# Climatologist Dr. Michael Mann completely vindicated...again. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2011, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724 "2011-08-23T00:17:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/361 "2011-09-05T07:32:19Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > But lets look at the subject matter realistically. Any scientist who claims with certainty it exists or doesn’t exist (because of Co2) based on the data results is full of shit. Any scientist who claims with certainty it exists or doesn’t exist based on his or her modeling expertise is full of hubris. Any scientist who suggests it may or may not be accurate based on his or her modeling should put forth their model for public review. There are many computer programmers outside the climate research realm who are capable of focusing on the technical aspect of the models themselves. The field of Climatology is no different than any other discipline and as a group they haven’t cornered the market on math/computer specialists. Science is about creating models that are a good fit to nature. Models always start out rough and are gradually refined as more data are uncovered and analyzed. Copernicus’s heliocentric model was refined by Kepler in his three laws of planetary motion, then became even more established by Galileo’s work on the moons of Jupiter. Newton then swept in and refined planetary behaviour with his three laws of motion and the law of gravitation. Were any of these scientists wrong? Of course not, but each man provided explanations that more closely approximated the behaviour of nature than the previous version of the model. In the science of global warming or climate change (pick a name, it’s all the same) we may not have a completely accurate model yet (which is not unusual in any science, really). Yes, some questions remain. What it boils down to in the current crisis, though, is not how perfect the model may or may not be, but what is the best available information at our disposal that results from all this work put into the models. That best available information and models - despite eight pages of equivocation trying to confuse the issue - indicate an extremely high probability that there is a warming trend and that it is (at least partly) anthropogenic. Despite what a couple posters would have readers believe, there is no \*\*significant \*\*disagreement on these points. While it is very true, as you say **Magiver** , that limited resources should be used wisely to combat the problem of AGW, there are also other considerations that complicate the problem. For example, overcoming established business models, mindsets, policy, and misconceptions. Developing and educating markets. Pushing new technologies to become better and cheaper. Operating commercially viable businesses. And so forth. I have mentioned these in previous posts. None of this stuff really happens before market application. Even more importantly, one has to become established in a market before one can exploit it and be commercially viable. This brings us again to the Volt > [@](#): > > I have fought projects like the Chevy Volt because they not a financially viable solution (now). The car is not a technical achievement in any form and it’s not quite there yet because of technology. It needs improvements that are coming to make it viable. Unlike Toyota which could afford to lose money on the Prius, GM cannot afford this car. Toyota already did all the heavy lifting for the Volt which is really nothing but a rework of the Prius. It is simply not correct to claim the Volt is not a “technical achievement in any form”. The Volt is one of the finest achievements to come out of north American automotive engineering in recent history. Yes, it is expensive, and yes it has not sold well after being introduced (in only 4 states), but we’ve already gone over all this in previous posts. Now let’s take a closer look at the actual engineering, which also helps explain why the Volt is pricey. > [@](#): > > _from [Innovation revelation: Engineering the Chevy Volt](http://www.eetimes.com/design/automotive-design/4215980/Innovation-revelation--Engineering-the-Chevy-Volt)_ > > “Chevrolet Volt, Development Story of the Pioneering Electrified Vehicle,” edited by Lindsay Brooke, and published by SAE International as part of its Vehicle Electrification Series. The 219 page volume, just published, not only goes into the design of critical systems such as the battery pack and electrified transaxle, but discusses the reasoning behind the car, the experiences of the engineering team and their tools, and the battery charging infrastructure for the vehicle. > > \ > > These revelations include the generally conservative approach to the battery pack development—going with more efficient liquid cooling for stability and long life—while innovatively using the OnStar system’s connectivity as a telemetry system to record data from 24 test vehicles. The latter experience led to Volt telematics that can program and activate vehicle charging, climate control, and other functions via the Internet and smartphone apps. > > \ > > The Li-ion battery is the heart of the Volt and its development and technology take up the largest section of the book. Goals were long life (thus using only 65% of its state-of-charge range), thermal stability (via liquid cooling), and energy density. Critical to realizing optimal battery operation was development of the Battery State Estimator (BSE), a proprietary algorithm that basically monitors charge and controls charging to keep the internal-combustion “onboard charging generator” from running when inappropriate, which would cut into driving range. > > \ > > **Other technologies** > The next technology emphasized in the book is the electrified transaxle, which ties together the battery, internal