Are there conservative bumpkins out there that believe the earth is
7,000 years old or that modern climatology is a willful hoax? Sure, just as there are dim-bulb liberal soccer moms
who don’t vaccinate their kids and think everything from the juice box
to the jungle gym is going to kill their children. That ordinary,
non-specialist people have science literacy issues should come as no
surprise. The real threat to a society is when those who are held in
high regard and trusted, the academy, the vanguard of scientific
rationalism become swayed by and oblivious to their own ideological
biases.

He is talking about science for advocacy, rather than science for science.

In other words, a scientist saying something which is not technically factual in order to advocate for a government policy.

Quite a few scientists believe that this sort of behavior is ok.

Since Kyoto Protocol in 1997, global coal consumption has more than doubled. Since IPPC AR4 China has built about about 300 Gigawatts of coal power capacity and more is in the pipeline.

Does the credibility of climate science really matter? I think the above-mentioned things would have happened no matter what. Sort of like the war in Afghanistan continues whether Obama gets a Peace Nobel or not

RPJ’s comment on scientific credibility is clearly on the central issue he addresses in his blog and his area of expertise.  Climate change and weather extremes.  If you follow his blog, he consistently dismantles the <fill in blank with latest weather extreme> is caused by climate change and getting worse.  He has published several papers on this subject and was part of the latest IPCC report on weather extremes that found only a tepid connection to global warming.

He has a lot of posts on this subject.  He calls out scientists who overstate the science on a regular basis.  I find the weather extreme connection somewhat amusing.  The facts don’t support this assertion (check the trends on drought, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.), and they are easy enough to check.  

What is strange to me is how fervently the advocates have latched onto this, when it is so easily dispelled with the data.  It seems desperate. All-in when you are holding a 10 and a 2.  Battle by power of suggestion.  The long term damage to credibility has been significant with this misguided constant short term agenda.

Joshua says: — “My contention is that opinionating about the problem of poorly quantified public contributions from scientists will likely only be productive, if it is ever productive, to the extent that it is well-qualified and specific; otherwise, I believe it to be counterproductive and only likely to get the combatants on each side to digger deeper trenches. “Skeptics” will feel further vindicated in their “hoax” accusations and “realists” will become more defensive. I think that there is much evidence to support my perspective.”  ……………….. …………….. …………..This is always a good point, one that I can only agree with, but incredibly belaboured by now by Joshua (sorry Joshua, but my eyes are rolling), who always manages to skip over the specifics of what anyone sayssaid. He has read RPJ, must have come across numerous ‘specific’ points raised by him on the issue, and yet here we go again. It’s no crime to move from the specific into the general if you’ve spent enough time (obviously, RPJ has done so) dealing in the specifics of something. Is is too difficult to infer meaning from RPJ’s general statement out of the history of specific statements he has made on this issue in the past? Atleast you could try to use some imagination/empathy/whatever and have a crack at it, before firing off your standard ‘fear mongering about fear mongering’ line, which seems to require no imagination on your part at all at this point. 

Roger Pielke Jr writes:

Researchers have similar conclusions for other phenomena around the world, ranging from typhoons in China, bushfires in Australia, and windstorms in Europe. After adjusting for patterns of development, over the long-term there is no climate change signal “” no “footprint” “” of increasing damage from extreme events either globally or in particular regions.

I’m not disputing the analyses. What troubles me is the bat-squeak of a suggestion that this somehow undermines the validity of projections of bad stuff to come if physics works as expected and energy continues to accumulate in the climate system.

Most scientists argue that the anthropogenic signal began to emerge in the 1970s and is still near the bottom of its projected evolution. Is it therefore surprising that we haven’t seen much damage yet? 

FredT – Could you make your wonderfully peevish condensations of RPJ so short that we get the irony of you not commenting at all?

I should probably clarify my last remark. I mean in a ‘the boy who cried wolf’ sense, eroding trust and authority, not that it logically implies the predictions of future change are false.

The recent attempts to attribute existing and recent weather to climate change are worse than wrong–they’re stupid. 

Munich Re’s desire to justify rate increases dovetail nicely with the desires of the consensus side to find a new theme to drive policy in their direction.

It might work for Munich Re, for a while. It will not work for climate policy. 

Funnily, what will kill the strategy is not so much the work of people like Pielke, who present history and charts. It will be the factually incorrect experience of people seeing more snow and hearing about more ice, not realizing that both can actually happen as a result of warming.

It won’t be the first time error is defeated by error.

Roger writes:

“But there is one group that should be very concerned about the spreading of rampant misinformation: the scientific community. It is, of course, thrilling to appear in the media and get caught up in highly politicized debates. But leading scientists and scientific organizations that contribute to a campaign of misinformation “” even in pursuit of a worthy goal like responding effectively to climate change “” may find that the credibility of science itself is put at risk by supporting scientifically unsupportable claims in pursuit of a political agenda.”

This is a *joke*.

Roger repeatedly cites, as a sharp contrast to woefully benighted climate science, how the science about the ozone depletion issue functioned “normally”. Climate science, in Roger’s world, is filled with scientists jeopardizing (i.e. politicizing) science. Climate scientists, unlike normally functioning scientists during the ozone depletion saga, make unsupportable claims about the issue and make statements about its severity that turn out later to have been overwrought.

Which is *hysterical* for anyone passing familiar with how the ozone depletion issue played out. The issue was- from its inception- based on atmospheric chemists doing what Roger would no doubt consider fear-mongering about the danger SST posed to the ozone layer and life on Earth when the science was far from solid to support such claims. Fears that never came to pass. But in Roger world, what would be an unforgivable, original sin for climate science is completely ignored. Because it’s inconvenient to Roger’s narrative that hippies and “activist” scientists are the real reason why climate hasn’t been addressed.

This pattern is repeated throughout Roger’s non-academic work. If he needs to shade the truth about something in order to make it sound like the real enemies to progress are the climate concerned and those pushing for regulation, he does. In Roger land, during the ozone issue, we let industry take its time coming up with a technofix before trying to aggressively push regulation when no fix was already available. In reality, the people at Du Pont are on record as saying that no technological breakthrough occurred, but rather the growing demand for regulation borne of scientific consensus (itself a mixture of too optimistic, correct, and too alarmist views) put already existing alternatives that were previously considered too expensive to pursue into a different economic light.

Roger can’t have it both ways. Science during the ozone depletion saga was no better and no worse than climate science. If one was a-okay, then both are. If one is to be rebuked, then both are. The solutions to ozone depletion were no more technological “breakthoughs” delivered before the threat of regulation than those for climate are.

It’s a shame that journalists who sympathize with Roger don’t bother fact-checking him or, god-forbid, pushing back against his revisionist histories. It’s a shame that narrative is primary to reality. It’s a shame that there are people who will continue to nod along with BS even after this has been pointed out.

Sorry, Thingsbreak–but you do go on a bit about Roger for sins both real and imagined.

Treating this case logically, you are berating him for being wrong about history and correct about current reality, if I read you correctly. This is the second best of four options (right on both, wrong on history but right on current reality, right on history but wrong on current reality, wrong on both).

As so many of your compadres insist on option four in similar situations, why don’t you cut Roger some slack? If he really is wrong about the history leading to Montreal, why not just set the record straight?

“if I read you correctly.”

You don’t. He is wrong about history, because it fits his narrative. He is wrong about current reality, because it fits his narrative.

Climate science is not, contrary to the crocodile tears of Roger and his sympathizers, in danger of ruining the field’s credibility or science’s generally. Every field has its scientists that end up being too optimistic, too pessimistic, the middle roaders (and in sad cases, the ignored/Cassandras) with the hindsight of history. Some of the “alarmists” of today will be seen as prescient tomorrow. Some will seem laughable. This is not unique to climate science. It never has been.

Roger is selling a narrative: “alarmists” and hippies who overstate what Roger dictates is acceptable are the problem. Curiously, the individuals, groups, and institutional forces doing everything in their power to actually prevent *the solutions Roger himself claims to support* are entirely unmentioned. Hmm…

Have you read The Climate Fix? It’s a riot. The entire chapter on the politicization of climate science (the one that makes no mention of the actual drivers of the politicization of the issue) had me in stitches.

But look! I’m up to two posts. Pretty soon, I will get accused of “spewing out over 5 or 6 as I usually do”. Of course, if I don’t refute your inevitable micharacterization of what I wrote as you just did, my position gets distorted. Heads I lose, tails you win.

Have a nice evening, all. Try to be skeptics. For a change.

NB: Keith has been on a hot tear about hippies and libs not standing up to GMO idiocy (good for him about that). Notice how no one is saying that the fields of genetics or agricultural sciences are in danger of losing all credibility for themselves or science generally due to the occasional overly alarmist anti-GMO published paper? Of course not. The idea is absurd on its face. The blame is rightly placed on media biases, demographics, and influential individuals.

Hmmm…

Gleick’s fraud and deception, Ehrlich’s being wrong and wrong and wrong, Hansen’s exaggerations. And Jones gloating over the death of skeptic John Daly.That specific enough?

To return to RPJr’s original post, he criticizes Munich Re insurance company for linking natural catastrophies with climate change (in order to make money). As I understand, the IPCC just reported that there is no proof of that.

Question to you guys: Should climate scientists correct this misinformation or not? Silence on their part means that they agree with the message.

Instead, people may conclude that scientists as a whole spin their communications to suit their politics.

More speculation, precisely of the type I’ve been reading for quite a while now in the “skept-o-sphere,” which is not based on evidence so far as I can tell. In fact, the evidence that we do have suggests that:

(1) Changes in trust in scientists, on the whole, has been relatively minor – and concentrated in ways that correlate rather strongly with political ideology, suggesting an entirely different causality at least to some degree for that relatively small degree of change

(2) Changes in public views about climate change also correlate with multiple factors, which suggests that the causal relationship speculated about so often in the “skept-o-sphere” (that supposed exaggerations and bad science on the part of climate scientists have or will create a lack of faith in science) – may well be nothing other than “skeptics” seeing what they want to see, and in contrast to basic principles of skepticism, continuing to run with their speculation either devoid of evidence or failing to control for confounding or hidden variables that lead to the identification of spurious relationships. 

Not to mention, it is basic common sense that people think that scientists, just like freakin’ everyone in the universe, including “skeptics,” are subject to motivated reasoning. Everyone already knows this based on their personal experiences. Don’t “skeptics” realize that?

What’s fascinating to me is how “skeptics” are so concerned that the public might lose faith in “scientists” because of the work of climate science — without similarly focusing on the impact of folks like Watts or Moreno or our much beloved “skeptics” who write comments in these pages.

Seems to me that concern w/r/t trust in science and scientists  would necessitate a similar level of concern about the “hoax” mongerers.

The selective disinterest in the “hoax”mongerers combined with fear-mongering about fear-mongering (i.e., speculative doom-saying about the impact of exaggerations from climate scientists) seems very, very odd to me.

