Via Jennifer Marohasy, I found a report on three articles in Science Express that put the closing seal on the most significant issue in the debate about the reality of human-caused climate change: the disagreement between climate models and data from satellites and radiosonde balloons. Now as Real Climate observes “the discrepancy has been mostly resolved – in favour of the models.”
There aren’t many scientifically literate sceptics (that is, people open to being persuaded by evidence, but not yet convinced) left on the global warming issue, and this evidence, along with the continued warming being observed at all levels, should convince most of those who remain. There’s a bit more history over the fold.
The big expert on satellite measurements of climate is John R. Christy of the University of Alabama, who has worked with Roy Spencer. His data, which started in 1979, initially appeared to show a cooling trend in the troposphere. Since satellite data seemed free of many of the errors that affect surface measurements, these results were seized on by global warming ‘sceptics�.

However, it was discovered in 1998 that the satellite data had problems of their own, arising from a failure to correct for the gradual decay in their orbits. Correcting for this, and adding more data, the satellite data now showed a slight warming trend, but not as much as the surface data. More data and alternative analysed reduced the discrepancy somewhat, but it remained a problematic issue. Sceptics also pointed to studies of radiosondes carried on weather balloons. These were much patchier, but also failed to match model predictions.
The latest studies correct errors in the procedures used to derive both satellite and radiosonde time trends, largely eliminating the discrepancy. The most conservative estimates of tropospheric warming, those of Christy and Spencer now show warming of 0.12 C per decade, compared to a surface trend of 0.19 C per decade. Other estimates show tropospheric warming equal to or greater than that at the surface, as predicted by the models.
In view of the predictive success of the models, in which climate change is driven by human-caused accumulation of greenhouse gases, and the repeated failure of empirical challenges, it’s hard to see how anyone without strong preconceptions on the topic can reject the conclusion that, in all probability, we are experiencing human-caused climate change. Most of the models predict that the warming is likely to accelerate in the future.
John Quiggin 
“Most of the models predict that the rate of change is likely to accelerate in the future.”
Accelerate, or increase?
Fixed now. Don’t tell Tim Blair about this!
Jerry Pournelle might be classed as a scientifically literate sceptic. You can see his latest musings here, here, here and here. He too is incorporating these latest insights into his thinking, but is valiantly resisting where that is taking him.
Does the rate at which the story changes not bother anybody? Can we really say we’re now at the end of our journey of discovery on this issue?
David -accelerate.
See the recent reports in New Scientist about melting permafrost releasing billions of tons of methane. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 but is usually present in much smaller quantities.
RE John Humphreys: “Does the rate at which the story changes not bother anybody?”
What’s happening now (and has been happening for the last 15 years at least) is that the “story” of recent anthropogenic warming has been becoming more complete and better supported. The different lines of evidence (surface measurements, oceans, glaciers, tropospheric measurements) are all telling more or less the same story.
The MSU tropospheric “story” is not over. There are still 2 analyses with trends over the last couple of decades of approximately 0.12 K/decade and 0.20 K/decade. (I’m referrring to the analyses usually called UAH and RSS here. I could have the numbers slightly wrong.) They can’t both be correct. I favour RSS, but maybe I’m biased. Longer time series and more careful analyses should reduce these discrepancies.
Just tangentially, Jennifer Marohasy has now been replaced by Don Burke (!!!) as the environment spokesperson at the IPA/chairperson of the Australian Environment Foundation.
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2005/07/25/1122143787176.html
John H, who’s saying the journey of discovery is ending? But who’s saying the story has changed? Is this the new talking point, that climatologists have been inconsistent and we therefore cant believe a word they say? Rubbish. The story has been in the same general direction for decades, the details are firming up daily.
Helen, Don Burke’s new appointment reminds me of when Harry Butler of “In The Wild” fame became a barrel organ for the Tasmanian Government in 1982 on the Franklin Dam issue.
JQ,
I can understand your eagerness to bash your favourite creationists, but my understanding was that the inconsistency in satellite data was not the key problem with climate models.
