tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post3651752167096505230..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: The Third Referee Waits In The WingsEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66226818463950638632014-05-22T18:05:46.631-04:002014-05-22T18:05:46.631-04:00Comments here are too gripping for my handheld. I...Comments here are too gripping for my handheld. It refuses to quit coming to this comment box.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11648471786097973352014-05-22T16:14:50.079-04:002014-05-22T16:14:50.079-04:00Sounds like he may have Climatesheimers.
Sounds like he may have Climatesheimers.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32158977584709372302014-05-22T15:32:12.621-04:002014-05-22T15:32:12.621-04:00Oh boy. From the Uppsala link.
"Because of ch...Oh boy. From the Uppsala link.<br />"Because of chaos theory it is practically impossible to make climate forecasts, since weather cannot be predicted more than one or several weeks."<br /><br />This strikes me as just plain dumb. What subject is he supposed to be an expert in?Gatornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35627316360095159812014-05-22T15:06:43.347-04:002014-05-22T15:06:43.347-04:00Note: Bengtsson's post has been translated to...Note: Bengtsson's post has been translated to English at the Uppsalainitiativet and the comments are in EnglishEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5074027987336522292014-05-22T14:36:01.154-04:002014-05-22T14:36:01.154-04:00ATTP, tell him to toss his garbage and the really ...ATTP, tell him to toss his garbage and the really negative outlier on the other side and then see what is "signficant".EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72168293368205388792014-05-22T11:41:51.963-04:002014-05-22T11:41:51.963-04:00"imagine that one could push this argument to..."imagine that one could push this argument to the limit."<br /><br />Zero studies (no results) has effectively infinite uncertainty, which means warming *might* have a positive effect and because of the infinite "confidence interval", this is consistent with every other possible result. <br /><br />TolED<br /><br />Tol's logic seems to be fundamentally quantum mechanical*, for which two (or more) different possibilities can exist simultaneously until the climatefunction collapses (quite literally)<br /><br />*which would make him a "quantum economist"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59772505312283333762014-05-22T08:38:07.786-04:002014-05-22T08:38:07.786-04:00Bengtsson guest posting at our place... http://upp...Bengtsson guest posting at our place... http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.se/2014/05/guest-post-by-lennart-bengtsson-my-view.htmlMagnushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01617272924116099306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65337357205439748372014-05-22T05:46:49.708-04:002014-05-22T05:46:49.708-04:00As far as I can understand the argument Tol is mak...As far as I can understand the argument Tol is making on retraction watch (and I would point it out there, but I really can't be bothered and someone else essential has) is that when he used 14 or so results, it suggested a positive benefit for up to 2 degrees of warming, but the uncertainty intervals were large. Now that he's added 7 new results, the analysis suggests that benefits are negative for all future rises in temperature. However, the confidence intervals overlap those of the older analysis, therefore the two result are statistically consistent and therefore the result doesn't change! Now that is a remarkable use of statistical significance testing. That would appear to be embarrassingly nonsensical. Of course, if you're immune to embarrassment, maybe it's not.<br /><br />I imagine that one could push this argument to the limit. Even if we get more and more results that suggest that benefits will become more and more negative, as long as the confidence interval of the new analysis overlaps with those of the previous (which overlaps those of the one before, etc) we can continue to assert that the evidence suggest positive benefits for up to 2 degrees of warming. Now that is clever. And Then There's Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14488505775484715722014-05-21T23:22:31.750-04:002014-05-21T23:22:31.750-04:00Tol:
"Although the numbers have changed, the...Tol:<br /><br />"Although the numbers have changed, the conclusions have not. The difference between the new and old results is not statistically significant."<br /><br />What Tol means is that the difference, while not *statistically* different, is *politically* different, therefore should not be changed.<br /><br />The "it is good for us for a bit" argument was never *statistically* robust, but was good politics for the delayers/deniers like Tol.<br /><br />Obviously, he does not want to give this up, and is using "statistical significance" as cover for political spin.<br />Dhogazanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63766075194073576552014-05-21T16:28:22.849-04:002014-05-21T16:28:22.849-04:00As Eli pointed out on Tol's Demon (a bag of wi...As Eli pointed out on <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/05/tols-demon.html" rel="nofollow">Tol's Demon </a>(a bag of wind if there were ever one), a major problem with the errors in Tol 2009 is that they echo down into many other studies. <br /><br />It is another fine mess.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39793235213371544932014-05-21T14:46:03.745-04:002014-05-21T14:46:03.745-04:00Yeah retractionwatch is interesting, and developin...Yeah retractionwatch is interesting, and developing.<br /><br />---Brief excerpt follows:---<br /><br />... a correction was quietly posted on the journal’s website last week. The correction points out that the original paper concluded that “there were net benefits of climate change associated with warming below about 2°C”, but the updated analysis shows “impacts are always negative”.<br /><br />This is significant because a more recent paper by Professor Tol ... contained many of the same errors ... was used ... in the report of the IPCC on ‘Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’.<br />...<br />I have now drawn the attention of the IPCC to Professor Tol’s correction and suggested that it needs to amend the text of Chapter 10 before the final version is published later this year. <br />...<br />Tol, for his part, tells us that the errors don’t undermine his conclusions:<br /><br />'Although the numbers have changed, the conclusions have not. The difference between the new and old results is not statistically significant. There is no qualitative change either.'<br /><br />Update, 12 p.m. Eastern, 5/21/14: Tol added more comments in response to the LSE post <a href="http://retractionwatch.com/2014/05/21/gremlins-caused-errors-in-climate-change-paper-showing-gains-from-global-warming/#comment-105181" rel="nofollow">at retractionwatch</a>.<br />---end excerpt----Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-51117343558582900602014-05-21T11:26:12.521-04:002014-05-21T11:26:12.521-04:00http://retractionwatch.com/2014/05/21/gremlins-cau...http://retractionwatch.com/2014/05/21/gremlins-caused-errors-in-climate-change-paper-showing-gains-from-global-warming/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77221007045326198372014-05-21T11:18:55.283-04:002014-05-21T11:18:55.283-04:00Anon: Yes, I realize we agree. Sorry if I seem to ...Anon: Yes, I realize we agree. Sorry if I seem to imply otherwise.<br /><br />Cheers. <br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71874797820887489482014-05-21T11:04:31.307-04:002014-05-21T11:04:31.307-04:00David,
I am agreeing with you on your point about...David,<br /><br />I am agreeing with you on your point about sensitivity.<br /><br />By "assume", I meant they include the value in their calculations.<br /><br />When they do so, they are effectively "assuming" that it is the "best" value to use (by whatever criteria they have used to come to that conclusion. Indeed, there are assumptions that go into the models used to come up with the forcing factor)<br /><br />The fact that there are assumptions about the factor is the best argument for not simply expressing climate sensitivity in degrees K as IPCC and many others do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80328201384779957262014-05-21T10:55:28.423-04:002014-05-21T10:55:28.423-04:00But the referee was objecting to LB citing ECS in ...<i>But the referee was objecting to LB citing ECS in K/(W/m**2). He was right.</i><br /><br />ECS has units of K, but citing a specific numerical value for it in units of K is not right. <br /><br />I agree with Anon; anyone should be able to go back and forth from K/(W/m2) to K, at least in the simple case where climate sensitivity is assumed to be a constant.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-41124302464660834762014-05-21T10:52:31.232-04:002014-05-21T10:52:31.232-04:00The values given by "IPCC" actually assu...<i>The values given by "IPCC" actually assume this 3.7 factor, albeit explicitly.</i><br /><br />They don't assume anything -- it's a result from modeling. Each model can decide on its own what they will use for radiative forcing. <br /><br />They might not even use any such equation, but instead solve the Schwarzschild equations at each grid level in the atmosphere.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11458543122193858712014-05-21T10:37:22.980-04:002014-05-21T10:37:22.980-04:00I should have stated above thus:
"any scient...I should have stated above thus:<br /><br />"any scientist reading the Bengtsson paper should certainly be capable of taking a climate sensitivity given in K/(W/m^2) and multiplying by the 3.7 factor quoted by IPCC and then comparing that value to the values in the IPCC report"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-90699345873317760592014-05-21T10:30:37.699-04:002014-05-21T10:30:37.699-04:00But the 3.7 W/m2 is a result from modeling.
