Bishop Hill Use and abuse of climate simulations
Dec 12, 2016 Climate: Models Some of you may be interested in Gavin's Schmidt's forthcoming talk at Exeter University. It's hard to deny his expertise in the area.
Climate change is now a constant presence in the media with many stories about the latest records in global heat, Arctic ice loss, sea level rise, or the potential for changes in extreme weather. But many people still have questions about how scientists study the Earth system, where the dramatic predictions of future change come from, and how credible they are.
In this talk Dr Schmidt will discuss the use and abuse of climate simulations, how they are used to attribute changes in the past and what they suggest for the future. He will specifically discuss how global society now has to choose its own adventure and what the implications of these choices will be.
Details here.
Reader Comments (186)
So, Mr Schmidt has moved into stand-up comedy, now, has he? However, his take on the “records” mentioned are just a bit beyond a joke.
Sorry – I’ll give this one a miss; I would rather go and
see Frankie Boylepluck my own eyeballs out.Farewell tour perhaps?
"Abuse of climate simulations". Who knew?
In a discussion regarding an incorrect latent heat of water vaporization in models (an error of up to 3%), Gavin stated "Eventually, all the models will do this properly (some do already), but it is not trivial – but neither is it hugely important."
Three percent here, three percent there. The average surface temperature of populated lands is about 300 K, 3% error is an error of 9 degrees K, same as 9 degrees Celsius. And IPCC worries about 2 degrees C?
Forgot to post the link:
https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/30/activate-your-science/#comment-234131
Exeter faces extensive exploding head damage if you lot appear to offer the usual cliches.
I'm going to assume that, in the name of health and safety, there will be a fire exxtinguisher nearby to put out Gavin's pants when they catch fire.
Trump has the ideal new job for Gavin, monitoring the rectal temperatures of polar bears.
===========================
@Lynne
With the resources he has access to Gavin's trousers will be re-entry grade and non combustible.
Unfortunately they will not be sound proof.
I think he is fishing for a new job. Expect him to be casting some large attractive 'bait'.
"Climate change is now a constant presence in the media with many stories about..."
Horoscopes are a constant presence in the media too:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/coffeebreak/horoscopes/index.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/wellbeing/horoscopes-2016-your-year-ahead/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/horoscopes/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zp4fvcw
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-37419182
"Unsurprisingly, Nasa is keen to make it clear that telling the future is not its thing..."
Really? Hmmm...
Question to Gavin - What is the difference between astrological and climate forecasts?
Question to Gavin - What is the difference between astrological and climate forecasts?
A: Nobody pays any attention to climate forecasts.
It is nice to see that we have a choice. When can we vote?
I choose warmth. The planet is presently too cold for us and most specieisthat inhabit this globe..
I also would like to see a greener world, so I choose more CO2, and if by some happy coincident more CO2 leads to more warming then that is a win win scenario.
I choose low energy prices.
Alternative Title For Gavin's Address:
<I>"How To Model An Immensely Complex (Possibly Chaotic), Non-Linear, Dynamic System With Unknown Coefficients and Indeterminate Assumptions In Your Spare Time."</I>
Well, that's quite big of him. Usually it seems to be people like him trying to choose our future for us.
"He will specifically discuss how global society now has to choose its own adventure and what the implications of these choices will be."
That's like a traffic cop giving a speech on the role of Interpol in post Brexit Europe. The Gavin should stick to fiddling with computer models. That he wants to tell us his political opinion casts doubt on his impartiality. No wonder Trump wants shot of him.
"Use and abuse of climate simulations
DateDec 12, 2016
CategoryClimate: Models
Some of you may be interested in Gavin's Schmidt's forthcoming talk at Exeter University. It's hard to deny his expertise in the area."
Would you classify this as sarcasm, tongue in cheek, dry humor... We unwashed masses need to know....
Schmidt's lecture on how right he always is, is on the 10th January. This is before Trump becomes President. Is it known how long Schmidt's overseas triumphal tour of the EU is?