The essential – and continuing – problem with climate models is that they project out over a very long time period an extremely complex simulation. That the models fit historical data is trivial, and expected. This tells us nothing about their ability to predict the future.
It’s great that we’re learning more, but we don’t have the answers yet.
Re Fyodor “That the models fit historical data is trivial and expected”
It most certainly is not trivial!
I was surprised when I first saw results from simulations of the 20th century, showing that with credible estimates of the forcings (solar, aerosols, greehnhouse gases) the climate models reproduce the observed trends in global mean temperature. I had thought the models (and the real world) would have far too much intrinsic variability for this to work. Apparently not.
On ABC’s Landline interview of Don Burke he repudiated the global warming denialist viewpoint and I think he said more environmental funding should be directed towards the issue. So maybe ditching Marohasy is part of an IPA shift on the issue. Unfortunately Landline haven’t put the transcript on their website yet even though the link is on their front page.
BTW, the worldwide average temperatures for July have been released at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html. This shows we have just had the second warmest July since before 1880 (1998 was the hottest because of El-nino). This follows the second warmest June (1998 hottest), the second warmest May (1998 hottest), the second warmest April (1998 hottest), equal third warmest March, eighth warmest Frebruary and third warmest January. So far 2005 is the second warmest year since before 1880 (1998 is the warmest).
Of course, this is just a coincidence with record high levels of CO2.
Mark Hadfield, it’s called “data-fitting”, i.e. calibrating a model to replicate known historical trends. This is not necessarily helpful in predicting unknown future trends.
I suspect the situation with Don Burke is more complex. Judging by things I have seen from him in the past he is genuinely concerned about the environment, but struggles to reconcile this with his generally free market positions, and so has had a rather mixed relationship with the environmental movement.
When the IPA approached him they probably pitched the position as what they represent the AEF as being – a genuine environmental group that is more pro-free market than the others with a commitment to increased research before lots of money is spent on problems.
Burke would have been attracted to this, and may not have seen the agenda that those of us with experience of the IPA’s dishonesty on environmental issues expect.
The IPA scored a coup in getting a high profile and popular frontman, but the downside for them is that he isn’t going to toe their line on everything. Marohasy could be counted on to refuse to believe in any environmental problem the IPA wants to deny (based on her position on such things as the Murray Darling and Global Warming, where no amount of evidence seems to get through to her). Burke probably won’t be like that, so his presence is a two edged sword for them.
That just isn’t true Fyodor. Calibrating models on data sets often leaves huge amounts of variance unexplained, particularily if the datasets are ridiculously complex and the amount of parameters in your model is few. Thus there is no guarantee your model can fit historical data at all, unless you use a zillion parameters and can somehow work out how to optimize them all (which I doubt can be done easily with climate models that take presumably take ages to test on a single parameter set).
In addition, if models weren’t useful at predicting future trends in circumstances with some predictability (like when will El nino come ? will we get lower rainfall this year ? etc.), we may as well give up on them right now. Since no-one seems to want to do that, I presume the consensus is that they do have some ability to predict future climate changes.
No, Conrad, such multivariate data-fitting happens all the time, in all sorts of industries and scenarios. It’s an innate problem for any model that makes simplifying assumptions about complex systems. Good modellers know it’s a risk and acknowledge the limitations of the models they produce.
However, even crap models are better than nothing, and that is why we use them. Unfortunately, people like yourself seem to assume that because we are using models we can predict the future. That’s grossly naive and extremely dangerous thinking.
Fyodor, as the post suggests, most of these models were reasonably well-developed before 1997. They predicted warming, whereas the obvious null hypotheses predicted either no change or a return to the long-term mean (that is, cooling).
As you say, the big test is predicting the future. On this score, the models have been right and the sceptics (to the extent they’ve been willing to make testable predictions) wrong. A notable example is the late John Daly, who predicted a sharp drop in global temperatures right about now.
What were the underlying assumptions in John Daly’s models, that were suggestive that global temperatures would be dopping?
