Bishop Hill Answers, non-answers
Jul 5, 2013 Climate: Parliament This is a guest post by Doug Keenan.
The recent Bishop Hill post “Questions, questions” lists eight Parliamentary Questions that were tabled by Lord Donoughue, pursuant to suggestions in the Bishop Hill Discussion “Questions to suggest to Lord Donoughue”. The eight Questions have now been answered, as shown below. Lord Donoughue happily thanks those who suggested Questions and he would be grateful for ideas on how to proceed further.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Newby on 22 April (WA 358) which stated that "it is the role of the scientific community to assess and decide between various methods when studying various time series", what mechanisms exist within the Government to ensure (1) appropriate oversight of scientific advice, and (2) that scientists advising them are accountable to (a) Ministers, and (b) Parliament. [HL966]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma): Every government department has a chief scientific adviser (CSA) who is responsible for ensuring the quality and accuracy of the scientific evidence base provided for policy making and delivery in their department. The Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) has a cross-government coordinating role in this work.
The GCSA works with the CSAs to ensure departments have effective structures and processes for accessing the relevant science expertise and maintaining the requisite internal capability. The work of the GCSA (along with other scientific issues of Parliamentary interest) is scrutinised by the Commons Science and Technology Committee.
Civil servants have an obligation to provide objective, impartial advice to Ministers, subject to the Civil Service Code1. All CSAs are civil servants for the duration of their appointment and therefore accountable to Ministers, who in turn are accountable to Parliament.
Some departments have a Scientific Advisory Council, comprised of external independent academics, which brings independent external input to supplement CSAs. In many departments, advice on specific issues is also provided by Scientific Advisory Committees. Both types of advisory body are governed by the Code of Practice for Science Advisory Committees (CoPSAC)2. Also, the 'Principles of Scientific Advice to Government'3 define the relationship between independent advisers and Ministers and are included in both CoPSAC and the Ministerial Code.
In developing policy, Government is guided by the scientific evidence. This comprises a wealth of peer-reviewed and published research and reviews thereof. Scientists whose publicly-funded work informs and advises Government are accountable scientifically to their peers and professionally to their institutes and/or professional bodies through their relevant quality assurance processes.
1 http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/values
3 http://www.bis.gov.uk/go-science/principles-of-scientific-advice-to-government
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Verma on 22 April (WA 358), whether, on the basis of a driftless third-order autoregressive integrated model, they consider the recorded increase in global temperatures of 0.8 degrees celsius to be statistically significant. [HL967]
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Verma on 21 May (WA 44–5) and the briefing paper by the Chief Scientist of the Met Office, "Statistical Models and the Global Temperature Records", issued on 31 May, which stated that a linear trend model was "less likely to emulate the global temperature time series than the third-order autoregressive integrated model", why the Met Office favours a linear trend model. [HL969]
Baroness Verma: I refer the noble Lord to the briefing paper "Statistical Models and the Global Temperature Records" produced by the Met Office Chief Scientist, which states that the Met Office's assessment of global climate change is not based on assessing the evolution of global surface temperature using statistical models in isolation. As the paper notes, the Met Office does not use a linear trend model to detect changes in global mean temperature change. I would also refer the noble Lord to the Written Answer I gave on 27 March 2013 (Official Report, col. WA 237, 238), concerning statistical models.
With regard to the use of a driftless third-order autoregressive integrated model in assessing statistical significance of the 0.8°C rise in global temperature, I refer the noble Lord to the Written Answers I gave on 21 May (Official Report, col. WA 44, 45) and 12 June (Official Report, col. WA 248) and note further that we do not consider this model to be appropriate.
I am concerned at the expense incurred in relation to the series of questions on this issue and so I invite you to meet with the Department's Chief Scientific Adviser, to discuss these scientific matters.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have carried out any risk analysis to assess any actual or potential losses to the United Kingdom attributable to any failures in the accuracy of climate forecasts. [HL968]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley): In 2012, the Government published an assessment of the key risks for the UK arising from current and predicted climate change up to the year 2100 (the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment or CCRA). The CCRA makes use of the UK Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09) that represent a range of possible future changes in UK climate. The range of possibilities takes into account uncertainties in natural climate variability, how the UK's climate may respond to global warming, the future trajectory of emissions, and how these might magnify any regional climate change effects.
