Reposted from the Fabius Maximus Blog
By Larry Kummer, Editor / 11 Comments / 18 January 2020
Summary: After 30 years of climate policy gridlock, we can decide to take an obvious path to a better future. Or we can continue the same stupid methods that have produced only futile bickering. A nation that cannot wisely make such simple choices has no future.
We will choose our path to the future.
A decade ago, I began watching the public policy debate about climate change, run by a constellation of major institutions – an example of America’s political system in action. Time has shown it to be dysfunctional (like so much in our America), resulting in three decades of policy gridlock. Summing it up, Steven Mosher of Berkeley Earth; said “We don’t even plan for the past.”
Three decades of gridlock, so advocates of policy change have responded by more loudly shouting their propaganda. The latest round began with activist George Monbiot’s November 2018 column in The Guardian: “The Earth is in a death spiral.” Of course, it is just a lie. The IPCC and major US climate agencies have said nothing like that. Worse, the leaders of both sides have become like WWI generals. Disinterested in political solutions, they only want victory – and no longer care about the costs to society.
How can we break the gridlock?
Policy-markers’ decisions depend on reliable forecasts of future climate change. For answers, they see debates about key aspects of climate change conducted in journals and blogs. Much like the current round of debates about models’ forecasts (see the most recent round at Climate Etc). This is stupid. Really stupid. The people involved are not stupid. Most are brilliant and knowledgable; many are volunteers. But the process is stupid.
Neither journals or blogs are suited for this job. The research for the Manhattan Project and Apollo were not done in journals and blogs. They were centrally-directed programs run with lavish funding, tapping a wide range of America’s science and engineering talent. The climate policy debate has tried a different and bizarre methodology for 30 years. It has failed. Let’s try something that has worked before – and can work again.
“Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.”
— Not said by Einstein. Said by Alcoholics Anonymous, people who know everything about dysfunctionality.
A rational approach
Climate models are the center ring of the climate policy debate. Policy-makers need to know that models’ forecasts provide a robust basis for policies that will shape the economy and society of 21st century America – and the world.
That requries validation of models by experts. Human nature being what it is, those experts should be unaffiliated with the groups that designed and run the models (an insight from drug effectiveness testing). The cost of such a project would be pocket change compared to its importance.
America has a wealth of people and institutions capable of doing this. The National Academy of Sciences could be the lead agency in a Federal project to validate climate models. They could mobilize experts in the required wide range of fields.
Operational leadership could be provided by the Verification and Validation Committee of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). See their Guide for Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics, their Standard for Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer, and An Illustration of the Concepts of Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics. NOAA and NSA could assist. There are probably other expert groups that could help.
This is the opposite of relying on blogs and academic journals to lead the policy debate (a process that would be considered primitive by a colony of cherrystone clams).
This is the opposite of the IPCC’s methodology. It is focused, not broad. It requires a review of climate models by experts unaffiliated with their creation and operation. It uses proven methods relied upon in science, engineering, and business.
Conclusions
The policy gridlock has consumed scarce political resources for several decades, diverting attention from other severe threats (e.g., destruction of ocean ecosystems). If climate alarmists are correct, the gridlock burns time needed for action. Even if they are wrong, these kinds of hot political debates can put fanatics in power – with horrific consequences.
If implemented, this project will not change the climate. But it could break the gridlock. If it shows that models are reliable guides, it could quickly make effective public policy possible.
Why would we continue to rely on the processes which have failed for so long when there is an obvious, easy, and relatively fast alternative? When you have an answer to this, you will have gone to the heart of the climate change debate.
For More Information
For more about this see After 30 years of failed climate politics, let’s try science! To learn more about model validation, Wikipedia provides links to a wide range of authoritative sources. See here and here.
Ideas! For your holiday shopping, see my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see a story about our future: “Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.”
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information about this vital issue see the keys to understanding climate change, and especially these debunking our mad policy client debate …
- Climate scientists can restart the climate change debate – & win.
- Thomas Kuhn tells us what we need to know about climate science.
- Daniel Davies’ insights about predictions can unlock the climate change debate.
- Karl Popper explains how to open the deadlocked climate policy debate.
- Paul Krugman talks about economics. Climate scientists can learn from his insights.
- Milton Friedman’s advice about restarting the climate policy debate.
- We can end the climate policy wars: demand a test of the models.
- A climate science milestone: a successful 10-year forecast!
Activists don’t want you to read these books
Some unexpected good news about polar bears: The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened
To learn more about the state of climate change see The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What climate change as they are defining it? Maybe an investigation into who is profiting from the transition to save us would help.
