Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 Next
Comments 35401 to 35450:
-
scaddenp at 15:14 PM on 12 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
wwysim - for what fairly spare information I can find, the volume of ejecta from the recent Indonesian eruptions is far below Pinatuba and unlikely to affect weather.
While volcanoes undoubtedly cool the climate, I am unaware of evidence that they can affect the ENSO cycle. Do you have a reference?
-
PluviAL at 14:55 PM on 12 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
Tom Curtis and From Peru, well made points; however, you fail to grasp the fact that civilizations actual use energy load is miniscule. 15 TW vs 174,000 of incoming radiation. Climate change is orders of magnitude greater, because it takes place at the planetary scale. Albedo from PV is insignificant as Tom argues well. The big thrust should be to come up with solutions that allow for economic growth without damaging the environment. One way is for our energy regime to improve the environment. The most successful life forms improve the environment with their life processes. We can do the same. Pluvinergy is my prior argument for that, but only a few hundred copies sold. Now I take great hope in article such as this, or the really excellent news about hydrogen storage in Ammonia, ianw01 provides.
There are technical solutions, and going to zero growth sounds good, but it is not. Environmental improvement can be defined as and result in economic growth. Putting insulation in my house and adding solar lighting and heating have huge energy and comfort returns. If we design from that starting point, the world can be really lovely. We must design from that point of view.
Now I am working on controlling sea level. It is not as impossible as it seems. It is a modification of Pluvinergy, but it makes the task quite doable, to the point that one realizes, that is the real challenge; there is no way to turn back the clock on the 40 year lag in climate change that is already in the atmosphere. The cryosphere will melt, we either do something about it or suffer the consequences.
This kind of article is just what the doctor ordered to give us curage to confront the problems head on instead of with denial or other forms of burying our heads in the sand.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:04 PM on 12 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Another action the global coimmunity must take is the evaluation of all known fossil fuel resources and agree which ones must be left in the ground unburned. The rational approach would be to use the ones that will produce the least amount of unacceptable consequences per unit of useable enegry obtained.
The current approach is bound to fail. It is based on expecting self-serving national leadership to willfully stop promoting the maximum benefit they can get away with from unacceptable economic activity that they see as benefiting their national interests.
It is clear that such self-serving nations are the reason we face the bigger challenge today. What needs to be accomplished would have been far easier to accomplish starting 20 years ago.
-
Composer99 at 11:56 AM on 12 July 2014The power of pie-charts to communicate consensus
MThompson: Other surveys producing 97% (± 1-2%) levels of agreement are surveys of scientists' opinions themselves. Indeed, Cook et al 2013 mentions Zimmerman & Doran 2009 and Anderegg et al 2010 as just such surveys.
And those surveys conclude, as Anderegg et al put it in their abstract:
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
In other words, your assertion that the infographics shown are "troubling" is shown to be incorrect: they both relate substantiated conclusions from the published literature.
-
KR at 06:10 AM on 12 July 2014The power of pie-charts to communicate consensus
MThompson - Do you think there is any evidence supporting a drastically different opinion distribution for those scientists whose paper abstracts didn't mention the causes of recent climate change? Note that about the same percentages apply to the self-ratings by authors for their papers, including many whose abstracts were rated by Cook et al as neutral, indicating that the ~97% consensus carries through to all. Barring evidence to the contrary, such an objection is rather irrelevant.
Cook et al 2013 states their methods and the first assertion you quote; anyone interested in the topic can read the (open) paper themselves. Conversational shorthand descriptions (i.e., in common English) of the conclusions are just that - details get dropped, particularly when there is shared knowledge. I have seen 'skeptic' arguments along those lines, and they are just semantic quibbling.
-
MThompson at 04:35 AM on 12 July 2014The power of pie-charts to communicate consensus
Embedded in this post is an example of one of the troubling tendencies in popular climate science blogs. The graphic first indicates:
“97% of climate papers stating a position … agree ...”
Then just below that image:
“97% of climate scientists agree …”
Are these logically the same proposition? I think not. What scientist would defend such bastardization?
