Simply Uncertain

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 07:10 GMT le 21 février 2012

Share this Blog
12
+

Simply Uncertain

This past week I had a short letter published in Scientific American. The letter concerned a statement made in an article that climate models do not include clouds. This is an incorrect statement that has been around for many years, and it shows up, in my experience, in more science-focused publications. I remember an exchange of letters in Physics Today in 2005. As best as I can tell, the statement is traced to a historical document that stated the first climate models written in the late 1960s contained specified clouds – meaning that they did not change as the climate changed. By the end of the 1970s, cloud parameterizations were becoming standard in climate models, and the interplay between clouds and solar radiation emerged in the 1980s as one of the most important metrics of model performance.

My letter goes on to state that the uncertainty in climate projections associated with the physical climate model is smaller than the uncertainty associated with the models of emission scenarios that are used to project carbon dioxide emissions. This statement is worthy of more discussion. Let me start with a couple of reminders. In all of these endeavors looking to the future we use models. Models are constructed based on observed behavior and are tools for projecting future outcomes. By “physical climate model” I mean a mathematical representation based on the laws of physics. Most simply, in this case, how is solar energy absorbed by the Earth, redistributed, and then emitted back to space? More generally, laws that govern physics, chemistry and biology are incorporated into climate models.

Another important ingredient in making climate projections is what is our future emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases? “Emission scenario” models are based on assumptions of population growth, economic development and sources of energy to drive the economy. Historically, one type of scenario is called “business as usual” and simply extrapolates curves of past energy use into the future. If we take emission curves that, for example, stop in 2005 and project them forward, we see that in the last couple of years we are ahead of those emissions. Generally, business as usual is assumed to be the worst case. We have several emission models based on various assumptions about development and deployment of technology. Current efforts in climate science are striving to make emission models and physical climate models talk to each other – to interact.

Physical climate models are based on the laws of physics and that does provide strategies for determining cause and effect. If cause and effect can be determined to a high degree of certainty, then we can be quite certain about predictions. The economic models, that I know, are based on observations of economic systems that are then represented through a set of mathematical relationships. These relationships are often represented by statistical methods, strive to represent human behavior, and include measures of value that rely on how much humans value something. In atmospheric science, for example, there are a set of “primitive equations” which all agree describe the motion of the atmosphere. Such a set of physically derived equations do not sit at the basis of economic projections. I hope I have stayed out of trouble here. As in a number of previous entries, I draw your attention to Daniel Farber’s Climate Models: A User’s Guide. Farber is neither climate scientist or economist, a fact that I always view as providing a measure of objective evaluation. He evaluates model robustness.

I want to discuss this uncertainty issue a little bit more, and will rely on an old standard figure from the 2001 IPCC Report. This figure has a lot of information about uncertainty.



Figure 1: From 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report Variations of the Earth’s surface temperature: year 1000 to year 2100

The figure shows the temperature since the year 1000 forward to year 2100. The temperatures from the past are from observations of different types. The temperatures in the future are from model projections. There are a set of different physical climate models all using a standard set of emission scenarios. I have marked three types of uncertainty on the figure.

In light blue I point to a measure of observational uncertainty. This is the gray spread around the bold red temperature line. This gets smaller as more and more observations become available over time. Going into the future there are the individual colored lines of different models and on the right of the figure are the ranges associated with those models for the set of emission scenarios. The envelope of all of the models with all of the emission scenarios is pointed out by the green arrows. A simple estimate of uncertainty is the spread of the models. This uncertainty grows with time, and the spread when all of the scenarios are included is larger than the spread of any individual model. If one were to look at the individual models, you would see much the same thing. In the absence of different scenarios the models would have a significantly more narrow spread.

There are a number of important points in this simple approach to thinking about uncertainty. Looking at the spread of all models with all scenarios, the spread at, say, 30 years in the future is quite well defined by the lines of the individual models. It takes 30 or 40 years before the difference in the scenarios makes a difference. As a rule of thumb a simple description of uncertainty is that in the next couple of decades “internal variability,” that is, the spread is mostly due to things like El Nino and La Nina is most important. Then there is a length of time where the spread is due mostly to model differences. And as time approaches a century or longer, the spread due to emission scenarios begins to dominate. I note that model differences are always important, and that this difference is strongly related to details of the treatment of clouds. This uncertainty is expressed in how fast does it warm?