With respect to scientists I argue in the DP piece, similarly to
arguments I’ve made elsewhere many times:</br></br>”But there is one group that
should be very concerned about the spreading of rampant misinformation:
the scientific community.” This is especially the case when leading
scientists and scientific organizations participate, because it creates
risks to the broader credibility of science.</br></br>Now there are two possible
counter arguments to what I wrote (as compared to some of the bizarre
fantasies about what I did not write;-). </br></br>1. Scientists need _not_ be
concerned about the spreading of rampant misinformation, perhaps because
it does not exist or does not matter. </br></br>2. Scientists should actually be
engaged in spreading misinformation, perhaps because the ends justify
the means. </br></br>I’d be happy to discuss further on my blog under the relevant
thread, I won’t be following this one. Thanks for the comments.

Roger – hit the “source code” toggle (<>).  Look for </p> codes. Enter hard line breaks (enter key) after each </p> to create  paragraph breaks.

@ Keith:
“Contrast this with climate science, where there are number of high profile scientists, such as Trenberth and Hansen, who are clearly identified with the mainstream climate science community, and often tapped by the media as de facto spokesman.”

Trenberth and Hansen are making arguments they believe are supported by the evidence. They are publishing papers to this effect. There are some who disagree, and publish papers that seek to refute them. People in the media are happy to quote both the former and the latter.

This is how all science works. There is nothing unusual about that.

If you’re trying to say that Hansen’s and Trenberth’s papers/views are as outside of the mainstream of climate as the anti-GMO stuff is outside of genetics and ag, I am simply gobsmacked.

Roger says idiocy like “Those who claim that the issue is a hoax actually have a lot in common with those who see climate change in every weather extreme.”

And people nod along. It’s an obscene false equivalency. Climate change *is* in all weather extremes because it’s now *the background climatology*. To what extent climate change is *influencing* extremes is a bleeding edge problem, and it’s being handled as all questions in science are handled. But to equate those who think the influence is significant in terms of specific extremes with those who think it’s a hoax is just hackery. It fits Roger’s narrative, that’s it. He gets a pass from journalists because they want to believe him. Reality be damned.

“alongside this we have a mainstream media that is often willing to be trumpet the latest study or pronouncement of Methane bombs, or climate doom, or whatever.”

The climate mainstream routinely pushes back against such things. Please.

Roger says idiocy like “Those who claim that the issue is a hoax actually have a lot in common with those who see climate change in every
weather extreme.”

And people nod along. It’s an obscene false equivalency.

Bingo. Roger seems to think that any interpretation of science that differs with his is necessarily bogus. Not to rule out that sometimes different interpretations of the science than his might be bogus, but his categorical distinction seems a bit, um, self-serving?

There is a distinction between saying that every extreme weather event is directly attributable to climate change and saying that there is a degree of probability that any given extreme weather event might be caused or exacerbated as the result of AGW. Roger conflates those two arguments in his broad and unspecific finger-pointing. Ironically, that’s bad science.

#24 thingsbreak

Science during the ozone depletion saga was no better and no worse than climate science. If one was a-okay, then both are.

2010 Global Energy Expenditure was $6.4 trillion. How much does the world spend on refrigerants in a year?

I would think most of us make numerous decisions involving chump change based on substantially imperfect knowledge. $6.4 trillion is not chump change.

Harry, that’s up from $5 trillion in 2010. That’s how fast it’s growing.

Good, Joshua–how about quotes from studies that show some of the stories about acid rain were hype?

I’ll happily sign on to possibility #1: leading scientists and scientific institutions rarely engage in alarmism and therefore this is not a major concern.

This is not to say that there are no examples of excessive alarmism. There certainly are quite a few. But an honest investigation will show that the scientific community is not behind them.

Unfortunately Roger’s entire Denver Post piece leading up to that question is a misleading muddle. Here is my argument to that effect.

There is however, a real issue to consider in the perception that the scientific community is associated with excessive alarm. That this is damaging to science is clearly the case. But science cannot address that by refraining from alarmism, as is demonstrated by the fact that science already refrains from alarmism and simply reports balanced or even somewhat understated evidence that the public is reluctant to absorb. Perhaps there are other things that scientists can do, but the problem is clearly in other sectors, notably the press, abetted to some extent by social “scientists”.

@32 Jarmo,

Relax, I’m sure Scott Mandia and the Climate Rapid Response Team are on the case.

–snip–A January 1976 editorial said the connection between CFCs and ozone
depletion “is only a theory and will remain only that until further
efforts are made to test its validity in the atmosphere itself.” It
added that the ozone layer “is subject to constant change in thickness
through natural processes that have nothing to do with aerosol cans” and
concluded that “it is doubtful there could be a very significant
effect” of CFCs on the atmosphere. [Wall Street Journal, A Bit of Prudence at the CPSC, 1/6/76, via Factiva]–snip–

As for BBD’s idol, James Hansen,

“Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”. Sandy Grady, “The Heat is On,” — The News and Courier, June 17th 1986.

“GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.”

That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.

That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.

If this sounds apocalyptic, it is.”New York Times, May 2012

“When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I’d been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn’t asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn’t an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio­­n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm.”

Continued… “I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” (The reporter has, after being contacted by Hansen, revised the 20 years to 40.)

These are not interpretations of what Roger initially wrote, they are the two main counter arguments as he sees it to his original intended claim (that scientists should be concerned about the spreading of misinformation).

Yes, Stu.. Again a fair point.

I would counter, however, that despite my error, what we still have here is what willard describes as a fallacious “argument from incredulity.”

Just because Roger imagines those to be the “only two possible counterarguments” (aside from those he dismisses as being “bizarre” – and slightly different from your rephrasing as “the two main counter-arguments”) does not make it so.

Keith is offering a counter-argument that does not fit one of the only two non-”biazrre” possibilities that Roger quite confidently states are possible. Do you think that Keith is offering a “bizarre” counter-argument?

I think my point about Roger’s failure in accountability stands – my previous error notwithstanding.

Tom -

I fear you’re somewhat confused. Apparently, you think that I am someone who says that scientific concerns about environmental or other issues have never been outsized.

Either that, or your confused in thinking that the existence of outsized scientific concerns somehow disproves the reality of fear-mongering about outsized scientific concerns having negative effects (two of them being a focus of Roger’s concerns: The politicization of science and and the potential for eroding public confidence in scientists).

Joshua says: “(1) Changes in trust in scientists, on the whole, has been relatively minor ““ and concentrated in ways that correlate rather strongly with political ideology, suggesting an entirely different causality at least to some degree for that relatively small degree of change”…. This would still allow the possibility of a spread of misinformation, it’s just that people would run with that or reject it based upon their political or ideological affiliations. I think we see this daily. From that angle, based upon your correlation above, trust in science is unaffected as you believe what the scientist is saying because you already believe what he’s saying. Which pretty much reduces science to a simple authority to call upon in order to strengthen your own beliefs. Which is lame. Under those conditions, no… a spread of misinformation would not matter regarding levels of trust, but a follow on question would be, should it matter? I’d say yes, for a few reasons. … …On your question just above, I still think you’re conflating the meaning  of what Roger originally wrote (the subject of Keith’s post-  ’what is RPG saying’), with the counter arguments against it. I infer that ‘bizarre fantasies’ refers to the potential meaning of what he wrote, which we could argue about all day long I presume. The ‘counter arguments’ were offered as a rebuke to what Roger actually said, with both Keith and yourself falling within Roger’s choice 1 as I understand it – “It doesn’t matter, or it doesn’t exist”. You also offered, ‘fear mongering about fear mongering’, and ‘Roger lacks accountability’. So yeah, you’re right, there are more than 2 possible responses. I also fall into choice 1, but with a caveat. “It doesn’t matter, but perhaps it should”. 

# 64 – Stu -

This would still allow the possibility of a spread of misinformation,
it’s just that people would run with that or reject it based upon their political or ideological affiliations.

That phenomenon is pretty well established in relevant literature – sometimes referred to as “motivated reasoning.”

I think we see this daily.

Agreed.

From that angle, based upon your correlation above, trust in science is unaffected as you believe what the scientist is saying because you already believe what he’s saying. Which pretty much reduces science to a simple authority to call upon in order to strengthen your own beliefs. Which is lame.

I’m not sure it’s “lame,” but it is what it is. Please consider the parallel phenomenon where people reject what a scientist says because s/he already doesn’t believe what he/she )the scientist) is saying. I think that it’s a bit more complicated than your description – but the simplistic version works both directions.

Under those conditions, no”¦ a spread of misinformation would not matter regarding levels of trust, but a follow on question would be, should it matter? I’d say yes, for a few reasons. ”¦ “¦?

I’d say it should matter contingent on whether you’re speaking very specifically about specific  individuals with careful attempts to quantify “misinformation” and not manufacture “outrage,” assert guilt by association, and be open to well-reasoned feedback about your own potential biases in identifying “misinformation.”

  I infer that “˜bizarre
fantasies’ refers to the potential meaning of what he wrote, which we could argue about all day long I presume. The “˜counter arguments’ were offered as a rebuke to what Roger actually said, with both Keith and yourself falling within Roger’s choice 1 as I understand it ““ “It doesn’t matter, or it doesn’t exist”.

I can’t argue for Keith – but I would not say that “doesn’t matter,” and I would not say that it “doesn’t exist.”

You also offered, “˜fear mongering
about fear mongering’, and “˜Roger lacks accountability’. So yeah, you’re right, there are more than 2 possible responses.

I think that Roger sometimes has a tendency towards fear-mongering about fear-mongering. His schtick is focusing on poorly quantified assertions by climate scientists. To the extent that his focus is well-quantified and specific, I think it is valid and perhaps useful. To the extent that his focus is poorly quantified and unspecific – yes, I think it becomes fear-mongering about fear-mongering. My mention of a lack of accountability isn’t w/r/t the initial lack of specificity and quantification – we are all sometimes over-zealous in promoting our (schticks). The question about accountability is with reference to his failure to acknowledge when (IMO) he fails to quantify and specify. Just to be clear, my impression is that Roger takes accountability for his science seriously. It is w/r/t his openness to counterarguments – more specifically related to his commentary about the science, that I think that sometimes his accountability is less than it should be. .

Tobis, given your view on the issue, I would like to know a single example from you of what you consider an alarmist statement from climate science. 

“Imagine a giant asteroid on a direct collision course with Earth. That is the equivalent of what we face now [with climate change], yet we dither.”James Hansen

@ 70 Actual science that contradicts Hansen?

@ 71 An interesting thought experiment Actual science that demonstrates that there is no human influence?

Dig that hole, Tom.

“I doubt Trenberth’s suggestion will find much support in the scientific community,” said Professor Myles Allen from Oxford University.”This needs to be fought against vigorously. Proving a negative is impossible.” Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen

Find your imaginary asteroid here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html

#70,

In a sense, it’s a perfectly accurate statement. We are in the position of imagining a giant asteroid on a collision course with Earth.

