Steve McIntyre writes: IOP: expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”
The publisher of Environmental Research Letters today took the bizarre position that expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”.
The publisher stated that the rejected Bengtsson manuscript (which, as I understand it) had discussed the important problem of the discrepancy between models and observations had “contained errors”.
But what were the supposed “errors”? Bengtsson’s “error” appears to be the idea that models should be consistent with observations, an idea that the reviewer disputed.
The reviewer stated that IPCC ranges in AR4 and AR5 are “not directly comparable to observation based intervals”:
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).
Later he re-iterated that “no consistency was to be expected in the first place”:
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
Read Steve’s entire post here: http://climateaudit.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/iop-expecting-consistency-between-models-and-observations-is-an-error/
==========================================================
Wow, he’s basically saying “models have no inconsistency with reality”. Damn, I guess we just aren’t as qualified as members of the sacred order to read graphs like these:
Ross McKittrick writes in comments at CA:
I have no idea if Bengtsson et al. is a good paper, not having seen it. But the topic itself is an important one, and notwithstanding those attempts at gatekeeping mentioned above, there’s no stopping the flow at this point because the model/observational discrepancies are so large and growing. A few recent examples in print include:
– Fyfe, J.C., N.P. Gillett and F.W. Zwiers, 2013: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years. Nature Climate Change, 3, 767-769, doi:10.1038/nclimate1972
– Swanson, K.L., 2013: Emerging selection bias in large-scale climate change simulations. Geophysical Research Letters, 40, DOI: 10.1002/grl.50562.
– McKitrick, Ross R. and Lise Tole (2012) Evaluating Explanatory Models of the Spatial Pattern of Surface Climate Trends using Model Selection and Bayesian Averaging Methods. Climate Dynamics DOI 10.1007/s00382-012-1418-9.
– Fildes, Robert and Nikolaos Kourentzes (2011) “Validation and Forecasting Accuracy in Models of Climate Change International Journal of Forecasting 27 968-995.
– Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis & N. Mamassis (2010). “A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data.” Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55(7) 2010.
– McKitrick, Ross R., Stephen McIntyre and Chad Herman (2010) “Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Sets”. Atmospheric Science Letters, DOI: 10.1002/asl.290
And I know of another one nearly accepted that continues the theme. It may be that Bengtsson et al. had some flaws, though I agree that the reviewer didn’t point to any. Instead the reviewer tries to argue that models and observations are not meant to be compared, and the editor swallowed this nonsensical argument, no doubt happy for a straw to clutch at.
But nobody should be surprised that ERL has the slant that it does: This is a journal with Peter Gleick, Stefan Rhamstorf and Myles Allen on its editorial board:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/page/Editorial%20Board
You can’t advertise a hard-line editorial stance any better than that. Well, maybe they could: they list as their #1 Highlight publication of 2013… Cook, Nucitelli et al.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/page/Highlights-of-2013
Strangely, they really seem to be objecting that the Times had the nerve to run the story after all the work that’s been done to convince the press about the supposed dangers of “false balance”:
With current debate around the dangers of providing a false sense of ‘balance’ on a topic as societally important as climate change, we’re quite astonished that The Times has taken the decision to put such a non-story on its front page.
Evidently they too subscribe to that editorial position: don’t print anything that might give the impression there’s actually a range of scientific views out there.
Has anyone yet added 2012, 2013 to the graphs above? I think that would be valuable to show the continued discrepancy between the models and observations
“The publisher of Environmental Research Letters today took the bizarre position that expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”. ”
———————————————————————-
And yet the point is they are consistent. Consistently wrong in ONE DIRECTION. This is very informative.
Now seriously guys:
(emphasis added)
Opening the door for oversimplified claims of errors and worse from the climate sceptics media side. This is a reason to reject publication of a scientific paper? Does it have anything to do with anything BUT trying to control a media outcome. This is a reason to reject publication, to control a media outcome.
Opening doors for claims from any side should have nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific merits of the paper. The climate sceptics media side least of all.
The models are correct. Reality is an error.
@ David A says:
May 16, 2014 at 1:13 pm
Not only they are consistent… by being wrong in one direction, they are also the only source for publications. That sucks… Saying only source, I mean that other “parallel” journals will also reject with similar reviews. No conspiracy though, this is just a result of totally rotten whole scientific research system (including all other disciplines).
There is something to be said about observation time scale and model time scale. This is and was a known issue so it is correct that they cannot compare observation to models without that understanding. However, CMIP5 was designed specifically because of this and it is a sub-decadal model. This is why modelers that wrote the AR5 chapter said specifically that a 20 year interval that is outside the forecast is “vanishingly small.” Any paper rewritten with CMIP5 and the corresponding observational interval is valid. This is why we now see some scientists embracing ENSO when only 5 years ago they dismissed it as a non-factor. Five years ago Mann would have said these weather cycles are irrelevant. Now Xie and the follow-ons need a reason why sub-decadal models are not within observation and they need decadal events to explain it. They will also start using solar cycle to explain it, so just wait. There is always a decadally variant process to blame sub-decadal incoherence on. Hopefully the modellers will stand up to the “true believers” and keep their integrity.
The Three Great Commandments of Climate Science:
Thou shalt not confuse observations with the data from the holy models
Thou shalt bear false witness against the disbelievers of the Holy Hockey Stick.
Thou shalt not be found out in thy false witness, as thou shalt deride, deceive and be contemptuous of all those who might dare to expose your false witness.
@Mark Bofill says:
May 16, 2014 at 1:18 pm
Not only media outcome, this is to control balance in favor of certain school of thought, i.e. control of funding and academic power.
Walt The Physicist says:
May 16, 2014 at 1:32 pm
And this doesn’t surprise me of course. But it’s expressed so baldly. I mean, is there another way to read it? Any sort of fig leaf at all?
@ TimB says:
May 16, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Of course, all these are valid points for discussion via responding with a scientific publication or discourse at a conference. However, these scientific disagreements can not be used for rejection.
“… Hopefully the modellers will stand up to the “true believers” and keep their integrity. …”
I have seen no evidence since the 80s that there are any climate model makers who have a shred of integrity. Not one tiny bit of evidence. On the other hand, I have seen much evidence that the entire lot are snake oil mongers of the worst sort.
“Evidently they too subscribe to that editorial position: don’t print anything that might give the impression there’s actually a range of scientific views out there.”
Not sure there is a range of scientific views. There is the science that says the models have failed; and then there is the political ideology of AGW.
Obvously Prof Bengtsson is outraged at his treatment by others in the climate science community since his decision to join the GWPF. Going to the Times is perhaps the first manifestation of his outrage. Perhaps it will also be his last. Perhaps he will bear his maltreatment with quiet dignity.
On the other hand, if he doesn’t choose to do that, then with him having been on the inside of the system all these years at the highest levels, I am very sure that he has more than enough ammunition to torpedo these frauds and make them regret crossing him just as much as Mann will regret crossing Mark Steyn.
This is a quote from the 2010 UNESCO report “media Literacy and the New Humanism” that expresses the UN entities’ attitudes toward the media’s obligations to their vision. This is the code the Times supposedly broke.
“Humanity must force the media system as a whole to shoulder the obligation to stimulate the intense intercultural relation that the global world demands of us must act as an interpreter and translator…the goal is to align the entire media system with the obligation to make a systematic effort at mutual understanding among all the collectives, peoples, societies and communities in this global world.”
