Marc

Recent report from Munich Re, one of the worlds Re-Insurance companies, tallying catasstrophic events around the world over the last 3 decades here http://www.munichre.com/app_pages/www/@res/pdf/media_relations/press_releases/2012/2012_01_04_munich_re_natural-catastrophes-2011_en.pdf

The graph you should look at is on page 4. Roughly a tripling of catastrophic events due to Climate & Weather phenomena.

Of your quotes, 3 of the 4 are about losses rather than just frequency of events so any change here would be a combination of any Anthropogenic signal AND Social, Demographic and Economic changes. So not easy to pick just an Anthropogenic component. The 4th also refers to 'impacts' rather than direct measurement of frequency and scale of a phenomena

Glenn, perhaps you should look to the peer reviewed press and the IPCC rather than quote a marketing brochure from a group with vested interests.

For instance here's a recent paper on cyclone landfalls...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00719.1

Includes these facts among others:

Over 1970 to 2010 the globe averaged about 15 TC landfalls per year
Of those 15, about 5 are intense (Category 3, 4 or 5)
1971 had the most global landfalls with 32, far exceeding the second place, 25 in 1996
1978 had the fewest with 7
2011 tied for second place for the fewest global landfalls with 10 (and 3 were intense, tying 1973, 1981 and 2002)
1999 had the most intense TC landfalls with 9
1981 had the fewest intense TC landfalls with zero
There have been only 8 intense TC landfalls globally since 2008 (2009-2011), very quiet but not unprecedented (two unique 3-year periods saw only 7 intense landfalls)
The US is currently in the midst of the longest streak ever recorded without an intense hurricane landfall

Also Marc, rather than just quoting Pielke verbatim, here is what the IPCC report actually has to say - from the SPM. Terms such as likely etc refer to how well we are able to judge what is happening from the available data, not how likely it is that it is happening.

It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights,3 and an overall increase in the number of warm days and nights,3 at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data. It is likely that these changes have also occurred at the continental scale in North America, Europe, and Australia. There is medium confidence in a warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia. Confidence in observed trends in daily temperature extremes in Africa and South America generally varies from low to medium depending on the region. In many (but not all) regions over the globe with sufficient data, there is medium confidence that the length or number of warm spells or heat waves3 has increased. [3.3.1, Table 3-2]

There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likely that more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases, although there are strong regional and subregional variations in these trends. [3.3.2]

There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e.,intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems. [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5]
There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]
There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore, there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes. [3.5.2]
It is likely that there has been an increase in extreme coastal high water related to increases in mean sea level. [3.5.3]
There is evidence that some extremes have changed as a result of anthropogenic influences, including increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It is likely that anthropogenic influences have led to warming of extreme daily minimum and maximum temperatures at the global scale. There is medium confidence that anthropogenic influences have contributed to intensification of extreme precipitation at the global scale. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic influence on increasing extreme coastal high water due to an increase in mean sea level. The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide
only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging. [3.2.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.2,
3.4.4, 3.5.3, Table 3-1]

What of it Glenn? The climate is in continual flux. I agree.

Yes Mark, but flux is not a trend. We are seeing a sharp trend upwards in global temperatures, which - if it continues over a sustained period - will be the fastest global temperature increase in the fossil record.
Slower temp increases in the fossil record have led to mass extinction events, sharp rises in sea level and marked changes in local climates.
The way it stands, you will be dead before the worst of it, so essentially your attitude is one of, well I don't give a damn about what I won't experience. I really wish you would look at all the literature and not just a narrow band of scientists cherry picking to discredit some very reliable and substantial science.
Climate scientists don't admit to understanding engineering, why on Earth do you imagine you have complete command of climate science?

Alvin,
I really wish you would look at all the literature and not just a narrow band of scientists cherry picking to discredit some very reliable and substantial science.

Ah, I see. When I look at 97% of the literature it's cherry picking. When you turn to Roger Peilke Jr it is substantive science. Give me a break.

You have not cited a single paper. Seems your claims are more than 97% BS.

Mark, I have not cited a single paper because there are multiple papers coming to the same conclusion.

I think if you look at Andrew Glikson's comments below and refer to his web diary article at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/3170 you might find a fair amount of scientific verification to get you started.

A little bit of research on your part might go a very long way. Assuming you have an open mind about climate science of course and the idea of consensus.

By the way, do you smoke cigarettes?

Do you go to the barber?

Another zinger from Marc (sound of crickets).

My point is you don't smoke or if you do smoke you know the dangers because of medical science, which you trust.

As a geologist, you are probably going to say evolution is pretty well certain ( I hope).

But here, where you have minimal expertise you question climate scientists and paleo-climatologists like Andrew. The question is why? Why do you have so little respect for these scientists but comfortably accept the pronouncement of others in your daily life.

What is it about climate scientists that you don't trust?

Andrew's expertise is in planetary impacts. I trust him on this issue. When it comes to climate change he is guilty of confirmation bias, cherry picking only those articles that concur with his fixed alarmist position and ignoring others. He has not published any original research on climate change.

I have not seen your name on any journal articles relating to climatology or the earth sciences so where does your claim to expertise on the subject come from. It's not your mullet is it?

Oh dear, grow up, Marc. And maybe answer the question. Why don't you trust climate scientists who have decades of experience in this field before it became a political hot potato?

I trust all scientists within the limits of their expertise and research record, noting continued debate and discussion in a number of key areas (such as the veracity of climate models). I trust in the scientific method, that appears to have been unfortunately usurped by politics, vested interests and activism of late.

That institutions like the oddly named ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science now rely on media spin merchants like yourself and psychologists like the author of this piece, to sell their story is certainly telling, and says a lot about "trust". No wonder the case for alarm is falling to pieces when the equivalent of used car salesmen are writing the marketing spin and doing the selling!

However, with reliance on such out of place characters, I'm confident a return to a more rational debate is certainly not far away.

Okay, let's talk spin then. It is very well established that the great majority of climate scientists (in the 90% band up or down a couple of notches depending on the survey) agree that climate change is occurring and that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the main culprit.

Many were working in this field before it was fashionable and have pretty much been of this understanding for a few decades.

Now, a tiny minority doubt this case but none has published a single paper that undermines the fundamental science.

So, your arguments suggest that you are right and that 95-97% of climate scientists are either knowingly misrepresenting their position for whatever reason are too stupid to understand the real science.

So, how would you classify the climate scientists who support anthropogenic emissions hypothesis. In your eyes are they liars, easily misled or just plain stupid?

You have built yourself a nice strawman, hope it has a matching straw hat to cover its straw mullet.
Yes, happening, yes CO2 a factor, I support the anthropogenic emissions hypothesis like the 95-97% of scientists you mention, other anthropogenic factors, also highly important (or do you deny it?). However the high end scenarios for global temperature are looking increasingly doubtful as models fail to match observations. Recent work (Schmitter et al 2011) has also knocked improbable high end climate sensitivities out of the park. Seems as models continue to track higher than observations the lower end of the range (within current IPCC range)-is looking more and more likely.

"how would you classify the climate scientists who support anthropogenic emissions hypothesis" I'm in agreement with them. What's your point?

Given the results of Schmitter at al any spin doctor still pushing the notion of an impending man made climate Armageddon clearly needs a new hair stylist.

Your last reply, once I got past the tired joke about hairstyles (sigh) made me go back and look at the thrust of what you are actually saying to everybody here.

I made the assumption that you did not support the anthropogenic climate change theory. I now recognise that wasn't the case. I think we just wasted a lot of words over nothing. So, sorry to have wasted everyone's time here including yours.

However, now I'm really interested in what you regard as high end scenarios. I can see a very valid line of discussion around likely impacts and would genuinely be interested to get a sense of what you regard as likely and what you think is hogwash and why.

Can you talk to this for me without going to the policy response at this stage?

Australian climate variability & change - Time series graphs

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=tas&season=0112&ave_yr=15

Climate certainly is in flux, and all the changes are in the direction expected from knowledge of the molecular properties of atmospheric constituents.

The outcome of our influence on the change is more than a simple reading of global average temperature and as such the question posed is somewhat simplistic.There are winners and losers even for some of the high end scenarios, There are winners and losers in our current climate. There have always been species living within a hair's breath of extinction. The effects of climate change are writ large in every rock outcrop, you don't need a climate model to see what might be in store.

