As Hu McCulloch mentioned, I am speaking tomorrow, Friday May 16, at OSU on “Was 1998 the Warmest Year of the Millennium: What do We Really Know?” The talk will be 2:30-3:48 in Scott Lab 001 (a big lecture hall in the basement of the south end of the east wing). A reception will follow. The talk is part of the Mechanical Engineering Seminar Series for graduate students, but there will be plenty of room for visitors.
Further details of the talk are at http://www.mecheng.osu.edu/me888/470/stephen-mcintyre-will-present-the-question-global-warming-what-do-we-really-know.
I just finished an interview on Fred Anderle’s WOSU-FM talk show “Open Line”, this morning 10:00-11:00 AM, along with Mohan Wali of OSU’s Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment. Hu says that an MP3 of the show will be online at http://www.wosu.org/radio/radio-open-line/ . FM 89.7, Columbus OH.
I’m looking forward to meeting Hu and others at OSU. As Hu surmises, I’ve been busy preparing for my talk, which is one reason why I’e been a bit quiet this week.
I don’t make many talks and always have a hundred more things that I want to say than I can.
Climate Audit 
125 Comments
Steve has evidently been too busy preparing to mention this, but he will speak tomorrow, Friday May 16, at OSU on “Was 1998 the Warmest Year of the Millennium: What do We Really Know?”
The talk will be 2:30-3:48 in Scott Lab 001 (a big lecture hall in the basement of the southe end of the east wing). A reception will follow. The talk is part of the Mechanical Engineering Seminar Series for graduate students, but there will be plenty of room for visitors.
Further details of the talk are at http://www.mecheng.osu.edu/me888/470/stephen-mcintyre-will-present-the-question-global-warming-what-do-we-really-know.
Steve will also be a guest on Fred Anderle’s WOSU-FM talk show “Open Line”, this morning 10:00-11:00 AM, along with Mohan Wali of OSU’s Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment. An MP3 of the show will be online at http://www.wosu.org/radio/radio-open-line/ . FM 89.7, Columbus OH.
I’m off to hear Steve’s inverview now.
Since Steve will be at OSU, and Thompson is at OSU, could Steve, while he’s there, find out about the data for the Bona-Churchill Ice core?
Maybe some of the other profs there can help him out…
The radio interview was more about the “big picture” than the wonders of tree rings and ice cores – though Prof Wali led with the statement that tree rings and ice cores were part of what we “knew” about climate change. As most of you know, my position on the “big picture” is that, if I were a policy-maker, I would be guided by the advice of large institutions, rather than anything that I think personally. That doesn’t mean that I agree with IPCC comments on the Hockey Stick – obviously I don’t – or that I think that the due diligence of the institutions is satisfactory. It simply means that policy-makers have to be governed by institutional advice, rather than personal opinions. People seem to want me to say more than this or to read more into this than I intend, but I think that this is a reasonable position.
Steve’s interview with Anderle went very well, I thought. The MP3 isn’t online yet, but should be soon. Steve stressed that while government officials have a responsibility to heed official reports like IPCC, they should at a minimum require the scientists they rely on to archive their data and methods for scrutiny by others. Wali agreed wholeheartedly.
I tried to phone in a question concerning ice cores: Mohan Wali had mentioned that we have ice core data that tells us that the globe is warming. A lot of this was collected by the Byrd Center here at OSU. Could Steve comment on how well OSU scientists have done at archiving this data?
But alas, there wasn’t time for questions in what turned out to be a half hour show. But maybe I’ll get my chance tomorrow, on the off chance he doesn’t answer this already in his talk!
Scott Lab is at 201 W 19th Avenue. I think there’s public pay parking at the Tuttle Park Ramp near the stadium, off Woody Hayes Drive (aka Carmack, Woodford). The room is big, but a little hard to find, so allow extra time. The public is definitely invited.
Great. You’re in town, and I’ll be chaperoning a school trip to Chicago.
Break a Leg!
Nice introduction by the OSU breckenridge.17.
Since, and only since, you brought it up, I want to present a short opposite viewpoint on policy makers.
In a democratic society, which both Canada and the US are, policy is, and should be, made by those elected. These people should in turn, use people to craft the actual laws, standards, etc. who will agree to implement the policy of the elected official. I think it’s incorrect to want an elected official to be guided in policy making by “large institutions” as opposed to the people who elected you (or your boss). If all policy makers took your position, then the electorate are essentially disenfranchised.
Of course, this isn’t to say that those who voted for you wouldn’t want particular “large institutions” to guide policy in a given area, but when there’s a disagreement, the voters should rule.
As someone who lived most of my life in Central Ohio, it should be nice there this time of year. Enjoy!
An OSU geologist just e-mailed me asking where Scott Labs is — It’s so new it’s not even on some of our maps! Google Earth Satellite photos just show a big excavation on the site.
Scott Labs East is part of the new Mechanical Engineering building whose “front” is at 201 W 19th Ave. However, the auditorium Room East 01 is in the basement of the East Wing, on the 18th Avenue end of the complex, between Smith Labs and Journalism. Scott Labs East is adjacent to Smith Labs on 18th Ave, and says “Conference Center” on its 18th Ave side. Room 01 is in the basement of this wing, but you can’t get there from the West wing.
The photo at http://www.osu.edu/map/building.php?area=engineering&building=148 is the 19th Ave view of Scott Labs North. Scott Labs East is the unnumbered building on the map between #148 (Scott Labs West) and #065
(Smith Labs). Tuttle Parking Ramp is #088 on this map.
I expect to see you all tomorrow!
To pick one example, Dunde drilled in 1987. Thompson reported taking 10,365 samples from 2 cores. Measurements from ice cores typically include 13 items for each sample: δ18O, δD, 3 dust sizes (coarse, mids, fines), F,Cl,NO3,SO4, Na,NH4,K,Mg,Ca, conductivity plus layer-to-layer annual accumulation. Thompson archived 99 decadal O18 averages from one portion of the record (1000-1987) in 2004 (and this only after my formal complaint to Climatic Change) and 77 inconsistent pentad O18 averages from 1605-1987 in 2006 at PNAS. Nothing on any of the other data items. No sample information to resolve the inconsistent versions. Nothing on pre-1000 data. Thompson’s response to complaints is that there is no problem – he’s already archived the data, referring to the decadal averages and pretends not to understand what’s the matter. The institutions (PNAS, Science) merely repeat his statement and make no effort to evaluate it.