The physical climate model is like a telescope into the future; it provides actionable knowledge the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. As the models improve, that future comes into more and more focus. There are physical relationships that allow a high degree of confidence to be attributed to some aspects of climate projections. For example, the surface of the globe will warm, in any carbon dioxide emission scenario. On this global scale, both model uncertainty and emission scenario uncertainty address the issue of how fast the surface will warm. Neither suggest any plausible scenario where the Earth does not warm. And simply to make the point, this plot does not suggest that the warming stops at 2100; that's just as far as the information is plotted. At local spatial scales, scales for which the models were not designed, the uncertainty analysis follows a much different logic than presented here.

r

Old Entry on Uncertainty and Definition of Model Types

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 118 - 68

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog Index

Quoting martinitony:



The silence is deafening.
I imagine Dr. Rood is far too busy talking about actual science to deal with more non peer-reviewed blather written by electrical engineer and uber-denialist David Evans, and appearing on a website belonging to an obscure Alabama-based libertarian group (motto: "Undermining statism in all its forms"). I can't speak for Dr. Rood, but I bet if you asked him to debate any of Dr. Evans' peer-reviewed articles on climate change, he'd probably do so. (Oh, wait--Evans has not published any peer-reviewed articles on climate change? Well, then, nevermind.)
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
Quoting JupiterKen:


This is a current discussion on the "science". I really didn't expect you to understand and you didn't let me down. As it doesn't come from the "anti-truth, catastrophic warmist cult", your closed mind cannot be expected to see. I shall not waste my time on the purposely blind.

Good luck to you.
Wait. So in your opinion, peer-reviewed science supported by every single major, legitimate scientific organization on the planet, including 97%-98% of all actual climate scientists, is to you just blather from an "anti-truth, catastrophic warmist cult". Yet nonsensical, debunked gibberish written by some crank for his personal website is top-notch science? Well, jeepers! Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
Bleak for Gleick

Doc, why don't you write a rebuttal to this one? That would be an interesting blog.
Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Quoting overwash12:
The truth about global warming: As long as the Sun continues to shine the Earth will continue with it's historical ice ages and warm periods no matter what man does.


Deserving of a quote and !

Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Quoting martinitony:



The silence is deafening.


Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№ 109



Not really taking a stance on the details of this discussion at the current time, as I'm just "passing through" at the moment...But, it does appear that the document was in the first link previously (as of Feb 22nd actually) as can be seen from Google Cache--link below.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca che:http://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/igms_egf.nsf/9e9c 2a5934a808d585256fb6006df292/72c4419d1599778f85257 9ab007a2d49!OpenDocument

Just trying to be helpful.


Thanks! I did see that and noted it in post #111.
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
№ 109

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
JupiterKen,

This page is linked from the link you gave:

Junk Science

Under the heading of -"Money well spent, we're sure.", you will find other links. What happens when you click on one of these links? Well, let us see.

$25,000 to evaluate indoor air interventions to reduce diesel particulate matter in West Oakland, Ca.

Wow! This document is not there! Was it there before and erased, or did it simply never exist at all?

What happens when I try to search for the same document on another website? Well, let us see.

$25,000 to evaluate indoor air interventions to reduce diesel particulate matter in West Oakland, Ca.

Oh, my goodness! This really is a mass conspiracy to cover up this involvement! ..... or, the document never really existed at all? Hmmmmm

Did I just prove that the document never existed? NO! Did you prove that it ever existed? NO!

BTW, what dummy would name their document, "72c4419d1599778f852579ab007a2d49"? under a sub directory named, "9e9c2a5934a808d585256fb6006df292"? Sure looks like a random number of randomly typed characters to me. What do you think?


Not really taking a stance on the details of this discussion at the current time, as I'm just "passing through" at the moment...But, it does appear that the document was in the first link previously (as of Feb 22nd actually) as can be seen from Google Cache--link below.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca che:http://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/igms_egf.nsf/9e9c 2a5934a808d585256fb6006df292/72c4419d1599778f85257 9ab007a2d49!OpenDocument

Just trying to be helpful.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I just went back to that site and read Joe Farnakle's post. He did a search and the documents are there. The documents he found are using different file names than the file names in the links. Now, "Junk Science" is saying that their FOIA request must have worked and the EPA reposted the documents. That would be the fastest I have ever heard a FOIA request work. This usually takes months, if not years. Definitely not within a few hours. This still makes me suspect that the links had the wrong information in them, but I cannot confirm this. ... A conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory?

Strange. Apparently such sub directory names and file names are used. I would hate to have to do a search, based on that!
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
When tradition screws da pooch


Containing Fukushima: Saving Japan From Itself (Part I)

The disaster at Fukushima last year exposed how entrenched interests among key decision-makers have contaminated Japanese society, endangering the long-term prosperity of Japan. These special interests often do what is right for themselves, as opposed to what is in the best interests of the Japanese people.

In this two-part series, discussion on what has transpired over the past twelve months as a result of decisions made related to the Fukushima disaster (Part I) will lead to a look at decision-making during the crisis in subsequent weeks and months that have passed (Part II). As the current decision-making system in Japan increasingly works to the detriment of Japanese society, what is needed instead is a more transparent, honest, and benevolent decision-making system that listens to the wishes of the people and responds to it.

Deep relationships among public and private sector players are present in all societies around the world. Yet Japan has a unique set of circumstances that make these relationships unlike any other. Looking firstly at this process sets the stage for understanding what has gone wrong in Japan.