With all this agreement I think the policy response is more interesting and I have noted some things (or below as the case may be on this) in response to Nick Kermode's comments.

First line should read: The outcome of our influence on the CLIMATE

I totally get that climate change is more than an average global increase in temps.

But taking the lead from your position, you must have an idea of what is an acceptable impact as a result of climate change (ie one that is easy to adapt to) and what is not acceptable (something that might bring about an economic collapse) and at the point where you feel we would have to act in advance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

So, where is that point? Under what circumstances would you consider that dramatic policy action needs to be taken?

And with that in mind, what is your expectation of the reliability of climate model forecasts before such action can be taken? Would they have to be as accurate as our current weather predictions or even more accurate?

Once disclaimers are removed from climate model outputs and modellers are prepared to take some responsibility for their forecasts they will be in a position to be relied upon. Until then they remain an interesting academic exercise and little more.

A re-insurance company is simply a wholesale insurance company. It is motivated to increase its business and its premiums in a similar fashion.
As the world becomes wealthier its aim is to increase its market.
You would have us believe that it publishes this information for the public good. If I were running a reinsurance operation, I would consider the real figures to be commercially very sensitive.

Marc

Pielke is only discussing Tropical Cyclones. Not all weather related events. And an interesting observation. You seem to be describing Pielke as an expert on all sorts of things. But you use a very limited pool of experts.

My counter view is to not place much credence in anyone who has a view about everything. I am more likely to be hearing the outpourings of a large ego than anything else. That certainly seems to be the case with Pielke Snr. He seems to be suffering from ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder - he isn't getting enough).

direction: yes, magnitude: no

Since when has "likely" been a scientific term.
I am so old-fashioned that I can parse sentences, and so educated that I can analyse them into logical elements that can then be inspected for intellectual rigour that was demanded by even first year pure mathematical lectures.
Oh, I admit I am old.
As I understand it, binary mathematics is now considered a university subject, and what I did in second year mathematics would qualify me for a masters.

The cyclone and climate disaster work work is by his son Roger Pielke Jnr.

Philip

Binary Mathematics - from one old IT guy to another IT guy has its limitations - I know this is deeply disturbing to us IT geek type persons.

Likely is exactly what it sounds like. A rather colloquial term for encapsulating the basic statistical idea of 'the odds'.

So 'likely' is colloquial for 'something where the probability is greater than 50%'; Perhaps greater tha 60% or 70% - this is a definition question.

For us IT types the idea that a 'bit' might just be a bit 'bitish' is disturbing. But statistical thinking is one of those fundamental ideas from mathematics that we IT guys code for. Programmers write code to carefully calculate the probabilities of various outcomes. 'Likely' is simple a colloquial description of the results of deterministic calculation by a programmer of the relative probability of diverse outcomes.

Wonderful!

Dispassionate, objective, peer-reviewed is now 'All In The Family'.

Next you will be quoting from the Idso Clan - 'Good Night John Boy'

The fact that critical views have such an 'All In The Family' character doesn't disturb you in the slightest Marc. Raise the odd niggling concern about objectivity, dispassion etc.

I said then my Dad said!

Actually Philip,

If I was running a Re-Insurer and the external events in the physical world were going to adversely impact my bottom line, my ROI to shareholders and my share price, I would want to get all the real data out there - change investor expectations, build a case for capitalisation changes etc. The profitability of my business, access to capital, risk profile etc depends on this data.

These guys don't have a motive for exaggerating this - particularly since their competitors have the same data. Exagerate it (or downplay it) and your competitors screw you. No industry has its profitability tied to real world events as much as insurance - your marketing campaign can't prevent the latest disaster, but your bottom line depends on how well you have covered that disaster.

This is the central fallacy here, that Re-Insurers make money from marketting. High Street insurance companies might make money from that. But the Re-Insurers make their money from getting the sums right. Their's is the ultimate ''back-room business'

Marc (with a "c", pardon my being up here and you down there, reading selectively, but we've had far more severe weather in just the USA these past few years than in prior records. So if you're going to try to IPCC & "peer-review" your way past facts, try to get it right. Suggest you also Google "journal article retractions", so you can see the proportionality between "peer-reviewed" pieces and their later retractions, as a function of journal size. "Peer review" means little, except to those using it to fib.

All you do is expose either your ignorance or malfeasance in service to some interest that has only itself at interest.

Just this past year in the US has, despite a weak Sunspot maximum (a ~90-year cycle) recorded more cities with record temps than ever before. The statistics are very clear and only your studied avoidance of ones we all can measure, including sea rise & acidification, seems to keep you wasting these folks' time here.

Of anyone wants a US update, not you of course Marc, look here... http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html

If you want an overall summary, look here...
http://tinyurl.com/3emobkf

See, being a scientist or engineer means we know lying serves fewer than does telling the truth. Might absorb that, Marc (with a "c").

Alex don' t confuse weather for climate.

But see, gang, Marc (with a "c") has no obligation to "remove disclaimers" or present facts. He simply tries to hide realities anyone can verify, like sea rise, acidification, etc. It's interesting how he posts so much here and says so little of value. But, then again, what should we expect form someone who won't post the bond or take the bet that he might be wrong? Perhaps it's just that Marc has no life but this?

Who's in your gang Alex?

Not saying it's not happening, not saying it is not an issue. The question is one of degree and at this stage it appears to be falling on the side marked "we can deal with it" rather than the side frequently promulgated here that is marked "run for the hills".

If catastrophic climate related natural disasters have tripled in 3 decades, and since we are asking the question 'what is it likely to be in the future?', I am intrigued at just where you draw the line at 'we can deal with it'.

Lets not forget, we are discussing what climate is likely to be in the future and thus what we should be doing today about that. So present data is still just an indicator of future events.

Your first point is wrong. Please provide a reference.

Hi Marc,
It certainly is happening and it certainly is a question of degree. I can just never understand why people propose inaction while, at this stage, "we can deal with it". Why do we have to take such a great risk? If you agree with Andrews points you must agree that it is possible for warming to continue. What other knock on effects will this have? At what point will it be beyond our control to stop? How much further warming will there be to reach even an equilibrium? How will feedbacks, positive and negative, react at a different equilibrium. We don't understand these things well now and don't have a subject to experiment with. What hope do we have as they change? The little that we do understand, and our best experts, point to action required. The temperature trend is currently 30% higher than Hansens 1981 projections which even then caused concern if accurate, and we still have people saying it's not serious enough to do anything about. It just doesn't make any sense to experiment with the only home we have. If it was a "lab rat" we were feeding more CO2 to and the experiment went wrong not such a big deal, poor lab rat. Tell me, what happens if the experiment (unabated CO2 divestment to the atmosphere) you seem to propose goes wrong?

I support a rational approach that takes into account a range of factors that extend beyond simply preserving our current weather. Perhaps if the current batch of climate models were more reliable there would be a nail to hang a hard hat from. But the current batch of models have proven to be most unreliable, the downscaling of global models for use in regional climate predictions is even more unreliable. Hence any second guess of the future based on these models is a leap of faith too far. I hang my hat on hard science and not such ephemeral things. The paradigm of panic so prevalent on The Con, lacks a rational basis and actions derived from shonky climate model predictions would be a policy disaster, As this blog is heavily biased to academics this is no surprise as most outside engineering faculties have little practical experience in applying science in the outside world. Perhaps if more academics spent some time outside their sheltered workshops we would be seeing more practical solutions on offer.

I do not suggest we stand still,. The human race has never done such a thing. Examples of actions I would support include (but are not limited to) such things as:
Upgrading existing mitigation measures for floods/storms to cope with KNOWN extremes +/- a reasonable FOS.This might include such measures as increasing the height of flood levees or constructing/upgrading sea walls,
Construction of more dams to increase water supply/irrigation capacity.
Increasing efficiency of and expanding irrigation networks to increase food production.
Construction and improvement of transport networks to reduce current waste.
As they reach the end of their useful lives de-commissioning coal fired power plants and replacing them with next gen nuclear.
Hazard reduction burns to assist with bush fire control, with emphasis on protection of life and property.
Spending research dollars on improving efficiency of solar and other alternate energy sources also a worthwhile endeavour. Spending money implementing such systems now is a waste of money that has increased the cost of electricity at the cost of our standard of living.

