Physicists don't believe in global warming anymore?

[intention]

[QUOTE=jshore]
…Well, we do have some pretty good poll numbers on the AGU and the AMS.
[/quote

Yes, and they show that one scientist in four does not think that the scientific evidence supports AGW … but somehow, that didn’t make it into the AGU or AMS statements on the question. Don’t look now, but I think you just proved my point. The statements don’t represent the views of the members.

[QUOTE=jshore]
But regardless, as I have pointed out, it is perhaps not unreasonable to come up with the hypothesis that there might be a few organizations whose councils might become somewhat out-of-touch with their membership (although I think it would be hard for even one such scientific organization to become severely out-of-touch without there being significant controversy within the organization). However, you are proposing a grand collusion whereby all these different organizations have done so, which basically is a conspiracy theory.

To make an analogy, your argument seems to be, “Well, it is perfectly possible that we could roll on 6 on this one die. And, it is perfectly possible that we could roll a six on this other die. And, it is perfectly possible that we could roll a six on this third die… Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that we roll a six on all 100 dies that we have here.” That sort of logic doesn’t really fly. …
[/quote]
It’s not at all clear to me why you are so enamored of conspiracy theories. I have never claimed that there is a conspiracy of any sort, but you insist on accusing me of it on a regular basis. Get over it, I don’t allege any conspiracy.

The widespread popularity of “eugenics” in the early part of last century is an excellent example to understand why a “conspiracy” is not necessary to explain widespread AGW support. Just as with AGW, eugenics was accepted by a wide range of scientists, laymen, and religious organizations. Now, was a “conspiracy” necessary to get all those scientists and lay people and religious organizations to agree on eugenics? I mean, to use your example, it’s as unlikely that so many people would agree about eugenics as it is that we would roll a six on all 100 rolls of a die, but guess what … it happened, and without a conspiracy.

(In passing, let me say that you have provided a good example of a simple model [throwing dice], which provides no evidence and proves absolutely nothing about the real world belief in AGW. However, if you merely put it on a computer, there could very well be lots of AGW supporters out there willing to believe it … but I digress.)

No conspiracy was necessary, because scientists believed eugenics because it fit their worldview. So did a host of other organizations, who came out with just the kinds of pronouncements on the subject you might expect:

When I began my research on evangelicals and the American eugenics movement, I thought I would find a large literature of anti-eugenic arguments. I hoped that evangelicals in the period 1900-1940 could prove helpful in current debates in bioethics. For the most part I was disappointed. To be sure, within evangelical circles were occasional voices of critique for one or another of the eugenicists’ more extravagant claims about marriage or proposals for social betterment. Historian Edward J. Larson has found scattered opposition to eugenics by Protestants in state legislative records, predominantly in the fundamentalist South.1 But on the whole the evangelical mainstream in the decades following the turn of the century appeared apathetic, acquiescent, or at times downright supportive of the eugenics movement. In this article, I argue that the evangelicals often accepted eugenics as a part of a progressive, reformist vision that uncritically fused the Kingdom of God with modern civilization. From this analysis I suggest a few strategies we can discern by reflecting on past failures to adequately assess and critique the eugenics movement.

SOURCE: Ethics and Medicine

And the same thing is going on with AGW. It fits perfectly with liberal guilt. It’s the old, old story in new clothes, this time about how we were all blissfully happy in a climate Eden, “where once it never rained 'til after sundown” as the song says, until we ate the fruit of the tree of fossil fuels.

So no, there are no dice necessary, no conspiracies need apply. The desire of people to believe things that agree with their world view, and especially things that “everyone else believes”, is more than enough to bring us eugenics and AGW. Add the willingness of organizations like AGU and AMS to make statements that ignore substantial (a quarter) sections of their membership, and presto! Instant consensus! Lets run out and spend billions of dollars!

w.

PS - here’s how eugenics science was perceived and acted upon at the time, from a letter to the Editor of the New York Times in 1934 (emphasis mine):

[QUOTE=New York Times]
To the Editor of The New York Times: On several occasions THE TIMES has published references to the Human Betterment Foundation which seemed to belittle, and in our opinion misrepresent, our work. To keep the record clear, may I say that this foundation is a non-profit corporation with offices at Pasadena, Calif., founded in 1928; that its twenty-six charter members include five lawyers, two physicians, eight university professors, a newspaper editor, two clergymen and a number of bankers and financiers, all prominent in their respective fields. Of the twenty-six members, eighteen are listed in “Who’s Who in America.”

The work of this foundation so far has been devoted largely to a study of the actual results of California’s eugenic sterilization law, which has been in force for a quarter of a century, and has brought about the sterilization in State institutions of more than 9,000 mentally diseased and mentally deficient persons. Our findings have been published in a score of technical papers in various scientific journals; have been presented in a more popular form in a book, “Sterilization for Human Betterment,” published by Macmillan, and, finally, have been condensed in various pamphlets. The criticisms that appeared in THE NEW YORK TIMES were based on one of these pamphlets. We shall be glad to send a copy of this twelve-page pamphlet “Human Sterilization” to any reader who wants to examine the facts for himself.

Briefly, we found the sterilization law was being administered satisfactorily in California and that the patients and their relatives were among its best friends. While condemning unwise and radical legislation and practice, we have commended sterilization of selected patients as a protection to the patient, to his family, to society, to the State and to posterity.

Eugenic sterilization is no panacea. It is a measure that could be abused, though we have found no instance of its abuse in America, where it is now the law in twenty-seven States.

