Business, Economics, Mathematics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

The Climate Science

56 Comments

…is not settled:

…the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, “How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?” Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.

But—here’s the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Yup. The 97% “nonsensus” is multiple strawmen, because all it ever meant, to the degree that it wasn’t just BS, was that scientists agree that there is a greenhouse effect and that therefore human-generated carbon emissions can affect climate. Beyond that, there is no consensus.

56 thoughts on “The Climate Science”

  1. Says some guy who used to be the chief scientist for BP. Scientific reputations come cheap nowadays, and this is one scientist who going to find out soon enough that he sold his reputation for much less than what it was worth, and that any further academic prospects are very dim indeed. He can always go back to oil.

    1. So says some guy with a pseudonym and fake email address.

      Do you have an actual substantive criticism of what he wrote, or are you immediately down to the bottom of the barrel of ad hominem? Scientific reputations are, or at least should be, based on your work, not on your (former) employer. I guess you don’t really believe in science, though.

      1. Why bother. It’s a Wall Street Journal op-ed … because … he can’t publish that crap in a peer reviewed journal. 0.5 Watts per square meter plus, at the top of the atmosphere, where it counts.

        No amount of WSJ money is going to wash the shit off Steven E. Koonin. He stepped in it, big time. He’ll just have to buy BP deodorant.

    2. As an aside, do you even understand enough to do more than just ad hominem attack? I think the most annoying thing about the “climate change” debate is the inability of so many to articulate rationally why they hold an opinion.

        1. The best comment over there was this :

          I stopped reading when he said it was 60 miles from New York to Washington DC. It is 230 miles.

          Carry on.

          1. He didn’t say there was just one 60 mile grid cell between Washington and New York. In fact, he said:

            For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.)

            So you should go back and give the stupid person a slap for making our point about the alarmists lack of intelligent thought.

            Meanwhile, perhaps you should read this article about how science is not what liberals and alarmists think it is. They’re confusing it with the Atristotlean pre-science that held mankind back until real-science appeared, which might well explain why they spend billions of dollars trying to build oracles.

          2. That link is required reading George. Many thanks for bringing that author to my attention. It explains so much about the lefts broken thinking.

            It very much explains how someone like Elizabeth Warren can have such a gullible audience for her evil insidious lies.

    3. There was a great thread tonight about science at Ace of Spades.

      Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry: When Most People Say “Science,” What They Really Mean Is “Magic”

      One of my comments read:

      I notice that global warming believers (I was going to say “advocates”, but “believers” is more apt) always denigrate “deniers” as being in the pay of Big Oil.

      The advocates are totally dependent on government funding, but that doesn’t faze their supporters. They believe that public funding is inherently more noble than private funding, which they charge is used to push a corporate agenda for profit.

      This, despite the fact that the policy prescriptions of the government-funded advocates invariably result in ever more power for the government.

      Their faith in the altruism of government is touching. But they’re on the side of Science, wingnuts!

    4. George “Call Me Stupid” Hamilton – perhaps you failed to understand the bio at the bottom, where it says:

      Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, BP.LN +0.42% where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.

      Dr. Koonin’s credibility is certainly a lot higher than yours, idiot.

      1. I think that’s called argument by authority. I prefer science and mathematics over WSJ op-ed by openly biased ex-scientists.

          1. There is ZERO scientific value in a WSJ op-ed. This guy is an ex-deputy, ex-scientist and now a director of an obscure irrelevant institute called the Center for Urban Science and Progress. He has zero future scientific prospects. Call it whatever you want, but I suggest maybe you look and compare several modern definitions of ad hominem. What I am suggesting is not that. Besides his non existent reputation in the field of climate science, his lack of publications in the field of climate science, his views at variance with the vast majority of climate science, you have his publication and the complete lack of science in his pathetic essay. The scientific response to this will be very entertaining, as are your delusions and your excuses for believing in them. Carry on.

          2. So you continue to demonstrate your complete ignorance of what he wrote, and math, and science, and have nothing except an attack on the author of the piece.

            Hilarious.

            Stupid, but hilarious.

          3. Did the truth hit a nerve? The IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity (1.5 C to 4.5 C) is almost exactly the same range as Arrhenius’s 1908 estimate of 1.6 C to 5 C. Obviously on this “all important” question, climate science hasn’t advanced all that much, at least compared to any other branch of science.

          4. Well Rand, he’s firmly convinced that Dr. Koonin will never be elevated to a bishop, much less a cardinal. He’ll probably be excommunicated by the Team.

          5. GH’s arguments are so 2005. I see it all the time. The Warmistas really want to ignore the past decade, when the Earth announced: “Stop worshiping me, you primitive fools.”