I do not support use of precious tax payer resources on the sort of research, (or is it propaganda, it is hard to tell the difference these days) being done by Ben Newell advertised here once again at the tax payers expense. I cannot see any public benefit whatsoever from this type of research.

I grow really tired of references to shonky climate models.
The remarkable thing is that they are surprisingly accurate at continental scales as are the forecasts derived from them. Unlike denialist science around carbon dioxide which spends its time clutching at straws in an effort to say it aint so, they are actually getting better, not worse.
As you can see here, even in 1981 the predictions on global temperatures were pretty much on the money - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

Perhaps provide a link to something published in a journal rather than a discredited activist blog. I grow tired of references to shonky websites.

Here's how it is done:

Pielke Sr., R.A., and R.L. Wilby, 2011: Regional climate downscaling – what’s the point? EOS. January 31 2012 pages 52-53

Here's what it says:
As a necessary condition for an accurate prediction, multidecadal global climate model simulations must include all first-order climate forcings and feedbacks. However, they do not.
Current global multidecadal predictions are unable to skillfully simulate regional forcing by major atmospheric circulation features such as from El Niño and La Niña and the South Asian monsoon.
While regional climate downscaling yields higher spatial resolution, the downscaling is strongly dependent on the lateral boundary conditions and the methods used to constrain the regional climate model variables to the coarser spatial scale information from the parent global models. Large-scale climate errors in the global models are retained and could even be amplified by the higher- spatial- resolution regional models. If the global multidecadal climate model predictions do not accurately predict large-scale circulation features, for instance, they cannot provide accurate lateral boundary conditions and interior nudging to regional climate models.
Apart from variable grid approaches, regional models do not have the domain scale (or two-way interaction between the regional and global models) to improve predictions of the larger-scale atmospheric features. This means that if the regional model significantly alters the atmospheric and/or ocean circulations, there is no way for this information to affect larger scale circulation features that are being fed into the regional model through the lateral boundary conditions and nudging. For example, recent research indicates that terrestrial evaporation from the Eurasian continent contributes 80% of China’s water resources. In this case, the regional model domain has to be large enough to include areas that are connected by soil moisture feedbacks.
The lateral boundary conditions for input to regional downscaling require regional-scale information from a global forecast model. However the global model does not have this regional-scale information due to its limited spatial resolution. This is, however, a logical paradox because the regional model needs something that can be acquired only by a regional model (or regional observations). Therefore, the acquisition of lateral boundary conditions with the needed spatial resolution becomes logically impossible. Thus, even with the higher resolution analyses of terrain and land use in the regional domain, the errors and uncertainty from the larger model still persist, rendering the added simulated spatial details inaccurate.
There is also an assumption that although global climate models cannot predict future climate change as an initial value problem, they can predict future climate statistics as a boundary value problem. However, for regional downscaling (and global) models to add value (beyond what is available to the impacts community via the historical, recent paleorecord and a worst case sequence of days), they must be able to skillfully predict changes in regional weather statistics in response to human climate forcings. This is a greater challenge than even skillfully simulating current weather statistics.

Marc, the trouble for me with your comment is it's about 25-30 years too late. This sort of comment would have been pragmatic back then but writing a comment like that now is just blinkered. Making comments that suggest we are only dependent on models and if scientists "got out more" we would be better off is very ignorant. Do you seriously not realise there are thousands of scientists out there gathering data and contributing to our understanding in some of the most dangerous environments on earth. Even in my area of interest, cave diving, there are scientists gathering data from underwater stalagmites and other deposits that is expanding on and confirming things we know. This is nearly, if not THE, most dangerous activity on earth, requiring much training and the facing of huge risks. Not to mention the scientists crawling and absailing into glaciers, spending months in inhospitable climates, deep ocean diving and exploration, climbing volcanoes etc etc..... I think the other side of the argument is more represented by people sitting on their arse playing with data (which they didn't gather) and not getting "outside their workshops". Many of the scientists you like to site would need a zimmer frame anyway.
I think the only reasonable FOS is to abate CO2 emissions as most of the experts say we should.

Thanks for the reply. Yes I am completely aware that scientists do field work. I am involved in this myself on a day to day basis. Some of this work poses physical risks, Whoopee do. I wouldn't be doing anything else because I enjoy it. There is a danger however of being captured by your subject and losing your objectivity and sight of the bigger picture.

My comments regarding the problems of academics relate to their involvement in coming up with reasonable workable practical policy.The type of policy coming out of university departments seems to have been formulated by looking down the wrong end of a telescope - narrow and focused on a small part of the problem (usually just that bit being worked on) So we get all sorts of unreasonable policy concerning the Barrier Reef for instance, because scientists working there are passionate about what they are working on. Passion is a great driver but is has no place when it comes to objectively coming up with a solution. Miss placed passion has done more harm than good in regard to our interaction with our environment.

CO2 abatement is just part of the story and undue emphasis on this over and above other environmental issues has caused serious damage over the past 20 years. A much broader approach is required to allow us to adapt to future challenges.

You are not addressing Alvin Stones point.

He has made the point that global climate models "are" demonstrably skilful.

You argue the opposite by resorting to a paper that discusses how much credence should be given to the results of regional climate downscaling. This is a different argument and not relavent to the point.

Marc, with respect, scientists becoming captured by their subject and losing objectivity is nothing like what you said in your previous comment. Now you seem to be saying that they do get out, a lot of their science is good but they are too involved in policy. Seems a big difference to me. Seems you disagree with policy rather than research. Is the reason people disapprove of scientists making policy is that there is rarely any compromise, which we are used to and seems most fair? The obvious trouble with a natural system is it doesn't care about either side and certainly won't compromise! It would seem silly not to have the academics involved in the area not help with policy suggestions and advice, as consulting the experts is how successful policies come into being. There are many situations where a geologist could be very helpful from a major project/development/town planning perspective and we would be silly if we didn't consult someone like yourself in formulating the plan in that case.

So scientists having a specialty seems a good thing to me, the more specific the better. I also think that collaboration between experts is helpful if not imperative. This process I have the most trust in. This process gives us the best hope of furthering our knowledge and understanding. This is the process that confirms or debunks individuals and labs' work and over a century or so has given us black body radiation and shown how greenhouse gasses help regulate temperature on earth. I agree that CO2 is just part of the story, but it is way ahead of whatever is second in it.

Unfortunately Alvin has not cited anything to back his claim, My link was to an example that highlights problems with climate models used on a regional basis. If there is no skill at this level what does it say when applied to the global models?

Here are two papers(below) that deal with some issues surrounding model skill. There are more out there (suggest also looking at Judy Curry's site-search "climate Model" for interesting discussions). I found the later paper (below) of interest as while it confirms models are unable to accurately model past climates it also suggests current models are not conservative enough-one for the alarmists to hold onto. There are many more papers that find problems with the skill of climate models.

The elevator lesson is that there remains much more work to be done in further developing climate models to the point that they will provide a reliable forecast of future climate that can be used to provide meaningful information on a country level. Getting the regional models right is most important if models are to provide any practical information to help guide any future action on a regional scale. If you want more information why don't you send Andy Pitman an email. I'm sure he'll provide an honest response. The IPCC latest report also covers some deficiencies with the models in WG1, Chapter 8.

Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55 (7), 1094–1110, 2010.

Evaluation of climate models using palaeoclimatic data
Pascale Braconnot, Sandy P. Harrison, Masa Kageyama, Patrick J. Bartlein, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Bette Otto-Bliesner & Yan Zhao. Nature Climate Change (2012) doi:10.1038/nclimate1456

Judy Curry (climate model ) http://judithcurry.com/?s=climate+model

IPCC AR4, WG1 Chapter 8-http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8.html

You say "if there is no skill at this level what does it say when applied to the global models?"

Not much really. It is all a matter of computational power. The computational power required over large, coarse forecasts is far less than at regional level. As you get to smaller and smaller grid sizes there is an almost exponential increase in the amount of calculations required.

The physics, however, remains the same.

As mentioned previously, the old climate model estimates of global warming from a 1981 paper and also more generally in terms of changing climate patterns across continental Australia have been very robust and impressively accurate to date.

However, some of the latest regional modelling - particularly recent work over Tasmania - is getting down to quite small grid spaces and is producing very meaningful climate change forecasts (and you are right - it's not all lose-lose).