The same situation applies for Dasuopu, Guliya, Huascaran, Sajama. A little more data is available for the old Quelccaya core. For Puruogangri, only the pentad data on O18 at PNAS. For Bona-Churchill, nothing (and not even a publication.)
In various articles, Thompson reports taking more than 70,000 samples. No one’s saying that he hasn’t collected data. 14 data points times 70,000 would be nearly a million data points. So a full archive is not a small job. But I presume that much, if not most, of the data was produced in an automated way and digital information is available. If it isn’t, then, given that most of the data was collected in the 1990s, then it should have been collected digitally in the first place.
Thompson should view this as a legacy not a burden.
It seems that one of his defences to not dealing with the paperwork is the need to run around and drill glaciers before they melt. Sounds superficially convincing. But mining promoters don’t run around and personally drill projects. Other people can (or should be able to) manage drill programs. Thompson can make a more important contribution by promoting funding for his drilling programs and ensuring that his data legacy is not impaired should he suddenly die or be incapacitated.
It seems that Steve’s interview got cut short at 1/2 hour because of breaking coverage of the resignation of our Attorney General, Mark Dann, amid charges of [snip] harassment and vehicular misbehavior by some of his crony-subordinates, topped off by his own affair with his assistant. Ohio’s more boring pre-2006 Republican scandals tended to involve money[smip].
Perhaps now that Mark Dann is out of a job, he can be called upon to investigate data archiving policies at OSU? (Just kidding…)
It simply means that policy-makers have to be governed by institutional advice,
I don’t think group think is a particularly good form of governance.
Scott Labs (where Steve is to speak tomorrow) is not to be confused with Scott Hall which, ironically, is where Lonnie Thompson’s Byrd Polar Research Center is. Scott Hall (Building #310) is way out on West Campus http://www.osu.edu/map/building.php?building=310, whereas Scott Labs is in the heart of Main Campus.
I think Steve’s initial statement of “guided by” is more appropriate than the later “governed by”.
I want leaders to think rationally, give due consideration to institutional advice, other available information, and make their best judgement. Also, keep in mind that the IPCC is not the only “institution” that matters when it comes to matters of policy related to climate change. There are other “institutions”, public and private, that are also stake-holders.
I hope this isn’t getting too far into the policy area that Steve doesn’t care for on CA.
I guess what I’m getting to, is perhaps Steve can stop by the Dean’s office, and let him know the problems with the data, (if he doesn’t know already), and ask HIM how he can let one researcher make the entire university look bad.
Because this failure to archive can be looked at in several ways:
1) either the leaders don’t know the data is not archived
OR
2) they do know it’s not archived, and don’t care.
“For Bona-Churchill, nothing (and not even a publication.)”
Unless you look for a student thesis that used his B-C data (has been discussed before). Does the university keep copies of a student’s thesis? While you’re there…
Re #4, 7, 11, 13, by “heed” (not Steve’s exact word), I just meant to suggest “listen to” or “pay attention to”, not “slavishly follow”. Steve’s main point was that government officials should at a minimum insist that any science they fund and ultimately “heed” (or whatever) should be publicly documented and available.
Re #10, my use of the “s–” word may get CA banned from public library computers across the continent. Fell free to snip it, Steve!
Re Henry, #16, I’ve already sent Steve a photocopy of David Urmann’s 2004 MS thesis that uses Bona Churchill data. See thread “Gleanings on Bona Churchill at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2348. Urmann’s own site at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2348 has links to the chapters of his thesis, but they are empty. If the data was already processed in 2004, it should have been archived long ago.
It’s ironic that OSU (funded by NSF, undoubtedly) goes to great expense to preserve these ice cores for posterity in giant fossil-fueled freezers, yet doesn’t bother costlessly putting the data that has already been extracted from them online for us to use today.
The mp3 is up: http://streaming.osu.edu/wosu/openline/051508aOL.mp3
Re #19 — Urmann’s site is at http://davidurmann.com/ .
Steve, will you be posting a copy of your presentation online after you are done?
better yet: will the talk be filmed?
If a politician thinks that he isn’t getting good scientific advice, then his obligation is to improve the quality of advice, not to substitute his own opinion. I would like to see a large-scale well-funded due diligence program by outside modelers (e.g. aerospace engineers) examining the climate model said by climate scientists to be the “best” resulting in a 1000+ page report (not a little Nature article), documenting the key assumptions and sensitivities, working through the water vapor feedback modeling in microscopic detail, assessing how much reliance should be placed on them.
I’d also do what I could to inspire climate scientists to actually produce the sort of policy document that IPCC should be doing – one that documents how AGW works according to the best present knowledge, complete with detailed discussion of CO2 infrared spectra – something that is notably absent from the entire IPCC corpus. The usual reaction from my critics is – go take a 1st year atmospheric science course. Well, if IPCC needs to explain 1st year atmospheric science to policy -makers, they should do it. They should stop under-estimating the audience.
Also to take their best crack at explaining the impact of doubled CO2 without invoking GCMs. Just in case GCMs are introducing pointless complications into the analysis – certainly not bounds the realm of possibility.
If science is being done with a policy in mind, then I think that there are lots of ways that it could be managed better. I certainly don’t exclude the possibility that such reports would say to do more than is being presently done. My guess is that, if it’s important to do something, then we’re probably not doing enough. I also think that there are many policies that can be justified on alternate grounds regardless of whether one views the climate situation as critical. I have quite a few opinions on policy, but such discussion would overtake the science discussion, which I find more interesting.
Re #19 & 21.
I didn’t know that Steve got a copy. Went through the thread, and didn’t see where this thesis shed any light on Bona-Churchill.
Second, is the school required to keep copies of the data used in a thesis?
Third, this student was allowed to see/use the data (by then close to 2 years old).
Yet in the other thread “By October 2003, Thompson’s group reported that they had completed over 5600 samples from over 75% of the core, which was estimated to cover 2500 years”.
Urrman’s Thesis was completed around 2004. Either the data was fully processed by then, or he built this thesis on incomplete data.