What factor does the location of weather/temperature stations play in the various models. For example, a gauge that was placed on the corner of Bourke St and Swanston street in Melbourne 30 years ago may have registered more ‘heat’ owing to vehicle traffic; but since the volume of vehicles has fallen dramatically owing to the pedestrianisation of that interseaction, so ‘heat’ emitted would have been significantly reduced.
Fyodor, I don’t disagree with you that all models have limitations and that in some areas the predictive power of some of the models is low. However, I’m not sure why you think using models to try and predict future behavior is naive and dangerous. Even if the models could only explain a small amount of the data, they would still be worthwhile in many areas.
What other method do you think people should use to plan for the future ? Sit and wait until potentially catostrophic event occurs ?
The climate models are not supposed to be 100% accurate and no climate scientist would expect them to be. Some of the large GCM’s that take into account the ocean and run on supercomputers get the closest.
Computer models are tools only. The allow scientists to conduct experiments on a system where various parameters can be changed to see what happens. Conclusions are then drawn as to what might happen in the real system. Different models are best at investigating different things and even quite simple ones can yield information.
The problem is that we do not have a spare planet to experiment on so computers are the best we have. No wait – we ARE experimenting on a planet – the planet Earth. We are increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration and seeing what will happen. Just to make sure the CO2 rises really quickly we are deforesting the planet as well. Pity we do not know the result and are flying blind.
John,
I can’t see that what you have posted above is consistent with what you wrote as a comment on 22nd April at https://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/04/21/a-request-for-help/#comments .
Following is what you wrote in April before it was realized that the satelite data was wrong (i.e. when the data was showing that the troposphere was not warming as much as the earth’s surface):
Jennifer, I’m not an expert, but here’s my potted summary.
1. GW models generally predict that the troposphere should warm at the same rate as the surface or even faster.
2. The first attempts at tracking satellite data, by Christy and Spencer, showed a cooling trend, which caused a lot of excitement particularly among GW sceptics.
3. Since then, there have been a lot of criticisms of the Christy measurements, new data and alternative analyses.
4. As a result, all groups now agree that the satellite data shows a warming trend.
5. Some (e.g. Fu) find a trend very close to that measured at the surface, while others, most notably Christy and Spencer, find a slower warming trend.
6. Over the same period, the measured warming trend at the surface has become clearer and lots of potential sources of error, such as urban heat islands, have been checked and corrected for, or found to be unimportant.
7. Based on the history above, while there are still unresolved questions, the satellite data is a very weak reed for GW sceptics. It seems most likely that the true rate of warming is the same, and that the measurement differences will be resolved with an answer close to (but maybe a little bit below) the current surface measurements.
This article at SEPP is not too bad on the history, though it puts more weight on Christy’s work than is really justified, I think.
Ain’t Gonna Study War No More
Although the news seemingly is yet to percolate to some Rafean quarters of the blogosphere, peace has broken out in the science wars. Chris Mooney writes, apropos of the Sokal hoax:
Even at the time, however, the quest to root out anti-science tenden…
Sorry, I had to alter the slug for that post as some glitch was preventing comments. The post in question referring to this one is now to be found here.
Fyodor Says: August 17th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
Why else would anyone use a model, if not to predict the future? Thats what models are for, since they are not just constructed as playthings. Or is Fyodor trying out one of his abysmal puns on the long-suffering readers of this blog?
We shall just have to be brave about the “extremely dangerous” risks we take when we rely on models to predict the future workings of the world. What with our reckless predictions of the morrows eastern sunrises and who knows what other “naive” beliefs that trail in tow.
Fyodor’s excessive skepticism is irrational and has a psychological, rather than epistemological, basis. He seems compelled to attempt to reverse conventional wisdom or common sense on a range of disparate subjects.
He does not believe that Australian political culture, over the past decade, has become more conservative. Although Keating is still on the nose, the DEMs are a spent force and John Howard is now controlling the Senate.
He does not believe that elements within the TNI encouraged jihadist-style sectarianism in the ETIMOR conflict. Although numerous eye witness report to the contrary.