The work being done at the Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, which you disparaged in an earlier comment, focuses specifically on developing better climate models. The world-leading researchers working here have an enormous range of skills across a wide variety of climate sciences. Their work already has and will continue to have impacts that go way beyond improving climate models and has already informed "real-world" (as you call it) science relating to aircraft turbulence, agriculture and our changing oceans (and much more).

In regard to Hansen's 1981 forecasts- they are completely wrong.
Emissions tracking Scenario A, Global Temps below Scenario C.

Seeing as you refer to Scenario A, B and C we should take it you are unfamiliar with Hansens '81 work which is labelled 1,2 a.b.c,3

Sorry I was referring to the 1988 paper.

Here are some thoughts on this from Roger Pielke Snr. The take away message "Missed it by that much".

"If the observed surface temperature data used in the figure in which this claim is made is correct, but also so is the measurement of lower tropospheric temperatures (such as from MSU RSS and MSU UAH), than Hansen’s forecast for the surface temperatures would be correct, but for the wrong reason. If the warming were due to added CO2 and other greenhouse gases, the lower tropospheric temperatures would have warmed at least as much.

However, the latest available global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly (see) is only +0.11 C above the 30 year average. Over this time period, the Hansen figure shows an expected change anomaly of ~+0.5c.

The trend has also been essentially flat since 2002. The Hansen figure indicates the current change since 2002 should be almost +0.2C."

For the rest of the article from which the above is derived see...

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/cherrypicking-a-comment-on-the-atlantic-article-now-this-is-interesting-a-climate-prediction-from-1981-by-james-fallows/

Marc, Mr. Pielke Snr. would have done well to actually read Hansens paper rather than just a newspaper article. Making a statement like "If the warming were due to added CO2 and other greenhouse gases, the lower tropospheric temperatures would have warmed at least as much" shows he clearly hasn't. In his paper Hansen specifically says the troposphere should not have responded yet. So his temp. predictions are pretty close and he is ALSO right about the troposphere. Have a read, amazing it was written 30 years ago!

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..%5Cdocs%5CHansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

Roger is pointing out a basic fact about the Green House effect. Hansen concurs at top of P. 958.
Perhaps you have confused the instantaneous response to 2X CO2 used in the model verification section (P.961-962) with the transient response used to make the "forecasts". Note Hansen states of this on page 962 "For simplicity we consider an instantaneous doubling of CO2, and hence the time dependence of the response does not represent the transient response to a steady change in CO2".

Perhaps you can point me to the specific section in the paper you refer to, To my mind it's not there and Roger's point remains valid. I'll pass on your comment to both R. Pielke and J, Hansen and if they respond I'll post here.

Marc, I should have taken the advice I was giving to Roger and read things more carefully. His article stated that the "latest available global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly (see) is only +0.11 C above the 30 year average". Clicking on (see) I find that figure is for March, take a look yourself. At that same link it states the total trend is 0.134C per decade. Times that by three and Hansen looks very close, despite my misunderstanding (I think) of aspects of his 81 paper. Roger starts the article with "Cherrypicking...." pot/kettle, he has picked many different years to start his argument that haven't worked now he is trying to use a monthly anomaly figure. Is that good science? Would have thought someone like yourself would be all over that sort of thing....

Wow Marc. That comment is choice.

RealClimate is discredited??? And you wouldn't use a blog as a source, even if the multiple contributors to that site are actually climate science, and their posts are references to the scientific literature.

How then do you justify your multiple references just on this thread to a blog. Where the content is mainly from one person not a author group. Yes he is a publishing Climate Scientist but labels such as discredited would apply far more to Pielke Snr than the authors at Real Climate. The best that can be said about PS is that he isn't as discredited as the likes of Bob Carter, Ian 'Burping Volcanoes and Iron Suns' Plimer.

Care to go through all your posts here and give us count of haw many links to PS and verbatim copies of whole chunks of text from him.

Give us a tally Marc...

Roger's point is that the troposphere trend should be at least as high as the surface trend. In fact if the models are correct warming in the troposphere should be higher. But as Roger points out the observational data indicates this is NOT the case as it shows the lower troposphere is not warming as fast as the surface. So this is a major problem with Hansen's model that no one has acknowledged here (is that a sign of selective blindness or just bias?)

I think his reference to cherry picking was to the newspaper article and the lack of questioning on the part of the reporter. As Roger states "These discrepancies clearly show the Atlantic article did not objectively look into the Hansen prediction."

But I take your general point on this. With so may cherries out there it's very easy to do. Confirmation bias is one of the outcomes of having the scientific discussion become so politicised and it's hard to find innocent parties all round.

Just so I don't get accused of cherrypicking there was some robust discussion about the lack of warming in the troposphere and its implications on The Con last year instigated in a post by Steven Sherwood, link below.

regards
M

https://theconversation.edu.au/satellite-stories-what-do-new-findings-on-tropospheric-warming-mean-for-climate-change-2277

Perhaps you can tell us all with your indepth knowledge and many published papers on climate science why Roger is wrong?

I use the term discredited for Real Climate as (in my opinion) it was established for political and marketing purposes to promote one side of the scientific discussion. Anyone who followed the unravelling of the Steig et al paper on Antarctic, or the Hockey Stick debate with an open mind would tend to agree, (though I doubt many of those open minds would read this blog).

The manner in which Real Climate moderates (sorry censors) discussion also a reason the term discredited is applicable.

The fact that I have quoted Pielke Snr numerous times here is merely a testament to his skill in the field. Ask Andy Pitman if you disagree.

Marc

See my comment further down about the report from Munich Re. They don't think its wrong.

Any reasonable look at the data by Munich Re finds major holes in their data. The graph suffers from severe observational bias and for this reason, along with their vested interests I don't consider Munich Re a trustworthy source.

Hi Marc, thanks for your (and Rogers) response. Despite what Roger says all three data sets of the lower troposphere agree pretty closely with each other. All agree it's warming, all agree to (as close as we can tell) a very similar rate. Couple this with what we know about CO2 and the greenhouse effect and makes even more sense. This has been a good discussion as I have looked into it more carefully because of it, trouble is the more I do the more I find how desperate and incorrect Roger was in his article on this and how amazingly (for the time) accurate Hansen was. Roger confused anomaly with trend, used a single months anomaly figure to point out the Real Climate article was cherry picking and try disprove a 30 year old model. He also tries to say because Hansens models doesn't have the capability to wiggle with the noise it is invalid. He does this by "cherry picking" 2002. It is a desperate thing to write. I think when he had earlier written ""with respect to lower tropospheric temperature trends, they similarly conclude that any short-term excursion from a long-term linear warming is “noise” due to natural climate variations. Maybe they are right. However, to ignore the obvious that the warming of the lower troposphere has halted, when averaged over the time period 1998 (or 2002) to the present, ignores the obvious signal in the data" he pretty much says it all. Contradicting and debunking himself and also excluding his cherry picked short term (in this case picking a particular month!) analysis all in on paragraph. Further, his analysis disagrees with his own link. The data in it clearly shows the trend TLT and SST. If Hansen had made a prediction for March 2012 in 81 I could understand that reference but it's either a glaring error or a deliberate attempt to mislead his readers.
It didn't matter which site I read Dr. Spencer, Rogers or on the other side Sks all the data shows the warming trend with very close correlation between surface and lower troposphere within the trend.
This was helpful and was the last thing I read...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pielke-sr-sks-dialogue-final-summary.html

Thanks Nick,
The point is that the models indicate the LT should be warming faster than the surface and the current observational datasets indicate this is not happening. As you have seen there remains considerable work to be done on refining the models and claims that they have skill are only "correct" to a certain point.

You are free to interpret Roger's comments anyone you like, I disagree with your interpretation. Note that I do not consider SS, a reliable source of information of climate change information.

If James Hansen replies I'll post below.

Marc, Rogers article has some absolutely glaring errors (more pointed out by Glenn above). If you can disagree and think his march 2012 anomaly comparison was good science, and as you say "skill in the field" I really don't think we have anywhere to go. You demand the very highest standards of scientific proof, research and scepticism yet stand by Roger's mistakes in the article and scientists like Spencer and Christie who wont even consider the fact they are underestimating the raw satellite data and might be wrong (as indeed they have been and multiple sets of other data suggests). C'mon Marc apply that healthy scepticism, what if the other sets of observations that confirm many of Hansens projections are close are more accurate? With humans interpreting the raw data there is most certainly a chance the error is in the extrapolating of Spencer and Christie and the selective data use by Roger rather than the other raw data available and the models based around the physics.

