From Smithsonian Magazine
EVENT: “Paleoclimate: Digging into the Past to Chart our Future” streaming live tonight on our Facebook page. The discussion begins at 6:45 PM EST. (not live now, but will be at 6:45PM EST)
In this special program, NASA Goddard director and earth scientist Gavin Schmidt and Penn State climate scientist Richard Alley discuss what makes our paleoclimate models so robust—and how they can be used to confidently predict the future.
As human activities drive Earth’s rapidly changing climate, there is an urgent need to build better models that help us predict and prepare for our future. These models need robust data that stretch far back in time. Enter: the fossil record—a storehouse of climate evidence that paleontologists are getting better and better at deciphering. Join us for an evening with two renowned researchers—Richard Alley, Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences and an Associate of the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at Penn State, and Gavin Schmidt, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies—as they talk about their exciting work weaving together paleoclimate data and computer models to understand the future. Following their talks, Rachel Gross, a science editor at Smithsonian.com, will moderate a discussion and audience Q&A.
This program is part of the National Museum of Natural History’s Earth’s Temperature History Symposium* on March 29-31, 2018.
UPDATE: The archived interview is here
In other words they are selling their project on Facebook in order to gain support for ever more funding. Starting with blaming humans for climate will not sell to many folks.
Funny that they push proxies and then ignore historical weather patterns in the 20th century when they proclaim all storms to be caused by worsening climate. I wonder how they’ll deal with the snowfalls this spring? Climate change? Gee, looks alot like 1975 on the record… and weren’t we about to panic over an ice age then?
I doubt they could predict the winner NCAA men’s bb tomorrow. let alone the final.
Go Blue!!
Wolverines!
Go Blue! Some Australian asked if I had gone to the University of Melbourne, which he apparently thought was the second-best Mechanical Engineering school in the world, did not dignify his question with a reply…
Until we know what drives “the natural variation of the climate, we cannot have any confidence that we can predict the climate variation caused by anthropogenic CO2 (which should be self-evident).” So they should be focusing on that instead?
‘robust’ = big fat hairy lie.
I thought robust meant it needed to go on a diet.
Yawn. One thing that won’t be “robust” is the exchange of views, since Gavin, being a good climate scientist, believes in debating exclusively with people who agree with him.
Lest we forget our History:
2013
• Stossel Event averted
◦ Gavin Schmidt is praised for running away from a critic on national television, preserving the dignity of science.
◦ Early reports suggest the scientist to whose scientific arguments Schmidt narrowly evaded exposure may have been a science avoider.
◦ Colleagues agree that if not for Schmidt’s quick fleeing there might have been a full-blown ‘climate debate’—a theoretical state in which (scientists fear) it might look as if there were two viable ‘sides.’
“, believes in debating exclusively with people who agree with him.”
Huh? Gavin has no trouble debating with me, with Judith Curry, in the past with steve McIntyre,
It is not a good use of time to debate with the 3% ers,
The 3% have a clear task. They have to come up with a More complete, more robust version
of what the 97% have.
Being in the 97% doesnt, of course, make you right; but the 3% wont get any respect or traction
until they actual do constructive science. That means doing everything that existing science does
only better, significantly better in all respects.
Thank you for injecting something constructive into the discussion.
I’m curious what exactly you mean by the 3% – do they include those who believe AGW but don’t think it’s effects will be bad enough to try to prevent?
Using a quantity to identify a group has become an unhealthy phenomenon in itself, though I understand it completely – it’s a kind of shorthand for the small minority of scientists who reject the consensus, but this doesn’t mean their views are similar. As you point out, someone among them would have to come up with a better explanation – but for that to gain any ground, others would have to get behind it, and that means some in the 97%, too. But there have been so many insults cast by the minority that they have made enemies of the majority. The minority have very high public and political power relative to their scientific productivity and quality of research produced. Many have had overt ties to political entities and in some cases direct (but less obvious!) ties to FF.
A good skeptic would not just say, “Prove it,” but then take the hard evidence from original memos into due consideration, viewing the whole history of denialism with a desire to see how it evolved, where it’s going, and why.
A good skeptic would look at the “robust” in quotation marks and see that this is a sort of manipulation itself. The site shows not a dedication to science, but a dedication to tearing down the science of the AGW.
(Since when is “robust” unacceptable???)
I’m sorry! I got off-topic. Your post became an excuse to relieve a little pressure after reading the comments.
Steven, there is no 97%. It is somewhere 50-50 given or take a few %.
And then I mean relevant properly educated people. Like, say, people with actual Master degrees from faculties of Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science from one of the global top 100 Universities…
I think Mosh is trying to differentiate between Consensusists and Scientists….
Once again your own weird definitions of things. All anybody – not 3%, just a single person – has to do is show they are right or the rest are wrong. No “better”, no “constructive”, just right and that can be destructive, as much science is from time to time.
And the 97% (itself a faked number) have to prove what they claim. Prove it. Them. Not us. The people making the claim have to prove it.
Such basic stuff yet time and again you try to justify your stance with nothing but bluster.
re: 97%
Mosher, in another thread wrote
I wonder if Mosher realizes the irony of his belief in the light of how the 97% has been derived in the papers it’s come from.
Reality is that perhaps 97% of people right here believe that CO2 is a GHG and is expected to cause some degree of warming. 97% of scientists dont believe CO2 is responsible for most of the recent observed warming. Only 97% of a select few scientists believe that…
Dr. Roy Spencer is a “3 percenter” ?!?. Should we be grateful you didn’t use the D word?
I’m just a layman, but from my perspective Dr Spencer has done “constructive science”, and has been recognized by NASA for his efforts (NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal).
