Dear Jon What observations of the climate system to 2020 would be inconsistent (lets say at the 95% level of certainty) with the climate model projections of the IPCC AR4? It is a simple question. use global average surface temps from UKMET as the variable of interest if you'd like, since that is what we've been discussing, or use a different one. I'll be happy to post up your answer as a main entry of the blog.
Jon has been driving Roger Jr. nuts by pointing out that the latter ain't got a clue wrt Keenlyside, et al. Roger has now thrown down the gauntlet
Would someone please ask what he is willing to pay per observation before we waste time.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
38 comments:
It is an entirely reasonable question. Though one might like to see it phrased a bit differently: perhaps the interesting question is what is the minimum level of warming required to be consistent with AR4 at the 95% level.
Whatever, we won't see it. Start frothing now, but not at this post, reserve your frothing for the climate.
/me ignores another innumerate anonymous idiot
My question to all inactivists and self-proclaimed "skeptics", which I've already asked over at Crooked Timber:
How many times must the climate inactivists’ various statements be outright falsified before they’ll admit that they full of crap and just leave things to the real experts?
I'm not talking about falsifiability, I'm talking about falsification which has already happened.
First it was "Hansen predicted global cooling" -- false. Then it was "`scientists' in general predicted global cooling" -- false (as shown by Connolley). Then it was “global temperature drop from Jan 2007 to Jan 2008 cancels out 100 years of warming" -- and guess what, in March the temperature shoots right back up. So, inactivists, how many more of your statements must be proven to be completely false before you’ll shut up and find something else to do?
[And not forgetting the current "Heartland 500" debacle, which no doubt the Pielkes will be trying very hard not to discuss...]
How many....
Well, does this mean there is no behaviour of temperature over the next ten years that would falsify the AR4 projections? That might be a reasonable point of view - you'd argue maybe that the time was too short, it would just be weather.
Not really, if it got totally extreme. Probably if we saw a one degree average fall globally every year for the next ten years, we would feel that AR4 had missed something. Now, that is not going to happen.
OK, suppose we had total flat trending. Would that do it?
Would a slight decline, at the rate of say 0.2 ammually for the next ten years do it?
Its a perfectly reasonable question. Why is it apparently so hard to answer?
And here Eli thought he was mentoring a bunch of smart bunnies. Missing the point you are. The reason Realists (C)have confidence in climate models is the many, many things that they get right including
"A warming stratosphere after an increase in greenhouse gases would be a strong refutation of any current climate model.
A refutation of Kirchoff's law would be a strong refutation of any current climate model.
CO2 mixing ratio NOT rising after some other forcing warmed the system would be a strong refutation of any current climate model
The Earth system NOT cooling after aerosol is injected into the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere would be a strong refutation of any current climate model."
to which James added
"Global average temperature returning to where it was as recently as 1996 would be a fairly strong refutation....
Low pressure systems turning clockwise in the NH would be hard to reconcile with the models too."
But the bottom line is his
"Of course scientists don't usually waste their time stating the bleeding obvious in this way. It is what RC might call the tacit knowledge that anyone working in the area takes for granted."
Roger and the Breakers (a bad 60s band) of course, want everyone to waste time, and youse guys are falling for it.
Does Roger have a theory which matches Reality (C)? Why yes, he knows how to bring about political gridlock. Very effective.
There are lots of questions that can be asked about global warming -- about climate sensitivity, the relationship between solar activity and global temperature, etc. There are lots of questions that can be asked about global warming denialism, such as the latest "Heartland 500" kerfuffle.
Besides, James Annan has made lots and lots of bets regarding climate predictions, and what you inactivists have invariably done is to ignore them.
Pielke's (and your) question is nothing more than a talking point. And it's a talking point which you can go shove up your orifice.
Hmm... Pielke Jr. isn't above proposing his own unfalsifiable theories.
Hmm, I posted a comment here but it seems to have vanished.. or was it some other blog?
Anyway, the falsification is not a completely unreasonable question if you place it in the right context.
Probably the experts of course have a tough time saying anything sensible as it will certainly be taken out of context.
The right context in my view is getting out information that the experts think is obvious but is not obvious to the lay people.
It's sort of the same way you can make experts form bayesian priors. At first they say "we don't know anything", then you ask "can the value be one thousand?" and they exclaim "well of course not!"
There's stuff like that that the experts would definitely say were unexpected and the climate models would have big flaws if a global warming of 5 C (average of 15 years) would be experienced between 1993-2008 and say 2010-2025. Or a global cooling of 5 C.
This of course exluding volcanoes, asteroids, the sun blowing up or aliens, but just from the CO2 and climate feedbacks.
Researchers might think that the information content of the above is zero, because it essentially is zero to themselves (as well as its likelihood of happening is zero). But it is not zero to laymen.
As a whole the question is still misguided in some way.
If the models turn out to have flaws, what then? You have to build new models according to the new observations and new information and produce new prognoses with those new models.
This kinda turns into some weirdo future hypothetical evidence speculation. I think some creationists use that tactic. "If the moon was a cube, would Newton have invented the theory of gravity?" It makes my head hurt.
