Why do you not trust the experts?

[parmenides3]

A friendly climate modeller from the USA has given me permission to copy his comments here. I think you will find them interesting:

As a climate modeler myself, you may be surprised by the extent to which I agree with criticisms 1 and 4.

1) Nature of the models

The way data affects climate models specifically (GCMs) is very interesting. The general public appears to be entirely ill-informed about that process, rather unsurprisingly.

I think the approach was appropriate in the past and is increasingly inappropriate now. I am an outlier and a gadfly on this matter, though.

I note that the examples which often come up have nothing to do with GCMs, including the examples you offer.

Carbon cycle modeling is far less advanced than climate modeling. I am in general very dubious about the pressures to include both phenomena in coupled Earth System Models as of yet, but that train has already left the station.

2) Quality of the work

Climate is interdisciplinary by nature. This is what appeals to me about it, and this is what makes it important even independent of policy issues. It also makes it difficult. The best climate scientists (Ray Pierrehumbert always pops into my mind; keep an eye on young Matt Huber as well) are usually deeply informed on many matters.

However, there are always gaps. The one which frustrates me is the gap between climatologists, statisticians, computer scientists and software engineers. As a journeyman in each, I try to point vaguely in the direction of the work that could profitably be done in each of them, so far with limited success.

Saying that there is work that needs doing that isn’t being done is not to criticize the work that is done. There are extraordinary minds doing extraordinary work in this field.

Climate is at the cutting edge of complex systems. In practice there is much to be learned about how to proceed. For the most part, though, it’s being learned.

Of course the Mann et all business figures highly in this debate. It’s important to understand that it’s very difficult to satisfy a statistician on matters statistical, though. In the end, their result holds even if they failed to dot i’s and cross t’s. This is important to consider in reviewing that story.

3) Perception of serious contention about the consensus

Of course science moves on and new ideas will replace old ones, but the idea that the core position represented by WG 1 will change sufficiently to matter for policy purposes over the next few decades is wishful thinking without any foundation in reality.

4) Political influence

I agree with Hansen. Political pressures from outside the field and social pressures within do exist. While they operate in both directions, on the whole, they act more to reduce the emphasis on high-risk scenarios than they do to move the field toward alarmism.

:)P

[Stratos Ferric]

...

PS - quote from SF:

If the results are not yet borne out then we have a real problem, since we do not know if the proposed results match the actual results. Which brings the problem back round to "AGW is untested".

Well, I wouldn't say that there is as yet no evidence: I think one would have had to have their head in the sand, or else be a gold medal denialist, to suggest that what we've seen in the past couple of decades does not, at the very least, point in the same direction as the models.

[Stratos Ferric]

This has always bothered me.

True some years have overriding factors such as El Nino (or whatever) but surely the future in teleconnections relies almost solely on the relationship between them all? Whilst one can read that this one or that one will be the overriding favourite this time around, and, therefore, it is virtually certain that we will be inundated with snow this coming season, the overriding factor changes from year to year. How is one to make sense of which of them one should look at?

Is this because, like climatology, that teleconnections are such a young science, and that some relationships are just too poorly understood to be used as predictive tools?

Perhaps this is another reason to be rather sceptical about climatological claims about the future?

However, as you say SF, the recent past demonstrates a warming trend.

It's certainly a good few years since I looked into teleconnections in any detail, but back then the ONLY recognised global connection with any (and it was far from 100% reliable) link between driver and outcome was El Nino; there was much reaearch into other ocean surface - atmosphere relationships, but at best these were weak. This is not to belittle the discussion that goes on on here: over time other relationships might be proven, but as with all aspects of forecasting, the wheels within wheels within wheels soon become so complex and complicated that reliability drops away very sharply.

[parmenides3]

Well, I suppose it cuts both ways; now you are all the subject of interest on a climate scientist's blog:

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/10...-expertise.html

hopefully, this will introduce one or two new members...

:)P

[jethro]

It's official; we're all geeks! Good morning my fellow geekonians, my kids will be soooooooo pleased they've found someone who agrees with them.