As an aside, and demonstrating the profound bias against a rational approach to the climate issue, the Wikipedia reference to Roy Spencer has this heading:
The writeup was entirely fact based, listing Roy’s education background, peer reviewed articles and his opinions under a heading clearly stated as VIEWS.
I don’t think you’d find such a warning under Al Gore’s writeup.
Steven,
I don’t need to “do my own science” to conclude that the majority of claims and statements related to impacts of a changing climate are not (yet) supported by the science. Nor do I need to “do my own science” to recognize what is empirically based science verses what is essentially computer gaming.
Your using the 97% meme is dishonest. 97% of scientists involved in some form of climate related research are not in agreement concerning impacts. The important questions are not only “Is climate change happening?” or “Are human activities a major factor in changing the climate?” The first is a given and the second probable. One might argue over how much or which activities, but those questions, at least in my opinion, are secondary to the ones concerning impacts. And anyone who claims that the science tells us the impacts are clear is delusional, or has other agendas. (As for example our Governor – Inslee. He is either a clown for believing what he says or a possible genius for figuring out how to get WA taxpayers to fork over $3.3 billion over the next 4 years.)
Steve;
Did someone hit you in the head with a brick today? Surely that’s the only excuse for your gross misrepresentation of the scientific method. It is not a requirement that the “3%” replace the current paradigm, only that they can show it doesn’t actually work. Which they have.
Mosher, I am disappointed in your use of a very poorly done social survey report. You rail against solarists and their poorly done research yet use a low hanging piece of rotten fruit to support your opinion. A case of the kettle calling the coal black.
Steven,
My degree is in atmospheric and oceanic science and I have been an operational meteorologist for 36 years. I am a “lukewarmer” and my view would put me in that 97% based on the way that number was calculated.
I am also a skeptic, regarding the so called mainstream view(that dangerous warming is occurring and that immediate and costly actions are justified) that is being sold to us which supposedly includes 97% of atmospheric scientists such as myself.
My complete robust version is the 36 years of observing the global atmosphere, with its modest, mostly beneficial warming, featuring the best weather and climate for life on this planet since the Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago………….the last time it was this warm.
Based on this and historical data going back over 100 years, the warming rate is under 2 deg. C/century.
The only place where it exceeds that is on climate models based on a speculative theory in a world that is verifying cooler than projected.
In my field, we call that a busted forecast, which always requires reconciliation with reality. Since climate science projects out absurdly to the year 2100, there is no need to face the cruel realities of bad science and being wrong in the short run, like in other sciences.
How many changes/adjustments have Gavin Schmitt, Al Gore or Michael Mann made in the last 2 decades to their position, despite global climate models being too warm and many of the other predictions failing?
They only find reasons to justify the belief system based on climate models that they are tied too. This is not honest science. Neither is using that fake 97% number, that does not really represent the views of scientists like me.
I don’t have to reinvent the wheel to point out that yours isn’t rolling.
Mr. Mosher: “The 3% have a clear task. They have to come up with a More complete, more robust version of what the 97% have.” Putting aside that your formulation is a “robust” perversion of the scientific method, please tell us this- What do the 97% “have” as climate drivers before CO2? In other words, have the 97% reached a consensus on why the climate changed before, say, 1950? What is that consensus?
Personally, I don’t care if only 3% or .03% agree, never went in for “consensus” thinking myself, but if one person shows that the 97% (who think CO2 is the current driver) have not figured out why the climate changed before our era, then that one person has done constructive science (by deconstructing the “consensus”), and should send the 97% back to the drawing board. But you can prove me wrong by pointing to the pre-CO2 consensus. Won’t I look foolish!
Gavin debated Steven McIntyre over what exactly? This? https://climateaudit.org/2009/02/03/gavins-mystery-man/
But you ” won’t get any respect or traction ” if you keep thinking that mentioning the 97% figure has any traction with scientists, especially after it’s been so thoroughly debunked.
‘viewing the whole history of denialism with a desire to see how it evolved, where it’s going, and why’
Kristi – first of all, I’m beginning to think you’re deliberately being provocative with your ‘denialism’ references – and it’s beginning to piss me off – I’ve tried to treat you, honesty, respectfully and fairly – and have encouraged others to do so – but being compared to a Holocaust denier is extremely offensive – and YES, that’ is EXACTLY why the phrase was invented.
Second – ‘Denialism’ started after observation over years and decades put a lie to the alarmism.
Perhaps, you’d be better suited looking into how ‘warmism’ evolved and why – it’s really a much more legible, deliberate, and obvious path.
Third – this is Steven Mosher in his own book: “The idiots running the global warming campaign (and make no mistake, a bigger bunch of idiots would be hard to find) didn’t trust people to react to the truth. They thought you wouldn’t understand and if you understood, you wouldn’t care. So they lied to you, repeatedly and with a smile on their smarmy faces. Catastrophe! Dramatic sea level rises! Unbearable heatwaves every X months! Pick your own stupid pet trick.”
Mosher (and his co-author) basically spent an entire book discrediting the alarmism, but then tries to rescue it with this statement: ‘we believe global average temperatures will rise about 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius. But it won’t be even, and it won’t happen smoothly over the rest of the century. It will hit some places like a ton of bricks, and leave others untouched. A slow motion tornado that picks and chooses.’
For crying out loud – we ALL understand there is some effect – the question is, how large and how damaging. I’m sorry, but suggesting that the world will change to some degree, some will benefit, some will suffer, some will be untouched, is exactly the situation we have always had, have today, and exactly the same situation we would have if there was never a belch of human C02 in the atmosphere.
I still believe Lindzen said it best:
“Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.”