The risks were assessed for a range of plausible climate scenarios — presented as a range from a lower to an upper estimate of magnitude — to take account of uncertainty in future climate scenarios. The CCRA did not consider actual or potential losses to the UK as a result of the accuracy of climate forecasts, but it did take account of uncertainty in climate projections.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Met Office has set a date by which, in the event of no further increase in global temperatures, it would reassess the validity of its general circulation models. [HL1080]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma): General circulation models developed by the Met Office are continually reassessed against observations and compared against international climate models through workshops and peer reviewed publications. The validity of general circulation modelling has been established for over four decades, as evident in the peer-reviewed literature. Such models are further developed in light of improvements in scientific understanding of the climate system and technical advances in computing capability.
Short term fluctuations in global temperature do not invalidate general circulation models, or determine timelines for model development. The long term projection remains that the underlying warming trend will continue in response to continuing increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there has been an independent audit of the accuracy of the Met Office's recent forecasts of (1) wetter winters, (2) dryer summers, and (3) higher global temperatures. [HL1081]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley): The methodology for the projections in the summary statements from the UK Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09) and from the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) was peer reviewed prior to launch and has since been followed by further publications in leading journals.
Projections are fundamentally different from forecasts. The Met Office has not issued a forecast for wetter winters or drier summers. Long term projections, such as those included in UKCP09 and IPCC AR4, by their definition cannot be audited for accuracy until the period the projections cover has passed. For UKCP09, time periods are in 30 year slices and the earliest such projections are for 2010-2039.
It is possible to compare the existing projections against results from new climate model studies as these emerge, to check whether or not the projections remain consistent with the latest understanding and capabilities available worldwide. The next opportunity to perform such a check will be provided by the forthcoming publication of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report and the Met Office Climate Programme contains effort to do this.
The Met Office provides an annual forecast on the expected difference, from the long term average, of the world's global average temperature for the year ahead. This is publicly available on the Met Office website. For example, the global average temperature for 2012 fell well within the range forecast by the Met Office on 4 January 2012, which had a most likely value of 0.48 °C above the long term average. The independent body of the World Meteorological Organisation stated that global average temperature in 2012 was 0.45°C above the long term average.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have co-ordinated a cost-benefit analysis of their policies to introduce wind farms, on- and off-shore, as part of the United Kingdom's national energy generation; whether any such analysis took account of any specified forecast reductions in global temperatures; and, if so, what reductions. [HL1082]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma): The Government response to the Renewables Obligation banding review set out our intentions to support onshore and offshore wind under the Renewables Obligation over the period 2013 to 2017. The accompanying impact assessment details the analysis behind these decisions and can be found here:
The modelling for the RO Banding review used the Department's energy and emissions projections. The UK is on track to meet its first three carbon budgets and as such, DECCs energy demand projections are in line with carbon reductions as specified in the first three carbon budgets (to 2022).
DECC's policies are aimed at reducing carbon emissions to contribute towards the UNECCC's goal of limiting global temperature rise to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the comparative carbon footprints resulting from converting Drax power station from coal to biomass, including the estimated total costs, in money and carbon, of mining, logging, processing and transporting, and the relative energy outputs and efficiency. [HL1083]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma): DECC has analysed the potential contributions from different renewable, low carbon and fossil fuel technologies to develop scenarios of how the UK could cost-effectively achieve its energy and carbon targets in 2020 and beyond. We have not made estimates for individual power stations. However, as outlined in our Bioenergy Strategy, the use of sustainable biomass as a transitional fuel to reduce carbon emissions from current coal power generation is an important decarbonisation pathway.
