual” made by a numerical computation implementing a scientific theory or hypothesis, can be disproven easily and rapidly by contrary observational evidence, and while it can never be fully proven by observational evidence, to the extent that it is in continual agreement we accord the theory a greater degree of belief. Good science is not dogmatic, it is flexible and it changes to accommodate contrary evidence so that it incrementally approaches a consistent theory that works to cover all or nearly all observations (where it is “nearly” all we consider the science to be “unsettled” — that’s where “research” comes in).
Personally, I think that GCMs are science. Science that has, in many specific cases (there are many different, distinct GCMs) been shown to be in very serious conflict with observation, conflict so profound that we should correctly doubt both the implementation of known physics and the stated and unstated hypotheses and the code itself (there are many places a complex computationall theory can fail). That is, they are clearly models as their name asserts (unsurprisingly, since nobody ever heard of “modeles” before you just made the term up as a religious apologia). If they are not science, they are religion (which might offend the climate scientists who think otherwise) but as far as politician, scientist, or lay public alike are concerned it does not matter. Call them anything you like, they are still wrong, still fail elementary hypothesis tests at the level of 99% on up, they are still things that mere common sense suggests should not be taken particularly seriously as they almost certainly contain serious errors in fact and implementation and are not even sufficiently consistent to give a single answer in implementation to a problem that is far simpler than the Earth’s actually noisy, tilted, highly elliptical orbit and its crazy array of oceans, solid surface, and biosphere.
As a professional predictive modeler, one that uses modeles such as neural networks to obtain results that cannot be connected in any way outside black (bayesian neuromathematical) magic to the predictions, this really is the bottom line. A model, or modele, either works or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t it is pretty useless no matter what term you invent to try to excuse it from the necessity of actually working. If it doesn’t work, you don’t get paid.
rgb

65. rgbatduke:
I gather that to distinguish between a model that makes a predictive inference and a model that makes no predictive inference is unimportant in your frame of reference. The former type of model conveys information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his/her policy decisions. The latter type of model conveys no such information. How (with the use of logic and without the use of obscenities or other emotional appeals) do you defend your position?

66. RACookPE1978 says:

Terry Oldberg says:
September 2, 2013 at 8:52 pm
Oldberg: I have read over 50 of your endlessly repeating diatribes about …. well, nothing. You have never once, in all of your cleverly illogical rephrasing of exotic terms, said anything useful.
If the IPCC, Trenberth, or Hansen or any other CAGW predictor and profit-maker did NOT explicitly and deliberately “make a prediction” about future CO2 use and the resulting catastrophically higher temperatures they are predicting to occur, then … WHY DO THEY CARE ABOUT FUTURE CO2 increases?
The ONLY reason they are spending years of their lives to “fix” a future problem is to hurt people now and kill innocents with THEIR energy policies and laws. Well, that and the money. The glory. the recognition. the Nobel Prizes. your respect and camouflage with additional propaganda and distractions. And, the ONLY way they can force those laws and blood-thirsty results upon the world is through the publicity of “future” catastrophes predicted based on projected future increases in CO2 releases causing future predicted temperature increases causing future projected catastrophic items of A, B, C, D, E,F,G,H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, …..
Now, have I irritated you enough by deliberately mixing up every prediction and projected and possible scenario and future possible event of potential scenarios of unknown outcomes of predicated future events you so fervently want logically clear in your deluded world of scholarly debate? Look, your enthusiasm is no doubt (see, not even a prediction there!) well meant. But it is stupid and foolish.
The propaganda effect of their actions, statements, and programs IS killing people now by restricting wise and efficient energy use NOW. Your propaganda and drivel is serving to perpetuate those deaths.