And what has happened is that the Global Warming movement has empowered those who don’t believe humanity even has a place on this planet – certainly not one that would allow us to adapt our environment to our needs, and puts human health and life-style as extremely subservient to simply preserving the world as some sort of conservation project. And it doesn’t matter what you do – build a windmill and the same green activists that killed coal will shut it down. Build a dam? Ditto. And don’t even discuss nuclear – that’s a non-starter.
And for all the heart-bleeding over the potential suffering of the poor a century or so down the line, those you have empowered would deny these same people the benefits of cheap, affordable power that could improve their lot – as Obama’s own science adviser said, it’s the single biggest factor that raises populations out of poverty.
Perhaps you should question your own morality.
Mosh, congrats on the codependent girlfriend.
Joel –
(I generalize here several times, something I try to avoid; it’s a convenience, and i know there are exceptions.
For me “denialism” has absolutely no association with the Holocaust. I’m sorry if that was the idea you got. To me it is the alternative to “skepticism.” I don’t get the impression most of the people around here treat with skepticism their own beliefs, or the “evidence” that is supposed to support them. I see rampant distrust of mainstream scientists – even those who don’t work on climate. Any mention of “model” is liable to elicit condemnation, even if it’s actually a multiple regression. And skeptics/deniers are so focused on the politics that it taints their views of the science.
As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, conservatives have been the targets of decades of propaganda, explicit campaigns to manipulate public opinion.
“Perhaps, you’d be better suited looking into how ‘warmism’ evolved and why – it’s really a much more legible, deliberate, and obvious path.”
Yes, true. Started with theory, proceeded to experiment, accrued ample evidence from many angles that all fit together, and became a theory. That’s how science works.
“For crying out loud – we ALL understand there is some effect”
That’s not true at all. Skeptics are in chaotic disagreement about AGW; the only commonality is disdain for mainstream science.
“…the question is, how large and how damaging. I’m sorry, but suggesting that the world will change to some degree, some will benefit, some will suffer, some will be untouched, is exactly the situation we have always had, have today, and exactly the same situation we would have if there was never a belch of human C02 in the atmosphere.”
I think this is an extremely simplistic way of seeing things. Take just one variable: sea level rise. If indeed sea levels rise a few feet, that could mean the displacement of 10s of millions of people, and that’s a big addition to the vast numbers that are already wandering the world looking for a home. There would be significant economic impact.
My area is ecology and evolution. I have a perspective on the potential impact of climate change that I haven’t seen demonstrated here. This is a terrible gap in knowledge. It may explain why so few biologists seem to be “skeptics” compared to engineers, geologists and meteorologists – biologists are more apt to see the beyond the direct effects on humans to the myriad indirect effects. We may be tech giants, but we are still extremely dependent on the natural world – we are part of it.
“And for all the heart-bleeding over the potential suffering of the poor a century or so down the line, those you have empowered would deny these same people the benefits of cheap, affordable power that could improve their lot – as Obama’s own science adviser said, it’s the single biggest factor that raises populations out of poverty.”
Nonsense. It is not for us to decide how third world countries develop, it’s their responsibility. We can provide advice and guidance if they ask, but the West has for too long meddled in the affairs of sovereign nations.
“Perhaps you should question your own morality.”
Perhaps you should keep your paws off my morality. You don’t know me at all. That is a really disrespectful, disgusting comment. I shouldn’t even have given you my time.
“mainstream scientists”.
Can you tell me what a ‘mainstream’ scientist is and how they are distinguished from ‘non-mainstream’ scientists?
Kristi writes (amongst other things)
Wow. This is your opinion and if you spend time here you’ll see its not true. Although there are fringe people here just as there are in the alarmism camp. If you focus on that, then of course your view will be skewed towards “chaotic disagreement” and “disdain”.
Scepticism has a real meaning in science and all scientists are sceptics. Somehow scepticism got twisted by alarmists to equate to denialism as if somehow people who are sceptical of the science behind the warmism arguments straight out deny those arguments.
A good example for me is that I’m highly sceptical of the climate models. I have looked into how they work and understand that they’re not represented well by the AGW community. I dont even think they’re actually understood by most. And since so much of the science behind the AGW theory relies on them, it puts a great deal of doubt in my mind that the arguments of the rate and attribution of recent warming are understood.
Understand this…from my point of view at least, I dont believe that natural variation IS responsible for recent warming, but instead what I believe is that the current science is insufficient to attribute it. And thats very important to “science” because science is about what we know and when people put forward strong arguments about what is “known” based on very sketchy data and poorly understood process then I’m naturally going to take what they say with a large grain of salt.
Oh boy! In which era do you, Steven Mosher live. “Being in the 97%…” Wasn’t this figure shown to be a fraud and discredited long time ago? You are only embarrassing yourself by quoting it.
Sigh.
That’s not how science works, dude.
The Three Percenters are under no obligation to come up with a better, more coherent, more robust or more anything hypothesis than ours. They can (and should) criticize our model because of its flaws, not because they have a better one.
Do you reject genethliac astrology as a theory of human personality? Really? So you’re claiming to have a more complete, more robust version of what the world’s entire horoscopological and related zodiacal sciences have?
Wow. That’s a big claim, Mosh. Come on then, let’s hear it. If I’m a Pisces, then what’s going to happen to me this week, how should I deal with it and who should I trust: my old friends or a new mentor?
This’ll be fun. Let’s see if you can do what the My Stars section of my newspaper does, only better, significantly better in all respects.
Then, only then, will you get some respect or traction with me.