Reader Comments (131)
If the models have been validated over 4 decades does that mean they work
1 How come all models consistently produce temperature higher than those observed?
http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/06/10/climate-models-epic-failure-or-spot-on-consistent-with-observed-warming/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/
2 Models do not produce predictions or projections but scenarios. This is because
they rely on guesses of future human behaviour. Thus even if the models were correct the scenarios are almost worthless. In 1900 who would have predicted 2 world wars,
the jet engine, mass foreign travel, lady gaga, iphone, the current level of prosperity and energy use (at least in developed world)
3 There is clearly a cyclical signal in the temperature data, how are the models designed to accomodate this? ( they aren't)
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/the-occams-razor-oscillatory-model/
http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/global-temperature-rise-do-cycles-or-straight-lines-fit-best-may-2013/
4 How do the models account for pulses such as El Ninos or Volcanoes? (they don't)
The peak in temperatures corresponds to an unusually large El Nino following the depression in temperatures (and sea levels) following Mt Pinatubu eruption around 1991.
How much warming would there be if the pulse in temperatures associated with 1998 El Nino was excluded?
5 As the models all show a rise in temperature how is it a fit asssuming random variation around constant temperature is 1000 times more likely than a constant linear rise?
Roger Longstaff - re: gcm validation references, I agree with you. IMO this is a key point which needs addressing with a request for the actual specific references relied on by the gov. and as part of the question I would cite the peer reviewed references which specifically falsify the models' predictive power (I copied a couple to the Questions for Lord Donoughue discussion thread) and ask for the gov. reasons for discounting them in preference for their affirmative references. I would also cite current eu funded research work which is specifically investigating why the models are so bad:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/16/what-are-climate-models-missing/
Note the authors of that paper and their contributions to IPCC work.
The "forty years of verification in the peer reviewed literature" line is just another illusory building block of The Big Myth.
Jeremy Shiers - "Models do not produce predictions or projections but scenarios"
No, you are wrong. Climate models produce output projections based on input scenarios.
//
F. The Projections of the Earth's Future Climate
The tools of climate models are used with future scenarios of forcing agents (e.g., greenhouse gases and aerosols) as input to make a suite of projected future climate changes that illustrates the possibilities that could lie ahead. Section F.1 provides a description of the future scenarios of forcing agents given in the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) on which, wherever possible, the future changes presented in this section are based. Sections F.2 to F.9 present the resulting projections of changes to the future climate. Finally, Section F.10 presents the results of future projections based on scenarios of a future where greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilised.
//
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/029.htm
@ not banned yet
different words same meaning
when some say's they have made a prediction or projection
I suspect most people would take them as meaning a statement about what WILL happen
the results of the models are a statement about what will happen (perhaps)
according to the model given a set of assumptions (ie the scenario)
I suspect this is not well known or well published
The output of the models depends on the assumptions made in the scenario
(if they don't there's not much point in having different scenarios)
point 2 of my early comment, which you took issue with,
is that it is highly unlikely people can make realistic assumptions
about what will humanity will be doing 100 years from now
there might 2 more world wars this century
some virus might wipe everyone out
someone may have invented a clean fuel (hydrogen)
or more likely most people will have realised that CO2 has nothing to do with temperature rise
and carry on as normal (pausing only for suitable treatment for those who caused and propageted
the current scare - the words 'wall' and 'backs' come to mind)
what could possibly have caused such a realisation?
well it is more than likely temperatures will fall by a degree or two
which will be far more serious than any rise
is that predicted by the models?
//
2 Models do not produce predictions or projections but scenarios. This is because
they rely on guesses of future human behaviour. Thus even if the models were correct the scenarios are almost worthless. In 1900 who would have predicted 2 world wars,
the jet engine, mass foreign travel, lady gaga, iphone, the current level of prosperity and energy use (at least in developed world)
//
No Jeremy, the words "scenario" and "projection" have fundamentally different meanings. You have it back to front. The reference is there in my comment - read or ignore it as you see fit. You are right that the scenarios that provide the basis for the projections are subject to much uncertainty but that does not alter the fact they are an input to the models rather than an output. The combination of an accurate scenario with a good model would produce a worthwhile projection. In the same manner, a junk scenario with a junk model produces a worthless projection.
Foxgoose, that is really helpful—it confirms that Warrilow was involved in climate modeling during the 1980s. Google Scholar lists a few more publications.