Timeline’s not matching…
Oh, bother. I’m going to be at a friend’s seminar at the OSU physics department at more or less the same time.
Henry #16- Every university I attended (Univ of Alberta, Cornell) required the student to provide at least two signed, bound copies of the thesis (on archival-quality paper) for archiving at the graduate studies office and in the university library. It was a requirement to receive your diploma. That was in the 80’s. But that does not address access to raw data files if they were not included as appendices in the final thesis.
Will try to make the talk; thanks to Hu’s post, I know where to go. Otherwise, I’d have gone to West Campus. Didn’t realize so many here were in/around Columbus. Nice to know.
Re #24: Ohio State has similar requirements WRT thesis submission. I don’t know if that now includes digital data archiving, though — it certainly didn’t when I submitted my MS thesis in ’98…
We did not give our OIT folks enough lead time to record the event. We are working on getting a digital video camera. It won’t be professional but it will do in a pinch.
Re #24 and 26:
I’ve gatherd by now that the thesis is available in the library, and Steve has access to a copy.
But next question is, can a MS thesis be done on data that the original researcher gathered, and hasn’t even written a report on? This data was gathered under a grant. Should the PI do his work first, then release to others?
Is that standard?
That host really wanted your thoughts of the people who think that humans aren’t causing global warming…
#29. If that’s the question, then I think that people concerned about AGW need to stop using oil companies as a crutch, look into the mirror and evaluate their expositions. Have they made a clear exposition of how increasing CO2 leads to 2.5 deg C, carefully laying out the infrared radiation, water vapor feedbacks, point by point and step by step. If such an exposition is unavailable (and I am unaware of one), then I don’t see how blame can be attached. OR if anything, blame should be attached to IPCC for failing to provide such a document.
(By making this criticism, I’m not suggesting that my presentations are any masterpieces. I know that they aren’t. But whether or not my presentations are any good has nothing to do with this point,)
#7,11,13,21: I think elected representatives should make up their own minds. I don’t think they should be guided by their electors (Burke made a good case on this more than 200 years ago). I certainly don’t think they should be guided by bureaucratic institutions, which seem to be wrong even more reliably than the uninformed public.
There is a reason for this. Bureaucratic institutions (such as the IPCC) have no incentive to tell the truth, except the fear of being found out – and their best defense against being found out is to keep chanting the party line, while cornering the field and hiding the contrary evidence. You can see it in every major specialised UN body. UNAIDS corners the data on HIV prevalence and AIDS deaths, and presents alarmist exaggerations. The Convention on Biodiversity maintains the species-area myth, and adds whatever weight it can to alarmist estimates of extinctions. UNDP and the UN University churn out “research” about increased “marginalisation” and income disparity in the face of overwhelming evidence that world-wide material well-being is improving at an unprecedented rate.
Elected representatives are an elite. They should accept this fact, and the responsibility that goes with it to learn the facts and act on them. Bureaucratic institutions reflect the interests of bureaucrats in maintaining the popular myths that give them employment. Following their dictates is an abnegation of responsibility, and sends the polity down the road to serfdom.
Well said David.
Steve,
Don’t overload your presentation, stick to the one-slide-per-minute rule of thumb.
30, I don’t think SM has or should have an agenda in that respect and so was right not to rise to the bait. He is a powerful speaker on these issues precisely because he doesn’t engage in Ad Hominem and only follows the evidence trail. I totally agree with what he said but really wish he’d been clearer on the issue of governments following institutional advice. His point was two pronged: governments should follow scientific advice but only if they have in place sufficient safeguards and auditing to render that advice trustworthy. At the moment this is not the case (but politicians don’t know it!). In the interview the latter point was not made strongly enough I think and it’s possible some people may have come away with the impression that Steve endorses the IPCC stance.
Steve, check your email 🙂
Re #30. A point that has to be made is that in addition to the lack of documentation that Steve is exposing, the public has to be encouraged to ask questions of detailed proof from the “experts”. I frequently have animated discussions with colleagues about CO2 and related matters. The responses I get are “Are you questioning 1500 experts?” and “I will leave it to the (experts)”. We must convince the public not to blindly accept what the media propagates because it is a good news story. I keep copies of the two questions in my briefcase to hand out as the opportunities arise. The first is regarding the doubling of the CO2 that Steve has quoted. The other asks for a scientific study that has MEASURED the heating effects of CO2. Needless to say I have receive few responses. Some gr4oups will refer me to the IPCC report where they have used Charney. I tell them that is not a measurement.
Re: #31, et al
It’s true that we should keep in mind that we elect officials to make good decisions on our behalf, not just to do what the majority of us express by voting (or opinion polls, focus groups, etc.) How would you like your most important life decisions to be made by the majority of your fellow citizens. Pure democracy amounts to rule by greatest common denominator and leads to “common wisdom” becoming common law. What appears to be a majority opinion of the populace on global warming should not be the determining factor for policy decisions.
I probably shouldn’t get back into the question of what an official should do. Yes, most of us live in representative democracies. And that means our representatives are not required to vote as a majority of their voters would. But if they’re going to believe they make superior decisions than a typical voter then they need to be honest about that and not act one way when election time comes around and another in off years. But enough.
#30 – I think you missed an opportunity right at the start of your interview to make the point that there is no clear exposition of the link between CO2 and temperature increases after Mohan Wali opened by stating it as established fact. It would have been illustrative of your overall point that the science has been spotty. Did you not think of it or did you consider it might be too combative right off the mark?
Agree with Robinson #34
Going further.
To keep this short I would say there should be a standstill in rushing to ineffective and costly wasteful policy decisions and say a three year audit of critical IPCC findings.
Re 31 Dave Brewer: In over 35 years of engineering, I must have worked for, with, or around dozens of managers. Of those, the best I ever had the pleasure of knowing was not a technical giant. He might know absolutely nothing about the subject, but, five minutes into your presentation, he knew exactly how much you knew about your subject.
I think he is the type of person our founding fathers had in mind when they set up the Constitution, not the current crop of self serving egomaniacs we have in government today. In an ideal world, our elected officials would, like the above manager, be able to sit through presentations of both sides of an issue and make rational decisions without worrying about the politics or its effect on the next election cycle.