Models serve a similar function. It’s why variance with actual reality is just fine. The point of the model is to gain the power and money to try to change reality and institutions going forward.
oversimplified claims of “errors”???………….LOL
Uh…WRONG….is simple enough
With enough words, we can convince you of anything
where no consistency was to be expected in the first place
When I first read this, I took it to mean that they were stating that the models were never expected to be consistent with observations. Then I thought, nah, I must be mistaken, they couldn’t possibly have said something so stupid. So I read it again, real careful, and it says…. whoa, it says what I thought the first time.
Then I recalled this quote from ClimateGate:
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
So they’re actually right. They’ve departed from the need to consider what is happening in the real world altogether. They live entirely in a computer model of their own creation, and simply cannot comprehend that there is something called “reality” out there that the models don’t describe. This is beyond not wanting to admit that the models are wrong. I sense that they truly don’t understand that their models are not reality.
The reviewer’s assertion that the error ranges from climate models is “not directly comparable to observation based intervals” is absolutely true. The error ranges of climate models are simply a measure of their own statistical internal behavior, with no connection to any physical reality actually being modeled. It is a mistake to say that wider or narrower error ranges have any bearing on the skill of the models at forecasting the actual climate.
It would be interesting to see what these models would “project” the temperatures would be if CO2, CH4, and all other greenhouse gasses were kept at their 1950 levels. Would the models show that there should have been significant cooling?
The Matrix lives in climate science.
And Marcos, yes, several have. But not easily assessible via Google, yet. (wait my next book out end this year– updating everything to at least mid 2014, a real chore.) You can too. Cut and paste the above graphic, look up and add the UAH and or RSS updates, then repost. Anthony is moving as fast as he can given his enormous Koch funded staff. Perhaps you could help out by doing as you request for him. Come on. Chip in.
“Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”
Obviously, one has to ask why it is “less than helpful” to compare ranges of ECS from AR4, AR5 and Otto et al and point out that they are inconsistent? Less than helpful to whom?
The second bit – “actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side” – is a fundamentally political point that has absolutely no place in any peer review process. This is an open admission that there is politics involved in peer review.
The position of Environmental Research Letters is revealing of the lack of conformity of global warming climatology to the scientific method of investigation. However, it is not exactly “bizarre” for this lack of conformity has been apparent for many years in the structuring of global warming research.
The claims that are made by a model are falsified by the evidence if and only if the observed relative frequencies of the observed events in the statistical population underlying the model fail to match the relative frequencies that are predicted by the model. For the current batch of climate models, there is no such statistical population. Hence these models lack the property of falsifiability. To expect consistency between models and observations is truly an “error” because the claims of these models are not falsifiable.
Many people have been led to expect consistency between models and observations. This expectation is a consequence from widespread applications of the equivocation fallacy on the part of climatologists in making global warming arguments. I address this topic in the article at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .
Well then…
The good news is that I now have a model proving that FTL travel is possible, without silly stuff like dimensional warps, exotic matter, tachyons… or consistency with reality.
I leave for Trantor tomorrow morning, in my spaceship powered by unicorn farts.
Davidmhoffer
A couple of years ago I read something in a book by a well known scientist that I wished I had bookmarked as I have no idea now who said it.
They had been carrying out research into a number of historic temperature data bases. The comment Ran along the following lines.
‘We checked the observed temperature data and noted it ran warm compared to the models. So we have assumed the observed data is wrong and have used the modelled figures.’
Tonyb
Climate science ‘orthodoxy’ has had the sort of week that only Bertolt Brecht could make sense of
If you substitute ‘models’ for ‘government’ and ‘observations’ for ‘people’ in his poem “The Solution”, you’ll see what I mean
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
I seem to remember some part of the Old Testament mentioned that it was a sin to try and test the omnipotent one.
I wonder what the models are for then, if they are not to be used for testing. Decoration?
“The publisher of Environmental Research Letters today took the bizarre position that expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”. ”
Since most of it is policy funded and based “science” it’s only purpose is to be consistent with the UNFCCC?
Reality? We ain’t got no reality. We don’t need no reality! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ reality!
During my career as a chemical engineer I wrote many computer models. If I had said, “we should not expect consistency between the model and observations”, not only would I have been fired, I would have been drop kicked out the front gate.
Ralph Kramden says, May 16, 2014 at 3:02 pm: “I would have been drop kicked out the front gate.”
If you ran reactions based on such models, kicking you Stupid reality.
(Stupid tags; mods, please delete that botched attempt.)
Ralph Kramden says, May 16, 2014 at 3:02 pm: “I would have been drop kicked out the front gate.”
If you ran reactions based on such models, kicking you would not have been necessary.
a href=”http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2006-11-22/”>Stupid reality.
(where the heck did the bracket go? last chance. wish we had preview.)
Ralph Kramden says, May 16, 2014 at 3:02 pm: “I would have been drop kicked out the front gate.”
If you ran reactions based on such models, kicking you would not have been necessary.
Stupid reality.
“ It may be that Bengtsson et al. had some flaws, though I agree that the reviewer didn’t point to any. ”
On the contrary, the referee pointed to many flaws, and you actually quote from the report
http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times
For example you quote this:
“One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).”
which might have the interpretation that provided, or it might mean that they are not comparable because they refer to different physical and/or mathematical quantities. You would really need to full paper to tell – perhaps Bengtsson et. al. could be persuaded to provide the whole text?
What’s fascinating is that the disparity between global climate models and observations seems to be an easy fix.
The model error is consistently in one direction…..too warm.
If you use a gun to shoot at a target 50 times and your shot is to the right of center by, let’s say 2 4 inches each time(a marksman would not be dumb enough to let it go on that long), the solution is simple.
No, not move the target over to the right and still shoot at the same target. You adjust the gun(or aim 1 to 4 inches to the left of the bulls eye).
Climate scientists using global climate models apparently are not very good shots when it comes to hitting global temperature targets and worst of all, they are not smart(objective) enough to make the obvious adjustments in timely fashion.
Let’s have us a global temperature projecting contest. Take any time frame that isn’t skewed in the short run by an El Nino and I bet I can do better than the global climate model projection. The farther out, the better I can do.
What’s that you say? The government is the judge of the contest and they have already awarded first place to the models that are completely missing the target.
Hey, I object. I can prove that I can do better than the models, please just give me a chance to show you
The contest is settled, stop trying to interfere with our work. Go away denier. On your way out, don’t forget to leave us the $100 entry fee.
The amount of distance that a shot hits consistently to the right of center should result in an adjustment to the gun to make it shoot that same distance, farther to the left.
Tonyb,
So many articles I wish I’d have saved. One of my favorites had something similar to this:
We know sea levels were 3 feet higher in the past. We don’t know why they were higher, but we know it wasn’t for the same reason as today. (Meaning of course, AGW)
==========================================================
How many passengers can you take? I could recommend a few that have deserved free passage.
Better yet, does yours craft have an autopilot?
If you stay behind and your model crashes, what have we lost?
If the association between the Times and the GWPF develops such that
the inadequacies of the climate science are exposed more widely, then I
shall subscribe to the Times on Line, More power to them!
How about our site host giving this paper a nice full page spread and commentary to boot?
Show them what real science is and how to do it.. As the paper has been rejected they no longer have an intellectual property to stop its publication elsewhere.
If the output of the climate models is not to be compared to actual measurements then the validity of these models becomes irrefutable, and they are not scientific.
Anthony, you write: Wow, he’s basically saying “models have no inconsistency with reality”. I believe you meant to say “no consistency”.