Steven Mosher March 29, 2018 at 9:06 pm
Just to what 97% do you imagine you belong? There has never been a survey of all the tens of millions of scientists in the world. If there were, I doubt that even 47% would concur to all three propositions, ie 1) that earth has warmed since c. AD 1850; 2) that human activity is significantly responsible for whatever warming has occurred, and 3) that such warming will be catastrophic unless stopped.
The source of the totally fake “97%” canard was the 2009 Doran-Zimmerman survey of 3146 government and academic “scientists” (out of more than 10,200 contacted). No private sector scientists need apply. D-Z asked only the first two questions, failing to enquire if the respondents thought global warming and more CO2 good or bad.
Overall, those answering yes to both questions was disappointing, so D&Z cherry picked 79 “actively publishing climate scientists” in order to derive 97%, although even there they fudged the numbers. Other groups were all lower. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. “significant” of course wasn’t defined.
So please let us know to what 97% you suppose yourself to belong. Also, why do you consider yourself a scientist?
Tim the Tool Man
“This is your opinion and if you spend time here you’ll see its not true. Although there are fringe people here just as there are in the alarmism camp. If you focus on that, then of course your view will be skewed towards “chaotic disagreement” and “disdain””
To me it seems like more than a fringe. I’ve spent a lot of time hear, and also at Breitbart. Even the contrarian scientists have a wide range of views.
I agree that the alarmist end of the spectrum is no different. I think the media have done a very poor job of representing climate change and climate change science, and that has led to all kinds of problems.
Much comes down to trust in science. That is different from trust in scientists, although it is the way scientists use the tools of science that determines the output. As you say, skepticism is part of science, and I believe that this is a widespread value among scientists, as is recognizing sources of bias and working to counteract or eliminate them.
Some skeptics are true skeptics, but my impression is that there are many erroneous assumptions made based on the certainty of one’s ideas. There are many skeptics, for example, that try to show through their own “scientific” treatment and interpretation of the data that they are right, when scientists have long ago explored their ideas in much greater detail. Politics is also a huge source of assumptions.
There is a powerful segment of people who deny AGW altogether, and they are influential in policy. Distrust in the scientific community is a greater problem, because it allows people to succumb to the weight of the empirical evidence without taking responsibility to limit future change.
The fact that there still so much uncertainty in the models is one indication that scientists are practicing honestly. The literature suggests they are keenly aware of the problems, and are coming at them from multiple directions in efforts to resolve them, including through debate. There is movement towards transparency, and better communication among the many modeling groups.
So, I believe that the models are improving and that they will continue to do so. Part of the uncertainty is a product of computing limits. Uncertainty can be a tool to gauge the effect of different parameters, and one can be improved at the cost of another. This all sounds so subjective, doesn’t it? And in a way it is. It’s up to the modeler to decide the information that is most important, and concentrate on developing a model that represents it. This can be done during development and final tuning by choosing that aspect of a past climate or reanalysis to guide the modelers adjustments.
To me it’s crazy that anyone could ever do such a thing and make it work. But then I think about all the work that has gone into this, all around the world, and the incredible amounts of knowledge we’ve accumulated in the last several decades, and the technological breakthroughs that have helped in gathering that knowledge…and I believe it can be done. Models will never “project” all the variation, but trends and averages, yes. They are already getting many right. There is evidence that goes beyond the direct predictions of the models, such as changes in sea life and terrestrial plant phenology. Given the lag time in even noticing and documenting these effects after they’ve begun, and the lag time in the overall warming, and the amount of CO2 we still add to the atmosphere, I believe significant change is inevitable.
Regardless of our emissions, the U.S. has no right to judge any other country as long as we are not in the Paris accord. The accord is about more than capping emissions, it’s about being responsible for present and past contribution to emissions and climate change, and helping the developing world adapt to change and mitigate their contributions through 41 (last I looked) planned projects that are funded by multiple entities, of which the Green Fund is one.
I love my country, and this is a source of shame for me. We do not look like a global leader, we look selfish, and that is exactly what we are. There is an argument that it would be better to help developing countries gain access to cheap electricity, but in some markets solar rivals coal. The Green Fund IS a mechanism to help the developing world, and people won’t shell out the price of a cappucino to take our place with the rest of the world.
It seems that skeptics who believe that there’s an impact but that it won’t amount to much are being rather optimistic. I think that the understandable reaction to alarmism has resulted in dismissal of some significant problems, such as worldwide bleaching of corals. The issue is very partisan, and that may impact the kind of information one gets.
“A good example for me is that I’m highly sceptical of the climate models. I have looked into how they work and understand that they’re not represented well by the AGW community. I dont even think they’re actually understood by most. TRUE. THOSE WHO NEED TO UNDERSTAND THEM DO. And since so much of the science behind the AGW theory relies on them, I DISAGREE it puts a great deal of doubt in my mind that the arguments of the rate and attribution of recent warming are understood.” RATES are hard to predict because we can’t predict human actions. But we know that slowing rates would be a good thing. Rate of change is extremely important for both human and natural adaptation.
Understand this…from my point of view at least, I dont believe that natural variation IS responsible for recent warming, MAYBE PARTLY. but instead what I believe is that the current science is insufficient to attribute it. VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE!!! (CONTRADICTION? BING BING BING DENIAL ALARM! 😉 ) And thats very important to “science” because science is about what we know and when people put forward strong arguments about what is “known” based on very sketchy data and poorly understood process then I’m naturally going to take what they say with a large grain of salt.
Kristi Silber, your faith in the Paris accord is as misplaced as your faith in solar and other renewables. You do understand that the sun does not shine at night? So the nameplate rating is for only several hours a day?
There has been little improvement in official climate science, as an example, the estimates in the IPCC reports still have the response to doubling CO2 at 1.5 to 4.5C, the same as it was in 1979, when Charney did the original estimate.
