Comments on: Monckton tour: a sellout with extra dates in Perth, Sydney

By: Brian H

Brian H — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:34:42 +0000

Baa;
Excellent commentary. Once a ‘projection’/prediction has been generated by a model, you MUST wait out the period covered, and leave the model and its output untouched. You can’t continuously fiddle with its equations and variables to tune it to new conditions without starting the process all over!

So at this point, the IPCC doesn’t even have a model that has successfully retro-casted conditions, much less matched current ones with an appropriate projection. It’s got nuthin’.

Report this

0 0

By: average joe

average joe — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:55:24 +0000

Have a look at what IPPC said about models in 2001;

“Long term prediction of future climate states is not possible”

That they change opinion from one year to another isnt surprising. Maybe you should search for authority among scientists, instead of among rock stars, politicians and journalists.

Remember, IPCC is a political advocate beaurau for AGW, not a scientific body.(Crichton wrote “Jurassic Park” while studying for Dr.Med. degree)

Scroll down 3/4′th of the page;

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

And look at the predictions.Thats Cargo Cult science, not real science. I mean, talk about covering your a$$.

Report this

1 0

By: Baa Humbug

Baa Humbug — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:42:07 +0000

machina.sapiens:
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:50 am

Regards the subject of models, here are some quotes from Kevin Trenberth from his article titled More Knowledge, Less Certainty.
I don’t wish to be accused of selective quoting, so please google the title to get the full commentary paper.
I’ve selected pieces that I believe are relevant to the subject of “are climate model outputs empirical evidence.” (Empirical evidence being what most commenters on blogs like this one ask for).

“In previous IPCC assessments, changes in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouses gases and aerosols over time were gauged using ‘idealized emissions scenarios’, which are informed estimates of what might happen in the future under various sets of assumptions related to population, lifestyle, standard of living, carbon intensity and the like. Then the changes in future climate were simulated for each of these scenarios. The output of such modelling is usually referred to as a projection, rather than a prediction or a forecast”.

Thinking out loud, I wonder what scenarios and projections a person living in the year 1900 would have made about the year 2000. How accurate would he have been? Has anyone ever been able to predict lifestyles or standards of living even 20yrs ahead?

“Unlike a weather prediction, the models in this case are not initialized with the current or past state of the climate system, as derived from observations. Instead, they begin with arbitrary climatic conditions and examine only the change in projected climate, thereby removing any bias that could be associated with trying to realistically simulate the current climate as a starting point. This technique works quite well for examining how the climate could respond to various emissions scenarios in the long term”.

Proving that models are only as good as the arbitrary data fed into them. Given the doubts cast on some scientists by the East Anglia emails, especially the Harry ReadMe file, I personally can understand the lack of confidence in these models. Certainly not enough confidence to initiate world wide legistlation.

“Although important progress has been made in this area, the techniques are not yet fully established. In part because it takes at least a decade to verify a 10-year forecast, evaluating and optimizing the models will be a time-consuming process. The spread in initial results is therefore bound to be large, and the uncertainties much larger, than for the models in the last IPCC assessment. There are simply more things that can go wrong”.

In the above, Trenberth is talking about the models to be used for the AR5. The model results are due by the end of this year. I’ll let his confidence speak for itself.

“It has been said that all models are wrong but some are useful. A climate model is a tool, albeit a very sophisticated one that includes complexity and non-linearities in ways that are impossible to comprehend analytically. Ideally, a model should encapsulate the state of our knowledge. When that knowledge is incomplete, one strategy is to omit certain complex processes and to assume that they are constant, even when it is known that they cannot be“.

The above is my strongest criticism of IPCC climate projections. As stated in their AR4 SPM climate sensitivity table (SPM1) The level of scientific knowledge for most of the climate forcings is listed as low. Some of the MOST IMPORTANT ones like clouds are ignored altogether by assuming they are constant as Trenberth states above.

Hence my belief that climate models are a useful tool in learning about the earth system, but by no means are they a “science” per se that policy makers could use their output results (i.e. 2-6degC warming by 2100) as gospel. IMHO

Report this

1 0

By: Farmer Dave

Farmer Dave — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:13:59 +0000

Dear Machina,

Your blogs are really very, very amusing. Please keep them up!
Incidently, you appear to have a fantastic capacity to babble. Please don’t see this as a condescending or patronising comment, believe me it is not.
You are incredible.
Are you on something? If so, I’d like some too.

Keep it up Kido!

Report this

2 0

By: machina.sapiens

machina.sapiens — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:43:43 +0000

Wow… That was impressively calm, rational, thoughtful, and adult. …Wasn’t it?

Report this

0 1

By: Angry Reader

Angry Reader — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:09:21 +0000

Leave this machina.sapiens character alone to rot from inattention. He’ll suck you dry and never care a bit.