So when Boeing tested the new wing of the 787 and it broke, contrary to what their models said the wing should do, they modified their models based on the new data from the broken wing. Perhaps this reviewer could enlighten Boeing about the true relationship between models and reality?
No, publication of Bengtsson’s paper was not rejected under a false pretense, it’s only his colleagues setting him straight. Just a standard method of discipline in Climate Science.
UnfrozenCavemanMD says:
May 16, 2014 at 2:20 pm
Then modelers have a duty to change their graphics and clearly indicate that the lines on the graph cannot be read as being about the real world. The next step would be to explain why readers should care about graphs that are not depicting the real world. Let’s be honest, even with the humble folk.
You need the SPM 10 graph from AR5 in this article too. That doesn’t just show a model averaged line that bears no relation to the instrumental record- they actually colour the hindcasted portion black and label it “historical” as if it really IS the instrumental record. And that’s mighty convenient because it shows a whopping hike in temperatures from 2000 to 2013 that just doesn’t exist. This graph was the poster child for the AR5 SPM press conference, broadcast globally in late 2013. It served to indoctrinate billions across five continents.
And that sleight of hand went unnoticed precisely because this paradigm of non correlation between models and data is so embedded in the alarmist psyche: if modelled data doesn’t need to mirror the instrumental record to pass as valid, it means you can present it as a ‘valid’ alternative-world scenario and then rubber-stamp it with the grand, real-world label, “historical”.
SPM 10 was a calculated set-up to fool countless, busy, hardworking people who don’t have time to delve beyond the IPCC sound bites and graphic wizardry.
Scute
There is a precedent for all this – the response to the Spencer and Braswell paper published in Remote Sensing. As explained by Peter Gleick in his post in Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/09/02/paper-disputing-basic-science-of-climate-change-is-fundamentally-flawed-editor-resigns-apologizes/
[begin quote – upper case added for emphasis, and d-word hyphenated]
The Spencer and Braswell paper fails in these requirements. But this is also the way science works: someone makes a scientific claim and others test it. If it holds up to scrutiny, it become part of the scientific literature and knowledge, safe until someone can put forward a more compelling theory that satisfies all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, AND FITS THE MODELS. Once again, despite the fervent desires of climate skeptics and d-niers, the vast body of literature and the basic conclusions about the growing threat of climate change remains intact: the climate is changing rapidly and humans are the dominant cause.
[end quote]
Walt The Physicist says:
May 16, 2014 at 1:28 pm
Not only they are consistent… by being wrong in one direction, …
They are also consistently wrong.
Mike Maguire says:
May 16, 2014 at 3:24 pm
========================================
Yes Mark you got my comment here, David A says:May 16, 2014 at 1:13 pm. What is informative is indeed that the models are in fact consistently wrong in over predicting warmth. This indicates something fundamental and wrong is consistent in all the models. The most likely forcing they have wrong is the climate sensitivity to CO2.
Now you would think they would adjust their sights as you not indicated. Remarkably the IPCC takes the mean of all the “wrong in one direction” models, and bases their ever failing predicted future disasters on this.
The problem with stating that all models are wrong is that it leads to the following syllogism.
a) Models are wrong (major premise)
b) Bengtsson’s papers use models (minor premise)
c) Therefore (at least some of) Bengtsson’s papers are wrong (conclusion)
Which line would you like to modify? ( The minor premise b) is verifiable)
Ah, but you see, the problem is that you’re comparing models to actual temperature measurements. In a decade or so, they can safely ‘adjust’ today’s temperatures to match the models, then they will point out that the models match reality, and have always matched reality; any supposed inconsistency in the past was just because reality was wrong.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
May 16, 2014 at 4:40 pm
======================================================
You missed the mark with your straw man argument there. (Almost as much as the wrong climate models) Keep repeating this assertion and you can continue to miss the mark.)
Ralph Kramden wrote;
“During my career as a chemical engineer I wrote many computer models. If I had said, “we should not expect consistency between the model and observations”, not only would I have been fired, I would have been drop kicked out the front gate.”
I don’t know Ralph, that whole observation versus model consistency thing never comes up in Aerospace engineering;
Engineer; I assure you good potential customer that our models state explicitly that this airplane is indeed flying
Potential Customer; But the wheels are touching the ground, I can see it myself…..
Engineer; Again, I assure you that our models convincingly show that there is indeed a layer of air between the tires and the ground…..
Potential Customer; But, it looks like the tires are nailed to the ground (apologies to Monty Python)….
Engineer; But, but, but the models… the models say…..
Ex-Customer: What’s that shiny airplane doing up in the air over there ???
Ex-Engineer; oh that’s our competitor, he denies that our airplane can fly……
Cheers, Kevin
David A says:
May 16, 2014 at 4:38 pm
Mike Maguire says:
May 16, 2014 at 3:24 pm
========================================
Yes Mark you got my comment here, David A says:May 16, 2014 at 1:13 pm. What is informative is indeed that the models are in fact consistently wrong in over predicting warmth. This indicates something fundamental and wrong is consistent in all the models. The most likely forcing they have wrong is the climate sensitivity to CO2.
Now you would think they would adjust their sights as you not indicated. Remarkably the IPCC takes the mean of all the “wrong in one direction” models, and bases their ever failing predicted future disasters on this.
————————————————————————————-
There is likely more wrong than just the climate sensitivity to CO2.
“The most likely forcing they have wrong is the climate sensitivity to CO2.”
Climate sensitivity is not a forcing, and it is not the input to the models – it is the output i.e it is the result of the model calculations. The most likely thing to be wrong is the parameterisation of clouds and aerosols.
Tonyb says:
May 16, 2014 at 2:41 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, I vaguely recall something along those lines as well. The problem is that the climate debate has gotten so… I don’t even have a word for it… surreal? that a comment along those lines is reminiscent of all sorts of things. When the Argo buoys first started reporting data, they didn’t report what the models expected, and the immediate assumption was that there must be something wrong with the Argo buoys. Then there’s the data that Willis has been writing a lot of articles on (ceres?) which measures the energy imbalance at TOA. The measurements report a 5 watt/m2 imbalance which is obviously wrong so they apply an adjustment to it based on some model criteria that gets it back to a 1/2 watt or so.
In an environment such as that, the reasoning to reject reality in favour of models actually seems to be reasonable to a surprising number of researchers.
I don’t find models reliable. They are however good for walking down runways while modeling clothes, though they are usually silent so don’t give their opinions on matters. Some seem to be employed spinning around poles – maybe this has something to do with vorticies, but they appear to be in even less repute.
It seems to me that we should be able to analyze the writing & phrasing of the review and possibly identify the reviewer.
But Bengtsson’s papers don’t RELY on models.
Ah Ha! I now completely get this kind of thinking. The research design is a post normal (like wayyyyy past normal) modeled “what if this were true” design. Which is why the results do not have to match reality, and in fact should not. This is why climate warming research results are so loved by those seeking taxes and those seeking insurance clients. Nothing has to match reality because it was only designed to conjure up “what if this were true” results.
So I should be able to super duper computer model this: because I get up before the Sun rises (every damn time), I should be able to model (with all the necessary fudge factores) that the world will come to an end if I don’t get up. Which means I can impose a World Wide Pamela Gray tax.
Must set up that bank fund account toot sweet cuz this Leprechaun has found her pot of gold! No wonder Obama is out on the talk circuit.
“…where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.”