He does not believe that racial classifications show real genetic diversity and heredity in psychological traits. Although the evidence of HGP data and the analysis socio-bio scientists shows that Darwinian evolution theory is applicable to the explanation of human bio-diverse behaviour.
He does not believe that the Holy Wars that began around the turn of the first millenium were, at least in part, caused by Muslim aggression. Although Muslims overran, in succession, Christian lands in Mesopotamia, (Arabs), Iberia (Moors) and Byzantine (Turks).
And now, apparently, he does not believe in the reality of global warming. Although the experts in the field have repeatedly beaten him over the head and shoulders with an improved hockey stick.
Fyodor’s epistemology is a good example of the cult of irrationalism that plagues those hooked on post-Popperian “critical rationalism”. David Stove has a good account of the essential frivolity of the hyper-critical attitude (in place of Popper’s name I have substituted Fyodor, otherwise the argument is perfectly transferrable):
[Fyodor’s] writings… This is, their levity or enfant-terriblisme.
The simple and sufficient proof of [Fyodor’s] levity is this: that he is always saying `daring’ things that he does not mean. For example he says, and says, as we have seen, with all possible emphasis, that there is no good reason to believe any scientific theory. But he is not in earnest.
He does not really believe that there is no good reason to believe…In other words, [Fyodor’s] daring irrationalist sallies are meant to be tried, like a baron under Magna Carta, only by a jury of his peers, and for the same reason: the other people might not understand.
The levity of [Fyodor] and his followers concerning science bears a marked analogy, therefore, to a species of political levity which is excessively familiar: what Kipling called “making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep”. [ritualistic libertarianism!] For who are the pet aversion of [Fyodorians], as policemen are of parlor-pinks? Why, ordinary flesh-and-blood scientists, of course!
Any contact with living scientists … can be relied on to bring him out in fury of what we may call `criticism-ism’. Scientists, he finds to his horror, are dogmatic, uncritical, authoritarian, etc., etc. So they are, of course.
It is the frivolous elevation of the `critical attitude’ into a categorical imperative of intellectual life, which has been at once the most influential and the most mischievous aspect of [Fyodor’s] philosophy of science.
Even in its non-extreme forms, however, the apotheosis of the critical attitude has had, as its principal effect, simply this: to fortify millions of ignorant graduates and undergraduates in the belief, to which they are already only too firmly wedded by other causes, that the adversary posture is all, and that intellectual life consists in “directionless quibble”.
Can we not see, in Fyodor’s frequent bursts of small-arms fire against the big guns, this self same combination of frivolous levity and nihilistic skepticism?
Stove sees an unresolved psychological complex behind this compulsion:
I believe that the solution the “Fyodor problem” lies within his twisted psyche. When someone appears to be too disconnected to reality physicians usually characterise them as mad, bad or sad.
I do not think Fyodor is mad. His arguments per se are intelligent and sane enough to merit consideration, if not condonation, by participants on this blog.
I do not think Fyodor is bad. He appears to believe in some slightly watered down version of libertarianism. It is a stage many people go through in their undergraduate years, by no means a hanging offence, although it is pathetic at his age.
I do think Fyodor is sad. His frivolous contrarianism, that takes skepticism to the verge of solipsism, constitutes a cry for help. He needs someone significant to care for him. Someone out there, please, give him the love he so desperately craves, if only to get him off the backs of the knowledge seekers and acquirers. I just don’t have it in me.
Jennifer, in April John wrote that “It seems most likely that the true rate of warming is the same, and that the measurement differences will be resolved with an answer close to (but maybe a little bit below) the current surface measurements.” And now his prediction has come true.
What do you think is the inconsistency?
Shorter Strocchi: Fyodor is pissing me off big time.
You know you’ve hit the Jackpot when he goes over two pages of text. The best part of this is he only had to see my name to lose the rag.
Come in, spinner!
I’ll return to the usual programme once I’ve stopped laughing.