67. rgbatduke says:

I gather that to distinguish between a model that makes a predictive inference and a model that makes no predictive inference is unimportant in your frame of reference. The former type of model conveys information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his/her policy decisions. The latter type of model conveys no such information. How (with the use of logic and without the use of obscenities or other emotional appeals) do you defend your position?
I’m not quite clear on what you mean by “a model that makes no predictive inference”. Could you explain just what that is, please? Try to use examples from the list of definitions below. While you’re at it, please explain precisely what the point of the latter is, what it is going to be used for. Presumably not conveying information to a policy maker (or anyone else). Even a model airplane can be accurate or inaccurate when its features are compared to the actual airplane it is supposed to represent, and hence one can make predictive inferences about what a P-38 fighter-bomber from world war II looked like and how it might have flown from a tiny model P-38, and even a small child can tell the difference between a lump of raw plastic and a model P-38 as a representation of a real object.
And (with no intention of it being emotional or obscene:-) the small child calls it a model airplane instead of a “modele” airplane (unless, perhaps, he is from France) because the class of models is larger than the class of predictive models and in the English language and we use things called “adjectives” or context to differentiate between things that are in a common class or words with more than one definition. Predictive models, mathematical models (which are often predictive), geometric models (again, often predictive, at least representative), fashion models, model students (oops, it can be an adjective itself, can’t it), toy models, building models, to model an object (oops, looks like it can be verbed as well). Indeed, we can glance at a dictionary and find that there are at least 9 distinct meanings of the noun “model” that one can pick out from context or through the use of adjectival modifiers:
From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:
model
adj 1: worthy of imitation; “exemplary behavior”; “model
citizens” [syn: {exemplary}, {model(a)}]
n 1: a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process;
“the computer program was based on a model of the
circulatory and respiratory systems” [syn: {model},
{theoretical account}, {framework}]
2: a type of product; “his car was an old model”
3: a person who poses for a photographer or painter or sculptor;
“the president didn’t have time to be a model so the artist
worked from photos” [syn: {model}, {poser}]
4: representation of something (sometimes on a smaller scale)
[syn: {model}, {simulation}]
5: something to be imitated; “an exemplar of success”; “a model
of clarity”; “he is the very model of a modern major general”
[syn: {exemplar}, {example}, {model}, {good example}]
6: someone worthy of imitation; “every child needs a role model”
[syn: {model}, {role model}]
7: a representative form or pattern; “I profited from his
example” [syn: {model}, {example}]
8: a woman who wears clothes to display fashions; “she was too
fat to be a mannequin” [syn: {mannequin}, {manikin},
{mannikin}, {manakin}, {fashion model}, {model}]
9: the act of representing something (usually on a smaller
scale) [syn: {model}, {modelling}, {modeling}]
Note well that every one of them involves making, or being, a representation of some object or ideal or idea or system or process. There really is no need for disambiguation here, it is perfectly clear what different kinds of models are without it. It’s like claiming that evergreens cannot be trees, because TREES lose their leaves once a year in the fall and hence from now on pine trees must be called TROLLS — according to you — which makes it perfectly ok to cut down pines even in a national forest that protects, errr, trees. It’s all very exciting and clever, but who are you going to fool with such a claim?
So I have to ask — what is your point? If it has anything to do with general circulation models, those are, beyond any possible doubt, predictive mathematical models (definition 1 from the list above, obvious from the fact that they are computer programs and have the term “model” in their name which gives it away, d’ya think?) of the sort being used to advise policy makers in spite of the fact that they have for the most part been falsified, as such models certainly can be, and often enough have been in the past.
Sadly, your constraint on my speech means that we cannot then talk about how “obscene” it is to form the mean and standard deviation of a bunch of failed predictive models and present the result to policy makers with assertions of “95% confidence” that the future climate will like within thus-and-such a bound, as was done in AR4’s summary for policy makers, which I assume that you have read at some point. That’s not a model result, or a modele result, that’s simply a lie, an unconscionable abuse of statistics outside of any possibly defensible domain.
rgb

68. RACookPE1978:
Your argument is illogical. If this topic is of interest, I’d be happy to expend upon it.

69. In my previous post, please strike “expend” and replace this word by “expand.”

70. rgbatduke:
Please do not refrain from attempting to correct Terry Oldberg because your corrections may be informative for others. But please be aware you have no hope of success in the attempt.
I have learned from very long experience that trying to engage Terry Oldberg in logical debate is like entering Alice’s rabbit hole.
This is because he makes irrational assertions based on
(a) his own definition of terms
and
(b) refusal to provide explanation of the terms he uses.
He often claims he can “expand” or “explain” what he says but – when pressed – he never does.
So far in this thread he has not used his assertion that the IPCC analyses are not valid because they do not analyse a set of data. But his history indicates he will make that claim and – when pressed – will refuse to define what he means by a set of data.
In other words, refutation of his nonsense is needed, but attempting to discuss with him is frustrating. Patience is essential and expression of frustration is informative for onlookers.
I hope this helps you to engage with him. My many, many attempts to engage with him have cost me some of the little hair I have left.
Richard