—
So the same models that were used to convince politicians to spend billions fighting climate change were never expected to be consistent with reality. Is this an admission that they knew they were selling snake oil all along? Where can I go to get my tax money back? If I lost money investing in a company based on the prospectus they published, wouldn’t I have a claim against them if they admitted that their prospectus was never expected to be consistent with reality in the first place? Models that don’t match the real world don’t get to dictate where real money is spent. From now on they can spend monopoly money. In their imaginary reality, it should work just as well.
“I should be able to model (with all the necessary fudge factors) that the world will come to an end if I don’t get up. Which means I can impose a World Wide Pamela Gray tax.”
—
To impose a tax, you would need to get elected first; otherwise, it would be considered black mail, or in your case, Gray mail. On second thought, by hiring the right lobbyists, you could get away with such extortion. Big firms do it all the time.
***”I, like any of you” ??? the Guardian includes the “climate sceptics media side” quote, comes up with this predictable attack on Bengtsson & Murdoch!
16 May: Guardian: Nafeez Ahmed: Murdoch-owned media hypes lone metereologist’s climate junk science
Absurd anti-science faux journalism flares up again – as usual, it’s Big Oil that’s set to benefit, not the public
This morning ***I, like any of you, was disappointed to see that the frontpage of The Times carried a story by the paper’s environment editor, Ben Webster, which read, ‘Scientists in cover-up of “damaging” climate view.’
Variations of the story had been plastered everywhere, spearheaded by Murdoch-owned outlets, repeated uncritically by others…
The “unbearable” scientific isolation that Prof Bengtsson experienced as a consequence of joining the GWPF, and submitting scientifically questionable material to a leading journal, should not come as a surprise. That the climate science community roundly rejects the GWPF’s denialist rantings, and found Bengtsson’s work in this regard unfit to publish, is evidence for the overwhelming consensus on climate change – not against it.
As an illustrative example of just how isolated Prof Bengtsson and his ilk are, consider the fact reported earlier this year by Scientific American that out of more than 2,000 peer-reviewed climate science publications put out over the last year from November 2012 to December 2013, the number of scientists who denied the role of human-caused CO2 emissions in current climate change “is exactly one.”…
Compare that to the number of scientific authors of those 2,000 plus papers – 9,136. So over nine thousand scientists over the last year agree that our fossil fuel emissions are principally responsible for contemporary climate change, and just one disagrees. The poor sod must be feeling pretty damn lonely, I imagine. Perhaps almost as lonely as Prof Bengtsson.
Such media misrepresentation is now par for the course…
What we’re seeing here, then, isn’t really journalism at all. Whatever its intent, in effect, it amounts to little more than glorified industry PR calling itself ‘news.’
The real story is how the IPCC’s projections and solutions are likely to be far too conservative, having been ‘diluted’ by pressure from the world’s biggest fossil fuel polluters.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/16/murdoch-media-hypes-lone-climate-denial-big-oil
behind paywall, but the headline comes as no surprise:
Global warming paper ‘was not suppressed’
UK Financial Times – 9 hours ago
The step was taken after an author of the rejected study, Swedish scientist Lennart Bengtsson, told The Times newspaper he suspected intolerance of dissenting views on climate science had prevented his paper from being published. IOP Publishing, the …
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/144aeafc-dd10-11e3-8546-00144feabdc0.html
rogerknights : “But Bengtsson’s paper don’t RELY on models”
Really? Try this one
http://www.tellusb.net/index.php/tellusb/article/view/20189/html
chosen because it is recent, and he is the sole author, so it cannot be stated that the views are not his, and it is in an open access journal so anyone can read it.
It makes extensive use of computer based models. He is using the models to argue that ‘natural variability’ in the climate is greater than some think (which might be right, or at any rate is not disproven) but along the way he remarks that you need greenhouse gas forcing to explain the current climate.
‘expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”.’
Of course it is. You don’t want people to show that your models are junk and your theory is crap, do you?
Methinks it’s a little much to expect consistency between empty assertions (models) and observed physical data, especially when the assertions are driven entirely by political agendas. Since when are lies consistent with truth?
The problem here is that the wrong side of this inequality (not equation, for heaven’s sake!) is being defended by Environmental Research Letters. In their view, empty assertions obviously trump observed physical data.
@ Lew Skannen
But the OT also says
“When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him.” (Deut. 18:22)
Mike Maguire says: May 16, 2014 at 3:24 pm
What’s fascinating is that the disparity between global climate models and observations seems to be an easy fix.
My comment:
Not so. The models cannot be adjusted as easily as a firearm or missile guidance system because the problem is not with the values of the parameters, but with the model structure.
I use the term “model design” to take in the context of the models and their purpose from the point of view of the modelers, their sponsors and the users of model outputs.
The modelers may be seeking to show the forcing effects of GHGs and the impact of human production of GHGs, not to replicate the climate system as a whole, including its natural variability..
The mismatch between projections and observations may result from the natural internal variability in the temperature of planet Earth and extraterrestrial factors that are not captured by the models.
I believe that the omission of factors that are natural rather than man-made is a fundamental property of model design.
The reviewer said that the models should not be expected to account for observations. If the models cannot simulate the Earth’s climate system, the AGW paradigm may be called into question.
In my opinion, the reviewer implies that the hypothesis may be correct, but the models do not support either its truth nor its falsity. I interpret this as a frank admission of the fact that the reviewer is relying on faith in the AGW paradigm. This is entirely consistent with the history of science as described by Thomas Kuhn and Charles Mackay (take your pick).
For a person who is willing to subject articles of scientific faith to scrutiny a different conclusion might be reached as follows:
If there is no way to show that the hypothesis does not account for the real world (the observations), that means the models are designed in a way that they cannot falsify the AGW hypothesis. The models are not scientific tools but an elaborate form of ritual for confirming faith in the AGW paradigm.
The reviewer is being perfectly candid about the skill of the models. Their scientific value is negligible. That is the main reason why Bengtsson’s paper should have been published but could not have been published by this journal with this editorial board.
I would really like to see Mr. McIntyre and/or Mr. McKitrick incorporate their two comments into an Op Ed in the Times or the Wall Street Journal or other widely read popular publication. I think that would help people to see through the explanatory fog that is going to be laid down over this whole incident.
I recently when round and round with a pro AGW that bought, hook line and sinker, the drivel that Gavin came out with that the models could indeed tell us what the climate is going to be in 50 years, granted weather model are not much use beyond seven day but climate models are different. It falls on deaf ear that weather is chaotic and the out come of weather is climate and if weather is chaotic, climate has to be too. Yet in there world weather and climate are two different things, now were are not going to know what the weather is going to be in ten day but we will be able to tell you it going to be warmer in fifty years and we can tell you by how much. I even pointed out finical firm tried that with the stock market and failed, they no long use models in there buying and selling of stocks, yes they do use economic models to try to guess the movement of the market but the thought you could put historic data in a computer and run a model and than decide what stocks to buy and sell is dead, far to much money was lost with that line of stupidity. Yet the climate charlatans. Are still sticking to the line model can predict the future and it heresy to say it is not so.
jimmi_the_dalek says:
May 16, 2014 at 6:02 pm
“The most likely forcing they have wrong is the climate sensitivity to CO2.”
Climate sensitivity is not a forcing, and it is not the input to the models – it is the output i.e it is the result of the model calculations. The most likely thing to be wrong is the parameterisation of clouds and aerosols.