Kristi wrote, “It seems that skeptics who believe that there’s an impact but that it won’t amount to much are being rather optimistic.”
No, such people are being unrealistically pessimistic. The best evidence is that the impact of CO2 emissions is large and overwhelmingly positive.
Tony Halla wrote, “There has been little improvement in official climate science, as an example, the estimates in the IPCC reports still have the response to doubling CO2 at 1.5 to 4.5C, the same as it was in 1979, when Charney did the original estimate.”
One thing that has drastically changed is the estimates of the impact of CO2 emissions. It is now understood that over half of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions (AR5 estimates 55%) are removed from the atmosphere by natural CO2 negative feedback mechanisms, like accelerated greening and dissolution in water.
30-40 years ago climate alarmists did not anticipate that would happen. In fact, Hansen et al 1988 used the term “emissions” as a synonym for “increases in level.”
So even though the “climate sensitivity” estimates haven’t changed drastically, the past estimates of the impact of CO2 emissions are now known to have been way, way too high.
“Kristi Silber, your faith in the Paris accord is as misplaced as your faith in solar and other renewables. You do understand that the sun does not shine at night? So the nameplate rating is for only several hours a day?
Do you understand that a lot of villages are not going to be connected to the grid anytime soon, and that having at least the electricity during the day to run computers and plug in cell phones is a huge boon? Do you understand that some of the projects are to help people prepare for climate change? It is already a problem, you know. I don’t know where “faith” comes into it. The money is not going to governments. That doesn’t mean there isn’t potential for corruption, but that’s always a risk in these places. Have you ever visited the Green Fund site and had a look around? If not. your faith that the Paris accord is a waste of money is not based on the whole picture. Or do you think it’s all a conspiracy, or what?
This does NOT mean there’s not improvement in the science. There are many other facets of climate change, and focusing on this one figure is not productive. It’s a range rather than a mean because it’s based on so many models and to simply give a mean would be wrong. The center of the range is most likely.
Uncertainty is a product of computing capacity, too, and that is always growing. Modeling is a PROCESS, and no model can be seen as the final say. But the important point is that they tend to agree about some things despite quite different development strategies, and they have been successful in predicting things like increase in high-intensity precipitation events and increase in drought severity and region-specific changes. Considering the difficulty of the task, I think that’s pretty impressive.
It seems to me that there are message that get repeated so often that they come to represent truth even if they aren’t. This is always a danger in a site dominated by a political or ideological group, or one that represents one side of a gulf. The gulf here seems to be fundamentally about policy. Is that not the case?
I’m not so interested in policy. I want the public to trust the scientific process.
daveburton March 31, 2018 at 7:05 pm
“No, such people are being unrealistically pessimistic. The best evidence is that the impact of CO2 emissions is large and overwhelmingly positive.”
I see. Huh. What is the best evidence? And what evidence is not good enough to count? Because there is a whole lot of evidence that there is a lot of complexity to the question and that it’s impossible to assess the benefits. Unless you are a plant ecologist, physiologist, evolutionary biologist, entomologist, zoologist etc. rolled into one, or have read heavily in those fields, you have no justification for saying that.
You don’t know what the “best” evidence is, and you can’t just consider what you think the best evidence is, you have to consider ALL of it. Either that or trust in others’ expertise.
Science is useless if the public doesn’t trust it.
There will never be complete agreement in science, and this is good. But a consensus does not come easily, and it should means something when it does happen. This is not a consensus based on traditional belief, but on accruing evidence.
I wrote that “The best evidence is that the impact of CO2 emissions is large and overwhelmingly positive.”
a replied, “What is the best evidence? And what evidence is not good enough to count? Because there is a whole lot of evidence that there is a lot of complexity to the question and that it’s impossible to assess the benefits. Unless you are a plant ecologist, physiologist, evolutionary biologist, entomologist, zoologist etc. rolled into one, or have read heavily in those fields, you have no justification for saying that.”
Thousands of robust agricultural studies, conducted over nearly a century, by hundreds of different researchers in many different parts of the world, have found that higher CO2 levels are dramatically beneficial for most plants, and modestly beneficial for nearly all the rest.
At least 15% (probably closer to 20%) of current agricultural production is due to today’s higher levels of “the precious air fertilizer.” (That’s what Scientific American once called anthropogenic CO2 emissions, long ago, back in that once-great publication’s heyday, before it became hopelessly politicized.)
Here are some trustworthy information sources:
http://ClimateCurious.com/
http://co2coalition.org/ (I’m a member)
http://co2science.org/
The benefits of higher CO2 levels are dramatic and proven. The supposed negative consequences of higher CO2 levels are all either very minor or purely hypothetical (and, in most cases, implausible).
That’s why I say that the best evidence is that the impact of CO2 emissions is large and overwhelmingly positive.”
a continued, “Science is useless if the public doesn’t trust it.”
That is an exaggeration. One of the beauties of the free enterprise system is that knowledge gleaned and understood by even a few people can nevertheless benefit all of society.
I do agree, however, that low-quality, untrustworthy science, the co-opting of respected institutions like NOAA (specifically, its OceanService site) and NASA (specifically, its Climate Vital Signs site) for climate propagandizing, and scandals like Piltdown Man, Gleick/FakeGate, ClimateGate, the Karl affair, and the massive Chinese peer-review fraud story, damage public trust, and thereby damage the ability of science to usefully inform public policy.
Two shamsters agreeing with each other. Big surprise.
Hehe is that, like, a hamster crossed with a weasel? Cos I’ve got a wheelly great idea for an alternative energy source…
Penn State and “robust” paleoclimatology seem a bit foreign after Michael Mann.
what makes our paleoclimate models so robust— fiction
“Robust”: a pseudo-word made up by pseudoscienists to describe their pseudoscience.