[noggin]

Geeks. I'd never really thought of myself as a geek, although my sister finds it unbelievable that anyone should want to visit a website where people talk about weather-type stuff.

Definition of a geek, according to Cambridge Dictionary Online:

"a person, especially a man, who is boring and not fashionable"

I score two out of three!

Ah, well, there you go.........

Sorry to digress.

Edited October 4, 2007 by noggin

[parmenides3]

Geeks. I'd never really thought of myself as a geek, although my sister finds it unbelievable that anyone should want to visit a website where people talk about weather-type stuff.

Definition of a geek, according to Cambridge Dictionary Online:

"a person, especially a man, who is boring and not fashionable"

I score two out of three!

Ah, well, there you go.........

Sorry to digress.

You mean you are a person? :Dp

[BrickFielder]

I found the climate modellers response very interesting and it shows that they look at things in a slightly different light.

Firstly there is the distinction between climate modelling and carbon cycle modelling, I have always thought of the two as linked. I can see how you could argue that the climate models are fairly good if you limit the definition of climate model to the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere, but even here there may be some discussion about granularity and the effects of small scale short term perturbatiuons. To be fair perhaps we should be saying that Earth System Models are the models we have doubts about rather than the climate model.

I also notice that there is the gap between climatologists, statisticians, computer scientists and software engineers, which I can sympathise with being involved in one of those fields and knowing experts in some of the others. I am guessing that there is some dificulty in mapping the thought processes of the climatologists into software with the result that maybe some software errors are introduced in the conversion.

The arguments on the perception of serious contention about the consensus and about the core position is interesting as well. I think the argument here is that AGW is happening and that view is unlikely to change. Perhaps we should have asked whether the balance of causes for AGW could shift and political policy might need to shift to a wider viewpoint than just cutting CO2. Some modellers I think would argue that CO2 will have a greater or lesser affect on climate than quoted in the IPCC and it is this range of views on a single aspect of the report that makes me wonder about the IPCC quoted accuracy on the amount of warming we should expect.

I think the perception is that policy makers fail to understand what is actually required to halt AGW.

[parmenides3]

Hi Brick. I found Michael's comments interesting, too. If you don't mind, I'm going to focus on one part of what you said:

The arguments on the perception of serious contention about the consensus and about the core position is interesting as well. I think the argument here is that AGW is happening and that view is unlikely to change. Perhaps we should have asked whether the balance of causes for AGW could shift and political policy might need to shift to a wider viewpoint than just cutting CO2. Some modellers I think would argue that CO2 will have a greater or lesser affect on climate than quoted in the IPCC and it is this range of views on a single aspect of the report that makes me wonder about the IPCC quoted accuracy on the amount of warming we should expect.

I think the perception is that policy makers fail to understand what is actually required to halt AGW.

What is interesting here to me is your perception that the policy outcome of the 'core position' is to focus on cutting CO2, and the thought that this might be in question if some modellers (and other scientists) think that its role is overstated. Is this about the science or the politics, though?

As far as the 'balance of causes' - the attribution of GW - goes, the 'core position' is definitely much broader than simply 'CO2 is to blame'. This is something which I think many people misunderstand; the 'exclusive' focus on CO2 is not in the science, it is in the policy response to the science. Having said that, the attribution of a large proportion of recent warming (and likely future warming) to GHGs is very unlikely to change. As a result, the conclusion that an effort to reduce GHG emissions is needed to slow the process of warming comes across quite strongly, and is also unlikely to change.

I would suggest then that your doubts about the 'IPCC quoted accuracy' are based on a misinterpretation of what is in the IPCC, as the CO2 bit is only a part of what it evaluates and measures. The IPCC does conclude that CO2 is the single most important issue; it certainly does not say that it is the only issue, not by a long way.

Then there is the question of 'how much warmer is it going to get?'. That is, for certain, a whole other set of discussions.

