tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post5129956526553718254..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: The coming crisis of climate science?eduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-14638766168779857502013-10-07T19:06:25.418+02:002013-10-07T19:06:25.418+02:00According to the new narrative, the heat is stored...According to the new narrative, the heat is stored in the oceans and will be released in due course. The IPCC did not offer this as explanation, but as a possibility. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/opinion/let-science-set-the-facts.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow">Thomas Lovejoy, in an op-ed in the NYT</a>, prefers to state it in slightly more certain terms: <br /><br />'In this particular case, it would appear that the oceans have been taking up more heat than previously thought. Since the oceans make up 71 percent of the planet, this is probably the consequence of a slightly different temporary behavior of a major current. There is considerable likelihood that at some point the ocean will release some of this recently absorbed heat.'@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-77849371431967526222013-10-07T17:33:58.766+02:002013-10-07T17:33:58.766+02:00There are signs that the reduced climate sensitivi...There are signs that the reduced climate sensitivity range and the 'pause' in global warming will be replaced by other rhetorical tools narratives. An example is on <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/oct/07/un-climate-change-panel-graphs-ipcc-report?CMP=twt_gu" rel="nofollow">The Guardian environment blog</a>. The authors say 'The thing that doesn't matter (much): revisions of climate sensitivity' and contrast this with 'The thing that does matter: cumulative carbon budgets'<br /><br />Both metrics have beautiful interactive graphs.<br /><br />Elsewhere we have seen the 'downgrading' of the importance of observed temperatures and a focus on <a href="http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/54904" rel="nofollow">heat content instead</a>.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-36005666875726590922013-09-29T18:14:04.476+02:002013-09-29T18:14:04.476+02:00Raffa
I do think climate change is a real problem...Raffa<br /><br />I do think climate change is a real problem and we know about it mainly because science has produced (or: constructed) a body of knowledge. The two go hand in hand, how cold we otherwise know? We do not have immediate sensory experience of 'global climate change', only through representations (knowledge constructions).<br /><br />What I object to is the belief that therefore scientists are the most relevant actors to talk about responses to climate change, or the need for a scientific consensus in order to get a policy response. To come back to the analogy with economics: economic policies are not stalling because different branches of economics cannot agree with each other.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61643751467112250982013-09-29T12:29:52.112+02:002013-09-29T12:29:52.112+02:00Reiner,
I still haven’t got a satisfactory answer...Reiner, <br />I still haven’t got a satisfactory answer to my first question: On what knowledge, expertise or whatever you want to call it, would you base your pragmatic climate change policies if the scientific knowledge that is available at this moment in time cannot be used for policy making? Now, this question only makes sense, of course, if one regards climate change as a real problem (wicked or otherwise), as a reality (needing to be discussed by policy makers). You seem to imply in some of your posts/comments that this ‘reality’ is (entirely) constructed by science/models (am I right?). But if climate change as a reality is constructed by science, then, of course, dismissing science as your knowledge base would also do away with climate change itself (as a reality/problem) and one would not have to think about climate change policies at all. So my first question would, in fact, be absurd. Would you agree with that summary? I am just trying to understand the discussion and I may, of course, have completely misunderstood it.<br />RaffaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-27821098995638982112013-09-28T12:25:21.222+02:002013-09-28T12:25:21.222+02:00Andreas
I would have expected that the issue of th...Andreas<br />I would have expected that the issue of the 'pause' was addressed more explicitly given that there were rumours that scientists wanted to do this. At the same time government representatives (from the same country?) seem to have prevailed, at least in the SPM. Let's what the full WG1 report does (no government reps).<br /><br />The term 'confidence' is interesting. It is used a lot in this SPM, in fact one of the most frequent words. I made a <a href="http://worditout.com/word-cloud/270122" rel="nofollow">word cloud</a> which shows this (compared to AR4 SPM there is less importance of the terms 'observed' and 'average', see <a href="http://worditout.com/word-cloud/270125" rel="nofollow">word cloud here</a>). <br /><br />But what does level of confidence mean? It is basically a going round the table where scientists express their subjective belief about something.<br /><br />Here are two discussions of the term, one from a (sympathetic) scientist in the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/10339956/IPCC-global-warming-report-what-do-the-figures-mean.html" rel="nofollow">Telegraph</a>, one from a (critical) scientist on a blog (<a href="http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/27/95/" rel="nofollow">Judy Curry</a>).<br /><br />My impression is that 'level of confidence' is taken to mean 'probability' as the message travels across to policy and public arenas.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-34480540319956325022013-09-28T12:16:32.032+02:002013-09-28T12:16:32.032+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-76730522548118048762013-09-28T02:42:00.711+02:002013-09-28T02:42:00.711+02:00@ Reiner Grundmann
