Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What Does the IPCC Report Actually Say?
The science in the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) report is contained in the report published by Working Group 1 of the IPCC, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I suspect that few people have actually read this ~1500 page tome. Most people read the Summary for Policy Makers, which is written by bureaucrats and does not, in my opinion, faithfully reflect the contents of the actual report. There is too much emphasis on worst-case scenarios, which the report does not say are the most likely ones, in the Summary.
As best I can make out, what the report itself says is this: Global warming isn’t likely to be a big deal. It is unlikely to cause significant harm over the next 100 years or so. In a followup special IPCC report even in the worst-case scenario the prediction is a fall in economic productivity of 10% of what it would otherwise be by 2100. That’s not even noticeable considering the growth in the economy that will have occurred by then.
As for the predictions of drought, flooding, storms, fires, species extinctions, climate refugees, etc., there is no certainty about any of it, and climate scientists have shown no skill in predicting those things so far.
This stands in rather stark contrast to the claims being made by some environmentalists these days, such as that we’re all going to die in 20 years, that global warming will be a catastrophic disaster, and so on.
As best I can tell these guys are just making this stuff up.
As for the changes that we are likely to see, such as a rise in sea level by a few feet in 100 years, I rely on the Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disasters, which says that for any catastrophe that’s coming toward us from a long way in the future mankind will not fail to find some solution for it.
Decades ago we were threatened by a future shortage of food and by 1980 or so we were all supposed be dying in famines. We found a solution to that called the Green Revolution. Nowadays fewer people than ever as a proportion of the world’s population suffer from starvation. For those who do starve the problem is most likely bad governance not a global shortage of food.
We are supposed to have run out of oil by now, a catastrophe called Peak Oil, but we have not done that because of advances in technology and the discovery of more reserves.
For the distant future, the earth has been through climates such as those predicted in the worst-case scenarios of the IPCC report before. Life went on. There was no ice at the poles and temperate weather was closer to the poles, but this is so far off that civilization is sure to adapt.
Notwithstanding the doom-mongering, we are now in an era of unparalleled peace and prosperity that extends to all the peoples of the world, and this is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. It’s a shame more people can’t celebrate this.
Published in Science & Technology
Is there any speculation on what makes that?
Read it all again. Slowly. The physics says that the contribution of a doubling of CO2 contributes a predictable amount of heat energy which has an actual effect on temperatures. You don’t get to say that this somehow only works in the lab. To participate rationally in a science-based issue debate we don’t get to blow this off. You have to account for what happens to that energy. Alarmists fantasize that it causes enormous additional feedbacks principally from water vapor. Lukewarmers (with a lot of support from the actual temperature record) say that that amount of warming is about all there is with the possibility that cloud formation behavior might even compensate or offset but that heat energy is there. It happens, It has to be rationally accounted for. It is not junk science to say so.
It drives me utterly batsh*t when people who are on the right side of this issue frame their position in ways that allows the other side to laugh us off as rubes and lightweights. If I have sounded critical, it is because like with most things, conservatives bear a higher burden of precision and accuracy.
True. You don’t get to say that it has an effect. What you do get to say is that this only determines the result, except in the lab.
I don’t think you are remotely familiar with how the debate on climate sensitivity is done by people who know what they are talking about. I again urge you to watch the presentation by Nic Lewis who explains in detail how this issue works. He is one of the good guys.
You don’t seem to grasp the distinction between predictive uncertainties and known forcings. It is the essence of Judith Curry’s contribution on the issue.
Roy Spencer’s first class explanation of greenhouse effect is a good place to start. https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect
To do it right, you have to start with known forcings, compare to empirical data, try to incorporate all relevant factors to ascertain a figure for sensitivity. See, eg. Lindzen here: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf (Hint: if you are doing it honestly and thoroughly, the figure is still positive but much lower than the alarmists say. The warming from CO2 is not dismissed but contextualized.)
What you do not do is start by saying that the known science about radiative physics only works in the lab. The bad guys can then rightly dismiss every word that follows from that position and you are no use to the good guys.
Old,
We agree on three out of four points.
Agreed. It is an indisputable fact that you think that.
That I don’t seem to, to you, is also beyond dispute.
On this we disagree. To me this seems is pure positivist fallacious thinking
True. That would be ridiculous. Had I ever said anything like that, then you’d be right and I’d be ridiculously wrong.
.