===================================================
Pedantic, but yes, CO2 is however a forcing, and climate sensitivity refers to those feedback responses to a doubling of CO2.
Never forget that the theory is CAGW. Currently all but the A is MIA. The models are failed by the observations.
What I believe is reality. Reality has no right to prove ME wrong.
Mark Bofill says:
May 16, 2014 at 1:18 pm
Now seriously guys:
Noticed this right away.
Waited to see hwo will spot it too.
I think this is THE most revealing sentence of that document.
In the financial world there exists the same refusal to accept that current models cannot predict the future accurately:
That financial models are plagued by calibration problems is no surprise to Wilmott–he notes that it has become routine for modelers in finance to simply keep recalibrating their models over and over again as the models continue to turn out bad predictions.
“When you have to keep recalibrating a model, something is wrong with it,” he says. “If you had to readjust the constant in Newton’s law of gravity every time you got out of bed in the morning in order for it to agree with your scale, it wouldn’t be much of a law But in finance they just keep on recalibrating and pretending that the models work.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/finance-why-economic-models-are-always-wrong/
Friends:
Everybody knows one is often forgiven for being wrong and rarely forgiven for being right. Therefore, I have watched a series of recent WUWT threads without commenting on the validity of the reported Review Comment which recommended rejection of Bengtsson’s paper.
But nobody has stated the obvious truth so I write to point it out although it places me in the invidious position of saying, “I told you”.
There is nothing new in the stated reason for recommending the rejection of Bengtsson’s paper and that reason is consistent with the subject of Bengtsson’s paper.
The above article reports
Bengtsson’s paper compares model performances reported in the IPCC AR4 and AR5 Reports, and it compares those different performances to reality. As several commentators (including Steve McIntyre) have pointed out, the recommended rejection of Bengtsson’s paper says the differences between the model results and reality are not novel information and have no importance: the Review Comment says;
and
This clear statement that “no consistency” was expected between model outputs and reality was clearly and repeatedly stated in the IPCC AR4. Indeed, the AR4 repeatedly asserted that reality should be ignored if it did not concur with model results.
Models can be altered over time and, therefore, there is also no reason why model results reported in AR5 should be consistent with model results reported in AR4.
The important point is that the AR4 defined reality as being what could be modeled and NOT what is observed. I repeatedly objected to this in my Peer Review of the AR4. And I pointed out that
All my review comments on this matter were ignored and in the years since the AR4 was published I have repeatedly reported this misuse of the models by commenting on it in several places including on WUWT.
I copy the strongest of my several AR4 Review Comments about this matter below this comment.
Richard
=============================
Page 2-47 Chapter 2 Section 2.6.3 Line 46
Delete the phrase, “and a physical model” because it is a falsehood.
Evidence says what it says, and construction of a physical model is irrelevant to that in any real science.
The authors of this draft Report seem to have an extreme prejudice in favour of models (some parts of the Report seem to assert that climate obeys what the models say; e.g. Page 2-47 Chapter 2 Section 2.6.3 Lines 33 and 34), and this phrase that needs deletion is an example of the prejudice.
Evidence is the result of empirical observation of reality
Hypotheses are ideas based on the evidence.
Theories are hypotheses that have repeatedly been tested by comparison with evidence and have withstood all the tests.
Models are representations of the hypotheses and theories.
Outputs of the models can be used as evidence only when the output data is demonstrated to accurately represent reality.
If a model output disagrees with the available evidence then this indicates fault in the model , and this indication remains true until the evidence is shown to be wrong.
This draft Report repeatedly demonstrates that its authors do not understand these matters. So, I provide the following analogy to help them. If they can comprehend the analogy then they may achieve graduate standard in their science practice.
A scientist discovers a new species.
1. He/she names it (e.g. he/she calls it a gazelle) and describes it (e.g. a gazelle has a leg in each corner).
2. He/she observes that gazelles leap. (n.b. the muscles, ligaments etc. that enable gazelles to leap are not known, do not need to be discovered, and do not need to be modelled to observe that gazelles leap. The observation is evidence.)
3. Gazelles are observed to always leap when a predator is near. (This observation is also evidence.)
4. From (3) it can be deduced that gazelles leap in response to the presence of a predator.
5. n.b. The gazelle’s internal body structure and central nervous system do not need to be studied, known or modelled for the conclusion in (4) that “gazelles leap when a predator is near” to be valid. Indeed, study of a gazelle’s internal body structure and central nervous system may never reveal that, and such a model may take decades to construct following achievement of the conclusion from the evidence.
jimmi writes “The most likely thing to be wrong is the parameterisation of clouds and aerosols.”
The most likely thing wrong is the belief that essentially fitted components such as clouds and poorly measured and understood aerosols combined with other coarsely averaged and simplified physics components produces a model that can represent changes to our climate.
Models aren’t to be considered “wrong”. All models are wrong. We know that. The question is whether a model is useful and so far the GCMs simply aren’t. And the worst thing is that “science” is taking a massive detour away from the road of verifiable truth by relying on them.
TimTheToolMan:
In your post you paraphrase the statistician George Box’s aphorism to the effect that all models are wrong, some are useful. This aphorism is, however, out of date. Today, using available technology, it is sometimes possible to build a statistically validated model of a system which, like the climate, is “complex.” While it is available, this technology is not used in modern climatology.
Make that “just five”: LB has four co-authors.
You’re right. I was thinking only of his recently rejected paper.
But the journal rejected his paper, not because its findings were “questionable,” but because they were old hat. The reviewer wrote, “The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.”
Strawman. Bengtsson didn’t “deny” “the role of human-caused CO2 emissions in current climate change”: He, like others recently, is placing less relative weight on it (a lower climate sensitivity).
So…. They are saying that reality and real empirical measured data is completely unimportant when it comes to climate alarm and we should strip trillions of dollars out of the global economy to mitigate what the models are suggesting could happen?
Here is a cheaper alternative. Re code the models so that they do NOT show catastrophic warming and that is all the mitigation we need.
It’s unlikely there were 2000 climate Attribution studies published last year. Probably 80% of them were Impact or Mitigation studies. Their authors have no expertise or presumptive scientific authority on “the role of human-caused CO2 emissions in current climate change.”
rogerknights says…It’s unlikely there were 2000 climate Attribution studies published last year. Probably 80% of them were Impact or Mitigation studies. Their authors have no expertise or presumptive scientific authority on “the role of human-caused CO2 emissions in current climate change.”
========================================================
Exactly, most studies are by some one who say studies , (pick your critter), goes to a drought regions, reports the impact of drought on said critter, then extrapolates from the climate models the terrible terrible critter harm of future CO2 caused droughts, and then applies for another grant.
I think your 80% may be way way low. I doubt there was even 400 studies on the all important climate sensitivity to CO2
David A:
Despite the 400 or so studies, the climate sensitivity is a myth.
The entire UNFCCC – IPCC CAGW meme is based on their model forecasts. It has always been clear that these model outputs have no connection to the real world because models containing such a large number of variables are inherently incomputable and in addition these models are structurally flawed being purpose built to produce the answers desired by the funding organisations. The whole global warming scare is a great scientific fiasco which eventually will destroy public confidence in science in general.
Another method of forecasting must be adopted.
