WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

[LeafByNiggle]

Please respond to my posting the IPCC ECS probability curves, and explain how they prove a consensus of scientific opinion exists.
I believe anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the topic understands the implications and policy response to an ECS close to 1 is markedly different than if ECS ends up closer to 5-6.

The differences in ECS affect the degree and the speed with which global warming would be affecting us. Therefore it does affect policy responses to the problem. But this is not evidence that climate scientists generally disagree as to whether global warming in some significant form is happening, as many on this forum are advocating. And even the ECS probability distribution graphs do not represent the kind of disagreement that you apparently think it does. Just because the graphs show various non-zero probabilities for ECS values at 5, that does not mean there is even a single climate scientist who believes the true value is exactly 5. It just means there are some climate scientists who believe there is a chance it could be 5. But those same climate scientists also believe it its more likely to be 2 than 5.

 

[JimG]

What climate scientists (and other scientists) talk about is known knowns, known unknowns (like they know methane is being released from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates, but they can’t put it into a formula for including in their models), and unknown unknowns – that would be what you’re talking about.

In fact that is a possibility, perhaps not very likely tho – some factor like a huge meteor strike causing cooling.

The way we should prepare for that is reduce our fossil fuel use immediately and as much as possible …bec we may really need to burn them during a harmful and very cold nuclear winter, and solar panels may not help us much if the dust is clouding up the sky.

I don’t know the odds of a meteor strike. To me, the odds of a nuclear exchange seem more likely to cause global cooling. Mr. Putin has been repeatedly threatening the West with references to his nuclear arsenal lately.

 

[jilly4ski]

I don’t know the odds of a meteor strike. To me, the odds of a nuclear exchange seem more likely to cause global cooling. Mr. Putin has been repeatedly threatening the West with references to his nuclear arsenal lately.

The odds of a massive volcano eruption like Krakatoa which cooled the earth for several years and messed with whether patterns is probably the most likely. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions

 

[Theo520]

The differences in ECS affect the degree and the speed with which global warming would be affecting us. Therefore it does affect policy responses to the problem. But this is not evidence that climate scientists generally disagree as to whether global warming in some significant form is happening, as many on this forum are advocating. And even the ECS probability distribution graphs do not represent the kind of disagreement that you apparently think it does. Just because the graphs show various non-zero probabilities for ECS values at 5, that does not mean there is even a single climate scientist who believes the true value is exactly 5. It just means there are some climate scientists who believe there is a chance it could be 5. But those same climate scientists also believe it its more likely to be 2 than 5.

Why do you argue that climatologists don’t believe the statistics of the models they release? So many media stories are are based on these ‘worst case’ scenarios, scientist approved.

It all comes down to ECS, with ‘deniers’ advocating for an ECS close to 1 and ‘alarmists’ promoting a figure of 5 or higher.

As a parallel, it’s a bit like Christianity. Fundamentally, all denominations believe in Christ, but when you examine the specifics, there are major points of disagreement between the models/denominations.

 

[RGCheek]

BobEstes posted: "There was not one single model produced by any climate scientist that involved anything but atmospheric warming. The idea that the warming somehow ended up in the oceans is an unproven hypothesis and , again, was not predicted by a single model produced in the last 30 years. What we have is scientists who have been consistently wrong desperately trying to convince us we should trust them even though they haven’t been right yet "

Do you really believe the claim made in posting 623 that none of the climate models took into account the oceans? If it is not so extraordinary a claim, it should be easy to demonstrate it is true.

How is Bob supposed to prove a NEGATIVE? He said there were no accurate models taking the oceans into factor, and you are saying PROVE there are NO such models.

It would seem your logic fu is having a bad day.

 

[RGCheek]

What climate scientists (and other scientists) talk about is known knowns, known unknowns (like they know methane is being released from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates, but they can’t put it into a formula for including in their models), and unknown unknowns – that would be what you’re talking about.

SHADES OF SAINT RUMSFELD!

Lol, you are the first person I have seen to use his analysis correctly!

Congratulations!

 

[sps49]

Does this mean you do or do not think that looking at satellite images since 1980 is a valid way to see if the arctic ice caps are on a shrinking trend? And if not, what better available method would you recommend to answer that question?

It means exactly what I said, that the data themselves are not representative of any “truth.” To answer your specific question, there are interpretations of the data that suggest that the area/volume differences seen since 1980 are within the bounds of normal variation. The recent climate sensitivity and AGW attribution debate is closely coupled to your question of whether the ice caps are shrinking. The real question is what time period the change is compared to, and what is the significance, 30yr, 300yr, 3000yr, 30000yr?

 

[sps49]

It doesn’t answer the question of whether the ice caps are shrinking. It just offers a possible reason why we may not need to care if they are shrinking or not. I don’t agree that that is a good explanation of what my eyes clearly tell me when I look at those satellite images.