          6. “Besides his non existent reputation in the field of climate science, his lack of publications in the field of climate science,” Exactly. He is a very well-regarded physicist. If the American Physical Society decides that those climate scientists are not doing work up to their standards, that’s a game-changer. Loads of scientists are going to respect the opinion of the physicists way more than climate scientists. That’s why Freeman Dyson was such a threat: because he outranked every climate scientist in the world by a ton. But you could say he was too old, etc. If the APS turns that way…

        3. “I think that’s called argument by authority.”

          Leftists are, of course, experts on that topic.

          OTOH, maybe someone saying “Science proves my side right” isn’t using an argument from authority until he/she cites a specific scientist.

  2. Oh this is fun. Rand puts up a post about strawmen arguments from the AGW crowd, and immediate attracts a guy providing free samples.

    1. Yep. And also this:
      this is one scientist who going to find out soon enough that he sold his reputation for much less than what it was worth
      Strawman+Mannian-style threats to reputation in one post.
      Priceless.

      1. Maybe George Hamilton will explain why colleges will blackball this guy from future employment and why he thinks its ok not to hire people that have worked for companies Democrats hate. Are universities an activist arm of the Democrat party now?

  3. “Says some guy who used to be the chief scientist for BP. ”

    So, a guy who used his training and experience to make predictions which, if they proved true, would actually make a profit for his company ( a firm in competition with 5 or a dozen other major similar firms). A guy so good at making such predictions he rose to be “chief” of that division of the firm. A guy who has demonstrated the ability to win a series of bets in his chosen field.

    Compare to say, Paul Erlich?

    If I were to be compelled to pay taxes to make a bet on the future, I’d rather have the advice of a guy who WON SEVERAL such bets than the advice of a guy who LOST the ONLY time he put his supposed expertise to such a test.

    1. 0.5 Watts per square meter at the top of the atmosphere is not a bet, it’s an observable fact. So far several errors and misrepresentations have been uncovered in Mr. Koonin’s ill posed and ill thought out op-ed.

      He will be eviscerated in public scientific forums. That’s his problem, your problems are rather different.

      Good luck building that rocket of yours without using any models. I’m sure it will do fine.

      Endless entertainment, this place, truly a place for true science non-believers.

      1. 0.5 Watts per square meter at the top of the atmosphere is not a bet, it’s an observable fact.

        But only at certain range of latitudes (missing the poles), only for a certain part of the EM spectrum, and observed only by people with a vested interest in exaggerating that number.

      2. Like a rabid dog foaming at the mouth, this guy is on a tear! Have you been stewing for months at our anti-science?

        The difference with models used for rockets (and cars and particle accelerators) is that if the models predict one thing and the actual results are different then one usually goes back to check where the model went wrong.

        In your case, you just use the same models and throw the results to CNN and other gullible journalists. The problem is, you have fewer outlets to spew your false results.

        Maybe that’s why you’re stewing.

      3. The best measurements of the solar constant (the energy flux a distance of 1 AU from the sun) have an uncertainty of +/- 0.12%. In other words, the actual value of the solar constant is somewhere within a +/- 1.63 W/m^2 range of the value commonly adopted. It isn’t possible to measure the total outbound radiation from the earth, at least without a very large constellation of satellites that doesn’t exist today. But George Hamilton (probably aka dn-guy) knows that there is a 0.5 W/m^2 difference between incoming and outgoing. In other words, he’s able to take the difference between an unknown flux and a flux not known to better than a range of 3.26 W/m^2, and come up with a precise difference of 0.5 W/m^2. In the face of such a miracle, we can only bow our heads and worship him.

  4. In fact it’s too perfect… I’m wondering if ol’ tan boy George isn’t one of us “deniers” playing Mann’s Advocate just for the helluvit… He just conforms to stereotype (ad hominem, credentials attack, selective misquote, etc.) too closely to be real…

    1. Well, I can’t attack his scientific credibility because he no longer has any. That’s NYUs problem now.

      2. Wow not even working in the Obama administration to implement Obama’s alarmist policies is enough to give credibility to someone anymore.

        May I suggest that your problem is not with the man’s credentials or his past employers but that he said something at odds with your ideology and now you want to destroy him because you view that as a betrayal to the cause.

        You see the same type of behavior when a Republican turns Democrat or a Democrat turns Republican but this is supposed to be science not politics.

        1. This discussion deserves to be put back on track ,were we able to conjure a monologue, by the late Sam Kinison., whose credentials for social satire were impeccable.