In reality, it’s more like robusted.
Let me guess; the robustiosity comes from the “carbon”.
• I’ve shoveled bovine scat into and out of farm shi7-wagons.
• During my brief occupation at U.S.Steel, I learned that USS had an agreement with the local community to process their sewage.
• Also at USS, I was one of the chosen assigned to climb inside river water pipes to clean the 0.5″ diameter heat exchanger tubes; hundreds of them. USS used what looked like conical clothespins and high pressure water guns to scrape and blast the tubes clean.
Clean of what? Long dead aquatic creatures and their debris.
That high pressure water came straight from USS’s fire fighting system. Back then, I weighed less than the fire fighting water pressure. Whenever, one of those tube scrapers stopped in a tube, I would get thrown back against the inner pipe wall while desperately scrabbling for a hand hold to prevent falling down a vertical tube of Delaware River Water.
While it was normal to smell for days like fire and brimstone, courtesy of the coal steel making process; going home smelling like weeks old chum steeped in fire and brimstone was a new low.
It was always a bad sign when the Foremen would line up us laborers before handing out assignments. A;; too often they were looking for the small thin guys to crawl inside some disgusting pipe.
• I learned that fact, because I spent a couple of weeks shoveling human feces and other flushed debris.
• After that, I spent a year working as a janitor at Raytheon, cleaning everything from floors to toilets.
• Then as a Father of a young lad who managed to break a toilet’s seal after he plugged the toilet solid. That required that I unbolt the toilet and lift it onto blocks so that I could hand clean the blockage; wearing disposable gloves, of course.
Even with that heady background and a cast iron stomach, watching Gavin Schmidt and Alley spew the foulest of human excrement in pretense of climate science is beyond what this frail body can cope with, without hurling my stomach inside out.
You sir, are a wasted talent.
Holy Sh*t, that’s a story. Thanks.
+10
In any case, Gavin has gone on record admitting that in his field, peer review takes place “up the wazoo,” better known as Schmidt Creek.
Nice! Thanks for the payoff.
Greatest respect. A real man.
+20
Paleoclimate modeling has robustocity because the deep past provides no observations that can ruin a perfectly fine projection.
And Gavin Schmidt is not a climate scientist. He’s not a scientist at all. He’s an applied mathematician who has learned to decorate critical global warming theory — a sociological construct — with mathematics.
I think you mean scatological construct—see ATheoK’s pungent tour de force immediately above!
They are terrible liars.
Calling dishonest activists scientists does not help people separate rent and grant seeking nonsense from science.
In my humble opinion……I don’t care your political leanings…..we should all publicly, loudly, call out the rent-seekers. My new hobby.
They are losing their audience…..
The Smithsonian needs to be more accurate in their article. Schmidt doesn’t predict the future, he makes projections. That is, he projects onto the future his darkest fears. It’s too bad that their new robust data doesn’t lead to robust “projections”, since most of those projections can’t be verified during the lifetime of anyone alive today except for perhaps small babies. It *is* a bit odd that they can detect the affect of climate change in the latest storm, but can’t use climate science to accurately predict, pardon me, project, the number and severity of hurricanes or tornadoes in the coming season.
“Schmidt doesn’t predict the future, he makes projections. That is, he projects onto the future his darkest fears.”
+1000
This is the most succinct descriptions of Mr. Schmidt’s (and the IPCC’s) “Projections” that I have ever heard. I may have to borrow this comment for use in future discussions.
RAH nailed it in a comment made on Real Climate Science:
“Climate model projections are fantasies that climatologists wish they could prove are happening in the real world. They’re climate porn.”
But they do get an audience while skeptics can only lurk in the shadows. Something needs to be done about that. I wish I knew the answer to “something”.
“Robust” does NOT automatically mean right — it just means something like “strong and durable, well-constructed, able to hold up”.
But this could characterize crap too.
There is a tradition at my house, where we gauge the well-being of a large German shepherd dog partly by the quality of his poop. When it is of respectable girth, not too hard, not to soft or infused with other, undesirable qualities, then I dare say that “robust” would be a great description for it.
But it’s poop (an alternative word rhymes with “Schmidt”) !
Need I say more ?
Excerpt from above article:
“In this special program, NASA Goddard director and earth scientist Gavin Schmidt and Penn State climate scientist Richard Alley discuss what makes our paleoclimate models so robust—and how they can be used to confidently predict the future.”
pa·le·o·cli·mate
/ˈpālēōklīmət/
noun
a climate prevalent at a particular time in the geological past.
OK, I accept that paleoclimatology is a robust science, in that there are ample reasonably-accurate proxies (NOT tree rings) that enable us to understand ancient climates on Earth.
What I reject as false is the contention that the likes of Gavin Schmidt have the objectivity to adequately understand climate science and to develop competent models to predict future climate, based on paleo history. Their critical flaw is the bizarre contention, unsupported by ANY credible observations, that atmospheric CO2 is THE major driver of Earth’s climate.
CO2 lags temperature by ~~800 years in the paleo record, and does not lead it, and thus Gavin and his minions are saying the future is causing the past. CO2 also lags temperature by ~9 months on a shorter time-cycle in the modern data record. So again, the future cannot cause the past (at least, not in this space-time dimension).
Those who agree with Gavin and friends are invited to explain how the future causes the past. Right here, right now. I’m waiting…
Yes, indeed. If Gavin had a good explanation for the 800 year lag, other than the same magic that made Mann claim Briffa’s proxy suddenly stopped working around 1960, he should replace this embarrassing explanation on his web site (RealClimate.org) ” All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.”