#71,

I’ve never been sure whether that was a case of Trenberth not actually understanding what null hypotheses were for, which seems remarkable scientific ignorance for a man in his position, or of him cynically manipulating the public misunderstanding of them.

The null hypothesis is always the opposite of what science has shown, the null is what science proves to be false. You either show the null hypothesis to be extremely unlikely, or you draw no conclusion. Failing to reject the null hypothesis does not imply any belief or acceptance of it. Nor is it necessarily the ‘default’ belief – that would only be so if science was leading you to change your mind. Scientific confirmation of things you already expect to be true would require a null contrary to what you expect.

So, for the null to be human involvement, the only scientific conclusion that could possibly be drawn would be that climate change was natural. I’m pretty sure that isn’t what Trenberth intended.

#72,

Is there any science to say that climate isn’t influenced by the flap of a butterfly’s wings, somewhere in the Amazon?

To sum up my opinion regarding the headline of this post. I blame Yvo de Boer for retiring. He actually was a calming influence on many parties before he abandoned the stage to folks like Strong.

I blame George Bush, for forcing Al Gore into retirement. (It’s always the Republicans’ fault….) Gore’s new hobby, while it made him $100 million, was polarizing as well as destructive.Ellen Goodman, for introducing a phrase specifically designed to complete what Gore started–turning climate change into a partisan issue in the U.S. I wonder if she pays folk like BBD for spreading the virus or if they pay her…

Modern technology, which introduced higher granularity in measurements of land and sea temperature measurements (and an inconvenient break where records were spliced together). Oh for the days of 1978, when we had to watch Fantasy Island and Roots instead of the oscillations of Arctic ice.

Non-governmental organizations that shifted focus from environmental protection to a disastrous obsession with climate change. Their overfed budgets and hyper-active imaginations led to an increasing stream of lies, half-truths and exaggerations that polluted public discourse and sadly, enlisted too many scientists into standing in front of their crap.

Major media organizations that downsized their teams and left them dependent on journalism via press release. Their unthinking acceptance of the hysteria pumped out by the NGOs  may have poisoned the well for public debate on this issue for another decade.

The tobacco companies, for providing a source of inspiration for a generation of sloppy social scientists like Naomi Oreskes, an easily transferable hate model for innumerate fools everywhere and educating a generation of lawyers who now can defend bad scientists like Michael Mann.

Lukewarmers, for introducing a third platform into a two-party debate and creaming off some of the best talent for their own nefarious ends, leaving the consensus team ever-more shrill and the skeptics without some of their ablest voices (Liljegren, McIntyre, etc–not really counting myself).

Ben Santer, for allowing attribution statements to be changed.

Michael Mann, for not learning the statistics relevant to his studies.

Hubert Lamb, for not adequately preparing and counseling  his successor.

Svante Arrhenius, for changing his mind four times about sensitivity.

Richard Lindzen, for smoking.

Steve Mosher, for co-authoring a book that dared to quote climate scientists in full  and recount what was happening in the world at the time they made their unforced errors.

Bloody hell Tom. You actually take Singer’s part against Santer? Are you really that far gone?

Watt’s Up With That proves conclusively that the Klimate Konsensus are insane idiots when it comes to adopting a communications strategy:”In the continental USA, there were 137 high temperature type records versus 857 low temperature type records this past week , a 6-1 difference. Last week there were 1154 low temperature type records putting the two week total for October at 2011. There were also 24 new snowfall records set this week in the upper plains.”

Yeah, so there. And a cat left a dead mouse at his doorstep, too!

Nope. I’m still waiting for him to “beat the crap out of Patrick Michaels”. They’ve met since his threat to assault Michaels, but Michaels walked away unbeaten. 

Kinda mystically metaphorical in a way… Klimate Konsensist blusters and threatens an opponent, but doesn’t follow through. Then issues hysterical media report about a mouse on his doorstep. 

Santer had no business doing what he did in Madrid. And let me be clear–even if he was factually correct on the changes to the document, he had no right to do what he did. 

#79,

#81,

What he was obviously trying to do was to get round the problem of not having any solid proof by proposing that we assume it is true unless disproven. It’s much the same as the “you can’t logically disprove God’s existence” argument for theism.

It’s an argument that only satisfies those who already believe. But like all true believers, he cannot comprehend how a rational, intelligent, educated person could possibly not believe, and not be persuaded by the arguments that he finds persuasive. It’s all obviously true, the formal proofs are offered only out of a sense of thoroughness, and any gaps and errors in them don’t matter. So it’s just annoying the way opponents perversely keep poking at them, for all the world as if any problems they find cast genuine doubt on the conclusion, and it would be nice if we could skip the implied requirement for proof in a semi-formal way.

The problem is all their arguments to prove the observed warming is anthropogenic have to first work out what the potential natural warming could be in order to exclude it, which they have extreme difficulty doing because they have relatively little understanding of natural variability. And that leaves the ‘natural variation’ hypothesis still alive and lurking there, like a worm in an apple, in the heart all their papers.

I can certainly understand why he would want to get rid of it. What I’m not sure of is whether he really thought switching the null hypothesis round would achieve what he wanted, or if he was playing on the problematic public perception that if you didn’t reject the natural null then that meant it was natural. What he should have said was, given that we’re confident in the conclusion now, shouldn’t we stop doing attribution studies altogether?

The solid case for rejection of the consensus position on attribution of observed late 20th century warming to anthropogenic causes is that no solid empirical evidence has been presented for it. That doesn’t mean the rejection is permanent, but it can’t be accepted yet.

As the IPCC says: “The approaches used in detection and attribution research described above cannot fully account for all uncertainties, and thus ultimately expert judgement is required to give a calibrated assessment of whether a specific cause is responsible for a given climate change.” The IPCC’s selected experts, of course, are all true believers, and so have found the arguments persuasive – their assessment based primarily on the number of studies in consensus (sometimes called “the emperor’s nose” fallacy). Many outsiders are more sceptical.

I really don’t mind scientists continuing to hold anthropogenic attribution as their favoured hypothesis – I’m not aware that it has been disproved either – and it is only by considering the best arguments from both sides that we’ll come to the truth. I don’t want them to stop believing, or to stop arguing the case. I don’t want to shut them up. But it would be nice if they stopped trying to imply the debate is already over or that their position is true by default until proven otherwise, because neither attitude is at all scientific.

Tom, see # 89. We’re all waiting.

#85,

Umm. Santer’s letter seems to say that attribution statements were changed, as Seitz said. What he says is that they were changed for good and honest reasons, and that if only the IPCC process was at all transparent he would have been able to tell that.

It seems to me that relying on a statement from the accused as evidence of their innocence is a bit… trusting, shall we say? But it doesn’t seem to contradict Tom.

It seems to me that relying on a statement from the accused as evidence of their innocence is a bit”¦ trusting, shall we say?/blockquote>

One other thing. Santer’s letter was co-signed by 40 other scientists (follow the link at # 85 to access the full list). Now, are they all lying to back Santer up?

Are you a conspiracy theorist Nullius? It would explain a lot. Actually, taken together with the libertarian physics, it would explain everything.

Tom writes:
“Gore’s new hobby, while it made him $100 million, was polarizing as well as destructive”

Gore’s $100 million dollar fortune is more than a third due to his stock in Google and Apple.

Another huge chunk came from a steady flow of six-figure speaking fees he enjoyed as a modern high profile politician.

Another big slice came from his non-climate related public commentary, like a best-selling book (The Assault on Reason).

Another big slice came from Metropolitan West Financial Inc. and non-climate related Silicon Valley ventures.

Given that the profits from his climate-related endeavors were plowed back into non-profits, I’m curious as to how the meme that the climate issue gave Gore $100 million in personal wealth got started.

(I mean, I’m not really curious as to why it got started. I’m not even curious as to why it’s still being passed off as truth. I’m really just curious as to why people think it’s remotely plausible to those who aren’t drunk on climate “skeptic” kool aid.)

Ah, there you are Tom.

# 89?

Sorry, BBD. I got sucked in to interacting with you. NiV went a long way towards answering your question and I have no interest in conversing with you.

Tom @ 102

I asked:

What *exactly* did Santer do that you claim he had “˜no business’ and “˜no right’ to do? Please explain while we have Santer’s WSJ letter open in
front of us.

You refuse to respond. That’s good enough for me.

It is so hard to take global warming “science” seriously. Now it comes out that there has been no warming for the past 16 years. Pro-global warming scientists have said that such an occurrence would disprove AGW, yet when it happens, they move the goal post and claim the theory is still credible. However, Judith Curry is quoted in the article citing the 16-year lack of warming that the climate models AGW is based upon are worthless as a guide to policy. Why are some people still saying we should destroy our economy for the fantasy of AGW?? On the lack of warming, see:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html

#107, +1

I’d be worried too, but about public and governmental support and sustaining efforts to do something about it. I wrote two years ago that this would be the toughest decade for supporters of vigorous action against climate change for just this reason.

Of course that didn’t stop me from betting a grand on it with Joe Romm…

#111
If Phil Jones, the professor who is head of the CRU is not a reliable source on AGW theory then who is?
You are right that it is a statistical issue as to how long a plateauing of temperatures it would take to “disprove” AGW theory. But it is fun to see the warmists squirm over this report of 15 years and no rise in temperatures. The time was when warmists would incessantly predict that the next season, whatever it was, would be the “warmest ever”.

#113,

“If this is so, warming will proceed at a slower rate until these intermediate waters are brought to a temperature at which they can no longer absorb heat.”

What an odd thing to say!The intermediate waters will never reach a temperature at which they can no longer absorb heat. This is essentially because the water is flowing, and thus the heat balance is determined not by temperature differences but by heat transport rates. Warm water rises near the equator, flows across the surface to the poles, where it cools and sinks. The oceans partake in a huge convective cycle. Heat is transported downwards by mixing, and upwards carried by the great convective cycle, and at the point where these two rates balance, the heat can descend no further.

Thus when surface waters warm, heat transport downwards by mixing is of greater magnitude (although counterbalanced by the relatively warm water’s greater buoyancy), and the balance point is at a lower depth, encompassing greater heat capacity. But the response stops once the warmer surface has got heat moving down through the deeper water fast enough, not when it is hot enough.

The only places heat can enter the truly deep waters is at the poles, driven by the temperature difference between equator and poles (the difference being predicted to reduce with polar amplification, of course), and with several thousand years to go before that reservoir is filled up.

I suspect it was not written by an proper oceanographer. It sounds more like something written by someone used to working with slab models. I don’t know, though.

I assume the point of quoting it here was to offer a possible explanation as to why global temperatures over the last 16 years have not risen. But that won’t work, because then you would have to explain why this same ocean mechanism didn’t stop it rising during the previous 20 years. You would normally expect the two effects to occur the other way round, yes? Or maybe it was just generally educational…?

