våra sidor

21 maj 2014

Guest post by Lennart Bengtsson: My view on climate research

In a series of recent blog posts, we in Uppsalainitiativet have sharply criticized meteorologist and climate scientist professor Lennart Bengtsson (post 1, post 2, post 3). In this situation we feel that it is reasonable to provide Bengtsson with an opportunity to respond to our criticism, so when he contacted us and offered to clarify his views on climate research we of course gave him the opportunity to do so on our blog. Below is an English translation of Bengtsson's text, approved by him and published with his permission. It goes without saying that our translation and publication of this text in no way means that we endorse the views expressed in it.

* * *

My view on climate research

Lennart Bengtsson

During the last weeks there has been a lot of speculation regarding my views and my scientific standpoint on climate research. I have never really sought publicity and it was with a great deal of reluctance that I began writing articles for public media. A large part of my unwillingness to partake in public debate is connected to my friend Sven Öhman, a linguist who wrote about semantics and not least about the difficulties specialists run into when attempting to communicate with the public. Words and concepts have different meanings and are interpreted differently depending on one’s background and knowledge. Sometimes such misunderstanding can be disastrous.

This is also true for concepts such as climate and climate forecasts. Climate is nothing but the sum of all weather events during some representative period of time. The length of this period cannot be strictly specified, but ought to encompass at least 100 years. Nonetheless, for practical purposes meteorologists have used 30 years. For this reason alone it can be hard to determine whether the climate is changing or not, as data series that are both long enough and homogenous are often lacking. An inspection of the weather in Uppsala since 1722 exemplifies this. Because of chaos theory it is practically impossible to make climate forecasts, since weather cannot be predicted more than one or several weeks. For this reason, climate calculations are uncertain even if all model equations would be perfect.

Despite all these issues, climate research has progressed greatly, above all through new revolutionary observations from space, such as the possibility to measure both volume and mass of the oceans. Temperature and water vapor content of the atmosphere are measured by occultation with GPS satellites. Our knowledge of earlier climate has increased substantially.

It is not surprising that the public is impressed by this and that this trust transfers to climate forecasts and the possibility to predict the earth’s future climate. That all this occurs within a context of international cooperation under the supervision of the UN, and with an apparent unity among the scientists involved has created a robust confidence in IPCC’s climate simulations, in Sweden not the least. SMHI’s [Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute] down-scaled climate simulations for 100 years are impressive and show in detail and with splendid graphics how the climate will turn out both in Östergötland [the Swedish province of East Gothland] and in Västerbotten [West Bothnia]. This is invaluable for municipality climate experts and planners who are working feverishly to avoid future floods and forest fires. The public is in good hands in the benevolent society.

Unfortunately, things are not as splendid as they seem. As a result of chaos theory, weather and climate cannot be predicted, and how future climate will turn out will not be known until future is upon us. It would not help even if we knew the exact amount of greenhouse gases. Add to this the uncertainty about the future of the world. This should be clear to anyone, simply by moving back in time and contemplating what has unfolded from that viewpoint. As Daniel Boorstin put it: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge”.

I’m concerned that this is the problem of the present, and the real reason for me to choose to partake in the climate debate over the last couple of years. I don’t think anyone disputes that I have been highly critical of those who completely reject the effects of greenhouse gases on the earth’s climate. This is however not the problem, but rather how much, how soon and to what extent “climate change” will happen. There is no 97% consensus about this, and even less concerning how weather and climate will turn out in Västerbotten [West Bothnia] in 80 years. This is why it unfortunately is misleading of SMHI to show their beautiful maps, because people may actually believe that this is the way the climate will turn out. The climate scientists of SMHI know this, of course, but for the users this is not clear. My colleague in Hamburg, Guy Brasseur, told me the other day that an insignificant change on about 70 km height in a climate model’s mesosphere, made the weather systems relocate from north Germany to the Alps, consequently with radical regional climate change as a result.

Even more alarming is the tendency of giving people the impression that weather events are becoming more extreme, and that this has actually already occurred. Apart from a possible increase in precipitation and a possible intensification of tropical hurricanes that has not yet been detected, there are no indications of extreme weather in the model simulations, and even less so in current observations.

This has convincingly been demonstrated and also held up by the IPCC. Damages are increasing, as are damages from earth quakes, but this due to the growing economy. It is also important to stress that injuries suffered by humans during extreme weather has decreased substantially due to better weather forecasts.

What is perhaps most worrying is the increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research. This is revealed through the bias in publication records towards only reporting results that support one climate hypothesis, while refraining from publishing results that deviate. Even extremely cold weather, as this year’s winter in north Eastern USA and Canada, is regarded as a consequence of the greenhouse effect.

Were Karl Popper alive today we would certainly have met with fierce critique of this behavior. It is also demonstrated in journals’ reluctance to address issues contradicting simplified climate assessments, such as the long period during the last 17 years with insignificant or no warming over the oceans, and the increase in sea-ice cover around the Antarctic. My colleagues and I have been met with scant understanding when trying to point out that observations indicate lower climate sensitivity than model calculations indicate. Such behavior may not even be intentional but rather attributed to an effect that my colleague Hans von Storch calls a social construct.

That I have taken a stand trying to put the climate debate onto new tracks has resulted in rather violent protests. I have not only been labeled a sceptic but even a denier, and faced harsh criticism from colleagues. Even contemplating my connections with GWPF was deemed unheard of and scandalous.

I find it difficult to believe that the prominent Jewish scientists in the GWPF council appreciate being labeled deniers. The low-point is probably having been labeled “world criminal” by a representative of the English wind power-industry. I want to stress that I am a sworn enemy of the social construction of natural science that has garnered so much traction in the last years. For example, German scientists have attempted to launch what they call “good” science to ensure that natural science shouldn’t be driven by what they view as anti-social curiosity-research by researching things that might not be “good”. Einstein’s "anti-social behavior", when he besides his responsible work as a patent office clerk in Bern also researched on the theory of relativity and the photoelectric effect, was of course reprehensible, and to do this during work-time! Even current labor unions would have strongly condemned this.

I hope that these lines of text will shed light on my viewpoints and my actions and perhaps create some understanding for my motivations.


87 kommentarer:

  1. Thank you for publishing what Lennart Bengtsson wrote. I find it weird that you had to write: "It goes without saying that our translation and publication of this text in no way means that we endorse the views expressed in it."

    ...because nobody in their sound mind should find any reason to disagree with anything that Bengtsson wrote in his piece.

    Vieras

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. I can easily find some;
      "Because of chaos theory it is practically impossible to make climate forecasts, since weather cannot be predicted more than one or several weeks. For this reason, climate calculations are uncertain even if all model equations would be perfect."