..wh...But the 3.7 W/m2 is a result from modeling. <br /><br />..which actually argues for expressing climate sensitivity in K/(W/m^2) as Bengtsson et al did rather than simply as K (as IPCC does)<br /><br /><br />The values given by "IPCC" actually assume this 3.7 factor, albeit explicitly.<br /><br />But any scientist reading the Bengtsson paper should certainly be capable of taking a climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling given in K/(W/m^2) and multiplying by the 3.7 factor quoted by IPCC and then comparing that value to the values in the IPCC report.<br /><br /><br />It's really not that hard nor particularly confusing as the referee stated.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57852741797092208642014-05-21T10:29:13.966-04:002014-05-21T10:29:13.966-04:00"That's why scientists usually cite the d...<i>"That's why scientists usually cite the derivative version."</i><br />But the referee was objecting to LB citing ECS in K/(W/m**2). He was right.<br />Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70256592365772130892014-05-21T10:11:25.547-04:002014-05-21T10:11:25.547-04:00Anonymous said...
The IPCC itself has adopted &quo...Anonymous said...<br /><i>The IPCC itself has adopted "an RF of +3.7 W m–2 for a doubling in the CO2 mixing ratio."</i><br /><br />But the 3.7 W/m2 is a result from modeling. <br /><br />A recent paper by Byrne and Goldblatt finds slightly different formulas (that imply this number should be 3.8 W/m2), that could be used in models. I gave their new equations here:<br /><br />http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/03/what-if-co2-gets-really-high-say-1000.html<br /><br />At CO2=1000 ppm, the new forcing is about 10% higher than the old one. That's about the uncertainty cited in the IPCC 4AR link you gave.<br /><br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65886305769744336832014-05-21T10:05:16.088-04:002014-05-21T10:05:16.088-04:00Nick Stokes said...
The referee was right. The AR4...Nick Stokes said...<br /><i>The referee was right. The AR4 glossary says...</i><br /><br />Yes, ECS has units of temperature. But it isn't a constant; it depends on both temperture, CO2, and potentially other climate factors. <br /><br />So citing a single number for it is misleading; it leaves out information that could matter. That's why scientists usually cite the derivative version.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46290598590159033772014-05-21T09:32:32.118-04:002014-05-21T09:32:32.118-04:00Nick,
You are arguing in circles.
The IPCC itsel...Nick,<br /><br />You are arguing in circles.<br /><br />The IPCC itself has <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html" rel="nofollow">adopted "an RF of +3.7 W m–2 for a doubling in the CO2 mixing ratio. "</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57254060903707529402014-05-21T07:52:38.304-04:002014-05-21T07:52:38.304-04:00Ach! I habe bemerkt -- ur, I just noticed -- that...Ach! I habe bemerkt -- ur, I just noticed -- that our host linked the same video to the word "third" in his original post. Ich bin ein Dummkopf!palindromnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33124280006056347622014-05-21T07:35:00.630-04:002014-05-21T07:35:00.630-04:00Mention of the third reviewer (still in the wings)...Mention of the third reviewer (still in the wings) reminds me of the "Peer Review Circa 1945" YouTube video. Bunnies who have never seen it may, or may not, find it hilarious. <br /><br />"trurifi This"palindromnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14284322153972437092014-05-21T04:14:29.916-04:002014-05-21T04:14:29.916-04:00"But if they were making no direct comparison...<i>"But if they were making no direct comparison to other results that expressed ECS in "degrees K" (not making an apples to oranges comparison), the units they used are not only fine, but are actually the most general(as pointed out by David above)"</i><br /><br />No, it's not a matter of converting units. ECS, properly expressed, includes information about the forcing implied by doubled CO2. 3.7 isn't a SI conversion factor. It's a modelled result, which doesn't have a standard value.<br />Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.com