No Bi, Eli thinks it's a talking point that has to be answered in the "Roger go rent a clue" mode.
Roger has to ignore simple straightforward answers to his question, like JA and Eli gave him.
His brief is to repeat
1) "there are no answers"
fallback to
2) "you misunderstand me"
else
3) "you misrepresent me
finally
4) "thanks for playing, play again?"
Eli:
I think he has a clue; he's just being catty.
Hank Roberts:
And the latest schtick is, "Argh! Your answer's rigged! I'm ignoring it!"
Anyway, I'd like to hear how he intends to falsify his "climatologists on both sides want the political gridlock to continue so they can get more $$$" conspiracy theory.
On a completely different subject…
My dad used to call biologists who would work for developers, etc. “biostitutes”. I think we should call people with scientific pretensions “climostitutes”. I think that captures the sins of the S. Fred’s, Ball’s and Michaels’ of this world.
Yes, some of us still do not understand either
(1) why this is such an offensive question
(2) what the answer is.
And are consequently driven to the conclusion that it is probably a very good question, and that the answer will show there is something deeply wrong with the IPCC predictions.
As some of you wondered in a previous thread, certain tactics of attack may prove counterproductive if the aim is to convince.
Yeah right, the fact that people are saying that the question is stupid shows that the question is not stupid. Great "logic" there.
Note to self: Ignore Anonymous Idiots (IAI).
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
By the way, there is such a thing as a stupid question. When a question has been directly answered countless times and you still insist on asking it, then you're asking a stupid question. When you ask the question with no intention of paying heed to the answers, then you're asking a stupid question. When you insist on defending your stupid question by saying that it's not stupid because people think it's stupid, that just makes your question doubly stupid.
-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism
Perhaps Roger should look at the latest RC-post and pick one of the realisations from the first graph as an answer to the question he posted at May 9, 9.06 PM:
,,If you want to argue that 20 years of no temp increase is consistent with the projections of the models used by the IPCC, then you simply need to show one run with such an outcome.''
By connecting the coldest individual years, assuming each realisation presents an even-likely year-to-year probability of outcome, you can get a zero-trend from 2000 to 2020 from the plume of realisations. Hmm...
Also, the fact that Roger avoids a discussion on the likelihood that the Keenlyside forecast -is- or even -might be- within the distribution of likely outcomes, says a lot for me. He chooses to say it doesn’t (,,(..), but it would broaden the distribution of outcomes’’). Oh, the ignorance.
Cheers, Ben
I think Roger (jr) is not on the ball.
He took some IPCC big picture long time trend pics, then zoomed to a tiny portion and superimposed measurements and did some math.
Eh. I've also had correspondence with a "it's cooling or warming, we can't say" journalist who I'm sure really thinks he's fair and honest. He said that since this particular year is at the 30 year mean, it's very far from IPCC or Hansen, and contradicts them.
Uh, IPCC or Hansen didn't predict "no variability". They work on trends. Why does everyone get it wrong all the time?
It's a fundamental misunderstanding. Either the people haven't been taught, don't want to learn, are dishonest or are stupid.
It was quite clear to me some years ago that Roger's dodgering was easily seen.
Dano quit trying to get Roger nailed down, and instead started asking why, if he was such a scientific stickler, did he allow such cr*p to be posted to his comments with no harrumphing, but harrumphing abounded when one pointed out the dodgering?
Pointing out the hokum was what got Dano effectively banned.
Best,
D
Stupid questions are those that assume things that are not true. The answer starts with, hey, Ms. Rabett don't beat Eli (yells at him occasionally tho, but in a loving way).
Stupid people are those who keep asking questions that have been answered and of course like three year olds play the why daddy game. A round of giggles for the old guy.
Shorter Roger:
"I'm the honest broker, you hear only my voice, as I hear only my voice, listen only to me, as I do ...."
Eli, Frank, how do I contact you via e-mail for some scheming?
Dano, you can contact me through the Wikipedia e-mail form, but I'll probably be too busy with other silly stuff to implement any sort of nefarious schemes. (:
s/Dano/Flavius Collium/
I think Eli is wasting keystrokes, BUT.
That is the issue, the one the denialists are leaving out. IF, say, a comet somehow magically sent ice clouds around the earth and reduced the temperature, if it didn't go down as much as ice clouds without C02 increase and greenhouse effect would go down, then greenhouse gases would still be as relevant as they actually were.
It's not just temperature. Everyone acknowledges ENSO issues. Everyone acknowledges (usually small, over short periods) changes in solar output (which are measurable). Indeed, it's our side that understands Milankovic cycles.
Models are how you express theories. To say you should do without them is completely crazy.
The denialists are every bit as model-based as we are. They just lie about even that, and their models don't work.
JA thinks he's answered Roger's question; Roger apparently doesn't. Can't someone (a little more knowledgeable than me) answer Roger's question exactly as he's posed it?
Roger's excuse for the RealClimate prediction is that it's biased. Not that the prediction is unfalsifiable -- because it is falsifiable.
EliRabett2003 yahoo. This post will self destruct sooner or later.