Nick,
The point (again) is that the models indicate the LT should be warming faster than the surface and the current observational datasets indicate this is not happening. Hence the model in question has very little skill.

Your comments at the start of this series where you confused what Hansen wrote about expected warming in the troposphere confirm you have very little appreciation of this. You continue to dig a deeper hole for yourself with your misplaced criticism of Pielke. I guess that ends the lesson.

Marc, just a couple of quick questions:

* Which authorities do you regard as a reliable source of information?

* Do any of these authorities include major national or international scientific bodies investigating climate change?

I would not presume to speak for Prof Andy Pitman who is currently out of the country but I believe his name is being used here inappropriately to bolster Pielke's current position on many aspects of climate change.

I would refer you to his response on Pielke Senior's own blog in response to a particular paper where he says in conclusion: "I do not think other interpretations of our paper are scientifically sound."

See http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/07/09/guest-weblog-by-andy-pitman/

I suspect this is not the only occasion where he would come to a similar conclusion.

Alvin, I wouldn't trust a spin doctor like you as far as I could toss an anvil.

If you Don't presume to speak for him, then perhaps it is better that you don't!

Thanks for the ongoing abuse.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to have a civil conversation and get a genuine understanding of where you are coming from because I am actually interested now that I understand your position.

Could you please answer the questions in a meaningful way.

Then equally, I would request that you don't bring Prof Pitman's name into the conversation as some kind of support for Pielke Senior. If someone who works with him doesn't presume to know his perspective on these questions it certainly is inappropriate for you to do so.

Happy to oblige but need a little something from you. If you organize a seminar at UNSW for Prof. Pielke Snr to talk about a topic of his choice, I'll happily answer questions over drinks after Roger's presentation. Of course you'll have to cover his airfare and accommodation.

Let me know when it's on.

Okay, clearly I'm wasting my time.

I thought it was the case earlier but was willing to persist to see if I could get a reasonable answer to understand your position.

If answering a simple pair of questions asking what you regard as a reliable source of information on climate change is too much for you, then it becomes impossible to take any of your positions on science seriously.

Whatever protestations you make, it is clear that the Pielke suggestion was just another smokescreen to avoid straight answers to straight questions. Obviously you don't trust the foundations of your own scientific position.

Sadly, it appears Dennis was right when he said not to waste time engaging with you because "Marc's utterly uninterested in the actual science except to shoot spitballs at it".

I expected something more substantial from someone who demands so much from others on this site. How hard is it to name authoritative sources if your position is, as you claim, rooted in the science.

Once again your spin does not match the facts. I'm sure you are aware that Andy and Roger have collaborated on quite a number of papers, over the last decade. I'm surprised that someone who claims to know 97% of the literature was not aware of this, but then I think we have established you are more spin than substance. I doubt Dr Pitman would co-author with someone over such a long period of time whom he did not respect. Shame on you for propagating such a deception. When you see Prof. Pitman in the corridor do ask him if Roger is available for that seminar.

Avissar, R., Weaver, C.P., Werth, D., Pielke, R.A., Rabin, R., Pitman, A.J., and Silva Dias, M.A., 2004, The regional climate, in Vegetation, water, Humans and the climate: A new perspective on an interactive system, Kabat, P., Claussen, M., Dirmeyer, PA., Gash,k J.H.C., Bravo de Guenni, L., Meybeck, M., Pielke, R.A., Vorosmarty, C.J., Hutjes, R.W.A. and Lutkemaier, S. (eds). The IGBP Series, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 650 pp, ISBM 3-540-42400-8.

Gero, A., A.J. Pitman, G.T. Narisma, C. Jacobson, R.A. Pielke, 2006, The impact of land cover change on storms in the Sydney Basin, Australia, Global and Planetary Change, 54, 57-78.

Pitman, A.J., Narisma, G.T., Pielke, R. and Holbrook, N.J., 2004, The impact of land cover change on the climate of south west Western Australia, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D18109, doi:10.1029/2003JD004347.

Narisma, G.T., Pitman, A.J., Eastman, J., Watterson, I., Pielke, R., Sr., Beltran, A., 2003, The role of biospheric feedbacks in the simulation of the impact of historical land cover change on the Australian January climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 2168, doi:10.1029/2003GL018261.

Chase, T.N., Pielke, R.A., Kittel, T.G.F., Zhao, M., Pitman, A.J., Running, S.W., and Nemani, R.R., 2001, The relative climatic effects of land cover and elevated carbon dioxide combined with aerosols: A comparison of model results and observations, J. Geophysical Research, 106, 31,685-31,691.

Hutjes, R.W.A., Kabat., P., Running, S.W., Shuttleworth, W.J., Field, C., Bass, B., Assunçao da Silva Dias, M., Avissar, R., Becker, A., Claussen,  M., Dolman, A.J., Feddes, R.A., Fosberg, M., Fukushima, Y., Gash, J.H.C. Guenni, L., Hoff, H., Jarvis, P.G., Kayane, I., Krenke, A.N., Liu, C., Meybeck, M., Nobre, C.A., Oyebande, L., Pitman, A.J., Pielke, R.A., Raupach, M., Saugier, B., Schulze, E.D., Sellers, P.J., Tenhunen, J.D., Valentini, R., Victoria, R.L., Vörösmarty, C.J., 1998, Biospheric Aspects of the Hydrological Cycle, 1998, J. Hydrology, 212-213, 1-21.

Thanks for the lesson. Can I suggest some class rules for the benefit of your future students?:

1. Roger is always right.
2. Any scientist in any area who disagrees with him is wrong.
3. Websites and science that disagree with Roger are not reliable and should be avoided at all cost, especially if they are quoting him verbatim.
4. Very important! Disregard every major science organisation's work.
5. Only the lowest extrapolations of data are accurate.
6. All models are wrong, even those that look right.
7. If their name is not Spencer or Christie their temp data work is irrelevant. If someone cites others work email Roger and see Rule 1.
8. Spencer and Christie are incapable of being wrong, their work is beyond question. If in doubt ask Roger and see Rule 1.
9. If any of the nasty "academic" types at the con start to challenge you immediately begin some crap jokes as a diversion and see Rule 1.
10. At the end of each lesson you will bow your head as "a testament to his skill in the field."

Oh sorry forgot....

11. Never ever forget this is a SCEPTICAL class!

Nick
Don't blame Roger for your ignorance.

Holes in their data!

Care to elaborate Marc. Since you are an expert on the classification of catastrophic Disasters. So give us all the benefit of your 'reasonable view' and show us the holes. Anyone can claim anything in the throw-away world of the Blogosphere...

.....Please fill in relevent details here

Glenn, I doubt you would consider my data,so here's a challenge why don't you verify MRe's data yourself. When you find the many historical natural disasters that have been overlooked perhaps, given you'll have done it yourself, you be a little more sceptical of this sort of (mis) information.

Here's an example. This Munich Re chart "Great natural catastrophes worldwide 1950 – 2010" (link below) shows NO of events for 1953. None at all!
Here's a list of headlines courtesy of the NLA newspaper archive (link below) that raises some questions about this figure and hence the rest of MRe's work.

GREEK EARTHQUAKE DISASTER Saturday 22 August 1953 (Perhaps the worst earthquake to affect Greece in the 20th century)
THE DUTCH FLOOD DISASTER Tuesday 3 March 1953
UK FLOOD DISASTER Tuesday 3 February 1953 (this one includes the line Britain's worst flood disaster)
Disastrous Floods In U.K. LONDON, Monday 2 February 1953
1000 LOST IN TIDAL FLOODS, THOUSANDS ISOLATED Thursday 5 February 1953
2849 CAUSALITIES ON FLOOD RUINED KYUSHO ISLAND, TOKYO. Monday 6 July 1953
MANY PERISH IN CHINESE FLOODS Tuesday 23 June 1953
6,000 PERISH IN JAPANESE FLOODS Monday 20 July 1953
TORNADO DEAD NOW TOTAL 241 Friday 12 June 1953
There's more but I'll let you look for those yourself.

http://www.munichre.com/app_pages/www/@res/pdf/NatCatService/great_natural_catastrophes/NatCatSERVICE_Great_1950_2010_number_en.pdf

NLA Archive: http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper

Nick,
Roger has now posted on this, perhaps it will help elicit a response from Dr Hansen.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/debate-on-the-climate-dice-issue/

It' remains intriguing how hiding in climate/weather and its necessarily higher variability than properties of seas and poles, allows some to pretend to be 'skeptical' of scientists who may have no personal axe to grind and no motive or pay to ignore important facts, while kerfuffling around behind the curtain of climate variability and bureaucratic behaviors (e.g., the convenient IPCC devil).