-
wili at 04:34 AM on 12 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Well, at least they admit that many consider two degrees to be too high. But then they go ahead and set that as the guardrail--go figure. At one point in the main article, they give the following equation:
CO2 emissions = Population x (GDP/Pop.) x (Energy/GDP) x (CO2/Energy)
Unfortunately, they only concentration on the last two, assuming the first must go up by about 2 billion before starting to decline by around 2050. And of course, since the whole thing is lead by an economist, they see an net increase (presumably for eternity) in the second as not only necessary but highly desirable, their central goal, in fact. But percapita GDP has not been shown to be a good indicator of human happiness beyond a certain minimal point. Why should this be left off the table of things we have to decrease dramatically and quickly? And this is the only element that can be reduced very quickly. And quickly versus slowly, in this case, makes all the difference, well, in the world.Continued rise in CO2 emissions spell global ecocide. Why should the best and fastest way to avert it be taken off the table just because of the blind and misguided ideology of a few economist.
(Note Herman Daly's definition of economics: "An ideology parading as a discipline.")
-
Roger D at 03:29 AM on 12 July 2014The power of pie-charts to communicate consensus
As explained in this piece, the graphics of the pie charts showing actual expert consensus or expert vs public consensus are great at showing these things. It seems to me though that the climate change-denier slide would be useful for its intended purpose too. To facilitate the chronic "skeptic's" avoidance of the reality of the seriousness of global warming. Although very busy, and probably needing a walkthrough by the “skeptic” presenter to get full benefit, the denier slide makes the valid point that "ghosts of doubt" will always be "in the game". And just speaking from my personal experience, I think many of the "skeptics" I know and love would place great weight on that fact. Their thinking process apparently approximates this: Ghosts of doubt = those scientists don't know everything = there could be factors they are completely unaware of = why, maybe there are huge unknowns = no need to act yet, what with the huge unknowns. In other words, they smoothly think themselves from a premise that is true (but oversimplified and without context – like most skeptic arguments themselves), to what they want to keep believing. It's a tough nut to crack but it seems a shift is hopefully underway. I appreciate SKS for their part.
-
KR at 02:13 AM on 12 July 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
DB - I would suggest reading Surface Temperature Measurements: Time of observation bias and its correction. This issue is primarily seen in the US, as volunteer temperature measurements have shifted to a different time of day over the years, station by station, hence an increasing TOBS correction. Other countries don't rely as much on volunteers. Other items in the correction list include the progressive station change from mercury to electronic thermometers, which read a bit cooler.
The TOBS correction is discussed in detail by Karl et al 1986, referenced on the very USHCN page you linked to. See the proceeding graph of the effect of individual adjustments - the sum of these is an increasing adjustment over time, quite justified by demonstrable bias changes over the US historical record.
Note that these adjustments are fairly small compared to overall temperature changes in the last century, affect only the US, and are lost in the noise for the global temperature record. Pseudo-skeptics harp on the shape of the adjustments, but fail to point out that they really make no significant difference in our understanding of global climate change.
-
DB at 01:21 AM on 12 July 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
Part of what is causing confusion is, I think, this graph from the NCDC discussion on USHCN adjustments. Can someone please explain why the adjustment is increasing over time and why the increase looks so much like the overall temperature increase? I can't understand the reasons based on the discussion on that page or elsewhere. Thanks.
-
Composer99 at 23:35 PM on 11 July 2014The power of pie-charts to communicate consensus
CBDunkerson:
Yes, apparently only 3 centuries (the original Star Trek TV series, is, canonically, set in the 2260s) need to pass for humans of the mid-20th century to be "Early Earthmen": Paleolithic humans and previous members of genus Homo need not apply.
-
Mark Andrews at 22:38 PM on 11 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
I like your piece, Rob, but you say "the substantial reduction of the warm water volume anomaly (thankfully) diminishes the odds of a powerful event rivaling that of 1997-1998 from taking hold." We will be thankful in one way — from potentially less drought and other extreme weather conditions than otherwise — but in another way it would be good to have an El Nino as strong or stronger than the one in 1997-1998 because then many more people may wake up to the reality of global overheating, like many did when 1998 became the hottest year in the instrumental record at that time, and be inspired to take climate action.