combustion generator, and regenerative brakes. > Likewise, there was a tradeoff between battery capacity (larger for longer range) and the gasoline engine size (generally smaller if the battery range is higher). All these technologies are integrated, but not like a “traditional” hybrid in that the Volt delivers full performance on electric power alone, only requiring fueled power after the initial battery state of charge is depleted. > > \ > > Hand-in-hand with model-based design was automatic software code generation that gave a 30-35% efficiency gain compared to hand coding—significant when you realize the Volt has nearly 10 million lines of code (the Boeing 787 Dreamliner has 8 million lines). > > The remainder of the book goes into the extensive effort to cut range-eating aerodynamic drag, resulting in a drag coefficient of 0.281, better than GM’s previous best in the Corvette (0.29). The aero effort also reduced wind noise, which is critical on a “quiet” electric powered vehicle, and improved engine bay cooling airflow. Probably helps to explain why the Volt won [so many prizes and awards](http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/10/chevrolet-volt-ford-explorer-named-2011-north-american-car-and/), including explict mentions of its fine engineering. > [@Magiver](#): > > When batteries catch up with the car then it’s a done deal and we will buy it. Batteries will catch up with the car because there is a massive demand for a cheap, fast charging battery. But building a car with expensive technology makes as much sense as building a computer with a 5 ghz processor. Yes, we can do it today but it would be expensive and processors of half that speed do just fine for our processing needs. The problem with the example is that a 5 GHz processor serves virtually nobody’s needs and solves absolutely no problems. Beyond being able to play Metro 2033 at a faster framerate (I guess) or unzipping big files a little faster (I guess again) there is nothing a 5GHz can do that is not done much more cheaply and with less energy consumption than a 3 GHz processor. Even in the field of supercomputing it wouldn’t have useful application because of its high price. The Volt (and electric/hybrid vehicles and alternative energy in general) **exist primarily because of the problems that they are meant to solve - i.e., reducing carbon use for economic, political, and environmental reasons.** Merely by existing, these technologies are already addressing important problems. If everyone bought an electric car today - Volt or Prius or whatever - oil consumption and carbon emissions resulting from vehicle activity would immediately decrease, thus addressing some of the afore-mentioned problems. What problem would be solved if we all had 5 GHz processors? The technology is there. Yes, some of it is still expensive, and yes, some of it will improve, but if you hold back on technology until it is perfected - well this is not generally a viable strategy in a competitive market, as already explained. Even the iPhone - one of the extremely rare examples of technology that seems to come out of nowhere fully-formed - started out expensive and improved in design, performance, and functionality with each iteration, to the point that buying an iPhone now gives you vastly better value than buying an iPhone in 2007, and makes the decision to purchase one of the devices back then somewhat dubious. The phones we’ll have 3 years from now will be vastly superior, and so forth. GM moved smartly to establish itself in the electric and hybrid market to catch up with foreign competitors. The Volt is the first step in that strategy - not the last. It’s an investment. And we’ll see over the course of the next year whether it is an investment that pays off in the medium AND long term, or just in the long term. Things at the moment are actually looking quite promising for the Volt. > [@](#): > > The same applies to other technologies that are not quite there. My state required a percentage of our power usage be “alternate power”. That’s not how you address a problem. They should have asked for a reduction of Co2 and let market forces respond. What we got was a 5 acre solar array that is expensive and of very limited use for power production. We could have built the next generation coal plant with a co2 scrubber or a nuclear plant. We have a real need for replacements for of our aging power plants and the little solar array field doesn’t come close particularly since it has no storage capacity built into it. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul and that means something else goes unfunded. Your state has the right idea (I mean idea, not necessarily the exact implementation) to require that x percentage of power originate from renewable sources. This is how renewable sources are commonly measured as components of the overall energy market. Although I am familiar with neither your state nor their rationale, I must emphasize that requiring a percentage of power from renewables and building a coal plant with CO2 scrubbers would not actually accomplish the same things at all. The “percentage” requirement and the coal plant solution both offer reduced carbon emissions. But the coal plant - no matter how hypothetically “clean” - perpetuates and supports the entire carbon economy _which is the problem_. A renewable energy policy looks at other sources of energy beyond carbon and thus stimulates the development of new industries that will eventually replace carbon. And that’s why your state was smart to follow that route. The technology becomes more relevant to people _today_, which allows them to prepare for tomorrow, which will make your state a leader in this field instead of a follower or (even worse) a lagger. That transition will not be easy. There will be mistakes, false starts, unforeseen