Hang on, JQ. Are you seriously suggesting that confirmation of a warming trend of, say, 0.12C to 0.19C for a highly volatile variable over an 8 year period (1997-2005) validates the predictive power of current models? I suggest to you that this is nowhere near conclusive proof of any such thing. The Earth has warmed and cooled by many multiples of this amount several times over just the last millenium, and we simply do not know whether existing models’ projections of sustained warming over a 50 to 100 year period are reliable.
All that has been confirmed (and this being science, not logic, only contingently so) is that the discrepancy between surface and satellite temperature observations appear to have been resolved in favour of the surface data showing warming. As I stated in my first comment, this is not news. I think there is little room to doubt that the Earth has been warming in recent decades. Why this is so, whether this trend continues and why, are the current points of contention.
Conrad (and Ender, too), just to clarify, I do not believe that building and using models is naive and dangerous. My view is that using the output from these models uncritically, without explicit acceptance of their limitations, is naive and dangerous.
I actually believe that models and simulations are one of the few real tools we have to help us understand current and historical trends, and to make projections for the future. I similarly believe that we’re not there yet, and more research is required before we can truly say that we understand what is going on with global temperature, or forecast with any accuracy.
Of course, this position makes me an anti-science Creationist, but apparently scepticism isn’t “scientific” any more.
Fydor – I absolutely agree with you. Using the output of these models uncritically is wrong. In all cases the investigators using the models will publish at the start of any paper the limitations of the model that they are using along with the assumptions used. These limitations and the acceptance of them by the scientists are not generally communicated to the general public.
No-one can predict the future. What is not generally understood and often get confused is the climate scientists have never claimed that they can predict the future. They have given us, using the tools at their disposal, their best guess at what might happen.
It is up to us to decide on what risks we are prepared to take. Right now we are ‘betting the farm’ on there being no climate change or risk to our society. Only time will tell if this gamble is right.
I’m still hung up on where the inconsistency is between PrQ’s April and current statements… I simply can’t see it.
You have me beat as well Jennifer, but thanks for reprising John’s synopsis from April which to me still reads very well indeed. I think you may be misreading something, somewhere; would you be more specific about what you have in mind?
The ABC put up the transcript of Don Burke’s Landline interview.
He says “In other words, there are vast amounts of carbon stored underground – gas, coal, oil. We’re taking that up and we’re dumping it in the easiest place possible – in the atmosphere. If we continue to do that, the world is in deep trouble. It is already in some trouble now, and I think we would be far better off to spend that time and concern working out what we do with all this carbon. We just can’t keep pumping it out into the air. The planet can’t cope with that.”
Yes, could be a double edged sword for the IPA. Either that or they’re changing their position. Certainly makes a difference from Marohasy.
Also, Fyodor doesn’t realize or ignored the fact that the warming trend has been confirmed for much longer than 8 years. If the satellite record now confirms the surface record then the rapid warming trend has been confirmed from at least 1980 to 2005. A regression from 1980 gives the world about 0.4 degrees C hotter than 1980. McKitrick in his paper relies on the assumption that the satellite record shows cooling since 1980 to reach the conclusion that we are still cooler than the Medieval warm period. Since this assumption has now been proven to be false we can use even his reconstruction of pre-1980 temperatures and the satellite confirmed temperatures since then to conclude that it is now warmer than any time in the last 1000 years.
Even McKitrick would be forced to agree that the world is now warmer than at any other time in the last 1000 years. That is news.
I’ve said it before, the simplest way to sequester carbon is to grow and bulldoze renewable wood chip timber, make charcoal from it, and bury it in landfill or – better – bulldoze it into rivers and creeks and thence let it pass into the ocean depths. This carbon is non-biodegradable and will only be recycled by geological processes, since it does not get exposed to weathering by ultraviolet light acting on water (the effect that causes sun bleaching by creating trace hydrogen peroxide). Even the processing can be done using the wood chips as fuel, e.g. with gas producers.
That link to McKitrick’s paper should be here.