I think the perception is that policy makers are going to fail to halt AGW, whether they know how to prevent it, slow it down, or not. What can be questioned is how badly are they going to fail, and whether we can do anything to stop them from failing.

:)P

[BrickFielder]

As far as the 'balance of causes' - the attribution of GW - goes, the 'core position' is definitely much broader than simply 'CO2 is to blame'. This is something which I think many people misunderstand;

That is my point really. The Science shows a broad range of causes for AGW from ,soot and changes in land useage right through to CO2. The current thinking is that a large proportion of warming is due to CO2 but there is some disagreement on how much. The amount of dissagreement is such that IPCC bands for warming must be suspect. With policy makers concentrating to some extent on CO2 then if at some later date we find the sensitivity to CO2 increase is less than we thought then we spectacularly fail to halt the warming. My feeling is that curbing CO2 along with other policies is the right way to go and if policy makers think that trading carbon units rather than tackling the real issue of rampant consumerism and waste will work then I think they are mistaken.

Where I feel climate scietists are perhaps missing a trick is by not modelling the situation if we succeed in cutting CO2 along with agreements. Showing that governments are still likely to fail on global warming somewhat even if they achieve the targets they have set might focus policy makers a little more.

Edited October 4, 2007 by BrickFielder

[The PIT]

Quite good points there Brickfielder.

Certainly the issue isn't been tackled on all fronts and Politicians see it mainly as a tax revenue raising issue. It's also becoming commercial the other day I saw an advert for car insurance but this was green car insurance. How can your car insurance be green??? Does it give you points so you finally get that expensive hybrid car?? Probably not. It's just a commercial gimmick.

I would love to see some meaty leg coming out to force companies to watch what they waste. I work for a University that plays at being environmentally friendly. It's anything but heatings on in summer. Computers and printers are left on all night as are most lights. A new IT Centre opens and they light it up like a Xmas tree at night. Yet they complain about being short of money.

Sorry I'm probably slightly off topic.

Anything related to Government of course won't be trusted as the voting public see it as a means to an end (Increased taxation and reduction in services) rather than trying to do something good.

[Bethany C]

I really couldn't care about global warming. But some facts are still distorted. First carbon dioxide is not an insulator therefore it cannot stop UV rays! Secondly carbon dioxide is affected by heat not the other way round so all those graphs are wrong. Also the earth goes through regular periods of warming and cooling. 50 years ago people believed we were going into an ice age because the earth was cooling. The ige caps have melted and reformed before it is a natural process. We may be speeding it up but it's gonna happen anyway.

[Stratos Ferric]

I really couldn't care about global warming. But some facts are still distorted. First carbon dioxide is not an insulator therefore it cannot stop UV rays! Secondly carbon dioxide is affected by heat not the other way round so all those graphs are wrong. Also the earth goes through regular periods of warming and cooling. 50 years ago people believed we were going into an ice age because the earth was cooling. The ige caps have melted and reformed before it is a natural process. We may be speeding it up but it's gonna happen anyway.

Sabrina, if you WERE bothered than you might have read some of the pages elsewhere on N-W that would provide you with some of the enlightenment that your comments above suggest is lacking at present.

Carbon Dioxide actually would make a good insulator (most gases are decent insulators, hence why clothing keeps you warm on a cold day) - but that is a by the by: the warming affect of CO2 is NOTHING to do with whether or not it's an insulator, it's to do with it's 'porosity' at certain energy wavelengths. It reflects back to earth, or absorbs, some redradiated energy. It is more a mirror than an insulator.

[Bethany C]

Actually this is my boyfriend's conspiracy theory! I'm fed up of him tyelling me so i told him to tell the people who actually cared what he thought.

[Bethany C]

Hmmm ok the post buggered up. This is what he says:-

If you do the research, here is what you'll find:

1) carbon dioxide is clear and colourless, meaning it can't reflect wavelengths

2) water vapor makes up 99% of greenhouse gasses (aka CLOUDS!!!)

