The problem with Global Climate Models

[Old_wrestling_fan]

That's what confirmation bias looks like, cod. Note it for future reference.

Actually, I think you are wrong here because you are referring to me and I know what I have read from you and others. Your arguments are often not on the point being made, usually by Codflyer, and in a couple of words, often shrill and condescending. While I am not able to confirm/disconfirm the science, I can read and very often you, and others, appear not to be able to do that. Just sayin'.

The basis for your arguments, never mind the graphs for the moment, is often, "I am smart, and you are stupid." Rarely is that a winning persuasive argument strategy over the long haul...with people that are not easily duped, that is.

So, I don't think you even correctly captured the essence of my post that you were referring to, but yet, pivoted over to "confirmation bias", etc. Whether I am right or wrong on this matter, there is no way my comment was evidence of "confirmation bias".

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Then it's pretty readily apparent that you have very little understanding of the issues being discussed.

Where did you cut that answer from?

 

[codflyer]

Where do you come up with these alleged 'facts' and preconceived notions?

I do not subscribe to all the insinuations and conclusions of this link, but the underlying data illustrates what I am talking about:

"More than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC's 2007 climate-science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other and, we can surmise, very possibly at times acted as peer-reviewers for each other's work. Of the 44 contributing authors, more than half have co-authored papers with the lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9"

"All told, 32 of the 53 chapter 9 authors had pre-existing and ongoing relationships with other authors as coworkers, supervisors, or subordinates. That is in addition to the previously documented 41 of 53 authors having previously co-authored papers together."

This isn't to say that there is anything nefarious going on, although there have been numerous critiques leveled, some better than others. Judith Curry had a nice summary of her view of the process here. Nothing I am saying is all that earth shattering. I am not claiming hoax, or conspiracy, or anything like that. I am just pointing out that this is a more tightly knit group than people generally realize.

(FWIW...I searched: Michael Mann is on NEITHER of the authors' lists, so although he 'gets a lot of press' in the ClimateGate frenzy, he hasn't participated in the last 2 IPCC reports.)

Strange...since he seems think he was a major contributor in 2007 and illegitimately claimed having been awarded a Nobel Prize for his efforts.

 

[Joes Place]

I do not subscribe to all the insinuations and conclusions of this link, but the underlying data illustrates what I am talking about:

And, as I'd ALREADY posted, the IPCC addressed that criticism in the AR5 report (2014):

"More than 60% of the experts chosen were new to the IPCC process, bringing fresh knowledge and perspectives."
All you have are conspiracy theories and innuendo; there simply are few facts to support your contentions.

 

[codflyer]

And, as I'd ALREADY posted, the IPCC addressed that criticism in the AR5 report (2014):

"More than 60% of the experts chosen were new to the IPCC process, bringing fresh knowledge and perspectives."
All you have are conspiracy theories and innuendo; there simply are few facts to support your contentions.

And as I had ALREADY posted:

I am talking about the relatively small clique of scientists who have historically dominated the IPCC and most mainstream climate publications in relation to temperature reconstructions and projections...Things are changing though, and part of the reason that the group has been so relatively small is because of the evolution and growth in the field.

If people would just read what is written, things would probably go a lot more smoothly.

 

[codflyer]

Actually, I think you are wrong here because you are referring to me and I know what I have read from you and others. Your arguments are often not on the point being made, usually by Codflyer, and in a couple of words, often shrill and condescending. While I am not able to confirm/disconfirm the science, I can read and very often you, and others, appear not to be able to do that. Just sayin'.

The basis for your arguments, never mind the graphs for the moment, is often, "I am smart, and you are stupid." Rarely is that a winning persuasive argument strategy over the long haul...with people that are not easily duped, that is.

So, I don't think you even correctly captured the essence of my post that you were referring to, but yet, pivoted over to "confirmation bias", etc. Whether I am right or wrong on this matter, there is no way my comment was evidence of "confirmation bias".

I appreciate the support!