Please note the tacit argument that whatever caused the first 800 years must turn itself off for CO2 to take over and “cause” the last 4200 years. They don’t know what it is, what turns it on, what turns it off, but they know it must have turned itself off and then CO2 took over. They have no clue, and they know it, but they think they can get away with another instance of Mike’s Nature trick, knowing that the lefty media and the rest of the useful idiots will swallow whatever they tell them to swallow.
Is there such a thing as “revisionist paleoclimatology” ?
I just met Gavin last week, and found he is absolutely unreachable. Given a chance to learn the real deal, he wouldn’t. These guys are obviously working together to continue the brainwashing of the whole world.
This is the academies and associated warmist strongholds using their ‘prestige’ to carry the day, and there’ll be more of it all the time now. Listening to them you’d never know there were thousands of scientists who disagree with them.
March 6 on a NAS program, I saw Richard Alley and associates self-identify as liberals, as though that should matter in a science issue, but it really does to them. Today we have the AAAS and the NAS telling their members to become political activists. They are literally campaigning for a liberal platform, so they should all be registered as political action committees.
Gavin and the NASA guys do give a small nod to solar but they always come back with the warmist carnard that the solar influence is riding on top of the long-term CO2 influence, and is ‘minor relative to CO2 warming’.
They are getting out in front of the public because they are afraid the public will catch on in spite of all the warmists’ efforts. The American people are showing signs they want to roll the warmist scientists for how badly they’ve been lied to by these self-serving left-wing climate activists. The warmists are motivated to get the public in their corner by any means necessary while they have a chance. They are seeking a permanent solution to their problem: us. This makes them very desperate indeed. Don’t they seem that way?
Bob Weber –
“I just met Gavin last week, and found he is absolutely unreachable. Given a chance to learn the real deal, he wouldn’t. ”
Are you suggesting you took the opportunity to converse with him to try to convince him of his folly with your “real deal”? Is that really what you’re saying? Because that would be nuts. Why on Earth do you think he hasn’t heard the arguments ad nauseum?
If I had been you I would have taken the opportunity to ask questions. If you have doubts about the way models are constructed, that would be the time to ask about them, learn what is being done to address your concerns. It’s absolutely ludicrous to expect him to be receptive to your version of reality.
I keep tell people, if their case is so original and so well-substantiated, publish it in the peer-reviewed literature. Take the approach real scientists do. The fact that so often this does not and cannot happen says everything about the credibility of the work.
The scientific method is only about 500 years old. Rational thought goes back to Aristotle.
I keep hearing this straw man that you have to come up with a better idea if you are going to criticise AGW.
No. The burden of proof is on those making the claim. The default is we don’t know.
A lot of science is We Don’t Know. The temperature of the Sun’s Corona being one.
The scientific method also allows hypotheticals with real world assumptions. Results and conclusions are valid within the context of initial assumptions.
What we see with AGW scientists are people thinking that their work is at the same standard as a verification engineer and thinking it can be used in the real world for real action. It’s an ideological viewpoint not a scientific one.
Kristi why don’t you just assume you know everything that happened then? Doh you did already!
I asked a lot of questions of him and others. I spent more time asking questions than talking about my work btw. The close minded like you assume you know …. don’t you? They do. You do.
” It’s absolutely ludicrous to expect him to be receptive to your version of reality.” My reality is your reality.
What is nuts is you said to publish it then you said “this [so original and so well-substantiated, publish it in the peer-reviewed literature. Take the approach real scientists do. ]… cannot happen”, then asserted whatever you meant there says everything about the ‘credibility of the work’. Why publish if it ‘CANNOT happen’ as you say? You’re not even thinking.
Did you know of all the great conversations I had with other scientists about publishing my work? What do you know about last week? How do you end up being so much more knowledgeable about it than I who was there?
You and the warmists are nuts for not even recognizing reality: you misrepresent reality, continually, as do the warmists. That is part of the ‘real deal’ – understanding the groupthink, the peer pressure, that you are invoking. What you and the others want to do is dismiss and deflect my work as it if didn’t happen or isn’t real.
My work stands on it’s own quite well without peer-review btw – with no references to other work.
Gavin still has every opportunity to learn more of the 100% dominant solar influence, as do you.
Come on Kristi, snark your way out of it…. that’s what Gavin does….
I always find it amusing when those that support the contentions of the IPCC start talking about the scientific method, ignoring the fact that the IPCC reports are political documents with every word in the summaries parsed and edited as needed by political functionaries.
Kristi,
Do you know what peer-reviewed means?
And if you do have an accurate understanding, are you aware that as much as half – if not more – of what goes through peer review is not reproducible?
Kristi: I see from Bob Weber’s reply that he has already pointed out that your assumptions are wrong. For my part, I see you chide him for not asking questions (one wrong assumption). If YOU had that chance, you would ask questions, right? But your last paragraph indicates that when you have a chance, you don’t ask questions, you “keep tell people….” You had the chance, but instead of asking Bob what he’s done, you just tell him (and every other person who has the ill fortune of meeting you). Really, if you want to continue to tr0ll this site, I’ll take this opportunity to ask you, can you think before you post?
Bob Weber –
I’m sorry. You are absolutely right, I made many, many assumptions I shouldn’t have. I do get snarky sometimes, even though I try to avoid it. It’s stressful reading dozens and dozens of comments that insult my groups, but that is not your fault – it’s my choice to be here.
My sincere apologies, Bob.
There is real denial in the alarmist refusal to confront evidence that is contrary to the expectation of catastrophe.