A true skeptic, even scientist, would not care if the IPCC existed, but would see the measures of sea rise, ocean temps, ocean acidity, glacier melts, methane releases, etc. and study their causes.

Such study would quickly reveal their anthropogenic causes.

So, a social scientist viewing the discussion here that Marc continually recycles, would immediately see an argument of intentional narrowness, which evidences self knowledge that the argument of like the Wizard's curtain -- don't look behind it.

Unfortunately for Marc, honest science looks everywhere. So here we see Marc continually, frantically, fruitlessly pulling levers & pushing knobs (often marked "peer review", or IPCC", etc.) always with studious care to avoid any unsettling facts that most can measure for themselves, or easily find honest measures for. Marc will never, it appears, talk about sea rise, sea temps, sea pH, permafrost & clathrate emissions, grounded ice loss, and so many other very real, very measurable consequences of human emissions of CO2 & other greenhouse gasses over the past 200 years.

Instead, Marc will hide in the natural variance of diaphanous air temps over a few decades, while hoping to fool folks into thinking he has any real foundation in, or obligation to, science. It's a wonderment.

.

Alex,
I have addressed all those issues at various times, and as indicated before accept the many and varied human influences on not just the climate but on the planet as a whole. I'm not sure where you are coming from on this, or where you are going, and from your rather confused comments I doubt you know either.

Gosh, Marc, the Geologist, wonder how I missed your claims to accept "the many and varied human influences on not just the climate but on the planet as a whole." It must be somewhere in all your voluminous posts here trying to misdirect others into the necessarily more variable, low specific-heat, atmospheric behaviors. Like your recent 20-line "Posted from R.Pielke..." effort to somehow besmirch models that don't predict temp data as perfectly as you seem to think they should, thus somehow incriminating Hansen & others when they talk about such realities.

It sure is hard to find your discussions "at various times" of sea rise, acidification, glacier loss, ice-core records, etc. when your postings are so focussed on something you think should cause doubt in others. How could your addressing "all those issues at various times" be so hidden?

In the cipher business, what you actually do is called chaffing -- like steganography, which hides the important message in apparently understandable prose & pixels.

So when you get 'round to it, please point to, or copy, your 'acceptance' that, for example, the acidifying CO2 excess in the oceans is isotopically anthropogenic, that in the industrial age sea pH has moved halfway toward calciferous life being unable to calcify, and even that sea rise is largely due to water expansion because it has warmed relative to pre-industrial times.

There are more real, steady, low-variance effects, easily measured, that you may also have written that you "accept", but we just can't seem to find them.

Missed it because you only see what you want to see Alex. Can't help it that you are blind to opinions other than your own. As stated above its about the magnitude of the impact.

Gotta love a narrow window for selecting data, eh Marc? I recall those floods in '53, but how about going back a bit further, and including relevant forces like solar activity, volcanic activity, ocean cycles (El Nino...), and even go back to the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, and even further. The actual facts show we should have been cooling greatly in these recent years, but have not, precisely because GHG emissions have overwhelmed both an expected weaker solar maximum.

Then too, we can go to the data you can't wriggle away from in sea rise and the isotopic identity of CO2 in the ocean causing acidification. Yeah, you want to avoid those realities, eh Marc?

But you could take my bet (that Monckton feared) or at least posr bond/trust for your descendents, just in the off case that you're wrong to try sowing doubt in climate change for your handlers' benefit (it's not gonna benefit you, long term).

So for all but Marc, some very recent summaries...
http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html

www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine (we YAnks apologize to all)
www.nationofchange.org/heartland-institute-manifestation-kochtopus-empire-1330697980 (Koch)
www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/exxon-finally-admits-denialists-cause-problem/blog/25349/ (Exxon gets honest)
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile (Lomborg too!)
www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-gm-pulls-support-for-heartland-institute-20120330,0,4735180.story

And, just a little ignored history...
www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

The point which you have missed entirely (perhaps you should lift your head out of the sand) had to do with the quality of Munich Re's analysis. The information I presented clearly demonstrates the graph in question is flawed. You can deny this all you like Alex but it will not alter the basic facts.

List those names, Marc!

So for all but Marc, some very recent summaries...
http://online.wr.usgs.gov/calendar/2012/mar12.html

www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine (we YAnks apologize to all)
www.nationofchange.org/heartland-institute-manifestation-kochtopus-empire-1330697980 (Koch)
www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/exxon-finally-admits-denialists-cause-problem/blog/25349/ (Exxon gets honest)
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile (Lomborg too!)
www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-gm-pulls-support-for-heartland-institute-20120330,0,4735180.story

And, just a little ignored history...
www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

But there is a conundrum here. Humans are not good at making guesses when it comes to predicting the most likely outcomes.

"Humans are not good at making guesses when it comes to predicting the most likely outcomes."

Well done. This summarises the first 795 or so words of Ben's article in about 16.

The other 50 or so of Ben's word warrant some reflection.

"Just as rolling a green or blue in the dice game should not stop you maximising on red, so the occurrence of a cold season should not stop you thinking the globe is warming.
"If we want to maximise our future well-being we would do well to heed these warnings."

Nor think you are correctly assigning probabilities based on a random walk.

With so many references to non peer reviewed work it sounds like you have become more the activist than the scientist.

Marc, I'm very interested in your comments.

And you have the pro-climate action cheer squad ganging up on you!

It's a bit like all the pro-Andrew Bolt gang spouting the party line on any site related to Anita Heiss.

See, I'm impartial! :) Just this doctrinaire mob mentality - on any issue and from any perspective - is dumb. And not worthy of The Conversation.

Thanks James, and the scores are actually above average today!

Sounds great, Marc.

Err, it wouldn't be a work of fiction, would it?

Yes, Just like climate model outputs.

I understand that it can be confronting to have entrenched opinions challenged Dennis but advocating an odd form of censorship as you do is not really the best way to confront your fear of being wrong.

I was wondering about that. I also noticed he resorts to mild childish personal abuse (see for instance some of his responses to Alvin Stone above). Is the aim of his trolling to shut down the discussion through sheer volume of nonsense posted?

Fred, I'm interested what does a climate change officer do? Anything useful?

The temperature data, or the temprature data normallized to 1951-1980, constitute an objectively measured parameter, i.e. the data can be normallized relative to any other period and remain objective.

The choice of 1951-1980 as the reference period for normallization of post-1980 data is because this period had relatively stable tempratures and even mild cooling (due to heavy aerosol release and low sun spots) whereas the mid to late 1980s saw an abrupt upward swing of the warming trend.

The interpretation of the temperature differences, i.e. the extent to which they represent the effects of greenhouse gases, aerosols, clouds, insolation, surface reflection/albedo and other factors, is separate from the actual measurements and normallization of values and is the subject of calculations matched by empirical observations.

Sulphur aerosols constitute particles, not "cooling gas".

Dear Mr Gilkson.
You are correct that sulphur aersols constitute particles. However sulphur dioxide is emitted as a gas from a variety of processes and forces aerosols in the upper atmosphere.

Hence sulphur dioxide emissions are gaseous, cause cooling, ergo they are a cooling gas.

If you are going to be pedantic it is always a good look if you actually know what you are talking about.

Alex, you suggest I have links with the Heartland Institute. This is a figment of your over active imagination. I suggest you retract this comment or substantiate it. They have a legitate right to present a viewpoint and make an argument, just as anyone else does. Perhaps you would like to see such alternate views suppressed? Perhaps anyone that disagrees eith your point of view should subject to censure. And this coming from someone who lives in a nation that ingrains the right to free speech into its constitution.