More than 150,000,000 civilized people are now living under eugenic sterilization laws, and in our opinion this measure is one of many that are indispensable in any far-reaching humanitarian program for dealing with the problems of mental disease, deficiency and dependency. It is our purpose to continue this study on a thorough, unbiased basis, and give the results to the people of the country until the subject is more generally understood.
[/QUOTE]

So lawyers, doctors and university professors all agreed that sterilizing 9,000 in California alone was a wonderful idea, and more than a hundred and fifty million people were covered by eugenic sterilization laws. This was all done with no conspiracy, and these folks and a host of others published “technical papers in various scientific journals” … sound familiar?

And here’s how eugenics played out at the end of the day …

May 14th, 2008
Repentance for Support of Eugenics

The United Methodist General Conference formally apologizes for Methodist leaders and Methodist bodies who in the past supported eugenics as sound science and sound theology. We lament the ways eugenics was used to justify the sterilization of persons deemed less worthy. We lament that Methodist support of eugenics policies was used to keep persons of different races from marrying and forming legally recognized families.

We are especially grieved that the politics of eugenics led to the extermination of millions of people by the Nazi government and continues today as “ethnic cleansing” around the world.

Today, of course, we scoff at eugenics, but in its day, it was as strong a scientific force as AGW, supported by learned societies and scientists around the globe … and now it is all dust, and ashes in the mouth of those who supported it.

PS - You say:

… you are wrong on some pretty basic stuff, and that you state these very wrong statements without the slightest amount of doubt (which makes me very skeptical of your strongly-stated statements that I haven’t been able to verify). [If you think I am being unfair here in not giving specific examples, I’ll just say (1) Gavin Schmidt and ensemble averages vs individual model runs and (2) whether the amplification of temperature as you go up in the tropical atmosphere is a specific prediction for the mechanism of greenhouse gas forcing or a more general prediction for all sorts of forcings and temperature fluctuations.]

It is nice of you to appoint yourself the ultimate arbiter of scientific truth, and it charming in a naive way that you have declared the debate over, with the winner being (surprise, surprise) you.

The trouble is, our discussions regarding the tropical tropospheric temperatures, and the discussion regarding Gavin Schmidt and model runs versus experiments, are a microcosm of the ongoing larger debate on these questions in the scientific world. Yes, I see you jumping up and down and saying “But I won! I’m right! Gavin says so!” … however, out here in the real world, far from your beloved models, there are no firm answers yet to either of those questions, and there are very reputable scientists on both sides of the equation, so I fear your claims of victory are very premature. You claim the tropospheric temperature amplification is common to all forcings, when even the IPCC FAR Chapter 9 says of the temperature amplification (emphasis mine) “These figures [in Fig 9.1]indicate that the modelled vertical and zonal average signature of the temperature response should depend on the forcings.” And on p. 674 the IPCC FAR says “The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to the anthropogenic forcings described above. Solar forcing results in a general warming of the atmosphere (Figure 9.1a) with a pattern of surface warming that is similar to that expected from greenhouse gas warming, but in contrast to the response to greenhouse warming, the simulated solar-forced warming extends throughout the atmosphere”. Did you notice the part where the IPCC says “… responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to anthropogenic forcings …”. Doesn’t sound like the IPCC agrees with your claim that it’s a “general prediction for all sorts of forcings”, in fact they specifically say it is not a general prediction, that the pattern from AGW is distinct from that of natural sources.

So, you can declare as many times as you like that the battle is over, and you can claim again and again that the science is settled, and you can call yourself the undisputed champion of all that you survey … but it’s like the old joke:

How many legs does a cow have, if you call its tail a leg?

Four … because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.

[jshore]

[QUOTE=intention]
When I said that citing a whole chapter was meaningless, you sent me the exact references above.

Now my question is … did you:

1. Notice that I had asked for evidence and NOT for computer model results, and decide to send me citations to computer model results anyway?, or

2. Not notice that I had asked for evidence and NOT for computer model results? or

3. Hope that I wouldn’t notice that you had sent computer model results when I had specifically asked for evidence and NOT computer model results?

4. Realize that Chapter 9 didn’t contain any evidence, so you sent me computer model results instead, or

5. ???

Because one thing’s for sure, you didn’t send what I had specifically asked for, and what you said you would provide. I’m still waiting for your elusive evidence.

w.
[/QUOTE]

Here, from the same post that you quote is what I explained:

@jshore

The point is that there is plenty of data out there that is used. As in all sciences, the observational data is used to build, test, and constrain models and, as in all sciences over the last half century, computers are used to do much of the modeling. Computer models are also used in interpretation of data, e.g., to convert between observational data and the equilibrium climate sensitivities implied by that data (since much of the data is over short enough time intervals that one is not very close to “equilibrium”…although the LGM data is an exception).

Since that didn’t sink in, let’s try it again: The way one tests a theory is to compare its predictions to observational data. For climate (like most fields of science these days), the subject is sufficiently difficult that computer models must be used to make and elucidate the predictions of the theory (and alternate hypotheses). What you are basically trying to argue is that models have “cooties” so if you see a reference to models, you just dismiss everything being discussed and say, “That’s not evidence”. Well, that is fine if you want to think that way, but you will find the world a pretty lonely place (outside of the “skeptic” sites you frequent where such attitudes are taken to be intelligent arguments).

In the real scientific world, scientists understand that comparison of evidence to models and interpretation of evidence by models is indeed what is important in understanding the evidence for or against particular theories or hypotheses.

[jshore]

[QUOTE=intention]
If the models claimed some kind of drift and the rocks were not the same, the geologists would go back to the drawing board and re-work the model.

