Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Deal of the Day - Pay What You Want for the Learn to Code Bundle, includes AngularJS, Python, HTML5, Ruby, and more. ×

## Comment Re: Whatever. (Score 1)488

Thanks so much.

I'd love it if you would be willing to take the time to look at it as long as you need. I'll fire an email off to your address listed under your profile, let me know if that's the wrong location or I can pass my address on another way if you prefer,

## Comment Re: Whatever. (Score 1)488

With your having a stronger math background and an interest in the subject, would you be willing to comment on this exchange? Basically the back and forth between Mcshane and Wyner(statistics) debating with Michael Mann and co over the later's usage of statistical methods in his proxy reconstructions.

I only picked up a minor in Math, but reading the back and forth it sure feels to me like Mann is dismissing or glossing over some pretty important criticisms levelled:
The process by which the complete set of 95/93 proxies is reduced to 59/57/55 is only suggestively described in an online supplement to Mann et al. (2008). As statisticians we can only be skeptical of such improvisation, especially since the instrumental calibration period contains very few independent degrees of freedom. Consequently, the application of ad hoc methods to screen and exclude data increases model uncertainty in ways that are unmeasurable and uncorrectable ...

The appearance of a difference in SMR Figure 1a is especially magnified because those reconstructions are smoothed. Smoothing exaggerates the difference and requires careful adjustment of fit statistics such as standard errors, adjustments which are lacking in SMR and which are in general known only under certain restrictive conditions. In contrast, consider the right panel of Figure 1 which is a reproduction of SMR Figure 1a without smoothing. The difference between a given model fit to the full dataset or the reduced data set is clearly dwarfed by the annual variation of the fit; the full and reduced set of proxies yield inconsequentially different reconstructions. ...

Additionally, SMR make no attempt to grapple with standard errors.

## Comment Re:I'm almost certain you have been misinformed. (Score 2)488

The trick is that they are only useful for testing out how things work under a given energy imbalance or energy conditions. They are NOT useful for hindcasting energy imbalance

The source for the quoted nonsense above is WUWT, one of many denier/front sites funded by the (untaxed) anti-science lobbyists at the .

The fact is that hindcasting is how climate models are tested, how else would anyone test it? You can find the code for several important models here and run it yourself for the price of a decent server.

Not only can we model the evolution of Earth's past climate and routinely hindcast the last 500yrs with high levels of "model skill", we can also model the evolution of climate on other planets, in particular Mars and Venus. Here's a reliable and independent source that talks about hindcasting climate for testing purposes.

Note also that the uncertainty you quote is about cloud cover, the other common cherry pick used in this kind of FUD is the uncertainty surrounding the behaviour of ice. These two KNOWN uncertainties are discussed in great detail in the report you linked to. They are responsible for what scientists call "error bars". The WG1 report is however the best summary of the current state of climate science that anyone has to offer. If you want to debunk climate science that is the primary document to attack, it is the embodiment of the so called "consensus", good luck in your studies.

You are so wrong it's almost comical. As I already stated in my post as well as providing a link, the source for this is the IPCC WG1 you champion in your own retort:
Model tuning aims to match observed climate system behaviour and so is connected to judgements as to what constitutes a skilful representation of the Earth’s climate. For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system

As you state yourself, knock yourself out debunking it. The fact is that the errors from unknowns like clouds leaves hind casting that runs into unrealistic states unless you correct it manually. The seem to agree the source is sound, so not sure what your problem is aside from the conclusion maybe not being as open and shut as you'd like,

## Comment Re:The general consensus amongst many Americans (Score 1)488

That argument would be similar to mine if only 97% of people agreed upon the basic tenants of their religion.

Oh, now you suddenly accept the opinion of the unwashed masses?

I stated my reference as historical. If you transplant yourself back in the dark ages beneath 'God' chosen Kings and under the teaching of the approved clergy you'd find an extremely high consensus on basic tenants of their religion. You'd find all the same appeals to authority you have made.

When somebody questions carbon taxation as really being valid or not, consensus is not an appropriate retort.
When somebody questions the severity of future warming, consensus is not an appropriate retort.
Heck, when somebody questions if CO2 contributes to warming, consensus is not an appropriate retort.

The appropriate response in every case is to point to the evidence first. If the evidence is beyond the questioner, then fair enough to ask them to take it on trust in authority or spend a few years studying up. Just don't start pushing for making that appeal to authority the first resort because your walking down a road where even 'being right' might still leave you doing more harm than good in the long run.