For estimates of the probable coming cooling based on the natural quasi periodicities in the temperature data and using the neutron count and the 10Be record as a proxy for solar “activity ” see several posts over the last could not years at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Dr Norman Page
That its variables are of large number is no longer a barrier to the construction of a statistically validated model. That we do not yet have a statistically validated climate model is a product of ineptitude on the part of the designers of the study.
the obligation to make a systematic effort at mutual understanding among all the collectives, peoples, societies and communities in this global world
Getting individuals to understand each other is too easy? Or too hard?
Collectives? Well I’m not a joiner.
richardscourtney on May 17, 2014 at 2:35 am
Richard, what you describe is the difference between inductive and deductive science.
The rotting corpse of CAGW will be sealed in a mausoleum with the label “inductive science”. Under the corpse’s folded arms will rest the last edition of the Guardian.
Terry writes “sometimes possible to build a statistically validated model of a system which, like the climate, is “complex.” While it is available, this technology is not used in modern climatology.”
Statistical Validation of Complex Computer Models
Rima Izem, Harvard University
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/fbae99c14028915f804dc292.html
To validate a computer model, i.e., determine the degree to which the computer model is an accurate representation of the real world, results of computer model experiments need to be compared to real data. The comparison could be between the output of the model and past data, as for example evaluating a weather simulation model by comparing its output to past weather data (Covey et al. (2003))
Can you see the problem GCMs have when predicting unknown and different-to-anything-we’ve-ever-seen future climate states?
TimTheToolMan:
I see your point. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address it.
In logic, the pertinent comparison is between between the predicted and observed relative frequencies of the outcomes of the events underlying the model. If there is not a match the model is “falsified.” Otherwise, it is “validated.”
No events underlie the current crop of climate models. Hence, these models are susceptible to neither falsification nor validation. However, they are susceptible to IPCC-style “evaluation.” In logical terms, an “evaluation” is an example of an equivocation, that is, it is an example of an argument from which a conclusion may not logically be drawn. Further information on the equivocation fallacy in global warming arguments is available at http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7923 .
You claim that future climate states differ from anything we’ve ever seen in past climate states. To address this claim I need to amend it to state that “future climate microstates differ from anything we’ve every seen in past climate microstates.” In the construction of a statistically validated climate model, the model builder would abstract (remove) the state-descriptions from the details that distinguished the various microstate-desciptions thus producing “macrostate-descriptions” that were not unprecedented. “Microstate” and “macrostate” are terms from statistical physics.
It is a Cult and “Models” are a sacrament.
To summarize the notes from the reviews:
“This paper is trying to compare satellite, energy budgets and surface temperatures which are derived in entirely different ways, and even though they all are trying to describe the same thing it is perfectly natural that they all disagree. Settled Science! DENIED!! Now excuse us while we go and graft observational records on to the end of dubious climate models. TTFN!!”
Terry writes “To address this claim I need to amend it to state that “future climate microstates differ from anything we’ve every seen in past climate microstates.””
and “In the construction of a statistically validated climate model, the model builder would abstract (remove) the state-descriptions from the details that distinguished the various microstate-desciptions thus producing “macrostate-descriptions” that were not unprecedented.”
Its simply not true Terry. For example no model is capable of resolving future ENSO activity and so we cannot abstract those details from the model because they matter – unless you assume they dont matter. No model is capable of resolving future impacts due to differing cloud albedo or DLR increases so again they cant be abstracted away unless again you assume they dont matter.
I’m sure you can see where this is going.
TimTheToolMan:
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Though the details matter, in constructing a model of the climate the model builder must respond to his/her lack of information about these details. One of the possible responses is to fabricate information; this is the response that has been taken. Another is abstraction that optimizes the missing information; this is the response that should be taken. Optimization of the missing information has produced a number of well known natural laws, one of which is thermodynamics.
I don’t know if anyone saw this, but the learned Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate pontificates that it’s OK for models to not match reality, and still not be refuted. His prime example: that “faster than light neutrinos” do not invalidate Einstein’s relativity.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/on-mismatches-between-models-and-observations/
Earth to Gavin: the “faster than light neutrino” would have invalidated Relativity, at least in part, ifi it were correct, which it is not. Sheesh!
http://www.nature.com/news/neutrinos-not-faster-than-light-1.10249
I recommend that people look at this link quickly: as soon as somebody at Real Climate realizes how stupid this is, they will take it down.
Just related link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2631477/Revealed-How-green-zealots-gagged-professor-dared-question-global-warming.html
Terry writes “Another is abstraction that optimizes the missing information; this is the response that should be taken. ”
You cant optimize that which you dont know. We are nowhere near to being able to abstract our models to the point where they’re modelling molecular interactions to bypass any need for understanding coarse physical process and yet that may be what is needed to truly model our climate.
So whilst I appreciate your idea it really does come back to the “sometimes” you initially mentioned because it doesn’t apply to our GCMs. Not today. Probably not in our lifetimes and certainly not in a time frame that is relevant to the AGW debate.
TimTheToolMan:
Actually, we can optimize that which we do not know. The advance that makes this possible is information theory. The quantity which in information theory is called the “entropy” is the missing information per event; it is the information that would have to be supplied in order for one to reach a deductive conclusion about the outcomes of the events. As you may know, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy is maximized under the constraint of energy conservation. This is an example of an optimization.
Regarding richardscourtney says:
May 17, 2014 at 2:35 am
As several commentators (including Steve McIntyre) have pointed out, the recommended rejection of Bengtsson’s paper says the differences between the model results and reality are not novel information and have no importance: the Review Comment says;
“One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).”
“I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasize that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.”
Indeed, the AR4 repeatedly asserted that reality should be ignored if it did not concur with model results
———————————————————————————————————-
Richard, thank you for showing the historical record of IPCC and climate sciences non-science, and this abuse of science continuing in the current reviews. It is my view that such general statements about models, being cogent ONLY to the narrow understanding with regard to models, in effect stating that one should not expect models to be a perfect reflection of complex chaotic process, and then MISAPPLYING THAT STATEMENT to in affect say that we can then ALWAYS ignore the failures of the models with regard to observations, have much in common with certain troll comments, where the attempt to confuse is deliberate.
Of course as I and others have pointed out, the “no consistency was to be expected in the first place.” is indeed wrong. The models are consistent, amazingly so. Consistently wrong in one direction. (Which , if they were real scientist, would be HIGHLY informative.)
To borrow from your analogy; if I were to try to shoot a gazelle, which unlike real gazelles never moved, and I shot my arrow 40 times, each time missing the target within a range of 5′ to 25′ to the RIGHT (think to the warm side of error) I would NOT then aim 15′ to the right, (the mean distance from the real target) and then claim that all humanity should accept my shots as being a bull eye.
Yet this is exactly what the IPCC did by discussing the mean of the ensemble of models as a reference point of the expected future harms of CO2.
This, like a blog troll, is not an accidental scientific error, but a deliberate attempt to confuse for the purpose of serving their political master’s, who want a certain result for political reasons.
Terry Oldberg says:
May 17, 2014 at 7:45 am
David A:
Despite the 400 or so studies, the climate sensitivity is a myth.
============================================================
Well, Tim, I cannot quite agree with you. CO2 both cools and warms, yet I doubt that it is perfectly Newtonian and the cooling and warming are exactly equal. It is in the real atmosphere, and it does cool, relative to receiving conducted energy which could not otherwise exit the atmosphere, and zipping it out to space, and it warms, taking some radiant energy which is zipping off to space, and redirecting it back to the earths system, either through redirected radiation or conducting same energy to a non GHG molecule via collision.. (In affect it can increase or decrease the residence time of some energy.) if it increases the residence time, then it warms because the incoming energy keeps incoming, if it decreases residence time, then it cools. CO2 does both.