You apparently reject the entirety of any and all scientific study of climate as “pure positivist fallacious thinking.” I would love to know what the correct presumably non-positivist methodology is if what I described is not valid science. I would be especially interested in methods of analysis other than the one I outlined in my presumably offensive “pure positivist fallacious thinking” statement. Presumably, you had some specific alternative in mind.
In a debate about a technical issue it’s kinda traditional to cite/offer facts, studies something other than a kneejerk contrarian feelings such as the claim that it is “junk science” if one relies on an accepted fact in radiative physics as being a necessary part of any analysis of claims about climate change.
Why don’t you get back to me when you have read something relevant and can base your position on something substantive other than a generic contrarian hostility to the notion of CO2 having any effect on climate. I have offered specific reasons and reputable non-alarmist scientific sources for my position. Your turn.
MarK:
I am not thrilled with the increasing snippiness of my remarks. Let me supply some context here. I started getting involved with the climate debate 20 years ago because of a project I was working on. I waded into online debates on the leading sites (right, center, left) and got my butt kicked by actual scientists and learned much. My project was about crafting a strategy that was essentially stolen by the targeted corporate client who then handed it over to a large public affairs firm to carry out without paying my group a nickel.
For whatever reason, my interest in the topic area did not wane. I have invested a lot of time in the issue area.
I have also learned to be highly selective about claims, studies and theories about climate that sound good politically. (I love Anthony Watts but he does not filter everything that winds up on his site some of which is garbage–but much else is valuable so the site is always worth a visit.) I followed the awesome work of Steve McIntyre in taking down Michael Mann and much else that is bogus in what passes for mainstream science. I was not surprised by the revelations in Climategate when the emails of Mann et al were released showing them to be partisan defenders of bad practices because there was already much about that circle that was suspect.
I admire Roy Spencer, Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen for extraordinary courage in the face of genuinely ugly policial pressure but I still read their critics to see if they are right. I also learned was is and is not “settled” and how to discuss without sounding like a complete goober.
I waded into each IPCC report then read commentary and debates. There is less quality of debate online these days because (a) everybody knows the alarmist model is bogus and there is not much left to say but (b) the politics of ‘climate alarmism’ has so much vested interest that it has a life of its own.
Anyway, one of my pet grievances is for conservatives to wade into the issue using demonstrably weak or unfounded positions allowing lazy alarmist partisans to say “see, the denialists don’t get the science.” If there has been an edge to my remarks it is because I really, really hate that outcome and want the good guys to always be ahead of the curve.
Cheers.
There is not as much disagreement here as you might think. What works in the lab is not necessarily predictive of what happens in the world. I’ve seen how that works myself. Yes, carbon dioxide has a greenhouse effect. Does it cause warming of the earth’s atmosphere? Surely the atmosphere is more warm that it might have been, but does it actually cause an increase of temperature when it rises? The evidence of that is actually pretty poor! If you look at the temperature record and compare it with the record of CO2 measurements the correlation is not very good. Up until 1990 the climate arm of the UN was saying that they could not be sure that CO2 was having an effect. The only thing that has changed since then is that the process at the UN has been corrupted by politics. In terms of numbers the data statistics are even further away from showing a CO2 signal than they were in 1990.
The distinction missing in the thread is not whether the net temperature outcome matches the raw contribution of CO2 forcing or whether CO2 forcing is dispositive or determinative but whether the contribution occurs at all. It does. To dismiss that as “junk science” is simply wrong-headed. That is entirely separate from the issue of the lack of certainty in climate predictions (which is substantial) or whether the sensitiyity is well-established (it’s not but the most persuasive stuff I have seen puts it at around 1.7 at most and very probably less.)
Some forcings are pretty well-known but much else is not. It is abundantly clear that the models are at best incomplete and that they presuppose a high sensitivity. We do know precisely what water vapor absorbs. We do know precisely what CO2 absorbs. We kinda know what different kinds of clouds do. We kinda know about ocean heat exchange and cycles. We are waiting for the clever guys at CERN to maybe give us a better idea about ionizing radiation and seed molecules for cloud formation. However, we are in Rumsfeldian don’t know what we don’t know mode about other factors and what drove big climate changes in the distant past.
We non-alarmists don’t win the argument about separating the actual science from the wild-a$$ politically-driven speculations if we rhetorically throw the baby out with the PC bath-water and fail to distinguish actual science from its misuse. If I sound persnickety on this, I am. It matters.