3) heat CAUSES carbon dioxode gas release

4) if you look at graphs with timelines you'll find that changes in temperature are several hundred years ahead of carbon dioxide release

5) an ice age was predicted for now instead if global warming by weatherolygists

6) during the industrial revolution (HIGH amount of co2 in the atmosphere) it was several degrees colder than previous years.

also WE ARE RECOVERING FROM AN ICE AGE! OF COURSE THE TEMPERATURE IS GOING TO RISE!

Edited October 5, 2007 by sabrina2090

[jethro]

Hmmm ok the post buggered up. This is what he says:-

If you do the research, here is what you'll find:

1) carbon dioxide is clear and colourless, meaning it can't reflect wavelengths

2) water vapor makes up 99% of greenhouse gasses (aka CLOUDS!!!)

3) heat CAUSES carbon dioxode gas release

4) if you look at graphs with timelines you'll find that changes in temperature are several hundred years ahead of carbon dioxide release

5) an ice age was predicted for now instead if global warming by weatherolygists

6) during the industrial revolution (HIGH amount of co2 in the atmosphere) it was several degrees colder than previous years.

also WE ARE RECOVERING FROM AN ICE AGE! OF COURSE THE TEMPERATURE IS GOING TO RISE!

Sabrina, firstly welcome to NW.

I'm a tad puzzled, are you looking for counter-arguments to your boyfriend's conspiracy theories? If you are, there are plenty of threads on here which have covered all the above points. Don't get me wrong, and this comes from a sceptic too; your boyfriend is barking up quite a few wrong trees.

[VillagePlank]

If you do the research, here is what you'll find:

1) carbon dioxide is clear and colourless, meaning it can't reflect wavelengths

2) water vapor makes up 99% of greenhouse gasses (aka CLOUDS!!!)

3) heat CAUSES carbon dioxode gas release

4) if you look at graphs with timelines you'll find that changes in temperature are several hundred years ahead of carbon dioxide release

5) an ice age was predicted for now instead if global warming by weatherolygists

6) during the industrial revolution (HIGH amount of co2 in the atmosphere) it was several degrees colder than previous years.

1) Not true. Look up experimental data proving that CO2 allows certain wavelengths of light in and traps certain wavelengths of light. This, by itself, is so far proved that it might as well be lay-science

2) No water vapour is not also known as clouds (clouds, simply put, are water+dirt) Ever been in a hot day with clear blue skies, but have felt very close. That's called humidity, and that's water vapour

3) Yes it does, but more CO2 causes more heat. You need to show the share of the two to see which one is more significant Which one tops the trolley?

4) Several hundred years, therefore, doesn't include the onset since the human industrial revolution, then? The AGW argument is based on humans adding more overriding whatever natural signals there might be.

5) Yes, it was. By about two people.

6) There is a relationship between CO2 and temperature, but if some huge volcanic eruption had happened it might override such a signal

Now, I am quite a fence-sitter on this issue, but even I wouldn't have attempted to make an argument based on these points.

Incidentally, you can find detailed rebuttals on all your points throughout this site by various people.

[Bobby]

Hmmm ok the post buggered up. This is what he says:-

If you do the research, here is what you'll find:

1) carbon dioxide is clear and colourless, meaning it can't reflect wavelengths

2) water vapor makes up 99% of greenhouse gasses (aka CLOUDS!!!)

3) heat CAUSES carbon dioxode gas release

4) if you look at graphs with timelines you'll find that changes in temperature are several hundred years ahead of carbon dioxide release

5) an ice age was predicted for now instead if global warming by weatherolygists

6) during the industrial revolution (HIGH amount of co2 in the atmosphere) it was several degrees colder than previous years.

also WE ARE RECOVERING FROM AN ICE AGE! OF COURSE THE TEMPERATURE IS GOING TO RISE!

Good grief there's a lot of plain wrong stuff there.

1. Nonsense. It may not reflect visible light, but it certainly reflects other wavelengths. This isn't theory, this is fact and has been known for decades, possibly centuries.