Japan's "Iron Triangle" of power, the traditional post-war decision-making apparatus, is comprised of Administrative Bureaucracy, Organized Business and Party Government. Together these groups create and implement policies and laws. This inter-institutional cooperation establishes the foundation for how society operates.

It is a cozy relationship. Policies are established by bureaucrats, laws are then passed by politicians and implemented by the business sector. The unelected bureaucrats who formulate policies are beholden to no one other than themselves. Long-term bureaucrats have decades to nurture connections. Top officials often "retire" on to private sector Board of Directors or are granted lucrative positions inside organizations that they used to regulate, thereby forming a comfortable intermingling of the public and private sectors. The system perpetuates itself.

To lubricate the system, up to 40% of the annual Japanese national budget is spent on infrastructure projects -- many of which are unnecessary. It could easily be argued that a great number of the nuclear power plants built since the Second World War would fall in to this category. That helps explain why even though 90+ percent of all nuclear reactors are currently off-line, no energy shortages or blackouts have occurred to date.

An additional appendage to this triangle of power is the Japanese mafia or "Yakuza" which have historically been able to legally exist in Japan. The Yakuza serve to make sure the system operates smoothly. One example of this is the supplying of labor to the nuclear industry for undesirable jobs and, in particular, to the Tokyo Electric Power nuclear plant after the disaster of March 11, 2011.

Added to this mix of the Iron Triangle and mafia comes a cultural factor not seen in other nations known as 'nakama' or becoming an accepted 'trusted insider' among a respective group. This eases the process of consensus-formation. In group-oriented Japan, such strong relationships are seen as the ultimate goal to be achieved as they allow for the maintenance of harmony. Japan is a series of 'inside' and 'outside' groups and nakama relationships built over time and through mutual experience foster deep loyalties in the public and private sector.

Nakama can also become a hindrance in times of crucial decision-making where telling the truth comes head-to-head with loyalty to long-held relations. One well-known example is the case of the Japan Airlines crash in Tokyo Bay in 1982 that killed 133 people. The captain deliberately engaged the number 2 and 3 engines' thrust-reversers in flight which caused the crash. He was later found to be suffering from mental illness prior to the incident which resulted in a not guilty verdict by reason of insanity. The interesting point about this particular story is that his co-workers and even the company had known he was unstable for a long time, yet he was able to maintain his position, hierarchy and rank. This can be the danger of nakama relations -- when some one in a position of power does something he/she should not do, most are reluctant to do anything about it for fear of damaging relations.

Witness the Fukushima disaster. Not only did decision-making take too long in the early hours of the crisis because consensus needed to be formed among too many players, but there was a lack of communication due to inoperable phone systems. On top of this, the Iron Triangle players were protecting their respective turfs. Politicians and regulators protected the nuclear industry and the nuclear industry protected itself. What was best for the people of Japan took a back seat.

Observing what happened in the early hours of the crisis is to see how forming a consensus on what to do to protect the populace was a futile effort, indeed. Prime Minister Naoto Kan, to his credit, trusted neither the bureaucrats advising him nor the Tokyo Electric Power Company (which was worried about protecting its assets). Even the plant manager did not trust his superiors who had instructed him to stop pouring sea water on the reactors to keep them cool. His decision to defy that order likely prevented the disaster from becoming worse than it was. "At the drama's heart was an outsider prime minister who saw the need for quick action but whose well-founded mistrust of a system of alliances between powerful plant operators, compliant bureaucrats and sympathetic politicians deprived Prime Minister Kan of resources he could have used to make better-informed decisions," reported the New York Times.

How much of what went wrong was actually due to sheer incompetence or lack of adequate preparation as opposed to an attempt to hide the truth is unclear. But the New York Times ran an incredible piece on this "culture of collusion" early in the crisis. And it took an outsider (who used to be an insider) to reveal the truth -- that "nuclear power's main players are more interested in protecting their interests than increasing safety". My point exactly. The safety of the people of Japan was not the top priority which further shows that the decision-making system is not working.

Just ask the people of Namie, a city located just north of the doomed Tokyo Electric Power nuclear plant. Lacking clear guidance on what to do or where to go from decision-makers in Tokyo, town leaders thought it would be safe to head north to escape the dangers caused by explosions at the plant. Computer calculations, known to officials in Tokyo, had predicted winds would carry radioactive clouds north -- not south -- as Namie town officials had thought. But no one bothered to tell them and they were exposed to high levels of radiation for three days and nights. As reported in another New York Times exposé, "The forecasts were left unpublicized by bureaucrats in Tokyo, operating in a culture that sought to avoid responsibility and, above all, criticism... Japanese authorities engaged in a pattern of withholding damaging information and denying facts of the nuclear disaster -- in order to limit the size of costly and disruptive evacuations in land-scarce Japan and to avoid public questioning of the politically powerful nuclear industry".