Chris, the eight year time frame I used refers to JQ’s assertion that we’ve had decent climate models since 1997. Not surprisingly, many of those predicted warming from 1950 to, oh, about 1997. Can you guess how they predicted global temperature retrospectively?
And, no, we can’t be certain about temperatures in the Medieval warm period, because we don’t have reliable data. We do, however, have reliable historical records suggesting that vineyards in England and abundant pastureland in Greenland during that period weren’t fabrications. The Earth’s temperature appears to have varied significantly during historical and pre-historic periods, without any man-made interference.
Fyodor, there’s a big shift from your initial point
to your current position that 8-10 years of successful prediction is not enough to claim success.
If we had infinite time to make up our minds, then we could wait as long as we liked to validate the models. As it as, we have on the one hand, models based on well-validated physical principles and a substantial amount of confirming evidence and on the other hand, the arguments put up by the likes of Ross McKitrick and John Daly. Given that we have to make some choices now, which do you suggest is more credible?
I found the McKitrick paper interesting, but only useful when read at the same time as this paper.
JQ,
There’s no inconsistency. The models have been fitted to a posteriori data. You say they’ve been around since 1997, so that means they’ve been able to test a priori assumptions about the future over a period of only eight years. This is inconsequential given the size and scope of the system being modelled.
Why do you reach for absolutes? We don’t need infinite time to improve the models – they’re improving all the time. The models reflect current knowledge and the biases of their creators. This doesn’t make them useless, but it does mean they have about as much predictive power as the people building them, i.e. SFA.
What do I think we should do? Nothing, at the moment. It’s always an option, and usually a good one until you know what you’re playing with.
It’s too easy, Fyodor – your comment “… we should do? Nothing, at the moment. It’s always an option, and usually a good one until you know what you’re playing with” clearly is best suited to justifying an immediate cessation of the dumping of gigatonnes per annum of CO2 into the atmosphere of the only known living planet in the universe. There isn’t any scientific doubt, modeled or otherwise, that this should be expected to have potentially bad consequences for global climate and ocean chemistry at least.
Now for other reasons you’ll agree we can’t just do that (reduce our emissions to zero) yet your argument such as it is above is no good at all for your implied, preferred option of a “business as usual” toying with our atmosphere.
PML I doubt the Black Sludge method would work. The fuel for machinery requirement would use perhaps more carbon than the volatiles could provide, and the charcoal would initially float and make a grotesque slick. Charcoal also binds nutrients such as phosphorus which would have to be given to the replacement trees.
Jennifer, I’ve just seen at your blog that you quote Bill Kininmonth as having at some time told you “Greenhouse gases in the troposphere cause the troposphere to cool …” http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000793.html
It may be that bloopers like this (let’s face it, it’s a prima facie absurd suggestion in these times of daily discussion of the “greenhouse effect”) from Kininmonth have had something to do with your present state of mild confusion on the issues.
In reality, “Increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases reduce the efficiency with which the surface of the Earth radiates heat to space: More outgoing terrestrial radiation from the surface is absorbed by the atmosphere and is emitted at higher altitudes and colder temperatures. This process results in positive radiative forcing, which tends to warm the lower atmosphere and the surface. This radiative forcing is the enhanced greenhouse effect …” from http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/066.htm
[btw I wouldn’t have drawn attention to just a typo; Kininmonth goes on in Jennifer’s quoted text to do further damage to both common sense and science]
Fyodor, you’ve gone from making a substantive (but no longer sustainable) critique to a position that, no matter what the evidence (within the limits of what can be feasibly collected in the time available to us) you’re not going to be convinced to abandon your own policy preferences. This is pretty disappointing.
Fyodor,
the problem with doing nothing is that the problem never sits still, which might be rather worrisome, especially if you happen to live in Bangladesh or some low-lying island, and particularily given that there are likely to be no cold-turkey solutions. Looking at the last 20 years shows that you can get a reasonable amount of temperature variation in compartively short times (a time shorter than that needed to provide evidence to convince the tobacco industry that smoking is harmful, for instance).