      Likewise, we can not determine which lobe of the lung cancer will start in if you smoke, nor can we determine who will eventually develop lung cancer and who will not, yet we can easily determine within fairly small errors how many people will each year. This argument is a false analogy.

      "My colleagues and I have been met with scant understanding when trying to point out that observations indicate lower climate sensitivity than model calculations indicate. Such behavior may not even be intentional but rather attributed to an effect that my colleague Hans von Storch calls a social construct."

      Of course, as a non-climate-scientist, I can not judge whether this particular field is rife with poorly supported conjectures, though I would like to point out that my a priori assumption would be not. However, the reason prof. Bengtsson got rejected is because his paper was poorly supported conjectures, so at least in this one instance, the (high impact) journals did their job satisfactory.

      "I find it difficult to believe that the prominent Jewish scientists in the GWPF council appreciate being labeled deniers."

      This one flat out does not make any sense.

      Radera
    2. Dr.Anonymus
      Sound mind is not as easily fooled as that. so what can it be?

      Radera
    3. Lennart started his explanations by pointing out that terms are differently understood in different quarters. This certainly applies to the response of Dr. Benfagre, who compares a map of temperature change for Västerbotten (which I have not seen :-()for some decades with the statement if somebody would at a some later time suffer from lung cancer. While there is broad consensus that it will become warmer (because of the emission of GHGs) in this and likely the coming century, the question how strong, when, with which spatial and temporal anomalies, is another question - just like who is getting when lung cancer.
      Now, what to do about it -my hypothesis - Dr. Benfagre has not really tried to understand what Lennart wanted to say; from what I conclude that Lennart's idea of building bridges so that people would better understand what they are really arguing about, what the really contested issues are, and which argument is only due to misunderstanding and righteous behavior claiming that one would possess the right nomenclature.
      I have to admit that Lennart is also not always a perfect listener, as his mentioning of the "social construct" may allude to. Thus, let's all try to begin with: our opponent is neither stupid nor evil, but has different viewpoints. What are these viewpoints, let's listen.

      Radera
    4. Rutger Benfagre,

      You are not familiar with the climate science field to be able to draw conclusions of the quality in the field. I respect that. However, you assume that Bengtsson is wrong. Why is that?

      Bengtsson wrote a paper comparing climate models to actual measurements. It's a known fact that climate models have been running too hot for 17 years. Based on the little information we have of the peer review process, the paper was rejected because models are not supposed to be compared to reality. What in the world are they supposed to be compared to?

      The lung cancer rate can be estimated with a small error. Now, imagine someone comparing the actual rate to those estimations and noticing how they differ a lot and writing a paper about it. Every scientist worth their value should want that paper to be published regardless of their attitude towards smoking.

      Vieras

      Radera
    5. "Based on the little information we have of the peer review process, the paper was rejected because models are not supposed to be compared to reality."

      That has been made up at 'skeptical' blogs. The point is that you must make sure you compare the same things in the models and in the observations.

      Radera
    6. "You are not familiar with the climate science field to be able to draw conclusions of the quality in the field. I respect that. However, you assume that Bengtsson is wrong. Why is that?"

      I did not assume Bengtsson is wrong - although I actually do believe he is wrong, yet I did not state it then and there even if I do it now - I said that the paper was to speculative. Of course, if you missed some of the backstory, you may view this as an opinion I cooked up, but it is in fact an opinion I ingested;

      http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

      "The lung cancer rate can be estimated with a small error. Now, imagine someone comparing the actual rate to those estimations and noticing how they differ a lot and writing a paper about it. Every scientist worth their value should want that paper to be published regardless of their attitude towards smoking."

      Yes of course. Yet, the issue was not about such a paper, but a highly speculative paper, as linked above.

      "It's a known fact that climate models have been running too hot for 17 years."

      No, it is not. This statement is valid only if you limit yourself to 17 years. You would get a skewed view of the outdoors temperature as well, if you discounted summer from a years average. 1998 was an el nino year;
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png/800px-Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
      The rest of the "missing" heat was picked up by the oceans. Please note how Bengtsson talk about "insignificant or no warming over the oceans," and "increase in sea-ice cover around the Antarctic". Why is he putting those limitations on the data-sets? Dare I suggest he is cherry-picking?

      "Now, what to do about it -my hypothesis - Dr. Benfagre has not really tried to understand what Lennart wanted to say; from what I conclude that Lennart's idea of building bridges so that people would better understand what they are really arguing about, what the really contested issues are, and which argument is only due to misunderstanding and righteous behavior claiming that one would possess the right nomenclature."

      Please understand that I am not on the hate-bandwagon, because I know the frustration you feel when you experience that no one listens, regardless whether there is justification in the others not listening. Except, some people do listen, and pet your ego like the cats with along your alignment rather than opposed. It is easy to be corrupted - there is enough spy stories to confirm that. I believe this is a wake-up call for Bengtsson, and I hope he does not let frustration get the better of him this time. Like police officers take an oath to uphold the law, scientist take an oath to uphold the Truth, although unofficial.

      Now, of course, climate science is not perfect (but do have perfected forms, such as gravity and the basics of evolution, I despise relativism), and there are certain rubbery boundaries that allow several theories to be held valid until disproven, of those some are even opposing. Note that Bengtssons "critical voice", that would be, non-mainstream yet still valid interpretations, were grumpily tolerated by the climate science community. However, with joining GWPF, Bengtsson passed this (for an outsider invisible) boundary, and thats what with all this anger, or if you indulge the inappropiate methaphors, "McCarthyism" and "Galileoism" and what others not to flattering epitahs the deniers manage to scoop up from the bottom of the barrel.

      Radera
    7. Rutger Benfagre, please try to be even a bit sceptic. The hiatus has lasted 17 years now. That has happened against all predictions even though CO2 emissions have been on the high side. It's all ok again to point that 17 years is not that long a period. Not that much data to draw conclusions of. But there's no evidence whatsoever that the missing heat would be hiding in the oceans:

      THOMAS: What empirical evidence is there, as distinct from modelling, that ‘missing heat’ has gone into the deep oceans?
      CURRY: Basically, none. Observations below 2 km in the ocean are exceedingly rare, and it is only since 2005 that we have substantial coverage below 700 metres.

      http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2014/05/chatting-climate-heretic/

      Vieras

      Radera
    8. "The hiatus has lasted 17 years now. That has happened against all predictions even though CO2 emissions have been on the high side."
      Based on track record, I bet my money on IPCC over deniers.
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCCvsContrarians.gif

      "But there's no evidence whatsoever that the missing heat would be hiding in the oceans:"
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Ocean_Database_Project#Comparison_of_World_Ocean_Databases

      To me it looks like they started the measurements in 1974, what am I missing?