In regard to the rest of your diatribe, there is ample growing evidence from all sciences that the case for man made climate Armageddon you advocate has been over stated and overhyped. The effect humanity is having is clearly present and continuing but no where near as dire as predicted.

This is true for climate models that exaggerate the effect of increased co2 on global temperatures. True also for the effect increases in co2 are having on the ocean in regard to acidification and sea level rise. Changes are occurring but It simply is not as bad as predicted.

You appear attached to the misguided belief that the environment is static, perhaps it's time you opened you mind and emerged from your philosophical bunker to take a look around.

Calling the petty criminal Peter Gleick an adult says a lot about your own lack of morals. Where do you draw the line for criminal action in support of a misguided cause? Your support of Gleick suggests deception, theft are okay. You advocate censorship of legitimate alternate opinion. What next Alex. When can I expect the jack boots to be st my door?

Should my descendants be confronted by another scare born from hype, misinformation and spin in a hundred years time they will be able to point to the CAGW scare of the early 21st century as another example of unsubstantiated alarm that resulted in the diversion of billions of dollars that could have better spent elsewhere. I don't think you will be awarded any medals for your lies and deception.

Ahhh Marc (with a "c"), you've been doing yeoman work on this topic, as you did on others in months earlier, even if you're not benefitting from Heartland's lubrication of Aussie climate-denial factories, then good, I guess. But that raises the question of your sensibility, since you're missing out on $ you could use to post the bond or trust for benefit of your offspring, should you, by the smallest of chance, be wrong about warming, sea rise, acidification, etc..

You even pull the "peer'-review" card somewhere below, as if you don't understand what it really means. So from what you admit & write here, as profusely as on other Conversation climate pieces in the past, you simply show you're no scientists or engineer. Thus, why should your opinion count more than others?

You know you can go out and measure sea rise, and from that calculate both ice melt & sea warming. You know you can go out and measure oceanic pH. And, you know you could learn how to date the C in the CO2 in the sea (no pun), thus establishing its human-combustive origin.

So why do you persist in wimpily hiding behind critiques of models, groups like IPCC and other unimportant targets of opportunity? It's weak, Marc (with a "c").

You'll have a recorded legacy here and other places, no doubt, for your descendents to point to as they puke at your lack of consideration for them. Pitiful, Marc (with a "c").

A little more about our Alex. He's special, paints the town white rather than red. Perhaps his tin foil hat is the same colour?

"Dr. Cannara is spearheading a push to inform the public about the benefits of reducing solar heating from buildings and concrete through adjusting their surface color."

http://www.keenforgreen.com/b/activist-profile-dr-alexander-cannara

Happy painting Alex, Not sure however that your work will hang in the Lourve.

Alex,
Putting aside your rather odd behaviour, I do congratulate you on your efforts with thorium nuclear. it's a pity that nuclear has been demonized in Austalia to the extent that it is currently off the table. Perhaps The Con would consider a post on this from you?

Normal hostilities may now recommence.

Marc, seem Aussies aren't as biased as you suggest...
http://tinyurl.com/6vmaljn
www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Thorium-sparks-renewed-nuclear-interest-S7A2V?OpenDocument&src=hp7

"Hostilities"? Naah, just demand for facts.

That link is not working. Here's one that suggests some in Australia are serious about thorium...
http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/not-just-india--go-nuclear-in-australia-as-well-20111115-1nh5s.html

No action however likely while the political hangovers of the past hold sway over rational actions that might provide a better future.

Marc.

The Antarctic Circum-Polar current sure is an important factor in worl climte. Currently it, along with similar currents in the atmosphere, tends to isolate Antarctica and all the reflective ice. So lets look at what past history can tell us.

30-35 MYr ago the separation betwen South America and Antarctica had proceeded far enough to allow the current to form. This enhanced to cooling of Antarctica which shifted from a seasonallay frozen state complete with perma-frost to its current permanently frozen state with massive ice sheets. And at the time CO2 levels were around 600 ppm.

Fast forward to today If the ciircum-polar current plus CO2 at 600 ppm was the threshold for glaciation, then presumably going above 600 ppm today with the circumpolar current in place would be the threshold for deglaciation. There may be some hysteresis in this or a substantial time lag before going above those levels begins to hhave a significant effect. But if CO2 went above 600 ppm for a sustained period, there is no reason to think that deglaciation of Antarctica wouldn't ensue - simply rolling the movie backwards.

However there is another factor missing here - Solar output. The heat output of the Sun has increased by around 30% since the Earth was born - this isn't the short term fluctuations like 11 year solar cycles or even postulated 1500 year cycles. We are talking about slow trends over 100's of millions of years.

Factor this in and the threshold to rise above that past 600 ppm level is today around 520 ppm. Then remember that it isn't just CO2 that we have to worry about but other GH gases. So we should be looking at CO2 equivalent. Currently that is around 430-440. 60 ppme away from that threshold.At current rates of emissions, that is about 30 years away. Add economic growth and we are looking at more like 20 years away.

Fast forward to about 5 million years ago. The main body of East Antarctica was well frozen but West Antarctica went through a period of alternately freezing and melting over roughly 1000 year periods. CO2 levels then were around 400 ppm. We are past that now.

And we are seeing warming on the Antarctic peninsular and parts of West Antarctica; the grounding line of the Pine Island Glacier at the centre of West Antarctica is retreating...

So chance of major Ice Loss in 10,000 years. Yes. It may take several 1000 years, but if CO2e rises significantly above 520 ppm and holds there long enough, major ice loss is inevitable. It may take several 1000 years but once the Albedo change due to ice loss starts to matter, the process escalates.

This is the problem with trying to make statements based on single factors. There are multiple factors involved in evaluating something like this - circum-polar current, CO2e levels, Increased solar output, potentially in the shorter term even impacts on circum-polar air currents - the so called Southern Annular Mode - of the Austral Ozone Hole.

Climate Science is always like that. Always a multi-variate problem.

Ok, Ok, Iced whatever, we can help cool off the righteous indignation. This should give you something to calm you...

a) Give us your address.

b) We'll all chip in & buy you a waterproof pad, pen, meter stick, and a pH meter
c) You can go out and fill up the pad with high-tide sea levels and pH readings from all over your continent.

Sounds like a restful, even scientific endeavor? You can even go to nice places, like the Great Barrier Reef or the Nordic fishing grounds, to fill up your pad with true scientific observations. No more worrying about straw-man arguments against "models" or "Hansens", just the facts. Report back in a few years.

Ciao

Typical AGW response! But here's some facts for you!

Yao and Del Genio are the NASA clouds/storms gurus, they along with Schmidt, WRITE the manual and code for the models that predict all these harem scarem scenarios and here is a direct quote from them in 2011:

"Not every model agrees with the “consensus” result, and until and unless the conceptual basis for a shift to fewer but stronger storms is firmly established, the projections of global climate models should be regarded as educated guesses."

Yeah I think we should completely rearrange the whole world based on "educated guesses"!

Is this really an Iced MarcH? I mean some of his choice comments below have been removed, and suddenly we have a similar poster ignoring specific questions, just as did Marc. Hmmmmm.

In any case, still hiding in the 'model' straw-man world, eh Iced? You don't realize even our Koch brothers funded "peer-reviewed" work at UC that showed how accurate all the estimates/measurements of just world temps alone are?...
www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Averaging_Process

Then too, we've had adults speaking science...
http://tinyurl.com/3cw4rkc http://tinyurl.com/bueq2ev
www.skepticalscience.com/Breaking_News_earth_still_warming.html

And, we've recently had fossil-funded 'skeptics' starting to abandon ship, after exposure from under their 'rocks'...
www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine
www.nationofchange.org/heartland-institute-manifestation-kochtopus-empire-1330697980 (Koch)
www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/exxon-finally-admits-denialists-cause-problem/blog/25349/ (Exxon gets honest)
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile (Lomborg too!)
www.latimes.com/news/local/environment/la-me-gs-gm-pulls-support-for-heartland-institute-20120330,0,4735180.story (OMG, even GM)

Wonder who IcedV is beholden too Down Under? IcedV is certainly good at filling space while avoiding facts like sea rise, isotopically-verified sea acidification, grounded ice melts, tundra exposures, methane increases, yadda, yadda. Reality is tough, eh IcedV? Keep trying to hide in "models".
;]
But show good faith and do set up that trust or bond for your descendents, just in case you;'re wrong & wasting time, Iced. Could add some needed believability for your words.