Joe
A perspective I’ve learned, and a definition that may be helpful:
A “measurement” is an observation that reduces uncertainty about the truth. (And some aspect of any measurement can be expressed quantitatively, if only the uncertainty level.)
Society tends to focus on the observations much more than uncertainty reduction… neglecting the fact that many observations may have little impact on our understanding of the true situation.
Steve,
I understand that you would follow the advice of the IPCC if you were king of the world. But the actual question
posed is interesting as well (at least to me).
Let me re-phrase it: Are you aware of evidence which is sufficient to persuade you that it is more likely than not
that the net effect of a doubling of CO2 on the average air temperature measured at the earth’s surface is greater than .10C?
If so, what evidence?
bmcburney #43 writes,
I can’t speak for Steve, but given that he’s probably resting up for his trip to Columbus, I can speculate.
I’d guess that if he were Edward Longshanks (I just watched a rerun of Braveheart), he would have the IPCC lead authors summarily drawn and quartered.
However, if he were (more realistically but still hypothetically) an elected official of a modern democracy, he would feel it his obligation to defer to the advice of “expert panels” like the IPCC (assuming it meets this standard), rather than following his own druthers.
Of course, this wouldn’t stop him, as a citizen of such a democratic society, from insisting on seeing their publicly funded data, and checking if it adds up, etc.
Just my guess.
RE: #20
The oil, oil service and mining companies probably have some of the best modellers on the planet
because these guys play for keeps.
‘..I’d guess that if he were Edward Longshanks (I just watched a rerun of Braveheart), he would have the IPCC lead authors summarily drawn and quartered…’
In the same way as we suspect the IPCC work may not be the last word on their subject, and for very similar reasons, do not think that Hollywood is presenting an accurate picture of 13th century England…!
Ref: Dodgy (46)
Your right of course; the “English” king Edward Longshanks was actually French
speaking whilst William Wallace (Braveheart)was of Norman descent who may well have spoken English!
Unfortunately, Hollywood does not or never has let truth get in the way of a good story.
This is where Al Gore and his ilk have the advantage: stable, or only slightly changing climates make boring cinema. I’m afraid icecaps that do not crash melting into the aren’t photogenic. The general public enjoys the spectacles shown in Gore’s movie, evn if if such spectacles are distortions of the truth and once they’ve seen it, it’s incredibly hard to convince the public it’s not the truth.
I’m coming to the opinion that changing some of the public’s engrained perception
may be more difficult than winning the academic argument.
Sorry, but I think there’s a long road ahead yet.
I think that Steve M is a little bit contradictory in claiming that politicians should follow advice of bureaucratic institutions such as IPCC. Steve’s own work on auditing proxy studies of IPCC gave us a major revelation of faulty procedures, manipulations with data, lack of due diligence, promoting of unreliable studies as ultimate truth and so on. We should forget all of that and put our future into the hand of such an institution.
David Brewer #31 made an excellent point about that. In economics it is known as public choice problem. One should be very naive to consider government officials of every kind as neutral truth- seekers and public interest servants. No, they have their own political, ideological and professional (to say the least, financial) agenda. IPCC is not neutral scientific body – it is ideological vehicle of green movement. Their final concussions are politically driven by attitudes of governments and green ngo-s. So, mistakes of IPCC aren’t occasional mistakes, they are deeply rooted in system of incentives inherent in every major international bureaucracy, specially those of UN bodies, as David explained. Many IPCC officails eg Pachauri, Watsson and others openly stated this many times in the public.
Politicians are democratic elite, elected by free people to govern free nations. They must be able to make independent and competent judgment on important policy issues, and to differentiate between informed expert judgment and ideological junk science. If not, they are incompetent to do their job. Why elected politician shouldn’t listen Steve McIntyre, Roy Spencer, Dick Lindzen, Nir Shaviv, rather than IPCC bureaucracy, if they (politicians) find judgment of named persons to be more convincing than IPCC’s? Argument from authority? It is strange to hear such an argument from Steve McIntyre.
Sorry, I think Steve McIntyre is promoting here statist ideology of putting great power into the hand of unelected bureaucratic officials with their own ideological agenda. I think there is no need for such a humbleness. If he seriously believes his critique of IPCC proxy studies is correct, he must appeal to politicians to listen to HIM, not the Mann et Co. This way, he emits rather confusing message – why politicians or public at large would ever pay attention to his work, when he himself openly proclaim that if be politician he would follow advice of IPCC and Michael Mann?
I don’t remember who’s study it was we reviewed last year.
In the end the author tried to defend his results using the argument that even though he may have used an invalid method, his results were still the correct results. At the time, most people, including Steve, ridiculed this line of reasoning.
I feel the same way about these defenders of the IPCC. It doesn’t matter how many flaws are found in the IPCC process. They will still defend the results because they are (they believe) the right results.
P.S. First sentence of last paragraph should begin: I think Steve McIntyre, MAYBE UNINTENTIONALLY, is promoting…” Apology to Steve for imprecise and potentially exaggerated statement.
AFAIK, Steve’s not endorsing IPCC at all. He’s just being pragmatic: policy makers go with the best information available.
The hard part is understanding uncertainty/confidence levels. People like to think they “know” and don’t like to admit the need for humility. Bottom line: we tend towards overconfidence in our information.
What’s a leader to do? In general, they’ll tend to run with what advisors say is the best course of action/inaction.
Personally, I’m pleased that we’re seeing more visibility for the facts about uncertainty: more and more proof that our models and interpretations are not to be trusted. Eventually, that tide may gain enough weight to tip over the balance.
“policy makers go with the best information available”: who tells them which is best?
So Steve would defer to the IPCC. What a total disappointment in light of the excellent auditing work he’s done. [snip]
The topic here is “Ohio State”. Ideology belongs in “unthreaded”.
They must be able to make independent and competent judgment on important policy issues
You’re talking out US politicians???
Then why does Steve throw in:
That’s why I started this out by saying I only brought up the subject because he did.
BTW, I strongly disagree with RG who said:
Steve’s always made it clear he’s somewhat on the “liberal” side. But I’m learning from him, not voting for him. Of course that doesn’t explain why I’ll probably be voting for McCain this fall, but you have to pick from the choices actaully available.