And to further prove the point about the failings of the Iron Triangle and how members sought to protect their turf, bureaucrats initially withheld vital information even from politicians, part of their own inner circle. As the aforementioned article notes, "Some of the predictions of the spread of radiation contamination were so alarming, that three separate government agencies -- the Education Ministry and the two nuclear regulators, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency and Nuclear Safety Commission -- passed the data to one another like a hot potato, with none of them wanting to accept responsibility for its results".

Added to this story were revelations the in the crucial days during and after two reactors blew up, Potassium Iodide (which blocks radioactive iodine from entering the thyroid gland) was not dispersed to people in need in the areas near the plant. Why? "Government disaster manuals require communities to wait for the central government to give the order before distributing the pills. Though Japan's nuclear-safety experts recommended dispensing pills immediately, Tokyo didn't order pills be given out until five days after the March 11 accident". Once again, the people of Japan were not the top priority.

Here is yet another example -- days after the earthquake and tsunami, on March 15th and 21st, clouds of radiation drifted over Tokyo due to changing wind conditions. The people of Tokyo were not encouraged to either stay indoors (thereby somewhat limiting exposure) or leave the city. It was not that the authorities didn't know the clouds were coming -- they did. Even the U.S. military knew they were on their way due to a computer simulation known as SPEEDI (System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information). SPEEDI was designed in the 1980s to make forecasts of radiation dispersal should an accident occur. SPEEDI information was shared with the U.S. military, but not with the people of Japan. Decision-makers withheld the information, most likely so as to avoid a panic.

So there was a choice in a "worst-case scenario", evacuate Tokyo (which might have led to the collapse of the Japanese economy) or risk collateral damage among the populace. All of which raises a fundamental question -- What gives unelected bureaucrats the right to decide what the public is told (or not told), particularly when issues of health are at stake?

Just as with the tale of the boy who cried wolf, many people in Japan no longer trust what they are told. It is now to the point where even if the truth is told, few believe it.

(Tomorrow, in Part II, we look at more evidence of how nakama decision-making hurts Japan.)

K.T. Hiraoka is a pseudonym for the writer whose name was changed to allow for honest and open expression in order to better decipher the puzzle surrounding decision-making related to the Fukushima disaster.



Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
JupiterKen,

This page is linked from the link you gave:

Junk Science

Under the heading of -"Money well spent, we're sure.", you will find other links. What happens when you click on one of these links? Well, let us see.

$25,000 to evaluate indoor air interventions to reduce diesel particulate matter in West Oakland, Ca.

Wow! This document is not there! Was it there before and erased, or did it simply never exist at all?

What happens when I try to search for the same document on another website? Well, let us see.

$25,000 to evaluate indoor air interventions to reduce diesel particulate matter in West Oakland, Ca.

Oh, my goodness! This really is a mass conspiracy to cover up this involvement! ..... or, the document never really existed at all? Hmmmmm

Did I just prove that the document never existed? NO! Did you prove that it ever existed? NO!

BTW, what dummy would name their document, "72c4419d1599778f852579ab007a2d49"? under a sub directory named, "9e9c2a5934a808d585256fb6006df292"? Sure looks like a random number of randomly typed characters to me. What do you think?
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting JupiterKen:


No doubt your snarky statement proves that the EPA did not remove the records to which the post referred. We now know the truth because you say so. Another who sees only what he wishes.


I can make an html document, open it in a browser and make a screenshot of it. I could then post the screenshot to a blog.

What you posted was from a blog and by another blogger. Not unlike here and by users no different than you and I. All that is asked is, where is there any proof that the claim was real or fake? Really, it is that simple. Where is the evidence to support the claim? You certainly cannot discern this from the image on the blog.

The screenshot that was posted on the blog looks the same as the page in misanthrope's link.

The Image from your link:

Link to image on blog page

The link misanthrope gave:
FedSpending.org

The page and the screenshot in the article you linked to look the same to me. How does this substantiate anyone's claim that the EPA is trying to hide any funding that it has made?

As misanthrope suggested, do some research.
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting misanthrope:


That's it? Some guy makes an unsubstantiated claim on a blog and you swallow it - hook, line and sinker - and start accusing people of "cover-ups and lies." There really is one born every minute.

Hey Ken, I got this bridge in Brooklyn that I'm looking to unload. I'm willing to give you a great deal on it - what do you think?



No doubt your snarky statement proves that the EPA did not remove the records to which the post referred. We now know the truth because you say so. Another who sees only what he wishes.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:
More on climate models Doc. Pick it apart if you can.

Reality



The silence is deafening.
Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Me 2, itsa Good un..

I like dis un as well 2.

"To argue with a fool is to his advantage"...
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
Quoting Patrap:
radling your mind....a radical linguist's koan...

Seven billion humans on this planet, or so i am told. Not being monkey-mind dominated, i have not counted them, thus the number is not really meaningful, though the context of many many many humans is exactly the point.