2. Clouds aren't water vapour, clouds are water. Water vapour is invisible - when water vapour condenses into water droplets it forms clouds.

5. Where? Maybe a handful of scientists hypothesising, mainly the media.

6. Again, wrong. It was slightly cooler globally, and that was because CO2 emissions then were nowhere near what they are now. We had only just started emitting CO2 also, so it hadn't had time to build up.

The rest has been gone over many many times.

The rate we have warmed since the industrial revolution is far higher than in any Ice Age cycle.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Magpie

[parmenides3]

Hi Sabrina and welcome to one of the hothouses of NW! You could do worse than to send your boyfriend here: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229 which seems to cover most of the things he has got wrong. he isn't unusual in this by any means, but you post suggests his POV has been unduly influenced by some suspect TV programme or other...

Anyway, the Royal Society site gives some basic explanations...

Good luck.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

Welcome Sabrina!

I wish I had your POV!

[Red Raven]

No offence to Sabrina's boyfriend but his argument illustrates why experts are not trusted (at least in the climate field). Climate or more accurately weather is something everyone experiences and feels they know very well. But realistically that knowledge doesn't extend much further than understanding that, when it rains you get wet (don't mean to be patronising). This basic knowledge is very essential on a day to day 'survival' basis but offers little to the understanding of the science. So to question these fundamentals questions the whole purpose and foundation of an individual - the natural reaction being one of rejection because the question challenges that individuals purpose in the world.

does that make sense - probably not lol.

[Stratos Ferric]

Hmmm ok the post buggered up. This is what he says:-

If you do the research, here is what you'll find:

1) carbon dioxide is clear and colourless, meaning it can't reflect wavelengths

2) water vapor makes up 99% of greenhouse gasses (aka CLOUDS!!!)

3) heat CAUSES carbon dioxode gas release

4) if you look at graphs with timelines you'll find that changes in temperature are several hundred years ahead of carbon dioxide release

5) an ice age was predicted for now instead if global warming by weatherolygists

6) during the industrial revolution (HIGH amount of co2 in the atmosphere) it was several degrees colder than previous years.

also WE ARE RECOVERING FROM AN ICE AGE! OF COURSE THE TEMPERATURE IS GOING TO RISE!

Sabrina,

I'm afraid that in terms of evolution of thinking your boyfriend is fifty or so years behind the times.

I'm sure others will respond to the various points, but can you ask your boyfriend please, what colour a radio wave is (that miraculously turns to sound in your radio and a picture in your TV), and what colour atomic radiation is (the stuff that strips the skin off your flesh).

The point with CO2 is not that it gets warm. A blanket on your bed doesn't work by getting warm; it works by reflecting heat back in. The fact that CO2 is colourless is as relevant to global warming as the colour a car is painted is to its maximum speed.

No offence to Sabrina's boyfriend but his argument illustrates why experts are not trusted (at least in the climate field). Climate or more accurately weather is something everyone experiences and feels they know very well. But realistically that knowledge doesn't extend much further than understanding that, when it rains you get wet (don't mean to be patronising). This basic knowledge is very essential on a day to day 'survival' basis but offers little to the understanding of the science. So to question these fundamentals questions the whole purpose and foundation of an individual - the natural reaction being one of rejection because the question challenges that individuals purpose in the world.

does that make sense - probably not lol.

Sorry RR, from where I'm sitting your last line says it all. All Sabrina's boyfriend illustrates is the age old adage: be careful who you listen to. It's totally iorrational to say that because Sabrina's boyfriend has no knowledge whatsoever about the workings of the atmosphere, any view expounded by anybody is equally flawed. Your reasoning, on that basis, really isn't much more advanced than his.

Welcome Sabrina!

I wish I had your POV!

No you don't!

Hi Sabrina and welcome to one of the hothouses of NW! You could do worse than to send your boyfriend here: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229 which seems to cover most of the things he has got wrong. he isn't unusual in this by any means, but you post suggests his POV has been unduly influenced by some suspect TV programme or other...