 

[Joes Place]

And as I had ALREADY posted:

If people would just read what is written, things would probably go a lot more smoothly.

No...this has been addressed ad nauseum here; there is STILL a strong consensus among scientists regarding AGW. The AR5 IPCC has not 'overturned' or dramatically changed the fundamental scientific positions of the AR4 or prior reviews. Your position implies that 'things are changing' and thus there is 'less consensus' among the new voices. This is categorically untrue. Perhaps there have been 'historical' voices who have been the faces in the media (more likely, they were the ones putting out the seminal data on the topics, and thus were recognized as the leading experts in the field), but there simply are NOT any 'new' scientists coming out with studies or data which are refuting or overturning the prior science. Refining? Yes. Refuting? Nope. If anything, they are coming up with the same results and reinforcing the science and the consensus is STRONGER than it was a decade ago.

Heck...a group re-assessing historic sunspot data and analyzing the differences between two types of historic sunspot analysis methods has just presented corrections and new analysis which shows both are actually very consistent, virtually eliminating any chance of the 'conventional wisdom' of lower solar output following the Maunder Minimum; that was one of the arguments among climate scientists for years - that ONE of the datasets implied lower solar activity since the 1700s and we were at a 'peak' in solar output to explain warmer temperatures now. With the corrected analysis, BOTH datasets now indicate STABLE solar output since the 1700s. This is an analysis made by ASTRONOMERS and SOLAR PHYSICISTS, not 'climate scientists'. Are they now part of your 'groupthink' conspiracy now, too?

Until now there was a general consensus that solar activity has been trending upwards over the past 300 years (since the end of the Maunder Minimum), peaking in the late 20th century — called the Modern Grand Maximum by some.

This trend has led some to conclude that the Sun has played a significant role in modern climate change. However, a discrepancy between two parallel series of sunspot number counts has been a contentious issue among scientists for some time.

The two methods of counting the sunspot number — the Wolf Sunspot Number and the Group Sunspot Number — indicated significantly different levels of solar activity before about 1885 and also around 1945. With these discrepancies now eliminated, there is no longer any substantial difference between the two historical records.​

A graph showing the sunspot Group Number as measured over the past 400 years after the new calibration. The Maunder Minimum, between 1645 and 1715, when sunspots were scarce and the winters harsh is clearly visible. The modulations of the 11-year solar cycle is clearly seen, as well as the 70–100-year Gleissberg cycle. Image credit: WDC-SILSO.
​

http://astronomynow.com/2015/08/08/...imate-change-not-due-to-natural-solar-trends/

 

[codflyer]

No...this has been addressed ad nauseum here; there is STILL a strong consensus among scientists regarding AGW. The AR5 IPCC has not 'overturned' or dramatically changed the fundamental scientific positions of the AR4 or prior reviews. Your position implies that 'things are changing' and thus there is 'less consensus' among the new voices. This is categorically untrue. Perhaps there have been 'historical' voices who have been the faces in the media (more likely, they were the ones putting out the seminal data on the topics, and thus were recognized as the leading experts in the field), but there simply are NOT any 'new' scientists coming out with studies or data which are refuting or overturning the prior science. Refining? Yes. Refuting? Nope. If anything, they are coming up with the same results and reinforcing the science and the consensus is STRONGER than it was a decade ago.

Heck...a group re-assessing historic sunspot data and analyzing the differences between two types of historic sunspot analysis methods has just presented corrections and new analysis which shows both are actually very consistent, virtually eliminating any chance of the 'conventional wisdom' of lower solar output following the Maunder Minimum; that was one of the arguments among climate scientists for years - that ONE of the datasets implied lower solar activity since the 1700s and we were at a 'peak' in solar output to explain warmer temperatures now. With the corrected analysis, BOTH datasets now indicate STABLE solar output since the 1700s. This is an analysis made by ASTRONOMERS and SOLAR PHYSICISTS, not 'climate scientists'. Are they now part of your 'groupthink' conspiracy now, too?