      Radera
    9. It is quite surprising that Lennart Bengtsson would refer to increasing sea ice around Antarctica as contradicting the IPCC consensus. The reasons for this have been known for some time

      Manabe Spellman and Stouffer Transient Responses of a Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Model to Gradual Changes of Atmospheric CO2. Part II: Seasonal Response (1992)

      and Zwalley, et al Variability of Antarctic Sea Ice (2002)

      and more recently

      Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice

      ABSTRACT: The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century. Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades through the reduced upward ocean heat transport and increased snowfall.
      ----------------------------------------

      The cause of this is that the range of temperature at which snow falls is rather small basically because there has to be a significant amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and when it gets really cold there ain't, so the only way for snow to fall is transport from warmer areas. This makes sense if the Sourthern Ocean is warming, which cannot be gainsaid

      Radera
    10. said Rutger Benfagre: To me it looks like they started the measurements in 1974, what am I missing?

      According to NODC in the 31 years from 1974-2004 inclusive, there were only a total of 148,678 casts (from OSD,CTD,XBT,MBT,PFL,DRB,MRB,APB,UOR,SUR,GLD databases) which recorded temperature at depths at or below 2km. This would amount to less than 400 casts of various quality per month to cover all of the oceans of the planet. Most of these came from the northern Atlantic trade routes. The vast majority of the sub-equatorial Pacific was covered only by a few strings of data which appear to be the recordings of a single pass by a single ship in the 31 years, providing 1-2 casts per every 60nm or so along their way. So Mr. Benfagre is missing usable quantities of quality data for most of the deep oceans prior to at least 2005.

      Radera
  2. Professor Bengtsson, thank you for speaking out.

    SvaraRadera
  3. "It is also demonstrated in journals’ reluctance to address issues contradicting simplified climate assessments, such as the long period during the last 17 years with insignificant or no warming over the oceans, and the increase in sea-ice cover around the Antarctic. "

    This is highly misleading, and one of the reasons why I struggle to take Bengtsson seriously.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. It's not enough to just label Bengtsson without any details whatsoever. It's a known fact that temperatures have stalled for 17 years. It's also a fact that models are running too hot. Comparing those or pointing to the long term increase of sea ice around the Antarctic is anything but misleading.

      Vieras

      Radera
    2. The misleading part is the claim that journals are reluctant to address those facts. There have been many paper published in the peer reviewed literature about the slowdown in warming in recent years and the increasing Antarctic sea ice.

      Radera
  4. "I find it difficult to believe that the prominent Jewish scientists in the GWPF council appreciate being labeled deniers."

    "This one flat out does not make any sense."


    You cannot understand why Jewish people would not like to be called "deniers" ie holocaust deniers.
    I am not sure if your trying to be obtuse and trying to appear dumb for some reason..or if you are really that stupid.


    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Please keep the discussion factual, polite and constructive. Thank you.

      Radera
    2. Lindzen is one of those Jewish scientists on the GWPF council, and in a BBC interview he said "I actually like denier. That’s closer than sceptic."
      (sorry, direct link to his interview doesn't work anymore, at least for me)

      Also, the scientific literature has many papers using the term "denier" in the same context as science denier, with the majority of those papers not about the holocaust, and many also not referring to climate change, or only to climate change as yet another example of denialism. See e.g. Diethelm and McKee (Eur J Public Health (2009) 19 (1): 2-4).

      Radera
    3. The writer admitted that he was not familiar with climate science so I bet he didn't know that it's really common to label sceptics as climate science deniers. And that the origin was to compare climate science denial to holocaust denial.

      The toxicity of climate science debate can be a real eye opener to anyone who comes from the hard sciences.

      When it comes to climate science, you are very fast labelled a denier if you accept the greenhouse gas theory, but

      - think that warming caused by CO2 will be small.
      - think that adapting to warming is more sensible than mitigation.
      - point out that warming is not necessary a bad thing.
      - etc...

      Vieras

      Radera
    4. The word "denial" was used by Freud to signify a psychological defense mechanism when confronted with uncomfortable facts.

      Radera
    5. Vieras 15:49>>

      if our current scientific understanding strongly suggests that:

      1) warming caused by CO2 will _not_ be small
      2) the costs of mitigating most likely are way lower than the costs of the consequences of not mitigating
      3) warming most likely causes way more bads than goods

      (acknowledging that mitigation is also sensible, and necessary, and applying the most widespread interpretation of the words "small", "bad" and "good"; terminology which is, of course, value-based)

      then it may not be factually wrong to call someone denying this science a denier (as long as the person is at least on some basic level aware of the existence of this science)

      /A

      Radera
    6. "You cannot understand why Jewish people would not like to be called "deniers" ie holocaust deniers.
      I am not sure if your trying to be obtuse and trying to appear dumb for some reason..or if you are really that stupid."

      I need not buy into your nomenclature. That is absurd, we would have to invent an "inoffensive" language to sate the (climate change) deniers while confusing the audience - the latter would be the actual objective since none of you ACTUALLY believe we think you guys are roughly as pleasant and reasonable as holocaust deniers. But how about this;
      You guys, not just you, but all of you, stop calling friends of science watermelons, alarmists and members of the NWO, and we stop calling you (climate change) deniers. Deal?

      Radera
    7. Ok, I've seen this discussion repeated too many times already. Let's cut it now.

      Radera
    8. To my fellow Anonym writer...

      Mitigation is the way to go if and only if:

      The feedbacks of CO2 are big.
      AND warming is more harmful than beneficial.
      AND mitigation can be done globally.
      AND the costs of mitigation are smaller than costs of adaptation.
      AND the harm from mitigation is smaller than the harm from warming.
      AND mitigation actually results in temperatures not raising.

      On every step there are big questions. And failing a single step results in mitigation being more harmful than beneficial.

      Vieras

      Radera
    9. Vieras, those conditions are not independent. Big feedback resulting in a large warming increases the likelihood of several of the other conditions.

      Radera
  5. Dear Professor Bengtsson.

    I agree that we must keep the debate objective and decent. But your position is puzzling.

    I am not a climate scientist but I know enough to believe that the distribution of risk due to manmade GHG emmissions - through warming and ocean acidification - has a long upper tail. I have kids and I have objective reasons to suppose that these risks threaten their future.

    I will therefore do my best to remain objective but I will reserve politeness for those who take this risk seriously and do not attempt to undermine action to mitigate it.

    SvaraRadera
  6. Thanks for the clarification, but there are several incorrect statements in this post.