It was quite interesting, anyway.

#115,

Conflating? I wrote two long paragraphs on oceanwide energetic exchange, and one short one on deep water formation. I think I kept the two quite separate. There’s even a big gap of white space between them.

You do sometimes make me wonder.

#113 BBD,

From Ye Olde Charney Report, 1979:

And here we are, more they 30 years later and there is still a great deal of uncertainty as to the short term transient climate response and the total response. One can find serious scientists making a case that the total climate response may end up taking multiple centuries.Give me a nuclear reactor with an outlet temperature of 1000C that costs less then $3,000Mw and I’ll kill off fossil fuels entirely in the space of 40 years. Of course that’s what the multi-national Gen IV nuclear initiative is supposed to do…unfortunately they don’t expect their work to be complete until the early 2020′s.

#117,

I got my version out of oceanography textbooks, which I would presume is the “standard version”. The stuff you quoted, isn’t.

It looks to me like it was written by someone who was not an oceanographer, who had been taught slab models, made some ‘estimates’ based on an incomplete understanding of the physics, and wrote an ‘authoritative’ report on the basis. And of course those who trust in Authority naturally assume the author as a Proper Scientist is expounding the actual “standard version”.

We’ve seen this several times. You quote something or say something that gets the physics totally wrong – that’s outside even mainstream climate science – but because it’s from one of your trusted authorities you think it’s infallible, and has to be “standard”. And nothing will convince you otherwise.

Well, I’m not even going to try. If you want to think the oceans act like a diffusive slab and stop absorbing heat because they’ve got warm, you go right ahead. From a rhetorical point of view, that suits me just fine.

It’s got fuck all to do with the old slab models being discussed in Charney. Your calculated obfuscation was to conflate DW formation with ocean-wide exchange between the mixed and intermediate layers and then *insinuate* that there’s a problem with the standard position.

BBD – Whether Nullius is right or wrong, your resort to profanity is not helpful. 

Unless you didn’t read the textbook very carefully, of course. Could that be it?

Funny how many of us are lying to BBD. Almost… clinical…

Luckily for the common weal, they also get to read things like # 102 and # 104. I think the vast majority of readers here can and will draw the appropriate conclusions.

Dr. Tobis, I believe you neglected one that is actually run by a climate scientist. Called Only In It For The Gold.

It took some doing, but I tracked down the report of which I had not heard. Not surprised Roger didn’t like it. But “Roger doesn’t like it” is not necessarily a refutation.

I will stipulate Schellnhuber and Rockstrom as prominent mainstream voices of science. And the report does seem quite sloppy.The justification is:

“The 40 percent proportion is based on an analysis of data provided by Munich Re on the past trend of weather-related disasters, as compared to geophysical (i.e. non climate change related) disasters over time.5 It compares well to a 2009 scientific estimate of the attribution of climate change to droughts.11 It is assumed that the 40 percent increase due to climate change based on frequency of disasters can be applied as an approximation for the number of people seriously affected and deaths. The 4 percent proportion is based on a study by WHO4 which looks at health outcomes from gradual environmental degradation due to climate change.12

Application of this proportion projects that more than 300,000 die due to climate change every year””roughly equivalent to having an Indian Ocean tsunami annually.13 The number of deaths from weather-related disasters and gradual environmental degradation due to climate change “” about 315,000 deaths per year “” is based on a similar calculation, (i.e. an attribution of 40 percent from weather-related disasters that translates into 40 percent of the death burden from weather disasters due to climate change and 4 percent of current death burden from disease14). Over 90 percent of the death toll relates to gradual onset of climate change which means deterioration in environmental quality, such as reduction in arable land, desertification and sea level rise, associated with climate change. As for the number of seriously affected, the basis for the estimations of deaths is negative health outcomes.”

Is this unreasonable? It does seem rather sloppily written. I’m having trouble following the reasoning above. But I don’t think the numbers are off the reservation. Consider the difference between frequentist statistics (proving a phenomenon beyond reasonable doubt) and Bayesian (making a best estimate) appears in his latest screed against Munich RE and so I don’t doubt he objected at the time. Drug companies need to prove their case, but insurance companies need to do best estimates.

Frankly, 300K globally is a smallish number: it amounts to a morbidity of 1/25,000 or perhaps 1 of every 500 deaths. Can climate change be contributing to that many deaths already via extra hunger and catastrophe? I think it’s a difficult question but it’s not obvious to me that it’s wrong or fake the way the DARA number is.

How has it been refuted?That said, I would not claim that the report is something to be proud of. On the other hand, a couple of scientists on the advisory board doesn’t mean they edited it carefully, though I suppose they should have. It’s a pretty marginal case all around, then, not really output of the scientific community and not obviously hugely in error. It’s hardly a slam dunk the way Roger’s claim implies.

Dr. Tobis, in response to your first question, yes, 300,000 deaths per year due to climate change is unreasonable. It is in fact absurdist fantasy. It is a post hoc doubling of an earlier UN projection of 150,000 deaths per year, that was generated a decade ago without any supporting documentation.Yes, scientists did not have to choose their words as carefully in a time when the Tobis’ of the world would try very hard to libel them, assassinate their character and impugn their honesty and intelligence without ever having read their work.

Sorry, that should be “…but not as fast as predicted…”.

Florida hurricane insurance rates went through a very similar “Munich Re” type model grinder in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina and the very active hurricane year following.

The end result was an approx. 40% increase in wind insurance rates in Florida due to the decision to no longer use historical rates of hurricane disasters and instead rely on new computer models.

You can call me cynical when insurance companies change of risk models result in large increases in rates to consumers.  With hurricanes, they used climate change propaganda as a tool to increase rates.

What has happened since they changed their risk system?

We are currently in the longest recorded period ever since a CAT3 hurricane landfall has occurred in the US. 2300+ days and counting.  The disaster costs for the decade of 2000-2009 was right on the historical average even with the exceptional years of 2005 and 2006.  Global cyclone energy has been at near all time lows for 5 years straight.

What has happened to insurance rates in Florida?

They haven’t gone down at all.  Yes, you can call me cynical all right.

Sarasota Herald Tribune won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting for exposing this fraud.

RMS, a multimillion-dollar company that helps insurers estimate hurricane losses and other risks, brought four hand-picked scientists together in a Bermuda hotel room.

There, on a Saturday in October 2005, the company gathered the justification it needed to rewrite hurricane risk. Instead of using 120 years of history to calculate the average number of storms each year, RMS used the scientists’ work as the basis for a new crystal ball, a computer model that would estimate storms for the next five years.

Florida insurers rely on dubious storm model

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20101114/article/11141026

There are sooooo many reinsurers out there…

When contrarian delegitimisation arguments rest on a nitpick, it’s always important to check exactly what else was said. Here’s more from Ye Olde Charney Report:

The only part of the ocean that has been included in the general circulation modeling of the CO2 effects is the mixed layer. The rationale for this simplification is that only the mixed layer needs to be modeled in order to deal with the annual cycle, while the heat capacity of the deeper ocean does not matter once thermal equilibrium has been reached.

On time scales of decades, however, the coupling between the mixed layer and the upper thermocline must be considered. The connections between upper and lower ocean are generally presumed to have response times of the order of 1000 years, the essential coupling being local vertical diffusion and formation of bottom water at high latitudes. This ignores the mechanism of Ekman convergence of the surface mixed layers in the large subtropical gyres, which pumps water down into the upper thermocline over more than half the ocean surface area, a reservoir much larger than that of the mixed layer alone, The connections between the upper-thermocline reservoir and the deep ocean may indeed require very long time constants, but the carbon and heat budgeting on the decadal time scale must account properly for the potentially large reservoir directly beneath the mixed layer.

Also from that article @140: Tom Scharf

RMS said the change that drove Florida property insurance bills to record highs was based on “scientific consensus.”

I may be hasty here, but I don’t think one needs a peer reviewed study to see how public perceptions of science would go if that became a common stick to beat down public objection when subsequent facts turn out different.

You are just bloody mind-boggling sometimes nullius. Your attempted misrepresentation of the supposed ‘faults’ in Charney is crap. Distorted, dishonestly self-serving crap which is directly contradicted by the quote provided above.

You start with a nitpick over wording and were well on your way to inflating it to a dirigible-scale misdirection when mt put a stop to it.

In the midst of inflating the misdirection blimp, you insinuated that Charney was an incompetent who made ‘estimates based on a incomplete understanding of the physics’, so that his ‘stuff’ got ‘the physics totally wrong’ and was ‘outside even mainstream climate science’. He was not a ‘Proper Scientist’. All this smearing is carried out in professionally compressed form at #120.

Somewhere along the line, the *very notion* that the oceans can store large amounts of energy independent of the macro-circulatory phenomena (THC) got dismissed pushed out of the spotlight.

The excerpt quoted above dispels the confusion you have introduced. It distinguishes clearly between the upper (mixed) layer and deep ocean. It explains that a very large energetic reservoir exists in the *intermediate* layer. It concludes by stating what I have been arguing all along:

the carbon and heat budgeting on the decadal time scale must account properly for the potentially large reservoir directly beneath the mixed layer.

BBD, bloody-mindedness is not lying. Further, NiV may be responding to the part of the report that you quoted. Did you provide a URL for the report?

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/charneyreport.html

Anyway, bloody-mindedness is endemic these days. 

There is no doubt that there are a few bad actors. I am convinced that they have far more influence on the naysayers than on the scientific mainstream, but in order to make progress I don’t think the conversation can proceed on that assumption.

There’s plenty of stubbornness to go around. I think there is something to be said in favor of leaving the anger and frustration at the door when engaging on neutral territory like this. I’m not saying the anger is not justified. But it is hard to distinguish between the perpetrators of this fiasco and its victims. It is worthwhile to keep an open mind as much as possible, not only about individuals, but even about the prospect that one’s own perspective is horribly wrong. That is the scientific way after all.

134#MTthe figure of 300k climate change deaths come from a sole report from the GHF. When Prof Richard Betts , Met Office, Head of Climate Impacts, and IPCC AR4 & AR5 lead author, advised Dr Katie Hayhoe that this figure was not based on rigorous science, Katie removed this from her climate change slides. If you are interested I will track down the document he cited to support this.

Politeness, as with everything else BBD discusses, is something about which he is woefully ignorant. Perhaps he can paste in a quote from some Emo Etiquette paper, peer-reviewed by French aristos and published in 1788. “When prevaricating about one’s opponent, one must observe the following protocols.” “The use of emoticons to camouflage hostility.” “The value of repetition in covering one’s lack of an argument.”

BBD it’s no fun when the difficulty level is so low. you’d think that NiV and Fuller would at least try to be a little more artful in their sophistry.

oh look a red squirrel….

I’ve always said I don’t like to be rude unintentionally. And I am aware that in other cases lack of rudeness does not equal politeness. But I’m not trying to be polite with trolls. I intend to be rude and will continue to be at best dismissive with them.