It says so much to point out that all of the policy changes that have been happening and may will continue to happen in future depend on our ability to predict the future using climate models that have never been validated. Anyone who takes a few seconds to think about it knows our ability to predict the future is severely limited and that the future each “expert” predicts is largely just a manifestation of their own biases and preferences. I agree that model validation as a formal process should be a given, but even then we should treat model outputs as suspect. Validation only applies to times past not the future. However a validated model may well be useful for predictions that don’t exceed a modest time window. Beyond that errors have a habit of accumulating and often creating self-replication chaos. The current suite of models for global climate have never been properly validated, with the exception of many volunteer efforts to compare them to reality with spectacularly disheartening results. Yet we put at risk the foundations of human society and the health of the biosphere adopting unproven technologies to avoid an unproven future. Running with scissors is a peculiarly human fetish.
Andy,
“Anyone who takes a few seconds to think about it knows our ability to predict the future is severely limited”
That’s bizarrely false. Many people have taken much more than “a few seconds” and have come to different conclusions.
Larry, just because many people have deluded themselves doesn’t make it “bizarrely false”. The fact (and it is a fact) is that our ability to predict the future *is* severely limited. You need only compare the overwhelming majority of failed medium- and long-term future predictions compared the very sparse successful medium- and long-term predictions about, well pretty much anything (not just climate) to see that fact for yourself.
At this stage I trust none of the institutions There have been too many lies, exaggerations, schemes.
I’m not convinced that we actually measure the temperature accurately, let alone e leaving interpretation up to bureaucrats.
MS,
“At this stage I trust none of the institutions ”
So what’s your proposed next step to a solution? Decisions have to be made. Walking away from self-government just means that others will run America.
The biggest myth of government is that “something must be done.”
Such a great film that could never be made today.
Keep self governance (and keep government small), get rid of the international organizations—stop using fear to justify power grabs.
Let’s hope that Trump wins in 2020.
I too am skeptical that another government agency or commission will help. Government sponsors programs that benefit government. Better, I think, to reform the agencies we already have. Our president ran on a swamp draining platform. How about some new personnel and budget cuts for NOAA and NASA? Why can’t Trump start at the top and say, e.g., “Give me a report clearly explaining temperature data alteration in one week, or resign”? Why don’t we require Gavin Schmidt and other agency officials to testify under oath about this? Imagine them under questioning from Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre. Alarmists avoid debate. Those who receive government funding, whether academics or public servants, are accountable to the public. They do not have the option of refusing to discuss on the grounds that the question is settled and the debate is over.
Larry, why must “something” be done about a non-problem? because the “other side” keeps howling about it being a “problem”. Prove that it’s a real problem, then and only then must “something” be done. Just like all the other alarmists, you keep skipping over that crucial step of the proving the problem to be real rather than asserting it.
John,
You just don’t get it! We ‘need’ another Manhattan Project.. or a huge Green New Deal to validate the non-problem of atmospheric CO2 and determine a robust non-solution to the non-problem. Larry is glad you have an opinion…. but that doesn’t fund a huge new program to ‘fix’ the climate models, validate them by creating new non-validity methods, and produce a robust non-solution to the loudly asserted but weakly supported AGW non-problem. Trust him! He has some friends in the San Francisco Bay area that assure him they can validate those triply invalid climate models, if they only have enough of Other Peoples Money to fund their California lifestyles. Why would anyone be skeptical of that???
Larry,
A solution for what?
Life saving warmth relative to 170 years ago? Record crop yields with decreasing footprint? Massive greening of Gaia? Reduction in poverty, famine or increasing longevity? More moderate weather-the warming is a moderation of winter nights, not an increase in summer highs? Bouncing off the dangerous geological lows in CO2 during the last glaciation?
Can you really not perceive the benefit of aligning global resources toward providing clean water and cheap electricity to the 2B in need rather than “solutions” to a fantastic climate for life on earth?
The only policy I’d back is one that furthers Global Warming. The alternative, global cooling, would be disasterous.
Sadly, I’m unaware of any agency or organization that is pushing a policy that supports Global Warming. My policy preference has no representation.
I also note that all the agencies and governing bodies pushing anti-Earth policies (policies attempting to prevent us from perhaps reaching the temperatures of the Holocene optimum ever again) push solutions that give money and control to themselves without any evidence that any of their policy solutions would have any effect on Global temperatures.
We know humans are clever and can adapt to myriad climates, from the Poles to the Tropics and we already know the costs of adaptation to those climate regimes. We don’t know if humans can control the various existing climates and there’s no evidence that any amount of money spent would provide control over those climates.
It seems to me we should keep our money in our pockets and spend it only when we need to adapt to changes.