Moderator Response:(Rob P) - I understand the sentiment, but there are no guarantees that another record-breaking warm year will sufficiently shift public opinion. The last one came only 4 years ago (2010), and yet here we still are.
The level of greenhouse gases - predominantly carbon dioxide - in the atmosphere is what counts and so far that just continues to climb. You will note (below) what happened to CO2 levels after 1998 - they kept increasing. As long as that continues, the oceans and atmosphere will only grow warmer and the oceans will continue to acidify.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:21 PM on 11 July 2014The power of pie-charts to communicate consensus
Pac-man was popular with "Early Earthmen"?
Yikes! Have they dropped the 'age of the Earth' from 6000 years to just 60?
-
wwsyim at 18:57 PM on 11 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
The Indonesian eruptions of the Kelut volcano and Sangeang Api volcano on February 13 and May 30 respectively may already have switched the Pacific Ocean back into a more La Nina mode. The eruption clouds of both eruptions penetrated well into the stratosphere.
-
rocketman at 14:01 PM on 11 July 2014The power of pie-charts to communicate consensus
Amusing that the Republicans were most influenced by the pie chart. Apparently they were fuzzy on the meaning of 97% until it was shown graphically.
-
ubrew12 at 13:18 PM on 11 July 2014The power of pie-charts to communicate consensus
When looking at more than two options, a bar chart is better than a pie chart. But if you only have two options, a pie chart makes it quite plain who is 'winning' (the 'pac man' metaphor is apt here). A line chart is most useful if the x-axis represents the quantity of a single presumed causal factor (boundary condition). But if, in a line chart, the x-axis does NOT represent such, but instead represents several competing causal factors, then a line chart is the worst way to present that information (a bar chart is much better). Hence, the only 'crime' in this article is your first chart.
-
Composer99 at 12:08 PM on 11 July 2014The power of pie-charts to communicate consensus
You can see the difference between professional and amateur communication in the graphics created for the Consensus Project website/sharing (clean, uncluttered, easy to read, simple language and message) compared to the hash of a slide created by the climate denier group (cluttered, sizing and backgrounds make it difficult to read, white text on black background!, complex language and message).
And that's before we get to the scurillous attempt to equate The Consensus Project with Pac-Man (my reaction, if you'll pardon the Internet slang, was definitely "lolwut") and the questionable vocabulary (I mean, "Early Earthmen"? What is this, Invasion of the Saucer-Men?).
I suppose that it really does show up the difference between attempting to properly communicate the science to the public, and attempting to obfuscate the science.
-
Timothy Chase at 09:33 AM on 11 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
Joe T
The monthly Pacific Decadal Oscillation inde is available here. I would also strongly recommend the Australian Government's Bureau of Meteorology's ENSO Wrap-Up which gets updated roughly once every two weeks. The latter includes multiple tabs: Overview / Sea surface / Sea sub-surface / SOI / Trade winds / Cloudiness / Outlooks / Indian Ocean / Effects. Indian Ocean focuses on the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) also known as the Indian Ocean Dipole Mode Index (DMI) with recent data and basic explanations.
-
shoyemore at 07:33 AM on 11 July 2014The power of pie-charts to communicate consensus
I forget to add: Good post, and thanks for the reminder about simple, direct visuals.
-
shoyemore at 07:31 AM on 11 July 2014The power of pie-charts to communicate consensus
Edward Tufte in The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (p.178):
A table is nearly always better than a dumb pie chart; the only thing worse than a pie chart is several of them ....
The effectiveness of these pie charts comes their big, red (or blue) in-your-face, single number or statement, almost like shouting it out loud.
The two side-by-side pass muster because they are of equal size. Whoever created the denier slide never read Tufte, who warns against asking a viewer to compare pies of different sizes. And who stuck the sun in there, and what does it mean?
The moral is when you use pie charts, use 'em mostly one at a time and Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).