I don’t mind you being rude Tom. It’s the hypocrisy that is emetic.

Tom,

i inadvertently read your post and am dumber for it. may god have mercy on your soul.

oh and ‘pseudo scientific claptrap’ has been added to the list for 1.5 points.

mt

Sorry, either I’m going blind or what is now # 152 has only appeared fairly recently.

BBD, bloody-mindedness is not lying. Further, NiV may be responding to the part of the report that you quoted. Did you provide a URL for the
report?

I did – twice – and to the correct pages of the html version no less (eg # 144) It’s a quality service this, I’ll have you know

I lose my temper with nullius every six months or so. I’m sorry you happened to appear just when you did. Your point is taken, but nullius is a witting serial misrepresenter. He knows exactly what he is doing. Which is why he makes me so furious on occasion.

Dr. Tobis, you are at the point where Michael Douglas was in the film Falling Down, right before he realizes he’s the bad guy.

I do not refer to a single instance of your slimy political hit job against Judith Curry. I include also your similar attacks against Roger Pielke Sr. and Jr., Lucia Liljegren, Steve McIntyre, Steven Mosher and myself. You use the same sleazy tactics against each. You attack their character and competence without doing any investigation, while in fact refusing to read evidence to the contrary when it is offered to you.

The vendetta was yours. You slimed each of the individuals I named because it suited your political ends, writing countless posts attacking them (and myself), pretending it was based on science but instead based on their (and my) disagreement with you on the key issue in climate change–sensitivity. You continue your baseless attacks today. The others named have chosen to move on. I have not. I will continue to confront your dishonest crap, here and elsewhere, and not just about Curry. Above you show yourself guilty of the very actions you accuse McIntyre of. You defame a good man and make yourself look silly.

It is flatly incorrect to say there is evidence tying severe events to anthropogenic climate change. Read the IPCC. They contradict you.

I don’t claim to infallibly understand you. I doubt if even you understand yourself. Although not a scientist, I understand that science progresses in fits and starts and sometimes takes three steps forward and two steps back. I basically think you are responsible for the current ‘two steps back’ part of this.

Although not a scientist, I can confidently say that you do not understand the operation and interaction of the major carbon sinks on this planet, primarily because their operation and interaction are not understood by anyone. Although I can get Stockholm on the line if you think you’ve solved it.

You are a conscious impediment to progress in this debate. You behave abominably and use sanctimony to defend yourself. You adopt a preacher’s robes in defending what you think is science, but is instead a political program.

More Malthus. You just don’t learn. Is it phosphorus or potassium this time?

ok if y’all aren’t drunk after reading this thread (in particular #168) then you’re clearly cheating and hereby disqualified from further events.

@mt

as is occasionally the case, i think that your mild-mannered temperament sometimes leads you astray. I don’t begrudge you for it, but i would suggest that when others react with fury its because they are reacting — not calculating. I hate calculated bullshit in all its myriad forms (i.e. the topic of this post).  i especially hate it when it’s combined with pearl clutching from the likes of the Roger the Shrubber or one of the knights of Ni.

civility has its place (even on the internets). but it shouldn’t be elevated as a virtue at the expense of honest indignation. i await willard’s admonishment, but there it is.

Tobis,

Thanks for answering an honest (but sarcastic) question with an honest answer, by the way.  The 100m climate deaths from DARA made me laugh out loud when I read it.  One has to really wonder what’s in the minds of those who think this type of propaganda is going to work out for them in a positive way in the long run.  

As far as the “so called climategate” comment goes, my comment would be that if this was so insignificant, why are you still talking about it?  It’s 3 years later now.  You are not the sole judge and jury on tempests and teapots here.   

Speaking only for myself, I can attest to my own personal investigation into the statistics of the hockey stick and hide the decline as what originally spurred my interest in this area.  I read through CA’s detailed analysis on this before I knew McIntyre had become such a pariah to the “real scientists”.   I also looked at RC’s defense on this.  It’s my opinion that most neutral observers with math skills are going to come down on McIntyre’s side here.  

In the end, it’s not really a big deal, an academic dispute.  What struck me as somewhat bizarre though was the extreme defensive reaction to McIntyre, and the unwillingness to acknowledge bad math.  Then I read a bunch more of those e-mails…and well I don’t trust climate science very much at this point.  

But data speaks for itself.  So if climate science can show compelling data, I’m willing to listen.  However I will not take their word for it on interpretations of what the data means.  They have some trust building to do before I’m willing to do that.

We will see if AR5 tells us it is “worse than we thought” after 16 year plateau of temps and no sign of acceleration in sea levels.  I’m also paying close attention to how the summary to policymakers lines up to what the peer reviewed science actually states.  Case in point will be extreme weather attribution.  Will they even acknowledge the woeful performance of climate models?

What has that got to do with the relentless increase in OHC <i>at least</i> down to 2000m? 

The problem from a planetary perspective is *disequilibrium*. Energy accumulation within the climate system (mainly the ocean). This is caused by an increased fraction of GHGs in the atmosphere.

Or if you prefer, it is a consequence of well-understood radiative physics that has been predicted for over a century.

#175,

Perhaps, but sometimes it gets close enough for all practical purposes.

#176,

It’s one of those quirky little annoyances when people mislabel a graph “Global Ocean Heat Content” and then show the axis going negative. What’s “negative heat”? We can work out what they probably mean, but it’s sloppy. I recently saw another graph of “total Antarctic ice mass” that went negative. The very concept boggles the mind.

The graph you show doesn’t demonstrate that warming occurs “at least down to 2000m”. The gap between the two lines indicates the warming in the layer 700-2000 m, and this does appear to have increased, but it doesn’t say where in the 700-2000 m interval the heat has gone. It might, for example, all be in the range 700-1300 m, and deeper layers unchanged. I’m not saying it is, mind, but your graph doesn’t show otherwise.

It’s presumably worth noting, given the steric rise in sea level, that ocean heat content has probably been rising since around 1870. Your bold attribution of causation is most brave.

With regard to the stability of climate over recent millenia, while I’m sure that Dr. Tobis will dismiss this because of provenance and the identity of the authors will give BBD another opportunity to allude joyfully to anal rape, I will call your attention to news of a paper as noted by everybody’s favorite website WUWT:

“The reconstruction of past climate has improved significantly in the past few years due to the availability of more proxies and better statistical analysis.

The authors acknowledge this and point out the differences that are emerging from the reconstructions conducted about a decade ago. They mention two such reconstructions performed by Michael Mann that they say, perhaps typically for the period, show little variability. They add they display, “little evidence for previous temperature anomalies comparable to those of the 20th century.”

The authors conclude that previous climate reconstructions “seriously underestimate” variability and trends in the climate record of the past two millennia.

This new analysis shows that the warming we have seen in the late-20th century is not unprecedented, as can be seen in figure 5 (from the paper). Seen in the reconstruction is a well-defined peak of temperature between 950″“1050 AD. They also find that the first millennium is warmer than the second.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/new-paper-confirms-the-climate-was-warmer-1000-years-ago/#more-72515

OHC increase 0-700m.

Start your own blog and ban me, then. Funny how the reaction of the Klimate Krazies is always to limit speech… Complaints to the blog author, censoring their own modest efforts… Manic campaigns over mythical false balance in journalism. 

It’s all about not letting the other side speak. And that’s all you’ve got at the end of the day, BBD. Insults, repeated pasting of old links and calls for censorship.
 

Dr. Tobis, I hypothesized 18 months ago that the MWP was in fact a rolling regional event with start and stop dates that varied, something I later discovered was prefigured in the literature and had been for decades. There is clear evidence that something similar to the MWP occurred in several regions of the southern hemisphere.

At the time I wrote that this seemed an intuitive way of looking at things–that although we refer to global temperature and cetera, what we are dealing with is regional phenomena that have knock-on effects with neighboring regions. At the time, of course, I was told I didn’t understand science, was pulling shit out of my (butt-hurt) ass, and had a black hat as tall as Washington lobbyists.

Your problem is that you assert that we haven’t seen anything yet, when from the data available it would be just as easy (and just as vacuous, of course) to assert the contrary–that we have seen the bulk of the planet’s reaction to the changes to which we have subjected it.

I think it is becoming a testable hypothesis that sensitivity is not accurately captured by one figure and that sensitivity in Region A may not only be different from Region B but may be a cause of changes to sensitivity in Region B. And I would suspect that this will introduce another line of argument–that high sensitivity in Region A will serve to lower sensitivity in Region B.

This will satisfy some skeptics who will say the global average is X, far lower than the Y put forward by alarmists. This will enrage alarmists, because it will undercut their political position.

But it will be correctly perceived as holding the potential for tragedy by scientists, who will understand that the very modest benefits accrued to Region B by lower sensitivity are far outweighed by the damage suffered by Region A.

None of the above is original and in many circles it is nothing more than stating the obvious. However, I have not seen it argued effectively in public communications. The reason being that those equipped to make the argument are too busy telling us the sky is falling.

In
@ 161, Tobis

There is no evidence that there is an urgent problem. Not overwhelming nor otherwise.put your comments here…

BBD, if you want to remove sick stuff from this website, leave.

#181,

You know, sometimes, you write something to get yourself out of a hole and only end up getting yourself deeper in?

“We use the term “ocean heat content” as opposed to “ocean heat content anomaly” used by some authors because “ocean heat content” is an anomaly by definition.”

Huh?!

I even considered the possibility they were using the strict thermodynamic definition of ‘heat’, rather than its casual use as ‘internal energy’, but that doesn’t work either. What do you think this means?

“OHC is always computed with a reference mean subtracted out from each temperature observation. Otherwise the OHC computation depends on the temperature scale used.”

First, there’s only one temperature scale in use in thermodynamics, and second, and change in temperature scale would surely result in a counter-change in specific heat capacity that would cancel it out. This is very odd.

“First, the graph shows OHC increase 0-700m vs OHC 0-2000m.”

No, it’s not showing OHC increase, either. A negative OHC increase would be an OHC decrease. And I think the horizonal axis is time, (if that isn’t mislabelled too).

“the 700″“2000 m layer is responsible for approximately one third of the total warmingof the 0″“2000 m layer.”

I think you perhaps misunderstand the nature of the problem. The heat content in the 700-2000 m layer is the sum of the heat content in the layers from 700 m to 2000 m, so knowing the total for 700 to 2000 doesn’t tell you how it’s distributed across those layers. It could all be in the first 100 m or the last 100 m and the total would be the same. You could even get heat loss in some layers balanced by bigger gains elsewhere, and the total be the same. Knowing just the total does not tell you warming occurs “at least down to 2000m”.

The Levitus stuff is a bit of a mystery, but this part is easy enough.

Tell you what Nullius, you take your muddle to Levitus – or mt, or anyone you like. I’ve explained *politely* and I think you are twisting my tail.