You wrote in #68 there's n...@ Reiner Grundmann<br /><br />You wrote in #68 there's no discussion of the hiatus in the SPM. But then in #69 you quoted a paragraph containing all possible reasons: <br />1.) internal variability<br />2.) changes in forcings<br />3.) lower climate sensitivity<br /><br />But maybe you expected something different? A deeper discussion whether models are able to reproduce such trends? Or an explanation why all models are flawed?<br /><br />There's an interesting sentence in the mentioned paragraph:<br /><em>There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations</em><br /><br />I wonder if this assessment has been influenced by the Kosaka/Xie paper, which was published after the IPCC deadline.<br /><br />AndreasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-85818524225028867672013-09-27T15:51:30.263+02:002013-09-27T15:51:30.263+02:00There are tow main points in the SPM, which are re...There are tow main points in the SPM, which are related but are not completely the same thing. One is the detection and attribution of observed climate change, the other is the skill of the models to predict future climate change. The SMP must do a real difficult balancing act around the second point. I could spot quite a few contradictions, probably unavoidable in the current political context. For instance, hidden between the lines: <br /><br />-There is high confidence that aerosols and their interactions with clouds have offset<br />a substantial portion of global mean forcing from well-mixed greenhouse gases.<br /><br />and later:<br /><br />Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, and their interactions, than at<br />the time of the AR4, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification<br />of these processes in models. {7.3, 7.6, 9.4, 9.7}<br /><br />But the estimation of cloud-aerosol interaction can only be estimated with models (?)<br /><br /> Simultaneous high confidence and low confidence. If I were a policy maker seriously reading the SPM I would certainly be confused.<br /><br /><br /><br />-eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-41028664129142013572013-09-27T15:44:05.357+02:002013-09-27T15:44:05.357+02:00There were two leaks, one in December 2012 with a ...There were two leaks, one in December 2012 with a full draft of WG1 report (including Summary for Policy makers, SPM), and one in June 2013 with a draft of SPM. The figure I am referring to, and which is reproduced at the top of this blog post, is from the first leak, in chapter 1. Will have to see what the new version of WG1 contains as today's publication was only SPM. The June version of SPM does no longer contain the sandwich graph.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-64337434725355727282013-09-27T15:34:57.829+02:002013-09-27T15:34:57.829+02:00@Pekka
You are such a killjoy! Can't you just...@Pekka<br /><br />You are such a killjoy! Can't you just respect the hard work other people put into creating a desperately needed new myth?hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-36592822279452069892013-09-27T15:01:36.405+02:002013-09-27T15:01:36.405+02:00The final Fig. 1 of SPM is exactly the same as tha...The final Fig. 1 of SPM is exactly the same as that of the draft dated 7 June 2013 based on the leaked material available on the net.Pekka Pirilähttp://pirila.fi/energynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-31457832218805679322013-09-27T13:43:01.165+02:002013-09-27T13:43:01.165+02:00Andreas, if you call that paragraph a 'discuss...Andreas, if you call that paragraph a 'discussion' then fine. Please go check for yourself how Fig.1 now looks like. The 'sandwich' has been replaced with a 'staircase'. Is this improvement? Maybe good PR, but will it be sustainable, especially as we know they were discussing the problem?@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-46011585690928303622013-09-27T12:26:26.471+02:002013-09-27T12:26:26.471+02:00@ Reiner Grundmann
Isn't there a contradictio...@ Reiner Grundmann<br /><br />Isn't there a contradiction between your posts #68 und #69? In #69 you quote a discussion of the "pause", don't you?<br /><br />I have not checked, if your figure presented above appears unchanged in the WG1 report. If it has changed there are two possible reasons:<br />- the figure has been improved<br />- WG1 hides inconvenient truths<br />I warn about being too quick.