    1) Anthropogenic climate change has increased several types of extreme weather, particularly heat waves, and is projected to intensify many others, for example drought intensity.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm

    2) There seems to be some confusion about the ability to model the future perfectly vs. the ability to project a distribution of probable future climate changes. Prof. Bengtsson seems to argue that if we can't project future climate change perfectly then we can't project it at all (the chaos theory comments). In reality it's simple physics that if we continue to increase the greenhouse effect and global energy imbalance, that will cause hotter temperatures and 'load the dice' in favor of certain associated climate changes (stronger heat waves, droughts, intense precipitation, etc.).

    3) Temperatures over the oceans are not representative of the warming of the planet as a whole.

    4) There is substantial research into the cause of the slight increase in Antarctic sea ice extent, which is happening in a region with warming temperatures.

    5) If you still don't understand why your colleagues were upset that you joined GWPF, you need to spend more time looking into the comments and reports made by the group, for example about the IPCC and Michael Mann.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Dana
      Why is it ok for Mann to label a fellow scientist #antiscience but not for an organisation to criticise Mann himself?

      Radera
    2. Anonym... So, you're of the opinion that Mann has never been criticized? That's a good one.

      Radera
  7. John DeFayette22 maj 2014 17:51

    Thank you, thank you a thousand times for speaking out. The effects of this climate religiosity will only be weeded out by those sane minds like yours who can still muster the courage to say "we don't know" before a gullible and insecure public.
    Utmost respect to you, sir.

    SvaraRadera
  8. Sir, in your post you claim the following:

    "Even more alarming is the tendency of giving people the impression that weather events are becoming more extreme, and that this has actually already occurred. Apart from a possible increase in precipitation and a possible intensification of tropical hurricanes that has not yet been detected, there are no indications of extreme weather in the model simulations, and even less so in current observations. "

    This remark directly contradicts the following quotation in the UK's Guardian, made by Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC):

    "Figueres said that examples of recent extreme weather around the world were a sign climate change was here now. "If you take them individually you can say maybe it's a fluke. The problem is it's not a fluke and you can't take them individually. What it's doing is giving us a pattern of abnormality that's becoming the norm. These very strange extreme weather events are going to continue in their frequency and their severity … It's not that climate change is going to be here in the future, we are experiencing climate change."
    Source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/05/extreme-weather-climate-change-political-christiana-figueres-un

    I have also documented recent extreme weather here http://wp.me/pv7Zf-ks and here http://wp.me/pv7Zf-kK. These events - this empirical evidence, is consistent with the generalisations of the GCMs, and the projections of the IPCC. While we can dismiss any single event as an outlier in the context of natural variability, I do not believe it is either legitimate nor credible to make your claim, which you have not supported by any kind of evidence. This kind of claim is the stuff of the GWPF, and perhaps illustrates why so many people, myself included, were dismayed to find you allied to such people, and making claims you cannot substantiate.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Yet AR5WG1 Chapter 2 appears to say that there is low confidence in trends of magnitude and/or frequency for cyclones, hurricanes, floods, droughts, and small scale severe weather phenomena such as hail or thunderstorms. Is this legitimate and credible?

      Radera
    2. Sort of. Each of those is a different thing and the arguments are different. What can be reasonably said is that the strength of confidence in trends for each of those is different. Probably the strongest confidence is that there will be more flooding and droughts.

      Radera
    3. "2.6.2.2 Floods
      ...
      In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low con-
      fidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency
      of floods on a global scale.

      2.6.2.3 Droughts
      ...
      In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough
      evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a glob-
      al-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the
      middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, geo-
      graphical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred
      trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions
      regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were
      probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and inten-
      sity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa
      and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since
      1950.
      "

      My point is merely that it seems unreasonable to take Professor Bengtsson to task for questioning the observational evidence for extreme weather when no less a source than IPCC AR5 WG1 agrees with him in substance.

      Radera
    4. "My point is merely that it seems unreasonable to take Professor Bengtsson to task for questioning the observational evidence for extreme weather..."

      Bengtsson didn't 'question', he made an assertion:

      "...there are no indications of extreme weather in the model simulations, and even less so in current observations..."

      You have cited the IPCC, who say there isn't enough evidence. That cuts both ways: if there's not enough evidence to assert a trend with a positive sign, there can't be enough evidence to make any other kind of assertion either. Bengtsson is expressing opinion as fact, which is hardly proper for a scientist.

      Radera
  9. Thank you for speaking out against bad science, Prof. Bengtsson!

    SvaraRadera
  10. Thank you for having the courage to speak out in this way, Professor Bengtsson

    SvaraRadera
  11. It is astounding that such opposite opinions and "facts" (such as those about trends in "extreme" weather) can be held by (clearly) intelligent, well-read and computer-literate people. How can that be?

    All I can think is that we are in an age of information overload: it is physically or psychologically impossible for the human mind to hold, compare, digest and conclude from the immense volume of disparately sourced and manipulated data available on ANY subject. The mind MUST, therefore, make a judgement on what types or sources of data to serve for interpretation of the world. Some slide to the "warmist" side, some to the "denier" side, but all slide to some pre-interpretive position.

    Are we specialists or generalists? As a species, generalist. As individuals? Perhaps specialists, the joining of which in a social group creates the generalist species by forced compromises amongst the specialists. If this is (also) the case, then each of us has been fooled to think that he/she can grasp enough of what is going on to see the bigger picture AND avoid a capture/release bias in the process.

    Mann isn't stupid. Nor is Curry. So why the polarity of opinion? Is it really a "follow the money"? Money influences, surely. But perhaps it is more information overload and internal, non-understood psychological biases hardwired into our brains.

    SvaraRadera
  12. Dr. Bengtsson conclusion that the climate science can never be figured out is a hasty conclusion, because he has not tried hard enough. He cannot and should not be talking for the seven billion people of the world. They are smart enough to figure out the science and they will, definitely.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Do you know who Prof. Bengtsson is, or how many papers he has published? He knows more about climate science than almost anyone on Earth.

      Radera
    2. I think that's commonly called an appeal to authority and credentialism, a common tactic when one does not have any credible ideas or statements to add to the discussion. The issue here is 'credibility' and with regards to the professor, the subject more properly belongs in psychology, brain development and aging processes. Some of the posters here need to review their understanding of the concept of 'facts' as they related to science as well. And the whole 'chaos' statement is just plain ridiculous.

      Radera
    3. The point I was making is that the poster above was wrong to suggest that Prof. Bengtsson "has not tried hard enough". That is a ridiculous claim to make. But, whether Prof. Bengtsson is right or wrong depends on the science, not who he is. The same rule applies to everyone, an both sides of the argument.

      Radera
  13. I am not a climate scientist, and have "only" variously worked as a registered professional engineer, programmer, and analyst of statistics for the past 30+ years. I applaud Dr. Bengtsson for expressing his instinctive uneasiness with the current state of climate science and its disturbing alliance with world-wide "policy makers" who also hold the powers of taxation, regulation, and treaty-writing.