Report this

1 0

By: machina.sapiens

machina.sapiens — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:50:42 +0000

Hi Joe
Why would I forget consensus? I think the misunderstanding, and misuse of the concept of scientific consensus is a central point in this debate, used by a lot of contenders to justify ignoring the science… However.
If you were to review my commentary in this thread (I’m not suggesting that you should – there’s quite a lot of it – I’m trying to give thoughtful responses, rather than quick soundbites), you’ll see that none of it discusses the underlying science. Before I entered the debate at that level, I’d feel obliged to do a lot more reading through the scientific literature, to the point where I felt confident in having a supported position, and probably sit down first with a few textbooks on meteorology and other physical science to refresh my knowledge of the background science so that I would be confident of understanding what I was reading.
On the whole, when I move outside my own area of knowledge, I tend to trust the expertise, process, and methodology of the scientific community, which has a track record of success in a wide range of research (and which is clearly on one side of this debate, and has been for a considerable time)
- and since that comment will probably bring another flood of comments accusing me of argument from authority, I’ll just re-iterate that it’s not about “authority proves it’s true”, it’s about what it is reasonable to have confidence in, given that the scope of any individual’s knowledge and time is not unlimited.
In general, what I’ve been chatting about, (and what interests me, which is why I’ve been doing the chatting) is a more theoretical/philosophical focus on how science works, and what constitutes good or bad logic and argument. Some of your friends have described what I’m doing as “sophistry” – beats me why they think that carefully analysing arguments, terminology and methods somehow constitutes trickery. I have a bit more confidence than they appear to have in the average person’s ability to understand complex ideas.
A case in point – Brian H’s offering just above (#285), which I suspect is supposed to be some sort of response to my previous comment (perhaps I’m wrong?), but has no connection to anything that I’ve actually said – just a spray of wild generalities, with no examples or supporting argument, finishing with a bit of playground-level taunting. No logic there. It interests me that he obviously thinks that that is some kind of valid discussion tactic. I wonder why? It’s certainly unlikely to convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with him. Is it just preening? A display of arrogance to position himself as an alpha male? Is it just psychological? – intended to reinforce the bonding in the group of anti-AGW zealots who mostly comment here by excluding anyone who disagrees and trying to drive them away by abuse? I wonder..
That sort of non-comment is almost dominant in these blog-based discussions, of course. (and I’m not just talking about this one, or this particular subject or political persuasion.) They almost always descend into fanboi (as they’re known in the more tech-y blogs where i can more often be found) posturing and name-calling, so that anyone interested in rational discussion of the actual ideas has to wade through screens of nonsense to get to anything thoughtful. A pity really, because there is such promise there. I suspect that given the new world of web 2.0, we really ought to be re-introducing the formal study of rhetoric in schools, to equip people better with the tools of argument.
.. and no, I don’t agree that outputs from models is not science. Building models of physical systems of one sort or another in order to test hypotheses is one of the most common tools of science, given that you can’t always manipulate the parameters one by one in a controlled experiment (in this case, we don’t have a few spare Earths to to run tests on). The question is how good the models are, and how closely their predictions match reality. (ie, when you run your models against known events, which are not the events used to build the model, do their predictions match what actually happened?). It’s not easy, and the models constantly need to be reviewed and revised as new data becomes available, and the scientific community criticises and contributes to the model. But that’s just standard science.

Report this

1 1

By: average joe

average joe — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:34:22 +0000

machina.sapiens:
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:53 pm

Machina, forget about concensus and forget about the authorities ala politicians like Al Gore, the IPCC and journalists.

Lets discuss the science instead shall we?

Do you agree that the feedback issue regarding CO2 is the most pressing one?

Do you agree that outputs from models is not science?

I think we can agree on that?

Report this

1 1

By: Brian H

Brian H — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:16:37 +0000

Lots of experience with IETs (infinitely evasive trolls). One sovereign characteristic is the use of a tactic of repeating questions and assertions already dealt with earlier in a thread with a kind of gormless pretended ignorance of previous input, and perhaps slightly different wording. The intention is evidently to repetitively snarl discussion in fruitless circling of the same point, with no intention of ever responding on point.

You qualify.

Your class-action ad hom dissing of anyone who disagrees, in advance, as a by-definition-unqualified non-authority is a boring and juvenile logical trap. You “defer to authority”, but get to pick the authorities, none other need apply.

Go away and onanate.

Report this

0 0

By: machina.sapiens

machina.sapiens — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:53:47 +0000

@Brian H,
A couple of minor quibbles, that you can perhaps clarify for me:
…re your “response” in #281 to MattB’s request: I’m not surprised you couldn’t come up with many names as a response; I’m a little surprised that you couldn’t come up with any at all, and had to cover the absence with aggressive fluff – are there none at all that you can offer to support your statement?
…and re your little lecture on the usage of the word consensus in #277; you say

“consensus”. That word, by the way, implies unanimity, not plurality or majority. It is risible on the face of it to assert unanimity.
consensus
noun agreement, general agreement, unanimity, common consent, unity, harmony, assent, concord, concurrence
…
Collins Thesaurus of the English Language – Complete and Unabridged 2nd Edition. 2002 © HarperCollins Publishers 1995, 2002

Is it part of your standard methodology to use a thesaurus as a reference for the accepted usage of a word, rather than the more conventional dictionary? Given that a thesaurus is intended to provide lists of words with roughly similar, but not identical usages, I mean. What might be your justification for that approach? I find it intriguing. Dictionary.com, for example, provides (I’ve removed some pronunciation notes) :

con·sen·sus
/kənˈsɛnsəs/
–noun,plural-sus·es.
1.
majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2.
general agreement or concord; harmony.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus
Would you not agree that sloppiness like that, however minor, invalidates the general air of condescending intellectual superiority that you assume in your comments? Just asking.

Report this

1 1