Steve M, is there an outline of the talk available that could be previewed?
Whether 1998 was the warmest in a millll-yun years is obviously not the core question – but it is symbolic, as it brings in to play everything from data adjustments to uncertainty statistics to transparency in documentation of science and the peer review process. Good luck narrowing things down while managing to maintain focus on the core issue. My advice is to treat the question as a metaphor. Otherwise you will be distracted trying to provide a solid answer to a question that, on it’s own, is a distraction. lucia’s analyses strike at the core: “is the currecnt trend deviating from expectation, or not?” Maybe you could finish with one of her graphs? This would illustrate the critical role of EBMs and GCMs in capturing “the rock solid physics” that define the AGW “fingerprint”.
A slide with the following names on it might also be effective:
Robock
Wunsch
Koutsoyiannis
Cohn
Hurst
Smith
Gihl
Tsonis
Ask what they all have in common. See if the audience understands the issue of error structure resulting from LTP processes. Anyone not familiar with their arguments is IMO unqualified to answer your question.
#56 You know better than to jump at that bait. Consulting collective wisdom is not a bad idea, in principle. It’s the practice that is the problem. Steve M has clearly espoiused the principle, has been making suggestions as to how the principle could be better implemented. Do not let your dislike of IPCC as we know it lead you to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The body, and the process, can be reformed.
Steve McIntyre #21
The best placed people to do this work would be NASA engineers drawn from centers other than GISS. Not only do they have full access to the raw data, models and internal reports of GISS but they have the proven ability to listen to the data and report what it says. Griffin would surely fully implement such an independent audit if instructed by Congress. This type of audit is common practice in NASA, they have excellent processes in place and some of the best data analysts in the world.
Looking forward to reading the write up on this one.
If it’s filmed, I hope it finds its way to Youtube!
bender #56,
the problem is that every major body o UN show similar disrespect for science, lack of credibility and one-sided approach as IPCC (see UNDP). Why Steve-politician shouldn’t ask for advice some group of scientists whose reports on climate were financed by oil interests, rather than government sponsored IPCC? Why does one must rely on IPCC if one wants to “consult collective wisdom” as you said? IPCC and governemnts have a monopoly over “collective wisdom” or what? How much first class scientists took part in preparing IPCC reports? Steve himself, and others, have documented that there were few of them. And their conclusions were routinely distorted and changed by politicians, NGOs and some activist scientists.
So, we presumably should rely on IPCC because people are selfish and prone to mistakes and ideology only in their private capacities, while miraculously transforming themselves into saints (privileged spokesmen of “collective wisdom”) when enter into some government sponsored expert body. Dr Jekyll and Mister Hyde anthropology? It is extreme naivete to think that government sponsored reports, with heavy inflow of radical left-wing NGO-ism are any better in terms of impartiality or objectivity than reports financed by, say, Big Oil.
I did not mean to start a discussion about the IPCC or William Wallace. I wanted to pick up on a question which Steve was asked in the radio interview referenced in the main post. I am still interested in an answer if anybody has one.
Is anyone aware of evidence which is sufficient to persuade you that it is more likely than not that the net effect of a doubling of CO2 on the average air temperature measured at the earth’s surface is greater than .10C?
If so, what evidence?
I guess if you had to fight one battle, it would be better to push hard for rigorous documentation of climate science than to take shots at the IPCC conclusions. If skeptics of AGW are correct, then access to the original data from climate researchers before it is “adjusted” will provide the means to make their case.
The problem isn’t that there isn’t an engineering quality exposition of the derivation of the (I believe is still) 3.0C (+/-1.5C) temperature increase per doubling of CO2.
The real problem is that the atmosphere is just too complicated for the basic engineering quality derivation (trillions of photons and trillions of molecules all interacting in a huge 3D space.)
It is just too big for a simple derivation.
It is so complex that simpler models must be developed to simulate what is likely to happen. Enter the Global Climate Models which are the attempts to simply this complicated system.
The real problem is that we have to rely on these Models. The real problem is we have to rely on James Hansen to model the 3.0C increase per doubling for us.
I don’t think policy makers should be relying on the Models built by Hansen or any of the other ones because they are mostly based on the earlier ones developed by Hansen and a few other global warming believers in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
The Modelers are all using the same basic parametres and radiation budget assumptions. I think they just throw out the results when the Models come back with something much different than the 3.0C per doubling consensus.
We need another way. Empirical results seems to be the only other way.
As a practicing environmental scientist I generally agree with Steve’s approach that policy makers should follow the collective scientific opinion of science/technical panels and not substitute their own views in their place. But this approach has a fairly major flaw at present – the IPCC and numerous other scientific bodies, particularly in climate sciences, but also in other fields, have replaced sound science with political dogma.
Part of the reason for why we have so many activists in science advisory positions today is that these positions were filled by politicians who appointed people with whom they have shared goals. Once these folks gained secure positions they used their authority to hire like minded activists and to funnel money to research that supported their activism.
With funding largely limited to their research, the activists were able to co-opt a large part of the science publishing world, thus ensuring only their papers would enjoy wide distribution.
I do not see an easy solution, it took a generation for the activists to gain control of the system. It may very well take as much time to fix it.
Steve’s position on mandating rigor through outside audits is a good start, but it will take fortitude in today’s political climate to bring this about. I do not see this happening, but maybe after a few more decades of cooling the idea could catch on.
“…So Steve would defer to the IPCC. What a total disappointment in light of the excellent auditing work he’s done…”
I’m going to go out on a limb now, and make assertions about someone else’s thoughts. So apologies are proffered before I begin!
I don’t think the above is quite Steve’s position (though obviously Steve will correct me if I’m wrong). I see his position as saying that, if there appears to be a world threat which is capable of being addressed scientifically, it would seem to be a reasonable idea to set up a world scientific group which could consider evidence and then pronounce on the most appropriate way to address that threat. I think that Steve has problems with the way the IPCC is obtaining the evidence, considering it and then pronouncing, and his view is that if the evidence were properly obtained, disclosed and discussed, in a word, audited, an accurate picture would be obtained.
I think that Steve would not want to say anything about the wisdom of setting up the IPCC – that is not the fight he wants to have. His complaint, time and time again, is that the scientists submitting to it often do not do auditable science, and that the establishment powers let them get away with this. That is where his complaint lies.