Attack me with the personal vitriol you like it makes no difference to the facts:

1: no temperature rise currently being experienced (and there are significant scientific issues regarding the veracity of land based station data) is unusual in the geological context.

2: no current sea level rise is unusual, in fact in geological terms any current rate of sea level rise is quite trivial.

3: The Arctic and other northern ice has melted, some COMPLETELY, numerous times before even in our piddling human history.

4: the incidence of storms and/or severe storms is actually quite low (corals, sediments etc) tell us that we are living in relatively quite period in earth's weather!

In precis' the only thing that is telling us a scary story is the computer models and they are mathematically provably broken!

Dear Mr or Mrs Volvo,

A couple of the things you said are plain wrong

1. Actually the speed of the increase is significant in geological time and is confirmed by both satellite and land measurements. And you can see here that warming is still occurring rapidly in the ocean - at http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/scienceshot-no-letup-in-worlds.html?ref=em

3. Simply not true - the Arctic has never melted completely during recorded human history.

4. Tropical storm incidence numbers decline under global warming.

I won't comment on sea level without first referring to original sources or chatting to some climate scientists.

I wont bother with the other respondent any more, he is not interested in the science. But you on other hand are worth responding to but I have to go out: watch this space if they don't close the topic in the next few hours!!

1.
a) Land based temps: the vast majority of the data is, in my opinion (and that of others!) very dubious. Disregarding the data collected by universities etc and pre 1970s data, the overwhelming bulk of surface data comes from manual recording on sparsely located un - calibrated back yard equipment (e.g. police or post offices etc.). I will just mention briefly the key issues:
- secret UHI algorithms
- secret/non existent RAW data
- corrupt data from local heating
- un calibrated equipment
- poor or non existent records of station details

To be brutal; I just don't trust the vast majority of pre 1970 (i.e. pre remote data sensing on modern calibrated equipment) data.

And unfortunately there is no access to the RAW (and I mean RAW) temp data for most of the world so the actual temperature record (and any increase or decrease) can NEVER be verified! IT IS KEPT SECRET! As a scientist I do not accept this!

b) Satellite surface temps: Surface recording show a moderate increase in line with modern land based t increase since the 1970s cooler period. UAH and RSS show a rise of ~+0.13-+0.11 C/decade.

One warm period we have to compare this to is the MWP which saw rises of equal to or more than current (depends on which proxy you prefer) especially in the 1100-1200 period. And as corals, sediments and other proxy have shown this was a global process!

As to SST: yes the ocean appears to be warming slightly but again not unusually so! And the continual mixing of ocean currents and the at least six different methods used to take measurements make determining an "average" SST difficult if not impossible; but the accepted average seems to be about +0.5C/century which is almost negligible in geological context. I note that your word "significant" is not a contradiction of "unusual".

As to a real indicator of heat the data form the deep sea probes is still to be collected and analysed.

3. I said SOME ice sheets have completely melted and this is true! Passages across ice free straits are as well known as are others like the settlement and agriculture of Greenland etc by the Vikings and sedimentary and vegetative records of the northern glacier areas: these are just just historical fact!

4. "Tropical storm incidence numbers decline under global warming." Says who? Oh those modellers again! But we didn't need models to tell us this: the sediments of places like the Gulf of Mexico clearly show that storms are both far more violent AND more frequent during cool periods.

Iced/Marc (hard to tell you apart), "the vast majority of the data is, in my opinion (and that of others!) very dubious" -- "opinion"? What, no list of names & "peer reviewed" pieces.

Remember, you were offered a free notebook, pen ruler & pH meter to go out and get you away from your "calibrated back yard equipment".

But also, please take to heart that no one cares what your opinion is, since you never answer direct questions. Maybe you do just want the attention your voluminous posts create? Maybe posting is your job?

All we care about is thwarting your disinformation.

I thought I would rebut the comment about peer review not because the comment deserved it but because it demonstrates to others who might read this the deception that is a hallmark of AGW fundamentalists.

The dispute over the veracity of the early surface based instrumental has existed since the AGW debate began. However access to the RAW IPCC data has always been refused by the likes of Jones et al from Hadley CRU. Whenever data has been obtained it has been shown that the data has been fudged (the two Macs are famous for this). However the bulk of the RAW data has always been withheld i.e. IT IS SECRET!

Recently after years of court action under FOI rules by an international groups of scientists the UK court found that Hadley should release the RAW IPCC temperature data but guess what: Jones et al suddenly declared the data to be "lost".

So the AGW dogma regarding surface temperatures can NEVER be tested or challenged in the peer literature because the original data has been very conveniently "lost". Now Alex knows about the Hadley FOI fiasco as well as anybody involved in this debate so when he carries on about "peer review" he knows that this is deceptive! Now ask yourself what else are the AGW fundamentalists being deceptive about? Well here's just a small list:

- the correction algorithms are SECRET
- the computer models are SECRET
- deep sea T and current data is SECRET
- some [not all but some] RAW satellite data is SECRET
- ad infinitum

So no one can EVER challenge most of the AGW dogma let alone publish a peer reviewed article because no one is allowed to see how they were obtained!

Having read Roger Pielke's Snr's piece and the article he references, there is little if any evidence of a misstatement. He doesn't deny carbon dioxide is the primary driver but suggests that we look at other anthropogenic drivers, which is exactly what is being done.
A Centre of Excellence researcher is producing a research paper at this moment which addresses these very questions. And he is not the only one either within our centre or internationally to have examined this.
There is indeed an influence from aerosols and the like at regional levels but in every case, over time, the influence of CO2 dominates. I have yet to see any paper that disputes this.
While there may have been some fringe papers that have tried to dispute CO2's leading role as a driver of global warming, none has held up under scrutiny.
I respectfully disagree with both the statement and its conclusion.

"Centre of excellence" did you come up with that one. When I went to uni we just had faculties. Reliable, trustworthy, independent. Sad to see that universities have become beholden to BS spinners like you.

What a totally unnecessary response to my comment. There are many Centres of Excellence funded by the Australian Research Council. Many have communocations officers of one form or another.

The Centres exist across multiple university sites - in our case five - and link up with international and national partner organisations. They do advanced research that couldn't be easily done at one university and my job is to help communicate between the hubs and to assist with any media engagements. None of the researchers here are even the slightest bit beholden to me. In fact I am on a massive learning curve and am gaining an enormous amount from them.

As for your questions about did I come up with the name Centre of Excellence, no I did not. It is a long cumbersome name that actually makes my job harder.

I really understand that you don't like my presence here, which is why you sent an email to my director about this comment thread (he is okay with it by the way), but I will engage here because at a personal level I think it is really important that we do something now about AGW.

I am happy to put my name and images to my comments because my current understanding of climate change gives me cause for concern for the future for my son.

When he looks back in years to come, I am confident he will feel I have done the right thing in light of the current evidence.

If it turns out that my position has been completely wrong, I will happily come out and admit it. I don't shy away from admitting mistakes, as you may have noticed in a comment above when I apologised to you for misunderstanding your position.

By all means rant at me if you must. It's water off a ducks back Marc. I spent far too long as an editor of newspapers for Fairfax and News Ltd to have my feathers ruffled by insults.

I trust you have a nice day and I look forward to our ongoing engagement at this site.

My note to your director dealt directly with your deceptive and deliberately misleading comments regarding Roger Pielke Snr. You say you are prepared to admit your mistakes but I have not seen an apology to Prof. Pielke yet. Perhaps you have sent a personal note?

While it has become a trend to re-label university departments with names born from marrying marketing spin with the thoughts of focus groups, the end results do not appear to be providing any real benefit in terms of the quality of the research output. Tell me which university researchers are not striving for excellence? The model is one that reinforces and entrenches groupthink at the expense of original thought, eroding trust and confidence in the process.

In regard to your alarmist activist position, you need look no further than recent comments by James Lovelock to see how out of fashion this is. According to a recent interview he regards his earlier position, and those of our climate Kommissar Tim Flannery and Al Gore as "Alarmist". It seems the road back to a more rational policy response will be paved with the admissions of error of former alarmists. Yours and those of the author of this article will represent two small bricks in that road back to realism.

Search news for "Lovelock recants"