I am concerned that once President, Trump may display his blunt problem solving ability by simply having his return Air Ticket cancelled. Sacked AND deported by one Executive Order, the UK could have it's first Climate Science refugee.
gosh... they're arranging overflow accommodation for more than 400 people.
A veritable multitude expected.
I wonder if the Q&A folk will do their rehearsals before the Xmas break.
I wonder if the Q&A folk will do their rehearsals before the Xmas break.
Dec 14, 2016 at 12:48 AM | tomo
I think the Questions, Answers, Conclusions and Rave Peer Reviews, were all agreed in advance, as is normal in Climate Science.
The bit about all Climate Scientists living happily ever after in lavish palaces, whilst taxpayers starved and froze to death, is currently being redrafted, due to a failure in their financial models.
Schmidt has abused himself with climate models, and oh, the collateral damage from his little hobby.
===========
It's mordant, kk. There is no denying his expertise; one must be intimate with the details in order to so dreadfully misinform.
=============
My favorite, by far, cameo of Schmidt is him refusing to be seen on the same TV stage with Roy Spencer. Worth looking that little gem up and linking it.
=============
@kim +1 on the Roy Spencer piece
He probably qualifies for a pension - it's time he went.
The latest OCO-2 data visualisation has his paw prints all over it - the release timing and the willful misrepresentation of the data just stink.
Gavin who?
Gavin who?
I think he was the one between Dopey and Grumpy
Is he going to tell how he fudges the figures he uses now he has been caught out by the 'Way back machine'?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/12/13/gavin-caught-cheating-again/
I would rather be deplorable than despicable. Gavin, Gore, and so many other climate change extremists have chosen despicable.
"He will specifically discuss how global society now has to choose its own adventure and
what the implications of these choices will be."
Makes me think of of Stephen Schneider's ' ... each of us has to decide the right balance
between being effective and being honest.'
Gavin is for sure more knowledgable about the abuse part of climate models than the use part. No tropical troposphere hotspot as modeled. No accelerating SLR as modeled. Observational sensitivity half of climate models. His own GISS temps run through homogenization models to cool the past and warm the present.
Perhaps he is auditioning for a job at Exeter, as it appears he will need one come 21 January 2017.
The full quote being
I know this is Bishop Hill, but you don't have to stoop to the McIntyre/Montford level of selectivity. You can be better than that.
Selectivity can be a double ethical bind, can't it? There's
that Yamal / Urals tree ring data ... what to choose?
https://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/
"I hope that means being both."
Turning out to be neither. Evangelical science was an experiment that failed. Time to move on.
I am unable to suppress my feelings of morbid fascination with PC's jibe. It's not just the implication that an expression of mere hopefulness for honesty is somehow praiseworthy and qualifies as a sanitiser for the preceding anti-social remark by the much-travelled Schneider; it's also the fact that I have no idea what is meant by a McIntyre/Montford level of selectivity.
If levels of selectivity can be attributed to individuals, I wonder what a Mannian level might be? One example of the Maestro's talent in this field (and we are spoiled for choice here) is his algorithm's arbitrary assignment of a 390 times greater weight to the hockey-stick friendly Sheep Mountain bristlecone pines as compared to the more representative (in terms of similarity to the typical proxy) Mayberry Slough series. One could go on in this vein for a very long time, as ClimateAudit has extensively documented.
Any selectivity that Steve McIntyre or the Bish have ever exhibited, has, in my opinion, been both trivial and inadvertent. Which stands in stark comparison with Team players, whose selectivity over the years has been virtually the defining characteristic of their corpus, and has ultimately proved fatal to their conclusions and their credibility.
Beth,
You are a deluded, McIntyre-worshipping, unsceptical, selectively-quoting idiot.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Yamal_controversy
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/08/mcintyre-had-the-data-all-alon/
Comment by Rashit Herimentov at Climate Audit. Rashit is a distinguished field dendrochronolgist, who collected the data that underpinned McIntyre's blog speculations. He has many distinguished peer-reviewed publications to his name.
McIntyre writes a blog.
"I hope that means being both." is an idiot trap. As vacuous and duplicitous as its intended audience.