Here's my line of questioning, just following through the logical consequences:
The Independent on 2 May 2004 quoted the then Government Chief Scientist, Professor Sir David King, as saying that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century, if the world did not curb its burning of fossil fuels.
Is this the view of the current Government Chief Scientist, and if not when did the advice change, and on what grounds?
What contingency plans are being made to evacuate the population of the United Kingdom to Antarctica by the end of the century?
What role will the Falkland Islands play in effecting this population transfer?
What plans are in place to develop the infrastructure of the Falkland Islands to support this role?
anon - love it!! As ever; relevant and illuminating scientific commentary from Steve Mc:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/07/22/david-king-hot-girls-and-cold-continents/
Dung, a smart politician will just take a question like that on notice, and not attempt to answer it off the cuff. Then the bureaucrats will prepare a considered answer.
With regard to questions about validation of models, it will just turn into a pointless slanging match of references and counter-references such as we see on blogs all the time. It proves nothing and convinces no-one.
The way to get a direct hit with a PQ is to stick to empirical, indisputable facts, not theoretical constructs. I know that debating the science is dear to the hearts of many posters here, but Parliament as a forum has very specific properties, and debating science is not one of them. The purpose of Parliament is to provide the general public (who neither know or care about arcane disputes about models) with information that causes them to put pressure on politicians. People care about their energy bills, jobs and the economy; many care about birds, bats and the scenery, and they almost all detest being lied to about concrete facts. The objective is to force Ministers to admit unwelcome truths or risk being caught out in a lie. Topics which are the subject of scientific dispute do not fall into this category.
Joanna - "The objective is to force Ministers to admit unwelcome truths or risk being caught out in a lie"
That is the exact reason for requesting their references on model validation and, in the process, getting a public record of the fact that the PRL actually contains many works which specifically falsify the models. In particular current work trashes the 40 years of validation claim. Is HM Gov aware of this essential evidence? If not, why not? If so, how has it affected their position on the value of climate models? Etc etc
Johanna - Name typo apology!
5 As the models all show a rise in temperature how is it a fit asssuming random variation around constant temperature is 1000 times more likely than a constant linear rise?
Jul 6, 2013 at 4:54 PM | Jeremy Shiers
Reference , please.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/statistical-models-and-temperature
Latimer Adler
Thank you for your invitation to the King's Arms.
I must regretfully decline, being 400 miles and a sea away, in Northern Ireland.
nby - I give up. Nothing I say will detach you from the fixation on models. All you would achieve is to set up an endless, pointless, and boring (to the general public) argument such as we have seen a thousand times on climate blogs.
PQs are a scarce resource. Trying to have a fight about climate models in this way is a complete waste of that resource. If you could prove that a Minister lied about something to do with models, it might be a hit (but a small one, as the public is not interested).
I know that people on both sides of the debate are passionate about models, but in the real world, no-one gives a stuff. It is the practical consequences that they care about, and that's where points which could actually change something are able to be scored.
not banned yet
Looking at Table 1 on page 14 of the paper, I note that the models based on Doug Keenan's preferred statistical approach ( both based on the presumption that there is no trend) perform much less well than the Met Office's trend based model.
This is typical of the reasons why I reject the sceptic paradigm. Across a wide variety of evidence it is a poorer fit to observation and analysis than AGW.
Johanna - it is not my fixation but that of HM Gov. Read back over the responses Lord Donoughue has received so far.
"Treasury
Parliamentary Questions
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith): The Treasury has conducted its annual indexation exercise of the cost of oral and written parliamentary questions so as to ensure that these costs are increased in line with increases in underlying costs. The revised costs, which will apply from today, are:
Oral Questions £450
Written Questions £164
The disproportionate cost threshold (DCT) for written questions will increase to £850."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120208/wmstext/120208m0001.htm#12020833000003
Congratulations to the BHC for wasting a probable £1,476 of public money on answers to nine spurious parliamentary questions.
EM - Please can you will explain that. Did you read the last para of p12? (Table one is on page 13 in my copy).
nby - the reason they cited models was to lead into the cul-de-sac that I have previously described.