Here is my challenge to the climate alarmists: Lead by example. Stop using all fossil fuels. Stop driving a car. Stop heating your house with gas or propane or oil. Stop using a water heater fueled by fossil fuels. Stop cooking with gas. Cut your use of electricity by the percentage which comes from fossil fuels. Nationwide that would be 63%. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 And if you don’t like nuclear power you need to cut another 19%.
You could also stop breathing because the concentration of CO2 in your breath is nearly 100 times that in the atmosphere.
What? You don’t want to do any of that? Well then vote for politicians who support the green new deal and they’ll make you do it by force of law.
David,
“Here is my challenge to the climate alarmists”
Do you seriously expect them to take your challenge?
After 30 years of both sides’ fun rhetoric, perhaps we can move on to trying likely next steps.
capitulating and appeasement are not the best of next steps. So, no, Larry “Nevile” Kummer, your “likely next steps” are unwanted and unneeded. Prove the assertions of the alarmist first, then get back to us about appeasing next steps.
I expect them to put up or shut up. Hopefully once they try it they will realize how much they like fossil fuels.
Unfortunately they never do either. They won’t put up and they certainly don’t know how to shut up (though they’re very good at trying to get those they disagree with silenced).
Why not instead of a USCRN, a global CRN. Immediate results that are indisputable…is the surface of planet Earth in a runaway warming event, is it not, or is it cooling? And cheaper than the alternatives.
That would make too much sense.
Because thermometers scattered all over at 2m height tell us nothing about the heat content of the atmosphere. Someone will unscientifically average them all together and say “See?! Told ya!”
I’m fine with the gridlock, given that the alternative would be the ruination of individual freedoms, economic devastation and worldwide famine.
Why even give legitimacy to the idiocy? The only climate change concern society should have is what are we going to do about the inevitable return to glacial conditions? You can’t wish away reality with pseudoscience, and I have never heard a legitimate solution to this legitimate problem.
This approach only works if you assume climate is a one-dimensional “science” issue. A “scientist” studying sea level may arrive at a conflicting conclusion from one studying agriculture, or one studying energy. The arbiters of conflicting recommendations will be politicians and courts. Climate science is a new and an immature field of study. Even experts in established fields can’t agree on recommendations. Although dietary science is an established field, a current brouhaha from the Journal of American Medical Association describes a Backlash Over Meat Dietary Recommendations.
Doubtful solution.
First, climate models can’t be validated because there is no sufficiently complex, credible test case to validate against. They provide insight into climate physics. They cannot provide reasonable policy.
Second, there is no process which cannot be subverted with political trickery.
Third, leftists never admit defeat or to being wrong. They simply double down.
The difficulty is restoring trust.
“Neither journals or blogs are suited for this job. The research for the Manhattan Project and Apollo were not done in journals and blogs. They were centrally-directed programs run with lavish funding, tapping a wide range of America’s science and engineering talent.”
PLEASE!
The internet didn’t exist during the time the Manhattan Project and Apollo were being developed!
There is absolutely *no* reason why journals and blogs today can’t do the job. WUWT is a prime example. Academics tend to not like journals and blogs because they don’t offer the “lavish funding” you mention. Anyone who thinks that there aren’t thousands of people out there who can do a very good job of critiquing scientific data collection, analysis, and conclusions is only fooling themselves.
What Kevin Kilty said, plus, trusting the NAS on this would be a massive, huge mistake. In fact, giving the government the power to enforce any of this, or putting it in the form of a “Manhattan Project”, would be a colossal disaster.
This is one of the scariest policy proposals I’ve ever read for a non-problem. Kill it with fire, drive an oak stake through its heart at midnight, this should NEVER be official policy.
w.
Willis The Red Team Blue Team idea looked like the most promising way forward in the 30 year stalemate, however as we have seen political survival will always be the strongest force in the universe. My guess would be that you and many other regulars here on WUWT will still be banging on in another 30 years.
Best regards Gibo
Larry’s busy so let me see if I understand the general principles so that I can fill in for him.
It’s nice that you have an opinion, Willis, but how do we move the socialism train forward if we don’t come up with a believable way to fool the bubbas into accepting the mythology? We’ve been lying and cheating for 30 years but we still have capitalism. That’s a travesty! Gotta stop the gridlock. Maybe you should re-read the article, REAL SLOW. Because you’re a demented nitwit and I’m certainly not responding to comments in order to consider insights from the likes of you. Or god forbid, change my fixed opinion in the slightest way. I have a blog so that my opinion is always right and I can make sanctimonious proclamations, condescending to all the fools who dare to have a different view. Do you also try to argue with the television? No clue that it’s a one-way conversation?