developments, setbacks, and of course strong resistance by entrenched interests. But the sooner an entity (state or company) invests in it, the more advantageous it is in the long term for reasons already discussed. > [@](#): > > We need to spend our money wisely. People keep throwing all these cites about how great this or that technology is but they are not the most cost effective way to move forward TODAY. The parameters for decisions need to be market driving and not ideologically driven. Yes and no. If you stick to what is most cost effective, then that will be carbon, carbon, carbon. The ideology to reduce carbon usage is both **sound and essential** (sound because we have to deal with increasing liberated carbon and climate change; essential because carbon is, unlike solar or wind energy, clearly finite and very unevenly distributed). It is now a question of how to adapt the ideology to the market conditions, and there unfortunately carbon has a massive advantage in purely market terms, being cheap and very highly developed. Therefore countries and states must step in and encourage or enforce market applications of the renewables technologies; they realize without these essential adoption baby steps, the tech in their area will simply remain academic and experimental until who knows when. They also recognize that there is an opportunity to reap considerable benefit in the future, which goes back to my argument about nature of investment. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/362 "2011-09-05T07:34:55Z")
in one ear and out the other. You might as well be Al Gore’s shadow. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/363 "2011-09-05T07:45:10Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I didn’t cherry pick the article, it was a simple response to your denial of what I said. You can’t deal with anything that threatens your religion of doom. As it turned out, I did, but you did miss it once again. It was you who denied what researchers did with the code, and on a thread about Mann, this accusation does not work, both by the fact that his past methods were investigated to death, and his latest work has been released to the public. And calling it a religion just betrays again who is depending on ideology when making points. > [@Magiver](#): > > Seriously, I don’t know how you sleep at night. It ain’t happening this year or next year or the year after that or the year after that… Already mentioned: It is mostly our kids and their kids who will have to deal with this. Although the data is here reporting that the expected effects are beginning to show up. > [@Magiver](#): > > You truly need worry about the shit fest of financial ruin that circles the planet. We’re working on global warming and virtually everything that makes c02 will be reduced in the future based on the track of technology today. There won’t be a single product that isn’t more efficient as time moves forward. I don’t understand why you act like we’re all still driving 57 Chevy’s. We’re not. Every car I buy is more efficient than the last and that trend is not going to change because gasoline prices are going nowhere but up. It’s a given just as battery technology improvements are a given. I’m sorry, but you do have to deal with this silly contradiction, if researchers are wrong on their reports that we have to act now, then all your talk of reductions of CO2 are a solution for a problem that does not exist. To say it in other words: your efforts at supporting **denier political talking points** are a monumental waste of time (as their narrative is to claim that there is no problem). And as much as you try to claim that I ignore the progress that has taken place I’m not. The magnitude of the change is not enough if we want to prevent the costs of relying on more expensive solutions in the future. The commons of the atmosphere should not be a convenient dumping ground for CO2 emissions. And the efforts that are being made by deniers on the political front are made to delay concerted efforts to deal with the issue, efforts that the same deniers continue to claim will be widely expensive, but they do so by usually missing the costs that future generations will encounter for us not being more proactive. > **[A Real-World Example of Carbon Pricing Benefits Outweighing Costs](https://skepticalscience.com/real-world-example-carbon-pricing-benefits-outweigh-costs.html)** > > NOTE: This article has also been republished on Treehugger ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/364 "2011-09-05T07:52:31Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > in one ear and out the other. You might as well be Al Gore’s shadow. Accusing others of what you are doing is not a good tactic. 🙂 > **[Is Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth accurate?](https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm)** > > \While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.\ > [@](#): > > Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame. Point here is that, once again, you are not dealing with the evidence but just coming back to tell others that a distraction is a good way to make an argument. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/365 "2011-09-05T07:52:50Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > in one ear and out the other. You might as well be Al Gore’s shadow. A response as clueless and unsubstantiated as your other posts in this thread, but expected. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/366 "2011-09-05T08:27:49Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > A response as clueless and unsubstantiated as your other posts in this thread, but expected. uh huh. The President was forced to deal with the reality of his proposed energy tax hikes and killed them. He;s doing exactly what I said needed to be done regarding short and long term planning. Whose the clueless one. Unless GM pulls a rabbit out of their ass they have a serious money loser on their hands. The Volt is nothing but a Prius with batteries and there is already an established market of hybrids that they failed miserably at with the Malibu. On top of that they want to void pre-bankruptcy warranties which is leaving a bad taste in peoples mouths. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/367 "2011-09-05T08:43:39Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > uh huh. > > The President was forced to deal with the reality of his proposed energy tax hikes and killed them. He;s doing exactly what I said needed to be done regarding short and long term planning. As it turns out most have criticized Obama for his lack of action on this subject, this is just the latest example. [http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/broken-windows-ozone-and-jobs/](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/broken-windows-ozone-and-jobs/) > [@Magiver](#): > > Whose the clueless one. Unless GM pulls a rabbit out of their ass they have a serious money loser on their hands. The Volt is nothing but a Prius with batteries and there is already an established market of hybrids that they failed miserably at with the Malibu. On top of that they want to void pre-bankruptcy warranties which is leaving a bad taste in peoples mouths. So much for saying before that no one was buying it, the whole truth is more complicated, but it gets in the way of simple political sound bites. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/368 "2011-09-05T08:54:52Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > uh huh. > > The President was forced to deal with the reality of his proposed energy tax hikes and killed them. He;s doing exactly what I said needed to be done regarding short and long term planning. Nice “debating”. Vague hand-waving and allusions, clumsy and intellectually lazy and frankly uninformed conflation of business and science and politics, and tired assertions of being correct while at all times avoiding any substantiation. You sure got all of us. > [@](#): > > Whose the clueless one. Unless GM pulls a rabbit out of their ass they have a serious money loser on their hands. The Volt is nothing but a Prius with batteries and there is already an established market of hybrids that they failed miserably at with the Malibu. On top of that they want to void pre-bankruptcy warranties which is leaving a bad taste in peoples mouths. Heh. you have been systematically proved wrong on **almost everything** you’ve posted here so far. Much of what you posted above is _already discredited_ by existing posts. By all means, do try to convince us _again_ that “China is not a leader is anything” or that the Volt is an insignificant engineering accomplishment, or that “there is no emergency”. Or just stick with the defer the problem to a brighter future FTW, perhaps? None of it new, all already addressed. ---
**Author:** ![phaemon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/977dab/32.png) [@phaemon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phaemon)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/369 "2011-09-05T09:47:52Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > What’s the technically right approach that would hypothetically produce “cooling trend” results? (Or at least, um, “not a warming trend” results?) Well, you could reverse the time series…you have a cooling trend backwards in time. 😉 I’m not sure what you want here. If you have data showing decreasing temperatures it will show a cooling trend. The problem with the current temp data is that it _isn’t_ decreasing. If you mean “how much data would you need to show cooling”, well, it depends on who you ask. I’d be happy with the latest 10 years being significantly cooler than the 10 prior to those, even though I know historically that I’d be proved “wrong” with that: I’m just impatient and can’t be bothered waiting for 20! Of course, a cooling trend would open up a whole new set of questions. We know CO2 traps extra energy that would otherwise escape the earth. If CO2 levels are increasing and you see cooling, the energy has to be going somewhere - it doesn’t just magically disappear. So where has that extra energy gone? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/370 "2011-09-05T10:46:34Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > Science is about creating models that are a good fit to nature. Models always start out rough and are gradually refined as more data are uncovered and analyzed. Copernicus’s heliocentric model was refined by Kepler in his three laws of planetary motion, then became even more established by Galileo’s work on the moons of Jupiter. Newton then swept in and refined planetary behaviour with his three laws of motion and the law of gravitation. > > Were any of these scientists wrong? Of course not, but each man provided explanations that more closely approximated the behaviour of nature than the previous version of the model. Seems to me that if you have a model which makes predictions no better than chance expectation, then it’s reasonable to say that the model is “wrong.” As far as I know, none of the climate models in use have been shown to make interesting, accurate, bona fide predictions on a consistent basis. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/371 "2011-09-05T11:17:29Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Seems to me that if you have a model which makes predictions no better than chance expectation, then it’s reasonable to say that the model is “wrong.” It is not reasonable, since climate predictions are hardly “no better than chance expectations”. I’d like to see a cite supporting this claim about random results. What is true is that there are a nigh infinite number of variables to consider when modelling, and countless confusing factors (like global dimming) plus the fact that we are still in the comparatively early days of this field, all of which means there is no climate model as reliable as Newton’s laws of motion, which I used as an example to show how models are refined over and over without actually being proven wrong. Heck, you \*\*know \*\*there never will be a model as accurate as that because the sheer chaos involved is huge. However, even at the simplest level, climate science predicted the warming trend, and the warming trend is observed. If you are objecting to the science’s accuracy on the basis of chaotic climate variability and/or model response uncertainty I would understand. But that’s not what you’re doing, is it? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/372 "2011-09-05T12:20:03Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > It is not reasonable, since climate predictions are hardly “no better than chance expectations”. I’d like to see a cite supporting this claim about random results. Exactly what claim? I’m not aware of any climate models which have consistently made interesting, reasonably accurate, bona fide predictions. Possibly there is such a model out there, but I have never heard of it. Are you aware of such a model? If so, please provide a cite. Seems to me you have the burden of proof on this point. > [@](#): > > If you are objecting to the science’s accuracy on the basis of chaotic climate variability and/or model response uncertainty I would understand. But that’s not what you’re doing, is it? Perhaps an example would make things clearer. Since you have talked about cosmological models, it probably would not surprise you to learn that historically, many of those models have also included a component for modelling human character and behavior. For example, all people might be divided into one of 12 groups based on their birthdate. Predictions might be made about a person’s personality based on which of the 12 groups he falls into. This type of modeling is known as “astrology” and there are many astrological models out there. As far as I know, no astrological model has ever been able to consistently make interesting, accurate bona fide predictions. It’s not just a matter of making rough predictions which need to be refined; as far as I can tell the models are just plain wrong. Perhaps a better word to use would be “useless.” At this point, much of climate modeling would seem to fall into the same category. Until climate models start consistently making bona fide predictions which are interesting and reasonably accurate, it’s silly to say we should accept them because they are the best models we’ve got. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/373 "2011-09-05T13:10:57Z")
> [@phaemon](#): > > I’m not sure what you want here. If you have data showing decreasing temperatures it will show a cooling trend. The problem with the current temp data is that it _isn’t_ decreasing. If you mean “how much data would you need to show cooling”, well, it depends on who you ask. I’d be happy with the latest 10 years being significantly cooler than the 10 prior to those, even though I know historically that I’d be proved “wrong” with that: I’m just impatient and can’t be bothered waiting for 20! Still, that 20-year bit is a pretty good shot at what I have in mind – though I have a couple of quick follow-up questions. First, what amount of cooling would you hold to be “significant”? Second, my real curiosity involved the other question you’d copy-and-pasted; would you require significant cooling, or a mere _ **plateau** _ of insignificant temperature change, as the falsification criterion for warming? > [@](#): > > Of course, a cooling trend would open up a whole new set of questions. We know CO2 traps extra energy that would otherwise escape the earth. If CO2 levels are increasing and you see cooling, the energy has to be going somewhere - it doesn’t just magically disappear. So where has that extra energy gone? I have no idea – but if such a “cooling trend” ever does materialize and we go searching for the extra energy, I take it we’d both start asking “a whole new set of questions” rather than just offering unfalsifiable answers? ---
**Author:** ![phaemon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/977dab/32.png) [@phaemon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phaemon)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/374 "2011-09-05T14:27:54Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Still, that 20-year bit is a pretty good shot at what I have in mind – though I have a couple of quick follow-up questions. First, what amount of cooling would you hold to be “significant”? I was just thinking of P 0.05 that the difference was actual. Obviously the more the better! > [@](#): > > Second, my real curiosity involved the other question you’d copy-and-pasted; would you require significant cooling, or a mere _ **plateau** _ of insignificant temperature change, as the falsification criterion for warming? I’m really not sure what you mean by “falsification of warming”. Are you asking if I think Earth temperature data will _ever_ falsify the “adding energy to things makes them hotter” theory? Frankly, no. I still think my kettle will work no matter what the temperature record says! Of course, there are ways the earth could cool. Perhaps adding CO2 will result in some effect that increases the earth’s albedo reducing the total amount of energy stored. So if the temperature record goes down, I might look for such an effect. But I’m not sure what exactly this falsifies. Perhaps you could state exactly what part of the global warming theory you think might be wrong? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2011, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/375 "2011-09-05T14:46:06Z")
> [@phaemon](#): > > Of course, there are ways the earth could cool. Perhaps adding CO2 will result in some effect that increases the earth’s albedo reducing the total amount of energy stored. So if the temperature record goes down, I might look for such an effect. But I’m not sure what exactly this falsifies. Perhaps you could state exactly what part of the global warming theory you think might be wrong? Well, the part where the globe is warming, for a start; I’d like to know exactly what amount X of “warming” is predicted over Y number of years, such that anything less would prove the prediction false. In more general terms, I guess I’d like to know what specific Z is being predicted _ **period,** _ so that we can see whether it happens or doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/376 "2011-09-06T02:27:06Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > Nice “debating”. Vague hand-waving and allusions, clumsy and intellectually lazy and frankly uninformed conflation of business and science and politics, and tired assertions of being correct while at all times avoiding any substantiation. You sure got all of us. There’s nothing vague about what I’ve said or what the President did. There is no immediate global warming crisis, we are working toward a long term solution, and the true crisis is financial. You can post cites and argue with yourself until hell freezes over and it won’t change anything I’ve said because in the real world global warming is way down the road and will be dealt with in a timely manner with technology. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/377 "2011-09-06T02:33:18Z")
> [@phaemon](#): > > Are you asking if I think Earth temperature data will _ever_ falsify the “adding energy to things makes them hotter” theory? As a point of information, this is a misconception. The controversial issue is not whether CO2 is likely to cause warming. The central issue is whether any such warming would be amplified by water vapor feedback. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/378 "2011-09-06T03:13:07Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Exactly what claim? I’m not aware of any climate models which have consistently made interesting, reasonably accurate, bona fide predictions. Possibly there is such a model out there, but I have never heard of it. > > Are you aware of such a model? If so, please provide a cite. Seems to me you have the burden of proof on this point. I ask you for a cite and clarification about extraordinary claims of random results from climate science, and instead of obliging you provide nothing and request a cite that resets the conversation. I am not a climate scientist but a few years back I did come across this _Nature Geoscience_ paper discussing the predictions involved in climate science and also clearing up some confusion about warming expectations and trends - the refining mentioned earlier: > [@](#): > > [Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds](http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/abs/ngeo208.html) > > Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements. Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data. We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.650.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change. Can you show how you reached the conclusion that climatology offers no better than random results? Because all you offered was an underhanded reference to “models” like astrology that actually have nothing to do with science or the scientific method. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/379 "2011-09-06T03:26:37Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > There’s nothing vague about what I’ve said or what the President did. There is no immediate global warming crisis, we are working toward a long term solution, and the true crisis is financial. > > You can post cites and argue with yourself until hell freezes over and it won’t change anything I’ve said because in the real world global warming is way down the road and will be dealt with in a timely manner with technology. Yes, one can post cites and argue different points that converge on a wider thesis, that is in fact, perhaps unsurprisingly, called debating. What you have been doing - and particularly what you’ve done the last few posts - isn’t. I have addressed a number of the subjects on which you threw the weight of your opinion around. From the demonization of the Volt as “failure” of the green industry, to the dangerous claim that there is no climate emergency, to the wrong assumption that investment in renewables must absolutely represent a loss when it can actually be rather helpful to a strapped economy, another poster was kind enough to show how your vague allusion to Obama was wrongheaded, etc., etc… All. Already. Addressed. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/380 "2011-09-06T03:30:06Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > I ask you for a cite A cite for exactly what claim? > [@](#): > > and clarification about extraordinary claims of random results from climate science I have no idea what your point is here. > [@](#): > > Can you show how you reached the conclusion that climatology offers no better than random results? I’m not sure what you mean by “random results,” but I assume that if some climate models were able to consistently make interesting, bona fide predictions which were accurate enough so that they were very unlikely the result of chance, then the people behind them would be shouting about it from the rooftops. I’ve been following this dispute for a number of years now without hearing about any such model. So I assume that none exists (yet). Are you claiming that such a model exists? If so, please tell me the details. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=20)