Forget models - that is just where they want to fight, for the reasons enumerated above. Politics is not about models, and Parliament is a political battleground.
How many more ways can I say this?
Johanna - let's agree to differ?
"Congratulations to the BHC for wasting a probable £1,476 of public money on answers to nine spurious parliamentary questions."
A bargain EM - you are already benefitting from the MO report which is a direct result of Lord Donoughue's enquiries. If it seems pricey just put it into context as equal to a couple of hours consultancy:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338300/Former-minister-Tim-Yeo-caught-camera-allegedly-boasting-help-private-company-influence-Parliament.html
not banned yet.
Table 1 is on page 13. When on screen it also shows in the bar as page 14,. My mistake.
Entropic Man
Questions which attempt to extract the truth from MPs are not a waste of money. Do you believe they are all honest? I am in disagreement with johanna about what questions should be asked but we agree on the need to get at the truth.
nby - fair enough. Nice to have a vigorous discussion without animosity. :)
Johanna - Agreed! :-)
Talking about the cost of asking a question in parliament on the subject of climate change is close to being ridiculous. The increase in energy bills due to the support for renewables and the idea that we should build two complete energy creation systems are not just general taxation. The customer gets taxed and the the government sprays money at pointless projects. Stopping this would put money back in people's pockets.
It defeats me that anyone can support the idea of two parallel energy supply chains when one of them is capable of doing the job on its own, I despair.
Johanna, please try to understand - models are all that they have. There is no empirical evidence at all to support the CAGW hypothesis. If the models have shown themselves to be useless then there is nothing else. There is no simpler way to describe the current situation - surely you can understand this?
Roger, having settled things over an amicable cyberspace beer with nby doesn't mean I am conceding the point. Please don't treat me like an idiot who doesn't "understand" your point. Of course I do.
The general public doesn't give a rat's about models. There are models in all sorts of areas of science, and quite rightly, they have their lives to get on with and couldn't care less. Why should they?
What matters in practical democratic politics is what happens in people's daily lives - and that is as it should be. Those of us who engage in cyberwars about climate issues are a tiny minority. Even Jean S and Steve McIntyre's comprehensive sinking of the infamous Gergis paper - a huge hit in cyberspace - barely raised a ripple in the real world.
I don't for a moment discount the reality or truthfulness of your point. My point is that it is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike when it comes to practical politics. In fact, it is worse - because PQs are a scarce and precious resource that should not be frittered away on things that almost no voter knows or cares about.
johanna
You speak from great experience and knowledge but perhaps you have too much experience of politics to see that you might just be a part of the problem.
"because PQs are a scarce and precious resource that should not be frittered away on things that almost no voter knows or cares about."
Just because voters do not realise how badly they are being shafted does not mean that questions should not be asked about the who, why and how of the shafting.
Not biting, Dung.
@entropic re reference please
I thought people reading this blog might have seen other posts on this blog such as
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/27/met-office-admits-claims-of-significant-temperature-rise-unt.html
the issue was also discussed at wuwt
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/27/uh-oh-the-met-office-has-set-the-cat-amongst-the-pigeons/
and in more detail at blackboard
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/qas-in-parliament-keenan-kerfuffle/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/predictions-a-useful-definition/
as I understand it Met Office claimed there had been statistically signifance warming
Doug and Lord Donoughue's got Met Office to admit that a driftless model
(i.e. no warming) was 1000x more likely
presumably the goal here was to get MO to admit there claim had no rational basis
What confuses me is why MO should be using a linear fit as
a) in makes no sense in terms of physics (unless you believe world can go on getting hotter forever)
b) just by looking at data you can see evidence of cycles, in fact a combination of cycles
here in words and formula
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2013/the-occams-razor-oscillatory-model/
here in pics
http://jeremyshiers.com/blog/global-temperature-rise-do-cycles-or-straight-lines-fit-best-may-2013/
it's worth remembering that the graphs of temperature are not temperature
but "temperature anomaly" something which has no existence in physics.