We can declare with confidence that CO2 contributes, and back it up with evidence, so much less risk there. On the other hand if you go about proclaiming with certainty that 2050 will see catastrophic death, science has spoken, that's worse. If you go about proclaiming we are all doomed to that heat death unless we adopt 'measure whatever', that's worse still.

The trouble is you not only risk guessing wrong on the things we are still uncertain about, you taint all of the science by having made these prophecies upon it. Stick to the actual science and representing results appropriately, including the error bars and uncertainties. Leaving those out for expediency is a recipe for disaster.

## Comment Climate Model predictions are very uncertain (Score 1)488

...and that Angels exist, and Elvis can get your wash whiter with this one weird trick.

Science is INTERESTING, chaos theory even more so, and it's easy to see the changes if you know what to look for. The increased energy in the system is already turning all of weather to a parade of freak outliers and unpredictable quirky events that occasionally spike off the charts, and that's exactly in line with the 'chaotic system' model.

I wouldn't have called the 'Earth turning to an alien planet that doesn't support life' thing in thirty years, but if you specify it's to happen in particular (unusual areas) then I'll believe that. Some areas of the planet are already close to uninhabitable and it doesn't take that much to push 'em over the brink. The thing to watch for is not places being rendered uninhabitable by weather extremes, it's more about masses of people/animals displaced because the change is a new thing that nobody's prepared for.

You can probably, right now, buy a 40-year lease on land that might as well be the Moon in 40 years. If you want a real picture of the plausibility of man-made global climate change, don't check scientists or Al Gore, consult actuaries and insurance companies. Pretty sure you'll find they're believers, because they have to actually pay for it if they choose wrong.

I continue to try and point out the very worrying uncertainty in climate models. The IPCC's fifth AR has a chapter on climate models. In assessing the state of the art, they have the following to say(Box 9.1 for those wanting to follow along:
Model tuning aims to match observed climate system behaviour and so is connected to judgements as to what constitutes a skilful representation of the Earth’s climate. For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system

They then go on to cite a half dozen peer reviewed articles confirming this.

Now, it doesn't take much better than a layman understanding to know that the entirety of the greenhouse effect is about the energy balance. More energy entering the planet than leaving it will warm, and more leaving will cool it. The trouble is that if the energy imbalance is the driving force behind climate change, you really want to get to a point where the models can get that part right without being specifically tuned to correct it. When the models energy imbalance for hindcasting causes unrealistic drift until modellers tune and tweak things by hand to get the known 'right answer', it ain't good enough for predictions.

It's not wrong to tune models this way, nor are models not useful at this stage. The trick is that they are only useful for testing out how things work under a given energy imbalance or energy conditions. They are NOT useful for hindcasting energy imbalance, let alone for predicting it for the next 30-100 years.

## Comment Re:The general consensus amongst many Americans (Score 0, Offtopic)488

New science is where everyone gets together and agrees that X is so, and henceforth X is so and no one is allowed to question X.

No one is asking for scientific debate to stop. I have yet to meet or talk to anyone who wants scientists to stop investigating the causes of global climate change in order to better predict its effects. This is about unqualified people, myself included, debating science they know nothing about.

Science is never settled, but that does not mean you should never act upon scientific knowledge because it might someday change. When determining which science to act upon, consensus is very important. In fact it is basically the only important thing. Average citizens and even policy makers could never be expected to understand the science enough to join either side of the debate. Accepting the consensus is the only sane choice in these instances.

Your exact argument has been made before. Science was supposed to do away with appeals to authority, lest your argument look like this:

No one is asking for theological debate to stop. I have yet to meet or talk to anyone who wants priests to stop investigating the scriptures in order to better interpret them. This is about unqualified people, myself included, debating religion they know nothing about.

Theology is never settled, but that does not mean you should never act upon theological understanding because it might someday change. When determining which theology to act upon, consensus is very important. In fact it is basically the only important thing. Average citizens and even policy makers could never be expected to understand religion enough to join either side of the debate. Accepting the consensus is the only sane choice in these instances.

## Comment Re:Is Al Gore redistributing his wealth??? (Score 1)249

Where do you guys come from? Are you a miner or rig worker? Whats your goal in this? You really think a rigorous CO2 mitigation scheme is going to fuck everyone when in at least 1/3 of the US solar is already cheaper than coal without subsidies?