-
scaddenp at 07:17 AM on 11 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Logan, the article has been noted as needing update but it will sit in the queue with many others. As Tom points out, a good literature review of both volcanic and anthropogenic estimate papers is needed for such an update. Note though that while it is good to put emissions in a context, it is worth noting that no revision of estimates is going get humans off the hook. As Rob points out, FF and volcanoes have different isotopic signitures. Almost all of the increase in CO2 since pre-industrial is of human origin.
-
scaddenp at 06:10 AM on 11 July 2014It's cooling
Jetfuel.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit offensive, off-topic posts or intentionally misleading comments and graphics or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:20 AM on 11 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
That's also confirmed by carbon isotope measurements as well. So, we have two methods that converge on the same answer.
The Robin Wylie article is bizarrely over-the-top with regards to rhetoric, with the title stating that volcanic CO2 levels are "staggering." And, of course, when you google the article title you see that it's been reposted numerous times throughout the denial blogosphere.
-
JoeT at 01:56 AM on 11 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
Thanks again Rob for another very interesting article. The one thing that I hadn't read anywhere else is that the PDO has shifted to a positive state. How robust do you think this change is? Is it possible that it could shift back to a negative state? Perhaps you could elaborate more on what you think the broader implications might be. Should we expect surface temperature to increase again at rates last seen in the 80s and 90s?
Moderator Response:(Rob P) - Is the weakening Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) a sign of the climate moving toward a positive Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), or 'accelerated warming decades' as Meehl et al (2013) put it? That's a very interesting question.
I'll have a future blog post about that, but not only is the PDO positive, but the North Atlantic subpolar gyre is cooling - consistent with the spin-down of the North Atlantic subtropical gyre, and the subsequent reduction in the northward transport of warm subtropical surface water.
This image from Meehl (2013) - based on the NCAR climate model runs - differentiates the hiatus vs accelerated warming decades. The approximate area of the North Atlantic subpolar gyre is south of the southern tip of Greenland.
Note that the subpolar gyres spin in the opposite direction to the subtropical ones creating surface divergence. Therefore upwelling (Ekman suction) occurs in the subpolar gyres - as opposed to surface convergence and downwelling (Ekman pumping) in the subtropical gyres.
-
KR at 00:04 AM on 11 July 2014Rose-colored glasses: Antarctic sea ice is the Mail on Sunday's latest global warming distraction
PluviAL - Potential sea level rise for _total_ icecap melt would be ~80.32m, not 200:
-
Tom Curtis at 00:01 AM on 11 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Logan, I agree that the article should be updated to include the recent figures. Those figures indicate 637 Mt per year of CO2 from volcanic sources (including volcanic lakes), and 300 Mt per year from non-volcanic sources (ie, metamorphism), the later derived from Morner and Etiope (2002). In Burton et al (2013), the 937 Mt CO2 per annum from geophysical sources is compared to 35,000 Mt CO2 per annum as calculated by Friedlingstein et al (2010). That estimate was for 2010. A more recent estimate (for 2012), by Le Quere et al (2013), indicates total anthropogenic emissions of CO2 of 38,867 +/- 2,600 Mt CO2 per annum (10.6 +/- 0.71 PgC). Consequently CO2 from geophysical sources represents 2.4% of anthropogenic CO2.
The Burton et al estimate is likely to be too high rather than too low, in that it is significantly greater than recent estimates of in gassing of CO2.
While important to update the figures in the interests of accuracy, it remains clear that geophysically sourced CO2 is emitted far to slow to have been responsible for the recent rapid rise in CO2, which is entirely of anthropogenic origin.
-
MA Rodger at 23:56 PM on 10 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
PhilippeChantreau @254.
It was linked @250. Burton et al (2013) Deep Carbon Emissions from Volcanoes.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 23:32 PM on 10 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Logan, the link to the Italian study mentioned in the Op-ed you cite does not lead anywhere, can you reference it otherwise?
-
CBDunkerson at 23:05 PM on 10 July 2014New Jersey science education standards may be blocked by climate contrarians
I think this was one of those situations where few enough wingnuts were paying attention that the BOE could get away with making a rational decision. It is entirely true that NJ has plenty of crazy climate deniers who could have demanded the new standards be blocked, and the BOE (all appointed by the GOP governor) would then likely have done so. I suspect that even Christie knows global warming is a real problem, he just can't admit that without alienating his supporters.