Anyway, the Royal Society site gives some basic explanations...

Good luck.

P

Looked at that link myself the other week: it's very good.

[Red Raven]

Sabrina,

I'm afraid that in terms of evolution of thinking your boyfriend is fifty or so years behind the times.

I'm sure others will respond to the various points, but can you ask your boyfriend please, what colour a radio wave is (that miraculously turns to sound in your radio and a picture in your TV), and what colour atomic radiation is (the stuff that strips the skin off your flesh).

The point with CO2 is not that it gets warm. A blanket on your bed doesn't work by getting warm; it works by reflecting heat back in. The fact that CO2 is colourless is as relevant to global warming as the colour a car is painted is to its maximum speed.

Sorry RR, from where I'm sitting your last line says it all. All Sabrina's boyfriend illustrates is the age old adage: be careful who you listen to. It's totally iorrational to say that because Sabrina's boyfriend has no knowledge whatsoever about the workings of the atmosphere, any view expounded by anybody is equally flawed. Your reasoning, on that basis, really isn't much more advanced than his.

No you don't!

Looked at that link myself the other week: it's very good.

I agree SF. But he has chosen to 'listen to' someone who gives a safe percievable explanation. Is it not simply a reaction of fear of the unknown - "i choose to believe this option because it doesnt undermine me".

[Gray-Wolf]

"I wish I had your POV"

No you don't!

Without wishing to offend 'ignorance is bliss'.

I have two little kiddies here and would dearly wish to believe that they could have a similar life experience to mine over the past 44yrs but sadly, things being what they are, they won't.

However hard I try I can find nothing but the bleakest of outlooks for them and it breaks my heart to feel this way. I am no masochist ( more a hedonist really!) so I gain no twisted satisfaction from my personal 'understanding' of how things will go down yet I cannot see it any differently no matter how I try.

Part of my frustration at the 'naysayers' is their ability to stay completely innocent 'midst all I (and others) perceive to be occurring all around us.

Not one of our resident 'naysayers' was willing to acknowledge or explain why they can accept mans wholesale destruction of ecosystems worldwide, the driving to extinction of the plethora of critters through our direct influence and yet still see no continuation of this 'planet altering ' behaviour into the atmosphere.

Why?

So, I stand by what I posted and wish that I could be unpolluted with my understandings if only for the sake of my children.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Part of my frustration at the 'naysayers' is their ability to stay completely innocent 'midst all I (and others) perceive to be occurring all around us.

Not one of our resident 'naysayers' was willing to acknowledge or explain why they can accept mans wholesale destruction of ecosystems worldwide, the driving to extinction of the plethora of critters through our direct influence and yet still see no continuation of this 'planet altering ' behaviour into the atmosphere.

I would hardly say that genuine skeptics "stay completely innocent". (Or are you distingushing between rational skeptics and actual stick-your-fingers-in-your-ears-and-go-la-la-la naysayers?) I am not oblivious to all that happens in our world, and I accept that mankind is responsible for some serious local environmental upheaval, and for the forcible extinction of various species. (And although eradicating a species deliberately is unforgivable, let me just say that - on the flip slide - there is absolutely no way that we can preserve our planet to remain unchanged forever.)

However, I believe there is a distinct difference between knocking down a forest and trashing a planet's atmosphere. To draw a comparison, what we may have done to the atmosphere is roughly akin to dropping a bulldozer in the middle of the Amazon - a bulldozer with no fuel and no driver. Okay, there's a chance that the indigenous animals may find a way of starting it up and knocking down a few trees, but it's kind of unlikely. (That may be a slightly over-extended metaphor, but it at least explains the basic rationale.)

It's a sort of local changes vs global changes argument. I don't deny that we have a significant local impact upon the planet (Urban Heat Island effects being an obvious example), but the suggestion that we have a global impact from a relatively minor contaminent is a different issue. We have been over the "How Much Effect Does CO2 Actually Have" argument dozens of times before, and it is still unresolved...I shall have to await that resolution.

CB