The graph and the data sets you linked to all have the biggest numbers at the end. To prove your point next time you may want to find a graph with big numbers in the middle as well instead of closing with "the graph I cited to prove you wrong is wrong because it proves you right so just imagine its wrong in a way that proves you wrong".

You're right, I was reading things wrong and too quickly.

This really threw me because I swear when looking at the same paper awhile ago and at more length my summary was accurate. Mann's follow up a year later explains the data release more clearly:
For each series, the years 1850-2006 are the PC-filtered instrumental data. That is, the instrumental data but retaining the first 7 PCs, the number that were retained in the 1800-1849 reconstruction step.

Data series used in the above plot (1st column is Year, 2nd column is Reconstruction
If you look closer at the labelling of the "above plot", you see that instrumental is all that is plotted from around 1850-1900 onward. This was suggestive so I look closer at the to linked datasets for with and without the 'troublesome' datasets. The temperatures listed from 2007 backwards are virtually identical, ?instrumental?.

I'm gonna look closer to try and confirm, but seems I was misleading in representing the linked graph prior as being entirely from reconstruction. In particular, the EIV graphed reconstructions(Fig 2) in Mann's paper don't match the raw data linked prior from the supplements.

Still looking for the pure reconstructed figures for 1900 onwards...

## Comment Re:Is Al Gore redistributing his wealth??? (Score 1)249

Well the linked raw data doesn't support your claim. The first big peak is 594 (it goes from 584-604) at 0.09. There's a warm period from 872-881. The next peak is 970 (from 962-991) at 0.16.
Starting at 1981 (by the data set you recommend), the temperature starts going straight up, exceeding the last peak in 1993 and continuing to exceed it every year thereafter.

You're right, I was reading things wrong and too quickly.

This really threw me because I swear when looking at the same paper awhile ago and at more length my summary was accurate. Mann's follow up a year later explains the data release more clearly:
For each series, the years 1850-2006 are the PC-filtered instrumental data. That is, the instrumental data but retaining the first 7 PCs, the number that were retained in the 1800-1849 reconstruction step.

Data series used in the above plot (1st column is Year, 2nd column is Reconstruction
If you look closer at the labelling of the "above plot", you see that instrumental is all that is plotted from around 1850-1900 onward. This was suggestive so I look closer at the to linked datasets for with and without the 'troublesome' datasets. The temperatures listed from 2007 backwards are virtually identical, ?instrumental?.

I'm gonna look closer to try and confirm, but seems I was misleading in representing the linked graph prior as being entirely from reconstruction. In particular, the EIV graphed reconstructions(Fig 2) in Mann's paper don't match the raw data linked prior from the supplements.

## Comment Re:Is Al Gore redistributing his wealth??? (Score 1)249

It is when there is such a statistically significant deviation from long term climate trends gathered from dozens of different methods at a rate never seen outside major global catastrophes while humanity happens to be dumping large amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

Think of it this way...

citations needed.

According to the latest proxy reconstructions by Michael Mann, the hockey stick author that alarmists love, the current 'record' warmth of the last couple decades was matched 2-3 times naturally over the last 2 thousand years. The links there are to his supplementary information page for his actual paper, and the last is to the raw data of his reconstruction right up to the year 2007. Check for yourself that his data finds that around 1000AD, 850AD and 550AD temperatures met or exceeded those since the year 2000AD.

If you want to contradict that record, please give me more than the waving of your hands that "dozens of different methods" show. The only different methods that paint a different picture is if you plot instrumental temperature against the reconstructed temperatures of something like Mann and others work. The part you would miss(and Mann has done this routinely) is noticing that not only is the instrumental record from say 1990-2010 higher than anything in the last 200 years. The instrumental temperatures from 1990-2010 are EQUALLY higher than the proxy record temperatures from 1990-2010!

## Comment Re:Is Al Gore redistributing his wealth??? (Score 1)249

I know right, its not like 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have come in the past 10 years. Only 7 of 10 have been in the past 10 years, to get the other two you'd have to go back a full 13 years ago! Clearly those predicting warming have failed because they underestimated how much everyone likes to split hairs.

Worse still, the 100 warmest years on record ALL occur after the industrial revolution. That's right,100% of the top 100 warm years on record are all due to global wa.....

Oh, just a second, this just in, the 'record' for temperatures only extends back for 100 years. That's not much of a sample set for analyzing processes like climate that operate over millennia is it?

## Comment Re:"Sea ice and land ice are two separate phenomen (Score 1)319

You do realize that science isn't a matter of making pronouncements and engraving them into stone, right? This is a new study with new information. It's unexpected, but that's what happens in science every now and then.