So, with all these humans, and all these languages, and all these words, and all our time on this planet, one must consider that of all the words ever penned or spoken, in all the languages, and by the sum total of humanity over time, nearly ever sentence or utterance that can be made, or could be made, has been made, excepting one....

what is the sentence not yet spoken (or written)?

posted February 24, 2012 by clif high

halfpasthuman.com


I am savin' dat un fer later. ;-)
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting JupiterKen:


From the ref post these two lines are both links:

"We broke the news of $468,675 worth of EPA grants to Gleick on Wednesday." and

"By Thursday, the EPA had deleted those grants from its Grants Database." are both links from the original

Link

Link


That's it? Some guy makes an unsubstantiated claim on a blog and you swallow it - hook, line and sinker - and start accusing people of "cover-ups and lies." There really is one born every minute.

Hey Ken, I got this bridge in Brooklyn that I'm looking to unload. I'm willing to give you a great deal on it - what do you think?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
radling your mind....a radical linguist's koan...

Seven billion humans on this planet, or so i am told. Not being monkey-mind dominated, i have not counted them, thus the number is not really meaningful, though the context of many many many humans is exactly the point.

So, with all these humans, and all these languages, and all these words, and all our time on this planet, one must consider that of all the words ever penned or spoken, in all the languages, and by the sum total of humanity over time, nearly ever sentence or utterance that can be made, or could be made, has been made, excepting one....

what is the sentence not yet spoken (or written)?

posted February 24, 2012 by clif high

halfpasthuman.com
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
Quoting JupiterKen:
10:00AM 2/24 The EPA was shown yesterday to %u201Cdisappear%u201D $468,000 in Federal grants to Gleick%u2019s Pacific Institute. Now even more grants to Gleick have been scrubbed from EPA Grants Database. Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com reports:
Link

More cover-ups and lies. Where will it all end?


JupiterKen, I believe you stare, with too much intensity, upon a single tree that is amongst all of the other trees contained within the forest.

Let us say that the EPA is trying to "kill off" any associations it may have had with Gleick. How does this alter the fairly common knowledge in how The Heartland Institute conducts its business and for what purposes? I think you are missing the big picture here. What is your perspective when you take into view and consideration of all of the trees that make up this forest known as, "The Heartland Institute"?
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting misanthrope:


Did you even spend 5 seconds attempting to verify this? I did and this is what I found - Link.

Any comment?




From the ref post these two lines are both links:

"We broke the news of $468,675 worth of EPA grants to Gleick on Wednesday." and

"By Thursday, the EPA had deleted those grants from its Grants Database." are both links from the original

Link

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JupiterKen:


The $468,675 grant is the one scrubbed not the 2007 grant unless I'm reading it wrong.


Got it. And the evidence for this $468,675 grant being "scrubbed" is where?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Thanks, Ken! Say, do you think you can link to some real science next time? You know, something peer-reviwed? Or are blog posts written by quacks the best you can find to support your stance?


This is a current discussion on the "science". I really didn't expect you to understand and you didn't let me down. As it doesn't come from the "anti-truth, catastrophic warmist cult", your closed mind cannot be expected to see. I shall not waste my time on the purposely blind.

Good luck to you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting misanthrope:


Did you even spend 5 seconds attempting to verify this? I did and this is what I found - Link.

Any comment?




The $468,675 grant is the one scrubbed not the 2007 grant unless I'm reading it wrong.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The truth about global warming: As long as the Sun continues to shine the Earth will continue with it's historical ice ages and warm periods no matter what man does.
Member Since: 24 juin 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
Quoting martinitony:
NEO, is this responder describing the likes of you?

'...the "debate" is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.'

Yes, that is the case. The skeptics have shown the flaws in the: data on warming, explanations by CO2, harmful effects of heating, the curative power of regulations, etc. Yet the Anthropogenic Global Warmists have been immune to the evidence and logic of their refutations, because they are agenda driven. Their "arguments" include misrepresentation, denial, emotional appeals, fabrication, persecution, and all the practices of politicians.

So it is more important to demonstrate the political realities of the advocates, than to go into those details of science which are generally too complicated to be understood by the layman. This is instructive for Austrian economists because their adversaries usually do the same thing, pretending they are concerned with science when they are agenda driven.


Yes, Neo, it sure does sound like you and the rest of your ilk. Always ready to attack the skeptic, but never ready to refute the skepticism. How pathetic you are.
I do so wish you could discuss your point of view without resorting to personal insults. Anyway, no, I am never ready to attack the skeptic, though I am always ready to attack the denialist. The former bases his skepticism on the scientific data as he interprets it, but always has his mind open to a new way of thinking. The latter, on the other hand, has staked out a scientific position based on his political or theological ideology, and will never change no matter how much verified data that counteracts that stance is presented to him. Skeptics are worthy of respect; denialists are worthy of derision.
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
NEO, is this responder describing the likes of you?

'...the "debate" is about politics and power, and not about science or truth.'