The entire premise of the article seems to be that gridlock is a problem. Gridlock was designed into the US constitution by design. The notion was simple, decisions should mostly be local (state level or smaller). If we need to force everyone across a diverse set of states and communities to do something or comply with something, then there has to be sufficient agreement on the course of action to overcome the intentionally designed into the system gridlock. Otherwise it shouldn’t be done at that level.
The notion that gridlock is a problem presupposes that it is a good thing for a centralized small group of elites to decide something for everyone else without achieving that overwhelming level of concurrence. That is the road towards a totalitarian mindset, or at best the “tyranny of the majority” feared by the founders of the U.S.
Well said Ed H, well said indeed.
Ed H,
As I read through all the comments, and especially Larry Kummer’s responses to others, I had a steadily increasing impression of an elitist’s certainty of the worthiness of his ‘solution’, if only the rest of us had half a wit to see its superior perfection.
Having read your comment, I heartily agree. Well said, Sir!
How many times do I have to observe that ClimateChange™ is nothing to DO with climate change?
It is a marketing exercise to convince people to let go of their wallets and their democratic rights. That is all.
What happens to soda when you warm it up? It gets flat faster, since it is out-gassing co2 (carbonation)
The day I hear “the other side” mention out-gassing from the oceans as they periodically warm, as well as the fact historically they will subsequently cool (and what happens then), is the day I will feel “the other side” is not trying to con me by using unbalanced fallacies to steamroll what is yet to become a rational conversation.
But they aren’t correct. NOTHING they’ve projected has actually happened. They’ve NEVER been able to separate any climate/weather events into what was Man’s fault and what is natural. Surrender to the wrong just to break “gridlock”?
I prefer “gridlock” that prevent’s loss of freedoms, improved living conditions, “The Green New Deal”, etc. from becoming a worse reality for us to live in than the worst of the failed CAGW predictions.
Better read this Reuters article on BIS
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1ZJ19E?__twitter_impression=true
Early on, the article states: “The number of extreme weather events has quadrupled over the last 40 years.” This statement is demonstratively incorrect; Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. and others have shown conclusively that extreme weather events have not increased in frequency nor severity.
Since Reuters won’t fact-check basic statistics, it is Fake News. The AP is on-par with Reuters.
In order to validate any of the climate models, one must first specify the intended use and must then develop and agree to acceptance criteria for the outputs and for the important component processes being simulated. What accuracy and precision are required? What independent measurements will be used to evaluate the outputs, not only for the final output but for the components? One quickly sees the impossibility of validating any of the GCM’s. This is from the perspective of a mechanical engineer in the pharmaceutical industry for 28 years, beginning in 1982. It was around that time that the FDA implemented mandatory guidance requiring process validation. Validation became central to nearly everything we did.
If there is to be disinterested expertise applied to the climate question, what comes to mind is root cause analysis. The NTSB, for example, does a pretty good job of it. At this point, I have seen nothing to authoritatively rule out natural causes for whatever climate trends have been reported. The debate is not so much about the models themselves, but over the claims that a bad thing has happened – harmful warming – and that a cause has been identified – i.e., emissions of non-condensible greenhouse gases. Climate science and the policy debate is indeed a train wreck, but there is no scene of an actual climate catastrophe to even examine for clues.
Could a low risk geo engineering project combined with some co2 reduction be common ground ? The geo engineering doesn’t have to be turned ON but the system be built and ready to flick the switch if need be. My understanding is the cost is not high compared to eliminating fossil fuels, and certain geo engineering is low risk.
Here is a CNBC story today which is most appropriate for this post, … https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/20/davos-experts-urge-world-leaders-to-listen-to-climate-change-science.html
The theme is that we must act now, NOW. The science is settled, act now. All politicians need to listen to and obey what the scientists are telling us, or we are DOOMED. That is the reality of where the climate one sided debate sits at the moment. Sceptics have never had a seat at the table.
goldminor,
“The theme is that we must act now, NOW. The science is settled, act now.”
NO!
When Davos-world-leaders-wan’t-action-now then they can every time build new wind Parks until the means are exhausted.
It’s clear to see that the financial Wells of the greens are drying out, watch their beggar’s TV adds.
Rearguard actions are the nastiest and Larry Kummer is just a defeatist.
Libdems are defeated, Macron can’t hold his pledge to “take every climate scientist” to jobs in France, Russia and China have their own interests.
Germany stands befor the ruins of 30 years miscalculation of its dues.
Trump will NOT, like Obama and some others, give “the lame duck” for a legislation period.
Period.
Apollo and the Manhattan projects were pass-fail programs capable of incremental verification as the programs progressed. The ultimate pass-fail verification occurred within the lifetimes of those involved in the programs.