I understand this view, but would go further in two ways. Firstly, I do not think that the IPCC can be reformed – it now carries too much baggage for it to be able to just ‘see the light’ and start doing ‘proper’ science.
And secondly, I suspect that the whole idea of setting up a central politico-science body is wrong – it can too easily get hijacked by a single view. I could just as easily imagine the IPCC hiding evidence of any warming and trying to reassure the public that nothing was happening; this is commonly the way establisment politico-science groups have worked in the past. Vide the medical issues over stomach ulcers. I suspect science is most powerful when there is no central establishment view, and scientists are free to pursue their interests with minimal influence.
I think that, if political organisations wish to avail themselves of scientific knowledge, they will have to do their own work to understand the disparate berries of data which drop (or are shaken) from the tree of knowledge. Trying to set up a ‘concensus body’ will not work – like Geometry, there are no ‘Royal Roads’ to this knowledge…
#64 (John Lang)
“The problem isn’t that there isn’t an engineering quality exposition of the derivation of the (I believe is still) 3.0C (+/-1.5C) temperature increase per doubling of CO2.”
Boy, our host has been begging to see such an exposition for quite some time!
Steve’s situation is simpler and somewhat analogous to that of Galileo vs the Church. He admits their authority, only wants it directed correctly. Even then the situation was difficult to resolve. Why should it be easier now?
=====================
John Lang,
What empirical results?
Everybody else,
Any other suggestions?
Just listened to the on-line recording and I have to say as with some of the others that I was a little disappointed Steve. Wali came out with some statements which made me cringe which went unchallenged and I couldn’t help but think ‘but Steve has presented lots of good audit work that has contracted Wali’s statement but hasn’t intervened with a contrary statement based on actual evidence. Sadly as always Steve you were far too polite.
I’ve been visiting this blog for long enough now to understand and appreciate why you hold back at times and don’t ‘go for the jugular’ so to speak. You more than anyone one else on the planet I think have done more than enough work to make credible statements in regard to the so called evidence (complete lack of it) for ‘unprecented global warming’, yet you held back. On the other hand at one point you made the statement that the ‘work behind the hockey stick was abysmal’ but that’s as strong as you got Steve.
One other thing – thanks for the plug for Canadian nuclear power. I’ve very much enjoyed our past discussions on the relative merits of Canada’s choice of nuclear power generation technology.
KevinUK
Sorry to post again but I missed out one very telling important point that Steve made in the recording.
He mention the IPCC assessment of the effect of doubling of CO2 and how it has changed over the last 30 years. Steve main point is that despite 30 years and trillions of dollars spent on climate change research there has been no significant reduction in the uncertainty bands in the estimate. What an utter waste of our tax dollars (or in my case pounds sterling)?
KevinUK
Trillions of dollars over 30 years? Surely it can’t be that much money spent directly on climate research, even over 30 years.
John Lang, 64:
Hear, hear!
Did anyone already note Mohan Wali’s comment to the effect that researchers data should (will?) be provided? Could that be a major concession and perhaps was only offered because of Steve’s very diplomatic approach?
#59 Right on!
Steve,
I wish that I had known that you were to speak at my Alma Mater. Unfortunately, I just arrived in Seoul last night from Nashville (close enough to have driven to Columbus).
My best wishes are with you for a great presentation.
Steve’s opponents in the interview did not dare challenge a word he said.
Steve came across as the Voice of Reason, and they sounded like a couple of student activists. His masterfully diplomatic approach totally wrong-footed them.
Bravo Steve!
I donate to this blog because I like Steve M the puzzle solver, the climate auditor and the analyzer of climate papers and methods and I like the idea that Steve M stays fairly neutral on policy advocacy and politics. Even though I am a hardliner on both policy and politics, I know how much those subjects of discussions on a blog like Steve’s would divert attention from the fun stuff I noted above and take up a whole lot of bandwidth without resolving anything.
Do not impose on Steve M to be a crusader for the cause. The RC blog administrators are advocating for an outcome, if not crusading, and I would guess that they do not find that job very rewarding as they tend to blame the wrong people for their lack of success. Steve is right in my estimation when he says no one person is going to turn the tide in either direction and particularly by being a “partisan” advocate.
Steve’s counterpart was rather disingenuous in the radio interview, expressing appreciation that Steve wants to see “action sooner than later” (approx 9 minutes in).
Steve never suggested that! Steve said “if you must make a decision in the next two minutes, then…”
Steve replied more directly at 21:00 to his counterpart’s suggestion that Steve thinks “we should listen to” IPCC. He very clearly says about the IPCC that “their comments on any particular issues that I’ve been involved with, I think that their comments are incorrect…biased…poorly done… My personal knowledge is, on the hockey stick stuff, it’s abysmally done. It’s inaccurate, it’s biased, it’s unrepresentative. But if I was a policy maker I’d still have to go with that rather than what I know personally…until one has any alternative view, as a policy maker you can’t just throw up your hands at it.”
In response to the pointed question, “the debate is over, isn’t it?” Steve very clearly says the debate is not over. “One aspect of the debate hasn’t changed in 30 years…in 1979, the impact of doubling CO2 was estimated…after 30 years and billions of dollars in research, the error bars in that estimate have not narrowed one millimeter. That, in one sense, you’d have to say is a disappointing performance by the climate science community.”
[edited 17 May 5am to accurately transcribe Steve’s comments]
Steve, excellent conduct in the OSU radio interview.
You and some others know you will “not be heard” as judges say, if you adopt an extremist or unreasonable view. Your position was level, credible and an open invitation for important decision makers to hear you again. Which they will.
The non-archiving of data has international implications. Data such as the Thompson ice core work is accepted uncritically by decision makers in other countries. Australia (my home), Canada (Steve’s) are in danger of making decisions without verification/audit of USA data. I’m not a lawyer, but the situation seems to have parallels with retraint upon trade (in intellectual property, in this case). Are international trade treaties broken by such non-disclosure/non-archiving? I don’t know, but I mistrust the outcomes.
kim’s historical analogy in #68 is appropriate, although Steve McIntyre might squirm at being compared to Galileo. Science is rigorous process, and all people like Steve (and the rest of us) can do is demand improvements in the process until what is universally recognized as scientific truth is determined. It once took centuries for that kind of consensus to be reached. Now, we expect it to happen more– and perhaps far too–quickly. If the problem of climate and man’s interaction with it is as monstrously complex as it seems, perhaps we are demanding too much if we require it to be resolved in our lifetime.