<br /><br />Andreas<br /><br />AndreasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-25987449517725292252013-09-27T10:44:41.577+02:002013-09-27T10:44:41.577+02:00The SPM says that models have improved in comparis...The SPM says that models have improved in comparison to AR4. Here is what it says about the 'pause' (shh, don't use the word) in terms of model evaluation:<br /><br />"The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared to <br />the period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcing <br />and a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution of <br />heat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily <br />due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. <br />However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in <br />causing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadal <br />variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the <br />simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There <br />may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate of <br />the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the <br />effects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3}"<br />@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-25118832476163234442013-09-27T10:34:47.274+02:002013-09-27T10:34:47.274+02:00The 'dodgy sandwich' figure from the draft...The 'dodgy sandwich' figure from the draft report has been scrapped and no discussion about the pause is provided. The text states:<br /><br /><i>In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits <br />substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, <br />trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in <br />general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 <br />years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is <br />smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)</i><br /><br />The new figure which is provided makes the problem invisible, <a href="http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf" rel="nofollow">see page 27 of the SPM</a>.<br /><br />So in the end those who felt uncomfortable with a discussion of a potential scientific problem have won the day.<br /><br />Keven Trenberth <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/science/final-verdict-expected-friday-humans-caused-global-warming-8C11266754" rel="nofollow">was quoted yesterday</a> saying the hiatus was 'a denier-manufactured diversion'. Has this sentiment prevailed over a more open and self-critical approach?@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-13732853062438116642013-09-26T23:49:18.959+02:002013-09-26T23:49:18.959+02:00The german delegate (and scientist) Claußen says i...The german delegate (and scientist) Claußen says in "Die ZEIT":<br /><br /><em>"Ich denke tatsächlich, dass die Diskussion zwischen Regierungen und Wissenschaft Vertrauenssache ist – im guten Sinne. Solange darüber gesprochen wird, sollte es vertraulich sein, damit man offen reden kann."</em><br /><br />I think that's a good point worth of further discussions.<br /><br />BTW: Is it good journalistic practice to draw conclusions about a report which exists only in form of a draft? Rose and McKitrick seem to try to give the report a special kind of spin.<br /><br />Let's wait and see, for example if the figure presented by Reiner Grundmann above will appear unchanged in the WG1 report. Maybe some people will have to rewrite some early conclusions.<br /><br />AndreasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-17215789737099956202013-09-26T19:25:19.439+02:002013-09-26T19:25:19.439+02:00Axel Bojanowski has a piece in Spiegel online (for...Axel Bojanowski has a piece in Spiegel online (for now <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/uno-klimareport-ipcc-verhandlungen-in-stockholm-schwierig-a-924728.html" rel="nofollow">only in German</a>) which states that IPCC is bogged down in negotiations over wording of Summary for Policymakers (SPM), due to be released tomorrow morning. As nations guard their interests, and government reps are having a say in the wording, there are conflicts which appear difficult to bridge. For example, Russia has set its eyes exclusively on those parts of the SPM that touch upon the Arctic. Brazil and Saudi Arabia clash over the inclusion of non-CO2 drivers of climate change (such as deforestation). Whatever the final text, it will have to be supported by the scientists in the room (<a rel="nofollow">here is a list of drafting authors</a>, not sure if all will have a final say; the rules are not that obvious to me, perhaps someone can illuminate me).<br /><br />Just a moment ago I had a little exchange on Twitter with Richard Klein who complains that DER SPIEGEL seems to have a source in the room violating the agreement not to talk about substance before the end of meeting. Klein himself has given an <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/intense-debate-over-wording-of-landmark-un-climate-change-report-set-to-run-to-the-wire-8842209.html" rel="nofollow">interview for the Independent</a>, saying that negotiations might 'run to the wire' because governments want to have to most 'precise' wording in the document. <br /><br />This raises the question about the transparency of the process, and the wisdom of involving scientists in what appears to be a political haggling process.<br /><br />And yes, the 'pause in global warming' seems to have been addressed and is seen as 'climatologically insignificant', while at the same time it appears to be acknowledged that this phenomenon is not fully understood.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-50048334205230371112013-09-25T19:03:23.134+02:002013-09-25T19:03:23.134+02:00The latest from Lord Stern about the relationship ...The latest <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/24/lord-stern-climate-change-sceptics-irrational" rel="nofollow">from Lord Stern</a> about the relationship between IPCC assessments and mitigation policies (or 'risk management' in his new terminology).<br /><br />He calls the sceptics 'unscientific' and 'irrational' and part of a well organized campaign which is paid by 'hostile industry'. While it is not surprising to see this affirmation of the simple world view pronouncing on the good and bad, he does not mention the 'pause' at all. <br /><br />So what would the role of a 'scientific' and 'rational' response be in policy terms? To convince policy makers that we need to act ('tackling greenhouse gas emissions'), sooner rather than later. Is this all? Looks like it.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-492109724440143502013-09-25T14:44:52.290+02:002013-09-25T14:44:52.290+02:00HvW,