Engineering models have been verified many times by actual outcomes. Their predictions can be tested and verified in the near term. They can be trusted to a large degree because we have physical evidence all around us that they work.
Weather models allow forecasting near term weather and their output is continuously tested but even those models do not always agree. Would we develop weather policy affecting a significant percentage of the world GDP depending on the accuracy of a 14 day weather forecast?
How do we verify climate models? Their projections/ predictions/ forecasts are for outcomes beyond our lifetimes? Some scientists have shown that the near term climate model “forecasts” aren’t very good. Climate models have been tuned to correlate well with historical observations of our chaotic weather system. Does correlation with past observations necessarily validate their use or utility in predicting future climate?
Last question. Even if climate models are somehow validated to a reasonable degree and the models project/ predict/forecast an unacceptable future climate, does that also validate the methods by which we can control the climate?
Today’s climate hysteria is similar to the Red Scare in the 50’s. The latter gradually subsided after McCarthy was exposed for what he was. Let’s do the same for government funded alarmists. Put them on camera, under oath, and have them questioned by knowledgeable skeptics. Maybe the hearings will show that skeptics are the fools. That would also be a positive result. Wouldn’t the alarmists like to see the red-faced skeptics slink away quietly? They think the evidence for their position is overwhelming and so their champions should make quick work out of the skeptics. Why aren’t they calling for such hearings?
Phillip Goggans January 20, 2020 at 10:32 am
Today’s climate hysteria is similar …
The new censorship –
https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+hysteria&oq=climate+h&aqs=chrome.
Climate hysteria the Unwort of the year:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Climate+hysteria+the+Unwort+of+the+year%3A&oq=Climate+hysteria+the+Unwort+of+the+year%3A&aqs=chrome.
Ain’t that good news, man ain’t that news.
Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance
Climate change may come, but what’s about the direction ?
Abstract: Decadal changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation (RSR) as measured by CERES from 2000 to 2018 are analysed. For both polar regions, changes of the clear-sky RSR correlate well with changes of the Sea Ice Extent. In the Arctic, sea ice is clearly melting, and as a result the earth is becoming darker under clear-sky conditions. However, the correlation between the global all-sky RSR and the polar clear-sky RSR changes is low. Moreover, the RSR and the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) changes are negatively correlated, so they partly cancel each other. The increase of the OLR is higher then the decrease of the RSR. Also the incoming solar radiation is decreasing. As a result, over the 2000–2018 period the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) appears to have a downward trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The EEI trend agrees with a trend of the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative of −0.26 ± 0.06 (1 σ
) W/m2dec.
Climate Sensitivity of GFDL’s CM4.0
And so far about models:
Abstract
GFDL’s new CM4.0 climate model has high transient and equilibrium climate sensitivities near the middle of the upper half of CMIP5 models. The CMIP5 models have been criticized for excessive sensitivity based on observations of present‐day warming and heat uptake and estimates of radiative forcing. An ensemble of historical simulations with CM4.0 produces warming and heat uptake that are consistent with these observations under forcing that is at the middle of the assessed distribution. Energy budget‐based methods for estimating sensitivities based on these quantities underestimate CM4.0’s sensitivities when applied to its historical simulations. However, we argue using a simple attribution procedure that CM4.0’s warming evolution indicates excessive transient sensitivity to greenhouse gases. This excessive sensitivity is offset prior to recent decades by excessive response to aerosol and land use changes.
Creative model tuning fixes all problems.
The lead is correct on the Manhattan and Apollo Programs, yet misses the point precisely.
Both of these programs, with a national mission orientation, had no tools whatsoever to go on, even with plenty of capable people.
These proposals were brilliantly new, forward looking, not a mere iterative “improvement”.
Exactly this national mission orientation is the target of the whole “endangered atmosphere” escapade of Margaret Mead (1975 Conference ) notoriety . That anthropologist declared the human species to be a herd, to run from fear, and to scatter before teenagers. This marked the onset of the destruction of the US economy, culminating in “gender considerations” for every opinion of the day.
Now Pres. Trump gets it – he is being hampered in every possible way. It is not about “atmospherics”, but mission. Back to the Moon is a good step. The mission-creep of forever wars must be replaced with really hard goals.
Fusion power, delayed for decades, inherently very difficult, and extremely interesting, needs a Manhattan Program. The behavior of active self-organizing plasma will revolutionize all CFD. The methods for this are not yet public, so yes the NAS have a lot to do.
Great missions to make us great again!
After all, a mission, being of the future, comes from the future, so not part of the problem called the present gridlock.