In climate science, on the other hand, when the models and the evidence diverge, we are told that the evidence must be wrong … that’s the oddity of climate science that I don’t see in any other science.
[/QUOTE]

intention: Thanks for the post. As is often the case when you talk about climate science in comparison to other sciences, your statements frankly seem pretty ludicrous to people like myself and Mr. Dibble who have actually worked in other scientific fields. Things are hardly ever as simple as you discuss here. Usually, the observational evidence is ambiguous and otherwise uncertain and sometimes the same is true of the predictions of the theory (e.g., there are certain things that seem to be predicted pretty robustly by the climate models…and certain other things that seem to depend on which model you look at or what have you).

As a result, when there seems to be a conflict between theory / models and observational data, it does not mean that the theory / models are necessarily wrong. In fact, it means one has to look more carefully at both the theory / models and the data because in some cases it indeed can be the data or the interpretation of the data that is incorrect. In fact, at any given time, I would imagine that almost all fields of science have certain observational data that seems to conflict with the current theory, no matter how well-established that theory is.

In particular, if you are referring to the case of the observational data regarding the expected upper tropospheric amplification of warming in the tropics, you are vastly oversimplifying the issue by claiming that “when the models and the evidence diverge, we are told that the evidence must be wrong …” For one thing, the main contribution of Santer et al. was (1) elucidating the basic physics behind the model predictions and (2) showing that in fact the model predictions are in quite good agreement with the observational data over a range of timescales (for fluctuations on the timescale of months to a few years). And yes, they did suggest that they think the data for the multidecadal trends in the tropical troposphere might be wrong, but this was on the basis of (1) the agreement between data and models on the shorter timescales with no obvious physical mechanism that they could identify that would cause things to deviate on the longer timescales, (2) the fact that the agreement between data and models was good for those timescales over which the data quality was expected to be good and the agreement was only bad for the timescale over which there were very serious data quality issues (known artifacts such as the changes in shielding of the temperature sensors over time for the balloon data and large differences between different analyses of the same satellite data, for example), and (3) a history of previous discrepancies between these observational methods and the models being resolved in favor of the models because of the aforementioned data quality issues.

As a final note, it is worth re-emphasizing a point I have made many times before, namely that the prediction of tropospheric amplification of temperature fluctuations and trends in the tropics is a prediction of the models that stems for moist adiabatic lapse rate theory and is independent of the mechanism of the warming. So, it is deceiving to imply (as the skeptics usually do) that the discrepancy between models and observations implies anything in regards to the mechanism of the current warming being due to greenhouse gases. Admittedly, if the models are wrong, it would give us less confidence in the models in general as it would suggest that they are missing something (that may or may not turn out to be significant to the predictions that they make in regards to the climate’s response to greenhouse gases)…But it would not be a direct piece of evidence against the theory that the current warming is due primarily to greenhouse gases.

[intention]

[QUOTE=jshore]
Here, from the same post that you quote is what I explained:

Since that didn’t sink in, let’s try it again: The way one tests a theory is to compare its predictions to observational data. For climate (like most fields of science these days), the subject is sufficiently difficult that computer models must be used to make and elucidate the predictions of the theory (and alternate hypotheses). What you are basically trying to argue is that models have “cooties” so if you see a reference to models, you just dismiss everything being discussed and say, “That’s not evidence”. Well, that is fine if you want to think that way, but you will find the world a pretty lonely place (outside of the “skeptic” sites you frequent where such attitudes are taken to be intelligent arguments).

In the real scientific world, scientists understand that comparison of evidence to models and interpretation of evidence by models is indeed what is important in understanding the evidence for or against particular theories or hypotheses.
[/QUOTE]
Life is odd, and full of coincidences. I found this by chance this morning, it shows that in the real scientific world, scientists have much the same objections that I have to the lack of evidence.

Since what I wrote before didn’t sink in, let me say once again, the comparison of evidence and models in other sciences is done to understand the evidence, and to verify and validate the models. When the models diverge from the evidence, the models get changed and fixed. I have no problem with that.

If you can’t see the difference between that process and the climate science mantra of “if the models and the evidence disagree, the evidence must be wrong”, or “if the models and the evidence agree, that’s proof of AGW”, then I can’t help you.

I note that neither you, nor anyone else, has come up with a field of science where model results are treated as evidence. Yes, models can help us understand things, as you repeat above, and have repeated ad nauseum. But they are not evidence, and can never be evidence.

For example, a couple of years ago I made a radiation/convection energy balance model of the Earth. It gives very different results than are predicted by AGW theory. Now pay attention here, this is important.

Does my model constitute evidence that the AGW is wrong?

Please answer this question. I ask again, jshore, please answer this question. It is central to this discussion. Does my model constitute evidence that AGW is wrong?

w.

[intention]

[QUOTE=jshore]
…

As a final note, it is worth re-emphasizing a point I have made many times before, namely that the prediction of tropospheric amplification of temperature fluctuations and trends in the tropics is a prediction of the models that stems for moist adiabatic lapse rate theory and is independent of the mechanism of the warming. So, it is deceiving to imply (as the skeptics usually do) that the discrepancy between models and observations implies anything in regards to the mechanism of the current warming being due to greenhouse gases. Admittedly, if the models are wrong, it would give us less confidence in the models in general as it would suggest that they are missing something (that may or may not turn out to be significant to the predictions that they make in regards to the climate’s response to greenhouse gases)…But it would not be a direct piece of evidence against the theory that the current warming is due primarily to greenhouse gases.
[/QUOTE]
jshore, you say:

[QUOTE=jshore]
… the prediction of tropospheric amplification of temperature fluctuations and trends in the tropics is a prediction of the models that stems for moist adiabatic lapse rate theory and is independent of the mechanism of the warming
[/QUOTE]
IPCC Chapter 9 discusses this very question. They say on p. 674:

[QUOTE=IPCC]
These figures indicate that the modelled vertical and zonal average signature of the temperature response should depend on the forcings.
…
The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to the anthropogenic forcings described above.
[/QUOTE]
Sounds like you should write to the IPCC and tell them that they are wrong, because clearly they didn’t get your memo that the response is “independent of the mechanism of warning” so the responses to different forcings can’t be “distinct”.

w.

