Comments on: Penguins Are Killing the Polar Bears http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/penguins-are-killing-the-polar-bears.html Challenging Climate Orthodoxy Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: nimbleJim http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/penguins-are-killing-the-polar-bears.html#comment-1110 nimbleJim Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:54:21 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=285#comment-1110 Geoff, Indeed, the title of the RealClimate post is titled "what the IPCC models really say", but I'm not sure you've convinced me as to why no one will care what they show. True, the choice of the economic scenario used to drive the model creates an implicit potential error, but that's the reason why climate modellers develop a range of possible economic scenarios to test in the model. Can you see how a modeller thinks a bit more clearly now? They become familiar with their model, understand the sources of error in the model and account for that by testing a range of parameters designed to sample that spread in error. This is called a sensitivity analysis. So, back to your quote, only one economic scenario will be correct or near truth, the outcome of this scenario in the model will be of interest. Take Hansen's much-talked-about-paper from, 1988 which contained 3 scenarios....we are only really interested in how model B performs because that is the economic scenario which fits reality best. Bearing in mind he couldn't predict future volcanic eruptions or run a suitably large ensemble to account for chaos the model performs pretty well getting the actual temp. rise per decade to with 0.02 oC. Geoff,

Indeed, the title of the RealClimate post is titled “what the IPCC models really say”, but I’m not sure you’ve convinced me as to why no one will care what they show. True, the choice of the economic scenario used to drive the model creates an implicit potential error, but that’s the reason why climate modellers develop a range of possible economic scenarios to test in the model. Can you see how a modeller thinks a bit more clearly now? They become familiar with their model, understand the sources of error in the model and account for that by testing a range of parameters designed to sample that spread in error. This is called a sensitivity analysis. So, back to your quote, only one economic scenario will be correct or near truth, the outcome of this scenario in the model will be of interest. Take Hansen’s much-talked-about-paper from, 1988 which contained 3 scenarios….we are only really interested in how model B performs because that is the economic scenario which fits reality best. Bearing in mind he couldn’t predict future volcanic eruptions or run a suitably large ensemble to account for chaos the model performs pretty well getting the actual temp. rise per decade to with 0.02 oC.

]]> By: geoff chambers http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/penguins-are-killing-the-polar-bears.html#comment-1112 geoff chambers Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:52:01 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=285#comment-1112 to nimbleJim: “Over long enough timescales the initial conditions problem ... etc”. The timescale over which the global warm-mongers are bothering us is about a century, roughly the time it took to go from horse-drawn carriages to manned space flight. By which time your “... ENSEMBLE of models run with a variety of initial conditions..” will be about as useful as a man with a red flag walking in front of a horseless carriage. Nobody in a hundred (or even fifty) years time will care “what the IPCC models really say” (to quote your RealClimate reference) any more than the boss of Ryanair cares about the opinion of the Village Blacksmiths’ Union. You ask if I know that the Steig study actually uses satellite data... Yes, I do. Several of my comments have been rendered irrelevant by fast-moving events. (The British Antarctic Survey have been extremely thorough in correcting data and acknowledging Steve McIntyre’s helpful efforts, for instance). “Do I have any idea as to what the impact of these errors actually is?” No I don’t, actually. And I’ll let you into a little secret. I don’t give a toss. In fact, I couldn’t give a monkey’s about the whole business of climate science. I’ve been commenting here and elsewhere frenetically for the past few months, in an attempt to show that the average punter / voter can express a sensible opinion on a subject on which he has no expert knowledge, given a bit of curiosity, some attention to detail, and a dose of Socratic bloody-mindedness. Alas, my curiosity does not extend to actually reading a RealClimate blog to the end. So far, my method has not (I think) led me into serious error. Prove me wrong. to nimbleJim:

“Over long enough timescales the initial conditions problem … etc”.

The timescale over which the global warm-mongers are bothering us is about a century, roughly the time it took to go from horse-drawn carriages to manned space flight. By which time your “… ENSEMBLE of models run with a variety of initial conditions..” will be about as useful as a man with a red flag walking in front of a horseless carriage.
Nobody in a hundred (or even fifty) years time will care “what the IPCC models really say” (to quote your RealClimate reference) any more than the boss of Ryanair cares about the opinion of the Village Blacksmiths’ Union.

You ask if I know that the Steig study actually uses satellite data… Yes, I do. Several of my comments have been rendered irrelevant by fast-moving events. (The British Antarctic Survey have been extremely thorough in correcting data and acknowledging Steve McIntyre’s helpful efforts, for instance).

“Do I have any idea as to what the impact of these errors actually is?”
No I don’t, actually. And I’ll let you into a little secret. I don’t give a toss. In fact, I couldn’t give a monkey’s about the whole business of climate science. I’ve been commenting here and elsewhere frenetically for the past few months, in an attempt to show that the average punter / voter can express a sensible opinion on a subject on which he has no expert knowledge, given a bit of curiosity, some attention to detail, and a dose of Socratic bloody-mindedness. Alas, my curiosity does not extend to actually reading a RealClimate blog to the end. So far, my method has not (I think) led me into serious error. Prove me wrong.