71. johanna says:

rgb, I just wish you would stop shilly-shallying and tell us what you really think 🙂
Seriously, a masterly demolition with lots of educational highlights for non-scientists like me. I suspect that Oldberg’s feint is the first of many to try to explain why the CAGW models have been so spectacularly wrong. I have saved your posts in case somebody tries to run this line again elsewhere.
Thanks.

72. rgbatduke says:

This is because he makes irrational assertions based on
(a) his own definition of terms
and
(b) refusal to provide explanation of the terms he uses.
He often claims he can “expand” or “explain” what he says but – when pressed – he never does.

Time honored ways of trying to win an argument, at least in your own mind, of course. I have nothing against the idea of disambiguating terms as this can indeed be a major problem in any philosophical or logical debate, and it is closely tied to e.g. shifting sands fallacies and so on that often underlie it (inherent in the refusal to provide explanation and example of the new “definitions” inserted). Hence my request for a concrete example, ideally in context, for what he has in mind. They’d better not be GCMs, of course, because those are painfully obviously ordinary predictive models and a perfect match for NON-ambiguous definition 1 from the wordnet list of definitions of models. They embody many hypotheses (so that the hypothesis itself is quite complicated) all of them ultimately based on observation and data because all of science including the laws of physics are based on observation and data in a consistent Bayesian network or empirically supported reasoning.
GCMs in particular are further fueled by the use of empirically set, tunable parameters and are more or less without exception individually validated on a training set of climate data used to tune these parameters. When released into the wild, they promptly have diverged from the future, and were never ever able to hindcast the past. Their use has openly been to predict the dire climate future, and has invariably been accompanied by spurious, erroneous, and deliberately misleading claims of the “probability” of that future in quite quantitative terms, made in precisely the context where they would have the maximum political impact and be safely shielded from any sort of scientific or statistical criticism.
If there is something else that he wants to consider a “modele”, all he has to do is — without obscenity, ad hominem, or shrillness — present one or more clear examples and indicate how they cannot fit into the list of accepted definitions of the term model and how they are relevant to the discussion of the general circulation models used as the fundamental statistical predictive elements of the politicized side of climate science. Or, perhaps, his point is that they should not be so used because one cannot make a specific Bayesian argument with full knowledge of their priors, but that is a common feature of nearly all predictive models and doesn’t stop them from being models built on top of a collective hypothesis, it just means that when they fail a hypothesis test it is reasonable to reject that hypothesis and try try again. More generally, one should weaken the conclusion of a complex argument to the extent that the prior probabilities are unknown or poorly known, which is why multivariate predictive modeling is a goddamn hard game to play — it doesn’t take a lot to weaken a complex argument to damn near a coin flip, and it means that a wise person will want a lot of weak verification before he trusts his life or fortune to its predictions. Taleb’s The Black Swan presents a lovely argument for why in his polemic against the abuse of the normal, against ceteris paribus, against egregious assertion of Bayesian priors that are more properly unknown and sometimes unknowable.
rgb