    We all should think more than twice when such bodies announce that "the debate is over", anoint themselves the only holder of truth, and give themselves the power to impose any and all "required solutions". The history of mankind is littered with the destruction initiated by such hubris.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. History is also full of self-appointed holders of the truth leading such efforts as to eradicate smallpox, measles and TBC as well as regulating the use of harmful toxins such as DDT, freons and asbestos.

      Radera
  14. You say that because we cannot predict chaotic weather we therefore cannot predict climate. I am sure you understand that predicting weather and predicting climate are two very different problems. While you have a legitimate point about unpredictable weather, short-term variability averages out in the long-term trends with which we are concerned when we consider climate. However, in another part of your letter you talk about the need to consider long-term averages ("100 years") presumably because of the difficulty of identifying a long-term trend when there is significant short-term variability.

    Another claim mentions: "journals’ reluctance to address issues contradicting simplified climate assessments" in relation to the apocryphal 17 year "pause". One might have hoped that you would look deeper (pun intended) for evidence of warming but, more importantly, it is difficult to understand why you have (again) abandoned your own 100-year rule. Do you believe it is reasonable to claim that a 17-year average - contaminated by short-term variability - might contradict the long-term trend hypothesised in (your words) "simplified climate assessments"?

    I note that you focussed your criticism of climate models on their ability to accurately predict small-scale, local climates far into the future. I think it's fair to say that climate modellers themselves will freelly admit that they have low confidence in any such ability - although of course much research is ongoing to increase fine-grained accuracy.

    What you fail to mention is the much greater confidence at larger temporal and geographical scales where models have undeniable skill at depicting the flow of energy through the Earth's systems. Models become less and less clear at finer levels of detail. By deliberately choosing to judge them on such, you have created an extremely misleading impression that models are "wrong" or inadequate.

    Suppose we are standing beside a puddle in the road when a car drives past, right through the puddle. Your argument is that, because we can't predict the trajectory of each and every drop of water, we have no predictive skill at all. My argument is that we know with almost absolute certainty that we're about to get soaked. Which is more important?

    You have made some serious complaints about "McCarthyism", violence and fears for your personal safety. However, you have not (to my knowledge) contacted the police. That seems rather strange. Regardless, I would like to condemn any thuggish behaviour and offer you my support - if only I knew what had actually happened. I think we have to insist that you explain these events in more detail. If you cannot do so you must withdraw your claims.

    The same applies to your criticism of climate models. Having just had a paper rejected even as an opinion piece (!) I would have thought that you might have refrained from lecturing us on the shortcomings of climate models at least until such time as you might successfully create a formal, viable - ie publishable - argument. As a professional scientist, you must be aware that the limits of what one can reasonably claim about a scientific subject are defined by the set of published papers which have not yet been refuted. This phoney media war of personal attacks, cheap shots, and unscientific claims should be beneath you.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. "Suppose we are standing beside a puddle in the road when a car drives past, right through the puddle. Your argument is that, because we can't predict the trajectory of each and every drop of water, we have no predictive skill at all. My argument is that we know with almost absolute certainty that we're about to get soaked. Which is more important?"

      This is a logical fallacy, unintended I am sure.
      The answer is we dont know how wet we will be from models.
      If you want to make an akward comparison like this you should build a computer model that simulates driving through the pudle and then claim that spiked winter wheels will make you more (or less wet) than unspiked summer wheels, and you will also put a number to how much extra water will soak you..

      But it is still silly.

      Radera
    2. "This is a logical fallacy, unintended I am sure."

      No. That was exactly what Bengtsson said. Read again.

      Your argument however, was a fallacy, called "moving the goalpost".

      Radera
    3. @Noel Darlow:
      "While you have a legitimate point about unpredictable weather, short-term variability averages out in the long-term trends with which we are concerned when we consider climate. "

      How could you possibly know that? Could you prove that? Because that is exactly what LB has spent his career on trying to understand. I think his reasoning is more well-based than yours in that the sum of 100 days of weather can not be predicted if you cannot predict 1 days of weather. If you were correct, I guess climate models would have been more accurate today.

      Besides, assuming the die has 6 sides and that you therefore "know" the mean outcome is 3,5 is an illusion. To even suggest something like this about climate is silly.

      /G

      Radera
    4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k

      Radera
  15. I find it instructive that a paper is rejected because the observational record should not be compared with model calculations and yet we are asked to shift vast economic resources towards reducing potential temperature increases predicted by these very same models. So believe the models for economic policy but do not examine their validity, very strange attitude.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. "I find it instructive that a paper is rejected because the observational record should not be compared with model calculations..."
      This is nonsense. The point is that one must take care to compare the same things in models and observations.

      Radera
    2. Absolutely I agree a correct comparison must be made. If it was correct to reject the paper why are invalid comparisons made when political advocacy comes into play. Models show/predict/whatever term you like 3 C before 2100 and this is used to say the observed temperatures will have increased by 3 C.

      Radera
    3. And what "Same Things" would that be? I'm very curious as to what you think is being compared between models and observations.

      Radera
    4. The review e g points to differences in geographical coverage. You should try to read it.

      Now, this is interesting. Bengtsson takes a phrase from one of the reviews out of context to make it appear that the review said that his paper should be rejected because it could support the 'skeptics'.
      The journal calls Bengtsson's bluff and publishes the full review.
      Now the 'skeptics' need to find something else to complain about in the review. So what do they do? They make up another misrepresentation!
      Does anybody see a pattern here?

      Radera
    5. Two replies and neither address the salient point. The results for these models are used to advocate action on the basis of predicted changes in temperature. Politicians talk about preventing a 2 C rise in temperature as predicted by these models and yet we are told not to compare model temperatures to the observational record. Yet all the hindcasting in the models is based on comparing the models with the observed temperature record. Note even with the changes in geographical coverage you mention the models are running hot http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/tag/kevin-cowtan/ , yes we should be cautious about accepting this as a sign the models are inaccurate but bear in mind the models are being used to say something about temperatures in 50-100 years time. Small deviations can be amplified with time. If my computer simulations were falling below the line like these I would be very concerned about my ability to predict what was going on.

      Radera
    6. So you (10:47) repeat the false claim that "we are told not to compare model temperatures to the observational record."

      That a correct comparison is likely to still show that the models in average are higher than observations is a different issue. And too high values of climate sensitivity can definitely be a factor in that (as can e.g. the ENSO cycle).

      But what are the
      implications of potentially lower climate
      sensitivity on climate projections and policy
      ? It can maybe buy us a decade or so. Considering how slowly we have acted so far, that really doesn't mean that the problem is gone. It just means that we have a greater chance to solve it if we really try to do something.