          Here we are, feeding the taunts of an (ahem) newcomer to Rand’s fine site, who is offended by the remarks of someone who may be labeled a “luke warmer’, a person in the camp “global warming from human CO2 emissions is happening” but who counsels “don’t sell your ocean front property — just yet.”

          Addressing the then topical and always sensitive topic of a hunger crisis in subSaharan East Africa, Kinison implored by his style of screaming into the microphone, “OF COURSE THEY ARE STARVING . . . THEY LIVE IN A DEH-SERT! THERE IS NO FOOD IN A DEH-SERT . . . TELL THEM TO MOVE WHERE THERE IS FOOD!”

        2. May I suggest that your problem is not with the man’s credentials or his past employers but that he said something at odds with your ideology and now you want to destroy him because you view that as a betrayal to the cause.

          Wodun, as one of your peers, I reviewed your statement along with the data available and I’m able to come to similar conclusions. Why I’m skeptical, I have no evidence to disprove your theory. For now, I support your theory.

  5. Excellent! A believer in direct personal testing!.

    Report back when you can discuss the error in the average temperature of the 2 meters of air directly above a football-field of your choice using a standard thermometer. Instantaneous temperature would be easiest, but you can attempt hourly or daily.

    We’ll wait.

    Plus: IN = OUT. Except, of course, when it doesn’t. Trivial little details like storing energy in other forms, lifting water up, chemical changes, etc. It’s only a sophomore chemical engineering class devoted entirely to “Where the bleep did my extra energy go because I -know- it wasn’t destroyed”, but the math is easy addition really, even a proselytizing acolyte of sciencism should be able to manage. Oh, wait. I do seem to remember natural logarithms. Well, give it a good whirl anyway.

  6. I think there’s a few points Koonin makes that aren’t fair, such as:

    • Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.

    SLR between 1870 and 1990 was ~175mm, an average of ~1.45mm/yr, compared to the 3mm/yr more recently.

    But overall he makes a reasonable case.

    1. Nonsense. There is no net acceleration in global sea levels over the past 150 years, though it is variable enough that one can assert acceleration or deceleration by cherry picking the interval examined.

      1. I don’t know where on WUWT your graph came from, but the one on the “Ocean page” supports my point.

        As far as “cherry picking” goes, look in the mirror.

          1. That graph shows a recent rate of rise of 3.5mm/yr, if that rate is extropolated back to 1930 the SLR over the last 80 years would have been 80 x 3.5mm = 280mm.

            The graph actually shows a rise during that period of around 170mm or 2mm/yr.

          3. Sure, and it’s had similar upward bobbles at other times. But, the long term rise is the same as its been since at least 1930, with no net acceleration.

            These data have been extruded through every adjustment available, and they still don’t show any correlation with rising CO2.

            Grow up. There are no monsters under your bed.

          4. All I did was point out that Koonin was being “unfair” (call that not technically correct), It’s poor old Bart that seems to want to turn everything into a personal crusade.

            Worried? not me.

          7. My comments with links seem to keep falling into the spam filter.

            Look up Church & White
            A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise

  8. Wow. This is huge. In case most of you don’t know Steve Koonin – but I do. He was a professor at Cal Tech when I was a student there, known as one of the brilliant young physics professors. He was scary smart.

    Why is it huge? Because of this:
    http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/19/aps-reviews-its-climate-change-statement/

    That was quite a few months ago, and I’d wondered what the APS was going to decide to do. Head of the APS committee? Steve Koonin. If the APS decides something like this op-ed, it will be a total game-changer.

    1. It’s not that significant because nobody cares that much about the climate position of the American Physical Society. I mean honestly, when was the last time you had a physical? Admittedly, when you’re bent over, staring at the wall, you probably say something weather and climate related as a distraction, so APS members do get a lot of input on that front, but we don’t actually care what they babble back. It’s just a climate kabuki dance to distract from a finger probing your prostate.

  9. Now that I read the article, it looks we’re discussing a different article from the one in the WSJ. The author did not say that the basic theory is uncertain but instead that many of the details had yet to be investigated. The article might have even been an attempt at getting more funding for the research.

    To “George Hamilton”: Aren’t you embarrassed now?

  10. The Warmistas have been in flail mode ever since climate gate. As reach of their predictions fail to materialize – in fact the opposite occurs – they now throw up more and more notions to explain why they were wrong. Each notion coming quicker and with less careful analysis than the rest so that the “theories” more and more resemble hopeful suppositions.

    The misinformed masses in marches like the NY Climate March will suck up the unsupported suggestions but sensible people recognize them for what they are:

    Increasingly desperate rantings of losers.

Comments are closed.