Up until now, the best guess was that Antarctic ice was diminishing, and this study challenges that.

The myth listing was to address the claims that Antarctic sea ice is extensive, so the Antarctic is icing up. That is bad reasoning, even if it turns out that the ice is increasing.

Don't tell me that, tell SkepticalScience that. They declare Antarctic ice is increasing as a 'myth'. Your discussion and reasoning that it isn't a disproof of overall warming nor sea level rise is dead on. That is to say that Antarctic ice increase is not a valid argument or reason to reject the overall conclusion from all other evidence, it even fits into existing theory. However a "Myth" is different and SkepticalScience was and is just flat wrong to have called it that. There was always conflicting evidence on what Antarctic sea ice mass was doing, but it was unequivocal that Antarctic sea-ice extent was breaking records repeatedly. This NASA finding isn't coming out of a clear blue sky or something, and to have declared such a notion a "Myth" was and is irresponsible.

## Comment Re:Model Uncertainties are understated (Score 2)249

Forgive me if I believe we lack sufficient evidence and understanding to justify carbon taxations and other economic controls to try and rectify something we still can't even quantify,

Helllllloooooooooo Fred Singer.

No, I will not and cannot forgive you. Your insistence that pandering to your doubts is more important than restricting air pollution makes me want to punch you in the face, honestly. Your doubts really don't and shouldn't matter to anyone but you, yourself.

So put another way, you don't need to prove yourself and are willing, almost eager, to use violence to enforce your will on others. How reasonable.

I never said anything against restricting air pollution, I just have this crazy notion that CO2 is one of the least nasty things we are dumping into our environment. We might want to focus more on all the carcinogens and radioactive isotopes dumping out of coal plants than the CO2.

Honestly, if you want to promote massive economic and industrial changes targeting reductions of CO2 it's on you to show the danger. The most championed evidences(proxy records and modelling) simply don't cut it. If you think I'm wrong please show me the evidence you've found compelling, I've honestly looked and come back thoroughly disappointed. Just don't expect me to be cowed or persuaded by your name calling and threats of violence over the evidence I've provided from a group like the IPCC.

## Comment Re:Model Uncertainties are understated (Score 2)249

So we have a very abstracted estimate of future economics that is derived from already abstracted estimated models of temperature. Sounds compelling...

According the IPCC's 5th assessment report in Chapter 9 models have problems with the TOA energy balance. Specifically if you look in Box 9.1 they say:
maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent
the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters
in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system

They follow up with a half dozen citations verifying this.

Read that closely because it is telling. Read the cited articles, and it's even more so. Climate models still can NOT predict TOA energy imbalance. To even get hindcasts correct, requires manual corrections to unknown or poorly understood processes like clouds. Let me observe that long term climate change driven by the greenhouse effect works ENTIRELY through the TOA energy imbalance and trapping more or less energy as gas concentrations change.

Forgive me if I believe we lack sufficient evidence and understanding to justify carbon taxations and other economic controls to try and rectify something we still can't even quantify,

The only things this demonstrates is your lack of understanding. You then take that ignorance and formulate it into something that fits your rather obvious bias and hand-wave away any troubling things like "context".

In addition, you an others like you treat the model runs as the end all be all of climate science. They're not. Models are just one tool that is used, just like any other branch of science that you care to name. All models have errors since all models are imperfect representations of reality, and they never ever have perfect data. That's why any non-trivial scientific model has numerous parameters and settings that can be set and tweaked, and why a EXPERT is required to run them and analyze the results. Otherwise you'd have Joe Sixpack claiming he developed an infiniglider since he changed a parameter in an aerodynamic model and the airfoil generates lift even at rest.

You are the one using a waving of your hands to dismiss things. Providing anything like a concrete reason you or anyone else believes that the problems with projecting TOA energy imbalance is not a problem is ignored. Meanwhile I very specifically point out a summary of the current scientific literature that clearly states that hindcasting historic climate REQUIRES manual corrections for accurate TOA energy. My link even references more than a half dozen peer-review journals verifying this.

Heck, you couldn't even be bothered to explain in what context you think TOA energy errors of that scale aren't important to predictions.

Take your faith based chest thumping somewhere else and at least be willing to discuss the actual science and not just the fore gone conclusion your world view dictates.

The trouble with a lot of self-made men is that they worship their creator.

Working...