-
Logan at 21:06 PM on 10 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Here's a recent article by a volcanologist, summarizing latest developments in volcanic CO2 emission research, and the significant uncertainties in the field:
Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering
-
Logan at 20:31 PM on 10 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
The article could be updated because "Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes" no longer reflects current best estimates. Human emission is about 50 times more than volcanic.
-
MA Rodger at 17:46 PM on 10 July 2014Models are unreliable
There is a further fundamental difference between financial models and models of physical systems.
Financial models are far more tightly coupled to the system they model. Indeed, the financial model is itself part of the system it models. That is, a model of some form (and probably many models of many forms) will have been developed and adopted as a guide to decision-making by those involved in the financial trading that is being modelled. Likewise any learning from the modelling about the workings of the financial system will also feed back into the workings of the system. Such coupling between model and system is probably seen as a problem by the financial modellers.
There is potential feedback from climate models into the climate system but here it is the difficulty in achieving that feedback which is seen as a problem (eg CO2 emissions have bad consequences => stop CO2 emissions).
-
ubrew12 at 14:49 PM on 10 July 2014Rose-colored glasses: Antarctic sea ice is the Mail on Sunday's latest global warming distraction
PluviAL@6: it seems to me we're having trouble maintaining our freshwater reservoirs as they are, and indeed, are quickly draining underwater aquifers (like the Ogallala) as quickly as we can. I'm not hopeful, especially in a globally warmed world of drought, etc, that we could long keep our hands off the irrigation cornucopia that is a freshwater reservoir designed to counter sea level rise. But its an original idea you have, so don't want to discourage you. Perhaps elevated seawater reservoirs over marginal lands is possible.
-
grindupBaker at 13:37 PM on 10 July 2014Rose-colored glasses: Antarctic sea ice is the Mail on Sunday's latest global warming distraction
28,000,000 km**3 ice on Antarctica so it's 78m of sea level rise for the whole lot. End of last glaciation was ~130m SLR from Laurentide ice sheet, the smaller one to its West & Scandanavian ~2x as much as Antarctica. I read that Antarctica ice = ~10x Greenland ice so that sounds right. I also read Antarctica ice = ~7x Greenland ice some place that seemed knowledgeable (maybe a lecture) but I'm staying with 10x for now. I still got my daughter's bucket & spade from 40 years ago if you need a hand moving the ocean up onto the land a bit.
-
PluviAL at 13:13 PM on 10 July 2014Rose-colored glasses: Antarctic sea ice is the Mail on Sunday's latest global warming distraction
Chris, sorry to give thums down, the amount of sea level rise from Antarctica is a lot more than 60 meters, its closer to 200m. But perhaps I am wrong about that. What I calculate is 217 meters from all ice, and only 8 meters from Greenland ice. What I also understand is that Antarctica contributes more water to see level than Greenland. I think we will discover that the one meter or even the 4 meters forecasted by the most well accepted models are too optimistic. We need to plan for much more sea level change. That's the big deal. Antarctic sea ice, is probably an anomoly from our understanding of the mechanics of A-ice propagation, probably a little bit from additional fresh water, a little bit from additional energy in the Antarctic Ocean from higher energy content in the globe overall, and a little bit of something else. But it does not matter at all since it all melts, and has no effect on sea level.
Currently I am writing a paper on how to control sea level rise by moving equal or larger amounts of fresh water from the sea onto the land. To control it we need to move about 8000 km3 per year for 180 years. Its a big order, but duable. 1km3 is 18 days of the historic average Colorado. Any brave souls out there who might want to colaborate?
-
scaddenp at 12:05 PM on 10 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
Thanks for that Logan. I see that this study includes outgassing from volcanic lakes which were missing from earlier estimates. However, as the paper notes, the emissions are still insignificant compared to anthropogenic sources.
-
DSL at 12:02 PM on 10 July 2014It's cooling
Jetfuel, I believe you've failed to respond to a wide range of criticisms of your posts. Now you use 1.6% of the Earth's surface to represent the whole. Brilliant, I must say. Such analytical saavy will get you far in major journals such as Energy & Environment. Snort. Bye bye, jetfuel. This was likely the straw--or cherry--that broke the dromedary.