The graph is labelled: Comparison of Global Heat Content 0-700 meters layer vs. 0-2000 meters layer.

Please take this up with NOAA. I have explained *politely* and I think you are twisting my tail.

I think you perhaps misunderstand the nature of the problem

I don’t think there is a problem. Measurements down to 2000m indicate that OHC in the global ocean is increasing. Nit-picking, introducing hypothetical depths at which OHC is higher than at others in order to make a non-point…Yet again, you are twisting my tail.

Thanks for helping mt understand what you are actually all about.

Are you talking to yourself in the mirror, Dr. Tobis? Do you not see that I took the obverse tack to show you where your logic leads?

BBD, Nullius’s nitpick never held any credibility with me.

I have been playing this game for 20 years now and it’s hard to surprise me. My point to you is to remember that we are not engaged in real discourse at all. It is pretend discourse that actually polemics. Getting angry is normal, but expressing anger is usually tantamount to losing polemically. 

It’s really shocking to real scientists and rational people when first exposed to it. But you ought to know better. The best revenge is to find the core stupidity of the argument and expose it as calmly as circumstances allow.

Obama did a good job of exactly this at the second debate. At the first one, of course, he just rolled over and played dead (like “normal” science). At the second, he attacked the core fallacies (“postnormal” science). 

But he never really expressed the totality of his anger and contempt. The moment he did express anger was justified. “Hey, this guy was my ambassador and my friend and part of my team. How dare you suggest I didn’t care?” But it was also carefully subdued and carefully chosen. Getting peeved by some random fellow reading too much into a word choice doesn’t rise to the threshhold of polemical anger, even if it deserves actual anger.

Sashka, there is a maximum La Nina amplitude. So that means that the contribution to the surface balance of the possibly shifted ENSO signal saturates.

In other words as you say “Even if ENSO switched into another mode (even permanently) it’s a one time event. One way or another the warming should continue, perhaps at a slightly different rate.” Agreed. But it would appear to slow during the onset of that change.

I am happy to repeat the calculation in Hiroshima bombs per unit time, though those are hardly intuitively useful and clearly meant to have an emotional rather than a rational impact. I rather prefer Fuller’s suggestion of toasters instead as they draw on the order of a nice neat kilowatt and are easy to imagine. A watt per square meter is a toaster per 32 meter square, toasting all day every day. We are up to about two of those by now.

As for predictions, I predict that once volcanic activity and ENSO are accounted for, the ongoing warming can be extrapolated for several decades. That is, I assert that the smoothness of Tamino’s graph is not coincidental, and consequently predict that it will continue.

The warming will in all probability continue, although it will in all probability maintain its current sawtooth shape. But it will probably continue at about half the rate predicted by model ensembles for the next thirty years.

Because of overhype about current weather, climate, sea level rise, glacial ice decline, etc., the next thirty years will produce paralysis in addressing the real issues. 

And because of ‘forces of evil’ like Dr. Tobis (thank you for the phrase), when we get slammed with the natural effects of a doubling of energy consumption, mostly coal, we will have to scramble to compensate for the current and near term future of inactivity.

Dr. Tobis, you want to blame your opponents for what is happening. I submit the fault is yours–and those in your camp. 

You’re right of course Michael. I ought to know better. I *do* know better. Most of the time… Sometimes though, one encounters combinations of personality and ideology that make me forget myself.

#201,

I meant vertical heat flow, as explained in #114 and #137.

The effect is to increase downward heat flow via mixing, by increasing the temperature of the water being pushed down. The effect is non-linear, since warmer surface waters would result in stronger stratification through buoyancy – but there are mechanical effects (like Charney’s Ekman convergences) that mix the waters despite their density. Warmer water would increase net downward flow, and the balance with upward flow (at equilibrium) would occur at a greater depth.

It’s still simplified, of course.

I’ve remembered the last time you failed to understand an anomaly graph btw – we were discussing the Dai review study of projected drought. You started going on about ‘negative rainfall’. Odd blind spot you have there.

Tobis, what is your predicted rate of warming, and over what time period do you claim it can be falsified?

#211,

It wasn’t nit-picking misdirection because it was more than a nit and there was no direction to your random and irrelevant quote to misdirect from. And I was right about the physics.

And I did, in this case, recognise it as an anomaly graph, although your previous “rainfall” example shows that such a deduction isn’t generally safe. Not all anomaly graphs include negative numbers, and certainly not all graphs with negative numbers in them are anomalies! It’s just a matter of experience with the sort of errors climate scientists commonly make.

But if you get things right, I do like to tell you sometimes. Positive feedback is important.

#213,

“You have demonstrated no errors in Charney despite being asked by mt as well as me to clarify.”

The statement we’re discussing is: “If this is so, warming will proceed at a slower rate until these intermediate waters are brought to a temperature at which they can no longer absorb heat”. I am saying that the intermediate waters will never be brought to a temperature at which they can no longer absorb heat because there is a constant supply of fresh cold water. Equilibrium occurs by a different mechanism. There is always plenty of capacity left to absorb heat, but it doesn’t get used because of the limited rate of mixing.

Tobis displays the usual “the errors don’t matter” attitude to climate science, saying things like: “in those days a leading scientist did not have to choose his words so carefully” and “It’s possible that this was edited out in pursuit of more understandability” and “Charney had little data to base his understanding of the ocean upon, far less than we do.” But he also says: “Your description of the ocean circulation is almost correct” and notes further complications and mysteries.

I don’t mind him excusing Charney – it’s nothing personal on my part – and I don’t expect any agreement nowadays on the “the errors don’t matter” and the “ad verecundiam” stuff, so I’m not disappointed by its lack. Under the circumstances, it was a good and constructive comment, and I’m happy to say so.

“Second, my original quote was neither random nor irrelevant. See Trenberth et al. (2011).”

Ah! A hidden argument! That I was supposed to obviously deduce by my mind-reading skills! That wasn’t what you wrote or quoted from, though, was it? Nor is it given in Charney.

“either you were deliberately nit-picking to misdirect or you didn’t recognise an anomaly graph when you saw one”

Obviously I recognised an anomaly graph. I said it was mislabelled, that the error was obvious from the impossible negative values, and while we could work out what it meant it was annoyingly sloppy.

And again, we see the climate science “the errors don’t matter” attitude in your assumption that it is our job to figure it out and correct it. Carelessly glossing over minor errors becomes a habit, one that eventually leads you in to trouble when you start to miss/dismiss bigger gaps. Science is about precision.

“You have zero right to complain about the kind of pushback you get from me. You work hard for it nullius, you earn it, so you get to own it.”

And please don’t think I’m not grateful! Your example helps the cause of scepticism considerably. The picture presented is one of calm reason versus a torrent of abuse. It’s always better than I could have reasonably hoped for. My sincere thanks for the entertainment.

“Levitus 12 tells us…”  Sounds like a Bible verse.

I just finished reading Nate Silver’s new book. Interesting section on climate change. It’s a good book, and not just because that section could have been written by Lucia Liljegren (well, Lucia with a good spell-checker).

I can see why the Klimate Konsensists had to issue a preventive strike saying ‘he got some things wrong’ but couldn’t do a full bore BBD ‘you disagree so you’re a denier and a liar and your pants are on fire’.

Bonus in the book–as clear a plain language explanation of Bayes vs. frequentism as you’re likely to find anywhere.

As near as I can tell NiV suggests that “can no longer absorb heat” is an error because it has nothing to do with equilibration, and then proposes that a LAYER can absorb heat because there is mass flux THROUGH that layer. 

This woefully confuses the Langrangian and Eulerian points of view. If fluid dynamics jargon is over your head, it confuses the concept of what engineers call a control volume with the concept of the energy balance on a mass. Then NiV makes assertions of a sort that offer no useful basis for reasoning. As far as I can tell they are a meaningless garbling of the two analytically sound approaches, but at best they are unfamiliar for a reason – if there’s any validity there it is of no theoretical utility.

Charney’s statement is about a layer, not about a mass. The layer can no longer absorb heat when it equilibrates. It’s a perfectly useful and reasonable analytical approach and it fits in with the surrounding reasoning. NiV’s claim  to more analytical power than Charney is more than a little bit risible.

Now NiV pretends to have a catalog of ways in which “climate scientists” (meaning more generally, presumably, scientists who think about climate so as to include Charney) commonly err. I hope it gets published as I could use the entertainment, but I don’t hold much optimism that there will be useful corrections therein.

#219,

Well, number one on the list is their tendency to plot anomalies of quantities labelled as the quantities they are anomalies for.

#220,

I was using the Eulerian viewpoint throughout, and no your big, scary words aren’t over my head.

The full phrase is: “warming will proceed at a slower rate until these intermediate waters
are brought to a temperature at which they can no longer absorb heat“. So at what temperature can water no longer absorb heat?

#219 if leaving out the word “anomaly” is a problem, it is a problem in communicating across the boundaries of the discipline, not an error within the discipline.

You are flatly wrong if you claim that “ I am saying that the intermediate waters will never be brought to a temperature at which they can no longer absorb heat because there is a constant supply of fresh cold water. ” is Eulerian, and consequently wrong in claiming that you understand the jargon. As has been pointed out numerous times, the phrase “can no longer absorb heat” should be interpreted as “equilibrates”, and makes perfect sense as such.

Given this approach, it is indeed very difficult to believe that you are serious and have honest intentions. I now see quite clearly why BBD is angry. You are flogging utter nonsense and it is hard for me to see how it is possible that you are not doing so willfully.

mt

Now imagine being subjected to this behaviour for a year. But I’m still sorry I let the rat out of the bag earlier.

Marlowe, when you come to, http://3000quads.com/2012/10/18/global-markets-and-technologies-for-photovoltaic-systems/

NiV, there’s a big difference between falsifying model projections and falsifying the theory of anthropogenic contributions to global warming.

In my mind, the model ensemble can be tossed today. About three or four  of the individual models are worth hanging on to for the moment.

But if temperatures stayed broadly flat for fifty years, I do not believe that would falsify the basic theory of AGW. It would just make some people look pretty silly.

Keith,

I believe that the claim you underline by Junior might very well appeal to a very strong version of the Precaution Principle. It is of the form:

(HBPP) By doing F(p), X may find that may put Y at risk.

The conclusion dog-whistled here is: X should stop doing F(p), in this case F being “supporting” and p referring the some claims presumed to be unsupportable. (Y is related to X, i.e. it’s G(X), but never mind that.)

This looks like an appeal to the precautionary principle to me. This also look at a quite strong version of it. I’m not sure if it’s possible to do anything that would satisfy F(p) without triggering the Honest Broker’s PP (HBPP). In fact, I did not know honest brokers accepted strong versions of the PP.

This might be a big problem. YMMV.

@228

nice post tom. i agree with much of what you say, particularly on the low hanging fruit that needs to be picked on the installation side. 