      Radera
    7. Thanks for the link. You are quite right within the context of the climate models being used the reduced climate sensitivity buys little time. However, the question is, do these models correctly predict the long term future? If the models were required to reproduce a mean response equivalent to the temperature record up to date, including the last 17 years, what changes would be required and what would be predicted for the future? Does their construction properly account for all the significant physical processes in the climate? How can we verify this is true under the required conditions for a future climate.

      I am sure the modellers are doing a brilliant job but science is littered with failures to appreciate the true nature of the system. Please appreciate I see this as a modelling problem. I am simply sceptical of our ability to predict so far into the future but this scepticism also allows for the possibility of us underestimating the warming. That the current lull will be replaced by renewed enhanced warming. The trouble is, in my experience, expressing this proper scientific scepticism leads to pejorative terms being used to describe the approach. Unfortunately this does nothing to enhance the argument of needing to take action to the wider community merely distracts.

      Furthermore, I am not arguing against taking action. It plainly makes sense for us to switch to renewable resources and stop burning fossil fuels which are from politically sensitive parts of the world and are important chemical feedstocks. At the same time we need to ensure developing countries use renewable energy sources straight off. In truth in terms of solving anything, I'm afraid I am very pessimistic, the CO2 emissions will run their course based on current economic arguments. All we can do is hope we can mitigate the changes as they occur.

      Radera
    8. Anonymous 20:04 - I pretty much agree with you. I don't think it is very likely that we have completely overlooked some major climate factor, but our knowledge is incomplete and in particular there may be connections we haven't really worked out yet.

      And of course, that can strike either way.

      Radera
  16. Lennart's comments about chaos theory indicate that he is either trying to introduce confusion into this discussion, or he simply doesn't understand what he's talking about. The fact that summers are consistently warmer than winters, or that New York is climatologically cooler than Arizona, is sufficient to knock down his ridiculous intuition of how projections of statistics works. But I think mostly everyone else understands this.

    It is easy to play the victim card here, and this has been one of the handy items on the toolbelt of people like this. But the fact is, Lennart has every right to associate with GWPF or anyone he wants, just as serious scientists have every right to tell him he's being ridiculous.

    SvaraRadera
  17. I know that most men,
    including those at ease with problems
    of the greatest complexity,
    can seldom accept even the simplest
    and most obvious truth
    if it be such as would oblige them
    to admit the falsity of conclusions
    which they have delighted
    in explaining to colleagues,
    which they have proudly taught to others,
    and which they have woven thread by thread,
    into the very fabric of their lives.
    - Tolstoy

    SvaraRadera
  18. Noel Darlow

    Surely the problem is that you are predicting that there will be a puddle that will soak us?

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Actually, I think he's telling us that 'The Science' says we've already been soaked. And if observation tells us that we are in fact still dry, then we must not be comparing the same things as what is in the models. You can't do that, don't you know <_<

      Radera
  19. Thanks much Dr. Bengtsson,
    I have been an operational meteorologist for 32 years, the last 2 decades, forecasting and observing global weather and how it effects crops and energy demand. I apply this in the commodities markets. I have studied climate for 15 years.

    Of course the time frame is what separates weather and climate. All meteorologists depend on weather models. The equations that represent the physics of the atmosphere on weather modela are different in many ways than those used with climate models. However, I understand the physics of both types of models and why they both fail. Despite failing at times, weather models are extraordinarily useful. Their value is dependant on the meteorologist recognizing when they are failing.........which happens on a regular basis. A meteorologist must be constantly dialing in updates to previous weather forecasts based on fresher/more recent data that becomes available on each run. Meteorologists have an appreciation for timely reconciliation of the initial state fed into models so it best represents the new reality of empirical data/observations, which gives the models “another chance” to provide better guidance than what was provided yesterday, or last week.

    This is not the case with those that use global climate models. Even as global warming has stalled for well over a decade, instead of reconciliation with reality, a growing disparity has been allowed to take place. Models, with their upward temperature slope still effected by the global warming from the 1980's/90's are greatly diverging from observations since that time.

    The reason global climate models are failing is that climate scientists and others refuse to make the adjustments in them that currently represent the theory of catastrophic anthropagenic global warming. To make them less sensitive would result in “more modest” vs catastrophic warming. This would completely change the message from “we need to act now” and “the science is settled” or “debate is over”.


    SvaraRadera
  20. Another big reason to not see, what I see as obvious, is the problem we humans have with subjectivity and bias.There is so much on the line.......political, ego, monetary and most importantly, human emotions related to cognitive bias.
    Being baffled at why scientists, who are supposed to be objective, would be so subjective for years, has given me an opportunity to study this. Look at this list and note the numerous cognitive bias's that you, me and all human beings have, including scientists.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

    As a meteorologist, I can show you that strong to violent tornadoes in the US, peaked in the 1970's(because of global cooling). http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png That tropical cyclone energy peaked in the 1990's. http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp?basin=gl Global warming is not causing extreme cold and snow as we were told.......after snow and extreme cold increased. The hottest and driest weather in the US was during the decade of the 1930's, the Dust Bowl years. Super Storm Sandy was nothing unusual. The US drought of 2012, came after setting the record for the longest stretch in history, 24 years of NOT having a widespread drought. With the exception of heavy rain events, after 32 years of observing weather and also comparing it to historic weather maps/records that I have, I can say confidently that most extreme weather has NOT increased. I challenge somebody to show me how burning fossil fuels shows anything different.

    Warming the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, as we did in the 80's/90's, decreased the meridional temperature gradient that provides energy for many of these extreme weather elements. However, if you didn't already agree with me, it's likely that your confirmation bias and framing as well as several other cognitive bias's most of us have, will keep your brain from objectively embracing these facts.

    Predicting the effects of elements on crop conditions and yields has provided me an opportunity to study the effects of CO2 on plants. To put it simply: One side is completely misrepresenting the tremendous benefits to our booming biosphere, vegetative health and world food production that increasing carbon dioxide has had on our world. http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm
    Why would this not be important to the discussion? The indisputable law of photosynthesis that we all learned in elementary school has not been repealed and replaced with a theory, which is failing to verify. Or has it?

    SvaraRadera
  21. "Surely the problem is that you are predicting that there will be a puddle that will soak us?"

    If you accept that the limits of what one can reasonably claim about a scientific subject are defined by the set of peer-reviewed papers which have not yet been refuted, then this is an extremely reasonable claim supported by a great deal of evidence (not just models).

    If you don't accept these limits, then I fail to see how it is possible to talk meaningfully about matters of science.