OB,
If I understand you well, your premise is
and
such that
There is no scientific basis for that theory. In fact, it is known in advance to be false.*
The following is the method you follow, which appears to be the valid scientific method of positivism (empiricism) only because it assumes the above false premise:
Once one has a successful model and value for the sensitivity, claim to have a valid tentative candidate for both–a new physical law–and thus the ability to predict the future of global average temperature.
After some years have passed, perform a statistical validation, as required by the scientific method: re-run the program to see if it still can predict the past. If it does, claim (consistent with valid scientific method) that one must now have more confidence that the model and constant are correct. (The use of controlled experiments for validation is impossible).
If the model now fails to longer predict the past (as has embarrassingly but predictably happened already with all of the “consensus” models to date!), simply repeat the above method, coming up with a new model.
– – – – – – – –
*Here is one of the reasons it’s known to be false.
The only time a statistical aggregate of component data can be the effect, in a law of cause and effect, is where there is a theory connecting the component values to the aggregate, as in the case of the classical Kinetic Theory of Gases. From knowledge of the laws governing the particles (conservation of momentum and energy), one can prove that the validity of a (simplified) law (the Ideal Gas Law) governing the temperature (an average value) of a system.
There is no such theory allowing the possibility of a simple law where
is determined by
plus
Mark:
Way to miss the point, big guy.
The constant is not sensitivity but forcing (usually expressed in Watts per meter). Sensitivity is a best-guess estimate of the combined effects of forcings (plus and minus) and whatever other related factors can be quantified usually expressed as degree per doubling of CO2. The specific forcing effect of CO2 is known. Sensitivity is open to debate and is more likely to be a range than a constant. The fact that you don’t know the difference is telling.
Your rather bizarre use of the Ideal Gas Law –that there is no possible theory to account for temperature change outcomes across multiple data points in complex systems would be a surprise to the guys who designed our satellite temperature-measuring systems or to the astronomers who apply Stefan-Boltzman to surface temperature calculations on other planets. I think you are leaning toward the argument that average global temperature is itself a questionable concept. There is merit in that argument but not in the way you framed it.
You seem to want to make the point that the much-touted climate models (AKA “The Science”) are misleading because they pretend to certainties they do not have. I agree, but your approach is God-awful.
I am on your side in opposing alarmism but if you took your approach beyond the friendly confines of Ricochet to boards where the scientifically-literate climate-issue junkies roam, they would tear you a new one and make you exhibit A for the weakness of “denialism.” Don’t be that guy.
They probably have already done this with the consensus models. The trouble is that the models probably no longer support the catastrophic global warming scenario in that case. I suspect that they fear losing their funding if they publish a model like that.
They are stuck with the model ensemble they used for the initial IPCC report. Can’t really dump them because they comprise “The Science” that we are expected to genuflect before.
They will instead “explain” why reality is running cooler than the models with the usual arguments like (a) natural variability–warming will happen eventually (oddly enough, ‘denialists’ don’t get to cite natural variability); (b) the temperature record is flawed and needs to be “adjusted”; (c) cloud formation by industrial pollution causes cooling (this was tried before and is kinda lame); or (my personal favorite) (d) the heat is hiding in the deep oceans and when it finally comes out we are in big trouble.
It is not one model but a collection of around 30. They each have a different set of working assumptions. Some are more detailed than others. Each involves mainframe runs with enormous data sets to generate their projected outcomes. They all worked perfectly between 1977 (beginning of satellite reconds) and 199o when the IPCC first published because they could fudge assumptions to make the model match the past existing record. Since then, they can’t fudge (redo) the models once published and reality has not cooperated.
Oddly enough they do not drop the weakest performers in the set but keep them all. I guess that keeps the silliest, scariest estimates in play. Dunno.
There is so much money, emotion and political juice in the alarmist narrative it is hard to say when Chicken Little will finally get defunded. Part of the desperation to “do something” is that the Narrative can then survive because the increasingly likely failure of the catastrophic warming to appear will be because we Did Something not because the narrative was a crock.
I completely agree.
I never questioned the fact that CO2 forcing exists. Please don’t hear what I’m not saying.
I questioned the fact that any model can differentially predict future global average temperatures as a function of a presumed physical constant, CO2 sensitivity.
I apologize for my rudeness. In particular, my use of the disparaging term “junk science” was indefensible.
I will need to look at the rest of this thoughtful comment soon, to understand better what you’re saying and where you’re coming from career-wise. I got too involved in this discussion and stopped reading thoroughly and carefully. After a break, I need to take a fresh look.
More agreement here than not. Cheers..