We are, after all, dealing with elemental and disparate forces of nature. If it’s one thing this non-scientist has learned reading this blog, it’s that climate and the mysterious forces that govern it are, like the universe, infinitely complex. Which man comprehends the complexity in its entirety? Certainly not those who are claiming to, i.e. Michael Mann, James Hansen et al.
Skepticism in the face of undue certainty is no vice.
The radio interview was one of those small victories that are crucial to winning a major campaign. Well done, Steve.
#57, bender
What do they all have in common? Thanks in advance.
#72 S in WA
Apologies for my mistake and for misquoting Steve. I did actually mean billions (see Mr Pete’s #80 post) rather than trillions.
To re-iterate the point Steve was making – despite huge sums of money being spent on the whole process of climate research, 30 year on, we (not we but rather the so-called IPCC scientists – for which read computer modellers) are still as uncertain as to what the net effect of a doubling of CO2 will be.
On several occasions on this blog Steve has expressed the opinion that he thinks that far simpler more empirical models are just as capable of deriving this value (with equal error bars) as the ever more complex GCMs that have cost hundreds if not billions of dollars worldwide to develop yet are still no more skillful than the early 1D/2D empirical models. As a UK taxpayer I fully agree with Steve opinion on this matter. I can see little return on invest from my tax pounds from what has come out of UK Met Office’s Hadley Climate Research Centre in Exeter nor the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU). In any other circumstance where the research had provided little if any return on investment over a 30 year period like this, then it would have been canned a long time ago.
KevinUK
I’ve now gone back, relistened to the relevant portion (you can slide the time pointer to the right, about a minute at a time!) Post #80 has been edited with accurate and slightly longer transcription of the two bits I had quoted. Just wanting to maintain accuracy here 🙂
I don’t like the analogy only because in this instance there is human suffering at stake, whether or not the Great Institutions are right or wrong. If they are wrong, not only is it greater, but completely unnecessary.
re 57. bender at his best.
#80, #85:
When John Paul Jones was asked to surrender, his response was “I have not yet begun to fight.”
The climate skeptics are now being asked a similar question, and their answer must only be, “We have not yet begun to debate.”
Because the impacts of anti-carbon measures have yet to be felt in any serious way, it is not yet clear what Steve’s impact on the overall progress of the climate debate will be.
But whatever happens, his influence can only be positive, which is all we can ask for at this point.
If nothing else, progress will be made in the press and in the halls of government against the relentless march of sound-bite science.
Steve’s talk was a big success — There was a big turnout (over 100, of whom 60-some were students in the course), including at least two CA readers (one of whom is a long-time friend of MrPete). No hecklers turned up, dressed as polar bears or otherwise, and the questions were all constructive.
At the refreshments afterwards, 10 people gathered around for further discussion, including an economic historian who is undoubtedly perplexed by the mysterious disappearance of the MWP.
Steve indicated he would have his slides up in a couple of days.
I’m back from a very enjoyable trip to Ohio State, where I was very cordially hosted by Bob Essenhigh, Hu McCullough and John Herrington. I’ll have the presentation up in a day or two. I wrote up a script which I talked to and I’ll post that up as well. The audience seemed to be attentive and interested and, afterwards, lots of people wanted to talk to me.
I was fortunate to be one of those in attendance. A very enjoyable presentation. Thank you, Steve, for taking the time to come to Columbus.
A lurker understanding 15, perhaps 16, percent,
but sure I am seeing history in the making.
The next time Steve is to officially
speak,”someone” call CSPAN. They may well
welcome the shot.
83 (td) The analogy does fail in several areas, though. Climate science hasn’t the monolithism of the Church then, nor will climate regulation be as simple in understanding and demonstration as orbital mechanics. Nonetheless, lessons from then can be useful today.
================================
Steve,
It was our pleasure to host. I hope your trip back was uneventful. I second Hu’s comments by saying that the talk was very well done. After recently being visited by James Hansen and Al Gore, it was nice to hear a something other than the sky is falling here at OSU.
Sounds like Steve stuck to what he knows… auditing. He’s not offering an alternative theory of global climate change, he’s just saying that the work “supporting” the current theory of climate change is weak and sloppy. That’s enough reason to show that the debate is NOT over.
Thanks Steve!
kim, 94: there are parallels with the Church. The Church, according to non-believers, trades in myth. I found the following essay which treats AGW as myth, fascinating:
http://parliamentofthings.info/climate.html
#57
Professor Ghil surely?
Professor Bender
Your willing but puzzled student has proceeded by googling all the names posted to try to figure out what they have in common, and has tried to sort out the relevant from the irrelevant. He is arriving at the view that it has something to do with the mistaken application of classical statistics to events resulting from phenonmena which have long term persistence. This seems likely to have a bearing on the issue of natural fluctuation and its extent, though he is still thinking hard about this one, exactly what the bearing is and why.
Is he getting warm?
Steve Mc
I just listened to the MP3 of your radio discussion.
I should have used my earphones. The show was converted to digital at a very low volume level.
#97 theduke
Thanks for the very enjoyable link to one of Stottie’s essays.
KevinUK
#90 Hu
Thanks for you quick precis of Steve’s OSU talk.
I wonder what Steve’s reply was to the “economic historian who is undoubtedly perplexed by the mysterious disappearance of the MWP.”? Hopefully he is also equally perplexed with the disappearance of the Little Ice Age and also asked about why it as well as teh MWP had disappeared in the infamous Mannian ‘hockey stick’.
For those who are new to this blog who have been unable to spare the time to look back through the older posts on the blog, this whole blog started off as a direct result of Steve’s curiosity with the fact that the MWP and the LIA did not appear at all in the Mannian ‘hockey stick’. The rest is history (including very well documented economic history that clearly testifies as to the existence of these significantly divergent climatic periods during recent millenial timescale hostory) as they say.