Yes, that is the case. The skeptics have shown the flaws in the: data on warming, explanations by CO2, harmful effects of heating, the curative power of regulations, etc. Yet the Anthropogenic Global Warmists have been immune to the evidence and logic of their refutations, because they are agenda driven. Their "arguments" include misrepresentation, denial, emotional appeals, fabrication, persecution, and all the practices of politicians.

So it is more important to demonstrate the political realities of the advocates, than to go into those details of science which are generally too complicated to be understood by the layman. This is instructive for Austrian economists because their adversaries usually do the same thing, pretending they are concerned with science when they are agenda driven.


Yes, Neo, it sure does sound like you and the rest of your ilk. Always ready to attack the skeptic, but never ready to refute the skepticism. How pathetic you are.
Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Quoting JupiterKen:
Good article on atmospheric heating:
Link
Thanks, Ken! Say, do you think you can link to some real science next time? You know, something peer-reviwed? Or are blog posts written by quacks the best you can find to support your stance?
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
Quoting JupiterKen:
10:00AM 2/24 The EPA was shown yesterday to %u201Cdisappear%u201D $468,000 in Federal grants to Gleick%u2019s Pacific Institute. Now even more grants to Gleick have been scrubbed from EPA Grants Database. Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com reports:
Link

More cover-ups and lies. Where will it all end?


Did you even spend 5 seconds attempting to verify this? I did and this is what I found - Link.

Any comment?


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'd agree that, while it's probably too late, the only thing that can possibly salvage Heartland's shattered reputation is for them to reveal their oh-so-mysterious $14 million "Anonymous Donor". Someone dropping that kind of cash must have a really good reason for wanting to keep the scientific truth from reaching the public. Reveal yourself, charlatan!

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012- 02-25/think-tank-leaks/53235836/1
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
More on climate models Doc. Pick it apart if you can.

Reality
Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Good article on atmospheric heating:
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
10:00AM 2/24 The EPA was shown yesterday to %u201Cdisappear%u201D $468,000 in Federal grants to Gleick%u2019s Pacific Institute. Now even more grants to Gleick have been scrubbed from EPA Grants Database. Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com reports:
Link

More cover-ups and lies. Where will it all end?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Only the truly frightened and Low brow Humans reject Logic and truth.

That is not the path to enlightenment, it is the road to perdition, easily.
Member Since: 3 juillet 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
Quoting Neapolitan:
Oh, nice! You attacked Rookie for giving an opinion, then attacked those of us who gave an opinion by agreeing with him, all to make a point about being attacked for giving an opinion. Got it. Great existentialist humor, that! ;-)


whoosh..."I seriously believe you have spent too much time under a rock!" would be the salient statement. As usual, all you do is attack the person. Too bad that's the best you have. No one could ever accuse you of open debate on the science. Why don't you go to WUWT and teach them the error of their ways? Because you cannot o' chief of the ad homs. What a gathering of no-knowledge wannabees.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JupiterKen:
This one of your poorer posts to date.
Quoting JupiterKen:
Attacking someone for giving an opinion.
Quoting JupiterKen:
All you plus monkeys should be ashamed of yourselves.
Oh, nice! You attacked Rookie for giving an opinion, then attacked those of us who gave an opinion by agreeing with him, all to make a point about being attacked for giving an opinion. Got it. Great existentialist humor, that! ;-)
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
Quoting JupiterKen:


This one of your poorer posts to date. Attacking someone for giving an opinion. All you plus monkeys should be ashamed of yourselves.


I agree, JupiterKen. I do my best to stay above the fray. I have discovered that I have gained a limited patience for those that would post such a ridiculous statement. I should not have included that last line. Still, I find it odd that you would focus so heavily on that last line. When you remove that last line, what do you read?
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Scientists can't even agree on the data.
Well, 2% don't agree with the data corroborated by 98%, so that's true, I guess, in the way that saying, "Scientists can't even agree that the world is spherical" is true.
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
The people in charge manipulate, adjust, smooth, and otherwise compromise the results.
"In charge"? Oh, you mean Big Energy and its do-boys in Congress? I agree.
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Scientists with no preconceived bias state that global temperatures have been statistically flat for the past fifteen years.
Right. And next year it will be 16 years. Then 17 years. Then 18 years. And however many years in the past the anomalously hot El Nino year of 1998 was.
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
Quoting Ossqss:
Hummm, community service message?

This really kinda reflects what we see in the media, no?

Absurd or not, this is what is predominantly being taught, conveyed, and forcibly injected into most lives as viewed from my seat. Is it right?

Think about it :)






Ossqss, may I suggest that you cease seeking the seat that is at the back of the class?
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Earth's global climate has changed several times before. Anytime the change has been gradual then life was able to adapt. Anytime the change was abrupt, there would be mass extinctions. We are forcing an abrupt change now and there is no assurance that we will be one of the species to survive. What is with all of the complacency towards our actions possibly destroying our future generations? I am totally amazed by this when we can simply ADAPT as to how we do business NOW to most assure that our future generations have a decent chance at survival! OH NO! Just let the future generations figure it for themselves, if they are able to do so, as to how to survive with a climate they have not had time to adapt to!