PS - I note that you say that if the models are wrong, it is not evidence that the theory is wrong … can we assume from this that if the models are right, that it is not evidence that the theory is right?

[intention]

[QUOTE=jshore]
…Well, we do have some pretty good poll numbers on the AGU and the AMS.
[/quote]
Yes, and they show that one scientist in four does not think that the scientific evidence supports AGW … but somehow, what a surprise, that number didn’t make it into the AGU or AMS statements on the question. Don’t look now, but I think you just proved my points. The statements don’t represent the views of the members, and I’m not the only person out here who thinks the evidence doesn’t support the claims.

[QUOTE=jshore]
But regardless, as I have pointed out, it is perhaps not unreasonable to come up with the hypothesis that there might be a few organizations whose councils might become somewhat out-of-touch with their membership (although I think it would be hard for even one such scientific organization to become severely out-of-touch without there being significant controversy within the organization). However, you are proposing a grand collusion whereby all these different organizations have done so, which basically is a conspiracy theory.

To make an analogy, your argument seems to be, “Well, it is perfectly possible that we could roll on 6 on this one die. And, it is perfectly possible that we could roll a six on this other die. And, it is perfectly possible that we could roll a six on this third die… Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that we roll a six on all 100 dies that we have here.” That sort of logic doesn’t really fly. …
[/quote]
It’s not at all clear to me why you are so enamored of conspiracy theories. I have never claimed that there is a conspiracy of any sort, but you insist on accusing me of it on a regular basis. Get over it, I don’t allege any conspiracy.

The widespread popularity of “eugenics” in the early part of last century is an excellent example to understand why a “conspiracy” is not necessary to explain widespread AGW support. Just as with AGW, eugenics was accepted by a wide range of scientists, laymen, and religious organizations. Now, was a “conspiracy” necessary to get all those scientists and lay people and religious organizations to agree on eugenics? I mean, to use your example, it’s as unlikely that so many people and organizations would agree about eugenics by chance as it is that we would roll a six on all 100 rolls of a die, but guess what … it happened, and without a conspiracy.

(In passing, let me say that you have provided an excellent example of a model [throwing dice], which provides no evidence and proves absolutely nothing about the real world belief in AGW. However, if you merely put it on a computer, there could very well be lots of AGW supporters out there willing to believe it … but I digress.)

No conspiracy was necessary, because scientists believed eugenics because it fit their worldview. So did a host of other organizations, who came out with just the kinds of pronouncements on the subject you might expect:

When I began my research on evangelicals and the American eugenics movement, I thought I would find a large literature of anti-eugenic arguments. I hoped that evangelicals in the period 1900-1940 could prove helpful in current debates in bioethics. For the most part I was disappointed. To be sure, within evangelical circles were occasional voices of critique for one or another of the eugenicists’ more extravagant claims about marriage or proposals for social betterment. Historian Edward J. Larson has found scattered opposition to eugenics by Protestants in state legislative records, predominantly in the fundamentalist South.1 But on the whole the evangelical mainstream in the decades following the turn of the century appeared apathetic, acquiescent, or at times downright supportive of the eugenics movement. In this article, I argue that the evangelicals often accepted eugenics as a part of a progressive, reformist vision that uncritically fused the Kingdom of God with modern civilization. From this analysis I suggest a few strategies we can discern by reflecting on past failures to adequately assess and critique the eugenics movement.

SOURCE: Ethics and Medicine

And the same thing is going on with AGW. It fits perfectly with liberal guilt. It’s the old, old story in new clothes, this time about how we were all blissfully happy in a climate Eden, “where once it never rained 'til after sundown” as the song says, until we ate the fruit of the tree of fossil fuels.

So no, there are no dice necessary, no conspiracies need apply. The desire of people to believe things that agree with their world view, and especially things that “everyone else believes”, is more than enough to bring us eugenics and AGW. Add the willingness of organizations like AGU and AMS to make statements that ignore substantial (a quarter) sections of their membership, and presto! Instant consensus! Lets run out and spend billions of dollars!

w.

PS - here’s how eugenics science was perceived and acted upon at the time, from a letter to the Editor of the New York Times in 1934 (emphasis mine):

[QUOTE=New York Times]
To the Editor of The New York Times: On several occasions THE TIMES has published references to the Human Betterment Foundation which seemed to belittle, and in our opinion misrepresent, our work. To keep the record clear, may I say that this foundation is a non-profit corporation with offices at Pasadena, Calif., founded in 1928; that its twenty-six charter members include five lawyers, two physicians, eight university professors, a newspaper editor, two clergymen and a number of bankers and financiers, all prominent in their respective fields. Of the twenty-six members, eighteen are listed in “Who’s Who in America.”