but it does have the advantage in condensing variation to around +/- 0.5 C
everyday temperatures may vary by 15 C or more
and even more between summer and winter
it's hard to avoid the conclusion that this is just a huge pointless meanlingless exercise
good for getting research grants though
not banned yet
yesterday I wrote a comment with 5 points
you replied to point 2 of my comment, and I replied to you commnet
THEN you made a second reply but to my original comment
a fairly pointless exercise
You also stated that with correct models and input data the models would produce the correct result
this is something of a tautology
except we won't know whether the model+data have produced the correct result until we reach 2100 or whenever and compare projection with observation
what we do know (point 1 in original comment) is currently all models have results which are high than observations. in other words they don't work
1 How come all models consistently produce temperature higher than those observed?
http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/06/10/climate-models-epic-failure-or-spot-on-consistent-with-observed-warming/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/
it's a bit like Robin Williams take on Gadaffi when he declared a line of death in med
when US Navy would die if they crossed it
if you cross this line you die
ok you didnt die but next time you cross it you'll die
ok you didnt die that time either but if you .....
Jul 7, 2013 at 3:15 AM | Registered Commenter Dung
Dung, I'm definitely with johanna on this one!
Sometimes, I think we need to take a step back from our own personal "beefs" - as valid as they may be - in order to see the forest from the perspective of one who has far more experience in dealing with particular - but perhaps less familiar - trees!
I am just as guilty (well, almost ;-) ) as anyone when it comes to spouting off about my personal beefs (although I'd like to think that the public understands and cares about them, too!)
But mention "models" and the inadequacies thereof, and I suspect that many an Uninformed Lay Person (ULP) - including far too many parliamentarians - might wonder what Heidi Klum (or Twiggy for those of a certain age) might have to do with the price of tea in China - or with "climate change", global warming or whatever the climatically correct "framing" of the week might be.
That aside, as Lord Donoughue had explained here (and/or at WUWT) there's a longstanding tradition and protocol involved - or steps to be followed, so to speak, in the dance of Parliamentary Questions.
With his (if I recall correctly) thirty years of parliamentary experience, Lord D. knows exactly what he's doing with the questions he's posed - and with his follow-ups thereto.
In short, I heartily endorse johanna's astute and, IMHO, indisputable observation that:
Whatever Jeremy - carry on calling the output of models "scenarios" if you wish. It's still wrong no matter how many words you package it with.
Johanna,
We will have to agree to differ. You say that my point "is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike when it comes to practical politics" but if we accept the moral vacuum in which ministers can lie or mislead Parliament with impunity we face catastrophe, eg. "there is evidence of WMDs in Iraq". We paid a terrible price in blood and treasure for that one.
not banned yet
I agree scenarios are input to the models
the output of the models differs based on the input
if the same model is rerun with only the input scenario changed
what name would you give to the output?
what name do you think the rest of the world gives?
I remain mildly intrigued as to why your only response is to nitpick over names
and in particular why you remain silent over the clear evidence that all models
produce outputs which are higher than observations
ie the models + input data are wrong
"I agree scenarios are input to the models"
- Good, nice to make progress.
"if the same model is rerun with only the input scenario changed what name would you give to the output?"
- a projection based on scenario xyz.
"I remain mildly intrigued as to why your only response is to nitpick over names and in particular why you remain silent over the clear evidence that all models produce outputs which are higher than observations"
- nothing intriguing here. You obviously haven't read and/or understood my many posts on the subject. For clarity: I think "the models" are junk and completely unfit for any policy application. In previous posts I have provided peer reviewed references in support of this. Check the "Questions to suggest to Lord Donoughue" discussion if you want a toehold.
In view of the opinions expressed by the revered Hilary Ostrov and of my admitted lack of knowledge of parliamentary procedure I think my comments on this thread may have been at best wide of the mark and more likely ignorant ranting. I apologise to johanna and will try and be more sensible in future ^.^
Yes, I'm definitely with johanna as well on this. Indeed, I'll go one step further and state it clearly and distinctly that climate skeptic community are as ignorant about politics as they are erudite about science. All those chants about 'stupid/ignorant/evil politicians' in science forums (or should I say 'fora' to show how smart I am) can't hide the fact that most politicians are Law graduates, and that many of those who ended up with science as a career option were simply not intelligent enough to get into Law school at the first place. Some humility is in order.