The question is this then: is what you see meaningful, or within some normal variation over the time period the data are collected? What else is going on? Is the “big knob” CO2? This is the heart of the attribution and climate sensitivity debate. We have been making these observations for only 34 years, not even 1% of recorded history, and under 0.3% of the time since the last glacial period. This reminds me of watching a post doc “discover” 1/f noise on a spectrum analyzer, and now must “do something” about it. It’s been there all along, but now it’s the most important thing in the world. He may employ some clever filter techniques, but does not realize he is powerless against the fundamental mechanism unless he first understands it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

BobEstes posted: "There was not one single model produced by any climate scientist that involved anything but atmospheric warming. The idea that the warming somehow ended up in the oceans is an unproven hypothesis and , again, was not predicted by a single model produced in the last 30 years. What we have is scientists who have been consistently wrong desperately trying to convince us we should trust them even though they haven’t been right yet "

How is Bob supposed to prove a NEGATIVE? He said there were no accurate models taking the oceans into factor, and you are saying PROVE there are NO such models.

It would seem your logic fu is having a bad day.

If he cannot prove the negative then he should not state the negative so emphatically as a fact.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It means exactly what I said, that the data themselves are not representative of any “truth.”

This is a surprising statement coming from someone who actually knows what flicker noise is. Of course the data represent truth (and congratulations on treating “data” as syntactically plural. Few people do that). The data represent the actual visually apparent extent of ice cap area coverage as a function of time.

To answer your specific question, there are interpretations of the data that suggest that the area/volume differences seen since 1980 are within the bounds of normal variation.

That is precisely the kind of interpretation that I would like to see, because I just can’t. But maybe I’m looking at the wrong dates. It looks to me like the September coverage extents have not that much variation, except for a nearly straight line with a negative slope.

The recent climate sensitivity and AGW attribution debate is closely coupled to your question of whether the ice caps are shrinking. The real question is what time period the change is compared to, and what is the significance, 30yr, 300yr, 3000yr, 30000yr?

Welll, the time period available for inspection through satellite images seems long enough to be meaningful because the trend since 1980 to now is large enough not to be swamped by noise. As for the issue of its applicability to the AGW question, that is a separate question. Of course people are interested in the ice caps as a possible confirmation that the earth is warming. It is a potentially simpler question than the general AGW question, which is why it should be answered on its own merits, rather than in terms of what it might say about global warming.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The question is this then: is what you see meaningful, or within some normal variation over the time period the data are collected?

If I had no other information related to this question outside of the 1980-2014 time frame, I could not rule out that this is part of a fairly long period natural cycle, where the pole becomes ice-free every 100 years, sort of like Brigadoon. But we can be fairly certain that is not happening, for there have been quite a few centuries during which people have been sailing the northern oceans and probing for passages. But what about a longer cycle, like 3000 years? I think such a cycle could not be what we are seeing in the current trend because the rate of change is too fast to be part of a cycle that long. If the trend we are observing were to continue for 1/4 of such a cycle, it would probably result in widespread weather changes in Europe and Asia, and as such would have made it into recorded history.

 

[sps49]

This is a surprising statement coming from someone who actually knows what flicker noise is. Of course the data represent truth (and congratulations on treating “data” as syntactically plural. Few people do that). The data represent the actual visually apparent extent of ice cap area coverage as a function of time.

Information, or data, cares not for truth. It is or it is not. When I set up an experiment and if I have an expectation of a particular outcome, then I introduce a bias to the process, noise if you will. Then there are the process questions, am I measuring the right thing in the right way? What are the sources of uncertainty? As Shannon would put it, how does noise affect channel capacity? What is the SNR for the ensemble of measurements that are used for parameterizations in climate models that predict the rate of change to the ice caps, or the SNR of the models themselves? We don’t really don’t know. That is a fundamental problem that must be addressed. Unfortunately, talking about uncertainty frightens the horses a bit, so equivocations, metaphors and hand waving subjective quantitative judgements are used in its place. All of which do not get us closer to understanding the uncertainties.

Welll, the time period available for inspection through satellite images seems long enough to be meaningful because the trend since 1980 to now is large enough not to be swamped by noise. As for the issue of its applicability to the AGW question, that is a separate question. Of course people are interested in the ice caps as a possible confirmation that the earth is warming. It is a potentially simpler question than the general AGW question, which is why it should be answered on its own merits, rather than in terms of what it might say about global warming.

The words “seems long enough to be meaningful” are interesting. It sounds like there is some uncertainty in the sample period, but then you go on to say that it is large enough not to be swamped by noise. Do we know all the noise sources? The question about the ice is just as complex as the question about AGW, since it is inextricably tied to climate, about which we are just scratching the surface.

 

[RGCheek]

If he cannot prove the negative then he should not state the negative so emphatically as a fact.

Lol, no, that is not how it works.

If I say that B is true and you state that B is false, it is not on you to prove that B is false.

All you would have to do is prove where my facts or logic are wrong.