The work of this foundation so far has been devoted largely to a study of the actual results of California’s eugenic sterilization law, which has been in force for a quarter of a century, and has brought about the sterilization in State institutions of more than 9,000 mentally diseased and mentally deficient persons. Our findings have been published in a score of technical papers in various scientific journals; have been presented in a more popular form in a book, “Sterilization for Human Betterment,” published by Macmillan, and, finally, have been condensed in various pamphlets. The criticisms that appeared in THE NEW YORK TIMES were based on one of these pamphlets. We shall be glad to send a copy of this twelve-page pamphlet “Human Sterilization” to any reader who wants to examine the facts for himself.

Briefly, we found the sterilization law was being administered satisfactorily in California and that the patients and their relatives were among its best friends. While condemning unwise and radical legislation and practice, we have commended sterilization of selected patients as a protection to the patient, to his family, to society, to the State and to posterity.

Eugenic sterilization is no panacea. It is a measure that could be abused, though we have found no instance of its abuse in America, where it is now the law in twenty-seven States.

More than 150,000,000 civilized people are now living under eugenic sterilization laws, and in our opinion this measure is one of many that are indispensable in any far-reaching humanitarian program for dealing with the problems of mental disease, deficiency and dependency. It is our purpose to continue this study on a thorough, unbiased basis, and give the results to the people of the country until the subject is more generally understood.
[/QUOTE]

So lawyers, doctors and university professors all agreed that sterilizing 9,000 in California alone was a wonderful idea, and more than a hundred and fifty million people were covered by eugenic sterilization laws. This was all done with no conspiracy, and these folks and a host of others published “technical papers in various scientific journals” … sound familiar?

And here’s how eugenics played out at the end of the day …

May 14th, 2008
Repentance for Support of Eugenics

The United Methodist General Conference formally apologizes for Methodist leaders and Methodist bodies who in the past supported eugenics as sound science and sound theology. We lament the ways eugenics was used to justify the sterilization of persons deemed less worthy. We lament that Methodist support of eugenics policies was used to keep persons of different races from marrying and forming legally recognized families.

We are especially grieved that the politics of eugenics led to the extermination of millions of people by the Nazi government and continues today as “ethnic cleansing” around the world.

Today, of course, we scoff at eugenics, but in its day, it was as strong a scientific force as AGW, supported by learned societies and scientists around the globe … and now it is all dust, and ashes in the mouth of those who supported it.

PS - You say:

… you are wrong on some pretty basic stuff, and that you state these very wrong statements without the slightest amount of doubt (which makes me very skeptical of your strongly-stated statements that I haven’t been able to verify). [If you think I am being unfair here in not giving specific examples, I’ll just say (1) Gavin Schmidt and ensemble averages vs individual model runs and (2) whether the amplification of temperature as you go up in the tropical atmosphere is a specific prediction for the mechanism of greenhouse gas forcing or a more general prediction for all sorts of forcings and temperature fluctuations.]

It is nice of you to declare yourself the arbiter of truth, and to declare the debate over with the winner being (surprise, surprise) you. The trouble is, our discussions regarding the tropical tropospheric temperatures, and the discussion regarding Gavin Schmidt and model runs versus experiments, are a microcosm of the ongoing larger debate on these questions in the scientific world. Yes, I see you jumping up and down and saying “But I won! I’m right! Gavin says so!” … however, out here in the real world, far from your beloved models, there are no firm answers yet to either of those questions, and there are scientists and statisticians on both sides of the equation, so I fear your claims of victory are very premature. You claim the tropospheric temperature amplification is common to all forcings, when even the IPCC FAR Chapter 9 says of the temperature amplification “These figures [in Fig 9.1]indicate that the modelled vertical and zonal average signature of the temperature response should depend on the forcings.” … doesn’t sound like the IPCC agrees with your claim that it’s a “general prediction for all sorts of forcings” to me.

So, you can declare that the battle is over, and you can claim once again that the science is settled, and you can call yourself the undisputed champion, call yourself the winner, call yourself 100% right, whatever you want, it’s OK with me … but it’s like the old joke:

How many legs does a cow have, if you call a tail a leg?

Four … because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.

[jshore]

[QUOTE=intention]

IPCC Chapter 9 discusses this very question. They say on p. 674:

…

Sounds like you should write to the IPCC and tell them that they are wrong, because clearly they didn’t get your memo that the response is “independent of the mechanism of warning” so the responses to different forcings can’t be “distinct”.

[/QUOTE]

Hmmm…My thinks you doth quote too little. First of all, I didn’t say the entire response was independent of the mechanism of the warming, what I said was that the amplification of the warming as you go up in the troposphere isindependent of the mechanism of the forcing. And, here is a fuller quote from the IPCC (bolding added):

The simulated responses to natural forcing are distinct from those due to the anthropogenic forcings described above. Solar forcing results in a general warming of the atmosphere (Figure 9.1a) with a pattern of surface warming that is similar to that expected from greenhouse gas warming, but in contrast to the response to greenhouse warming, the simulated solar-forced warming extends throughout the atmosphere (see, e.g., Cubasch et al., 1997).

So, in other words, the solar forcing is pretty much the same structure as the greenhouse gas forcing except that unlike the greenhouse gas one, which has a distinct cooling in the stratosphere, the solar warming extends throughout the atmosphere…i.e., the stratosphere warms too. Hmmm…That sounds a lot like the figure shown here. (And, of course, the observational data do indeed show stratospheric cooling.)

@intention

PS - I note that you say that if the models are wrong, it is not evidence that the theory is wrong … can we assume from this that if the models are right, that it is not evidence that the theory is right?