We now clearly see, just as with the former series on the Hockey Stick, that it is politically incorrect to ask what events could falsify the IPCC projections. It is incorrect because the answer 'none' is felt to be unacceptable, but also, to give any particular answer would open up a debate which is felt not acceptable either.
So the tactic is to descend into abuse and rage while refusing to answer. However, it remains a real and interesting question, and one not posed only by people who deny AGW.
Gavin's recent RC post shows that an answer can be given, and the debate can be entertained and must leave many of you feeling a little foolish. The Party Line has changed. Please make a note of this. The particular answer given there may be right or wrong, but there is nothing wrong with either the question or answering it.
Shorter anonymous: la la la la la I'm not listening...
Note to self: Ignore Anonymous Idiots (IAI).
What all of you (and of course anonymous in particular) are missing, is that this an attempt at framing. It's the Alzheimer approach to climate projection falsification.
Forget about the past. Insist that the IPCC projections must prove their mettle in the future. And in the meantime, engage in inactivity.
Look at Figure 9.5 of the IPCC AR4 Science Basis. From 1980 onward global temperatures have had ample opportunity to falsify the model results used by the IPCC report, and the physics they are based on. All they had to do was continue wiggle horizontally like they used to. They didn't.
:wq
Yes, that could very well be true - it could very well be warming and not wiggling as it used to. It could be that something terrible happened with Heartland, whatever that is. However none of those were the question, the question was whether there is anything that could happen in the next ten years which could falsify. If you ask this it doesn't necessarily mean you are committed to any particular point of view. There is nothing aggressive or obviously unpleasant or denialist about the question.
It would be perfectly reasonable to say no, whatever it was would be weather. Fine, just say it. Is it somehow taboo to say that? Or one could say, over 20 years, results xxxx would falsify.
I don't know if its framing or Alzheimers or whatever else, all that is just words, one just would like an straight answer to a simple question.
If people cannot or will not give one, that too is interesting, which is how its looking now.
"What will falsify models?"
"Well, look at the global temperature trend after 1980 which already --"
"LALALALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING!!!! LALALALALALALALA..."
Note to self: Ignore Anonymous Idiots (IAI).
The argument seems to be that because global temperatures have not stayed flat from 1980 to 2008, we either do not have to answer the question or cannot answer it.
This is very, very strange reasoning. People ask what if anything could happen in the next 10 years which would refute an hypothesis. In reply we are told about some things have happened in the previous 30. It is irrelevant.
And it confirms the increasing impression that the problem is some political correctness impediment to rational discussion of this topic.
The anonymice continue their "la la la la la la I'm not listening" charade...
Ignore Anonymous Idiots (IAI).
Pielke's response to my observation that his conspiracy theory is unfalsifiable:
"Thanks for the link, where you call me a crank and a conspiracy theorist. You've got me there ;-)"
Hey, who cares about falsifiability! If I'm calling Pielke a crank, then he must be right!
More on unfalsifiable conspiracy theories, by yours truly: Towards a genealogy of climate conspiracy theories.
I personally find that my mind is easily confused when I attempt to debate with Jedi Rabbets, but it seems to me that the situation with climate does not easily lend itself to critical experiments or observations. In that regard, it is like Darwin's natural selection.
Darwin stands on his internal logic and the accumulated weight of a million confirmatory observations and discoveries. Stratospheric warming is a good confirmation but the Kirchoff's law bit is a little Jedi mind control snark.
Rogger, and the other doggers, will either wait for the evidence to accumulate and roast off their scepticism, or else the theory will triumph (or not) by the usual scientific process of all the old scientists dying off.
it seems to me that the situation with climate does not easily lend itself to critical experiments or observations. In that regard, it is like Darwin's natural selection."
Actually, the issue here is (allegedly) not even whether the GHG theory for warming is true or not.
It is whether the IPCC projections (which were intended for multiple decades if not a century) are consistent with what has happened over the past 7 years.
The IPCC projected trends were not intended to cover a period as short as 7 years and to behave as if they were is either delusional (if done in ignorance) or dishonest (if done knowingly).
No amount of whining that "The IPCC should have made projections for the next 7 years" or "IPCC projections are useless because they can not be falsified" is going to change that.
Here's what Gavin Schmidt says
Claims that a negative observed trend over the last 8 years would be inconsistent with the models cannot be supported. Similar claims that the IPCC projection of about 0.2ºC/dec over the next few decades would be falsified with such an observation are equally bogus."
Schmidt points out the real problem with the claims of "IPCC falsified" based on the last 7 years:
The spread on the distribution of projected trends for the years 2000-2007 is considerable: (-0.23ºC/dec to 0.61ºC/dec with a mean of about 0.19C/decade) which means that even an observed trend of -0.1C/decade falls within the +- 2 std. dev. envelope for the projection ensemble.
Those who have claimed "IPCC falsified" have essentially ignored the error bars on the projections and instead focused on whether the mean value of "about 0.2C per decade" lies within the expected range based on data over the past 7 years.
in other words, they have effectively treated the IPCC projections as if they HAD no associated spread.
This is just nonsense.
Post a Comment