Until now there was a general consensus that solar activity has been trending upwards over the past 300 years (since the end of the Maunder Minimum), peaking in the late 20th century — called the Modern Grand Maximum by some.

This trend has led some to conclude that the Sun has played a significant role in modern climate change. However, a discrepancy between two parallel series of sunspot number counts has been a contentious issue among scientists for some time.

The two methods of counting the sunspot number — the Wolf Sunspot Number and the Group Sunspot Number — indicated significantly different levels of solar activity before about 1885 and also around 1945. With these discrepancies now eliminated, there is no longer any substantial difference between the two historical records.​

A graph showing the sunspot Group Number as measured over the past 400 years after the new calibration. The Maunder Minimum, between 1645 and 1715, when sunspots were scarce and the winters harsh is clearly visible. The modulations of the 11-year solar cycle is clearly seen, as well as the 70–100-year Gleissberg cycle. Image credit: WDC-SILSO.
​

http://astronomynow.com/2015/08/08/...imate-change-not-due-to-natural-solar-trends/

It can be hard to keep up with the whack-a-mole. All I said was that in the past there has been a relatively small group of scientists with an outsized influence in publications, the IPCC, etc. When I said that this was changing, I was referring to things like your previous post where you noted that 60% of the reviewers for AR5 were new to the IPCC. It is a step in the right direction IMO, and will be good for climate science in the long run, regardless of what direction the evidence takes the debate. I have made absolutely no claims or inferences about changing "consensus"...although AR5 did seem quite toned down to me (at least in the text if not in the headlines), warming estimates were lowered (or at least weighted more toward the lower ranges), and there are a lot more caveats and qualifications included now that did not make it through the editorial process in the past.

 

[Joes Place]

It can be hard to keep up with the whack-a-mole. All I said was that in the past there has been a relatively small group of scientists with an outsized influence in publications, the IPCC, etc. When I said that this was changing, I was referring to things like your previous post where you noted that 60% of the reviewers for AR5 were new to the IPCC. It is a step in the right direction IMO, and will be good for climate science in the long run, regardless of what direction the evidence takes the debate. I have made absolutely no claims or inferences about changing "consensus"...although AR5 did seem quite toned down to me (at least in the text if not in the headlines), warming estimates were lowered (or at least weighted more toward the lower ranges), and there are a lot more caveats and qualifications included now that did not make it through the editorial process in the past.

Whatever floats your boat, but the AR5 put 'virtual certainty' on the human influence for the recent warming (higher confidence than AR4). And your assertion that projections are 'lowered' is not altogether accurate, either, as IPCC put forth various emissions scenarios, and the low estimates are based on the 'best case' and lowest emissions projection. Unfortunately, we are easily on track right now for the RCP 6 or 8.5 (two highest) emissions projections, which will render the 'low end' estimates meaningless.

Furthermore, NOTHING in the report could rule out the higher-end sensitivities with any confidence; THAT is the foundation of basic risk management, and is the metric we SHOULD be using in the discussions for climate risks, NOT the 'rosy colored glasses best cases'.

Meanwhile, 2015 is blowing away the temperature records, with July as the hottest month ever recorded on the planet, so the alleged 'hiatus' is in the rearview mirror now...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-whats-destined-to-be-earths-warmest-year/

If this year's El Nino is an indicator of more positive-phase ENSO in the next decade or two (it appeared we MIGHT be heading into mostly La Nina phase times until this year), we are in for some bad bad times...we can only hope we hit a multi-decade La Nina dominant phase AND we get our emissions reduced significantly in the meantime if we want to avoid a reasonable likelihood of IPCC's moderate to worst-case projections.

 

[codflyer]

Whatever floats your boat, but the AR5 put 'virtual certainty' on the human influence for the recent warming (higher confidence than AR4).

I think nearly every informed skeptic would put a "virtual certainty" on human influence on recent warming too, so that doesn't mean a whole lot.