I stated it as clearly as I possibly could:

@jshore

Admittedly, if the models are wrong, it would give us less confidence in the models in general as it would suggest that they are missing something (that may or may not turn out to be significant to the predictions that they make in regards to the climate’s response to greenhouse gases)…But it would not be a direct piece of evidence against the theory that the current warming is due primarily to greenhouse gases.

In other words, I think it is something that is important to resolve in the sense that we would have more confidence in the models if it turns out that they are getting this aspect right than if they are getting it wrong. However, the discrepancy between models and observations does not provide evidence that the warming is due to another mechanism than greenhouse gases because the models predict this amplification for any warming mechanism (and, in fact, even for temperature fluctuations on monthly to yearly timescales, where the observations clearly show it).

[jshore]

[QUOTE=intention]

If you can’t see the difference between that process and the climate science mantra of “if the models and the evidence disagree, the evidence must be wrong”, or “if the models and the evidence agree, that’s proof of AGW”, then I can’t help you.
[/quote]

That is a poor description of what people actually say. I.e., you are setting up a straw man. First of all, while better agreement between models and observations in general gives us more confidence in the models and their predictions, the most important predictions are ones where the models predict one thing if the warming is due to AGW and something else if it is due to some other mechanism such as solar (e.g., for example, whether the stratosphere is warming or cooling). Second of all, noone says that the evidence is necessarily wrong if the models and evidence disagree. What is said is that it is an area of active study and people try to determine the cause of the discrepancy.

However, what the “skeptics” want to do is ignore all the evidence of agreement between the models and observations and blow out of proportion those areas of disagreement. By contrast, the real objective scientists look at the entire weight of the evidence…not just cherrypicking a few pieces of evidence that fit their preconceived conclusions.

For example, a couple of years ago I made a radiation/convection energy balance model of the Earth. It gives very different results than are predicted by AGW theory. Now pay attention here, this is important.

Does my model constitute evidence that the AGW is wrong?

Please answer this question. I ask again, jshore, please answer this question. It is central to this discussion. Does my model constitute evidence that AGW is wrong?

If your model has been shown to be based on sound physical principles and has been shown to be in generally in good agreement with observational data, particularly data that is closely related to predictions of AGW (e.g., such as doing a good job predicting the temperature response to the Mt. Pinatubo eruption) then I would say that it does constitute some evidence that AGW is wrong. However, the strength of the evidence clearly depends on the validity of the model. [One could perhaps quibble with whether the word “evidence” is best here…but that is really a matter of definition and if you want to reserve “evidence” specifically for observational evidence, then you could say that the model provides support for that conclusion.]

[jshore]

[QUOTE=intention]
Yes, and they show that one scientist in four does not think that the scientific evidence supports AGW … but somehow, what a surprise, that number didn’t make it into the AGU or AMS statements on the question. Don’t look now, but I think you just proved my points. The statements don’t represent the views of the members, and I’m not the only person out here who thinks the evidence doesn’t support the claims.
[/quote]

Boy, you can’t stop trying to spin that poll, can you? Once again, your statement is not in fact correct. Here is the full quote from the article on the poll:

Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.

I’m not sure why you insist on “spinning” these numbers and how that fits in with the high standards of honesty and not exaggerating that you seem to want to hold people with opposing views to…but perhaps not yourself?

@intention

It’s not at all clear to me why you are so enamored of conspiracy theories. I have never claimed that there is a conspiracy of any sort, but you insist on accusing me of it on a regular basis. Get over it, I don’t allege any conspiracy.

…

No conspiracy was necessary, because scientists believed eugenics because it fit their worldview. So did a host of other organizations, who came out with just the kinds of pronouncements on the subject you might expect:

…

And the same thing is going on with AGW. It fits perfectly with liberal guilt. It’s the old, old story in new clothes, this time about how we were all blissfully happy in a climate Eden, “where once it never rained 'til after sundown” as the song says, until we ate the fruit of the tree of fossil fuels.

So no, there are no dice necessary, no conspiracies need apply. The desire of people to believe things that agree with their world view, and especially things that “everyone else believes”, is more than enough to bring us eugenics and AGW. Add the willingness of organizations like AGU and AMS to make statements that ignore substantial (a quarter) sections of their membership, and presto! Instant consensus! Lets run out and spend billions of dollars!

Well, I guess that is subtley different from a conspiracy theory somehow. I guess it is a theory that all these scientific organizations are run by people with liberal guilt and that distorts their scientific conclusions…and it is up to a few brave scientists (who, interestingly enough, almost all seem to have associations with libertarian / conservative / industry-funded think-tanks) to fight the brave fight against the hordes of liberals that have taken over all the mainstream organizations! Yeah…Not much of a conspiracy theory for sure! :rolleyes:

It is nice of you to declare yourself the arbiter of truth, and to declare the debate over with the winner being (surprise, surprise) you. The trouble is, our discussions regarding the tropical tropospheric temperatures, and the discussion regarding Gavin Schmidt and model runs versus experiments, are a microcosm of the ongoing larger debate on these questions in the scientific world. Yes, I see you jumping up and down and saying “But I won! I’m right! Gavin says so!” … however, out here in the real world, far from your beloved models, there are no firm answers yet to either of those questions, and there are scientists and statisticians on both sides of the equation, so I fear your claims of victory are very premature.

I didn’t say that I won and am right because Gavin says so. I gave coherent arguments that you completely failed to rebut (really didn’t even particularly try as I recall) besides making some vague references, never backed up, that there are staticians who agree with you. (Although, tonight you did try to put up some faint argument on the tropospheric temperature amplification issue by quoting a section from the IPCC which is ambiguous taken alone and does not clearly support your view…and leaving out the larger section that in fact does not support your view.)