There is NEVER an obligation to prove a negative. One simply has evidence and logic in support of it with corresponding critiques from critics and you go on from there.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Lol, no, that is not how it works.

If I say that B is true and you state that B is false, it is not on you to prove that B is false.

Different situation. Bob offered his negative on his own initiative, not in response to my claim that climate models did take into account the oceans. If he can’t produce proof of his negative, he should at least be able to say what prompted him to claim the negative as an emphatic fact.

All you would have to do is prove where my facts or logic are wrong.

.,neither of which he did.

There is NEVER an obligation to prove a negative.

Nor is there an obligation to be rational in making postings here. But if you want convince someone of something, you probably should.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Information, or data, cares not for truth. It is or it is not. When I set up an experiment and if I have an expectation of a particular outcome, then I introduce a bias to the process, noise if you will. Then there are the process questions, am I measuring the right thing in the right way? What are the sources of uncertainty? As Shannon would put it, how does noise affect channel capacity? What is the SNR for the ensemble of measurements that are used for parameterizations in climate models that predict the rate of change to the ice caps, or the SNR of the models themselves? We don’t really don’t know. That is a fundamental problem that must be addressed. Unfortunately, talking about uncertainty frightens the horses a bit, so equivocations, metaphors and hand waving subjective quantitative judgements are used in its place. All of which do not get us closer to understanding the uncertainties.

This line of argument, if true, could be used to discredit any and all deductive science. It establishes unreasonably high epistemological standards on all truth.

The words “seems long enough to be meaningful” are interesting. It sounds like there is some uncertainty in the sample period

Yes, because the images can be used to analyze a wide variety of sample periods.

but then you go on to say that it is large enough not to be swamped by noise. Do we know all the noise sources?

You don’t have to know the noise sources in detail. You merely observe that the deviation from the hypothesis of a melting trend is much smaller that the trend itself. That places an upper limit on the noise, whatever its source.

The question about the ice is just as complex as the question about AGW, since it is inextricably tied to climate, about which we are just scratching the surface.

The question of how the ice interacts with the rest of the climate system is indeed complex. But the question of whether the observed trend is for melting can be answered without knowing the complex details of that interaction.

 

[RGCheek]

Different situation. Bob offered his negative on his own initiative, not in response to my claim that climate models did take into account the oceans. If he can’t produce proof of his negative, he should at least be able to say what prompted him to claim the negative as an emphatic fact.

IT doesn’t matter who offered what on whose initiative. The burden of proof in science is to prove the positive because the negative is only in the form of critiquing your arguments by showing anomalous data that your theory does not adequately account for, and I think Bob has done that.

But to demand he prove a negative independent of your own assertions in favor of his assertion is simply irrational and NOT how SCIENCE is done.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

IT doesn’t matter who offered what on whose initiative. The burden of proof in science is to prove the positive because the negative is only in the form of critiquing your arguments by showing anomalous data that your theory does not adequately account for, and I think Bob has done that.

But to demand he prove a negative independent of your own assertions in favor of his assertion is simply irrational and NOT how SCIENCE is done.

This whole discussion is so far from how science is done it is not even funny. But you have not addressed the common sense suggestion I made. If someone wants to convince someone else of something, whether that something is a negative or a positive, it is always more convincing if that assertion comes with some evidence.

 

[estesbob]

This whole discussion is so far from how science is done it is not even funny. But you have not addressed the common sense suggestion I made. If someone wants to convince someone else of something, whether that something is a negative or a positive, it is always more convincing if that assertion comes with some evidence.

I said there was not a single model that predicted CO2 emissions was going to warm the oceans rather than the atmosphere. You claim there were and now ask me to prove their weren’t. As RG said you are asking me to prove a negative. you can resolve this in a second by producing reference to a model(s) from 20 years ago that predated a 18 year pause in GW with the heat going instead into the oceans

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I said there was not a single model that predicted CO2 emissions was going to warm the oceans rather than the atmosphere.

Fortunately we have your exact quote from your posting #623:

There was not one single model produced by any climate scientist that involved anything but atmospheric warming.

It is a much stronger statement to say that the climate models did not involve anything but atmospheric warming, than to say that the models did not predict CO2 emissions would warm the oceans rather than the atmosphere. Because if you had said that only, I would have agreed with you. But apparently you had second thoughts about this, since you sort of took it back (that is, “clarified” your position) in posting 640:

No one claimed the models didn’t take the oceans into account.

 

[estesbob]

Fortunately we have your exact quote from your posting #623:

It is a much stronger statement to say that the climate models did involve anything but atmospheric warming, than to say that the models did not predict CO2 emissions would warm the oceans rather than the atmosphere. Because if you had said that only, I would have agreed with you. But apparently you had second thoughts about this, since you sort of took it back (that is, “clarified” your position) in posting 640:

Translation: You cant produce a model that predicted a 18 year pause and/or the supposed excess heat going into the oceans.