Thanks Tom. Actually, I’d like the IPCC’s and our government’s, but anyone’s is welcome. It was actually Tom Scharf’s question at #210. I was just clarifying.

Fuller: “Dr. Tobis, I hypothesized 18 months ago that the MWP was in fact a rolling regional event with start and stop dates that varied”

That, on the other hand, is a pretty darned unfalsifiable hypothesis. But you see that nobody of those squawking about falsification calls Fuller out on this. Could it be because they are agnotologists, and not the defenders of scientific rigor they claim to be?

@ 234

If the alternative hypotheses are things like “climate sensitivity is low and natural variability is high and statistically “˜persistent’”How can sensitivity be decoupled from natural variability when both depend on the same physics? Here’s Kyle Swanson (of Swanson & Tsonis 2009 ‘climate shifts’ fame) discussing this mistaken thinking at RC (emphasis as original):

It first needs to be emphasized that natural variability and radiatively forced warming are not competing in some no-holds barred scientific smack down as explanations for the behavior of the global mean temperature over the past century. Both certainly played a role in the evolution of the temperature trajectory over the 20th century, and significant issues remain to be resolved about their relative importance. However, the salient point, one that is oftentimes not clear in arguments about variability in the climate system, is that all else being equal, climate variability and climate sensitivity are flip sides of the same coin.

A climate that is highly sensitive to radiative forcing (i.e., responds very strongly to increasing greenhouse gas forcing) by definition will be unable to quickly dissipate global mean temperature anomalies arising from either purely natural dynamical processes or stochastic radiative forcing, and hence will have significant internal variability. The opposite also holds. It’s painfully easy to paint oneself logically into a corner by arguing that either (i) vigorous natural variability caused 20th century climate change, but the climate is insensitive to radiative forcing by greenhouse gases; or (ii) the climate is very sensitive to greenhouse gases, but we still are able to attribute details of inter-decadal wiggles in the global mean temperature to a specific forcing cause. Of course, both could be wrong if the climate is not behaving as a linear forced (stochastic + GHG) system.

If the climate system responds strongly to either internal or external forcing  it is *not* – by definition – capable of dissipating global mean temperature anomalies very rapidly. If it could do that, it would not respond strongly to changes in internal or external forcings.

Feel free to take your time with your answer. I’ll be gone for a while.

Or you are clever, but dishonest because the discussion is not about physics but about libertarian ideology which cannot tolerate the fact that AGW is the greatest market failure the world has ever seen. We both know what we are talking about, which is why these shadow plays are getting tiresome.

Dr. Tobis at #238, as I said, I did find others who considered the MWP a sequenced series of events. The first sequence they noted was in the better-documented Northern Hemisphere. But I guess it wasn’t blessed by the Holy Water made by Mann, so it can’t be true. But hell, Arizona isn’t that far away from you. You could have checked.http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/20climsolar.html#mwp

Michael Tobis: You wrote re Obama: “But he never really expressed the totality of his anger and contempt. The moment he did express anger was justified. “Hey, this guy was my ambassador and my friend and part of my team. How dare you suggest I didn’t care?” “  Saying “I’m offended” is not the same as answering the question or providing evidence that the charge is true or not. It is merely a form of evasion that depends on bluster and emotion. 

History is also rife with tragedies due to warnings unheeded. False negatives are as risky as false positives. And some risks may have the wrong date attached but be real, so may amount to false false positives.

There is no rule of thumb. We actually have to think. Sorry.

The more crowded the world and the more impact comes from its increasingly affluent people, the more risks we have to think about. This rock we somehow emerged upon did not come with any money-back guarantees of performance. We only get to break it once.

#254, all important points. They indicate that there is a path to the future. But they don’t explain why we should expect to take it without some intervention in the marketplace.1) Do you not see that the increase in population is coincident with mass
urbanization, reducing our footprint on the planet?Some validity. But as the global middle class grows, urban or not, they demand more (meat and electricity especially) than undeveloped rural folk. This is of course a good thing, but to pretend it has no attached challenges is wrong – do the math.2) Has it escaped you that the Green Revolution has actually meant that we
are feeding more people using less land?This is only sort of true. We are feeding more people using the same land. But the available gains are nearly tapped out. I avoid “green revolution” as a name because it is confusing. But it’s certainly relevant. However, it is also heavily based on extractive inputs which may actually lead to a reversal. And then there’s accelerating climate change.3) Have you ever flown over this country and looked out the window? We are
not running out of space”¦ here or in 99% of other countries. North America and Australia are not especially crowded, though much of the land is irretrievably unproductive. 99% is obviously a made up number. 4) Have you looked at the spread of solar power and estimated where it
leads?I hope it replaces coal and gas for electricity, and it may well do so for peak load in hot places. At present, we don’t have a way to store the energy at scale so that it will replace baseload. Policy encouraging electric cars would go a long way to fix that. It will not replace oil, nor fossil fuel inputs into industry and agriculture. 5) Will you ever remove Malthus’ blinders for even a second and look at the
world as it truly is?Fuller says he is a liberal, but he embraces these right-wing short-circuits. Malthus was a founder of economics and should not be dismissed with a sneer. There are risks, and there are uncaptured externalities, and there are numerous aspects of the situation that the marketplace is making worse.I think we have solutions. But that doesn’t mean we are automatically going to use them.

I’m sorry, Dr. Tobis. If you’re just going to throw out the typical scare blockquotes that have been dragging down discourse since the sad days of Paul Ehrlich, I really don’t have time to educate you.

Please feel free to pick up the thread when you have spent some time acquainting yourself with reality.

The comment at 251 is interesting, primarily becaus it misses the “right wing” and “libertarian” positions entirely.
A couple of questions may help you:
Is there any place where a carbon tax has been necessary in order to see utilities use nuclear power or natural gas in place of coal? What is the climate-based rational for picking “clean” alternatives that require politically unlikely carbon taxes over “clean” alternatives that do not?
Have we learned anything about wind and solar from our brethren in Europe and do you think it reasonable that some people believe that lesson has dampened enthusiasm for those sources?
Choose the best phrase to complete the following sentence: the best way to eventually move to electrified transportation is to enact policies today that… A. Ensure electricity production is expensive, limited and intermittent or B. ensure electricity production is less expensive, plentiful and reliable.

Dr. Doom, I will, but save me some time by listing some of the literature that has informed your opinion. (And if you start off with anything about the ‘Nine Planetary Boundaries’ I will be both saddened and educated about your prejudices…)

Tom

I’m always pleased to see that you follow my commentary elsewhere, even down to noting particular variants on my screen name used by others.

But enlighten me: what does BVD actually stand for? The other chap didn’t explain either, and I am in the dark.

#259“Is there any place where a carbon tax has been necessary in order to see
utilities use nuclear power or natural gas in place of coal?”

I don’t understand the question.

Utilities are and will always be heavily regulated. The only meaningful question is what the right regulations are to optimize the output. Carbon figures into the picture in a way that has not been adequately taken into account. As long as the real cost of carbon emissions is not factored into those regulations adequately, the utilities will continue to contribute to the carbon problem.

“What is the climate-based rational for picking “clean” alternatives that
require politically unlikely carbon taxes over “clean” alternatives
that do not?”

As stated, none whatsoever.

If the implication is that one should support nuclear power, in fact I for one am inclined to do so despite the risks, and would like to see serious attention paid to evaluating the thorium option in particular.

However, I do not trust the right’s enthusiasm for nuclear power. After all, it is a highly centralized and necessarily highly regulated strategy. If the left ever shifts on this the right will also reverse itself, because this is not a natural fit with the idea of decentralized decision making at all. The right appears to like nuclear because the left hates it, not because it is a good fit with their ideology.

Regarding transition from coal to gas, it is necessary to ensure that the gas is replacing coal and not actually replacing zero-carbon options, and also that it is not so overbuilt as to interfere with the eventual transition from gas to zero-carbon options.

Have we learned anything about wind and solar from our brethren in
Europe and do you think it reasonable that some people believe that
lesson has dampened enthusiasm for those sources?

That’s too vague a question for me. I’m not familiar with what your grumpy anti-wind anti-solar sources are telling you about this. I am sure that people are telling stories that dampen enthusiasm for their competitors. That’s the usual case. The question is whether to believe them. Care to provide chapter and verse?

Lacking details, like any technology, especially at scale, I am inclined to believe that unexpected problems have arisen and that whatever problems arose are getting worked out. There is nothing about human ingenuity that causes it to only work around dirty fuels.

Choose the best phrase to complete the following sentence: the best way
to eventually move to electrified transportation is to enact policies
today that”¦ A. Ensure electricity production is expensive, limited and
intermittent or B. ensure electricity production is less expensive,
plentiful and reliable.

Now this one is actually interesting. Actually it is more like A!

I admit that this is strange. But wind power is most available at night when demand is lowest, and electric cars demand power when they are not in use. Even in the daytime, a car is mostly not in use. So a fleet of electric cars constitutes exactly the battery technology that intermittent energy supplies need. There is a lucky fit such that electric cars make wind energy more useful and wind energy makes electric cars cheaper. It also delays and possibly altogether avoids the shift to a post-automobile infrastructure, for good or ill.

This is explained at length in David Sandalow’s book “Freedom from Oil”.

#264 Most of most people’s trips are not cross-country. If your country refuses to build a tolerable train system, or you have a complex route or some cargo, you can rent a vehicle for that purpose.

Most Americans purchase vehicles to cover a very small subset of their actual usage (partly because of the prestige issue in vehicle brands). It’s not economically rational to buy a pickup truck for the one time a year you want to move a couple of plywood sheets, or an eight-seat SUV for the one time a year your cousins and in-laws visit.

I saw this argument advanced to support Google’s autonomous vehicle program. You can just punch up the cost effective car you need for your next trip and it will dutifully show up at your door waiting to take you where you are going. That person argued essentially that the autonomous vehicle would reduce the friction involved in vehicle rental so much that most people would not bother owning a vehicle at all! I find that hard to imagine but who knows.

As an aside while I am waiting for Dr. Tobis to respond, I have a question for any on the consensus side who care to respond, partially brought to my mind by what Dr. Tobis wrote above.

If you in fact think that this is a titanic struggle for the fate of the earth and that you are opposed by real enemies in the form of Republicans, polluters and energy companies, where do you get information about what they believe and drives their behaviour?

I see very little evidence that many of those I encounter in the blogosphere have actually read any of the literature that informs the belief systems of those they consider enemies.

 I have read  popular literature Earth in the Balance, The Last Generation and Where on Earth are We Going, among others, to get a broad idea of the themes animating the people I am corresponding with. I have also read all of the TAR and most of the FAR, Stern’s report and hundreds of abstracts and quite a few full papers published by climate scientists. I have also read literary antecedents ranging from Small is Beautiful, The Limits to Growth, Silent Spring, The Population Bomb, etc.

And I don’t think I’m in the middle of a war. 