However I think we can agree that thus far the observations clearly indicate that climate sensitivity to CO2 is far lower then the IPCC admits, and most importantly the “C” in CAGW is entirely MIA.
David A:
In IPCC-AR4 and IPCC-AR5 there is no evidence of the existence of events underlying any of the referenced climate models. If present, these events would support measurement of the counts of independent observed events that are called “frequencies” in statistics and the ratios of frequencies that are called “relative frequencies.” Testing of a model would be possible in which the predicted relative frequencies were compared to the observed relative frequencies. If there were a match, the model would be “statistically validated.” Otherwise the model would be “falsified by the evidence.”
In designing their field of study, climatologists replaced climatological events by scientifically and logically illegitimate innovations. One of these was the equilibrium climate sensitivity. Another was model “evaluation.”
Those X-Y plots that compare projected to observed global temperatures are examples of evaluations. An evaluation can be conducted in lieu of events making it popular among event-bereft climatologists.
If climatologists were to identify the the events underlying a model they would start by dividing the time-line into non-overlapping parts. Each such part would have a starting time and an ending time and would provide a portion of the description of an independent event. The next step would be to identify the complete set of possible outcomes of an event. To define the outcome of an event as a global temperature when it is averaged over the duration of this event is worth thinking about. However, this alternative suffers from the drawback that no more than one event with given outcome would ever occur. Thus, the model would be insusceptible to falsification by the evidence; however, falsifiability is a requirement of the scientific method of investigation. To avoid this pitfall, climatologists would have to define the outcomes in the complete set of possible outcomes more abstractly.
BTW, I would love to know how many annual climate studies actually attempt to determine the climate sensitivity. As I said, I do not think anywhere near 20% of the annual studies address this.
This would be another important and overlooked rebuttal to the 97% meme.
Terry states, …”No events underlie the current crop of climate models”
————————————————————————————————
I do not understand this. The models indicate many climatic events in the real world. The real world has climate. Is that climate not events?
Previously I asked, “BTW, I would love to know how many annual climate studies actually attempt to determine the climate sensitivity. As I said, I do not think anywhere near 20% of the annual studies address this.”
While not a direct answer, ( I do not know if all of these studies directly attempted to address the physical question of climate sensitivity to CO2) Christopher Monckton’s latest post states this…”However, Legates et al. (2013) have demonstrated that just 0.5% of 11,944 climate science abstracts published from 1991-2011 state that we are the major cause of recent warming. “Consensus” is lacking. The IPCC is wrong.”
So .05% of 2000 studies is 10 studies (not 400) that indicate human caused warming, a luke warmist position that in no way translates to CAGW regardless.
Please define “events” vs “evaluations”. Two or three examples of both should suffice to both define and differentiate between them.. (all of the above within the field of climate studies please)
If you are willing to further demonstrate, respond to my earlier response to your assertions that there is no such thing as “climate sensitivity”. ( see David A says: May 18, 2014 at 1:43 am )
David A:
I’ve already taken a stab at defining “event” and “evaluation” in the text that lies immediately above your most recent post. I’ll be happy to clarify if necessary.
Regarding the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS), it is the ratio of the change in the global temperature at equilibrium to the change in the logarithm to the base 2 of the CO2 concentration. As the global temperature at equilbrium is not an observable feature of the real world, when a numerical value is assigned to TECS this assignment is not falsifiable. Thus, it is unscientific and illogical.
A consequence from belief in the existence of TECS is for policy makers to think they have information about the outcomes from their policy decisions when they have no information. By creating belief in the existence of TECS, climatologists fabricate information. To fabricate information is unscientific and unethical.
David A:
I write to offer a warning and a suggestion.
Several people (including me, Willis Eschenbach, Robert G Brown, etc.) have attempted to get Oldberg to define the “events” which he claims are needed but do not exist. Nobody has managed to get him to define these “events” but several WUWT threads have been completely sidetracked by the attempts.
So, I suggest that you avoid much waste of effort (and tearing of hair) by ignoring Oldberg’s assertions.
Richard
richardscourtney:
Actually, I have already defined what I mean by “event” and in this thread. Also, as “event” is a commonly used term in the literature of mathematical statistics it needs no definition by me. Perplexity over the definition of “event” suggests a lack of background in mathematical statistics by the person who is perplexed by it. Among those who are thusly perplexed is evidently you. For the future, you could avoid wasting the time of your fellow bloggers by reading up on the topic of thread before entering the conversation.
Terry Oldberg:
At May 18, 2014 at 9:52 am you say to me
Really? You have? At long, long last you have done that?
Strange that you did not cite the definition, did not quote it, and did not copy it when claiming you have provided it.
Please state your definition of “events” which you claim are needed but do not exist.
Any reply other than a clear and succinct definition in response to my request will be a public declaration by you that you are (yet again) wasting space on the thread with meaningless nonsense.
Richard
PS And your claims to your statistical abilities are laughable.
richardscourtney:
As attempts at discourse with you are invariably unproductive, I’ll exit this conversation.
Friends:
I wrote saying to Terry Oldberg
Terry Oldberg has replied saying in full
QED
Hopefully this thread now can and will return to sensible discussion.
Richard
richardscourtney:
At the end of your post, I find the abbreviation Q.E.D. The presence of this abbreviation implies that you have proved an assertion. In your post, however, I find neither an assertion nor a proof. Is this lapse indicative of a cavalier attitude toward logic? I think so. It is this characteristic of your posts that makes logical discourse with you impossible.
Terry Oldberg:
I said I hoped this thread could return to sensible discussion because you said you had left it. My hope was forlorn because your claim to have left was a falsehood.
Your post at May 18, 2014 at 10:45 am also fails to define what you mean by “event” which emphasises I was correct to say you cannot define it.
As I said “QED”. This is abreviation for quod erat demonstrandum which is Latin for “was to be shown or proven”. Your post I am now addressing also shows I was right to say you cannot define what you mean by “event” so provides additional QED (in addition to demonstrating your lack of logical capability).
Of course, you could refute the conclusion of QED by providing a clear and succinct definition of what you mean by “events” which are needed but do not exist; however, and sadly for you, you cannot do that.
Richard
richardscourtney:
Your assertion then is that I cannot define what I mean by “event.” As I can define what I mean by “event” and have already done so on numerous occasions, this assertion is false. That it is false implies “Q.E.D.” to be a false as well.
I erred. In the last sentence of my previous post, please strike “a false” and replace it with “false.”
Terry Oldberg:
No, your error in your post at May 18, 2014 at 11:12 am was your assertion that
.
That is three falsehoods. You cannot define it, you have not defined it, and you have not defined it “on numerous occasions”.
Cite it, quote it, and state it.
Or
Desist from making assertions based on the definition which you cannot provide.
Either of these will end your interminable interruptions of threads with your nonsense.
Please note that I am not bothering to respond to any more of your posts on this thread because your posts are now exposed as being nonsense.
Richard
richardscourtney:
In the third paragraph of my post of May 18 at 7:47 am I describe how a climatologist would go about defining the events underlying a climate model. In the first paragraph of his post of May 18 at 8:03 am, David A asks me to define “event.” Note that his post follows mine in time. As I have already defined “event,” In my post of May 18 at 8:34 am I inform David A of this state of affairs and offer to clarify if needed. In my post of May 18 at 9:52 am, I point out to you that I have already defined “event.” Additionally, I point out to you that as “event” is a commonly used term in the literature of mathematical statistics it needs no redefinition by me. Do you now admit that the Q.E.D. under your post is a falsehood?