]]> By: nimbleJim http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/penguins-are-killing-the-polar-bears.html#comment-1111 nimbleJim Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:23:57 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=285#comment-1111 " "Perhaps, then, evolution does not so much resemble the weather as it does our climate. At the grander scales of space and time, the atmosphere is not chaotic. The physics of our planet imposes order, and thus predictability upon it. So, although we can scarcely tell what the weather will be three weeks from now, we can predict, at least probablilistically, what the climate will be three centuries hence." All of which will be news to climate modellers." Actually, no, this isn't news to climate modellers. The interplay between predictability and chaos over varying timescales is nicely summed up in these posts at Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=555 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/ Over long enough timescales the initial conditions problem (i.e. one of chaos and weather) breaks down into a boundary conditions problem (i.e. governed by forcings), which can be resolved using an ENSEMBLE of models run with a variety of initial conditions. Of course, a single model run from this ensemble would have no hope of resolving the actual climate due to chaos and the initial conditions problem. Geoff, Did you know that the Steig study actually uses satellite data to derive it's reconstruction? How will the station data affect the satellite reconstruction? The station data are only used as a verification of the satellite data reconstruction. Also, do you have any idea as to what the impact of these errors actually is? Steig has a post on this now showing that it makes practically no difference to the general picture. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/antarctic-warming-is-robust/ ” “Perhaps, then, evolution does not so much resemble the weather as it does our climate. At the grander scales of space and time, the atmosphere is not chaotic. The physics of our planet imposes order, and thus predictability upon it. So, although we can scarcely tell what the weather will be three weeks from now, we can predict, at least probablilistically, what the climate will be three centuries hence.”

All of which will be news to climate modellers.”

Actually, no, this isn’t news to climate modellers.

The interplay between predictability and chaos over varying timescales is nicely summed up in these posts at Real Climate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/chaos-and-climate/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=555

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/

Over long enough timescales the initial conditions problem (i.e. one of chaos and weather) breaks down into a boundary conditions problem (i.e. governed by forcings), which can be resolved using an ENSEMBLE of models run with a variety of initial conditions. Of course, a single model run from this ensemble would have no hope of resolving the actual climate due to chaos and the initial conditions problem.

Geoff,

Did you know that the Steig study actually uses satellite data to derive it’s reconstruction? How will the station data affect the satellite reconstruction? The station data are only used as a verification of the satellite data reconstruction. Also, do you have any idea as to what the impact of these errors actually is? Steig has a post on this now showing that it makes practically no difference to the general picture.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/antarctic-warming-is-robust/

]]> By: geoff chambers http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/penguins-are-killing-the-polar-bears.html#comment-1114 geoff chambers Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:04:01 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=285#comment-1114 Your comments on Lord Stern are arguably more important than the plight of the Emperor Penguin, since the multi-trillion pound policies of the beknighted economist will apparently still be in force long after the benighted bird is extinct. The two are no doubt inextricably linked, but let’s deal with the more photogenic Emperor Penguin first. “Their population is likely to decline by 95%”, you say, and you quote the study's lead author Stephanie Jenouvrier as saying: “They are long-lived organisms, so they adapt slowly. This is a problem because the climate is changing very fast." Not so fast, apparently. The Steig article which you refer to, and which, according to the BBC, Guardian, and Independent, deals a death blow to Global Warming Denialism by demonstrating that the Antarctic Continent has been warming along with the rest of the planet, and not cooling, as previously thought - has been the subject of detailed study at Climate Audit. In the last 48 hours, Steve Macintyre has discovered: 1) That the Steig study is based on data from just six ground stations, only one of which shows a warming trend. 2) That the latitude and longitude of this station are incorrect . 3) That this station has incorrect data, and where data was missing it has been spliced together with data from a different station. 4) That as soon as Climate Audit revealed this, British Antarctic Survey removed the data from their site, without explanation. Steve’s statistical analysis is complex and ongoing, and he refuses to allow comment on politics or motivation. A decent journalist able to render the statistics comprehensible to the layman would have the scoop of the century (The Emperor Penguin’s New Clothes?). Comments are closed at RealClimate, Guardian Climate Change and Christopher Booker, but I urge climate resisters to spread the word. If you’re snowed in and unable to get to work , pass the message. Every Emperor Penguin unable to lay an egg due to unreliable temperature statistics at the British Antarctic Survey means another polar bear drowning due to melting icecaps. Or something. Your comments on Lord Stern are arguably more important than the plight of the Emperor Penguin, since the multi-trillion pound policies of the beknighted economist will apparently still be in force long after the benighted bird is extinct. The two are no doubt inextricably linked, but let’s deal with the more photogenic Emperor Penguin first. “Their population is likely to decline by 95%”, you say, and you quote the study’s lead author Stephanie Jenouvrier as saying: “They are long-lived organisms, so they adapt slowly. This is a problem because the climate is changing very fast.”
Not so fast, apparently. The Steig article which you refer to, and which, according to the BBC, Guardian, and Independent, deals a death blow to Global Warming Denialism by demonstrating that the Antarctic Continent has been warming along with the rest of the planet, and not cooling, as previously thought – has been the subject of detailed study at Climate Audit.
In the last 48 hours, Steve Macintyre has discovered:
1) That the Steig study is based on data from just six ground stations, only one of which shows a warming trend.
2) That the latitude and longitude of this station are incorrect .
3) That this station has incorrect data, and where data was missing it has been spliced together with data from a different station.
4) That as soon as Climate Audit revealed this, British Antarctic Survey removed the data from their site, without explanation.

Steve’s statistical analysis is complex and ongoing, and he refuses to allow comment on politics or motivation. A decent journalist able to render the statistics comprehensible to the layman would have the scoop of the century (The Emperor Penguin’s New Clothes?).

Comments are closed at RealClimate, Guardian Climate Change and Christopher Booker, but I urge climate resisters to spread the word. If you’re snowed in and unable to get to work , pass the message. Every Emperor Penguin unable to lay an egg due to unreliable temperature statistics at the British Antarctic Survey means another polar bear drowning due to melting icecaps. Or something.

]]> By: Bishop Hill http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/01/penguins-are-killing-the-polar-bears.html#comment-1113 Bishop Hill Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:57:28 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=285#comment-1113 It would be interesting to ask your correspondent if they now agree that Stern had a conflict of interest. It would be interesting to ask your correspondent if they now agree that Stern had a conflict of interest.

]]>