KevinUK
Steve
I’d just like to say that I feel you struck just the right tone in the interview. And, personally, I’m a bit relieved that you are who and what you are. That is what makes you such a gift to us all. If you on a personal level were to ‘take sides’ so to speak, rather than concentrate on the auditing aspects in the professional manner you do, there would be some who merely dismiss you rather than engage.
And let me add my thanks to you for your work and your site.
(and a little ::wave:: to Kim!)
#103. Professor Wali came to my talk and introduced himself to me and was very cordial and we got along very well.
#96
Maybe we don’t know enough about the workings of the land-atmosphere-ocean-solar system to have any reliable theory of or forecast pertaining to future climate. This is the bottom line as to why the error bars have not narrowed.
re 96.
Show me your data. show me your method. lets reason together
Steve, read this for a reference on an empirically derived climate sensitivity.
re 105 (Mike Smith):
Exactly.
Rattus Norvegicus:
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that increased CO2 causes no warming, the earth’s temperature and atmospheric CO2 would still be correlated, since warmer oceans absorb less CO2. The authors claim there’s no need to distinguish cause from effect:
Saying so doesn’t make it so. If some or all of the correlation between temperature and CO2 is a result of increased temperature causing increased CO2, then calling the relationship the “climate sensitivity to CO2” is unjustified. Yet the authors do so throughout the paper. They claim to derive the “relative contribution of the greenhouse forcing” to temperature change, without bothering to show that it isn’t actually the contribution of temperature change to greenhouse gases.
To get an idea of the “have your cake and eat it” attitude of the authors, consider the two statements made in the previously quoted paragraph:
Then,
Perhaps I’m confused about the concepts of cause and effect, but I thought the issue of whether one event leads or lags another is quite relevant to whether one can assume that one event caused the other.
I haven’t seen this mention so far in this thread.
I listened to the interview with Steve and the OH professor. I was shocked by the Professor not being too worried about data fudging, since Gregor Mendel used it in his genetic experiments, too. The idea is that if you are right, fudging your data is not so bad. Of course, how do you know you are right if the data doesn’t support your hypothesis?
Didn’t anybody think that was just awful? Is that what students hear at OH State?
110 (joel)
Gregor Mendel used data fudging? I must have missed that…I remember only that he stopped the crossing experiments when the expected numbers haven’t appeared in his Hieracium experiments – he thought that his rules aren’t general ones, good only for peas. Little did he know that in this case parthenogenesis was playing with his results…
Also remember the Classic `Millikan’s Oil drop experiment`
Millikan went on to win the 1923 Nobel prize for Physics.
103 (Syl) Hear, hear, and ::grin::.
===================
For info, Gregor Mendel discovered “genes”, though they weren’t called that. That genes are inherited (and exist) is a fairly profound discovery. He wasn’t noticed at the time, and the following abbot burned all his papers… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
The evidence that he falsified isn’t so straightforward (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9384408/binomial-distribution#843714.hook). There may be an anomaly, but there are many explanations for this. Lacking the original data is obviously a drawback here 🙂
Re #107 – **Steve, read this for a reference on an empirically derived climate sensitivity.**
That reference is not a rigorous derivation of the doubling that Steve M is looking for.
#107, 115. I agree with 115. It’s not that sketchy derivations of the type cited in 107 can’t be found. I regard Ramanathan’s articles in the 1970s as better efforts than the 107 citation. It’s pretty pathetic that such scruffy citations as the one in 107 stand as the best efforts in such an essential question. Also it’s amazing that people like RN don’t even seem to understand why it’s defective.
I can appreciate Steve’s radio comment about politician’s following recommendations of institutions for determining policy. It strikes us as a poor method if we disagree with the institution, but the alternative is to allow gut feelings or personal bias to drive public policy.
I think a problem arises as the complexity of the issue increases. Then there is greater reliance on the guidelines set by those institutions and less understanding by the politician as to what they are implementing and why. I suspect this is very much the case with the Assessment Report of the IPCC.
Re: #117
I think that you and Steve M are looking at the idealized case. What I see are politicians who have political interests in the policy outcomes (they want their constituents to re-elected them) that is mixed to a greater or lesser extent with ideological concerns. They look to these institutions, not so much to provide policy, but for talking points in favor of a personally perferred policy. I think the institutions on all sides of these issues, like AGW, are very much aware of how and to what the politicians react.
[snip- sorry. While the door is open to some extent for policy, we’re getting too far into policy and this is too angry. ]
Is there an MP3 of the talk (not the radio show)?
RE AlanB #112
But See Feynmann,”Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!, quoting Cult Cargo Science, Caltech 1974.
Millikan may have had the capacity to know or intuit that a particular observation arose from a botched experiment. It is not clear that his star-struck successors were capable of making the distinction.
“We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It’s a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It’s interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan’s, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, and the next one’s a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn’t they discover the new number was higher right away? It’s a thing that scientists are ashamed of — this history — because it’s apparent that people did things like this: when they got a number that was too high above Millikan’s, they thought something must be wrong — and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan’s value they didn’t look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We’ve learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don’t have that kind of a disease.”
“We’ve learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don’t have that kind of a disease.”
Kind of depends on who the ‘we’ is, doesn’t it?
hswiseman says:
Then why is the range for CO2 sensivity essentially the same as it was 100 years ago?
Probably for the same reason, ie, the current trend of temp rise falls in the middle of the range. Any experiments that come up with numbers too far out of range must be wrong. If an extended period of stable or declining temps lowers the trend, then the experiments will be re-examined to find those that saw this result.
A 2nd rhetoric-reduced attempt at my (previously snipped) point:
SM is right: Public officials do need to rely on authoritative sources for facts (not policy) instead of their own intuition.
The flaws of a monolithic institution as the one source of those facts is apparent; monopolies are poor providers in the marketplace, including the ‘the marketplace of ideas’. Further, there is a track record (see #31, #61, #65) of UN sponsored organizations corrupting science by confusing fact-finding with advocacy, and IPCC is no exception. Hence, independent scientific exploration and validation of the climate science, i.e., the work of Climate Audit and others, is essential to getting at the truth of AGW, and the truth will eventually come out through this process, whether or not IPCC reforms itself sufficiently to be the provider of it.