Thus hanging around and waiting for completely irrefutable evidence might be a poor tradeoff given the potential harm that might occur
Not at all, JQ. Indeed, you’re lurching from one strawman to another. Your supposed deadline about the “time available to us” is redolent of the kind of hysteria that is precisely antithetic to the proper use of science. We’ve made tremendous advances in the climate sciences over the last decade, and I’m hopeful we’ll learn even more in the coming decade. Maybe global warming is anthropogenic, maybe it’s not. I’m open to new evidence; you’ve already made up your mind. Tell me who’s the one operating from belief rather than knowledge.
Your supposed “disappointment” is disingenuous. We’ve played out this argument before and no doubt we’ll do it again.
Fyodor – opposing action on climate change because we do not have enough information is basically wrong. It is not about who is right and wrong. It is about risk. The people who make money from assessing risk, the insurance industry, is already moving and urging action on AGW as they are already seeing the effects of climate change in increased payouts.
What JQ is alluding to is not hysteria. It is an assesment by scientists that we have a rapidly closing window to reduce the effects of AGW. After this time has passed it really does not matter a pair of fetid dingo’s kidneys what we do as the die will be cast and we will have to live with the effects whatever they are.
P.M.Lawrence Says: August 18th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
hermit Says: August 18th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Isn’t there something about this proposal that strikes you two as a bit odd? Something beyond the simple mechanics and chemistry of it?
Something along the lines of it being simpler to not dig up and burn an equivalent amout of coal?
Fyodor was being very misleading in asserting that “The Earth has warmed and cooled by ‘many’ multiples of this amount several times over just the last millenium”. “this amount” referring to “0.12C to 0.19C .. over an 8 year period”. The issue with the satellite data is not just about confirming models, it is about confirming surface measurements before you even start thinking about models. As you can see from McKitrick’s paper, he didn’t believe that there’s been any warming since 1980 because the satellite derived temperatures didn’t confirm the surface measurements. Since there is now confirmation, one of McKitrick’s major supporting data has been knocked out.
I didn’t notice any reference from Fyodor supporting how much he thinks the earth has warmed and cooled in the last millenium. Unless he can find a paper that supports his assertion better, I’ll go by figure 8 in McKitrick’s paper which says the biggest change in the last millenium was a 0.5 degree C fall in the 15th century. I suppose 0.5 is “many multiples” of 0.12 to 0.19 (just!) but 0.12 to 0.19 degrees C is just the per decade warming since 1980, not the total warming. The total warming is around 0.4 degrees C. You can’t quite say 0.5 is “many multiples” of 0.4 can you?
The original issue of this thread is the effect of the satellite data now confirming the surface data. This may not affect whether someone believes climate models or not. But the one thing it does affect is whether people such as McKitrick believe that there has been substantial warming since 1980. McKitrick’s argument that there hasn’t been has been destroyed.
So the issue is now can we all agree that the earth is warming seriously, so much so that it’s the warmest in a thousand years, regardless of the cause? Can we now move on to arguing about why the warming is occuring and stop using time arguing about whether serious warming is actually occuring?
FyodorSays: August 18th, 2005 at 7:37 am
I got to say that it is I who have been the one splitting my sides laughing, following the richly amusing Fyodor-takes-on-all-comers-and-gets-made-into-mincemeat series. Its rather like watching that episode of Daffy Duck where DD tries to call the shots to his animator as the latter slowly erases him from the picture. Or, as Stove remarked in another context, seeing the absurd bluff posture of a frog puffing itself up, in a futile attempt to intimidate a man. Who does he think he is trying to kid?
Apparently Fyodor thinks it is some kind of wicked methodological sin to construct models on the basis of a set data set, then tweak the models to correct the errors so that the models fit the data in later runs. He is confusing two different activities: tweaking models to fit disparate data and “cooking data” to fit a preconceived model. The latter procedure is the improper activity. But revising the formulation of disparate data sets to reconcile them with an overall predictive model is an example of the former procedure, and is perfectly proper.