73. rgbatduke:
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Like many words in the English vernacular, “model” is polysemic. That it possesses more than one meaning causes trouble of a logical kind when: a) this word is used in making an argument and b) the word changes meaning in the midst of this argument. That it changes meaning makes of this argument an “equivocation.” Upon superficial examination, an equivocation looks like a syllogism. However, while the conclusion of a syllogism is true, the conclusion of an equivocation is false or unproved. That it is not true is, however, concealed by the appearance that the argument is of the form of a syllogism.
The following example of an equivocation may be instructive:
Major premise: A plane is a carpenter’s tool.
Minor premise: A Boeing 737 is a plane.
Conclusion: A Boeing 737 is a carpenter’s tool.
The false conclusion that a Boeing 737 is a carpenter’s tool is produced when the polysemic term “plane” changes meaning in the midst of the argument.
By rule of logic, a proper conclusion cannot be drawn from an equivocation. To draw an IMPROPER conclusion from an equivocation is the “equivocation fallacy.”
An equivocation fallacy cannot exist absent polysemic terms in the associated argument. Hence, the prospect for reaching a valid conclusion from an argument is enhanced when the language of this argument is disambiguated such that all terms are monosemic. While disambiguation is wholly beneficial to the end of reaching valid conclusions from global warming arguments, there are people who resist disambiguation of the terms of global warming arguments. Among these people have been yourself and richardscourtney. I’d like to change your minds.
Logic is the field that contains what is known about the rules by which correct inferences may be distinguished from incorrect ones. That this is so lends logical significance to the distinction between a model that makes a predictive inference and a model that does not make one. A model of the former type is susceptible to being validated (in the disambiguated sense of this word), makes predictions (in the disambiguated sense of this word) and conveys information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his or her policy decisions. A model of the latter type is insusceptible to being validated, makes no predictions and conveys no information to a policy maker. A model of the former type is suitable for use in making policy decisions on greenhouse gas emissions while a model of the latter type is unsuitable for this use. The climate models of AR4 are entirely of the latter type.
Global warming research has produced no climate models that are suitable for policy making and thus has failed in its intended purpose. Nonetheless, policy makers have used the climate models that HAVE been produced by this research in making policy. That this is so has been obscured through the mechanism of drawing improper conclusions from equivocations. In the article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 I catch the climatologist Gavin Schmidt in the act of doing so.
These fallacies are based, in part, upon the polysemic term “model.” They are additionally based upon the polysemic terms science, scientist, scientific, predict/project, prediction/projection, validate/evaluate and validation/evaluation ( ibid ). The latter four terms are word pairs wherein the words in each word-pair have differing meanings but the two words are used as synonyms in making the associated argument.

74. Terry Oldberg:
Your long-winded and mostly meaningless but entirely pointless post at September 3, 2013 at 8:46 am includes an unjustified assertion; viz.
the climate models cited in the AR4 are of an undefined type which does not make predictions.
Clearly, they do make predictions. And, clearly, the AR4 states those predictions.
Unfortunately, you failed to mention why you think the models of the AR4 do not make predictions.
Perhaps you would be willing to correct that oversight so rgb has something in your post which can be addressed?
Richard

75. richardscourtney:
Like many of your arguments the one of Sept. 3 at 9:12 am is an example of an equivocation; in this case, the polysemic term that changes meaning is “predict.” If your aim were to ensure that people were not mislead by your arguments you could accomplish this aim through replacement of polysemic with monosemic terms. This, however, you steadfastly refuse to do. That you refuse makes it unprofitable to attempt logical discourse with you. You consistently thwart logical discourse through applications of the equivocation fallacy.

76. Terry Oldberg:
Your post at September 4, 2013 at 9:10 am purports to be an answer to my post at September 3, 2013 at 9:12 am.
My post asked you a question which you seem to have missed. Just to be clear, it was this

Unfortunately, you failed to mention why you think the models of the AR4 do not make predictions.
Perhaps you would be willing to correct that oversight so rgb has something in your post which can be addressed?

Insults to me are not an answer to the question.
Saying I use the word “predict” is not an answer to the question.
Saying why you think the models of the AR4 do not make predictions would be an answer to the question.
Richard

77. rgbatduke:
I am trapped in Alice’s rabbit hole again.
I would be grateful for a rescue attempt.
My pea shooter cannot get me out but one of your artillery barrages may blast the hole apart.
Richard

78. rgbatduke says:

The only reply I have time to make is that the metaphor (rather than reply) given about concerning disambiguation of the word “plane”, in context, would have us reasoning about the kind of clothes GCMs wear as they parade down runways.
In other words, only a complete idiot could look at the content, context, and purpose of general circulation computational predictive models and then confuse them with any meaning of the term “model” but meaning 1 in my list above, which does not under any circumstances require disambiguation either logically or semantically. There is a name for this particular logical fallacy — could it be “straw man”? Inventing an issue out of whole cloth, writing entire articles on the subject intended to provide apologia to something that isn’t a model/modele issue but is just poorly done science, improperly used by scientists to influence political issues under the guise of settled science when in fact it not only isn’t settled, it fails basic hypothesis tests applied to the GCMs one at a time as hypothesis based predictive models.
There is no need to kick the GCMs by calling them modeles (a term that no one will understand because you just made it up, Terry) — their failure as mere models is quite straightforward and unambiguous. And no, I’m not calling you an idiot — I’m saying that both your example and mine illustrate that there isn’t the slightest shred of contextual ambiguity here. If you want to work on disambiguating various terms used in religious discussion, such as whether or not atheism is a theistic belief, or the term Universe (meaning everything that has objectively real existence) does or does not (by definition) include God and hence logically precludes any possibility of the Universe being created by a dualistic God from a manifestly contradictory complement to the set of everything that actually exists, I’m all over that — endless, harmless fun in an issue that has no real empirical basis and hence is fundamentally undecidable at least with the data in hand. Trying to play this game in predictive modeling is simply unnecessary, confusing, and a bit silly.
Beyond that, Richard really doesn’t need my help, but we’d all appreciate you making your point. Are general circulation models models in the commonly accepted sense of the term in this context or not? If not, be well-prepared to defend your assertion otherwise, on the basis not of your made-up term “modele” which we have not yet agreed is logically or semantically necessary. If it is not necessary, adding it is unacceptable and confusing and violates several precepts of efficient argumentation. Note that there isn’t any doubt what the creators of those models think that they are, what AR1-4 assert that they are, what AR5 is ready to assert what they are, what the scientists who wrote the summaries for policy makers claim that they are, and what they are used for, without exception, worldwide.
They are failed predictive models, but I would argue that there is no doubt that they are predictive models in design, intent, purpose, application, and all subsequent use. Where is the ambiguity?
rgb

79. rgbatduke:
re your post at September 4, 2013 at 1:52 pm.
Thankyou that is precisely the kind of barrage I requested to blast the ‘rabbit hole’ apart. And it included a broadside that has sunk the good ship Oldberg beneath the waves.
Thankyou.
Richard

80. rgbatduke:
A phrase that you use in your latest post, “predictive model,” is notable for employing two polysemic terms. They are “predictive” and “model.” If you wished, you could assist the cause of rationality in debates over global warming by switching to the use of monosemic terms. For you to serve this cause, it is not necessary for you to use the specific words (including modele) that I use in my papers. You could, for example, use made up words. The essential aspect of a disambiguation is not the words that are chosen but rather that the chosen words are monosemic in their description of the methodology of the research. I’m flabbergasted at your resistance to joining me in this endeavor. Does this mean that you prefer irrationality?

81. rgbatduke says:

A phrase that you use in your latest post, “predictive model,” is notable for employing two polysemic terms. They are “predictive” and “model.” If you wished, you could assist the cause of rationality in debates over global warming by switching to the use of monosemic terms. For you to serve this cause, it is not necessary for you to use the specific words (including modele) that I use in my papers. You could, for example, use made up words. The essential aspect of a disambiguation is not the words that are chosen but rather that the chosen words are monosemic in their description of the methodology of the research. I’m flabbergasted at your resistance to joining me in this endeavor. Does this mean that you prefer irrationality?
Hey dude, some of us have heard of these really nifty semantic devices called “adjectives”. We learned of them when we needed to disambiguate things like red sweaters from green sweaters where we didn’t want to invent terms like “sweaters” for red sweaters only and “swatters” for green sweaters only and “swutters” for purple sweaters only. It allowed us to make an entirely desirable compression of language wherein class modifiers and context are used to provide fine tuning — when necessary — in human reason and communication. After all, there are times that Mom told us “be sure to wear a sweater” because — and pay attention, because this is verbal reasoning — it was cold outside. She didn’t much care if it was red or green or purple. Well, truth be told she always hated the purple sweater but the point is that the color of the sweater was irrelevant to the purpose of her communication, and if we disambiguated the general class of sweaters with distinct words, we would actually hinder the use of logic and reason when it applies appropriately to the whole class. We’d also fill several more OED-sized dictionaries, make it far more difficult to learn language at all, utterly destroy poetry and puns and the richness of human communication that is possible in part because one word often stands for several things, allowing terms to carry denotation and well as connotation.
None of which matters in this context! There isn’t a single person properly involved in the climate debate who does not know what a predictive model is, and that GCMs are predictive models. They are physics-based mathematical computational models used to make predictions. About the future. All of that is what everybody in any scientific or mathematical or statistical or economic field would properly recognize from the term “predictive model”. There is no need whatsoever for disambiguation, and if there were, it would surely be better accomplished through the use of adjectives that make the descriptors sufficiently precise to handle arbitrary degrees of subclassification while still allowing discussions, logic, reason, communication at the class level.
Dude, you might learn about tree structures and perhaps a bit about semantics before you go trumpeting your knowledge of “logic” and seeking to use it to add completely unnecessary words to the English language. Yes, there are discussions in science and philosophy that happen because people use the same term in different ways and talk to cross purposes as a result. There are more efficient (and, might I say less arrogant) ways to resolve the issue than inventing words and browbeating people who are perfectly happy with the humble adjectival modifier with them.
It is said that Eskimos have a zillion words for snow, and back when I studied formal logic and the philosophy of language and read Malinoski, Dorothy Lee, Sapir, Whorf, and all of those guys I actually wrote a paper that covered stuff like the fact that Trobriand islanders have 30-odd words for “yam”, because their language evolved to call every stage of the yam plant and tuber’s development by a separate word — noun rich, adjective poor. Yams were (obviously) really important in their culture, and equally obviously their language was incredibly poor. There’s a reason English has become the de facto global language instead of a rationally designed language like Esperanto. You might think on that and try to puzzle out why.
Don’t make me disambiguate “people who are addicted to pointlessly screwing around with language” by inventing a word like “epistemoholic” to apply to you.
Terms like that are catchy. They could go viral. Unlike “modele”, not before the heat death of this Universe.
rgb

82. rgbatduke:
In your latest post, you set up a strawman and knock it down. I have nowhere stated that adjectives cannot be used in disamguating the terms of an argument. The fact is that you steadfastly refuse to use adjectives or any other means of disambiguation in making arguments about global warming. A consequence is for you to repeatedly draw conclusions from equivocations in violation of a logical principle.

83. rgbatduke says:

In your latest post, you set up a strawman and knock it down. I have nowhere stated that adjectives cannot be used in disamguating the terms of an argument. The fact is that you steadfastly refuse to use adjectives or any other means of disambiguation in making arguments about global warming. A consequence is for you to repeatedly draw conclusions from equivocations in violation of a logical principle.
No, specifically, you stated and objection to using “polysemic terms”, with the clear implication that in the specific case of “predictive modeling” there was something that needed to be disambiguated. Your entire article — which I would count as your statements even if they occurred elsewhere — proposes the term “modele” to disambiguate things that can be and easily are handled with adjectives, and that nobody seriously misunderstands anyway. The invention of new words to (arguably pointlessly) replace terms that are perfectly clear in context and indeed are self-defining — a GCM cannot possibly be mistaken because it is precisely defined by its code and its actual application in human affairs — suggests an unhealthy degree of obsession with nuances of language that are not, in the end fruitful of any greater understanding or insight.
I am very interested, of course, in hearing precise instances of where I have “refused to use adjectives or other means of disambiguation in making arguments about global warming”. Oh, wait, you said (quite unambiguously) “steadfastly”, so I guess I never do anything else.
Clearly I need to go back to my dictionary, as I’ve apparently been nouning too many adjectives and didn’t even realize it, in all my discussions of global warming.
Oh, wait. Warming is a noun. Global must be a disambiguating adjective! Sometimes I even through in the term “anthropogenic”! Or both “catastrophic” and “anthropogenic” at the same time (how daring of me).
So pull the other one.
rgb

84. Pamela Gray says:

Terry Oldenberg, what puffery. You mistake such “speak” for elegant argument. Divining the splitting of the width of a gnat’s a** hair is ill-elegant logic and invites derision, and at best, certainly not 4 marks.