Friends:
Please note that Terry Oldberg has still not provided a definition of what he means by an “event”. In his post at May 18, 2014 at 11:45 am he says
But he still does not – because he still cannot – provide a definition.
Everything he says is illogical and meaningless because it is all based on the use of whatever it is that he thinks is an “event”, but whatever that is it has no meaning because he cannot say what it is.
In future, if he yet again attempts to derail a thread with his twaddle then this thread can be cited and the matter left at that.
Richard
Given that I have described what I mean by “event” in this very thread and cited the places where this occurs, Mr. Courtney’s claim that I have not done so is obviously false..
Pilots call “flying by wire” Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). We old, non-bold pilots think of deviant Warmists, Klimat Kooks, also as navigating by IFR– not by calibrated instruments, but by Invisible Flying Rabbits, straight down their looking-glass Rabbit Holes. Faugh.
Richard says…His claims are entirely accurate.
here, I wrote this…David A says: May 18, 2014 at 8:03 am
“Please define “events” vs “evaluations”. Two or three examples of both should suffice to both define and differentiate between them.. (all of the above within the field of climate studies please)
If you are willing to further demonstrate, respond to my earlier response to your assertions that there is no such thing as “climate sensitivity”. ( see David A says: May 18, 2014 at 1:43 am )”
Let me add, clearly by my use of your terms I read your earlier post, which did not give the examples I requested to enable communication. Clearly I was asking for .clarification.
Your response was… “I’ll be happy to clarify if necessary.” What the hell do you think I was asking for.
Further more my post of David A says: May 18, 2014 at 1:43 am, was in response to your assertion that there is no such thing as “climate sensitivity” Your response was that we are incapable of measuring “climate sensitivity”. This is an entirely different matter, and not responsive to your assertion that there is no such thing as “climate sensitivity.
Richard C warned me to stay away as you would not speak in plain language. Richard is himself a scientist, despite this he is capable in speaking in terms a layman such as myself can comprehend.
My layman questions to you were short and succinct, to the point. I simply asked for …”Two or three examples of both should suffice to both define and differentiate between them.. (all of the above within the field of climate studies please)”
This you did not provide. Richard, in warning me, was himself pulled into the vortex of a fruitless attempt to communicate.
BTW, I have disagreed with Richard several times on some issues. Each time I found clear communication possible, and disagreement yet amiable and rational.
David A:
It sounds as though the two of us are the joint victims of missed communication. The history is as follows. I defined “evaluation” in my post of May 18 at 7:47 am, 3rd paragraph 1st sentence. I defined “event” in the same post, 4th paragraph.
In your post of May 18 at 8:03 am, you responded with a request for me to “please define ‘events’ vs ‘evaluation’.”. As I had already defined both terms, I needed more information from you in order to respond. Thinking that you had overlooked what I had already written, in my post of May 18 at 8:34 am I referred you to the text in which I had provided these definitions and offered to clarify this response if necessary. In your post of May 19 at 1:30 am, you ask “What the hell do you think I was asking for?” (question mark added). I didn’t have a clue as you had provided none to me..
I gather from your most recent post that your background in mathematical statistics is slight. Thus, reading between the lines of this post, you wish for a more tutorial approach then I have thus far taken in attempting to bring you up to speed on elementary statistical concepts. Lacking more complete information from you on your state of knowledge, I’ll proceed on the assumption that you are a beginner but are equipped with ideas ordinarily learned in elementary school.
In school, you may have constructed a histogram. This histogram would have had a set of bars. Each such bar would have had a height. Each height would have been proportional to the count that a statistician would call a “frequency.” A frequency is a count of events that have been observed.
A flip of a coin is an example of an event. Suppose you have flipped a coin eight times and observed the outcome. In three of these events the outcome was heads while in five of them the outcome was tails. The frequency of heads is then three while the frequency of tails is five. From these data one can construct a histogram having two bars. The height of the bar corresponding to heads is three units while the height of the bar corresponding to tails is five units.
When the frequency of heads is divided by the count of the events, the result is an example of a “relative frequency.” The idea of a relative frequency is closely related to the idea of a probability. Probabilities play a leading role in logic. In particular, in logic a proposition has a probability of being true.
For the climate models the things that one counts in assigning a numerical value to a frequency, the events, do not exist. As these events do not exist, they cannot be counted. Thus, for the climate models there is no such thing as a frequency, a relative frequency or a probability.
Ordinarily, in testing a model, one compares the numerical values of the probabilities of the outcomes to the numerical values of the relative frequencies of the same outcomes. If there is a match, the model is said to be “validated.” Otherwise, it is said to be “falsified.” For the climate models there are no frequencies, relative frequencies or probabilities; thus they cannot be tested in this way.
To fill this gap, climatologists of the IPCC invented the idea of an “evaluation.” In an “evaluation,” one plots projected and observed global temperatures versus time and compares the two. In the construction of an “evaluation,” there is not the need for the missing frequencies, relative frequencies or probabilities. The periodic IPCC assessment reports provide examples of evaluations. They provide no examples of validations or falsifications.
For many bloggers, an “evaluation” appears to satisfy the need for testing a climate model. However, there is something seriously wrong with this picture. What is wrong is that the model is insusceptible to being falsified or validated by the evidence. Falsifiability is a requirement of the scientific method of investigation. Validation is a requirement of a scientific theory.
Something else is wrong. This is that the associated model conveys no information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his or her policy decisions. Information is, however, a necessity if the climate is to be controlled.
Regarding the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS), the existence that it lacks is scientific existence. TECS is a ratio, the numerator of which cannot be measured. Thus, when a specific value is asserted for TECS this assertion is insusceptible to being falsified by the evidence. As it is insusceptible to being falsified, TECS is unscientific. Related to this characteristic of TECS is that knowing the magnitude of the denominator of this ratio (the numerical value of the change in the logarithm of the CO2 concentration) conveys no information to a policy maker about the magnitude of the numerator (the change in the numerical value of the global temperature at equilibrium) thus being useless for the purpose of making policy. Not realizing this characteristic of TECS, policy makers are currently attempting to control the climate using the numerical value of TECS as the basis for it.
Regarding Mr. Courtney, where possible I steer clear of introducing the characters of my opponents into my arguments over scientific issues. I do so because the characters of my opponents are unrelated to the truth or falsity of the conclusions that my opponents draw from their arguments. Sadly, Mr. Courtney frequently proves himself to be my opposite in this respect. A result is for him to frequently disrupt ongoing debates by introducing irrelevancies into them. Often these irrelevancies are fantasies that he has constructed regarding my degree of competency in mathematical statistics or logic. In these fantasies, I virtually always play an incompetent. In addition to being unfair, this tactic is illegal under the defamation laws of the UK and the US.
David A:
I write to ask you to read all of the recent post from Terry Oldberg which is at May 19, 2014 at 12:41 pm.
I recognise that you may think my request is for you to waste your time reading such tripe, but there is a purpose. The embarrassment of reading Oldberg’s self-destruction will assist you to ignore his posts and thus save you much time in future.
Oldberg’s post consists solely of falsehoods, but I am convinced that he believes his own nonsense: simply, he is delusional. For example, he writes saying to you
Of course, he has provided no such definition and he cannot.
The important point to note is that he really does think saying he has defined it means he has defined it!
Richard