A geologist, huh? I seriously believe you have spent too much time under a rock!


This one of your poorer posts to date. Attacking someone for giving an opinion. All you plus monkeys should be ashamed of yourselves.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting martinitony:

You're a moron. Worse than that, you pretend to actually have some sort of expertise in climate knowledge. You don't


Should I take this as a an indication that you do not wish to take on the challenge I have presented to you?

No, I am not a climatologist and I have always stated that I am not a scientist. I do exhibit some expertise in some things that you do not seem to exhibit any expertise at all. Common sense and logical thinking are two of these things!

Should you know anything you should know that climate models were never set up to show absolutes. Climate models were set up to show probabilities of what would happen if this or this were to happen to our atmosphere. The probabilities are given a degree of confidence that are expressed in percentages. Should a climate model show a probability that our climate would increase the global temperature by 50 degrees Celsius, within the next 10 years, then you can rest assured that a 0% of confidence would be assigned to this probability. You already knew this, I would hope!, and you are simply trying to introduce an illogical degree of uncertainty in the reliability of the climate models. What you have actually shown is the degree of uncertainty in anything that can believed in what you say! I place this degree of uncertainty at near 100%! Anyone that believes anything of your challenge to Professor Rood would certainly show their propensity for the same spurious and specious arguments that you place.

Should I be a moron, as you claim, and I already know all of this, WHAT DOES THAT MAKE OF YOU??????
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting greentortuloni:


Huh? Never explain anything? Keep believing in your right wing Tea Party 'anyone smarter than me is wrong' religion.

Why not try this: put a serious bet on the climate. You are already betting that it won't change in words. Why not cover your bases and bet the same way with money. Scared?


Scientists can't even agree on the data. The people in charge manipulate, adjust, smooth, and otherwise compromise the results. Scientists with no preconceived bias state that global temperatures have been statistically flat for the past fifteen years. guess I already won the bet.
Member Since: 10 décembre 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting martinitony:
Dr. Rood, a challenge for you. Tell us what the high temperature at Myrtle Beach will be June 23, 2012. Okay, I'm kidding. Let's make it more reasonable. Let's talk about climate, not weather.

You constantly talk models. You believe in them. I don't because ALL your models, so far, have failed to predict anything correctly. So, here's the challenge. Using any model you want, predict the average surface temperature of the Earth, give or take .25 degrees Celsius for the year 2014. The answer will be available in just three short years and many of us have been reading this blog for much longer.

It's a reasonable request. If you are correct, no matter what model you use, you will be on the Jay Leno show. If you fail, no one but us will even know. C'mon Doc, take a shot at it.
Parlor tricks. The answer is contingent upon the ENSO situation at the time; if we're in a La Nina by then, it'll be cooler globally than if we're in an El Nino, and vice versa.

Here's a better bet: ask Dr. Rood--or any climatologist--whether global temps will continue their overall upwards trend for the next three years. Or six. Or ten. Absent a catastrophic (Mt. Pinatubo or larger) volcanic eruption, I'd put a million dollars on that. Or a billion, if you prefer. Follow the trendline in the image below, and use your imagination:

Uh-oh
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
Quoting Xandra:

I guess you found the link at WUWT. Am I right? ;)

The new paper does not support Miskolczi's theory of saturated greenhouse effect. More about his theory here

The paper ”Surface Water Vapor Pressure and Temperature Trends in North America during 1948-2010” confirms the warming trend of 0.2 C/decade predicted by the IPCC:

”The temperature (water vapor pressure) trends averaged over all stations were 0.30 (0.07), 0.24 (0.06), 0.13 (0.11), 0.11 (0.07) C/decade (hPa/decade) in the winter, spring, summer and autumn seasons, respectively. The averages of these seasonal trends are 0.20 C/decade and 0.07 hPa/decade which correspond to a specific humidity increase of 0.04 g/kg per decade and a relative humidity reduction of 0.5%/decade.”
Oh, now, don't correct them; WUWT's sycophantic followers count on having access to just enough cherry-picked information to validate their anti-science stance. Further facts only serve to confuse them.
Member Since: 8 novembre 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13628
Quoting NeapolitanFan:



Ditto. Rookie and the rest of the gullible keep believing in their Gaia religion. Climate models can't, and will never predict future trends. They can't even predict past climate when we have all the data (although temp data is manipulated).


Huh? Never explain anything? Keep believing in your right wing Tea Party 'anyone smarter than me is wrong' religion.

Why not try this: put a serious bet on the climate. You are already betting that it won't change in words. Why not cover your bases and bet the same way with money. Scared?
Member Since: 5 juin 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Hummm, community service message?

This really kinda reflects what we see in the media, no?

Absurd or not, this is what is predominantly being taught, conveyed, and forcibly injected into most lives as viewed from my seat. Is it right?