If I did think I were in the middle of a war, I would take to heart the dictum ‘know thy enemy’ and would have read a lot more.

So if I may be a bit indelicate, if you who share many of the same opinions as Dr. Tobis do believe you are in a war for the survival of the planet, did you ever stop to think about how to win it?

I’m helpless without a spelchekker.  

#264

1. Are carbon taxes necessary to switch to nuclear? Does that make the question easier to understand?
The answer, of course, is no. Ergo you desire an policy you don’t need and won’t get, have wasted two decades waiting for it, and insist that we believe you when you say this is “urgent.”
2. Ah, so you misunderstand the politics of nuclear power. “The right appears to like nuclear because the left hates it, not because it is a good fit with their ideology.”
Nonsense. The right likes nukes because they hold the potential to provide something critical to economic growth- low cost, dependable energy with which to drive business. This is also why the left objects to nuclear power.
You wrote: “If the implication is that one should support nuclear power, in fact I for one am inclined to do so despite the risks..”
Facts on the ground- Over two decades where this has allegedly been the most important issue ever and not a single nuke approved in the supposedly dirtiest nation ever. And the green movement takes credit for it.
3. Wind and Solar- To recap here, you’ve got all your policy chips stacked on the bet that renewables are, like, totally awesome. But you aren’t paying the slightest bit of attention to how well they’re working in the places they are being tried. And you wonder why your cause is ignored on the campaign trail this year?
4. “But wind power is most available at night when demand is lowest, and electric cars demand power when they are not in use.”
Question, when you plug 300 million cars into the grid at night, will night continue to be the time when “demand is lowest?” Question 2- Do you really believe that only “right wingers” would object to a proposal to offer electric cars with a grid that can charge them only at night, at the highest expense of all options, and is likely to draw down your battery in the parking lot during the day leaving you stranded at the office?

It’s the contradictions that kill. Weather is climate when it’s warm, not when it’s cold. We like nukes, we just won’t build them. This is urgent, but we can wait around for a “radical shift” away from economic growth. etc etc etc

Unintentional humor there. Dr. Tobis, you’ve been asked a number of questions on this thread that you haven’t apparently had time to respond to.

Why should Dr. Tobis answer #262?

#277,

I suspect Dr Tobis has a comment in moderation which he can see but nobody else can. As soon as he’s straightened that out I’m sure he get right on to answering your question.

Demonstrating bad faith is daft.

Apologies for the formatting error. The final sentence was not part of the original comment. I’d hate to be accused of misrepresentation!

Sure, but the point is that I am asking him to explain the joke. Why are you commenting on this anyway?

Tom, you are a shit.

Dr. Tobis, you are indeed whom I was referring to as Dr. Doom. I was merely asking what you had read from the other side of the fence.

Dr. Doom, it sounds to me as if you are justifying your decision not to read from the unapproved list. 

When I wanted to understand Republicans and why they felt as they did, I didn’t read sociological treatises. I read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead, The Conscience of a Conservative, Hayek, Samuel Huntington, Niall Ferguson and Leo Strauss.

I learned that sane and intelligent people can be truly conservative and disagree with my political positions without being scions of Satan.

I didn’t classify them prior to reading them–no wonder you haven’t read Pielke or Curry, if you approach them as fake science from the beginning.

There’s no excuse for your repeated witch hunts–you have behaved contemptibly for years. But at least your comment #287 explains some of it–in addition to pure malice, you have adopted the self-erected firewall approach to make sure you were never exposed to the thinking that animated your opponents. But that also explains why you are continually getting your ass kicked in every argument in which you engage.

Scholarship is not science and should not be mistaken for such. But you are not engaged in science–you are fighting a political war. A war of choice and one that needn’t have been waged, much like our excellent adventure in Iraq. And scholarship would have brought you the keys to victory.

You’re not only a bad person, you’re a fool.

Tom C, that is what’s called a “smear”. I wonder why nobody tried that with my predecessors, say N-G or Annan.

Do you also smear anybody who sings “this land is your land”? Woody is a crucial figure in American cultural history. Reading his biography “Bound for Glory” is revelatory and I highly recommend it to anyone who hopes to understand twentieth century America.

But that doesn’t make me agree with everything he ever said. And in particular I am willing to say that I am not now nor have ever been a communist sympathizer. But I have to also say that it’s more than a little disturbing to be challenged in that way. There’s another important episode in 20th century American history you may be forgetting.

Parenthetically, Dr. Doom, you seem to have found time to read ‘Bound for Glory’, which makes me wonder even further at the strict No-Knowledge Zone you have created regarding your political opponents. It cannot be a question of available time…

#292 Tom Fuller again misses the point.

I am indeed sad that articles which are critiques of individuals get more conversation than more positive or inquisitive pieces. It may be human nature, or it may be modern culture, but it is not something that is encouraging either way.

But critiques are necessary. Neither science nor democracy can function without them. I don’t intend to stop, and from all appearances you don’t either.

Goose, gander. Isn’t this particular criticism inherently hypocritical?

#264 Marlowe,

“google “˜average u.s. commuting distance’”

Average commuting distance is nonsense. My average commuting distance is 3 miles. I would never own a vehicle with a 3 mile range.

What do you not understand about why people purchase the vehicles they do? The vehicle is not just for commuting unless you can somehow make the incremental cost of multiple vehicles for multiple purposes work out.

People buy vehicles for their ‘worst case need’. That is why in the US average vehicle weight is 4,000 pounds and Nissan Leafs and Chevy Volts sell like absolute crap.

Next door to me I’ve got his and hers 6,000 pound SUV’s. They like to go camping. In their eyes they need a vehicle large enough to pack their children and all their camping equipment.

Across the street from me is a CFO of a multi-billion dollar company. He owns a big ass pickup truck. The guy can’t even correctly identify a hammer…but he likes to go ‘dirt biking’ with his son once or twice a year so he ‘needs’ something large enough to carry a pair of dirtbikes.

And just to make sure you understand where I am on US transportation.

When I got done ‘serving my nation’ in the Middle East some 30+ years ago I was one angry young man. I must have keyed(scratched car paint with key) 100′s of gas guzzlers. I hated gas guzzlers and the people who drove them.

Then I grew up, and figured the only way I was going to actually ‘solve the problem’ was to get a degree in engineering and figure out a way to give people the ‘lifestyle they preferred’ without having to send naive young men off to some craphole country stuck in the 14th century to get them their stinking oil. Unfortunately, the necessary metallurgy for a 100 MPG vehicle just didn’t exist.

Everybody who drives a big ass vehicle will have a story…and nothing you could possibly say will change their opinion as to that ‘need’.  They get to vote not only with their wallets but also at the ballot box. If gasoline prices go up by 10 cents a gallon they will quite happily believe whatever conspiracy theory anyone wants to make up.

Expand your mind Marlowe…people who aren’t Urban Dwellers don’t want to live like Urban Dwellers and they will vote with their wallets and at the ballot box against anyone who attempts to force them to live more like Urban Dwellers.

Battery powered cars are going nowhere. The power density of batteries is no where near where it needs to be to provide the necessary range and size that non Urban Dwellers ‘need’ in order to pursue their preferred lifestyles. Thomas Edison figured that out more then 100 years ago at a time when electric vehicles outnumbered gasoline powered vehicles.

If the US population wanted to live in crowded cities our substantially European Ancestors would  have stayed in Europe.

Sorry Marlowe, you have absolutely no understanding of the US population, good luck on convincing them they must change their lifestyle aspirations.

Michael, I actually like Woody Guthrie and don’t much mind that he was a communist.  I was really trying to tweak you and get you to realize that constantly accusing others of distorting science because of their economic point of view is a game that two can play.  What are we supposed to conclude when all the climate alarm bloggers are dyed in the wool leftists?

Dr. Doom, there is not in fact a correlation between political philosophy and opinion on climate science. Outside of this country, and outside the fevered dens of the blogosphere. You just can’t be right about anything.

Republicans picked up skepticism as another arrow for their quiver in the U.S. Most liberals outside the consensus keep their mouths shut about it in the U.S.

But what correlates do you find between Steve McIntyre (proud Canadian sharing the politics of his province), Bjorn Lomborg (gay stats professor from the Netherlands), Lucia Liljegren (fluid dynamics Republican from Illinois), Steve Mosher (software modeler and literature master from Wisconsin via UCLA), Roger Pielke Jr. (Obama supporter and professor in liberal Colorado), Roger Pielke Sr. (who sensibly keeps his politics to himself)and myself (to the left of Woody Guthrie?

Only our opposition to the idiocy promulgated by the Gleicks and Manns of this world, as faithfully regurgitated by you…

You claim to be a voice for science but you pull lint out of your navel and think it’s equivalent to commandments etched in stone. Your unbroken record of inaccurate pronouncements is epic. But your condition is clinical, if not critical.

Dr. Doom, I don’t think anything would change your opinion. For that matter, I’m not even trying to change your opinion. 

What I’m trying to hammer into your thick skull is that there is no path to victory for your consensus that does not include reconciliation and a deep understanding of those you have spent the past few years denigrating, reviling, libeling and dragging through the mud.

I ran some posts by Neven about observed Arctic sea ice extent and a couple of the usual horse race graphs. Your suggestion that this is tantamount to claiming expertise on application of PCA to Antarctic temperature reconstruction is telling. Nevertheless, I am aware of this particular controversy and see no reason to doubt <a href=”http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/odonnellgate/”>Dr Steig’s account of it</a> and his preliminary summary which I’ll just quote because of the c-a-s link limit:2010Ryan O’Donnell: Our paper in the Journal of Climate shows a somewhat better way to look at the same data. Antarctica is warming a bit more in summer, and a bit less in winter in the Ross Sea region. In fall it is cooling a bit more too, and so the overall trends are smaller. Still, West Antarctica is definitely warming significantly, as Steig et al. found. That’s interesting.Eric Steig: Nice paper Ryan. Thanks for sending along a pre-print.Steve McIntyre: Hey, we got published in the Journal of Climate! Another paper showing that the “team” made up the data again! (Sotto voce): Ryan says it it is warming a bit more in summer, and a bit less in winter in the Ross Sea region. In fall it is cooling a bit more. Otherwise we get the same results, though the magnitude of the trends is smaller. But West Antarctica is still warming significantly. But I really don’t care. The peer review process is broken, which is why.. umm”¦our paper was published in the leading climate journal.Liberal Media: That paper wasn’t published in Nature, so we’re not very interested.Conservative Media: Antarctica is cooling. Global warming is a fraud.Public: zzzZZZzzz””””””””-P.S. For those actually interested, yes, I’ll have more to say about O’Donnell et al., but overall, I like it.”“eric

You are in a prison cell of your own making. You have the key on a string around your chest. The door is unlocked. You will stay in the cell forever.

Of course Dr. Doom can always compare us to Genghis Khan and the Golden Horde… nah, that’d be way too crazy. Only a winner of the Woody Allen award would be that foolish…