And your assertion that projections are 'lowered' is not altogether accurate, either

Because that is not entirely what I said...I said that they have been lowered in the sense that they were weighted more toward the lower end of the spectrum:

So, while they present a pretty wide spread still, at least as of AR5, they thought the indicative likely range was well into the bottom half. Assuming a middle of the range average out to 2100, we would be looking at roughly 1.5 degrees C warming according to the IPCC's likely scenario. Of course things could be better or worse. This is a far cry from what we were being told just ten years ago. And this hedging of the bets was not widely reported at all. Rather, things like the meaningless statement that "scientists are more sure than ever that humans are contributing to global warming" gets trumpeted. Well...duh.

 

[Lone Clone]

Whatever floats your boat, but the AR5 put 'virtual certainty' on the human influence for the recent warming (higher confidence than AR4). And your assertion that projections are 'lowered' is not altogether accurate, either, as IPCC put forth various emissions scenarios, and the low estimates are based on the 'best case' and lowest emissions projection. Unfortunately, we are easily on track right now for the RCP 6 or 8.5 (two highest) emissions projections, which will render the 'low end' estimates meaningless.

Furthermore, NOTHING in the report could rule out the higher-end sensitivities with any confidence; THAT is the foundation of basic risk management, and is the metric we SHOULD be using in the discussions for climate risks, NOT the 'rosy colored glasses best cases'.

Meanwhile, 2015 is blowing away the temperature records, with July as the hottest month ever recorded on the planet, so the alleged 'hiatus' is in the rearview mirror now...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-whats-destined-to-be-earths-warmest-year/

If this year's El Nino is an indicator of more positive-phase ENSO in the next decade or two (it appeared we MIGHT be heading into mostly La Nina phase times until this year), we are in for some bad bad times...we can only hope we hit a multi-decade La Nina dominant phase AND we get our emissions reduced significantly in the meantime if we want to avoid a reasonable likelihood of IPCC's moderate to worst-case projections.

There you go again. July was hot, therefore all the dire predictions about AGW are correct.

Hey, it's mid-August in Iowa and today it was downright chilly. I guess that proves AGW is a fantasy.

 

[Joes Place]

There you go again. July was hot, therefore all the dire predictions about AGW are correct.

Hey, it's mid-August in Iowa and today it was downright chilly. I guess that proves AGW is a fantasy.

July was hottest GLOBALLY, not 'in Iowa'. And 2015 is a virtual guarantee to break all records for the warmest year, because the El Nino is 95-99% certain to continue through December.

 

[Joes Place]

This is a far cry from what we were being told just ten years ago.

Holy cow!!! You mean science has ADVANCED in the past ten years! Who knew??!!!

No, your point was that a 'small group' (specifically, a 'handful') of scientists were 'dominating' the discussion, particularly referencing the paleoclimate and proxy data. That is why I linked the author's lists to THOSE SECTIONS and showed you there were DOZENS of scientists who contributed, and there are virtually NO NAMES in common between AR4 and AR5. And there is also practically no difference in their output/conclusions, either.

Now, you're waffling into the climate model projections (although you NEVER STATED it was a 'small handful' of scientists with model output as the issue). So, I'm not the one waffling on my arguments here. The historical temperature estimates have been solid, AND they just identified why solar output estimates were inconsistent and showed solar output unequivocally CANNOT be a factor in warming since the 1700's (and it WAS you who have claimed we are 'recovering from the 'Little Ice Age' in the past here). Not only was that predominantly a REGIONAL phenomenon, solar forcing can no longer explain it and the consensus explanation now is volcanism (which is also much more consistent with REGIONAL temperature swings).

So, you're claim that there is 'groupthink' in the climate community and IPCC is a very weak premise; the fact that data contributing to our understanding of the Earth's climate comes from such a vast range of scientific areas of study further weakens your argument.

You should really get your science information from AAAS and other comparable international bodies (there are >20), rather than from WattsUpWithThat....