[intention]

[QUOTE=jshore]
First of all, while better agreement between models and observations in general gives us more confidence in the models and their predictions, the most important predictions are ones where the models predict one thing if the warming is due to AGW and something else if it is due to some other mechanism such as solar (e.g., for example, whether the stratosphere is warming or cooling).
[/QUOTE]
Agreement between models and observations gives us more confidence? Well, to test that, let’s take a simple model. For example, we could take the Prime Number model that says that

x^2 - x + 41 = a Prime Number

So, we start to test the model.

x = 1 yields 41, a prime number.

x = 2 yields 43, also a prime number.

x = 3 yields 47, which is prime.

So, according to your theory, this agreement between the model and the observations should give us more confidence in the model. Inspired by our success, we continue testing

x = 4 yields 53, prime

x = 5 yields 61, also prime

x = 6 yields 71, which is prime

By this time, we’re tired of one at a time. So we test the next 30 numbers, and all of them are prime as well.

Now, according to your theory, at this point we should have immense confidence in this model. After all, it has been checked against the real world and has exhibited perfect agreement, which should give us “more confidence in the models and their predictions”.

But of course, there is a problem. The model craps out at 41, because

41^2 - 41 + 41 is divisible by 41.

I put this example out there so that you might be able to understand that

a) in general, the testing of models against reality cannot establish whether they are valid models, only whether they are not valid models, and

b) even if we test a model forty times, it can fail miserably on the 41st attempt.

So even though this model passed forty different tests, it is still worthless. Not only that, but all of the “more confidence in the models and their predictions” that the successful testing gave us is not only worthless, it actually has led us in the wrong direction by giving us unwarranted confidence in the model.

And by the same token, the fact that some given climate model is able to be tuned to replicate some climate phenomenon means nothing about the validity of the climate model. It is true in general about computer models, but it is even more apparent with tuned models.

I thought you were familiar with computer models. How can you not know that, as the brokerage ads say in the small print, “Past success is no guarantee of future performance”? I know that it is a common belief that past successes can validate a model, it is a common enough logical mistake that by law in the US, brokers have to warn their clients against taking that absurd leap of faith.

But you are a scientist, you should know that just because a computer model can successfully predict the past does not mean it can predict the future.

w.

[jshore]

intention: By the way, if you read further in that IPCC report, there are more statements that are relevant. For example, they note:

The spatial signature of a climate model’s response is seldom very similar to that of the forcing, due in part to the strength of the feedbacks relative to the initial forcing. This comes about because climate system feedbacks vary spatially and because the atmospheric and ocean circulation cause a redistribution of energy over the globe.

I think this statement basically explains what was wrong with your argument where you tried to argue that the tropospheric amplification came about because of where the greenhouse gases absorbed most of the energy.

[intention]

[QUOTE=jshore]
I didn’t say that I won and am right because Gavin says so. I gave coherent arguments that you completely failed to rebut (really didn’t even particularly try as I recall) besides making some vague references, never backed up, that there are staticians who agree with you. (Although, tonight you did try to put up some faint argument on the tropospheric temperature amplification issue by quoting a section from the IPCC which is ambiguous taken alone and does not clearly support your view…and leaving out the larger section that in fact does not support your view.)
[/QUOTE]
So you are declaring that you are right, but not because Gavin says so. You say you are right because some independent scientific authority has declared that your arguments were “coherent” and I “failed to rebut” them … and which independent authority was it that … oh, wait, my mistake, I thought there was an independent, un-biased authority, but in fact it was you claiming that your arguments were “coherent” and mine weren’t, so the discussion is over and you are declared the winner …

Gosh, there’s a surprise, a man that thinks his own arguments are coherent and other people’s arguments aren’t …

jshore, do you really think that this kind of “game’s over, I won” nonsense actually fools anyone out there? Everyone can judge for themselves whether either of our arguments hold water. Claiming that you can just say something along the lines of “the debate is finished, the science is settled, I won the debate, your references were vague” and have that be so is an insult to the readers of the discussion. And besides, you forgot to say “Make it so, Scotty”.

w.

PS - saying that I made “some kind of vague references” is a very vague reference to whatever it might have been that I actually said. You really should tighten up your claims, or I’ll be forced to unilaterally declare victory based on the vagueness of your references …

[intention]

[QUOTE=jshore]
intention: By the way, if you read further in that IPCC report, there are more statements that are relevant. For example, they note:

I think this statement basically explains what was wrong with your argument where you tried to argue that the tropospheric amplification came about because of where the greenhouse gases absorbed most of the energy.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure which statement of mine you are talking about. This is a very vague reference …

w.

[Lobohan]

[QUOTE=intention]
jshore, do you really think that this kind of “game’s over, I won” nonsense actually fools anyone out there?
[/QUOTE]
It fooled me. To this member of the peanut gallery it looks like you’re flailing around incoherently.

[Deeg]

The following are theories that are considered likely in large part because they are the current consensus:
– Evolution
– The Big Bang
– Quantum Mechanics (more specifically the Copenhagen Interpretation and indeterminacy.)
– Tobacco-cancer link

Scientific consensus doesn’t prove a theory, obviously. But if we are to make the best-informed decision we can then it makes perfect sense to consider the consensus.

[intention]

[QUOTE=Lobohan]
It fooled me. To this member of the peanut gallery it looks like you’re flailing around incoherently.
[/QUOTE]
Lobohan, thanks for your post. You have supported my point, which was that jshore making extravagant claims that the battle is over and he won is meaningless because everyone can make up their own mind, just as you have.

w.