is it really so difficult for you to grasp t...HvW,<br /><br />is it really so difficult for you to grasp that scientific credibility cannot be created by a body that is trying to produce an unanimous consensus, particularly when this body is stuffed with Greenpeace and WWF activists? <br /><br />In Germany, we have scientific advisory boards on all and everything. I know that at least the German Council of Economic Experts publishes minority opinions in its reports, even though this is not the legally desired result. Maybe that is possible because economists are much longer used to deal with fundamental dissent in a civil manner, and that funding for economic research in Germany is not dependent on the survival of an alarmist narrative. <br /><br />The secretive consensus production by the IPCC, in contrast, is almost the antithesis to science. This is what the interested public increasingly realises.Karl Kuhnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-62507104908631290302013-09-24T23:42:49.078+02:002013-09-24T23:42:49.078+02:00Reiner,
my last post was both ironical and impuls...Reiner,<br /><br />my last post was both ironical and impulsive. Thanks for answering anyways.<br /><br />I just can make no sense at all of your preceding comment. It reads like total nonsense.<br /><br />In case you are trying to make an argument or communicate an idea related to IPCC, policy advice, etc. by all means please elaborate what CO2 emission fluctuations due to gas-for-coal substitution or episodes of de-industrialization have to do with it.hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-15480077260372081192013-09-24T22:40:40.888+02:002013-09-24T22:40:40.888+02:00Reiner, what is your point? hvw's last sentenc...Reiner, what is your point? hvw's last sentence was ironic and rightly so. It sums up the point you have been trying to make quite nicely. Your point seems to be that political action on cc which is not informed by any science is the way forward.<br />RaffaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-58938935182588792882013-09-24T20:51:29.413+02:002013-09-24T20:51:29.413+02:00hvw
your Russian example is instructive, as is th...hvw<br /><br />your Russian example is instructive, as is the British 'dash for gas' in the 1980s and Germany's de-industrialization of the GDR. The latter two countries pose still as 'leaders' in CC policy because of these convenient developments. They were far more effective than any exercise of scientific assessment. The question is: do we want to de-industrialise? While some radical green might say yes, this will never be acceptable as a political option.<br /><br />Perhaps you should think again about your cynical (or impulsive?) statement 'Lack of awareness, action and commitment obviously cause emission reductions and we should do away with the IPCC ASAP!'@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-31451659195041573532013-09-24T00:31:09.751+02:002013-09-24T00:31:09.751+02:00Reiner,
It is interesting to note that while the U...Reiner,<br /><i>It is interesting to note that while the US arguably<br />has shown lower 'awareness' and certainly less political action (in terms of endorsing Kyoto etc) it did achieve an actual reduction in carbon emissions through the shale gas revolution.</i><br /><br />Very interesting indeed. There is other data pointing this direction: Recent US emissions due to shale gas exploitation were dwarfed by an order of magnitude by the CO2 emission reductions achieved in the Russian Federation between 1990 and 2000. A time and place where climate change mitigation was even much less on the agenda than currently in the US.<br /><br />So yes, you are right: Lack of awareness, action and commitment obviously cause emission reductions and we should do away with the IPCC ASAP! hvwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-87155400183538510572013-09-23T22:09:56.388+02:002013-09-23T22:09:56.388+02:00I just realize that we had a lively discussion abo...I just realize that we had a <a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/has-global-warming-taken-break.html" rel="nofollow">lively discussion about a year ago</a> about an article written by David Rose and published in the Daily Mail. At that point two prominent climate change warriors (Michael Mann and Bob Ward) tried to tarnish the argument about a pause in global warming as 'denialist' . What a difference a year makes.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-50226905404596323492013-09-23T17:41:53.288+02:002013-09-23T17:41:53.288+02:00hvw
the Elzinga paper is here:
Elzinga, Aant. 19...hvw<br /><br />the Elzinga paper is here: <br />Elzinga, Aant. 1995. Shaping Worldwide Consensus: The Orchestration of Global Climate Change Research. Pp. 223-255 in Internationalism in Science, edited by A. A. Elzinga and C. Lundström. London: Taylor and Graham.<br /><br />Regarding your second point on the list ('In some countries this awareness has led to political action towards emission reductions, even though so far the effect of these small steps does not show up on the global emission inventory'):<br /><br />It is interesting to note that while the US arguably <br />has shown lower 'awareness' and certainly less political action (in terms of endorsing Kyoto etc) it did achieve an actual reduction in carbon emissions through the shale gas revolution.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.com