-
jetfuel at 11:54 AM on 10 July 2014It's cooling
<Snip>
Moderator Response:[PS] You have already been warned on sloganeering and cherry-picking (2% area of earth, short time intervals). If you can explain why such cherry-picking has any significance then your post will stand. The issue has been explained to you in earlier responses which it appears you did not bother to read.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:31 AM on 10 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
A very clear and thorough presentation of this multi-faceted aspect of our planet's complex, but increasingly better understood, climate system.
In the opening of the 3rd last paragraph I believe you transposed east and west. I believe it should be:
"This means that further Kelvin waves will makes their way across the Pacific Ocean, thus transporting more ocean heat from west to east, and giving the system a further nudge toward El Niño when it reaches the eastern Pacific in about two months time."
Moderator Response:(Rob P) - Thanks for pointing that out. Now fixed.
-
Logan at 10:53 AM on 10 July 2014Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans
There is a more recent paper on the topic:
Burton, Michael R., Georgina M. Sawyer, and Domenico Granieri. "Deep carbon emissions from volcanoes." Rev Mineral Geochem 75 (2013): 323-354.
This estimates that the total volcanic emission is 637 million tonnes per year.
Most existing volcanoes have not been measured, so all estimates have large uncertainties.
Moderator Response:[PS] Added link to paper
-
howardlee at 10:25 AM on 10 July 2014New Jersey science education standards may be blocked by climate contrarians
Result! The NJ BOE did adopt the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), which includes climate science.
The NJ BOE press release is here. Interestingly it is being spun as a re-adoption of existing standards rather than an adoption of new standards.
CBDunkerson - you were right!
-
scaddenp at 07:04 AM on 10 July 2014Models are unreliable
I have responded to nearlyman's complaint of "its too hard" in a more suitable thread.
-
scaddenp at 07:03 AM on 10 July 2014CO2 limits will make little difference
Responding to points by nearlyman in another thread. You might like to read the article above. There are a couple of points to make about China. While it is building more coal capacity, the figure for new coal plants misses coal plants taken out of production as too old and inefficient. Second, China's investment is renewables is large and investing in nuclear.
The other point is that West has simply exported emissions to China. A carbon tax on imported goods made with coal energy would hasten further the move to renewables. Coal is substitutable. The sooner we stop building more plants the better. -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:31 AM on 10 July 2014Models are unreliable
It's interesting. I see people who do other forms of modeling coming from two different sides to diss climate modeling. One side comes from financial modeling where the modeling is purely statistical. The other side is from engineering modelers, who say that the physics can't be sufficiently constrained to return reliable data.
These are two completely contradictory positions, with both sides claiming to have a deep understanding of modeling.
All modeling is wrong. That's just a fact. The point of modeling is that it is instructive. It teaches you things that you otherwise could not understand in the absence of the models.
-
grindupBaker at 05:54 AM on 10 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
Just eyeballing the figures and computing with error bars as wide as a spiv I get:
450 degree-metres 7,700 km latitude 2,200 km longtitude
=7.6 * 10**18 kg-degrees
=31 zettajoulesDoes that sound about right or does somebody have a better estimate of the heat content in that pool of warm water vis-a-vis the temperature benchmark for its anomaly ?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 05:08 AM on 10 July 2014Models are unreliable
nearlyman, there is a *big* difference between models used for financial prediction and climate models, which is that climate models are based on physics, rather than being statistical models that have been fit to the data. With statistical models, the more parameters you have in the model, the (exponentially) more data you need to estimate their parameters correctly (the "curse of dimensionality"). This is not the case with physics based models, where most of the parameters of the models are constrained by physics (i.e. we can perform separate experiments to characterise what different components of the model do).