Think about it :)




Member Since: 12 juin 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8186
Quoting martinitony:
Dr. Rood, a challenge for you. Tell us what the high temperature at Myrtle Beach will be June 23, 2012. Okay, I'm kidding. Let's make it more reasonable. Let's talk about climate, not weather.

You constantly talk models. You believe in them. I don't because ALL your models, so far, have failed to predict anything correctly. So, here's the challenge. Using any model you want, predict the average surface temperature of the Earth, give or take .25 degrees Celsius for the year 2014. The answer will be available in just three short years and many of us have been reading this blog for much longer.

It's a reasonable request. If you are correct, no matter what model you use, you will be on the Jay Leno show. If you fail, no one but us will even know. C'mon Doc, take a shot at it.


I have a challenge for you. Why not use your brain? Pick a time of the day. Now decide what the outdoor temperature will be, on 15 foot arc, from your front door, 7 days from now. 7 days from now measure the outdoor temperature, from the predetermined point and time, and see if you are within .25 degrees. Should you be right, you can be on the Jay Leno show. Should you be wrong, no one else needs to know. ... Certainly you must be considerably smarter than any climate model simulation will be accurate in its prediction 3 years from now? ... Thanks, for playing!
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Dr. Rood, a challenge for you. Tell us what the high temperature at Myrtle Beach will be June 23, 2012. Okay, I'm kidding. Let's make it more reasonable. Let's talk about climate, not weather.

You constantly talk models. You believe in them. I don't because ALL your models, so far, have failed to predict anything correctly. So, here's the challenge. Using any model you want, predict the average surface temperature of the Earth, give or take .25 degrees Celsius for the year 2014. The answer will be available in just three short years and many of us have been reading this blog for much longer.

It's a reasonable request. If you are correct, no matter what model you use, you will be on the Jay Leno show. If you fail, no one but us will even know. C'mon Doc, take a shot at it.
Member Since: 29 juillet 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
Quoting martinitony:
I'm trying hard to understand.


Obviously, you are NOT trying hard enough! I doubt that you are even TRYING at all! Success will come to you only when you apply reasoned thought. I am not expecting much success from you.
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
Quoting KRT579:
I try to remind people of these facts when ever I get an appropriate forum:

Climate change is the norm for the earth; humans adapted most recently about 15K years ago during the last global big warming event when the sea level rose dramatically. (Here in Maine, the sea shore used to be up to 100 miles inland, as recently as 12K years ago). As documented in the book "Europe Between the Oceans", some people moved north to maintain the same climate (e.g., Eskimos, Laplanders), while others stayed put, eventually leading to farming (I know, I have simplified it here). I don't understand why everyone thinks that humans, with their technological advancements today, will be unable to adapt. Look at New Orleans, they have survived for hundreds of years being below sea level using rudimentary technology. Yes, that city's existence has been and will continue to be tenuous, but its funny how humans persevere, isn't it?

Why is the affect of climate change on ecosystems always viewed as a loss? It is a zero sum game, with some ecosystems and their inhabitants expanding while others will decline, sometimes leading to extinction (remember the saber toothed tiger?). Why is the existing ecosystem somehow more valuable than the one that will takes its place? Wouldn't the boreal forest expand at the expense of the polar bear habitat, increasing song bird populations?

Much of the fear seems predicated on the assumption that we are living in the best global climate for humans, when it is the other way around. We have adapted successfully to the current climate, and would have no matter what the climate was, and in fact occupy areas with a wide range of threatening conditions ranging from monsoons to tornadoes. Again, why the assumption that most people will suffer?

We will not reduce our emissions in any meaningful time frame; our global society is too closely intertwined with emission-based energy whether we are talking about fire pits in Africa or power plants in the US. We need to talk more about adaptative strategies. Why are none of the climate scientists insisting that engineers and economists start studying methods to adapt to higher sea levels, more rain, etc., to reduce potential suffering?

Finally, I never hear about what happens AFTER the climate changes. What, are we all going to go back to hunter-gatherer societies, or maybe the Planet of the Apes (love that scene where the Statue of Liberty is buried on the beach)? Seriously, NO ONE ever acknowledges that life will continue, we will adapt, and at some point the climate will change again, whether caused by us or natural.

Guess I am just tired of hearing people pounding the table about the horrors of future climate change.

Geologist Keith Taylor


Earth's global climate has changed several times before. Anytime the change has been gradual then life was able to adapt. Anytime the change was abrupt, there would be mass extinctions. We are forcing an abrupt change now and there is no assurance that we will be one of the species to survive. What is with all of the complacency towards our actions possibly destroying our future generations? I am totally amazed by this when we can simply ADAPT as to how we do business NOW to most assure that our future generations have a decent chance at survival! OH NO! Just let the future generations figure it for themselves, if they are able to do so, as to how to survive with a climate they have not had time to adapt to!

A geologist, huh? I seriously believe you have spent too much time under a rock!
Member Since: 24 août 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758

Viewing: 118 - 68

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.