[intention]

[QUOTE=Deeg]
The following are theories that are considered likely in large part because they are the current consensus:
– Evolution
– The Big Bang
– Quantum Mechanics (more specifically the Copenhagen Interpretation and indeterminacy.)
– Tobacco-cancer link

Scientific consensus doesn’t prove a theory, obviously. But if we are to make the best-informed decision we can then it makes perfect sense to consider the consensus.
[/QUOTE]
Deeg, thanks for your claim that we believe things because there is some kind of consensus about them. But you have the causation backwards.

Evolution, and the Big Bang, and the rest are accepted theories. But they are not accepted because they have a scientific consensus. They are accepted because 1) they are theories which make falsifiable predictions, and 2) they are supported by experimental evidence and observations, and 3) nobody has found any flaws in the falsifiable predictions which would topple them.

I wish we could say the same about climate science, but we can’t. There is no general theory of climate, the AGW hypothesis makes very few falsifiable claims, and it is not supported by evidence or observations, only by climate models.

When falsifiable predictions are made (greatly increased mid-tropospheric heating, for example, far above the heating from solar forcing), they haven’t tested out. This may be, as jshore claims, because the observational evidence is wrong … but until he shows that it is, and doesn’t just theorize that it is, I’m gonna go with the evidence.

In addition, the models say that the world should be warming as we speak … it’s not, and hasn’t for ten years. Only a decade, but still. The models say the South Pole should warm more than the mid-latitudes … it hasn’t. Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. However, these are not falsifiable propositions, because they are too vague.

In short, we don’t believe in evolution because there is a consensus. We believe in evolution because it is supported by the evidence, and because it makes falsifiable predictions which no one (to date) has shown to be false.

w.

[sqweels]

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
This is not an easy problem, and if you just ‘do something’ by using the hammer of government to push people around, you’ll just destroy the economy and make the problem worse.
[/QUOTE]

Hyperbole much? You’re premature by portraying the issue as whether drastic emission-control measures should be taken when many conservatives deny global warming is even happening and most of the rest deny that it’s caused by human activity. And I suspect that many on the right don’t care about the distinctions between not happening/not human-caused/too expensive to fix so long as factiods can be unearthed that suggest environmentalists/liberals/Democrats are Wrong about something, anything.

Your list of past issues has nothing to do with the science of AGW and is obviously intended to establish a pattern on a political level that warnings of dire future conditions always wrong. The fact that you refer to Jimmy Carter, Rachel Carson, and Paul Erlich seems to suggest that to you, this issue is more about Al Gore than the scientific community and its apparent consensus.

Are we really to believe that most of those warning about climate change do so only to promote their sinister plan to hamstring the US economy? What are we to make of those who would engage in alarmism and doom-crying over the perceived threats to the economy and personal liberties while apparently expressing no concern over the prospect of rising sea levels, more severe droughts and storms, invasive species, etc?

My feeling is that that right now the issue is primarily about persuading the American public to take the threat seriously in their values, rather than weather government measures that amount to “pushing people around” should be implemented forthwith.

[MrDibble]

[QUOTE=intention]
Certainly, computer models are used in geology, as in all sciences. But the models are not claimed to be evidence for continental drift.
[/QUOTE]
And I think you’re grossly mischaracterising the modelling in climate science by saying the scientists are claiming them as “evidence” for anything. The evidence in both cases is the data that goes into the models. Models are a way of looking at data and trying different scenarios, nobody’s claiming they are “evidence” in the same way as the data is.
[QUOTE=intention]
Evidence consists of things like showing that the rocks of say two continents that used to be one continent are the same. If the models claimed some kind of drift and the rocks were not the same, the geologists would go back to the drawing board and re-work the model.
[/QUOTE]
We’d also do elementary things like check the provenance of the rock sample that disagrees with the predictions represented by the model. Samples get mislabelled, a whole XRF run could be done with the disc holder misaligned, sometimes people can plain misidentify the petrographic samples.
Something similar to using a weather balloon data set that’s subtly off and claiming it invalidates models that have independent corroboration from satellite data. Especially when the balloon instruments are later shown to be faulty…

[QUOTE=intention]

In climate science, on the other hand, when the models and the evidence diverge, we are told that the evidence must be wrong
[/QUOTE]
I’ve not seen any such thing. I have seen where a disagreement between model and data led to a second look at a particular sampling method - and the model was vindicated. Are you perhaps referring to a different, specific, example here?
[QUOTE=intention]
… that’s the oddity of climate science that I don’t see in any other science.

[/QUOTE]

A well-tested model differing from data being a reason to look at that data set again? I can tell you, as a scientist, and as someone who has worked with several different models (in addition to Gondwana, I’ve worked with mine models based on ore sampling [collected by untrained, poorly-paid labourers, I might add]), that that isn’t so unusual as you seem to think. I repeat, as a former working scientist, having a model prompt one to relook at data collection methods is not unusual or unique to climatology.

[Lobohan]

[QUOTE=intention]
Lobohan, thanks for your post. You have supported my point, which was that jshore making extravagant claims that the battle is over and he won is meaningless because everyone can make up their own mind, just as you have.

w.
[/QUOTE]
I made up my mind after looking into the subject. You, however appear to have made up your mind and *then *decided to look into the subject for the sparse and incoherent evidence that would support your existing opinion.

You don’t believe in models, fine. May I suggest that you construct a time machine and live out the rest of your life in the Victorian Era. I imagine the beakers and burners employed by Science! at the time would fit nicely with your aesthetic.