However, if you really do believe the models are "laughably wrong", that suggests to me that perhaps you have been getting your information on the performance of models from the blogsphere, rather than from the journal papers (or even blog articles written by those who have read and understood the journal papers). If you would like to give a specific example of a model projection that is "laughably wrong" (as JH suggests), I am sure that there will be plenty of people here willing to discuss it with you. If you are unwilling to provide specifics, I suspect your posts will be viewed as trolling; this is intended as well meant advice. -
DSL at 04:29 AM on 10 July 2014Models are unreliable
nearlyman, just out of curiosity, and to get a baseline understanding, what counts--for you--as "laughably wrong" where climate modeling is concerned?
Moderator Response:[JH] I addressed nearlyman's assertion in a Moderator's comment to his post.
-
nearlyman at 04:16 AM on 10 July 2014Models are unreliable
I spent my career building models of financial markets. The notion that a model is 'good' if it correctly predicts unseen data from the historical record is laughable (i.e. the model is tested on a rolling window of data to see if it accurately predicts the subsequent unseen period).
There are two problems, one well understood and one almost universally ignored. The first is that as new explanatory variables are added to the model to improve the forecast accuracy, the unreliability of the model increases. This can be calculated - and almost always means that in complex systems, simple models outperform as predictors even though they are less accurate when back tested. Any discussion of the models that does not discuss this trade off is nonsense. In markets this means that the 'best' models are only slightly better than random, but are reliably better - the key then is risk management. I believe that the same should apply to a complex system like climate. The uncertainty in a 'good' model will make it useless for predicting the future and only useful for risk management.
The less common problem ignored by scientists in many many disciplines, is that knowing what models do not work is a hidden 'look ahead' that is the bane of quant reseachers in financial markets. For example, when building a model of the stock market, it is very very difficult to forget that it crashed in 1987. This knowledge influences the choices that model builders make - they just cannot help themselves. That is why so few people make money in systemaic trading - it is not just a scientific, mathematical, statistical and computational challenge - it is philosophically and psychologically challenging. In markets it doesn't really matter - long live the deluded models with their artificial certainty! They represent profit opportunity for other participants. In building climate models we do not have this comfort.
For the record, I believe that the world is warming and that this will have consequences. I also believe that the models are laughably wrong and that there only reliable attribute is that they will continue to fail to predict the outcome at any useful level of accuracy once unleashed on truly unknown data (otherwise known as the future).
The sooner the debate moves on to how we manage the risk of a warming planet, the better.
Oh, by the way, it is also obvious that we cannot stop it warming by flying less or driving a Prius. This is is not just an economic observation (though economics alone mean it will not happen) but also an obvious consequence of the prisoner's dilemma. Why should I stop flying if the Chinese are building a new coal fired power station every week? I repeat risk management - if it warms by more than X, what could/should we do? That is where the money and time should be spent.
Moderator Response:[JH] You assert:
I also believe that the models are laughably wrong and that there only reliable attribute is that they will continue to fail to predict the outcome at any useful level of accuracy once unleashed on truly unknown data (otherwise known as the future).
Please document the sources of your expressed "beliefs."
-
wili at 02:53 AM on 10 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
May I suggest that, if you want this excellent piece to be fully accessible to all interested readers, you avoid the temptation of lapsing into acronym speak. I have been following this thing for quite a while, but I still forget, for example, what WWV is. Yes, you spell it out early on. But most interested but casual readers don't scour every word from beginning to end, but skim for the parts that interest them most. But when, as they skim, they hit more and more bewildering acronyms, the less likely they are to persevere. Thanks, again, for a great, informative piece. I hope it can be made even more informative for many more people with just some relatively minor adjustments.
-
howardlee at 23:14 PM on 9 July 2014New Jersey science education standards may be blocked by climate contrarians
CBDunkerson - I hope you are right, and we'll find out tonight. Clearly Climate Parents were sufficiently concerned to mobilize and organize a petition, having seen the adoption derailed elsewhere.
I too live in NJ. From my conversations it's clear that most people here drink the Fox Kool-Aid when it comes to climate change, and regular editorials in the main newspaper - the Star Ledger - are very climate skeptical (like this and this). My eldest son went from K to 12 in NJ without a single science fair, and more than half his friends did not believe in evolution. Science seems to take much more of a back seat in education and popular discourse here compared to my experience in the UK.
Here's hoping that the NJ BOE does the right thing for our kids.
Prev 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 Next