Fyodor is not content to just cast doubt on global warming. He wants to also question the very idea of reliable large scale modelling of complex events. No doubt there are pitfalls in that activity. He is really saying that complex macro-prediction is Mission Impossible, at least for the forseeable future. Since we cant know everything we can never do anything.
If we were to follow Fyodorian philosophy we would be forever running back and forth between the models and the data without ever running a proper simulation or taking action on the basis of working knowledge. It is “directionless quibble” with a vengance.
As Stove predicted the Fyodor-types are not satisifed with challenging this or that scientific theory – it is the very methods of practical science that they are going after. This is because they are fundamentally bored with the inevitable imperfections of natural science and social technology, preferring to kick over the traces rather than put their shoulder to the wheel.
Scientific work is mostly the rather tedious business of data-crunching, which is bound to get in the way of the fun of tearing down idols. But Fyodor is not after working knowledge, like the girls in the song he “just wanna have fun”.
This mischief is innocent enough in itself. But Fyodor should not pretend to be some kind of scientific or scholarly expert into the bargain.
Fyodor Says: August 18th, 2005 at 10:09 am
So, “just to clarify”, Fyodor does believe in building models but he doesnt believe in using models. Apart from being a most undignified back-pedal this revised position is the frivolous epistemology of the perpetual post-graduate student, not that of a working sci-techhie or a concerned statesman.
This kind of criticism is an example of what Stove, in another context, calls “cognitive Calvinism” – our models are bad because we, poor forked creatures, made them ourselves with mere facts grubbed from the mysterious and mutable world. Its too early to tell, we have to wait until the end of time! Cognitive Calvinism again, Stove was right on the mark.
jquiggin Says: August 18th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
It is striking that Pr Q uses the “infinite time” construction which independently fits Stoves “cognitive Calivinist” coinage. Great minds think alike, especially when slighting lesser ones.
Pr Q then shows that Fyodor’s position starts to develop contradictory stress fractures under pressure.
jquiggin Says: August 18th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
Most debaters, with a shred of self-knowledge and respect for truth, would have thrown in the towel at this point. But not Fyodor, who keeps throwing wild haymakers at thin air.
Fyodor Says: August 18th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
Phew, thats a relief! Fancy if the models had been fitted to a priori data ie made up – then the modellers would really be for the drop.
Finally even Pr Q, who has shown the patience of a saint up till this time, gives up in despair.
jquiggin Says: August 18th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
Actually it is pretty much as I expected. Fyodor never admits he is wrong, no matter how compelling the contrary evidence (see the above comment for the syllabus of his uncorrected errors). He is constitutionally incapable of subjective humility, no matter how much objective humiliation he actually suffers. That is pathetic, not disappointing.
It is also no accident that Fyodor’s skeptical-cum-solipsistic philosophy meshes nicely with his wishy-washy brand of do-nothing “libertarian” policy preferences. (More properly known as proprietarianism, since property rights, rather than protecting the life and liberty of the citizen, are the obscure object of his desire.)
Fyodor applied the same kind of ritualistic libertarianism (read legalism) in his strictures against anti-terror legislation. But authorities gave violent ratbags a free pass in the free-swinging good old days prior to 911 and Baliand and for our troubles we got sucker punched. Or is this dredging up that unpleasant past another example of me “cooking the data” to fit my rotten authoritarian political model?
Some advice for Fyodor. He is not stupid and he is entertaining in his own way. But he is not always right and has an unpleasant habit of not suffering his own follies gracefully. The breezy self-assurance he displays in his sweeping generalisations quickly degenerates into bombastic arrogance when a competent scholar points out his errors.
But he is trading punches with the pros here and its clear that he is out of his league, in over his head an way out of his depth. He needs to re-learn the old lesson that when you are in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging.
If you’re going to make charcoal from forestry, might it be better to use the charcoal to replace the usage of coal and other fossil fuels and thus leave the fossil fuel carbon in the ground rather than replacing it? Is there some economic or other argument for this?