    SvaraRadera
  22. Of course agw theory must be wrong since we have an increase in antarctic sea ice and a "pause" in atmospheric warming. But what about glacial decrease, arctic sea ice decrease, ocean warming, a measured energy imbalance and models that can reproduce this. Does that not count? And about pauses, what pause: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/

    SvaraRadera
  23. People can accept that politicians are biased about politics and that priests are biased about religion but scientists being biased about science is hard to embrace.
    As an independent atmospheric scientist/meteorologist for 32 years, I've seen tremendous bias in peer reviewed papers on climate science and IPCC reports. I understand exactly where you are coming from. 20 years ago, I was convinced by peer reviewed papers that greenhouse gas warming was going to cause catastrophic warming. I had 100% faith and trust in what these experts stated.

    As a meteorologist, I understand the physics and driving forces of the atmosphere. I gather atmospheric data and use models for hours every day. I understand the language, reasoning and limitations of research. There is no question that climate science has merged with a political cause and the politics have been displacing the science since the empirical data has not supported the science in over a decade.

    This is not speculation. Let me ask a question to those that think skeptics are also "deniers". If what I ( Dr. Bengtsson) am saying is true, how would you know if it was or not? You judge based on what the government or media or sources of the information like the IPCC tells you. You have confidence that, about climate science they are telling it like it is I actually worked as a television meteorologist for 11 years before doing what I do now. I am not saying that you should never trust any of these sources for information. I am stating unequivocally, as an operational meteorologist that monitors the effects of weather on crops and energy use(when I'm wrong-I LOSE money) that you are being told a story much different than the one I have been observing in the atmosphere for decades.

    There are many other areas of science that are effected by factors that influence the results and steer them in a direction intended to accomplish a non scientific purpose. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124
    I am only addressing this with regards to climate science, one of my areas of expertise.

    One would not expert the average citizen, no how matter how bright to be able to differentiate between my message and that of those that claim the science is settled. This is often why I tell them to look at the known law of photosynthesis. We all learned about it as children. It's pretty simple.

    Plants take sunlight, combine it with H2O and CO2 and make their own food(sugars) and oxygen. Minerals(usually in the soil) are needed but the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has resulted in massive increases for plants and world food production.......indisputable.

    This is something that everybody over the age of 7 should be able to understand. This is not to change the subject to something outside of climate change but to connect it to something that everybody can actually understand. The planets biosphere, vegetative health and world food production do matter.

    Ironically, increasing CO2 causes plants to adapt naturally to drought and heat, regardless of what the source of hot/dry is from.

    SvaraRadera
  24. I am not a scientist just a simple farmer but I have followed this subject with interest for over a decade,since a close relative was severely reprimanded for daring to deliver a lecture on the importance of credible science. His lecture followed an internal memorandum, demanding that there was to be no challenge made to the science of man made global warming. Ultimately he had to leave the institute. Now here is a question for all the specialists, if increased CO2 emissions are so terrible for our planet why do all the plants we depend upon for food and shelter love it so much. And continue to improve on increased amounts until levels in excess of 1200ppm are reached. Those of us who know that nature does not tolerate "mistakes" wonder why these plants become taller and more productive in these circumstances, if the world around them is crashing down. Answer of a practical nature please.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Is this practical enough for you?
      "Scientists now warn it’s no longer a question of whether Kilimanjaro's ice will disappear, but when. Estimates vary, but several scientists predict it will be gone by 2060."

      +

      "Even more immediate is the potential adverse impact on the availability of fresh water from springs and wells that are partially supplied by glacier melt."

      As a farmer, I am certain you can appreciate the importance of fresh water.

      Sources:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2232195/Kilimanjaros-glaciers-shrink-crack-scientists-warn-Africas-highest-mountain-soon-ice-free.html
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furtw%C3%A4ngler_Glacier#cite_note-Thompson-1

      Radera
    2. "As a farmer, I am certain you can appreciate the importance of fresh water."

      What made the glacier on Kilimanjaro?
      If Kilimanjaro had no glacier, what would happen to total amount of water around the mountain?

      Sit down and think for a while.

      If less water raining on the mountain gets trapped as ice, will you get less or more water at the ground?

      Can you figure it out?

      Radera
    3. The glacier traps water during rain periods, and releases water during dry periods. Hence, it is important during periods when water is scarce.

      Radera
  25. Joeri Rogelj, Malte Meinshausen, Jan Sedlácek
    and Reto Knutti.
    Implications of potentially lower climate
    sensitivity on climate projections and policy
    Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014).

    "We find that much lower values [for climate sensitivity] would postpone crossing the 2 C temperature threshold by about a decade for emissions near current levels, or alternatively would imply that limiting warming to below 1.5 C would require about the same emission reductions as are now assumed for 2 C. It is just as plausible, however, for climate sensitivity to be at the upper end of the consensus range. To stabilize global-mean temperature at levels of 2 C or lower, strong reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in order to stay within the allowed carbon budget seem therefore unavoidable over the 21st century."

    SvaraRadera
  26. I apologize for being so long winded in my posts. I am NOT a troll but am very passionate on sharing the truth about my area of expertise. If there are to be expensive greenhouse gas emissions reductions, they MUST be based on climate science that has a connection with empirical data measured in the real world.

    Climate sensitivity is being lowered by some scientists. I believe not nearly low enough but am not trying to pretend to know what the "true" sensitivity is. At the very least, the global temperature increase has slowed greatly, not accelerated and not at the rate predicted by climate models the past 15 years.

    Why would we not be able to agree to waiting another decade to collect data and learn more under these recent developments. The reason, as it has been for 2 decades is that we must act now in order to avoid catastrophic warming and consequences. The reason, is that one side states unequivocally, that "the science is settled" "debate is over" and calls the other side "deniers".

    You can call me many names, but please, think of one of them as "atmospheric expert". I will gladly share with you what I've been looking at the last 3 decades.
    Global drought: Not going up as we've been told http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/sdata20141-f51.jpg http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata20141

    Global crop yields: Soaring higher, mostly from technology, with help from increasing CO2 and weather http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/wheat-corn-soybeans-yield-trend.jpg

    Global hurricanes/Typhoons not increasing as we have been told: http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp?basin=gl

    Strong to violent tornadoes( In US, where they are most frequent): Peaked in the 1970's(during global cooling years) http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png

    Global temperature slow down/models too warm: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

    Global wirefires: Steady numbers but an increase in acres: http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

    What's interesting here is the fact that drought has not increased(slightly less drought as shown earlier), which makes worse wildfires hard to explains based on climate change. However, increasing CO2 has caused explosive growth in plants. Woody stemmed plants benefit the most from increasing CO2. This has resulted in additional fuel for wildfires that break out, causing them to be worse.