"There is no empirical evidence at all to support the CAGW hypothesis."
Jul 7, 2013 at 1:26 AM | Roger Longstaff
That turns out not to be the case. Empirical satellite measurements demonstrate that there is an imbalance, with more energy entering the climate system than leaves it.Empirical measurements of the outward longwave spectrum has reduced output at the wavelengths absorbed by water and by CO2. Empirical surface measurements record the amount of IR returning to the surface.
The amounts of energy match and fit the CAGW hypothesis better than any of the alternatives put forward by sceptics.
"Empirical satellite measurements demonstrate that there is an imbalance, with more energy entering the climate system than leaves it"
EM, have you got references for this?
"that many of those who ended up with science as a career option were simply not intelligent enough to get into Law school at the first place. Some humility is in order."
Poor attempt at humour or the comment of a fool.
EM, we have had this discussion before (remember the concept of spacecraft in L1 and L2?). I think that your statement "Empirical satellite measurements demonstrate that there is an imbalance, with more energy entering the climate system than leaves it" is incorrect for the following reason:
We have no global satellite measurement of total energy in/out. There is a large uncertainty in albedo (SW radiation reflected back to space) that is an order of magnitude higher that the total radiation imbalance predicted by AGW (of order 1 W/m^2). This makes argument about "missing heat" etc. irrelevant. All of this from memory - I'm sure that you will correct me if you disagree.
I therefore stand by my statement that there is no empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis, and also my assertion that the Minister's claim that GCMs have been validated is pure nonsense. But what do I know? I'm just a scientist/engineer who was not intelligent enough to become a lawyer.
""Empirical satellite measurements demonstrate that there is an imbalance.." and, presumably, how much more energy is coming in than is going out.
When we have the references for this, we can check the climate models - assuming we have some idea of the thermal capacity of the earth. If we do, we can predict how fast the temperature will rise as a consequence of the imbalance.
I understand that a reason put forward for the recent failure of air temperatures to rise as predicted is that "in a manner no-one could have expected" all the surplus heat is being taken up by the sea. How long might this go on for?
EM
Not only is there no empirical evidence to support<-i> CAGW there is a big pile of empirical evidence showing that CO2 has not caused warming during recorded history.
Have you studied the ice core records or looked at the IPCC report graphs of climate history?
Roger Longstaff,
I remember our previous discussion. Rather than start playing reference hockey with Goddard data, I thought this worth reading, included a lot of material relevant to our discussion.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/05/uncertainty-in-observations-of-the-earths-energy-balance/
Dung
Note that this is from respected scientists working in the field. Dr Curry, in particular, regards the uncertainties as larger than I do. She also has a lot of sensible things to contribute to the debate. Dont go all sky dragon on us.
EM
I am close to adding you to my list of known trolls which means I do not need to respond to your posts. However just to give you a chance try and answer my questions, there were two of them:
Have you studied the ice core records?
Have you studied the IPCC graphs on climate history?
It should not be too hard for someone with your talent ^.^
osseo
This is doable, at least as a back-of-the envelope calculation.
An average square metre of the Earth's surface is a a 700M depth of seawater with air on top. Since 97% of the heat capacity is in the ocean I'll ignore the air.
The specific heat capacity of seawater is 3900J/kg/K.
The 700M water column contains 700*1000=700,000kg.
To warm it 1C would require 7*10^5 * 3.9810^3=2.73 *10^9J.
If the energy imbalance is 058W/M^2 that is 0.58J/second or 0.58 * 3.1*10^7 = 1.8*10^7 J/year.
To warm our water column by 1C would take 2.73*10^9/1.8*10^7 = 1.5* 10^2 years.
Warming the upper 700M of ocean by 1C at present imbalance rates would take 150 years if it heated evenly with full mixing.
If we are lucky this pause could go on for some time.
EM - now we are on the same page please can you explain your comments regarding table 1?