I suggest that we sample a couple of dozen randomly picked trees worldwide every few years (at the end of the season for them) to model the worldwide temperature for the previous few years. Certainly would be a lot cheaper than collecting weather station temperatures daily, doing balloon releases, launching satellites etc. But apparently, it would be accurate enough.
At least you could pinpoint the date a little closer than the several hundred to thousands of years resolution of paleoclimatology.
I can’t prove that paleoclimatology is not “robust” but I know a selling job when I see it.
I feel that my sizable investment in Trump has been squandered because Gavin still roams free and GISS still exists.
Another magazine to drop.
Since long, long ago.
Gavin is no kind of scientist, let alone “earth scientist’. He has the ignominy to be a computer programmer. His doctorate is in applied math.
I no longer believe in science. First it was the physicists that invented the pink elephants of dark energy and dark matter to try to explain why the cosmos was expanding in an accelerating manner. Why didn’t they just say we don’t know why the universe is accelerating? However new studies put into question even that supposed truth. So where does that leave dark energy and dark matter? Hanging out on a very slim branch. then it was the medical and biological and drug studies that depended on each other and that had confidence intervals of only 2 sigma. So if a study depends on another study which depends on another study…….etc each with only a 95 % confidence interval for a false positive then eventually the studies at the bottom have no way in hell of being correct. That is exactly what has happened. A mathematician has proved that most biological and medical studies are now flawed and cant be replicated. They should have stuck to the 5 sigma standard like the chemistry and physics world. The problem was of course cost. Now we are in one hell of a mess. Climate science is even worse. Not only do they not try to replicate any climate study for its validity, climate scientists wont even let you have their data. Then they top it all off by worshipping their models as Gods. You heard it in the talks how much they worshipped their models. Even worse Pat Frank has proved that every climate model has a cloud error factor so bad that it makes them worthless for projections. Even worse than that is that the cloud scientists admitted in 2003 that there was no aircraft instruments providing measurements of the supersaturation of clouds. So what did they do? They turned to their own models. So by 2012, 4 of the best cloud scientists in the world ( 2 of them on that earlier study in 2003) never even bothered to discuss what efforts were being made on in situ (on site) measurements. They just went ahead and parameterized dozens of equations on cloud saturation BASED ON COMPUTER CLIMATE GENERATED DATA. Yes you read that right. So now they are describing reality and forging climate science based on computer calculations . THE CLIMATE WORLD HAS REALLY VENTURED INTO THE LAND OF ALICE IN WONDERLAND AND THEY ARE DRAGGING ALL SCIENCE WITH IT.
We don’t even know that the “universe” is expanding, other than through inference from signals that may or may not represent the emitters with any accuracy. We have barely reached, let alone reproduced, near observations at the edge of our solar system, but modern science makes proclamations about what lies beyond, near and far, and forever, backward and forward. Unfortunately, as people want to believe and leverage something, science has been deprecated and expanded to conflate logical domains. It’s no longer constrained to the near-frame, speculated in the philosophy domain (the possible), but embraces faith (the unattainable, without trust or support) and hopeful fantasy (the improbable), too.
Alan:
“I no longer believe in science.”
Who “believes in” science? What does that even mean? Sounds like rejecting a religion.
I imagine it means distrusting the credibility of the profession, and rejecting its products. This is what the denialist movement has done, and i think it’s terribly damaging to society. What does this statement represent but anti-science ideology?
you got one thing right kristi. climate science is a religion.
Kristi, have you determined the error bars on the “robustness”?
Kristi, there is no such thing as the denialist movement. That is a bogey-strawman created by the left to draw attention away from the actual socio-political agenda of the progressive movement to create world government (with scientific licence) and pare down the human population through despotism. If you see things you don’t agree with here as insults, then you need to step back and ask yourself if you have been indoctrinated by that movement and see all of us from an adversarial perspective because of that.
We are largely lukewarmers here, and only question the validity of the supposed climate emergency based on the data as it stands, noting that current tactics for fighting this phantom threat will only make the world very difficult for most of humanity to thrive in. There is no central organization or funding as there is in a political or religious movement, just individuals resisting that sort of thing taking control of them and replacing critical, unfettered reasoning.
Please good lady, take a moment to reflect on your ability to commune here with both sides of the argument, and our gracious host who only mods or bans people for repeated noxiousness instead of all those disagreeing with him being erased from the blog. Try questioning the meme on Gavin’s turf sometime.
You have an open mike here, just remember everybody else does too, and grow some skin as an intellectual.
Yeah, where would we be if our designated drovers hadn’t been setting us straight about nutrition for the past 40 years.
I watched the Alley/Schmidt show (feel like I need a shower) and found it to be as expected. Seemed to be aimed at pre-teens with no convincing scientific content. At one point Gavin shows photos of the Mendenhall glacier from 1894 and 2004 as an example of AGW effects. Of course there’s no photo from 1929 when the lake that appears in the recent photo formed and no mention that the rate of retreat was greater from 1894 to 1942 than it has been since 1942. Apparently post war CO2 increases somehow caused faster glacial melting in the first half of the century.
They really go all in on claiming “skill” for their models without addressing any of the well documented failures in predicting recent observations. These guys would be destroyed in real debate with a knowledgeable skeptic.
If Gavin showed a glacier that melted through to 2004, the end year of the solar modern maximum (1935-2004 rip) without also mentioning that fact about the 70yr solar max, then he lied by omission.
“These guys would be destroyed in real debate with a knowledgeable skeptic.”
which is why he couldn’t and wouldn’t talk to me for long when he had the chance.
Don’t get me wrong, Gavin is personable with a keen sense of humor, but there’s that well-established defensive posture that flares up (aka Stossel – Spencer)….
Paleoclimatology is “consistent with”, the gold standard of an evolved science:and the consensus.