    I believe river and flash flooding has probably increased from climate change, just based on observations. I can't provide an accurate representation. The problem is that much of the flooding increase that shows up in statistics, comes from an increasing population and urbanization.

    Judge the actual data for yourself. My position is that the evidence is not conclusive, especially to justify painful measures to reduce emissions of CO2.
    I appreciate you providing me with the opportunity to show this data....thank you.

    SvaraRadera
  27. I liked this exchange:
    "It's a known fact that climate models have been running too hot for 17 years."

    No, it is not. This statement is valid only if you limit yourself to 17 years. You would get a skewed view of the outdoors temperature as well, if you discounted summer from a years average. 1998 was an el nino year;"

    ##############

    Its a little known fact that the models get temperature wrong. at all time scales and at all spatial scales.
    all time scales and all spatial scales.

    They get the daily absolute temperature temp wrong.
    They get the monthly absolute temp wrong.
    They get the seasonal absolute temp wrong.
    They get the annual absolute temp wrong
    The get the response to volcanos wrong.
    They get the decadal absolute temp wrong.
    They get the century scale absolute temp wrong.

    They get the global average wrong.

    They get polar/regional amplification wrong.
    They get the variability wrong.
    They get the diurnal range wrong.
    They get the change in diurnal range wrong.

    The only way you can get any consistency is by making a model of models ( average them all ) and even then its just less wrong.

    If you try to publish this at any place other than the internet, you face an uphill battle. You will be told

    A) you cant compare models to observations. ( durr why not?)
    B) Your comparison is not interesting, you have to explain why the models are wrong. (say what? I cant point out that a model is wrong unless
    I figure out why it is screwed up?

    Of course some papers do make it through on very limited topics.

    But Here is what you can't do. You cannot compile a comprehensive diagnostic comparison of models versus observations ( otherwise known as validation ) and get it published. I mean comprehensive. The kind of thing any engineer would do with a model.


    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. 1. Are the models intended to be absolutely accurate?
      2. Is it possible to make models that are absolutely accurate?
      3. It is impossible to predict the future, within error bars, if the models are not absolutely accurate?
      4. Is the observed temperature within error bars of models from, say, AR3 and AR4?
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/
      5. Is your argument a red herring or moving the goalpost?

      Radera
  28. "Even extremely cold weather, as this year’s winter in north Eastern USA and Canada, is regarded as a consequence of the greenhouse effect"
    That may be true for newspapers, it is a misconception to attribute those claims to the climate community, actually many climate scientist spoke out against this:
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6172/729.full

    SvaraRadera
  29. It will be judged as divine irony that this discussion is done in Uppsala university, where one one the worst and strongest consensus of Scientific Community against experimental Science will be proven wrong.

    “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge”
    This is a key sentence.

    Yes, and I don't talk of climate... because this problem is solved, at least the CO2 parts.
    The question on climate science is about epistemology.

    If you don't understand what I talk about, ask Elforsk.

    To prepare for the revolution, and the trial that will follow, you should read:
    the paper of Roland Benabou "Groupthink: Collective Delusions in Organizations and Markets",
    "Structure of scientific Revolution" of Thomas Kuhn,
    and "Antifragile" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

    Good reading, good research, and prepare for a revolution.
    and forget about Climate please, it is only a symptom of a bigger problem, in academic science.

    Best regards.

    SvaraRadera
  30. The fact that throwing a coin it is impossible to predict head or tail, does not mean one can predict as many heads as tails for many throws, unless the design of the coin is known and the way it is thrown.
    The fact that weather is unpredictable over weeks does not say that climate is predicatable over centuries, unless the design of the weather system is known and the way it is forced by the Sun and the Moon and other celestial objects. There is no scientific evidence of an alarming climate effect of somewhat increased levels of atmospheric CO2.

    SvaraRadera
  31. > The fact that throwing a coin it is impossible to predict head or tail, does not mean one can predict as many heads as tails for many throws, unless the design of the coin is known and the way it is thrown.

    Even if I give you the full specs of the coin, the tosses, and the tosser, you might not be able to predict the exact number of heads and tails unless you throw of lot of them.

    And even then.

    SvaraRadera
  32. "Were Karl Popper alive today we would certainly have met with fierce critique of this behavior. It is also demonstrated in journals’ reluctance to address issues contradicting simplified climate assessments, such as the long period during the last 17 years with insignificant or no warming over the oceans,..."

    Perhaps this is an example of why Bengtsson should be more careful to invoke Popper based on his own simplistic assertions about cherry-picked parts and periods of the climate system:
    "Global Sea Surface Temperatures Increase to Extraordinary +1.25 C Anomaly"

    SvaraRadera
  33. Last year, the president of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, wrote to Lord Lawson saying:

    "It is important to have a range of opinions in the public debate about climate change and the GWPF that you chair could play a role in that debate, but the GWPF has lost its way. The Foundation needs to have more mainstream active and expert climate scientists giving it advice."

    My question is, how is Sir Paul's recommendation to be addressed? Prof Bengtsson has been described as "coming out as a climate denier" for joining the GWPF's advisory board. Would this criticism be levelled at any mainstream climate scientist who chose to advise the GWPF? If so, how can Sir Paul's recommendation be taken up?

    Like it or not, the GWPF is not going to go away, and they will continue to comment publicly on climate science. To me, their criticisms often seem either ill-informed or deliberately undermining of individuals or scientific institutions (particularly the Met Office), often focussing on criticism of seasonal and decadal forecasts despite these being (a) clearly described as experimental (b) of little relevance to global warming (they are to much more to do with internal climate variability than long-term external forcing). However, with nobody in the GWPF circle telling them what can and cannot be expected of these forecasts, it is hardly surprising that their criticisms will be poorly-informed. While clearly the GWPF is a political organisation and will continue to take a particular position, surely it would be harder for them to criticise from a position of ignorance if there were somebody who actually knows about this areas of science on their own advisory board.

    If Sir Paul's letter to Lord Lawson is to be taken seriously, there should be space for somebody to give scientific advice to the GWPF in an objective manner. How can this be achieved?






    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. Richard,
      I simply don't agree with Nurse. The GWPF has not lost their way: they know exactly where they are going. Just look at what kind of people they tend to recruit and where they get their information from.

      Here is one example.

      Radera
    2. In Sweden, we have a saying; "bajs rullat i pärlsocker...".

      Which google translates to "poop rolled in granulated sugar..."

      I dont know well it works in english lore though, you see, in Sweden we roll chocolate balls in granulated sugar to make them taste better. Well, you get the idea, rolling shit in granulated sugar will not make it taste better.

      Radera

  34. Many thanks for the amazing essay I really gained a lot of info. That I was searching for

    SvaraRadera

Tips: Använd gärna signatur när du kommenterar. Det underlättar samtalet