Any selectivity that Steve McIntyre or the Bish have ever exhibited, has, in my opinion, been both trivial and inadvertent.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
https://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/11/steve-mcintyre-down-in-the-quo/
If telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth was the standard, then this blog and Climate Audit would be about 1% of their actual size. LOL.
Data selectivity, Phil, YADO61 the most influential tree in the world.
Its weapon-grade bullshit Beth.
But you carry on believing while calling yourself sceptical. We need comedy in these dark times.
Its weapon-grade bullshit Beth.
But you carry on believing while calling yourself sceptical. We need comedy in these dark times.
Play it again, Phil.
Funny how an acolyte of a minor religion, like Phil, can keep convincing themselves they are right. And keep convincing themselves they are converting the unwashed.
You are not, Phil. People are laughing at you and your sandwich board.
Phil sounds a little bitter. Regret some of the alarm now, eh?
================
He should be bitter. In the ascendancy, he had the option to be calm, reasonable and to engage. He chose to call names, rant, obfuscate and avoid the debate. He chose to push the ideology and ignore the science, he chose to spin rather than be straight.
He has been trumped
added nothing. caused insult and hurt. not even the saving grace of being funny or wise
You have added nothing.In the name of God Phil...go
Where, though,
EO?
===
He chose to push the ideology and ignore the science, he chose to spin rather than be straight.
Blimey, he's back. Project much, EO? For the science, see (for example) links above. Or the dozens of other peer-reviewed sources I've cited - as opposed to the finest blog science from TV weathermen and accountants.
Or indeed, just ask every scientific association in existence.
But time is precious, I depart and leave you you to blow sunshine up each others' deluded bottoms.
'Or indeed, just ask every scientific association in existence.'
My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic - Roger Pielke Jr
But when the White House puts a target on your back on its website, people notice. Almost a year later Mr. Holdren’s missive was the basis for an investigation of me by Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Grijalva explained in a letter to my university’s president that I was being investigated because Mr. Holdren had “highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change.” He made the letter public.
The “investigation” turned out to be a farce. In the letter, Rep. Grijalva suggested that I—and six other academics with apparently heretical views—might be on the payroll of Exxon Mobil (or perhaps the Illuminati, I forget). He asked for records detailing my research funding, emails and so on. After some well-deserved criticism from the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union, Rep. Grijalva deleted the letter from his website. The University of Colorado complied with Rep. Grijalva’s request and responded that I have never received funding from fossil-fuel companies. My heretical views can be traced to research support from the U.S. government.
But the damage to my reputation had been done, and perhaps that was the point. Studying and engaging on climate change had become decidedly less fun. So I started researching and teaching other topics and have found the change in direction refreshing. Don’t worry about me: I have tenure and supportive campus leaders and regents. No one is trying to get me fired for my new scholarly pursuits.
But the lesson is that a lone academic is no match for billionaires, well-funded advocacy groups, the media, Congress and the White House. If academics—in any subject—are to play a meaningful role in public debate, the country will have to do a better job supporting good-faith researchers, even when their results are unwelcome. This goes for Republicans and Democrats alike, and to the administration of President-elect Trump.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518
Pielke Jr is not a climate scientist. But Investigating scientists is now a bad thing? Did anyone tell Trump, Cuccinelli, Barton (et al)?
"Pielke Jr is not a climate scientist. "
That's right he's a policy analyst. Kerry Emanuel isn't but seems to believe he know more about it than Pielke in the linked article.
"As someone who has spent some time looking at changes in the incidence of hurricanes around the planet, I have been asked to provide a response to Roger Pielke Jr.’s article"
He (a meteorologist) then starts discussing (political) policy options. Not his expertise.
Notice the phrase "I have been asked to provide a response".
I watched my brother give a speech to Toronto Sick Children's hospital (I was at the back of the lecture theatre) in which he declared he would no longer respond to requests from hospital lawyers to cover up the deaths of (burns unit) children caused by his colleagues.
As he said to me afterwards, 'a doctor looks after his patients, a rat looks after his fellow rats'. It's rats like Kerry Emanuel that have driven Pielke out of the climate field.